The more you read about this problem the more depressing it becomes. Just read a US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT article and the LENGTH of time of those unemployed is startling.

.....UE rate was 10% in 2009 and fallen to 8.3% BUT the labor MARKET has gotten worse and continues to do so.

.....The average length of unemployment is at 38.8 weeks, and it has been stuck near or above 40 for over a year. In 2006 the length was about 17 weeks and even when it was 10% the average was 27.6 weeks.

.....In 1982 when unemployment was at 10.8% the average length of unemployment never exceeded 21.8 weeks.

Bottom line, stimulus programs etc are NOT going to solve our problem. We need a fresh look at this because it is very depressing.

I link the article below and really think anyone who is concerned should read it not to depress yourself but to realize we need a fresh approach to this problem. It is getting worse no matter what the published numbers are saying.

A Better Economy May Not Fix The Jobless Problem - US News and World Report

obama is quite famous, of late, for espousing that 'you know better than the government how to spend your money' [paraphrased].

if he and the democrats truly believe that, and IF there is another stimulus spending spree in the future of this administration, then the stimulus $ had better be put into the hands of the people so that they can go out and SPEND it as best they know how!

we have already seen that government and business has not been effective in improving this economy!

Bucco makes some very good points concerning unemployment.

However, I do not feel the way to lower unemployment rates is to give large corporations - some who have outsourced jobs overseas - tax breaks to stimulate their hiring. Maybe, tax breaks after they have brought "x" number or percent of currently unemployed people into their companies but certainly not before. That would one possibility. I am sure there are others.

Originally Posted by buggyone

Bucco makes some very good points concerning unemployment.

However, I do not feel the way to lower unemployment rates is to give large corporations - some who have outsourced jobs overseas - tax breaks to stimulate their hiring. Maybe, tax breaks after they have brought "x" number or percent of currently unemployed people into their companies but certainly not before. That would one possibility. I am sure there are others.

i sure wish you could suggest that to nj gov christie! his corporate welfare program is breaking nj taxpayers! nj unemployment is a full point [or more] above the national average DESPITE his giveaways - tax breaks AND CASH, too! sheesh!

Why would folks go to work when they are getting along on the dole. I recently posted a link about 500,000 truck driver jobs available and no takers. Nobody here had much to say except RichieLion's spot on Maynard G Krebbs post.

Originally Posted by njbchbum

i sure wish you could suggest that to nj gov christie! his corporate welfare program is breaking nj taxpayers! nj unemployment is a full point [or more] above the national average DESPITE his giveaways - tax breaks AND CASH, too! sheesh!

I am sure you realize that your Governor's plan is the main plan for the Republican Party. Their plan is to to give huge tax breaks to companies IN HOPE of stimulating new hiring...and not to WAIT until a certain percent of the new hiring is from those currently unemployed.

Seems like a mistake to me.

Originally Posted by buggyone

Bucco makes some very good points concerning unemployment.

However, I do not feel the way to lower unemployment rates is to give large corporations - some who have outsourced jobs overseas - tax breaks to stimulate their hiring. Maybe, tax breaks after they have brought "x" number or percent of currently unemployed people into their companies but certainly not before. That would one possibility. I am sure there are others.

It is under some circumstances. I would surely support tax breaks based on hiring but you have to understand our entire tax code needs to be reworked.

These corporations will go to the most friendly for them and they should..that is what they are supposed to do and to blame them for our stupidity in not addressing the code is just wrong. Why do you think most of all the trucks running the highway are registered in the state of Del. ?

People are just sitting on their azzes because they can. There is work out there. It may not suit them but it is a start. Got to have a job to get a job. Oh and drug test them too! Get them off the dole if dirty.

Originally Posted by buggyone

Bucco makes some very good points concerning unemployment.

However, I do not feel the way to lower unemployment rates is to give large corporations - some who have outsourced jobs overseas - tax breaks to stimulate their hiring. Maybe, tax breaks after they have brought "x" number or percent of currently unemployed people into their companies but certainly not before. That would one possibility. I am sure there are others.

Wrong way to go .Large corporations are owned by almost each and everyone of us.One way or another most of us are owners of them.Also with highest tax rates in free world you will get no growth with out being on par with other western nations.Now you can believe what o says and raise taxes put more people on the take to build voter base for his party or change live within are means start closing tax loop holes maybe collect a little from some of the 48% that pay zip.Maybe a national sales tax so we can get some revenue from the huge underground cash economy.Just getting a little from people who make cash would be billions of dollars.But most of the left do buy in to same bull xxxx that you leaders spew about throwing people out on the street .Just when are you all going to be able to think for your self ?

According to government stats Obama's tax proposals will cost the loss of an additional 700,000 jobs. already his demand for reduction in defense spendinghis costing huge unemployment in the defense sector, not to much that he is leaving this country exposed. Not very good thinking

I don't think there is anybody currently in office that understands how the cycle of economics works. They have no concept of the impacts of the decisions they make.

And they certainly have demonstrated an ongoing complete lack of understanding for financial or fiscal responsibility.

It merely reflects their care-less attitude... care less and careless!!

btk

Originally Posted by rubicon

According to government stats Obama's tax proposals will cost the loss of an additional 700,000 jobs. already his demand for reduction in defense spendinghis costing huge unemployment in the defense sector, not to much that he is leaving this country exposed. Not very good thinking

Wasn't it congress that forced the sequestration in return for passing the extension of the Bush tax cuts? Of course they can't remedy that since they've all left town and won't return until September. President Obama is the only one left in Washington, and he can't negotiate with himself.

Originally Posted by janmcn

Wasn't it congress that forced the sequestration in return for passing the extension of the Bush tax cuts? Of course they can't remedy that since they've all left town and won't return until September. President Obama is the only one left in Washington, and he can't negotiate with himself.

Totally Obama on the sequestration and he is playing politics with it as we speak....read the attached..he has now upset even the democrats with his antics...

Strassel: The Obama Jobs Sequester - WSJ.com

From that link...

"When Barack Obama has lost even liberal Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, the White House has a problem. In Washington, that problem is known as the "sequester." In the rest of the country, it's becoming known as a jobs disaster.

Jobs, and his own re-election, were on Mr. Brown's tortured mind this week, when he publicly called on the president to do something about Defense Department cuts that threaten to shutter his state's Mansfield Lahm Air National Guard Base—and with it, 1,000 jobs. The cuts might be "penny wise," griped the senator, but they were "pound foolish."

That was the rebuke that greeted Mr. Obama as he landed in Mansfield for a campaign stop. An editorial in the Mansfield News Journal demanded that the president "explain to the people of Mansfield why the U.S. government wants to eliminate" their jobs and base"

Originally Posted by janmcn

Wasn't it congress that forced the sequestration in return for passing the extension of the Bush tax cuts? Of course they can't remedy that since they've all left town and won't return until September. President Obama is the only one left in Washington, and he can't negotiate with himself.

even if everyone was in town - why would he try to start to negotiate anything now when he hasn't for three and a half years? besides, where would he find the time to negotiate when he only stops in washington for a clean change of clothes in between campaign stops and fund-raisers?

Originally Posted by buggyone

I am sure you realize that your Governor's plan is the main plan for the Republican Party. Their plan is to to give huge tax breaks to companies IN HOPE of stimulating new hiring...and not to WAIT until a certain percent of the new hiring is from those currently unemployed.

Seems like a mistake to me.

i fully understand that, buggyone! christie has the playbook down pat! but i don't like obama's and the democrats playbook of taking my $ and redistributing it to others - especially those who will NOT take advantage of the opportunities i have already paid for them to!

when i look back at our really good earnings years [personally] it seems they fell during the years that unemployment was low. guess that meant we had more folks working and paying their share of taxes so that the rest of us didn't have to make up the difference.

so since obama's attempts to get more people working has failed miserably [despite 29 months of very slow increasing jobs numbers, folks still don't seem to have thier butt in a chair] i think i'm ready to give mitt a shot at it. more people working and paying taxes should mean all of us paying fewer/lower taxes. no?