What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers' points of view on the headlines making news.
117 Comments
- frontaxle, on 11/24/2008, -9/+59Digg me if you are still working and counting every day as a blessing
- zombiecarlin, on 11/24/2008, -0/+37Three terrible words - Dual income dependancy. So many families scraping by with both parents working if just one of those jobs is lost they are in trouble.
- inactive, on 11/24/2008, -3/+29I always wanted to be a full-time wandering samurai. Going from state to state picking up missions along the way, living a care-free life... following the wind to see where it takes me next. Hunting down pirates, ninjas and cyborgs with my Katana. ***** employment, this is where it's at.
- inactive, on 11/24/2008, -3/+22Actually, it's going to be Jimmy Carter's second term, but who's counting.
- chicagojack, on 11/23/2008, -7/+26We will see a 10% rate in 18 months
- inactive, on 11/24/2008, -3/+18So how does this work, you just look at what Republicans are doing and then transfer that to Democrats?
- Olfster, on 11/24/2008, -0/+14That really puts into perspective how this will be much worse than any other recession.
- diegocg, on 11/24/2008, -1/+15"The Obama recession" - yeah, because it was Obama's government who did start it all. Retroactively.
I mean, a marxist like him will probably nationalize banks and stuff like that. Not something that a republican government would do. - brstilson, on 11/24/2008, -4/+18I had this long rebuttal all typed, but facing this level of idiocy I'm not going to waste my time. I'm just going to leave you with this quote:
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein - inactive, on 11/24/2008, -0/+11By that logic, why are we even in this mess? The Republicans had control of Congress and the presidency for six of the past eight years, and even when they lost control of Congress, the Dems had only a very small majority, and for the most part just went along with the Republicans in Congress and the president - there was no major change in policy as a result of their taking the majority in 2006, so you can't blame them.
- XtheXlanternX, on 11/24/2008, -1/+11Well I wouldn't call it a blessing, Bob...
- Mujokan, on 11/24/2008, -0/+9In other words, a ronin.
ろうにん【浪人】
1 〔浪士〕a ｢masterless [lordless] samurai
2 〔失職者〕a person out of work, an unemployed person; 〔入試に失敗した学生〕a student who failed ｢his [her] ｢college [high school] entrance examinations and is studying to take them again
就職浪人 a (new) graduate who ｢has no job lined up [hasn't found a job] - crunchdigg, on 11/24/2008, -1/+10shouldn't you wait until he's actually in office to blame him for republican shenanigans?
when do the Wars To Make Exxon Richer get blamed on him? He's inheriting those, too. - inactive, on 11/24/2008, -3/+11RUN FOR YOUR LIVES, A MODERATE IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!
- gospe1337, on 11/24/2008, -3/+11So, one guy in Singapore says it's gonna be REALLY ***** instead of JUST *****.
Ok. - inajeep, on 11/24/2008, -0/+7Everyone is to blame. But pointing fingers ain't gonna solve anything.
- neilschelly, on 11/24/2008, -0/+7You're not wrong so much as blaming the wrong folks. We're in this mess because this has been a long-standing policy for many administrations now, most significantly this last one which was Republican. Yes, democrats spend a lot and split the costs among more people to make more services for more people available at lower per-person costs. It's what they do and it's the platform they stand on and they stay pretty true to it.
But your wording only makes enemies of your point. Clearly, you think the Republican party is something different that controls spending or cuts taxes or isn't all for baling out failing companies and investments. That just means you're listening to what the Republicans are saying, but not watching when they've been doing. A good Republican administration would cut spending and be able to lower taxes and protect free trade and survive failing companies and all that stuff.
-N - Olfster, on 11/24/2008, -4/+11I'm thinking more like 15% when you factor in the people that just drop off or the people that just do not get counted.
- GRANDPAMUNSTER, on 06/11/2009, -0/+7Count me and my wife in that category.
- XtheXlanternX, on 11/24/2008, -0/+6The crazy thing about all of this is that everyone can look and easily identify the problems, yet the solutions are so unclear it seems they are almost nonexistent. Lots of people think they know, but anyone that is honest with themselves can see that a lot of these problems are almost impossible to solve.
- GRANDPAMUNSTER, on 06/11/2009, -3/+9Because if we give more tax breaks to billionaires they'll create jobs right? WRONG !!!!!
- Olfster, on 11/24/2008, -0/+5You may get your wish.
- inactive, on 11/24/2008, -1/+6Because TIME magazine, and other "news" media sources can't generate interest unless it's doom and gloom. Take it with a grain of salt people.
- username7410, on 11/24/2008, -1/+6"But it will take time, and it could be particularly painful for, say, investment bankers who have become used to fat salaries."
Oh, tragic!
/eyes roll - wrestlingnrj, on 11/24/2008, -0/+5That's how one of my good friends is. His wife just lost her job too, and she was the one making the most money.
- inactive, on 11/24/2008, -0/+5HAHA, very well put.
- legendxx, on 11/24/2008, -0/+4or 'digger'
- Fartbandit, on 11/24/2008, -2/+6You're a dick.
- themadrammer, on 08/18/2009, -0/+4that's awesome
- diegocg, on 11/24/2008, -1/+5Yeah, unlike Republicans. I mean, just look the TV. Never the economy was so strong like it is today after 8 years of Bush, all the economist say that it's impossible to suffer a 1929 like recession, and the financial sector is SO strong that they are giving money to the governement for free, just because they have so much of it even after paying taxes.
- inactive, on 11/24/2008, -1/+5What do you want to be ucccft is an unemployed actor?
- ZombieLuv, on 11/24/2008, -1/+5I think the term is realist.
- Yazilliclick, on 11/24/2008, -0/+4Yes and know. There certainly are a lot more luxury items that people feel they need these days no doubt. However even the necesities are just more expensive these days. Just talk to your parents or grandparents about how much big items such as a house, land, education, or transportation cost back then compared to now. The amount of debt people have to take on now to get anything is astounding and there are so many fewer lower income manual labour type jobs to fall back on as everything has been becoming service based and not manufacturing or producing.
- cmp1966, on 11/24/2008, -3/+7From Worldwatch Institute, Nov. 12, 2003:
"Of all high-income nations, the United States has the most unequal distribution of income, with over 30 percent of income in the hands of the richest 10 percent and only 1.8 percent going to the poorest 10 percent."
In 2003 we were considered more unequal than almost any other advanced industrial country. That was 5 years ago. We can't afford to keep helping the rich. They are not the ones who lose their homes, jobs, or go without health care. The 1% of our population that holds nearly 40% of ALL wealth are not going to be hurting no matter how much they claim to be (gee, we can't get another big-screen? wahhh!)
I want to see protections for the rest of us. The rich can help themselves. We're the ones in real trouble. Once upon a time we had jobs that paid living wages - back when employers boasted about their benefits rather than whined. People often kept jobs with the same company for 30 years. They didn't have credit cards nor lived beyond their means. We were a country that made things, and we made things well (unlike the crap we have today). Pproducts weren't made with a life expectancy.
People had savings accounts.
It would have been unthinkable - then - that most Americans were two paychecks from eviction. (Or five from foreclosure),
We've let these bastards whittle down our expectations and standards. They've increased the gap between the rich and poor to unprecedented levels, taken away the benefits that let families have a life that met their BASIC needs (not luxuries - you know, like food and shelter). Now they want more. Guess what? We don't have it.
We don't have any extra. Many of us don't have enough food, medicine, or even homes. They've sent their jobs elsewhere --not to just for profit, but for a BIGGER profit. So they could pollute the environments in other countries and pay those people even less. Exxon has been posting some of it's biggest profits ever. Let them help the banks. Let them give from their profit, not take from our deficit. They aren't the ones who will be going to bed hungry or on the street. Corporate America stopped being on the country's side long ago. Screw them! - alphaterminus, on 11/24/2008, -0/+4Current administration's strategy:
Dick Cheney waves hand across our faces and W speaks: "There's no recession here folks. Fundamentals of the economy are strong! 911! Heh. God Bless America" Shrugs shoulders and feigns not knowing he's a criminal. Walks away with a Hank Paulson blowjob on his mind. - BlatheringIdiot, on 11/24/2008, -1/+5I think a HUGE part of the problem is our bloated govt' sucking us dry at every turn:
income tax
property tax
sales tax
inheritance tax
fees and permits- license plates
feel free to add to this list- I know I missed 100 or so taxes. - inactive, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3it already has. btw bush is president.
- RyanOC, on 11/24/2008, -1/+4thumbs down for being employed
- inactive, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3I didn't say it did, I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of suggesting that this problem is a partisan one. Blame the Dems all you want, but did the Republicans lift a finger to try to change things? Shoot, they've had control of Congress since '94 - plenty of time to have done something by now if this is all the fault of liberal policy.
- computershack, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3It's not just in the USA. My county in England is slated for the highest number of job losses of any authority in the UK with 8% of jobs predicted to go in the next 2-3 years. What makes it worse is that it has no city and no industry to speak of so employment wasn't exactly spectacularly good in the first place. I'm a trucker and for the first time in 15 years, there's not a single trucking job advertised within a 40 mile radius and only 6 in the last month.
- Olfster, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3I think Pandit should be the one counting every day as a blessing. How the hell does he get to stick around after a bail out like this?
- diegocg, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3Do you really think that banks were "forced" to loan poor people who can't allow to repay the loan?
Welcome to Europe. In Spain, current unemployment is 11%. A year ago, without the financial pain, it was 8%. All the analysts say it will probably climb to 15% or so (not that painful - 15 years ago it was 25%). Here, banks are NOT and have NOT been forced to loan to poor people. Did that stopped banks from loaning to poor people who clearly are not going to be able to repay the loan? No. Quite the contrary, they happily gave loans pretty much to anyone who requested them. The same goes for many banks in europe.
I suspect that USian banks are not very different. I bet my ass that they have loaned to poor people more of what any law forces them to loan. Just like everyone else. - kakwakas, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3I just (barely) got my job back after being unemployed for 9 months.
- kakwakas, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3The word you're looking for is 'cynic'.
- MeatMountain, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3Thank you, Master Weaboo. You honor us with your knowledge of the BUSHIDO CODE.
- FFXIfrohike, on 11/25/2008, -0/+2Just got promoted with a pay increase that I fully expect to go away in the coming months... At least I'm getting paid to do what I love to do.
- Hillsfar, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2You're just sore your side lost on November 4.
- SuperVepr308, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2The 8th Samurai?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 122 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is