I'm sure that's the case.

Or it isn't.

Whichever.

Irie, what the hell are you talking about. Look at your paycheck. You pay in to Social security and medicare and Labor and industries and pensions are part of the pay package, just like health insurance, including unions. Most folk are getting screwed on SS anyway since the govt removed several of the expense catagories from the inflation index, to reduce the amount of inflation and thereby reduce the increase in the SS COLA increase.
Party membership, has nothing to do with who recieves the money. It also has nothing to do with minorities not paying their fair share. Those who work, pay the same. We had welfare reform in the 90's. I hear its slowly being dismantled, unfortunately.

As for subsidies, I will throw in with you, but both sides get hit up for subsidies, for one business or another. It would probably be difficult to find someone who doesnt benefit from a subsidy. Taking a shot at Veterans, thru the eyes of conservatives is pathetic. There is a big disconnect between the voters and the politicians in how money should be spent.

I am looking at my paycheck. I don't pay into SS, FICA, or L&I.
I pay a flat 33% to Uncle Sam every year. Matter o' fact I paid over $50k in Federal Income Tax last year, which I do believe covers my tolls for highway and infrastructure use this year. Not to mention that I vote. Non-voters need to leave this forum immediately. They have no right to complain, ever.
And you completely missed my point about dumfuks blaming their problems on brown people, which doesn't surprise me in the least, because most threads here are totally over your head. Veterans or no, they are still on the Gov't dole. Up until massive unemployment post-WWII, Veterans didn't get JACK for their service except a good machine-gunning courtesy of Lt. MacArthur on the grass of the Capitol Mall. Like I said, which you missed, THAT in YOUR book-- Conservative's welfare is "special" and "deserved" and "different" from that received by childless mothers, lunatics, cripples, retards, and the elderly.

If you are self employed, you pay roughly 15% which is both the employee and the employer share of SS and medicare and medicaid. Its right in the tax schedule and also shows up on the tax forms as a separate amount. If youre self employed, L and I is an option, from the state. Dont pay, dont collect. You have your employment numbers backwards. The depression was ended because of the war. We also had a draft, ie you carry a gun or go to prison.

So, in addition to redefining the word welfare, you are redefining the word EARNED. Military is still underpaid for the risk they take. Cops earn much more. If you dont think Military earns their pay and benefits, you arent a liberal or a conservative, just an Ahole that hates people. That would fit, since you rarely make a comment, without insulting or degrading someone in your post. Its always personal with you. Some people are so miserable, they get joy out of making other people angry or sad. Im surprised there is room for a computer under your rock.

"Now let's not be racist. Some of my best friends have gnomes in their gardens."

In my younger drug days some of my best friends WERE gnomes.....I think.

WTF? lead eater...

So there was no post war recession?

You truly live in your own lil world.

As you can see here, the job losses of the '48, '53 and '58 recessions were far worse than the one we're in now.

You misquoted me. Interesting site, I'll give ya that.... But, the graph was from february 9, 2009 and that job loss graph was incomplete.
Weve already doubled the 1948 recession. You changed the reference point. Unemployment before the war, was upwards of 25%.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/02/job-losses-during-recessons.html

From the article-
The second graph (that Barry asked me for) shows the job losses from the start of the employment recession, in percentage terms (as opposed to the number of jobs lost).

For the current recession, employment peaked in December 2007, and this recession is about as bad as the 1981 recession in percentage terms at this point.

In the earlier post-war recessions, there were huge swings in manufacturing employment. Now manufacturing is a much smaller percentage of the economy, and the swings aren't as significant because of technological advances. This is the main reason that job losses were larger in those earlier recessions.


http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/07/employment-report-467k-jobs-lost-95.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression_in_the_United_States



http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html


Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957 (Washington, D.C., 1960), p.70. Depression Era Unemployment Statistics
Year Population Labor
Force Unemployed Percentage of
Labor Force

year population labor force UE % of labor force
1929 88,010,000 49,440,000 1,550,000 3.14
1930 89,550,000 50,080,000 4,340,000 8.67
1931 90,710,000 50,680,000 8,020,000 15.82
1932 91,810,000 51,250,000 12,060,000 23.53
1933 92,950,000 51,840,000 12,830,000 24.75
1934 94,190,000 52,490,000 11,340,000 21.60
1935 95,460,000 53,140,000 10,610,000 19.97
1936 96,700,000 53,740,000 9,030,000 16.80
1937 97,870,000 54,320,000 7,700,000 14.18
1938 99,120,000 54,950,000 10,390,000 18.91
1939 100,360,000 55,600,000 9,480,000 17.05
1940 101,560,000 56,180,000 8,120,000 14.45
1941 102,700,000 57,530,000 5,560,000 9.66


The percentage of unemployment before the war was much worse, than post WWII. That was my point. I never said we didnt have a recession after the war. I had not bothered to look at unemployment figures post war. Interesting that 5% unemployment was considered a recession, compared to today. But, we also had a much smaller economy.

Im going back to my little world, now.

there is another graph from July in a link for the same criteria. Its about to dip below the 1948 recession as of July.

I got way off into the weeds over his comment about the benefits of veterans post war. I suspect there we other factors, increasing their benefits and pay. Noone talks about a recession of 48. All we hear about is the baby boom and some pristine economy. Perhaps the people who wrote about the baby boomer post war economy never looked at the graph. I remember a Carter debate, where he complained about the Ford economy of early 70's. By 78 those early years didnt look so bad. Somewhere along the line, someone decided 4 or 4.5% unemployment was considered full employment.

Thread has successfully been hijacked.

works for me.

good one Irie.