100,000 living for free in Inland Empire

[paramount]

We would have to create 200,000 jobs a month for the next 7 years to create a job for every person currently out of work.

We are at a pivotal moment in history – record numbers of unemployed and uninsured. I wish the Republicans would just come out and say we don’t care about the unemployed and the uninsured, because that is the truth.

The only way out of this situation is to cut taxes deeply across the board and create temporary gov’t jobs.

In recent history the gov’t at various levels has been working hard to destroy private business and employment prospects – particularly in California. The private sector will not create nearly enough jobs to employ the currently unemployed.

In fact, we are still loosing jobs every month.

I firmly believe we will be going into a deep deep depression the likes of which the world has never experienced.

Endless wars, endless spending, endless debt, financial “innovation” – stick a fork in us were done.

[moneymaker]

I think when it goes beyond the average time frame it takes to secure a job, it can indeed be called welfare. Remember though that the top 1% of Americans own 40% of the wealth, so why don’t we try to get them to spend some of their money.

[moneymaker]

I think when it goes beyond the average time frame it takes to secure a job, it can indeed be called welfare. Remember though that the top 1% of Americans own 40% of the wealth, so why don’t we try to get them to spend some of their money.

[moneymaker]

I think when it goes beyond the average time frame it takes to secure a job, it can indeed be called welfare. Remember though that the top 1% of Americans own 40% of the wealth, so why don’t we try to get them to spend some of their money.

[moneymaker]

I think when it goes beyond the average time frame it takes to secure a job, it can indeed be called welfare. Remember though that the top 1% of Americans own 40% of the wealth, so why don’t we try to get them to spend some of their money.

[moneymaker]

I think when it goes beyond the average time frame it takes to secure a job, it can indeed be called welfare. Remember though that the top 1% of Americans own 40% of the wealth, so why don’t we try to get them to spend some of their money.

[briansd1]

[quote=pabloesqobar]
I haven’t read what he’s proposing blocking[/quote]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100226/pl_mcclatchy/3437997

Without getting into ideology, cash assistance to the unemployed and those as the bottom of the economy ladder is the best way to get money into the economy fast.

The recipients will spend the money almost immediately and stimulate growth and economic turnover.

I don’t see the point of providing cash assistance to those who are financially secure enough and have stable jobs to qualify for loans.

How about helping those who are sick and need healthcare?

[briansd1]

[quote=pabloesqobar]
I haven’t read what he’s proposing blocking[/quote]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100226/pl_mcclatchy/3437997

Without getting into ideology, cash assistance to the unemployed and those as the bottom of the economy ladder is the best way to get money into the economy fast.

The recipients will spend the money almost immediately and stimulate growth and economic turnover.

I don’t see the point of providing cash assistance to those who are financially secure enough and have stable jobs to qualify for loans.

How about helping those who are sick and need healthcare?

[briansd1]

[quote=pabloesqobar]
I haven’t read what he’s proposing blocking[/quote]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100226/pl_mcclatchy/3437997

Without getting into ideology, cash assistance to the unemployed and those as the bottom of the economy ladder is the best way to get money into the economy fast.

The recipients will spend the money almost immediately and stimulate growth and economic turnover.

I don’t see the point of providing cash assistance to those who are financially secure enough and have stable jobs to qualify for loans.

How about helping those who are sick and need healthcare?

[briansd1]

[quote=pabloesqobar]
I haven’t read what he’s proposing blocking[/quote]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100226/pl_mcclatchy/3437997

Without getting into ideology, cash assistance to the unemployed and those as the bottom of the economy ladder is the best way to get money into the economy fast.

The recipients will spend the money almost immediately and stimulate growth and economic turnover.

I don’t see the point of providing cash assistance to those who are financially secure enough and have stable jobs to qualify for loans.

How about helping those who are sick and need healthcare?

[briansd1]

[quote=pabloesqobar]
I haven’t read what he’s proposing blocking[/quote]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100226/pl_mcclatchy/3437997

Without getting into ideology, cash assistance to the unemployed and those as the bottom of the economy ladder is the best way to get money into the economy fast.

The recipients will spend the money almost immediately and stimulate growth and economic turnover.

I don’t see the point of providing cash assistance to those who are financially secure enough and have stable jobs to qualify for loans.

How about helping those who are sick and need healthcare?

[scaredyclassic]

im not saying welfare is bad. just that after a certain point, it’s not unemployment. i dont see how that stimulates growth however, seems like it just provides survival.

[scaredyclassic]

im not saying welfare is bad. just that after a certain point, it’s not unemployment. i dont see how that stimulates growth however, seems like it just provides survival.

[scaredyclassic]

im not saying welfare is bad. just that after a certain point, it’s not unemployment. i dont see how that stimulates growth however, seems like it just provides survival.

[scaredyclassic]

im not saying welfare is bad. just that after a certain point, it’s not unemployment. i dont see how that stimulates growth however, seems like it just provides survival.

[Author]

Posts