What an Evil, No-Good, Mean Spirited...

[John Dunn]

Sick and Demented man!!!
But he'll sure get that Latino vote in 'O4
The Dems are getting the rug pulled right out beneath 'em!! Whooo hooo
Bush steals from the bad guys AND feeds the poor. Hmmm... A modern day Robin Hood, not a Hitler!!

[paul wheaton]

Speaking of Bush as Robin Hood ...
I belong to a java mailing list and this came through the pipe yesterday: http://www.bushin30seconds.org/view.html?id=13&size=small
Kinda makes you think that political ad season is just around the corner.

[Alan Labout]

Here's the full list:
Bush in 30 seconds

[John Dunn]

VERY VERY SAD that none of the posters who've had such problems with George W. can come around and commend him when he does something right. I am beginning to thing Anti-War == Anti-Establishment == Anti-Bush.

[Joe Pluta]

Bush in 30 seconds
[chuckle]
These are the same people hyping some sort of deal about "The Truth about Iraq". What happened there? According to these folks, this was going to be some sort of historic event. I never even heard about it. So I went to the website, where they are STILL promoting parties that are "going to happen" on December 7th, 2003 :
http://action.moveon.org/meet/parties.html
It says 2698 parties are planned. The dip must be getting pretty stale by now . Interestingly, none are within 300 miles of Chicago. Then again, it could just be bogus software, because none are within 300 miles of NYC or Los Angeles, either.
In fact, as far as I could tell, it's basically a friggin' infomercial for a $14.95 DVD. Gz Louise. Here's a partial list of the folks involved: Margaret Cho, Moby, Janeane Garofalo, John Sayles. Yep, these are the people I want running foreign policy.
Joe
[ January 07, 2004: Message edited by: Joe Pluta ]

[Michael Ernest]

"By dangling the prospect of legal status to some 8 million illegal immigrants now estimated to be in this country, about half of them Mexican, Bush was granting a top priority of the business community while making his most aggressive move yet to court Latino voters. He won just over one-third of that constituency in 2000 but wants to expand his support in the community to better his chances for re-election in November."
When he does it, John, then you have something to crow about.
Fact of the matter is, Bush may alientate lots of southern California conservatives if he's not careful. State Republican gubernatorial candidates have consistently won votes among their own by saying a) Democrats are soft on illegal immigration; and b) the Dems do this to stuff the ballot boxes and take away 'American jobs'. It would appear in fact that Bush is not only turning his back on those same 'legal' voters, he's giving American jobs away to those very same illegal immigrants.
In other words, if a Democrat thinks that way, it's to stuff the ballot box. If a Republican thinks that way, he's a humanitarian. Nice double standard there, slick.
Still, the President hasn't 'done' anything yet on this point but play to demographics. Your applause for his action, if indeed you think the idea is the right one, is a tad premature.
[ January 07, 2004: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[John Dunn]

Damn, I'm happy when Republicans do anything that can be perceived as somewhat kind.
ME: It would appear in fact that Bush is not only turning his back on those same 'legal' voters, he's giving American jobs away to those very same illegal immigrants.
This obviously will be seen differently in different parts of the country, namely Texas - thru Cali. NYC has tons of illegal Mexican immigrants doing the jobs that nobody wants. They're not taking many jobs away, the jobs we're talking about here, are on the bottom-most rung of the ladder. In fact, some of the job owners couldn't operate without the low-paid labor. IMO, these Mexican here are in a niche that nobody else wants to be in anyway.
Its the closest glimpse we can get in NYC of what it was probably like for the folks that passed through Ellis Isle. Some of my buddies speak fluent Spanish, so we know that the Mexicans get screwed over in the process. I'm glad to see them get some sort of help. This is the America that many of our ancestors came to years ago. In some ways, they're probably not that different than alot of my own people, (Irish), who came to this city 150 years ago. Why can't the Dem come out and give the Devil his due?
ME: In other words, if a Democrat thinks that way, it's to stuff the ballot box. If a Republican thinks that way, he's a humanitarian. Nice double standard there, slick.
Not quite. Recall all the evil, sinister, demonizing that has gone Bush's way. I'm not saying that now he's a hardcore humanitarian, I'm just wondering why NOTHING has been said in his favor by his opponents!! If Clinton did this he'd be a miracle-worker.
IMHO, this 'ballot-stuffing' as you call it, is the essence of our democracy. If you can get a large credible voting block together you can acquire tangible benefits for your community. Come to think of it, the St. Patrick's day parade here in NYC wasn't about celebrating St. Patrick. It was a way to get the Mayor of NYC to stick his head out the window and count the Irish voters. So, kudos for the Mexican community and for Fox for looking out for them. It's about time. Bush should take advantage of this. It would have been a huge defeat if the ex-Governor of Vermont did this over the ex-Governor of Texas!!
Btw, why do you think Clinton has office space in Harlem? Do you think he really gives a special damn about blacks? You don't think he was pandering to the black vote for his NY Senator wife, by any chance do you? Clinton was keeping his irons in fire with that move by maintaining some power base. Clinton also embraced the black voters to keep from being completely ostracized by Americans for his reckless behaviour. Without Monica, he'd would have been in Arkansas. His losses are the Black community's gain, and to me that is democracy. It's all quite legit. It's how every group got out of the gutter in this country.
There is no double standard here, at all. Bush would be an idiot if he didn't go out and create some voters. AND Why shouldn't he?? It's crazy not to expect it. He's not running for Governor of California, mind you. I hope he keeps it up and defeats the next guy by a dehumanizing land-slide. As I said, he snatched the rug right out from beneath the Dems on this.
My hunch is the GOP doesn't just want to win in Nov., they want to leave the Dems in a shambles so Hillary is at best the eventual leader of a severely wounded and shattered party. With decent success in Iraq, no one will be able to hold a candle to Dr. Condoleeza Rice. I think Hillary totally dropped the ball by not running in 'O4. She coulda been a contender, but she balked - IMO, not having the guts for '04-Hillary, will leave zero for Hillary.

[Michael Ernest]

ME: It would appear in fact that Bush is not only turning his back on those same 'legal' voters, he's giving American jobs away to those very same illegal immigrants.

JD: NYC has tons of illegal Mexican immigrants doing the jobs that nobody wants. They're not taking many jobs away, the jobs we're talking about here, are on the bottom-most rung of the ladder. In fact, some of the job owners couldn't operate without the low-paid labor. IMO, these Mexican here are in a niche that nobody else wants to be in anyway.
ME: That's what the 'liberal' argument has always been. No American really wants to landscape yards in Arcadia or Mission Viejo, or wash dishes in Reseda. People coming across the border make that kind of money and it's far more meaningful to their families than it is to us. The other argument is that illegal immigrants contribute to the tax base, etc. That argument hasn't changed, it's just that now Big Business is pushing hard for cheaper labor, more people who will gladly work for minimum wage in particular.
JD: Some of my buddies speak fluent Spanish, so we know that the Mexicans get screwed over in the process. I'm glad to see them get some sort of help. This is the America that many of our ancestors came to years ago. In some ways, they're probably not that different than alot of my own people, (Irish), who came to this city 150 years ago. Why can't the Dem come out and give the Devil his due?
ME: You think the Republican side hurrahed Clinton when he continually co-opted their moderate planks. C'mon, no one ever thanks you for stealing their lunch.
JD: Not quite. Recall all the evil, sinister, demonizing that has gone Bush's way. I'm not saying that now he's a hardcore humanitarian, I'm just wondering why NOTHING has been said in his favor by his opponents!! If Clinton did this he'd be a miracle-worker.
ME: Riiiiight. Go ahead and show me all that fair-minded Republican praise for Clinton. It's *sooooo* unfair that Bush is demonized on strictly partisan grounds...
JD: Btw, why do you think Clinton has office space in Harlem? Do you think he really gives a special damn about blacks? You don't think he was pandering to the black vote for his NY Senator wife, by any chance do you?
ME: Pandering to his power base? Check your voting statistics on both of Clinton's elections, John. The office on 125th St. is a reward, not a foothold. The black vote in NY hasn't gone Republican in I can't tell you how long.
JD: There is no double standard here, at all. Bush would be an idiot if he didn't go out and create some voters. AND Why shouldn't he?? It's crazy not to expect it. He's not running for Governor of California, mind you.
ME: No one's arguing against shrewd politics, John. Just the idea that Democrats should applaud Bush for smart politicking. I thought you started out by wondering why Democrats weren't praising him for doing something "good" for the people. You don't expect the party opposite to praise him for trying to outmaneuver them, do you?
JD: My hunch is the GOP doesn't just want to win in Nov., they want to leave the Dems in a shambles so Hillary is at best the eventual leader of a severely wounded and shattered party. With decent success in Iraq, no one will be able to hold a candle to Dr. Condoleeza Rice. I think Hillary totally dropped the ball by not running in 'O4. She coulda been a contender, but she balked - IMO, not having the guts for '04-Hillary, will leave zero for Hillary.
ME: Condoleeze Rice will never be elected President. You heard it here first. Waste no more time on that fantasy. As for Republicans driving the Democrats into the ground, or vice versa, I don't think Iraq is the issue that would make it happen.

[John Dunn]

ME: C'mon, no one ever thanks you for stealing their lunch.
Well, an anorxic might...
You don't expect the party opposite to praise him for trying to outmaneuver them, do you? I expect the peaceniks to light a candle for ol' GeorgeDub. I expect the Dixie Chicks to start singing songs dedicated to their homeboy - NO make that an entire album of praise.
Condoleeze Rice will never be elected President. You heard it here first. Waste no more time on that fantasy.
Check it out: Rice2008
You gotta admit, that Rice / Clinton 2008 would be a fun duel.
I don't think Iraq is the issue that would make it happen.
We don't know how the Middle East will turn out. Although many Americans hope it fails, so Bush will fail too. People never thought Japan, Germany, or Russia would ever change either, but they have. Iranian students are making that part of the world interesting. If Iraq settles, down Hillary will be in quite a hole. Do you think Rice could get the Black vote? How 'bout the Women's vote? Do you think people would respect her accomplishments over Hillary's? It would be a political race for the ages!

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
...tons of illegal Mexican immigrants doing the jobs that nobody wants. They're not taking many jobs away, the jobs we're talking about here, are on the bottom-most rung of the ladder. In fact, some of the job owners couldn't operate without the low-paid labor. IMO, these Mexican here are in a niche that nobody else wants to be in anyway.

Understanding the Myth of "Jobs Americans wont do"

[Paul Stevens]

Interesting article Paul.

[Tim Baker]

It's interesting but very hypothetical and not based in hard facts and figures.

[Dan Chisholm]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:
It's interesting but very hypothetical and not based in hard facts and figures.

It's based on the law of suppy and demand. Within a capitalist economy, nothing is more basic.

[Tim Baker]

The employment market doesn't work on such a crude generalist theory. There's nothing to show that if you paid more money there would be more people willing to work in the unskilled jobs. Infact where I live there is massive demand for care workers, and so wages have gone up, but I'm not willing to wipe old peoples asses for them no matter how much you pay, and I doubt that as he suggests lack of employees in this area will lead to an automatic bottom wipping machine or automatic dressing machines.

[Dan Chisholm]

Tim,
In Germany and Ireland I noticed that Germany and Irish citizens do janitorial work. Are the Germans and Irish better suited to these jobs than American citizens or are the German and Irish governments less interested in developing a source of cheaper immigrant labor?
Our economic system is based on the laws of supply and demand. The availability of cheap labor reduces labor costs. It's that simple. That's why employers and political campaign contributors want this legislation.

[Tim Baker]

And in England nurses are imported from all around the world because they can't be sourced locally. There are many professions worldwide that are short of labour, not just because they are low paid. The unskilled ones are obviously the more attractive to illegal immigration.
Yes illegal immigrants will provide cheaper labour, but he makes the assumption that by removing illegal immigrants, the wages will go up and thus more people will come into those jobs, which is a leap of faith not backed up by evidence.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
Fact of the matter is, Bush may alientate lots of southern California conservatives if he's not careful.

Last I checked, the southern California conservatives didn't deliver their state to Bush in '00. So in the immortal words of Shakespeare, "screw 'em". Or was that John Gotti?

[Dan Chisholm]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:
And in England nurses are imported from all around the world because they can't be sourced locally. There are many professions worldwide that are short of labour, not just because they are low paid. The unskilled ones are obviously the more attractive to illegal immigration.
Yes illegal immigrants will provide cheaper labour, but he makes the assumption that by removing illegal immigrants, the wages will go up and thus more people will come into those jobs, which is a leap of faith not backed up by evidence.

I fully support the immigration of skilled labor to fill jobs for which adequately trained Americans are not available. In fact, I married an optical engineer from Taiwan. My opposition is to the use of unskilled illegal immigrants for jobs that would otherwise employ Americans at a higher wage. The United States does not have a shortage of unskilled labor.
I recently became aware of the shortage of trained nurses. I think this is a problem that the labor department should have been able to predict long ago, so why is the public only now becoming aware of this problem? I think that one role of the labor department should be to publicize those professions where demand is projected to grow faster than the supply so that people can make better career choices. I think that option would better serve the interests of the American people.

[Tim Baker]

but doesn't giving them work permits mean they then have to work for at least minimum wage, which american citizens will too? I agree that illegal immigration is a problem when they work below minmum wage.

[Tony Collins]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
VERY VERY SAD that none of the posters who've had such problems with George W. can come around and commend him when he does something right. I am beginning to thing Anti-War == Anti-Establishment == Anti-Bush.

I don't give a toss what Bush does in his own country, I care what he does in other peoples countries. George Bush is free to run his country how he wants he was elected democratically(?).
Tony
[ January 08, 2004: Message edited by: Tony Collins ]

[Tony Collins]

Originally posted by Dan Chisholm:

I fully support the immigration of skilled labor to fill jobs for which adequately trained Americans are not available.

So when you say (adequately trained) Americans, are you refering to American Indians or the Imigrants of a few hundred years ago ?
Tony

[Dan Chisholm]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:
but doesn't giving them work permits mean they then have to work for at least minimum wage, which american citizens will too? I agree that illegal immigration is a problem when they work below minmum wage.

Should every unskilled job pay minimum wage? Once again, this is an example of how a large supply of illegal labor holds down wages to the lowest possible level.
Suppose you're a teenage kid in an urban area and you see that your role models have no future. What do you do with your life? Does this problem have an impact on crime rates and prison populations? Would crime rates be reduced if jobs were available for unskilled American citizens?
America does not have a shortage of people that are available for unskilled jobs. Instead, America has a shortage of unskilled jobs.

[Dan Chisholm]

Here in California, we have a 3 strikes law. Once you go to prison for the third time you are there for life. What is the annual cost of keeping each person in prison? Isn't it somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000? Why are so many teenage kids choosing to be career criminals rather than career unskilled laborers? Do wages have any impact on this decision?
Suppose that instead of paying 50K to 100K per year to keep unskilled citizens in prison a system is developed that allows unskilled citizens to receive that level of pay simply for working. Would that motivate unskilled citizens to work rather than spend their entire adult lives in prison? Would this new system reduce our prison populations?
Do systems exist in other countries that provide reasonable pay for unskilled labor? How do their prison populations compare to ours?
Maybe we should start thinking of jobs as the ultimate crime prevention system.
[ January 08, 2004: Message edited by: Dan Chisholm ]

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Last I checked, the southern California conservatives didn't deliver their state to Bush in '00. So in the immortal words of Shakespeare, "screw 'em". Or was that John Gotti?

Archimedes, I believe.
Oh, I'm thinking we've been screwed by Bush plenty. Come to town and buy some gas if you don't believe me. Don't forget those credit references.
John D: You make me smile, my man, widely. Keep hope alive!

[John Dunn]

he was elected democratically(?).
No question about it.
I don't give a toss what Bush does in his own country, I care what he does in other peoples countries. IMHO, to think that the leader of the U.S. will just completely operate without be involved in other countries is completely unrealistic. We don't live in a beautiful world. Bill Clinton, (one of our smartest presidents ever), did just a lot of that and look were it got us.
IMO, we didn't go after the Taliban soon enough. They were treating their own women like stray dogs and the world turned its back on them. I for one can't wait for Syria to get its day of reckoning.

[John Dunn]

Understanding the Myth of "Jobs Americans wont do"
Interesting article.
When I said that the Mexicans take the jobs we wouldn't want anyway, I meant it 100%!!! I'm talking about working in a bar and collecting empty beer glasses OR working long hours in a corner deli OR delivering pizza OR working for less than minimum wage and doing the worst grunt work on a construction site. ETC, ETC Sh** man, we couldn't afford a high school girlfriend, (If I was still in high school), with those jobs, let alone live in NYC. I don't know how they manage.
These Mexicans interest me. Sometimes I hijack a hispanic dude/dudette in a bar and get them to translate for me so I can talk to the Mexican dudes that work the bars. Most don't speak ANY English. They usually pool their resources and share a small apartment among many friends. Many are illegal and send a large portion of what little they make back home. I find that they seem to be content, which is pretty sad and also indicative to how destitute they probably were before coming to the U.S. We often try to get them to realize that they are much more capable of getting higher paying jobs then they can appreciate. I try to encourage them to learn English, so they can increase their networking abilities.
Personally, if they all left the city tomorrow, a lot of small businesses would probably go under or end up raising their prices. I don't think that what that article mentioned is an absolute, which isn't to say that it never is true.
hmmm... I'm not sure if it sits to well we me if we were to say to the Mexican dudes, "hey amigos, you gotta go home, we're getting rid of your livelyhoods say we can force the advent of some new technology - so the party's over, yo - we're all about innovation up here."
I don't think you'll get rid of them that easy. My guess is that they find the next sh**-job and make it their own. They are dying to get here and willing to do anything to make it. The grandchildren of the more resourceful ones will be the same as us and that is why they choose to live the way they do. They bring hope and appreciation to the country. In the long run this country reaps much more benefits from the cycle of low paying workers that stream in and eventually get absorbed into the mainstream.
I wonder if we'll be around to tell our grandchildren that "when we were young the Mexicans were like the [insert the future low-rung community] are that you see today..."
[ January 08, 2004: Message edited by: John Dunn ]

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
Personally, if they all left the city tomorrow, a lot of small businesses would probably go under or end up raising their prices. I don't think that what that article mentioned is an absolute, which isn't to say that it never is true.

It may not go down well with many people that we have to eliminate people to innovate but that is true, atleast to some extent. A simple example, in India there is abundant manual labor available therefore keeping wages at the lower rungs of society to a minimum. I've been trying to force my parents into buying a washing machine / dryer unit so that they can get rid of the maid who comes home to do this piece of work.. but they tell me why should they? It costs them cheaper to keep a maid (compared to the initial investment required to purchase these appliances) and all they have to do is throw the clothes in the wash basket rather than operate devices. I think this gives an idea of how excessive labor stands in the way of innovation, though I'll admit that it overly simplifies the problem.
For those who wonder how the above example is linked with innovation let me illustrate further
Too much labor = Less demand for automation
Less demand for automation = less technological innovation
less technological innovation = less growth
[ January 09, 2004: Message edited by: Paul McKenna ]

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
Too much labor = Less demand for automation
Less demand for automation = less technological innovation
less technological innovation = less growth

Need is mother of all inventions.
technological innovation depends on the need. I dont need a machins right now to wipe or wash my a**. So developing that automated m/c is useless for me.
I need a device which can generate electricity from tube-well water and there are people who generate their own electricity from tube-well water.
Another one which I saw myself in Merrut, which is called 'Jugaad', is a public transport vehicle.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

Do you really believe that this plan is just for low wage jobs nobody else wants to do? Once they can create an underclass, they won't want to stop with just fruit pickers, meat packers, and janitors.

Should every unskilled job pay minimum wage?

You believe in following the laws that you like?

[paul wheaton]

American wages, economy, etc ...
This reminds me of something Perot said when he was running (I didn't vote for him). He said that income taxes are used to pay for roads and other car-related stuff. He suggested shifting taxes away from income taxes and adding 50 cents per gallon for gas.
So now, having a pair of pants made somewhere far away just got a bit more expensive. Having the pair of pants made locally might be a little bit better deal than before.
You would think that here in Washington State (apple country) apples would be cheap! But bananas are almost always cheaper. That seems pretty goofy.

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by R K Singh:
technological innovation depends on the need. I dont need a machins right now to wipe or wash my a**. So developing that automated m/c is useless for me.

Your example is a very bad one, because you dont need a maid to wipe your a** either. However people need maid servants to wash clothes, dishes, cars etc. and these can be replaced with technological innovations. Another example is that several years ago there used to be a large segment of the population who would travel up high mountains to collect ice and bring back so that people could store their meat products and other perishables. With the invention of the refrigerator this segment has now disappeared.. would anyone today argue that we need people to go back and start climbing mountains again?? (Except for the tree-hugging hippies ofcourse )

[Sadanand Murthy]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

However people need maid servants to wash clothes, dishes, cars etc. and these can be replaced with technological innovations.

In India, there is huge percentage of the population that falls into this category of "unskilled", who work as maids, servants, etc doing the menial tasks that the more skilled folks don't or won't. It is true that many of these tasks can be automated or made more effecient with technological innovations; the question that will need to be answered, then, is what will happen to this huge population segment that will be replaced by machines/technology? Considering India's population, this suddenly unemployed group will be a very large group indeed and will pose well-nigh insurmountable problems. Will we then see a sharp rise in crime? There is always a link between unemployment & crime (how tenuous or tenacious a link this is, is for better analysts & researchers than me).

[Bela Bardak]

Originally posted by Paul Wheaton:
American wages, economy, etc ...
He (Perot) said that income taxes are used to pay for roads and other car-related stuff. He suggested shifting taxes away from income taxes and adding 50 cents per gallon for gas.

Some of what Perot said made a lot of sense. I think he also suggested that auto insurance be financed by a similar method, which would eliminate the problem of the uninsured at the cost of raising the cost to *good* drivers.

Originally posted by Paul Wheaton:
You would think that here in Washington State (apple country) apples would be cheap! But bananas are almost always cheaper. That seems pretty goofy.

Transport costs are very low these days, and the longer the distance the lower the per-mile cost. For both apples and bananas I suspect much the largest cost is picking and gathering the harvest into the warehouse to be shipped. Picking costs in Washington State will be much larger than in New Guinea. The cost of the land is also higher.

[Dan Chisholm]

Originally posted by Sadanand Murthy:

In India, there is huge percentage of the population that falls into this category of "unskilled", who work as maids, servants, etc doing the menial tasks that the more skilled folks don't or won't. It is true that many of these tasks can be automated or made more effecient with technological innovations; the question that will need to be answered, then, is what will happen to this huge population segment that will be replaced by machines/technology? Considering India's population, this suddenly unemployed group will be a very large group indeed and will pose well-nigh insurmountable problems. Will we then see a sharp rise in crime? There is always a link between unemployment & crime (how tenuous or tenacious a link this is, is for better analysts & researchers than me).

Yes, increased unemployment produces increased crime and increasing prison populations. Considering the cost of keeping people in prison it is very clear that employment is a much better solution.
Recently the mayor of Oakland was complaining that the people that have recently been released from prison are unable to find jobs in Oakland. Consequently, they return to criminal activities and then they are sent back to prison. In view of the shortage of jobs in America for unskilled labor it is 100% certain that America does not need to augment the supply of unskilled laborers by importing them from beyond our borders. Clearly, there is a link between the current the use of illegal immigrant labor and the rising populations in our prisons.
Health care for prison inmates is provided by the state and there appears to be no limit to the services that are provided. Recently, people have complained that organ donations are being wasted on people that are serving life terms in prison. If the state will provide kidney transplants to people that will spend the rest of their lives behind bars yet provide no health care to citizens that are currently working then something is wrong with the system. As I suggested earlier, rather than build more prisons the government should think about reallocating its resources so that jobs are used to keep people out of prison. Using taxpayer money to keep people working is far more productive than using taxpayer money to keep people locked up. The key to making such a system a success is the availability of jobs for unskilled labor. The immigration policy proposed by Bush is a step in the wrong direction.
President Reagan once said that the best social program is a job. Why aren't the Republicans making similar comments today?
[ January 09, 2004: Message edited by: Dan Chisholm ]

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Dan Chisholm:

President Reagan once said that the best social program is a job. Why aren't the Republicans making similar comments today?

Helluva question.

[Bela Bardak]

President Reagan once said that the best social program is a job. Why aren't the Republicans making similar comments today?

Perhaps because unemployment has dropped more than 4 points since reagan made that remark? During the 1981 recession unemployment went over 10%. During the current downturn it peaked at less than 6%. That's quite a difference.
Another possiblity is that 'welfare as we know it' has been ended in the sense that nobody can rely upon welfare as a source of life-long support. So a lot more people have jobs or are being supported by income earned by someone rather than a government check. In that sense Reagan's vision has been largely achieved.

[Dan Chisholm]

Originally posted by Bela Bardak:
... Another possiblity is that 'welfare as we know it' has been ended in the sense that nobody can rely upon welfare as a source of life-long support. So a lot more people have jobs or are being supported by income earned by someone rather than a government check. In that sense Reagan's vision has been largely achieved.

Prior to Reagan's budget cuts of the early 1980's, welfare benefits were far more generous. At that time, welfare was seen as a desirable career path for those that could not earn a better living by working. Today, many of the state welfare programs require the welfare recipients to work, so welfare is no long seen as an alternative to working 40 or more hours per week. I completely agree that the new programs are better than the old; however, the new programs are only successful when jobs are available. Based on the reports that I have seen on the news, those unskilled jobs are not always available for those that are trying to get into those programs. It's just another example of the fact that America has a shortage of jobs for unskilled labor.

[Bela Bardak]

Originally posted by Dan Chisholm:

Prior to Reagan's budget cuts of the early 1980's, welfare benefits were far more generous. At that time, welfare was seen as a desirable career path for those that could not earn a better living by working. Today, many of the state welfare programs require the welfare recipients to work, so welfare is no long seen as an alternative to working 40 or more hours per week. I completely agree that the new programs are better than the old; however, the new programs are only successful when jobs are available. Based on the reports that I have seen on the news, those unskilled jobs are not always available for those that are trying to get into those programs. It's just another example of the fact that America has a shortage of jobs for unskilled labor.

Hmmmm. What I've heard is that getting to the jobs can be a problem. For example there seem to be plenty of jobs paying decent if not great money in North Atlanta and the Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. But public transport can be a problem for the poor people living in South Atlanta and in DC itself.
My impressing is that the problem in the US right now is more downward mobility among people already working. Such as all us computer geeks, many of whom are either uneployed or making a lot less than we did. Hell, that isn't limited to the US. I'm way down on what I was making two years ago over here in the UK!

[Dan Chisholm]

Yes, that's true. American cities have been built based on the assumption that everyone has a car. Zoning laws generally require industrial, commercial and residential areas to be separate, so going to work everyday usually requires a long drive. If a person doesn't have a car, then that person is going to have a hard time working and shopping. If America wants to ever again become competitive in industries that require low cost labor, then we're going to have to find a way to reduce the cost of living for those that have those low paying jobs. Building cities that allow a person to function in society without a car would be a step in the right direction. When I was working in the semiconductor industry, I often went to places such as Korea and Taiwan. Some of the semiconductor manufacturers in those countries built housing for their low income employees so that everything they needed for day-to-day living was available within walking distance. The living conditions were not the best, but the employees appeared to prefer it to not working and not having any place to live.