Jerry H

Hello I've been looking for a job for 2 years in the IT field and gave up looking when I couldn't get anything. I've been unemployed now almost 3 years. While I was looking for a job I've lowered my salary requirements as time went on and I realized my requirements is close to federal poverty level. Now a year has passed without looking and I don't know what those requirements should be. Should I go below federal poverty level or set the minimum at poverty level?

P.S. I know the economy is still bad and employers are paying less because labor is not worth that much anymore. Is it possible to keep my requirements at poverty level? Or do I need to go lower?

-Thanks

The universe is so incomprehensibly vast. Therefore with the naked eye and the telescopes we use, wouldn't the starlight we see from actual stars only be in the Milky Way?

All while starlight from outside the Milky Way that appears as stars, are just light from other galaxies?

Isn't it time for Spolster to rest star players?

I think they have 11 wins in a row

Companies in front of Congress can just deny anything Congress throws at them.

Recently Toyota has been under scrutiny and they deserve it because they were successful at downplaying and narrowing the investigation of the unintended acceleration - blaming the driver for error or the floormat and dismissing customers for the claims for the past decade even if it involved deaths.

When they appear before congress wouldn't Toyota just deny all the allegations that they intentionally acted too slow to save their reputation and to hold on to market share? Instead wouldn't they just paint their responses as "we are concerned about our customers" or "our customers are our number one priority", etc...etc...

This is expected for any corporation that appears before congressional hearings. So what's the point of holding congressional hearings?

Seems like a waste of time to me.

I saw it going across the street. I had to press the brakes and slip a little to avoid crushing it.

Aren't these creatures supposed to be asleep? Food is scarce in the winter.

Not that I own an American-made (ehem, "Mexican/Canadian/Austrailian" made) car. I actually own a Toyota. I just want to know what happens to the consumers that bought from these discontinued GM brands. Or the consumers that bought models that are currently discontinued from whatever manufacturer.

When they report on something they spin it as "better than expected". Even though it's in the negative despite a comeback, they claim "rise" and "recovered" and "better than expected".

Doesn't this mean I can easily "expect" 700,000 people to lose jobs this month, and when the actual number is 450,000 I can say..."Wow, that's great! Drop in unemployment! Better than expected!"

Wouldn't this ruin my credibility when people are still feeling the bite? And everyone knows someone who is unemployed? Most of my immediate family members are unemployed. My roommate is unemployed for almost 4 months now.

income tax, sales tax, property taxes, etc.

Also California is the most heavily populated states in this country. Surely they have more than enough subjects to collect taxes from. If anthing the state should be in better shape than other states.

Now I won't buy American vehicles because they are unreliable (and don't tell me otherwise because I've had experience). But if people are so angry at the bailouts why not boycott the businesses seeking taxpayer funds to stay alive? Wouldn't this make the companies reluctant to lobby the government for help when in fact it is not the function of government to fund private industry without getting something in return (ie. government contractors)?

If the general idea that taxpayers will boycott your business if you're seeking corporate welfare (handouts) from the government then companies like GM will go elsewhere for capital. How does the government get back the billions they are handing out to GM/Chrysler. They say these are loans, but there's no talk of GM and Chrysler being solvent enough to pay it back! That means there's no intention to pay it back! Making it a welfare program to the auto industry.

What's you take on this? Who would buy from these companies anyways if they are suffering financially? Government says they will back up the warranties but what about the fact that the warranties will have more rules/restrictions with government funding?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090421/ap_on_bi_ge/us...

The government's plan of splitting the company between winner brands and loser brands is a good idea. The loser brands will die off under brankruptcy as customers are naturally scared away. But at least it will not drag down the winner brands all under one name "GM" because it will be another company entirely that's not under bankruptcy. Only downfall is that the new company will be financed by taxpayer dollars - so you have government loaning to a private industry - taking all the risk!

My thing is why didn't GM get rid of the loser brands before? Those brands were operating under losses for years! Including Hummer, Saturn, Saab, Pontiac, Daewoo, etc.

Every morning for the past week there were these two birds (same species) attacking the rims of my car. They are pecking and scratching at my rims. After chasing them away and inspecting I don't see any bugs there or any reason why those birds should be acting like this.

I don't know the species of the birds but they are brown with a faint redish chest and underbelly.

I hear some say we're in a depression. I hear some say "still a recession". So what are the tell-tale signs of a depression? The unemployment rate is still less than 10% and the Dow lost more than half of its value.

Why is Congress the only party to give them loans when nobody else will invest in these companies?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GM-posts-96B-4Q-loss...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090217/ap_on_bi_ge/au...

So does this mean Chrysler's and GM's funds to survive is dependent on public money? How much money do you think the government will loan these companies before they realize that they won't be able to give any of it back?

THE US TAXPAYER is the answer.

Fiat got a 35% share in Chrysler with no cash purchase. Why would a car manufacturer give 35% stake in their company with no cash investment even when they absolutely need the capital? I think it's obvious that Chrysler knows that any stake in the company (especially a significant 35%) is worthless.

Does the government realize that bailing out Chrysler is a bad idea? When Chrysler (the worst suffering car manufacturer in the world) goes bankrupt that means the government will stand last in line of all the creditors for any cash from asset liquidation.

Taxpayers will only expect a small percentage of that money back from Chrysler. In the mean time, the higher paid Chrysler employees who is idle (ie. not productive because Chrysler has idled their plants) will get paid with public money. This is unconstitutional as bailouts in industry is not the purpose of public money.

Maybe this is a good thing! It will teach government a hard lesson on bailing out failing companies even when the public is outraged about it. In the future government might be more reluctant on giving public money to failing private corporations. What you think?

Unemployment and Foreclosures are rising. No one can deny it now. Not even Bush.

Why is it when jobless claims are reported in the following month, that previous months have their numbers adjusted (and is usually 50% more than what was originally reported)?

Tell me if I have this right. The US consumes 20 mil. barrels of oil per day. If the drop in demand was a mere 1.1 mil. barrels of oil per day in the year of 2008, and OPEC cuts 1.5 mil. in production in one day, this should raise the oil prices again.

So what was really the cause for crude to reach 147 USD per barrel? Was it truely speculative investors?

Obviously gasoline is worth more than what it costs today because the USD is inflating higher from the gigantic bailouts. Not too long ago there were gas shortages in the southeast where gas stations ran out of gas! Demand is still high. And an increasing population, more cars, and new drivers enter the addicting world of driving which drives up demand even more.

Why aren't the oil companies moving fast enough to drive prices high again? Do they finally feel they've made enough money? LOL!