Is another recession coming?

I totally agree that we have not seen the worst yet, by far. Before all this is over we will see the public reacting with survival tactics in the masses. I am SO glad I am past my child-bearing part of my life. There is NO WAY I would bring a child into this world we live in now.

I hear you there. To be honest this is the BIG reason we are sticking with just one. The economy is far too unstable to even THINK about having another child now or in the next few years.
 
Cutting social security, disability payments or military pensions is NOT the answer. It is a drop in the bucket compared to other spending. If government had NOT borrowed from social security in the huge amounts it has in the past, OR if they would have re=paid the money it took, there would be NO problem maintaining payments.

The elderly, our servicemen and our disabled veterans all worked and paid into the system. Lets start cutting where it is deserved and stop spending where it doesn't need to be spent.

Lets also all take equal responsibility.

1) Flat tax. No refunds. Pick a % and every paycheck is taxed that percentage. Period. If the amount is 17%, everyone pays that amount. This includes welfare recipients to board directors. This also includes congress, representatives, lawyers and yes, even you Mr. President.

2) No more cushy, for the rest of your life retirement checks and medical for congress and house. That would save many a dollar right there.

3) If the balanced budget is not passes, no paychecks for our representatives until it is.

4) Welfare recipients have to work for their checks. Kind of like the programs during the recession, job works type program. Build houses, clean streets and government buildings, parks and city streets. Provide care at schools and after school day care programs. Cook and serve meals for homeless, shut ins, etc. There are a million things that need to be done and a whole army of people to fill the needs.

5) End all unneeded spending immediately. Who cares about the yellow bellied snapping tree mite, if we no longer have a government? Invest in America first. Not China, Iraq or anywhere else in the world.

6) End EIC. I can see subsidizing school lunches, medical care for children, even housing for children. What I find offensive, is taking a portion of citizens, that pay little to no taxes, that receive the greatest amount of money in subsidies, and giving them a tax return that is 3 or 4 times the amount of taxes they paid in for an entire year.

If someone is below a certain income level and the government says they don't have to pay taxes, that's great. But giving them back EXTRA, doesn't make sense.

There are many more things. I realize my opinions will not be popular, but equate this to your family budget. What do you do when you only have enough for the barest items you need? You cut down and budget your $$$$. Shouldn't the government of the US be that smart?

I am in a 27% tax bracket. That is killer. It seems impossibly hard to deal with. I worked very hard, as a single parent, to support my children and make it through school. There was no EIC, government paid daycare, food stamps etc. I made it through, with a lot of hard work and sweat. I would like to see everyone have the chance to be educated, have a good and stable life, but when it means that our country is in a recession, soon to be in a depression, something needs to give!!

Bravo!!! I couldnt have said it any better!! When are you running for President?? I will vote for you!!! lol!!:cheer2:
 
Tax cuts for the top don't create jobs. Consumer demand does. I don't know how this notion that lowering taxes would promote anything other than investment (much of it overseas or in commodities markets rather than directly into American industry) got to be so widely accepted. It fails the test of basic logic - if you're running a business, would you hire an extra employee or two in response to a tax break even though you're managing just fine with the employees you have? No. It takes increased volume of business to prompt hiring, which is why the response to this whole budget issue is so potentially disastrous - cutting things like SS payments and EITC while maintaining low tax rates at the top of the scale serves to further narrow the pool of customers with money to spend.

BTW, for those talking about the "good old days" you might want to take a look at the top tax rates. They have never in all our history been as low as they are now, but no one seems willing to talk about that as one reason for the trouble we're in.

If you feel like you don't pay enough taxes. Why don't you donate some of your money. Remember rich people create jobs and poor people benefit from it. Yes I think businesses would hire more if taxes were cut. In my profession we work short staffed all the time to save money. Not because of lack of business. I have never worked as hard in my life as I have in the last 3 years, and I have not recieved a raise in those 3 years.
 

Tax cuts for the top don't create jobs. Consumer demand does. I don't know how this notion that lowering taxes would promote anything other than investment (much of it overseas or in commodities markets rather than directly into American industry) got to be so widely accepted. It fails the test of basic logic - if you're running a business, would you hire an extra employee or two in response to a tax break even though you're managing just fine with the employees you have? No. It takes increased volume of business to prompt hiring, which is why the response to this whole budget issue is so potentially disastrous - cutting things like SS payments and EITC while maintaining low tax rates at the top of the scale serves to further narrow the pool of customers with money to spend.

BTW, for those talking about the "good old days" you might want to take a look at the top tax rates. They have never in all our history been as low as they are now, but no one seems willing to talk about that as one reason for the trouble we're in.

Your question is flawed. No one will hire two people to do the job of one. That's ludicrous. They will hire to expand their business. That's how it works. No one will hire if they don't have the money. This might fail your basic logic. But history has proven that is how it works.

It's very basic economics. Very basic stuff. If business have more to spend, they hire. They expand. To see the opposite of this fact, look at businesses today. They are not hiring and not spending because of the uncertainty of our economic climate with just the mere talk of new taxes and new regulations. Not only are businesses not hiring, individuals aren't spending because of the talk of raising their taxes, causing business to fail.

You don't add extra taxes to people when the economy is down and expect good results. It just doesn't happen that way.
 
And we are losing 10,000 + jobs when Border's closes.

Yes but why is borders closing. Border's is not closing because their business taxes where too high. Borders is closing because they could not stay competive with Amazon.com and B&N. they were late to the e-reader game and never recovered.
 
Your question is flawed. No one will hire two people to do the job of one. That's ludicrous. They will hire to expand their business. That's how it works. No one will hire if they don't have the money. This might fail your basic logic. But history has proven that is how it works.

It's very basic economics. Very basic stuff. If business have more to spend, they hire. They expand. To see the opposite of this fact, look at businesses today. They are not hiring and not spending because of the uncertainty of our economic climate with just the mere talk of new taxes and new regulations. Not only are businesses not hiring, individuals aren't spending because of the talk of raising their taxes, causing business to fail.

You don't add extra taxes to people when the economy is down and expect good results. It just doesn't happen that way.

What history? Prior to the 2008 some of the largest tax cuts were instituted and we still landed in the biggest recession.

Since 2003 corporate tax rates havedeclined and coporate profits have risen. Yet no appreciable increase in hiring rates.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1311


http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1321


The corporate tax rate has declined in recent decades. During the 1990s, non-financial corporations as a group paid an average of 25.3 percent of their profits in federal corporate income taxes, according to new Congressional Research Service estimates. By contrast, they paid more than 49 percent in the 1950s, 38 percent in the 1960s, and 33 percent in the 1970s. This decline reflects reductions in the statutory tax rate as well as corporations’ expanded use of deductions and other tax benefits


U.S. corporations pay lower taxes than most foreign competitors. Some argue that the U.S. tax system imposes a greater burden on U.S. companies than foreign governments place on their companies. But data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development for 2000 show that nearly three-quarters of the 29 OECD countries collect more in corporate revenues relative to the size of their economies than the United States.
Furthermore, as the graph at right shows, the corporate tax burden in other OECD countries has increased in recent decades, while in the United States it has declined.

Coporate tax cuts do one thing and one thing only. It makes big coporations and their CEO's richer.

I totally agree that tax cuts for the middle class may increase spending but rarely do we give tax cuts to the middle class.

We've been trying this supposedly "trinkle down" theory since 1972 I believe, it has never trinkled down.

Don't get me wrong OA, I in no way want any higher taxes but I think now we are going to have to bring in more revenue. No way can we solve this problem with spending cuts alone. At least not with out turning the country into a 3 world copy of India or North Korea.
 
What history? Prior to the 2008 some of the largest tax cuts were instituted and we still landed in the biggest recession.

Since 2003 corporate tax rates havedeclined and coporate profits have risen. Yet no appreciable increase in hiring rates.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1311


http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1321


The corporate tax rate has declined in recent decades. During the 1990s, non-financial corporations as a group paid an average of 25.3 percent of their profits in federal corporate income taxes, according to new Congressional Research Service estimates. By contrast, they paid more than 49 percent in the 1950s, 38 percent in the 1960s, and 33 percent in the 1970s. This decline reflects reductions in the statutory tax rate as well as corporations’ expanded use of deductions and other tax benefits


U.S. corporations pay lower taxes than most foreign competitors. Some argue that the U.S. tax system imposes a greater burden on U.S. companies than foreign governments place on their companies. But data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development for 2000 show that nearly three-quarters of the 29 OECD countries collect more in corporate revenues relative to the size of their economies than the United States.
Furthermore, as the graph at right shows, the corporate tax burden in other OECD countries has increased in recent decades, while in the United States it has declined.

Coporate tax cuts do one thing and one thing only. It makes big coporations and their CEO's richer.

I totally agree that tax cuts for the middle class may increase spending but rarely do we give tax cuts to the middle class.

We've been trying this supposedly "trinkle down" theory since 1972 I believe, it has never trinkled down.

Don't get me wrong OA, I in no way want any higher taxes but I think now we are going to have to bring in more revenue. No way can we solve this problem with spending cuts alone. At least not with out turning the country into a 3 world copy of India or North Korea.

It's early. I'm just drinking my coffee and starting the day.

I think the issue of utmost importance is reigning in spending in Washington. You can bring in more revenue but it will be spent 10 times faster than it is obtained. Therein lies the problem.

Additionally, I don't believe in a "global economy". Our monies are going towards bailing out other countries while we sink. Something is wrong with this picture.
 
I don't feel like looking up articles right now.

Three presidents pursued tax cuts to stimulate our economy; Kennedy, Regan, and Bush. It worked for all three. The economy was stimulated when the taxes were cut.
 
And we are losing 10,000 + jobs when Border's closes.

Which will probably pale in comparison to the job cuts--and incomes--from the job losses at Cisco Systems. I don't mean that in a mean fashion, it's just a comparative loss in actual economic terms.

I think that to discuss trials the country has faced in the past with those today without discussing the difference in the mindset is not a fair comparison.

My grandparents lived through '29 and survived--with financial support from relatives--NOT the government. One of those relatives, now an elderly cousin who never worked enough quarters to qualify for SS, is down to a few hundred dollars. In the past few years could I convince her to "conserve" what inheritence from her parents she had? Not so much. She's now trying to qualify for SSI but with the debt ceiling, who knows if she'll get it. Her niece/nephew (who now has medical problems of his own) are of minimal help.

We'd become somewhat spoiled as a nation. We thought there'd never be an end to the money. I'm guilty of it but not as far as in denial as some others. I've cut back about as much as I can although I keep mulling over where else I can make cuts.

I spoke with a nephew the other day I hadn't seen in some time. His wife is studying to be an RN, to graduate in 2012. I broke the news to him there are no jobs locallly. His eyes opened wide. People still don't get it. I just hope they haven't been using student loan money to live on but a lot of students are.

Can the country survive tough times? Yes. Will it be easy? No.

We've got a lot of lessons to relearn. Someone else posted it: Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
 
but the current housing market mess has proven the "government interferance" argument false. Banks went cuckoo as soons as we got out of regulations. They went buckeyed crazy with greed, dang near rape, pillared and plundered the financial industry and then had the nerve to come crawling back to the feds for help. I'm totally cool with limited government interference just make sure it's total. so my first poposal, get rid of all government tax credits for business. Tax them on their total profits including the crap they move to international dummy companies. get rid of all subsides that government gives to energy companys. Why are we giving billions in subsidies to oil companies that rake in trillions in profits. but you can't scream the government is interfering when the corporations are spending billions on lobbyist to get exactly the benefits that help them. So I agree just make sure it's a total clean cut. not this crap where you get the benefits and yet don't want the regulation.I'm totally on board with that. lastly, who gets to define government business? Personally I didn't htink we had any business invading a bunch of countries but we spent trillions on that and I would definitely have preferred my money go to some old lady needing food stamps than what we've spent in Afghanistan. You may have different priorities, So exactly who gets to decide what is important?

And respectfully speaking but that's the great thing about statistics, they really don't need your agreement. 50% of this country is not on government assistance. whether you agree with that number or not is pretty moot.

According to abcnews every week 10,000 citizens become baby boomers, so whether you call it entitlement or they call it "earned". No one is going to get rid of ss or medicaid any time soon, so we better come up with a plan because no one is going to stop running to "nanny governement" any time soon.

.and the push to loosen who could get home loans came from government meddling..so that has to be considered.

I agree..close every loophole, get a flat tax with no deductions or ways around it and then we will all truly be in this together.
 
.and the push to loosen who could get home loans came from government meddling..so that has to be considered.

I agree..close every loophole, get a flat tax with no deductions or ways around it and then we will all truly be in this together.

:thumbsup2

Yes. The government forcing lending agencies to give mortgages to people who did not qualify certainly did contribute greatly to the housing bubble. The banks were told that if the people defaulted on their mortgages, Fannie/Freddie would back them up. So they were offered a golden goose. And that scenario and greedy people and you end up with the beginnings of the financial collapse. Ever hear of the book Reckless Endangerment? Here is a review of it:
The authors, Gretchen Morgenson, a Pulitzer Prize-winning business reporter and columnist at The New York Times, and Joshua Rosner, an expert on housing finance, deftly trace the beginnings of the collapse to the mid-1990s, when the Clinton administration called for a partnership between the private sector and Fannie and Freddie to encourage home buying. The mortgage agencies’ government backing was, in effect, a valuable subsidy, which was used by Fannie’s C.E.O., James A. Johnson, to increase home ownership while enriching himself and other executives. A 1996 study by the Congressional Budget Office found that Fannie pocketed about a third of the subsidy rather than passing it on to homeowners. Over his nine years heading Fannie, Johnson personally took home roughly $100 million. His successor, Franklin D. Raines, was treated no less lavishly.

To entrench Fannie’s privileged position, Morgenson and Rosner write, Johnson and Raines channeled some of the profits to members of Congress — contributing to campaigns and handing out patronage positions to relatives and former staff members. Fannie paid academics to do research showing the benefits of its activities and playing down the risks, and shrewdly organized bankers, real estate brokers and housing advocacy groups to lobby on its behalf. Essentially, taxpayers were unknowingly handing Fannie billions of dollars a year to finance a campaign of self-promotion and self-*protection. Morgenson and Rosner offer telling details, as when they describe how Lawrence Summers, then a deputy Treasury secretary, buried a department report recommending that Fannie and Freddie be privatized. A few years later, according to Morgenson and Rosner, Fannie hired Kenneth Starr, the former solicitor general and Whitewater investigator, who intimidated a member of Congress who had the temerity to ask how much the company was paying its top executives.

All this gave Fannie’s executives free rein to underwrite far more loans, further enriching themselves and their shareholders, but at increasing risk to taxpayers as lending standards declined. A company called Countrywide Financial became Fannie’s single largest provider of home loans and the nation’s largest mortgage lender. Countrywide abandoned standards altogether, even doctoring loans to make applicants look creditworthy, while generating a fortune for its co-founder, Angelo R. Mozilo. Meanwhile, Wall Street banks received fat fees underwriting securities issued by Fannie and Freddie, and even more money providing lenders like Countrywide with lines of credit to expand their risky lending and then bundling the mortgages into securities they peddled to their clients. The Street, Morgenson and Rosner say, knew lending standards were declining but maintained the charade because it was so profitable. Goldman Sachs even used its own money to bet against the bundles — making huge profits off the losses of its clients on the very securities it had marketed to them. Eventually, of course, everything came crashing down.

The authors are at their best demonstrating how the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington facilitated the charade. As Treasury secretary, Robert Rubin, formerly the head of Goldman Sachs, pushed for repeal of the *Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act that had separated commercial from investment banking — a move that Sanford Weill, the chief executive of Travelers Group had long sought so that Travelers could merge with *Citibank. After leaving the Treasury, Rubin became Citigroup’s vice chairman, and “over the following decade pocketed more than $100,000,000 as the bank sank deeper and deeper into a risky morass of its own design.” With Rubin’s protégé Timothy F. Geithner as its head, the New York Federal Reserve Bank reduced its oversight of Wall Street.

A tight web of personal relationships connected Fannie, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, the New York Fed, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. In 1996, Fannie added Stephen Friedman, the former chairman of Goldman Sachs, to its board. In 1999, Johnson joined Goldman’s board. That same year Henry M. Paulson Jr. became the head of Goldman and was in charge when the firm created many of its most disastrous securities — while Geithner’s New York Fed looked the other way. As the Treasury secretary under George W. Bush, Paulson would oversee the taxpayer bailout of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Goldman, Citigroup, other banks and the giant insurer American International Group (A.I.G), on which Goldman had relied. As head of the New York Fed, and then as the Treasury secretary, Geithner would also oversee the bailout.

Morgenson and Rosner are irked that their key players got away with it. American taxpayers have so far shelled out $153 billion to keep Fannie and Freddie afloat and are still owed tens of billions from bailing out other financial institutions. Yet today James Johnson is a rich and respected member of Washington’s political establishment (although he was forced to resign from President-elect Obama’s advisory team after the press got wind of his cut-rate personal loans from Countrywide). Franklin Raines retired from Fannie with a generous bonus. Henry Paulson became a fellow at Johns Hopkins. Robert Rubin is affiliated with the Brookings Institution. Timothy Geithner remains Treasury secretary.

“The failure to hold central figures accountable for their actions sets a dangerous precedent,” the authors say. “A system where perpetrators of such a crime are allowed to slip quietly from the scene is just plain wrong.” True up to a point — but Morgenson and Rosner don’t show that any actual crimes were committed. Their major characters surely exhibited outsize ambition and greed, but these qualities are not exactly rare in modern capitalism. Curiously absent from their book are some other prominent people who have been suspected of perpetrating fraud, like Richard S. Fuld Jr., who ran Lehman Brothers into the ground, and Joseph J. Cassano, the former head of the financial products unit at A.I.G.

The real problem, which the authors only hint at, is that Washington and the financial sector have become so tightly intertwined that public accountability has all but vanished. The revolving door described in “Reckless Endangerment” is but one symptom. The extraordinary wealth of America’s financial class also elicits boundless cooperation from politicians who depend on it for campaign contributions and from a fawning business press, as well as a stream of honors from universities, prestigious charities and think tanks eager to reward their generosity. In this symbiotic world, conflicts of interest are easily hidden, appearances of conflicts taken for granted and abuses of public trust for personal gain readily dismissed.

All told, the nation appears to have learned remarkably little from the near meltdown. Fannie and Freddie, now wards of the state, currently back more than half of all new mortgages, and their executives are still pocketing fortunes. Wall Street’s biggest banks are a fifth larger than they were when they got into trouble, and the pay packages of their top guns as generous. Although the rest of America has paid dearly, we seem more recklessly endangered than ever. h
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/books/review/book-review-reckless-endangerment-by-gretchen-morgenson-and-joshua-rosner.html?pagewanted=all

So while Moody stated that Fannie/Freddie had a AAA score, or whatever the highest is, they were going down. And Barnie Frank stood before congress (as did others) stating emphatically that Fannie/Freddie were stable, making people feel like investing in them would be fine.

And this same Barney Frank and Dodd are the geniuses who came up with the new "Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act". Oh yeah, they have their fingers on the pulse of the economy. No wonder we are in the mess that we are.

PS coming to a country near you soon, the student loan meltdown. Greedy schools being funded by gov backed loans. Students who have absolutely no way to pay them back. Another bail out.
 
I agree with just about everything Eliza61 has said. To say this is the most difficult thing our country has ever faced is insane.

I don't think we're heading for a double-dip recession. But from everything I'm reading (that isn't written by Chicken Little), we are going to stay in a low-growth/high unemployment environment for another 5-7 years.

This is a pure balance sheet issue. We're carrying way too much debt as a nation, and until we pay down that debt....we're going to have sluggish growth.

But the kinds of posts we're seeing here now....that's how I was feeling in 2006 and 2007, when things were *really* insane.

As for a flat tax, I don't think it would be fair....or that it would work. And 10 years ago, I was all for it. Now, as someone who is in a high tax bracket....well, it's not *fun* to give a third of your money to the Federal Government, but it's a heck of a lot easier for me to do that than it would be for a family earning the median income (around 52 K or so).

If you instituted a flat tax of say 15%.....the theory is that all of those high income earners are going to spend a ton more....but I don't think that will happen. I think that they'll spend a bit more, but that they'll invest a *lot* more....and a lot of those investment dollars will go out of this country....into higher growth economies where the returns are better.

Now, take 15% from that median income family.....$7,800 and that's money that they can't afford to lose. They're struggling to get by as it is on that 52K. And that $7,800 is guaranteed to be spent into our economy....on things like food and clothing.

It would make things a lot worse.
 
If you feel like you don't pay enough taxes. Why don't you donate some of your money. Remember rich people create jobs and poor people benefit from it. Yes I think businesses would hire more if taxes were cut. In my profession we work short staffed all the time to save money. Not because of lack of business. I have never worked as hard in my life as I have in the last 3 years, and I have not recieved a raise in those 3 years.

Really? You think a business that is getting the work done with the current level of staffing is going to invest 30K or more in a new employee without any increase in business volume to justify it? That "the rich" create jobs out of the goodness of their hearts, rather than to meet demand and grow their businesses?

It isn't about "feeling like you pay enough taxes" - EVERYONE feels like they pay more than enough taxes, even a lot of those people who pay no income tax because they're still paying FICA, state and local income taxes, property taxes, etc. It is about the flawed logic that we as a nation have embraced that taxation, rather than demand, drives hiring decisions. It isn't "us" vs "them" with the rich driving job creation; the rich do a disproportionate share of the hiring but without the "poor" having money to spend there is no incentive for business owners (of any income level - we're far from rich but caught in the same dynamic; the fed could drop our tax rate to zero and we're still not going to hire on a guy we don't need when the crew we have is sitting idle between projects already) to increase staffing.
 
Really? You think a business that is getting the work done with the current level of staffing is going to invest 30K or more in a new employee without any increase in business volume to justify it? That "the rich" create jobs out of the goodness of their hearts, rather than to meet demand and grow their businesses?

It isn't about "feeling like you pay enough taxes" - EVERYONE feels like they pay more than enough taxes, even a lot of those people who pay no income tax because they're still paying FICA, state and local income taxes, property taxes, etc. It is about the flawed logic that we as a nation have embraced that taxation, rather than demand, drives hiring decisions. It isn't "us" vs "them" with the rich driving job creation; the rich do a disproportionate share of the hiring but without the "poor" having money to spend there is no incentive for business owners (of any income level - we're far from rich but caught in the same dynamic; the fed could drop our tax rate to zero and we're still not going to hire on a guy we don't need when the crew we have is sitting idle between projects already) to increase staffing.

Raising taxes on business will mean more lay offs.
 
This is an interesting thread; I thought I'd jump in.

Small picture: Any economic gains that were made during the 2010 shopping season were swiftly negated this past spring with rising gas prices. The psychological effect of spending a few more bucks a week at the pump is enough to keep people out of the malls and restaurants.
-Families in this country cannot survive on minimum wage service industry jobs that seem to be offered right now.
-Where are the incentives for American based business to keep the higher paying manufacturing jobs on American soil??? STOP the over taxing and over- regulating and maybe we can keep those jobs north of the border.
-Start drilling for oil NOW, on US soil. We cut our dependence on foreign oil and we give Americans typically higher paying jobs. On the other hand, I'm all for "green" energy sources. Make it affordable for the average family. Right now it's not.

Big Picture: READER BEWARE; THIS OPINION IS NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT. :eek: We will be years recovering from the recent mortgage mess. I agree with PP, the next fiasco will be student loans. Also, the US gov has to stop spending money it doesnt have. We also need to stop foreign aid. Sorry other countries, we've got problems of our own right now. Stop the pork barrell spending for silly money wasting local projects. Secure our borders; medicaid is going broke giving free health care and WIC to illegal's children.

My grandparents lived through the depression too and I've heard all the stories of deprivation and frugal living. They got through it by themselves without gov help. I hate to say this, but the manufacturing jobs available to women during WWII helped pull my grandmother's family out of poverty at that time. I don't see that happening again.
 
My grandparents lived through the depression too and I've heard all the stories of deprivation and frugal living. They got through it by themselves without gov help.

I was brought up in the 50's and 60's pre-welfare in a poverty situation.
We also survived by deprivation and frugal living. The situation made us stronger.

We all have our pasts affecting how we see today. I don't want to go back to living like that. And I fear that too many people who have always been handed things either from their family or the government will not have a clue how to live.

With today's environment of class warfare, it will get ugly. I also saw the rioting in the 60's. Affected me profoundly.
 
Still in the recession here. I don't see Michigan coming out of it anytime soon.

Same here. Things are still bad in my area. I have a brother who lives with me who has been out of work for 3 yrs. The company he worked for packed up and left the state. So his situation in turn puts a burden on me. Mary
 
Same here. Things are still bad in my area. I have a brother who lives with me who has been out of work for 3 yrs. The company he worked for packed up and left the state. So his situation in turn puts a burden on me. Mary

Things are even worse on my side of the bay. I know people who've been job hunting for over a year and unfortunately they lived way above their means, with big fancy houses, expensive cars, and maxed out credit cards; that was part of the problem too. I know a family of 5, both parents lost their jobs and they're all living in camper in a relative's back yard. But I have to say, you'd never know there was a recession in Ocean City. I've been going back and forth to be with my mother who has cancer. I don't remember crowds that large and the huge volume of traffic, even in good economic times.
 














Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top