Wouldn't bother me if we got rid of that stupid law. Curious as to why I've never heard of it before now though. Democrats have been in control many times since WW1. Guess it wasn't a big deal until Trump was president...
Fairly simple reason really, they aren't a State and no one (generally) thought about them before the hurricane knocked out power. We're forced to look at the issues now, but it's clear we've been screwing them with their pants on for decades.
I disagree that 'nobody' thought about them. A lot of money was made because of that law and neither party took the high road. Puerto Rico never complained either that I heard of. Palms were greased and everybody was apparently happy until now. I told you I'm a sceptic...
Here's my analytical wisdom. Both parties are controlled by less than 10% of the population because neither side can win without them. Complete blackmail since neither of those 10% could win shit otherwise...
This is actually true. I just happen to find the 10% of those who are on the Republican side are in love with people like Roy Moore, which is something I cannot abide. To put it another way, this country has always been FAR closer to fascism than it has ever been to communism.
There are many liberals rubbing it in Trump's face tonight that his candidate (Strange) lost. I am not one of those liberals. For one thing, he was told to back Strange by advisers, and he is probably pissed as hell at them right now. For another, Moore is dangerous. He was a federal judge who ignored and openly defied decisions handed down by the Supreme Court. And no Democrat should make the mistake of thinking they are going to seriously contest this seat. It is Alabama. And they aren't going to win it, and they shouldn't raise any expectations that they can. Moore is going to be a Senator.
I'm starting to agree with you about the 10%'rs but the other 40% is likely where we differ. Liberalism wins in the long run but conservatism stops revolution. I'm a conservative because of my brain, not my heart...
I'm starting to agree with you about the 10%'rs but the other 40% is likely where we differ. Liberalism wins in the long run but conservatism stops revolution. I'm a conservative because of my brain, not my heart...
The most extreme positions on the left right now (not that it matters, since the extremes have very little power in the Democratic Party) are a 90% top-tax rate, universal health-care, and a $15 dollar minimum wage. I suppose there are those that advocate for reparations, but that is so pie in the sky it's not even worth discussing. I would probably be in favor of them to if I thought it had a chance in hell of getting out of the starting gate, but it doesn't. In fact, most of these positions don't.
The extremes on the right are being implemented as we speak. No legal protections for gays or transgender citizens at work. A President who wants to build a wall on the Southern border (so he keeps insisting). Elimination of the entire New Deal (whether it happens or not, it IS the goal and has been for 60-70 years). Bans on people of certain religions being able to enter the country. I could go on, but you get the idea.
In the end, what was the most extreme thing Obama did?? He signed a healthcare bill that originated in a Republican think-tank, that didn't cut out the insurance industry, and didn't nationalize anything. He didn't come for anyone's guns (not even the most cursory background checks got off the ground after Newtown), he simply let Bush's tax cuts expire, and he oversaw a not spectacular, but steady improvement into the cratered economy he inherited. And hey, gas prices were pretty low too. I simply do not see what people saw in Obama that was "radical" other than his skin color.
I never really thought Obama was all that bad, or Bill Clinton for that matter. Universal health care I'm starting to agree with. 90% top-tax rate, complete bullshit. Why not just storm their castles and take it all? The rich have a purpose. You may not agree with me but so be it. $15 minimum wage? Sounds good but are the American people willing to pay $10 for a Big-Mac? Not so sure...
I never really thought Obama was all that bad, or Bill Clinton for that matter. Universal health care I'm starting to agree with. 90% top-tax rate, complete bullshit. Why not just storm their castles and take it all? The rich have a purpose. You may not agree with me but so be it. $15 minimum wage? Sounds good but are the American people willing to pay $10 for a Big-Mac? Not so sure...
Naw, I don't agree with a 90% top rate, I was just throwing that out as the extreme position. That IS what it was under Eisenhower, but I digress. You'd be hard pressed to find 5 Democratic House members who would support that position, and MAYBE one Senator (Bernie) and I don't even think he would go that high. $15 minimum wage?? I'm not sure, but I know it shouldn't still be $7.25. Big Macs are already near $5 anyway, so it seems to me that the people willing to work at a shithole like McDonald's should see SOME of that money.
Maybe you're not part of that 'other' 10% after all. You made me laugh! Ok, but $15 just forces more automation or seeking cheaper labor elsewhere. We're already riding underdeveloped countries for their cheap labor. A higher minimum wage robs our younger workers from their training grounds. I worked at my dad's pizzeria for $3.45/hr and what I discovered is I didn't want to do that for the rest of my life.
BTW: there are far too many non-teenagers working minimum wage already. That's a tragedy considering those folks likely have talents that should be utilized elsewhere.
Maybe you're not part of that 'other' 10% after all. You made me laugh! Ok, but $15 just forces more automation or seeking cheaper labor elsewhere. We're already riding underdeveloped countries for their cheap labor. A higher minimum wage robs our younger workers from their training grounds. I worked at my dad's pizzeria for $3.45/hr and what I discovered is I didn't want to do that for the rest of my life.
We can keep it where it is at right now, but these jobs having such low wages are the main reason we have programs like food stamps (whose cost is inconsequential compared to the military and health-care but somehow is treated as if it's breaking the budget). Most people who are on food stamps work full-time. And BELIEVE me, some people just aren't capable or smart enough to do more than (what would be considered) menial jobs. They still have to exist in society at some basic level, but more importantly, so do their kids. And the amount of kids in this country whose only decent meals come at school is shockingly high. In fact, one of the best things for this country would be if, in addition to school breakfast and lunches, they also provided the option for dinner from 4-5:30pm
Maybe you're not part of that 'other' 10% after all. You made me laugh! Ok, but $15 just forces more automation or seeking cheaper labor elsewhere. We're already riding underdeveloped countries for their cheap labor. A higher minimum wage robs our younger workers from their training grounds. I worked at my dad's pizzeria for $3.45/hr and what I discovered is I didn't want to do that for the rest of my life.
We can keep it where it is at right now, but these jobs having such low wages are the main reason we have programs like food stamps (whose cost is inconsequential compared to the military and health-care but somehow is treated as if it's breaking the budget). Most people who are on food stamps work full-time. And BELIEVE me, some people just aren't capable or smart enough to do more than (what would be considered) menial jobs. They still have to exist in society at some basic level, but more importantly, so do their kids. And the amount of kids in this country whose only decent meals come at school is shockingly high. In fact, one of the best things for this country would be if, in addition to school breakfast and lunches, they also provided the option for dinner from 4-5:30pm
It sure would be nice if our so-called 'educational' system invested in finding out what our children's talents were instead of forcing them all into a box...
Maybe you're not part of that 'other' 10% after all. You made me laugh! Ok, but $15 just forces more automation or seeking cheaper labor elsewhere. We're already riding underdeveloped countries for their cheap labor. A higher minimum wage robs our younger workers from their training grounds. I worked at my dad's pizzeria for $3.45/hr and what I discovered is I didn't want to do that for the rest of my life.
We can keep it where it is at right now, but these jobs having such low wages are the main reason we have programs like food stamps (whose cost is inconsequential compared to the military and health-care but somehow is treated as if it's breaking the budget). Most people who are on food stamps work full-time. And BELIEVE me, some people just aren't capable or smart enough to do more than (what would be considered) menial jobs. They still have to exist in society at some basic level, but more importantly, so do their kids. And the amount of kids in this country whose only decent meals come at school is shockingly high. In fact, one of the best things for this country would be if, in addition to school breakfast and lunches, they also provided the option for dinner from 4-5:30pm
It sure would be nice if our so-called 'educational' system invested in finding out what our children's talents were instead of forcing them all into a box...
I'm all in favor of vocational training in high school. You can tell pretty easily by 8th grade who is cut out for more serious academic work and who isn't. Obviously, everyone needs a baseline, but there is a hell of a lot more to be said for teaching someone to weld than making them take standardized tests that benefit no one but the companies that write and sell the tests. And having students who aren't cut out for tackling tough subjects in class is also not fair to teachers, who could be applying their skills helping kids who have a chance in hell at understanding the material. My high school was actually pretty decent at this, but again, it isn't as hard to do when you have less than 250 students in K-12.
I'm not sure a minimum wage floor, flat-out banning wages below $15 an hour, is the best way to bump up wages. There are some jobs that genuinely wouldn't be cost effective with a $15 an hour wage, and which would be lost to automation or outsourcing if that were the minimum wage.
What I think would work better is if there was a progressive tax on companies that paid low wages, with the tax increasing as the wages went down. I don't have any specific suggestions for the exact numbers.
So, if you paid your workers unusually low wages, you could do it if the labor was really worth that little to you. But you couldn't make a full profit out of it, and the more you exploited your employees, the more you'd need to pay in taxes--it wouldn't be so profitable for you.
This way, you'd encourage employers to pay higher wages on average (a company would rather spend its money keeping employee morale high and turnover low, than pay extra taxes to Uncle Sam) but it wouldn't mean the death of those jobs that employers simply are not willing to pay $14.99 an hour for people to do.
It's the inverse of a subsidy. Instead of paying companies to do the right thing--which can get very expensive very fast and also encourages companies to lobby for bigger subsidies--you can just impose a tax-based incentive to make it less cost-effective for companies to pay low wages.
Also, a lot of the parents of these children aren't lacking the money for $6-$12 packs of cigarettes. Just saying...
Yes, but you can't purchase those with EBT cards. And those kids have to eat regardless of whether their parents are lazy bums or not. I'm willing to shell out an extra dime or two out of my paycheck to make sure they can. And I don't understand how anyone can afford to smoke regardless. Though smoking has gone WAY down in the last decade, and I don't doubt that banning it in restaurants (thank god) and the way higher taxes on them have had a profound effect on that. Good.
Or just find some way to strengthen workers' unions.
There's a reason working class wages went stagnant the very moment that workers' unions, the one group in the United States whose very purpose is to fight for workers, grew weak. The best years to be an American worker were the years when unions were strong enough to bargain with employers on an even level.
Or just find some way to strengthen workers' unions.
There's a reason working class wages went stagnant the very moment that workers' unions, the one group in the United States whose very purpose is to fight for workers, grew weak. The best years to be an American worker were the years when unions were strong enough to bargain with employers on an even level.
They didn't "grow weak" so much as they have been under total assault from the right since Reagan fired the air traffic controllers.
Also, a lot of the parents of these children aren't lacking the money for $6-$12 packs of cigarettes. Just saying...
Yes, but you can't purchase those with EBT cards. And those kids have to eat regardless of whether their parents are lazy bums or not. I'm willing to shell out an extra dime or two out of my paycheck to make sure they can. And I don't understand how anyone can afford to smoke regardless. Though smoking has gone WAY down in the last decade, and I don't doubt that banning it in restaurants (thank god) and the way higher taxes on them have had a profound effect on that. Good.
Naive to say the least. I went to college in the UP of Michigan. There were people meeting me at the door of the grocery store willing to pay me with food stamps at 1\2 value for cash. I'm pretty sure that cash wasn't to be spent on things they could have bought at the grocery store.
Unless the parents ate taken out of the equation which is nigh impossible, I don't see an answer to this. Certainly raising the price of a pack of cigarettes doesn't inconvenience the rich!
Also, a lot of the parents of these children aren't lacking the money for $6-$12 packs of cigarettes. Just saying...
Yes, but you can't purchase those with EBT cards. And those kids have to eat regardless of whether their parents are lazy bums or not. I'm willing to shell out an extra dime or two out of my paycheck to make sure they can. And I don't understand how anyone can afford to smoke regardless. Though smoking has gone WAY down in the last decade, and I don't doubt that banning it in restaurants (thank god) and the way higher taxes on them have had a profound effect on that. Good.
Naive to say the least. I went to college in the UP of Michigan. There were people meeting me at the door of the grocery store willing to pay me with food stamps at 1\2 value for cash. I'm pretty sure that cash wasn't to be spent on things they could have bought at the grocery store.
Well....yeah I suppose so, if you are willing to go to THOSE lengths to get a fix, I mean....what are you going to do?? It's definitely not a reason to scrap food stamps. The welfare benefits in this country are not all that great compared to Europe and Canada, and for the main one (unemployment) you not only have to have been paying into it, but also must meet pretty stringent requirements to keep getting what amounts to a little less than half your previous pay for a very limited amount of time. People complain about welfare, but it's seriously the BARE minimum we need to keep this society functioning at a reasonable level. If you got rid of them, you would see crime skyrocket.
Or just find some way to strengthen workers' unions.
There's a reason working class wages went stagnant the very moment that workers' unions, the one group in the United States whose very purpose is to fight for workers, grew weak. The best years to be an American worker were the years when unions were strong enough to bargain with employers on an even level.
And the unions overstepped their powers which is why we're where we are now. They protected assholes that should've lost their jobs rather than rewarding good workers. Don't get me started talking about the stories my dad told me about these 'union' workers bragging about how they did next to nothing while voting down every millage in his school district so they could stick it to the 'college' boys...
Also, a lot of the parents of these children aren't lacking the money for $6-$12 packs of cigarettes. Just saying...
Yes, but you can't purchase those with EBT cards. And those kids have to eat regardless of whether their parents are lazy bums or not. I'm willing to shell out an extra dime or two out of my paycheck to make sure they can. And I don't understand how anyone can afford to smoke regardless. Though smoking has gone WAY down in the last decade, and I don't doubt that banning it in restaurants (thank god) and the way higher taxes on them have had a profound effect on that. Good.
Naive to say the least. I went to college in the UP of Michigan. There were people meeting me at the door of the grocery store willing to pay me with food stamps at 1\2 value for cash. I'm pretty sure that cash wasn't to be spent on things they could have bought at the grocery store.
Well....yeah I suppose so, if you are willing to go to THOSE lengths to get a fix, I mean....what are you going to do?? It's definitely not a reason to scrap food stamps. The welfare benefits in this country are not all that great compared to Europe and Canada, and for the main one (unemployment) you not only have to have been paying into it, but also must meet pretty stringent requirements to keep getting what amounts to a little less than half your previous pay for a very limited amount of time. People complain about welfare, but it's seriously the BARE minimum we need to keep this society functioning at a reasonable level. If you got rid of them, you would see crime skyrocket.
It's only a bare minimum if it's your 'only' source of income. Think about it...
Also, a lot of the parents of these children aren't lacking the money for $6-$12 packs of cigarettes. Just saying...
Yes, but you can't purchase those with EBT cards. And those kids have to eat regardless of whether their parents are lazy bums or not. I'm willing to shell out an extra dime or two out of my paycheck to make sure they can. And I don't understand how anyone can afford to smoke regardless. Though smoking has gone WAY down in the last decade, and I don't doubt that banning it in restaurants (thank god) and the way higher taxes on them have had a profound effect on that. Good.
Naive to say the least. I went to college in the UP of Michigan. There were people meeting me at the door of the grocery store willing to pay me with food stamps at 1\2 value for cash. I'm pretty sure that cash wasn't to be spent on things they could have bought at the grocery store.
Well....yeah I suppose so, if you are willing to go to THOSE lengths to get a fix, I mean....what are you going to do?? It's definitely not a reason to scrap food stamps. The welfare benefits in this country are not all that great compared to Europe and Canada, and for the main one (unemployment) you not only have to have been paying into it, but also must meet pretty stringent requirements to keep getting what amounts to a little less than half your previous pay for a very limited amount of time. People complain about welfare, but it's seriously the BARE minimum we need to keep this society functioning at a reasonable level. If you got rid of them, you would see crime skyrocket.
It's only a bare minimum if it's your 'only' source of income. Think about it...
It's just not something I can pretend to care about when we spend so much money on military overkill that it boggles the mind. How many times do we have to have the capability to turn the rest of the world to ash before we decide we have enough firepower?? The answer?? As many times as the defense contractors say we do.
Also, a lot of the parents of these children aren't lacking the money for $6-$12 packs of cigarettes. Just saying...
Yes, but you can't purchase those with EBT cards. And those kids have to eat regardless of whether their parents are lazy bums or not. I'm willing to shell out an extra dime or two out of my paycheck to make sure they can. And I don't understand how anyone can afford to smoke regardless. Though smoking has gone WAY down in the last decade, and I don't doubt that banning it in restaurants (thank god) and the way higher taxes on them have had a profound effect on that. Good.
Naive to say the least. I went to college in the UP of Michigan. There were people meeting me at the door of the grocery store willing to pay me with food stamps at 1\2 value for cash. I'm pretty sure that cash wasn't to be spent on things they could have bought at the grocery store.
Well....yeah I suppose so, if you are willing to go to THOSE lengths to get a fix, I mean....what are you going to do?? It's definitely not a reason to scrap food stamps. The welfare benefits in this country are not all that great compared to Europe and Canada, and for the main one (unemployment) you not only have to have been paying into it, but also must meet pretty stringent requirements to keep getting what amounts to a little less than half your previous pay for a very limited amount of time. People complain about welfare, but it's seriously the BARE minimum we need to keep this society functioning at a reasonable level. If you got rid of them, you would see crime skyrocket.
It's only a bare minimum if it's your 'only' source of income. Think about it...
It's just not something I can pretend to care about when we spend so much money on military overkill that it boggles the mind. How many times do we have to have the capability to turn the rest of the world to ash before we decide we have enough firepower?? The answer?? As many times as the defense contractors say we do.
I'll agree with you about offering dinner to children at school but I don't agree that more money to their parents solves anything. It may make for less criminals but it doesn't advance human ideals. The military keeps us safe. Both of my ex-stepchildren joined the Air Force and I'm insanely proud of them. I pray to God we never need their service but I sure as Hell am proud of them either way...
Also, a lot of the parents of these children aren't lacking the money for $6-$12 packs of cigarettes. Just saying...
Yes, but you can't purchase those with EBT cards. And those kids have to eat regardless of whether their parents are lazy bums or not. I'm willing to shell out an extra dime or two out of my paycheck to make sure they can. And I don't understand how anyone can afford to smoke regardless. Though smoking has gone WAY down in the last decade, and I don't doubt that banning it in restaurants (thank god) and the way higher taxes on them have had a profound effect on that. Good.
Naive to say the least. I went to college in the UP of Michigan. There were people meeting me at the door of the grocery store willing to pay me with food stamps at 1\2 value for cash. I'm pretty sure that cash wasn't to be spent on things they could have bought at the grocery store.
Well....yeah I suppose so, if you are willing to go to THOSE lengths to get a fix, I mean....what are you going to do?? It's definitely not a reason to scrap food stamps. The welfare benefits in this country are not all that great compared to Europe and Canada, and for the main one (unemployment) you not only have to have been paying into it, but also must meet pretty stringent requirements to keep getting what amounts to a little less than half your previous pay for a very limited amount of time. People complain about welfare, but it's seriously the BARE minimum we need to keep this society functioning at a reasonable level. If you got rid of them, you would see crime skyrocket.
It's only a bare minimum if it's your 'only' source of income. Think about it...
It's just not something I can pretend to care about when we spend so much money on military overkill that it boggles the mind. How many times do we have to have the capability to turn the rest of the world to ash before we decide we have enough firepower?? The answer?? As many times as the defense contractors say we do.
I'll agree with you about offering dinner to children at school but I don't agree that more money to their parents solves anything. It may make for less criminals but it doesn't advance human ideals. The military keeps us safe. Both of my ex-stepchildren joined the Air Force and I'm insanely proud of them. I pray to God we never need their service but I sure as Hell am proud of them either way...
Well, that's the thing, when it comes to large-scale conflicts, they haven't been used in a reasonable way or to actually keep us safe since 1945. I'd argue the MOST reasonable thing they've been asked to do was when Clinton took us into Kosovo to take out Milosevic, and that is only because we achieved our goal and didn't lose any soldiers.
Also, a lot of the parents of these children aren't lacking the money for $6-$12 packs of cigarettes. Just saying...
Yes, but you can't purchase those with EBT cards. And those kids have to eat regardless of whether their parents are lazy bums or not. I'm willing to shell out an extra dime or two out of my paycheck to make sure they can. And I don't understand how anyone can afford to smoke regardless. Though smoking has gone WAY down in the last decade, and I don't doubt that banning it in restaurants (thank god) and the way higher taxes on them have had a profound effect on that. Good.
Naive to say the least. I went to college in the UP of Michigan. There were people meeting me at the door of the grocery store willing to pay me with food stamps at 1\2 value for cash. I'm pretty sure that cash wasn't to be spent on things they could have bought at the grocery store.
Well....yeah I suppose so, if you are willing to go to THOSE lengths to get a fix, I mean....what are you going to do?? It's definitely not a reason to scrap food stamps. The welfare benefits in this country are not all that great compared to Europe and Canada, and for the main one (unemployment) you not only have to have been paying into it, but also must meet pretty stringent requirements to keep getting what amounts to a little less than half your previous pay for a very limited amount of time. People complain about welfare, but it's seriously the BARE minimum we need to keep this society functioning at a reasonable level. If you got rid of them, you would see crime skyrocket.
It's only a bare minimum if it's your 'only' source of income. Think about it...
It's just not something I can pretend to care about when we spend so much money on military overkill that it boggles the mind. How many times do we have to have the capability to turn the rest of the world to ash before we decide we have enough firepower?? The answer?? As many times as the defense contractors say we do.
I'll agree with you about offering dinner to children at school but I don't agree that more money to their parents solves anything. It may make for less criminals but it doesn't advance human ideals. The military keeps us safe. Both of my ex-stepchildren joined the Air Force and I'm insanely proud of them. I pray to God we never need their service but I sure as Hell am proud of them either way...
Well, that's the thing, when it comes to large-scale conflicts, they haven't been used in a reasonable way or to actually keep us safe since 1945. I'd argue the MOST reasonable thing they've been asked to do was when Clinton took us into Kosovo to take out Milosevic, and that is only because we achieved our goal and didn't lose any soldiers.
I don't think the South Koreans would agree with you.
Wow, this thread blew up in the last hour or so, going on many tangents:
1. Education Do you know what my father studied in high school? Airplane mechanics. Do you know what he did right out of high school? Joined the military and became an Airplane mechanic. There needs to be more trades being taught in schools beyond just "shop" class.
2. Minimum Wage (and Temp Agencies) I am against a flat out raise in minimum wage as I stated previously, as there are other underlining issues that should be addressed first before it comes to that.
In Canada, temp agencies have become a big problem, both with fraud and working conditions. That story is from 2010, but is still apparent today and immigrants are taking the brunt of it such as in this story.
This Undercover story goes even further, and is more current, highlighting many of the issues besides wages.
I believe getting rid of these temp agencies (and they exist in the states as well), and increasing regulations with frequent spot checks, will go much further to increasing the lower classes living standards than a flat out raise.
3. Cigarette Taxation
In Canada (Ontario) we have a problem with what is known as "native cigarettes." These are cigarettes manufactured on reserves both in Ontario and south of the border that are cheaper to obtain than packs bought at the store.
With the increase of taxes on tobacco prices, many smokers now seek out these illegal cigarettes. This equates to less sales of the legal kind, and in turn, less taxes paid. Tobacco, Alcohol and other vices (such as soon to be Marijuana here) still follow the supply and demand pricing as any other goods, and there taxes should reflect that. Charge too much, consumers will seek their products else where.
Also, a lot of the parents of these children aren't lacking the money for $6-$12 packs of cigarettes. Just saying...
Yes, but you can't purchase those with EBT cards. And those kids have to eat regardless of whether their parents are lazy bums or not. I'm willing to shell out an extra dime or two out of my paycheck to make sure they can. And I don't understand how anyone can afford to smoke regardless. Though smoking has gone WAY down in the last decade, and I don't doubt that banning it in restaurants (thank god) and the way higher taxes on them have had a profound effect on that. Good.
Naive to say the least. I went to college in the UP of Michigan. There were people meeting me at the door of the grocery store willing to pay me with food stamps at 1\2 value for cash. I'm pretty sure that cash wasn't to be spent on things they could have bought at the grocery store.
Well....yeah I suppose so, if you are willing to go to THOSE lengths to get a fix, I mean....what are you going to do?? It's definitely not a reason to scrap food stamps. The welfare benefits in this country are not all that great compared to Europe and Canada, and for the main one (unemployment) you not only have to have been paying into it, but also must meet pretty stringent requirements to keep getting what amounts to a little less than half your previous pay for a very limited amount of time. People complain about welfare, but it's seriously the BARE minimum we need to keep this society functioning at a reasonable level. If you got rid of them, you would see crime skyrocket.
It's only a bare minimum if it's your 'only' source of income. Think about it...
It's just not something I can pretend to care about when we spend so much money on military overkill that it boggles the mind. How many times do we have to have the capability to turn the rest of the world to ash before we decide we have enough firepower?? The answer?? As many times as the defense contractors say we do.
I'll agree with you about offering dinner to children at school but I don't agree that more money to their parents solves anything. It may make for less criminals but it doesn't advance human ideals. The military keeps us safe. Both of my ex-stepchildren joined the Air Force and I'm insanely proud of them. I pray to God we never need their service but I sure as Hell am proud of them either way...
Well, that's the thing, when it comes to large-scale conflicts, they haven't been used in a reasonable way or to actually keep us safe since 1945. I'd argue the MOST reasonable thing they've been asked to do was when Clinton took us into Kosovo to take out Milosevic, and that is only because we achieved our goal and didn't lose any soldiers.
I don't think the South Koreans would agree with you.
Well, we've yet to see who that is ultimately going to turn out. Trump may be responsible for turning Seoul into a crater if he isn't careful.
In the end, I can settle for a President who is sober and takes their job seriously. For the Presidents in my lifetime: Reagan was probably physically incapable of taking the job seriously because it seems obvious in hindsight he was suffering from dementia as early as the '84 campaign with Mondale. The old tall-tale of the country running based on Nancy's astrologist isn't actually all that far off the mark. George H. W. Bush took his job seriously. Bill Clinton took it seriously and relished how government worked. George W. Bush was clearly a monumental f**k-up whose Presidency was unfairly saved by 9/11 and their exploitation of that event, at which point they bungled everything they touched for the next 6 years, including the worst foreign policy blunder since Vietnam. Obama was certainly a serious man, important historically, and a calm, steady hand. And now we have an orange madman. I'd take Bush again, and that is painful to say for someone who was deeply ingrained in following politics during the years of 2000-2008.
Also, a lot of the parents of these children aren't lacking the money for $6-$12 packs of cigarettes. Just saying...
Yes, but you can't purchase those with EBT cards. And those kids have to eat regardless of whether their parents are lazy bums or not. I'm willing to shell out an extra dime or two out of my paycheck to make sure they can. And I don't understand how anyone can afford to smoke regardless. Though smoking has gone WAY down in the last decade, and I don't doubt that banning it in restaurants (thank god) and the way higher taxes on them have had a profound effect on that. Good.
Naive to say the least. I went to college in the UP of Michigan. There were people meeting me at the door of the grocery store willing to pay me with food stamps at 1\2 value for cash. I'm pretty sure that cash wasn't to be spent on things they could have bought at the grocery store.
Well....yeah I suppose so, if you are willing to go to THOSE lengths to get a fix, I mean....what are you going to do?? It's definitely not a reason to scrap food stamps. The welfare benefits in this country are not all that great compared to Europe and Canada, and for the main one (unemployment) you not only have to have been paying into it, but also must meet pretty stringent requirements to keep getting what amounts to a little less than half your previous pay for a very limited amount of time. People complain about welfare, but it's seriously the BARE minimum we need to keep this society functioning at a reasonable level. If you got rid of them, you would see crime skyrocket.
It's only a bare minimum if it's your 'only' source of income. Think about it...
It's just not something I can pretend to care about when we spend so much money on military overkill that it boggles the mind. How many times do we have to have the capability to turn the rest of the world to ash before we decide we have enough firepower?? The answer?? As many times as the defense contractors say we do.
I'll agree with you about offering dinner to children at school but I don't agree that more money to their parents solves anything. It may make for less criminals but it doesn't advance human ideals. The military keeps us safe. Both of my ex-stepchildren joined the Air Force and I'm insanely proud of them. I pray to God we never need their service but I sure as Hell am proud of them either way...
Well, that's the thing, when it comes to large-scale conflicts, they haven't been used in a reasonable way or to actually keep us safe since 1945. I'd argue the MOST reasonable thing they've been asked to do was when Clinton took us into Kosovo to take out Milosevic, and that is only because we achieved our goal and didn't lose any soldiers.
I don't think the South Koreans would agree with you.
Well, we've yet to see who that is ultimately going to turn out. Trump may be responsible for turning Seoul into a crater if he isn't careful.
In the end, I can settle for a President who is sober and takes their job seriously. For the Presidents in my lifetime: Reagan was probably physically incapable of taking the job seriously because it seems obvious in hindsight he was suffering from dementia as early as the '84 campaign with Mondale. The old tall-tale of the country running based on Nancy's astrologist isn't actually all that far off the mark. George H. W. Bush took his job seriously. Bill Clinton took it seriously and relished how government worked. George W. Bush was clearly a monumental f**k-up whose Presidency was unfairly saved by 9/11 and their exploitation of that event, at which point they bungled everything they touched for the next 6 years, including the worst foreign policy blunder since Vietnam. Obama was certainly a serious man, important historically, and a calm, steady hand. And now we have an orange madman. I'd take Bush again, and that is painful to say for someone who was deeply ingrained in following politics during the years of 2000-2008.
No matter how it turns out, I doubt the South Koreans will wish we hadn't intervened. Do you really think they would disagree with that even if they lose thousands or even millions of people? Do you think they'd rather be alive under North Korean rule? Human history says screw that!
I'm starting to agree with you about the 10%'rs but the other 40% is likely where we differ. Liberalism wins in the long run but conservatism stops revolution. I'm a conservative because of my brain, not my heart...
This reminded me of the old saying that if you are a conservative when you are young you have no heart, but if you are a liberal when you are old then you have no head.
Comments
There are many liberals rubbing it in Trump's face tonight that his candidate (Strange) lost. I am not one of those liberals. For one thing, he was told to back Strange by advisers, and he is probably pissed as hell at them right now. For another, Moore is dangerous. He was a federal judge who ignored and openly defied decisions handed down by the Supreme Court. And no Democrat should make the mistake of thinking they are going to seriously contest this seat. It is Alabama. And they aren't going to win it, and they shouldn't raise any expectations that they can. Moore is going to be a Senator.
The extremes on the right are being implemented as we speak. No legal protections for gays or transgender citizens at work. A President who wants to build a wall on the Southern border (so he keeps insisting). Elimination of the entire New Deal (whether it happens or not, it IS the goal and has been for 60-70 years). Bans on people of certain religions being able to enter the country. I could go on, but you get the idea.
In the end, what was the most extreme thing Obama did?? He signed a healthcare bill that originated in a Republican think-tank, that didn't cut out the insurance industry, and didn't nationalize anything. He didn't come for anyone's guns (not even the most cursory background checks got off the ground after Newtown), he simply let Bush's tax cuts expire, and he oversaw a not spectacular, but steady improvement into the cratered economy he inherited. And hey, gas prices were pretty low too. I simply do not see what people saw in Obama that was "radical" other than his skin color.
What I think would work better is if there was a progressive tax on companies that paid low wages, with the tax increasing as the wages went down. I don't have any specific suggestions for the exact numbers.
So, if you paid your workers unusually low wages, you could do it if the labor was really worth that little to you. But you couldn't make a full profit out of it, and the more you exploited your employees, the more you'd need to pay in taxes--it wouldn't be so profitable for you.
This way, you'd encourage employers to pay higher wages on average (a company would rather spend its money keeping employee morale high and turnover low, than pay extra taxes to Uncle Sam) but it wouldn't mean the death of those jobs that employers simply are not willing to pay $14.99 an hour for people to do.
It's the inverse of a subsidy. Instead of paying companies to do the right thing--which can get very expensive very fast and also encourages companies to lobby for bigger subsidies--you can just impose a tax-based incentive to make it less cost-effective for companies to pay low wages.
There's a reason working class wages went stagnant the very moment that workers' unions, the one group in the United States whose very purpose is to fight for workers, grew weak. The best years to be an American worker were the years when unions were strong enough to bargain with employers on an even level.
Unless the parents ate taken out of the equation which is nigh impossible, I don't see an answer to this. Certainly raising the price of a pack of cigarettes doesn't inconvenience the rich!
1. Education
Do you know what my father studied in high school? Airplane mechanics. Do you know what he did right out of high school? Joined the military and became an Airplane mechanic. There needs to be more trades being taught in schools beyond just "shop" class.
2. Minimum Wage (and Temp Agencies)
I am against a flat out raise in minimum wage as I stated previously, as there are other underlining issues that should be addressed first before it comes to that.
In Canada, temp agencies have become a big problem, both with fraud and working conditions. That story is from 2010, but is still apparent today and immigrants are taking the brunt of it such as in this story.
This Undercover story goes even further, and is more current, highlighting many of the issues besides wages.
I believe getting rid of these temp agencies (and they exist in the states as well), and increasing regulations with frequent spot checks, will go much further to increasing the lower classes living standards than a flat out raise.
3. Cigarette Taxation
In Canada (Ontario) we have a problem with what is known as "native cigarettes." These are cigarettes manufactured on reserves both in Ontario and south of the border that are cheaper to obtain than packs bought at the store.
With the increase of taxes on tobacco prices, many smokers now seek out these illegal cigarettes. This equates to less sales of the legal kind, and in turn, less taxes paid. Tobacco, Alcohol and other vices (such as soon to be Marijuana here) still follow the supply and demand pricing as any other goods, and there taxes should reflect that. Charge too much, consumers will seek their products else where.
In the end, I can settle for a President who is sober and takes their job seriously. For the Presidents in my lifetime: Reagan was probably physically incapable of taking the job seriously because it seems obvious in hindsight he was suffering from dementia as early as the '84 campaign with Mondale. The old tall-tale of the country running based on Nancy's astrologist isn't actually all that far off the mark. George H. W. Bush took his job seriously. Bill Clinton took it seriously and relished how government worked. George W. Bush was clearly a monumental f**k-up whose Presidency was unfairly saved by 9/11 and their exploitation of that event, at which point they bungled everything they touched for the next 6 years, including the worst foreign policy blunder since Vietnam. Obama was certainly a serious man, important historically, and a calm, steady hand. And now we have an orange madman. I'd take Bush again, and that is painful to say for someone who was deeply ingrained in following politics during the years of 2000-2008.