There are serious indications based on what Adam Schiff is saying about the House investigation and Republican actions as well as various quotes from Republicans that Trump is laying the groundwork to fire Mueller. Eventually, it's going to happen. And when and if it does, people will have no choice but to take the streets.
Your main problem is that ignorant and totally unqualified people shouldn't be President.
He cares about the nominees for the courts but he's too busy watching 8 hours of fox News every day to get involved with the minutiae of lowly federal judges.
He has outsourced this to the heritage foundation. He just rubber stamps forward the names they give him.
Two of his nominations were withdrawn including Brett Talley the ghost hunting blogger with no experience who had never tried a case. These are nominees for lifetime positions in the judiciary!
1.Yeah cool, just go drop 60,000 dollars on a college education with that minimum wage job that you HAVE to take because literally nothing else is available. 2.Oh wait, you are working minimum wage and that is beyond you. Well hey, you got a student loan so you can get in and work hard. 3.Well, now your $300,000 in debt after interest and inflation, whoops can't get that higher paying job because the market is oversaturated and employment for college graduates is dropping every couple years. 4.Go back to that minimum wage job because despite your hard work and education, no one is hiring. I realize this isn't the case for everyone or even a majority (yet) but it is becoming increasingly common and I have been watching it happen to people close to me for years. I never actually got that far. I got two years into my education before the loan company decided to drop me without warning. Now I'm a caretaker for two disabled family members and unemployed with thousands in debt. Telling people to go get an education is all well and good. But an education, and the jobs to match are simply not available for everyone.
1.Yeah cool, just go drop 60,000 dollars on a college education with that minimum wage job that you HAVE to take because literally nothing else is available. 2.Oh wait, you are working minimum wage and that is beyond you. Well hey, you got a student loan so you can get in and work hard. 3.Well, now your $300,000 in debt after interest and inflation, whoops can't get that higher paying job because the market is oversaturated and employment for college graduates is dropping every couple years. 4.Go back to that minimum wage job because despite your hard work and education, no one is hiring. I realize this isn't the case for everyone or even a majority (yet) but it is becoming increasingly common and I have been watching it happen to people close to me for years. I never actually got that far. I got two years into my education before the loan company decided to drop me without warning. Now I'm a caretaker for two disabled family members and unemployed with thousands in debt. Telling people to go get an education is all well and good. But an education, and the jobs to match are simply not available for everyone.
The new tax plan that is a mere days from being law is going to make matters worse. 13 million more people are going to lose their healthcare. It treats (in some cases) student loans as income. You can no longer write-off the interest on these loans on your taxes (there was some talk of this changing, but no one really knows what is in the final bill right now). Marco Rubio PRETENDED he was going to hold out today for a $2000 child tax credit. Instead, he caved for one that is a mere $300. Daycare for a family of two can cost up to $2000 a month. Marco Rubio settled for working families struggling getting $25 dollars a month to help with such costs, while billionaires are going to buy more private planes, sports cars and yachts. I read something today that the only reason people aren't more angry about this bill is that, since we don't live where rich people live, we can't actually see the obscene amount of wealth and greed that is going on at the top of this pyramid. No amount of money for them is ever going to be enough. They want it ALL.
I'd find it immensely disturbing if Mueller were fired. He's done nothing but his job, and for all the protestations about how the Trump administration is innocent of any wrongdoing, the administration seems abjectly terrified at the prospect of being scrutinized. What are we as a nation if the president has the power to shut down investigations into himself and his friends?
People on FOX news and Trump himself have talked about restructuring the FBI in response to Mueller's investigation. What the hell happened to the respect for law enforcement? What the hell happened to the concept of government accountability? What the hell happened to the concept of limited government?
Trump already fired Comey for the explicit reason that it eased the pressure of the Russia investigation; he told Russian officials that was the reason for firing Comey. What happens if he does the exact same thing to Mueller? How many people would just give him a pass for obstruction of justice?
If there's one thing we should be able to agree on as a nation, it's that no one is above the law. Can we agree that law enforcement should do its job without political interference?
I'd find it immensely disturbing if Mueller were fired. He's done nothing but his job, and for all the protestations about how the Trump administration is innocent of any wrongdoing, the administration seems abjectly terrified at the prospect of being scrutinized. What are we as a nation if the president has the power to shut down investigations into himself and his friends?
People on FOX news and Trump himself have talked about restructuring the FBI in response to Mueller's investigation. What the hell happened to the respect for law enforcement? What the hell happened to the concept of government accountability? What the hell happened to the concept of limited government?
Trump already fired Comey for the explicit reason that it eased the pressure of the Russia investigation; he told Russian officials that was the reason for firing Comey. What happens if he does the exact same thing to Mueller? How many people would just give him a pass for obstruction of justice?
If there's one thing we should be able to agree on as a nation, it's that no one is above the law. Can we agree that law enforcement should do its job without political interference?
Two nights ago on FOX, a representative from the group Judicial Watch (a right-wing legal organization that, among it's members, includes Trump's lawyer Jay Sekulow) didn't just criticize the FBI. He called for it to be DISBANDED. There are people in very high places who, to protect Trump, would eliminate federal law enforcement ENTIRELY. And this is what I've been saying all along. If there is nothing to hide, a.) why the constant stream of lies and b.) why is the right in absolute hysterics trying to shut down the investigation?? The behavior simply doesn't indicate that anyone actually thinks there was no wrongdoing. The behavior indicates they know that there is and are scared shitless.
And let me also say this: Bill Clinton would have had no real mechanism to fire Ken Starr, but IF he had attempted to do so, he would have been impeached and convicted within days. And if Hillary Clinton had done a 1/10th of the what Trump has done since taking office, she would have been impeached 5 months ago.
I live near a country club on the west side of Vegas. The non-stop parade of Rolls, Bentleys, Lamborghinis, Ferraris, etc. coming and going from that place is a little sickening. Sheldon Adelson lives there. The Google satellite view shows he and his neighbors have enormous enclaves that sometimes include full-on waterparks. They always have the obligatory tennis and basketball courts. One even has their own private 3-hole golf course.
Lucky for them Congress is making sure they can continue to expand their wealth. Maybe that one family will finally be able to grow from 3-holes to a 9-hole course like they always wanted.
As you can see, it has been slowly increasing over the years from $8/h to where it sits now at $11.40 Never has it increased more than $1 at one time. I will also say that I use to live off of a $7.25-$8.45 (pay raises) job for three years. I won't use the word comfortably, but I was able to pay for all my necessities. I rented a room out of a house (just a room, not a bachelor) for $250 - $350. I didn't own a car, a cell phone (my friends knew where to find me), and I walked to work. This was at a theatre so my entertainment was paid for with free movies. I had no vices, however, I would go out with friends about once a month. I could also still treat myself to a CD or two every pay cheque. I managed my money, never used credit (until very recently). I was unable to save money though but never was I not in need of anything. I cringe whenever someone says "A person can not live off of minimum wage." Here, in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, you can. You just have to know what is important, what you need to have, and what you want to have.
Personal life is personal, but I ended up choosing to go live with my father again as he was having a rough time. The money I saved by not paying rent, I used to save up to go back to college. It took me one year to save up for 2 years worth of semesters and the last year (starting in the second year of college), I got a part time minimum wage job to pay for the remaining.
In 2006, I started off in a part-time retail position making $8.25. I was given 2 raises while I worked part time. One was 35 cents, the other, which shocked me as it was unexpected was to $9.50. This was due to my manager thinking that I was being underpaid for the work that I did. When I graduated, I had a choice, I had a graphic design position lined up for me at a company (whose business I didn't agree with) for $15/h OR I had a full-time position with my current company for $13.50 an hour plus benefits, plus $2500 in free clothes a year. The clothing bonus sealed it for me. Minimum wage at this time was 8.75.
Unfortunately, due to a recession, that position only lasted a year (no more free clothes ) and I was in limbo for a good year and a bit as I was full-time but with no real position available but because of my work ethic, my company didn't want to let me go. I was finally slotted in a position (that I didn't want but grudgingly accepted with a pay increase) for $15 an hour. With small cost of living increases over the years, my salary now sits at $15.79/hour.
~~
Ontario is going to be raising the minimum wage from $11.40 to $14.00 an hour starting in January. We are not talking about a 75 cent increase many companies are use to. We are talking about $2.60 an hour more, or 23% raise in minimum wage labour cost.
That's huge and unaffordable. I can tell you right now, new employees where I work are not worth that much. Any seasonal associate that got hired this year will not be retained after December 31. I will probably be forced to work full hours, as there is no longer any savings from making me work 4 shifts a week instead of 5. Part time shifts will be cut in length when possible, probably 6hrs ($68.4) to 4($56), making current part-timers lose money even with a minimum wage increase.
And this is in a field that isn't as healthy as it once was. Brick and Mortar retailers are struggling to stay in business. We, as a staff, are already at bare bones. I am probably going to have to pick up more responsibilities that I may not have time to do, without any additional benefits to me. This type of increase (plus the cost of hydro) may push businesses out of Ontario, which means less of these jobs all around.
Business that can't afford the increase or to cut back on staff (such as my fast food example, KFC btw) are going to raise prices, which effects everyone else. These raises maybe insignificant on their own, but add them all up across everything that you purchase in a month, it does add up.
People making more than $14 an hour are not going to see a pay raise. So those small additions in prices are going to affect them and how they manage to budget their finances.
~~
So how does a person raise a family on minimum wage? Well you don't. As in my own personal example, companies will (should) reward employees for doing above average work. Retaining knowledgeable employees is a must, especially in a customer service fields.
If the problem is that companies do not reward above average employees and keeps them at minimum wage regardless of how long they worked there, then that should be what government should regulate instead of a blanketed pay increase.
It could be as simple as mandating an X amount of pay increase for Y amount of hours worked. For example, a company starts a person at minimum wage, ($11.4) but must increase that to $11.75 (minimum) after the employee has worked 600 hours (or 5, 5-hour shifts for 6 months). An employer, can decrease the amount of hours a person works per week if they feel they are not worth the raise, forcing the employee to look else where for a better fitting job. These hour brackets can be capped off (so an employee knows exactly how much they'll make after X amount of hours) and can still include a cost of living increase every year (usually 15-25 cents) if a person hits the cap.
This will slowly raise the cost labour, get more people over the cost of minimum wage if they stick to one field and reward them when they do.
The worst part about this wage increase is that it is a political move. With an election next year, the Liberals are attempting to buy votes by swaying people who usually vote left (NDP) towards them as they are desperate to retain power. A $15/h minimum wage is what the NDP have been promising Ontarians for a while. The only difference is that they were probably going to phase it a little more subtly than this.
I do think MW jobs are not meant to be 'raising a family' type jobs, though. If you're flipping burgers to feed your kids may be you're not utilizing your abilities to their fullest. What is sad these days is how many elderly folks are working at fast food joints, grocery stores and retailers. I don't remember ever seeing that when I was a kid.
That's a big part of the problem. We can say that people shouldn't be trying to live off of minimum wage jobs, but the fact is, many people are. That's the reality we have to deal with.
But raising the minimum wage overvalues those jobs. The carrot has always been get an education, learn new skills, or take up a trade and you won't have to do those menial jobs forever. I have to think some of the incentive to improve yourself will be lost if you raise it too much. People get comfortable where they are if they stay too long. I'd hate to think somebody might choose to make a career out of flipping burgers...
It doesn't overvalue those jobs. Those jobs are already undervalued, and people end up working 3-4 minimum wage jobs just to pay for necessities and feed their families.
Education right now is a minefield because the cost of education is so high and student loans wreck people. Plus, plenty of people get that education and find there's no job for them outside of those "overvalued" minimum wage jobs.
There's also no imperative to "improve yourself." Meeting basic needs is more important, and making sure people can do that will do a lot more toward people "improving themselves" than trying to force people into an overpriced education.
I do think MW jobs are not meant to be 'raising a family' type jobs, though. If you're flipping burgers to feed your kids may be you're not utilizing your abilities to their fullest. What is sad these days is how many elderly folks are working at fast food joints, grocery stores and retailers. I don't remember ever seeing that when I was a kid.
That's a big part of the problem. We can say that people shouldn't be trying to live off of minimum wage jobs, but the fact is, many people are. That's the reality we have to deal with.
But raising the minimum wage overvalues those jobs. The carrot has always been get an education, learn new skills, or take up a trade and you won't have to do those menial jobs forever. I have to think some of the incentive to improve yourself will be lost if you raise it too much. People get comfortable where they are if they stay too long. I'd hate to think somebody might choose to make a career out of flipping burgers...
It doesn't overvalue those jobs. Those jobs are already undervalued, and people end up working 3-4 minimum wage jobs just to pay for necessities and feed their families.
Education right now is a minefield because the cost of education is so high and student loans wreck people. Plus, plenty of people get that education and find there's no job for them outside of those "overvalued" minimum wage jobs.
There's also no imperative to "improve yourself." Meeting basic needs is more important, and making sure people can do that will do a lot more toward people "improving themselves" than trying to force people into an overpriced education.
I disagree. Unskilled labor is easily replaced by automation. If the wages go up too much they will be replaced by robots and then nobody wins.
Education was only one of the methods I mentioned for improving oneself but that's the only one you folks have commented on. What about improving your skill set or learning a trade? None of those are nearly as expensive as a formal 4 year university. There are also plenty of community colleges that are more affordable. I'm sorry but it's not as impossible as you all make it appear. I am really glad that I don't believe I'm so stuck in life that the only way my situation can improve is if the government sends me a check paid by other people's money or forces my employer to give me a raise for no reason. I get that you feel like you're being all sympathetic and big-hearted but there is a point where you become enablers...
Education was only one of the methods I mentioned for improving oneself but that's the only one you folks have commented on. What about improving your skill set or learning a trade? None of those are nearly as expensive as a formal 4 year university. There are also plenty of community colleges that are more affordable. I'm sorry but it's not as impossible as you all make it appear. I am really glad that I don't believe I'm so stuck in life that the only way my situation can improve is if the government sends me a check paid by other people's money or forces my employer to give me a raise for no reason. I get that you feel like you're being all sympathetic and big-hearted but there is a point where you become enablers...
The fact is that if a low minimum wage was really a means to encourage people to "improve themselves" then it'd be happening, because minimum wage is criminally low. It's not happening, and there must be a reason it's not happening. It's not that people in these jobs are lazy because these jobs are actually hard work. So what is your explanation? Why do you think people aren't seeking jobs in the trades as you think they should?
I don't know where you shifted from minimum wage to "the government sends me a check." The reality is that the minimum wage means that people who have full time jobs still need to take advantage of the safety net to be able to meet their own needs. Wal-Mart and McDonald's specifically advises their employees to apply for SNAP rather than pay them a living wage.
I would like to see a substantial argument against raising the minimum wage that isn't either fearmongering about automation (which is happening anyway) or moralizing about how people need to go to college or into a trade if they want to make more money.
As far as people receiving money from the government, they generally receive that money for good reason - being retired, being disabled, being a single parent, or being suddenly unemployed. It's hard to argue that making sure such people have money to live on as "enabling" without coming across as heartless.
@deltago Man, I wish my experience was anywhere near that good. I have never worked at a job with any kind of upward mobility. In my experience they always, ALWAYS, hire from outside. Every job I have ever held, I worked with all the responsibilities of management, with minimum wage part time. I have never be rewarded for skilled work. In fact, I have trained anywhere from half of, to the ENTIRE current management teams of three separate businesses, and each time, I was fired as soon as management was filled out (after multiple years of working for them). That has ALWAYS been my reward for hard work and self improvement. I'm happy things worked out so well for you, but where I live, minimum wage doesn't even cover rent 90% of the time. The other 10% its a choice between having a roof, or eating.
@Balrog99 The figure I provided WAS the rough cost of my local community college a few years ago, which has been steadily rising every year. I have never once, found any opportunity anywhere near what conservatives claim should be possible for "self improvement".
The minimum wage is $7.25, you say? It takes a college education to get a job that isn't minimum wage, you say? I don't believe you.
We are looking for Route Drivers for immediate hire.
TNG Retail Solutions & Logistics is a distributor of magazines, books, general merchandise, bottled water and tea products to 98% of all grocery and drug store retailers in the North Texas area. TNG logistics is located on the west side of DFW Airport and is seeking to fill several full time driver positions.
The position requires a valid driver’s license, (No CDL is required). Must be at least 21 years old, and have at least 1 year experience driving a 24’ box truck. You must be able to pass the DOT Physical / DOT Drug Test, Criminal Background and Driving Record Review. You must be able to lift up to 70 lbs. on a continuous basis. Adhere to all local, State and federal DOT regulations. Pick/Pack Orders and you will need to perform some general warehouse duties as needed.
The work schedule is Monday -- Thursday / Friday (3 day work week) 4:00am to end of delivery. Starting Hourly Rate: $13.00. The company offers a full benefits package including health insurance, 104(k), vacation, personal and paid holidays. TNG is an equal opportunity employer.
We are conducting on site, in person interviews this week Friday from 10:00am to 3:30pm and again on Monday, Tuesday and from 10:00am to 3:30pm. If you are interested in the position, come in for the interview.
It took me *30 seconds* to find this job listing and I suspect they are willing to be flexible about that "1 year experience driving a 24' box truck". What they *want* is someone willing to do the job, that's all. If I were 21 and I knew that my college prospects were slim to none in the immediate future I would take this job.
When I set the job search criteria to "full time", "entry level", "salary $20,000", and "radius: 25 miles" it returns 34,951 job openings. If I increase the salary criterion to $25,000 it returns 25,074 jobs. The job openings are out there if you look for them. It may not be easy but it will be worth it.
If you were born into a family suffering from generational poverty (both your parents and all your grandparents were poor) then you can break that cycle but it will take most of your adult life. Your children will thank you for making their life prospects better, though.
The minimum wage is $7.25, you say? It takes a college education to get a job that isn't minimum wage, you say? I don't believe you.
Who said this?
Finding jobs that aren't minimum wage is great, but one job (or even several) doesn't actually dispute the fact that most jobs are minimum wage. Plus such jobs tend to have stricter requirements, often requiring prior experience which is not always easy to get. Your example is not an entry level job, and I wouldn't really consider it a valid rebuttal to the discussion about minimum wage.
It took me *30 seconds* to find this job listing and I suspect they are willing to be flexible about that "1 year experience driving a 24' box truck". What they *want* is someone willing to do the job, that's all. If I were 21 and I knew that my college prospects were slim to none in the immediate future I would take this job.
When I set the job search criteria to "full time", "entry level", "salary $20,000", and "radius: 25 miles" it returns 34,951 job openings. If I increase the salary criterion to $25,000 it returns 25,074 jobs. The job openings are out there if you look for them. It may not be easy but it will be worth it.
If you were born into a family suffering from generational poverty (both your parents and all your grandparents were poor) then you can break that cycle but it will take most of your adult life. Your children will thank you for making their life prospects better, though.
Forgot to address this:
$20,000 is still too low. So is $25,000.
My experience when looking for work is that employers are not all that often flexible about experience requirements. I've been unable to get work I was skilled in because I didn't have the experience "on the job" (technically, I did have on the job experience, but no one counts freelance work).
I think it's pretty wrong headed to assume that people who end up in minimum wage jobs didn't look for higher paying work. Or that people end up in minimum wage jobs because they're failing at something.
Wal-Mart and McDonald's advise their employees to take advantage of the safety net because they are too cheap and morally bankrupt to pay their workers themselves. If ANYONE if this particular situation is relying on government welfare, it's companies like that who are using it as an excuse to not pay their own workers. It is a well-known fact many Wal-Mart's will purposefully keep their employees under 32 hours a week so they aren't eligible for health insurance through work. This is also the corporation that took out life insurance policies on it's own employees. Isn't that interesting?? Can you think of a reason someone who has a financial benefit in you DYING might not want you to have healthcare??
I feel like people are just continually misinformed about government checks being sent out to people. It just doesn't work like that. I was on unemployment many years ago after the company I was working at shut down overnight and we didn't even receive our last paycheck (which straight-up robbed me of at least $600). I received it for 6 weeks before finding another job. And not only did it take 2 weeks AFTER qualifying to even get a deposit, I had to provide evidence I was searching for work every single week. Simply so I could receive about 40% of what I had been making at my job. This despite the fact that I'd been paying unemployment taxes every paycheck since I was 15 years old. I was damn well entitled to a month and a half of the pittance that allowed me to scrape by for those 6 weeks. As for the other checks that go out, Social Security disability is another rigorous process that requires medical professionals as well as State agencies to approve your claim. I suppose if someone REALLY wanted to they could go to the trouble of finding an unethical doctor to lie for them, but it is exceedingly rare. Food stamps amount to nothing if you have kids (I have never used them but I dated someone who did). WIC is for new mothers trying to keep their infant as healthy as possible. The societal health care costs of getting rid of THAT program years down the line because a child was malnourished as an infant would be off the charts. Beyond that, all of these social welfare programs COMBINED aren't even a blip on the radar compared to our defense budget, which expands every year despite the fact that we already have a military that is larger than all of the rest of the WORLD combined.
Mueller knows DC, and has taken steps to mitigate the fallout if he's removed as special prosecutor. I've been banging on this drum a few times already in this thread, as a lot of the strategies here also help immunize the investigation from Presidential pardons.
First and foremost is his work with the state Attorneys General, particularly Schneiderman of NY. A lot (if not all) of the investigation could be passed along to the states, as appropriate, if Mueller's team gets shut down.
Second, it's important to note that the indictments so far have undercharged the various investigative targets. A simple explanation for this is that Mueller is allowing for the possibility that they will, eventually, be handled in a state court (specifically NY) and is doing his best to avoid NY statues regarding separate sovereigns*.
Though it's not related to Mueller, the Saturday Night Massacre was a tipping point in Watergate for the American public, and the immediate aftermath was a surge in support of impeachment. I am hopeful--and perhaps naive--that such a move would severely weaken his Republican support in Congress to an untenable point. More cynically, after the tax bill Trump may very well have outlived his usefulness and firing Mueller would give the GOP political cover to oust him.
Given the general level of--let's charitably call it--incompetence of the Trump administration so far, I can see the firing happening anyway.
* In a nutshell, both the individual states and the federal government are sovereign states. Hence, the 'double jeopardy' clause of the 5A does not apply if you get prosecuted for the same crime by, say, the Feds and the state of Iowa. Some states--notably New York--have state laws that prevent the state from prosecuting anyone who has already been prosecuted for the same crime at the federal level. (Related, but not relevant here, is that the Feds do not pursue convictions on defendants who have been acquitted on state charges, but that is a longstanding, discretionary policy not to exercise the rights of the Fed.) So if Mueller landed a federal conviction of someone and they, in turn, got pardoned, NY's own laws prevent the state from bringing a case. The 'undercharging' in the indictments leaves as much as possible on the table for the states to go after any conspirators without running afoul of such laws.
edit: my goodness, look at all the minimum wage posts. It must have taken longer than I thought to write this up.
It's just that people have always demanded that people go out and better themselves and fix their problems. But that advice, however reasonable, simply doesn't work. Telling people to improve their lives doesn't change anything.
I don't question the possibility. I question the wisdom of assuming that the solution to poverty is to tell poor people to solve the problem themselves. That strategy has a 100% track record of abject failure.
I used to work at a homeless shelter. Every month, we sent 15-25 people out into the workforce with strong resumes and solid career plans. I see the graduates of the program on Linkedin sometimes. But we didn't do it by simply saying "improve yourself" in class every day. It was much more complicated than that. We had to help people design their own individualized career plans and figure out where they wanted to work and how they could get there.
And yes, some of that did involve "free stuff." The principle was to get people to get back on their own two feet, but many of them did require something free in order to get to that stage. People needed money to pay off old traffic tickets that were preventing them from getting a new driver's license, without which they could not get to work. People needed down payments for apartments. People needed a few bucks to purchase a bicycle to get to work. People needed new suits they could wear during job interviews. People needed to buy tools to actually bring to work every day. People needed loans to go to vocational schools. Once you get people back on their feet, they can sustain themselves, but getting to that point of self-sustainability costs money.
I've personally helped dozens of people lift themselves out of poverty and homelessness. And no, it doesn't just come from giving them a few bucks to buy a meal one time, and no, it doesn't just come from an inspirational call to action. As one of my coworkers said on my first day, you don't save people; they save themselves. It's their lives they're living, after all. The key is to get people the resources they need in order to stand on their own two feet and become independent.
You can improve your salary and get a better job by pursuing higher education or training. But education and training cost money and time, and if you want people to get those better jobs, you have to make those resources available.
The shelter I worked at was Haven for Hope in San Antonio. Look it up--H4H is a national model for curing the root causes of homelessness, and hundreds of leaders from cities all over the country have come to our campus specifically to learn about H4H's methods and implement them in their own hometowns. The shelter saves San Antonio millions dollars in diversions from the ER and local jails alone. In its first two years of operation, it cut the downtown homeless population in half. Graduates from H4H have high rates of employment and low rates of drug use and criminal recidivism.
You know, you can solve a problem, or you can wait for other people to solve it. As for me, I tried the former.
But instead of funding programs like this, we're cutting corporate taxes by 15% starting next year. Which has never, ever stimulated job or wage growth.
Haven for Hope gets only about 3% of its funding from the federal government. San Antonio is fortunate enough to have a thriving nonprofit sector and a conscientious business community. But yeah, H4H could do even more if it had more funding.
I don't know about you people but I've been in the same field for more than 20 years. At this point I have no idea how to find a different job or do anything else. I also have somewhat significant medical issues. If I did wind up laid off or fired I might have significant trouble finding another job.
A couple years ago I was in the position of looking seriously at unemployment benefits due to a change in my job. The state benefits in the red state I lived in were somewhat pathetic and meager. It was something but definitely not a free ride and it would not last very long. My family would have really struggled if I'd ended up unemployed.
The hoops and bureaucracy you have to jump through are typical and depressing. It looked as pointless and aggravating as a typical trip to the DMV. Most people have at some point in their lives big changes and they may need help.
@dreamtraveler There does not seem to be a threat on net neutrality in Europe. Why do you ask? I am hoping this will cause many businesses to move their servers over here actually.
As for the minimum wage discussion there is a huge pink elephant in the room. A significant portion of the work force are stupid. Some are mentally disabled or have other limitations. It is highly likely that these people will lose their jobs if the minimum wages get hiked up significantly, simply because they cannot keep up with the productivity requirements.
It's just that people have always demanded that people go out and better themselves and fix their problems. But that advice, however reasonable, simply doesn't work. Telling people to improve their lives doesn't change anything.
I don't question the possibility. I question the wisdom of assuming that the solution to poverty is to tell poor people to solve the problem themselves. That strategy has a 100% track record of abject failure.
I used to work at a homeless shelter. Every month, we sent 15-25 people out into the workforce with strong resumes and solid career plans. I see the graduates of the program on Linkedin sometimes. But we didn't do it by simply saying "improve yourself" in class every day. It was much more complicated than that. We had to help people design their own individualized career plans and figure out where they wanted to work and how they could get there.
And yes, some of that did involve "free stuff." The principle was to get people to get back on their own two feet, but many of them did require something free in order to get to that stage. People needed money to pay off old traffic tickets that were preventing them from getting a new driver's license, without which they could not get to work. People needed down payments for apartments. People needed a few bucks to purchase a bicycle to get to work. People needed new suits they could wear during job interviews. People needed to buy tools to actually bring to work every day. People needed loans to go to vocational schools. Once you get people back on their feet, they can sustain themselves, but getting to that point of self-sustainability costs money.
I've personally helped dozens of people lift themselves out of poverty and homelessness. And no, it doesn't just come from giving them a few bucks to buy a meal one time, and no, it doesn't just come from an inspirational call to action. As one of my coworkers said on my first day, you don't save people; they save themselves. It's their lives they're living, after all. The key is to get people the resources they need in order to stand on their own two feet and become independent.
You can improve your salary and get a better job by pursuing higher education or training. But education and training cost money and time, and if you want people to get those better jobs, you have to make those resources available.
The shelter I worked at was Haven for Hope in San Antonio. Look it up--H4H is a national model for curing the root causes of homelessness, and hundreds of leaders from cities all over the country have come to our campus specifically to learn about H4H's methods and implement them in their own hometowns. The shelter saves San Antonio millions dollars in diversions from the ER and local jails alone. In its first two years of operation, it cut the downtown homeless population in half. Graduates from H4H have high rates of employment and low rates of drug use and criminal recidivism.
You know, you can solve a problem, or you can wait for other people to solve it. As for me, I tried the former.
Turns out, it works.
If the government ran programs like you describe then I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, I don't think that level of commitment or caring comes from a central government. It comes from people who live in those cities and neighborhoods. The fact that H4H works so well with only 3% government funding actually thrills me. I wonder why they don't get something like that going here in Detroit?
As for the minimum wage discussion there is a huge pink elephant in the room. A significant portion of the work force are stupid. Some are mentally disabled or have other limitations. It is highly likely that these people will lose their jobs if the minimum wages get hiked up significantly, simply because they cannot keep up with the productivity requirements.
There's been a significant amount of discussion about the minimum wage in the UK. The value of that is well above the rates for the US and there is concern that some groups are being priced out of the market. My son is disabled and there's quite a bit of argument among disabled groups about whether the minimum wage is a good idea or not: - some take the line that it's important that everyone be treated equally to avoid discrimination getting embedded; - others feel it's more important that everyone has the opportunity to work, even if that means that lower pay is accepted.
Personally I would prefer a different approach. Years ago there used to be a scheme in the UK where the government paid a proportion of the salary for disabled people in order to help them access work. That makes far more sense to me than the all or nothing approach we now have where people tend to be either shoved into unsuitable short-term jobs or they don't work at all and claim benefits.
To try and make savings the government is constantly changing the appraisal processes on suitability for work. Under those criteria my son has been recently assessed as able to work. While that's true to some extent the appraisal has carefully not recorded (though it was supposed to) that the actions he can do will typically take him 2-3 times as long as an able-bodied person. That leaves us in the position of having to appeal against the decision - we've got a good chance of winning in that and are far from alone in finding the appraisal process inappropriate. However, in order to win an appeal we effectively have to demonstrate that he can't work. That goes against the grain when I know he can - he just needs the right environment and support to do it.
The Times has a list of ways the tax bill will change the system, but there's one thing that confuses me:
"The bill would move from the current worldwide tax system, in which income earned abroad is taxed in the United States, to a territorial system in which only domestic profits would be taxed."
That seems contrary to Republican signaling on the issue. If you're trying to convince companies to come back home, why would you adopt a system in which domestic profits would be taxed but foreign profits would not?
The Times has a list of ways the tax bill will change the system, but there's one thing that confuses me:
"The bill would move from the current worldwide tax system, in which income earned abroad is taxed in the United States, to a territorial system in which only domestic profits would be taxed."
That seems contrary to Republican signaling on the issue. If you're trying to convince companies to come back home, why would you adopt a system in which domestic profits would be taxed but foreign profits would not?
I was going to reply with what I thought the answer was to your question and realized after further thought that I haven't a clue. Our tax code is so needlessly complex that you have to have degrees in higher math AND economics if you want to figure the damned thing out! I doubt even our congressmen have a clue how to do their own taxes...
over 6000 lobbyists wrote this tax bill, we should not be shocked it is full of loopholes and provisions that favor the ultra wealthy. This legislation will be bad for the average citizens of the United States. Republicans are going to pass it regardless just to say they did something for their most important constituents - their corporate donors. Oh and they are repealing the individual mandate so Healthcare premiums will rise and 13 million people will lose their health insurance.
Up next, Medicare and social security and food stamp cuts because golly gee we have no money now that they passed this tax cuts for the rich bill and have blown a huge hole in the deficit
The Times has a list of ways the tax bill will change the system, but there's one thing that confuses me:
"The bill would move from the current worldwide tax system, in which income earned abroad is taxed in the United States, to a territorial system in which only domestic profits would be taxed."
That seems contrary to Republican signaling on the issue. If you're trying to convince companies to come back home, why would you adopt a system in which domestic profits would be taxed but foreign profits would not?
I was going to reply with what I thought the answer was to your question and realized after further thought that I haven't a clue. Our tax code is so needlessly complex that you have to have degrees in higher math AND economics if you want to figure the damned thing out! I doubt even our congressmen have a clue how to do their own taxes...
One of the main selling points Republicans were pushing (true or not) is that this bill would simplify the tax code, and (specifically) reduce the number of brackets. After it is all said and done we are going to end up with.....the exact same number of brackets, just different rates. After decades of saying it was too complicated, their big tax overhaul is still virtually guaranteed to get you sprinting to H&R Block.
over 6000 lobbyists wrote this tax bill, we should not be shocked it is full of loopholes and provisions that favor the ultra wealthy. This legislation will be bad for the average citizens of the United States. Republicans are going to pass it regardless just to say they did something for their most important constituents - their corporate donors. Oh and they are repealing the individual mandate so Healthcare premiums will rise and 13 million people will lose their health insurance.
Up next, Medicare cuts and social security cuts because golly gee we have no money now that they passed this tax cuts for the rich bill.
Well I took a look at it and at least for the first few years I'll be paying less taxes. I also won't need to pay somebody else to do my taxes for the first time in years so that saves me money too. I'm far from ultra-wealthy btw...
One thing I don't like is getting rid of the child exemptions. I won't have to worry about alternating the exemption for my little girl with my ex at least, but it still seems to punish people for having large families. Not sure what that was supposed to accomplish. Are Catholics not paying their fair share???
Comments
He has outsourced this to the heritage foundation. He just rubber stamps forward the names they give him.
Two of his nominations were withdrawn including Brett Talley the ghost hunting blogger with no experience who had never tried a case. These are nominees for lifetime positions in the judiciary!
2.Oh wait, you are working minimum wage and that is beyond you. Well hey, you got a student loan so you can get in and work hard.
3.Well, now your $300,000 in debt after interest and inflation, whoops can't get that higher paying job because the market is oversaturated and employment for college graduates is dropping every couple years.
4.Go back to that minimum wage job because despite your hard work and education, no one is hiring.
I realize this isn't the case for everyone or even a majority (yet) but it is becoming increasingly common and I have been watching it happen to people close to me for years. I never actually got that far. I got two years into my education before the loan company decided to drop me without warning. Now I'm a caretaker for two disabled family members and unemployed with thousands in debt. Telling people to go get an education is all well and good. But an education, and the jobs to match are simply not available for everyone.
People on FOX news and Trump himself have talked about restructuring the FBI in response to Mueller's investigation. What the hell happened to the respect for law enforcement? What the hell happened to the concept of government accountability? What the hell happened to the concept of limited government?
Trump already fired Comey for the explicit reason that it eased the pressure of the Russia investigation; he told Russian officials that was the reason for firing Comey. What happens if he does the exact same thing to Mueller? How many people would just give him a pass for obstruction of justice?
If there's one thing we should be able to agree on as a nation, it's that no one is above the law. Can we agree that law enforcement should do its job without political interference?
And let me also say this: Bill Clinton would have had no real mechanism to fire Ken Starr, but IF he had attempted to do so, he would have been impeached and convicted within days. And if Hillary Clinton had done a 1/10th of the what Trump has done since taking office, she would have been impeached 5 months ago.
Lucky for them Congress is making sure they can continue to expand their wealth. Maybe that one family will finally be able to grow from 3-holes to a 9-hole course like they always wanted.
Bare in mind I am talking from experience, but it is experience in my own region (Ottawa, Ontario) and each region can be different. Here is Ontario's Minimum wage increases over the last decade.
As you can see, it has been slowly increasing over the years from $8/h to where it sits now at $11.40 Never has it increased more than $1 at one time. I will also say that I use to live off of a $7.25-$8.45 (pay raises) job for three years. I won't use the word comfortably, but I was able to pay for all my necessities. I rented a room out of a house (just a room, not a bachelor) for $250 - $350. I didn't own a car, a cell phone (my friends knew where to find me), and I walked to work. This was at a theatre so my entertainment was paid for with free movies. I had no vices, however, I would go out with friends about once a month. I could also still treat myself to a CD or two every pay cheque. I managed my money, never used credit (until very recently). I was unable to save money though but never was I not in need of anything. I cringe whenever someone says "A person can not live off of minimum wage." Here, in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, you can. You just have to know what is important, what you need to have, and what you want to have.
Personal life is personal, but I ended up choosing to go live with my father again as he was having a rough time. The money I saved by not paying rent, I used to save up to go back to college. It took me one year to save up for 2 years worth of semesters and the last year (starting in the second year of college), I got a part time minimum wage job to pay for the remaining.
In 2006, I started off in a part-time retail position making $8.25. I was given 2 raises while I worked part time. One was 35 cents, the other, which shocked me as it was unexpected was to $9.50. This was due to my manager thinking that I was being underpaid for the work that I did. When I graduated, I had a choice, I had a graphic design position lined up for me at a company (whose business I didn't agree with) for $15/h OR I had a full-time position with my current company for $13.50 an hour plus benefits, plus $2500 in free clothes a year. The clothing bonus sealed it for me. Minimum wage at this time was 8.75.
Unfortunately, due to a recession, that position only lasted a year (no more free clothes
~~
Ontario is going to be raising the minimum wage from $11.40 to $14.00 an hour
starting in January. We are not talking about a 75 cent increase many companies are use to. We are talking about $2.60 an hour more, or 23% raise in minimum wage labour cost.
That's huge and unaffordable. I can tell you right now, new employees where I work are not worth that much. Any seasonal associate that got hired this year will not be retained after December 31. I will probably be forced to work full hours, as there is no longer any savings from making me work 4 shifts a week instead of 5. Part time shifts will be cut in length when possible, probably 6hrs ($68.4) to 4($56), making current part-timers lose money even with a minimum wage increase.
And this is in a field that isn't as healthy as it once was. Brick and Mortar retailers are struggling to stay in business. We, as a staff, are already at bare bones. I am probably going to have to pick up more responsibilities that I may not have time to do, without any additional benefits to me. This type of increase (plus the cost of hydro) may push businesses out of Ontario, which means less of these jobs all around.
Business that can't afford the increase or to cut back on staff (such as my fast food example, KFC btw) are going to raise prices, which effects everyone else. These raises maybe insignificant on their own, but add them all up across everything that you purchase in a month, it does add up.
People making more than $14 an hour are not going to see a pay raise. So those small additions in prices are going to affect them and how they manage to budget their finances.
~~
So how does a person raise a family on minimum wage? Well you don't. As in my own personal example, companies will (should) reward employees for doing above average work. Retaining knowledgeable employees is a must, especially in a customer service fields.
If the problem is that companies do not reward above average employees and keeps them at minimum wage regardless of how long they worked there, then that should be what government should regulate instead of a blanketed pay increase.
It could be as simple as mandating an X amount of pay increase for Y amount of hours worked. For example, a company starts a person at minimum wage, ($11.4) but must increase that to $11.75 (minimum) after the employee has worked 600 hours (or 5, 5-hour shifts for 6 months). An employer, can decrease the amount of hours a person works per week if they feel they are not worth the raise, forcing the employee to look else where for a better fitting job. These hour brackets can be capped off (so an employee knows exactly how much they'll make after X amount of hours) and can still include a cost of living increase every year (usually 15-25 cents) if a person hits the cap.
This will slowly raise the cost labour, get more people over the cost of minimum wage if they stick to one field and reward them when they do.
The worst part about this wage increase is that it is a political move. With an election next year, the Liberals are attempting to buy votes by swaying people who usually vote left (NDP) towards them as they are desperate to retain power. A $15/h minimum wage is what the NDP have been promising Ontarians for a while. The only difference is that they were probably going to phase it a little more subtly than this.
Education right now is a minefield because the cost of education is so high and student loans wreck people. Plus, plenty of people get that education and find there's no job for them outside of those "overvalued" minimum wage jobs.
There's also no imperative to "improve yourself." Meeting basic needs is more important, and making sure people can do that will do a lot more toward people "improving themselves" than trying to force people into an overpriced education.
Education was only one of the methods I mentioned for improving oneself but that's the only one you folks have commented on. What about improving your skill set or learning a trade? None of those are nearly as expensive as a formal 4 year university. There are also plenty of community colleges that are more affordable. I'm sorry but it's not as impossible as you all make it appear. I am really glad that I don't believe I'm so stuck in life that the only way my situation can improve is if the government sends me a check paid by other people's money or forces my employer to give me a raise for no reason. I get that you feel like you're being all sympathetic and big-hearted but there is a point where you become enablers...
I don't know where you shifted from minimum wage to "the government sends me a check." The reality is that the minimum wage means that people who have full time jobs still need to take advantage of the safety net to be able to meet their own needs. Wal-Mart and McDonald's specifically advises their employees to apply for SNAP rather than pay them a living wage.
I would like to see a substantial argument against raising the minimum wage that isn't either fearmongering about automation (which is happening anyway) or moralizing about how people need to go to college or into a trade if they want to make more money.
As far as people receiving money from the government, they generally receive that money for good reason - being retired, being disabled, being a single parent, or being suddenly unemployed. It's hard to argue that making sure such people have money to live on as "enabling" without coming across as heartless.
@Balrog99 The figure I provided WAS the rough cost of my local community college a few years ago, which has been steadily rising every year. I have never once, found any opportunity anywhere near what conservatives claim should be possible for "self improvement".
When I set the job search criteria to "full time", "entry level", "salary $20,000", and "radius: 25 miles" it returns 34,951 job openings. If I increase the salary criterion to $25,000 it returns 25,074 jobs. The job openings are out there if you look for them. It may not be easy but it will be worth it.
If you were born into a family suffering from generational poverty (both your parents and all your grandparents were poor) then you can break that cycle but it will take most of your adult life. Your children will thank you for making their life prospects better, though.
Finding jobs that aren't minimum wage is great, but one job (or even several) doesn't actually dispute the fact that most jobs are minimum wage. Plus such jobs tend to have stricter requirements, often requiring prior experience which is not always easy to get. Your example is not an entry level job, and I wouldn't really consider it a valid rebuttal to the discussion about minimum wage.
Also, $13.00 an hour is still too low.
$20,000 is still too low. So is $25,000.
My experience when looking for work is that employers are not all that often flexible about experience requirements. I've been unable to get work I was skilled in because I didn't have the experience "on the job" (technically, I did have on the job experience, but no one counts freelance work).
I think it's pretty wrong headed to assume that people who end up in minimum wage jobs didn't look for higher paying work. Or that people end up in minimum wage jobs because they're failing at something.
I feel like people are just continually misinformed about government checks being sent out to people. It just doesn't work like that. I was on unemployment many years ago after the company I was working at shut down overnight and we didn't even receive our last paycheck (which straight-up robbed me of at least $600). I received it for 6 weeks before finding another job. And not only did it take 2 weeks AFTER qualifying to even get a deposit, I had to provide evidence I was searching for work every single week. Simply so I could receive about 40% of what I had been making at my job. This despite the fact that I'd been paying unemployment taxes every paycheck since I was 15 years old. I was damn well entitled to a month and a half of the pittance that allowed me to scrape by for those 6 weeks. As for the other checks that go out, Social Security disability is another rigorous process that requires medical professionals as well as State agencies to approve your claim. I suppose if someone REALLY wanted to they could go to the trouble of finding an unethical doctor to lie for them, but it is exceedingly rare. Food stamps amount to nothing if you have kids (I have never used them but I dated someone who did). WIC is for new mothers trying to keep their infant as healthy as possible. The societal health care costs of getting rid of THAT program years down the line because a child was malnourished as an infant would be off the charts. Beyond that, all of these social welfare programs COMBINED aren't even a blip on the radar compared to our defense budget, which expands every year despite the fact that we already have a military that is larger than all of the rest of the WORLD combined.
First and foremost is his work with the state Attorneys General, particularly Schneiderman of NY. A lot (if not all) of the investigation could be passed along to the states, as appropriate, if Mueller's team gets shut down.
Second, it's important to note that the indictments so far have undercharged the various investigative targets. A simple explanation for this is that Mueller is allowing for the possibility that they will, eventually, be handled in a state court (specifically NY) and is doing his best to avoid NY statues regarding separate sovereigns*.
Though it's not related to Mueller, the Saturday Night Massacre was a tipping point in Watergate for the American public, and the immediate aftermath was a surge in support of impeachment. I am hopeful--and perhaps naive--that such a move would severely weaken his Republican support in Congress to an untenable point. More cynically, after the tax bill Trump may very well have outlived his usefulness and firing Mueller would give the GOP political cover to oust him.
Given the general level of--let's charitably call it--incompetence of the Trump administration so far, I can see the firing happening anyway.
* In a nutshell, both the individual states and the federal government are sovereign states. Hence, the 'double jeopardy' clause of the 5A does not apply if you get prosecuted for the same crime by, say, the Feds and the state of Iowa. Some states--notably New York--have state laws that prevent the state from prosecuting anyone who has already been prosecuted for the same crime at the federal level. (Related, but not relevant here, is that the Feds do not pursue convictions on defendants who have been acquitted on state charges, but that is a longstanding, discretionary policy not to exercise the rights of the Fed.) So if Mueller landed a federal conviction of someone and they, in turn, got pardoned, NY's own laws prevent the state from bringing a case. The 'undercharging' in the indictments leaves as much as possible on the table for the states to go after any conspirators without running afoul of such laws.
edit: my goodness, look at all the minimum wage posts. It must have taken longer than I thought to write this up.
I don't question the possibility. I question the wisdom of assuming that the solution to poverty is to tell poor people to solve the problem themselves. That strategy has a 100% track record of abject failure.
I used to work at a homeless shelter. Every month, we sent 15-25 people out into the workforce with strong resumes and solid career plans. I see the graduates of the program on Linkedin sometimes. But we didn't do it by simply saying "improve yourself" in class every day. It was much more complicated than that. We had to help people design their own individualized career plans and figure out where they wanted to work and how they could get there.
And yes, some of that did involve "free stuff." The principle was to get people to get back on their own two feet, but many of them did require something free in order to get to that stage. People needed money to pay off old traffic tickets that were preventing them from getting a new driver's license, without which they could not get to work. People needed down payments for apartments. People needed a few bucks to purchase a bicycle to get to work. People needed new suits they could wear during job interviews. People needed to buy tools to actually bring to work every day. People needed loans to go to vocational schools. Once you get people back on their feet, they can sustain themselves, but getting to that point of self-sustainability costs money.
I've personally helped dozens of people lift themselves out of poverty and homelessness. And no, it doesn't just come from giving them a few bucks to buy a meal one time, and no, it doesn't just come from an inspirational call to action. As one of my coworkers said on my first day, you don't save people; they save themselves. It's their lives they're living, after all. The key is to get people the resources they need in order to stand on their own two feet and become independent.
You can improve your salary and get a better job by pursuing higher education or training. But education and training cost money and time, and if you want people to get those better jobs, you have to make those resources available.
The shelter I worked at was Haven for Hope in San Antonio. Look it up--H4H is a national model for curing the root causes of homelessness, and hundreds of leaders from cities all over the country have come to our campus specifically to learn about H4H's methods and implement them in their own hometowns. The shelter saves San Antonio millions dollars in diversions from the ER and local jails alone. In its first two years of operation, it cut the downtown homeless population in half. Graduates from H4H have high rates of employment and low rates of drug use and criminal recidivism.
You know, you can solve a problem, or you can wait for other people to solve it. As for me, I tried the former.
Turns out, it works.
A couple years ago I was in the position of looking seriously at unemployment benefits due to a change in my job. The state benefits in the red state I lived in were somewhat pathetic and meager. It was something but definitely not a free ride and it would not last very long. My family would have really struggled if I'd ended up unemployed.
The hoops and bureaucracy you have to jump through are typical and depressing. It looked as pointless and aggravating as a typical trip to the DMV. Most people have at some point in their lives big changes and they may need help.
As for the minimum wage discussion there is a huge pink elephant in the room. A significant portion of the work force are stupid. Some are mentally disabled or have other limitations. It is highly likely that these people will lose their jobs if the minimum wages get hiked up significantly, simply because they cannot keep up with the productivity requirements.
- some take the line that it's important that everyone be treated equally to avoid discrimination getting embedded;
- others feel it's more important that everyone has the opportunity to work, even if that means that lower pay is accepted.
Personally I would prefer a different approach. Years ago there used to be a scheme in the UK where the government paid a proportion of the salary for disabled people in order to help them access work. That makes far more sense to me than the all or nothing approach we now have where people tend to be either shoved into unsuitable short-term jobs or they don't work at all and claim benefits.
To try and make savings the government is constantly changing the appraisal processes on suitability for work. Under those criteria my son has been recently assessed as able to work. While that's true to some extent the appraisal has carefully not recorded (though it was supposed to) that the actions he can do will typically take him 2-3 times as long as an able-bodied person. That leaves us in the position of having to appeal against the decision - we've got a good chance of winning in that and are far from alone in finding the appraisal process inappropriate. However, in order to win an appeal we effectively have to demonstrate that he can't work. That goes against the grain when I know he can - he just needs the right environment and support to do it.
"The bill would move from the current worldwide tax system, in which income earned abroad is taxed in the United States, to a territorial system in which only domestic profits would be taxed."
That seems contrary to Republican signaling on the issue. If you're trying to convince companies to come back home, why would you adopt a system in which domestic profits would be taxed but foreign profits would not?
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/362796-analysis-more-than-6000-lobbyists-have-worked-on
Up next, Medicare and social security and food stamp cuts because golly gee we have no money now that they passed this tax cuts for the rich bill and have blown a huge hole in the deficit
One thing I don't like is getting rid of the child exemptions. I won't have to worry about alternating the exemption for my little girl with my ex at least, but it still seems to punish people for having large families. Not sure what that was supposed to accomplish. Are Catholics not paying their fair share???