|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 4, 2009 23:32:50 GMT -5
Well the next big battle will be health care reform.
As far as a "living wage" as Liberal as I am I have never like the repeated raising of the minimum wage. As much as we would like to think they could or should, a minimum wage job are not suppose to nor can they support a family.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 4, 2009 23:38:57 GMT -5
Exactly. I've been saying for awhile now that all the GOP is doing right now is sitting with their fingers in their ears, screaming at the top of their lungs "TAX CUTS! TAX CUTS! TAX CUTS! TAX CUTS! TAX CUTS!" because it's easier then actually comeing up with anything new. Ironbite-too bad that doesn't work. It's more that it doesn't work for us. It works for the people they want to benefit--Them and the rich guys they support--but not so much for the rest of the country. But they're more concerned with hoarding ridiculous amounts of wealth.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 4, 2009 23:55:16 GMT -5
Hey, we all know the real reason he's popular.
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Mar 5, 2009 10:29:40 GMT -5
Well the next big battle will be health care reform. As far as a "living wage" as Liberal as I am I have never like the repeated raising of the minimum wage. As much as we would like to think they could or should, a minimum wage job are not suppose to nor can they support a family. The thing is, somebody has to do those jobs. Some people just aren't skilled or smart enough for anything else. Those people deserve to be able to eat too.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Mar 5, 2009 10:34:25 GMT -5
Well, one thing the stimulus package has allowed, I received a letter from the UIA the other day...yeah, leech on society's ass, whatever... almost everyone on unemployment right now, as of Feb 28 is elligable for an extra 25 dollars per week. Believe me, that's a godsend as right now, I survive on 28 bucks every two week period after rent's paid. that and unemployment will be no taxable in 09. So it's gonna help most of us republican declared 'queens living off the state dollars'
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 5, 2009 12:06:25 GMT -5
Well the next big battle will be health care reform. As far as a "living wage" as Liberal as I am I have never like the repeated raising of the minimum wage. As much as we would like to think they could or should, a minimum wage job are not suppose to nor can they support a family. Funny, since they used to be. More importantly, it's not just raising a family that you can't do on a minimum wage job.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 5, 2009 12:27:38 GMT -5
The way I see things?
It's one thing to put up government $$$ to help resolve an issue.
It's another thing entirely to lob cash at a problem and hope it goes away.
Given the massive sums getting tossed about, the questions concerning where the money is going, and the speed at which the spending bills are getting ram-rodded through, even though Obama has the best of intentions he's verging dangerously close to the latter.
The main thing right now isn't that the government isn't spending enough. Yes, it's true that the government hasn't been doing a good job of allocating moneys where they need to go; I can think of examples going as far back as Clinton where money was over- or under-allocated or even outright wasted. But the government shouldn't be forking over piles of cash to deal with each and every crisis.
Instead, what the government needs to do is work with the everyday people in order to find ways out of the problem.
For example, at present the bailout plan will give virtually anyone with mortgage troubles government cash. A better idea would be to make the money dependent upon the person having an accountant or a counselor look over their income vs. expendiatures as well as their credit record. If a person is in shape (IE, they were legitimately trying to pay everything but came up short), they can get the $$$; if not, they'll have to undergo financial and credit counseling first. This will benefit those who were playing by the rules by getting them through the system first, while giving the people who weren't the necessary education they need to make better decisions in the future.
Likewise, the government can stipulate that if a company receives federal bailout $$$ then that company needs to account for whatever they receive down to the penny. If they cannot account for the money or wasted it, then they've just cut off their own credit line; no more bailout cash for them. This will actually enforce corporate responsibility far more than things like "salary caps" ever will, as people are already finding ways around them.
Additionally, the government can streamline the process for receiving federal scholarship money, allowing more people to get that education and/or job training they need to improve their lot in life. It can also streamline the process for small businesses to receive assistance in regards to formation and operation, since it's really going to be the small businesses that will serve to pull the economy back up.
And taxes? If even the people who write the tax laws can't figure them out, then there's a problem. I'd say it's high time to simplify the tax code so that it's easier to figure out and everyone can understand what's going on.
Oh, and the pay cuts that the government wants business leaders to take? I've not once seen Congress opt to give itself a pay cut, regardless of how bad the nation's financial state is; the politicians can tighten their belts, too.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Mar 5, 2009 12:39:27 GMT -5
Well the next big battle will be health care reform. As far as a "living wage" as Liberal as I am I have never like the repeated raising of the minimum wage. As much as we would like to think they could or should, a minimum wage job are not suppose to nor can they support a family. Funny, since they used to be. More importantly, it's not just raising a family that you can't do on a minimum wage job. Exactly. Even though it's usually frowned upon to reminisce about the "Good Old Days" that never actually existed, it used to be that a job as, say, a factory worker could support an entire family. Times have obviously changed, but it says something about a population when their minimum-wage jobs don't even let a person EAT. Just because somebody doesn't have the education or skill necessary to work anything except a minimum-wage job doesn't mean that they should have to work three or four of them in order to survive.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 5, 2009 12:50:52 GMT -5
Exactly. Even though it's usually frowned upon to reminisce about the "Good Old Days" that never actually existed, it used to be that a job as, say, a factory worker could support an entire family. Times have obviously changed, but it says something about a population when their minimum-wage jobs don't even let a person EAT. Just because somebody doesn't have the education or skill necessary to work anything except a minimum-wage job doesn't mean that they should have to work three or four of them in order to survive. The idea behind most modern minimum-wage jobs is that they're only supposed to be transitory at best. Instead of a salary, the ultimate goal is supposed to be job experience as a preparation for bigger and better things. That's part of the reason why some industries, such as fast-food, focus on hiring high school students and people in the early years of college despite the resulting high turnover rate: it's a large pool of potential employees who need the work. It's not a living wage because the average minimum wage worker isn't in a position to where they have to live exclusively on their earnings; they're young enough to where they still have a family network to fall back on. For example, I'm presently throwing newspapers; I make $6.50 an hour (plus a $0.25 / mile gas reimbursement) and average 6 hours a week. While I intend to keep the job for about 3 - 4 years, I don't intend to make a career of it. Why? In 3 - 4 years I should have my MBA; the state of Texas says you only need a master's to have a professorship at any public college, and so at that point I can go into academia if nothing else has panned out for me yet.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 5, 2009 13:10:12 GMT -5
Well the next big battle will be health care reform. As far as a "living wage" as Liberal as I am I have never like the repeated raising of the minimum wage. As much as we would like to think they could or should, a minimum wage job are not suppose to nor can they support a family. So what do you think the criteria to determine wages should be?
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 5, 2009 13:14:26 GMT -5
The way I see things? It's one thing to put up government $$$ to help resolve an issue. It's another thing entirely to lob cash at a problem and hope it goes away. Given the massive sums getting tossed about, the questions concerning where the money is going, and the speed at which the spending bills are getting ram-rodded through, even though Obama has the best of intentions he's verging dangerously close to the latter. The main thing right now isn't that the government isn't spending enough. Yes, it's true that the government hasn't been doing a good job of allocating moneys where they need to go; I can think of examples going as far back as Clinton where money was over- or under-allocated or even outright wasted. But the government shouldn't be forking over piles of cash to deal with each and every crisis. Instead, what the government needs to do is work with the everyday people in order to find ways out of the problem. For example, at present the bailout plan will give virtually anyone with mortgage troubles government cash. A better idea would be to make the money dependent upon the person having an accountant or a counselor look over their income vs. expendiatures as well as their credit record. If a person is in shape (IE, they were legitimately trying to pay everything but came up short), they can get the $$$; if not, they'll have to undergo financial and credit counseling first. This will benefit those who were playing by the rules by getting them through the system first, while giving the people who weren't the necessary education they need to make better decisions in the future. Likewise, the government can stipulate that if a company receives federal bailout $$$ then that company needs to account for whatever they receive down to the penny. If they cannot account for the money or wasted it, then they've just cut off their own credit line; no more bailout cash for them. This will actually enforce corporate responsibility far more than things like "salary caps" ever will, as people are already finding ways around them. Additionally, the government can streamline the process for receiving federal scholarship money, allowing more people to get that education and/or job training they need to improve their lot in life. It can also streamline the process for small businesses to receive assistance in regards to formation and operation, since it's really going to be the small businesses that will serve to pull the economy back up. And taxes? If even the people who write the tax laws can't figure them out, then there's a problem. I'd say it's high time to simplify the tax code so that it's easier to figure out and everyone can understand what's going on. Oh, and the pay cuts that the government wants business leaders to take? I've not once seen Congress opt to give itself a pay cut, regardless of how bad the nation's financial state is; the politicians can tighten their belts, too. Thoughts? Sky, sweetheart, the government is supposed to consist of people who are the most skilled and educated people in a society to do the job and the job of governing is complex .Everyday people just doesn't cut it. Being "called" doesn't cut it, having your heart in the right place doesn't cut it. At some point people have to know what they are doing. Would you want an everyday person to be your surgeon? Yes, I know I only addressed a small part of his post but I believe a pivotal one of his belief system.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 5, 2009 13:21:18 GMT -5
Yes, I know I only addressed a small part of his post but I believe a pivotal one of his belief system. Correction: you missed my point entirely. If you'd go back and read my suggestions, you'd see that I was talking about the government finding ways to help individuals and small businesses instead of flinging money around and focusing all their remaining attention on a handful of firms which largely got themselves into their present state.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 5, 2009 13:26:34 GMT -5
ok. I'll give you a free pass on that point.
So sky, what do you think of the New Deal? The one that got the US out of the Great Depression.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Mar 5, 2009 13:38:37 GMT -5
ok. I'll give you a free pass on that point. I suppose it's better than pointing out you got the entire point of his failpost, and that his 'criticisms' only underline your entire point that a pigeon can shit all over a messiah, but it doesn't make the pigeon higher in the pecking order or even a worthy being, let alone having any relevance. Do you think he's genuinely confusing the bail outs and the stimulus bill, or do you think he's so retarded he thinks they're the same ticket? He was doing it on the old boards too!
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 5, 2009 13:45:33 GMT -5
The way I see things? "lots of meaningless dribble" Thoughts? The way you see things is skewed by your prejudices, combined with your stupidity and lack of knowledge. Those are my thoughts on the way you "see" things.
|
|