| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/28/2006 08:20:12 AM · #101 |
I do not disagree with providing for those who cannot provide for themselves. I do disagree with providing for those that choose not to or won't.
Life is full of choices. I expect people to make informed responsible ones. I do not believe is supporting those that have access to an education and then choose to be generation after generation after generation dependent on a social welfare system.
I also have a hard time accepting the cost of medical care and other support for those who are here illegally. In my opinion, these types of social responsibilities are better served through charities and churches where people are free to donate their money to causes they support.
Message edited by author 2006-09-28 08:23:12.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 10:18:33 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I do not disagree with providing for those who cannot provide for themselves. I do disagree with providing for those that choose not to or won't.
Life is full of choices. I expect people to make informed responsible ones. I do not believe is supporting those that have access to an education and then choose to be generation after generation after generation dependent on a social welfare system.
I also have a hard time accepting the cost of medical care and other support for those who are here illegally. In my opinion, these types of social responsibilities are better served through charities and churches where people are free to donate their money to causes they support. |
The world isn't quite so "black" and "white" as you choose to seem to want it be.
The "illegals" would not be here if big business wasn't so eager to hire them. Wal-Mart would be a case in point. Why pay someone a "living wage" when you can hire someone for less than minimum wage? Now, I'm just trying to clarify your position (not that I agree or disagree with it)... but say an "illegal" working 70 hours per week for Wal-Mart, with no medical benefits, has a heart attact. Should the hospitals refuse him/her medical care?
As for people who you say refuse to work, I'll give you a real world example. My aunt's husband worked for Nabisco for 25 years. The company decided to close down their local plant and go elsewhere to "save" money. He was making $25/hr. They had a nice family, nice home, nice car. He's also 57 years old. Since this happened, the only job's that he's been able to find are factory jobs paying minimum wage. That's $5.25/hr. He's been on average working two full time jobs and one part time to keep up with just the basics. They've lost their car (and are now driving a 20 year old junk yard type car), they've been through bankruptcy to save their house but are again on the verge of losing it. They've had their medical conditions made exceptionally worse due to the loss of insurance (he's diabetic and frequently goes without medication because they can't afford it). They are not illegals. They've never asked for a handout. Yet they are working "poor". He made what he thought was a great choice 25 years ago. A union job that he thought he would have until retirement. So where did he go wrong? Was it not going to college? He was an orphan. In that day and age, you were set free at 18, sink or swim. It wasn't an option. He's recently lost his best paying job at Mellita Coffee, they let everyone go who was making more than $9/hr, waited 2 months and hired people for $6/hr. He can't collect unemployment because he still holds another full time job at a gas station. Yet, they can't make their mortgage.
I guess at this point, I'm rambling. But, people who think the world is cut and dried just make me so angry. Not everyone has a choice in whether they end up rich or poor. Those who are already rich can send their kids to the best schools to insure that those fortunes are held onto. The rest get community college at best. Unless you're brillant or an exceptional athlete and get a scholarship, if you are poor or even middle class you cannot afford college. |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 11:35:11 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by kdsprog:
The "illegals" would not be here if big business wasn't so eager to hire them. Wal-Mart would be a case in point. Why pay someone a "living wage" when you can hire someone for less than minimum wage? Now, I'm just trying to clarify your position (not that I agree or disagree with it)... but say an "illegal" working 70 hours per week for Wal-Mart, with no medical benefits, has a heart attact. Should the hospitals refuse him/her medical care?
As for people who you say refuse to work, I'll give you a real world example. My aunt's husband worked for Nabisco for 25 years. The company decided to close down their local plant and go elsewhere to "save" money. He was making $25/hr. They had a nice family, nice home, nice car. He's also 57 years old. Since this happened, the only job's that he's been able to find are factory jobs paying minimum wage. That's $5.25/hr. He's been on average working two full time jobs and one part time to keep up with just the basics. They've lost their car (and are now driving a 20 year old junk yard type car), they've been through bankruptcy to save their house but are again on the verge of losing it. They've had their medical conditions made exceptionally worse due to the loss of insurance (he's diabetic and frequently goes without medication because they can't afford it). They are not illegals. They've never asked for a handout. Yet they are working "poor". He made what he thought was a great choice 25 years ago. A union job that he thought he would have until retirement. So where did he go wrong? Was it not going to college? He was an orphan. In that day and age, you were set free at 18, sink or swim. It wasn't an option. He's recently lost his best paying job at Mellita Coffee, they let everyone go who was making more than $9/hr, waited 2 months and hired people for $6/hr. He can't collect unemployment because he still holds another full time job at a gas station. Yet, they can't make their mortgage.
I guess at this point, I'm rambling. But, people who think the world is cut and dried just make me so angry. Not everyone has a choice in whether they end up rich or poor. Those who are already rich can send their kids to the best schools to insure that those fortunes are held onto. The rest get community college at best. Unless you're brillant or an exceptional athlete and get a scholarship, if you are poor or even middle class you cannot afford college. |
To answer your first question, my answer would be yes. They should refuse medical care if the cost is going to be transferred to the US tax paying public at large or even the local community. They could give him care if either the Mexican government would re-imburse the cost or his family would pay the cost or a charitable organization supporting the illegal would opt to cover the cost.
Regarding your second scenario. I have no problem with local, state and national governments assisting those who are trying to help themselves. I have been the recipient of such help myself in the past due to a temporary loss of employment. My problem with socialism, is that in this scenario, your uncle would be kept by the state even without his extra efforts. As those in New Orleans had done for generations. Then they blamed everyone else but themselves for their plight. It was someone else's fault that they were victims, not their own disregard for an education, or work ethic, etc.
I make a sincere distinction between those who try and can't and those who don't try. It appears that your uncle thinks like I do. I do admire the character that he has displayed. Unlike the character of another this thread was begun over.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 11:44:04 AM · #104 |
| With no disrespect to your uncle, how much of the $25 did he save while he was making it and how much was spent on alcohol and tobacco? |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 11:49:33 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by kdsprog:
As for people who you say refuse to work, I'll give you a real world example. My aunt's husband worked for Nabisco for 25 years. The company decided to close down their local plant and go elsewhere to "save" money. He was making $25/hr. They had a nice family, nice home, nice car. He's also 57 years old. Since this happened, the only job's that he's been able to find are factory jobs paying minimum wage. That's $5.25/hr. He's been on average working two full time jobs and one part time to keep up with just the basics. They've lost their car (and are now driving a 20 year old junk yard type car), they've been through bankruptcy to save their house but are again on the verge of losing it. They've had their medical conditions made exceptionally worse due to the loss of insurance (he's diabetic and frequently goes without medication because they can't afford it). They are not illegals. They've never asked for a handout. Yet they are working "poor". He made what he thought was a great choice 25 years ago. A union job that he thought he would have until retirement. So where did he go wrong? Was it not going to college? He was an orphan. In that day and age, you were set free at 18, sink or swim. It wasn't an option. He's recently lost his best paying job at Mellita Coffee, they let everyone go who was making more than $9/hr, waited 2 months and hired people for $6/hr. He can't collect unemployment because he still holds another full time job at a gas station. Yet, they can't make their mortgage.
|
The fact that stories like this exist and are common in our country breaks my heart. I consider myself to be centrist in my political persuasions (although the current administration has forced me to flee further to the left). However, I cannot with good conscious see how we can allow conditions which allow "working poor". The fact that the reps blocked a minimum wage raise with a poison pill amendment which would cut taxes for the rich turns my stomach. Although I will likely be in the top decile in income by the time I hit my 50s I fully believe in a tax system which is progressive. The more the better. Yes, you heard it from someone who is "wealthy". Tax me and not the poor!
Who's to blame? 1) The politicians who cannot stomach tough choices, but more importantly 2) Us. We all love our rollback specials and lower prices are king in the US. Would we tolerate the subsequent rise in prices to pay these working poor? Not without bitching each and every day about it.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 11:51:29 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
With no disrespect to your uncle, how much of the $25 did he save while he was making it and how much was spent on alcohol and tobacco? |
He neither smokes nor drinks. And never has. They had savings. It doesn't last long when your income is cut so severely. They have never lived a lavish lifestyle, if that's what you're getting at. The loss of the job is now over 5 years old. It has taken that long for them to hit rock bottom. They also have a 17 year old daughter who is in 12th grade and a mentally handicapped daughter who is now 24. She (the 24 year old) will live with them forever and have to be taken care of. She has the mental capacity of about a 10 year old.
edit to add: I also find it insulting that you would ask and assume this of someone you do not know.
Message edited by author 2006-09-28 11:53:03. |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 12:22:58 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The link to socialism and my belief that it discourages personal accountability is the positions taken by the liberal left (socialist embracing) that those that have should mandatorily support those who do not have. This in my view, promotes dependence rather than independence. |
Well the opposing view is that conservatism promotes self interest and a refusal to accept responsibility through self interest. Both viewpoints are hogwash.
Accountability in government is a matter of individual integrity combined with degree of perceived permanence: well established governments tend towards regarding themselves as unimpeachable, above the law. Any government after 8-12 years will probably be creaking under the weight of stagnation and potentially a degree of corruption/self interest. The exercise of power becomes something to do for the sake of preserving the government, rather than as a consequence of being elected into the government.
Originally posted by Flash:
The UK (for example) has fuel costs roughly 2-3 times the US due to the taxes imposed to pay the costs of various social welfare programs. I believe that reliance on socialized porgrams, inhibits the contribution potential of individuals. I believe this has been proven in nearly every country that has this form of structure. |
The UK has one of the most competitive economies in the world. This is combined with universal healthcare, social security and pensions - none perfect, but better than nothing. We pay more in taxes (cost of fuel is the least of it), but have fewer people dying from preventative causes on our streets. I am not sure what you are trying to demonstrate here.
There is an article here that gives a view that the absence of this structure is harming the US economy (at the very least, your argument is not "proven").
Originally posted by Flash:
There is in my view, no excuse in America for 3rd-5th generation poor. America has free public schools. No one is denied access to an education. Therefore, for anyone to be 3rd and 4th and 5th generation poor (read dependent on social welfare), then it is due to their lack of initiave or drive. |
But you promote a scenario that provides for people to have access to the bare minimum: in your scenario, people with nothing have to drag themselves out of the mire that they are born into.
Originally posted by Flash:
The asians do not have 3rd generation poor. The mexicans do not have 3rd generation poor. The Irish did not have 3rd generation poor. Why does New Orleans have 3rd to 5th generation poor? It is because of the failed social welfare dependencies that are driven by the socialists. |
Isn't New Orleans part of the US? Might your question be "why does the US have 3-5th generation relative poor when other countries do not"? Might the answer (not the problem) be the lack of social values in US politics? Or are you just having a dig at the poorest people of your nation for their skin colour?
Originally posted by Flash:
As a complete aside - I asked my brother last night if he felt I was a liberal or a conservative? He stated without hesitation, that he felt I was a Liberal. I doubt many here would agree. |
I would agree: liberalism (in its truest form) is a preference for the absence of regulation or state interference. In the context of economics, welfare etc, that means complete free market-ism. However, I guess (apologies if wrong) that you are socially illiberal (unforgiving in relation to, say, individual rights such as gay rights, anti-discrimination legislation, so-called political correctness, human rights as against the state).
These principles reflect modern conservative party/right wing principles.
The socialism that you so fear is broadly made up of less liberal economic policy (a degree of spreading wealth). The US has social policies: they do not cause a country to cease to work (and potentially make it more effective). The only question is to what degree they should be implemented to achieve the desired output.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 12:36:53 PM · #108 |
In the recently released comparison list of global competitiveness, the US was 6th. A number of the country's above (if not all of them) are far more socialistic than us.
1. Switzerland
2. Finland
3. Sweden
4. Denmark
5. Singapore
6. US
10. UK
Sorry to legalbeagle...the UK came in 10th. Must be the food.
Message edited by author 2006-09-28 12:37:21.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 12:42:26 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by Flash:
To answer your first question, my answer would be yes. They should refuse medical care if the cost is going to be transferred to the US tax paying public at large or even the local community. They could give him care if either the Mexican government would re-imburse the cost or his family would pay the cost or a charitable organization supporting the illegal would opt to cover the cost.
|
I think you missed my point on this one. You say it's perfectly OK to let a fellow human being die unless their government or a charity puts up the money to save them.
I say, if the US government made the consequences so dire that a company wouldn't dare hire an "illegal", THEY WOULDN'T BE HERE! But they won't, because in essence, our current administration is in bed with big business. Big business needs these people to give us the prices we are accustomed to.
So I say, maybe the tax payers shouldn't be picking up the medical bill, but you can't just let a fellow human being die on the street because they don't have insurance or are here illegally. Maybe the cost should be spread out to all the big business owners. After all, if there were NO jobs here for them, they would not come in the first place. |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 01:11:48 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by kdsprog:
Originally posted by Flash:
To answer your first question, my answer would be yes. They should refuse medical care if the cost is going to be transferred to the US tax paying public at large or even the local community. They could give him care if either the Mexican government would re-imburse the cost or his family would pay the cost or a charitable organization supporting the illegal would opt to cover the cost.
|
I think you missed my point on this one. You say it's perfectly OK to let a fellow human being die unless their government or a charity puts up the money to save them.
I say, if the US government made the consequences so dire that a company wouldn't dare hire an "illegal", THEY WOULDN'T BE HERE! But they won't, because in essence, our current administration is in bed with big business. Big business needs these people to give us the prices we are accustomed to.
So I say, maybe the tax payers shouldn't be picking up the medical bill, but you can't just let a fellow human being die on the street because they don't have insurance or are here illegally. Maybe the cost should be spread out to all the big business owners. After all, if there were NO jobs here for them, they would not come in the first place. |
As crass as this may appear, I do believe it is OK for human beings to be subject to their decisions. In your case of the illegal, it was their choice to enter illegally. I do not see how a national or local government is responsible for medical needs of a person who shows up at a hospital emergency room illegally. I fully support organizations who choose to collect funds to advance their cause that illegals should receive medical treatment, but to mandate local or national treasury money be used to pay these costs when zero contribution to these treasuries has been generated is akin to theft, in my opinion. Ther are localities on and near the border that are literally going broke because they cannot sustain the operating funds necessary for the legal population in those areas. So to address your "humanitarian" question, is it OK with you that illegals swipe the money from the local funds and thus leave those who have contributed with no funds when their emergency occurs? Do I feel sad for those in that condition? Yes! Do I charitably donate to causes that I believe will help the greatest number of needs? Yes. Do I feel that I MUST pay a tax to support those that are illegally here? No.
edit to add: I am fully willing to let all those who feel sympathy for the "unfortunates", to be taxed at double and triple the rate. My self, I will contribute voluntarily to those causes that I support. If you feel strongly about an issue, then you should donate to it. Just don't tell me what issue I have to support through your taxation of my wages.
Message edited by author 2006-09-28 13:15:04.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 01:18:58 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Flash:
As a complete aside - I asked my brother last night if he felt I was a liberal or a conservative? He stated without hesitation, that he felt I was a Liberal. I doubt many here would agree. |
I would agree: liberalism (in its truest form) is a preference for the absence of regulation or state interference. In the context of economics, welfare etc, that means complete free market-ism. However, I guess (apologies if wrong) that you are socially illiberal (unforgiving in relation to, say, individual rights such as gay rights, anti-discrimination legislation, so-called political correctness, human rights as against the state).
These principles reflect modern conservative party/right wing principles. |
Not that it particularly matters in this discussion...my personal views on some social items (like gay behaviour, abortion choice, etc) are more attuned with the left. My views on taxation are quite aligned with the right. Since gay behaviour and abortion are particulars that have no bearing on me personally and taxation, strong military defense, limited government does, I support candidates that address my interests.
The recent attacks on christian symbolism within the US does not make me a cheerleader for the ACLU, although I recognize their benefit.
Message edited by author 2006-09-28 13:29:31.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 01:27:38 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Sorry to legalbeagle...the UK came in 10th. Must be the food. |
That was the report that I linked to, too. It is the number of holidays we take, methinks - effective but time-poor Americans and their 15-20 day holiday allowances...!
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 01:31:08 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by Flash:
edit to add: I am fully willing to let all those who feel sympathy for the "unfortunates", to be taxed at double and triple the rate. My self, I will contribute voluntarily to those causes that I support. If you feel strongly about an issue, then you should donate to it. Just don't tell me what issue I have to support through your taxation of my wages. |
So, how about supporting the war through taxes? Why don't we support the life through taxes and let the few that can profit from it support the war through donations? The vast majority of taxpayers' money today goes to military spending. Why is it a given to be taxed for the purposes of killing other people, but not to pay taxes to save people's lives?
My point: US would achieve security far faster and far more efficiently (read: cheaper) by investing in humanitarian programs, starting at home and then abroad, then wasting - yes - wasting billions of dollars on killing people. I've said it before: if you are after security, you better kill them all, because the more people you kill over there, the more families/neighbors etc. grow from innocent civilians to alienated, crazed assassins that have no other purpose in life than to kill back.
You do not need declassified 4 pages out of a intelligence report book to figure this out by yourself - unless your brains have been successfully transplanted, and instead of thinking on your own, you just apply the phrases and rhetoric of your rulers.
This goes for all sides argueing the issues on their extremes, not just neocons, nor specifically you, Flash. |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 01:40:15 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
My point: US would achieve security far faster and far more efficiently (read: cheaper) by investing in humanitarian programs, starting at home and then abroad, then wasting - yes - wasting billions of dollars on killing people. I've said it before: if you are after security, you better kill them all, because the more people you kill over there, the more families/neighbors etc. grow from innocent civilians to alienated, crazed assassins that have no other purpose in life than to kill back. |
I am aware of this argument and liken it to those that claim that social support for the underprivileged will heal the ills and produce self sustaining contributing members to society. If we spend more money on rehabilitation of prisoners, if we are only more kind and gentle to those misunderstood unfortunates, if we only spend more money on after school programs, or housing, or school lunches or neighborhood cleanup projects, we would not have the social ills that plague us.
The decades of pouring money into these social programs bears a different outcome.
Yet when it is suggested to let local churches get involved it is somehow evil and a violation of the separation of church and state. The liberal left wants a state run, state owned solution that takes as much money from every worker and makes them dependent upon the state system that they are forced to support. Thus the contributors become less and the recipients grow.
Message edited by author 2006-09-28 13:56:44.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 02:01:17 PM · #115 |
Despite any historical context, I think liberalism has been replaced in terminology with libertarianism to represent people who want less government influence in citizen lives. I've always seen the X/Y axis with Liberal/conservative on the X axis and Libertarian/Authoritarian on the Y axis.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 02:11:06 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Isn't New Orleans part of the US? Might your question be "why does the US have 3-5th generation relative poor when other countries do not"? Might the answer (not the problem) be the lack of social values in US politics? Or are you just having a dig at the poorest people of your nation for their skin colour? |
No dig. I already referenced as examples those of "color" (ie. brown, yellow and those "dirty" Irish)as examples of countrymen who encourage their offspring to get educated, work hard, and improve on the prior generation. The New Orleans example is used as it is more worldly known as opposed to the slums of Detroit, or Flint, or DC.
Message edited by author 2006-09-28 14:11:47.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 03:14:52 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by kdsprog:
So where did he go wrong? |
Maybe he should have realized he was getting paid way more then he could at any other job and made Just in case plans? Also, very rare does a company pick up and move with no notice. Were there rumors or warning signs?
I feel bad for him, I hope he lands firmly on his feet. It sounds like he will because he is willing to do what he needs to do rather then sit back and cry about it.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 03:20:59 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Despite any historical context, I think liberalism has been replaced in terminology with libertarianism to represent people who want less government influence in citizen lives. I've always seen the X/Y axis with Liberal/conservative on the X axis and Libertarian/Authoritarian on the Y axis. |
Like conservatives, liberals only accept some forms of less government and only some forms of freedoms. Libertarians want both across the board meaning no income taxes, no welfare or other entitlements or social restrictions that don't infringe on others.
Message edited by author 2006-09-28 15:22:07. |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 03:34:05 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The Katrina example used earlier, ia another illustration. The victims most affected were those most dependent on the social welfare, that was promoted by the left leaning liberal mayor and govenor. There is in my view, no excuse in America for 3rd-5th generation poor. America has free public schools. No one is denied access to an education. Therefore, for anyone to be 3rd and 4th and 5th generation poor (read dependent on social welfare), then it is due to their lack of initiave or drive. The asians do not have 3rd generation poor. The mexicans do not have 3rd generation poor. The Irish did not have 3rd generation poor. Why does New Orleans have 3rd to 5th generation poor? It is because of the failed social welfare dependencies that are driven by the socialists.
|
If multi-generational dependence on welfare is the fault of the state, why is it that certain groups break out and others do not? Seems that the failure is in the individual, not in the assistances provided by the government. I fail to see how pointing out demographic failures or successes proves your point. In fact, the assistance provided to the first generation groups in your examples may well have made the difference that allowed the 2nd, 3rd, etc generation to break out. |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 04:02:41 PM · #120 |
I think the average person on this site has absolutely zero idea of what kind of battle a typical poor minority has in this country. Sure they have access to free school, but:
a) We all know the best learning comes at home. That's hard to achieve when mama is working two jobs just to pay the rent on your hellhole and gets home bone tired.
b) All schools are not built equally. I'll give you one guess as to who gets the worst ones...
Add on the lingering current of prejudice which has definitely improved in our generation but still exists and you have a huge mountain to climb. My six-year-old will have to TRY to not succeed with the benefits he is afforded. The typical six-year-old living in the ninth ward may try his hardest and still not be able to break free of the cycle of poverty.
Message edited by author 2006-09-28 16:23:28.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 04:37:04 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think the average person on this site has absolutely zero idea of what kind of battle a typical poor minority has in this country. Sure they have access to free school, but:
a) We all know the best learning comes at home. That's hard to achieve when mama is working two jobs just to pay the rent on your hellhole and gets home bone tired.
b) All schools are not built equally. I'll give you one guess as to who gets the worst ones...
Add on the lingering current of prejudice which has definitely improved in our generation but still exists and you have a huge mountain to climb. My six-year-old will have to TRY to fail to not succeed with the benefits he is afforded. The typical six-year-old living in the ninth ward may try his hardest and still not be able to break free of the cycle of poverty. |
I can't speak for those that lived in the 9th ward or New Orleans in general but growing up in Brooklyn, NY with my mom on welfare and my dad working two jobs (factory worker and janitor) I can certainly relate to being poor because I was. While I'm not African American I am Puerto Rican so I also know what's it like to be a minority although I'm not going to say that I know what's it like to be black in this country.
Growing up I couldn't imagine owning thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment, which I can afford now so I guess I've broken the cycle. I can't really tell you what did it as all through high school education was the last thing on my mind as the school I went to was a complete rat hole with the thread of getting shot or at least beat up a real possibility but I did manage a B average. Although the fact that many of the teachers there were just pushing kids out the door by passing them I don't hold much value in that average to tell you the truth. I did manage to go to college for two years on some grants but I never finished. Basically everything I've done to this day has been self taught, working first in tech support then as a programmer then a graphic designer and maybe in the future as a photographer. My parents didn't finish high school and couldn't even teach me how to open a bank account much less get and keep good credit so I had to figure that out myself. Maybe that's the key to breaking the cycle? Learn how to rely on yourself and not others?
Edited for spelling.
Message edited by author 2006-09-28 16:39:27. |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 05:10:58 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think the average person on this site has absolutely zero idea of what kind of battle a typical poor minority has in this country. |
Yup -- I am pretty sure that the Congressional per diem (free lunch) payment is more than a mother of two would collect on welfare, and probably pretty close to what you'd earn working a full day at Federal minimum wage (before taxes). This is a tax-free perk they get on top of their salary and office expenses. Note: The minimum wage has not been raised for ten years. Are you (anyvbody) willing to go that long without a raise?
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
-- Lord Acton, Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887
"The problem of power is how to achieve its responsible use rather than its irresponsible and indulgent use - of how to get men of power to live for the public rather than off the public."
-- Robert F. Kennedy (1925 - 1968)
"All power corrupts, but we need the electricity."
-- Unknown
Message edited by author 2006-09-28 17:11:42. |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 05:17:13 PM · #123 |
| If the TV producers had any sense of honesty they'd bring us Survivor: Inner City wherein everyone's given $10, a coat, an ID ("legitimately fake"), and a one-way bus ticket to an unfamiliar American metropolis. |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 07:35:49 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Note: The minimum wage has not been raised for ten years. Are you (anyvbody) willing to go that long without a raise? |
I don't know of any employer that only gives raises when the minimmum wage increases. |
|
|
|
09/29/2006 01:21:02 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...I was so dumbstruck by Blair's ability that I almost found myself agreeing with him.. |
hell, i voted for blair.. oops...
|
|
