Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Step one: STOP STARTING WARS1. Deficit Reduction.
2. Energy Independence
3. Climate Change.
The three greatest problems this country as well as many countries face is:
1. Deficit Reduction.
2. Energy Independence
3. Climate Change.
These three problems have one thing in common. They all require long-term solutions and commitments. None of these problems will be solved in a year or even a decade. They all require national and political commitment over a long period. With each power change in the presidency and the Congress, the party in power attempts to nullify the works of their predecessor or change direction. We have seen this in Americas attempt to become energy independent. Back in the 70s when there was a gas shortage, America set its course toward energy independence with increased oil production and conservation measures. With political changes, the emphasis was no longer energy independence but increasing economic activity. Our reliance on foreign oil has grown from 37% in 1980 to 65% today. With each change in political power, our energy policies change.
Likewise our policy concerning the deficit changes with both political power and events of the time. Most sensible people know that you cannot eliminate the deficit in one year or 4 years. It will take a commitment of both parties and the people over a decade or more to stick to a plan. In the past, deficit reduction has always been short lived.
Solving the problems in climate change is probably the most difficult of all. Many disagree that man is the primary cause. There are even some that dont even admit that the climate is changing. Then there are those who don't give damn what happens to world in 50 or a 100 years. Thus there is no real commitment to deal with any aspects of climate change, which would have to last indefinitely.
How do we solve problems that require a commitment that spans many years with changes in political power, attitudes, and events? If we are not able to do this, our future looks pretty dim.
How do you know it's "keeping them down"? How do you know employers won't take full advantage of them and give them $3, 4 or 5/ hour instead of the $7.25?
The three greatest problems this country as well as many countries face is:
1. Deficit Reduction.
2. Energy Independence
3. Climate Change.
Prediction on the Conservative response:
1. Cut all service to nothing and lower taxes on the wealthy
2. Drill baby drill
3. What climate change?
You have it down pat Steelplate. That is what the right has to say about long term solutions.
But I have to say it really puzzles me that anyone would continue to push or believe that lowering taxes on the top 2 or 3 percent would lead to one job.
Makes me wish that Reagan could come back and explain why he raised taxes.
Well let me ask you a question: how many jobs do you think a guy creates if he only makes minimum wage? Or $50,000 or $100,000?
Well then, get on your Corporate boys to loosen up some of that 2+ trillion dollars and hire people...
Oh, wait... that's right, they're playing games to see if they can make even more of the backs of the little people... Let's see, cut their services to the bone... lower the tax rate to nil, get rid of the minimum wage... maybe we can even squeeze banning overtime pay out of it!
The minimum wage keeps the least capable, the uneducated and the elderly from earning a living while driving up the retail prices of the goods and services those very people must pay to survive. What kind of monster would support that?
That's what Beck keeps telling you, isn't it?... Or is it the Heritage(Koch)Foundation?
You have it down pat Steelplate. That is what the right has to say about long term solutions.
But I have to say it really puzzles me that anyone would continue to push or believe that lowering taxes on the top 2 or 3 percent would lead to one job.
Makes me wish that Reagan could come back and explain why he raised taxes.
Well let me ask you a question: how many jobs do you think a guy creates if he only makes minimum wage? Or $50,000 or $100,000?
Even if a person is a billionaire there is no reason to believe they will ever create a job. And IMO it's just wishful thinking that they will. Go look at history and then tell me just when giving tax cuts to already rich people has created any jobs.
I can't use any links yet, but most people think that the 90's were prosperous and Clinton didn't see any need to cut taxes. The expiration of the tax cuts would only raise them to their 90's level. If they were doing fine then, do you really think that our rich would exit the country if their tax levels were brought back up to the 90's level?
You have it down pat Steelplate. That is what the right has to say about long term solutions.
But I have to say it really puzzles me that anyone would continue to push or believe that lowering taxes on the top 2 or 3 percent would lead to one job.
Makes me wish that Reagan could come back and explain why he raised taxes.
Well let me ask you a question: how many jobs do you think a guy creates if he only makes minimum wage? Or $50,000 or $100,000?
Even if a person is a billionaire there is no reason to believe they will ever create a job. And IMO it's just wishful thinking that they will. Go look at history and then tell me just when giving tax cuts to already rich people has created any jobs.
I can't use any links yet, but most people think that the 90's were prosperous and Clinton didn't see any need to cut taxes. The expiration of the tax cuts would only raise them to their 90's level. If they were doing fine then, do you really think that our rich would exit the country if their tax levels were brought back up to the 90's level?
Go look at history and then tell me just when giving tax cuts to already rich people has created any jobs.
The three greatest problems this country as well as many countries face is:
1. Deficit Reduction.
2. Energy Independence
3. Climate Change.
.
Prediction on the Conservative response:
1. Cut all service to nothing and lower taxes on the wealthy
2. Drill baby drill
3. What climate change?
How do you know it's "keeping them down"? How do you know employers won't take full advantage of them and give them $3, 4 or 5/ hour instead of the $7.25?
How do I know, because if an employee is WORTH $7.25 an hour and his employer offers him only $3, he is free to quit and work elsewhere. By taking another job at $7.25, he proves he is worth that hourly pay.
The problem is the folks that really are not worth $7.25 due their physical condition, mental capacity, inability to communicate, etc. While a business owner might be very willing to pay them a menial wage for menial work, he is forbidden to by law. The result? That weak, slow guy gets NO employment. How nice for him that you think you know what's best for other people!
On the other hand, restricting employment for the weak, slow and uneducated does force them on to the dole, which pretty much ensures they'll continue to vote to get their handouts. That seems like a really cruel way to build up a voter base to me.
Real example: When I was young I worked as a chef. We had a few young guys, a couple of homeless folks and an old, lonely retired gentleman come around wanting to do odd jobs on a regular basis. The owner would have loved to pay them a few bucks an hour plus a meal or two to wash a few windows, sweep the parking lot, wash the company van, etc. And, they were EAGER to work for that wage. However, she would of had to pay them minimum wage, which we simply could not afford for that kind of work. So instead, the full time dish washer did those other jobs after washing up the pots....or more often than not, the parking lot remained unswept and windows dirty. The end result? One guy employed at minimum wage instead of two or three guys employed at a wage that reflected what they brought to the job and more importantly, what they were WILLING to work for.
And you wonder why unemployment is so rampant among younger, older and less educated folks? There you go.
Contradict the logic in my argument if you can.
Go look at history and then tell me just when giving tax cuts to already rich people has created any jobs.
I can give you a perfect example. When I worked in the real estate business with my father years ago, we considered building a retail complex in a then underutilized section of town. We ran the numbers over and over but just couldn't make it work. We shelved the project until such time as met with the city board of directors, who eventually agreed to a significant cut in property taxes for at least the first several years of the project. Guess what? The project them made sense and we invested...which created numerous jobs for architects, inspectors, construction workers and property managers, not the mention the scores of jobs created in the retail establishments and offices that eventually rented space in the project. Eventually we sold the project and recouped a reasonable profit. It still exists today...employing people.
So, there's a little real life history for you.
How do you know it's "keeping them down"? How do you know employers won't take full advantage of them and give them $3, 4 or 5/ hour instead of the $7.25?
How do I know, because if an employee is WORTH $7.25 an hour and his employer offers him only $3, he is free to quit and work elsewhere. By taking another job at $7.25, he proves he is worth that hourly pay.
The problem is the folks that really are not worth $7.25 due their physical condition, mental capacity, inability to communicate, etc. While a business owner might be very willing to pay them a menial wage for menial work, he is forbidden to by law. The result? That weak, slow guy gets NO employment. How nice for him that you think you know what's best for other people!
On the other hand, restricting employment for the weak, slow and uneducated does force them on to the dole, which pretty much ensures they'll continue to vote to get their handouts. That seems like a really cruel way to build up a voter base to me.
Real example: When I was young I worked as a chef. We had a few young guys, a couple of homeless folks and an old, lonely retired gentleman come around wanting to do odd jobs on a regular basis. The owner would have loved to pay them a few bucks an hour plus a meal or two to wash a few windows, sweep the parking lot, wash the company van, etc. And, they were EAGER to work for that wage. However, she would of had to pay them minimum wage, which we simply could not afford for that kind of work. So instead, the full time dish washer did those other jobs after washing up the pots....or more often than not, the parking lot remained unswept and windows dirty. The end result? One guy employed at minimum wage instead of two or three guys employed at a wage that reflected what they brought to the job and more importantly, what they were WILLING to work for.
And you wonder why unemployment is so rampant among younger, older and less educated folks? There you go.
Contradict the logic in my argument if you can.
So I guess you cannot contradict my argument...crickets...I hear crickets...
In a free labor market, there would be no minimum wage, no wage and hour laws, no unemployment compensation, no child labor laws, and no labor unions. The cost of labor would be determined strictly by supply and demand just like commodities. When there was a glut of potatoes on the market, potatoes would rot in fields and when there was an oversupply of labor, a similar fate awaited workers. A long time ago, Americans decide that was not the kind of society they wanted, so today we have laws that protect workers.How do you know it's "keeping them down"? How do you know employers won't take full advantage of them and give them $3, 4 or 5/ hour instead of the $7.25?
How do I know, because if an employee is WORTH $7.25 an hour and his employer offers him only $3, he is free to quit and work elsewhere. By taking another job at $7.25, he proves he is worth that hourly pay.
The problem is the folks that really are not worth $7.25 due their physical condition, mental capacity, inability to communicate, etc. While a business owner might be very willing to pay them a menial wage for menial work, he is forbidden to by law. The result? That weak, slow guy gets NO employment. How nice for him that you think you know what's best for other people!
On the other hand, restricting employment for the weak, slow and uneducated does force them on to the dole, which pretty much ensures they'll continue to vote to get their handouts. That seems like a really cruel way to build up a voter base to me.
Real example: When I was young I worked as a chef. We had a few young guys, a couple of homeless folks and an old, lonely retired gentleman come around wanting to do odd jobs on a regular basis. The owner would have loved to pay them a few bucks an hour plus a meal or two to wash a few windows, sweep the parking lot, wash the company van, etc. And, they were EAGER to work for that wage. However, she would of had to pay them minimum wage, which we simply could not afford for that kind of work. So instead, the full time dish washer did those other jobs after washing up the pots....or more often than not, the parking lot remained unswept and windows dirty. The end result? One guy employed at minimum wage instead of two or three guys employed at a wage that reflected what they brought to the job and more importantly, what they were WILLING to work for.
And you wonder why unemployment is so rampant among younger, older and less educated folks? There you go.
Contradict the logic in my argument if you can.
A long time ago, Americans decide that was not the kind of society they wanted, so today we have laws that protect workers.
In effect, costs would transfer from the employer to the government.
Usually an increase in minimum wage results in little or no increase in unemployment.
No, the American labor movement was not some left wing progressive movement hatched out of LBJs Great Society. It began over a hundred years ago. The Clayton Act and Railway Labor Act, both passed under a Republican Congress and a Republican president, contained protection for American labor and collective bargaining. Both Republicans and Democrats passed child labor laws in many states beginning in 1800s culminating in the Fair labor standards act, which outlawed child labor, established the federal minimum wage and the 40-hour workweek. By 1949 every state had passed workman compensation laws, unemployment compensation, as well as wage and hour laws.A long time ago, Americans decide that was not the kind of society they wanted, so today we have laws that protect workers.
In effect, costs would transfer from the employer to the government.
Usually an increase in minimum wage results in little or no increase in unemployment.
Americans didn't decide that, Progressives did. We tried the Great Society experiment and like all others, we've run out of other people's money. Time to try freedom and liberty from government meddling.
The cost would only transfer to the government if we continue to support the transfer to wealth to recipients. That too will come to an end, either through the ballot box or by bankruptcy. I choose the former.
An increase in minimum wage usually does not increase unemployment much because those workers whose labor is not worth minimum wage are ALREADY unemployed and/or on the dole. Get rid of the minimum wage and handouts that prevent the poor from even trying to thrive and watch employment among the uneducated and unskilled workers skyrocket.
How do you know it's "keeping them down"? How do you know employers won't take full advantage of them and give them $3, 4 or 5/ hour instead of the $7.25?
How do I know, because if an employee is WORTH $7.25 an hour and his employer offers him only $3, he is free to quit and work elsewhere. By taking another job at $7.25, he proves he is worth that hourly pay.
The problem is the folks that really are not worth $7.25 due their physical condition, mental capacity, inability to communicate, etc. While a business owner might be very willing to pay them a menial wage for menial work, he is forbidden to by law. The result? That weak, slow guy gets NO employment. How nice for him that you think you know what's best for other people!
On the other hand, restricting employment for the weak, slow and uneducated does force them on to the dole, which pretty much ensures they'll continue to vote to get their handouts. That seems like a really cruel way to build up a voter base to me.
Real example: When I was young I worked as a chef. We had a few young guys, a couple of homeless folks and an old, lonely retired gentleman come around wanting to do odd jobs on a regular basis. The owner would have loved to pay them a few bucks an hour plus a meal or two to wash a few windows, sweep the parking lot, wash the company van, etc. And, they were EAGER to work for that wage. However, she would of had to pay them minimum wage, which we simply could not afford for that kind of work. So instead, the full time dish washer did those other jobs after washing up the pots....or more often than not, the parking lot remained unswept and windows dirty. The end result? One guy employed at minimum wage instead of two or three guys employed at a wage that reflected what they brought to the job and more importantly, what they were WILLING to work for.
And you wonder why unemployment is so rampant among younger, older and less educated folks? There you go.
Contradict the logic in my argument if you can.
So I guess you cannot contradict my argument...crickets...I hear crickets...
