Longterm Commitments

[The Rabbi]

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...

Sorry... I do have a life outside of the Message Board... I was cleaning out my Garage of my $200k home that you think I am jealous of other people for.

Let me ask you... in this AMERICAN Economy.. who isn't worth $7.25/hr?

Is that the America you want to see? where Families and extended families live under one roof to make ends meet so that the wealthiest among us can afford another yacht or Lear jet?

IF that is the America you are proposing... good luck with that, because I will fight to the death to prevent it.

Lots of people aren't worth 7.25/hr. We can start with black teenagers, currently at over 20% unemployment. Then white teenagers. Immigrants who can't speak English.
You probably aren't worth that either, except you're protected by a union.

 

[Steelplate]

Lots of people aren't worth 7.25/hr. We can start with black teenagers, currently at over 20% unemployment. Then white teenagers. Immigrants who can't speak English.
You probably aren't worth that either, except you're protected by a union.

Wow, just wow...

And you wonder why we call you racists? Black teens... White teens(as a token gesture of equality)? Immigrants?

How about you? What's your job worth? Fuck you... I deem your job to be worth $8.00/hr.

Now figure up your very basics of living... no television, no cell phones, etc. And try to raise a family of four on it. I fucking DARE You. Account for EVERYTHING... Transportation to and from work, food on the table(no food stamps... you got rid of them already), roof over your head and clothes on your(and your family's) back...

I want it itemized.

You won't do it... You won't even attempt it. because you know you can't. Yet this is the life you are condemning others to live because you "say so".

 

[The Rabbi]

Lots of people aren't worth 7.25/hr. We can start with black teenagers, currently at over 20% unemployment. Then white teenagers. Immigrants who can't speak English.
You probably aren't worth that either, except you're protected by a union.

Wow, just wow...

And you wonder why we call you racists? Black teens... White teens(as a token gesture of equality)? Immigrants?

How about you? What's your job worth? Fuck you... I deem your job to be worth $8.00/hr.

Now figure up your very basics of living... no television, no cell phones, etc. And try to raise a family of four on it. I fucking DARE You. Account for EVERYTHING... Transportation to and from work, food on the table(no food stamps... you got rid of them already), roof over your head and clothes on your(and your family's) back...

I want it itemized.

You won't do it... You won't even attempt it. because you know you can't. Yet this is the life you are condemning others to live because you "say so".

Yes I think you are in fact the most ignorant idiot on this entire site.

In fact black teen unemployment is about 20%. If they were worth $7.25/hr it wouldn't be that high. BUt lacking experience and job skills there aren't many jobs that someone more qualified won't take.

You are changing the equation. No one is owed a cell phone, accomodation, or any other thing. You earn it. I realize that's a novel concept for you, since your job exists only because your union protects your worthless ass.

 

[whitehall]

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 America’s attempt to become energy independent. Back in the 70’s when there was a gas shortage, America set it’s 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 don’t 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.

Let me get this straight Bogie, you think the 3rd greatest problem for civilized nations is ....climate change? National defense doesn't make the list?

 

[Flopper]

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 America’s attempt to become energy independent. Back in the 70’s when there was a gas shortage, America set it’s 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 don’t 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.

Let me get this straight Bogie, you think the 3rd greatest problem for civilized nations is ....climate change? National defense doesn't make the list?

I wasn't listing just serious problems, I was listing problems that require long term solutions over many years and possibly decades. If I were to list only current serious problems, I would have listed terrorism and unemployment. Looking in my crystal ball, I think both will improve considerably during this decade.

I believe Islamic terrorism will runs it's course just as Irish terrorism against England did. We've knock off the head and probably the number two man. We have seriously crippled the flow of funds. Most important thou, Islamic states are taking a stronger stand against terrorism, not because of anything we've done, but rather because they are recognizing that terrorist organizations can not be controlled.

The unemployment problem will improve. It may take a year or it may take 5 years but it will get better. Of course it could get worst before it improves. The government has thrown everything it can at it except a big tax cut which isn't an option with the high deficit. Eventually we will make meaningful spending cuts but it might have to wait until after the 2012 election. Housing will improve and when it does, I think we will have a major economic recovery.

 

[whitehall]

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 America’s attempt to become energy independent. Back in the 70’s when there was a gas shortage, America set it’s 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 don’t 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.

Let me get this straight Bogie, you think the 3rd greatest problem for civilized nations is ....climate change? National defense doesn't make the list?

I wasn't listing just serious problems, I was listing problems that require long term solutions over many years and possibly decades. If I were to list only current serious problems, I would have listed terrorism and unemployment. Looking in my crystal ball, I think both will improve considerably during this decade.

I believe Islamic terrorism will runs it's course just as Irish terrorism against England did. We've knock off the head and probably the number two man. We have seriously crippled the flow of funds. Most important thou, Islamic states are taking a stronger stand against terrorism, not because of anything we've done, but rather because they are recognizing that terrorist organizations can not be controlled.

The unemployment problem will improve. It may take a year or it may take 5 years but it will get better. Of course it could get worst before it improves. The government has thrown everything it can at it except a big tax cut which isn't an option with the high deficit. Eventually we will make meaningful spending cuts but it might have to wait until after the 2012 election. Housing will improve and when it does, I think we will have a major economic recovery.

Did you ever consider that political factions can create "long term problems" or a crisis that doesn't exist and use it to extort money or create hysteria or even create a political agenda? What if NOAA scientists were right back in the 70's when they said the world might endure another ice age or mini ice age? The junk science of global warming has been skewed with so much fake data that it has become a joke.

 

[bripat9643]

No, the American labor movement was not some left wing progressive movement hatched out of LBJ’s 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.

The Clayton Act was passed in 1914 under Wilson, so that claim is obviously false.

Both Republicans and Democrats passed child labor laws in many states beginning in 1800’s 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.

During the 19th Century was the "progressive" part. That is, they were socialists. Whether the Republicans passed them or the Democrats passed them, the fact is they are all socialist measures.

The labor movement is indisputably a leftist movement. In fact, it is almost entirely the fruit of the writings of Karl Marx. All the labor propaganda and program is ultimately derived from Marx and Engels.

 

[bripat9643]

Let me ask you... in this AMERICAN Economy.. who isn't worth $7.25/hr?

I can't tell you how many teenagers working at fast food joints can't get a simple thing like getting your order correct. That's the only thing they have to do. It's their profession. They do it for at least 20 hours a week, and they can't even get that right.

They aren't worth $1.00/hr, let alone $7.25.

 

[auditor0007]

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?

The Problem with your whole though process is that when Obama and the Dems talk about Tax Cuts for Millionaires and Billionaires. They are talking about a group of which only about 5% are Millionaires and Billionaires. The other 95% are people making just over 200grand, and couples making just over 250Grand a year. Many of whom own small businesses and employ people. Those are the people who will really be effected if Obama gets his way and raises Taxes on "Millionaires and Billionaires"

Ending the Bush tax cuts should include ending them for everyone, not just the wealthy.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

The Problem with your whole though process is that when Obama and the Dems talk about Tax Cuts for Millionaires and Billionaires. They are talking about a group of which only about 5% are Millionaires and Billionaires. The other 95% are people making just over 200grand, and couples making just over 250Grand a year. Many of whom own small businesses and employ people. Those are the people who will really be effected if Obama gets his way and raises Taxes on "Millionaires and Billionaires"

Ending the Bush tax cuts should include ending them for everyone, not just the wealthy.

That would mean Democrats are raising taxes on people earning less than 250k, which Obama pledged not to do.
Might be why the Dums voted to extend the cuts. In any case raising taxes in a recession is a real dumb idea.

 

[Old Rocks]

A whole bunch of people making many millions, some many tens of millions, per year, just put millions of Americans out of work.

Explain please.

These are the salaries of the modern CEO. Who complains that the American worker is too expensive, so outsources the factories to third world countries, and throws Americans out of work. Then bitchs about those lazy Americans that won't get a job, and pay $100 for the product that he produces overseas for $10.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Problem with your whole though process is that when Obama and the Dems talk about Tax Cuts for Millionaires and Billionaires. They are talking about a group of which only about 5% are Millionaires and Billionaires. The other 95% are people making just over 200grand, and couples making just over 250Grand a year. Many of whom own small businesses and employ people. Those are the people who will really be effected if Obama gets his way and raises Taxes on "Millionaires and Billionaires"

Ending the Bush tax cuts should include ending them for everyone, not just the wealthy.

That would mean Democrats are raising taxes on people earning less than 250k, which Obama pledged not to do.
Might be why the Dums voted to extend the cuts. In any case raising taxes in a recession is a real dumb idea.

Well, I think that President Obama has made a mistake in not just re-instating the whole of the Clinton tax schedule. And adding a couple of more steps. An additional 5% for those making 500k, and an additional 10% for those making, from any source, a million or more.
And close a bunch of loopholes.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ending the Bush tax cuts should include ending them for everyone, not just the wealthy.

That would mean Democrats are raising taxes on people earning less than 250k, which Obama pledged not to do.
Might be why the Dums voted to extend the cuts. In any case raising taxes in a recession is a real dumb idea.

Well, I think that President Obama has made a mistake in not just re-instating the whole of the Clinton tax schedule. And adding a couple of more steps. An additional 5% for those making 500k, and an additional 10% for those making, from any source, a million or more.
And close a bunch of loopholes.

Let him know the next time he calls.