Non aviation subject. This is well put!

[172driver]

Actually, supply side DOES work. No matter what the largest taxpayers in our society do with their money (let's stress their money) the outcome is good for the middle class. If they save, that money is invested by banks. Businesses grow and employ more workers. New businesses are started, and people from welfare to work programs are hired and empowered. If they invest directly, stocks go up. If they spend their money, goods and services are sold to them. Maybe my company puts on another airplane, and two more crews are hired. Do you see? Money not taxed out of existance is free to be passed around our entire society, bringing security and stability wherever it goes!

And the same holds true for taxes. Money is never 'taxed out of existence.' Whether it is collected by the government and redistributed or left with the people to reinvest, save, or spend, the money is still in the economy. The government may choose to spend it on military, agencies, or (heaven forbid) schools but no matter what, jobs are being created.

Corporations do create jobs if left with a surplus...but what kind of jobs are they? We have moved from an age where small businesses paid their employees a living wage, healthcare, retirement, etc. to an age where Walmart rules. Those people working for minimum wage are the ones beating their kids, drinking too much, and basically ruining the next generation. It is usually more profitable for these unskilled workers to resort to welfare...not because welfare pays them so much but because work pays so little.

The government is inherently inefficient in the distribution of wealth. This is precisely why communism doesn't work. However, they are better at looking out for the well being of the lower class than the rich guy or the corporation.

Timebuilder...you seem like a perfect example. Grew up in the streets of Philly and sympathized with the poor. Got a leg up on them and now you're thumbing your nose. 'Take care of your own neighborhood folks. I don't want to pay for it now that I'm not there anymore.' Must be a cultural problem. How many of your hero corporations are building in those neighborhoods, employing those people? How many of the corporate employees drive down there to spend their paycheck?

The government, at least, reinvests in the lower strata of our society. These people could be productive if given hope. Hope entails counseling in the schools, a strong education for all, jobs that pay a living wage, substance abuse programs, etc. All these things cost money which conservatives are quite unwilling to spend. I don't think cutting taxes to the rich 'trickles down' as far as you may think. Or maybe you guys just don't care?

Where do the Republicans spend the money that could be spent on schools? Silly arse wars that don't need to be fought. I'm all for a strong military but come on...we have enough personnel and weapons to kill off any country in short order. Why does the Muslim world hate us? Why do we keep having to fight these wars? Why are we dealing with the fear of terrorist attacks?Because we continue to interfere in their part of the world. Why should we be responsible for the defense of Israel? Kuwait? Live and let live. If Saddam gets big and bad enough, let him try to mount an attack on us...then we will demolish him. Thus far, I have seen zero evidence that Iraq has any intention or means of harming us, despite Bush's blustering attempts at convincing us that Saddam will unleash his massive powers if we don't strike first.

Some of you have called me a socialist. We are all socialists to some extent, if y'all know the meaning of the word. A true capitalist society can't exist unless we are willing to accept extreme poverty and death for many members of our society. We were much closer to it at the beginning of this century. Work conditions were atrocious, disease rampant, life-span short. The rich were quite rich though. Thus, the union was born, subverting the natural laws of capitalism, redistributing the wealth. Last time I heard, most of you belong to unions...or plan to someday. Quite a contradiction...labor supporters and conservative capitalists. Who do you favor...labor or management/stockholders? Seems that you're all for the worker when the worker happens to be you.

Well, just cut Delta's taxes, and I'm sure they will reinvest in you Delta pilots, right? Nope. They will buy the low cost alternative unless the union can stop them. The union protecting your jobs and work conditions is a great example of a socialist element of our society. You may want to look in the mirror before calling others names.

Timebuilder...I'm curious as to what made you turn to the dark side. The general trend is to become far more liberal after receiving a higher education, not the other way around. Educated Republicans are usually more focused on the financial side (taxes, anti-welfare, etc.) of politics whereas uneducated Repubs focus on gun rights, crime, abortion, etc. My guess is you are the former...earned some money and wanna keep it, not share it.

BTW, I am really a little more middle of the road than I come off but I do like to play devil's advocate.

 

[Timebuilder]

A vibrant discussion. Let's continue.

And the same holds true for taxes. Money is never 'taxed out of existence.' Whether it is collected by the government and redistributed or left with the people to reinvest, save, or spend, the money is still in the economy.

Once the money is taxed out of your hands, for you it does not exist any longer. In the government, it doesn't always make jobs. Some of it goes to pork projects far from where you live, and you will see NONE of it. Some goes to attorneys and "spin doctors" some goes to foreign aid, etc. More later.

Corporations do create jobs if left with a surplus...but what kind of jobs are they? We have moved from an age where small businesses paid their employees a living wage, healthcare, retirement, etc. to an age where Walmart rules. Those people working for minimum wage are the ones beating their kids, drinking too much, and basically ruining the next generation. It is usually more profitable for these unskilled workers to resort to welfare...not because welfare pays them so much but because work pays so little.

It doesn't take a surplus to create jobs. Corporations, or any business, need workers to succeeed and expand. This is a part of their normal manner of existance. One reason that many jobs no longer represent a lifestyle that you and I might prefer is that the standard of living has risen to unprecedented heights, so the Walmart job doesn't seem to be enough. However, the low priced goods at Walmart allow for a better lifestyle for the savvy consumers who buy there. Healthcare and retirement costs are not unique to Walmart, and are a set of discussions all to themselves. It's safe to say that if you work for the mom and pop businesses that haven't been pushed out by a large discount chain, you will still have high health insurance costs and a difficult retirement. I think the alcohol abuse and domestic violence that you site for these entry level emloyees is an exaggeration. Those problems are more closely linked to unstable home environments, beginning at a time when it became socially acceptable to be divorced, so you can "do your own thing" (you might be too young to remember that phrase). It is never "more profitable" to resort to welfare. A job, almost ANY job, really, set a framework for regular activity that stimulates the mind. Being assigned duties, meeting the challenges, interacting with people, and accomplishing tasks are all experiences which make a positive impact on the body, mind, and spirit. I capsulize: if you have to be at work at seven, you won't likely be on a bar stool at two.

The government is inherently inefficient in the distribution of wealth. This is precisely why communism doesn't work. However, they are better at looking out for the well being of the lower class than the rich guy or the corporation.

Close. The government is better at creating a dependent underclass that will have difficulty separating themselves from the easy money of a regular check. Welfare creates a "victim mindset" that is completely counter to making the necessary changes to move ahead in life. The "rich guy" or corporations are far more concerned about this because they know that if a man isn't working, they can't use him as a member of their corporate team, and may have to support his incarceration through taxes if they let the government support him via welfare.

Timebuilder...you seem like a perfect example. Grew up in the streets of Philly and sympathized with the poor. Got a leg up on them and now you're thumbing your nose. 'Take care of your own neighborhood folks. I don't want to pay for it now that I'm not there anymore.' Must be a cultural problem. How many of your hero corporations are building in those neighborhoods, employing those people? How many of the corporate employees drive down there to spend their paycheck?

I hope I didn't mislead you. I grew up very comfortably outside of Philadelphia, and attended the nation's premier military academy. After college, I wanted a media job, but had a hard time finding one. I lived in the poorest neighborhoods in Philly. I got to know the attitudes, the reality of black on white and black on black racism, and the lifestyles. I saw who was getting out, and who, by their poor quality life choices, would be staying.

Thumbing my nose? You're kidding, aren't you? I left my last apartment, in a poor neighborhood, when I was 26. I already had been working a good job for two years. My girlfriend had established free art classes for the neighborhood kids in a room downstairs so they could draw on something besides the wall of a building. I saw first hand that this situation was a part of a cultural problem. I also saw that the solutions would not come from anyone "paying for it".

How many of your hero corporations are building in those neighborhoods, employing those people? How many of the corporate employees drive down there to spend their paycheck?

The corporations rightly see that if they employ those who want to work in that location, the folks who won't work, the criminal element will prey on them, and anyone else they care to attack. You can't put the cart before the horse. Instead of building there, they build elsewhere, and those who want to work find ways to get to their job, and eventually move out. The engine of change is cultural, and this is what it means: dope in your neighborhood is not acceptable. Work is good. Marriage is good. Education and employment come before pregancies. Entertainment based on the glorification of criminals is bad. Violence is not the first alternative. Studying and working hard to get ahead leads to a satisfying life. And of course, we could make this a very long list.

The government, at least, reinvests in the lower strata of our society.

No, the government acts as an "enabler" to keep these folks quiet, and a boot firmly on their neck.

These people could be productive if given hope. Hope entails counseling in the schools, a strong education for all, jobs that pay a living wage, substance abuse programs, etc. All these things cost money which conservatives are quite unwilling to spend.

You are talking about planting seeds. When you want to start a garden, you must first prepare the soil. "A strong education for all" can't be force-fed. There must be desire, and a respect for those who take their education seriously. Many kids learn quickly in the lower grades, and as soon as they spend time with nine and ten year olds, they find out that it is BAD to "act white", and they start smoking the weed at recess, etc, etc. Conservatives are unwilling to WASTE money, but a quite willing to spend some on willing participants. That's why we think the faith-based programs will be so effective.

I don't think cutting taxes to the rich 'trickles down' as far as you may think. Or maybe you guys just don't care?

I know that middle class tax cuts, as Daschle and friends like to call them, don't do anything in poor neighborhoods. I do know that large corporations support all kinds of programs, including basketbal leagues, mentoring, scholarships, etc. All of these require a willingness on the part of the people. A check in the mail only requires a stamp. Too often after the check arrives, a drug pipe is being heated.

Where do the Republicans spend the money that could be spent on schools? Silly arse wars that don't need to be fought. I'm all for a strong military but come on...we have enough personnel and weapons to kill off any country in short order. Why does the Muslim world hate us? Why do we keep having to fight these wars? Why are we dealing with the fear of terrorist attacks?Because we continue to interfere in their part of the world. Why should we be responsible for the defense of Israel? Kuwait? Live and let live. If Saddam gets big and bad enough, let him try to mount an attack on us...then we will demolish him. Thus far, I have seen zero evidence that Iraq has any intention or means of harming us, despite Bush's blustering attempts at convincing us that Saddam will unleash his massive powers if we don't strike first.

I hope this paragraph is just an expression of frustration. The state department meddlers are almost all career diplomats, and most are liberal democrats. Most American Jews are democrats, although that is changing. The support for Isreal not only comes from Jews, but also born-again Christians, some of which used to be Jewish. Most muslims hate us because their clerics and their state-controlled media tell them to hate us. Waiting for Saddam to get big and bad enough is like waiting for cancer to get bad enough for you to decide to remove it. If you wait too long, it will kill YOU before you can kill IT. Soon, I think even you will be convinced.

Who do you favor...labor or management/stockholders? Seems that you're all for the worker when the worker happens to be you.

I have been both a labor union member, and a stockholder. When push came to shove, the union never did much for me. They sure did want those union dues, though, which I was extorted to pay whether I wanted to, or not. If I was fired, a new dues paying member would be hired, and he would start paying those dues in my place. In a non-union shop, I was promoted on my merit. While the turn of the century saw a need for unions, they are shrinking in every labor segment.

 

[Timebuilder]

Part Two

Well, just cut Delta's taxes, and I'm sure they will reinvest in you Delta pilots, right?

Who suggested cutting Delta's taxes? Not me.

They will buy the low cost alternative unless the union can stop them. The union protecting your jobs and work conditions is a great example of a socialist element of our society. You may want to look in the mirror before calling others names.

That's not my mirror, friend. The undeniable fact is that we are a great nation because we are a capitalist nation. In fact we support a number of socialist nations through foreign aid. If customers on our planes are DEMANDING the low-cost alternative, then those are the carriers who will be successful. One tactic might be to spend our union efforts in raising the pay for RJ crews. Others here might have more creative solutions. If I work for a union company again, I hope they don't ask for the moon and stars, so my company will remain competitive, and I will have a job.

Timebuilder...I'm curious as to what made you turn to the dark side. The general trend is to become far more liberal after receiving a higher education, not the other way around. Educated Republicans are usually more focused on the financial side (taxes, anti-welfare, etc.) of politics whereas uneducated Repubs focus on gun rights, crime, abortion, etc. My guess is you are the former...earned some money and wanna keep it, not share it.

I was a liberal because I wanted to help the people I saw in the race riots of the sixties. Others said "this is the way to help" and I went along. I was wrong. They were wrong. We have lost our cherished "war on poverty". It turns out that the real war is a cultural war. Fear of being called "Uncle Tom" prevents good people from achieving their goals. I was wealthy at that time, and filled with liberal guilt. I don't know about uneducated republicans, but even as a liberal I was a constitutionalist, and I believe the second amendment is a positive thing. Crime is a cancer on society, and abortion is the murder of the innocent. I don't see how these ideas can be connected to a lack of education, but you have a right to your opinion.

Finally, I wish I had some money to save. In my meager FO job, I can barely make ends meet. I am just a little better off than I was when I was first living in Philly when I no longer had my parents' money. They didn't have it either, but they were established in a nice home. At least I love to fly, which is more than I can say about broadcasting, auto mechanics, or heavy equipment operation.

For me, I have left the "dark side" behind. Welfare dependence is the way of the dark side, along with the "nanny state". I saw, and still do see the democrat party as the party of Orwells' Big Brother.

You don't need to play devil's advocate. He has all of the advocates he needs.

Good day.

 

[172driver]

I appreciate your perspective and see bits of truth in it as I hope you see in mine.

Once the money is taxed out of your hands, for you it does not exist any longer. In the government, it doesn't always make jobs. Some of it goes to pork projects far from where you live, and you wull see NONE of it. Some goes to attorneys and "spin doctors" some goes to foreign aid, etc. More later.

Who runs the pork projects? Attorneys and 'spin doctors' are jobs too. No matter where the money is spent, or by who, is irrelevant. Either way, the money goes back into the economy. The attorney and spin dr. need houses, groceries, cars, etc. The money doesn't disappear because it was taxed.

In this day and age of multi-nationals, I hardly think the tax breaks they receive are being spent at home.

It doesn't take a surplus to create jobs. Corporations, or any business, need workers to succeeed and expand. This is a part of their normal manner of existance.

Yes, corporations need workers, cheap workers. Where are the cheapest workers found? Not in this country.

One reason that many jobs no longer represent a lifestyle that you and I might prefer is that the standard of living has risen to unprecedented heights, so the Walmart job doesn't seem to be enough.

Oh really...when was the last time you worked for minimum wage? Without your parents' money to help you out, that is? I hope you meant that the cost of living has risen to unprecedented heights. Why don't you go visit the home of the average two parent, two child family who are surviving on minimum wage. It would take more than one full income just to pay for daycare. Now, if the husband gets tired of it and leaves...
It's easy to say that divorce is bad but should you punish the wife who married faithfully and the kids who had no part in the decision? She must quit her job because it won't even pay for her daycare costs. Who's going to help her pay for daycare, get reeducated, find a job with a living wage? Not the corporation. That's right...Uncle Sam. The corporation couldn't care less if she lives or dies. There's nothing in it for them. It's very presumptuous of you to say the standard of living is too high in these households unless you have been in a few of them, talked to the people involved.

It's safe to say that if you work for the mom and pop businesses that haven't been pushed out by a large discount chain, you will still have high health insurance costs and a difficult retirement

Yes, because mom and pop have had to lower their prices to compete with the discount chain down the street. The discount chain can do this because their producers work for two dollars a month in Mexico, China, Indonesia, etc. Mom and pop have to cut elsewhere to be profitable...thus they cut health benefits, retirement, and wages. When mom and pop were on the same playing field as their competitors, they were able to provide livable wages, a Christmas bonus, retirement, etc. for their workers.

The main difference between mom and pop and the MNC's is that mom and pop are looking for a comfortable living for themselves and their employees. There is a human element in deciding wages and benefits. Corporations must show max profit to their shareholders, thus slashing the wages of the entry level workers to below a livable level. What do they care...they don't even know who's working for them.

I bet there are people who would fly your Lear as well as you for half the money. Why doesn't your company hire them? If it was a huge corporation, I bet they would.

Those problems are more closely linked to unstable home environments, beginning at a time when it became socially acceptable to be divorced, so you can "do your own thing"

I agree. However, I don't think it's society's problem for accepting divorce. I would never get a divorce because of a personal code of honor and ethics. Too bad the children of divorce are not having these values instilled in them.

A job, almost ANY job, really, set a framework for regular activity that stimulates the mind. Being assigned duties, meeting the challenges, interacting with people, and accomplishing tasks are all experiences which make a positive impact on the body, mind, and spirit. I capsulize: if you have to be at work at seven, you won't likely be on a bar stool at two

I can tell you haven't worked too many blue-collar jobs. I think you would find that body, mind, and spirit are smashed flat at the end of a twelve hour day and quite ready for a beer and a barstool.

Now, if you came home at the end of a day to a decent place, which you were able to afford by the fruits of your labor, there would be some reward to that. Many come home to a one bedroom apartment or trailer, rent that they can't quite afford, an empty fridge, screaming kids, an angry wife, and no hope of anything better on the horizon. So...they leave. The unstable home environment is the cause of the divorce, not the result. The cause of the unstable home environment is all too often economic. I propose to you that if minimum wage were doubled, divorce stats would plummet, at least in the lower and middle classes.

The problem with raising the minimum wage is that the corporations will still try to raise the same profits. After all, the CEO must have his twelve houses, his Gulfstream, private island, health spa, etc. Thus, the number of workers will be cut, and the remaining forced to work harder.

Therein lies the real problem with our system. The few at the top have waaaay too much. Please don't try to tell me that they worked so hard for it and were such great innovators that they deserve it. Nobody needs billions of dollars, especially when those earning it for them are making two dollars a month

Welfare creates a "victim mindset" that is completely counter to making the necessary changes to move ahead in life. The "rich guy" or corporations are far more concerned about this because they know that if a man isn't working, they can't use him as a member of their corporate team, and may have to support his incarceration through taxes if they let the government support him via welfare.

If the rich guy is so concerned, why doesn't he offer these people a decent job? They are on welfare because they can't find such a thing. Agreed on the results of a welfare lifestyle, not on the causes.

Thumbing my nose? You're kidding, aren't you? I left my last apartment, in a poor neighborhood, when I was 26. I already had been working a good job for two years. My girlfriend had established free art classes for the neighborhood kids in a room downstairs so they could draw on something besides the wall of a building. I saw first hand that this situation was a part of a cultural problem. I also saw that the solutions would not come from anyone "paying for it".

While this was very nice of your girlfriend, it doesn't exactly offer a way out for these kids. How would you propose they get out of their environment? I assume you are also against affirmative action, college grants, free tuition for the poor, etc. as these are all forms of welfare. Maybe they need a solid education, counselors to talk to about their success being perceived as 'whiteness.'

That's why we think the faith-based programs will be so effective

So, we ought to shove god down their throats? In order to get some help, you must believe in my god and his rules...that's just wrong. Organized religion has been the biggest cause of problems in this world since its inception.

 

[172driver]

I hope this paragraph is just an expression of frustration. The state department meddlers are almost all career diplomats, and most are liberal democrats. Most American Jews are democrats, although that is changing. Most muslims hate us because their clerics and their state-controlled media tell the to hate us. Waiting for Saddam to get big and bad enough is like waiting for cancer to get bad enough for you to decide to remove it. If you wait too long, it will kill YOU before you can kill IT. Soon, I think even you will be convinced

Diplomats is correct. Most Republicans are warmongers. Their clerics and state supported media tell them to hate us because we constantly interfere in their part of the world. Did Muslims hate us before we gave the Jews the land of the Arabs, before we started supporting the destruction of their people? No.

This isn't a liberal vs. conservative issue. It's an issue of isolationism vs hegemony. I am not pro-Jewish or pro-Arab. We should never have given that precious strip of land to the Jews. Nor should we have given it to the Arabs. The Arabs occupied it at the time and if the Jews wanted it, they should've taken it. Not our deal. We are the world hegemon and have a responsibility, as such, to act against genocide, torture, war crimes, etc. We should not, however, interfere in the conflicts that have been going on since before Christ, unless these crimes are taking place. All we're doing by taking sides is making the Muslim world hate us more. More hate = more terror. Unless we're willing to eradicate the entire Muslim world to rid ourselves of that threat, we should try to minimize it. This entails butting out of their internal politics.

Instead, we blunder away, meddling in every conflict that arises. Give Iraq arms to fight Iran, Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, Israel to fight Arabs, Bosnia to fight Serbia, South Vietnam to fight the north, rebel armies all over the globe to fight their oppressors. It always comes back to roost. I saw the thread about the threat of shoulder fired missiles. Those either came from us or from the Soviets supporting their puppets. Every time we support one side, we piss off the other. The only way they have to exert their anger is terrorism. We bring it on ourselves.

If Saddam is such a cancer, why didn't we remove the tumor the first time around? If I had cancer, I would want the doctor to dig deep and remove it, not just scrape the surface.

While the turn of the century saw a need for unions, they are shrinking in every labor segment

And so is the quality of life.

but even as a liberal I was a constitutionalist, and I believe the second amendment is a positive thing. Crime is a cancer on society, and abortion is the murder of the innocent.

Agreed on the 2nd amendment. Crime is a cancer but I would guess we disagree on how to treat the problem. Incarceration is not a solution but a furtherance of the problem. Counseling, drug treatment, living wages, and education are the solution. Abortion...we won't go there as it is mainly a philosophical argument. Is it a life or isn't it? I will say though that if your girlfriend became pregnant before you got a good job or finished school, you may not be where you are now.

 

[TXCAP4228]

Reply to 172Driver

Where do the Republicans spend the money that could be spent on schools? Silly arse wars that don't need to be fought. I'm all for a strong military but come on...we have enough personnel and weapons to kill off any country in short order. Why does the Muslim world hate us? Why do we keep having to fight these wars? Why are we dealing with the fear of terrorist attacks?Because we continue to interfere in their part of the world. Why should we be responsible for the defense of Israel? Kuwait? Live and let live. If Saddam gets big and bad enough, let him try to mount an attack on us...then we will demolish him. Thus far, I have seen zero evidence that Iraq has any intention or means of harming us, despite Bush's blustering attempts at convincing us that Saddam will unleash his massive powers if we don't strike first.

I almost have to take this one sentence at a time.

Silly arse wars that don't need to be fought. I'm all for a strong military but come on...we have enough personnel and weapons to kill off any country in short order.

When confronted with unconventional threats we cannot use things like nuclear weapons to protect ourselves. Ask the victims of the 9/11 attacks if this is a war that does not need to be fought. By the way, when you ask, you may not hear an answer since those victims are dead. We spend money on the military to increase our ability to defend against new threats like Al Quaeda's form of mass terrorism.

Why does the Muslim world hate us?

Volumes could be written about this.... The United States represents a free and open society where "infidels" are free and successful. Heck, we even do outrageous things like let women drive cars. Our free and open society is a threat to many of the theocratic regimes of the middle east who maintain their power through something less than a free and open society. Timebuilder also mentioned that these people are brought up to hate us.

Why do we keep having to fight these wars? Why are we dealing with the fear of terrorist attacks?Because we continue to interfere in their part of the world. Why should we be responsible for the defense of Israel? Kuwait?

I can answer this several ways...
1) History teaches that if we isolate ourselves, the world's problem will eventually become our problems. Better to deal with situations as they arise than to wait until all my remaining choices are bad ones.
2) Are you suggesting that we permit aggressorsa in the world commit atrocities when we could have prevented them? By not defending Israel and Kuwait, we would be guilty of standing on a street corner and watching an innocent person beaten to death by thugs without intervening.

Live and let live. If Saddam gets big and bad enough, let him try to mount an attack on us...then we will demolish him.

In the late 1930's, the US burried its head in the sand - the worlds problems were NOT our problems. If somebody wanted to come after us, fine. We were going to mind our own business. Dec 7 is only a few days away. History is a great teacher.

Has it occured to you that to demolish him later will cost more lives than if we do it sooner - or better yet stop the problem before it starts? Do you care about those lives? I find your statement to be a little cavalier.

Thus far, I have seen zero evidence that Iraq has any intention or means of harming us, despite Bush's blustering attempts at convincing us that Saddam will unleash his massive powers if we don't strike first.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

Timebuilder did a great job replying to the rest of what you said. I just wanted to answer that paragraph.

 

[ShawnC]

If Saddam is such a cancer, why didn't we remove the tumor the first time around? If I had cancer, I would want the doctor to dig deep and remove it, not just scrape the surface.

You want the answer CNN. Lot of people got the touchy feely after they saw the pictures of the highway of death. And as such Bush Sr pulled a PR move under mounting public pressure and declared the war over with.

 

[Chunk]

Do your homework! We stopped short of removal of Saddam because that was never our stated goal. The mission was limited and dictated by UN resolutions. The coalition would've fallen apart if we had pushed onto Baghdad.

Bush would've been called a war monger if he pushed on beyond what he said he would've done.

Chunk

 

[Timebuilder]

Who runs the pork projects? Attorneys and 'spin doctors' are jobs too. No matter where the money is spent, or by who, is irrelevant. Either way, the money goes back into the economy. The attorney and spin dr. need houses, groceries, cars, etc. The money doesn't disappear because it was taxed.

When the money is not taxed, it goes into investments which put real people to work. If entry level is their current ability, then they have to start at that level in order to begin a fruitful life.

If the money goes to attorneys and spin doctors, it is quickly diluted and does not result in new jobs, just a couple of hours of overtime for those that already have jobs. It helps the large government bureacracy to grow, too. That's bad.

Yes, corporations need workers, cheap workers. Where are the cheapest workers found? Not in this country.

While it is a shame that we have let this happen, congressional democrats solidly supported NAFTA and GATT before the republican congress of 1995 was elected. There are many arguments for and against globalism versus isolationism. Too many to deal with here. Plus, my fingers are getting tired.

Oh really...when was the last time you worked for minimum wage? Without your parents' money to help you out, that is?

My current pay works out to $5.55 an hour for my duty time. I think that's pretty close to the poverty line. Some weeks, it drops because duty time increases. When I lived in Philly, I worked odd jobs like roofing and didn't have my parent's money. Flight instructing was the first "white collar job", if you can call it that, since 1987. I have worked under three separate labor contracts, and only one was in broadcasting.

Why don't you go visit the home of the average two parent, two child family who are surviving on minimum wage. It would take more than one full income just to pay for daycare. Now, if the husband gets tired of it and leaves...

I have visited many such homes. Our church has an outreach program.

This is a good place to explain why two incomes are necessary. In the late 60's and early 70's, the women's rights movement told women that they were not really right-thinking women if they stayed at home with their children, and that they were "letting other women down" by doing so. Consequently, a large number of two income household sprang up. Other hoseholds had to have two incomes to "keep up" with them economically. Soon, the two income household became the economic norm, and now ALL women are expected to be both a mother AND a breadwinner. Everyone has lost something in this equation, including our children, and thus the future of our society. In addition, men who abandoned their families used to bear a definite stigma, and because of the welfare system and the relaxed moral climate, that stigma has been removed. As soon as you remove a stigma from a behavior, it becomes normal. That is bad for children, both when they are young, and later as adults, when they replicate that behavior.

Keeping the welfare system as it is does not help this problem.

It's easy to say that divorce is bad but should you punish the wife who married faithfully and the kids who had no part in the decision? She must quit her job because it won't even pay for her daycare costs. Who's going to help her pay for daycare, get reeducated, find a job with a living wage? Not the corporation. That's right...Uncle Sam.

This is a function best handled by charities and churches. When you have to accept money from an individual face to face, you feel shame. Shame is a powerful motivator. When Uncle Sam provides the money, it is in secret, and shame is diminished, along with the motivation. This is how this has been handled for thousands of years. We have removed the "down side" from both the male and female side of the equation, and it has had a teriffic negative impact on society. The smart way to help stop this is not have children without marriage, and to choose your mate well.

There's nothing in it for them. It's very presumptuous of you to say the standard of living is too high in these households unless you have been in a few of them, talked to the people involved.

Explain to me why a family on welfare has a son wearing $200 sneakers, and you'll have my attention.

Yes, because mom and pop have had to lower their prices to compete with the discount chain down the street. The discount chain can do this because their producers work for two dollars a month in Mexico, China, Indonesia, etc. Mom and pop have to cut elsewhere to be profitable...thus they cut health benefits, retirement, and wages. When mom and pop were on the same playing field as their competitors, they were able to provide livable wages, a Christmas bonus, retirement, etc. for their workers.

I don't know of any mom and pop outfit that provided healthcare or retirement, and I've worked for quite a few in 32 years in the job market. How should we handle the oursourcing of labor? This is keeping third world coutries alive. To use your earlier question, should we let them starve?

The main difference between mom and pop and the MNC's is that mom and pop are looking for a comfortable living for themselves and their employees. There is a human element in deciding wages and benefits.

I never saw evidence of this idea. If mom and pop didn't pay enough, they lost a worker. They charged as much as they could, and paid as little as they could. Some of them were real shysters, too.

Corporations must show max profit to their shareholders, thus slashing the wages of the entry level workers to below a livable level. What do they care...they don't even know who's working for them.

Companies pay wages based on supply and demand. For the diassatisfied worker, this is his motivation to get more education and start his own business. I can tell you that the people who own the airplanes I fly don't know ME, nor am I particularly interested in knowing them.

I bet there are people who would fly your Lear as well as you for half the money. Why doesn't your company hire them? If it was a huge corporation, I bet they would.

If you like, I will ask. I'm here because it was better than not working at all. Can you hire a pilot for half of $5.55? Maybe nowadays, you can.

I agree. However, I don't think it's society's problem for accepting divorce.

Oh, but it is society's responsibility. This freewheeling sexual revolution, do-your-own-thing idea was readily signed on to by both the media and individual Americans. It appeals to the weakest part of our character.

I can tell you haven't worked too many blue-collar jobs. I think you would find that body, mind, and spirit are smashed flat at the end of a twelve hour day and quite ready for a beer and a barstool.

I spent ten years grimy, greasy, and on my feet for twelve to fourteen hours a day in a noisy, cold, mechanic's environment. If you are looking for a soft-skinned elitist here, you haven't found one. A beer and a barstool were never my refuge. I was satisfied that I had done a good job for the prevailing wage.

Many come home to a one bedroom apartment or trailer, rent that they can't quite afford, an empty fridge, screaming kids, an angry wife, and no hope of anything better on the horizon. So...they leave. The unstable home environment is the cause of the divorce, not the result. The cause of the unstable home environment is all too often economic. I propose to you that if minimum wage were doubled, divorce stats would plummet, at least in the lower and middle classes.

That's me in that one room, and right now, too. Leaving is symptomatic of a lack of character, something that we have bred out of modern children. Now, we are having to replace it by teaching "character classes" in schools. The children of divorce grow up thinking this is normal, so we shouldn't be surprised when our kid's marriages fail. Who did they look up to for guidance? Us.

The problem with raising the minimum wage is that the corporations will still try to raise the same profits. After all, the CEO must have his twelve houses, his Gulfstream, private island, health spa, etc. Thus, the number of workers will be cut, and the remaining forced to work harder.

If we have higher academic standards, and make being smart a "black thing" instead of a "white thing" then there will be more competition among CEO's for those coveted jobs, and wages will decline, just as they have for pilots. Supply more CEO capable people, and DEMAND will decrease, along with CEO wages.

 

[Timebuilder]

Therein lies the real problem with our system. The few at the top have waaaay too much. Please don't try to tell me that they worked so hard for it and were such great innovators that they deserve it. Nobody needs billions of dollars, especially when those earning it for them are making two dollars a month

In a free market, you earn what the market will bear. If a CEO is only capable of making T-shirts for Kathy Lee, how much will he be paid?

If the rich guy is so concerned, why doesn't he offer these people a decent job? They are on welfare because they can't find such a thing. Agreed on the results of a welfare lifestyle, not on the causes.

He can only offer the job his company needs to have done. My boss doesn't need to offer me 55k for my labor, because pilot labor is currently very cheap. I understand this. That's why I am looking toward the future, and attempting to prepare myself well.

While this was very nice of your girlfriend, it doesn't exactly offer a way out for these kids. How would you propose they get out of their environment?

It wasn't just nice it was the kind of individual, hands on work that has to be done to make effective change. I dare say that a positive experience with the "white devil" made a better impact on the lives of these kids than their mother's welfare check ever could. How do I propose they get out of their environment? They need to imitate the habits of successful people. Study. Work. Cleanliness of mind, body, and spirit.

As to why the "acting white" problem is not adressed in inner city schools more often, I am at a loss.

So, we ought to shove god down their throats? In order to get some help, you must believe in my god and his rules...that's just wrong. Organized religion has been the biggest cause of problems in this world since its inception.

As you might imagine, I have a fundamental disagreement with your characterization. Most faith based programs that I know of do NOT require a profession of faith or agreement to participate in the programs.