Replies

your last 3 points- 100% with the first two but number 3 theres a choice here needs to be faced. We have a great many jobs in our society that cannot support a family. Heck they can’t support a single person in a larger city. People here seem to scoff at that idea or turn a blind eye towards it and i truly don’t understand that position. Theres the argument that they’re for high school kids, people part time. That part is easy. The fact that a dozen people can work at a Starbucks or McDonalds and only one becomes a manager and only after years since the people in those positions aren’t anxious to leave. What other jobs are we creating? We all know not enough to employ everyone to where even a middle class existence is possible.
So we can have jobs that pay more or we can have people getting aid from the government to make ends meet. Of course we can also have neither and live along side 50 million homeless people. That one doesn’t work for me seeing as i’m Catholic.
I’ve also seen the argument put forth on here that instead of the government the church can supply people with extra food and other assistance but i can’t take that seriously. certainly they can and do help to some extent but the problem today dwarfs their ability to help.
So you tell me. We don’t have enough decent paying jobs for people in their 20’s to get out of their parents homes. People in their 30’s too. Do we find a way to bring back these jobs we’ve lost or simply keep people on various forms of government assistance?
If you vote for 50 million living in the streets we have nothing further to talk about. I know there are some on here who think thats some sort of tough love. I don’t.

It's a game, rigged by the Government.

The Gov passes out aid (earned income tax credit), gubmint cheese, etc. Then employers really don't have pressure on them to supply decent wages.

It happened as well when women started working en masse. Slowly after, one salary became two watered down salaries.

Then immigration reform in the 1967 bill. Let every person with an education come to the USA to ply his trade. Sure, give away the farm. It's a small world after all. Kumbaya.

Mix in some heavy-duty white guilt and you get all kinds of affirmative action scenarios.

So, instead of the rest of the world getting better and wealthier by its own self-investment, people come here and parasite off the USA.

It's in the Preamble that the US is for ourselves and our posterity.

Sure well controlled immigration is good, but, now that the land has all been sold and the towns filled up, we have to start thinking about America first.

Of course, the Rats just want more poor dependent Rat voters, regardless of whether they are alive, dead, foreigners, criminals, poor, unproductive. They just want the votes.

So, do I sound like an incorrigible redneck?

Then you take your law degree, medical degree, plumber's certificate, whatever, and go to ANY OTHER country in the world and see if they will even let you work part time. Go ahead, give it a try.

They've got more sense than us... they will never give away the farm.

Thank you for your reasonable response, I do appreciate it.

I do not see those as the only two choices. They are two, no doubt. But they never have, and never will work.

The answer is not to get government involved by forcing producers or service providers to raise or freeze wages.

The answer is to get government out of the way.

Reduce asphyxiating legislation at the federal, state and local levels.

Reduce taxes on business and profits. Make owning a company or industrial manufacturing concern a profitable one, not burdened with overhead trying to meet tens of thousands of regulations.

Regulation and taxes serve the same purpose on business and industry that encrusted barnacles do on the hull of a ship.

Barnacles place drag on a ship's hull to/ the point increasing fuel costs to drive the ship or higher transit costs due to slow speed cause the ship to be taken out of business. In a warship, it can cause the loss of a ship in battle, the loss of the battle and possibly the loss of the war.

We need to attack this not by giving our money to those who can't earn it because they have no job.

We need to attack this by making this an industry-friendly country where people want to start businesses and employ people (AMERICANS) who are going to pay taxes and purchase goods.

THAT is where the wealth of a nation comes from, the industry of a people, not the government that hands out money and provides food and shelter.

I can say this and NOT be against providing assistance to those who need it. But THAT is NOT what is going on today. We have a massive redistribution ow wealth going on, and no new wealth (or less of it than we need) being created.

I just finished reading a book about disasters caused by Liberalism called The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You to Know About-Because They Helped Cause Them by Iain Murray. In it, he talks about about environmental disasters CAUSED by liberals and their policies; things like the banning of DDT resulting in millions of deaths worldwide that could have been prevented, the wildfires that nearly completely destroyed Yellowstone Park, and the drying up and desertification of Lake Baikal in Russia.

It was completely the fault of the planners who had no idea what they were doing. One of the major factors was draining off of water from inbound rivers for irrigation purposes, to the point there was no inbound water to fill the lake, and it got stuck in a vicious cycle of less surface area of water to cool the surrounding area causing the temperature to increase, causing the temp to rise further, etc.

The point in mentioning this is that they were siphoning off water, drying up rivers to irrigate, but the irrigation infrastructure was so poor that up to 75% of the water drained off was wasted.

In our societal safety nets, they are riddled, Riddled, RIDDLED with waste, graft and corruption in sometimes equal intentional and unintentional parts. If we gave people flour, cheese, milk, or other basic staples, and and limited it to people who were PROVEN to absolutely need it, we would have no problem.

But what we get is THIS, taken less than two miles from my house in a supermarket, which I have actually seen reposted around the Internet in multiple forums:

This is the problem with our societal safety net. Not that we can't help people in need, but that vast amounts of money, more than you can imagine, are going to all different kinds of government handouts to literally thousands of different government assistance programs ranging from cell phones, to WIC, to Social Security Disability. And these are being administered by vast bureaucracies that are getting bigger, And Bigger, AND BIGGER each passing year, with more, and More, AND MORE people on the government payroll. These programs are huge, metastasizing tumors growing in the brain and heart of our country.

And they will kill us. They may have already done so, and we are dead men walking but don't even know it.

So, the choice is not just to give those without income the money of those who do, or letting them live on the street...the choice also includes creating jobs as described above.

The fact that a dozen people can work at a Starbucks or McDonalds and only one becomes a manager and only after years since the people in those positions aren’t anxious to leave.

Your ratio is too generous. It's more like 1 in 100 fast food workers that ever make it to management. BTW, I'm not talking "shift-supervisor" but a genuine management position with P&L responsibility and the full benefits and bonuses that go with it.

That said, the competition is not quite as stiff as you imply. This industry is starved for management talent. The vast majority of fast food workers simply do not have the ambition or the work ethic to make it to management. In fact, most of them see management as "the enemy" and do not even aspire to it.

Many fast food workers just want to clock in, work their shift and clock back out and do as little as possible in between. They have no compunction about calling in sick, even when they aren't sick. Or showing up late. Every inconvenience becomes a gripe to them. When they are off the clock, they don't even think about work or how to improve themselves. But they will be the first ones to complain that they can't make ends meet on their low wages.

Compounding the problem is that those few who genuinely want to do a good job and move up the ladder are quickly labeled by their co-workers as "brown-noses" and "suck-ups" and become shunned. This is probably true to some extent in every workplace but even more so in the fast food industry where it is considered "cool" to not care and have no ambitions.

Bottom line is that anybody with the right work ethic and attitude can quickly rise to a management position in fast food but they need to have a thick skin and maintain a positive attitude at all times.