By JESSE J. HOLLAND, AP Labor Writer
47 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - After a decade-long wait, America's lowest-paid workers saw Congress poised Thursday to increase the federal minimum wage by $2.10.

ADVERTISEMENT

For years, the idea of increasing the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour has been stalled by partisan bickering between Republicans and Democrats.

That almost became the fate of the this year's proposal to raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 over two years . Democratic leaders attached the provision to the $120 billion Iraq war spending bill, which was vetoed by the GOP-controlled White House on May 1 because of Democrats insisting on a pullout date for American troops.

But with the House and Senate ready to pass a rewritten bill, and President Bush signaling his approval at a White House news conference, it seems likely that the end is near for the longest stretch without the federal pay floor rising since the minimum wage was established in 1938.

"We're very hopeful we're going to see finally that increase in the next couple of days," said Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., and chair of the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee.

This would be the first change since the minimum wage went from $4.75 to $5.15 on September 1, 1997 under former President Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress.

The minimum wage provisions were one part of the Iraq war spending bill that did not change: the minimum wage goes up to $5.85 two months after Bush signs the bill, then to $6.55 one year later and to $7.25 the next year.

The liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute, a research group in Washington, estimates that 5.6 million workers — or 4 percent of the work force — currently earn less than $7.25.

"This is a great day for America's middle class," said Rep. George Miller (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., chair of the House Education and Labor Committee. "America's workers have been waiting for a raise for a long time."

Currently, a person working 40 hours per week at the current minimum wage of $5.15 makes about $10,700 a year. An increase to $7.25 would boost that to just over $15,000 a year.

The full increase, according to Miller, is enough to pay for 15 months of groceries for a family of three.

More than two dozen states and the District of Columbia already have minimum wages higher than the federal level. Minimum wage workers are typically young, single and female and are often black or Hispanic.

Raising the minimum wage was a key part of Democrats' midterm election platform. To help make it palatable for Republicans, they added $4.84 billion in tax relief for small businesses to help them hire new workers and offset any cost associated with an increase in the minimum wage.

Republicans had complained earlier that the tax cuts in the bill were insufficient, but the inclusion of the provisions in the Iraq war spending bill made it difficult for them to stop.

___

In the end - will it really matter? Won't the standard of living just go up along with minimum wage?

In the end - will it really matter? Won't the standard of living just go up along with minimum wage?
don't you mean cost of living?

don't you mean cost of living?


Yes. Though as the cost of living goes up it makes maintaining a comfortable standard of living harder.

Minimum wage should be proportional to gas prices...

Minimum wage should be proportional to gas prices...
gas was 19 cents a gallon when the minium wage was 25 cents...do you really want to go that far back?

I would propose a simple solution. Minimum wage ought to rise by the same percentage as Congressional pay. Every time they get a raise, the minimum wage ought to go up by the same percentage.

I would propose a simple solution. Minimum wage ought to rise by the same percentage as Congressional pay. Every time they get a raise, the minimum wage ought to go up by the same percentage.
__________________

LOL--I like you man. Direct, straightforward, no BS.

and/or a CEO gets more money. a CEO making billions of dollars more than the lowest paid worker is just plain selfish, greedy, and overall stoopit.but americans won't do anything about that. americans have a anal fetish. they like getting bent over.

The full increase, according to Miller, is enough to pay for 15 months of groceries for a family of three.

Which every high school kid working at Wendy's really really needs.

I would propose a simple solution. Minimum wage ought to rise by the same percentage as Congressional pay. Every time they get a raise, the minimum wage ought to go up by the same percentage.

Were that the case the minimum wage would now be one hundred dollars per hour at least.

and/or a CEO gets more money. a CEO making billions of dollars more than the lowest paid worker is just plain selfish, greedy, and overall stoopit.but americans won't do anything about that. americans have a anal fetish. they like getting bent over.

A company can replace a janitor in a heartbeat. They can't do the same with a CEO. The pay is proportional to the importance of the two people to the corporation.

a CEO making billions of dollars more than the lowest paid worker is just plain selfish, greedy, and overall stoopit.but americans won't do anything about that. americans have a anal fetish. they like getting bent over.

Correction:

-- it is the rightwingers in this country, who have been thoroughly indoctrinated to, time and time again, ad infinitum, vote against their own best interests who are the ones that seem to "like getting bent over" and screwed.

There IS a segment of this society --albeit a very small one-- who actually approve of the Government passing laws and policies that help the poor and working class People.

Correction:

-- it is the rightwingers in this country, who have been thoroughly indoctrinated to, time and time again, ad infinitum, vote against their own best interests who are the ones that seem to "like getting bent over" and screwed.

There IS a segment of this society --albeit a very small one-- who actually approve of the Government passing laws and policies that help the poor and working class People.

I know this might be a hard concept for you to grasp, but perhaps these people vote for what they believe is right instead of what would help them the most?

Originally Posted by warrior1972
The full increase, according to Miller, is enough to pay for 15 months of groceries for a family of three.



Which every high school kid working at Wendy's really really needs.

First of all it is NOT just High school students working for minimum wage. There are elderly and unskilled workers doing these jobs too.

Secondly, even if it is pertaining to a High school student. Many of them have cars they need to keep on the road to get to these jobs or school. Have you seen car insurance rates for these kids lately? Have you seen the price of gas at the pumps? Have you seen the price of college tuition? Maybe if they got paid more they wouldn't NEED a student loan and wouldn't start their career life off in tons of debt.

:confused:

You are such a socialist!

You want to limit the amount a CEO gets paid for working for a private company. That is very very dumb!

It is what it is. If the CEO doesn't do his/her job, he/she will be voted out either by the stock holders, or the board of directors.



Correction:

-- it is the rightwingers in this country, who have been thoroughly indoctrinated to, time and time again, ad infinitum, vote against their own best interests who are the ones that seem to "like getting bent over" and screwed.

There IS a segment of this society --albeit a very small one-- who actually approve of the Government passing laws and policies that help the poor and working class People.

The liberals onthese boards are just too one sided to understand anything like this.


A company can replace a janitor in a heartbeat. They can't do the same with a CEO. The pay is proportional to the importance of the two people to the corporation.

Congress (mostly Democrats) raised the minimum wage for selfish reasons.

They are pandering to the Unions. When the min wage goes up, so does the union pay. (for the most part union pay is based on the min wage)

They did it because they are pandering for votes.

Oh and guess what......... Now prices will go up. (standard of living as you mentioned)

The pay raise will end up hurting us in the long run.


In the end - will it really matter? Won't the standard of living just go up along with minimum wage?

The liberals onthese boards are just too one sided to understand anything like this.You are the last person here who should be telling others what they don't understand.

Your brain is nothing but an echo chamber for the likes of Neil Boortz.They did it because they are pandering for votes.Yes, those underhanded Democrats will stop at nothing when it comes to stealing the votes of minimum wage and union workers from the Republicans. :eek:

gas was 19 cents a gallon when the minium wage was 25 cents...do you really want to go that far back?

True but that 25 cents was nearly tax-free, Social Security (without looking it up) was probably 2% (not 12% like today), health care was totally free from your employer with no co-pays, no deductibles (including eyes and dental), college tuition was dirt cheap and your kids school lunch cost 15 cents, not $2 ...

Apples and oranges.

You are such a socialist!
Careful FT, it may just be a regular label in the rest of the world, but this a grade A playground insult here in the US.

There is absolutly nothing wrong with being a socialist. Capitalism sucks it is rigged to leave the disabled, mentally ill and people with low intelligents at a disadvantage. Capitalism is survival of the fittest and is a game for animals not higher level being like humans who have emotions like compassion.

"capitalism is when you have 4 people with a race up a 3 story flight of stairs and one of the men is in a wheel chair. Who ever makes it to the top first gets 500 dollars, Second place gets 200, third place gets 100 and last place gets 50 dollars. The man in the wheel chair cannot possibly succeed."

Capitalism is not a fair game for ALL parties involved.

The same people who are complaining about minimum wage going up are the one complaining that they have to pay taxes for the working poor. When you are on minimum wage of 5.35 and hour you still qualify for Medicaid and some food stamps. When you are making 7.35 and hour you do not.

I live in the state of washington our minimum wage has been 7:35 for almost 5 years and our cost of living has not gone up. That is an absolute fallacy.

If it were true and the cost of living went up nothing has really changed? Either you pay extra taxes for them qualifying for welfare while on minimum wage or you pay a little extra for your services and food who it is the CEO and the owners of these services you should be blaming not people asking of a livable wage because while they pass the cost onto you they still make millions a year.

Democrats are not pandering to Unions. Unions already have thier employees making way more than minimum wage. The average person working for a Union makes 10 dollars and hour because Unions demand a livable wage. Also Unions only make up 1/4 of the working force.

Billions of resturants across the U.S are not Union, Service stores like cloths and shoes sales are not Unionized.

True but that 25 cents was nearly tax-free, Social Security (without looking it up) was probably 2% (not 12% like today), health care was totally free from your employer with no co-pays, no deductibles (including eyes and dental), college tuition was dirt cheap and your kids school lunch cost 15 cents, not $2 ...

Apples and oranges.


:eek:

Gas prices didn't matter then anyway did they, Dop? Everyone walked FIFFFFFTEEEEN Mile's to school...typically uphill both ways. If you listen to my grandfather's stories - apparently it snowed year round as well.

The full increase, according to Miller, is enough to pay for 15 months of groceries for a family of three.
Which every high school kid working at Wendy's really really needs.I don't think it would be a bad idea to make the minimum wage depend on the number of dependents you have, and if you're a dependent yourself.

:eek:

Gas prices didn't matter then anyway did they, Dop? Everyone walked FIFFFFFTEEEEN Mile's to school...typically uphill both ways. If you listen to my grandfather's stories - apparently it snowed year round as well.

Sheeesh ... sorry I mentioned it...

BTW: who are you calling a liar - me? your grandfather? both? ROTF

And NO -- it doesn't snow in Southern California but it is uphill both ways.

Sheeesh ... sorry I mentioned it...

And NO -- it doesn't snow in Southern California but it is uphill both ways.

I guess that white fluffy stuff I been skying on all these years, at Big Bear, is just cotton.:confused:
The only place thats uphill both ways is SF, but they've always been somewhat strange. :D

I guess that white fluffy stuff I been skying on all these years, at Big Bear, is just cotton.:confused:
The only place thats uphill both ways is SF, but they've always been somewhat strange. :D

OK - point taken but it doesn't snow on the beaches and that's all that really counts.

SF is downhill both ways...

OK - point taken but it doesn't snow on the beaches and that's all that really counts.

SF is downhill both ways...


Next time I need my snow shovel, can I call you?

In the Malibu area, Kanan Dume Road remained closed Thursday morning from Mulholland Highway to Pacific Coast Highway in the Malibu area, while crews work to clear snow from the roadway, according to the watch commander at the Malibu/Lost Hills Station.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/10783727/detail.html

Granted SF is going downhill, of late.

Next time I need my snow shovel, can I call you?

In the Malibu area, Kanan Dume Road remained closed Thursday morning from Mulholland Highway to Pacific Coast Highway in the Malibu area, while crews work to clear snow from the roadway, according to the watch commander at the Malibu/Lost Hills Station.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/10783727/detail.html

Granted SF is going downhill, of late.

I remember hearing about that but fortunatly I missed it. Actually, missing Malibu is a good thing in general. The place is on the very fring of northern border of south bay so it's not really part of my world.

With a little bit of luck, all the Malibuites (Malibuians, Malibuers) will stand at parade-rest with snow shovels in right-shoulder-arms position, faithfully awaiting for the next snow storm so the real beaches of Socal will be protected from the next arctic blast f'ng up the surfing conditions.

I remember hearing about that but fortunatly I missed it. Actually, missing Malibu is a good thing in general. The place is on the very fring of northern border of south bay so it's not really part of my world.

With a little bit of luck, all the Malibuites (Malibuians, Malibuers) will stand at parade-rest with snow shovels in right-shoulder-arms position, faithfully awaiting for the next snow storm so the real beaches of Socal will be protected from the next arctic blast f'ng up the surfing conditions.


I moved out here in 1950, grew up surfing, 32nd st., Hermosa Beach, then bought my place in Malibu in 1964. We've had flurries before, but this is the first snow, I can remember.

I moved out here in 1950, grew up surfing, 32nd st., Hermosa Beach, then bought my place in Malibu in 1964. We've had flurries before, but this is the first snow, I can remember.

Holy crap -- 1950? You must have made a fortune with HB real estate or was it all still barley fields back then.

32nd st ??? borderline Manhattan beach.

Did you ever surf at El Porto ? Was there an El Port then or was it Dockweiler or Manhattan or just some land Chevron owned :D

I love SoCal trivia and history. You can probably tell.

Holy crap -- 1950? You must have made a fortune with HB real estate or was it all still barley fields back then.

32nd st ??? borderline Manhattan beach.

Did you ever surf at El Porto ? Was there an El Port then or was it Dockweiler or Manhattan or just some land Chevron owned :D

I love SoCal trivia and history. You can probably tell.

Truth be told, didn't go into Manhattan very much, and never above the pier.
Transportation was a hard thing to come by, in those days. Very few teens could afford a car. We walked, or rode bicycles most places. It was a very different place, in the 50's & early 60's.

Sheeesh ... sorry I mentioned it...

BTW: who are you calling a liar - me? your grandfather? both? ROTF

And NO -- it doesn't snow in Southern California but it is uphill both ways.


I would never call you a lier, Dop. In fact - I consider you my favorite poster. :D

My grandfather on the other hand..... lol j/k.

I would never call you a lier, Dop. In fact - I consider you my favorite poster. :D

My grandfather on the other hand..... lol j/k.

I'm sorry jere -- I posted that before my 1st coffee had kicked in ... I meant to retract that post but got involved with moderate talking about surfing and stuff like that.

Truth be told, didn't go into Manhattan very much, and never above the pier.
Transportation was a hard thing to come by, in those days. Very few teens could afford a car. We walked, or rode bicycles most places. It was a very different place, in the 50's & early 60's.

FWIW: I was only kidding about Malibu ... it's one of my favorite places to be jealous about -- LOL.

OK -- that's enough apologizing for one day.

Here's a link to the Hermosa Beach web cam ... Fiesta Hermosa is underway ...

http://www.hermosawave.net/webcam/

now my combo meal at arby's will cost $15
and the 5 for $5 will be 5 for $25

now my combo meal at arby's will cost $15
and the 5 for $5 will be 5 for $25


Actually, I'm surprised Arby's hasn't gotten that high already.

if the CEO takes a large income cut and puts it back into the company it won't.

if the CEO takes a large income cut and puts it back into the company it won't.


If the CEO took a cut in salary & benefits, it would never be passed on to the hourly employees. But the stock holders would get a boost in their dividends. Prices would, and will increase.

I never said anyone was stealing votes.

Boortz has a great deal more understanding of most things than you do.




You are the last person here who should be telling others what they don't understand.

Your brain is nothing but an echo chamber for the likes of Neil Boortz.Yes, those underhanded Democrats will stop at nothing when it comes to stealing the votes of minimum wage and union workers from the Republicans. :eek:

Socialism sucks. It lacks modivation.

Capitalism is all about motivation.

Some of you want socialized medicine. Where will that get us?

Do you understand what these medical companies do with those evil profits?

Lets see....... huummmmm

They spend money on research and development. (oh no how evil)

Then they come up with medical advances. (oh those evil profits at work)

I've got news for you. Life is not fair. Government will never be able tomake life fair. Those who just sit around and expect government to make things better

have another thing coming.


There is absolutly nothing wrong with being a socialist. Capitalism sucks it is rigged to leave the disabled, mentally ill and people with low intelligents at a disadvantage. Capitalism is survival of the fittest and is a game for animals not higher level being like humans who have emotions like compassion.

"capitalism is when you have 4 people with a race up a 3 story flight of stairs and one of the men is in a wheel chair. Who ever makes it to the top first gets 500 dollars, Second place gets 200, third place gets 100 and last place gets 50 dollars. The man in the wheel chair cannot possibly succeed."

Capitalism is not a fair game for ALL parties involved.

The same people who are complaining about minimum wage going up are the one complaining that they have to pay taxes for the working poor. When you are on minimum wage of 5.35 and hour you still qualify for Medicaid and some food stamps. When you are making 7.35 and hour you do not.

I live in the state of washington our minimum wage has been 7:35 for almost 5 years and our cost of living has not gone up. That is an absolute fallacy.

If it were true and the cost of living went up nothing has really changed? Either you pay extra taxes for them qualifying for welfare while on minimum wage or you pay a little extra for your services and food who it is the CEO and the owners of these services you should be blaming not people asking of a livable wage because while they pass the cost onto you they still make millions a year.

Democrats are not pandering to Unions. Unions already have thier employees making way more than minimum wage. The average person working for a Union makes 10 dollars and hour because Unions demand a livable wage. Also Unions only make up 1/4 of the working force.

Billions of resturants across the U.S are not Union, Service stores like cloths and shoes sales are not Unionized.

Some of you want socialized medicine. Where will that get us? Do you understand what these medical companies do with those evil profits?

Lets see....... huummmmm

They spend money on research and development. (oh no how evil)

Then they come up with medical advances. (oh those evil profits at work)

You need to do a little more research, sisko.

Drug companies have things called advertising and marketing departments. Surely you've seen the zillions of TV commercials they pay zillions of dollars to fill the airwaves with.

In 1999 Bristol Meyers Squibb spent 22.6% of its revenue on advertising, but only 9.1% on R&D (total profit that year, 21.0%). Warner Lambert spent 46.1% of its revenue on marketing and administration, and only 9.7% on R&D, while still making a 13% profit.

Drug companies also have things called outrageously overpaid executives. In 1999 C.A. Heimbold Jr., CEO of Bristol Meyers Squibb, was paid nearly $40 MILLION dollars. If you add in unexercised stock options, his 1999 salary came to $160 MILLION.

Here are the 1999 stats for all the big drug companies. (http://www.actupny.org/reports/durban-licensing.html) Imagine how much more they're spending on advertising today.

::)

Here's a New York Review of Books review from 2004 that explains it in greater detail:

The Truth About the Drug Companies

In the past two years, we have started to see, for the first time, the beginnings of public resistance to rapacious pricing and other dubious practices of the pharmaceutical industry. It is mainly because of this resistance that drug companies are now blanketing us with public relations messages. And the magic words, repeated over and over like an incantation, are research, innovation, and American. Research. Innovation. American. It makes a great story.

But while the rhetoric is stirring, it has very little to do with reality. First, research and development (R&D) is a relatively small part of the budgets of the big drug companies—dwarfed by their vast expenditures on marketing and administration, and smaller even than profits. In fact, year after year, for over two decades, this industry has been far and away the most profitable in the United States. The prices drug companies charge have little relationship to the costs of making the drugs and could be cut dramatically without coming anywhere close to threatening R&D.

Second, the pharmaceutical industry is not especially innovative. As hard as it is to believe, only a handful of truly important drugs have been brought to market in recent years, and they were mostly based on taxpayer-funded research at academic institutions, small biotechnology companies, or the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The great majority of "new" drugs are not new at all but merely variations of older drugs already on the market. These are called "me-too" drugs. The idea is to grab a share of an established, lucrative market by producing something very similar to a top-selling drug. For instance, we now have six statins (Mevacor, Lipitor, Zocor, Pravachol, Lescol, and the newest, Crestor) on the market to lower cholesterol, all variants of the first. As Dr. Sharon Levine, associate executive director of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, put it,

"If I'm a manufacturer and I can change one molecule and get another twenty years of patent rights, and convince physicians to prescribe and consumers to demand the next form of Prilosec, or weekly Prozac instead of daily Prozac, just as my patent expires, then why would I be spending money on a lot less certain endeavor, which is looking for brand-new drugs?"

Third, the industry is hardly a model of American free enterprise. To be sure, it is free to decide which drugs to develop (me-too drugs instead of innovative ones, for instance), and it is free to price them as high as the traffic will bear, but it is utterly dependent on government-granted monopolies—in the form of patents and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved exclusive marketing rights. If it is not particularly innovative in discovering new drugs, it is highly innovative— and aggressive—in dreaming up ways to extend its monopoly rights.

And there is nothing peculiarly American about this industry. It is the very essence of a global enterprise. Roughly half of the largest drug companies are based in Europe. (The exact count shifts because of mergers.) In 2002, the top ten were the American companies Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Wyeth (formerly American Home Products); the British companies GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca; the Swiss companies Novartis and Roche; and the French company Aventis (which in 2004 merged with another French company, Sanafi Synthelabo, putting it in third place). All are much alike in their operations. All price their drugs much higher here than in other markets.

Since the United States is the major profit center, it is simply good public relations for drug companies to pass themselves off as American, whether they are or not. It is true, however, that some of the European companies are now locating their R&D operations in the United States. They claim the reason for this is that we don't regulate prices, as does much of the rest of the world. But more likely it is that they want to feed on the unparalleled research output of American universities and the NIH. In other words, it's not private enterprise that draws them here but the very opposite—our publicly sponsored research enterprise. --New York Review of Books (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244)

That drug prescription you just paid $100 for? Between $23 and $46 dollars of that prescription went to advertising alone. Less than $10 went for research and development of the drug.

:rolleyes:

If the CEO took a cut in salary & benefits, it would never be passed on to the hourly employees. But the stock holders would get a boost in their dividends. Prices would, and will increase.


ok, then we get the stock holders to put money back.

capatalism is geared to fuck people and still blame the poor man wanting and needing more money.

maybe one day the poor will wake up in america and burn this fuckign country to the ground.

but that won't happen as long as they keep hanging around mickeydees and their xbox.

dear global warming. hurry up and solve the human problem. a little faster, ok? for the planets sake.

Boortz has a great deal more understanding of most things than you do.Since almost every political thought you have ever had comes directly from him, it's not surprising that you would think so.

Excellent post, Frannie, but I wouldn't count on sisko understanding a single word of it.

You're not telling him what he wants to hear. :eek:

ok, then we get the stock holders to put money back.

capatalism is geared to fuck people and still blame the poor man wanting and needing more money.

maybe one day the poor will wake up in america and burn this fuckign country to the ground.

but that won't happen as long as they keep hanging around mickeydees and their xbox.

dear global warming. hurry up and solve the human problem. a little faster, ok? for the planets sake.


I am, as always, surprised by the number of people who advocate the destruction of the very system that made this country GREAT, while ignoring system in countries who's poor make ours seem like millionaires. Just look to Mexico, India, China, to name only four.

who advocate the destruction of the very system that made this country GREAT,slavery? that was destroyed long ago...
while ignoring system in countries who's poor make ours seem like millionaires. Just look to Mexico, India, China, to name only four.
Well first off thats three, but I won't let a little thing like not being able to count small sums be held against you...
Second, just look at NAFTA. The surrent flood of migrants over the border are basically NAFTA refugees. Neo-liberal trade policies (see unrestrained capitalism) combined with corn subsidies (see Coporate Socialism) have desstroyed Mexico's poor agrarian culture with suppressed prices. The US only has capitalism for the poor and middle classes. If you are ridiculously fucking poor or own a coporation it is much more like socialism.

Indias got a class system. Which is basically racism and classism combined. The elites are fucked in the head.

China is a slave country. People work full time and still end up in debt for merely food and housing.

If you think that the owning class promoted any of the things that helped the poor you are full of yourself. Education may be the only thing on the list. But you know, its hard to have industrial workers if they can't read a manual. We saw unrestrained capitalism in the late 1800's early 1900's. It invovled owners murdering strikers with cops and private thugs, Unsafe working conditions, a 12 hour day, and child labor. All of this was fought for by the owning class and against by the working class.

Coporations are pushing for these very same conditions, and have them, in other countries. So what then? Try to destroy import taxes so you can have a 16 year old girl working 11 hours a day make $300 sweaters for less then $1 pay. Thats your capitalism...So you tell me, who's trying to make the world a better place for the poor?

What made this country great was the industrial revolution, not slavery. Slavery made cotton king, and was abolished while this country was weening its self from Europe.
As usual, you ignored the point of the post, that US poor are a 1000 times better off, with far more opportunities, than the poor in most other countries. Their lot will not improve with your socialist programs. They just become a crutch, as they already have to generations of poor blacks.

US poor are a 1000 times better off, with far more opportunities, than the poor in most other countries. Their lot will not improve with your socialist programs. They just become a crutch, as they already have to generations of poor blacks.

You criticize a lot but I don't see you offering any alternative solutions.
No social programs... ok, so if they can't make it on their own they should just die?

Socialism sucks. It lacks modivation.

Capitalism is all about motivation.

Some of you want socialized medicine. Where will that get us?

Do you understand what these medical companies do with those evil profits?

Lets see....... huummmmm

They spend money on research and development. (oh no how evil)

Then they come up with medical advances. (oh those evil profits at work)

I've got news for you. Life is not fair. Government will never be able tomake life fair. Those who just sit around and expect government to make things better

have another thing coming.


Socialism works and motivation should come from loving doing what you do for your job and not becoming richest you can while stepping on other people while you are at it.
Capitalism breeds greed, abuse and corruption.

I never said life is fair however people should not be homeless because they are disabled, mentally ill or dumb by gentics. People should not have to be eating roman noodles, pure peanut butter and raw hotdogs for a daily diet.

Life is not fair but Capitalism is not the answer. It is set up to screw the weak. that is unacceptable. Life this is not fair is something we can do nothing about AIDS, Natural Distasters ect. Sitting around making millions a year while my bottom line can't pay rent is a sick way of living.

I agree with one poster here the only reason people have not started rioting over low wages and low living standards in this country is the Xbox's and PS2.

They just become a crutch, as they already have to generations of poor blacks. Generations? Institutionalized racism was outlawed a mere 43 years ago. But hey just because they were harassed, intimidated, under funded and unhired for being black, its their own fault.

I'm not saying some people aren't welfare dependants that need to get up off their ass and do something. But your association with blacks is misleading.

As usual, you ignored the point of the post, that US poor are a 1000 times better off, with far more opportunities, than the poor in most other countries. yes the US poor have far more opportunities. You ignored the point of my post. The US is enabling coporations (along with other coutries governments) to make life shit for the poor in the rest of the world. Free Trade Agreements are used by the US to force other countries to relax environemntal and employee protection laws. You don't believe me? since when has the trade agreement been used to stregthen such laws? So then who was it written to benefit?

What made this country great was the industrial revolution, not slavery. right I covered that, in case you missed it...
If you think that the owning class promoted any of the things that helped the poor you are full of yourself. Education may be the only thing on the list. But you know, its hard to have industrial workers if they can't read a manual. We saw unrestrained capitalism in the late 1800's early 1900's. It invovled owners murdering strikers with cops and private thugs, Unsafe working conditions, a 12 hour day, and child labor. All of this was fought for by the owning class and against by the working class.

Socialism sucks. It lacks modivation.

Capitalism is all about motivation.
I see a religion paralell here.

See many Christians act like good people because they don't want to be tortured for eternity so they 'obey' the sky fairy.

Many Humanists/agnostics act like good people because they believe its the right thing to do.

Its called motivation/morality...Some people have it and some don't. Just because your lazy ass wouldn't do shit unless it means having more then someone else doesn't mean others are the same way. People should be allowed to choose the system they live in. Thats why the US is completely antithetical to freedom, thats why many americans actually hate freedom. They believe that there way is best and should be imposed on the rest of the world by force if necessary.

Capitalism is the best economic system. You would be very hard pressed to find a socalist economy that is better then the US's economy.

Capitalism is not perfect, but it is the best thing out there.

Are you saying that riots would be right or good?

If people riot, they should go to jail. I don't care how rich or poor you are, if you break the law, you deserve to go to jail.

Look at France. They want to pass a law that says an employer should be able to fire those who don't do their jobs.

They had riots. A job is earned. A promotion should be earned. The government should not be in the business of hand outs.

That should be left to the Church. (That is the way it used to be many many years ago)




Socialism works and motivation should come from loving doing what you do for your job and not becoming richest you can while stepping on other people while you are at it.
Capitalism breeds greed, abuse and corruption.

I never said life is fair however people should not be homeless because they are disabled, mentally ill or dumb by gentics. People should not have to be eating roman noodles, pure peanut butter and raw hotdogs for a daily diet.

Life is not fair but Capitalism is not the answer. It is set up to screw the weak. that is unacceptable. Life this is not fair is something we can do nothing about AIDS, Natural Distasters ect. Sitting around making millions a year while my bottom line can't pay rent is a sick way of living.

I agree with one poster here the only reason people have not started rioting over low wages and low living standards in this country is the Xbox's and PS2.

Socialism worked just fine for the Eloys.

Until the Morlocks got them ... that is.

[QUOTE=warrior1972]By JESSE J. HOLLAND, AP Labor Writer
47 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - After a decade-long wait, America's lowest-paid workers saw Congress poised Thursday to increase the federal minimum wage by $2.10.

ADVERTISEMENT

For years, the idea of increasing the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour has been stalled by partisan bickering between Republicans and Democrats.

That almost became the fate of the this year's proposal to raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 over two years . Democratic leaders attached the provision to the $120 billion Iraq war spending bill, which was vetoed by the GOP-controlled White House on May 1 because of Democrats insisting on a pullout date for American troops.

But with the House and Senate ready to pass a rewritten bill, and President Bush signaling his approval at a White House news conference, it seems likely that the end is near for the longest stretch without the federal pay floor rising since the minimum wage was established in 1938.

"We're very hopeful we're going to see finally that increase in the next couple of days," said Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., and chair of the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee.

This would be the first change since the minimum wage went from $4.75 to $5.15 on September 1, 1997 under former President Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress.

The minimum wage provisions were one part of the Iraq war spending bill that did not change: the minimum wage goes up to $5.85 two months after Bush signs the bill, then to $6.55 one year later and to $7.25 the next year.

The liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute, a research group in Washington, estimates that 5.6 million workers — or 4 percent of the work force — currently earn less than $7.25.

"This is a great day for America's middle class," said Rep. George Miller (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., chair of the House Education and Labor Committee. "America's workers have been waiting for a raise for a long time."

Currently, a person working 40 hours per week at the current minimum wage of $5.15 makes about $10,700 a year. An increase to $7.25 would boost that to just over $15,000 a year.

The full increase, according to Miller, is enough to pay for 15 months of groceries for a family of three.

More than two dozen states and the District of Columbia already have minimum wages higher than the federal level. Minimum wage workers are typically young, single and female and are often black or Hispanic.

I seem to remember a Minimum Wage hike of $1.1o or $1.35 a few years
back.That broke a spell of more than 7 years of a frozen Minimum wage.
Pre-'97 the wage was like $4.25 for many a year.
I'm a real Softie when it comes to the Underclass.
Having grown up in the Upper Class,I also know first hand that many
well-to-do Parents make it extra hard on their brood.I never had time for
yself as a kid.My Parents stayed busy and expected their kids to do likewise.
I had odd jobs like cutting lawns in summer,raking leaves or cleaning out gutters in fall.Shovelling snow in the Cleveland winters.
In 8th grade I had a paper route that netted all of $3.50 per week.
That was practically an hour of delievering papers,6 days a week.
I used that paper route money to pay for my Folk Guitar and also lessons.
My first bona-fide job was when I was 14.I had to get special permission from my parents on an underage workers permit.It was in a Grocery store at
our Summer home.I remember the pay was $1.10 /hr.I Used to turn my pay
checks over to my parents,for savings.They gave me like a Fin {$5.oo}
out of a weekly net of $20 + dollars after taxes.
I really don't wanna hear about how rich kids have it made.Most Rich kids
had duties/chores and responsibilities,in my day.
All the Minimum wage hike accomplished was the eventual incremental
increase of goods.If one wants to do better than the minimum,than
they need to do a stellar job,and then promotion will take care of the rest.
Any Minimum is a standard.If one wants to beat the standard they need to
figger a way to do it.This Country WASN'T founded on a guaranteed
Minimum level of anything that reaps a decent standard of Living.
That wood be France,BTW.

You criticize a lot but I don't see you offering any alternative solutions.
No social programs... ok, so if they can't make it on their own they should just die?


I have no problems with social programs, with fixed limits. Nor do I object to programs for the TRULY disabled, and elderly. But when a person can exist on them indefinitely, they lose the desire to improve themselves.
I have a sister who has learned to milk social services for everything she can get. She has only held one job, for 6 mo, at age 18, during her 64 years on earth. Her three children have done no better.
If a person can not learn to care for themselves, they might as will die, for they are nothing more than a drain on society. If that seems cold, or hard, so be it. But the strong, and the able, survive for a reason.

I have no problems with social programs, with fixed limits. Nor do I object to programs for the TRULY disabled, and elderly. But when a person can exist on them indefinitely, they lose the desire to improve themselves.

I agree with that. Unfortunately because I have read ahead I know that you are about to contradict yourself.
What do you mean by "truly disabled"? Mental disabilities are just as real as physical disabilities.
Are you aware that 40% of the homeless in America are Veterans with PTSD? Are they just wusses who can't learn to take care of themselves?

If a person can not learn to care for themselves, they might as will die, for they are nothing more than a drain
on society. If that seems cold, or hard, so be it. But the strong, and the able, survive for a reason.

You mean people like her.

http://www.victoriafoundation.bc.ca/programs/images/shannonmike.JPG

I applaud your honesty.
That is a very typical Conservative viewpoint but they are not usually so candid and open about it.

The irony, of course, is that it is also a very Darwinistic view, "survival of the fittest".

I agree with that. Unfortunately because I have read ahead I know that you are about to contradict yourself.
What do you mean by "truly disabled"? Mental disabilities are just as real as physical disabilities.
Are you aware that 40% of the homeless in America are Veterans with PTSD? Are they just wusses who can't learn to take care of themselves?



You mean people like her.

http://www.victoriafoundation.bc.ca/programs/images/shannonmike.JPG

I applaud your honesty.
That is a very typical Conservative viewpoint but they are not usually so candid and open about it.

The irony, of course, is that it is also a very Darwinistic view, "survival of the fittest".


As opposed to the socialist view, of taking care of the truly worthless, at someone else's expense.

I would venture to say the girl in the chair is disabled. She's not there because she is lazy, setting on her ass, rather than working.
I will never believe that 40% of the homeless are veterans, with or w/o PTSD, and I volunteer with a homeless shelter. Most of them have problems, mostly with drugs and alcohol, many have mental problems (usually, some form of schizophrenia), some just like living "on the street".
If you don't know what constitutes a real disability, you are far less intelligent than I thought. But being to lazy, or having to many kids does not qualify.

As opposed to the socialist view, of taking care of the truly worthless, at someone else's expense.

I would venture to say the girl in the chair is disabled. She's not there because she is lazy, setting on her ass, rather than working.
I will never believe that 40% of the homeless are veterans, with or w/o PTSD, and I volunteer with a homeless shelter. Most of them have problems, mostly with drugs and alcohol, many have mental problems (usually, some form of schizophrenia), some just like living "on the street".
If you don't know what constitutes a real disability, you are far less intelligent than I thought. But being to lazy, or having to many kids does not qualify.

I again applaud you. I also volunteer at a homeless shelter. I applaud that you actually do something to help people. It is far more than most Conservatives do.

I should correct my statement... 40% of homeless men are Veterans. (http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/veterans.pdf)
Did you know that on any given night, we have 200,000 homeless veterans on the Streets of America. That means we have more homeless Veterans on the streets of America than we do troops in Iraq.

For the record, PTSD is a mental problem.

I think the myth of the "lazy" person who just mysteriously *wants* to be homeless is just that... a myth. I have never met anyone like that in all my years volunteering.

Also, I challenge your opinion on who is "worthless" or not.
In my opinion, no life is "worthless".
That is the Liberal viewpoint, not "socialist". The fact you can't tell the difference says a lot.

If you really want to get pissed, check out the 2000 census info on disability by your state/city. I looked up the city where I live near, and found that around 30% of the working population (aged 18 to 64) were on either full or partial disability. Made me really proud of these people that are "playing" the system (I doubt that over 5% are truly disabled). :rolleyes:

It reminds me of an old joke....

A British man, in a wheelchair, walks into a pub and sees Jesus sitting at a table eating with some friends. The Brit tell the bartender to send Jesus a glass of ale to Jesus from him.

An Irish man, on crutches, walks into the same pup and notices Jesus there also. The Irish man tells the bartender to send an Irish coffee to Jesus - complements of him.

A redneck, walking with a cane, walks into this pub, sees Jesus, and tells the bartender to send over a coca-cola to Jesus and put it on his tab.

When Jesus starts to leave, he stops by the British man, thanks him for the ale, then lays his hands on his shoulders.... then the man gets up from his wheelcahir and walks!

Jesus then goes to the Irish man, thanks him for the coffee, touches him on the arm.... the the Irish man drops his crutches and begins to dance a jig!

Finally, Jesus approaches the redneck, thanks him for the soda.... but the redneck shys away from his touch saying "but, I'm on full disability"!

I'll try to find that link to the census info and post it here later

and people with low intelligents

:lolhit:

Capitalism is the best economic system. You would be very hard pressed to find a socalist economy that is better then the US's economy.

Capitalism is not perfect, but it is the best thing out there.

Are you saying that riots would be right or good?

If people riot, they should go to jail. I don't care how rich or poor you are, if you break the law, you deserve to go to jail.

Look at France. They want to pass a law that says an employer should be able to fire those who don't do their jobs.

They had riots. A job is earned. A promotion should be earned. The government should not be in the business of hand outs.

That should be left to the Church. (That is the way it used to be many many years ago)

are you saying black should never have rioted when or government was suppressing them and oppressing them. The only reason black are as far along today is because they stopped taking it. They fought back and there were too many of them to suppress anymore so the government had to give them equal rights.

If they took away welfare for the poor I would be on the streets rioting because it would be creating a humanitarian crisis. People would be starving and dying for no good reason. I am no going to sit here and let innocent people die because of your greed!! There is a time to debate and a time to fight. I would gladly go to jail to save the lives of the poor and disabled.

Church!! HA!! I have to go beg to a church that shoves religion down my throat to eat! NO one should not have to bow to any god or pray or anything of a kind to get food or housing. You want churches to be the only source of survival so you can convert more people. "look I saved you. you owe god...you owe jesus" "if it were not for us you would be starving" Just like Hezballah brain washing southern lebonon by giving to the poor and building hosptials it wins the hearts of people and they gain folowers. It is discusting. When the poor get help from a secular government to do not owe homage to any religion.

It is your job to take care of the community that means you pay taxes get over it.

yeah that is right they had riots because they do not want to live like AMericans when they can fire you for any reason and you have not rights. I understand firing someone with good cause but it is insane to get rid of someone for no real reason. That is greed and abuse of power and if you noticed France has come up with a comprimise so the rioting worked!!

:lolhit:

You make light of that all you want. I am the one that scored a 130 on the mensa IQ test.
:upyours:

I again applaud you. I also volunteer at a homeless shelter. I applaud that you actually do something to help people. It is far more than most Conservatives do.

I should correct my statement... 40% of homeless men are Veterans. (http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/veterans.pdf)
Did you know that on any given night, we have 200,000 homeless veterans on the Streets of America. That means we have more homeless Veterans on the streets of America than we do troops in Iraq.

For the record, PTSD is a mental problem.

I think the myth of the "lazy" person who just mysteriously *wants* to be homeless is just that... a myth. I have never met anyone like that in all my years volunteering.

Also, I challenge your opinion on who is "worthless" or not.
In my opinion, no life is "worthless".
That is the Liberal viewpoint, not "socialist". The fact you can't tell the difference says a lot.


PTSD is not just a mental problem it registered as a mental illness. Here is some of what people with PTSD suffer from.

What are the symptoms of PTSD?

In general, post-traumatic stress disorder can be seen as an overwhelming of the body's normal psychological defenses against stress. Thus, after the trauma, there is abnormal function (dysfunction) of the normal defense systems, which results in certain symptoms. The symptoms are produced in three different ways:

Re-experiencing the trauma
Persistent avoidance
Increased arousal
First, symptoms can be produced by re-experiencing the trauma, whereby the individual can have distressing recollections of the trauma. For example, the person may relive the experience as terrible dreams or nightmares or as daytime flashbacks of the event. Furthermore, external cues in the environment may remind the patient of the event. As a result, the psychological distress of the exposure to trauma is reactivated (brought back) by internal thoughts, memories, and even fantasies. Persons also can experience physical reactions to stress, such as sweating and rapid heart rate. (These reactions are similar to the "fight or flight" responses to emergencies described by Dr. Walter Cannon.) The patient's posttraumatic symptoms can be identical to those symptoms experienced when the actual trauma was occurring.

The second way that symptoms are produced is by persistent avoidance. The avoidance refers to the person's efforts to avoid trauma-related thoughts or feelings and activities or situations that may trigger memories of the trauma. This so-called psychogenic (emotionally caused) amnesia (loss of memory) for the event can lead to a variety of reactions. For example, the patient may develop a diminished interest in activities that used to give pleasure, detachment from other people, restricted range of feelings, and a sad affect that leads to the view that the future will be shortened.

The third way that symptoms are produced is by an increased state of arousal of the affected person. These arousal symptoms include sleep disturbances, irritability, outbursts of anger, difficulty concentrating, increased vigilance, and an exaggerated startle response when shocked.

If you really want to get pissed, check out the 2000 census info on disability by your state/city. I looked up the city where I live near, and found that around 30% of the working population (aged 18 to 64) were on either full or partial disability. Made me really proud of these people that are "playing" the system (I doubt that over 5% are truly disabled). :rolleyes:

It reminds me of an old joke....

A British man, in a wheelchair, walks into a pub and sees Jesus sitting at a table eating with some friends. The Brit tell the bartender to send Jesus a glass of ale to Jesus from him.

An Irish man, on crutches, walks into the same pup and notices Jesus there also. The Irish man tells the bartender to send an Irish coffee to Jesus - complements of him.

A redneck, walking with a cane, walks into this pub, sees Jesus, and tells the bartender to send over a coca-cola to Jesus and put it on his tab.

When Jesus starts to leave, he stops by the British man, thanks him for the ale, then lays his hands on his shoulders.... then the man gets up from his wheelcahir and walks!

Jesus then goes to the Irish man, thanks him for the coffee, touches him on the arm.... the the Irish man drops his crutches and begins to dance a jig!

Finally, Jesus approaches the redneck, thanks him for the soda.... but the redneck shys away from his touch saying "but, I'm on full disability"!

I'll try to find that link to the census info and post it here later

More like 19 percent. It was very easy to search for I am sure you just forgot you have access to google or/and yahoo.

Disabilities Affect 1 in 5
There were 49.7 million people with some type of long-lasting condition or disability living in the United States in 2000. This represented 19.3 percent of the 257.2 million civilians aged 5 and over who were not living in prisons, nursing homes, and other institutions, or nearly one person in five.


Disability Rates Differ by Age and Sex
Disability rates rose with age for both sexes, but significant differences existed between men and women. For people under 65, the prevalence of disability among men and boys was higher than among women and girls. In contrast, disability rates were higher for women than men aged 65 and older (43 percent for women, 40 percent for men).

Disability Rates Vary among Major Racial and Ethnic Groups
According to the 2000 Census, people who indicated that they were White (and no other race) and were not of Hispanic or Latino origin had a low overall disability rate (18.3 percent vs 19.3 percent overall), despite the fact that their median age was higher than for other racial and ethnic groups.

Among the racial and ethnic groups examined, people who reported Black and people who reported American Indian and Alaska Native shared the highest overall estimated disability rate of 24.3 percent. Asians who reported only one race had the lowest overall disability rate: 16.6 percent. The overall disability rate for single-race Pacific Islanders (19.0 percent) was slightly higher than the rate for Asians, but not statistically different from the rates for non-Hispanic Whites. And even though people reporting two or more races had the lowest median age, their disability rates were among the highest in 2000 - 21.7 percent overall. The overall disability rate for Hispanics (20.9 percent) was also higher than the overall rate.

Disability Linked to Poverty
In 2000, 8.7 million people with disabilities were poor - a substantially higher proportion (17.6 percent) than was found among people without disabilities (10.6 percent). The highest poverty rates in both cases were found among children aged 5 to 15: young people with disabilities had a poverty rate of 25.0 percent, compared with 15.7 percent for those without disabilities

http://factfinder.census.gov/jsp/saff/SAFFInfo.jsp?_pageId=tp4_disability

Earnings Lower for People with Disabilities
The 1997 median earnings for people with no disability with $23,700, compared with $20,500 for those with a slight disability and $13,300 for those with a severe disability. Among people with disabilities who worked, 34 percent were limited in the amount or kind of work that they could do. One in five workers with a disability had difficulty remaining employed or finding a job.

same link

Keeping a job depends on the severity of the disability. I know so many people here who say that I have managed to piss off most of the members of this board. Do you think this has nothing to do with my PTSD? and if you think I have this much trouble on a message board how do you think keeping a job is for me?

I do not mean to make people angry I just do. I am in therapy for it and it will take years to learn how to modify my behavior to be a better person. Vile is right I get pissed off way to easily but it is not something you can just fix in a day. It takes time and healing from the pain. I am very reactive to stupid people and rude and obnoxious people. WHere others can just blow it off I confront and get into a batttle with. I wont back down from a fight ever and I am uncontrollable. IF I am triggered there is no holds bar. I will tell a police officer to go fuck himself if I think for a moment he is abusing his authority. I will tell a judge to stick the mallet up his ass if I thought for one moment he was demeaning me. It is a problem. I completely agree. People who think ahead let people do unjust things to them to keep thier job or to not get put in jail. Many people have the forsight to say it is not worth it but me I will fight it every time.
IF a gang member put a gun to my head and told me that if I did not bow to him he would kill me . I WOULD NOT BOW!!
I do not know what it is within my that would rather face the consequences than to be oppressed, suppressed or bully but I won't.
as for someone who said that people who are completely hopeless should be put to death. It is one thing to euthinize someone to save it suffering and to not burden others with thier worthlessness. It is quite another thing to have them die slowly of malnutrian and exposure.
If you want to get rid of the waste of society so you do not have to pay taxes for us. I will come over to your house and you are welcome to put a bullet in my head but spare them the pain and suffering of dying a slow death.

A British man, in a wheelchair, walks into a pub
:lolhit:

+++++++++
With no Congressional action on raising the minimum wage since 1997, inflation has eroded wages. The minimum wage in the 21st century is $2 lower in real dollars than it was four decades ago and now stands at its lowest level since 1955, according to the Economic Policy Institute and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Also, since the last time Congress increased the minimum wage for our lowest-paid workers, buying power has fallen by 25 percent. Yet over that time our elected representatives have given themselves eight pay raises totaling more than 23 percent.
+++++++++++

[QUOTE=500lbguerilla]:lolhit:


lol... agreed. Maybe rolls? :D

You make light of that all you want. I am the one that scored a 130 on the mensa IQ test.
Sure you did sweetheart.

More like 19 percent. It was very easy to search for I am sure you just forgot you have access to google or/and yahoo.

Disabilities Affect 1 in 5
There were 49.7 million people with some type of long-lasting condition or disability living in the United States in 2000. This represented 19.3 percent of the 257.2 million civilians aged 5 and over who were not living in prisons, nursing homes, and other institutions, or nearly one person in five.

First of all, that's a national average. In case you didn't know, that doesn't mean that every single city in the country has exactly 19% disabled population. Oldphart's city could have more disability recipients than the national average.

Also, your article says "long-lasting condition or disability". If I'm correct, you can receive disability benefits for temporary injuries that cause you to be unemployed.

More like 19 percent. It was very easy to search for I am sure you just forgot you have access to google or/and yahoo.

No, the town I refer to has around 30% listed as disabled, the entire county was at around 24% overall, the whole country is around 19%. I couldn't find the link to the particular site that I was refering to (your link may work fine... thanks for that). And a nice attempt to patronize me on web issues... I stand amazed in your knowledge. I've only been working on/with PC's since 1983, and still have a long way to go in regards to this magic box with tiny all-knowing beings inside.

I take it your "mensa" test didn't include any parts related to reading comprehension.

The Internet is a bunch of tubes, don't ya know?

How can black riot? Black is a color. Can blue riot?

I have no problem in paying fair taxes. None at all.

We need another wel-fare reform. Plenty of the people on wel-fare

just don't belong there. If you can't work, you should be helped. If you

won't work, you should not be helped. Government is not always the answer.

An employer should be able to fire for any reason. It's called at-will

employee. An employee should be able to quit for any reason aswell.




are you saying black should never have rioted when or government was suppressing them and oppressing them. The only reason black are as far along today is because they stopped taking it. They fought back and there were too many of them to suppress anymore so the government had to give them equal rights.

If they took away welfare for the poor I would be on the streets rioting because it would be creating a humanitarian crisis. People would be starving and dying for no good reason. I am no going to sit here and let innocent people die because of your greed!! There is a time to debate and a time to fight. I would gladly go to jail to save the lives of the poor and disabled.

Church!! HA!! I have to go beg to a church that shoves religion down my throat to eat! NO one should not have to bow to any god or pray or anything of a kind to get food or housing. You want churches to be the only source of survival so you can convert more people. "look I saved you. you owe god...you owe jesus" "if it were not for us you would be starving" Just like Hezballah brain washing southern lebonon by giving to the poor and building hosptials it wins the hearts of people and they gain folowers. It is discusting. When the poor get help from a secular government to do not owe homage to any religion.

It is your job to take care of the community that means you pay taxes get over it.

yeah that is right they had riots because they do not want to live like AMericans when they can fire you for any reason and you have not rights. I understand firing someone with good cause but it is insane to get rid of someone for no real reason. That is greed and abuse of power and if you noticed France has come up with a comprimise so the rioting worked!!

An employer should be able to fire for any reason.

Like because you happen to be Black? Or Gay? Or Jewish? Or a woman?

No, you are wrong. They should not be able to fire for any reason. There are laws against exactly that kind of immoral behavior.



An employee should be able to quit for any reason aswell.

Thay always have been able to. That has never been an issue aside from Slavery.

Gerogia is a right to work state. An employer can hire and fire for any reason.

It is wrong to fire just because of gender or color or sexual orientation.

An employer would be very very dumb to fire based on those reasons.

Too many people say...... "you just fired me because I am black"

They use the race card. As a manager, I have fired people, but only

because they did not do the job.

Should we make the LA Lakers put 50% white people on their team?


Like because you happen to be Black? Or Gay? Or Jewish? Or a woman?

No, you are wrong. They should not be able to fire for any reason. There are laws against exactly that kind of immoral behavior.





Thay always have been able to. That has never been an issue aside from Slavery.

I am, as always, surprised by the number of people who advocate the destruction of the very system that made this country GREAT, while ignoring system in countries who's poor make ours seem like millionaires. Just look to Mexico, India, China, to name only four.



and they are dumb enough to bend over and take it just like america does. stoopit people are stoopit people. they are mentally weak and need to be screwed.

walk away. it is that easy.

no ivan just send them an x-box with a few games or PS2 and everything is ok.

An employer should be able to fire for any reason ... An employee should be able to quit for any reason aswell.

So move to Arizona -- it works that way in that state.

Gerogia is a right to work state. An employer can hire and fire for any reason.

So is Michigan, but the reality is that it is a "Right to Fire" state.
That is what that law really enables.


It is wrong to fire just because of gender or color or sexual orientation.

I agree with that. Unfortunately it is not currently illegal to fire someone for sexual orientation so it happens all the time.


An employer would be very very dumb to fire based on those reasons.

There are currently no legal repercussions for firing someone for sexual orientation.


Too many people say...... "you just fired me because I am black"

They use the race card.

Because it still actually happens all too often.


As a manager, I have fired people, but only because they did not do the job.

Good for you, unfortunately not every employer is as moral as you say you are.


Should we make the LA Lakers put 50% white people on their team?

No, but that also has nothing to do with the right to fire laws.

you know what I noticed like you are suppose to give the job 2 weeks notice before you leave and you don't when your next employer calls they can say you did not give advance notice yet employers can just scrub you with no notice and no holds them accountable I mean the next potential employee does not ask the past employee did the employer give a 2 weeks notice. I personally would like to create an employer database where past employees and give evaluations of their work environment and termination weather it was a fair firing and so on so an potential employee can research the that particular job and find a rating on it on how well they treat thier employees.

An employer should be able to fire for any reason.

So move to Arizona -- it works that way in that state. "Right to work" works in theory but is bullshit in practice. I have a friend who managed the night shift at a factory. One night they locked the doors and forced all the workers to take drug tests. This was illegal. She informed her workers that the company is not allowed to do such things and they should assert their rights next time. She was then fired for such. The company told her "you can go for an interview at such and such or you can try to take us to court. If you take us to court you will probably not win and waste much time and money, its a right to work state after all. IF you do this you will never work in this industry again."

And they weren't lying. See companies don't usually give a fuck about the law, they care about what they see as profitable. They also care about profit over competition, so othey collude together against those who assert the law. This is why unions are imporatant. Unfortunatly many unions have become just another corrupt boss.

dharm, you can fire a person for practically any reason - as it should be. You are paying them to do a job, if you don't think they are the right person for the job then you should hire someone else. And do you seriously think that a law will stop a gay person from getting fired because they are gay? Those types of laws don't do shit. They'll simply use another reason, or no reason at all.

Unless the employee is fired for not doing the job, or stealing exc,

the employer should give notice, or give a severance pay when fireing.

It doesn't always happen that way, but it does in may cases.

you know what I noticed like you are suppose to give the job 2 weeks notice before you leave and you don't when your next employer calls they can say you did not give advance notice yet employers can just scrub you with no notice and no holds them accountable I mean the next potential employee does not ask the past employee did the employer give a 2 weeks notice. I personally would like to create an employer database where past employees and give evaluations of their work environment and termination weather it was a fair firing and so on so an potential employee can research the that particular job and find a rating on it on how well they treat thier employees.

It is not illegal toforce employees to take random drug tests.

(the employee can refuse, but will be fired for such)

If they locked employees in, that would be illegal. Please explain the illegal part.


"Right to work" works in theory but is bullshit in practice. I have a friend who managed the night shift at a factory. One night they locked the doors and forced all the workers to take drug tests. This was illegal. She informed her workers that the company is not allowed to do such things and they should assert their rights next time. She was then fired for such. The company told her "you can go for an interview at such and such or you can try to take us to court. If you take us to court you will probably not win and waste much time and money, its a right to work state after all. IF you do this you will never work in this industry again."

And they weren't lying. See companies don't usually give a fuck about the law, they care about what they see as profitable. They also care about profit over competition, so othey collude together against those who assert the law. This is why unions are imporatant. Unfortunatly many unions have become just another corrupt boss.