h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You have a point about kids in McDonalds- but what if they're the primary wage earner in their family? It happens.

And minimum wage jobs are a start in the work world: also true. But what if you have a baby to take care of while you're working? Or, for that matter, an elderly parent or grandparent, or disabled brother or sister? What if you /can't/ do anything else? I just think we should give these people a chance, you know?

All hell has broken loose with respect to the Lieberman website being down, with the Lieberman campaign accusing the Lamont campaign of sabotage.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/8/132638/2268

I think that any wage should be worth working for... When I worked at McDonalds, the money I saved was just enough to buy clothes for school. ($4.60 an hour.) The wage I'm making right now is just barely enough to pay for living from day to day. I haven't been able to save any money from my regular job in two years. Selling my artwork has kept the account from losing money due to high energy costs, but that won't last long.

They're saying right now that people aren't saving money. Bush's solution? Promote responsible spending and savings accounts. That's moronic - if people don't have enough money to live from day to day, how are they supposed to save money?

The minimum wage has remained the same while higher income types are making more money. This has increased the gap between the rich and the poor. Congress has gotten a pay raise every year. So any argument that minimum pay raises would raise the costs of goods and services doesn't hold much weight for me. Raise the minimum wage, and let the people who have money spend more of it on goods and services to pay for it.

The minimum wage bill that went stale in the Senate promised to raise the minimum wage, but it would have taken away money from minimum wage workers in California - according to their laws. So it's a good thing that it didn't pass. Not to mention that it would have given huge tax breaks to the already-wealthy, destroying any benefit from raising the minimum wage.

The bill was written that way.

Didn't think the minumum wage affected the big businesses so much as the small businesses, specially the mom and pop size. Where profit margins are slim to none.

if the government can tell business what they must pay then for heaven's sake let them tell business what they can sell their products for and maybe I could aford them.

We all know what obscene profits the oil industry makes. But does the government mess with them? No they do not. Same with utilities. I pay three times as much for natural gas as my neigbor less than ten miles away across the border in another state.

That is a funny one. The people here were really up in arms and getting the attention of the city counsel people. The counsel were going to talk to the state leaders and try and get the gas company to make some adjustments. All appeared to be going in the right direction until the gas company offered to back our rib-off festival to the tune of 30 thousand. Suddenly the city found that the gas company was our friend and the whole subject got dropped.

That's a pretty naked bribe!

I keep hearing that argument about mom and pop businesses going under if they were forced to pay someone a living wage, and I don't buy it. There are plenty of ways that congress can sweeten things for small business owners that they aren't doing now because they don't care, with concessions in employee taxes and such, that would make it perfectly feasible for a small business to pay a decent wage.

McDonalds, WalMart, Disney World and other service industry giants, now they can afford the pay raise easily.

oh..?? but but but ...


"if the government can tell business what they must pay then for heaven's sake let them tell business what they can sell their products for"

"We all know what obscene profits the oil industry makes. But does the government mess with them? No they do not."

MoFoLo, isn't that what Libertarianism is all about?

Now I personally would be happy if *my* gouvernment would set realistic minimum wages, control price levels (or rather control the "obscene profits" of some industries), preferably make energy, oil and gas companies state owned, but I always understood that this is not the way Libertarians want it?

Over in the main thread we have been trying to thrash out just what a Libertarian ~is~, Babette. It seems to be a two-headed creature, with one head wanting less government "interference" (read: lower taxes) and the other head demanding protection of maximum personal liberty. The Libertarians seem to draw both Republicans and Democrats but their platform is at best ill-defined and a little contradictory, so far as we can tell.

well, some of the statements seem a bit inconsistent

That could be said for all the parties.

The maxim which was certainly proved true in the primaries just yesterday is, "All politics is local." The platform of the Republican party in Texas is somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun, while the Republicans in New York are more, shal we say, cosmopolitan. The east is urban and its politcs reflect those concerns, while the west, where I live, is much more about ranchers and foresting. California is suspected by many to be a separate country.

So there's certainly plenty of inconsistency in the details. But what happened in yesterday's primaries, particularly in Connecticut, was that the people voted about Iraq. An incumbent 3-term senator is out on his bum, replaced by a businessman with very little political experience but loads of principle. You better believe there's a cold draft blowing through the corridors on Capitol Hill.

Maybe populist is a better word than libertarian to describe what happened in Connecticut yesterday...

***if the government can tell business what they must pay then for heaven's sake let them tell business what they can sell their products for and maybe I could aford them.*** I should have put a funny face or something there to indicate my sarcasm. I personally would not like the government to dictate anything. Unfortunately I also do not believe in obscene profits which conflicts with the rights of man.

Our government is becoming more and more socialistic telling the people what is good for them, taking their money and doling it back out when they retire. Interestingly, my bride worked her first fithteen years under Social Security and slightly over ten years under a state program. She cannot get SS because she needs 3 more credits, whatever that is. Fortunately under the state's PERS plan she gets a monthly disability check.

I checked on her getting something under SSI and was told because of my income and her PERS she would only get a negligible amount. So the Government took money away from her for retirement for 15 years and in affect says, "So sorry, too bad, so sad." She also paid into Medicare but we were told she has the same eligibility problem that she has with SS. However, we can purchase it. I don't know how much it will cost. I won't worry about it until two years from this September when she turns 65.

I guess that is the "Social" part of SS. Everyone gives into it and then it is given back based upon "need".

Hoo MoFoLo, let me see if I understand this correctly? You do not want the gouvernment, or any authority, to interfere or to dictate anything. Question: Does this include them wanting you to pay taxes????
Now you *do* want the gouvernment to dictate, limit in fact, the profit of companies. Question: Why would the company owners allow the gouvernment to dictate anything????

Now the examples you mention are .. shocking indeed, however let me see if I understand the basic ideas of it all? As far as most systems work, "everyone" pays into a large money account, and the money in that is distributed to those who need it most. For the payment and distribution rules are set up. Is this still within the libertarian thoughts??
Now these rules are supposed to be fair: rich pay most and get least. That's unfortunate for the rich, but I don't see any other way to implement such system. Do I mis something? misunderstand something?
If everyone in the system would receive as much as they pay into it, then there's no need for such a system. Is this a correct statement?

For all the taxes I have paid to my government, they haven't given me so much as a tactical nuclear device. The rich people get all the missiles.

I believe in taxes to run our government. Not to pay the overblown exorbinent salaries of the houses though. People working in government are supposed to be working for us not themselves.

As far at the monies being paid in for Social Security that is not part of the governments job. This was thrust on us to protect our poor. But being they are already taking our money then they should also return it. That is a complete rip-off. We are not a socialist country even if we act like one at times. I don't think our government can describe what kind of government we are.

But the rich have ways around getting ripped off. In the senate they work (or not) for a short time and get a major retirement. In industry they find loopholes so their "losses" exceed their gains and write off taxes.

Not too many years ago (may be 30 years0 I took a few courses in Accounting. In one of the courses we got into a discussion on income tax. One primary edict was that no one got more back than what they put into it. Some where Things changed. I did my daughters taxes about five years back and she not only got the money she paid in taxes but an additionl three times more.

Yes I would like the obscene profits be limited but no I would not advocate the government stepping in and dictating profit limits. the first is how I feel the second a belief in our rights. I feel strongly that I do not like pain, but, that would not keep me from dashing into a burning house to save a life as my opinion is lives are important.


While I feel that all around us is corruption and life will never be good again I would like people to still try and change things by voting in new people. I strongly advocate that there should be limits on amount of time a person may serve the people. If a person were to realize that he/she had a limited time in government there is the possibility that they might try to do legitimate job in serving the people. Right now I think to many go into politics find it makes them a lot richer now and when they retire.

Dang!! I have to go back to work. It sure does interfere with my fun. I don't even have time to proof this so hope there aren't more than the usual screwed up syntaxes and spellings and whatever.,

Mo

You know Mo, it is these rich people and their loopholes that make it so people like me have to have "socialist" benefits. They are getting all of the profits while the working class can't even keep their heads, and their family's heads, above water without multiple incomes. People like me HAVE TO HAVE THEM IN ORDER TO FEED THEIR CHILDREN!

And before you go off on some rant that I shouldn't have had children if I couldn't feed them. I was much better off when my children were born, I was able to take care of them without an assist from the government. I paid into the system, I am now recieving back what I paid in.

Apologies to all for the all caps sentence.

GDZ, I'm just glad that you're able to get assistance!

So am I! I wouldn't be able to better my situation without it which is something some people just can't seem, or don't want, to understand.

I understand Doc. We know what the problem is. What is the solution? I don't begrudge you one cent of your return monies. How did we get from the early 1900's where the old man worked and the wife took care of the home and kids? Was it because we stopped saving for our wants and started charging everything? How about the cost of products increasing in cost faster than our paychecks? Taxes for everything under the sun to pay the salaries of corrupt politicians, for services that we could have paid cheaper if bought direct? How about being duped into believing that if we pay our monies into the government they will take care of us now and forever?

My city keeps on spending monies for surveys to determine where to place their next hockey arena, bike paths, soft lights to make trees look pretty at night,etc. Meanwhile peoples homes are being flooded because the sewer system is antiquated and we have been ordered by the state years back to straithen this out so that the sewage doesn't spill into the rivers and lake. Didn't Rome have a problem because they gave the populace circus' rather than fix their own corrupt government.


Now our city wants the residents to pay, if you have an accident, for the police, fire and emergency service that show up. One of our talk show host who lives out side the city but works in the city had a minor situation where his car collided with another car. No real damage - a small dent in one of the bumpers. He was hit with a $1,500.00 bill from the city because three EMS,three patrol cars, and two fire trucks showed up. No one has yet explained why all these vehicles were even there. Now our city wants to enact a bill where if even it's own residents are involved in an accident that they could be charged fees for any of the above mentioned shows up.

Somehow I don't think you had children just so that you had to work long hours, multiple jobs, and get federal help. Nor do I suspect you had children just so you could sit around and watch tv, drink beer and live off a couple or so welfare programs. And since you paid into the system you should expect to get money back. I just wish we could have had the same results for my wife. It was not her fault she is losing her memory and cannot work. The way things are I may have to sell tickets to our funeral to pay for it.

Houses in my neighborhood sell on the average at $18,000. The city uprated the value of my house from $27,500 to $52,500. I don't remember the exact figures but this is no exageration of the re-evaluation. What worries me is will I be able to keep up with the new taxes? Will I lose our home? Who will take care of my bride while I am sleeping under some bridge?

Sorry, I'm just a crabby old man. Never had a lick of sense. Guess the only thing I'm good for is whining in my whiskey. Hey, now that is a thought. How much money is a good bottle of rum these days?

>>How did we get from the early 1900's where the old man worked and the wife took care of the home and kids?

Two world wars, is my guess.