PDA

View Full Version : Anyone catch Edwards speech...



nAz
07-29-2004, 10:35 AM
Last night, what did you think of it?

I thought he came across really well. wow if i need to sue someone i would want him to be my rep! if i was getting sued by someone and he was their rep i would settle out. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif
any ways if Kerrys speech is have as motivating as Edwards well then look out GOP.

here is an excerpt of what Edwards said...

"I stand here tonight ready to work with you and John to make America strong again. And we have so much work to do. Because the truth is, we still live in two different Americas: one for people who have lived the American Dream and don't have to worry, and another for most Americans who work hard and still struggle to make ends meet. It doesn't have to be that way. We can build one America."

"We can build one America where we no longer have two health care systems. One for people who get the best health care money can buy and then one for everybody else, rationed out by insurance companies, drug companies, and HMOs--millions of Americans who don't have any health insurance at all. It doesn't have to be that way. We have a plan that will offer everyone the same health care your Senator has. We can give tax breaks to help pay for your health care. And we will sign into law a real Patients' Bill of Rights so you can make your own health care decisions."

"We shouldn't have two public school systems in this country: one for the most affluent communities, and one for everybody else. None of us believe that the quality of a child's education should be controlled by where they live or the affluence of their community. It doesn't have to be that way. We can build one public school system that works for all our children. Our plan will reform our schools and raise our standards. We can give our schools the resources they need. We can provide incentives to put quality teachers in the places and the subjects where we need them the most. And we can ensure that three million kids with a safe place to go after school. This is what we can do together."

Wally_in_Cincy
07-29-2004, 10:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> ...we still live in two different Americas: one for people who have lived the American Dream and don't have to worry, and another for most Americans who work hard and still struggle to make ends meet. It doesn't have to be that way. We can build one America."

<hr /></blockquote>

translation:

"all the Americans who are now living in mud huts and eating dog food and grubworms are there because of the heartless Republicans. But we have a new plan for
wealth redistribution that can solve all this. Let's call it 'The War on Poverty' "

or:

"Punish the cheating scummy rich people (except for lawyers of course)"

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> "We shouldn't have two public school systems in this country: one for the most affluent communities, and one for everybody else.<hr /></blockquote>

The City of Cincinnati spends $12,000 per year per student and has a 50% graduation rate.

The district here in the sububrbs where I work spends $5000 per student, has a 97% grad rate with 75% going on to college.

It ain't about the money. It's the welfare state and the education bureaucracy that has caused this.

nAz
07-29-2004, 11:01 AM
"Our plan will reform our schools and raise our standards. We can give our schools the resources they need. We can provide incentives to put quality teachers in the places and the subjects where we need them the most. And we can ensure that three million kids with a safe place to go after school. This is what we can do together."

I think that is what he means by reform, Cinn. and a lot of other states are in trouble for a combo of reasons low teacher pay and in adequate school buildings lack or parental involvement as well as money. and not for nothing dude that after school program is very important, what with poor to middle class parents having to work all day there is no one around to watch these kids and that is how they get in trouble, some become criminals and then we end up paying more to jail them. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

"Punish the cheating scummy rich people (except for lawyers of course)"

lol right you are sir except the lawyers too. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Cueless Joey
07-29-2004, 11:24 AM
We are doomed.
Sadly, we are becoming a welfare country minute by minute.
We give illegals welfare checks for having babies. We give them housing assistance too. How do they contribute? By getting paid under the table so they don't lose their "benefits".
Quality of education? Please. You might as well privatize public schools. Let private companies run schools and reimburse them.
Health Care system? It's called get a job and a coverage.
Since the government blows so much money, there is no health care for the poor. I say all politians volunteer to end their cost of living allowance increases in their pensions forever.

Wally_in_Cincy
07-29-2004, 11:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr>
...millions of Americans who don't have any health insurance at all. <hr /></blockquote>

part of the reason it is so expensive is because of ambulance chasers like Edwards.

Cueless Joey
07-29-2004, 11:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr>
...millions of Americans who don't have any health insurance at all. <hr /></blockquote>

part of the reason it is so expensive is because of ambulance chasers like Edwards. <hr /></blockquote>
Aahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
07-29-2004, 11:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> "Our plan will reform our schools and raise our standards. We can give our schools the resources they need.

<font color="blue">read: "more money". Did you read my other post? </font color>

We can provide incentives to put quality teachers in the places and the subjects where we need them the most. And we can ensure that three million kids with a safe place to go after school. This is what we can do together."

I think that is what he means by reform, Cinn. and a lot of other states are in trouble for a combo of reasons low teacher pay and in adequate school buildings lack or parental involvement

<font color="blue">that's 95% of it right there </font color>

as well as money.

<font color="blue">Did you read my other post? </font color>



and not for nothing dude that after school program is very important, what with poor to middle class parents having to work all day there is no one around to watch these kids and that is how they get in trouble, some become criminals and then we end up paying more to jail them. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

<font color="blue">The simple answer is "why should the gov't be in the business of raising people's kids?"

there are already after-school programs. and before-school programs. and summer programs. and free breakfast. and free lunch.

Why don't they change the school day to 8:00 to 5:00 so the parents are home at the same time as the kids? </font color>


"Punish the cheating scummy rich people (except for lawyers of course)"

lol right you are sir except the lawyers too. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
07-29-2004, 11:41 AM
Sounds like a Liberal to me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Q

Wally_in_Cincy
07-29-2004, 11:45 AM
http://www.gototem.com/Webgifs/ClipArt/Cartoons/Chaser.GIF

Qtec
07-29-2004, 11:48 AM
"The simple answer is "why should the gov't be in the business of raising people's kids?"

Should they be allowed to run wild?


"Why don't they change the school day to 8:00 to 5:00 so the parents are home at the same time as the kids? "

Wally,this might suprise you, but not everybody works 8 to 5. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Q [ what happened to 9 to 5?]

landshark77
07-29-2004, 12:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> "The simple answer is "why should the gov't be in the business of raising people's kids?"

Should they be allowed to run wild?


"Why don't they change the school day to 8:00 to 5:00 so the parents are home at the same time as the kids? "

Wally,this might suprise you, but not everybody works 8 to 5. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Q [ what happened to 9 to 5?]


<hr /></blockquote>

IMO, people should raise thier own kids. It is not the governments job. The problem is that people keep having kids and choose not to raise them...they just let them loose, or they are raised to be exactly like how their parents behave...as scum. Peolpe should not be allowed to have children unless they can prove the following:

1. They can afford the kid
2. They have the means to provide ADULT supervision for the kid
3. They are emotionally stable
4. They are ethically sound

If people can not meet this criteria then they should not procreate. This country would be alot better. The schools would be better, crime would go down, and so on.

The only assistance the government should supply is protecting children from abuse and handing out condoms for those who can not keep it in their pants.

If all else fails my vote is for sterilization...

nAz
07-29-2004, 12:08 PM
Damn! lol landshark77 i don't think you fit the Religious right modle /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif people who can not afford children really should not have any ie poor people.

btw i agree with
2. They have the means to provide ADULT supervision for the kid
3. They are emotionally stable
4. They are ethically sound
but who decides this, the Gov?

nAz
07-29-2004, 12:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> http://www.gototem.com/Webgifs/ClipArt/Cartoons/Chaser.GIF <hr /></blockquote>

BwHahahaa

nAz
07-29-2004, 12:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Sounds like a Liberal to me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Q <hr /></blockquote>

F U! lol. no seriously what is wrong with being a liberal? someone answere me this!

pooltchr
07-29-2004, 12:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> http://www.gototem.com/Webgifs/ClipArt/Cartoons/Chaser.GIF <hr /></blockquote>

Finally! An accurate picture of North Carolina's "Absentee Senator"!
Interesting that the John and John show together keep talking about the different classes. Edwards in a millionare lawyer and Kerry is living off the Heinz fortune. I wonder which class they consider themselves to be part of....

Wally_in_Cincy
07-29-2004, 12:29 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> what is wrong with being a liberal? <hr /></blockquote>

Because liberal policies, while in some instances well-intentioned, have proven to be a failure.

In some cases the policies were only cloaked in good intentions, as in LBJ's War on Poverty. He only instituted the Great Society in order to make more people dependent on the Federal gov't, thereby securing a perpetual voter base.

Qtec
07-29-2004, 12:37 PM
"4. They are ethically sound". HaHaHa

This would mean the end of the GOP. LOL /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Ross
07-29-2004, 12:39 PM
Many conservatives often turn almost immediately to the image of the "lazy welfare baby-maker" when these economic issues are being discussed. But what Edwards talks about is not more welfare for non-workers, but instead addressing the plight of hard working families that are struggling to make ends meet.

For example, the carpenter at your pool hall that doesn't have health insurance (NOT because he won't get a job, or because he is lazy, in fact he probably works harder than most, but because he doesn't happen to work for a corporation that provides insurance) so he doesn't get needed healthcare for the diabetes he is developing. Or the guy at my pool hall (an A player by the way who kicks my butt) who works 50+ hours, 3rd shift, in a mill and makes probably $25 K a year and also can't afford routine health care. Blue-collar workers, once the backbone of our country, have a hell of a time finding decent paying jobs.

These are the men and women that Edwards says very specifically he is worried about because they are getting left behind - not the "welfare queens" that are thrown into the conversation.

landshark77
07-29-2004, 12:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> Damn! lol landshark77 i don't think you fit the Religious right modle /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif people who can not afford children really should not have any ie poor people.

btw i agree with
2. They have the means to provide ADULT supervision for the kid
3. They are emotionally stable
4. They are ethically sound
but who decides this, the Gov? <hr /></blockquote>

I'm not saying that they have to provide all of their kids with Beamers and Ralph Lauren. Payless and Wal Mart work fine. You can still be poor and provide for your family. To quote and old bumper sticker: DON"T BREED 'EM IF YOU CAN'T FEED 'EM. You can can not manage to feed, clothe, and shelter your children then you have no business having any. Alot of people out there have tons of kids and can not even supply this stuff for themselves, how are they going to do it for a kid?

highsea
07-29-2004, 12:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> Damn! lol landshark77 i don't think you fit the Religious right modle /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif people who can not afford children really should not have any ie poor people.<hr /></blockquote>What's wrong with that? The way it stands, we have welfare mommas cranking out kids just to get a bigger check.

What's so bad about expecting fiscal responsibility of parents? How does that make you part of the "religious right"?

nAz
07-29-2004, 12:53 PM
Wally in some cases maybe your right but it seems to me that Liberal are a great force for positive change in our country over all starting with Jefferson, FDRs new deal a mostly liberal agenda that was almost voted down by conservatives, the GI bill, S. S., civil rights. all these things and more turned out to be a great thing and even most Conservatives have come around to these liberal ideas... they always do. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

landshark77
07-29-2004, 12:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Many conservatives often turn almost immediately to the image of the "lazy welfare baby-maker" when these economic issues are being discussed. But what Edwards talks about is not more welfare for non-workers, but instead addressing the plight of hard working families that are struggling to make ends meet.

For example, the carpenter at your pool hall that doesn't have health insurance (NOT because he won't get a job, or because he is lazy, in fact he probably works harder than most, but because he doesn't happen to work for a corporation that provides insurance) so he doesn't get needed healthcare for the diabetes he is developing. Or the guy at my pool hall (an A player by the way who kicks my butt) who works 50+ hours, 3rd shift, in a mill and makes probably $25 K a year and also can't afford routine health care. Blue-collar workers, once the backbone of our country, have a hell of a time finding decent paying jobs.

These are the men and women that Edwards says very specifically he is worried about because they are getting left behind - not the "welfare queens" that are thrown into the conversation. <hr /></blockquote>

All 50 states have this already. It is called CHIPS. It is a form of Medicad for families who work and their employers do not do not offer benifits or who's employers benifits cost to much. Here in WV a family of two (adult and child) can make up to 35G (wich is alot of $$ in WV) a year and get this insurance for free. Yeah, the parents of these kids are left out of the loop, but welfare won't cover them anyway unless you are pregnant. At least it frees up the adults to get individual coverage at their jobs, which cost a whole lot less.

Qtec
07-29-2004, 12:58 PM
So you are for abortion?

Q

nAz
07-29-2004, 12:59 PM
sorry i misunderstood your post. ya if they can not afford to have 5 kids they should not but sometimes things happen and people end up have maybe 1 or 2 more then they can afford so what are we as a rich and caring nation suppose to do with them? we have to help them some how. as for the religious right thingy i meant that they do not a prove of the use on condoms/abortion or sterilization, i think?

landshark77
07-29-2004, 01:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> Damn! lol landshark77 i don't think you fit the Religious right modle /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif people who can not afford children really should not have any ie poor people.

btw i agree with
2. They have the means to provide ADULT supervision for the kid
3. They are emotionally stable
4. They are ethically sound
but who decides this, the Gov? <hr /></blockquote>

Oh yeah nAz...missed your last point. I admit that my last point is a bit subjective, but we should have a working definition of ethically sound as developed by the people.
Maybe something like:
A person who in the last five years has no criminal record, is shown to follow laws and is able to pass several required psychological test and a drug test, preferably a hair test. I dunno. But they need to do something.

landshark77
07-29-2004, 01:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> So you are for abortion?

Q <hr /></blockquote>

my thoughts on abortion: It is an individual choice what some one does with their body. Personally I think that people who use abortion as birth control are scum. Once I can understand, but those folks who have had more than one "accident", that was not a result of rape, need to re-evaluate where they are in life and they probably do not meet my having a baby criteria point number 4. I do feel like abortion does need to be regulated some what, mandatory counseling 24 hrs prior to the procedure and if you're past your first trimester, them you are out of luck, but there are plenty of people who would adopt your baby.

Qtec
07-29-2004, 01:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote landshark77:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> Damn! lol landshark77 i don't think you fit the Religious right modle /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif people who can not afford children really should not have any ie poor people.





btw i agree with
2. They have the means to provide ADULT supervision for the kid
3. They are emotionally stable
4. They are ethically sound
but who decides this, the Gov? <hr /></blockquote>

Oh yeah nAz...missed your last point. I admit that my last point is a bit subjective, but we should have a working definition of ethically sound as developed by the people.
Maybe something like:
A person who in the last five years has no criminal record, is shown to follow laws and is able to pass several required psychological test and a drug test, preferably a hair test. I dunno. But they need to do something. <hr /></blockquote>

Are you serious?????
Have you ever been on welfare?
How many people do you know who are on welfare?
Are you against or for abortion?


The things you suggest would mean a total rewrite of the Constitution and the giving up of your liberty.

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
07-29-2004, 01:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> Wally in some cases maybe your right but it seems to me that Liberal are a great force for positive change in our country

<font color="blue">I will agree with one thing. There needs to be people on either side so the pendulum does not swing too far in either direction. </font color>

over all starting with Jefferson, FDRs new deal a mostly liberal agenda that was almost voted down by conservatives,

<font color="blue">Some would argue that some of FDR's policies only prolonged the Depression and were the seed of the bloated gov't we now have that is so burdensome and inefficient. But with folks not being able to buy food something had to be done, I just think he went too far.. </font color>


the GI bill, S. S., civil rights.

<font color="blue">These are good. But SS was originally just for destitute widows and orphans. If they were going to morph it into a full-fledged retirement plan they should have privatized it. Again, a well-intentioned idea run amok. </font color>

all these things and more turned out to be a great thing and even most Conservatives have come around to these liberal ideas... they always do. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <hr /></blockquote>

landshark77
07-29-2004, 01:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> sorry i misunderstood your post. ya if they can not afford to have 5 kids they should not but sometimes things happen and people end up have maybe 1 or 2 more then they can afford so what are we as a rich and caring nation suppose to do with them? we have to help them some how. as for the religious right thingy i meant that they do not a prove of the use on condoms/abortion or sterilization, i think? <hr /></blockquote>

I do not know about the diffrent religions and what they aprove of as far as birth control. But I am going to make a controversial statement that says those people who are that devoud in their faith are probabbly taking care of their children already. It is the people who have crack babies after crack babies, beat their kids, neglect thier kids, have their kids taken from them and then have more and say it is against their religion to use birth control when they haven't seen the inside of a church since they watched a Jerry Farwell TV special in the 80's.

I don't know what to say to those people who accidently have more children than they can afford. I don't want them having my tax money. You can trust me when I say I will not have more than I can afford.

landshark77
07-29-2004, 01:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

Are you serious?????
Have you ever been on welfare?
How many people do you know who are on welfare?
Are you against or for abortion?


The things you suggest would mean a total rewrite of the Constitution and the giving up of your liberty.

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Q- I am more serious on this issue than you will ever know.

Have I ever been on Wlefare? As an adult? No. As a child, yes, some forms. I had parents who could not meet the criteria that I listed above.

I know a good many people who are on welfare. Personally and profesionally.

I posted my views on abortion a few post up.

These are my opinions, and will not change. I do not want my tax money going to people who have been given oppertunity after oppertunity to change, but reuse. The children are innocent, it is thier parents who negate the problem, and the sad thing is these kids will most likely grow up to be the same as thier parents, based on learned behavior.

Cueless Joey
07-29-2004, 01:42 PM
[ QUOTE ]
These are my opinions, and will not change. I do not want my tax money going to people who have been given opportunity after opportunity to change, but refuse. The children are innocent, it is their parents who negate the problem, and the sad thing is these kids will most likely grow up to be the same as their parents, based on learned behavior.
<hr /></blockquote>
Tap, tap, tap.

eg8r
07-29-2004, 01:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I stand here tonight ready to work with you and John to make America strong again. <hr /></blockquote> He is having trouble working for the people of North Carolina right now, how are we expected to believe he will be able to handle his job on the national level. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
07-29-2004, 01:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
For example, the carpenter at your pool hall that doesn't have health insurance (NOT because he won't get a job, or because he is lazy, in fact he probably works harder than most, but because he doesn't happen to work for a corporation that provides insurance) so he doesn't get needed healthcare for the diabetes he is developing. <hr /></blockquote> These are the types of people that Edwards wants to help, however it is people like Edwards that have helped cause the price of healthcare to skyrocket.

[ QUOTE ]
Edwards' trial summaries "routinely went beyond a recitation of his case to a heart-wrenching plea to jurors to listen to the unspoken voices of injured children," according to a comprehensive analysis of Edwards' legal career by The Boston Globe in 2003.

The Globe cited an example of Edwards' oratorical skills from a medical malpractice trial in 1985. Edwards had alleged that a doctor and a hospital had been responsible for the cerebral palsy afflicting then-five-year-old Jennifer Campbell.

'I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her (Jennifer), I feel her presence,' Edwards told the jury according to court records. "[Jennifer's] inside me and she's talking to you ... And this is what she says to you. She says, 'I don't ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don't ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.'"

Edwards' emotional plea worked. Jennifer Campbell's family won a record jury verdict of $6.5 million against the hospital where the girl was born -- a judgment reduced later to $2.75 million on appeal. Edwards also settled with Jennifer's obstetrician for $1.5 million.
<hr /></blockquote> His argument included his "seance" (or whatever the correct word is for speaking with dead people) with the dead girl. Give me a break. Edwards is a smooth talker. We will have to wait and see how many people will fall for him.

eg8r

Qtec
07-29-2004, 02:03 PM
The children are innocent, it is thier parents who negate the problem, and the sad thing is these kids will most likely grow up to be the same as thier parents, based on learned behavior.


Exactly. Thats why the Govt should step in.

I know you are serious and I agree that there are some irresponsible people who are 'baby machines'but how do you stop them?

I think the fathers should be held more responsible. Too many kids without fathers. Real fathers, not just the sperm donor!



Q

Qtec
07-29-2004, 02:05 PM
His argument included his "seance" (or whatever the correct word is for speaking with dead people) with the dead girl. Give me a break. Edwards is a smooth talker. We will have to wait and see how many people will fall for him.




Are you blaming the guy for doing his job well?

Q

eg8r
07-29-2004, 02:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"The simple answer is "why should the gov't be in the business of raising people's kids?"

Should they be allowed to run wild?
<hr /></blockquote> This is a great example of the stupid questions you ask all the time, and I really don't even think you stand behind them. If your objective is to only start an argument why don't you just state that up front, instead of asking questions like this and leading one to believe you might be crazy to believe its validity. You did not even have the common sense to answer the question which also lends to the idea that you just want to argue instead of discuss.

Since you asked the stupid question, why don't you provide us with something from the Constitution that would support your reasoning for asking something so dumb. Sorry for being so short and accusatory, but my goodness did you even turn your brain on before you typed that?

While this does seem like an attack it is not at you personally but rather just to point out the type of participation you have resorted to.

eg8r

eg8r
07-29-2004, 02:13 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Are you blaming the guy for doing his job well? <hr /></blockquote> I am not sure I cast blame? I am stating that the man stood up and bold-faced lied to the jury and they were so glossed over with his oratory skill that they never even saw the lie. LOL, no one will ever mistake Bush as a great orator. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
07-29-2004, 02:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> ... Jennifer Campbell's family won a record jury verdict of $6.5 million against the hospital where the girl was born -- <hr /></blockquote>

and if what I hear is correct there was not a scintilla of evidence that the cerebral palsy was caused by the doctors or the hospital.

eg8r
07-29-2004, 02:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
and if what I hear is correct there was not a scintilla of evidence that the cerebral palsy was caused by the doctors or the hospital. <hr /></blockquote> His job was not to prove they did anything, just to make accusations, and wait to see if the doctor could defend himself. Here is a quote from the article (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C2004 01%5CPOL20040120a.html) I quoted earlier... [ QUOTE ]
"The jury sees the undisputed trauma first, the disputed negligence second, the undisputed cerebral palsy third. It is a perfect set-up for misinterpreting sequence as cause," Huber wrote.
<hr /></blockquote> eg8r

landshark77
07-29-2004, 02:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>


Exactly. Thats why the Govt should step in.

<font color="blue">But that is the problem, the government is steping in and they are going crazy. They decide what music we listen too, what books we read, what we watch on TV, what activities we participate in. This is because parents are not parenting. Welfare is only one governmental problem that would be solved if everyone took care of thier own instead of going I can be a lazy as I want because the government will not let my kid starve or be homeless. </font color>

I know you are serious and I agree that there are some irresponsible people who are 'baby machines'but how do you stop them?

<font color="blue"> That is what I was offering with my inital post. A way that we can stop this from occuring. From what I understand society was not like this in the 50's. In the 50's people took care of their own. </font color>


I think the fathers should be held more responsible. Too many kids without fathers. Real fathers, not just the sperm donor!

<font color="blue">I agree with you on this. But you seriously don't want to get me started with slpit families. I was going on the model of a two parent household. </font color>



Q <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
07-29-2004, 02:20 PM
[ QUOTE ]
btw i agree with
2. They have the means to provide ADULT supervision for the kid
3. They are emotionally stable
4. They are ethically sound
but who decides this, the Gov? <hr /></blockquote> I guess the only honest answer would be the parent-to-be. However this is the Catch-22. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

SPetty
07-29-2004, 02:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>[ QUOTE ]
...cerebral palsy afflicting then-five-year-old Jennifer Campbell. <hr /></blockquote> His argument included his "seance" (or whatever the correct word is for speaking with dead people) with the dead girl. <hr /></blockquote> /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Oh, you forgot to include the link to the story... /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

eg8r
07-29-2004, 02:21 PM
You are right, I did, however if you continue reading the following posts you will find it. Thanks. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
07-29-2004, 02:24 PM
Oh, you might be correct, she might have still have been alive at the time, but is that the reason you felt compelled to respond? You have nothing to say about the fact that they guy was holding some sort of quick seance in the court room? Kidding right?

Anyways, I wonder if the defense attorney objected or not?

eg8r

Qtec
07-29-2004, 02:28 PM
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gifLOL

eg8r
07-29-2004, 02:32 PM
[ QUOTE ]
ya if they can not afford to have 5 kids they should not but sometimes things happen and people end up have maybe 1 or 2 more then they can afford so what are we as a rich and caring nation suppose to do with them? <font color="red"> Make sure they cannot have any more. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif </font color> we have to help them some how. as for the religious right thingy i meant that they do not a prove of the use on condoms/abortion or sterilization, i think? <hr /></blockquote> I do not believe the religious right is against the use of condoms however they are against the act of sex outside of marriage. They are against the promotion of safe sex between unwed partners. I believe free distribution of condoms in the public schools is definitely promoting sex, you are in a sense giving these kids a ticket to go have sex (most of the kids probably believe condoms are 100% effective or just don't care because it can be their crutch if the girl gets pregnant).

You are 100% correct about abortion. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif They (and I) are totally against abortion.

eg8r

eg8r
07-29-2004, 02:34 PM
LOL, that is much more funny when you hear him stutter through it. The man has definitely screwed up more than his fair share times. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

nAz
07-29-2004, 02:39 PM
I'm with you about schools giving out Condom to kids it seems so wrong to promote it in a sense but if they are going to have sex anyway why should the Gov. (school) not step in and try to educate them on this and give them condoms, keep them safe as far as it can help. I know the perents can do more to help but when they don't for what ever reason it is up to the we the state to step in and help, i see no real choice in the matter. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

nAz
07-29-2004, 02:46 PM
Quote cueless
"How about this? You come here illegally and stay here illegally, you don't qualify for a welfare check."

Cueless just goes to show you how close we can be on some issue and how far a part we can be on others. i can agree on this if they come here illegally or not they should have a job and not be allowed to recive any workfare unless it is on the most temporary bases. but then what do you do with them once they are here and starving with children??

eg8r
07-29-2004, 02:48 PM
It is a Catch-22. Educate them (in a sense promotion), and they are out having sex and occasionally the condom will not work. Don't educate them and they are out having sex with no protection.

eg8r

eg8r
07-29-2004, 02:50 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Cueless just goes to show you how close we can be on some issue and how far a part we can be on others. i can agree on this if they come here illegally or not they should have a job <font color="red"> No way, why should they get a job when there are legal citizens without jobs? </font color> and not be allowed to recive any workfare unless it is on the most temporary bases. but then what do you do with them once they are here and starving with children?? <font color="red"> Feed them and ship them back home. </font color> <hr /></blockquote> eg8r

highsea
07-29-2004, 02:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I do not believe the religious right is against the use of condoms however they are against the act of sex outside of marriage. They are against the promotion of safe sex between unwed partners. I believe free distribution of condoms in the public schools is definitely promoting sex, you are in a sense giving these kids a ticket to go have sex

eg8r<hr /></blockquote>The problem is you can't legislate morality. Young people have always engaged in sexual activity, in every society, throughout history. This will always be so, it's human nature.

With todays crop of STD's, not to mention unwanted pregnancies, teaching young people about birth control and safe sex is necessary for their safety, imo. Parents are sometimes uncomfortable talking to their kids about this, or they wait till it's too late, (naively)thinking that their little darlings wouldn't be screwing around at 12 or 13 years old.

My point is, since they are going to have sex anyway, we should make sure they have access to condoms. I would say from junior high on, kids should be able to get condoms from the school nurse.

Qtec
07-29-2004, 03:04 PM
eg8r, this is BS.

I do not believe the religious right is against the use of condoms[ so they are not against condoms ] however they are against the act of sex outside of marriage.[ so they are against sex,but not condoms ] They are against the promotion of safe sex between unwed partners.[ so they are against condoms? ] I believe free distribution of condoms in the public schools is definitely promoting sex,[ Have you ever watched MTV? Thats sex promotion. .] you are in a sense giving these kids a ticket to go have sex [ so you walk up to some kid in the street, give her a condom and she says "great, now I have a condom I cant wait to have sex...with anybody!!!!!!" Dont be ridiculous!
Condoms can be bought you know. .]
(most of the kids probably believe condoms are 100% effective or just don't care because it can be their crutch if the girl gets pregnant).{ Maybe they are not 100% effective, but its somewhere around 99.9% and thats better than NO protection at all.

Teenagers have always had sex and always will. Abstinence is not an option.

Aids is a world-wide epidemic and its heading our way, big time if we dont do something about it.

Not to promote safe sex, especially in Africa, is IMO irresponsible and extremelly dangerous.


Q

eg8r
07-29-2004, 03:26 PM
Alright you are on a roll today. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Your inability to comprehend the english language is in full effect. Let's see if I can help clarify my post (and your delusional replies)... Note: I have left your bold text the way you had it so as to amplify your ridiculousness...[ QUOTE ]
I do not believe the religious right is against the use of condoms[ so they are not against condoms ] <hr /></blockquote> No. They are not against condoms, as far as I believe.

[ QUOTE ]
however they are against the act of sex outside of marriage.[ so they are against sex,but not condoms ] <hr /></blockquote> Was the english not clear enough...If you read what I wrote in its completeness you will see that I was VERY SPECIFIC in the description of sex. I said (once again for Q's sake), <font color="blue"> they are against sex OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE </font color> . Is that clear enough for you, or do need someone to hold your hand. They are not against sex, only sex that takes place outside of marriage.

[ QUOTE ]
They are against the promotion of safe sex between unwed partners.[ so they are against condoms? ] <hr /></blockquote> Once against you could not see the tree if you saw the forest. I did not say they are against condoms, what I did say was they are against the promotion of safe sex between unwed partners. Since you got the previous quote screwed up, I can understand you not being able to understand this simple idea. The religious community is against all sex outside of marriage. So, isn't it kindergarten logic to believe they would be against the act of promoting it? 5 year olds could understand this, yet you are stumbling on it. LOL.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe free distribution of condoms in the public schools is definitely promoting sex,[ Have you ever watched MTV? Thats sex promotion. .] <hr /></blockquote> This is a big so what, it still has nothing to do with the promotion of sex at schools as far as handing out condoms. Do not change the subject.

[ QUOTE ]
you are in a sense giving these kids a ticket to go have sex [ so you walk up to some kid in the street, give her a condom and she says "great, now I have a condom I cant wait to have sex...with anybody!!!!!!" Dont be ridiculous!
Condoms can be bought you know. .]
<hr /></blockquote> I am not being ridiculous, you are the bright light that came up with the stupid example not me. This discussion has nothing to do with purchased condoms so why do you feel compelled to include it?

[ QUOTE ]
(most of the kids probably believe condoms are 100% effective or just don't care because it can be their crutch if the girl gets pregnant).{ Maybe they are not 100% effective, but its somewhere around 99.9% and thats better than NO protection at all.
<hr /></blockquote> Another giant SO WHAT. The discussion is not about the ability of protection.

[ QUOTE ]
Teenagers have always had sex and always will. Abstinence is not an option. <font color="red"> LOL, your delusional. </font color>

Aids is a world-wide epidemic and its heading our way, big time if we dont do something about it. <font color="red"> This discussion is not about AIDS, why do you feel the need to bring this up. </font color>

Not to promote safe sex, especially in Africa, is IMO irresponsible and extremelly dangerous. <font color="red"> LOL, you inability to comprehend subject matter is astounding. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>
eg8r

eg8r
07-29-2004, 03:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
My point is, since they are going to have sex anyway, we should make sure they have access to condoms. I would say from junior high on, kids should be able to get condoms from the school nurse.
<hr /></blockquote> Whether they should have access to condoms has nothing to do with my response to Naz. I was just telling him that the religious has nothing against condoms, just the promotion of sex outside of marriage.

As far as the point you bring up, I disagree with giving them condoms, however I am not against the education. I just think giving condoms to them is a way for the child to say, "well they taught me about it and gave me a condom to be safe while i am doing it. they never said I should not do it, they just said to be safe."

I just feel it is the wrong message. I am even more against the school buying the condoms to distribute. I am not sure if they do, or if the mfgs give them to the schools. If the latter is true, then I really have no suggestion, except preach abstinence (abstinence does not have to be a religious effort). If the kid decides abstinence is not right for them and they get pregnant, then they should live up to the responsibilities that come with that mistake. However by giving the condom away, the school allows itself to take some responsibility for what happened.

While this is an exaggerated example, it could be similar to a guy giving his friend the keys to drive the two of them home, simply because the friend was "less" drunk, and they get into an accident and injure/kill someone. The "more" drunk guy was an enabler just like the school is for giving out the condom.

eg8r

Qtec
07-29-2004, 03:42 PM
Ed, your ability to IGNORE the subject matter is astounding!
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

highsea
07-29-2004, 04:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>Whether they should have access to condoms has nothing to do with my response to Naz. I was just telling him that the religious has nothing against condoms, just the promotion of sex outside of marriage.

As far as the point you bring up, I disagree with giving them condoms, however I am not against the education. I just think giving condoms to them is a way for the child to say, "well they taught me about it and gave me a condom to be safe while i am doing it. they never said I should not do it, they just said to be safe."

I just feel it is the wrong message. I am even more against the school buying the condoms to distribute. I am not sure if they do, or if the mfgs give them to the schools. If the latter is true, then I really have no suggestion, except preach abstinence (abstinence does not have to be a religious effort). If the kid decides abstinence is not right for them and they get pregnant, then they should live up to the responsibilities that come with that mistake. However by giving the condom away, the school allows itself to take some responsibility for what happened.

While this is an exaggerated example, it could be similar to a guy giving his friend the keys to drive the two of them home, simply because the friend was "less" drunk, and they get into an accident and injure/kill someone. The "more" drunk guy was an enabler just like the school is for giving out the condom.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>I understood your response to Naz about the position of the church on condoms outside of marriage.

If, as I suggested, a kid could go to the school nurse for a condom, I wouldn't want that kid to get them without some counseling.

Actually, I would prefer they got them at school rather then just going to the store, because this gives us the opportunity to counsel them on abstinence (and other alternatives). You know they are not going to get that advice from Habib the clerk at the 7-11.

I see it as a public health/economic issue more than a moral problem. We all know kids will have sex. It's to everyones benefit to try to prevent the unwanted pregnancy/abortion or for a kid to get a dangerous disease. That condom becomes pretty cheap insurance.

-CM

eg8r
07-29-2004, 04:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed, your ability to IGNORE the subject matter is astounding! <hr /></blockquote> Wow Q, great reply. I guess what I said hit a little close to home.

eg8r

eg8r
07-29-2004, 04:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If, as I suggested, a kid could go to the school nurse for a condom, I wouldn't want that kid to get them without some counseling.

Actually, I would prefer they got them at school rather then just going to the store, because this gives us the opportunity to counsel them on abstinence (and other alternatives). You know they are not going to get that advice from Habib the clerk at the 7-11.
<hr /></blockquote> Yes sir, I completely agree. I am against just handing them out, which is what they were doing right after I left high school a while back.

eg8r

Ross
07-29-2004, 05:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote landshark77:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Many conservatives often turn almost immediately to the image of the "lazy welfare baby-maker" when these economic issues are being discussed. But what Edwards talks about is not more welfare for non-workers, but instead addressing the plight of hard working families that are struggling to make ends meet.

For example, the carpenter at your pool hall that doesn't have health insurance (NOT because he won't get a job, or because he is lazy, in fact he probably works harder than most, but because he doesn't happen to work for a corporation that provides insurance) so he doesn't get needed healthcare for the diabetes he is developing. Or the guy at my pool hall (an A player by the way who kicks my butt) who works 50+ hours, 3rd shift, in a mill and makes probably $25 K a year and also can't afford routine health care. Blue-collar workers, once the backbone of our country, have a hell of a time finding decent paying jobs.

These are the men and women that Edwards says very specifically he is worried about because they are getting left behind - not the "welfare queens" that are thrown into the conversation. <hr /></blockquote>

All 50 states have this already. It is called CHIPS. It is a form of Medicad for families who work and their employers do not do not offer benifits or who's employers benifits cost to much. Here in WV a family of two (adult and child) can make up to 35G (wich is alot of $$ in WV) a year and get this insurance for free. Yeah, the parents of these kids are left out of the loop, but welfare won't cover them anyway unless you are pregnant. At least it frees up the adults to get individual coverage at their jobs, which cost a whole lot less. <hr /></blockquote>

There is a logic slip here. I was talking about some typical working adults who can't afford healthcare because they work at blue collar jobs and don't work for companies that provide insurance. Even if CHIPS provided health insurance for kids in the family, the worker still can't afford to go to the doctor for himself. And you keep mentioning that they should get health insurance at their jobs but millions of Americans work at jobs that don't provide health insurance. Examples include carpenters, roofers, farmers, pool hall owners, bar maids, waitresses, etc. I can't tell you how many I have met who don't get basic health care because after they pay for the necessities there is no money left to go to the doc.

It is easy to change the focus to hot button issues like welfare chiselers, illegal immigrants, abortion, etc. and ignore what Edwards is talking about. He is just asking whether we want a country where a man or woman can work hard for years at a honest job and still be poor, not have health care, and not be able or accumulate anything or move up the economic ladder. Because this is the situation for a large percentage of blue collar, non-college educated workers in this country. Forty years ago when this country was not as wealthy as it is now, this wasn't nearly as true as it is today.

If the current adminstration spent as much effort addressing this growing problem as they do on tax breaks for 401k's I could buy into their professed belief in rewards for hard work. But they don't. I don't know if it is because of denial of the problem or its that they just don't care because thier friends and families don't work at these jobs. Whichever the case, it comes across pretty hypocritical -- to me at least.

Wally_in_Cincy
07-30-2004, 06:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> .....He is just asking whether we want a country where a man or woman can work hard for years at a honest job and still be poor, not have health care, and not be able or accumulate anything or move up the economic ladder......


.....If the current adminstration spent as much effort addressing this growing problem as they do on tax breaks for 401k's I could buy into their professed belief in rewards for hard work. But they don't....<hr /></blockquote>

and what would you suggest they do?

landshark77
07-30-2004, 08:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>
There is a logic slip here. I was talking about some typical working adults who can't afford healthcare because they work at blue collar jobs and don't work for companies that provide insurance. Even if CHIPS provided health insurance for kids in the family, the worker still can't afford to go to the doctor for himself. And you keep mentioning that they should get health insurance at their jobs but millions of Americans work at jobs that don't provide health insurance. Examples include carpenters, roofers, farmers, pool hall owners, bar maids, waitresses, etc. I can't tell you how many I have met who don't get basic health care because after they pay for the necessities there is no money left to go to the doc.

It is easy to change the focus to hot button issues like welfare chiselers, illegal immigrants, abortion, etc. and ignore what Edwards is talking about. He is just asking whether we want a country where a man or woman can work hard for years at a honest job and still be poor, not have health care, and not be able or accumulate anything or move up the economic ladder. Because this is the situation for a large percentage of blue collar, non-college educated workers in this country. Forty years ago when this country was not as wealthy as it is now, this wasn't nearly as true as it is today.

If the current adminstration spent as much effort addressing this growing problem as they do on tax breaks for 401k's I could buy into their professed belief in rewards for hard work. But they don't. I don't know if it is because of denial of the problem or its that they just don't care because thier friends and families don't work at these jobs. Whichever the case, it comes across pretty hypocritical -- to me at least.

<hr /></blockquote>

You are right health care cost is a major problem in this country. I get insurance through my job. The cost just increased. I also just got a decent raise. My checks are now less than what they were before my raise because of the health insurance cost. However, I feel that if the government is going to help out those who can not afford the insurance or who's jobs don't offer insurance then they need to help every one form the garbage man to the high paid executive. Fair is fair. It shouldn't matter what career path you chose.

eg8r
07-30-2004, 10:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]
However, I feel that if the government is going to help out those who can not afford the insurance or who's jobs don't offer insurance then they need to help every one form the garbage man to the high paid executive. Fair is fair. It shouldn't matter what career path you chose. <hr /></blockquote> Fair is fair, however the government should not be in the business for providing health care to anyone.

eg8r

Ross
07-30-2004, 11:48 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> .....He is just asking whether we want a country where a man or woman can work hard for years at a honest job and still be poor, not have health care, and not be able or accumulate anything or move up the economic ladder......


.....If the current adminstration spent as much effort addressing this growing problem as they do on tax breaks for 401k's I could buy into their professed belief in rewards for hard work. But they don't....<hr /></blockquote>




and what would you suggest they do? <hr /></blockquote>

Very good question. Some short answers to improve the economic situation for non-college educated blue-collar and other low-income wage earners:

Tighten up and enforce trade agreement provisions for overseas worker conditions so we have level playing fields and so that US companies won't find it so profitable to ship manual labor jobs to other countries. Provide tax incentives to companies that create US jobs instead of sending them overseas.

Replace the tax cuts for those making over $200 K per year with tax cuts for those working full time and making 50k or less.

Institute the John Edwards plan for making health care much more affordable and univeral. I think the John Kerry plan is similar but a bit overambitious and not affordable. These plans have several elements including creating large insurance pools for workers w/o insurance, targeted tax cuts to help defray health insurance expenses, cutting the costs of drugs by stopping the patent abuse that is going on, keeping downward pressures on drug prices by allowing importation from Canada, providing health insurance for all children, etc. (See http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/health_care/compare.html for summary of differences in Kerry and Bush on these issues.)

Be smarter about how we go to wars, since these are draining our treasury and contributing to huge deficits. Ultimately these deficits will be paid out of the SS fund which lower income workers without 401K's will sorely need when they retire. A smarter president would have been able to "contain Saddam" w/o spending several hundred billion, money we could have used for our domestic needs.

Increase the minimum wage. Currently it is $5.15/hr or $10,172 per year for a full time worker ($4.25/hr for first 90 days for those under age 20). It is $2.13/hr for those who receive tips. This is fine for spending money for a kid, but not for adults who have to live on it, much less raise a family.

I'm sure there are many other better ideas. It just has to be a priority for the administration, but unfortunately it hasn't been.

eg8r
07-30-2004, 02:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Increase the minimum wage. Currently it is $5.15/hr or $10,172 per year for a full time worker ($4.25/hr for first 90 days for those under age 20). It is $2.13/hr for those who receive tips. This is fine for spending money for a kid, but not for adults who have to live on it, much less raise a family. <hr /></blockquote> Since I mostly agree with some of the rest of the stuff you stated I am only going to mention this portion...Have you thought (a serious question, not meant to demean) about what businesses might do if minimum wage was increased to a high enough level to satisfy those people who are supporting their families on minimum wage salaries?

This brings up another point, just how high would be enough? How much money should a company be required to pay an individual who is raising a family on his minimum wage job? Why is it the company's responsibility to pay extra because it is hard for a person to raise a family on minimum wage?

I do feel bad for people in these situations, however, I would venture to bet, the ones that make it out on their own are the ones willing to put in more hours at a second or third job. They are not the ones sitting around griping about the low pay and waiting for the government to come in and give them some handouts.

I still cannot find anywhere in the Constitution where it gives the Federal government the authority to require private businesses how much to pay their employees. Even if this was a "government" position to take, would you not agree it should be at the state level? If not, why do you believe this should be at the federal level?

eg8r

Ross
07-30-2004, 04:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Increase the minimum wage. Currently it is $5.15/hr or $10,172 per year for a full time worker ($4.25/hr for first 90 days for those under age 20). It is $2.13/hr for those who receive tips. This is fine for spending money for a kid, but not for adults who have to live on it, much less raise a family. <hr /></blockquote> Since I mostly agree with some of the rest of the stuff you stated I am only going to mention this portion...Have you thought (a serious question, not meant to demean) about what businesses might do if minimum wage was increased to a high enough level to satisfy those people who are supporting their families on minimum wage salaries?

This brings up another point, just how high would be enough? How much money should a company be required to pay an individual who is raising a family on his minimum wage job? Why is it the company's responsibility to pay extra because it is hard for a person to raise a family on minimum wage?

I do feel bad for people in these situations, however, I would venture to bet, the ones that make it out on their own are the ones willing to put in more hours at a second or third job. They are not the ones sitting around griping about the low pay and waiting for the government to come in and give them some handouts.

I still cannot find anywhere in the Constitution where it gives the Federal government the authority to require private businesses how much to pay their employees. Even if this was a "government" position to take, would you not agree it should be at the state level? If not, why do you believe this should be at the federal level?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

How high the minimum wage should be is a valid question. If the minimum wage is too high then jobs are lost, if it is too low, then employers take advantage of workers with limited options.

Everytime the minimum wage comes before Congress, business interests always say the level is too high, no matter what it is. They bitch and moan and state they can't afford it. The same way the automobile industry initially said seat belts would increase the price of cars so much it would hurt business.

The Democrats (Kerry specifically) proposes to raise it to $7.00/hr, or $14,560 year for full time working adults. This would still be extremely low pay, but the extra $3400/year (maybe $2800 or so per year take-home) would help keep the wolves at bay for several million US workers. Remember the lower your income, the more difference small pay increases make.

And any business that can't afford to pay a full time non-tipped adult employee 14k a year needs to rethink their operation.

As far as the constitutional right to have minimum wages? I think the government has all kinds of rights in relation to businesses. They can require licences, give them a special lower tax rate on income, require them to provide insurance if they are a certain size, tell them they have to pay overtime if an employee works over 40 hours, etc. And people who mistakenly think that everything would be better without regulations on employers need to re-read their Charles Dickens. Or for a more current example go try to live in Eastern Europe where unregulated businesses have ruined the rivers, and polluted the air and land, etc. Obviously the government can go too far, but the answer isn't "no regulation" -- it's "sensible regulation."

And doing it at the Federal level is fine, since it is considered a bottom level minimum wage for US citizens. States are free to require higher minimum wages, as some do currently.

pooltchr
08-01-2004, 04:58 PM
Ross,
You aren't looking at the wage issue the same way I do. I have a small business...I have a budget (which unlike the government, I have to stick with in order to remain in business). I have X amount of work that needs to get done, and cost effectively. I have Y amount in my budget to pay for this work. I can afford to pay 2 people $6/hr or 1 person $12/hr. The two guys complain they don't make enough money, or the one guy complains he is overworked. When the government steps in to tell me how much to pay someone, it is over-riding the free market system, and I end up paying those two guys $7/hr each for the same amount of work. Now who is taking the hit? The business owner, (who really didn't need that tax break last year because he already makes too much money anyway). Do this enough to me, and I will decide that is isn't profitable for me to remain in business any longer...and instead of 2 guys making $6/hr, we have 2 guys in the unemployment line.
I know that is a very simplistic way of looking at it, but the principles are very valid.
(Damn, I just read that back and is sounds an awful lot like "Reganomics"!)
Steve

eg8r
08-01-2004, 05:33 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The Democrats (Kerry specifically) proposes to raise it to $7.00/hr, or $14,560 year for full time working adults. This would still be extremely low pay, but the extra $3400/year (maybe $2800 or so per year take-home) <hr /></blockquote> This take home pay is very misleading, as they will get all of the money, they just have to wait for their government to give it back in April (sooner depending on how quickly the money can burn a hole in their proverbial pocket). It is a little funny to me when someone is talking about how much they make and they list the take home amount. That is just merely all they get to keep for the time being.

highsea
08-01-2004, 05:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>This take home pay is very misleading, as they will get all of the money, they just have to wait for their government to give it back in April (sooner depending on how quickly the money can burn a hole in their proverbial pocket). It is a little funny to me when someone is talking about how much they make and they list the take home amount. That is just merely all they get to keep for the time being. <hr /></blockquote> Well, not exactly, Ed, though I get your point. There is still the 7.5% of that going to SS, as well as various other deductions that don't get reimbursed, so not all will get returned in April.

-CM

eg8r
08-02-2004, 06:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Well, not exactly, Ed, though I get your point. There is still the 7.5% of that going to SS, as well as various other deductions that don't get reimbursed, so not all will get returned in April. <hr /></blockquote> I had no intention on getting technical, however, the fact of the matter is, they will probably get MORE (just imagine if the poor guy is supporting a wife and 2 kids on his fulltime minimum wage job).

eg8r

Ross
08-02-2004, 02:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Ross,

You aren't looking at the wage issue the same way I do. I have a small business...I have a budget (which unlike the government, I have to stick with in order to remain in business). I have X amount of work that needs to get done, and cost effectively. I have Y amount in my budget to pay for this work. I can afford to pay 2 people $6/hr or 1 person $12/hr. The two guys complain they don't make enough money, or the one guy complains he is overworked. When the government steps in to tell me how much to pay someone, it is over-riding the free market system, and I end up paying those two guys $7/hr each for the same amount of work. Now who is taking the hit? The business owner, (who really didn't need that tax break last year because he already makes too much money anyway). Do this enough to me, and I will decide that is isn't profitable for me to remain in business any longer...and instead of 2 guys making $6/hr, we have 2 guys in the unemployment line.
I know that is a very simplistic way of looking at it, but the principles are very valid.
(Damn, I just read that back and is sounds an awful lot like "Reganomics"!)
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Steve,

I understand what you are saying - how too high of a minimum wage would put people out of work. That is why no one -- neither Democrat or Republican -- is advocating anything very high.

In your example, you are talking about $6 per hour (12k gross per year) versus $12 per hour. The Democrats are recommending a minimum wage of $7 per hour which is close to your lower figure. If you had to go to $7 per hour (for your non-tipped adult employees) I'm guessing that you probably would be able to do it without firing someone. Maybe I'm wrong, but I know that employers said the same thing when the minimum wage went to $5.15 / hour and we didn't see a spike in unemployment after that.

I just don't think adults in the US who are working full time, likely with no health insurance, maybe raising a kid, should be expected to live on 12k gross. 12k is 1000/month gross, maybe 800 take home. In your parts (western NC) he could probably get a livable apartment for $400/month. If he is frugal then food will be $150/month ($5/day) if he doesn't eat out much or date. So that leaves him $250/month. His car payments? OK, he can't afford to do that so he drives an old junker that cost him a thousand cash that he somehow scraped up. So he has $250/month or $60 per week to pay for gas, repairs to his junker, clothes, home furnishings, any needed meds, other health care, dentist visits, pool time, auto insurance, telephone, electicity, etc. Well, if he gets sick and has no health insurance (which he probably doesn't if he is making $6/hr), his doctor bill may be anywhere from a few hundred to several thousand. (If he needs a root canal, even that will be a few hundred.) So now he has to make monthly payments on that as well.

So this guy will essentially be broke and sooner or he will end up having an emergency that will put him over the edge financially, even though he has done everything right. And the $800 tax refund he will get after working a year will already be owed to someone so forget putting that into savings.

Heaven help the guy if he is supporting a kid. Or had hopes of being a homeowner.

Note that this example assumes that he makes $6/hr which is HIGHER than the minimum wage supported by the Republicans. Their lack of concern for the working poor is pretty clear, at least to me. OK, they don't like free handouts to able-bodied people. Well, neither do I. But they shouldn't pretend they support the American dream for people who work, unless they really do.

Here is what I think. The good part of Reagan was that he raised awareness of the perils of government over-regulation. The bad part is that he fostered the myth that the solution is NO government regulation, that the "free market" solves everything. That is just wrong. As I pointed out earlier, many countries where companies are largely free of regulation have some of the worst living conditions in the world. If government regulation is SO bad, then why is the US one the richest country in the world, while still reducing pollution and protecting their workers and consumers. Other per capita wealthy countries? Sweden, Germany, Japan, Canada, England, etc., all of which tend to have pretty strong government regulations.

It is always a matter of balance - you don't want to overregulate and stifle competition, nor do you want to underregulate and allow companies to run roughshod over the environment, their customers, or their employees.

Oh, yeah, Steve, one more thing. Kerry/Edwards propose tax cuts for small businesses who provide jobs in the US. So unless you are outsourcing your pool business to Taiwan, you may actually get that benefit to offset your giving Bill or Susie that $1 raise! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

nAz
08-02-2004, 03:05 PM
Ross nice post.


BTW if i was the guy in your example i would get fired and get on welfare at least that way i would get some food and some kind of health care and maybe have money to shoot somepool. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Naz~~ still can't figure out how some live on min. wage in NYC!?

highsea
08-02-2004, 03:30 PM
I think one thing that is being overlooked here, is this. The guy working full time and raising a family on minimum wage is already getting a lot of government subsidies.

Most states have health care programs for low income wage earners. He will get an earned income credit on his taxes, so his increase in min. wage will offset that EIC. His tax return will probably be lower if his wage goes up, unless the EIC goes up accordingly. He also may be getting housing credit, or he qualifies for low income housing. He also gets food stamps.

What a min wage increase does give him is a little more money in his pocket each week, which he does need, especially if he is trying to raise a family. I don't think $7.00/hr. is too high for a full time adult who is not getting tips in his job. I also agree with offsetting it with tax breaks for small businesses who would be negatively affected by the increase in min wage. I guess the question is how do you pay for it?

-CM

landshark77
08-02-2004, 05:48 PM
I'm going to chime in here with my $0.03 on the Minimum Wage and people being able to live off of it. First I would like to say that I agree that it is very difficult to live off of Min wage alone. And I support basic cost of living increases. But to say that min. wage needs to be increased so that a family can live off of it is rediculious. Where does this put the emphasis on education? Any high school drop out can then make a comfortable living. Where does that place the people who finished high school, or better yet, finished college? Would the increase of Min Wage then increase their salaries? If not then why not? Again fair is fair, no matter what career path one chooses. If so, then the whole economy would in turn become inflated and Min wage is again Min wage, and no one is none the richer, or living more comfortably.

Ross
08-02-2004, 09:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> ...
What a min wage increase does give him is a little more money in his pocket each week, which he does need, especially if he is trying to raise a family. I don't think $7.00/hr. is too high for a full time adult who is not getting tips in his job. I also agree with offsetting it with tax breaks for small businesses who would be negatively affected by the increase in min wage. I guess the question is how do you pay for it?

-CM <hr /></blockquote>

Then, Highsea, you agree with the Democratic plan and not the Republican plan. To pay for it, the Democratic plan is to not renew the tax cuts for those making over 200,000 per year. That will pay for much of the tax breaks for small business owners (like pool hall owners). The Republicans are offering nothing substantial for the working poor or for small businesses. Big businesses are their pets since that is where the get the bulk of their campaign donations.

If you listen to conservative talk show hosts you would get the impression that Democrats are all about doling out more welfare. True there are a few (maybe 10%) of Democrats that are stuck in this way of thinking, just like there are a few Republicans that think we should stick the King James version of the Bible into the constitution. But both of these characterizations are distortions and to rail against them is to fight against a "Paper Tiger" or whatever the expression is.

In reality, there is no push from mainstream Democrats to undo welfare reform (which happened to be pushed through Congress by the evil Democratic President Clinton). But there is a push to deal with the problem of the working poor in this country. See www.johnkerry.com (http://www.johnkerry.com) to see what Kerry/Edwards really are fighting for if you really are interested. You will find it is not the "pie-in-the-sky" platform that the Limbaugh's and their dittoheads have portrayed.

Wally_in_Cincy
08-03-2004, 06:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>

...I just don't think adults in the US who are working full time, likely with no health insurance, maybe raising a kid, should be expected to live on 12k gross....<hr /></blockquote>

Just one thing Ross. Do you actually know any grown man or woman who is making minimum wage. Around here anybody with any kind of initiative at all can make 25K without breaking a sweat. If an adult man or woman is making minimum wage they are either mentally incompetent or a pure slacker.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>

...It is always a matter of balance - you don't want to overregulate and stifle competition, nor do you want to underregulate and allow companies to run roughshod over the environment, their customers, or their employees.
<hr /></blockquote>

I agree with that. There has to be a balance.

eg8r
08-03-2004, 07:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
To pay for it, the Democratic plan is to not renew the tax cuts for those making over 200,000 per year. That will pay for much of the tax breaks for small business owners (like pool hall owners). The Republicans are offering nothing substantial for the working poor or for small businesses. Big businesses are their pets since that is where the get the bulk of their campaign donations.
<hr /></blockquote> This is getting a little crazy. The $200k limit is not going to impact just big business but rather it will affect nearly ALL small business. The 200k amount includes joint filing. So, if you make 125k/year and your wife makes 80k/year then you are hit with the tax increase. Just because one individual does not make 200k does not save him, it is for joint filing.

Also, a large portion of small businesses are S-Corporations and similar other types which help relieve them of the mountain of paperwork and taxes levied on full corporations. The downfall is that the income from the business goes against their personal income. It is easy to see how the pool hall owner can take the hit with the new tax increase provided their hall is making money. A very high percentage of companies in America are small business, and every one of them will take the hit with a tax increase.

The Democratic party would like to increase taxes on these same people, force them to pay health care, etc. When is fair, fair.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
08-03-2004, 07:31 AM
I don't think anyone who is intellectually honest can say with a straight face:

"We don't pay enough taxes"

and I don't care if you're talikin' about 12K or 300K, everybody's getting hosed.

Enough is enough.

pooltchr
08-03-2004, 07:59 AM
Ross,
I agree that no one is going to support a family on minimum wage. But raising it from $5.15 to $7 isn't going to change that. Most minimum wage jobs are filled by those just entering the workforce (students and teenagers) or seniors just trying to pick up a little extra money. Many are also part-time positions. I agree there are some who depend on these jobs as their primary source of income, but as was pointed out, there are other programs like food stamps that already provide an additional means of support. I sympathize with someone trying to make it on that pay level. At the same time, I personally work a full time job and have another outside source of income. It means that I probably work 65-70 hours a week combined. That is the choice I make to have the income I want in order to provide for my family the things I want to provide. Would I like to make more? Of course I would! My choices are to either work more, improve myself to make me worth more to an employer, or accept my present lifestyle based on my personal income. Those are my choices. We all have choices to make, and we have to learn to live with the results of those choices. For those times when circumstances beyond our control limit our choices, there are many forms of assistance available.

I guess my biggest concern for our country is the victim mentality that continues to grow. People seem less and less inclined to accept responsibility for the choices they make, and then look to the government (or lawyers, but don't get me started there. LOL) to take care of them.

When this country was in it's prime, the trend seemed to be more of "I can be whatever I want to be if I only apply myself." Now it seems "I am going to get whatever I can while doing the least I can do." To this end, it seems as if big government becomes the "enabler".

In my example, I used 2 employees just to keep it simple. Let's say I have 10 employees. If I have to give each of them just a $1 raise, that accounts for $10 per hour, or the equivelant of almost 1 1/2 jobs. With 100 employees (I think that is still considered a small business) that is 13 jobs. If I tighten my belt, maybe I can cover half of those jobs by cutting back in other areas. That still leaves a half a dozen unemployed people. And maybe I have to cover that cost by raising my prices to consumers. Now that raise they got isn't worth as much because it now costs more to purchase the same products.

I just wish we could look for ways to resolve the problem other than throwing more money at it. Seems like a vicious cycle to me.

Ross
08-03-2004, 10:57 AM
Wally, no one tells me what they make per hour, so there is no specific person that I know for sure makes minimum wage. According to the Department of Labor, there are about 2 million workers making $5.15/hour or less. About 1.5 million of these are age 20 or older. About 10% of service jobs pay minimum wage and women are twice as likely as men to be paid min. wage.

An increase to $7/hr would affect about 7 million workers, so I guess there are about 5 million making more than 5.15 but less than $7.

As far as the argument that raising the minimum wage increases unemployment, here is a graph of the US unemployment rate in the '90s. The last minimum wage increases were in '96 and '97 (which raised salaries for about 9 million US workers), but unemployment rates dropped continuously from '93 to '01 without a blip.

http://www.duke.edu/~rulmer/unemployment.gif

Ross
08-03-2004, 12:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Ross,
I agree that no one is going to support a family on minimum wage. But raising it from $5.15 to $7 isn't going to change that.

<font color="blue">My example was that of a single person, not one raising a family. The raise from 10k annually to 14k annually (which is just below the current poverty level) sure would help that person stay afloat. </font color>

Most minimum wage jobs are filled by those just entering the workforce (students and teenagers) or seniors just trying to pick up a little extra money.
<font color="blue"> I have been only talking about working adults, since teenagers are exempt from the the min. wage of $5.15 (or $7 if it is raised). It is true what you say about seniors though. </font color>

Many are also part-time positions.
<font color="blue">True. </font color>

I agree there are some who depend on these jobs as their primary source of income, but as was pointed out, there are other programs like food stamps that already provide an additional means of support.

<font color="blue">True. I ran a hypothetical single person making $10,400/yr., paying $400 rent, and $130 utilities (hear, cooling, and phone) through a food stamp calculator and he was eligible for $80/month in food stamps. So he definitely won't starve. </font color>

I sympathize with someone trying to make it on that pay level. At the same time, I personally work a full time job and have another outside source of income. It means that I probably work 65-70 hours a week combined.
<font color="blue">A man working 65 hours/wk at minimum wage will earn 17k gross. He could make it on that. If he is married with two kids the 65 hours per week will put him almost exactly at the official poverty wage for a family of 4. </font color>

That is the choice I make to have the income I want in order to provide for my family the things I want to provide. Would I like to make more? Of course I would! My choices are to either work more, improve myself to make me worth more to an employer, or accept my present lifestyle based on my personal income. Those are my choices. We all have choices to make, and we have to learn to live with the results of those choices. For those times when circumstances beyond our control limit our choices, there are many forms of assistance available.
<font color="blue">We can also decide as a society whether we think that full time working adults should be paid a living wage. Despite predictions to the contrary, when we've done that in the past (like the increase to 5.15 in '97) everything has worked out fine and we had fewer people depending on food stamps. </font color>
I guess my biggest concern for our country is the victim mentality that continues to grow. People seem less and less inclined to accept responsibility for the choices they make, and then look to the government (or lawyers, but don't get me started there. LOL) to take care of them.

<font color="blue">I guess I don't see a minimum wage as a handout or rewarding victimhood. I actually think it fits the idea of increasing the incentives to not be a victim and not live off government dole. </font color>

When this country was in it's prime, the trend seemed to be more of "I can be whatever I want to be if I only apply myself." Now it seems "I am going to get whatever I can while doing the least I can do." To this end, it seems as if big government becomes the "enabler".

<font color="blue">If the guy isn't doing his job, I say fire his ass! But if he is, then pay him a living wage. </font color>

In my example, I used 2 employees just to keep it simple. Let's say I have 10 employees. If I have to give each of them just a $1 raise, that accounts for $10 per hour, or the equivelant of almost 1 1/2 jobs. With 100 employees (I think that is still considered a small business) that is 13 jobs. If I tighten my belt, maybe I can cover half of those jobs by cutting back in other areas. That still leaves a half a dozen unemployed people. And maybe I have to cover that cost by raising my prices to consumers. Now that raise they got isn't worth as much because it now costs more to purchase the same products.

<font color="blue">As I noted in a previous post, unemployment actually dropped after the minimum wage increases of '96 and '97. Also, economists say that prices are more determined by what people are willing to pay for a product than by what it costs to make it. Again if we look at the record, there was no surge in inflation after the last min. wage increase. </font color>

I just wish we could look for ways to resolve the problem other than throwing more money at it. Seems like a vicious cycle to me. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Steve, the min. wage is not a government program to throw money at the problem. Just like the federal requirement to pay overtime wage for some lower income workers is not throwing money at the problem. It is a simple worker protection law.

Min. wage has to do with rewarding those who work - not handouts for those that don't.
</font color>

eg8r
08-03-2004, 12:41 PM
I don't know Ross, but this seems a bit laughable and you are probably arguing for a very minor, minor group of people (full time adults working for minimum wage). [ QUOTE ]
I just don't think adults in the US who are working full time, likely with no health insurance, maybe raising a kid, should be expected to live on 12k gross. 12k is 1000/month gross, maybe 800 take home. In your parts (western NC) he could probably get a livable apartment for $400/month. If he is frugal then food will be $150/month ($5/day) if he doesn't eat out much or date. So that leaves him $250/month. His car payments? OK, he can't afford to do that so he drives an old junker that cost him a thousand cash that he somehow scraped up. So he has $250/month or $60 per week to pay for gas, repairs to his junker, clothes, home furnishings, any needed meds, other health care, dentist visits, pool time, auto insurance, telephone, electicity, etc. Well, if he gets sick and has no health insurance (which he probably doesn't if he is making $6/hr), his doctor bill may be anywhere from a few hundred to several thousand. (If he needs a root canal, even that will be a few hundred.) So now he has to make monthly payments on that as well.

So this guy will essentially be broke and sooner or he will end up having an emergency that will put him over the edge financially, even though he has done everything right. <hr /></blockquote> Can you honestly say "he has done everything right"? For gods sake this is a grown adult who has done nothing with his life and the best he can do for himself is work bagging groceries. Be totally honest, just how many jobs are paying minimum wage to adults, and they are targeting adults as employees?

I probably would not be against raising minimum wage if it was not on the Dem ticket every year. When is enough enough?

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't think adults in the US who are working full time, likely with no health insurance, maybe raising a kid, should be expected to live on 12k gross. <hr /></blockquote> I don't think anyone would expect them to live on 12k, that is why the minimum pay jobs are geared as part time positions.

[ QUOTE ]
Their lack of concern for the working poor is pretty clear, at least to me. OK, they don't like free handouts to able-bodied people. Well, neither do I. But they shouldn't pretend they support the American dream for people who work, unless they really do.
<hr /></blockquote> LOL, the American dream. If you would like to talk about the American dream then start talking about the foreigners who come here and work their butts off at more than one job. The type of worker you keep talking about seems to be quite the lazy man if he is only making 12k and believes in the American Dream. These foreigners come over here work like crazy (more than one job which is more than can be said for the same man you keep talking about) save their money and excel. This would be the American dream. It seems however from this post of yours, that the American dream is for some guy to do nothing with his life, earn minimum wage, and have his company and government support him. That is not the American dream.

eg8r