MizzouCoug wrote:

This is good stuff all around. BTW, where do you guys get your news from? I usually peruse Townhall.com and Frontpagemag.com, while reading stuff from commondreams.org as well so that nobody can ever say that I'm "narrow-minded." Just curious.

I listen to a lot of NPR podcasts (Morning Edition, talk of the nation, radiowest, this american life) I also read cnn.com and the New York Times, but most of my news I get from NPR.

OLB wrote:

Hengst wrote:

The big problem with washington right now is that the lobbyist are having more of an effect on politicians than the people who vote for them. This has to change. This is probably the biggest reason I support Barack over Hillary. He is not owned by lobbyists, rather, his fund raising has come from the people that support him. Thus he is beholden to the people that voted (or vote) for him which is they way I think it ought to be in this democratic republic of ours :-).

Excuse me for sounding cynical, but when has Washington not been controlled by special interest?

Doesn't mean it has to be.

Does it go by Karma? I nominate Cruiser for speaker of the house and McGregor for senate majority leader!

OLB wrote:

Airwolf84 wrote:

People making minimum wage can't get by at all... their monthly income would be $960 (even less than that after taxes)... not even enough to make a rent payment in a lot of places. The minimum wage of $5.75 is an atrocity!!! The name of the game in today's society is shortchanging employees and cutting costs no matter the expense in order to improve the bottom line. It's no accident that today's CEO makes an obscene $575 to every $1 one of their employees makes. 50 years ago, this ratio was about 50 to 1 and the average family could survive on one income just fine, but not anymore.

Before you spout off your crap about minimum wage, why don't you check out the Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004.htm

Do you even have a freaking clue who the minimum wage earners are in our society? More than half of all minimum wage earners are under the age of 25. A quarter of all minimum wage earners are teenagers. In other words, at least half of all minimum wage earners are either teenagers in high school or young adults who are probably working while they go to school or learn a trade. This is backed up by the fact that more than 50 percent of minimum wage earners work less than 35 hours a week. So these minimum wage earners are living at home or are sharing apartments with other people (kind of like what one does when they are young, single, and going to school).

You make it sound like people are trying to have families while working a minimum wage job. The fact is that 60 percent of all minimum wage earners have never been married. These are people that live with roommates so they can share living and utility costs.

While I am sympathetic about your rant on CEO salaries, the fact is that the average American has more material wealth today than 10, 20, or 50 years ago. I won't argue that the average American is better off today, because much of "better off" has to do with the way one lives his/her life. But nobody can dispute that American's live better.

Today most Americans have air conditioned homes, air conditioned cars, cable television, multiple TVs, computers, DVDs and DVD players, I-Pods, cell phones, digitial cameras, high speed internet, etc. How many people had these things even 15 years ago?

I'm well aware of the age group factor with minimum wage OLB, however, are you going to sit there and tell me that there isn't one adult with a family to support who isn't working minimum wage? As far as I am concerned, anyone who is an adult with a family to provide for who is earning less than $6 per hour is a victim of unethical compensation and greed, plain and simple! I know people who use to make $75,000 per year (computer programmers, I.T. Analysts, etc.) who were laid off after the dotcom bubble of the '90's burst in 2000 and had to settle for $8 per hour or less working at places like Home Depot! My point is that the minimum wage is beyond absurd and doesn't allow ANYONE to even pay for their roof over the head, let alone for food, a vehicle, insurance, utilities, etc.!!!

Hengst wrote:

I think the key difference between the way I see things and the way you see things is that you see the liberal perspective as forcing people to support the poor, or needy. I see your point, but I see things a bit differently. The way I see democracy is that the government is controlled by the people, so if the people vote for that kind of a system the government is not controlling them, rather, they have voted for and chosen to approach the poverty problem in that way. It just depends on how you perceive who is in control. The big problem with washington right now is that the lobbyist are having more of an effect on politicians than the people who vote for them. This has to change. This is probably the biggest reason I support Barack over Hillary. He is not owned by lobbyists, rather, his fund raising has come from the people that support him. Thus he is beholden to the people that voted (or vote) for him which is they way I think it ought to be in this democratic republic of ours :-).

I agree with you, to a point. The problem as I see it is that the federal government is too big to do it. Now, if we were in a town of 1000 people, and we all got together and decided that we wanted to help everyone out, great. But when the federal government decides to do something, it's too impersonal. For example, when we talk about health care, you say everyone should have it, and conservatives say the government should stay out of it. I bet we could agree that those who truly had the need, and couldn't get it on their own should get help from the government. If we were in our hypothetical town of 1000, it would be easy to decide who got it and who didn't. The federal government, on the other hand, has to have a set of rules which an incompetent fool (TIC, but who else would work for the government) can apply fairly to everyone.

A personal example is me. I am a grad student, who makes practically nothing right now. My third son was born about a year ago, and a day later, was life-flighted to a specialized hospital because he had (and still has) some serious heart problems. Before he was born, I spent over 10% of my meager salary for health insurance. I could afford it, but barely. I could have been on Medicaid, but didn't need it, so I wasn't on it. After our son was born, we got on medicaid because we couldn't afford otherwise. Am I glad to have medicaid, certainly. But, the choice of us being on should be whether we need it or not. We didn't need it before, but could have gotten it, which would have cost the government more money.

I personally think that states should decide about health care. If the federal government got out, I would be happy.


Now, getting back to what you said, the problem with the government being "beholden to the people" is what happens when the people are selfish? Why would I vote for something good for the country if it's not good for me? That's the reason we have a democratic republic, and not a democracy. And even that is problematic. The politicians are not seeing what is best for the country, they are doing what helps their reelection the most. That's why they pander to lobbyists ($$ is needed for a good campaign) and why pork-barrel spending is out of this world.

I won't pretend to have read even one of this thread's 21 pages, but:

OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA!!!