What to do about the gays?

[texaspackerbacker]

How is it NOT racist to begin with the assumption that blacks aren't capable of competing and NEED liberal crap--affirmative action, social programs, welfare, etc.--everything libs stand for?

How is it NOT racist to create a dependent class that can be counted on to vote Dem/lib?

[PackFan#1]

Hey bobblehead, why don't you quit your college-trained job today and go work at Wal-mart for the minimum. If you can support your family on that, then I'm all for obliterating social welfare.

If you know if you work hard at walmart, in 4 years they'll promote you from associate to assistant manager of your department and give you a $2 wage increase.

I can support my family on that, but I would have to change my lifestyle. The reason I don't is because I have worked hard and made sacrifices to have the job and situation I have now.

As usual, you offer no kind of arguement, simply come in, take a pot shot and think you scored points.

I actually have no clue what your point was other than to try and point out something about me that I'm not entirely sure what it is.

PS...
Wal-Mart pays an average hourly wage of $8.23 an hour, according to independent expert statistical analysis, which falls below basic living wage standards and even below poverty lines.
Wal-Mart claims an hourly wage of $9.68 an hour is its national average, though that still equals poverty levels for workers. Since “full time” at Wal-Mart is 34 hours a week according to company policy, full-time workers make a mere $17,114.24 a year—below the federal poverty level for a family of four. (incidentally what are people making 17k a year doing having 2 kids? responsibility PLEASE)

So you can't even frame your arguement honestly.

Wtf? Aren't you supposed to be a financial guru? You put more weight on Wal-mart's internal report than an expert independent report? That's the equivalent of an investor discarding a competent cpa firm's audited financial report on a company for that company's own internal report.

Go read Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America."

Here's a quote: "According to the National Coalition for the Homeless...in 1998 it took on average nationalwide, an hourly wage of $8.89 to afford a one-bedroom apartment, and the Preamble Center for Public Policy estimates that the odds against a typical welfare recipient's landing a job at such a "living wage:" are about 97 to 1."

Another quote: "The influx of a million former welfare recipients into the low-wage labor market could depress wages by as much as 11.9 percent, according to the Economic Policy Institute in Washington DC.

Bottom line is you can't possibly get by independently working a low wage job at wal-mart (or another company with similar pay), even if you don't have kids. It would be difficult to get by on $17,114.24, too, if you take the costs of living into consideration.

My second point, 2 bucks raise in 4 yrs is nothing when you take inflation into consideration. I personally worked at walmart after my freshman yr in college. They give you like 25 cents raise every 6 months if you ace their evaluation.

[bobblehead]

congratulations, I finally dragged you into posting something of substance. I am shocked. Yes, since walmart actually has access to their books, I put more faith on there numbers. Since walmart has worked hard to keep prices down for americans of all stripes, I believe them. Since "independant experts" are speculating from the outside, I trust walmarts numbers more. Nowhere did it say that an audit concluded those numbers.

I never said it would be easy to get by on 17k. I said you have to sacrifice and adjust. And if you don't like it you might even work to better your situation. I'm not sure what the entire point was of your post other than it sucks to be poor...well, we agree.

Barbara who? Oh you mean the co-chair of this organization:
===========================================

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is a democratic socialist/social democratic organization in the United States and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International, a federation of socialist, social democratic, democratic socialist and labor parties and organizations.

DSA was formed in 1982 by a merger of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, the largest remnant of the defunct Socialist Party of America led by Michael Harrington, and the New American Movement, a coalition of writers and intellectuals with roots in both the New Left movements of the 1960s and the more traditional parties of the Old Left. Two other Socialist Party of America factions went on to form Social Democrats USA and the Socialist Party USA.
=========================================
Dude if you wanna live in a socialist society go right ahead. And Ms. Erehnreich had a degree in biology, obviously I take her economic views much more seriously then people like.....Keynes...Friedman....ect.

If you wanna debate on the best way to get the poor people to a better situation I'm all for it, but if your only point is that it sucks to be poor, you really still aren't proving much....although you are finally trying and I respect that.

[PackFan#1]

Bobblehead, you are a bum to argue with. You like to change your meanings and you can't seem to comprehend what you read.

Nowhere did I quote economics data that are composed by said author. Read again. Ehrenreich got her data from 1. National Coalition for the Homeless. 2. Preamble Center for Public Policy. 3. Economic Policy Institute.

You trust walmart's numbers. I guess you also trust Enron's numbers too.

And wtf? I'm arguing that it sucks to be poor? Do you even understand the meaning of NOT GETTING BY? Again, I challege you to quit your current job and go work at walmart. You'll see why reforming welfare is ineffective.

[mraynrand]

Bottom line is you can't possibly get by independently working a low wage job at wal-mart (or another company with similar pay), even if you don't have kids. It would be difficult to get by on $17,114.24, too, if you take the costs of living into consideration.

You're on the right track. Now take the next step. If you're only making 17K, you don't live alone. For the first 6 years out of college, I averaged under 16K a year. I lived in a house with 4-5 other people, and I actually saved money. I was able to afford a small car and a bike. I could have lived that way indefinitely. But, like a lot of people in their first job, or in low paying job, I was looking for a better job, and increasing my skills. My resume from entry level type jobs, and the recommendations from bosses got me better jobs and better opportunities. Then of course, I got married, etc. etc.

Simple rules for avoiding poverty:
1. Attend High School, learn something, Graduate.
2. Don’t commit Crimes (stay out of trouble).
3. Take Any Job.
4. Don’t Have kids Before You’re Married; Don’t Get Married Until You’re At Least 21.
follow these simple rules and you have a 2-5% chance of living in poverty. But if you think you're going to make a 'living wage,' live independently, and be able to support any kind of family working a 34 hour a week entry level job at Wal-Mart, you're deluded. Look at the people working Wal-Mart. Most folks do not fit this description - most are kids, seniors, spouses supplementing other family income (and know a lot of folks like this). Why is it that so many people think people stay in the same class their entire life. How many 40-50 year olds do you guys know who are in the same job, earning the same wages or salaries that they earned when they were 18?

[bobblehead]

Bobblehead, you are a bum to argue with. You like to change your meanings and you can't seem to comprehend what you read.

We are aguing?? You have made one post of substance(sort of) and otherwise called us all rascists and compared people to derek vinyard and you call that arguing?? Now you are back to resorting to insults. Thats not called arguing. Please point out where I change my meanings and I will be happy to clarify.

Nowhere did I quote economics data that are composed by said author. Read again. Ehrenreich got her data from 1. National Coalition for the Homeless. 2. Preamble Center for Public Policy. 3. Economic Policy Institute.

You trust walmart's numbers. I guess you also trust Enron's numbers too.

And wtf? I'm arguing that it sucks to be poor? Do you even understand the meaning of NOT GETTING BY? Again, I challege you to quit your current job and go work at walmart. You'll see why reforming welfare is ineffective.

No, you told me to go read her book...see below. You could have left her out entirely and just quoted the data. According to the data it sucks to be poor, I concur.

Your arguement amounts to, a welfare worker can't walk into a job 80% higher than minimum wage. Probably true, but such a worker can get into an entry position and in mere months move close to that wage. Your next point is that an influx of welfare people might depress wages by as much as 11.9%. Yep, which is why I keep saying we need to strain the job market (unemployment around 2%), other than that, what is your point, we should let people sit on welfare indefinately and raise taxes by 11.9% to pay for them??

And I reject your bottom line. I got by on just such a wage my first 2 years outta college. I got by on less with roommates while in college with minimal financial aid. I didn't enjoy it much. I didn't have a TV that first year. I spent a lot of free time reading and taking long walks. But I never went hungry, and I always had a roof over my head. My AC wasn't on much that first Las Vegas summer either, that sucked.

Ok, now that we have agreed it sucks to be poor, I'm all for debating a solution. Social programs don't solve said problem, they create a block of enabled voters. Transfer of wealth hurts the economy by taking money from the producers and handing it over to non producers thus inhibiting creation/advancement. When you inhibit advancement you hurt everyone. When you take the money from the producers, you cost jobs.

Feel free to debate any point you wish, but to "challenge" me to quit my job and work at walmart as thought that challenge is sane muchless proves anything is just more BS. How about this. I will do just that, and if I "get by" you cover my lost earnings, fair enough? I'm not a millionaire, and I don't work as hard as I did a few years ago, it will only cost you 60K if your wrong. If I'm wrong, it will cost me my job, 60k in the first year alone, and all my time accrued on the job. We can put the 60k in escrow with a contract drawn up and everything. Of course I'll also have to explain to my wife why I'm quitting and leaving her to go work at walmart, but again, you make a perfectly rational challenge here, so why not.

Go read Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America."

[mraynrand]

Our county needs retail workers, ditch diggers, etc. If those people don't have children..who is going to do the work?

I dug ditches for three years. Lots of guys 'dig ditches' when they are young and then move on to other work. With a resume of responsible work, they can move up. A lot of retail workers are part time workers and supplement other income. Do part time workers or unskilled labor have to come from the children of other unskilled laborers, poor, etc. and vice versa, will the children of unskilled laborers become unskilled laborers? Not in America. Consistently, the highest achievers in American schools are the children of first generation immigrants - many of whom are unskilled laborers who are trying to learn the language. Children achieve if they come from solid two parent households. That's what should be promoted first and foremost. Even if you're a social liberal with a college education, who rejects the traditional family, you can still be pragmatic and see what works best.

[bobblehead]

Again, I challege you to quit your current job and go work at walmart. You'll see why reforming welfare is ineffective.

And I challenge Ted Kennedy to go get his care in Canada and see why nationalized healthcare is a bad idea.

[Scott Campbell]

Again, I challege you to quit your current job and go work at walmart.

Wow, what a stupid thing to write. Challenge him to a duel at 50 paces, or something more masculine.

[Partial]

Hey bobblehead, why don't you quit your college-trained job today and go work at Wal-mart for the minimum. If you can support your family on that, then I'm all for obliterating social welfare.

If you know if you work hard at walmart, in 4 years they'll promote you from associate to assistant manager of your department and give you a $2 wage increase.

This is the kind of shit that makes me sick. How can you buy this BS?

There are plenty of people willing to employee people at a fair wage. You don't have to accept the job at Wal-Mart. Hell, if more people said no to their jobs and kept working hard looking for other opportunities, Wal-Mart would be forced to raise their wages.

Also, if you're unhappy with the wages they're paying, said person could pursue more education (very inexpesnively on the government after grants) and become educated to do something else.

[Partial]

Ok... Then take your science, two guys, and produce a baby. Then I'll listen.

Two men, a good time, one turkey baster and a surrogate. Boom. Same as for a hetero couple I know. Now you promised to listen. I'm holding you to that...[/quote]

Thats not two men producing a baby. That is horrifying and very immoral and unnatural. Do any of you people go to church other than Harv?

[Partial]

I didn't get to finish what I was going to write. Kids came in the house and told me how a dad up the street (a traditional family man):P was yelling at them...threw the F-bomb a few times over his kid's plastic lawn ornament squirrel that got broke when she was playing in our yard. Had my son pay him $10 for the ornament since he did play a part in it getting broke....and then told traditional family man if he has a problem with my son in the future I would appreciate him letting me know rather than swearing at my kid. Handed him a bag of wrappers his kids left in my yard and told him respect for property works both ways.

Anyway, I understand you were talking welfare in particular...just irked me a bit how you lumped certain things together.

Don't read into this in any way as me judging whether or not a traditional family is better or worse, I'm a libertarian as I have said many times, I don't care what people do. HOWEVER I think most women (and men) would rather have a traditional family with steady income and independence, which most public assistance programs in their current form make difficult.

I may not have a traditional family...as you call it but you made reference to having an actual family as well. I'm a single mom, have steady income and major independence and am quite proud of my family.

You'll never be whole and satisfied till you have a man around the house. Tyrone is available...though, he doesn't fulfill the term "man" in the traditional sense.

anyone wanna take this one

[Partial]

Hey bobblehead, why don't you quit your college-trained job today and go work at Wal-mart for the minimum. If you can support your family on that, then I'm all for obliterating social welfare.

If you know if you work hard at walmart, in 4 years they'll promote you from associate to assistant manager of your department and give you a $2 wage increase.

I can support my family on that, but I would have to change my lifestyle. The reason I don't is because I have worked hard and made sacrifices to have the job and situation I have now.

As usual, you offer no kind of arguement, simply come in, take a pot shot and think you scored points.

I actually have no clue what your point was other than to try and point out something about me that I'm not entirely sure what it is.

PS...
Wal-Mart pays an average hourly wage of $8.23 an hour, according to independent expert statistical analysis, which falls below basic living wage standards and even below poverty lines.
Wal-Mart claims an hourly wage of $9.68 an hour is its national average, though that still equals poverty levels for workers. Since “full time” at Wal-Mart is 34 hours a week according to company policy, full-time workers make a mere $17,114.24 a year—below the federal poverty level for a family of four. (incidentally what are people making 17k a year doing having 2 kids? responsibility PLEASE)

So you can't even frame your arguement honestly.

Bobble,

it is this type of thinking that makes me sick.

Responsibility? Really? So, only those who are going to be achievers should mate?

Having 2 kids isn't being irresponsible.

BTW, your argument is self defeating. Our county needs retail workers, ditch diggers, etc. If those people don't have children..who is going to do the work?

So do you think its irresponsible for the 18 year old girl who barely made it through high school, isn't married, doesn't earn 20 grand a year, etc is not irresponsible? Give me a break.

I completely agree with bobble that people need to be responsible and should only have as many kids as they can support. It's unfair to the child.

[Partial]

Hey bobblehead, why don't you quit your college-trained job today and go work at Wal-mart for the minimum. If you can support your family on that, then I'm all for obliterating social welfare.

If you know if you work hard at walmart, in 4 years they'll promote you from associate to assistant manager of your department and give you a $2 wage increase.

I can support my family on that, but I would have to change my lifestyle. The reason I don't is because I have worked hard and made sacrifices to have the job and situation I have now.

As usual, you offer no kind of arguement, simply come in, take a pot shot and think you scored points.

I actually have no clue what your point was other than to try and point out something about me that I'm not entirely sure what it is.

PS...
Wal-Mart pays an average hourly wage of $8.23 an hour, according to independent expert statistical analysis, which falls below basic living wage standards and even below poverty lines.
Wal-Mart claims an hourly wage of $9.68 an hour is its national average, though that still equals poverty levels for workers. Since “full time” at Wal-Mart is 34 hours a week according to company policy, full-time workers make a mere $17,114.24 a year—below the federal poverty level for a family of four. (incidentally what are people making 17k a year doing having 2 kids? responsibility PLEASE)

So you can't even frame your arguement honestly.

Wtf? Aren't you supposed to be a financial guru? You put more weight on Wal-mart's internal report than an expert independent report? That's the equivalent of an investor discarding a competent cpa firm's audited financial report on a company for that company's own internal report.

Go read Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America."

Here's a quote: "According to the National Coalition for the Homeless...in 1998 it took on average nationalwide, an hourly wage of $8.89 to afford a one-bedroom apartment, and the Preamble Center for Public Policy estimates that the odds against a typical welfare recipient's landing a job at such a "living wage:" are about 97 to 1."

Another quote: "The influx of a million former welfare recipients into the low-wage labor market could depress wages by as much as 11.9 percent, according to the Economic Policy Institute in Washington DC.

Bottom line is you can't possibly get by independently working a low wage job at wal-mart (or another company with similar pay), even if you don't have kids. It would be difficult to get by on $17,114.24, too, if you take the costs of living into consideration.

My second point, 2 bucks raise in 4 yrs is nothing when you take inflation into consideration. I personally worked at walmart after my freshman yr in college. They give you like 25 cents raise every 6 months if you ace their evaluation.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Someone can easily live on 17k if they live within their means. You can find one bedroom apartments for like 250-300 bucks. You're not going to be living in beverly hills, but if you're on a beverly hills level you wouldn't be working in wal-mart.

You can live off 30 dollars of food a week. It's really not hard at all.

You don't need a phone. You don't need cable. You don't need to wear tommy hilfiger. Wear the clothes from good will for a quarter.

My god, don't be so daft. Anyone can live off just about any amount of money, it is a matter of adjusting their life style to do so.

[Scott Campbell]

But can I at least marry three or four consenting adults at once?

Just 3 or 4?