All I had to go on is what the candidates said, McBush said he'd continue George's policies while Obie said he would not. Unfortunately, in the end I don't think the two of them would have done differently in any significant way. To say that you knew in advance what would happen is perhaps disingenuous since we cannot KNOW the future. In retrospect I can't see that one is better than the other as your similie implies.
Your answer here suggests that you see the problem (but you don't define it) and that you have the answer for it. It also suggests that we have only ONE problem, which I think is incorrect. I see all kinds of problems, I agree with your position on organized religion, but that's only one problem--or one aspect of the larger problem.
I find that I end up objecting to most of the stuff the government does. You talk like Obie is the first one to spend, spend, spend, when in fact he is doing what all the rest have done. Of course I object to it, so what? My objections, my votes, my letters, and my phone calls have never made any difference.
Being cryptic or being unable to write clearly enough so that people can understand what point you are making sometimes look the same.
As far as the minimum wage goes, any time you arbitrarily change one part of a complex system you are likely to get unexpected reactions. I don't know if you intend to come across arrogantly, but you certainly do. I admit that I don't know how to fix the mess we're in, if you see the problem so clearly and can define it cogently and provide a simple answer, then you obviously have the right to your arrogance and I will accept being humbled.
There is so much to comment on in your post - much of which is really good (for your side -
sort of joking) however; I am a SLOW TYPER & it would take too long to cover it all ...
However; let me hit a little of it!
I talk with my hands - its hard to get the 20 plus years of thoughts out with a bunch of pecking - try to understand I am NOT blowing wind because I ate a bean! There is a LOT of thought behind this ...
Let me DEFINE THE PROBLEMS
- most politicians betray the voter - like being next door to a wax factory - it seems to always STINK!
- The right sold us out for big business and corporate wealth
- The left sold us out for big business and socialist distribution
- BOTH SIDES target the people trapped in the middle (like you said about McBush - I agree 110% - I just saw it to be a tiny bit less horrendous than the Obie side)
Look at WHO GOT HURT ....
.... and screw the banks .... and screw the the airline industry .... and screw the auto industry .... and screw the housing market
WHO GOT HURT? the people trapped in the middle of the battle between the left and right --- WE'VE ALL GOT SCREWED ROYAL!
Had they thought of the PEOPLE - instead of their selfish friggin special interest groups ... they would have noticed THREE IMPORTANT THINGS!
- The rich want everything they can get and will toss a few million in scraps to pacify the peasants.
- The poor want everything and will SIT THERE are demand it.
- The people in the middle are working so hard to pull themselves up that they do not have time to protest or buy off a politician - so NO ONE represents THEM! They are what keep our economy rolling!
The left screams about the tax breaks for the rich ... when John Kerry was running for President - he was saying that I was rich ... thats why he lost.
Obie more than doubled the bottom of the rich level (From 100,000 to 250,000 a year) and so some of those who are upper middle class were okay with the snake oil sales pitch.
The right screams about all the give aways while they are trying to get people do a job correctly with a little thought toward loyalty to the hand that feeds you.
End result neither side is willing to do the other one better to start the ball rolling toward a workable compromise!
... but here is the solution that should have been!
Let me start with a very simple generic question.
QUESTION: What do both sides have in common?
ANSWER: The interest in MORE MONEY
QUESTION: Why were people getting laid off (
which has us to such a HIGH unemployment rate)?
ANSWER: Because the cost of doing business forced prices to go up which means that the old wages were not enough to keep the economy going.
79 cent item is now 2 bucks - (almost) everything has gone up
If you are at your limit with the current income and all of a sudden everything is more expensive and it costs your company more to do the job they do -
where does your financial rescue come from?
You are the one who has the home you no longer can afford.
You have the loans and credit cards that the banking industry needs to survive.
You have the loss of money that prevents you from affording a better car.
You are the one that will go under first (which means that a nice apartment may very well be out of the question - they require a credit check!)
The politicians ALMOST had the right idea with the rebate checks ... ALMOST!
Had they applied those rebate checks to the EMPLOYER ...
in return for each full time employee that gets a $1.00 per hour RAISE ...
This is what would have happened ...
The Employer would have gotten a loan that would be paid out PERMANENTLY at $40.00 a week in revenue in the pocket of those who needed to pay their mortgage and credit cards and other things like going out to the movies or to a fast food joint (which now costs more since they increased minimum wage to improve kids spending money)
Had the government offered a $350.00 rebate for every full time employee that makes an extra buck - the company could have some additional revenue to offset the cost of doing business so they could keep people working - so people would have money to spend to keep the sales revenue ball rolling so that would hold up a large part of the sag in our economy. It would still cost a business in a fiscal quarter an additional $520.00 per employee.
If the government offered this for every fiscal quarter for 4 quarters - some people could potentially see an extra dollar an hour in each quarter (in one year - $4.00 an hour more aka supporting middle class income)
Think about this - before the minimum wage people worked as much as several years to go from that minimum wage to todays minimum wage and todays wino gets it at the temp service because it is law.
EXCEPT for one thing ... for now - it is hard for some companies to afford temp service labor and they now have more incentive to make full time jobs 30 hours a week so they won't have the expense of benefits to burden the increased cost of doing business.
Does that make more sense - said this way?
