Agreed! But here is part of the problem, why would someone bother to work at a fast food restaurant for minimum wage when they could stay home and collect welfare or unemployment compensation, and free healthcare? I understand their plight but there has to be some incentive for them to take that step, and unfortunately, some Americans are too lazy to step out of their own shadow.
Sometimes, yes, but even low-paying jobs, if we raised the wages just a little bit at least so someone could reasonably survive enough to pay for the basics, that'd definitely be a helpful incentive.
I think it'd also help, too, if people didn't automatically dismiss one's lack of college experience as a reason they couldn't get a job. Often people wind up in low-paying jobs because that's all they can find if all they have is a high school degree. But just because they didn't have formal college training doesn't mean they're automatically ill-equipped to do better paying jobs.
I'm honestly curious as to how anyone nowadays can find a way to take advantage of government aid, can scam from it. When my family used it, we had to go through insane amounts of paperwork and red tape and had to prove for sure that everything was completely legit. Maybe it varies from state to state, the paperwork, I dunno. But they sure didn't make it easy for us when we used it.
Spot on. However, when is someone going to challenge these big corporations who move their tax base overseas to avoid paying taxes in America? That's something which should be looked at from both sides, of course, shouldn't there be a greater incentive for them to "come home" in the form of a lower tax rate?
Definitely agreed on this. This should be a question that should be raised much more often. I think Clinton did something like that, didn't he? He gave companies big and small tax breaks if they actually physically were able to show they were hiring people here at home and actually creating decent jobs. Which, if that's happening, I have no problem with that. If the company's working hard and has solid employment statistics, and they're doing fair, honest business, yeah, give 'em lower taxes (and if they're not doing fair, honest business, they should just be shut down. If I were to commit illegal acts at my job or screw up massively, I'd get fired and/or sent to jail. The same should hold true for big corporations).
The Ayers comments are relevant to the context of the original post several pages back, where Romney was being questioned by someone in the crowd, and someone else here seemed to mock that line of questioning (how dare they?). This led to my post "Where was this line of questioning in 2008?" regarding Ayers and Obama's general lack of overall experience.
I actually do remember quite a big stink made over the Obama/Ayers thing in 2008. Maybe not as much from left-leaning media, no, but boy, Fox News and other conservative outlets sure did fire up that story. I remember hearing Palin constantly getting on Obama about that, and all I could think is, "You're married to a man who wants Alaska to secede from the U.S., Miss 'I'm Such A Patriotic American', so who are you to talk about connections?"
While i do agree with you that it shouldn't be a campaign issue in 2012, because personally i don't believe there are any connections between the two other than what's already been stated, I also think that people your age or younger should be aware of the history before they vote and then make their own decision based on facts and not spin from either side.
I do agree young people's history is sorely lacking nowadays. But of all the issues currently out there for young people, even if they know of this history, this isn't the top concern on their list.
I only say this in interest of full disclosure, because i can already tell you that in the coming months we are going to hear every little detail of Romney's past, every penny he's ever made or spent, every business he has shut down and every person affected by his Bain Capital ventures. Just like we've already heard all of the details of the personal life of Newt Gingrich (vomit) as well as Mack Daddy Cain's purported extramarital affairs and indecent proposals.
And if by some extraordinary turn of events Romney isn't the GOP nominee and one of the wingnuts is (Santorum, for example), prepare to hear about how much he hates gays and how he has a secret God-given agenda to seek and rebuke this "unholy lifestyle".
Fair enough. I agree, if we're going to delve into one politician's past, we should do it with all of them. But I think, too, we should also be more rational in what we decide to pull out from their past. If it has ties to their political views past or present, if it involves their business dealings and the money that funds their campaigns, stuff like that, bring it all out there.
But if a candidate smoked pot when he was in college...eh. Not exactly a bombshell news story. More like a, "No duh, who didn't?" story.
I'm not a Romney supporter, but I'd definitely prefer he be the nominee, because the others are just...insane, for one thing, and I don't want to have to hear them talk and spew nonsense for the next year (and even though I logically know they have nearly no chance of winning, there's always going to be that part of me that worries, "Yeah, but...what if...?").
Second, if Romney is indeed going to be genuine competition against Obama, good. If that means that gets Obama to fight back more and get tougher on the stuff he really wants to do, to prove to people why he deserves a second term, I'm all for that.
(Plus, given how many Republicans are so deadset on anyone BUT Romney, watching them have to try and praise him and support him for the next year while squirming will be sort of a guilty pleasure of mine
)
DITTO
It's nice to be in agreement on some things
.