Presidential candidate Edwards is at least looking into the issue of poverty. I don't think that the fact that he has a lot of money or spends $400 of his own money on a haircut means that he's not concerned about the lower classes. It *might* mean he can't spend money very well if he couldn't find a better bargain, but anyway...
He's going to various places in the country and lamenting that poor people have things hard. The solution MUST be some sort of government intervention. You knew this was coming, right?
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/196242.aspx
So, the minimum wage should be raised to over $9 an HOUR. OK, now that might look really GREAT on the surface if you are someone trying to make it by on minimum wage. But if you really think about the economic impact on the whole country, you'll see it's a very bad idea. Imagine yourself busting your rear end for four years to go to college. You leave with over $100,000 in debt. (That's a conservative estimate!) Imagine yourself now getting $11 an hour at your first job, if you are lucky enough to find a job in your area of expertise. When you do the math (four years' wages lost AND debt, etc.), the person who bothered to go to college loses big-time.
Now imagine that you're an employer. You can legally hire poor people for over $9 an hour. Be realistic. Poor citizens, who often have sick kids, transportation problems and bad grammar, aren't really worth hiring for $9 an hour. It sounds cold, but you're not running a charity when you do business. You have to pay Social Security on these people as well. Hmm. How about hiring an illegal immigrant for about $4.50 an hour instead? He'll work pretty hard because he knows if he won't show up, there are 20 more out there in his situation willing to take that very job.
Interesting how these presidential candidates all seem to be promising a life free from poverty, bad educational systems, poor health care and, what else is it you want? Oh, yeah. All the troops will be home the week after the next president takes office and the world will live happily ever after. We will be friends with all Islamic countries and have lots of mutual respect and tolerance for one another.
Awww....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bringing Garbage Home
Some people up the street were throwing this table away. It was in pretty bad shape and one of the legs was off. I've glued the leg back...
-
http://www.miamiherald.com/367/story/256844.html How dare he "prefer" a Christian for President... You would think that he persona...
-
Maybe my bloggy friend Virginia has seen a six and a half-foot tall curly-top kid driving about in a grey car with Missouri license plates s... -
In one of his classes, Emperor had only a couple friends because "the rest of the people are jerks and say nasty things to me." A...
Well, and it's a system too. Just *imagine* a nice rural family in a farmhouse that does not have shoes for their children in summer, or a phone, or electricity or plumbing.
ReplyDeleteSay goodbye to the kids!
I think we all need to get re-aligned with what it means to "take care of a child." BASIC needs met and spiritual teaching.
The church has always provided, but like you said sometimes well in one instance and poorly in another. That does NOT follow that the government does a better job.
I find the idea really repugnant, particularly when I see the "income guidelines" for some of these things. We've figured our take-home pay and if we went on THAT we'd qualify the kids for free lunches at public schools... but no... we "earn too much for that" and it should go to those who "deserve" it (that don't pay taxes LOL!!). Or the state insurance policy. If we earned $2,000 less (or maybe the same seeing as how we have another kid coming) and did NOT have the "opportunity" to purchase insurance at work, we would qualify IF we leave our kids uninsured for the full six months you must be uninsured like blooming idiots.
As it is we are spending $200 weekly on copays etc. and big chunks with each hospital visit, further eating at our meager take-home pay. And we have to pay for those insurances and all kinds of fees we would not if we were more "deserving."
To my mind, someone who has been to college AND worked for almost 20 years to earn an income for his family is wayyy more "deserving" than the average welfare recipient who dresses *much* better than we do and has money left over for a $3 pack of Marlboros.
Maybe that sounds mean, but that's just how I see it right now. When I hit the lott-o I'll be more generous in my opinions (J/K because I have no money left over to feed my compulsive gambling addiction or luxury addiction or twinkie fever or... oh, whatever LOL!)
Actually I DO think Edwards is genuinely concerned about poverty, though he comes across as a hypocrite. I would never vote for him b/c his ways of "solving" this problem Jesus specifically said would NEVER be solved are a little ill-advised. And his other opinions are "wack."
Mrs. C