Artful Dodger: Support as in making up the wages to a liveable wage because the companies will not pay enough. Which is why low income families need support from the government via food stamps and tax credits. You may object to the word "support" but that is what the government is having to do.

... I've explained this several times, it is not hard to understand. It's why the UK gov introduced a minimum wage to stop companies exploiting workers just to maximise profits and dividends to stock holders. Not just 'blue collar' but as I've experienced, 'white collar' as well. Because of minimum wage law.. the amount of people needing support just so they can afford to live why working has decreased.

"It's not the job of the government to make up the difference."

Then companies need to pay a fair wage that can be lived on then. And not as experienced here do everything they can to not pay a living wage. If not, then you just end up with one of your pet hates... illegal immigrants doing the work.

Now... Dan.. can you stay on these points?

Artful Dodger:

> Yeah, like the unions in Detroit that fought for a fair wage and managed to unemploy all the workers when the factories shut down. Bleeding the complain dry. That's the ticket.

Was it the unions? No offense but that is a very dim view of what happened. I wonder if it was because the companies were greedy and decided to move manufacturing to countries where they pay workers a pittance. I wonder how many jobs went to China and the like. Here is one easy way to get around paying the minimum wage. Let's move all the factories to Third World countries. Over there workers get paid peanuts. The average American worker in the auto industry is getting paid $38 per hour. In China they pay $0.17 per hour. It takes no genius to see why Detroit went bust. Not only did they get around the union complaints, they also got around the minimum wage, fired a lot of qualified workers, and made more money by manufacturing cheaper. But then, I am sure you knew that.

Artful Dodger: LOL

Vikings: That's probably it. And I wouldn't put it past the unions to issue complaints for the kids not using union labor.

Artful Dodger: I see lemon-aid stands all the time,three in the last day. One radio station here has a contest every year and advertises a lemon-aid stand for the winner, comps the lemon-aid and cups, and matches the take for the kids for a college fund.
most of the time I hear the harassed ones are in liberal towns with high taxes or neighborhood associations with by laws

Bernice: It used to be that having a lemonaid stand was something normal in the US. Kids could earn a few dollars. It should be no big deal. But the government likes to stick its nose into everything. On one level I understand it but where does all this government intrusion stop? It's gone too far.

Vikings: True. They were just trying to make a point but I don't think things like that are as effective as local inititives.

Of course one could make an argument that even an innocent lemonaid stand could pose a health risk. After all, it's a very different world from even 20 years ago. And 40 years ago, when I was a young kid, we could go anywhere in the neighborhood and even to the lake a few miles away and mom never worried. Today, you have to keep your eyes glued to your kids there are so many sicko's out there.

rod03801: I did mention community but of course family should be on the list too. We need to look out for our own. I help my kids out a lot. I pay for special things like dance lessons and preschool costs, clotihng, you know, stuff grandparents are supposed to help with. They can't afford everything that goes into raising a family. If they were down and out, I'd do whatever it took to help them get back on their feet. My daughter and her hubby are hard workers and not lazy about their responsibilities. My son is studying to become an audioologist. When people are willing to do the hard work required in getting ahead, helping them out in the process feels good and right. ;)

Vikings: legal porno? if it was legal then it was legal, and it should be allowed to be sold....unless it had a health risk hahahah.

You wouldnt be allowed to sell lemonade in Australia like that because of the health risks...but I always thought the lemonade stands were part of the American way of life....so sad :(

Artful Dodger: I agree about shutting down kids lemonade stands in front of their own home,that is clearly wrong, but this was a public place, what if they were selling legal porno

Artful Dodger: I would say I agree with all of that. EXCEPT, I think there are many times when people could turn to their own families for help. Seems to me thats how it used to be, from what I've heard. Or local communities helping their own too.

Of course I'm mostly Libertarian and feel the federal govt should only be involved where absolutely necessary. And to me, that's limited to Defense, border control, and probably a couple other things I can't think of right now, because TV is distracting me.

Vikings: I agree that cops were just doing their jobs and I also agree that the people selling the lemonade were only interested in making a point. However, when I was little, we used to have lemonade stands all the time. Some kids still do this in their neighborhoods. But in the news there are dozens of situations where the authorities shut down little kid’s lemonade stands because the children were operating without a food permit etc. Sometimes government takes itself too seriously.

As for that lady cop, she was cute. But she was out of line. There was no need for her to put her hand in front of the camera. It goes with the job of protecting the rights of others. Which she was only there to enforce the law (the lemonaid stand clearly violated the law) she was out of line in her attempts to get the camera person to stop filming her. She should have been as concerned about the rights of the person behind the camera as she was concerned about the violation of selling goods on the Capitol grounds. The protesters got to her and she lost her cool.

" I did ask you if you thought it was OK for the government to support low wage employees via food stamps and welfare instead of the companies paying what people need to live on."

Is it "OK" for the government to subsidize people who have jobs but don't make enough money at those jobs to live on?

No. Not entirely. First, I object to the word, "support." It's not clear exactly what you mean by that.

I think it's necessary that government has SOME programs that offer "help" (different from support) for people who REALLY NEED it. If a person has a job but can't make ends meet, they need another job. It's not the job of the government to make up the difference. If the person has just fallen on hard times, the government can offer some help in the gap, but it shouldn't be a long term situation.

Where there are children in the equation, then yes, the government ought to help with some support mechanisms (again, different from support-define your terms- I mean temporary help). People need to learn personal responsibility.

In SOME cases this help will be long term. There are always situations that deem long term help necessary. And wherever children are concerned, help should always be available. It's not a kids fault that his/her parents are losers. Still, situations ought to be properly evaluated and it should never be a given that you get food stamps cuz you have hungry kids. Maybe just feed the kids and let the lazy parents go hungry.

That said, it's NOT the governments responsibility to feed starving kids. It is however the responsibility of ALL OF US. Communities ought to have MANY failsafe mechanisms in place to help feed the needy (this includes individuals, businesses, and certainly churches). Community outreach should be the front lines and the government should serve to catch those that fall between the cracks.

Lazy people who refuse to work should go hungry.

I've been on food stamps a couple of times in my life (after married with kids). We've had people buy us groceries (unsolicited) because they knew we were in need). But in the cases where I was on food stamps (due to a lay off) I NEVER collected my full allotted amount. Why? Because I didn't sit on my lazy bum and do nothing. I went out and found a job. Once while my kids were young I had THREE different jobs. I worked full time during the week and two part time jobs at night and weekends. It's MY JOB to care for MY FAMILY and not the job of any government.

The government was there to offer HELP to get me through a difficult period. But I did my part by seeking UNTIL I found a new job. And I took whatever was offered. That's how the government should operate. Offer help but expect the recipient to do their part. Help should have an ending period.

Bernice: Actually that had nothing to do with free enterprise, that was a blatant attempt to get arrested and make a point, they had every right to set up a stand LEGALLY and make as much as they could, unfortunately their point was apples and oranges, citing Martin Luther King as an example, If they wanted to make public speeches like King that would have been alright, the only thing that the police did wrong may have been the lady cops pushing the camera, but that is questionable as it is hard to tell from the camera angle how close the camera was to being in her face (interfering with police business).
You will notice that the police did first ask them to stop or to give it away, so they tried

(V):

Artful Dodger: I don't think you can answer.. just play games as you have. When you prove you can answer.. I'll ask a question... maybe next time I'll get an answer.. but I doubt it.

Dropper as in pipette? I used them in chemistry lessons.

(V): The few, the proud, the brave. And we can spot a dropper when we see one.

Now if you promise to play nice, I'll answer your out of context question.

Artful Dodger: many of a few is still a few.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aboZctrHfK8 to help you understand.

(V): Nope. It's a pattern that you show. And I'm one of MANY you have said this about your participation here. Denial won't change the fact.

Now that that's settled, I will answer your question providing there are no more s....

Artful Dodger: I didn't. You did... must be your alien genes.

(V): Maybe if you actually participated honestly in the discussion instead of always attempting to be so clever and trying to spin the conversation you're way. You seem to have a penchant for consistently derailing discussions using an unending supply of red herrings.

I've come to realize you must really think you're that character "V" ! But what do I know. I'm just a turtle.

(V): Your phone may ring at any moment. Everyone has your number.

Artful Dodger: Including the pan dimensional beings?

I guess the guide will need updating yet again!!

(V): yes, plus all alien life forms

... everyone? all 7 billion people on the planet??

(V): Oh I don't think so. I think the point is clear to everyone but you.

Sorry... the point has been lost.

(V): So you're saying that you don't understand the joke?

It must be that interpretation problem.. it looked like your usual con speak

(V): I'll be glad to answer that question. But first, where did that question come from? I mean, you posted it in response to something I posted and I'm not seeing a logical connection. I posted a joke.

It was a JOKE.

a JOKE!

A joke is a phrase or a paragraph with a humorous twist. It can be in many different forms, such as a question or short story. To achieve this end, jokes may employ irony, sarcasm, word play and other devices. Jokes may have a punchline that will end the sentence to make it humorous.

A practical joke or prank differs from a spoken one in that the major component of the humour is physical rather than verbal (for example placing salt in the sugar bowl).


Purpose

Jokes are typically for the entertainment of friends and onlookers. The desired response is generally laughter; when this does not happen the joke is said to have "fallen flat" or "bombed". However, jokes have other purposes and functions, common to comedy/humour/satire in general.




So I'm just trying to figure out how you came away with the question when CLEARLY what I posted was ONLY ment to be a joke.


a joke


Did you not get it? I can explain further if that will help.

Artful Dodger: I did ask you if you thought it was ok for the government to support low wage employees via food stamps and welfare instead of the companies paying what people need to live on.

But I guess, if US firms did... more jobs would go abroad.

What do you think?

....... Politicians!!

Vikings: ..... that does not sound right. It sounds rude!!

(V): What case? You made a case? A basket case maybe.

You made no legitimate point. But you do win the obfuscation award!

(V): apparently you forgot that you lost the debate about anybody being able to make more money if they want you,

Artful Dodger: I rest my case.

"You may as well have asked me for my thoughts on alien space beings."

With the Aliens listening in on your brain via the implants...

(V): A fair point? From what discussion? Who were you talking to about that matter? You may as well have asked me for my thoughts on alien space beings. That would have followed just as nicely.

Artful Dodger: You did... maybe a handful of bullet ants??

I stated a fair point about the government subsidising American businesses at the tax payers expense, yet you want all welfare and food stamps gone.

If so, then the subsidies in terms of support to the low waged has to end as well.

How?

(V): You had a case? You tried to pull a rabbit out of a hat and came up with a skunk.

I rest my case.

"I think it's a little too early yet for the president to be attacked by a rabbit," cautioned a veteran Chicago Democrat wise in the ways of Obama. "But it's close. Real close."

Anyone who thinks Obama is safe from a rabbit attack has forgotten what happened to President Jimmy Carter In 1979. Carter was attacked by a swimming rabbit, and the subsequent "Killer Rabbit" stories helped destroy his presidency. It led to the election of Republican Ronald Reagan in a landslide and an unprecedented economic revival.
an unprecedented economic revival.
an unprecedented economic revival.
an unprecedented economic revival.
an unprecedented economic revival.
an unprecedented economic revival.
an unprecedented economic revival.
an unprecedented economic revival.
an unprecedented economic revival.
an unprecedented economic revival.
an unprecedented economic revival.


There are eerie similarities. Like Obama, Carter was at that point where he was constantly viewed as weak and ineffectual. His fellow Democrats had lost patience with him. Liberal writers who once fawned on him had turned against him.

And like Obama, Carter foolishly left the White House for a "vacation." Carter went home to Georgia for some fishing. Once his canoe hit the water of a pond, a terrible thing happened. A rabbit swam near with anger in its eyes.

(V): You had a point? Really? From what? What I posted was tongue-in-cheek. Besides, you're saying that minimum wage is a fair wage.

Artful Dodger: skipping the point AgAiN ......

So, you are happy for companies to pay low wages and for the government to pick up the tab via food stamps and tax credits?

Yes or no?

(V): Yeah, like the unions in Detroit that fought for a fair wage and managed to unemploy all the workers when the factories shut down. Bleeding the complain dry. That's the ticket.