NBVegita

Hey bolt please give me a source on that one.

The only problem I have with that para, is that a decent life to me might not be a decent life to you. I might consider a decent life having all of the essentials (just food, water, power, home, small disposable income and a car (not essential)) You might consider a decent life having all of the above with cable, internet and a higher disposable income. I would also have a problem with say you have a worker making 30k a year. He works very hard at it and works 40-50 hours a week. Then you have someone working 10 hours a week at McDonalds, who has the same standard of living due to welfare. I know that is a specific example, but there will be a mul!@#$%^&*ude of such cases. I also advocate that if you're on food stamps the government should be able to regulate the food you buy and monitor things like why you have food stamps if you're driving an escalade (common among illegal entrepreneurs).

I'll keep my eyes open for you, post-merger job openings are plentiful. The best part is nationalgrid does a new merger every 4-5 years. Also being a utility company they're virtually recession proof. In fact I do believe we posted record profits last year. Everyone needs power.

http://www.nationalgridus.com/aboutus/a5-1..._number=NY-2386 http://www.nationalgridus.com/aboutus/a5-1..._number=NE-2236 Are two jobs for you to apply for, plus I know that a contract company here is looking to hire Desktop Support analyst(s) which pay starting at 30k a year with full benefits. No degree or prior work in the field is required. The contract posistion isn't a dream job, but it's a foot in the door and decent pay for relatively simple work. Too bad you didn't mention this earlier, Nationalgrid just merged with Keyspan energy in NYC and they were DYING for financial analysts, which a math degree would have been more than suitable.

V for Vendetta anyone?

Yes there is a big difference between 8,000 and 8,000,000,000, but there is also a big difference when your company has to spend 100,000 or 100,000,000,000 to make that profit. The biggest problem I have with taxing simply by volume is that it discourages a company from being big, not even efficient, just big. Also on a side note it wouldn't neccesarily encourage compe!@#$%^&*ion as enron could break into dozens of smaller companies all owned by the same people, all doing the same thing. Ultimately we're trying to stop corporations from sending jobs over seas, but if we tell them that if your company is in america and you make X dollars, we're taxing 25% of that, why would they keep jobs and companies here? If I owned a large company and you tried to tax me for running my company too well, I'd look into moving my company to a different country. Now I would support giving tax breaks to companies who are as domestic as possible or increasing taxes on companies who outsource to cheap labor. I think that would benefit our job market/economy far more than taxing enron another 25%. Part of that also stems from the fact that I don't trust our government now, under McCain or Obama to take the extra money from taxing the oil companies and do something useful with it. Yet if we can set regulations that encourage more jobs to stay in America that is something that benefits the people with minimal government error/intervention.

Every single company I've ever worked for has a tuition !@#$%^&*istance program. The company I work for now pays 90% of ALL education. I could go back for my doctorate and they'll pay for it. For the military one of my poor friends went into the air force. He was soon married. They gave him $1200 a month for an off base house, $400 for food for just the two of them, $300 for cleaning supplies and other house hold expenses, plus his standard wage from the military. They completely paid for him to train as a large plane mechanic which is a career he can take away from the air force. I mean there are situations, like infantry, that are not as nice, but that is the way of life. As stated before, a severly overlooked aspect of job hunting is that you may not be able to find a good job/the job you want in your current geographical area. Another thing for consideration is that if you're working for a small company, don't expect them to provide the benefits that a large company can provide. But again we can argue situations and semantics all day and still be exactly where we are now 10 forum pages down the line.

Para, as stated everyone has to work somewhere. For the 25 year old, I ask you again, where has accountability gone in the United States? I mean we can argue select situations and semantics, but ultimately I support strict regulations on welfare, you do not.

Why because we've given them everything and told them not to work for anything? As stated in your above paragraph, there are reason why it is useful. BUT IT STILL NEEDS STRICTER REGULATIONS! I've never said to abolish welfare, and I do believe, yet again, that I've stated that multiple times. No not everyone will be rich, or even upper middle class. Not everyone can drive a brand new car. Not everyone will always be able to have brand new clothes and beautiful furniture. For the most part you can live a decent life if you work hard. Even two people working minimum wage jobs make about 25k a year combined. I'm also a proponent of not having kids unless you can support them. Yet things do happen. People get laid off. But if you've got one parent working, one not working and you're only bringing in 20k a year, you shouldn't have kids.

How so? Simultaneously as the .com bubble finally burst, 9/11 and the biggest financial/corporate scam (enron) in the history of the United States, unemployment jumped. Bush had only passed one]/i] economic policy by 2003, which was a tax break, so what else are you attributing to the spike in unemployment? Clinton's success was almost singularly based upon .com bubble. Note I say almost. You could have put just about any president in office during that period and the unemployment rate would have dropped like a rock.

Cite that please.

I do actually agree with that sever...with conditions.

what's your degree in? Sometimes to find the job you want, you need to move out of your current geographical area.

Exactly. Who says you need to have a management job to make good money? I was using management in a retail sense as an example. In most corporate companies there are between 12-25 employees under each manager. Each of those employees makes a !@#$%^&* good wage. I got my first corporate job as a computer technician with no degree. I was in college but had a job making 35k a year. All it took was a little computer know how. There are dozens of quote on quote "untrained" jobs to get you into a corporate environment. If people just work hard they can easily find a job to sustain their lives. The problem is that people don't seem to have the motivation to work hard, and expect that you will magically be promoted to Sr. VP after 2 years with a company.

The problem with that is it is completely anti-capitalism. Which the U.S. still claims to support. If you tax based on sheer volume then you will simply have more larger companies who remain smaller and break into seperate companies to avoid taxation. Ultimately you're stating that we should punish the business for being a big business? We should punish industry for doing a high volume of business, thus giving them a high volume of profit? The sheer concept of taxing by volume is rediculous to me. Under that pretense a company making a 25% profit totalling 5 billion dollars could actually make more profit than a company who makes 7 billion in profit at 7% profit margin. The reason why we use statistics is because a company making 100 billion who only nets 10 billion in profit is far less profitable than a company who makes 50 billion and nets 8 billion in profit. Yes they might have made record profits (sheer volume) but I bet you they spent record money (sheer volume) also.

Why does the sheer volume make a difference? How about we tax Wal-mart, they made nearly 1.5 times what Exxon Mobile made. Or general motors...they made more. Ford, GE and citigroup were right on Exxon's tail, how about we go after them for windfall profits? The reason why people are mad at the oil companies is simply convenience. The media created a mob that was hungry for blood anyway and has pointed them at the easiest target. The oil companies actually have very little control over the price of gas, yet we act as if they could cut the price of gas in half tomorrow. Personally I'd rather see the mortgage rates universally drop 1% than see gas drop $1.00 a gallon. And as for investments, as of 07" Chevron was investing just over $300,000,000 a year into alternate energy sources. As of 03" they only made 1.17 billion dollars in profit. So that means they're investing over 25% (give or take) of their "windfall" profit into alternate energy, what do you think the government would do with that money? I know Exxon has been lax on the investment in renewable energy.

Well if you're 25, single with 2 or 3 kids and no education, you made some pretty bad life choices. So now I'm supposed to pay for the fact that you were lazy and couldn't keep your legs shut? Really now, if you put yourself in that position, I shouldn't have to pay for your mistakes. Why do you always try to tell people that it's ok if you screw your life up, we'll take care of you. Where the !@#$%^&* has accountability gone in the U.S.? Oh yeah I guess that was ruled politically incorrect. Also keep this in mind, someone has to run that gas station. Someone has to flip the burgers you love to eat. Someone has to stock the shelves at your grocery store. Someone has to make the manure that the farmers use. I know its a hard concept. Who says you have to quit your job to find a new one? If your manager is being unjust, well contact human resources. Either way, unless you get fired, search for a new job while you work your current one. It's always easier to find a job when you already have one. As for welfare, 48% of people in NYS on welfare (as of 2007) had been on welfare for over 5 years. (The federal allowance is 5 years, for your entire life, NYS foots the entire rest of the bill) Of those 48%, just over 30% have been on welfare for over 10 years. that shows me that, not even including the unjustified welfare, half of the people are abusing the welfare system. Just because our state government allows it doesn't mean it's not abuse. You seem to think that simply having a job means you get no federal help. There are DOZENS of loopholes, specially if you have kids, even having a job. A runner in our office makes 30k a year, his wife makes 20k, and he gets a state allocated food allowance for his (one) kid. That's simply Bull!@#$%^&*. After reading these, http://allfinancialmatters.com/2008/05/13/...favor-the-poor/ http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6621 please elaborate on these unfair tax cuts. Yes the rich benefited, but the poor received just as much benefit. As for a balanced budget, I'd be happy to see that in my life time, under ANY party.

Well being Ace's argument is solid enough that you can't even show reasonable doubt that it's not a fair !@#$%^&*umption, I wouldn't quite call that a giant, gaping hole. Look at this as a debate vs a formal deductive logical argument (which for the 28th time is impossible). Ace is providing strong evidence to support his claim. You have little to no evidence to support your claim. Who wins that debate? *awaits Ace to ignore everything in this post*

As I've stated before, there are situations where it's very useful, thats why I advocate strict controls, not abolition. As for applying for jobs, the sad part is, at least in NYS, all you need to do is fill out an application. It doesn't even need to be a completed application. When I managed a retail store, I'd get 15-25 welfare applicants a week. Most of the time it just provided their name and most of the time no contact information. The sad part is when the welfare board called to confirm if they applied or not, they simply asked if they handed in the application. It didn't matter to them if it was complete or not, just that they physically handed in a job application to our company. There are thousands of jobs where if you work hard you can make something of yourself. Even something as simple as retail. The turnover in management is rediculous. You need nothing more than a highschool diploma (for most of the small - medium retail chains) to become management. Management is fully benefitted and paid a decent wage. There are hundreds of jobs like this. But if you're always late, treat your job as if you're under employed or just simply don't do a good job, then you won't get any where. If it tells you something that I was a keyholder in a store at 16 (I was supposed to be 18 before getting the position) and made a manager immediately once I turned 18. I treated my !@#$%^&*ty minimum wage job like it was the best job in the world. Even when I became management at 18, they terribly underpaid me, but instead of getting bitter I busted my !@#$%^&* harder. In four years I worked from !@#$%^&*istant manager to store manager of the highest volume store in our district and over doubled my starting manager income. Another option for the poor is the military. They give you a good wage, pay for everything and give you education. Before you go to the "oh great send the poor to die", they make you take an ASVAB before joining (in the U.S.). If you score any decent score they will place you out of infantry into a posistion that would better suit your skills. Example: in highschool I placed very high on mine and they wanted to have me do ROTC to become an officer and place me into intelligence or weapons development. They wouldn't even consider making me infantry. Before you go and try to say I'm tooting my horn, I'm not asking for anyone's praise or admiration. I did what I did because I had to. If I had come from a rich family I wouldn't have had to. But being the background I come from and the experiences I've had, I know you can do it. Trust me it's not easy, but it's not as hard as people think.

Coming from a person who lived with in a community full of welfare abusers I've seen the abuse first person. As for families, my dad got laid off when I was 4, and he refused welfare. He worked 3 minimum wage jobs, 18 hours a day, just to put pasta and hotdogs on the table (cheapest food at that time). I worked my way through college on a retail management job where as stated prior I ate ramen twice a day. No I don't enjoy that, but I also don't evny the people who are born into money. I find it incredibly encouraging that I now make more money than both my father and my fiance's put together. All it took was hard work and determination. Never did I stand anywhere with my hand out. Never did I ask and or expect anyone to offer me help. Nor was I ever offered said help. What has the world come to where we're supposed to reward a lack of work ethic? I support lowing tuition costs for middle and lower class student, offering more scholarships and federal aid. I support giving people opportunity. I don't support supporting people. I don't see how stricter regulations on welfare makes it harder for the lower class? I think all governments, state and federal should be held to the mandate of 5 years maximum for welfare. (Example, NYS picks up where the federal government leaves off after 5 years and for an indefinate period of time). I have a problem when you're too lazy to get a job, or too proud to say shovel manure, so that now I have to support you. Tell me how its so hard to get ahead in America? If you go to school, do your homework the federal government will pay for at least a community college. As long as your grades were not terrible you may even get a scholarship. Even if you have to get a job to support your college, once you have your degree you are golden. Or if you're not book smart, do a trade. Mechanics make great money. Not a glorious 9-5 job, but it's a good days wage.

Are you insane? Exxon posted a record high profit margin in the first quarter at 10%! As for companies? Yet again are you insane? As early as the first quarter of 08" google posted a profit margin of 25%. Spoiler! --Click here to view--Oil company profits: A perspective Earnings, Revenues, Profits (Billions) for selected companies, recent quarter, 2005 Source: Bloomberg News, reported in AAPG Explorer Dec. 2005 Company Net Profit Revenue Profit Margin Citigroup (banking) $7.1 $21.5 33% Microsoft $3.1 $9.7 32% Coca-Cola $1.3 $6.0 21% Procter & Gamble $2.0 $14.8 14% General Electric $4.7 $41.6 11% ExxonMobil $9.9 $92.6 11% ConocoPhillips $3.8 $48.7 8% IBM $1.5 $21.5 7% Chevron $3.6 $51.1 7% Wal-Mart $2.8 $76.8 4% Oil industry average profit margin is about 8.2%; (3rd Q. '05) for all US industry, the average is about 6.8%. Profits in the oil industry were easily outpaced by those of the Pharmaceuticals, Banks, Household Products, Software, Telecommunications, Semiconductors, Consumer Services, and Food, Beverage and Tobacco sect lol? Yes blame president Bush for a large sum of Americans taking unsecured flexible rate and or interest only mortgages. As for ins!@#$%^&*utions like Harvard, they don't deserve a free ride on an income/endowment of 34.9 billion dollars. I do. Simply because you are an educational facility shouldn't allow you to dodge taxes while still charging very high tuition costs. !@#$%^&* I would even support making Harvard free, instead of taxing their exuberant income, being they only bring in about 300 million from tuition anyway. I propose taxing bigger companies who's profits are indeed excess, not companies who just make a lot of sheer dollars.

I do concede that my viewpoints on this matter are very strong because I worked from a low class family into a strong middle class standing, upper middle class when you combine my fiance and I. When I was 18 and I moved out I ate ramen twice a day because I couldn't afford anything else. Yet I kept working and fighting to improve my quality of life. Which gives me a really bitter taste when I see the money that I had to bust my !@#$%^&* to get, being handed off to the lazy sob's abusing it. I do agree that welfare is a good thing for the people who honestly need a little help to get back on their feet. But coming from a low income area, I've seen the ultimate abuse of welfare and how rediculously easy it is to abuse the system (at least in NY state) I've only met a handful of people in my life who actually deserve the welfare they're getting. As stated not that I don't see the need for strictly regulated welfare, but if you've got a broken, abused system in place already, shouldn't you focus on fixing and limiting the abuse before you expand it further?

Do you realize that the oil companies make UNDER the national average for profit margin by a company? (at least as of February which is the last time I looked it up) Tax your harvards, or !@#$%^&* even your banks that make up to near 3 times the national average for profit margins. If a company brought in $100,000 in revenue, and had a profit of $8,000 you wouldn't call that excessive. So why if a company brings in $100,000,000,000 is $8,000,000,000 excessive? I say go after the banks first. Just imagine what effect dropping your mortgage rate by even 1% would have.

Hey para I was saying Ironically about him being a classic liberal is because modern liberals differ much from classical liberals. Also I'm not opposed to offering health care under strict regulations to low-income families. But I can't stand to see welfare abused, which is becoming an epidemic, at least in NYS. Coming from someone who worked out of the lower class, they are not taxed that much. I do support raising taxes SOME on the rich, but a program as expansive as Uni Health would raise taxes on everyone. And as stated before government regulated health care is not as good as private health care. So if you want good coverage for your family, you will have to pay more. Not saying Uni health care would be terrible, but I've got family in Canada who drive all the way into the U.S. and pay for U.S. health care because of the difference in quality. Maybe that is an isolated case, but it doesn't give me the warm fuzzies. As for the fryer, unfortunately everyone isn't born with a golden s!@#$%^&* in their mouths. I guarantee that if you polled the majority of americans they've worked !@#$%^&*ty jobs just to pay the rent and put food on the table. But then people complain that the immigrants are taking the jobs and the unemployment rate is so high simply because it's easier, and more profitable to be unemployed (at least in NYS) that to be employed in most of lower class situations. Agreed, except I don't support modern conservatism or liberalism.

That also takes no consideration into the .com bubble burst, Enron or the housing market crash. As sever points out above, for just about every argument there is a statistic you can find to support it.