Search results

Mr. Brains, The only reason Europe has not had to invest in a strong military and therfore been able to invest in social care is because they have ben leeching off of the US. After all, why build a strong military when they can use the US to do it for them. If it wasn't for the big stick...

If you go by news statements coming from the EU the answer for all intents and purposes is yes.

A proportional response does nothing to resolve or end the conflict. One side or the other must deliver a greatly disproportionate response to end an armed conflict. When things deteriorate to the current state of affairs it is all about who is going make the other side cry uncle first.

That is an excellent, and for the most part true point. In general it should hold true, however we are just humans with all of the flaws that are inherent to humanity. The real problem arises when two different cultures are competing for the same thing. In this case it is several things...

I disagree. We should not take any family considerations into account. If a person cannot support a family then they should not have a family. I know that this is easier said than done, but at some point in time you have got to make people take responsibility for themselves and their actions...

I don't get it. The world allows these fuck sticks to hide amongst women and children and use them a human shields. They stir up shit and then go hide behind children so that they will not be retaliated against. When someone finally does strike back it is inevitable that some women and...

I intentionally did not mention that. Give me a good reason why a persons compensation from an employer should be based on the number of family members he or she has to support?

They are basically legalized crooks.

$9,800 is definitely below survival rate for most major cities, especially if you have a family. But also remember at $9,800 or below you get a lot of benefits from the government that lowers your cost of living. TANF, Food Stamps, free medical, etc. It is impossible to raise a family at...

If you are poverty level you hardly pay taxes in the first place. You pay zero income tax and FICA is only 7.5%. Based on this your gross hourly wage should be $5.29. Is an increase of $0.14 enough?

Any of ya'll ever hear of a Carthaginian peace? Sad to say anything short of that and the problem will never be resolved.

It is amazaing how wrong your are. Your bias against the US is really clouding your vision. Like I said, Brazil has done what in space?

Then what measuring stick should be used to set minimum wage if not the federal poverty levels as you previously suggested?

Federal poverty level is $9,800/yr. If a person works 50 weeks per year at 40hr/s a week their hourly wage is $4.90. So from this I would assume that you are for lowering the minimum wage instead of increasing it? I could buy in to a minimum wage that is tied to the federal poverty level...

Are you saying that the minimum wage should be set so that a person working full time (i.e. 40-hrs a week) will be paid an hourly rate that will allow them to be at or above the poverty threshold?

I don't recall this being answered in quantifiable terms. Perhaps you could point me to where this is?

How do you propose that the minum wage should be set? What standard of living should a person be entitled to just because they have a job? This is the part that I am getting hung up on.

And you assume that everyone is doing the very best that they can. That is a false assumption.

I am not from that time but how were the mine employees forced to live in company housing and forced to shop at the company store? How were they forced to work in the mines in the first place?

Please explain to me why the government (or anyone for that matter) should be in the business of helping those who do not help themselves with providing a certain standard of living? I am not trying to be sarcastic or offensive or start a flame war. I would like a serious attempt to explain...