Republican choice?

[executioner]

Perry has never been good debater, and I think we all should remember Reagan's flubs in his debates in 1980. I don't think he is done and mainly because everyone else is just so boring. Romney can't get the nod because the Tea Party dislikes him almost as much as Obama. I think it will come down to Newt and Perry.

[executioner]

I went with Reagan because his popularity was high and even a lot Dems and international society was one of our best presidents of all time; Bush doesn't have that stature.

[Jan]

The most shocking thing was that most of these 6% are actually working and they earn (with a full time job) less than 50% of the minimum wage. There is something completely wrong about a system where wealthy people who own businesses can dictate employees at McDonald's and prevent them from forming a union, so as a result they can't stand up for their own rights and will never earn more than a lowsy 50% of the minimum wage. So much for the American dream, when it's killed in the bud by the $$ of the mighty.

This doesn't sound accurate. I don't know how an employer could be allowed to pay less than 50% of minimum. Tipped employees can be paid less than minimum, but what I've heard is that the employer must make up the difference if their salary + tips is less than minimum.

[gman]

The most shocking thing was that most of these 6% are actually working and they earn (with a full time job) less than 50% of the minimum wage. There is something completely wrong about a system where wealthy people who own businesses can dictate employees at McDonald's and prevent them from forming a union, so as a result they can't stand up for their own rights and will never earn more than a lowsy 50% of the minimum wage. So much for the American dream, when it's killed in the bud by the $$ of the mighty.

This doesn't sound accurate. I don't know how an employer could be allowed to pay less than 50% of minimum. Tipped employees can be paid less than minimum, but what I've heard is that the employer must make up the difference if their salary + tips is less than minimum.

Yeah, the answer here is that if someone working at Mcdonald's isn't making enough money doing the job they are doing, they should work hard to advance to a better job with the company, or they should look elsewhere for a job that pays more. Perhaps get some additional skills, or look for an employer that offers education assistance. Or, shudder to think, work a second job. Arbitrarily paying someone more for the same gig, and making me pay more for my hamburger is not the answer.
The American dream is a guaranteed opportunity to be whatever you want to be and go as far as you want to go. Politicians have tried to turn the American Dream into a guaranteed outcome, or a right to this, that, or the other without effort on your part. No thank you, keep the change.

[brent]

No, employers are not required to pay anything over the established minimum wage for tipped employees. If someone wants to do that, then great.

IF someone is not making minimum with tips, them the person is not good at their job, or they are in the wrong place/market. It is possible. I used to have people working as servers for me, back in the Tony Roma's management days (I was between tours, ok? Had to feed the kids ) who would make my weekly salary in two days, working two rushes (lunch and dinner). When some of the best were asked to be promoted, they declined and sited that they would be taking a pay cut and would have to work more hours. This is common. People with the ability to shmooze and ham it up make good money.

If someone tells me that the government needs to up the minimum wage so people can make more money at McD's, I say, "Your NUTS". Has anyone seen the prices at McDs?! They are no longer fast, and they are no longer cheap. Forget that. If someone wants to make more money, work harder and smarter. Don't go to work in an industry that by design employs the less than stellar employees and caps income. Do a market study, find out who pays the kind of money you need to exist in your market, and then go get that job. It really is that simple. So don't make the government demand employers that do not pay much to pay more. It only causes everyone to wait longer and pay more for crappy food that will not mold if you leave it in the garage for three months. (It is true. Try it.) There are too many illegal and legal immigrants coming to this country with not a pot to wiz in, and they are working hard, starting businesses, buying cars, homes, etc. If they can do it, you can do it.

[Rocksoup]

Sounds like a lot of work Brent. Wouldn't it be much easier to demand that the government take it from the rich to give it to me? Leave all this Capitalism business to the Micheal Moore's of the world who are motivated enough to compete in the market place.
Wait a minute....that last part almost doesn't make sence.....Micheal Moore making millions from selling a product to the public about the evils of capitalism. What kind of bizzaro world do we live in where points like this can be so easily made?

[separateunion]

The American dream is a guaranteed opportunity to be whatever you want to be and go as far as you want to go.

Do a market study, find out who pays the kind of money you need to exist in your market, and then go get that job. It really is that simple.

I was doing my best to avoid this place, but I felt for the sake of our board members who don't live in the US, I'd point out, as a US citizen, that these two statements are far too simplistic and not a fair assessment of how the economy and job market really are in the US. The American dream is a lie and you can't just go get whatever job you want. There are far too many factors for it to be that simple. I know from personal experience that being a hard worker and pursuing a career in a well paying job doesn't always pan out. Family, connections, wealth, power, luck, race, gender, and a whole plethora of other factors play a very unfair role in the process.

[Dan]

I was doing my best to avoid this place, but I felt for the sake of our board members who don't live in the US, I'd point out, as a US citizen, that these two statements are far too simplistic and not a fair assessment of how the economy and job market really are in the US. The American dream is a lie and you can't just go get whatever job you want. There are far too many factors for it to be that simple. I know from personal experience that being a hard worker and pursuing a career in a well paying job doesn't always pan out. Family, connections, wealth, power, luck, race, gender, and a whole plethora of other factors play a very unfair role in the process.

Welcome back.

As I am a US import. Can someone tell me did the American dream ever exist?

[gman]

The American dream still exists. It is a guaranteed opportunity. I didn't say it was a guaranteed outcome. You might work at it most of your life. You might have to move or make sacrifice. But, like the scripture says, be content in all things.

[brent]

So, if a person is smart, works hard, uses his gifts and abilities given by God, the person cannot be content? Are you saying that a content person is one who does not work hard and smart? If no one works and earns money, how will the person be able to pay for the work of God? How can the person bless others? Being content is taken out of context and misapplied here.

The American dream is different things to different people. Immigrants from other countries may come here to pursue some wealth. Even our minimum wage workers are in the top 10% of the WORLDS wage earners. So, it's relative. The bible says to be content in all things, meaning not to let the circumstances dictate your joy. Circumstances may affect happiness, which is different than joy. This is natural. But the bible is clear that man should work, and it praises God. The bible is clear that man is to provide for his family. Jesus never condemns people for owning a house, for having wealth, for having food, for being educated, for having a job/skill. In fact, the bible is replete with examples of God using those people and their resources.

Not everyone in the USA is greedy just like not everyone in Canada is a stupid toothless hockey player.

[CatNamedManny]

The American dream still exists. It is a guaranteed opportunity. I didn't say it was a guaranteed outcome. You might work at it most of your life. You might have to move or make sacrifice. But, like the scripture says, be content in all things.

Your faith in the guaranteed opportunity is admirable but unfortunately misplaced. Opportunity in America is not equal for everyone.

Capitalism is the best economic system out there, but it does not provide equality of opportunity. Without any outside force stepping in to correct its excesses, it creates increasing inequality in which those fortunate enough to be born in the right circumstances accumulate increasing amounts of wealth, and that ultimately leads to damaging, dangerous economic imbalances. Is it any surprise that wealth and income inequality have increased over the past 30 years as government regulation has lessened and taxes on the wealthy have been lowered? Is it any surprise that overall economic growth has slowed to the point that it has been stagnant since George W. Bush became president?

As I said in the other thread, the nations that have the best ability for their citizens to move up and have economies that best weathered the economic crisis/worldwide recession are the countries with strong, active governments ready to fix the imbalances caused by an unchecked free market.

In America, we are too fond of our Puritan-Calvinist roots, which were premised in part on the fiction that money was an evidence of God's blessing. We still struggle with this idea, believing those who are poor or need some help to get out of poverty are lazy, or that it's their fault they remain poor. There is no evidence God supports this idea; in fact, after some investigation, the Preacher of Ecclesiastes formed exactly the opposite opinion:

I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.

[gman]

Sorry, those who are poor need help. Those who are in poverty, not as big Gov't defines it, need help. Lazy people are lazy. Put down the Doritos and the remote control and go to work.

[executioner]

There is work out there you just have to be willing. In December of 2010 my dept was done away with at my job and I became unemployed and I found it very easy to not only draw unemployment, also food stamps and free healthcare. After looking for a job we decided to start our own business which is a residential and commercial cleaning service; with God's Blessing we have been overwhelmed with work and have had to hire a few people. I've started this with nothing but we've worked hard and gotten all our clients by word of mouth or going door to door with business cards. I truly believe God has blessed us because of this.

The governmental programs I've listed above are way too easy to get approved for, and over half if not more are in for the long term.
35% of all welfare people are under the age of 45 and have been on it longer than 5 yrs, All these programs make a point that this just temp funding to get you back on your feet, but the government pushes it long term(firsthand knowledge). I accepted funding for about 6 weeks then told them I'm in a position to where I know longer need assistance, but at least once a week I receive info showing me how easy it is to get assistance. If this is the case then why would anyone with no work or moral ethic be wanting to work. The assistance is being pushed down the throats of people.

[brent]

My wife was told that she had a cancerous tumor on her hip. Insurance said she was covered for a scan and some other testing. We got approval, booked the doctors, did the testing, then the insurance company said, "Up yours, we are not paying for it." Well, it was something like that. We were then counseled by the business manager, and told that if my wife were to divorce me, all of her cancer operations and related expenses would be covered by the state, AND they would give her food stamps and our kids insurance on the house. We were shocked. I knew this thing went on. We had no idea that people it was being sold by the healthcare system. Why shouldn't they? They get to run up the tab and get for sure money. We told them that we would just pay it out of our pocket and they could keep the sales pitch. We were above that. 50% of the country SUCKS, takes the hand-outs, becomes a slave, and is NOT above that. The very people crying for freedom are the first willing to put their hands and feet in shackles. Sad they can't see wound for the blood.

[CatNamedManny]

There is work out there you just have to be willing. In December of 2010 my dept was done away with at my job and I became unemployed and I found it very easy to not only draw unemployment, also food stamps and free healthcare. ...

The governmental programs I've listed above are way too easy to get approved for, and over half if not more are in for the long term. 35% of all welfare people are under the age of 45 and have been on it longer than 5 yrs,

Anecdotal evidence makes for compelling stories, but I can't refute it, except with more stories that you would then not be able to refute, except with more stories, etc., So let me just say this totally non-scientific thing: I, too, have been fortunate in this economy to not only keep my job, but move to new jobs twice, each time increasing my salary. My family and I are in a much better situation now than we were at the beginning of the recession, when my job was cutting salary and benefits. But I don't see myself as representative of the norm, by any means. There are still five unemployed people for every open job in this country, and the courage it takes to do as you did and start your business is extraordinary. What would have happened if you had, God forbid, gotten in a car wreck or contracted a horrible disease? Many people with the mental capacity and business smarts to do what you did choose not to because they don't feel they can afford to put their family at risk without health insurance. So they stay in poverty because being poor and working a lousy job with benefits is better than trying to make their situation better only to end up broke with no insurance and a sick kid.

Now, I feel we need to put some of these programs in perspective. You mention specifically, "unemployment, also food stamps and free healthcare," by which I assume you mean unemployment benefits, SNAP (food stamps) and Medicaid, the health-insurance program for the poor.

First, food stamps:

* 75 percent of all SNAP recipients are families with children. A third are elderly or disabled.
* Those eligible for SNAP funds must be at or below 130 percent of the poverty line ($23,800 income for a family of three) with assets below $2-3,000, depending on the makeup of the family.
* During normal times, unemployed childless adults are limited to three months of benefits, though that's been suspended in most states because of the recession.
* SNAP recipients receive, on average, $4.46 per day for each family member, though this varies according to need (households with less money receive more benefits).
* 40 percent of those receiving food stamps have income less than half of the poverty line ($9,155 for a family of three).
* The federal government in FY09 spent $56 billion on SNAP, or 1.6 percent of all government spending that year.
[Source for all of the above: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2226]

Second, unemployment benefits:

* The average recipient of unemployment benefits receives $300 per week ($15,600 per year), though this varies based on the worker's previous wage. $300 per week is the equivalent of working full-time for the minimum wage.
* Unemployment benefits replace on average 47 percent of a worker's previous earnings. No state replaces more than 57 percent of a worker's previous earnings.
* Unemployment benefits are usually funded by states, though in cases of chronic unemployment, the federal government provides funds for extensions.
[Source for the above: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1466]
* There are 4.2 job seekers for every open position in America. (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/11/ ... b-opening/)
* In 2010, at the height of the unemployment crisis, the federal government was expected to spend more than $150 billion on unemployment benefits, which by my quick math, amounts to less than 5 percent of that year's total federal spending. (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/b ... udget-woes)
* Oh, and only 48 percent of the nation's unemployed receive unemployment benefits, mostly because they've been unemployed for longer than the maximum 99 weeks. Strangely, no longer receiving benefits has not helped them find a job any easier, perhaps because of the aforementioned 4.2 unemployed people for every job opening.
* Finally, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that every $1 the government spends on unemployment benefits translates into $1.90 in economic impact, as those funds are immediately spent and multiply throughout the economy. (http://news.yahoo.com/most-unemployed-n ... 36370.html)
I also recommend this defense of extending unemployment benefits given the nearly unprecedented nature of the economic crisis we endured/are enduring: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3320.

Finally, Medicaid:

Here is the breakdown of who exactly receives Medicaid:
* Children: 49 percent
* Adults: 26 percent
* Disabled: 16 percent
* Elderly: 9 percent
My amazing powers of addition tell me that 74 percent of Medicaid recipients are children, disabled or elderly.

Here is the breakdown of how Medicaid money is spent:
* Disabled: 45 percent
* Elderly: 21 percent
* Children: 20 percent
* Adults: 14 percent
That's 86 percent of Medicaid funds spent on children, the disabled and the elderly.

* In 2008, Medicaid cost the federal government about $204 billion. On average, that's about 57 percent of all Medicaid costs, with states covering the rest.
[Source for above: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2223]
So my question is, considering our mandate in Matthew 25 to care for the "least of these," would the American church be willing to cover the $175 billion it costs to provide health insurance to this country's needy children, elderly and disabled?

You also throw out a statistic about welfare recipients. I assume you're referring to TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), which was created in the welfare reform legislation of 1996.

* TANF is a state-administered block grant, so any problems you might have with how it's run are actually with the particular state in which you live, not with the federal government.
* Federal law requires that half of a state's TANF families be working at least 30 hours per week (20 hours if single with young children).
* Federal law requires that no family with an adult recipient can receive TANF funds for more than 60 months, consecutive or otherwise. These time limits can be extended for no more than 20 percent of the state's caseload.
* States can, of course, use their own money to extend TANF cases as long as they wish.
* The amount of money provided by the federal government in TANF funds to the states has not changed since 1996, resulting in a 28 percent real-dollar reduction in funding despite the increased need for help caused by a decade of stagnant growth and a calamitous recession. A series of emergency funds totaling $7 billion have been depleted during this recession.
[Source for above: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=936]

Given those requirements, I find it very difficult to believe 35 percent of all TANF recipients have been on it for more than five years, given that equals the 60-month nonconsecutive time limit, which can only be extended with federal money for just 20 percent of any given state's caseload. So the number cannot be any more than 20 percent from a federal perspective, and it seems unlikely, given the budget crunches most states are experiencing, that they are reserving much money to extend those cases either.

I'll withhold much comment to give you plenty of time to digest all that data, but it looks to me like the stereotypes about who actually receives these programs and for how long simply don't have much foundation in reality. They are caricatures that get told and retold because they confirm presuppositions, but they don't shed much light on who actually receives support from the safety net.