A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

In reading over this board and seeing that the

Posted: Feb 26, 2011

unions, combined with the recent relaxation of child labor laws, I guess working for a living will be a family affair. Who knows? Maybe it will bring families together. They can all get ready for work together. No more school since they will be closed and a thing of the past. The kiddies can work alongside Mom and Dad. The more kids, the better, since families will need all the money they can get while they're working and scratching their way over the poverty line into the upper levels of poor, since the middle class will be gone for good. Large families will probably return for this reason alone. Two-income families will be a thing of the past since it will take many more family members out there working to afford food and shelter.

The rich will be okay, though. They always are. No need to write about them in history books, as it will be necessary to write about the middle class that once was a member of the United States.

Perhaps a leader from a foreign country will see what is happening to the little "peons" in America, invade, bomb and occupy us in order to "save" us from what our government has allowed to happen to us, you know, like the way we're always invading, occupying and bombing other third world countries in order to "save" them.

What's sad is that all this is happening right under our noses, and there are many who are either unable or unwilling to see it.

I'm going to miss America and mostly I'm going to miss the chance at the American dream. It has become the American nightmare.

;

Neither political party has done much - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
to help the middle class. The only thing I agree with in your little post is that the rich will always be rich.

What is really sad is that this administration is trying its hardest to turn our country into a socialist country. If you can't or won't make a living for yourself, no big deal. We will rob from the rich to save the poor. What I find sad is that this is happening right under our noses and there are many who are either unable or unwilling to see it. Socialism has never benefited any country and it will surely wipe out the middle class as it has done in every socialist country.

I already miss the America I grew up in. As far as the American dream, that is when you come from the bottom and achieve success by your own hard work. You can't have the American dream by receiving handouts and mooching off the rich.

Well said! And I don't think people are - actually against unions as

[ In Reply To ..]
the other poster suggests, and we will never, with or without unions, see child labor again. There are federal laws against it, union or not.

It would be a non-issue if the public workers (funded by taxpayers) in a state with a budget in big trouble had just said fine...freeze where we are until things are better and we will contribute some to our own benefits to help out the rest of the residents of the state. It is a mess all over and as you say, we should be working hard shoulder to shoulder and sharing the burden instead of expecting others to carry it for us.

Again, excellent post!

About child labor laws -- - think again. sm

[ In Reply To ..]
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/27/gop-child-labor/

Try looking up FSLA. There ARE child labor laws - and that is exactly what I said.

[ In Reply To ..]
Nice try at deflection though. Until I hear the "rest of the story" as to why that man thinks child labor laws are unconstitutional, I reserve judgment (which you obviously do not). My point was, if ALL unions died TODAY, there are laws on the books that remain that would not allow child labor. I would like to think we have evolved enough as a nation that we would not ever allow the repeal of those laws, unions or not. Bottom line..there ARE layers of federal and state law against child labor on the books right now, and they will remain, unions or NOT, until they are all repealed. And if you think that is going to happen, I have a some prime swamp I would like to sell you.

However, you could get the Democrats AND the unions on board as long as the kids had to pay dues and taxes. lol.

Yes, and the Republicans want to repeal those - child labor laws. sm

[ In Reply To ..]
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/14/944565/-Now-Republicans-want-to-repeal-child-labor-laws

For the record, I wasn't trying to deflect anything, just an attempt at some civil discourse on this board.

First of all....this is ONE Republican and ONE - proposed bill, so the

[ In Reply To ..]
bill in ONE state, so the statement "Yes, the Republicans want to repeal those" is not anywhere in the neighborhood of a true statement. Second, even if the bill passed, which is a very long shot at best, the federal laws are still in place and there is not enough support to get the federal laws struck down. I doubt there is enough support in Missouri to get it done.

So, the true statement is, one Republican in Missouri wants PARTS of the law changed. Not ALL of the law and only in Missouri. The Republicans et al have not made it a plank of their platform unless I missed something and you know more than you posted.

By the way...I would research ANYTHING I read at DailyKos...they are barely hanging on to the left side of the spectrum by their fingernails. :)

So are you in favor of repeal of the law? - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Read the bill that No1joe posted. There is no repeal - of any law in it.

[ In Reply To ..]
They want to change certain aspects, and what I read (mostly to do with children in the entertainment industry) does not look like anything dire. But, point out where I said I was for "repeal" of "the law." Do you even know what "the law" is and what they are "repealing?"

And where is SAG in all this, if unions are all about fair labor practices for children?

The main focus is the statement "Republicans want to repeal child labor laws." That is a LIE. Period, end of sentence. I see ONE Republican, ONE state. If you can show where more signed on, please do so.

lol.

We already addressed this last week - no1joe

[ In Reply To ..]
Read this little tidbit from Missouri... keeping in mind that everything in brackets could be removed. Then please come back and try to defend it. Thank you.

http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/pdf-bill/intro/SB222.pdf

To no1joe: I posted this below and want to make - sure you see it. sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I've been reading mostly all the posts on this board and want to thank you for the breath of fresh air you bring with yours. You're eloquent and, more importantly, you're pleasant and respectful. Please keep posting.

Thanks! - no1joe

[ In Reply To ..]
I've been called a lot of things in my life, and I don't think pleasant or respectful has ever been one of them : D

Have a good one.

I don't know who "we" is. I was not here - last week and will be glad

[ In Reply To ..]
to defend what I said. First, the statement that "Republicans want to repeal child labor laws" is a huge distortion...no, let's call it what it is. A LIE. One Republican, one state.

Now, moving on...did you read the bill you posted? Nothing there at all like what DailyKos suggests, and it deals mostly with children in the entertainment industry, and we ALL know that children well below the age of 16 work in the entertainment industry. Second, there are still strict rules in place that cover the hours 14-16 year olds can work, and it also states that FLSA trumps it in cases where they have jurisdiction which is almost everywhere. What is being touted on the liberal blogs, I don't see in that bill. Please point it out.

Secondly, even if the blogs were right (lol), it is ONE Republican in ONE state. I don't see it getting much nationwide support, do you? And if those wonderful unions (and SAG is a BIG one, not hearing a peep outta them because they WANT the kiddies to be able to work at all ages) are really about child labor and fairness and all that, why are they not in Missouri screaming to the high heaven if this was as bad as blogs make it out to be and this Republican was about to mess in their nest? Simple answer: a lot of their dues-paying members are under the age of 14 and between 14 and 16, which this bill seems to cover.

This is an nonissue, a liberal attempt to make a mountain out of a mole hill going into the 2012 elections.

Now I have addressed it THIS week. Thanks so much.

Well... that proved nothing. - no1joe

[ In Reply To ..]
First of all, I didn't post anything from anywhere except for the actual bill which, of course, I DID read.

Second, I mentioned that this was brought up last week in case you wanted to go and look at the post for yourself if you hadn't seen it or participated in it at that time.

You are correct when you say that it has a lot to do with the child entertainment industry because it looks like they will still be protected. But you mentnioning this leads me to think that that's all that you read. Please, read further, keeping in mind (like I stated before) that everything in the brackets (they look like this... []) will be REMOVED. These are the little things that were designed to protect children. I'm talking about all the good stuff that starts toward the end of page 3 forward. I'm crunched for time right now, but if you want me to provide the condensed version for you, I can do so later.

Again, since I'm crunched for time, I haven't yet had the opportunity to look into just what will be covered under FLSA if these modifications are made. My crystal ball, however, tells me that there will most likely be a loophole somewhere.

BTW... I said NOTHING about all republicans here. However, the recent "domino" effect mentioned lately having to do with the union situation in Wisconsin leaves me - and others - slightly apprehensive and curious as to whether this trend will catch on elsewhere. Doesn't make us liars.

oh ok....unions only care about children if they - are entertainers.

[ In Reply To ..]
got it. That is why they are not up in arms about this bill if it really is detrimental to children. They are only interested as long as children IN ENTERTAINMENT are protected. Does not make them shining samples in my book...or maybe it is just what I said, this is making a mountain out of a mole hill for political gain.

Nothing you have said here, or in that bill, says anything about ANYONE wanting to repeal child labor laws. Change them, maybe...one state, one Republican. I did not see anything alarming in that bill, certainly nothing like DailyKos described, and as I said...they are so far left they are hanging on the edge by their fingernails.

I believe this is much ado about nothing hyped for political hay.

And as to Wisconsin...again...if the public employees in that state were willing to maintain status quo and pick up a little more of the tab for their own bennies and not further hurt nonunion non-public workers in that state in a horrible economy...that also would be a nonissue. If labor unions cared about anything but dues, they would take an actual "liberal" point of view and ask their members to pony up a little bit to help the state get back on its feet and not heap even more on the other workers in the state.

I have no sympathy for the union members in Wisconsin. I have sympathy for the people who would be tasked with not only surviving in this economy but supporting the union bennies for people unwilling to give an inch in a bad economy.

So much for liberals caring about the middle class. They care about middle class union members obviously (big time Democrat contributors with said union dues), but the rest of us...not so much.

Obviously you DO need the condensed version - no1joe

[ In Reply To ..]
For the sake of clarity, my original post was in response to what you had to say about child labor laws... not necessarily unions. As a reminder, "...there are laws on the books that remain that would not allow child labor. I would like to think we have evolved enough as a nation that we would not ever allow the repeal of those laws, unions or not. Bottom line..there ARE layers of federal and state law against child labor on the books right now, and they will remain, unions or NOT, until they are all repealed. And if you think that is going to happen, I have a some prime swamp I would like to sell you." In that regard, I feel that you are 100% wrong. Obviously some have NOT evolved enough and do want to consider repealing these laws, for now at the state level. It is happening in Missouri. And if you believe that it's not, I have a bridge I'd like to sell ya.

Let me summarize the proposed child labor law modifications in Missouri: For children OTHER than child actors (they are the best protected under this), they saw fit to limit certain areas where a child could be employed (gee... thanks). For instance, they will not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle if not of driving age, serve alcohol, work around explosives, etc. (basic pesky common sense safety stuff). However, they saw fit to remove this nice little segment "Any capacity in or about a motel, resort, hotel, where sleeping accommodations are furnished except in offices or locations physically separated from the sleeping accommodations." Translation (and I addressed this in the previous post from last week): Your kid UNDER THE AGE OF 16 (see below) can work changing sheets and emptying waste baskets at the local motor inn. Nice huh?

Also to be removed:
* Minimum age to be employed.
* Hours per week/time of day children can work including working during school hours.
* Mandatory work permits.

Is that enough evidence to prove that somewhere out there, in this case Missouri, there IS someone trying to repeal child labor laws? Call that making a mountain out of a molehill if you'd like... I call it outrageous.

Now, I'm guessing your argument is that even if people trying to push this in Missouri have their way and this thing gets passed, the children will be protected under FSLA. I will look into this later; however, I'm still willing to bet that there are plenty of loopholes. If anyone else knows the answer to this one, please chime in. By the time I get around to it with a very busy weekend, this post will likely be dead.

Here's what Cunningham had to say about this bill - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]
From KOMU:
Cunningham defended the legislation, arguing that children under the age of 14 who "babysit, or want a paper route or want to walk a dog, or rake leaves, or wash cars" for payment are technically in violation of the current Missouri child labor laws.

"What we're trying to do is look at archaic laws in our statutes," Cunningham said. "We are still protecting children from dangerous situations - sawmills, explosives, dangerous animals, those type of situations - and we are keeping the compulsory attendance laws that make sure children do attend school."

But one of the provisions of SB 222 is to remove the authority of the Division of Labor Standards to oversee workplaces when it comes to meetings state requirements for child labor.

"These laws are in place because there's between 50 and 60 violations in the state of Missouri of child labor today - and that's without any enforcement. The Division of Labor Standards is totally inadequately funded," Herb Johnson, Secretary-Treasurer of Missouri AFL-CIO, said.

Another bill currently before the Senate, SB 102 sponsored by Senator Timothy Green, a Democrat from St. Louis, addressed child labor issues - but only summer employment. Green said his legislation would allow children between the ages of 14 and 16 to obtain work certificates for summer jobs by only needing the consent of their parents. The current legislation requires the approval of a school principal for any type of work certificate for any time of year.

I'm glad that you responded to this - no1joe

[ In Reply To ..]
because I know from previous posts that you will look at the facts and make a fair conclusion. I've read Cunningham's comments and rationale behind this before, and I'm still not buying it. Parents are more than able to teach their children work ethic how they see fit (again, this was in the last post if you didn't already read it). And if the justification somewhere along the way is trying to say that the state is losing tax dollars on lawn-raking or babysitting pocket change... come on! When I first got wind of this and the fact that there would still be compulsory attendance laws (or truancy laws as they call them around here), I looked into that too... and guess what I found under the exceptions?

"A child between fourteen years of age and the compulsory attendance age for the district may be excused from attendance at school for the full time required, or any part thereof, by the superintendent of public schools of the district, or if there is none then by a court of competent jurisdiction, when legal employment has been obtained by the child and found to be desirable, and after the parents or guardian of the child have been advised of the pending action"

Now, the questions are: Is parental consent needed or just notification? How much discretion does the superintendent/court have? What fits the definition of "desirable?" If the child gets a full-time position flipping burgers (for example) and wants to stop attending school, could the superintendent/court tell them no because it's not in their best interest OR once the child lands a full-time position and their parents are aware, there is no choice but to allow them to be excused from school?

I also heard about the dem. proposal where (and I'm working 100% from memory here) parental permission would be needed for summer employment work permit instead of a formal work permit. I would have no problem with that... as long as the kids are NOT under any circumstances allowed to work in a hotel maintenance capacity. Really... WTH are they thinking???

Does This Help? - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]

167.051. 1. If a school board establishes part-time schools or classes for children under seventeen years of age, lawfully engaged in any regular employment, every parent, guardian or other person having charge, control or custody of such a child shall cause the child to attend the school not less than four hours a week between the hours of eight o'clock in the morning and five o'clock in the evening during the school year of the part-time classes.

2. All children who are under eighteen years of age, who have not completed the elementary school course in the public schools of Missouri, or its equivalent, and who are not attending regularly any day school shall be required to attend regularly the part-time classes not less than four hours a week between the hours of eight o'clock in the morning and five o'clock in the afternoon during the entire year of the part-time classes.

(L. 1963 p. 200 § 8-5, A.L. 2004 S.B. 968 and S.B. 969)

(Source: RSMo 1959 § 164.080)

CROSS REFERENCE:

(L. 1963 p. 200 § 8-5, A.L. 2004 S.B. 968 and S.B. 969)

(Source: RSMo 1959 § 164.080)

CROSS REFERENCE:

Provisions affecting metropolitan school district effective for school year beginning 2007-2008 and terminates after school year ending 2011-2012, 167.052.

They consider a school year as ending June 30 and beginning July 1. So, essentially, if there are part-time schools (which I have no idea since I don't live there), the employed child would have to attend all year round at 4 hours per week to satisfy the 180-day requirement. I would guess the part-time schools would be private schools or could be home-schooled. My understanding/impression is that the parent or custodian of that child would be in charge whether or not they can take on full-time employment and make sure the child still attends school and the superintendent would have to aprove the employment prior to giving permission for the FT employment.

even when they read it - anon

[ In Reply To ..]
they won't believe it. They believe that the Republicans are all about slavery, secession, segregation and socialism. Oh wait, history tells us it's actually the Democrats - oopsie.

Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act much more than did the Democrats. Contrary to Democrat myth, Everett Dirksen (R-IL), the Senate Minority Leader â�� not President Lyndon Johnson â�� was the person most responsible for its passage. Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson promised Republicans that he would publicly credit the GOP for its strong support. Johnson played no role in the legislative fight. In the House of Representatives, the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed with 80% support from Republicans but only 63% support from Democrats.

As always - no1joe

[ In Reply To ..]
I appreciate your input. Please realize that in spite of the post below.

I've been running around like a lunatic and today actually have work coming in (wow), but at a quick glance, this looks like it might be rules for a specific district. Which could be a good thing if the rules regarding credit requirement, attendance, etc., are more stringent, IMO. IDK... I feel that anything done to get kids to stay in school is a positive. I'll be looking more into this when I have some leisure time... or NJA :/

Have a good one.

No, this is the state law, not just a county law. - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]
It is under the same section you quoted in your above quote. It took me a while to find this law. Google wasn't willing to give me the info I really wanted at first. LOL

BTW, it was in Chapter 167. This chapter was - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]
mentioned quite a lot and that's the part I had trouble finding.

FSLA would trump this anyway. Look at the - FEDERAL law regarding

[ In Reply To ..]
hours a child is able to work. It has not been removed there. Minimum age to be employed also covered there. The only thing is that the FSLA does not cover is the work permits.

They would be covered under FSLA unless the child labor portion of FSLA was struck down. It has not been.

I saw something regarding children in maintenance at hotels...are you referring to being maids, groundskeeping? If it is groundskeeping, FSLA severely limits what tools a child can use regarding law cutting, etc. And I cannot see a hotel employing ANYONE underage as a maid because of the lawsuit vulnerability because a civil lawsuit arising out of an injury would KILL them.

Again, much ado about nothing.

Kind of hard to write a law that prohibits children from working at some things when you can hire an INFANT to entertain or sell things (commercials). Which is why SAG will keep its union mouth shut on this issue.

I see you're still donning your tunnel vision goggles - no1joe

[ In Reply To ..]
and I seriously DOUBT that you have read the pages upon pages of FLSA laws regarding child labor or have looked into any of the various links on just that website alone since, judging from your previous comments, I doubt that you even fully read the link I posted in the first place. I haven't even made a DENT in reading all the information, and I'm pretty smart and I read real good :/ That combined with the fact that you are STILL determined to work union bad-mouthing into this conversation leads me to believe that you are trying to defend something for no other reason except that you see it as dems being against it... so you're 100% for it... real bright. BTW... I'm NOT a Democrat!

So... now the ball is in YOUR court. Start searching and answer me this since you seem to know the ins and outs regarding FLSA:
* What information to you see regarding minimum age and hour restrictions? The only thing I have found thus far with limited search time is that children between the ages of 14 and 16 are to work restricted hours/time of day so as not to interfere with school. These rules do not apply to children as young as 14 meeting 8th-grade education requirements (!) who have been exempt from school.

So the question goes back to what I addressed with BT... how easy is it for children in this particular state (or any other if this trend catches on) to quit school? Is it as simple as finding full-time employment and the parents being notified? And that combined with no need for working papers (which now have to be obtained by someone on the school level who could INTERVENE if a child is opting for full-time employment instead of education) is a recipe for disaster. If that's the case, I have a HUGE problem with it... and so should you!

No need to be condescending, though I realize... - that you think you are oh so

[ In Reply To ..]
much more intelligent than I. Generally people who condescend to others are exactly the opposite, but I digress.

Never said you were a Democrat. What does that have to do with anything?

Hey, let me clue you in...go to the FSLA site, search for child labor laws...not pages and pages. They hit the highlights for you, it is all one page!! Imagine THAT. All of the hours/days/times/times of the year kids can work are all there. There are specific guidelines about what implements kids can use if they do lawn work. I do not see that any of the regulations I looked at have exclusions for kids who are not in school for whatever reason. Please provide that, and thanks.

Just for your edification, these are the rules for attending school in Missouri right now as far as compliance:
A child between the ages of fourteen (14) and seventeen (17) may be excused from attending school full time by the superintendent of the public school or by a court of competent jurisdiction when legal employment has been obtained by the child.
A child between the ages of five (5) and seven (7) currently enrolled in a public school shall be excused from attendance if a parent, guardian or other person having custody makes a written request that the child be dropped from the school's roll.

Soooo....it already allows for a 14-year-old to quit school if employed...under existing law if the two conditions are met. Says NOTHING about a work permit...just says the Superintendent of schools or the court has to sign off on it, and I did not see anything in what the Missouri legislator proposed that strikes dwon compulsory school attendance unless the superintendent of schools or a court signs off on it. If you can find where it does, please let me know.

Right now this has not even been introduced for a vote. There has been no debate on it, it is one state one legislator, and you are acting like it is going to become nationwide.

Before getting all worried, maybe you should check the school truancy laws in other states as well. There are so many checks and balances...which is why I am saying it is a lot of ado about nothing, without unions being mentioned at ALL.

Last time through - no1joe

[ In Reply To ..]
Final breakdown of my thought process.

Presently: I'm a 14-year-old living in Missouri enrolled full-time in school (most likely 9th grade). For whatever reason, I'd like to go out and get full-time employment during school hours. I go down to the local burger joint and fill out an application. They say they'll hire me, and I need my working papers. Oh... and there's a little problem of being a full-time student. So, I go down to the school in order to get my work permit, and I'm told "no" by the school official because it's not in my best interest to stop attending school full time. I'm also told "no" by my parents whose written consent is required. Well... I'll show them, I'll go ahead and quit school first. Again, I'm told "no" because I haven't obtained full-time employment. (Look at page 5 of the link I posted having to do with working papers). No working papers... no employment. No full-time employment... no quitting school. Therefore, I stay in school.

With the proposed modifications: I'm the same 14-year-old. I go down to the same burger joint, get told I got the same job. No working papers needed, so I'm now an employee. Next step, I go and quit school after my parents have been informed and start raking in the bucks because I can prove full-time employment. There's NO intervention there! The rights of anyone at the school level and the parents to determine if this is in the child's best interest (during the process of the child obtaining a work permit) are being removed. Since the kid is now a drop-out, FLSA would not apply as far as work hour restrictions or keeping the kid in school. That was why I was questioning just how much authority officials have regarding kids who have obtained full-time employment and wish to quit school. Are they allowed, at that point, to tell them no? Are the parents able to object, or do they just have to be informed? If not, and their hands are now tied, this is wrong! It's making it easier for children to quit school... I don't care if it's in Missouri or in my own state. If you think it's a lot of ado about nothing... that speaks volumes (and so does your little jab about my intelligence... touche).

BTW, I don't need a tutorial as to how to do an internet site search. I see that you did the quick skim. Dive further... there's tons of information that would take hours to read. It took me all of 5 seconds to see that there are FSLA exemptions, but I wanted to thoroughly search to see if those exemptions applied to child labor as well. Therefore, I didn't come back here and comment on them without being thoroughly informed.

Okay...your one scenario here hinges on the - child dropping out so he can

[ In Reply To ..]
work. In what alternate reality does that happen? Ooops. Again I digress.

Okay. Suppose that DID happen after the modification in the law. All the legislature has to do then is change the truancy law. Kid stays in school until he is 16 or the parents are liable. If the law can't keep him in school and the parents can't keep him in school, there is absolutely no keeping him in school and he will either be homeless in the streets or working at the burger joint where at least he could feed himself. This is what I found on the FLSA website:

As a 14- or 15-year-old, you may not work:

More than 3 hours a day on school days, including Fridays;
More than 18 hours per week in school weeks;
More than 8 hours a day on non-school days;
More than 40 hours per week when school is not in session.

It does not say a 14-year-old or 15-year-old who is going to school. It says a 14-year-old or 15-year-old cannot work more than those hours at those times.

Another point...do you think that this burger joint is going to hire a 14-year-old full-time on his word that he quit school? I doubt it. And existing state law says the only way he can quit and be allowed to work is if the school signs off on it or his parents sign off on it. And face it...really joe. This 14-year-old you describe really wants to quit school and go to work at the burger joint, that that burger joint is going to hire him on his say-so...you really think that changing this law is going to result in 14-year-olds all over the country quitting school and getting a job at a burger joint?

This, I am sorry, seems to me like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I would not be surprised, with all the language about children in entertainment in the bill, that THAT is what the whole thing is about, that there is some kid or group of kids in entertainment who don't want to have to get work permits. Usually a huge big bill with multiple provisions has a key element in it...because why else would someone want to change missouri state law regarding kids in entertainment if there was not something specifically directed at them...maybe it has to do with kids in entertainment who are home-schooled vs those that are in public school...I'm sorry, I just don't think it rises to the level that you do, and hey...we are both entitled to our opinions.

I know enough about the government from EXHAUSTIVE research as far as proposed bills and what they say (and what is really buried in them).

And...if you stay too long on only one side of a subject or research only to shore up a preconceived notion...

and with that...I hush, extend my hand, say let's some fighting about this, and go on our separate ways. You are not going to change my mind and I am not going to change yours...lol.

The rich are stealing from the poor in the form of tax credits - and subsidies. Are you okay with that?nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Care to expound on that? Are those rich who.. - get those credits and

[ In Reply To ..]
subsidies employers? Do those credits and subsidies help them keep those employees so they can draw a paycheck? The so-called poor are receiving a lot of benefits (like not paying any taxes at all) that end up coming out of your paycheck and mine...but that is okay, right?

This class warfare argument does not work anymore, because your average everyday American has awakened to the fact that class warfare is a joke and you could care LESS about the poor...other than poor YOU. The jig is up. We know now. You can stop trying to make us hate "the rich" and blame them for all our problems. We are kinda looking at you folks who tout "blame the evilll rich" for everything. Not really liking what we see. Who are "the rich" anyway? Do you folks who espouse class warfare have a list or something?

You're wrong. They're cutting programs for the poor and - giving it to corporations. sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Surely, you've heard of corporate welfare. It's alive and well.

And nowhere in recent history can I recall a time when class warfare was as alive and blatant as it is now. How can you not see that? It's staring you in the face every day.

Okay, I'll bite. What is worse in class warfare... - a corporation stealing...

[ In Reply To ..]
from the middle class (me) or middle class union members stealing from the rest of the middle class (me). Either way, I am pretty much toast. lol.

You are either a seller of the illusion or you have bought the illusion. Karl Marx did real well with the evilll rich ploy to usher in communism. Tell me, how did communism work for people? What happens to the middle class in communism? *poof* gone.

Then the socialists tried to blame everything on the evilll rich. Tell me, how did that work for people? Where is the middle class in Cuba? In Venezuela? *poof* gone.

You might have a case if class warfare and what it leads to had ever worked.

Thanks so much for the discussion.

Bravo...well said - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Funny how some people on this board point out certain evils and yet they are blinded by other evils. Nice to see someone who sees the evils on both sides.

See message. - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x589517

Democratic underground? A discussion board? - Really?

[ In Reply To ..]
Sorry, your link does not work so I cannot go there. However, they are just about as far left as DailyKos (hanging on to the far left side by their fingernails) so unbiased facts would be scarce there. However, if you would post the link again I will give it a shot, or just give me the jist of what they are saying. Thanks.

The link works fine. No need to repost it. - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Thank you for your little post. I'm flattered that you - copied some of mine (sm)

[ In Reply To ..]
word for word. Thanks for that.

The middle class is vanishing right in front of you. I'm amazed you can't see it.

The reason I used some of your very own - wording was to show

[ In Reply To ..]
how two people with two viewpoints look at the same situation and see it differently. I also never said that the middle class wasn't vanishing.

When I look at our country, this is what I see. I see some people who are too lazy to work and scam the government to get freebies. I see a welfare system that keeps more people down instead of actually helping them get out of the low income bracket. I see union bosses making outrageous salaries and major theft and corruption being done. I see union workers crying about the sacrifices they are being asked to make when they make more money than non-union workers and seem to have no trouble taking taxpayer money to pay for them. I see democratic politicians claiming transparency but having closed door meetings. I see democrats calling the republicans the party of no all the while refusing to vote in WI and making a mockery of democracy. I see a country with too many loopholes in the tax code as well as unnecessary subsidies that cost us a lot of money. I see a group of people who are more concerned about polar bears dying off than the fact that innocent babies are being murdered before they even get a chance to live.

As to the American dream...I'm truly concerned because it seems like those who do NOT achieve the dream feel that those who have achieved it owe them. We are punishing success and hard work because it isn't fair to be successful and rich when others aren't...although I don't see the rich on the left giving over half of their yearly income away to help those less fortunate...but whatever.

These are just a few of the things I can think of off the top of my head.

Well said. (nm) - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]
.

Not against unions - for working people - anon

[ In Reply To ..]
My brother and his wife retired from the state hwy dept in our state a couple of years ago when he was 55 and she was 53. They worked in offices - no big titles, just office workers. Their pension is over $3500/month with all medical benefits. They are also young enough to go out and get other jobs if they want. Their jobs were no more important/stressful/dangerous than anybody else's. It is too much to ask the taxpayers of this state to pay. Assuming my brother and his wife live to be 75 (which I hope they do), how much money for just these 2 people does this add up to? Now multiply that by all the other state workers. WE CANNOT AFFORD THAT. I am working just as hard but the taxpayers aren't providing me with a pension. Everybody can't be a state worker - and I don't believe the taxpayers should be asked to foot the bill for them to retire at 55 or younger, while we slave into our 80s to pay for them to enjoy their retirement.

Similar Messages:

Aug 12, 2012
Oh, teacher, teacher, he was mean to me. I can't even believe this. I was going to say a bunch of lightweights, but I'll change to whiners. Wow. ...

Oct 11, 2012
This is just hilarious ...

Jun 13, 2014
Thought these were funny. Some of the other ones off the side bar are too, but this made me laugh. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRqKYXcL-2U ...

Jan 27, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gneBUA39mnI ...

Apr 14, 2011
Flat tax won't work. If they would institute a flat tax, they would close loopholes we all take at tax time. This is why Malcolm Forbes running for President was all for the flat tax. " Following the 1986 tax reform, the average income tax paid by somebody in the $50,000-$75,000 bracket indeed went down, and I mean way down--$1,100. The total tax take for that bracket went up $7.6 billion because there were many more taxpayers in that range in 1987. Fact is, taxes for virtually all tax bra ...

Mar 04, 2011
Recommended reading for teachers from the NEA website. You just can't have enough radicals/grassroots organizers. Agitate + Aggravate + Educate + Organize http://www.nea.org/tools/17231.htm Recommended Reading: Saul Alinsky, The American Organizer A Resource for Every Organizer & Anyone Contemplating Action in Their Community NEA recommends the following Saul Alinsky books to those members of our Association who are involved in grassroots organizing, especially ...

Mar 18, 2012
Obviously a lot of us love to read! My question for everyone is do you keep a list of the books you have read? I started doing this about 2 years ago because one of my kids came home from school saying that in class that day the teacher was talking about reading and said that she had heard a statistic that the average person reads 300 books in their lifetime. Knowing me, my son heartily disagreed with that statement and said I probably read 300 books each year. T ...

Sep 21, 2010
any ideas about how to get rid of the creatures. I don't have them here personally but now I am totally freaked out and paranoid. I keep reading about people bringing them home from vacation and that they are getting to be an epidemic in this country. What do we do if we do get them? How do you kill them? Anyone know anything more about this - I totally dislike bugs. I hate to kill any of them but ... ...

Jun 20, 2010
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/reel-therapy/201006/jon-stewart-sarah-palin-and-therapeutic-values ...

Aug 12, 2012
about how the Romney campaign kept secret who was going to be VP. A lot of the content is information from Beth Myers, head of the vetting process for Romney. And then I come across this line: "Included in the data collected by Myers and her team: congressional voting records, an exhaustive questionnaire and "several years" of tax returns -- she did not say how many. " Why would Romney, of all people, need "several years" of tax returns from his VP? ...

May 20, 2017
All I see are big corporations building stuff in Saudi Arabia. Am I missing something here? ...

Oct 18, 2009
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Rich-Have-Stolen-The-E-by-Paul-Craig-Roberts-091016-883.html ...

Jun 10, 2010
their pocketbooks. June 10, 2010 Dear Friend, I am a fourth-generation shrimper from the Gulf of Mexico and today I was arrested and charged with unlawful conduct for pouring oil on myself at a Senate Energy Committee. I was protesting Senator Lisa Murkowski's refusal to make BP pay for the disaster that is devastating shrimping communities across the Gulf Coast. Just imagine this: BP can get away with pouring millions of gallons of oil in our seas and I get arrested f ...

Aug 21, 2012
"Obama's America." I would recommend this to everyone. Whether or not you like or dislike President Obama, this book does give you some interesting things to think about. ...

Sep 08, 2012
I've reprised a portion of a post made earlier so that perhaps more will read it. I've slightly reformatted it for myself because I find long paragraphs harder on these tired old eyes recently. Here it is: <b>As for what I care about: * I care that it took over 350,000 Americans to drop out of the workforce in order for the unemployment rate to drop to 8.1%. * I care that in 3 years this president has added more to our debt than any other president. * I care t ...

Jan 16, 2013
Not much except spending money on studies and reports. Background checks for gun shows=good one but putting the ATF in charge of following gun purchases when they couldn't even follow their own during Fast and Furious? That's like the fox watching the hen house. Trashing HIPPA is what Obama will do if forced to make private health reports public for all government databases. Background checks on ALL gun sales means a private person won't be able to sell a gun unless they g ...

Feb 19, 2013
1/17/2003: "WARHEADS FOUND IN IRAQ" so I got curious, read the article and found out the U.N. had only found 11 warheads BUT they were going to test them for any trace of chemicals in the warheads. When I did a search on this article to find out if they ever tested those warheads, I found MORE on the sugject. Please feel free to read the article links i posted and I apologize for the length of this post, but it just goes to show how much the left and MSM has buried a lot of stories/ ...

Jul 14, 2013
Okay, I read this probably three or four months ago. Re-read it again this morning. I think if every person capable of reading in this country read this, there would be screams for justice and calls for the head of mainstream news organizations. Even Obama weighed in on this. Did he read the statement? This is George Zimmerman's official statement given to police. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/22/us/21george-zimmerman-transcript.html?_r ...

Dec 29, 2010
Did you hear about this story? The wife left the password near the computer. It was a shared computer. I am sure he was not the first person to read his wife/husbands email. That is how most people find out about affairs. I hear people on Dr. Phil talking about what they found out through emails. I wonder if he found out his wife committed a crime and reported it if he would still be charged with a felony. I hope this case gets thrown ...

Nov 18, 2010
what going on with this Bristol-thing. The most telling are the right-wing and Teaparty websites. What seems to be coming to light is that this wasn't just a "call your Teaparty friends and vote for Bristol" deal, it's now starting to look like manipulation and voter fraud for political gain. One person said he tested ABC's online voting system, and discovered that, although you're limited to 5 votes per email address, you aren't limited to the ...

Sep 10, 2016
I am Catholic and other faiths such as Lutheran, Espiscopal, and perhaps others go by weekly Gospel readings throughout the church year A, B, C that lead up to certain points and holy days, etc. Last week's gospel always disturbs me and though our priest is usually pretty good at revealing the true message that Jesus is trying to get across, he did not do well for me to really understand this. So, I got on Google and began to read and finally found from Harvest Ministries, what ...

Mar 15, 2012
I need some reading suggestions. I have been stuck reading the same author because I love her writing style and her stories, but she doesn't have anything new out right now and I am dying for a good read. I love mystery novels with some romance mixed in. Tami Hoag is my fave and is the one that doesn't have anything new out. So any suggestions? ...

Nov 13, 2012
One who was unfamiliar with the recent election results reading this board would think that Obama won by a landslide....there were 49% of the people who voted against Obama, 51% voted for Obama, yes indeed a WIN.......Congratulations to those supporting Obama. However, the margin is not overwhelming, those 49% of the population still have the same rights as the 51%. ...

Sep 25, 2013
http://news.yahoo.com/obamacares-average-monthly-cost-across-u-328-040209815.html My husband and I are healthy and can afford only catastrophic insurance, and we pay just over 300 bucks per month for the two of us now! We cannot afford to double this. I guess they will just have to put us in jail. ...

Jun 14, 2014
This one is even more funnier. Loved the monkeys http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HacXlrw01zE ...

Mar 26, 2016
They're counting on the hatred of Hillary being so strong among Trump supporters that they won't stay home in November no matter what tricks they pull to nominate someone else. I think they'll be surprised. The hatred of the GOP elite that this will ignite may well be stronger than the hatred of Hillary. The GOP bus is going over a cliff, and everyone on board is asleep, including the driver. RIP, GOP. And Trump isn't the cause of death, either.&nb ...

Nov 11, 2016
Thank you for your service in honoring and protecting America and her people. Happy Veterans Day and may God bless you always. ...

Aug 03, 2010
While I won't post the whole thing here, I will post some of it, as I don't know how long it would be on this board. Oh, and by the way, 12 dems voted for it, so it wasn't just a pub deal. So, were the tax cuts so bad? Tell me these were just for rich people as so many believe. This is the problem with people nowadays. They hear one side of the story and believe and judge without finding out for themselves what is really going on in this country. Those titles that I only posted ...

Jul 04, 2014
I came across this site (don't remember how, a link off of a link off of a link, etc). Anyway...thought these were adoreable pics of kids reading to cats in shelters while they wait to be adopted. I think it's a great program. The site itself I like. It's about books and there is a tab off to the right that you can sign up and get some books for free others for really cheap on the kindle or whatever type of reading device you might have. Hope you enjoy the site ...

Mar 30, 2013
I don't get people.. I really don't. If you don't want your kid involved, fine, whatever. Don't kill it for everyone else though. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/29/zombie-class-oregon_n_2980041.html ...