I forgot the cost of daycare. For 2 kids.. What's that? $200 a week?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why does she have two kids? Where is the father?
Walmart receives over 65% of their revenue from government entitlements through welfare and EBT.
Don't forget to add in the $52,000 in additional government benefits she qualifies for. She's doing okay believe me
She is double dipping
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let's have a beer some time .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe, here's what you (and most liberals) arte leaving out of your little hypothetical scenario...we are responsible for our actions, and if th ebest job you can get is $7.50 an hour, you have no earthly business having children. Nebem how much of your hard-earned money am I entitled to, if I make stupid decisions? If I cash out my 401(k) and by lottery tickets, and then I go bankrupt, how much of what you have worked for, am I entitled to?

You don't need to itemize expenses. Everyone knows that it's tough to raise kids on $7.50 an hour.

We can't solve this problem by throwing money at it. If we could solve it that way, we would have, as we have spent tend of trillions on the war on poverty, and we haven't reduced poverty.

So what you are saying is "#^&#^&#^&#^& the poor". Got it.
Glad to see your Christian values are intact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Furthermore. Whose making a bad decision? The person who ships factory production overseas or the worker who looses his or her job from that decision and has to work at McDonald's ? Everything isn't black and white
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What about the kids that were stoned all the way through high school and did not challenge themselves enough to chase education or skills and now cannot advance beyond the lousy job. Or their work ethic is too poor to keep one?

The problem is that the balance is lost, for every good example you have you have there are bad example too. Now out of "fairness" and not taking sides or wanting to make someone feel bad, everyone gets the opportunity not to chase opportunity. it is not sustainable.

Yes - the company that shipped a 1000 jobs overseas is part to blame, just as the 1000 kids that never chased the dream.

Most of us have worked the $4 per hour minimum wage job and we worked on skills, education, or chased opportunity to move beyond that.

Used to be that if you worked hard enough on your self you could improve your lot & luck in life, that message is getting lost.

"What about the kids that were stoned all the way through high school and did not challenge themselves "

Bingo.

Even in college, I knew plenty of very smart kids who drank every day and picked easy majors that required little work and offered little job prospects. Those people are all struggling today, and there's nothing wrong or unfair about that. And I'll help them when I can, but here are limits to the level of sacrifice I'm willing to make for people who freely chose to make stupid decisions.

"Used to be that if you worked hard enough on your self you could improve your lot & luck in life"

Of course it's still that way, and it's not all that hard. Get th ebest grades you can get. If you cannot afford college, get a good paying job at a place like UPS and go to school part time, working towards a degree, or larn a trade, or join the military.

Nebe, did you see those looters in Baltimore? Half naked, drugged out of their minds, underwear halfway up theiur back, covered in tattoos, can't speak English. Sorry, don't tell me I caused any of that while coaching Little League and going to church on Sundays, I don't want to hear that crap.

SOme peole, of course, are poor because of bad luck, and nothing else. I want those peopple to get all the help they need. Most, in my estimation, are por because they (and probably their parents) freely chose to make stupid decisions. Much of the responsibility fo rthat, should lie with them. We need programs in place to help more people better themselves, no doubt. But no matter how many times they say it on MSNBC, we ain't fixing this by throwing other people's monet at it.

The person who chose to do no homework in high school and get C's, instead of doing some work and getting B's, made an idiotic decision. Almost every person I have ever met, had the ability to get B's in high school with a little work ethic. And I teach my kids, that their decisions will sometimes have consequences that they have to accept, and that you don't limit yourself to the consequences you happen to like.

Sigh.

I didn't say **** the poor. I said that most (not all) of them, have nobody butthemselves, and maybe their parents, to blame fo rthe fact that they are poor.

Nebe, look at it from the other angle. Two similar kids in high school, same potential. One works hard, does everything right, graduates from college, gets a good job.

The other drinks and smokes pot, barely graduates from high school, now earns minimum wage at McDonalds and is stuck.

Nebe, does the first person deserve to enjoy the rewards of his work and good decisions, or not? If you think that person deserves to enjoy the fruits of his labor, you are a Republican. If you think the first person is obligated to hand over much of what he worked for to even off teh outcome between the two, you are a Democrat. There it is.

I don't want anyone starving. But I won't lose one second's sleep if someone who chose to slack, can't afford a TV or a cell phone.

I went in the Navy :hee:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, my buddies joined the Navy and I tried to join, but wasn't healthy enough . . .not because I was stoned through high school though . . . maybe it was just the income inequality at the time caused me poor health. It's said that the income inequality don't just cause slow economic growth, loss of jobs, slave wages, destruction of the middle class, but even gang violence, school drop-outs, general stupidity, and most of the social ills as well as poor health and all sorts of mental instability and poor self-esteem. Damn, if our government didn't near fix all the causes for those things and along come this new culprit to start it all over again!

I guess it wasn't inequality enough, until now, to totally destroy the country. But it's so bad now that we're more and more becoming unhinged. Men turning into women . . . even marriage coming out of the closet and turning gay. Babies turned from a blessing into a disease that need to be cut out of you.

But hell, they're saying that's the new freedom, so what's the fuss? What's the worry? And these millennials they talk about don't seem to want to own anything anyway. They'll be taking charge shortly and income probably won't be an issue. They won't have much by the sound of what they think about money. Maybe they're on to something.

Anyway, I thought I'ld google about what effects the income inequality had. Damn if I don't think the millennials ain't right? I got dizzy, if not mystified, by how cock sure the economic experts were about the effects of the income inequality, while at the same time they had different opposing views, and the google person would constantly intervene that nothing was proved. So I come away from it that the income inequality might cause all those bad things I said before . . . or not.

In the meantime, the millennials hear some politicians, who are rich as Croesus, going on about how they're going to bring the super rich to their knees if they get elected. Damn if it ain't stupid for rich people to say they're going to make the rich people pay for everything. And damn if it ain't stupid to believe them. I've been hearing that for a long time. But the rich get richer and the politicians right along with them.

In the meantime, the politicians cover their asses by giving the rest of us of food stamps and what they call health care and money back for this and that from the taxes they took from us, and keep the really poor folks on their side by not even taking taxes from them. And, just to make sure, in case enough Americans who are put out of work by the income inequality actually believe that they shouldn't, and wouldn't, work for what they've been told are slave wages offered by the m'effen business pigs . . . just too make sure the pigs have enough slaves to make them billionaires, the anti-rich . . . but rich . . . politicians bring in millions of Mexicano types who will gladly work for the slave wages. And maybe they'll bail out some big company whose supposed to be too big to fail (or donates too big to let go). So the politicos have everybody, from top to bottom, in their pocket.

So maybe the millenials are right not to want any part of it. But . . . nah . . . people are people. If they ain't right with God, they'll get in with the devil.

Wow! I thought you were opposed to people needing some little book telling them how to live? What were your two simple rules . . . be cool and don't be a jerk? Or something like that? What, so now you're chastising Jim for not keeping his Christian values intact? From what you've said about Christians, besides implying they're weak minded for needing the little book, I would have assumed that breaking loose from Christian values would be applauded by you. I guess it's convenient to throw Christian values at someone if it somehow validates your argument.

But, you can be forgiven (one of those weak-minded rules from the little book) for misapplying or not understanding Christian values. Christian values and responsibilities regarding the poor have nothing to do with government aid to them. Quite the contrary, if a Christian transfers his personal responsibility to be charitable from himself to the government, he places government not only above himself, but above God. Jesus' commandment to love one another and to give compassion and material sustenance to the needy was a commandment to your personal soul and was ultimately a gift to God even more than a gift to the poor. Nowhere did Jesus require that civil, secular government do anything for the poor, nor anything else. Nor did he say that petitioning government aid, or creating a government safety net for the poor would get you points in the eyes of God.

Liberation theology, on the other hand, in my opinion, is a step closer to the religion of socialism and a step away from fundamental Christianity. The Current Pope, at times, steps in that direction. Maybe Bernie Sanders, as President, could persuade the Pope to kneel before the State as a co-God with the God of Christianity and make Christianity more acceptable to you.

"Bad decision" is a value judgment. And your question is rhetorical in that it frames, or judges, the decision by your values. You, obviously, believe that producing product overseas is bad. I assume that the person who "ships" it overseas thinks it was good, beneficial to the company, to do so.

I also assume that you value the jobs as a service to the employees rather than as an asset/liability to the company. You and Bernie Sanders would probably agree on that. I'm guessing that both of you would prefer that companies ran their business the way government does its. Even though, examples of those that operate sort of that way eventually, if they succeed in staying in business at all, get bloated, full of waste, and amass unsustainable debt. But, as long as Big Brother government can bail them out, that's OK.

I also assume that "shipping jobs overseas" is a decision to balance production, profit, and sustainability rather than a mean spirited sticking it to American workers.

I also assume that there is a level of excess wage that a company can sustain if the total process of production, delivery, and sales is still as, or more, profitable than "shipping" the jobs elsewhere. There was a time, in the 1950's/1960's if I recall correctly, when the wage structure in the auto industry was four times more costly in the U.S. than it would have been in Mexico. But the cost of moving jobs to Mexico would have incurred other costs, such as building infrastructure and so forth, so would have been overall more costly. But when the differential became 7X rather than 4X (and rising) it was economically responsible (good decision rather than bad) to move some jobs there. That became a growing pattern for corporations as the cost of producing in the U.S. kept rising, and the cost in less developed countries remained stagnant. That may be trending in the other direction as wages have become stagnant here and starting to rise a bit elsewhere. If that keeps up, we may have more and more job growth here. That remains to be seen--if the government can manage to let it happen without more of the regulatory distortions which also had caused the price of labor to rise here in the past.

As you say, everything isn't black and white. I don't think Bernie Sanders would be prone to let the markets correct themselves.