Comments by steveleary1
Posted on March 21 at 8:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Minimum wage increases only benefit government coffers. No more goods or services are produced. This will become more evident to everyone when we take fjcjr's tougue in cheek argument futher, and raise minimum wage to $ 100 an hour. Everyone will make over $ 100,000 per year and all of our poverty will go away !
What actually happens is Minimum wage has a higher number attached to it. Those making $ 8.50 now, want to be Minimum wage + 1.00 and so on up the wage scale. Since no additional goods or services are produced, the price of goods go up by proportion. However, the Income tax is indexed so everyone pays a higher percentage in taxes.This why if you go back and look at the history of minimum wage increases you will see that the purchasing power of minimum wage when it was $ 1.25 per hour was more then it is today at $ 7.45. At $ 1.25 you could buy nearly 5 gallons of gas for a dollar,( Now you can't even buy 2 gallons)You could buy 25 candy bars for $ 1.25 (now you can buy 7) This can be demonstrated with just about any product or service.
That is why although it sounds good and kind to raise the minimum wage it hasn't had the desired effect and it won't in the future.
Posted on March 11 at 7:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The "cuts" are Government cuts. To make the numbers simple, last year we
spent $ 100. This year we wanted to spend $ 105, but because of the sequester
we have "cuts", so we can only spend $ 103. No place else but the government
does an increase in spending count as a draconian cut.
Posted on February 17 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Global Warming is a theory - It has not been proven with the scientific method.
The planet is said to be be over one Billion years old and to look at limited data over a one hundred year period is not scientific. The planet has gone through 4 major ice ages and several minor ice ages. This area has been covered with glaciers in the past during these periods. If someone were to look at the period of time when
the ice caps advanced and retreated, they could have attributed that to actions of man. However, the Earth didn't have any men to blame for the changes which took place over thousands of years. The 1970's were a particularly cold decade and during that time period there was a Time Magazine cover blaming man for Global Cooling. The Earth's temperate is not a constant, it naturally fluctuates.
Not to say that Global Warming Theory may not be correct, just something to keep in mind before blindly accepting "Facts"
Posted on February 16 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Squirrels are better looking then Rats in NYC, but as justapo states if they become a fellow "occupant" of your house they are no more welcome then a Rat. I'm sure if Sen. Avella had either of them in his house he would be more then happy to have them exterminated. I've had squirrels in my attic and you definitely look at them differently afterwards.
Posted on January 10 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The real story here is not the gun. How many people are we paying benefits that should be working ?
Taking from society instead of contributing to society and saving the benefits for those who truly need them.
When Reagan was President a "permanently disabled " former fireman won the annual race to the top of the
Empire State Building. This led to a review of everyone receiving long term disability,welfare,social security etc.
The results were amazing as in addition to dead people receiving benefits, a large number of people who recovered
From or never should have been on the rolls .
Posted on December 22 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Go to Charity Navigator - They break everything down the American Red Cross for instance only spends 4% on administration
Posted on December 13 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Steiner people voted for the President for many different reasons. We have a
$ 15,000,000,000,000 deficit ( That's what 15 trillion looks like) We are spending and borrowing $ 1,500,000,000,000 ( 1.5 Trillion) every year more then we take in revenue from all sources. 40 cents of every dollar we spend is borrowed. If the President gets all of the revenue that he hopes to by raisng taxes on the top 2% of earners He will get $ 120,000,000,000 per year ( $ 120 Billion or $ 1.2 Trillion over 10 years) . This will cover the amount that we are borrowing for 30 days per year and that's if we get it all and the top 2% don't shelter their money somehow.
This doesn't come close to covering the amount of money we need to keep spending at these levels. The Republicans are looking for some Real cuts to spending before they will agree to any increase in taxes. There has been No proposal from the President on any spending cuts.
In 1920 Life expectancy was 54 years old. Social Security and pensions were set up so that people who lived to 65 could have a couple of years of retirement. Life expectancy has risen to 81. We are now paying for 16 more years of retirement then when Social Security was established. Can we talk about raising the retirement age by a year or two ? Can we look at the Federal Budget and not find ANY waste such as the Million Dollar GSA parties in Vegas ? Could we talk about bringing some of 50,000 troops stationed in Germany ( and other bases around the world) back to the US and put them on bases here where they can spend their money and help our economy ?
No ? The President only speaks of raisng taxes without cuts- I am sure if a few of us got together we could find plenty of places to cut spending. The first thing we have to do is put down our political party kool aid, and look at the problems objectively.Neither The Democrats or the Republican are always right or always wrong.
Posted on December 2 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Raising the minimum wage does not produce any additional goods or services.
As a result the only group to benefit from such an increase will be the government.
Every few years we raise the minimum wage and the results are the same. Workers at the next level want a raise and so on up the scale. Prices rise because employers need more to pay for labor and the cost of materials in the products they make.
The higher wages push people into higher income brackets and therefore they pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. This causes their purchasing power to decrease. One only has to look at what could be purchased when minuimum wage salary was $ 1.85 per hour and what can be purchased with minimum wage today. ( It is less)
In order to demonstrate my point, Let's say we raise the minuimum wage to $ 100.00 an hour.What happens to the price of your sub sandwich if the owner has to pay someone $ 100.00 an hour ? Nothing more is produced-so prices on everything have to rise. No one gets anything more then they are getting now. It sends a shock wave through the economy- fewer people will be working and the government will collect more with our indexed tax system. Raising the wage a $ 1.00 does the same thing only the effect is not as dramatic.
Minimum wage jobs are a starting point, a place to get experience so that you can command more in wages. If you are productive and worth more your employer will pay you more in order to keep from losing you. If you can't make enough to live on, it is time to get a better job.
Posted on November 8 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In the "Modern Day" the electoral college limits problems to one state. During the 2008 elections before voting started in Philadelphia every machine in Philly already had 2000 votes registered for Barrack Obama. It was discovered, deemed a "mistake" and they were reset to zero. The electoral college limits "mistakes " to one state.
This year Philadelphia voting gave the President a 4 million vote lead, which enabled him to win Pennsylvania. He only won the National vote by 2.5 million votes.
If you think Florida in 2000 was a legal mess, wait until you have a
a situation like they had in Buffalo in the 1980's where more people voted then they have people., and that margin is more then the margin of victory.
The electoral college was set up in the constitution so that the large states would not dominate the small states. It enabled the states to come together in a Union.
It will take a Constitutional Amendment to change it. Rest assured that the small states are not going to turn over the power they have to the large states.
Posted on November 4 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When I saw the banner on your letter I thought that you were being facetious. Mr. Coveney - Our government and the President blatently lied to us. They said that this attack was the result of a video and continued to say so for 2 weeks after the attack when they and everyone else knew it wasn't true. They then blamed "bad intellegence", but we have seen from the classified cables that have come out that this wasn't true either. Do you honestly think that the administration will give us a fair assessment of what happened ? Or will this be another Fast and Furious where
our government helped supply guns to Mexican drug cartels, but could not find " Where they did anything wrong " when they investigated themselves.