1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

McCain flip flops on Social Security

Discussion in 'Elections & Political Parties' started by Popeye, Jun 14, 2008.

  1. Popeye

    Popeye Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,023
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Washington state
    Well, McCain has flip flopped now on so many issues it's hard to keep track, time to add one more...privatizing Social Security. Of course you could blame the obvious contradiction, revealed on the video, on senile dementia or just plain lying. One thing has become painfully obvious, McCain has both age issues and character issues, neither of which are exactly ringing endorsements for a man running for POTUS.


     
  2. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    Difference is, McCains supporters will ADMIT to all of this - and point to it in hopes of improving him as a candidate.

    Obama supports? They IGNORE everything thats even potentially negative about Obama. Never a peep of criticism, thats scarier by far.
     
  3. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    I do not support either of them but you are very right.

    Obama supporters will find everything no matter how small to complain about McCain. But when there is something questionable or negative about Obama they will first ignore it, then get angry with you for even posting it or bringing it up and then defend it to the most ridiculous degree.

    They do it even if it is the exact same thing as the McCain problem. They will tear McCain a new one for his, then defend Obama to levels that are truly scary.
     
  4. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    well as someone leaning Obama heavy, but still open as I stated, I have no problem stating I have issues with Obama, but I hope those will be addressed with a good VP to round out the ticket. And if the attacks on Obama where ever had a valid point to them I would agree maybe, but most I have seen are mindless..or I agree with his policy more then McCains.

    Also I have more then a few times stood up for McCain, and sided at least in part with what he was saying.
     
  5. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    Or it could be that A) Obama is just heads & shoulders a much better Presidential candidate and people really seriously don't want to see a Bush 3rd term in a John McSame...

    and B) the unfounded scurrilous Swift Boating attacks on this Good, Honest, Christian Family Man & Father by the Radical Right rallies people to support Senator Obama even more.
    ;)
     
  6. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    I dislike Obama for the following reasons:

    1) His tax plan (notably raising the capital gains tax, and ended the Bush tax cuts, which helped the economy - that is simply a fact.)
    2) His healthcare plan
    3) All of his foreign policy statements for the most part
    4) His extension of unemployment benefits
    5) His rants against corporations and oil independence but refusal to allow domestic drilling


    I do not care if he gets attacked in some unfair manner, all Presidential candidates are going to have to undergo that, big deal. I have a problem with his policies.
     
  7. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    Well first of a on #1... then you must be a big fan of skyrocketing deficits that always eventually kill economies... because that's what we always seem to have under Republicans. It's really not "cut back" as they try to smoke & mirrors people... it's just spend a lot more in other areas. Putting off debt on the children in this country might seem good in the very short run to you & I but it's BAD economics. Trickle Down or as Bush's Dad said "VOODOO ECONOMICS" just plain does not work.

    #2 Healthcare is at a tipping point in this country. Low & middle class hard working Americans just plain find themselves not being able to afford coverage for them & their families. What we have now is a monopoly system of huge Insurance Companies and Heathcare providers in a money tug of war that's killing Americans. We can do better and being afraid to look at a problem seriously and from different angles doesn't make it go away.

    #3 Trying to engage people... even people we are not in agreement with is ALWAYS SMART. We don't have to agree or give in on anything! But the door to allow any positive opening that could maybe even surprisingly occur should be left open. I mean Come ON... Israel BOMBED Syria and they're talking.

    #4 On Unemployment Insurance God Bless You but I can absolutely positively guarantee you one thing. If you lose your job & cannot not find another decent one immediately... you'll be first in line.

    #5 Again we most certainly can stay "stuck on stupid" and continue to believe oil is the ever lasting cheap fuel of the future. It's not true but we can believe that if we want. I see no reason to subsidize oil companies making multi-BILLION dollar profits. If the oil companies were to get ANY government money it should be forced to spend 100% of it on alternative energy sources and not oil.

    However I'm not against some increase in drilling sites... but that won't solve the problem... it's a band-aid approach. And some places have very good reason to be off limits. The end doesn't always justify the means... sometimes when we want something we forget that... but it is a truth.

    The fact is our current administration is just plain bad and we need a major change in direction. John McSame is the same. I see Senator Obama as someone truly intelligent & caring that will do some very smart and helpful things to get America back on track!
    America desperately needs that right now.
     
  8. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA


    I agree that Bush's spending has been a bit out of control. That said his tax cuts helped the economy, that is not up for dispute, the economic evidence backs it up. But Obama is going to increase spending, so how does this eliminate our debt? In economic terms lets look at it this way:

    Say that I am the President and I want to build a new White House. It will cost 10 dollars. I can either A) Borrow $10 at a 10% interest rate, or I can B) raise taxes to generate the $10.

    Whatever my course of action, I will lose out on the 10% interest rate and nothing more. If I borrow the money I will have to pay back $11 due to the interest rate, creating a net loss of $1. If i raise taxes for the money, I lose out on the money I need to pay the debt ($10) plus the loss of the 10% interest I could be generating ($1) so in total $11, for a net loss of $1. The basic premise of borrowing versus taxing has no major difference in economic terms. (That said the spending is where the problems come in, I agree Bush has spent a ton, but Obama has promised to increase spending)

    Further, the idea that he will not tax the middle class is outrageous. I do not know who he thinks the capital gains tax increase is going to hit. It will hit middle class pension funds that are invested in the market. Further, historically lower capital gains tax rates have generated more revenue, so if he wants to generate more money to pay for his programs, shouldn't he be lowering the rates?


    It is a monopoly because government subsidizes HMO's and will not let any new competition into the market. Further, everyone in this country has access to healthcare. If you cannot afford it, visits to public hospital ER's are free of charge.

    We can talk to Iran all we want, the EU has been doing it for years and they have accomplished nothing. Further, the idea that we do not talk to Iran through back channels is outrageous, like it or not, we already do talk to Iran.

    I was also more speaking about his Iraq policy. I think that the moderate muslim nations look at Iraq and would view a pullout as the US abandoning our word. I feel that this would only hurt our image in the area. Further, Saudi Arabia has made it clear that a pullout would not be acceptable (they are our biggest oil supplier, like it or not we have to pay attention) and Turkey has said an independent Kurdish area is not an option. If we pullout to soon the Kurdish area will simply declare independence and force the Turkish hand. (Turkey cannot allow this because they suppress a massive Kurdish population in their own nation to maintain power)

    No, I can assure you I will not be. I have made investments and done quite well, I already am in the highest tax bracket and have plenty put away for a job search. That said, I think the "encouraging" people should come in the form of rewarding them for getting a job, not paying them to not work. Where is the incentive to work if that is the case?

    I agree we cannot use oil forever. That said with new drilling techniques all this environmental talk is bogus in my view, we can drill and not disrupt the environment to any great extent. I think that a switch to alternative energy will take well over a decade or two to complete and in the meantime, why not drill our own oil? At the very least it will create new jobs and bring profits into an American oil company...


    I do not see McCain the same as Bush at all. He has openly attacked Bush in the past and written legislation that has gone against the Republican platform. Obama has been a rubber stamp on the other hand. You are correct that Obama is a candidate of change, I just view it as a change for the worse.
     
  9. Russmor

    Russmor New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is one simple problem with this theorem...you can't say that you are losing out on the $1 in interest as you as the buyer are not collecting interest. This effect only works if you collect interest on money you spend which typically is not the case...


    These public hospitals at many times refuse patients, mistreat them or are unable to see patients because they cannot care for the large number of patients they receive as they are underfunded and understaffed. The only proper way to solve this problem is by simply promoting universal healthcare which reduces the overhead costs by millions of dollars will save our country enough money to improve our healthcare system and begin care for all people in our country instead of just the wealthy.

    I feel that the moderate muslim nations see our invasion of Iraq as an occupation. NIE reports have stated that the war in Iraq has allowed Al-Qaida to increase recruitment by creating a funnel for the anger of the people. Continued stay there continues to increase their recruitment (we are obviously not solving that problem) and it sends the message that we are occupying our country despite the numerous requests from Iraqi officials for us to withdraw. I don't know but I don't believe that's the proper messagte.

    Jobs pay more than unemployment but unemployment provides a substitute for those unable to find work in a failing economic climate.


    Drilling in regions such as the ANWR would be able to provide barely enough energy for a year at most and more likely less when factoring in the energy reequirements for processing and drilling. Domestic drilling will do nothing but threaten the environment while holding back incentives to advance and cure our problems instead of halting our progress until it is too late.

    according to reports by non-biased sources McCain has voted with Bush 95% of the time in the last year and 89% of the time since Bush was elected. I don't see how that isn't a second Bush...
     
  10. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    You as the buyer would be collecting interest on that money if you borrowed to pay for your increase. Or you could spend that and someone else would collect on the interest. If you raise the taxes on the other hand you simply cause the person you tax to lose out on that interest (or the person who would end up with the money after it was spent)

    In the end, the net loss of the overall transaction will be the same.


    A perfect example to the gross inadequacies that result when the government tries to run anything. Given the situation in public hospitals (which are run by the government) how is the solution to enact more government intervention in the form of universal healthcare?


    A fair point, but I disagree. I think that many do view it this way, but take it a step further and expect us now to live up to the obligations that we said we would and ensure that we leave with a stable Iraq. Also, the Prime Minister of Iraq has extended the UN mandate for the US forces in Iraq for this entire year and as said that our presence is still needed. I think the road we are on now training Iraqi security forces can quicken the time that it will take before we can eventually withdraw. As we have seen recently the Iraqi public has all but openly rejected Al Quada and wants to pursue peace through the government.


    I do not have a problem with it persay, but he wants to extend it... why the need to extend it? I think it should last a month at best, but most people in this country, if they save properly, should have money set aside for this type of situation, I think we need to stop looking to the government for bailouts.



    It will not make a huge difference no, but it would be a symbolic gesture to at least show that the government was not just blowing hot air. With oil prices what they are, and with drilling methods being able to not alter the environment, I do not see the harm in drilling some oil and providing some jobs in the process. We can pursue alternative forms of energy and drill domestically at the same time.


    No one said that McCain was not a Republican. That makes 11% of the time that he has disagreed with platform Bush has taken and has made that clear. Obama on the other hand has been a rubber stamp for the Democrats from what I can tell from his voting record.
     
  11. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    When you have been as wrong as Bush, thats not a bad thing to always side against him. If anything they have not been hard enough on him in stopping him.
     
  12. Russmor

    Russmor New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so if the plan you propose is essentially to continue the tax cuts eventually our country will go bankrupt. That will lead to hyperinflation and we all know what that means. A bankrupt government is not a good government. We are not in an economic position to continue proceeding the way we are with tax cuts. in addition you forget that to pay for everything we are giving out much higher interest rates than people would get on taxed money. It is not as simple as saying that the rates are equal. Not to mention if one of the half dozen countries who "own" our debt we would have no ability to pay them back. This is the same situation that occured in the Weimar Republic in Germany and that didn't end too well...


    Ah but in this case the government is largely underfunded. If we take the amount of money that is paid for overhead in big HMOs we would be saving enough money to put just 1/2 of it to help stabilize and fix the entire medical system. It would free the doctors' hands and enable them to treat patients without waiting to hear from a big company thousands of miles away...Medicare has an approximate overhead of 3% while HMOs spend over 50% on overheads (perhaps as much as 80%). So if we put half that money into the fixing the system and give the other half back...we end up with a better medical system.


    The Iraqi public has in large parts rejected Al Qaida but they have also rejected us. We are functioning in the same sort of position as Al Qaida there, an unwanted, interfering, dangerous force. We have the inability to fix their country as shown by lack of electricity, plumbing and other conveniences they once had and our occupation is estimated to have killed as many people in "combat situations" as Saddam did in 30 years (now I don't like Saddam obviously but don't argue that we have killed no civilians as we have). While we bankrupt our country we continue to simply help Al-Qaida and fail to help Iraq. We either need a new strategy or we need a withdrawal. If we are bankrupt what use are we then?


    Agreed except for many people in this country lack the ability to get a high paying job in this economic climate and the minimum wage is several dollars lower than the poverty line so I don't see how you are suppossed to save in that situation...



    [quote[It will not make a huge difference no, but it would be a symbolic gesture to at least show that the government was not just blowing hot air. With oil prices what they are, and with drilling methods being able to not alter the environment, I do not see the harm in drilling some oil and providing some jobs in the process. We can pursue alternative forms of energy and drill domestically at the same time.[/quote]

    A symbolic gesture that we want to continue the way that we have been going and increase the profits of oil companies? what kind of message is that...The way to reduce oil prices is by not using oil. We have reached a stage that several companies have developed alternatives but instead of having government money help pay for that you are proposing that instead the government pay for more oil drilling and more oil profits...?


    According to conservative groups Barack Obama has an 11% rating...meaning he sides with Republicans about 11% of the time. Sound familiar? However this 11% is far different than McCain's 11% as McCain has sided with an obviously failed president most of the time while Obama has sided against that failed president most of the time...
     
  13. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    No, we do not continually cut taxes until they reach 0%, we just stop raising them. Tax cuts along with controlled spending will boost the economy, whereas tax hikes with increased government spending only lead to more of the same. We could not spend our way out of the Great Depression, it took a war, and I think that Keynesian Economics are dead.

    None of these countries are going to call in the debt. China owns a huge amount but they have to. China uses our currency to back their own, so they can keep it artificially undervalued to make their exports looks more appealing. China cannot call in our debt because it would crash their own economy because of the effect it would have on their own cash reserves.



    Governments mandated the existence of HMO's to begin with. As for Medicare, The program serves 42 million Americans and costs more than $325 billion per year, nearly 13 percent of the federal budget. But current projections say Medicare could go broke under the weight of the aging baby boom generation by 2019 -- long before Social Security. Added to this is another $400 Billion for the 2003 prescription drug plan that was enacted.

    The United States, has a population of 301,139,947. Given what Medicare costs for these 42 million Americans, it would cost an astonishing 1.9 Trillion dollars. All of this before any prescription drug plan is added in. Where is this money going to come from every year?


    True, to an extent. That is why it is so important that the Iraqi Security Force has been taking the lead on missions lately. They are more prone to view their own security force as more legitimate. We must continue to train them and ensure that they can provide decent security so that the political process can continue.



    The majority of people who work minimum wage jobs are teenagers who are not supporting themselves. That said, many people also choose not to save and choose to live beyond their means. It is not my fault if they choose this and then realize it may have been a bad choice after the fact. If someone chooses to do this, it is not the governments responsibility to take care of them if they cannot maintain their lifestyle.


    A gesture that will create more jobs for people and generate more revenue and income while we figure out the solution to alternative fuel sources. We can talk about how we should use less oil all we want, but the odds are we are not going to do it. We have to find the balance with a way to maintain our lifestyle and find viable alternative fuel sources as well. I said nothing of the government paying for drilling oil anywhere, private companies should do it, and those private companies who develop alternative fuel sources must make them economically viable without government help to bring them to the market. I am against any subsidies that the government pays to private business.
     
  14. Russmor

    Russmor New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That would be great if it is how it works...The Republicans you are supporting are not fiscally responsible. in a time of war spending money on tax cuts plus continuing our spending levels and increasing them as Republicans have done for 6 years will do nothing but increase the debt. This is not the proper procedure. We have to maintain taxes where they are (tax cuts barely impact the middle class and lower class but strongly support the rich as they are percentage based...) and reduce spending and withdraw from our war. Continuing like this will just increase debt and will not stimulate the economy as has been shown. Bush's tax cuts now have us enter into a recession as we move on...how are they working?

    As for pulling out of our debt I see countries like Saudi Arabia pulling out and it also lowers our negotiating power if we are reliant on them...

    This is a long misproven arguement. The HMOs are put out of power saving the average american family of 3-4 up to $10,000. The government increases a tax to all people averaging approximately $5000 with less at the bottom and more at the top. The significantly lower overhead allows people to spend less and get the same or better care. Now we spend 40% more money per capita on health care than any other industrialized country in the world and yet our care fails down near the bottom of highly developed countries. In addition the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) claims that UHC would save between 100-200 billion dollars A YEAR even with covering the uninsured and increasing benefits. Why is it that we can't implement a plan that is such as success in France (#1 in the world), Canada, Japan, Britain and others.


    hey if what you say works I'd be happily surprised. I'll point to past instances that violence has calmed down again but I'm not going in depth. We'll see what happens in December...



    Not at all. There are millions of Americans who work 40, 50 or 60 hours a week at minimum wage jobs but are unable to do better because they lack the skills or the economic climate is inhibating them from finding a better job. So don't tell me that they have a choice...some may but others don't...


    The income derived from this will be minimal and government incentives to encourage drilling will eliminate all benefits to our government and just bring more to oil executives. more jobs sounds great but this will put very few new jobs onto the market...Drilling for more oil is doing nothing and prolonging research will do nothing more. Let's begin to implement alternatives that will create MORE jobs and actually REDUCE our reliance on oil instead of maintaining it.
     
  15. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    I agree that Bush has not been very conservative about spending at all. That said, Obama plans to increase spending, and raise taxes such as the capital gains tax which will in effect lower the revenue generated.

    On his tax cuts:
    For the past half-century, tax revenues have gen erally stayed within 1 percentage point of 18 per cent of GDP. The CBO projects that, even if all 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent, revenues will stillincrease from 18.4 percent of GDP today to 22.8 percent by 2050, not counting any feedback revenues from their positive economic impact. It is projected that repealing the Bush tax cuts would nudge 2050 revenues up to 23.7 percent of GDP, not counting any revenue losses from the negative economic impact of the tax hikes. In effect, the Bush tax cut debate is whether revenues should increase by 4.4 percent or 5.3 percent of GDP.

    Spending has remained around 20 percent of GDP for the past half-century. However, the coming retirement of the baby boomers will increase Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spending by a combined 10.5 percent of GDP. Assuming that this causes large budget deficits and increased net spending on interest, federal spending could surge to 38 percent of GDP and possibly much higher.

    Overall, revenues are projected to increase from 18 percent of GDP to almost 23 percent. Spending is projected to increase from 20 percent of GDP to at least 38 percent. Even repealing all of the 2001 and 2003 cuts would merely shave the projected budget deficit of 15 percent of GDP by less than 1 percentage point, and that assumes no negative feedback from raising taxes.

    Further, The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increas ing economic growth. This is exactly what happened.

    1) GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.

    2) Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consec utive quarters. The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Divi dend payouts increased as well.

    3) The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quar ters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.

    Add to this that in the post-Bush tax era, the rich actually shoulder more of the tax burden.

    While high-income households did save more in actual dollars than low-income households, they did so because low-income house holds pay so little in income taxes in the first place. The same 1 percent tax cut will save more dollars for a millionaire than it will for a middle-class worker simply because the millionaire paid more taxes before the tax cut.

    First, lawmakers low ered the initial tax brackets from 15 percent to 10 percent and then expanded the refundable child tax credit, which, along with the refundable earned income tax credit (EITC), reduced the typical low-income tax burden to well below zero. As a result, the U.S. Treasury now mails tax "refunds" to a large proportion of these Americans that exceed the amounts of tax that they actually paid. All in all, the number of tax filers with zero or negative income tax liability rose from 30 million to 40 million, or about 30 percent of all tax filers.

    Consequently, from 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 per cent dropped from zero percent to –4 percent, mean ing that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy from the IRS. By contrast, the share paid by the top quintile of households (by income) increased from 81 percent to 85 percent.

    Expanding the data to include all federal taxes, the share paid by the top quintile edged up from 66.6 percent in 2000 to 67.1 percent in 2004, while the bottom 40 percent's share dipped from 5.9 per cent to 5.4 percent. Clearly, the tax cuts have led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden and the poor shouldering less



    HMOs were designed--by Democrats and Republicans--to eliminate individual health insurance. The individual was first discouraged from buying insurance in 1942 when employee health premiums were made tax deductible to employers--not to individuals. Congress created Medicare in 1965, making individual insurance for those over 65 obsolete.

    The law created new, supposedly cheaper health coverage with millions of dollars to HMOs, which, until then, constituted a small portion of the market. Kaiser Permanente was the only major HMO in the country by 1969 and most of its members were compelled to join through unions. Combined with Medicare, the HMO Act eventually eliminated the market for affordable individual health insurance.

    In my view, this is the reason for higher medical costs. The HMO's do not compete and the government has done away with the market for individual competition. I do not think the solution to this problem (created by government intrusion) is more government intrusion.




    For the latest stats I could find on minimum wage workers:

    The 1.6 million paid-hourly workers who earn minimum wages can be broken down into two broad groups.

    1) Over half (53 percent) are teenagers or young adults under the age of 23. More than half (54 percent) of these young workers live in families with incomes two or more times the official poverty level for their family size and 18 percent live in poor families. The average family income of these young workers is almost $50,500 per year. The average income for single young workers is $11,200. Over 63 percent are enrolled in either high school or college.

    2) The other half (47 percent) are workers ages 23 and up. More of these workers live in poor families (29 percent). Yet, even within this half of the minimum wage population, the average family income is over $38,100 per year. The average income for single workers is $19,300. Over 30 percent of these older workers did not graduate from high school and another 36 percent had only a high school diploma.

    The average family income for all minimum wage workers is $45,200 and their wages account for 35 percent of their total family income. The average income of single-nonfamily minimum wage workers is $16,800.

    And quite frankly, in my opinion, many of those who are stuck in a minimum wage job because they dropped out of high school or did not goto college made that choice. They chose to drop out or not to pursue college. I know in my state if you make only average grades you can attend college for free, and recently I read in the paper about a homeless boy who had just graduated high school and was going to college. These people had a choice, and they made it.
     
Loading...

Share This Page