The handwriting is on the wall. Recent votes on class action lawsuits, bankruptcy and the minimum wage, along with Bush's sham budget, signal that the social safety net so laboriously constructed over 70 years is being torn apart thread by thread. We now have a governnment of the wealthy, by the wealthy and for the wealthy.A few questions for you:1) Have you read the class action lawsuit changes? Can you explain the impact it has on the poor, as opposed to the wealthy lawyers? Can you tell us what would change as a result of the legislation?2) Have you read the changes regarding bankruptcy? Do you know that for someone that is unemployed nothing has changed? Do you know that the wealthy who file bankruptcy (yes, there is a lot of this) will have to payback some of the money they owe instead of sticking it to all of their lenders? 3) Can you explain the benefit to society as a whole (aka the economy), as opposed to the benefit of a single segment of society, that is realised through implementing and incrementing a minimum wage? Lawyers and, in some cases, local governments make more from class action suits than the people the suit is supposedly representing. I was part of a class action suit against Sears several years ago. I got some coupons that I could use at Sears to get money off of purchases. In other words, in order to get my compensation for Sears' wrong doing toward me, I had to spend more money with Sears. The law firm that handled the suit received millions of dollars in the settlement.I agree that I'd like to see something that makes the lender better manage who they are lending to. However, then the complaint would be that only the wealthy can borrow money. I understand that people like to complain about the evils of lending regardless of whether it is lending to someone that cannot pay it back or not lending to someone that has no means to pay it back. I'd say they are damned if the do and a damned if they don't in this case.In the long term, the minimum wage law does not even benefit the people it is targetted to benefit. In some cases it prevents a person from getting a job at all. The fact is that there are some people who do not have skills and intelligence enough to do more than the most menial tasks. They tend to work for a very small wage doing work that can either be done by anyone or don't really need to be done, but make the person feel they are earning money instead of depending on charity. Minimum wage increases force some employers to reconsider the value of giving that person a job in order to feel good. The higher the wage, or more accurately the greater the increment in minimum wage, the more people included in the group. I've been told by minimum wage supporters that arbitrarily changing the minimum wage to $25/hour would harm the economy and cause inflation and rampant unemployment. They claim this is due to the arbitrary nature of my $25 figure. I would be willing to accept this IF they, or you, could prove to me that the $1.10 increase that is being pushed is not arbitrary. All I request is the math and logic behind this precise amount.If you cannot answer the questions above, then you cannot contend that any of the changes you note will harm the economy or cause for a larger percent of poor people in the US. If you can answer the questions above with solid reason, then you may change my position on these issues.Keith
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. M