Do We Need A New National Minimum Wage?? There are arguments FOR and AGAINST. Most of you have heard the arguments FOR. Fast food restaurants, janitorial workers, migrant workers, etc, etc.. (Aside: Does a sentence ending in an abbreviation need 1 period, or 2; one for the end of the abbreviation, and one to end a sentence. If you know please tell me). I realize these are low paying jobs, with little benefits. BUT: what about the waitresses , for example. In the state I live, these people earn about $2-$3, an hour. The reason for this is the proprietors expect the patrons to pay their help. (TIPS), This is another topic for later. True some waiters/waitresses make big tips. I was speaking to a WAITER, who works in our State Capital, near all the Convention Centers, and Athletic Arenas. This restaurant is well known all across the USA. The wealthier clients entertain there quite often. He told me he and his colleagues earn between $60,000.oo and $70,000.oo, in TIPS a year. But away from there in your average town I have noticed the average tip is about $1.oo per Person. Therefore you can add that to the low wage paid and they are still making less than the average fast food server. In just this instance we have a huge difference in pay. So you raise the Minimum wage for the small town wait people, to lets say $10.oo an hour. That sounds good. Specially to the ones in the big City Fancy Restaurants who are making the $60-70,ooo.oo tips. (by the way the wait people in our area are required by the management to split their TIPS with the BUSBOY, COOK, DISHWASHER, and I have been told the owner of the establishment in some cases. So a minimum wage raise may help some people, and others even more. But how will this affect the Senior Citizen. The same Citizen who financed the bailouts, by not getting Social Security raises for 2 years running. When I calculated the money the government saved more than doubled the amount used for the bailout. My friend who was forced into retirement, and lost not only money in his 401k, but was forced to spend it to pay off bills that would have been paid, had he been able to work the next 6 years as had been planned. (His place of employment closed it’s doors. Although qualified and able he could not get a job. Why? AGE. Not what he was told but the real reason). Making him rely heavily on Social Security for his needs. He showed me his check, after working, and paying into Social Security for 45 years his check, after the government takes out for his MEDICARE. Oh yes they take that out of your Social Security check. Break the remainder down to a40 hour week, then down to per hour. His gross pay is $6.49 an hour. (Which puts him, I believe, below poverty level. This before he pays his Supplemental Insurance, which helps pay what Medicare does not. Plus he has to pay for Eye Care, Dental, and Medicine. This Supplemental Insurance costs him $150.oo a month, and his insurance agent tells him that will go up effective the first of August. He tells me this insurance goes up more each year the small raise he gets. In other words he goes further behind each year. Will he get a raise to even things out in purchasing power. Well not as long as Obama, is in office. So. What is my point you ask. Raising the minimum wage will put more money in some people’s pocket. Business knowing there is more money out there will merely raise their prices, thus negating the raise. It always happens. The government will take in more money, via taxes. People will cheer a Minimum Wage Increase. What they don’t understand is it is merely a sham. They won’t be able to live any better. So What Is The Point? T hat Is How I See It. PS: Sorry if I rambled on and strayed, but I think you get the idea. Views: 120
Month: June 2014
Government Cancels Redskins Trademarks
What Is Happening In The United States? Since 1937 (77 years) the Washington Redskins have played PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL. They began in 1932 as the BOSTON BRAVES. From 1933 through 1936, They changed the name to the BOSTON REDSKINS. For 81 YEARS, the franchise has proudly carried the name “REDSKINS”. Now the GOVERNMENT, has canceled some of their TRADEMARKS. Why? Some lady complained. It is reminiscent (for me), of the little lady who bought HOT COFFEE at McDonald’s, then through her own error spilled the coffee, (I think she was drinking and driving. Can’t recall all the circumstances, so you may want to look that up). Anyway she in turn SUED McDonald’s because the Coffee was hot. ????? (What about common sense ). And won a huge amount of dollars, (maybe $1 million). That was the beginning of the “I’ll sue” era. Before that time No body would sue over small things, especially if it was their own making. But I stray from our topic here. We seem to be living in an era which allows the rights of the few trump the rights of the many. Now let me say this is only my opinion and to each their own. I ask myself if I were of American Indian descent, (and who knows, my family roots go to the 16oo’s here in the United States), would I be offended by the use of the name “REDSKINS”? I can’t see any reason why I would. I have friends who ARE American Natives., or at least are descendents, None of them have RED skin. They sure are proud of their heritage. The American Natives, aren’t necessarily NATIVE, But they were here before the big immigration. Before the Mayflower. I started to say Caucasians came. That would be an error on my part. According to the dictionary: CAUCASIAN: Pertains to Humankind as marked by FAIR to DARK skin, straight or tightly curled hair, light to dark eyes, And inhabiting Europe, parts of North Africa, and Western Asia”. Kind of sounds like our American Natives. doesn’t it. I think of the “Native American”, as it appears some of them prefer to be called, AS a proud nation who probably got along with their fellow tribes better than most of the peoples of the world. According to the story of “THANKSGIVING” was more than willing to share their land and teach the settlers how to survive. But as more settlers came they were “pushed around”, (for lack of a better word”. Their hunting grounds, their lifestyle threatened. They fiercely defended their land and lifestyle. They were a PROUD PEOPLE. That is why many schools, and sports team take a name like “Braves” or “Redskins, or “Indians”. Like their namesakes, they fight to protect their “ground” arenas from invaders from others who would like nothing more than to defeat them in their home areas, while protecting their own home ground” Yes this is nothing compared to what the original, as far we know, fought for. Lastly. I ask myself, “What would happen if they changed their name to “WASHINGTON WHITESKINS”. Would the non white Americans feel slighted, and feel they were not welcome? I can understand a group who protested, let’s say the WASHINGTON APACHES, especially if they had no Apaches on the team. That sort of sounds like false advertising to me. I think I would be proud to have a likeness or name of American Heroes, associated with a Sports Team. In fact I hereby give the Washington permission to use my Name as their team name, If they want to. These team names keep the American Indian in the eye of the public, and allow us to recall their history. The way things are today, without these team names, people would not remember the PROUD people who tamed this wild country, and made it safe for all. Even the descendents of those who poached their land. As much as I HATE to say this. I think the people who want to knock out these institutions must be ashamed of their heritage. If they want it stopped do it the right way and say no new TEAM names referencing The American Indian or their lifestyle. But to cause a fuss over teams who have proudly carried those names through all these years? I think is a terrible thing. That Is How I See It.. Views: 135
GUN CONTROL LAWS
This is my opinion regarding Gun Laws. You may agree or disagree, GUNS, have help given you that right. As for myself, (since my guns, and knifes were stolen many years ago), I now own only 1 gun. That gun is a J.C. Higgins 12 guage, bolt action, 5 shell in tube, 1 in chamber SHOTGUN. I once loved to hunt squirrel, (with my 22 rifle, not like some I knew who used a 4-10 shotgun) and rabbits with my Shotgun. The last time I went rabbit or squirrel hunting was with my Dad. We saw no squirrels, that morning. And the last time we went hunting together was for rabbits. There was a fellow we met there just coming out of the fields. He told us “good luck”, he and his dog saw not even one rabbit. We asked if anyone else was out there. He replied ” Nobody:, and cleared his weapon, and climbed into the cab of his pickup truck. That didn’t stop us. We walked every inch of that 80 acre farm, (I know fields are bigger than that now, but at the time it was the average size farm in our area). We saw nary a hare. Walking back to the truck, parked along the highway, we unloaded our guns, THEN we saw about 5 of those consarned critters run across our path, and I could swear I heard them laughing, Any way we came up empty both times. In the service I qualified with an M-1, M-14, M-16, rifles; M-1911 45 Pistol, M-60 Machine gun, , and M-1 Bazooka. I am a strict advocate for hunting guns, I have friends who hunt with a Colt 45. Tried it, didn’t like it. When it come to carrying a pistol for protection, I can understand it if the carrier is properly trained. I usually just carry a STUN GUN, and PEPPER SPRAY. I draw the line at assualt weapons. The only time they may come in handy is if we are attacked by another country, or, HEAVEN help us we must defend ourselves from attack by our own government. I’m not talking about defying our laws, what I am talking about is if our government goes berserk, like a Lenin, Hitler, or Hussein, were to try to overrun our country. What happens if Obama gets his way and we all have to surrender our guns. No more hunting, for one thing. But the biggest problem I see is who will have guns; then. The military, and criminals. The military needs them to defend our country and our rights. Criminals need them because they are too lazy to work, have no respect for others, and, Oh yes they can intimidate the average citizen. Why will the criminals have guns? Because they are CRIMINALS, they will get guns by hook or crook, as the saying goes. The average citizen will not have guns because….well because it is AGAINST THE LAW. The problem we have is there is no way to keep the criminal from having guns. They could issue a law that anyone found to have a gun be put to death. Even that won’t stop the criminal element from having guns. Accidents do occasionally happen. But from what I can see more people are killed (on purpose, or during a criminal act like robbery or something like that). There will occasionally be accidental shootings, there are also too many stabbings, Most of them are not accidents. I suppose we could arm ourselves with bow and arrow….But that didn’t turn out too well for our NATIVE AMERICANS. The CRIMINALS will still have guns. REMEMBER. In closing, I suppose I must leave it up to wiser people than me to solve the problem. As it stands right now I can definitely say I am against GUN CONTROL. Not only does it go against our CONSTITUTION, but there is no logic in the politicians or pro Gun Control components thinking. Of course how can I think of politicians think logically? That Is How I See It. Views: 91
