It's not about the cost differential, it's about constitutional authority.
At least the government has the authority to spend money on the military, even if you don't like or agree with whatever it is the military is doing, but there is NOTHING in the constitution giving the feds the authority to spend on education.
And it frankly doesn't matter one whit whether federal education spending is popular - the results have been devastating. The academic skills of children continues to decline, apparently in direct proportion to the amount of federal money spent on education.
Yeah, yeah, correlation is not causation, but clearly throwing MORE and MORE money at the problem is not the solution. And federal money means federal control. And more federal control means less freedom and liberty. And its far, far, far more evil and insidious than anything the military is doing - young kids are highly impressionable and if they are getting educated by the government, the government is going to teach them how great the government is, and the kids are going to accept this and grow up believing in the government, supporting and even desiring more government. Federal control of primary schools is the most evil social act that could be perpetrated on society.
It is also, I would point out, one of the critical planks of the Communist Manifesto.
The federal government should not be spending a single penny on education.
Didn't you lefties learn ANYTHING from the Kerry loss? So many were beginning to understand the critical importance of states' rights and the need to genuinely limit the power of the feds.
And now this?
We need LESS federal spending on, oh, EVERYTHING. Not more! The less spending done by the federal government, the less it matters who is in office in DC. If the federal budget was just a few billion, Bush could be made president for life and you'd barely notice any difference in anything.
And BTW, the budget may have beed proposed by Bush, but it still has to be introduced to congress by representatives and voted on and passed by congress.
Really the budget is much more the fault of congress than the president. They don't even have to look at his proposed budget and could create one of their own to vote on and pass if they wanted to.
Blame Congress first and most of all if you don't like what's in the budget.
The electoral college was never meant to reflect the people's will. Indeed, the presidency was never intended to determined by any sort of popular election at all. It was until the 1860s that all the states finally used popular election of electors. In The Beginning such an idea was unthinkable.
The problem isn't a lack of democracy, it's too much democracy.
The problem facing conservatives is that a lot of racist southern conservatives (i.e. dixiecrats) who were democrats back in the 1960s, switched over to the republican party.
You missed the point, but perhaps I wasn't explicit enough.
It isn't that hard work is the key to europe's success, it's the mentality that working is desirable and nobody has the mentality of solely sucking off "the rich" by taking welfare and never intending to work.
We have too many people (not a large number in absolute terms, but large enough to be a problem) in the USA who won't work because they can live off of the wealth redistribution of "the rich".
High taxes in europe work because everybody expects and wants to contribute. High taxes in the USA are a problem because a few too many people refuse to contribute, knowing they can live off of others. They have the mentality that society somehow owes them something, even though they have put into society little or nothing, and do not intend to put anything significant into society.
I'm not talking about permanently handicapped folks, either.
Finally, you may want to contemplate the looming bankruptcy of the pension systems in France and Germany and elsewhere. That's one reason they were so desparate for the UK to sign up for the EU - they represent a huge infusion of much needed cash into a nearly insolvent system. It's a short term "fix" (for Germany and France, not the UK), but they still have a long term problem.
So it isn't all as rosey as you want to believe anyways.
A redistribution of wealth is only good in a society where everyone already has the mind set of being hard workers. Here in the US we have a few too many slackers who are unwilling to work because they know they can get free stuff to not do so. Especially since this wealth is(supposedly) just being taken from the "evil rich" who, after all, just got "lucky" ("won life's lottery" as Daschle would have you believe). That kind of mentality is essentially unheard of in Europe.
I recall reading of a poll in which people of different wealth status were asked what the most important factor was to becoming wealthy. Poor people said education. Rich people said hard work.
Let me tell you, the rich are right on this one. I know a lot of immigrants to the US who come here with just the shirt on their backs, and typically have a 3rd or 5th grade level of education, but who are very nicely and/or retired early because they started their own businesses and work their butts off.
If you've the mentality that poor people are poor just because they aren't "lucky", I ask you to look up Oprah Winfrey's little experiment done through the James Addams Hull House entitled "Families for a Better Life". Well, actually you'll probably be too depressed if you read it, since it thoroughly debunks this silly notion of wealth through luck. Which was exactly the opposite of what Oprah wanted to prove, but she was woman enough to acknowledge the results and concede there was more to wealth than just luck. That's a step up from Daschle, but it doesn't stop ol' Tom from trying to foist that lie off on the rest of us. And too many people believe it.
Um, there are a very large number of poor, uneducated folks who vote for democrats. Especially amongst immigrant populations, but also blacks and a few other groups.
Just because one side has a number of ignorant, uneducated voters doesn't mean the other side doesn't too. After all, democrats love to talk about republicans being the party of big business. Big businesses don't get to be Big by being dumb...
Lieberman was far more republican than Kerry - he was basically Bush Lite.
However, he was also jewish, and for some reason that seems to be a no-no with the majority of americans (or any political bent). Still an awful lot of jew hating going on in the world, and even in the USA...
Ironically, the left is vastly more organized, and has been for a long, long time.
People talk about the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, but the reality is that the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy actually really exists, and has existed for quite some time.
Four "Internationals" plus the still active "Socialist International".
And you think there's not enough left wing propaganda?
And I could further bemoan the tremendous shift leftwards that has permeated society over the past 200 years overall.
Don't believe it?
Here's Marx's 10 points from his Communist Manifesto: 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
We are so there. And the few bits that haven't been implemented, both Bush and Kerry were gushing about implementing.
That's what really pisses me off the most - we've drifted so far left that many people fail to recognize it. Anything that isn't flat out communist is seen as being dangerously right wing. What a joke!
The only danger of becoming a right wing dictatorship is that of first going so far left that we wrap back around the political spectrum.
Just watch what you wish for, you may just get it...
China would have to first get past our NAVY to get at Taiwan, and I do believe we have enough naval assets available to meet that threat. If the Chinese navy defeats the US navy and is able to freely land as many troops as they want on the island, the US army/marines ain't gonna be enough regardless.
As for North Korea, that is a big concern, but even South Korea alone spends three times as much on their military as North Korea, despite NK spending a much larger % of their GDP on their military. I'm sure Japanese troops would be sent over, as would soldiers from other Pacific and Asian countries. It wouldn't be just a US problem, it'd be a regional problem. And if NK started it unprovoked, presumably the UN would step up to the table and call on its member to take action, so there'd be a whole lot more besides.
The US may have the most effective military, but it's hardly the only military. And a UN backed war would likely make it palatable for countries like France and Germany to get involved. Considering they haven't deployed many troops yet, there'd probably be enough to stabilize the situation until the US could redeploy.
Not to mention the US navy and air force could do some serious damage to the NK troops while waiting for the army to show up.
Leaders of OSCE Election Observation Mission to the U.S. to meet press in Washington
WASHINGTON, 7 October 2004 - The leaders of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe observation of the 2 November presidential election in the United States are visiting Washington in preparation for the observation.
Approximately 100 observers and parliamentarians will follow the election for the OSCE.
There is no negotiation between the Canadian government and the US pharmaceutical industry.
This myth needs to die.
The Canadian government decides what the maximum is they will pay for a given drug (which is not ALWAYS lower than the cost in the US, by the way) and the US pharmcos have to sell at that price (or lower, but we all know that won't happen...) or not sell at all. That's hardly "negotiation" in any meaningful sense of the word.
Created in 1987 under the Patent Act as an independent quasi-judicial tribunal, the PMPRB limits the prices set by manufacturers for all patented medicines, new and existing, sold in Canada, under prescription or over the counter, to ensure they are not excessive.
and
In Canada, the prices of patented medicines only are subject to direct price controls through the PMPRB.
To determine if the price of a patented drug sold in Canada is excessive, the PMPRB applies factors set out in the Patent Act and in its price guidelines.
Now, now, post roads and interstate commerce are both constitutionally mandated functions of the federal government.
It's the people receiving benefits that aren't explicitly constitutionally mandated. And don't give me any crap about "general welfare". Madison himself made perfectly clear what he meant by that in Federalist 41.
Jackson won't be losing his seat any time soon over this. He's an all around embarrasment in every way, but got elected anyways.
Lots of politicians really should be considered an embarrasment but still get elected. People don't care about those sorts of things, they just care about how much money the politicians can take from others and give to them. As long as the money flows, any embarrasment can be tolerated.
The reason direct popular voting for electors is broken is because it was never intended to be done in that manner. In the beginning, there was no direct popular voting at any level for president. Electors were choosen by the state legislatures, and the electors could vote for whoever they wanted, regardless of who they were choosen to vote for.
One of the main reasons for this was to keep more power in the hands of the states. It also helps prevent the election from being a popularity contest (which it usually is these days), and limits the impact of an ignorant and apathetic electorate, since state officials tend to be a bit more on the ball than the average citizen.
So the real solution is to remove the popular vote for electors and go back to letting the state governments choose electors. And let them vote as they see fit. That gets rid of the "winner take all" syndrome, eliminates the need for IRV or other alternative vote systems, eliminates the issue of ignorant and apathetic voters, reduces fraud (I'm certain the winner of this year's election will be whichever side can get away with the most fraud), increases the power of the states at the expense of the feds. The benefits are substantial.
BOTH sides are engaging in MASSIVE fraud this year. Expect it to get worse in future elections, until finally we just give up on elections all together an openly become the dictatorship we are inevitably heading towards.
That's what its becoming these days - which side can commit the most fraud. By 2008 we should be about par with third world mock elections. By 2012, there probably won't even be any more elections.
So how do you suppose it is some people can come to this country and survive on less than minimum wage, and not only survive, but thrive? These are people who came over here individually, since they couldn't afford the smuggling fee for their whole family. After paying off the smuggling debt, they pay to get the rest of their family over, and eventually even make a comfortable life. If they can do it on (or below!) minimum wage, why can't you?
I'll tell you why: #1) they didn't stay at minimum wage for any length of time - skilled kitchen help at restaurants, for example, is worth a lot more than minimum wage. Sure, you start out as a bus boy, but once they've worked at all the jobs in the kitchen, you're worth quite a bit more. These people then go on to start their own restaurant, or work as a manager at an existing one.
Of course, they accomplish this by working 16 hour days - nobody said life was easy at the bottom, but they do it and they work their way out of it.
#2) I'm hardly bigoted - I work for a minority owned firm and enjoy it, thank you very much, and my wife is an immigrant (legally so); indeed I'm probably far more tolerant than most people who go out of their way to loudly proclaim their tolerance and forcefully demand tolerance of others. I'm just quiet about it.
#3) I don't hire anybody, I'm an employee, not an employer.
#4) the glass ceiling of people judgeing by appearances So we have a loud, visible tatoo, do we? *snicker*
#5) Starting a business takes having some money to begin with. It's called loans. Try a bank. Or family, if you haven't alienated them all.
Perhaps you should consider moving somewhere with a lower cost of living?
I'm frankly surprised your bank financed a home that is 50% of your income. It's rare they finance as much as a ratio of 40%.
So now we're back to the issue of life choices. You don't have to live in Oregon, and you don't have to live in a house that expensive. You choose to do these things.
While you can't avoid all expenses (taxes and health care), you should address the things you can affect.
Is there any possibility your wife could work? Even part time would no doubt help a lot.
Also, if you don't already, check out Clark Howard! Not sure what station he'd be on out there, but if you can find him on the radio and spare some time to listen, he might give you some helpful ideas.
The better question to ask is why is that person homeless?
If you can show up to work on time and sober, you can get a job. If you are willing to work hard, you can run your own business and make loads of money.
I know lots of people who came to the USA with literally nothing but the shirt on their back, and even worse, owing tens of thousands of dollars to someone for smuggling them into the country, and not only did they pay off the debt, they own homes and cars and TVs and everything else, some of them are actually very wealthy. Many of these people are poorly educated (maybe 3rd or 5th grade level).
Even Warren Buffet comes from a modest background and got to where he is through hard work.
There is so much opportunity in this country, the only excuse for homelessness is poor life choices. I see it every day where people came here with nothing and ended up just fine in the long run.
You're whacked - when I was making $27,000 I could afford all those things. And no, not by using credit. If you're making $22/hr and can't afford even half of what he listed, you're making some serious life errors. How much do you spend on alcohol or cigarettes? Do you do illegal drugs?
Oh wait, I know - you must live in California!
Sucker...
In most of the country, $22/hr is just fine for a comfortable middle-class lifestyle.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not about the cost differential, it's about constitutional authority.
At least the government has the authority to spend money on the military, even if you don't like or agree with whatever it is the military is doing, but there is NOTHING in the constitution giving the feds the authority to spend on education.
And it frankly doesn't matter one whit whether federal education spending is popular - the results have been devastating. The academic skills of children continues to decline, apparently in direct proportion to the amount of federal money spent on education.
Yeah, yeah, correlation is not causation, but clearly throwing MORE and MORE money at the problem is not the solution. And federal money means federal control. And more federal control means less freedom and liberty. And its far, far, far more evil and insidious than anything the military is doing - young kids are highly impressionable and if they are getting educated by the government, the government is going to teach them how great the government is, and the kids are going to accept this and grow up believing in the government, supporting and even desiring more government. Federal control of primary schools is the most evil social act that could be perpetrated on society.
It is also, I would point out, one of the critical planks of the Communist Manifesto.
The federal government should not be spending a single penny on education.
Didn't you lefties learn ANYTHING from the Kerry loss? So many were beginning to understand the critical importance of states' rights and the need to genuinely limit the power of the feds.
And now this?
We need LESS federal spending on, oh, EVERYTHING. Not more! The less spending done by the federal government, the less it matters who is in office in DC. If the federal budget was just a few billion, Bush could be made president for life and you'd barely notice any difference in anything.
And BTW, the budget may have beed proposed by Bush, but it still has to be introduced to congress by representatives and voted on and passed by congress.
Really the budget is much more the fault of congress than the president. They don't even have to look at his proposed budget and could create one of their own to vote on and pass if they wanted to.
Blame Congress first and most of all if you don't like what's in the budget.
The underlying maps it uses appear to be from the same sources as mapquest. They have the same errors on the addresses I'm aware of as being wrong.
Like the street where I live - it's really a dead end, but both google and mapquest show it as connecting to the next road over.
The other addresses I know are wrong are wrong in exactly the same ways on both services.
A better interface is great and all, but if the information being served up is still wrong, so what?
The electoral college was never meant to reflect the people's will. Indeed, the presidency was never intended to determined by any sort of popular election at all. It was until the 1860s that all the states finally used popular election of electors. In The Beginning such an idea was unthinkable.
The problem isn't a lack of democracy, it's too much democracy.
The problem facing conservatives is that a lot of racist southern conservatives (i.e. dixiecrats) who were democrats back in the 1960s, switched over to the republican party.
The republicans ought not to have accepted them, but when you realize just how badly they had been shut out of power since FDR, I'm sure they welcomed any opportunity to trivially increase the number of seats they held in congress.
Pity, but politicians are rarely idealists.
You missed the point, but perhaps I wasn't explicit enough.
It isn't that hard work is the key to europe's success, it's the mentality that working is desirable and nobody has the mentality of solely sucking off "the rich" by taking welfare and never intending to work.
We have too many people (not a large number in absolute terms, but large enough to be a problem) in the USA who won't work because they can live off of the wealth redistribution of "the rich".
High taxes in europe work because everybody expects and wants to contribute. High taxes in the USA are a problem because a few too many people refuse to contribute, knowing they can live off of others. They have the mentality that society somehow owes them something, even though they have put into society little or nothing, and do not intend to put anything significant into society.
I'm not talking about permanently handicapped folks, either.
Finally, you may want to contemplate the looming bankruptcy of the pension systems in France and Germany and elsewhere. That's one reason they were so desparate for the UK to sign up for the EU - they represent a huge infusion of much needed cash into a nearly insolvent system. It's a short term "fix" (for Germany and France, not the UK), but they still have a long term problem.
So it isn't all as rosey as you want to believe anyways.
A redistribution of wealth is only good in a society where everyone already has the mind set of being hard workers. Here in the US we have a few too many slackers who are unwilling to work because they know they can get free stuff to not do so. Especially since this wealth is(supposedly) just being taken from the "evil rich" who, after all, just got "lucky" ("won life's lottery" as Daschle would have you believe). That kind of mentality is essentially unheard of in Europe.
I recall reading of a poll in which people of different wealth status were asked what the most important factor was to becoming wealthy. Poor people said education. Rich people said hard work.
Let me tell you, the rich are right on this one. I know a lot of immigrants to the US who come here with just the shirt on their backs, and typically have a 3rd or 5th grade level of education, but who are very nicely and/or retired early because they started their own businesses and work their butts off.
If you've the mentality that poor people are poor just because they aren't "lucky", I ask you to look up Oprah Winfrey's little experiment done through the James Addams Hull House entitled "Families for a Better Life". Well, actually you'll probably be too depressed if you read it, since it thoroughly debunks this silly notion of wealth through luck. Which was exactly the opposite of what Oprah wanted to prove, but she was woman enough to acknowledge the results and concede there was more to wealth than just luck. That's a step up from Daschle, but it doesn't stop ol' Tom from trying to foist that lie off on the rest of us. And too many people believe it.
Um, there are a very large number of poor, uneducated folks who vote for democrats. Especially amongst immigrant populations, but also blacks and a few other groups.
Just because one side has a number of ignorant, uneducated voters doesn't mean the other side doesn't too. After all, democrats love to talk about republicans being the party of big business. Big businesses don't get to be Big by being dumb...
Lieberman was far more republican than Kerry - he was basically Bush Lite.
However, he was also jewish, and for some reason that seems to be a no-no with the majority of americans (or any political bent). Still an awful lot of jew hating going on in the world, and even in the USA...
Ironically, the left is vastly more organized, and has been for a long, long time.
People talk about the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, but the reality is that the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy actually really exists, and has existed for quite some time.
I wrote about it here:
http://slashdot.org/~eglamkowski/journal/75818
Four "Internationals" plus the still active "Socialist International".
And you think there's not enough left wing propaganda?
And I could further bemoan the tremendous shift leftwards that has permeated society over the past 200 years overall.
Don't believe it?
Here's Marx's 10 points from his Communist Manifesto:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
We are so there. And the few bits that haven't been implemented, both Bush and Kerry were gushing about implementing.
That's what really pisses me off the most - we've drifted so far left that many people fail to recognize it. Anything that isn't flat out communist is seen as being dangerously right wing. What a joke!
The only danger of becoming a right wing dictatorship is that of first going so far left that we wrap back around the political spectrum.
Just watch what you wish for, you may just get it...
China would have to first get past our NAVY to get at Taiwan, and I do believe we have enough naval assets available to meet that threat. If the Chinese navy defeats the US navy and is able to freely land as many troops as they want on the island, the US army/marines ain't gonna be enough regardless.
As for North Korea, that is a big concern, but even South Korea alone spends three times as much on their military as North Korea, despite NK spending a much larger % of their GDP on their military. I'm sure Japanese troops would be sent over, as would soldiers from other Pacific and Asian countries. It wouldn't be just a US problem, it'd be a regional problem. And if NK started it unprovoked, presumably the UN would step up to the table and call on its member to take action, so there'd be a whole lot more besides.
The US may have the most effective military, but it's hardly the only military. And a UN backed war would likely make it palatable for countries like France and Germany to get involved. Considering they haven't deployed many troops yet, there'd probably be enough to stabilize the situation until the US could redeploy.
Not to mention the US navy and air force could do some serious damage to the NK troops while waiting for the army to show up.
http://www.osce.org/news/show_news.php?id=4427
Leaders of OSCE Election Observation Mission to the U.S. to meet press in Washington
WASHINGTON, 7 October 2004 - The leaders of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe observation of the 2 November presidential election in the United States are visiting Washington in preparation for the observation.
Approximately 100 observers and parliamentarians will follow the election for the OSCE.
[etc. - read the story for full details]
Actually, the OSCE is going to monitor the US elections. Not the UN, but they are foreign observers.
There is no negotiation between the Canadian government and the US pharmaceutical industry.
This myth needs to die.
The Canadian government decides what the maximum is they will pay for a given drug (which is not ALWAYS lower than the cost in the US, by the way) and the US pharmcos have to sell at that price (or lower, but we all know that won't happen...) or not sell at all. That's hardly "negotiation" in any meaningful sense of the word.
http://www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/english/home.asp?x=1
You can see from their FAQ:
Created in 1987 under the Patent Act as an independent quasi-judicial tribunal, the PMPRB limits the prices set by manufacturers for all patented medicines, new and existing, sold in Canada, under prescription or over the counter, to ensure they are not excessive.
and
In Canada, the prices of patented medicines only are subject to direct price controls through the PMPRB.
To determine if the price of a patented drug sold in Canada is excessive, the PMPRB applies factors set out in the Patent Act and in its price guidelines.
Now, now, post roads and interstate commerce are both constitutionally mandated functions of the federal government.
It's the people receiving benefits that aren't explicitly constitutionally mandated. And don't give me any crap about "general welfare". Madison himself made perfectly clear what he meant by that in Federalist 41.
There is no right to vote.
Read the constitution and you just won't find it there.
Jackson won't be losing his seat any time soon over this. He's an all around embarrasment in every way, but got elected anyways.
Lots of politicians really should be considered an embarrasment but still get elected. People don't care about those sorts of things, they just care about how much money the politicians can take from others and give to them. As long as the money flows, any embarrasment can be tolerated.
The reason direct popular voting for electors is broken is because it was never intended to be done in that manner. In the beginning, there was no direct popular voting at any level for president. Electors were choosen by the state legislatures, and the electors could vote for whoever they wanted, regardless of who they were choosen to vote for.
One of the main reasons for this was to keep more power in the hands of the states. It also helps prevent the election from being a popularity contest (which it usually is these days), and limits the impact of an ignorant and apathetic electorate, since state officials tend to be a bit more on the ball than the average citizen.
So the real solution is to remove the popular vote for electors and go back to letting the state governments choose electors. And let them vote as they see fit. That gets rid of the "winner take all" syndrome, eliminates the need for IRV or other alternative vote systems, eliminates the issue of ignorant and apathetic voters, reduces fraud (I'm certain the winner of this year's election will be whichever side can get away with the most fraud), increases the power of the states at the expense of the feds. The benefits are substantial.
In Missouri they were printing ballots that were missing Bush/Cheney:0 041p-205897c.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/24
BOTH sides are engaging in MASSIVE fraud this year. Expect it to get worse in future elections, until finally we just give up on elections all together an openly become the dictatorship we are inevitably heading towards.
Early voting is also just begging for fraud.
That's what its becoming these days - which side can commit the most fraud. By 2008 we should be about par with third world mock elections. By 2012, there probably won't even be any more elections.
Yeah, yeah, and in Missouri they were printing ballots that didn't have Bush/Cheney on them.0 041p-205897c.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/24
BOTH sides are engaging in MASSIVE voter fraud this year. The winner will be the side that commits the most fraud. The real loser is us: The People.
So how do you suppose it is some people can come to this country and survive on less than minimum wage, and not only survive, but thrive? These are people who came over here individually, since they couldn't afford the smuggling fee for their whole family. After paying off the smuggling debt, they pay to get the rest of their family over, and eventually even make a comfortable life. If they can do it on (or below!) minimum wage, why can't you?
I'll tell you why:
#1) they didn't stay at minimum wage for any length of time - skilled kitchen help at restaurants, for example, is worth a lot more than minimum wage. Sure, you start out as a bus boy, but once they've worked at all the jobs in the kitchen, you're worth quite a bit more. These people then go on to start their own restaurant, or work as a manager at an existing one.
Of course, they accomplish this by working 16 hour days - nobody said life was easy at the bottom, but they do it and they work their way out of it.
#2) I'm hardly bigoted - I work for a minority owned firm and enjoy it, thank you very much, and my wife is an immigrant (legally so); indeed I'm probably far more tolerant than most people who go out of their way to loudly proclaim their tolerance and forcefully demand tolerance of others. I'm just quiet about it.
#3) I don't hire anybody, I'm an employee, not an employer.
#4) the glass ceiling of people judgeing by appearances So we have a loud, visible tatoo, do we? *snicker*
#5) Starting a business takes having some money to begin with. It's called loans. Try a bank. Or family, if you haven't alienated them all.
Perhaps you should consider moving somewhere with a lower cost of living?
I'm frankly surprised your bank financed a home that is 50% of your income. It's rare they finance as much as a ratio of 40%.
So now we're back to the issue of life choices. You don't have to live in Oregon, and you don't have to live in a house that expensive. You choose to do these things.
While you can't avoid all expenses (taxes and health care), you should address the things you can affect.
Is there any possibility your wife could work? Even part time would no doubt help a lot.
Also, if you don't already, check out Clark Howard! Not sure what station he'd be on out there, but if you can find him on the radio and spare some time to listen, he might give you some helpful ideas.
The better question to ask is why is that person homeless?
If you can show up to work on time and sober, you can get a job. If you are willing to work hard, you can run your own business and make loads of money.
I know lots of people who came to the USA with literally nothing but the shirt on their back, and even worse, owing tens of thousands of dollars to someone for smuggling them into the country, and not only did they pay off the debt, they own homes and cars and TVs and everything else, some of them are actually very wealthy. Many of these people are poorly educated (maybe 3rd or 5th grade level).
Even Warren Buffet comes from a modest background and got to where he is through hard work.
There is so much opportunity in this country, the only excuse for homelessness is poor life choices. I see it every day where people came here with nothing and ended up just fine in the long run.
You're whacked - when I was making $27,000 I could afford all those things. And no, not by using credit. If you're making $22/hr and can't afford even half of what he listed, you're making some serious life errors. How much do you spend on alcohol or cigarettes? Do you do illegal drugs?
Oh wait, I know - you must live in California!
Sucker...
In most of the country, $22/hr is just fine for a comfortable middle-class lifestyle.