We're excited for Memphians to be a part of this project. Thanks so much for sharing about it Bianca!
You should know, by now, I respect your opinion and thoughts. you have much to add to a conversation or to anyone's point of view. Still, an"f" in civics? Because I was correct?
I am reminded of a post I made earlier:
OTP: But, I had such good jibber-jabber.
TCM: Yes, and some of your jibber-jabber actually made valid points. It had nothing to do with the actual issues in discussion, but it was good jibber-jabber.
OTP: Don't I get points for that?
Take care in "cold rainstorm" 2013
All the whiners cost me a day of instruction. Sucks.
Love this project! Can't wait to see it in print.
You typed a lot but you really didn't say anything.
The Reagan tax cuts were a horrible mistake that he even realized. Regan re-raised taxes 17 times during tenure in the white house.
Fair pay can and should be enacted by congress. Remember the little thing in the constitution about the commerce clause. that explicitly gives the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerces, which, would include fair pay and under the promoting the general welfare also gives the congress to legislate wages.
Yes, food stamps increased under Obama, but, through no fault of the Obama administration. Foods stamps are tied to wages. When Obama was sworn, the U. S. was losing jobs at the rate of 750,000 per month, all caused by policies under the Bush administration. Just because the fruition of Bush's policies didn't fully finish itself until after Bush left office still does not mean they can be tied to his successor.
It is just like trying to blame the fire department for not extinguishing a fire that started previously and had been burning for quite a while. Had the fire not been started or a fast response taken, the fire would not have gotten out of hand in the first place.
Whenever jobs are lost, food stamp use increases and that is irrespective of who is the president. It is the cause for the job losses that are and can be tied to the Bush policies, so the jobs lost during this recession and the subsequent increase in food stamp demand belongs to Bush also.
The 1963 equal pay bill was and is not the same bill that the gop blocked in 2012. The bill that the gop blocked had more teeth in job classifications and enforcement.
Thecatesmeow, you would do fine in a debate in a conservative setting, but, you would surely lose if that debate took place in front of a neutral audience. Nice try!.
You get another F in civics. The reason why this is a democratic republic rather than just a democratic government is because, the republic part guarantees certain rights that one is born with and cannot be taken away. If it was just democratic, then the majority could overrule any right. In a democratic republic, the guaranteed rights of individuals are not subject to a vote. In Roe v Wade, the case was based on the rights of privacy, a right that is enshrined in the constitution. So, what the people thought at that time did not matter.
The electoral college was instituted because of the balance, weighted by population, had to be made in presidential elections. The states, especially southern states wanted the president to be elected by the number o states won. The north argued that why should a state like Ms have as much weight in choosing a president than NY. You see this government was not made by the states, but by the people. So, the people's votes should determine who is president rather than states.
The reason for a tricameral government was to get away from the monarchy that they fought against. They were concerned that two much power concentrated into one entity was wrong. They also wanted an entity to deal strictly with laws, but, keep the money separate. The other part of this was that, even though George Washington was the most popular man in the nation, they still did not trust giving him (his office) total power. If they did that, it was the same as having a king. This is why the powers of the presidency has been limited. This separation also assured the founding fathers that no one institution could go wrong, away from the peoples wishes, without being replaced, thus, the house of representitives was specifically set up to be the peoples house. They were given the power of the purse and only allowed to serve 2 years before being subject to re-election. This was purposely don
e, to put them closest to the people and to allow the people to not be screwed too long under bad, previously enacted laws.
So, again, thecatsmeow, you have failed miserably in an effort to make things the way you want them to be.
Do you like passing out misinformation? Another way of saying that you are lying and know it would be too harsh.
A study was done a couple of months ago and they figured that if thye fast food chains paid their workers 10.00 per hour, the price of q Big Mac would increase by about 23 cents. The price of a pizza would increase 11 cents.
Now, nightcrawler, please show us your study that says the the golden arches would go out of business.
I get tired of you gop, conservatives posting lies and misinformation on this forum. I just refuse to le them get away with it.
Nightcrawler, you posted the lie, now, put up or shut up!
Quote: “We’re standing up for higher pay, which will not just help fast-food workers but will help get Memphis’ economy moving again.”
Laughing and shaking my head at the naivete on parade.
Ms Cathey, when Happy Meals start costing twenty bucks a pop because of union-inspired minimum wage levels, it will be the day the golden arches start fading away along with your job.
Be careful what you wish for. Men far wiser than you guys put it in play.
We bemoan the high rate of recidivism within the criminal justice system yet we deny those who have served their time the ability to survive without again resorting to crime. This is a complex and difficult issue and I'm not sure that the mandated solution proposed by Harris is the answer, but at least he is brining the question to the table and to public discourse. That, in itself, is a great service.
As a former restaurant manager for over twenty years I fully support these workers to earn a living wage. I feel that any job that an employer feels is worth doing is worth paying a decent wage to do. If paying workers a decent wage puts you out of business then you don't deserve to be in business in the first place.
During my more than twenty years in the industry I saw firsthand the effects of denying my employees the benefit of decent wages and benefits. Although many of the restaurants I managed offered employees half-priced meals, many still couldn't afford to eat while at work and went hungry. One young single mother who worked for me could never afford to buy a half-price meal. She said she only ate once a day because she had two young children who needed to be fed. I used to give her a free meal and was thoroughly dismayed when she went to the back of the store and woofed down the meal in the span of a couple of minutes. That left a lasting impression on me. And while the impression of lowly paid restaurant workers is of uneducated minority, this young lady was white, as were many of my employees. Poverty and lack of opportunity cuts across all racial and gender lines.
Company practices such as denying employees full-time hours, fluctuating schedules, sending employees home before their shifts were up at the first slowing of business, making them work off the clock, not letting them clock in until business picked up, etc., are abhorrent and uncaring, in my opinion. I often butted heads with upper management because of my advocacy for my employees, and eventually this was the reason I left the business.
I always tried to give employees steady hours, raises when deserved them, and free meals, and I still maintained the profit margins upper management expected religiously. I constantly showed them that by treating low wage workers fairly, appreciating and rewarding hard work and loyalty, taking a real interest in their lives and aspirations, employees worked harder, were more productive, and stole and wasted less food and supplies. Too bad I was never able to establish this type of business model in an industry concerned only about profits, not people.
Just ran across this article. I loved this show, having grown up across the river in Arkansas. I named my first dog Ponce. Mr. Be pronounced it Pon'-cee.
- Dixon Chandler II (now in Florida) firstname.lastname@example.org
The problem with hiring people like DeAndre Brown is that they have already demonstrated that they can not be trusted. It's difficult for employers to overlook that. I'm not sure that forcing city contractors to set aside 10% of their funding to hire these people is the best way to fix the problem. If the city is going to force contractors to hire convicted felons, then the city should also reimburse these contractors for any losses and damages that occur if any of these convicted felons commit another crime that directly affects the business. Better yet, the city should (if they do not already) start hiring these people. Good luck to all. It is a complicated problem with no easy solution.
"So, your whold theory is completely wrong in the real world. Try another tact!"
Quite simply, nope.
The founding fathers instituted the electoral college, because might, of the majority, doesn't always make right. Likewise they instituted tricameral government partly for the same reason. When Roe v Wade was decided, it was decided against the "wants" of the American people of the time.
Just heard we lost Nelson Mandela, the world should mourn our loss of one who quite literally took the slings and arrows upon himself for so many. Rest in your reward.
I have addressed the Obama/Bush tax cuts, returning io the rates under the Reagan administration would be a good starting point. True Conservatives pay their bills
Equal pay for equal work has been the law since 1963. Liberal jumping up and down does not change it. Is it in practice everywhere? No, not everywhere, not even in the Obama White House, want citations? Many Liberals fail to realize you can't legislate morality and wisdom upon the people. Like many Conservatives, many also fail to practice what they preach. (consider it part of Cat's: don't tell me how less you are failing dictum)
The middle class has lost more income under President Obama's "jobless recovery" than under the Bush recession Sixteen million more have been added to the SNAP rolls 1/2 again as many, since he was first elected.
Banks which were "to big to fail" have only gotten bigger. President Obama has received more "Wall Street" money than anyone in history.
When signing HIS extension of the Bush tax cuts he said. passage of the law was propelled "by the fact that tax rates for every American were poised to automatically increase on January 1st." If that had happened, "the average middle-class family would have had to pay an extra $3,000 in taxes next year," he said. "That wouldn't have just been a blow to them; it would have been a blow to our economy. He didn't claim it was to fund a "stimulus" and indeed it wasn't. liberals can't have it both ways.
But, I support tax reform in increasing the rates and shutting loopholes and deductions, as I said Conservatives pay their bills, They, or their children, also end up having to pay the deficit spending of Liberals. Yep, I am aware of the Bush administration's spending like drunken Democrats on shore-leave and railed against it at the time.
We all bemoan the loss of many "blue collar" manufacturing jobs, it was the essence of our middle class for a century. "revolutions" happen, industrial, Information technology and others. In a competitive world market, many of our manufacturing jobs of the past are not coming back and their loss was mot due to past or future legislation. It is what it is.
I thought you were better than what you shown in your last post. Instead of refuting what I posted, you try to turn it around to include the democrats. It just won't work.
On equal pay for women. That bill was blocked by a gop filibuster on, June 5, 2012. It takes 60 votes to brak a filitbuster, the vote was dem 52, rep 47, thus the dems could not get the 60 votes to move the bill forward. Yes, the gop is against equal pay. Google that vote.
White House and Congressional jobs are exempt jobs and the pay is based on negotiations, etc. In the corporate, it is the same, executive positions are exempt from a structured wage schedule. That is why they sign contracts, unlike rank and file employees. In the private sector, women make only 77 cents to the dollar for men.
Social Security and Medicare is solvent for 33 and 26 years. Social Security is the easier fix, very simple. Without cutting benefits, you only have to raise payroll taxes by 2.1 percent and that would add 75 years on the life of Social Security paying 100% of the benefits or, you could take the cap off of earnings for social security and that will take care of it. But, the gop say no, we have to cut the benefits for this program. Nows if you raised the payroll taxes by 1.1% and take the cap off of earnings for social security, you could actually raise the amount that recipients receive and still have 75 years worth of stability.
Trickle down economics, Supply-Side Economics is the mantra of the gop. It has been a colossal failure. The Center for American Progress did a comprehensive study of supply-side economics and it's effect over the last 30 years. Their study, which has never been refuted by the gop, says that 3 decades of empirical data shows that supply-side economics doesn't work. You can easily review this report: Middle Class Series: The failure of Supply-Side Economics.
The reason Obama went along with most of the Bush tax cuts was because the gop would not pass his stimulus and other bills to help the economy unless they were left in place. The reason that he opted for a chained CPI (cost of living index) was to counter the Ryan proposal to actually cut and/or privatize social security. Going to a chained CPI would not have cut benefits for recipients like the gop wanted to do, it would have merely slowed the rate of the cost of living increases.
This stuff is available online for anybody to see. Why do you think the gop is steadily losing statewide and national elections? The American people are no fools.
Btw, I didn't forget medicare because you already believe in universal healthcare. but, actually, that is the simple way to fix medicare, have a public option, in other words, medicare for all..
Didn't any of you naysayers read that Dwell spread about the hot new trend of transforming shipping containers into commercial spaces, tiny homes and even swimming pools? No? I think it was the May 2004 edition. Run down to thee library and check it out before it's too late.
Seriously, the shipping container concept should not be the exciting part of this business model. Is the service needed, is the location right? Will the product generate demand?
In the nineties while working in Nashville as a young eager video freelancer I remember reading a comment in the Scene about how Nashvillians needed to get with it, and how the writer wished their were more people with edgy taste willing to try things like blue corn chips. No kidding.
The defense of the use shipping containers in this build kind of reminds me of that. And I really like the adaptive reuse of them. But I'm not convinced this property is right for this concept.
I don't have all the answers OTP, but I do know that private companies speak in one language, money.
If you had intelligent leaders, it SHOULD be pretty easy to manipulate corporations to do what you want them to do to stimulate the economy. Just make it worth their while.
Now, it doesn't really matter that much which party is in office when it comes to big business, because pretty much all politicians are in the pocket of the business lobbies. All I'm saying is that it should be pretty easy to manipulate business leaders if you are smart with policy structure.
Well "edits" caught me again. such is life. shoot. It happems.
By Leonard Gill
download this issue
click here to see more »