I realize it's not the funnest question -- but if a universal living wage was but into affect in america it would make sure that everyone had enough money to live well and eat well.  Whats your opinion??
217220
I disagree.  This is basically a communist idea.  The Universal Living Wage would cause america to lose a ton of jobs to lower wage countries.  We are already having problems competeing with counrtries that pay their workers 500 dollars a year.  This would drastically raise unemployment which is bad especially for poor people.  We would be looking at unemployment rates like those found in France and Germany of around 12 percent.  It would also stunt long term growth.  Everyone in America can eat well enough.  I have know obese people who were on welfare.  People in America are well off, poverty is more of a relative thing.  Poor people in America still have a lot more than people in the Sudan.  It is only when compared to insanely rich people in Manhattan that they seem so poor.  That is not to say that poverty is not a problem in America it is, but a Universal Living Wage would amplify this problem not fix it.
648002
No, that wouldn't be fair....  just suppose it takes someone with a serious illness months to win the raffle....  He/she would never get his/her life saving operation    ; -}\n\nJust kidding. The people who suggested that are those who would like to see the health care system in the USA introduced in the UK --- where if you don't have the money you don't deserve to live....  The UK in this does lead the world.. because in this issue, they are one of the most civilized nations on the planet.
479233
Kinda hard to answer...welfare in Canada?  US?  UK?  Germany?\nItaly?.....????\n\nOk...in the US many states have enacted a 2 year maximum benefits policy and after that the person has to work on some sort of community improvement program...I agree with this as long as affordable child care is available.  Also, some states have welfare rules set very low...if you work at mcdonalds, you don't qualify, even if the cost of living is so high in the area that you have to live in a tent at a KOA or national park (ie. Georgia or the Sun Valley area of Idaho)...this is getting too extreme.  The question is...is it worth it to society to pay a little to single parents working at underpaid jobs and have kids taken properly cared of, or let them go as they will and have latchkey kids running wild and ending up in prison later.  I think that the welfare system in MOST of the US is too stringent and more money should be allocated for it...if we can afford a trillion dollars for Iraq, we can afford a hundred million more for struggling and working single parents.
610909
My husband and I are one of "those folks".\n\nPersonally I favor a flat tax.  To me it is the fairest way to to tax individuals on their earned income.  If everyone where to pay say 20% (with no loop holes), then we would all be paying the same.  The only exception might be for the lowest of incomes, say those who make $20,000 or less.\n\nI do not believe it is fair to penalize someone for making money.  I have a good income because I have worked my butt off to get there.\n\nEnough said.
500791
I think it is important to encourage debate WITHIN the country, as long as the goal is the common good of society.  As far as foreign relations are concerned, we need to unite in the face of the world...much like we did right after 9/11.  Then, I think we need to hold those accountable who use that fragile state of unity to promote personal agendas.  And I never heard of the rich paying a higher percentage than anybody else...in fact quite the opposite.  I think that if you use more, you should pay more, under a 'use' tax.  I think that affirmative action is an unfortunate neccessity, and should be challenged when it infringes on other's rights.  The more I make, the more I pay in taxes...but it doesn't stop me from making more.  I don't think there is any need to declare english as our language...we all speak it, and if you don't your life is more difficult.  Diversity is a good thing, for everyone, as is encouraging people to get out of the ghetto.  I think that using race to determine that is wrong, but rather use socioeconomic situations to determine where the help goes.  Women working greatly benefitted men as well, so we should encourage diversity in the work place.  At this stage in the game, if you don't you won't be competitve, so I don't think it is neceassary to mandate, via law, that people use it.  I agree with the faith thing, and anybody who says 'liberals are taking god out of my everyday life' are not too resolved in their own faith.  Nobody can take my god from me, or out of my everyday life.  Nor can they force me to recognize their's...so I believe in separation of church and state.  And I don't believe that those who work the hardest make the most.  I've seen several single mothers working 2 waitressing jobs just to get by, and I would never say that someone with 4 weeks of vacation a year, a 9-5 job, and benefits works harder than she does.  IMO
303126
I am for neither, I am 45 yrs of age, it seems to me that this Country is in some serious Crap. We/USA are always more concerned with other Countries and their well being. The USA is not taking care of their own people first, as they should be. We have many, many people in our own country that is homeless, going hungry, etc. Yes there are a few programs out there that are trying to help, but come on, all that food and medical that other Countries are getting, why not give it to our country first where it is so desperately needed. Medical in the USA is crazy, I have to work 2 jobs at 32 hours a week for each, yes i am correct here on the hours, i get very little sleep and am getting burned out. just so i can have medical, one medical plan does not cover what i would like it to, so i have to have another medical plan to try and make up for the first one. Now how crazy is that? You asked me whom I am standing up for? believe in? well no one has earned my belief yet. I hope the future changes that.
199755
I think it's a great idea too. Everyone should, at some point in their life, contribute something (other than taxes) to the country they live in. Making it mandatory would make it less enjoyable, however. People should do it because it's the right thing to do, not because it's required.
173650
Absolutely NOT!  I believe the tax burden on the poor should be light and that those who are successful and benefited the most from society should carry the larger tax burden.  Our current system is set up to do just that.  A flat tax would be nothing but a huge tax increase on the working poor and middle class and a tax cut for the wealthy.
119922
The heart of your thinking I think would be best applied through strengthening the workers in this country (and thus the broad tax base) A strong family that is secure in it's health and it's retirement will turn their thoughts away from a day to day struggle that pursists today, and toward their surroundings. This would greatly help us to address other issues such as the environment and poverty right here at home. There should be a worker's rights amendment. The right to cheap health coverage. The right to job saftey. The right to a living wage. I think the fastest way to get this sort of broad based reform done is through organisation. Not like a classical union. More like an association that would draw together to leverage certain trhings from our government. Like a group that is millions strong would be able to negotiate better health coverage than even a large corporation could. Starting there and with similar issues that could be achieved through a voter soliderity almost like that of a union, but a little bit more effective, and with a different mission. It wouldn't be done through the work place, but at home so there couldn't be any kind of adverse reactions from corporates and the like. As long as you work and pay taxes, you would be eligable for membership. And with success, taking bigger bites at the apple. AAnd who knows, maybe something like that would end up putting a fire into our 2 party system of government. Or perhaps replace it altogether.
431653
I'm in total agreement with you. it's the same for any country. over population will create problems with jobs. are system would not be able to support everyone in need of help.
291600
American Corporation has moved their company's over to China for "Cheap Labor," To my understanding doesn't freight cost more to ship over seas, or even on a cargo plane? To me it seems that the Corporations should be loosing money. Then there's "Cheap Labor," Mexicans, Would get paid less then the average Joe, The problem here is pure simple Greed. Greed from the Government for not in forcing laws, and Pure Greed from Corporations. There wallets are getting fatter, while I have no Idea where or if I will have a Job next year?\n\nThe reason Why most Americans won't do the jobs is the number one reason "Cost of Living" Everything has gone up but not our pay. There is no way that we could survive on so little. WE are Americans We would not get any Help From the Government, So therefore; that's is why.
203422
Around here i think mainly the price of eating out would go up because they would have to pay a lot higher wages to get kitchen workers.  Price of getting a new roof would go up because they would have to pay higher wages.  All construction prices would go up.  Cost of janitorial service would go up.  If people doing these jobs were paid a living decent wage, the prices of what they do and produce would go up.  I would probably not be able to afford to eat out as much as i do.  It would also be harder to rent out houses because fewer people would be looking for houses.
477459
WE JUST NEED TO CUT OUT ALL GOVERNMENT FUNDED PROGRAMS, AND MAKE PEOPLE START WORKING FOR THEIR MONEY, INSURANCE, AND FOOD.  I HAVE TO WORK EVERYDAY, MY PARENTS STILL DO, MY GRANDPARENTS DID.  WE ARE AVERAGE MIDDLE CLASS FAMILY AND I THINK ITS UNFAIR THAT WE HAVE HAD TO WORK HARD OUR ENTIRE LIVES AND HAVE RECEIVED NOTHING FOR FREE. WHERE AS MEXICANS AND ANYONE ELSE ON WELFARE, MEDICAID, FOOD STAMPS, WIC ETC. DO NOTHING!!!  CUT IT ALL OUT EXCEPT GIVE IT TO THE ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED AND THE PROBLEM WILL BE SOLVED.  PEOPLE ARE TOO DAMN LAZY NOW A DAYS, IF YOU CAN GET SOMETHING FOR FREE WOULD YOU WORK??
517051
Absolutely!  I'd love to see America become entirely capitalistic.  Frankly, I'm sick of being forced to sacrifice my own needs and wants for those of someone else.  Want a hand out?  Hit up the Salvation Army.\n\nUnfortunately, the bleeding hearts here just can't stomach making someone take responsibility for his or her own actions.  Even more unfortunately, we'll probably always be the ones stuck picking up the slack.
599759
Hey, it may be a good thing if there is another country out there that would support us once the USA is a third world nation due to the massive amount of people allowed or not allowed to migrate. After all we've supported everyone else for a very long time while our own citizens suffer from hunger and neglect so I suppose turn around would be fair. I'd like to sit on my a_s and have the 'good' working people of some far off land give me shelter, food and free medical care.
211909
it would never work. If we had all the same, no one would collect the trash or do similar jobs, why should they.\nBut I do think that could be a better balance, if the Rich gave more. I ask I much money does one need to be happy, how much is enough, a million, 2 million where does it stop.\nI'm not poor or rich and still I help and give to the ones worse off them me, so if the rich help more this would be better world.
612299
I wonder how many nurses, teachers, or high-tech workers would work for $8 an hour. Wait, you didn't know that Bush's "guest worker" plan would be open to those people too?\nThat's what they have in mind. And, there would be no wage-related restrictions on it other than the minimum wage. So, employers could offer a teaching job for $8 an hour. American teachers would either take that rate or, more likely, they wouldn't. So, the employer could hire that "guest" worker from Bangladesh. The Bangladeshi would consider that a king's ransom. All the requirements of Bush's plan had been met: there wasn't an American willing to do the job.\nBush's plan would force millions of previously higher-wage jobs down near the minimum wage. What phrase would most Americans use to describe such a plan?\n\nWhat exactly does he mean by "families"? Will their immediate family come with them or not? If not, are we going to be able to split up families? Not all people coming here would be Mexicans or from the parts of Mexico near the border. Is Bush going to require men to travel hundreds of miles to see their immediate family?\nIf, however, they're bringing their immediate family with them, there will no doubt be hundreds of thousands of children born, and those children will be U.S. citizens. Who's going to be able to make them go home after they've had a U.S. citizen child? And, won't most "guest" workers intentionally have children here so it will be harder to make them go home?\nAnd, given that, doesn't this plan consist not just of an amnesty, but as a massive incentive for a huge chunk of Mexico's population to come here? Was any thought put into the consequences of this plan at all?\nNo, no guestworker program should take the place of following the law! This still allows the law-breaking illegals to go to the head of the line and disrupts the ability of legal immigrants to get their chance! Until such time as all able-bodied welfare recipients are put to work, all homeless people, all college and high school students have the chance to work, we don't need to import anyone to take our jobs! Stop pandering, stop giving handouts and stop lying to the American people!\n\nhow can an American be expected to do a job that has had the wage undercut by cheap illegal labor from Mexico? How will legalizing this cheap labor change that situation? Of course, it will not. In fact, it will only encourage more border crossing, which will result in more Mexican citizens and others living in the United States and having children who are U.S. citizens, and who are thus harder to deport when their “temporary” guest worker visas expire. Given the fraud, incompetence, and bureaucratic lethargy that mark most government programs, how can the public have any faith that such a plan would work even remotely as advertised? \n\n\n\n\nAll of these illegals will eventually stay, become voters, if the DNC has their way, their population will continue to grow and they will become a voting block that has NO interest in our language, history, military, or patriotism, only the $$$$ that are available will be the main interest.\nThat scenario is not totally here yet, but it is lingering in the future if our national course of extreme liberalism continues to erode the very fabric of our nation.\n\n\nWe only "need" illegal immigrants if we "need" to maintain a peasant class in the United States. I would strenuously argue that we don't - even if it means that a few amoral capitalists will be driven out of business and we have to pay a few cents more for our strawberries