Tipping in the United States of America?
Why is it that in the USA, restaurant owners think it is OK to pay their staff less than the minimum wage and make the customers make up the rest of the money? Even worse, why do American customers feel that it is their duty to tip, when it is a commonly known fact that if servers do not make up at least the minimum wage, the restaurant legally has to pay for it themselves? Why can't customers in the USA make a change once and for all and stop this silly tipping culture, forcing employers to pay their servers properly, and bring the USA up to the same level as the rest of the world?
Other - United States - 7 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
You don't have to tip, its a kind gesture because they get shitty wages. Besides if we didn't have to tip and waitresses got paid higher wages the cost of the bill would be higher anyways
2 :
Why does it bother you so much? I don't know where you are from, but I can guarantee there are stupid and silly cultural norms there.
3 :
First off, minimum wage in this country does not include restaurants as far as servers go. So you are wrong there. Tipping is something a server earns through good service and it is not a guaranty. My question is, why do people from other countries come here knowing that tipping is the way we do things for servers here and stiff them anyhow? When I waited tables, I came to a table that had people from certain countries there, I cringed because I knew I was going to get stiffed. By the way, servers also pay income tax on tips now.
4 :
Quit being so cheap. Tipping is left to the customers because some servers are worth a lot more than minimum wage. And a lot of states now do pay their servers minimum wage or more plus tips. A good server will make $200 per day in tips. A bad server usually makes what they are worth as well. It is called incentive. People who want to make good money will work to get it, people who do not want to work will not make money. I personally think ALL industries should be that way. Doctors, lawyers, mechanics would then actually have to earn their money and not be able to tell you all kinds of crap. Mechanics would actually FIX the car. Doctors would actually HEAL people. police officers would actually PROTECT people. Oh my God, then people would actually be able to live better. The rich then would not be so dam lazy and the poor working stiff would not be so dam poor.
5 :
"Why is it that in the USA, restaurant owners think it is OK to pay their staff less than the minimum wage and make the customers make up the rest of the money?" - Depends on the state and their minimum wage laws. "Even worse, why do American customers feel that it is their duty to tip" - It's the polite thing to do for good service. "Why can't customers in the USA make a change once and for all and stop this silly tipping culture, forcing employers to pay their servers properly, and bring the USA up to the same level as the rest of the world?" - This is a capitalist country. You don't have to come to our country. You don't have to visit America. Don't like it? Don't come. Simple as that. I'm an American that lives near the Canadian border and our hard working American wait staff at restaurants get screwed by the Canadians that come shopping here and NEVER tip.
6 :
Yes, we should get rid of tipping.
7 :
I'm an American and I complete agree with you! Why do I have to pay your employees wages?! Especially when they're not EARNING it!! I hate getting bad service and knowing that if I don't leave a tip I'm considered cheap. People I actually leave good tips for are housekeepers at the hotels who clean up after my "mess".
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
why don't the united states of America gets its oil from Alaska instead of the middle east?
why don't the united states of America gets its oil from Alaska instead of the middle east?
it just makes more sense since Alaska is a state in the usa and the do have the Alaska oil pipe line pumping oil into the states why not just use it's own oil instead of giving it to the middle east some body told me America has enough of it's own oil for the next 500 years. Why not use our oil until we can think of a better way to fuel our homes? not giving money to the middle will stop the war would it not?
Politics - 9 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Because it is far too expensive.
2 :
we are getting oil from Alaska but it's expensive to get it to the US mainland
3 :
We get a lot of our oil from Alaska. That's what the pipeline is for. We also get a lot from Texas, but they charge just as much as the Arabs. I guess Texaco is trying to destroy our economy too. Also, there are other ways to stop the war. For instance, we could put the troops on planes and fly them home, or send them to Afghanistan to get bin Laden.
4 :
Because it would cost the United States Way too much, with the upkeep of the pipelines and security. Also, America is trying to expand to all parts of the world for natural resources and oil, which is very abundant in the Middle East, Africa, and parts of Asia. So after they seize all the oil in the middle East(which is said to be sitting on about $5 trillion worth) then their next targets are going to be certain African nations, then eventually Asia.
5 :
Same with all the oil in LA that they now want to tap into. Because we would rather pollute other countries than our own. And we are too lazy to go without luxuries and deal with the altertative options that may ask us to give a little. We have become a lazy, spoiled country that has forgotten what it means to go without. In short, we have forgotten what all those who sacrificed and gaves their lives for so we could raise a generation of lazy, spoiled, overweight brats.
6 :
This question is best directed at all of the tree huggers in the Congress.
7 :
We get a lot of oil from Alaska. Alaska is the third largest oil producing state in the US but because of the conditions and the depth of the fields in Alaska it is extremely expensive to drill there. Currently the US has about a 10 year oil reserve in place. The US imports 60% of all oil consumption (Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia being the 3 largest sources).
8 :
Alaska is for a reserve use ONLY. When everything gone bad in the Middle East, and the oil access there is short, than Alaska will be used. Why use your reserves when you have others fields to use?
9 :
Because it is not environmentally safe and against the law to drill in national reservoirs. This is exactly what the oil companies want... they are going to keep making record profits and not lower the price of gas until the public outcry demands we drill in Alaska... for them to get richer then when that oil runs out, we are in the same exact place.
it just makes more sense since Alaska is a state in the usa and the do have the Alaska oil pipe line pumping oil into the states why not just use it's own oil instead of giving it to the middle east some body told me America has enough of it's own oil for the next 500 years. Why not use our oil until we can think of a better way to fuel our homes? not giving money to the middle will stop the war would it not?
Politics - 9 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Because it is far too expensive.
2 :
we are getting oil from Alaska but it's expensive to get it to the US mainland
3 :
We get a lot of our oil from Alaska. That's what the pipeline is for. We also get a lot from Texas, but they charge just as much as the Arabs. I guess Texaco is trying to destroy our economy too. Also, there are other ways to stop the war. For instance, we could put the troops on planes and fly them home, or send them to Afghanistan to get bin Laden.
4 :
Because it would cost the United States Way too much, with the upkeep of the pipelines and security. Also, America is trying to expand to all parts of the world for natural resources and oil, which is very abundant in the Middle East, Africa, and parts of Asia. So after they seize all the oil in the middle East(which is said to be sitting on about $5 trillion worth) then their next targets are going to be certain African nations, then eventually Asia.
5 :
Same with all the oil in LA that they now want to tap into. Because we would rather pollute other countries than our own. And we are too lazy to go without luxuries and deal with the altertative options that may ask us to give a little. We have become a lazy, spoiled country that has forgotten what it means to go without. In short, we have forgotten what all those who sacrificed and gaves their lives for so we could raise a generation of lazy, spoiled, overweight brats.
6 :
This question is best directed at all of the tree huggers in the Congress.
7 :
We get a lot of oil from Alaska. Alaska is the third largest oil producing state in the US but because of the conditions and the depth of the fields in Alaska it is extremely expensive to drill there. Currently the US has about a 10 year oil reserve in place. The US imports 60% of all oil consumption (Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia being the 3 largest sources).
8 :
Alaska is for a reserve use ONLY. When everything gone bad in the Middle East, and the oil access there is short, than Alaska will be used. Why use your reserves when you have others fields to use?
9 :
Because it is not environmentally safe and against the law to drill in national reservoirs. This is exactly what the oil companies want... they are going to keep making record profits and not lower the price of gas until the public outcry demands we drill in Alaska... for them to get richer then when that oil runs out, we are in the same exact place.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
what do you know about jobs In united states of America ?
what do you know about jobs In united states of America ?
by the way I live In America seven years I have four years trying to find ajob of my dream I aplied many jobs aplications but I do not receive call untill today I don't know what's the problem today I don't have any money to spent for my daily life even I live a homeless that make me sick so what's the alternative for me ? suliman utah u.s.a
Other - Society & Culture - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
If Libetards stay in power, you'll have no chance......
by the way I live In America seven years I have four years trying to find ajob of my dream I aplied many jobs aplications but I do not receive call untill today I don't know what's the problem today I don't have any money to spent for my daily life even I live a homeless that make me sick so what's the alternative for me ? suliman utah u.s.a
Other - Society & Culture - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
If Libetards stay in power, you'll have no chance......
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
As if we didnt know this?Even blacks in America;make money depending on skin color.DAMN?
As if we didnt know this?Even blacks in America;make money depending on skin color.DAMN?
Study says skin tone affects earnings By TRAVIS LOLLER, Associated Press Writer Fri Jan 26, 11:01 PM ET NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Light-skinned immigrants in the United States make more money on average than those with darker complexions, and the chief reason appears to be discrimination, a researcher says. ADVERTISEMENT Joni Hersch, a law and economics professor at Vanderbilt University, looked at a government survey of 2,084 legal immigrants to the United States from around the world and found that those with the lightest skin earned an average of 8 percent to 15 percent more than similar immigrants with much darker skin. "On average, being one shade lighter has about the same effect as having an additional year of education," Hersch said. The study also found that taller immigrants earn more than shorter ones, with an extra inch of height associated with a 1 percent increase in income. Other researchers said the findings are consistent with other studies on color and point to a skin-tone prejudice that goes beyond race. Hersch took into consideration other factors that could affect wages, such as English-language proficiency, education, occupation, race or country of origin, and found that skin tone still seemed to make a difference in earnings. That means that if two similar immigrants from Bangladesh, for example, came to the United States at the same time, with the same occupation and ability to speak English, the lighter-skinned immigrant would make more money on average. "I thought that once we controlled for race and nationality, I expected the difference to go away, but even with people from the same country, the same race รข€” skin color really matters," she said, "and height." Although many cultures show a bias toward lighter skin, Hersch said her analysis shows that the skin-color advantage was not due to preferential treatment for light-skinned people in their country of origin. The bias, she said, occurs in the U.S. Economics professor Shelley White-Means of the University of Tennessee at Memphis said the study adds to the growing body of evidence that there is a "preference for whiteness" in America that goes beyond race. Hersch drew her data from a 2003 federal survey of nearly 8,600 new immigrants. The survey used an 11-point scale for measuring skin tone, in which 0 represents an absence of color and 10 the darkest possible skin tone. From those nearly 8,600 participants, she focused on the more than 2,000 who were working and whose skin tone had been recorded during face-to-face interviews. William Darity Jr., an economics professor at the University of North Carolina, said Hersch's findings are similar to a study he co-authored last year on skin tone and wages among blacks. "We estimate that dark- or medium-skinned blacks suffered a discriminatory penalty of anywhere from 10 percent to 15 percent relative to whites," he said. "This suggests people cue into appearance and draw inferences about capabilities and skills based on how they look." Darity said it is not clear whether the bias is conscious or subconscious. Hersch said her findings, which will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science next month in San Francisco, could support discrimination lawsuits based not on race, but on color. "There are very few color discrimination suits, but they are on the rise," she said. "But these suits can be hard to prove."
Other - Cultures & Groups - 8 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Yeah, black people could have told them that.
2 :
that's not true
3 :
Shut the F**k Up!
4 :
its a cold world we living in lol
5 :
A research is done by a group of people and they JUST TELL US what their opinion is. RESEARCHES ARE NOT FACTS. I am dark skinned man, and I make more money than many White people.
6 :
I love your post. Im a 33 year old white woman and before I read your post, I would have told you affirmative action is no longer needed. I was very surprised by the numbers. Though according to the study affirmative action may be no help at all to dark skinned blacks, since lighter skinned people seem to fair better even of the same race.
7 :
It doesn't take a stupid marketing survey to confirm what is clearly a remnant of the color bias which governs the world. Most receptionists, TV presenters, customer care executives are White or if colored, they have a light skin tone. When you call any company's toll-free number, if it is a customer from the Developed world, they put on line a White cheerleading girl - and a ghetto accent fat-lipped ho for other customers. Clearly, prejudice can never be ended - it can only be minimized and contained.
8 :
You have answered your question. Yes, you are right that in some field of work and also sometimes "skin tone affects earnings", though this is not the norm. If you were born in any of the countries in South Asia then you need not refer to so many studies to confirm your hypothesis. For example, in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh if a newborn is a (without prejudice): a) Boy: "Excellent", if he is as white as Caucasian: "Very Good", if he is Light-skinned: "Good", if he is Dark-skinned: "Fair". No problem, that guy could somehow manage to survive in the society. b) Girl: "Okay", if she is as white as Caucasian: "Very Good", if she is Light-skinned: "Fair", if she is Dark-skinned: "Oh my God". She may have some problem at the time of her getting married as the dowry would be required. Now you are complaining about employment and earning capabilities for blacks in America. See what good or pity life one would live in our part of the world, just because of his or her skin colour. To add with this, imagine the height that plays its role too. You can have a lot of combination and permutation for arriving at a person's fate or treatment he/she receives in this world. This is the reality on the ground and people are suffering mental agony for something for which they were not responsible (skin colour and height). Look at the leading TV Serials (drama and soap-operas) from India, Pakistan or Bangladesh, which are watched all over the world where South Asians are residing, you will hardly find any light or dark-skinned Indian boy or girl in leading or sub-leading roles. Except for villains and jokers these less-fortunate mortal souls are doomed to lower rung roles and society accepts these prejudices by way of keeping mum over such issues. Therefore, thank the leader and people in developed countries for accepting light and dark-skinned citizens on almost equal par, which are at greater discrimination in developing countries.
Study says skin tone affects earnings By TRAVIS LOLLER, Associated Press Writer Fri Jan 26, 11:01 PM ET NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Light-skinned immigrants in the United States make more money on average than those with darker complexions, and the chief reason appears to be discrimination, a researcher says. ADVERTISEMENT Joni Hersch, a law and economics professor at Vanderbilt University, looked at a government survey of 2,084 legal immigrants to the United States from around the world and found that those with the lightest skin earned an average of 8 percent to 15 percent more than similar immigrants with much darker skin. "On average, being one shade lighter has about the same effect as having an additional year of education," Hersch said. The study also found that taller immigrants earn more than shorter ones, with an extra inch of height associated with a 1 percent increase in income. Other researchers said the findings are consistent with other studies on color and point to a skin-tone prejudice that goes beyond race. Hersch took into consideration other factors that could affect wages, such as English-language proficiency, education, occupation, race or country of origin, and found that skin tone still seemed to make a difference in earnings. That means that if two similar immigrants from Bangladesh, for example, came to the United States at the same time, with the same occupation and ability to speak English, the lighter-skinned immigrant would make more money on average. "I thought that once we controlled for race and nationality, I expected the difference to go away, but even with people from the same country, the same race รข€” skin color really matters," she said, "and height." Although many cultures show a bias toward lighter skin, Hersch said her analysis shows that the skin-color advantage was not due to preferential treatment for light-skinned people in their country of origin. The bias, she said, occurs in the U.S. Economics professor Shelley White-Means of the University of Tennessee at Memphis said the study adds to the growing body of evidence that there is a "preference for whiteness" in America that goes beyond race. Hersch drew her data from a 2003 federal survey of nearly 8,600 new immigrants. The survey used an 11-point scale for measuring skin tone, in which 0 represents an absence of color and 10 the darkest possible skin tone. From those nearly 8,600 participants, she focused on the more than 2,000 who were working and whose skin tone had been recorded during face-to-face interviews. William Darity Jr., an economics professor at the University of North Carolina, said Hersch's findings are similar to a study he co-authored last year on skin tone and wages among blacks. "We estimate that dark- or medium-skinned blacks suffered a discriminatory penalty of anywhere from 10 percent to 15 percent relative to whites," he said. "This suggests people cue into appearance and draw inferences about capabilities and skills based on how they look." Darity said it is not clear whether the bias is conscious or subconscious. Hersch said her findings, which will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science next month in San Francisco, could support discrimination lawsuits based not on race, but on color. "There are very few color discrimination suits, but they are on the rise," she said. "But these suits can be hard to prove."
Other - Cultures & Groups - 8 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Yeah, black people could have told them that.
2 :
that's not true
3 :
Shut the F**k Up!
4 :
its a cold world we living in lol
5 :
A research is done by a group of people and they JUST TELL US what their opinion is. RESEARCHES ARE NOT FACTS. I am dark skinned man, and I make more money than many White people.
6 :
I love your post. Im a 33 year old white woman and before I read your post, I would have told you affirmative action is no longer needed. I was very surprised by the numbers. Though according to the study affirmative action may be no help at all to dark skinned blacks, since lighter skinned people seem to fair better even of the same race.
7 :
It doesn't take a stupid marketing survey to confirm what is clearly a remnant of the color bias which governs the world. Most receptionists, TV presenters, customer care executives are White or if colored, they have a light skin tone. When you call any company's toll-free number, if it is a customer from the Developed world, they put on line a White cheerleading girl - and a ghetto accent fat-lipped ho for other customers. Clearly, prejudice can never be ended - it can only be minimized and contained.
8 :
You have answered your question. Yes, you are right that in some field of work and also sometimes "skin tone affects earnings", though this is not the norm. If you were born in any of the countries in South Asia then you need not refer to so many studies to confirm your hypothesis. For example, in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh if a newborn is a (without prejudice): a) Boy: "Excellent", if he is as white as Caucasian: "Very Good", if he is Light-skinned: "Good", if he is Dark-skinned: "Fair". No problem, that guy could somehow manage to survive in the society. b) Girl: "Okay", if she is as white as Caucasian: "Very Good", if she is Light-skinned: "Fair", if she is Dark-skinned: "Oh my God". She may have some problem at the time of her getting married as the dowry would be required. Now you are complaining about employment and earning capabilities for blacks in America. See what good or pity life one would live in our part of the world, just because of his or her skin colour. To add with this, imagine the height that plays its role too. You can have a lot of combination and permutation for arriving at a person's fate or treatment he/she receives in this world. This is the reality on the ground and people are suffering mental agony for something for which they were not responsible (skin colour and height). Look at the leading TV Serials (drama and soap-operas) from India, Pakistan or Bangladesh, which are watched all over the world where South Asians are residing, you will hardly find any light or dark-skinned Indian boy or girl in leading or sub-leading roles. Except for villains and jokers these less-fortunate mortal souls are doomed to lower rung roles and society accepts these prejudices by way of keeping mum over such issues. Therefore, thank the leader and people in developed countries for accepting light and dark-skinned citizens on almost equal par, which are at greater discrimination in developing countries.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Why can't our Government, the United States of America help its homeless and jobless?
Why can't our Government, the United States of America help its homeless and jobless?
Where ever there's a state of emergency in the world, you can be sure that America will be there to feed, clothe, and house those displaced citizens in foreign lands. Please don't get me wrong. I'm not against helping foreign countries in their time of need. I'm just trying to understand how our Government prioritizes. Millions of dollars have been spent on foreign aid but American children, men and women continue to go hungry? Also jobless and homeless? I know there would be some that say, "Government money is not all the same. It's allocated here and there for specific purposes." Ok, fine. So what percent of that money goes to feeding Americans in need? One percent? I don't get it. Why can't our Government take care of its own first before taking care of someone else's country? I understand that politically speaking, it's in America's best interest to have allies. That goes without saying. I'm just trying to make sense of it all?
Other - Politics & Government - 13 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Amen!!! Thank You!!!!!!
2 :
Why do people want to see victims where none exist? The people in the U.S. are far better off than people in most other countries. Poor and homeless people in the U.S. are that way because they choose to be.
3 :
When American Idol did it's "Idol Gives Back" show, Simon Cowell said he never realized that 9 million children in America go hungry. I believe the sad story with this administration, is that, they prefer to remain clueless. When people like Dick Cheney admit that they watch only Fox news, you know they're being shown, exactly what they want to see & nothing else. Disturbing. I don't believe some of the answsers here. Like the people in New Orleans who watched their homes & jobs swept away from Katrina. Or how about our seniors who are crippled with arthritis, who can't work? Or the older people who worked for GM or Ford & suddenly lost their jobs to out sourcing? Do they really think these people wanted this?! Unbelievable.
4 :
help the homeless people but dont tax the crap out of people who have jobs. dont become socialistic like the liberals want. btw. if you care so much take 10% of what you make every year and give it to the homeless families. thats what i do.
5 :
because the people here learned to abuse the system, poor people CHOOSE to be poor.
6 :
The homeless are usually crazy, and there's not much you can do to help them. The chronically jobless are just lazy and you can't help a man who lacks the pride to help himself.
7 :
compared to countries that the us is giving money we are very well off will a small homeless, unemployed, and poverty rates
8 :
we help our homeless everyday. unfortunately, some people are unable to use the given assistance to their advantage and improve their lives. they just want to stay on it indefinitely. We are not a socialist state so don't ever expect wide open financial help for those not willing to give some form of value for the money.
9 :
You know I think it is also a matter of the administration underscoring that we have this problem all over the United States. And don't think it is just in the urban areas...I'm near a rather affluent town on the east coast and the religious organizations in that town have their own soup kitchens. They just don't advertise. They tend to 'take care of their own' without any fanfare. But you are right... However, and I don't know why people can't see it...but we are headed in another direction...because the United States wants two classes of people. The rich and The poor. The middle class are too busy working and trying to pay hefty mortgages to see it yet. In less than a decade, however, we will have just what I have said. the rich and the poor. There will be no middle class.
10 :
They could easily solve the problem. But if they did, the candidates would not have the issue to run on in the next election. Like Clinton in 92 and 96. Promise a middle class tax cut to get elected. But did not happen either time! They want the issue to talk about during elections. Fixing it would take away their ammunition.
11 :
Most homeless people come from broken families, are drug addicts, are mental disabled or are disabled or crippled veterans that our govt. doesn't care about. The govt. only cares when they think people are watching.
12 :
we can't give free money to people otherwise we'd be in more in debt. but you're right when we should be focused on ourselves. But one reason why we're in Iraq is because Hussian was "trying" to take over the middle east ( not 100%sure but that's what my AP Euro book says) US was trying to stop another diatorship. to help the homeless, we need to help the jobless. Most homeless are jobless. One way to help the jobless is by having large government projects to employ many people
13 :
I do not even try to figure out how the government rations out OUR money to foreign countries. Personally I cared less about Sri Lanka and care even more less about Iran and Iraq. My causes are closer to home. The hurricane Katrina/Rita thing has not been resolved to date... Explain that. As far as all this money building up the military in a foreign country... what good will that do when our troops are dying at alarming rates everyday. To make matters worst... after we use the equipment... we leave it behind for all the terrorists to have their way with. It happened in Desert Shield/ Desert Storm... and it will again. What about abuse? What about homelessness? What about hunger? What about poverty? Disease control? Minimum wage? Hate crimes? Terminal illness? Social Security? Believe me... I have other concerns and issues that are more important to me. Our money and taxes are being squandered needlessly and there is pretty much not a damn thing we can do about it... Furthermore... What about the horrors in Africa? Bush wants to intervene so much... take on one of the real atrocities of the 21st century...
Where ever there's a state of emergency in the world, you can be sure that America will be there to feed, clothe, and house those displaced citizens in foreign lands. Please don't get me wrong. I'm not against helping foreign countries in their time of need. I'm just trying to understand how our Government prioritizes. Millions of dollars have been spent on foreign aid but American children, men and women continue to go hungry? Also jobless and homeless? I know there would be some that say, "Government money is not all the same. It's allocated here and there for specific purposes." Ok, fine. So what percent of that money goes to feeding Americans in need? One percent? I don't get it. Why can't our Government take care of its own first before taking care of someone else's country? I understand that politically speaking, it's in America's best interest to have allies. That goes without saying. I'm just trying to make sense of it all?
Other - Politics & Government - 13 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Amen!!! Thank You!!!!!!
2 :
Why do people want to see victims where none exist? The people in the U.S. are far better off than people in most other countries. Poor and homeless people in the U.S. are that way because they choose to be.
3 :
When American Idol did it's "Idol Gives Back" show, Simon Cowell said he never realized that 9 million children in America go hungry. I believe the sad story with this administration, is that, they prefer to remain clueless. When people like Dick Cheney admit that they watch only Fox news, you know they're being shown, exactly what they want to see & nothing else. Disturbing. I don't believe some of the answsers here. Like the people in New Orleans who watched their homes & jobs swept away from Katrina. Or how about our seniors who are crippled with arthritis, who can't work? Or the older people who worked for GM or Ford & suddenly lost their jobs to out sourcing? Do they really think these people wanted this?! Unbelievable.
4 :
help the homeless people but dont tax the crap out of people who have jobs. dont become socialistic like the liberals want. btw. if you care so much take 10% of what you make every year and give it to the homeless families. thats what i do.
5 :
because the people here learned to abuse the system, poor people CHOOSE to be poor.
6 :
The homeless are usually crazy, and there's not much you can do to help them. The chronically jobless are just lazy and you can't help a man who lacks the pride to help himself.
7 :
compared to countries that the us is giving money we are very well off will a small homeless, unemployed, and poverty rates
8 :
we help our homeless everyday. unfortunately, some people are unable to use the given assistance to their advantage and improve their lives. they just want to stay on it indefinitely. We are not a socialist state so don't ever expect wide open financial help for those not willing to give some form of value for the money.
9 :
You know I think it is also a matter of the administration underscoring that we have this problem all over the United States. And don't think it is just in the urban areas...I'm near a rather affluent town on the east coast and the religious organizations in that town have their own soup kitchens. They just don't advertise. They tend to 'take care of their own' without any fanfare. But you are right... However, and I don't know why people can't see it...but we are headed in another direction...because the United States wants two classes of people. The rich and The poor. The middle class are too busy working and trying to pay hefty mortgages to see it yet. In less than a decade, however, we will have just what I have said. the rich and the poor. There will be no middle class.
10 :
They could easily solve the problem. But if they did, the candidates would not have the issue to run on in the next election. Like Clinton in 92 and 96. Promise a middle class tax cut to get elected. But did not happen either time! They want the issue to talk about during elections. Fixing it would take away their ammunition.
11 :
Most homeless people come from broken families, are drug addicts, are mental disabled or are disabled or crippled veterans that our govt. doesn't care about. The govt. only cares when they think people are watching.
12 :
we can't give free money to people otherwise we'd be in more in debt. but you're right when we should be focused on ourselves. But one reason why we're in Iraq is because Hussian was "trying" to take over the middle east ( not 100%sure but that's what my AP Euro book says) US was trying to stop another diatorship. to help the homeless, we need to help the jobless. Most homeless are jobless. One way to help the jobless is by having large government projects to employ many people
13 :
I do not even try to figure out how the government rations out OUR money to foreign countries. Personally I cared less about Sri Lanka and care even more less about Iran and Iraq. My causes are closer to home. The hurricane Katrina/Rita thing has not been resolved to date... Explain that. As far as all this money building up the military in a foreign country... what good will that do when our troops are dying at alarming rates everyday. To make matters worst... after we use the equipment... we leave it behind for all the terrorists to have their way with. It happened in Desert Shield/ Desert Storm... and it will again. What about abuse? What about homelessness? What about hunger? What about poverty? Disease control? Minimum wage? Hate crimes? Terminal illness? Social Security? Believe me... I have other concerns and issues that are more important to me. Our money and taxes are being squandered needlessly and there is pretty much not a damn thing we can do about it... Furthermore... What about the horrors in Africa? Bush wants to intervene so much... take on one of the real atrocities of the 21st century...
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Can a state legally secede from the United States of America?
Can a state legally secede from the United States of America?
Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution states: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." However, in my opinion, the Constitution says nothing about a state leaving the Union to become an independent nation. (Then it could enter into treaties or a different confederation - the South's argument in the Civil War.) Is this possible? Would it be up to the state legislature or would Congress have to approve? Would such an act trigger a domino effect that could lead to 50 independent nations? I'm just looking for opinions and ideas on this. I don't expect actual answers to the question from someone who isn't a Federal judge or a Constitutional lawyer (and even then, it would still be an opinion)
Government - 8 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
No! Of course not! Do you think this is a FREE country or something? Our rights are selected to make us feel like we're free. And to an extent, we are MUCH freer than most other countries in the world. I would definitely not want to live in many other places, but we are not as free as we claim to be.
2 :
The South didn't do so good trying it, did they?
3 :
Technically, some states can. After the Civil War, part of the deal to accept the confederate states was that they had to make it part of their constitution that they could not seceed. Other states may have included the same, especially after the Civil War.
4 :
Well, it seems like the Constitution is clear enough, I think according to it, states certainly can secede. The thing is, there's a big difference between "can legally secede" and "can legally secede, according to the Constitution". I have no real opinion as to whether or not that's fair, it's just how it is - I doubt a state could get away with it these days. Edit: John J's comment is interesting; I didn't know that.
5 :
Yes. But only through Constitutional amendment, which can either be proposed by Congress or a constitutional convention and then ratified by the States. Although the Constitution does not say that a state may not secede on its own, the Civil War answered this question in the negative. It's surprises that none of the Civil War amendments addressed the issue of seceding from the Union considering that secession was the cause of the War.
6 :
Hey if you ain't happy here go to the border and sneak in to Mexico. Maybe you could find a job that Mexicans don't want to do
7 :
Only if they are strong enough to do it. Andrew Jackson made it legal to use force to maintain the union and the Civil War put it to the challenge so the US has the right to keep the union intact by anymeans nescessary.
8 :
The only state that I know that can do that is Texas, it's in their constitution, and they consider themselves a republic.....as I understand.....
Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution states: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." However, in my opinion, the Constitution says nothing about a state leaving the Union to become an independent nation. (Then it could enter into treaties or a different confederation - the South's argument in the Civil War.) Is this possible? Would it be up to the state legislature or would Congress have to approve? Would such an act trigger a domino effect that could lead to 50 independent nations? I'm just looking for opinions and ideas on this. I don't expect actual answers to the question from someone who isn't a Federal judge or a Constitutional lawyer (and even then, it would still be an opinion)
Government - 8 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
No! Of course not! Do you think this is a FREE country or something? Our rights are selected to make us feel like we're free. And to an extent, we are MUCH freer than most other countries in the world. I would definitely not want to live in many other places, but we are not as free as we claim to be.
2 :
The South didn't do so good trying it, did they?
3 :
Technically, some states can. After the Civil War, part of the deal to accept the confederate states was that they had to make it part of their constitution that they could not seceed. Other states may have included the same, especially after the Civil War.
4 :
Well, it seems like the Constitution is clear enough, I think according to it, states certainly can secede. The thing is, there's a big difference between "can legally secede" and "can legally secede, according to the Constitution". I have no real opinion as to whether or not that's fair, it's just how it is - I doubt a state could get away with it these days. Edit: John J's comment is interesting; I didn't know that.
5 :
Yes. But only through Constitutional amendment, which can either be proposed by Congress or a constitutional convention and then ratified by the States. Although the Constitution does not say that a state may not secede on its own, the Civil War answered this question in the negative. It's surprises that none of the Civil War amendments addressed the issue of seceding from the Union considering that secession was the cause of the War.
6 :
Hey if you ain't happy here go to the border and sneak in to Mexico. Maybe you could find a job that Mexicans don't want to do
7 :
Only if they are strong enough to do it. Andrew Jackson made it legal to use force to maintain the union and the Civil War put it to the challenge so the US has the right to keep the union intact by anymeans nescessary.
8 :
The only state that I know that can do that is Texas, it's in their constitution, and they consider themselves a republic.....as I understand.....
Saturday, August 7, 2010
The United States of America becoming the "New Mexico" of the world?
The United States of America becoming the "New Mexico" of the world?
Just think of about it, millions of Americans out of jobs, prisoners being released before there sentences are up. Teachers and School Districts getting shut down. Really if you think about it, it's becoming more and more tougher to make a living (legally) than anything else. We are fast becoming a poorer and poorer nation that soon will even rival our poorer neighbor country down south (Mexico). We may be the newest third world country on the map. Even other countries and nations are refusing to take our money knowing that in just a few short years, it may be become worthless. What do you think?
Current Events - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Sorry for that, pal.. but yeah it has been tough year for Western countries, or maybe the NWO rumor are actually true?
2 :
Yes and you meant to say the new "Mexico" not New Mexico.
Just think of about it, millions of Americans out of jobs, prisoners being released before there sentences are up. Teachers and School Districts getting shut down. Really if you think about it, it's becoming more and more tougher to make a living (legally) than anything else. We are fast becoming a poorer and poorer nation that soon will even rival our poorer neighbor country down south (Mexico). We may be the newest third world country on the map. Even other countries and nations are refusing to take our money knowing that in just a few short years, it may be become worthless. What do you think?
Current Events - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Sorry for that, pal.. but yeah it has been tough year for Western countries, or maybe the NWO rumor are actually true?
2 :
Yes and you meant to say the new "Mexico" not New Mexico.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)