if u think someone working as a fucking cashier should get full benefits, you are a hapless idiot. They can easily avoid standing on their feet 12 hours and not getting benefits, GET A REAL FUCKING JOB. The difference between dems and reps is that reps take responsibility for their own actions, dems make excuses and blame others. And dont call me an idiot because I beleive in personal responsibility. If a job sucks as bad as u describe it: get a new one, and this time make sure its a CAREER.
The problem is that the mindset of some one that is of the opinion that they are making less than is justified is never going to view a job as a career.
The idea that a job is a temporary thing is a myth. You are always going to need a job, unless you strike it rich, in which case you might still end up needing a job if you are irresponsible with the money.
Though what I can't understand is why the liberals seem to have it against CEOs. For the most part, a large portion of them spent most of their working lives at the companies they become the CEOs of. Twenty, Thirty, Forty Years even, and not all of that time was spent in a executive level position. They worked their way up.
Of course, most people love to bitch, CEOs make too much. It's a stupid argument. If any group of people make too much for doing what they do it's entertainers and sports players. Instead of having to show intelligence and sound judgment those people get paid to do nothing more than something enjoyable. Why should a professional sportsplayer make $80/$90 Million a year?
That's absurd, compared to that Executives who make less than $10 Million aren't overpaid. Of course, relative to the $80/$90 Million a year figure everyone else is underpaid...
Besides, some of the CEOs have either built the company from the ground up, or were there since it's founding. Instead of quitting because the going got tough, or because they were tired of the same stuff day in and day out they continued to work and bust their asses.
As far as the comments about the single mother that can't afford to raise their children. I fail to see how I'm responsible, or why I should pay for their lack of sound judgment when I didn't get any enjoyment out of the act. At the same time, I can definitely understand extending help to them, but to say that they need to make the same amount as a software engineer, an accountant, or any other professional is insulting.
Not just to the professionals, but also to the single parent. One would imagine that if they don't like the situation they are in they would get off their ass and do something about it. To state that they don't have that ability is nothing more than saying that they are stupid. I refuse to believe that, and I think that helping them attend college is the correct path to take. Giving them a hand out instead of a hand up is stupid, and ultimately self-defeating. How can you expect them ever to provide for themselves if you just give it to them with out requiring them to eventually be able to take care of themselves?
To paraphrase Reagan, the success of Welfare should not be judged by how many people are on it, but by how many people get off of it.
