Can Rick Perry defeat Barack Obama?

So now the Associated Press is also lying?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ap-fact-checks-perry-romney-bachmanns-gop-debate-claims/

And, it's conservative stupidity to expect a family man or woman to pay their mortgage, and put food on the table while working at McDonald's. When you can't pay your bills on a low-paying job, it is better to be unemployed and at least draw unemployment, which is way more than you will make at McDonalds. Don't expect a conservatives to be able to figure that one out.

 

Minimum wage jobs are mostly entry level jobs. As one gains experience and greater skills one should be able to move on to higher paying positions. If a person is still minimum wage after they have married, have kids, and a mortgage then there is something seriously wrong with that person. If after a couple of years of work you are still at minimum wage there is something wrong with you. I have had to work minimum wage before and within a few months I had always gotten a promotion or had found a better job. It's call iniative. Try it. Go into a McD's and you will see mostly high-school kids working part-time getting their first job experience.

Even if you do have to take a minimum wage job, it IS better than no job. Unemployment stops after six months. Then it is either some paycheck or no paycheck.

 

Good. Let Rick Perry tell the electorate the he is planning on creating an American minimum wage society. Let's see how far that flies.

As a Democrat I think Perrry will be good for Obama. Perry can also explain to the Independent voters how he plans to unite the country behind him by suggesting that Texas can succede the U.S.

He is a nut case whose statements and Ideas will haunt him throughout his campaign.

 

How long do you think that will last in our current environment. Corporate profits are up a staggering amount yet wages have been stagnant or worse. If (*)(*)(*)(*) gets worse there will be nothing else to do but unionize and fight for better wages.

 

Does it matter?

 

Minimum wage jobs, for the most part are jobs as servers at fast-food restaurants. Most fast-food restaurants have "one" manager, and there isn't a big turnover.

How long does that take? Is a family, trying to stay above water going to be able to survive waiting for the head of household to move up to a higher-paying job? Most low-paying jobs are dead-end jobs.

How can almost a quarter of the U.S. workforce be invisible? Call them low-wage workers employed in low-paying, minimal or no-benefit jobs. Call them exploited or the working poor. Call them living (barely) from paycheck to paycheck with no job security. Call them under-educated, under-trained, and under-respected. Call them job-seekers stuck in dead-end jobs. But, whatever you do, do not call them low-skilled or lazy.

According to numerous sources, approximately 30 million workers between the ages of 18 and 64 earn less than $9 an hour in their jobs -- a full-time annual income of $18,800, assuming a full-time (40 hour week), 52-week work schedule -- the income that marks the federal poverty line for a family of four. These are folks making somewhere around the minimum wage.


Sources: U.S. Department of Labor: Employment Standards Administration, AFL-CIO: Minimum Wage.

The numbers are a little fuzzy because of family size, the number of adults working, and hours worked per week/month/year. Many of these folks work multiple jobs just to survive.
http://www.quintcareers.com/surviving_low-wage_jobs.html

We're not talking about people who are not able to do anything other than what a low-paying job offers. We're talking about many that had good paying jobs and due to the recession are now in the throngs that are unemployed.
Young people that have never been employed should take advantage of whatever job opportunities there are, but many of the unemployed were people who previously held high-paying jobs, with mortgages and other bills that were manageable at one time, but not sustainable with a low-paying job.

Not necessarily. Many restaurants pay low wages, but if a server hustles and does good work he can make up the difference in tips. There is nothing wrong with a person who chooses that as their employment. However, many restaurants like to hire young, nice-looking people, are not interested in the middle-aged, maybe not so hot unemployed Engineer.

That is fine, if you don't have a family depending on you. Also, times are different now. We've never had so many people unemployed that were previously working as we do now. When you take a job at McDonalds, you are not necessarily going to have that much free time to look for a better job, it will have to be during those times that you are not working, and that limits your ability to find another job. And, once you take a job, you are no longer eligible for unemployment benefits.

There, you said it. "Mostly high-school kids". A family man/woman, is not a high-school kid that has no mortgage or other demanding debts.

No, that is not true. By the time you figure in your gasoline expense (to get to work), day-care, (if you have kids), plus clothing and other expenses associated with a job, a low-paying job is no better than no job.

Unemployment benefits are usually 1/2 of what you used to get paid. You have to be seeking a job to qualify to receive them. Once you take a minimum wage job, you are no longer eligible to receive unemployment benefits. It would be stupid to take a low-paying job, stop your unemployment benefits just to say you are working. And, in times of high unemployment, benefits are extended for longer than 6 months.


Up to 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits, starting after the 26 weeks of standard benefits may be available to eligible unemployed workers during periods of high unemployment.
http://jobsearch.about.com/cs/unemployment/a/unemployment.htm

 

God bless you, you are an American

It is nitwits who voted in these "inbred" jerks that got the country 16 trillion dollars in debt, and not the people who refused to vote for lesser of two evils.

 

I think it will be a tough race. While Perry would offer hope, jobs, and prosperity. Obama has a lot more people dependent on food stamps.

 

Perry would be in over his head and be lead by the right-wing machine just like Bush was. Obama cares about the people - Perry, like a good Republican cares about corporations and the rich (like him).

People may not be on food stamps under Perry, they will just be starving to death. I guess for conservatives, that is much better.

 

I'd make a write in ballot for Abraham Lincoln if this was the choice

 

Not trying to be a troll here, but can you honestly tell me why you believe that Obama cares about the people? Can you really in no way see that he is very much a part of the same corporate/goverment agenda that most Presidents are? What has he done to prove that he is so "caring" exactly?

 

Obama had to fight hard to get unemployed people an extension on their unemployment benefits, while the GOP was holding him hostage on it unless he was agreeable to continue the tax cuts for the rich.

Obama had to risk the Republicans allowing our country's credit rating be downgraded in order to insure that Republicans didn't dismantle Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the programs that benefit the middle-class and below.

He has offered up a plan to create jobs and already the right is whining that it is just going to cost money. Never mind all the money we have wasted on two bogus wars (started on their watch), and the fact that we have had the Bush tax cuts for a decade. Their contention is that they create jobs - well, unless they are obtuse, it is obvious they are not creating jobs.

If you are unable to comprehend that as caring for the people, then I guess you are in the group that think corporations are people and the wealthy don't deserve to pay their fair share. I can't help you there.