Daniel And Obama

[Balloon guy 158]

It is either ironic you're wrong or typical. Probably a little of both because you are confused. The gold standard didn't end in 1917. Nor did a democrat take you off the gold standard, whatever that is worth. Nixon ended the gold standard in 1971 when the Breton Woods system collapsed...Just tally another "1" to "the kid"...

I know Nixon was a great president. We could really use him again. But the do nothing democrats had to bring down a great man because he made their side look so bad. oh well, we all know Nixon was one of the greatest presidents after Reagen.And you are right, 1917 was when the Jehovah Witnesses predicted Jesus returning for the 3rd time. 1975 was their last prediction, and I got the two mixed up.I always get those two confused.

[Balloon guy 158]

When I saw the moon lander at the Air and Space Museum, my first thought was, "No wonder people think it was a conspiracy!" Knobs -- the controls are all knobs. The thing looks so flimsy that I wouldn't believe it could get itself out of the building and to the street without bursting into flames and falling apart.My husband was playing with a toy belonging to a friend's toddler. It had a video display that showed the ABCs, numbers, simple words and pictures like "cat" and "dog," played children's tunes, and showing an animation of a train, all in LED. He commented, "You realize this $19.99 toy probably has more technology in it than went to the moon?" Just kind of astonishing.

And they used Fortran to program the calculations that made the landing possible. Fortran, that is so slow now.

[Nimue1995 1]

Tell me how taking more money away from someone that earns it is helpful to you or anyone who makes less.Unless you want the government to give it directly to you, you will only benefit by being able to say: 'Yea, get him."The attempt by Hillary to take away the profits from Big oil is a perfect example. The money they made came from your purchases, if the government takes it away, all they did was tax you through big oil and you feel this helps you how?Where big oil now will spend more on repairs, exploration jobs etc. The tax laws of this country already force companies to invest, which drives the economy. Taking that money out of the private sector only slows growth, it doesn't help you in anyway whatsoever.And I paid my dues for 15 years of getting by and working extra jobs to make my company successful, now that it is, I am suppose to feel guilty for living very modestly to make a succeful business that exploits employees 4 people? No government assistance helped me, in fact government intrusions prevents me from hiring two more employees full time.And do you have any idea what insurance on a Jag XK conv. is?

Take money away from you? Lol, I just said that you supported Bush because the Bush tax cuts were advantageous to you. And since it seems that you can afford to be $1 million in debt then I assume that you have enough to keep you going for a while. How are your employees doing by the way? Can they afford a Jag yet? If so then I applaud you for paying them enough to make that possible. Or even if they can afford to house themselves and their families, afford decent transportation, have employer provided health care and retirement available to them then again I applaud you for paying them a living wage. Otherwise you're still part of the problem because if your employees aren't making a living wage then what the hell are you doing with a Jag? I applaud Costco because their CEO doesn't make many times the wage that it's workers make. And they pay a living wage, health benefits, and all and still make money. So I know it's possible for a company to do it. Costco I consider to be a moral corporation, Walmart I don't. And to my way of thinking, if you want to keep health care private then it needs to be affordable to either the individual or small business and you'll have most people wanting to keep the government out of it. The reason that people are wanting universal health care is that they can't afford it otherwise. I'd entertain any ideas you might have in this regard. By the way, I have no idea what insurance on a Jag XK is (if I had it I'd have to add in the price of a few tickets), but I can tell you what it is on a 1999 Isuzu Trooper,lol

[Balloon guy 158]

6 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)4 Members: Balloon guy, Nimue1995, Southern Buddhist, Kenny BanyaThis can't be good

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Heh heh heh. Well, it is our discussion. You're not worried about three little ole liberals -- two of them girls -- ganging up on you, are you? I'm not in the dogpile. Our discussion has been friendly enough.

[Nimue1995 1]

Unless he considers LOL's unfriendly then I think I've been pretty friendly too. At least I haven't yelled at him yet.

[hblask 1]

Take money away from you? Lol, I just said that you supported Bush because the Bush tax cuts were advantageous to you. And since it seems that you can afford to be $1 million in debt then I assume that you have enough to keep you going for a while. How are your employees doing by the way? Can they afford a Jag yet? If so then I applaud you for paying them enough to make that possible. Or even if they can afford to house themselves and their families, afford decent transportation, have employer provided health care and retirement available to them then again I applaud you for paying them a living wage. Otherwise you're still part of the problem because if your employees aren't making a living wage then what the hell are you doing with a Jag? I applaud Costco because their CEO doesn't make many times the wage that it's workers make. And they pay a living wage, health benefits, and all and still make money. So I know it's possible for a company to do it. Costco I consider to be a moral corporation, Walmart I don't. And to my way of thinking, if you want to keep health care private then it needs to be affordable to either the individual or small business and you'll have most people wanting to keep the government out of it. The reason that people are wanting universal health care is that they can't afford it otherwise. I'd entertain any ideas you might have in this regard. By the way, I have no idea what insurance on a Jag XK is (if I had it I'd have to add in the price of a few tickets), but I can tell you what it is on a 1999 Isuzu Trooper,lol

This sense of entitlement is kind of sad, really -- this notion that if you work your ass off like BG did to get where he is, you now somehow "owe" the people you hire something.I have a friend from college. He was working for someone else, and got sick of it. All his co-workers were in the exact same spot as he was -- no money, just a little experience. He decided to start his own business. He wrote a business plan and spent a year or so begging people to help him start his business. I don't know how he finally got it, but he did, and as a reward, he got to work 16 hour days six days a week for about 4 years, for less than he was making at his old job. Finally his company took off. Does he "owe" something to the people who are now in the position he was in before he started, working for him? Because if creating opportunities for others means you have to work even harder to fulfill some societal sense of entitlement, what do you think the next person will decide when they have to decide if the 16 hour days are worth it?The people he used to work with are no doubt at the same job complaining that their boss is "exploiting" them....

[Balloon guy 158]

For the record I try to blow the cigar smoke away from my employees when they are working really hard.I try anyway.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

A good boss does feel that he owes his employees something...because the boss is the one reaping the biggest rewards (after all, he took the biggest risk, too), but without the employees the company wouldn't be growing and getting more business and making more money. Isn't your friend's business making more money now that it has employees than it did when it was just him?My boss is a visionary who started a non-profit theatre out of nothing and had a dream to build the world's only re-creation of Shakespeare's Blackfriars Playhouse. He built something that has not existed for 400 years, and is now the only one of its kind on earth. He's a great man, and he deserves every reward possible for what he's done. But he feels grateful to me, his grantwriter, and to all 40 other employees, because our 24 actors put on 370 performances a year and I brought in nearly a million dollars last year. He can't do all that himself, so he's grateful to us and thanks us regularly, from the heart. Paycheck aside, that means the world to us and we would go to the mat for him every day, just as we know he would for us. But the bigger we get, the more he wants to give back to us in the form of 401(k)s (which we don't have yet), fully covering our health insurance, etc.

[hblask 1]

A good boss does feel that he owes his employees something...because the boss is the one reaping the biggest rewards (after all, he took the biggest risk, too), but without the employees the company wouldn't be growing and getting more business and making more money. Isn't your friend's business making more money now that it has employees than it did when it was just him?My boss is a visionary who started a non-profit theatre out of nothing and had a dream to build the world's only re-creation of Shakespeare's Blackfriars Playhouse. He built something that has not existed for 400 years, and is now the only one of its kind on earth. He's a great man, and he deserves every reward possible for what he's done. But he feels grateful to me, his grantwriter, and to all 40 other employees, because our 24 actors put on 370 performances a year and I brought in nearly a million dollars last year. He can't do all that himself, so he's grateful to us and thanks us regularly, from the heart. Paycheck aside, that means the world to us and we would go to the mat for him every day, just as we know he would for us. But the bigger we get, the more he wants to give back to us in the form of 401(k)s (which we don't have yet), fully covering our health insurance, etc.

I absolutely applaud bosses who are generous; just as I applaud anyone who is generous. My friend had a chance to take 8 figures for his business and walk away, but he was afraid his employees would not be treated properly by the new owner. What I was objecting to was a sense of entitlement that says "the rich owe the working poor a certain level of income." No, they don't. The smart ones reward good employees, because they know the value of a hard worker, but they don't "owe" anything but whatever they agreed to.

[JustDoIt 10]

A good boss does feel that he owes his employees something...because the boss is the one reaping the biggest rewards (after all, he took the biggest risk, too), but without the employees the company wouldn't be growing and getting more business and making more money. Isn't your friend's business making more money now that it has employees than it did when it was just him?My boss is a visionary who started a non-profit theatre out of nothing and had a dream to build the world's only re-creation of Shakespeare's Blackfriars Playhouse. He built something that has not existed for 400 years, and is now the only one of its kind on earth. He's a great man, and he deserves every reward possible for what he's done. But he feels grateful to me, his grantwriter, and to all 40 other employees, because our 24 actors put on 370 performances a year and I brought in nearly a million dollars last year. He can't do all that himself, so he's grateful to us and thanks us regularly, from the heart. Paycheck aside, that means the world to us and we would go to the mat for him every day, just as we know he would for us. But the bigger we get, the more he wants to give back to us in the form of 401(k)s (which we don't have yet), fully covering our health insurance, etc.

Not Rocket Science Stuff. Of course you reward your employees for producing, common sense. Happening all over the country every day.It is nobody's business what company's do with their employee's unless they are breaking employment laws.What about Illegal Aliens in our country under cutting the going price to get a job. See it all the time in my state in the construction business. And we are not talking jobs nobody else would take. Why is this not part of the discussion because it is part of the problem and it is growing.Did you see where the Illegal Alien wiped out some of our children the other day in Minnesota? Happened in my state last year when a beloved Vice Principal was left in his burning VW Bug by a hit and run Illegal Alien.

[Nimue1995 1]

This sense of entitlement is kind of sad, really -- this notion that if you work your ass off like BG did to get where he is, you now somehow "owe" the people you hire something.I have a friend from college. He was working for someone else, and got sick of it. All his co-workers were in the exact same spot as he was -- no money, just a little experience. He decided to start his own business. He wrote a business plan and spent a year or so begging people to help him start his business. I don't know how he finally got it, but he did, and as a reward, he got to work 16 hour days six days a week for about 4 years, for less than he was making at his old job. Finally his company took off. Does he "owe" something to the people who are now in the position he was in before he started, working for him? Because if creating opportunities for others means you have to work even harder to fulfill some societal sense of entitlement, what do you think the next person will decide when they have to decide if the 16 hour days are worth it?The people he used to work with are no doubt at the same job complaining that their boss is "exploiting" them....

So you don't believe you should have to pay your people a living wage? That's idiotic in the extreme. For one thing you won't keep people working for you any better than Walmart or McDonald's does. Of course if all you want is unskilled high school kids and retirees then that's fine. I said Costco was a moral corporation because somehow surprisingly they've MADE MONEY and still manage to pay their people a living wage and health benefits. And if you think not paying a living wage is the way to go then you probably would hire illegal immigrants at less than minimum wage if you could get away with it. You're PART OF THE FRIGGIN PROBLEM.

[Loismustdie 0]

So you don't believe you should have to pay your people a living wage? That's idiotic in the extreme. For one thing you won't keep people working for you any better than Walmart or McDonald's does. Of course if all you want is unskilled high school kids and retirees then that's fine. I said Costco was a moral corporation because somehow surprisingly they've MADE MONEY and still manage to pay their people a living wage and health benefits. And if you think not paying a living wage is the way to go then you probably would hire illegal immigrants at less than minimum wage if you could get away with it. You're PART OF THE FRIGGIN PROBLEM.

Not all jobs deserve a living wage. Balloon guy is well, an actual balloon guy. Does balloon worker even come up in job searches? The FRIGGIN PROBLEM is that some people- like you apparently- feel the uneducated should be paid a nice sum for being so. I don't know of any company that doesn't pay a living wage to skilled workers. Not one. As far as Costco paying a living wage, sure. Taco bell could be a living wage if you manage your money/situation correctly. You get paid what the job is worth, no more, no less. Want to make more money? Obtain more skills. Simple as that. Really I should have just stopped at "All jobs don't deserve a living wage" and leave it at that.

[El Guapo 8]

So you don't believe you should have to pay your people a living wage? That's idiotic in the extreme. For one thing you won't keep people working for you any better than Walmart or McDonald's does. Of course if all you want is unskilled high school kids and retirees then that's fine. I said Costco was a moral corporation because somehow surprisingly they've MADE MONEY and still manage to pay their people a living wage and health benefits. And if you think not paying a living wage is the way to go then you probably would hire illegal immigrants at less than minimum wage if you could get away with it. You're PART OF THE FRIGGIN PROBLEM.

What do you consider a living wage? An old GF got a job at costco and made like $8 an hour.And Lois is right. Why should we pay someone at McD's more than min wage to start? Its the bottom of the barrel and zero skill required. It is exactly a job for highschool kids. Since when as a society is it wrong for 17 years olds to work 20 hours a week and earn a buck. I did.

[Balloon guy 158]

What do you consider a living wage? An old GF got a job at costco and made like $8 an hour.And Lois is right. Why should we pay someone at McD's more than min wage to start? Its the bottom of the barrel and zero skill required. It is exactly a job for highschool kids. Since when as a society is it wrong for 17 years olds to work 20 hours a week and earn a buck. I did.

Carrying water uphill, both ways.Plus if I give them a living wage, then I will have to quit smoking $12 cigars and start having to smoke $2 cigars.I don't like very many $2 cigars. Might as well quit smoking cigars all together. Which at my current rate is putting food on 3 families in Dominican Republic's tables. I for one feel that they deserve to eat. Maybe it's just me though.

[El Guapo 8]

Carrying water uphill, both ways.Plus if I give them a living wage, then I will have to quit smoking $12 cigars and start having to smoke $2 cigars.I don't like very many $2 cigars. Might as well quit smoking cigars all together. Which at my current rate is putting food on 3 families in Dominican Republic's tables. I for one feel that they deserve to eat. Maybe it's just me though.

Yeah then these will be your choicesand thats not good for anyone involved

[hblask 1]

So you don't believe you should have to pay your people a living wage? That's idiotic in the extreme. For one thing you won't keep people working for you any better than Walmart or McDonald's does. Of course if all you want is unskilled high school kids and retirees then that's fine. I said Costco was a moral corporation because somehow surprisingly they've MADE MONEY and still manage to pay their people a living wage and health benefits. And if you think not paying a living wage is the way to go then you probably would hire illegal immigrants at less than minimum wage if you could get away with it. You're PART OF THE FRIGGIN PROBLEM.

I already agreed that it is intelligent for employers to reward good employees, and any employer that doesn't do so will be at a competitive disadvantage. What I was objecting to was the sense of entitlement among some people that says "you worked hard, took chances and got rich, therefore you owe me something."

[Nimue1995 1]

What do you consider a living wage? An old GF got a job at costco and made like $8 an hour.And Lois is right. Why should we pay someone at McD's more than min wage to start? Its the bottom of the barrel and zero skill required. It is exactly a job for highschool kids. Since when as a society is it wrong for 17 years olds to work 20 hours a week and earn a buck. I did.

Most people aren't trying to support a family working at McD's. And I have no problem with high school kids working there. One of my kids worked at McD's for a while though for some reason we seemed to favor working at pizzerias. Don't know why but every one of my kids worked at a pizzeria while they were in high school. Maybe it's just we/they liked pizza,lol. Anyway, here in Montana $8-$10 an hour IS considered a living wage. Especially with benefits since very few employers here offer them or can even afford to.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

What I was objecting to was the sense of entitlement among some people that says "you worked hard, took chances and got rich, therefore you owe me something."

There are many levels to this, though. I don't exactly agree with the above poster's sentiments about an employer paying his employees more or less based on morality. Supply and demand takes care of that. If you're skilled enough to make more, you'll make more. If you're being underpaid, you'll get a better job that pays more. I don't have a problem with rich people getting rich, and I congratulate BG on his hard work (let it be known here, as a non sequitur, that people who are not rich are not necessarily stupid or lazy. Some choose not to be rich for other reasons).But I do believe the rich should support those that are worse off than they in society. They should do this by paying taxes which pay for education, for example, and by supporting programs that act as safety nets for those who come across hard times. The goals of these safety nets should be to quickly get people back on their feet after some sort of trouble (an illness, losing one's job, a spouse dying, etc). If they work ideally, they would certainly benefit society by preventing people from being stuck in cycles of poverty and allowing people to quickly and smoothly reenter the workforce. I think the majority of these programs don't work well in the US and need major retooling. I think this philosophy differs from my that of my Buddhist friend. I don't see rich people as evil. I just believe that, as somebody who has become wealthy thanks to this great society and as someone who can afford to pay more than others, they have a responsibility to support their nation and the people in it.I think if Democrats framed their arguments in this way, they would have a lot more support among moderates and moderate conservatives.

[hblask 1]

There are many levels to this, though. I don't exactly agree with the above poster's sentiments about an employer paying his employees more or less based on morality. Supply and demand takes care of that. If you're skilled enough to make more, you'll make more. If you're being underpaid, you'll get a better job that pays more. I don't have a problem with rich people getting rich, and I congratulate BG on his hard work (let it be known here, as a non sequitur, that people who are not rich are not necessarily stupid or lazy. Some choose not to be rich for other reasons).But I do believe the rich should support those that are worse off than they in society. They should do this by paying taxes which pay for education, for example, and by supporting programs that act as safety nets for those who come across hard times. The goals of these safety nets should be to quickly get people back on their feet after some sort of trouble (an illness, losing one's job, a spouse dying, etc). If they work ideally, they would certainly benefit society by preventing people from being stuck in cycles of poverty and allowing people to quickly and smoothly reenter the workforce. I think the majority of these programs don't work well in the US and need major retooling. I think this philosophy differs from my that of my Buddhist friend. I don't see rich people as evil. I just believe that, as somebody who has become wealthy thanks to this great society and as someone who can afford to pay more than others, they have a responsibility to support their nation and the people in it.I think if Democrats framed their arguments in this way, they would have a lot more support among moderates and moderate conservatives.

I think you are correct about phrasing the argument that way. It's an interesting question, how much we "owe" the structure that allows us to succeed. I don't think we "owe" any particular individual (owe in the legal sense, that is), but certainly we have moral obligations to those close to us. Do we owe taxes for the roads we use? Sure. Would a pay-per-use system be more effective? I believe so, since it would be hard to be less effective than the freeway system in most metro areas (subsidized by the rural people who never use them). Do we "owe" for the education we got and that gives employers educated workers? Sure, it's not the worst thing the gov't does, although at the federal level it's a total waste, it should be left to states or, better yet, communities. Do we owe for the legal system that allows us to enforce contracts and protect us from theft and harm? Absolutely, this is the number one thing that each person in the US "owes" for.Unfortunately, both the R's and the D's have wandered far from these core functions, and the current system helps the rich and harms the poor. The list of programs that benefit nobody but a few politically connected pals is endless, and even the useful programs are full of waste and pork.But yeah, I'd have a lot less problem with the current batch of politicians if they'd stop phrasing the question in terms of class warfare and "protecting the children" and "our duty to the poor", and more in terms of "here's what you are getting from gov't, that's why you have to pay for this." It makes for much more sensible discussions and hopefully better results.

[El Guapo 8]

Most people aren't trying to support a family working at McD's. And I have no problem with high school kids working there. One of my kids worked at McD's for a while though for some reason we seemed to favor working at pizzerias. Don't know why but every one of my kids worked at a pizzeria while they were in high school. Maybe it's just we/they liked pizza,lol. Anyway, here in Montana $8-$10 an hour IS considered a living wage. Especially with benefits since very few employers here offer them or can even afford to.

Thats not even 2 bucks above minimum wage. How do you consider that a living wage? Its 14-18k per year which is under the poverty line. I am sorry but I think you have a skewed view of wages are/should be.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Living wages depend upon the local cost of living, as I think we would all agree. $30,000 a year in New York was driving me into debt. $30,000 a year in rural Virginia is comfortable. $30,000 in the middle of Bumf*uck, North Dakota, and I'd probably be living like Trump.I don't think I'm the Buddhist friend LLY mentions, because I haven't weighed in much at all on what the rich owe the poor, or owe society. I did say that my boss expresses gratitude to us as employees, but that goes both ways, because we feel gratitude toward him as well. That's just a good, mutually respectful working situation, where instead of "the man" and the "working stiffs" being locked in resentful battle, we're all on the same team working for the same goals. That's what any boss should want, and should treat his employees well enough to create that atmosphere, because everybody wins.But having said that, I totally agree with Hblask and LLY. I live in the middle of a conservative area, and people are always saying, "Government doesn't help me one bit!" And I always respond, "Really? Is your water clean? Are your roads paved? Do the police protect you? Are your medicines safe? Well, then, government has done a damn lot for you, so shut up and pay your piddlin' little rural Virginia taxes, dumbass." I don't generally phrase it in the form of what we have to do for the poor, and being childless, every time I hear "what about the children" I just think of Reverend Lovejoy's wife on The Simpsons. the whole point is that much of what the government does is transparent to us, and while that's as it should be, it means a lot of not-too-bright people get to puff themselves up and deny that they've ever benefited from government when they benefit every single day.Morally, I don't see how it creates a better America to have pockets of crushing poverty. And I don't see how it helps anybody to have a bunch of wealthy white guys saying, "Well, if you were just as smart or hard-working as me, you'd be rich too." That ignores the fact that there are systemic problems, like failing schools, poor health and nutrition (which limits brain development), and the very real lingering effects of racism and sexism. [Example: recent studies ask hiring directors to rate the exact same resume, one from "Tom Smith" and one from "Janeesha Brown." Year after year after year, the survey shows the same results that Tom Smith is rated higher every time.] Morally speaking, we'd be better off if rich people saw themselves as mentors, people who could help others come along behind them rather than looking over their shoulder not wanting the competition.Poverty breeds resentment, and that's just as true in America as it is for terror recruiters in the Mid-East, who always go looking for recruits among the poor rather than the middle class. Having poverty in this country doesn't do anyone any favors, and blaming them for being poor doesn't do anyone any favors either. America would be better, stronger, and probably safer if we reduced poverty still further. If it's the rich who can afford to do it, does it really help them in the long run to say no?

[Southern Buddhist 1]

I disagree with Lois saying, "not all jobs deserve a living wage." Why not?First, let's toss part-time jobs out of the picture, like Taco Hell or Chez Ronald. If it's a part-time job, it should pay _part_ of your expenses. Obv. But a living wage just means being able to pay all your bills and pay for food, shelter, and clothing. A non-living wage means being unable to pay your basic bills or having to go without food or living in substandard housing. Why should a 40 hr/wk job leave you in that situation? You're _doing_ the whole hard-working American thing. You're playing by "the rules."I think you were making a point about education, but there will always be less educated people in this country. That's a fact of life. The world needs ditch diggers, too, and it doesn't need those ditch diggers to have PhDs. But why should the ditch digger go hungry when he's working full-time? Why should we so look down on ditch digging that we should expect him to live in an unheated house or skip medical care? You might say, "Well, if he wants food, he should go to college and become a ditch engineer." But at a poverty-level income, how does he pay for school, or take time off from his job and wages to go to class? At best, we'll have to subsidize that schooling for him. And then somebody has to hire another ditch digger. That's just shifting money around. Why not let him dig the nation's ditches and have his dignity too?

[Nimue1995 1]

Until the feds raised it, the minimum wage here has been $5.15 per hour for the last 10 years. We don't raise the minimum wage here. According to the Republican hierarchy here, we are stuck with paying a minimum wage that the feds have pushed on us. Teachers at the school, where my husband is employed start at $24,000 per year. Custodians who work full time start at $17,000 per year. And yes that's just barely a living wage here. Believe it or not when I lived in Washington (pre 1995) I was a Republican. Until I came here and discovered the Republican Party here isn't even close the the Republican Party I grew up with. And actually the Democrats here are more like the Republicans I knew in Washington. At least they don't have the attitude that they've got theirs so the hell with everyone else. And let's not fund schools until our school funding is found unconstitutionally inadequate and we have schools teetering on the brink of non-accreditation.Then to show just how much commitment the Republicans have let's put a home-schooling, anti-state schools Constitutionalist Party guy in charge of the Education Committee. Let's make sure we don't accomplish anything that's suggested by a Democrat either even if it's a good idea. You want partisan politics just come to Montana and you'll get it. The last legislative session they didn't even get the budget passed but had to have a special session called just to pass it at the cost of how many thousands of dollars. But it was the bickering between the Dems and Reps that kept it from being passed in a timely fashion. Even though they passed almost exactly the budget that the governor originally sent down. But everybody had to do their stupid posturing first. And you wonder why I became a Democrat!

[akoff 0]

Anyway, here in Montana $8-$10 an hour IS considered a living wage.

OMG...is there any wonder you can't get medical aid when needed??God bless you I didn't realize Montana was part of the 3rd world...I pay kids fresh out of HS 13.50 the first day on the job. I give them a buck an hour raise in a month if they show the hell on time!!WTF 10.00 per hour is a living wage....MOVE!!!!