From 1 to 10 after 17 years how would you rate our effectiveness in Afghanistan? How effective was taking down Saddam in Iraq and our presence there to date? How effective have we been in Syria? How improved was Libya after Qaddafi was killed? What business do we have in Venezuela promoting a coup in the name of ????? democracy and freedom? Has the coup in Honduras improved freedom of the people there? #2 Windfall profits for some and abject poverty for others, even if they work full time at $7:25 an hour. With the cost of living haven risen and base wage unchanged since 2009 the American dream is far out of reach for many millions. # 3 Not sure I understand your argument regarding #3. Not all people in spiraling debt can be assumed to be like the one characterization of "greedy and entitled" My argument is that unlimited percentage of profit, the worst being pay-day lenders (up to 300%) is not healthy "free market" behavior. It is preying on the weak. Is that who we are as a people? Who ends up getting the spoils of foreclosure from families due to economic hardship by no fault of their own? #4 For profit prisons as do many corporate missions are primarily focused on maximizing profit, keeping their facility full. Like the Pharma industry, maximize sale of patented drugs and less interested in the question "What is truly best for the patient?" Look forward to hearing what your priority issues are Linda Joy.

Sorry, I just saw this. I don't get notifications so next time you're looking forward to an answer or comment from me if you send me a link to the question in my email I'll most likely get to it within a day or two. As for the wars? I think it has made us better at preventing terrorism worldwide, and if it weren't for our defenses and involvement in these foreign affairs the terrorists would have run amuck bombing at will. I worked for minimum wage most of my life as a single parent and managed to buy a house I could afford. Sometimes I worked two and three jobs if I had to. The American dream is a dream not an entitlement. #3 my point is none of these people are forced to take out such loans and we shouldn't take that choice away from them. Otherwise, if they're not smart enough to make good choices they will then be forced to go to loan sharks because you legislated away the only legal option they qualified for! But if they make the choice they pay the price. That's the agreement they made. People who make poor choices should learn from the mistake. No fault of their own? Don't be rediculous! They made the agreement to buy a home they couldn't afford for the amount they agreed to pay for it. Then they didn't pay for it or it wouldn't have been foreclosed. THEY made the agreement THEY didn't hold up their end. How is that not THEIR fault? For profit prisons don't put people in prison. The choices of the criminals do. And our government funded prisons are overfull too. Is that the fault of everyone but the criminal as well? What's best for the patient is to eat healthy and exercise but that's not the choices they are making, is it? And the Pharma industry pays for research that wouldn't happen anywhere else because they don't have the money for research. And again, no one is forced to buy the medication. 50 years ago they'd die from the condition anyway! And who wants to live to be a 200 year old burden to society? Some things should take their natural course. Is it kinder to keep them alive or let them go to their reward? Honestly we're more humane to animals we put down in that condition! From what I've seen it appears you don't think people are capable of making their own choices. You think their choices should be legislated away from them. And they should be protected from the consequences of their choices. When children are protected from the consequences of their choices they turn into delinquent brats that fill the prisons. Your ideas create a vicious circle! Why is your focus on protecting people making poor choices from the consequences of THEIR CHOICES instead of educating them to make better choices? And I guess education would be a priority for me. But even that should be earned by the student. You can't just give them a grade and call them educated. There should be more alternative education. Kids with ADHD that can't reasonably be expected to sit in a desk all day shouldn't be forced to try and learn from one. They should have headsets and be taught and quizzed while running or shooting hoops. Artists could be taught while painting, musicians while playing, etc. More emphasis should be put on learning how they learn best, not forcing them to conform to outdated techniques. Internet should be used more for education. A decentralization of students would even help with school shooting situations. Using the internet would make it possible for all students to have instruction from the very best teachers, at a highly reduced cost. Less money spent on the amount of teachers, brick and mortar schools, books, desks, AV equipment, etc. Even the special needs teachers could do a much better job. Teleconference should be used more. This would cut down on the demand for infrastructure upkeep altogether, though that needs help. It would also reduce carbon emissions. I find it difficult to believe people who say they are for reduction of carbon emissions that take a jet to th

to the summit.

Yes I remember how Reagan sold the idea to integrate the mentally ill with the general public, yet ignoring that there will always be some percentage who are not capable and still have great needs. Sadly some end up in the prison system with no mental health support except meds.

So, Reagan abolishing a law that ended involuntary hospitalization in California, 50 YEARS ago, is why San Francisco is such a shit-hole with the homeless? You gotta be able to do better than that. Just take a look not even a mile from Nancy Pelosi's house.... from beyond her walled in community and the walled in house. California has languished under poor policy for years under democratic rule and that's exactly what you get. You have to wonder why a new poll shows that 53% of California residents want to leave the state. The reason? High cost of living. 20% of the state's population are in poverty. California ranks 50th in quality of life. Unless you're an actor I guess.

Do you not have a spare room for your own Aunt?!! Whatever happened to family taking care of family? And Christians caring for the poor? Its not the job of 'the government' its the job of the humane humans in our country to take care of them. I guess if you'll slaughter an innocent child you have no concern for a mentally ill Aunt either. And then you put the fault on the government!! Hypocrite!

"U.S. Adds 196,000 Jobs in March" And unemployment is at 3.8% nationwide.

Our whole system of valuation is artificial. We all have to agree to the value of a dollar for that dollar to effectively exchanged for goods and services. Are some who work hard and many hours toward the bottom of the pay scale, deserve a fair chance to lift themselves up by that hard work? I say yes. Productivity has increased then so too should be the baseline for a living wage. Thanks for your views Archie

Roaring, it's the free market that adjusts the wages, as it should be. The more productive the employee, the more raises he gets.

If only the market were actually free. Money in politics skews the benefit to the great advantage of the few that don't give a shit about the every day people, unless one of those every day people pushes back on corrupted legislation. Nafta for example gave the US "free" market the opportunity to exploit lower wage workers south of the border. There needs to be collective bargaining at the base levels of employment. That then is a free market: One that checks mans tendency to exploit the workforce. In our present day "free" market, the ones smiling to the bank are those at the top getting bonuses for squeezing the most profit from its operations. And we all know who suffers from this. Its not Wall Street. Its not those executives.

Well, first of all, it's the executive's job to make money. That is exactly what they're hired for. Money for the business means money for the investors (who put in their money to get the business going) and in many cases, money for the workers. Being that it is a free economy, if you're an employee at a business and you feel you're not making enough money, you're free to advance in the business or even quit and go somewhere else. A business will pay better for better employees. If you're a shitty employee, you'll get shitty pay. And unfortunately for many, collective bargaining is a waste. The unions are out for the benefit of the unions, not the employees. (I was a union rep myself for quite a while). And now as a small business owner, I absolutely am in the business to make money. It was my money that I invested. My time. My years of collecting no paycheck to ensure that the business stayed profitable. Who are you to say that I cannot reap the benefits now?

Amen, brother! How quickly they forget who invested the money to hire the employees to begin with! And with unemployment at less than 4% they have plenty of options if they have the skills/education. And if they want more money they need to make themselves more employable or more highly employable. That's their bargaining chip! And if no one wants to work for such a low wage then the employer will have to raise their wages or come up with other options.

Agree 100% Linda. People easily forget how the free market works.