This is Viewpoints for Thursday, March 31, 2016

Nothing we do or don't do

Clarence Berry wrote to Friday's Viewpoints (Fearmonger) to make two points. Both arguments are wrong. He falsely accuses Donald Trump of wanting to "legalize torture." He most certainly does not. Trump said he might support waterboarding to prevent an actual terrorist attack. Berry is obviously unaware that our own special forces undergo waterboarding during training so they can possibly handle the technique if captured. Torture? Certainly not.

He also wrongly claims The Donald is ignorant of the 'goals' behind terrorists whose religion shall not be named (Michelle Malkin). He actually wrote that "terrorists want us to respond to fear by becoming like them." That is a completely ignorant statement, to use Berry's favorite adjective.

The willfully ignorant terrorists truthfully want to kill all apostates as commanded by Mohammed himself (Koran and Haddith). As Benjamin Netanyahu brilliantly stated: "Terrorists have no resolvable grievances." Nothing we have done (GITMO) or will do (short of death to all), will either provoke or deter these primitives from their goal of a new Caliphate. Adhering to our culture and beliefs, does not "aggrieve" these people, they are indoctrinated from birth to hate and kill. The truth is not hard to find, but some effort must be put forth to find it.

— John Brogden

Warner Robins

What if?

If the Republican establishment succeeds in denying Donald Trump the presidential nomination, I don't think there will be rioting on the GOP convention floor. What might happen is Trump taking his ball home and running as a third party candidate. One outcome of that would be a split of the Republican vote and allowing Hillary Clinton to waltz into the White House.

Another scenario would be that a third party ticket would siphon away enough votes from the Republican and Democratic candidates so that neither gets the required 270 electoral votes needed for the presidency. That would throw the election decision into the House of Representatives for only the third time in history. That's when the political riot will really begin.

— William D. Carter

Bonaire

Higher minimum wage?

We are fortunate to have high school grandchildren who have their first jobs earning a minimum wage. They are learning how to work under supervision, deal with various personalities and handle other people's money. From them I have learned the minimum wage varies from state to state and possibly from employer to employer. The Colorado grand- children receive $8.31 an hour. At least in Middle Georgia it is $7.25. Local economy dictates the differences.

Some employees work full time earning these low incomes. If, however, a person works for $10 per hour for 40 hours a week and 50 weeks a year the employee would end the year with a gross income of $20,000. Simple arithmetic. Subtracting taxes and other living essentials leaves little or nothing for even an occasional luxury. California is considering $15 per hour as minimum. That would gross $30,000 for a full-time employee; a significant increase, but at what cost to the overall economy?

To allow an employer an income enabling the employer to continue in business and to pay the higher minimum wage the employer would have to raise the prices on its products and services. Then everyone, including those with the increased minimum wage, would pay more for their products. In other words, back to the original standard of living.

Those with fixed incomes from various retirements and investments would experience a reduction in their expendable income. A result would be less buying power for essentials. That could also result in less money given to various charities.

Due to the reduction in a charity's income and the increased payout for a higher minimum wage for its employees, the charities would have to reduce their services to the community, hire fewer operating staff and possibly seek less expensive office space.

If a low minimum wage is not enough for the employee's basic needs, the seeker of employment might search for and possibly obtain a higher paying job. Then only a single employer would need to adjust prices to compensate. It would not be a state or national matter, only one employer at a time, here and there.

The minimum for one to receive better employment would be to maintain a quality high school GPA and to graduate, use standard American language and present an acceptable personal appearance.

It seems that a "laissez faire" approach to setting minimum wage would be the safest procedure to handle (not solve) the perceived problem. One of the "truths" I learned in biology is that a sudden change to the habitat is harmful, even disastrous, to that habitat (environment).

— Al Diboll

Macon

This story was originally published March 30, 2016 at 9:58 PM with the headline "This is Viewpoints for Thursday, March 31, 2016 ."