Texsox

Here's a bone to pick over, another log for the fire. Looking over the anarchy that is Iraq. Waring factions, groups who hate each other, lawlessness. What if a strong dictator is the best form of government?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 03:13 PM) That is the point. Even if you don't believe the numbers fully, the point remains that low earning illegals who become citizens will be a much larger drain in the long run on resources versus having a rising wage and paying more for a product in the short term. It falls under the ounce of prevention/pound of cure category. From your earlier post I followed the link and found some interesting points. Illegals, and low skilled, immigrants make up a majority of this catagory. Also included are High School dropouts who earn quite a bit less. Here's where all these stop making sense to me. Would these jobs for low skilled workers, suddenly pay more if a high skilled worker stepped in? Would White Hen pay $60,000 a year to have Kap sit behind the counter? Would Joe Rogalski's landscape company pay FlaSoxJim $60,000 to trim some hedges? Of course not. We have low paying jobs, not low earning people. We could send everyone to college and we'd still have low paying jobs. To SS point, how far would salaries need to rise before a worker is no longer a burden? IIRC the number is around $27,000. That is a very big jump from minimum wage to $13.50 per hour.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 02:54 PM) I think that slowly having illegals taken off he payrolls makes it better in the long run. Because then ultimately, businesses either have to hire legal laborers (who then all pay their taxes), and any businesses that can't survive don't, which relieves artificial price pressures. And if they are here illegally, they shouldn't be allowed on any social programs. If those things occurred, they'd go home, or find a way to work here legally. That's the goal, isn't it? You may be overlooking a key point in SS posts. Even in paying your taxes, low wage earners collect more in benefits than they pay.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 02:40 PM) That is only sort of true. For one, not all the 12 million have regular jobs at all. For another thing, if a farmer is currently working 10 illegals in the field at like $3 an hour, and he is then forced to hire legal folks at $5.50 an hour... he might not hire as many people. Just something to keep in perspective. Also, frankly, some businesses are being artificially propped up by illegal labor. Companies that are just scraping by using under-minimum wage labor, in some cases, won't survive without that labor. And that is actually better for the economy anyway, in the long run. Companies that would not otherwise survive their competition don't help the economy, they hurt it. Actually I would not be as concerned if it was just some businesses, when it is an entire industry, especially one as important as agriculture, we better look at that. Your farmer example isn't true based on what I know down here. In fact, on an hourly wage basis the wages are nice. Typically $12-$15 per hour for an experienced worker, up to $20 if everything is right. The problem is, it is very seasonal and even if you follow the crops north and back, it is still less than a year of work. So just comparing hourly wages does not paint a clear picture. I thought SS was strictly talking about those with jobs. I don't believe anyone is in favor of allowing immigrants of any type to be without jobs. And he rightfully points out that once these jobs go "on the books" it will cost us more in taxpayer supported benefits. Another reason why politicians looked the other way and do not want to seriously tackle the problem today.

I agree with the above. I trust our system in this case and expect both sides to thrash this out. I expect the GOP to represent their interests and the Dems to do the same. This balancing act has worked well for us for over 200 years.

QUOTE(MurcieOne @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 02:20 PM) "When a girl has a heart of stone, there's only one way to melt it. Just add Ice." genius.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 02:13 PM) I hope that kid is acting, so I can think of these videos as some of the funniest and best peformances ever. By all indications, he was.

We have to factor in that the rest of the world does not see Iran as villainous as we do. Same with Iraq. We can say they are wrong all we want, but we have to realize that and factor that into our strategy, even if it means just ignoring it.

Kap, Good or bad, a free press is much better for us then dismissing everything that is said, which is what I believe the GOP party wants. If it is negative, it's a media bias against us, it can't actually be true. Yes, there are hacks on both sides, but the vast majority of stuff is pretty well balanced over time.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 01:36 PM) Ok, and I'd probably agree with you on most of them. Bill O'Reilly = turd. Just an example. Damn, I like O'Reilly and Colbert.

Nuke, reading your post, what is the logical progression if the US troops keep seeing the Iraqis doing nothing to help themselves? i.e. sitting around watching MTV? Resentment? I can't quite phrase the question correctly. What tangible changes in behavior would we see in US forces 3 months, a year, or God forbid 4 years from now if the Iraqis continue down this path?

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 01:13 PM) I can play Solitaire AND Minesweeper on my computer. Maybe one day you will evolve I Kid, Because I Care™* *Used by permission.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 01:13 PM) Glad someone saw thru my rambling to the meaning of what i wanted to say, and even said it better. I totally misread what you meant.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 12:47 PM) Those low-paying jobs exist and need to be filled, regardless of the legal status of the employee. I don't think you are advocating hiring illegals, are you? Although undocumented illegals are less likely to apply for and receive government benefits I do not believe that is a good option for America.

I basically needed to see a 40' x 40' concrete pad. I applied the ruler and it confirmed my earlier measurements. I did not remember how or where I had received the prior data and wanted some confirmation.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 12:45 PM) The problem is the reliability and conviction of the person. If they are constantly changing their positions based on what the political will is this month, but claim to strongly hold these beliefs, they're full of bullcrap. That's not the type of person you want or need leading a country. If, however, they change their opinion based on new facts instead of new opinion polls, or vote against their own beliefs in order to vote as their constituants want, its a different story. well said.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 12:32 PM) Therefore, the solution is a $25/hr minimum wage. By solution, you imply there is a problem. And perhaps there is with the system. Look at all the programs for the "working poor". Pell Grants for education. Child care credits. Food and shelter assistance. Are all examples. We could eliminate those programs and cut the costs that SS mentions. We could further tax the poor to balance this out. But then we would be faced with living in the country that they can afford to build. Instead we have a program where we help support the poor through government involvement. I could be persuaded that this should be private charity work, but I don't see the system working through private donations only.

So the problem is the perspective of being a flip flopper? I don't have a problem with a politician changing his views on an issue. I understand that the Republican view of the world is we are born with our views and never change them, but I think people are more elastic, and do change opinions either by being exposed to new information or life events. We have allowed a great political strategy, designed to get someone elected, to cloud what should be responsible governing.

Above is a great example of what happens with all low paying jobs in America, regardless of who is working them.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 12:12 PM) I like him and thought he was outstanding on Spin City. Way better than Charlie Sheen. I love that show, catch the replays when I can. Perhaps I was too harsh when I said he couldn't act, he does have a few Emmy's to his credit, but as a film actor, meh.

Linked

Thought I would share this with y'all. I was asked where to position two 40' cargo containers at my Scout Camp. Cool stuff, we're going modular in our storage. The company we are working with cut us a tremendous bargin. So I glanced over my notes and my very weak "as built" drawings of the camp and there was some doubt in my mind it would fit where I wanted. So I was facing a drive to the beach. Not that I find that particularly a bad thing Then I realized with Google Earth I could come "close enough" and was able to find the information without leaving my office.

And then add the cost to businesses to hire replacements, etc. No wonder no politician wants to tackle this problem.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 09:47 AM) Is that an anti-Fox comment??? Man, I didn't think anybody disliked him. I don't dislike him, but in the annuals of great actors, he's not in the top 500. He simply is not that great of an actor. Perhaps he'd crack the top 100 TV actors, maybe. His movie roles were pretty light weight. But from what I've seen and read of him as a person, great guy who didn't allow that industry to destroy him.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 11:08 AM) I generally agree with this. However, problems arise when the politicians take the stands and claim them as their own, that they have always held this position, etc. i would have more respect if one would come out and say "I am against this bill, but 80% of my people want me to vote for it. So following the lead of my constituents, I am voting for this bill" What problems?