Texsox

All good points. But I think he has distanced himself enough at this point. I believe he, better than any other person with a chance, transends politics and partisanship. I think he would be a free thinker and able to pull a large group of people together. I do not know why more GOP faithful do not push hard for him to run. Hell, I don't know why more Dems don't push for him to run.

It's been a while sense we have had a (career) military man in that office. I'd give serious consideration to one. I wish CP would run.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 11:18 AM) So, which side is the one that should put away partisanship? The side nominating the middle finger to the congressional majority, or the side saying "no, we won't confirm your middle finger". A few months ago, Chuck Schumer already offered up a list of names he'd consider to be "meeting the Dems half way". It's not like they're demanding the job be given to Hillary or anything like that. Seems fair enough.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 11:20 AM) Actually it's about 20% more, but who's counting. In numbers, but Nuke counts for like 100,000 regular soldiers . . .

Sidebar. A few weeks back the Ney Yorker ran an article about a condition where people chew off their fingers. Like down to the bone and keep going. Turns out they found a genetic cause of the condition. Cool read if you get the New Yorker. The people need to be restraint. They aldso know what they are doing is wrong and will beg people to not let them out of the restraints. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08...fa_fact_preston

I really do not like those point-counterpoints after the President speaks, and will not watch. I know it;s the whole equal time thing but I prefer to spend those moments contemplating what the President said, noit having "the other side" tell me what to think.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 10:51 AM) You seem to be thinking that effeciency just means just moving through a line quicker. Time has a value. If that value is not met in the cost it takes to reduce queing times, you are not being more efficient, even though the line moves twice as fast. If that were the case banks would have a teller for every person who walked in the door. They don't do it that way. As a matter of a fact, they have as few people as the public will tolerate working, because they know at a certian level of service, they will get a certian level of return business. In your scenario you are not only talking about a few more forms, but that means someone needs to write these forms, someone needs to edit these forms, someone needs to decide where to send these forms, someone needs to be able to answer questions about these forms with the general public, someone needs to be able to know that their translation into Spanish, while accurate, might be saying something that they are not trying to portray because something is lost in the subleties of languages, etc. Its not as simple as you make it out to be. I agree Likewise, if the value is met, then it is more efficient. WHICH IS WHAT I AM SAYING. First of all, we already have most of the forms. For example our DMV has almost everything already done in Spanish and English. People zip through fairly quickly, I would hate to see what would happen if we went back to one language. Again, if the form is translated once an official version is finished. What you describe gets done thousands and thousands of times, and the exact problem you are trying to avoid, items lost in subtleties, happens more frequently when you have thousands of people doing their own personal translation. Someone is already answering more questions about those forms, there would be less in a speakers native tongue. How is any of this less efficient? Correcting mistakes takes time. To believe there isn't a cross over point where providing these services is cheaper defies logic. There may or may not be a cross over point. I believe there is. Perhaps at 10% of the population, perhaps 25%, obviously at 51%, but it is there. Disagree if you will. And I know you will. Of course if Tex says it, it must be wrong, no matter how long you take to find it, and if it contradicts something you said yourself before.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 10:42 AM) Hell no. I frequent two different post offices in the vicinity of the Harlem & Irving Plaza, and both have Polish attendants who assist people with forms while they are waiting in line. There could be 20 people in line, and at least 2/3 of them will not understand English. People will think that I'm exaggerating, but it's the truth. Could you imagine how inefficient it would be if one of those clerks translated the form ONE TIME. OMG, the government would grind to a halt Glad to see so much thinking outside the box around here. By golly it's how my grand dad did it and we can't change. Can't even examine it to see if we could do better. How innovative of you.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 10:37 AM) IT IS NOT LESS EFFICIENT!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT IS MORE EFFICIENT!!!!!! Do you have some goofy definition of efficient? How is having to deal with more than one language more efficient than just one? That makes no sense. I think I just need to give up discussing this topic with you. How is taking ten minutes when it could be done in 5 minutes MORE EFFICIENT!!!! How can transalting a form once be LESS EFFICIENT than having a people standing there in line doing it tens of thousands of times?? Why does private business do it?? Efficient means more profits, not less!! Taking more time MAKES NO SENSE. TYPING IN CAPS MAKES NO SENSE

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:49 AM) You tell me. I have offered the same arguement all along when it comes to growth. The reality on the ground is that people who want better benefits and higher wages are shooting themselves in the foot by allowing a 10% expansion of the labor pool. You don't have to agree with the position of an arguement to be able to understand the fundementals that go with an arguement. Think about it. If you are a part of a group with a certian skill set, do you want more or less people around who also can do your job. Now what if part of that group was willing to work for way less than you could afford to do? What effect do you think that would have on wages? Now why do you think big business is in favor of letting the illegals stay? Its not a big leap to understand it. I'm confused about a 10% expansion of the labor pool. Aren't we talking about people who are already here and earning wages? How would this be an expansion? Yes, I agree a large available, willing, and available pool of workers will keep wages down. It seemed you were saying it is a bad thing, which confused me.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 10:09 AM) How long does it take people to assimilate if you don't make them learn the language. In IT I have worked for a lot of different companies. And a lot of time, the programming wing of the department has a lot of foreign based workers that come over on Visa. Not just Indians, but Malaysians, Indonesians, Vietnamese. The Indian's usually are taught English in schools. But a lot of the other countries dont have that infrastructure setup. A lot of them didn't speak English, or spoke little English, however have made an extreme effort to learn the language. Why, because they had to. I have a co-worker now that came over from Indonesia. He said he knew a few words when he came over, but located some free schools in Chicago to learn English(yes they have them) and he took on the challenge of learning English. Now why can he and others in the workforce assimilate, and learn English. Yet we need to create a secondary infrastructure for those who seem to have so many issues. The leap from Spanish to English is not as difficult as say Mandrian Chinese, or Russian, or Indonesian is to go to English. At least Spanish and English come from a similar root language. There are lots of immigrants from places that don't speak English that come over here, and have the same battle that the Spanish speaking public has to deal with. Why can they assimilate. Over the history of the United States, we have had different foreign groups come over, and assimilate. Once they move into society, and take on the efforts of learning the language and becoming part of the melting pot. Sometimes its time to pull the security blanket, and make them assimilate. They can do it, its just about if they want to. Fair enough, and you're willing to pay the price of a less efficient government, more wait times at government offices, to help them assimiliate? I do not believe I am.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 09:51 AM) It's not a matter of simply providing forms in spanish. For such a system to be effective you'd need to create a spanish speaking support system, which adds more to the budget. I'm willing to bet if you don't know english you won't know a thing about the different processes the government requires you go through, like using the post office, going to the DMV, etc. I think in theory you have a good idea, but in reality it's not cost effective. And I'll be the evil-Republican here and say: is it that bad to involuntarily "force" people to learn the language that 90% of the country speaks? I know it's horrible to think that people who come to the country should become American and assimiliate at least partly to the American culture, but I guess I don't see a big problem with it. I don't think it is an all-or-nothing situation, but small changes could yield big results. Most of the time you fill out the form and that's it. If that is 80 or 90% of the transactions, you've streamlined things considerably. Those 10 or 20% will be the same. Again, speeding services. And most of these have already been done. The English only types would be throwing all that away, which seems wasteful.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 09:30 AM) do you know how many "forms" the U.S. government publishes? I'm guessing its in the millions. And what good do the forms do in two languages if the people behind the counter can't answer questions? That is why I said the front line forms. How many government forms have you looked at this year? Certainly not millions, I doubt even dozens. Why not have those in Spanish? Say the top 250? Currently the clerk and the customer couldn't answer the questions, so now we have a fighting chance that at least the customer could figure it out. A hurdle, all answers would have to be in English. But name, address, etc are the same in any language.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:59 AM) They don't have a choice in government, unless they choose to go back to mexico. INS, I can understand multilingual people being hired. It should not be a requirement for the PO to have things printed in spanish, or polish, or japanese. it shoudl not be required to print ballots in 12 different languages. If Joe's Deli in Nogalas wants to employ spanish speaking people to help with his large mexican customer base, fine. if that large mexican customer base wants to go to the village hall and get a picnic permit, they should learn enough english to conduct business with the government. If someone there HAPPENS to know spanish and can help out, great. I agree. But doesn't it make sense that at some point it is more efficient and cost effective to offer service in Spanish? A form gets translated once, the English one would need to be translated many times.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 09:12 AM) The big question would be is it more effecient to change the whole system for a few, or change a few for the whole system? By few do you mean 10% of the population? I believe at some point there is a cross over point where it is. It will vary by language. Translating to Icelandic would probably never be, but Spanish very well could.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:59 AM) How do you keep coming around to less efficient? Spending a bajillion dollars, via the government (which never does anything efficiently), to do something that the people of this country can and should do themselves, is not efficient. It can't be. I don't understand how you don't see that. If you run a private business, you will do whatever it takes to make the most money. If that means you want to go bilingual, then great, so be it. But for a "business" the size of the federal government, that incremental cost is enormous - like many billions of dollars enormous. If instead, immigrants are expected to learn English (and given the tools to do so), that makes not only government agencies but everyone else more efficient, as everyone has to spend less money. Better to invest a little in supplemental education where necessary, and expect a little effort from new immigrants as well, then to try to massively shift the government to be bilingual. Sorry, I didn't see where it takes a bajillion dollars to print two forms. For a Federal form it may take one person a few days to translate the form. Then it is used by millions of people. Why is that going to be less efficient? Wouldn't the English printing costs go down? And looking at the private sector is exactly why I started thinking about bilingual. Which costs more, hiring, forever, more clerks, or translating forms once? Where does it make the government more efficient to take longer to service someone in line? How fast will someone learn enough English to handle these transactions? I'm not suggesting 100% of all forms would be in Spanish, but how about the front line forms? There is a cross over where it is more efficient to communicate with a large group of people in their language than forcing that large group to learn another. Something like this. Average time in English, 7 minutes Average time in Spanish 3 minutes By producing the form in Spanish we can speed up the service line for everyone and delay hiring another clerk.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:33 AM) The most efficient thing to do would not be to bilingualize the postal service and a bazillion other government agencies - which I cannot even fathom the cost of. The better solution is education and training for immigrants. If the expectation is set that you need English to function, then immigrants will learn English. That is the efficient methodology we should be targeting. How much time do you give an adult to learn English? Here's where I'm going with this, and it's really which is the cheapest or most cost effective model for servicing Spanish speaking customers. I'm limiting to Spanish because it is the #2 language in the US. You have ten people in line at the DMV, City Hall to get a business license, IRS, etc. Two speak English as a second language or not at all. They are next in line. They have their interpretor with them. The clerk gives information to the interpretor, who passes it on to the customer, who replies in Spanish which gets interpreted and back and forth we go. The line stalls. Errors are made. Etc. Do we: Accept the stall? Refuse services to some citizens and resident aliens? Hire more people? Produce forms in Spanish? What would a private business do? I know one just refuses to sell to customers who can't speak English. Bottom line, there is probably a point where bi-lingual is the cheaper way to go. I believe it only makes sense in Spanish across the nation, but probably there are pockets where other languages make sense from an economic standpoint.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:50 AM) If you "train your customers" and I do business the way they prefer, who will have more business and better satisfied customers? So you are in favor of a less efficient post office, INS, etc.?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:33 AM) That's funny, because I keep getting told that all of these illegals are vital to me keeping my lifestyle. I am so confused. : To paraphrase you: They are vital to what you've said before when raising the minimum wage came up. Owners need the profits, they deserve them for risking everything to start a business. They hire more people and everyone pays more taxes. Sucks when people listen to you and remember. "After consulting the leading economists of his day about where the economy was going and getting a constant stream of forecasts of 'On the one hand this and on the other hand that,' Harry Truman allegedly said, 'Hell, what I need is a one-armed economist.' "

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:35 AM) Show me one official statistic that shows a declining wage in the US. Even in the manufacturing sector this is not true. When I was Executive Director of the South Texas Manufacturers Association I received numerous "state of industry" reports from the DoL. All pointed to a decline in "real wages". And it isn't only declining wages, or wages that are not keeping up with gains in other sectors, but we are losing those jobs. From textiles to food production. Autos to computers. We actually manufactured computers, from the component level up in this country. Find one now.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:33 AM) That's funny, because I keep getting told that all of these illegals are vital to me keeping my lifestyle. I am so confused. : Well which is it? You seem to be offering two different scenarios, I'm confused.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:31 AM) Your first sentence, again, isn't really accurate. Manufacturing jobs (and customer service jobs), in most industries, had been going down in relative wage for some time. By sending them overseas, if a person loses (or cannot get) a manufacturing job, they will get a different one eventually. Yes, I suppose some will end up flipping burgers (which, sadly, doesn't pay a lot less than many of those industrial jobs do). But many will also find other jobs with wages that are not decreasing like the manufacturing ones were. In the long run, wages go up due to the effect. IN short, you have fewer, higher paying jobs. Now, they would go up MORE, and for more people, if we had a better education system, which is something I mentioned earlier. They have been going down because companies have been willing to relocate here (Mexico) and the Pacific rim.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:25 AM) Now back to feduciary duties, I don't think most people also realize that management and the board of directors can be sued for their business decesions that they make and held liable to the creditors for those moves. Insurance. The companies buy policies to protect their board members. http://www.insurecast.com/html/directors_and_officers.asp in case you are not familiar. I understand what you are saying, why work some of these jobs for only $2,000,000 a year and *not* expect a bonus. Because there are so many companies lining up to offer you $3,000,000? You make it seem as soon as a CEO of a company in bankruptcy is available, everyone is clamoring for their services. The truth is somewhere in between. I'd like to see some examples of them leaving and finding better paying jobs.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:19 AM) These do not have a depressing effect on wages - in fact, they have an increasing effect. Its negative effect in the short run is more people WITHOUT wages. In the long run, it ships lower paying jobs overseas, decreases corporate costs, and allows them to invest more in higher level folks here in the states. So long run, those have an increasing effect on wages. We are losing higher paying jobs and replacing them with lower paying jobs. The demand for these jobs go up, the qualified and willing pool goes up. Wages remain low. Manufacturing jobs paid very well. Tool and Die makers well over $50,000 per year. Industrial Maintenance equal to that. All the way down to line assembly work. Same formerly with customer service.

I was at the post office yesterday and thought about y'all. I have a question for you English only types. To have English only do you mind waiting longer in line while other citizens and visitors try to make sense out of English forms? Many of you also talk about how much more efficient private business is compared to public. What does a private business do in the same situation? They become bilingual for faster, more efficient service. But you are suggesting that your government should not strive to be more efficient, why is that?