Texsox

QUOTE (juddling @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 08:33 PM) That question would be "How you gonna eat 5 dollars??" First they would have to borrow the $5 . . .

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 02:43 PM) Not only closed, but retroactive. That seems slimy to do to the average worker.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 02:43 PM) Sure depending on the level of gov't served. So we would encourage people to stay in the same agency instead if moving. That is probably a good thing. The hidden danger is the more unattractive we make government jobs, the worse the employees that serve us. The reverse is also a problem, better pay and benefits for public versus private. That's ain't right either.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 03:52 PM) Can we call those who hire illegal immigrants and pay them low wages slave drivers? Since that's basically what it is when you get down to the basics, modern-day slavery. A way of getting labor for cheap, not having to worry about ethics or safety standards, etc. In some cases yes. Absolutely. But you still have to worry about safety issues. OSHA doesn't care who you are hiring. Plants get discovered when people get hurt. But yes, overall, especially for the migrant farm workers, conditions are shabby, and they are generally taken advantage of my owners and suppliers.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 03:02 PM) I am guessing they are happy with things the same way that Bernie Madoff was happy about the SEC. They are worried that a more effecient agency will mean more inspections, more scrutiny, more recalls etc. Just because they want the status quo, doesn't mean the status quo is good for consumers. Good point. Sometimes having two agencies to worry about is easier than having one to worry about. The USDA does meat and eggs, the FDA all others. Which do you want to move to the other?

Is adding a lab at the USDA going to save us anything? Remember, reportedly, the agribusiness industry is happy with the way things are now. I guess the FDA lab would, in theory, now be smaller.

QUOTE (WSoxMatt @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 01:25 PM) Graff was most helpful booting that ground ball in Game 2 of the ALDS in '05

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 01:18 PM) I'm learning about the FDA in my drugs and behavior class, it's a pretty astounding level of trust with the public they are in charge of. That said I know less of USDA, but if they can merge and work better, that would be a good thing. But, I'd like to see a report on it. Our society is based on trust. We do not know the people who produce our food, clean our water, etc. From checking out the websites, I picture the FDA in labcoats and clean rooms, I see the USDA in muck boots on a farm.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 10:16 AM) This thread is very interesting. I thought I knew what most of these government agencies did, until I had to research a couple. I'm not certain if I necessarily agree with the scope of what they are tasked with, but most are pretty damn amazing with all they do.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 12:56 PM) But Tex, they DO accept benefits, every time they go to an emergency room for a cold or worse, because they can't be refused treatment. Again, the same for anyone working that job. No difference. But who do you think is more likely to show up, a documented, legal worker, or an illegal?

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 12:51 PM) I don't know but if working for minimum wage > unemployment, that's what I'll take. It's possible that we'll be filling bankrupcty either way because we are barely making it as is. If my income gets cut in half, we're toast. As noted, the minimum wage jobs are stepping stones, and guys like you have stepped past them. With a little creativity to get past those $12 per hour jobs where underemployment is a concern, you would be making better than minimum wage. What many people think of as minimum wage, really isn't. We rarely see minimum wage workers.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 12:47 PM) Minimum wage jobs are not meant to be supporting families, but stepping stones towards bigger jobs. Job that pay that low expect higher turnover than others. It's the $12 an hour jobs where they want more stability, and are afraid of hiring that guy who was making $70k last year. Bottom line, those jobs that the lowest skilled immigrants (legal and illegal) take are not in high demand by people that were born and raised in the US. And what the government likes are illegals who do not have social security cards who accept no benefits, but pay sales taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes, etc. etc. If all of a sudden we unleashed 10,000,000 workers receiving benefits on the system, we'd be in a world of hurt. So that is a big fat reason why we've done nothing besides flap our gums and rattle swords. Remember Reagan and Bush's answers.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 12:34 PM) Unless I find something within the next year or two, I'll be taking whatever job I can get, minimum wage or otherwise because I'm certain that I won't be able to support my family on unemployment alone. Sure, $250 per week. for 40 at minimum wage. What's your rent? Food bill? Health Insurance? Car payment? Gas? Clothing? How much more than unemployment is that? And would you take time off from your minimum wage job to interview for a "real job"? Believe it or not, many companies do not want a revolving door and a well qualified person looking for a bus boy job or mowing lawns job do not get hired.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 12:31 PM) The ones that need money and can't find another job making whatever they were making before. I've read plenty of stories about people that were making 6 figures and are now working 2 parttime jobs to make ends meet. Sure, there are some. Now place yourself in the position of the employer. Do you want to hire someone who may quit tomorrow when a job comes that will actually support their family? Or will you hire the person who has at least a chance of staying with you for a while?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 12:03 PM) Complete waste of time for them, but also career suicide if they didnt pursue the case. f***ed either way. Exactly. And highlights why stupid, drunk, or stoned people get caught far more often than smart people.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 12:08 PM) If they're on a payroll (using a fake/ stolen SS), they're paying taxes. They're also paying all sorts of sales tax. How many laid off engineers from Caterpillar or Motorola are going to work minimum wage jobs as dish washers or apple pickers? I know three people, who have been laid off for over a few months, and none are looking to accept anything close to a minimum wage job.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 12:03 PM) I'm sure there are plenty of people living in this country legally that could use that minimum wage job right about now. Plus, they'd actually pay taxes on the money they made from that job. Check the tax code. People at the minimum wage do not pay much of anything in Federal taxes. With the EITC and other deductions, some actually receive more than they paid in. And, if the illegal does not have a social security number, they do not receive much in benefits. So when someone with a social security number takes that job, we actually lose revenue. Which is why the government has not tackled a problem that has been around since Reagan. From the IRS website calculator. Head of Household with two children earning $16,000 per year. Based on the information you previously entered, your anticipated income tax for 2009 is $0. If you do not change your current withholding arrangement, your withholding for 2009 will approximately equal your tax, and any refund or balance due should be less than $25. Tip It’s a good idea to review your withholding at the beginning of 2010 (or anytime there is a change in your tax situation).Following is a recap of information you entered on the preceding pages on which the above advice is based. Review this information for accuracy. You may want to print this page for your records. Note: some spaces in the recap table were left blank intentionally. Prepared February 11, 2009.Filing Status: Head of householdSomeone else can claim you as a dependent: NoNumber of jobs: 1Number of dependents: 2Will you be 65 or older 1/1/2010: NoAre you blind: NoChild & dependent care credit qualifying persons: 0Child & dependent care credit expenses: Eligible children for child tax credit: 2Other credits: Total salary: 16,000Total retirement plans: 0Tax withheld to date: 0Projected withholding for rest of year: 0Total earned income other than salary: Other nonwage income: Adjustments to income: Total itemized deductions: 0

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 07:34 AM) I agree with that. But I also think that it is silly to expect Republicians to see out thier agenda in the same breath. Why are they being vilified for doing exactly what the Democrats are doing? Because maybe if we demand more, we may get? Maybe because we expect Republicans to be better than Dems instead of sinking to their level?

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 07:16 PM) He could simply say "due to lack of solid evidence, we will no longer pursue this as a criminal investigation." They have a picture of him smoking something out of a pipe. It could have been tobacco or salvia (not sure if it's legal in that state,) but it most likely wasn't. That's not strong enough to hold up in the court of law. He could, and open himself up to speculation from his next opponent who would paint him as soft on drugs, and awe struck by a celebrity. People would ask why he didn't investigate further. A case was handed to him on a silver platter, if he fumbled it, who would ever vote for him? Or, if it isn't an elected official, why would his bosses not fire him? The picture was one piece of evidence. Cops then investigate to see if they can find more evidence. They don't just stop at one part.

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 10:25 AM) which caused her to have a fear of contracting AIDS, often referred to as AIDS phobia," the suit says. thats funny. she is just out trying to get money from him If I found out someone I was in a relationship with, lied about having Aids, I'd be trying to get money at the least. Actually I am surprised he is not facing criminal charges as well. But perhaps the burden of proof is different in the two cases. Much like OJ was not guilty in criminal court, but lost the civil court case.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 11:30 AM) Steele's a great example of problems with the current system. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2006/no...0611280003nov28 Exactly. I would think anyone looking at that would realize the loophole needs to be closed.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 11:26 AM) I would give them one pension for 38 yrs of service. Not two pensions. And there should be a minimum amount of time you have to serve in a position to receive a pension or a kicker to a pension(aka. BOBBI STEELE and the rape of the Cook County taxpayer). I agree there should be a minimum number of years served. Would one 38 year pension be smaller than the two 18 + 20 year pensions?

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 11:05 AM) The private pension system is not supported directly by my taxes. The public system is and is absolutely in need of reform. The problem is the people who would reform the system have a direct investment in the system itself. Hence, no reform anytime soon. If a person earns two pensions from two different positions, why is that a problem? What am I missing? Let's use this example, A person works 20 years for the Highway Department, then 18 for the DMV and receives two pensions. How would you fix that?

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 10:57 AM) I would suggest cutting State payrolls by at least 20% because the legacy costs of these stiffs is unrealistic. I love the people who say gov't jobs are real jobs. Police Fire etc. Yes they are real jobs, and Clinton put 100,00 cops on the street, great. But after the initial outlay by the gov't, who supports these positions? Local and state taxpayers, right. The last thing we need now is an increase in state and local taxes to pay for more gov't workers. Re-work the pensions of these people and you have real reform and REAL cost savings. One pension for every gov't employee, not one for each level of gov't you served. Cool. The only disagreement I have is if it is earned, I see no problem in someone getting what they earned. My dad receives multiple pensions based on multiple private sector jobs he held, I see no reason why the same would not be fair for public sector. Now if you wish to say that some of those individual pensions are unfair, I'd love to take a look at them. But it seems that the trend is lower pay and retirement for Americans. Perhaps it is necessary.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 10:48 AM) You mean increase the members of AFSCME so the DEMS can pay back in spades their lapdogs. So what would you suggest?