rehmwa 2 #51 March 6, 2009 QuoteQuotePeople who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc., are not going to work for things they already get for filling out a few forms, sobbing to a government councilor, and waiting by the mailbox for a check from me and the rest of the taxpayers. you do like your stereotypes (i bet you think all skydivers are death crazed near suiciders - and one joint will turn you into a psycho killer) I will give you NO MORE than 3 copper pieces to cross your bridge - I can't afford any more ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #52 March 6, 2009 Quote And to answer your question, me and the rest of the taxpayers are supporting them. See paragraph 1. which just confirms the second of my original points - which is that increasing the minimum wage will decrease the demand for government benefits stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #53 March 6, 2009 Quote Quote thanks I think this may be more objective however http://www.lera.uiuc.edu/Pubs/Perspectives/CompArticles/nissen.pdf Are you claiming that the FACT that raising the minimum wage in Florida did not increase unemployment (contrary to the predictions of the right) is somehow not objective? How can a FACT not be objective? Is THAT what I am claiming? Did you read my link?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #54 March 6, 2009 your link has been checked and confirms you don't know what you're claimingstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carmenc 0 #55 March 6, 2009 Quote Quote Quote thanks I think this may be more objective however http://www.lera.uiuc.edu/Pubs/Perspectives/CompArticles/nissen.pdf Are you claiming that the FACT that raising the minimum wage in Florida did not increase unemployment (contrary to the predictions of the right) is somehow not objective? How can a FACT not be objective? Is THAT what I am claiming? Did you read my link? Did you? If you did, I think you miscomprehended it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #56 March 6, 2009 Quoteyour link has been checked and confirms you don't know what you're claiming Please, read it again. I have not said that employment went down in Florida during the specific time you refere to. I do think YOU need to look at the context of the economy at the time and what can be claimed in reality. You lefties love to ignore context. In the end, it is VERY important. I am saying whay is posted about Florida in that time proves very little if nothing at all if looked at in the context of what was happening in the US at that time.. As the link I provide points out."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #57 March 6, 2009 QuoteYOU need to look at the context of the economy. is this the right context? QuoteMIT economist and Nobel laureate Paul A. Samuelson wrote in 1973, “What good does it do a black youth to know that an employer must pay him $2.00 per hour if the fact that he must be paid that amount is what keeps him from getting a job?” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wagestay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #58 March 6, 2009 Quote As the link I provide points out. not that link - must be another one you've cleverly kept up your sleeve that you're thinking about stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,466 #59 March 6, 2009 >MIT economist and Nobel laureate Paul A. Samuelson wrote in 1973, “What >good does it do a black youth to know that an employer must pay him $2.00 >per hour if the fact that he must be paid that amount is what keeps him from >getting a job?” What do you think Samuelson is saying there? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #60 March 6, 2009 QuoteWhat do you think Samuelson is saying there? something important about contextstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #61 March 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteYOU need to look at the context of the economy. is this the right context? QuoteMIT economist and Nobel laureate Paul A. Samuelson wrote in 1973, “What good does it do a black youth to know that an employer must pay him $2.00 per hour if the fact that he must be paid that amount is what keeps him from getting a job?” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage If wiki is your source you are screwed. I will not read it unles I am looking for some kind of definition. Worthless site otherwise"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #62 March 6, 2009 Quote Quote As the link I provide points out. not that link - must be another one you've cleverly kept up your sleeve that you're thinking about You did not read it all did you?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #63 March 6, 2009 Quote You did not read it all did you? i haven't read any of it - two others have and confirmed it doesn't say what you claim it does how about this... Quote Milton Friedman, 1976 Nobel Prize winner in Economics, called the minimum wage one of the most "anti-negro laws" for what he saw as its adverse effect on black employment. Today, the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the OECD do not consider that the minimum wage can be directly linked to unemployment in countries which have suffered job losses. Although strongly opposed by both the business community and the Conservative Party when introduced in 1999, the minimum wage introduced in the UK is no longer controversial and the Conservatives reversed their opposition in 2000. A review of its effects found no discernible impact on employment levels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wagestay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #64 March 7, 2009 Quote Quote You did not read it all did you? i haven't read any of it - Quote yet you make the claimsBlind following the blind? Glad others speak for youG'day sir "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #65 March 7, 2009 Quote Quote People who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc., are not going to work for things they already get for filling out a few forms, sobbing to a government councilor, and waiting by the mailbox for a check from me and the rest of the taxpayers. you do like your stereotypes (i bet you think all skydivers are death crazed near suiciders - and one joint will turn you into a psycho killer) Not sure who you think I'm stereotyping. If you mean people who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc., then I guess I am. If, however, you think I'm stereo-typing any group other than people who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc., then you would be wrong. And since the people I'm talking about actually are working the system for welfare, free medical treatments, food stamps, etc., etc., I suppose I'm not really stereo-typing at all. Maybe when I mention people who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc., you think of a specific group, and that's stereo-typing. You just didn't notice.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,466 #66 March 7, 2009 >something important about context Well, it is something important! But the gist of it is that a higher minimum wage does someone no good if it keeps them from getting that minimum wage job - which is indeed a very important point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #67 March 7, 2009 QuoteNot sure who you think I'm stereotyping. If you mean people who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc., then I guess I am. don't worry - i'm getting all your coloured 'whistles' (if you haven't the guts to actually say what you mean - your problem)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #68 March 7, 2009 Quote>something important about context Well, it is something important! But the gist of it is that a higher minimum wage does someone no good if it keeps them from getting that minimum wage job - which is indeed a very important point. that's not the important bit. my quote from friedman mentions the context again...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #69 March 7, 2009 Card and Krueger QuoteIn 1992, the minimum wage in New Jersey increased from $4.25 to $5.05 per hour (an 18.8% increase) while the adjacent state of Pennsylvania remained at $4.25. David Card and Alan Krueger gathered information on fast food restaurants in New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania in an attempt to see what effect this increase had on employment within New Jersey. Classical economics would have concluded that relative employment should have decreased in New Jersey. Card and Krueger surveyed employers before the April 1992 New Jersey increase, and again in November-December 1992, asking managers for data on the full-time equivalent staff level of their restaurants both times. Based on the employers' responses, the authors concluded that the increase in the minimum wage increased employment in the New Jersey restaurants. Card and Krueger expanded on this initial article in their 1995 book Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage (ISBN 0-691-04823-1). They argued the negative employment effects of minimum wage laws to be minimal if not non-existent. For example, they look at the 1992 increase in New Jersey's minimum wage, the 1988 rise in California's minimum wage, and the 1990-91 increases in the federal minimum wage. In addition to their own findings, they reanalyzed earlier studies with updated data, generally finding that the older results of a negative employment effect did not hold up in the larger datasets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wagestay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #70 March 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuotePeople who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc., are not going to work for things they already get for filling out a few forms, sobbing to a government councilor, and waiting by the mailbox for a check from me and the rest of the taxpayers. you do like your stereotypes (i bet you think all skydivers are death crazed near suiciders - and one joint will turn you into a psycho killer) Not sure who you think I'm stereotyping. If you mean people who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc., then I guess I am. If, however, you think I'm stereo-typing any group other than people who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc., then you would be wrong. Please enlighten us with the extent of the problem. How many such people are there "working the system" as opposed to being genuinely in need of assistance, due, for example to being one of the 2.5 million people recently laid off in the Bush recession? Give us numbers.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #71 March 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotePeople who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc., are not going to work for things they already get for filling out a few forms, sobbing to a government councilor, and waiting by the mailbox for a check from me and the rest of the taxpayers. you do like your stereotypes (i bet you think all skydivers are death crazed near suiciders - and one joint will turn you into a psycho killer) Not sure who you think I'm stereotyping. If you mean people who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc., then I guess I am. If, however, you think I'm stereo-typing any group other than people who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc., then you would be wrong. Please enlighten us with the extent of the problem. How many such people are there "working the system" as opposed to being genuinely in need of assistance, due, for example to being one of the 2.5 million people recently laid off in the Bush recession? Give us numbers. Let me tell you from personal experience. I work with a young lady who is working the system. Yes, I said I work with her. She has a job. She makes sure she keeps her income below the level where her "entitlements" would begin to be reduced or cut off, and repeatedly turns down extra hours and full-time status for that reason. She has lived with the father of one of her children (3 total, all out of wedlock) for a long time, but won't get married because their combined earnings would put them well above the threshold to get "entitlements". She is routinely on the phone with her "entitlement" girlfriends, coaching them on the right answers when talking to case workers and filling forms to maximize the "assistance" they can get. All the while, she drives a 3 year old car, owns a nice double-wide (in the boyfriend's name, of course), has a big screen TV and cable with all the top tier channels ($1000 per year), practically lives on a cell phone ($500 per year), and throws HUGE parties for each of her kids birthdays - huge like 60 - 80 kids, rental moonwalk, hired clowns, etc ($1K? - $2K? x 3 kids). She must be particularly proud of her youngest daughters looks, as she has professional portraits of her taken several times a year, and is planning on putting her in beauty pageants - not cheap. When I asked her about all this, her response was that these "entitlements" are offered by the government, so why shouldn't she take them? When I mention that she is really just taking money from taxpayers, she says that's not her problem. She comes to work almost everyday with $5 or $6 worth of fast food ($1200 per year), a couple bucks worth of candy bars ($500 per year), brings new celebrity tabloid rags when they come out at $3 or $4 each X 4 or 5 rags each week ($1500 per year), and wears new clothes on a more than regular basis (cost per year big, but unknown). She has told me that she has many. many friends that do the same thing, and that they commonly share tactics to milk the system. Nailing her for fraud would be tough because she technically fits the criteria to get the "assistance". It's tough to prove that someone is purposely keeping themselves in a position to stay on these programs, short of testifying what they have openly said to others. Do that, and you'll be considered the bad guy that took food out of some kids mouth. Fraud against the hundreds of local state and federal programs is not a small problem. According to the False Claims Act Legal Center, there was $7.3 BILLION returned to the government from fraudulent Medicaid claims between 2000 and 2004! http://www.taf.org/FCA-2006report.pdf, and that's just from the people that got caught!! The government readily admits it only catches a fraction of all fraud. Think about that stat. It only cover Medicaid. It doesn't include social security, food stamps, unemployment, s-chip, or the literally HUNDREDS of federal, state, and local "entitlement" programs. I could dig around and find the numbers for all these programs too, but just looking at the Medicaid number gives us a pretty good look at the fraud across the board (unless you will now claim that Medicaid is the only area where fraud is a problem - and $7.3 BILLION returned to the government over 4 years in one single program is a problem. Enlightened?Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #72 March 7, 2009 Your personal anecdotes are not relevant to anything. If all you can come up with is $7.3B, that's peanuts compared with the underpayment of taxes by self employed individuals and small business owners ($150Billion according to IRS). I suggest you make your crusade against them instead. It's also peanuts compared with the money wasted on an unnecessary war in Iraq. I can't recall any post of yours complaining about that waste.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #73 March 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteNot sure who you think I'm stereotyping. If you mean people who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc., then I guess I am. don't worry - i'm getting all your coloured 'whistles' (if you haven't the guts to actually say what you mean - your problem) Wow, what a bigoted thing to say. I was in no way referring to any particular race. Entitlement program fraud is committed by scumbags from all races. Ya know, I was wondering if some bigot would try to connect my statement to a racist point of view. As usual, the people who scream racism the loudest are the racists themselves.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #74 March 7, 2009 Quote Your personal anecdotes are not relevant to anything. If all you can come up with is $7.3B, that's peanuts compared with the underpayment of taxes by self employed individuals and small business owners ($150Billion according to IRS). I suggest you make your crusade against them instead. It's also peanuts compared with the money wasted on an unnecessary war in Iraq. I can't recall any post of yours complaining about that waste. First you ask me to enlighten you and give you numbers. When I do, you tell me my experiences are not relevant and that the numbers don't mean anything. Then you attempt to change the subject with tax "underpayments" and the war. If you want me to address the issue, then address it yourself instead of making comparisons to things you feel waste money. We can discuss those on their own merits or lack thereof. Two wrongs don't make a right, but attempting to simply divert the argument in a new direction is a cheap ploy, that is if you really do want to have an honest debate on the topic. The fact is $7.3 BILLION returned to the government in just a 4 year period is an enormous amount of fraud. When the government readily admits that it only catches a small amount of the overall fraud committed each year, that number is more likely 2, 3, or maybe even 4 or 5 times that $73 billion - and that's one stinking program! Now, if the same holds true for Social Security, housing subsidies, s-chip, food stamps, unemployment, and the HUNDREDS of other programs being worked by people (and there's plenty of evidence that it does), the total number must be astounding...no, STAGGERING. Now if you would like to discuss the topic you challenged me on, I'd like to hear your response. If, however, you plan to again trivialize my statements (backed up with stats, mind you), and attempt to take the debate in other directions, don't bother replying. For what it's worth, I'm in no way saying we shouldn't have these programs. They are very important and necessary for those who really need them. However, the fraud in the system is well documented and rampant. THAT's what you wanted me to show you, and I did.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,466 #75 March 7, 2009 Your one warning. No personal attacks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
