Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, May 03, 2014

[OTP - May 2014] House stadium funding package advances with Cuban baseball player provision

A bill that would enable professional sports franchises to compete for sales tax subsidies cleared a major hurdle Friday, winning overwhelming support in the Florida House.

The tax breaks would be available to professional football, basketball, hockey and soccer teams, as well as professional rodeos and NASCAR-sponsored events.

But baseball teams would have to stay on the bench — unless Major League Baseball changes its rules about Cuban baseball players.

Lawmakers added the stipulation in response to media reports that Cuban outfielder Yasiel Puig had been held hostage by human traffickers while trying to establish residency in Mexico in 2012.

Under Major League Baseball rules, players from Cuba must live in another country before they can become free agents. Cuban players who come directly to the United States are forced into the amateur draft, which limits their salaries.

“Major League Baseball [has] inadvertently created a market for human smuggling and the unequal treatment of Cuban baseball players,” said Rep. José Félix Díaz, R-Miami, who introduced the provision with Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach. “We’re not going to give away our taxpayer dollars until this ill is corrected.”

In response, the MLB issued the following statement: “While the sponsors of the bill in Florida blame MLB policies for the role of human smugglers, they do not provide any support for their premise that Cuban players must rely on traffickers to defect to countries other than the U.S. such as Mexico or the Dominican Republic, but would not need the assistance of traffickers to reach U.S. soil.”

 

Tripon Posted: May 03, 2014 at 09:38 AM | 4455 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: otp, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 45 pages  1 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›
   1. JoeHova Posted: May 03, 2014 at 03:02 PM (#4699634)
“We’re not going to give away our taxpayer dollars until this ill is corrected.”


But after that, there's nothing we'd love more than giving away taxpayer dollars.
   2. BDC Posted: May 03, 2014 at 04:33 PM (#4699686)
"A much lower percentage of blacks have jobs in 2014 than in 1960 because ... Jim Crow!" is just a downright silly claim (Joe K, #4698 in the April OTP thread)

Agreed, but a much lower percentage of whites have jobs in 2014 than in 1960, so I'm not sure what's happened to them, either :)

Black unemployment has pretty much tracked white unemployment, though at about twice the level, for 50 years. The idea that 50 years of the welfare state has somehow eroded black people's will to work is dubious.
   3. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 03, 2014 at 04:35 PM (#4699687)
Agreed, but a much lower percentage of whites have jobs in 2014 than in 1960, so I'm not sure what's happened to them, either :)

A lot of the same, not so great, things. Capital has become ascendant, which has also greatly harmed white people.

The idea that 50 years of the welfare state has somehow eroded black people's will to work is dubious.

I don't buy into the "welfare causes unemployment" theory.
   4. BDC Posted: May 03, 2014 at 04:42 PM (#4699692)
I don't buy into the "welfare causes unemployment" theory

Noted. It may be that nobody here really does, though I thought I perceived Joe gesturing in that direction and wanted to head him off :) Apologies for misreading anybody.

EDIT: (from April): In any case, a single percentage metric is as weak in these debates as batting average is in baseball. Bare unemployment rate says nothing about the quality of that employment.
   5. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 03, 2014 at 04:55 PM (#4699703)
I got no point, for once; I just got data that seems to contradict someone else's point.

Not really. From what I've read, a higher percentage of blacks had jobs during Jim Crow than whites. Given that the end of Jim Crow brought with it better educational and job-related opportunities for blacks, it seems dubious to blame racism on the negative educational and employment trends among blacks in recent decades.

Black unemployment has pretty much tracked white unemployment, though at about twice the level, for 50 years. The idea that 50 years of the welfare state has somehow eroded black people's will to work is dubious.

I didn't make this claim, but how is such a claim "dubious"? Blacks undoubtedly have better educational and employment opportunities in 2014 than they did in 1950 or 1975, yet educational achievement and employment among blacks have declined.
   6. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: May 03, 2014 at 05:13 PM (#4699714)
I mean, if your best candidate is getting pole-axed in his own state, that doesn't bode too well for GOP chances.

This, too, is Ralph Nader's fault.
Um, somehow.
   7. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: May 03, 2014 at 05:57 PM (#4699727)
Jumped from the April thread:

Nobody's saying that culture has nothing to do with educational achievement gaps,

See Mefisto's #4707.


I'll let Mefisto speak to that, but that's not the interpretation I'd put on his comment.

And maybe you'd also like to address the more substantive information about wealth that's in that Wiki entry, information you can also easily find from innumerable other sources. Or would that take too much actual thinking on your part, and an admission that it's not just "culture" that's at work here?
   8. Tripon Posted: May 03, 2014 at 06:00 PM (#4699728)

I didn't make this claim, but how is such a claim "dubious"? Blacks undoubtedly have better educational and employment opportunities in 2014 than they did in 1950 or 1975, yet educational achievement and employment among blacks have declined.


Black students and children in low SES areas may have better access to educational opportunities and employment, but they're still inadequate. If you need proof, go ahead and visit a random public high school in the inner city.

   9. BDC Posted: May 03, 2014 at 06:03 PM (#4699730)
Blacks undoubtedly have better educational and employment opportunities in 2014 than they did in 1950 or 1975, yet educational achievement and employment among blacks have declined

As far as employment goes, there's been a massive recession in recent years, and white employment has declined proportionally. And again, these rates say nothing about the quality of employment. Black unemployment before 1860 in the South was near zero, but only Cliven Bundy thinks that's a good thing :)

As far as educational achievement, what's your source? Most studies seem to show better HS graduation rates overall and a narrowing of the racial gap recently. Part of this is of course that people stay in school during recessions, but there seems no racial trend worth noting.

I'm really not defending a corner here, I'm just trying to ascertain what the facts are.
   10. Rough Carrigan Posted: May 03, 2014 at 06:12 PM (#4699736)
Poor little rich boy Stu Sternberg! So close! Sooooo very close to getting to take other people's money for nothing, just like when he was looting on Wall Street, sooooo close and they have to have that extra provision. It's getting so it's tough to be a slimy financier.
   11. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 03, 2014 at 06:13 PM (#4699737)
As far as educational achievement, what's your source?

Grades and standardized test scores, primarily. America is a competitive society. We compete for our opportunities.
   12. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 03, 2014 at 06:17 PM (#4699738)
Black students and children in low SES areas may have better access to educational opportunities and employment, but they're still inadequate. If you need proof, go ahead and visit a random public high school in the inner city.

Educational spending has increased by 300 or 400 percent, after inflation, since the 1970s. Anyone who expects public schools to address and overcome the various problems kids bring with them from home is expecting far too much.

***
As far as educational achievement, what's your source? Most studies seem to show better HS graduation rates overall and a narrowing of the racial gap recently.

Only 62 percent of black kids are graduating from high school, and of those, only 1 in 20 (!) are ready for college.
   13. Tripon Posted: May 03, 2014 at 06:24 PM (#4699744)
Educational spending has increased by 300 or 400 percent, after inflation, since the 1970s. Anyone who expects public schools to address and overcome the various problems kids bring with them from home is expecting far too much.

And? Do you think children from privileged families didn't see that same benefit?
   14. Greg K Posted: May 03, 2014 at 06:25 PM (#4699745)
From the article linked in #12, I thought this sentence was probably the key, though perhaps obvious (or perhaps a tautology):

Erickson said the lower-performing students often attend the worst schools.
   15. Tripon Posted: May 03, 2014 at 06:35 PM (#4699749)
Educational spending has increased by 300 or 400 percent, after inflation, since the 1970s. Anyone who expects public schools to address and overcome the various problems kids bring with them from home is expecting far too much.

And? Do you think children from privileged families didn't see that same benefit?
   16. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 03, 2014 at 06:36 PM (#4699751)
And? Do you think children from privileged families didn't see that same benefit?

Educationally, "privileged" means having two parents at home who pay attention to their kids. Sadly, most black kids don't have that,* which is why the educational metrics among black kids are what they are.

(* An increasing number of white kids and Latino kids don't have that, either, which is why things are trending in the wrong direction for those groups as well.)

***
From the article linked in #12, I thought this sentence was probably the key, though perhaps obvious (or perhaps a tautology):

It's mostly if not entirely a tautology. There aren't enough great teachers in the world to make up the lost ground suffered by kids who have bad/absentee parents.
   17. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: May 03, 2014 at 06:39 PM (#4699755)
I don't. How could, as Coates claims, "white supremacy" be "one of the central organizing forces in American life" if such supremacy is "unconscious"?


It's a huge part of American life precisely because it's unconscious.


Interesting fact; this is the thin slice (I would assume) of the Venn diagram where TNC and Donald Sterling agree. (Deeper into the recordings between him and his V. woman, he argues that he doesn't attempt to combat white supremacy because it's so fundamental and universal to our society that attempting to fight it would be pointless.)
   18. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 03, 2014 at 06:45 PM (#4699756)
Black students and children in low SES areas may have better access to educational opportunities and employment, but they're still inadequate. If you need proof, go ahead and visit a random public high school in the inner city.

Like Washington, DC? The school board has been elected since 1970, IIRC, largely African-American & and they have as much money to spend as many school districts that do just fine. Not seeing that removing control of the schools from alleged "white racists" has made any positive impact, which should have been the case if that was the problem.
   19. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 03, 2014 at 06:45 PM (#4699757)
(Deeper into the recordings between him and his V. woman, he argues that he doesn't attempt to combat white supremacy because it's so fundamental and universal to our society that attempting to fight it would be pointless.)

"Eighty-one year old rich men have crystal clear insight on society," said Sam exactly never.
   20. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: May 03, 2014 at 06:50 PM (#4699758)
"Eighty-one year old rich men have crystal clear insight on society," said Sam exactly never.


You know what sub-segment of society super rich 81-year old white guys have a crystal clear insight into? The underlying power structures that bias society as a whole. Granted, Sterling's probably not on the cutting edge of appreciation of Jay Z's and Beyonce's massive remainstreaming of marriage and monogamy into hip-hop/urban/"black" culture, but that's not his niche market is it?
   21. BDC Posted: May 03, 2014 at 06:54 PM (#4699760)
Only 62 percent of black kids are graduating from high school, and of those, only 1 in 20 (!) are ready for college

OK, that I see is from the New York Post. And that "ready for college" claim is based on across-the-board performance on different ACT measures; it's a highly abstract and arbitrary opinion. It's akin to those shocking reports that 1/3 of Americans are illiterate or something, which tend to move as people move the goalposts.

Here's a 2013 paper from the Journal of Economic Literature and a 2006 book from EPI both suggesting that black graduation rates are higher than 62% (estimates range between 69 and 78), and have grown strikingly in the 21st century, narrowing the gap. (EDIT: the current white graduation rate is just over 80% by most estimates.)

This is a very complicated thing to measure, as the academic sources note and the Post doesn't. There's no uniform national reporting mechanism. A lot of local counting appears to omit kids who graduate in 5 years, or those who earn a GED.

Again, I don't know what to make of this, and in some ways I'm sure it runs against what a modern liberal is supposed to claim :) But you've put some sources on the table and so have I, and people can assess as they like. I just hate to leave claims unsourced and unexamined :)
   22. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 03, 2014 at 06:56 PM (#4699761)
You know what sub-segment of society super rich 81-year old white guys have a crystal clear insight into? The underlying power structures that bias society as a whole.

Nah, Donald Sterling doesn't have crystal clear insight into anything. Other than slumlording, of course. Yeah, he's been a racist, but doesn't have any insight beyond that. If he's suggesting other people are just as bad as he is, that's classic deflection and rationalization.
   23. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 03, 2014 at 07:01 PM (#4699763)
OK, that I see is from the New York Post. And that "ready for college" claim is based on across-the-board performance on different ACT measures; it's a highly abstract and arbitrary opinion. It's akin to those shocking reports that 1/3 of Americans are illiterate or something, which tend to move as people move the goalposts.

All the New York Post did was reprint numbers from the ACT people.

Regardless, it's unclear to me what point you're trying to make. Are you claiming that the gap in educational achievement between whites and blacks is merely illusory?
   24. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 03, 2014 at 07:01 PM (#4699764)
It's nice that high school graduation rates are rising, but high school isn't a gateway to much anymore.

One way to work around the obvious racial differences in educational achievement is to make education and educational credentials less important to income, wealth, and status. I'd certainly be in favor of that idea, as I've said many times. It would take a pretty big re-ordering of society, including protectionist policies and subsidization of manufacturing.

You'd also need to limit immigration dramatically -- not a policy I'd favor in the abstract, but one I would as part of the re-ordering. LImiting immigration is obviously pro-African American, which is why it's surprising to see the liberals and modern liberals be so "racist" on the issue.
   25. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 03, 2014 at 07:02 PM (#4699765)
You know what sub-segment of society super rich 81-year old white guys have a crystal clear insight into? The underlying power structures that bias society as a whole. Granted, Sterling's probably not on the cutting edge of appreciation of Jay Z's and Beyonce's massive remainstreaming of marriage and monogamy into hip-hop/urban/"black" culture, but that's not his niche market is it?

Wow, that's convenient. Donald Sterling, an 80-year-old billionaire crank, is suddenly an exemplar of modern white thought.
   26. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: May 03, 2014 at 07:04 PM (#4699766)
Nah, Donald Sterling doesn't have crystal clear insight into anything. Other than slumlording, of course. Yeah, he's been a racist, but doesn't have any insight beyond that. If he's suggesting other people are just as bad as he is, that's classic deflection and rationalization.


Of course, it's quite possible that Donald Sterling has a better insight into this issue than you, and that your refusal to acknowledge his insight into the question is YOU exhibiting classic deflection and rationalization.
   27. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 03, 2014 at 07:06 PM (#4699768)
Of course, it's quite possible that Donald Sterling has a better insight into this issue than you

No, it's not possible.
   28. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: May 03, 2014 at 07:09 PM (#4699769)
Wow, that's convenient. Donald Sterling's opinions of blacks not only should be dismissed out of hand but get him run out of society, but when it comes to white people, Sterling is an exemplar of modern white thought.


Another fantastic example of why you're #### at this process, JoeK. No one ever said he was an exemplar of "modern white thought." I said "it's weird, but on this subject TNC and Donald Sterling agree" - a point made without any sort of underlying support or denial of their argument. Then SBB and I had a bit of a conversation about what, if any, segment of society Sterling might have insight into, with me suggesting that he might have some vision into the base assumptions of super-rich white dudes. Which, by the way, is not equivalent to "modern white thought."
   29. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 03, 2014 at 07:21 PM (#4699774)
Another fantastic example of why you're #### at this process, JoeK.

Alinsky is boring — and dead.

with me suggesting that he might have some vision into the base assumptions of super-rich white dudes. Which, by the way, is not equivalent to "modern white thought."

You said Sterling has "crystal clear insight" into "the underlying power structures that bias society as a whole." Unless you don't know what "exemplar" means, which is certainly possible, or you're pretending not to understand that "exemplar of modern white thought" was shorthand for "exemplar of modern white thought vis-a-vis race" or "exemplar of modern white thought vis-a-vis power structures in the U.S.," your objection seems frivolous.
   30. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: May 03, 2014 at 07:25 PM (#4699777)
You said Sterling has "crystal clear insight" into "the underlying power structures that bias society as a whole."


More or less, yes.

Unless you don't know what "exemplar" means, which is certainly possible, or you're pretending not to understand that "exemplar of modern white thought" was shorthand for "exemplar of modern white thought vis-a-vis race," your objection seems frivolous.


Here's your mistake, writ large again. The mindset of super-rich white guys is the sort of thing that biases modern society as a whole. It is not "modern white thought." I know you're stupid, so I"m trying to type slowly.
   31. Tripon Posted: May 03, 2014 at 07:31 PM (#4699782)

Like Washington, DC? The school board has been elected since 1970, IIRC, largely African-American & and they have as much money to spend as many school districts that do just fine. Not seeing that removing control of the schools from alleged "white racists" has made any positive impact, which should have been the case if that was the problem.


Now, I didn't say that. I did say that high Social-Economic communities and school districts are better able to work the system, and providing more effective instruction for the dollars they do get.

Washington DC's schools suck because of numerous issues, one of them being the ineffective use of dollars that actually get into the classroom.
   32. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 03, 2014 at 07:32 PM (#4699783)
Here's your mistake, writ large again. The mindset of super-rich white guys is the sort of thing that biases modern society as a whole. It is not "modern white thought."

Assuming that sort of top-down power structure exists, then Sterling is, indeed, an exemplar. Per your theory, the little people below ("society as a whole") have little or no say in deciding such matters.
   33. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 03, 2014 at 07:39 PM (#4699787)
Washington DC's schools suck because of numerous issues, one of them being the ineffective use of dollars that actually get into the classroom.

To whatever extent DC's schools "suck," they suck because they're full of kids who (1) are already years behind, educationally, on their first day of kindergarten, and (2) get little or no discipline at home, which means teachers spend a disproportionate amount of time playing cop rather than teacher.

At ~$20,000 per year per student, DC's schools would be able to waste half that money and still churn out graduates, if its students were better-prepared and better-behaved.
   34. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 03, 2014 at 07:40 PM (#4699788)
Washington DC's schools suck because of numerous issues, one of them being the ineffective use of dollars that actually get into the classroom.

Washington, DC schools, as a whole, aren't very good, but is there anything unique about them? AFAIK, results-wise, they aren't much different than other large urban school districts.
   35. Tripon Posted: May 03, 2014 at 07:52 PM (#4699793)

Washington, DC schools, as a whole, aren't very good, but is there anything unique about them? AFAIK, results-wise, they aren't much different than other large urban school districts.


Well, I'm an advocate of smaller school districts in general. You want schools that better support their communities, uncouple them from the large bureaucracy that is large urban school districts.

Changing a school is incredibly hard, doing it in LAUSD or D.C. Public schools is almost impossible.
   36. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: May 03, 2014 at 08:34 PM (#4699802)
Nothing to do with any recent topic, but I found this interesting.
   37. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 03, 2014 at 09:31 PM (#4699825)
I don't buy into the "welfare causes unemployment" theory.
Then you reject a foundational rule of economics, which is that people respond to incentives.
   38. Tripon Posted: May 03, 2014 at 10:00 PM (#4699830)
   39. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 03, 2014 at 10:11 PM (#4699835)
Doesn't look like the Ukrainians have much choice. They can fight, or just sit back and watch their country be dismembered. Better to fight.
   40. Howie Menckel Posted: May 03, 2014 at 10:50 PM (#4699845)

among real quips from the White House correspondents dinner tonight:

Obama on Obamacare: "What if yearly checkup came with tickets to a Clippers game? Not the old Don Sterling Clippers. The new Oprah Clippers"

"Gridlock has gotten so bad in this town you have to wonder: What'd we do to piss off Chris Christie so bad?"

"Fox, you'll miss me when I'm gone. It'll be harder to convince American people that Hillary was born in Kenya"

Obama on Boston Marathon: "An American won for the 1st time in 30 years, which is fair since a Kenyan has been president for the last 6."
   41. Lassus Posted: May 03, 2014 at 11:44 PM (#4699858)
No, it's not possible.

I doubt that SBB finds anyone's assessment on anything capable of being more accurate than his own.
   42. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 04, 2014 at 12:13 AM (#4699863)
I don't buy into the "welfare causes unemployment" theory

Noted. It may be that nobody here really does, though I thought I perceived Joe gesturing in that direction and wanted to head him off :) Apologies for misreading anybody.


It seems to me that if you can make X going to work every day but instead effectively have X - Y coming in through welfare, with food, a roof over your head, heat, hot water, air conditioning, cable tv, internet, a computer, a Smartphone, etc., and X - Y is close to X, then the rational decision is to decide not to go to work every day and just to stick your hand out instead. As Y approaches 0 choosing the welfare becomes more and more attractive.
   43. clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right Posted: May 04, 2014 at 03:35 AM (#4699887)
It seems to me that if you can make X going to work every day but instead effectively have X - Y coming in through welfare, with food, a roof over your head, heat, hot water, air conditioning, cable tv, internet, a computer, a Smartphone, etc., and X - Y is close to X, then the rational decision is to decide not to go to work every day and just to stick your hand out instead. As Y approaches 0 choosing the welfare becomes more and more attractive.

there are other fixes to this than just making sure Y is as small as possible.

for example, if you raise corporate and estate and capital gains and consumption taxes so that you can pay every citizen an equal Y that covered food/water/housing/clothing/healthcare costs regardless of whether the individual citizen needs it or not, then there's no benefit to not working, since every X that you make is in addition to the Y that you'd already have before working.

or for a less extreme proposal, raising the minimum wage would increase the difference between X and Y and put money in the pockets of people who actually work hard for it. i mean, i'm not a scholar on foundational rules of economics [37], but it seems to me that providing an incentive to work would be more effective at stimulating that action than just providing a disincentive to not work.
   44. Joey B.: posting for the kids of northeast Ohio Posted: May 04, 2014 at 08:41 AM (#4699905)
It seems to me that if you can make X going to work every day but instead effectively have X - Y coming in through welfare, with food, a roof over your head, heat, hot water, air conditioning, cable tv, internet, a computer, a Smartphone, etc., and X - Y is close to X, then the rational decision is to decide not to go to work every day and just to stick your hand out instead. As Y approaches 0 choosing the welfare becomes more and more attractive.

I've absolutely met people who have told me straight out that they could have gotten a job but didn't because they could get more being on the dole.

And in this day and age, I suspect that pretty much every person in this country personally knows at least one person who could probably get a job but prefers not to.
   45. McCoy Posted: May 04, 2014 at 09:19 AM (#4699912)
So people think other people are greedy but not too greedy?
   46. BDC Posted: May 04, 2014 at 09:28 AM (#4699914)
pretty much every person in this country personally knows at least one person who could probably get a job but prefers not to

I know a lot of such people, all middle-class early-retirees and coupon-clippers :) Heck, I'd be retiring next week if I'd had the sense to opt for a state pension BITD.

Perhaps "the dole" is a dreamland in other states, but in Texas it means grinding poverty. And it isn't an either/or matter of honest job vs. feet up on the sofa. A substantial amount of what miserable benefits a red state offers goes to low-income working people who are continuously trying to clamber out of welfare-eligible status.

Millions of poor people in this country work their ###es off, but if it's convenient to see them as lucky duckies, well, everyone needs their myths.
   47. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 04, 2014 at 09:53 AM (#4699919)
I know a lot of such people, all middle-class early-retirees and coupon-clippers :) Heck, I'd be retiring next week if I'd had the sense to opt for a state pension BITD.

Perhaps "the dole" is a dreamland in other states, but in Texas it means grinding poverty. And it isn't an either/or matter of honest job vs. feet up on the sofa. A substantial amount of what miserable benefits a red state offers goes to low-income working people who are continuously trying to clamber out of welfare-eligible status.

Millions of poor people in this country work their ###es off, but if it's convenient to see them as lucky duckies, well, everyone needs their myths.


So do you agree now that "welfare causes unemployment" isn't a myth?

(I should also add health "insurance" to my post 42 now that we've had Obamacare inflicted upon us.)
   48. Mefisto Posted: May 04, 2014 at 10:05 AM (#4699921)
Whether welfare causes unemployment or not is a factual question capable of being answered by studies. Trying to debate the issue as a matter of pure logic is scholasticism. So, if anyone thinks it does, start us off with some links.
   49. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: May 04, 2014 at 10:05 AM (#4699922)
Here's a pretty good example of the level of coherence you're seeing from the Republicans these days on the subject of welfare and freeloaders. It's from a Washington Post article on Virginia's 10th Congressional District:

Diane Fisher, who lives on disability payments in Winchester, says she tends to vote Republican because there are “too many freeloaders these days. We’re in the lower part of the economy here and people don’t have a lot of money. Everything’s going too fast, too much. We’re getting left behind.”

Fisher blames Obamacare for the current troubles. “It’s not fair to make people spend money they don’t have,” she said. “More people have health care now, true dat. But we need somebody who will stand up to Obama; he scares me.”
   50. Lassus Posted: May 04, 2014 at 10:10 AM (#4699924)
Is there a state in which the dole is more than minimum wage? If not, some people are lying to some other people with these tales. If so, I'll give the tales greater weight.
   51. BDC Posted: May 04, 2014 at 10:13 AM (#4699925)
So do you agree now that "welfare causes unemployment" isn't a myth?

When people are in jobs with no great interest or future, and a ready source of style-to-which-they're-accustomed income at hand, many will opt to quit; as I say, that's the American dream, retire at 50.

To the extent that some poor people do opt for welfare rather than even look for a job – and I'm sure it happens – I'd wonder why those jobs hold no great interest or future. Maybe they pay miserably and are tenuous? The left would say, create better jobs with more security and advancement opportunities. The right would say, kick out the props so folks have to hustle from cleaning offices at the failed corporation to cleaning offices at the one that undercut the failed corporation by paying lower wages. In effect, the illegal-immigrant "problem" in this country is caused by employers wanting to kick out the props. No status = no benefits = work even harder for less, and we're in the right-wing paradise, right?

Anyway, I do think that the lure of being able to buy milk and Cheerios with their SNAP card hasn't seduced many people off the job market. YM in some of those pinko states up north MV :) Let's not even get into Canada, I assume nobody has a job there. Come to think of it, most of the Canadians I know are poets.
   52. Greg K Posted: May 04, 2014 at 10:18 AM (#4699927)
Let's not even get into Canada, I assume nobody has a job there.

Hey, I'll have you know that while I'm not working now, I've got some leads!
   53. Gonfalon B. Posted: May 04, 2014 at 10:26 AM (#4699928)
Anybody here have 47,000+ personal "they flat out told me they'd rather collect welfare" anecdotes to share?


Dec. 2012:
Thousands apply for American Airlines job openings

American Airlines announced in October it was hiring 1,500 new flight attendants. Twenty thousand applicants responded -- so many that American stopped taking resumes after eight days. Candidates had to pass a telephone interview before being invited this month to the airline's world headquarters in Fort Worth.

"I was unemployed for over a year," says Yoon Eom, a 25-year-old college graduate who is also a new U.S. citizen. But at her interview, she had a competitive edge: she speaks English, Spanish and her native Korean.

The 20,000 applicants include many college graduates who have had trouble finding work in a tight job market. American will pay its new flight attendants, on average, $23,000 a year. They'll have to work longer hours and pay more for medical benefits than flight attendants who've recently retired from the bankrupt airline.



Nov. 2013:
Applicants For Jobs At The New DC Walmart Face Worse Odds Than People Trying To Get Into Harvard

A new Wal-Mart store in Washington D.C. has been inundated with applications for associates. The store is currently combing through more than 23,000 applications for 600 available positions, reports NBC Washington. 

That means that Wal-Mart will be able to hire one person for every 38 applications it receives — i.e., just 2.6% of applicants will walk out with a job. 



Dec. 2013:
Bridgestone receives thousands of job applications

Bridgestone is getting bombarded with applications after announcing 200 job openings on Monday morning for its Graniteville tire plant. According to Bridgestone Vice President of Administrative Services Fran Jones, the company received 4,874 applications as of late Tuesday morning. That surpasses the number of applicants from last year's hiring phase, which was 3,517, and the application process for those positions was open for a month.

Starting pay is $14 an hour, and workers will top out at $24.32 after a 150-week training period.


Jan. 2014:
There are 3 unemployed people for every job opening, Obama adviser says

To receive benefits, the law requires that people actively look for jobs. On CNN’s State of the Union, Candy Crowley suggested that some people may be able to game the system. Sperling pushed back against that idea, emphasizing that a large majority of the unemployed are honestly trying to find jobs in a tough economy. "Most of the people are desperately looking for jobs," he said. "You know, our economy still has three people looking for every job (opening)."

There were 3.925 million job openings in October, according to the BLS Job Openings and Labor Turnover report from Dec. 10. For an apples-to-apples comparison, we’ll use October unemployment numbers the BLS released in their Nov. 8 report, even though they’ve since published November data. They said 11.3 million people were unemployed. That just counts people who are actively looking for work, not those who have stopped looking due to discouragement or retirement.

That’s a ratio of 2.88-to-1 or, once you round off, roughly 3-to-1, just as Sperling said.
   54. GregD Posted: May 04, 2014 at 10:35 AM (#4699929)
the dole--and the examples referred to--make me think that a bunch of the people are commenting about the UK, where things at least in the past have been quite different. I have not heard a living American use the word "the dole" other than at a think-tank.

Since "the dole" has no concrete meaning the US, let's separate out two components:

1) Welfare--basically TANF--is a program that is almost exclusively directed to children. Half are to single parents. Almost half of all TANF recipients are in fact in households with no adult parent, as they are directed through foster parents or other guardians. 5% go to two-parent households.

2) TANF stays are generally short. The median consecutive stay is about 12 months depending on the state. The total time allowable on TANF for a family with an able-bodied adult is 5 years.

3) TANF benefits are about $9500-$10,000 for an adult with two children.

4) 30% of TANF recipients work, 10% are in work training. Given that 10% have children under 12 months, 11% are high school students who are parents, and 10% are disabled, TANF is apparently not a very good disincentive for work.

5) Most TANF families also receive SNAP (food stamps) and those benefits are $378.

6) Most SNAP recipients are employed, by a very large margin. So it's not at all clear that SNAP creates disincentive to work. If so it's not a very effective disincentive.

Other issues:

SSI disability is an interestingly different case and its growth is worrisome. Its growth seems to be drawing heavily from working-class whites in rural areas who have long work histories but no prospects of employment. The chicken-egg conundrum is tricky there. Since most of the people worked then were laid off then went onto SSI, there's reason to think the job market, not the incentive to not work is what is driving this. But I don't think anyone does or can know right now since much of this is too new to say for certain.

Unemployment benefits are going to be interesting to watch. The trends for new claims of unemployment benefits are dropping steadily, which suggests again that the incentives they give must be weaker in practice or else people must be irrationally tied to work. In many areas unemployment claims have been falling for two years straight or longer. As the timeline for staying on has returned to its prior limit, the people one knows who choose unemployment benefits over work must necessarily be getting smaller and smaller. Since unemployment benefits are tied to prior salary, people who never had decent-paying jobs don't have much incentive to "switch" to unemployment. Most young unemployed people never get unemployment benefits because they lack the work history required to get the benefits. On the whole, unemployment benefit recipients are older and have longer work histories. As with SSI, it is possible that disincentive plays in but hard to tell how, since you are talking about people who stayed in their jobs even when benefits were available but switched to benefits when their jobs went away, often when they had 10-20 years of work history.

I would agree that incentives and disincentives matter, but I don't think you can understand those incentives in purely theoretical terms. It all depends on how the programs function, and there is, luckily, a great deal of data out there about who is in them and for how long, so there's no need to rely upon abstractions or faith-based arguments.
   55. Howie Menckel Posted: May 04, 2014 at 10:37 AM (#4699931)

"American Airlines announced in October it was hiring 1,500 new flight attendants."

huh, I have a niece who is in this camp, she starts next week. Got a 4-year college degree, but the hiring was slow at the environmental science factories, so...
   56. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: May 04, 2014 at 10:48 AM (#4699934)
I know a couple of middle-aged women in a poor, white, ex-working class community (now mainly supported by benefits) that are professional TANF et al recipients through foster children. They're very open about it and don't view it as stigmatized - it's the best way for a 50 year old woman with no record and no college to make ends meet.
   57. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 04, 2014 at 10:57 AM (#4699935)
So do you agree now that "welfare causes unemployment" isn't a myth?


So let's talk actual economics. Like most things there are two parts to employment. There is the supply of labor and a demand for labor (shocking that it is made up of supply and demand).

The safety net does impact the supply of labor. However in the current economic conditions supply of labor is NOT the issue. The current labor market (as shown in anecdotes above) is mostly a demand side problem. So increasing the supply of labor (reducing the safety net) does not shift the demand curve, but it will lower the price of labor (wages), unless of course you hit into the minimum wage.

So congrats you want to remove the safety net which will also hurt wages.

Now if you really care about unemployment (versus just hate welfare) you want to (in the current economic environment) work it on the demand for labor side. Tax breaks to businesses, government spending to increase demand for labor and so on.
   58. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: May 04, 2014 at 11:03 AM (#4699937)
When people are in jobs with no great interest or future, and a ready source of style-to-which-they're-accustomed income at hand, many will opt to quit; as I say, that's the American dream, retire at 50.

My favorite pool room T-Shirt: Living the Dream

Of course the guy who sports this shirt works full time for the WSSC and the only time he's ever missed work was when he was recovering from a work-related back operation, so he may not quite fit into zop's comfortable narrative about welfare moochers.
   59. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: May 04, 2014 at 11:19 AM (#4699942)
It seems to me that if you can make X going to work every day but instead effectively have X - Y coming in through welfare, with food, a roof over your head, heat, hot water, air conditioning, cable tv, internet, a computer, a Smartphone, etc., and X - Y is close to X, then the rational decision is to decide not to go to work every day and just to stick your hand out instead.


So Ray is officially on record as stating that there is no inherent value in work, for the sake of work.
   60. Mefisto Posted: May 04, 2014 at 11:24 AM (#4699944)
So let's talk actual economics.


Yes, and your comment is a major step forward because it rests on actual data. As Chris Dillow says, "I fear that some free market advocates - not all by any means, but some - are mistaking the map for the terrain. They forget that the textbook perfect competition model is not a description of reality but rather of a utopia against which to assess actually-existing markets."

It's not enough to say that, in theory (with all the assumptions that entails), welfare reduces employment. That's like talking about physics in the absence of friction. In both cases, the actual, real world data need to be measured. I emphasize this -- in possible unfairness to you -- because your use of the phrase "current economic conditions" implies that welfare might cause unemployment at other times -- that still remains to be proved in the real world.
   61. RMc's desperate, often sordid world Posted: May 04, 2014 at 11:26 AM (#4699945)
All right, that does it. I'm declaring all of you guys are RACISTS. You are all banned from this forum, and all of you will have to sell off your usernames at a loss, costing you millions of dollars in taxes.

Have a nice day.
   62. Joey B.: posting for the kids of northeast Ohio Posted: May 04, 2014 at 11:28 AM (#4699946)
The current labor market (as shown in anecdotes above) is mostly a demand side problem. So increasing the supply of labor (reducing the safety net) does not shift the demand curve, but it will lower the price of labor (wages), unless of course you hit into the minimum wage.

There are tons of good, high paying jobs out there. I know this because I get e-mails and phone calls almost every single day from recruiters on behalf of companies across the country desperate to fill the positions they need filled. I'm sure there are others besides me here at BTF who constantly get these e-mails and phone calls as well.

Of course, these jobs generally require significant skills; they're a lot tougher than say, being a stewardess. Let's be honest: almost any woman who is willing to do it can be trained to be a competent stewardess in a fairly short period of time.

The biggest structural problem we have in our current economy is that our current workforce largely lacks the skills and education needed for the growing job markets. Our sorry public education system should really consider adapting to the times one of these days, because the Industrial Age probably isn't coming back real soon.

But if more unskilled jobs are what you really want, you sure as hell aren't going to get them by increasing the minimum wage, by regulating them out of existence, or by micromanaging the hell out of them from the all-powerful Capital Beltway leviathan.
   63. BDC Posted: May 04, 2014 at 11:38 AM (#4699947)
You are all banned from this forum

Hey, if we go down, the Men-Only Gaming and One Weird Trick of Weight Loss industries will collapse and take the rest of the economy with them.
   64. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: May 04, 2014 at 11:52 AM (#4699948)
So Ray is officially on record as stating that there is no inherent value in work, for the sake of work.


Probably not for patent lawyers. I can certainly get that.
   65. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: May 04, 2014 at 12:07 PM (#4699951)
Hey, how else can we protect the Gilead shareholders?
   66. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 04, 2014 at 12:28 PM (#4699954)
To the extent that some poor people do opt for welfare rather than even look for a job – and I'm sure it happens – I'd wonder why those jobs hold no great interest or future. Maybe they pay miserably and are tenuous? The left would say, create better jobs with more security and advancement opportunities.

Nobody said the welfare rolls are full of people with STEM degrees. The problem is that in many states, low-skilled people can live as well, or better, on the so-called "safety net" than by working tough entry-level jobs with bad hours, long commutes, poor benefits, etc. It's a perfectly rational decision on their part, but it's a counterproductive way to structure a "safety net" system.

Anyway, I do think that the lure of being able to buy milk and Cheerios with their SNAP card hasn't seduced many people off the job market.

The swelling disability numbers tell us otherwise. Beyond that, while welfare probably isn't "seducing" many people with jobs into quitting them, intergenerational dependency remains a major problem that keeps people from the job market in the first place. The Washington Post series on food stamps, which just won a Pulitzer for former Nationals writer Eli Saslow, had families who had been on food stamps and other welfare programs for generations.
   67. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 04, 2014 at 12:33 PM (#4699955)
Anybody here have 47,000+ personal "they flat out told me they'd rather collect welfare" anecdotes to share?


Dec. 2012:
Thousands apply for American Airlines job openings

American Airlines announced in October it was hiring 1,500 new flight attendants. Twenty thousand applicants responded -- so many that American stopped taking resumes after eight days. Candidates had to pass a telephone interview before being invited this month to the airline's world headquarters in Fort Worth.

"I was unemployed for over a year," says Yoon Eom, a 25-year-old college graduate who is also a new U.S. citizen. But at her interview, she had a competitive edge: she speaks English, Spanish and her native Korean.

The 20,000 applicants include many college graduates who have had trouble finding work in a tight job market. American will pay its new flight attendants, on average, $23,000 a year. They'll have to work longer hours and pay more for medical benefits than flight attendants who've recently retired from the bankrupt airline.



Nov. 2013:
Applicants For Jobs At The New DC Walmart Face Worse Odds Than People Trying To Get Into Harvard

A new Wal-Mart store in Washington D.C. has been inundated with applications for associates. The store is currently combing through more than 23,000 applications for 600 available positions, reports NBC Washington. 

That means that Wal-Mart will be able to hire one person for every 38 applications it receives — i.e., just 2.6% of applicants will walk out with a job. 

[...]

No way these stories could be true. Obama and Dems have been insistent for years that we need to double low-skilled immigration and give work permits to ~11 million illegal immigrants, both of which would be absolute lunacy if Americans faced the god-awful labor market described above.
   68. bobm Posted: May 04, 2014 at 12:34 PM (#4699956)
SSI disability is an interestingly different case and its growth is worrisome. Its growth seems to be drawing heavily from working-class whites in rural areas who have long work histories but no prospects of employment. The chicken-egg conundrum is tricky there. Since most of the people worked then were laid off then went onto SSI, there's reason to think the job market, not the incentive to not work is what is driving this. But I don't think anyone does or can know right now since much of this is too new to say for certain.

This article (which I think I posted before) has some interesting facts about disability and incentives:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/disability-insurance-americas-124-billion-secret-welfare-program/274302/

Well, as NPR's Planet Money argues in an eye-opening story [http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ ] , it turns out there already is a "de facto welfare program" for those struggling Americans. The problem is, instead of getting the unemployed back on their feet, it pays them to give up work for good.

I'm talking about Social Security's disability insurance program, which over 20 years has quietly morphed into one of the largest, yet least talked about, pieces of the social safety net. Since the early 1990s, the number of former workers receiving payments under it has more than doubled to about 8.5 million, as shown in Planet Money's graph below. More than five percent of all eligible adults are now on the rolls, up from around 3 percent twenty years ago. Add in children and spouses who also get checks, and the grand tally comes to 11.7 million. [...]

As of 2010, its monthly cash payments accounted for nearly one out of every five Social Security dollars spent, or about $124 billion. In 1988, by comparison, it accounted for just one out of eight Social Security dollars. Because disabled workers qualify for Medicare, they also added $59 billion to the government's healthcare tab.

Are disabilities just becoming more common? According to economists such as MIT's David Autor, the evidence says no. The workforce is indeed getting older, and thus more ailment prone. But Americans over 50, who make up most disability cases, report much better health today than in the 1980s. And demographers have found that the percentage of Americans older than 65 suffering from a chronic disability has fallen drastically since then. In the end, economists Mark Duggan and Scott Imberman estimate that, at most, the graying of America's workers explained just 4 percent of the increase in the rate of disability program participation for women, and 15 percent for men, through 2004.

Instead, it seems two things have happened: Qualifying for disability got easier, and finding work got harder. [...]

Just as the bar for disability fell, the economy turned on the working class. Factories laid off their assembly workers. The service sector picked up the slack. Wages stagnated for anyone without a college diploma. These changes have made disability more attractive for reasons both obvious and subtle. Although program's payments are small -- the average benefit is a bit over $1,000 per month -- they're not much worse than a minimum wage job. Better yet, they're indexed to inflation, meaning they sometimes rise faster than wages, and come with generous government healthcare. For former blue-collar workers who feel they've lost all hope of finding employment, or who don't want to spend their last years leading to retirement standing all day at McDonald's, disability isn't a bad offer.

It's little surprise then that, as MIT's Autor notes, disability applications tend to rise and fall with the unemployment rate [...]

But the failures here should be obvious to liberals, too. If the job market is so miserably weak that these workers cannot find jobs -- that they are choosing to live in government-guaranteed poverty rather than take a chance on the labor market -- we need to find a better solution than paying them to sit while their skills atrophy. As of now, that's all we seem to be doing. Despite Clinton-era changes to the program that made it possible for participants to ease back into the work force without losing all their benefits, less than one percent of Americans who go on disability ever leave the program. [Emphasis added]
   69. bobm Posted: May 04, 2014 at 12:46 PM (#4699961)
Here is the piece--with plenty about how bad incentives plague disability programs--from that well-known conservative media organization, NPR:

http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/



In the past three decades, the number of Americans who are on disability has skyrocketed. The rise has come even as medical advances have allowed many more people to remain on the job, and new laws have banned workplace discrimination against the disabled. Every month, 14 million people now get a disability check from the government.

The federal government spends more money each year on cash payments for disabled former workers than it spends on food stamps and welfare combined. Yet people relying on disability payments are often overlooked in discussions of the social safety net. The vast majority of people on federal disability do not work.[1] Yet because they are not technically part of the labor force, they are not counted among the unemployed.

In other words, people on disability don't show up in any of the places we usually look to see how the economy is doing. But the story of these programs -- who goes on them, and why, and what happens after that -- is, to a large extent, the story of the U.S. economy. It's the story not only of an aging workforce, but also of a hidden, increasingly expensive safety net.

For the past six months, I've been reporting on the growth of federal disability programs. I've been trying to understand what disability means for American workers, and, more broadly, what it means for poor people in America nearly 20 years after we ended welfare as we knew it. Here's what I found. [...]

As far as the federal government is concerned, you're disabled if you have a medical condition that makes it impossible to work. In practice, it's a judgment call made in doctors' offices and courtrooms around the country. The health problems where there is most latitude for judgment -- back pain, mental illness -- are among the fastest growing causes of disability. [...]

Then I looked at the numbers. I found that the number of kids on a program called Supplemental Security Income -- a program for children and adults who are both poor and disabled -- is almost seven times larger than it was 30 years ago. [...]

Let's imagine that happens. Jahleel starts doing better in school, overcomes some of his disabilities. He doesn't need the disability program anymore. That would seem to be great for everyone, except for one thing: It would threaten his family's livelihood. Jahleel's family primarily survives off the monthly $700 check they get for his disability.[5]

Jahleel's mom wants him to do well in school. That is absolutely clear. But her livelihood depends on Jahleel struggling in school. This tension only increases as kids get older. One mother told me her teenage son wanted to work, but she didn't want him to get a job because if he did, the family would lose its disability check.

I haven't taken a survey or anything, but I'm guessing a large majority of Americans would be in favor of some form of government support for disabled children living in poverty. We would have a hard time agreeing on exactly how we want to offer support, but I think there are some basic things we'd all agree on.

Kids should be encouraged to go to school. Kids should want to do well in school. Parents should want their kids to do well in school. Kids should be confident their parents can provide for them regardless of how they do in school. Kids should become more and more independent as they grow older and hopefully be able to support themselves at around age 18.

The disability program stands in opposition to every one of these aims.
[...]

A person on welfare costs a state money. That same resident on disability doesn't cost the state a cent, because the federal government covers the entire bill for people on disability. So states can save money by shifting people from welfare to disability. And the Public Consulting Group is glad to help.

PCG is a private company that states pay to comb their welfare rolls and move as many people as possible onto disability.
"What we're offering is to work to identify those folks who have the highest likelihood of meeting disability criteria," Pat Coakley, who runs PCG's Social Security Advocacy Management team, told me.

The company has an office in eastern Washington state that's basically a call center, full of headsetted women in cubicles who make calls all day long to potentially disabled Americans, trying to help them discover and document their disabilities:

"The high blood pressure, how long have you been taking medications for that?" one PCG employee asked over the phone the day I visited the company. "Can you think of anything else that's been bothering you and disabling you and preventing you from working?"

The PCG agents help the potentially disabled fill out the Social Security disability application over the phone. And by help, I mean the agents actually do the filling out. When the potentially disabled don't have the right medical documentation to prove a disability, the agents at PCG help them get it. They call doctors' offices; they get records faxed. If the right medical records do not exist, PCG sets up doctors' appointments and calls applicants the day before to remind them of those appointments.

PCG also works very, very hard to make the people who work at the Social Security happy. Whenever the company wins a new contract, Coakley will personally introduce himself at the local Social Security Administration office, and see how he can make things as easy as possible for the administrators there.

"We go through even to the point, frankly, of do you like things to be stapled or paper-clipped?" he told me. "Paper clips wins out a lot of times because they need to make photocopies and they don't want to be taking staples out."

There's a reason PCG goes to all this trouble. The company gets paid by the state every time it moves someone off of welfare and onto disability. In recent contract negotiations with Missouri, PCG asked for $2,300 per person. For Missouri, that's a deal -- every time someone goes on disability, it means Missouri no longer has to send them cash payments every month. For the nation as a whole, it means one more person added to the disability rolls. [...]

"You might imagine a courtroom where on one side there's the claimant and on the other side there's a government attorney who is saying, 'We need to protect the public interest and your client is not sufficiently deserving,'" the economist David Autor says. "Actually, it doesn't work like that. There is no government lawyer on the other side of the room."

The Social Security Administration says disability hearings were never meant to be adversarial. In these courtrooms, the judges are employees of Social Security. So the judges are supposed to both represent the government and make a fair and objective determination. But the judges themselves say this role can be difficult. [Emphasis added]


   70. Joey B.: posting for the kids of northeast Ohio Posted: May 04, 2014 at 01:04 PM (#4699965)
...but it's a counterproductive way to structure a "safety net" system.

It's not counterproductive at all if your goal is to make as many people permanently dependent on government as possible. It serves that goal very nicely.
   71. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 04, 2014 at 01:07 PM (#4699966)
It's not counterproductive at all if your goal is to make as many people permanently dependent on government as possible. It serves that goal very nicely.

Indeed. Liberals are pushing immigration amnesty and a doubling of low-skilled immigration for similarly selfish political reasons.
   72. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 04, 2014 at 01:16 PM (#4699969)
with plenty about how bad incentives plague disability programs


Everything, including the "pure" free market system has negative incentives. The fact that there are bad incentives does not mean you throw the baby out with the dishwater.

One of the reason I like the minimum income concept is that it preserves much that is good about the current safety net, and reduces the negative incentives.

It's not counterproductive at all if your goal is to make as many people permanently dependent on government as possible. It serves that goal very nicely.

Indeed. Liberals are pushing immigration amnesty and a doubling of low-skilled immigration for similarly selfish political reasons.


Shocking that the two of you would read completely negative intentions into the promoters of an agenda you hate. Really amazing. On the other hand I don't think you want people to starve or die in the street due to lack of medical care, that is not your goal, it just so happens that would be the impact of your policies if allowed to run amok. I am sure in your brain you have the best intentions (well that or you have been brainwashed).

Liberals may be wrong about things, but pretending liberals are monsters is not helpful in the slightest and should be beneath you. Should be.
   73. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 04, 2014 at 01:21 PM (#4699970)
Shocking that the two of you would read completely negative intentions into the promoters of an agenda you hate. Really amazing. On the other hand I don't think you want people to starve or die in the street due to lack of medical care, that is not your goal, it just so happens that would be the impact of your policies if allowed to run amok. I am sure in your brain you have the best intentions (well that or you have been brainwashed).

Liberals may be wrong about things, but pretending liberals are monsters is not helpful in the slightest and should be beneath you. Should be.

Take a few deep breaths and then try again.
   74. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 04, 2014 at 01:24 PM (#4699971)
No way these stories could be true. Obama and Dems have been insistent for years that we need to double low-skilled immigration and give work permits to ~11 million illegal immigrants, both of which would be absolute lunacy if Americans faced the god-awful labor market described above.


As has been stated before reforming immigration and allowing illegals a chance at citizenship both has positive economic impact (real economists say so, JoeK doesn't believe it - the reader can decide who is ore credible regarding economics), even in the low skill job market (as has been described multiple times).

But the primary reason for doing it is not economic. The primary reason is social justice.

And as always, either way it helps the liberals. The best possible outcome is the GOP continues to fight it tooth and nail, cements their anti-minority reputation for generations to come, and then eventually lose on the issue bringing in a bunch more citizens who know who fought for them.

See, when I have a political agenda, I am more than willing to admit it. Immigration is a long term pro-Democrat play, and it is working. The fantasy about wanting long term dependence on government programs for political gain, that is just right wing nonsense. Learn to tell the difference.
   75. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 04, 2014 at 01:25 PM (#4699972)
Take a few deep breaths and then try again.


Too many long words? Sorry about that. I will try to use shorter words and sentences in the next few posts to help you out. You can also use Google and such to look up the meanings of words if you need to.
   76. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 04, 2014 at 01:31 PM (#4699973)
As has been stated before reforming immigration and allowing illegals a chance at citizenship both has positive economic impact (real economists say so, JoeK doesn't believe it - the reader can decide who is ore credible regarding economics), even in the low skill job market (as has been described multiple times).

LOL. The idea that adding millions of low-skilled immigrants shifts the demand curve in such a way that not only results in the creation of millions of new jobs for the immigrants but also for a substantial portion of the millions of unemployed low-skilled Americans is pure fantasy. Go peddle this B.S. somewhere else.

We currently have ~11 million illegal immigrants, on top of the 14 million legal immigrants welcomed from 2000 to 2010. Other than in your head, where's the big resultant economic boom you keep promising?

But the primary reason for doing it is not economic. The primary reason is social justice.

Social justice requires us to amnesty ~11 million lawbreakers and then invite twice as many more immigrants into the country, despite ~10 percent real unemployment and stagnant wages? What about "social justice" for American workers who played by the rules but are being left behind?

See, when I have a political agenda, I am more than willing to admit it.

Huh? In #71, I said liberals were pushing immigration for political reasons and you flew into hysterics. You then posted a second comment claiming liberals were pushing immigration because it's a big economic winner and also a matter of "social justice." As always, there seems to be a hell of an argument going on in your head.
   77. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 04, 2014 at 01:58 PM (#4699981)
Huh? In #71, I said liberals were pushing immigration for political reasons and you flew into hysterics. You then posted a second comment claiming liberals were pushing immigration because it's a big economic winner and also a matter of "social justice." As always, there seems to be a hell of an argument going on in your head.


It is almost like you don't understand what I write. In #72 I was pointing out that reading everything as a liberal plot to enslave the world is ridiculous and how not surprised I was to see the two people doing it were you and Joey B is a Loon.

As I described in detail in 74, there is no liberal plot to make people dependent on "the dole" or any such fantasy. And the desire for immigration reform is fairly open we want the reform, and would want it even if it did not benefit us politically (see ACA for an example of liberal willingness to take a political hit if that is what it takes to do the right thing, civil rights legislation is another example).

However I admit it is nice to see the GOP squirm with both options being losers for them. That is pretty nice indeed.
   78. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 04, 2014 at 02:01 PM (#4699983)
It is almost like you don't understand what I write. In #72 I was pointing out that reading everything as a liberal plot to enslave the world is ridiculous and how not surprised I was to see the two people doing it were you and Joey B is a Loon.

Odd that you'd complain that I "don't understand what [you] write" in the same paragraph that you dishonestly claim I "read everything as a liberal plot to enslave the world."

As I described in detail in 74, there is no liberal plot to make people dependent on "the dole" or any such fantasy.

You mentioned dependency in exactly one sentence in #74, and it was just a hand-wave rather than a rebuttal.

And the desire for immigration reform is fairly open we want the reform, and would want it even if it did not benefit us politically

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
   79. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 04, 2014 at 02:14 PM (#4699985)
Odd that you'd complain that I "don't understand what [you] write" in the same paragraph that you dishonestly claim I "read everything as a liberal plot to enslave the world."


So you disagree with Joey the Loon when he says: "It's not counterproductive at all if your goal is to make as many people permanently dependent on government as possible. It serves that goal very nicely."

If you want to suggest he is totally wrong I will gladly admit I made a mistake when I read "Indeed" after quoting him as actually agreeing with what you quoted and he said.
   80. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 04, 2014 at 02:15 PM (#4699986)
So you disagree with Joey the Loon when he says: "It's not counterproductive at all if your goal is to make as many people permanently dependent on government as possible. It serves that goal very nicely."

No, I agree with that completely. But getting people dependent on government for political reasons isn't the same thing as "enslaving the world," whatever the hell that phrase was supposed to mean.

Slaves do actual work. The only work Dems want or expect from government dependents is to vote for Dems every two years.
   81. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 04, 2014 at 02:16 PM (#4699987)
   82. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 04, 2014 at 02:22 PM (#4699988)
Social justice requires us to amnesty ~11 million lawbreakers and then invite twice as many more immigrants into the country, despite ~10 percent real unemployment and stagnant wages? What about "social justice" for American workers who played by the rules but are being left behind?

The board's liberals have joined together with Big Capital to create a surplus army of cheap labor, which has been extraordinarily deleterious to black Americans. It's the primary source of "institutional racism" against blacks out there.
   83. Howie Menckel Posted: May 04, 2014 at 02:33 PM (#4699991)

that link to the WaPost article in No. 6 is worth a click, whatever one's predispositions.

one striking excerpt:

"I bet it was better in the days of Martin Luther King, for real," Tiara said. "At least back then people were angry. They were doing something. How do they expect us to live? We got no jobs, no opportunities, and now they're cutting our benefits? What's Obama doing, for real? How can you be a good president when half of your own city is like this? Yo, Mr. President! We're here, right under your nose, living, struggling, going nowhere."
   84. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 04, 2014 at 02:45 PM (#4699995)
No, I agree with that completely. But getting people dependent on government for political reasons isn't the same thing as "enslaving the world," whatever the hell that phrase was supposed to mean.


It is hyperbole, something you would have learned about in college. Was it also confusing in 74 when I wrote: "The fantasy about wanting long term dependence on government programs for political gain, that is just right wing nonsense"?

Because I was pretty clearly referencing that sentiment. But yeah I was being totally dishonest. Sheesh, sometimes I am just joshing you when I call you dumb, but other times. Anyway keep believing your right wing fantasies and always think the worst of people who disagree with you.

The board's liberals have joined together with Big Capital to create a surplus army of cheap labor, which has been extraordinarily deleterious to black Americans. It's the primary source of "institutional racism" against blacks out there.


Not to disappoint you or anything, but "the board's liberals" have very little power. Much as I would like to be on the level of "Big Capital" we are not.

In any event I am hardly a friend to big business in general (well in theory I support them, in practice they have enough power they don't need my support), but in this case they are correct on immigration reform (to a degree).
   85. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 04, 2014 at 02:49 PM (#4699996)
What about "social justice" for American workers who played by the rules but are being left behind?


Funny how the only time some people care about helping workers is not the safety net or affordable health insurance or work place safety regulations or educational opportunities or minimum wage or many other places, nope the only time workers matter is when immigration comes up. Funny, but not ha ha funny.
   86. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 04, 2014 at 02:51 PM (#4699998)
Not to disappoint you or anything, but "the board's liberals" have very little power.


We need to remember that when making the lineups for the softball game.
   87. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 04, 2014 at 02:58 PM (#4699999)
In any event I am hardly a friend to big business in general (well in theory I support them, in practice they have enough power they don't need my support), but in this case they are correct on immigration reform (to a degree).

Yes, big business is supporting amnesty and an increase in low-skilled immigration because big business knows it will lead to — and is dying to provide — better pay, better benefits, and better working conditions for the workers. LOL.

With friends like Bitter Mouse, American workers don't need enemies.
   88. BDC Posted: May 04, 2014 at 03:16 PM (#4700008)
I was of course nodding my head above, because I'm privy to the secret liberal plot to turn Texas blue by smuggling two million illegals across the border and waiting several decades for a citizenship bill to finally pass Congress. But then I remembered this story from last week:

U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Ennis {TX}, is making the surprising move to weigh in on the divisive national immigration debate with a bill of his own.

Barton said Sunday on Lone Star Politics on KXAS that his bill would give adults in the U.S. illegally a legal status but not citizenship while minor children brought to the country illegally, sometimes called Dreamers, would qualify as citizens. {...}

Barton, who represents parts of Tarrant County including Arlington, said he sees the situation differently for the children brought to the U.S. by their parents.

“They are Americans and we need to acknowledge that and find a way, to those that wish to be a part of the American dream for opportunity, to make them legal,” he said.

“Republicans need to start talking about it,” he said. “I’m a part of the majority party in the largest state that’s still Republican and I want to keep it that way.”


That's my Congressman, and he's not really liberal. How can I describe him … they call him "Smoky Joe" Barton because he came out in favor of air pollution. And though his bill is not all the way left on the issue, it's considerably centrist at the very least. It's openly political, on the theory that legalized "Dreamers" will grow up Republican because Smoky Joe gave them a path to citizenship. But it also provides for legal working status (and thus presumably for Social Security and other benefits) for non-citizens.

At least from where I'm sitting, if you think immigration reform is a very bad idea, you have to indict liberals, conservatives, and Big Capital.

   89. Lassus Posted: May 04, 2014 at 03:30 PM (#4700013)
With friends like Bitter Mouse, American workers don't need enemies.

I'm curious of your retort to #85.


At least from where I'm sitting, if you think immigration reform is a very bad idea, you have to indict liberals, conservatives, and Big Capital.

Allow me to answer for Joe:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
   90. Juilin Sandar to Conkling Speedwell (Arjun) Posted: May 04, 2014 at 03:31 PM (#4700015)
   91. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 04, 2014 at 03:41 PM (#4700019)
At least from where I'm sitting, if you think immigration reform is a very bad idea, you have to indict liberals, conservatives, and Big Capital.

If all three of those groups were equally in favor of "immigration reform," it would have happened already. Resistance from a majority of conservatives is all that has stopped it.

***
I'm curious of your retort to #85.

I reject its premise.
   92. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 04, 2014 at 04:15 PM (#4700029)
Of course, these jobs generally require significant skills; they're a lot tougher than say, being a stewardess. Let's be honest: almost any woman who is willing to do it can be trained to be a competent stewardess in a fairly short period of time.

Airlines haven't been allowed to restrict flight attendant jobs to women for ~40+ years.
   93. BDC Posted: May 04, 2014 at 04:17 PM (#4700030)
Resistance from a majority of conservatives

Sure. But I find it interesting that in a state where a large proportion of the population are illegals, and a large proportion of all illegals live, quite a few conservatives are to the left of many liberals elsewhere on immigration. All politics is local, and constituencies, even if only prospective ones, do get heard by politicians, however cynical. The story in in #88 is not made up, and it's not just posturing, either.
   94. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 04, 2014 at 04:24 PM (#4700033)
Sure. But I find it interesting that in a state where a large proportion of the population are illegals, and a large proportion of all illegals live, quite a few conservatives are to the left of many liberals elsewhere on immigration.

Which Texas conservatives are to the left of "many liberals elsewhere" on immigration? Joe Barton certainly isn't. Plans like his, which call for amnesty without a path to citizenship for non-Dreamers, have been called a "non-starter" and a "deal-breaker" by liberals.
   95. Joey B.: posting for the kids of northeast Ohio Posted: May 04, 2014 at 04:28 PM (#4700035)
As I described in detail in 74, there is no liberal plot to make people dependent on "the dole" or any such fantasy.

Yeah, right. This idea is so well-known that there's even a name for it: it's famously known as the Cloward-Piven strategy, after Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the two leftist Columbia college professors who first articulated the idea way back in 1966 of deliberately making as many people dependent on government as possible in order to intentionally overload the system.

In fact, the leftists here on this thread who argue for a "guaranteed national income" are simply making the same exact arguments that these two were making almost fifty years ago.
   96. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: May 04, 2014 at 04:48 PM (#4700043)
Quoting a long discarded theory of the sixties-era left as driving the entire edifice of 2014 era liberalism: obvious.

Suggesting that Nixon's race based electoral strategy from the 1960s might still be relevant today: trollery

But hey, at least we now know that Joey gets his talking points from the font of rambling insanity that is/was Glenn Beck.
   97. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: May 04, 2014 at 05:06 PM (#4700049)
But hey, at least we now know that Joey gets his talking points from the font of rambling insanity that is/was Glenn Beck.

In truth it's much more likely that Joey gets his talking points transmitted to him by his specially wired brown stained diaper, which beats him in an IQ shootout by a good 10 or 15 points.
   98. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 04, 2014 at 05:19 PM (#4700058)
In truth it's much more likely that Joey gets his talking points transmitted to him by his specially wired brown stained diaper, which beats him in an IQ shootout by a good 10 or 15 points.

We've been told that IQ isn't a reliable measure of intelligence.
   99. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: May 04, 2014 at 05:30 PM (#4700063)
In truth it's much more likely that Joey gets his talking points transmitted to him by his specially wired brown stained diaper, which beats him in an IQ shootout by a good 10 or 15 points.

We've been told that IQ isn't a reliable measure of intelligence.


That's not what Joey's diaper says.
   100. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 04, 2014 at 05:37 PM (#4700068)
Flip.
Page 1 of 45 pages  1 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jim Wisinski
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogCSN: Enough is enough — time to move on from Ryan Howard
(41 - 7:53am, Jul 24)
Last: Jeltzandini

NewsblogMLB: Tarp problems at Yankee Stadium
(7 - 7:52am, Jul 24)
Last: Bitter Mouse

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(2871 - 7:51am, Jul 24)
Last: Bitter Mouse

NewsblogAs shifts suppress offense, time has come to consider a rule change
(78 - 7:45am, Jul 24)
Last: Jeltzandini

NewsblogGeorge "The Animal" Steele Mangles A Baseball
(131 - 7:44am, Jul 24)
Last: a fatty cow that need two seats (cough, cough)

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(369 - 7:03am, Jul 24)
Last: Swedish Chef

SABR - BBTF ChapterWho's going to SABR??
(86 - 5:36am, Jul 24)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(852 - 3:31am, Jul 24)
Last: MikeOberly

NewsblogSports Reference Blog: 1901-02 Orioles Removed from Yankees History
(30 - 2:39am, Jul 24)
Last: DFA

Newsblog2015 Competitive Balance Lottery Results
(9 - 2:29am, Jul 24)
Last: DFA

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 7-23-2014
(50 - 2:16am, Jul 24)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogGoldman: Eliminating the shift a bandage for a phantom wound
(15 - 1:28am, Jul 24)
Last: jwb

NewsblogRubin: deGrom for NL rookie of the year?
(36 - 12:28am, Jul 24)
Last: KT's Pot Arb

NewsblogCameron Maybin Suspended 25 Games
(17 - 11:36pm, Jul 23)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogNats Fan in Colorado Shows Support with Curly W BEARD
(2 - 10:29pm, Jul 23)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

Page rendered in 0.9030 seconds
52 querie(s) executed