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

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

OTP- August 2012: The Leader Post: New stadium won’t have same appeal, says Bill ‘Spaceman’ Lee

“Building a new stadium down the street does not work unless (Ron) Lancaster spilled some DNA in the lot where they’re going to build the new stadium,” he added. “You have to refurbish (Mosaic Stadium). You’ve got to can all new ideas you might have and use the sacred ground. Fenway did that and that is why Fenway is loved. The new Yankee Stadium isn’t the same as it used to be.”

The former Boston Red Sox and Montreal Expos pitcher will not be running for the vacant mayor’s position in Regina later this year. With his opinion on the new stadium, he wasn’t sure he would garner many votes anyway. But that is nothing new to the former member of the Rhinoceros Party. Lee ran on the Rhino ticket in 1988 for president of the United States. Not surprisingly, he didn’t make the ballot in a single state. He said one of the high-ranking members within the party gave him a six-pack of Molson Canadian and asked him to run for president.

“I adhered to their funny philosophy,” Lee said. “My campaign slogan was ‘No guns, no butter. They’ll both kill you.’ And I only campaigned in federal prisons where I knew they couldn’t vote, and I only accepted a quarter in campaign contributions.”

With it being an election year in the U.S., Lee said he is all in for the re-election of Barack Obama.

“The only time (Mitt) Romney opens his mouth is when he needs to change feet,” Lee said of the Republican nominee. “If Obama does lose this, which I can’t see happening, then it’s because of a lady in Florida who works for Jeb Bush and Diebold, the voting-machine company. If Obama even comes close to losing this election, it’ll be fraud.”

Guess what, its the new OT politics thread!

Tripon Posted: August 01, 2012 at 12:04 AM | 5975 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: boston, 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 9 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >  Last ›
   801. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 07, 2012 at 10:18 PM (#4202842)
Is it really that surprising that most of the people who are so disabled that they are physically unable to be cashiers are never able to successfully re-enter the workforce?


I was thinking the same thing. Kind of like that Parks and Rec episode where Ben was getting all sorts of grief from the town because the last 8 towns he went to went bankrupt.

"I'm a budget specialist. I went to those towns, because they were bankrupt."
   802. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 07, 2012 at 10:20 PM (#4202845)
Re the disability issue, what is the argument liberals are making? That the system is not scammed royally by many people who are able to work claiming disability?
   803. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 07, 2012 at 10:23 PM (#4202849)
Re the disability issue, what is the argument liberals are making?


I was largely ignoring it because it had very little to do with the argument I was having regarding immigration and the safety net. What argument do you want to have about it?
   804. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 07, 2012 at 10:24 PM (#4202850)
Not importing. When did I say importing? Are you saying I want to go into other countries and buy workers to send to the US? Importing workers? What does that even mean?

OK, scratch "importing" and replace it with "allowing in."

Not necessarily low skilled. You keep saying it and it keeps not being true.

Huh? You explicitly called for "more open immigration" in #753 and again in #778, the latter of which specifically advocated for more low-skilled immigration.

I think we need a reasonable immigration policy. Not one driven by fear of low skilled workers being imported and taking our jobs. Economics is not zero sum.

The U.S. will admit more legal immigrants this year than all other countries combined. I don't know who started this idea that the U.S. has an inhumane, restrictive, or even xenophobic immigration policy, but it's utter nonsense.

***
Yeah, but that's the modern-day conservatives' go-to move. Truth is trumped by dogma, repeated ad infinitum.

Yes, yes, we're all stupid mouth-breathers. No need to remind us every 3 minutes.
   805. booond Posted: August 07, 2012 at 10:26 PM (#4202854)
Yes, yes, we're all stupid mouth-breathers. No need to remind us every 3 minutes.


You're stupid mouth breathers, of course you need to be reminded every three minutes.
   806. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 07, 2012 at 10:31 PM (#4202855)
Hey, we get to call ourselves "stupid mouth-breathers," but it's insensitive when you do it. Maybe even racist.
   807. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 07, 2012 at 10:32 PM (#4202856)
The U.S. will admit more legal immigrants this year than all other countries combined. I don't know who started this idea that the U.S. has an inhumane, restrictive, or even xenophobic immigration policy, but it's utter nonsense.


Where did I say "inhumane, restrictive, or even xenophobic"? You keep veering off into the ether.

The US has benefited more from immigration than every other nation in the world combined. We allow in the most (I'll assume you are correct here, I did not check and don't know off hand). And still more people want to come here. They want to be here. They help us. Why are you against it?

Really, why? It is not concern for low wage workers, so what is it?

And in 778 in called out (again) you were restricting it to low skilled, but it was all immigration I was talking about. And still you zoomed back to low skilled. Why?
   808. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 07, 2012 at 10:39 PM (#4202860)
Where did I say "inhumane, restrictive, or even xenophobic"? You keep veering off into the ether.

You said, "I think we need a reasonable immigration policy. Not one driven by fear of low skilled workers being imported and taking our jobs." That seemed to imply that you believe the current immigration system is unreasonable and/or xenophobic.

And still more people want to come here. They want to be here. They help us. Why are you against it?

Some of them do, but many of them don't. For people with only a high school diploma, it's borderline impossible to find a job that pays a living wage, and yet liberals seem to want almost unrestricted low-skilled immigration, including immigrants who never made it to high school let alone graduated.

Really, why? It is not concern for low wage workers, so what is it?

It's not? I've taken a lot of heat here for advocating higher wages at the lower end of the job market. So has 'snapper.' We want people to have the dignity of well-paying jobs rather than have an ever-increasing number of people be paid by the government to go sit in some corner and not cause trouble.

And in 778 in called out (again) you were restricting it to low skilled, but it was all immigration I was talking about. And still you zoomed back to low skilled. Why?

I "zoomed back to low-skilled" because that's been my central point in this discussion. At no time have I come out against high-skilled immigration, so there's nothing to argue about there.
   809. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 07, 2012 at 10:50 PM (#4202868)
You said, "I think we need a reasonable immigration policy. Not one driven by fear of low skilled workers being imported and taking our jobs." That seemed to imply that you believe the current immigration system is unreasonable and/or xenophobic.


No, I was suggesting that you were arguing based on fear, and your immigration criteria was based there. I can see why you thought that though.

I never said almost unrestricted, but I do think more open than we currently have makes sense. You think immigrants take our jobs, I think they add to our economy, especially if we have a good solid safety net to reduce any economic disruption caused by the immigration.

I suspect we are not going to arrive at any agreement.


   810. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 07, 2012 at 10:58 PM (#4202873)
You think immigrants take our jobs, I think they add to our economy, especially if we have a good solid safety net to reduce any economic disruption caused by the immigration.

I don't understand this at all. How does the U.S. economy benefit by having low-skilled immigrants come and displace other workers into the so-called "safety net"? I understand the trickle-down effect of a brilliant Chinese Ph.D. coming to the U.S. and bumping some lesser American Ph.D. down a notch on the food chain, but how does the U.S. economy benefit from a low-skilled immigrant taking a fast-food job or housekeeping job and bumping an American into the "safety net"?

Unless the "safety net" pays less than the lowest-paid job, the system you describe has all sorts of problematic disincentives. (Can we agree that it's repugnant for people in the "safety net" to make more for not working than people who bust their butts as housekeepers, farm workers, etc.?)
   811. McCoy Posted: August 07, 2012 at 11:19 PM (#4202888)
There are studies indicating that illegal immigration depresses wages for low skill workers. That's not really in doubt. Supply and demand, you know.

Well, you're probably talking about Joe's poster boy of an economic expert who he widely touted the last time this came up despite never reading anything of his or really knowing anything about the guy or his work. A couple of years later they did an "oopsie" and admitted the numbers were way off.
   812. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 07, 2012 at 11:32 PM (#4202895)
There's more than one study, including a GAO report. Why is it not beyond dispute that increasing the supply of unskilled workers has a downward effect on their wages? It would be the same for skilled labor, too.
   813. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 07, 2012 at 11:35 PM (#4202897)
Well, you're probably talking about Joe's poster boy of an economic expert who he widely touted the last time this came up despite never reading anything of his or really knowing anything about the guy or his work. A couple of years later they did an "oopsie" and admitted the numbers were way off.

???
   814. Spahn Insane Posted: August 07, 2012 at 11:37 PM (#4202901)
I will gladly sign onto any program that forces the job creators to do that in exchange for elimination of 'safety nets'.

I was gonna say--seems to me Joe's observation that SSI disability payments (for those who qualify) offers a better standard of living than a lot of low-wage jobs is a good argument for raising the minimum wage. I suspect Joe would disagree, however, for reasons that aren't clear to me.
   815. McCoy Posted: August 07, 2012 at 11:38 PM (#4202902)
Really? You don't remember your beloved Borjas and how you acted like he was the greatest expert on this topic up until it came out he used flimsy data to arrive at an erroneous number?
   816. McCoy Posted: August 07, 2012 at 11:39 PM (#4202903)
There's more than one study, including a GAO report. Why is it not beyond dispute that increasing the supply of unskilled workers has a downward effect on their wages? It would be the same for skilled labor, too.

Because numerous studies haven't found it.

As I said way back when the economy isn't some 10 by 10 foot box that doesn't expand or contract. The economy grows and shrinks.
   817. Spahn Insane Posted: August 07, 2012 at 11:42 PM (#4202905)
Incidentally (and I speak from some experience representing clients in this area, though not for the past 11 years), qualifying for SSI payments, if you're a younger individual (under age 50) is not easy. I feel that's worth mentioning, in light of Joe's labeling it "the new welfare."
   818. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:03 AM (#4202915)
Really? You don't remember your beloved Borjas and how you acted like he was the greatest expert on this topic up until it came out he used flimsy data to arrive at an erroneous number?

"[My] beloved Borjas"? Five seconds with Google shows that Ron J. was the first to mention Borjas in that old thread, and then you mentioned him second in what turned out to be a Yosemite Sam-like citation. I'm kind of surprised you'd want to revisit that thread, but thanks for linking it.
   819. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:09 AM (#4202919)
The U.S. will admit more legal immigrants this year than all other countries combined. I don't know who started this idea that the U.S. has an inhumane, restrictive, or even xenophobic immigration policy, but it's utter nonsense.

What is your source for this fact? Is this excluding countries in the EU? The US allows about 1 million legal immigrants per year this article Germany was very close to that number recently.

I don't doubt that we have a relatively accomodating immigration policy compared to most countries, but there are still obvious problems. I have a friend who moved to the U.S. with his family when he was 10, grew up to become valedictorian of his high school, graduated with high honors from Harvard, and was studying for his Ph.D in political science when, at age 31, he was detained by INS for weeks and threatened with deportation. Apparently his parents had moved here and applied for political asylum, but their application had been denied and they just never left. His case is still in the system as far as I know, but he would have already been deported by now if there had not been a very vocal outpouring of public support and his Congressman had not gotten involved.
   820. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:19 AM (#4202923)
"[My] beloved Borjas"? Five seconds with Google shows that Ron J. was the first to mention Borjas in that old thread, and then you mentioned him second in what turned out to be a Yosemite Sam-like citation. I'm kind of surprised you'd want to revisit that thread, but thanks for linking it.

Really? You think you came off well in that thread? You were utterly and totally wrong on virtually every single point you tried to make and what's more you were revealed to know virtually nothing on any of the topics you had such strong opinions on.
   821. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:22 AM (#4202924)
Incidentally (and I speak from some experience representing clients in this area, though not for the past 11 years), qualifying for SSI payments, if you're a younger individual (under age 50) is not easy. I feel that's worth mentioning, in light of Joe's labeling it "the new welfare."

I don't know how you define "easy," but there's been a huge uptick in people receiving SSI benefits in recent years. I guess it's possible that a million Americans had the misfortune of becoming disabled just as their unemployment benefits were running out, but it seems highly unlikely.

***
What is your source for this fact? Is this excluding countries in the EU? The US allows about 1 million legal immigrants per year this article Germany was very close to that number recently.

Germany's annual immigration rate was between 100,000 and 200,000 per year and I believe it's been on the decline. As for the E.U., is there even such a thing as intra-E.U. "immigration"? I thought E.U. citizens could travel freely and pursue work wherever they want.

I don't doubt that we have a relatively accomodating immigration policy compared to most countries, but there are still obvious problems. I have a friend who moved to the U.S. with his family when he was 10, grew up to become valedictorian of his high school, graduated with high honors from Harvard, and was studying for his Ph.D in political science when, at age 31, he was detained by INS for weeks and threatened with deportation.

I don't see why this is a U.S. problem rather than a problem with your friend's parents. They never came clean about their status? He made it to age 31 without figuring out he wasn't a U.S. citizen?
   822. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:28 AM (#4202927)
Germany's annual immigration rate was between 100,000 and 200,000 per year and I believe it's been on the decline. As for the E.U., is there even such a thing as intra-E.U. "immigration"? I thought E.U. citizens could travel freely and pursue work wherever they want.

Here you go

The number of new immigrants to Germany last year topped 958,000, which is 20 percent more than 2010. Another reason for the exceptionally high immigration rate was the end of restrictions on people looking to immigrate from new EU member states in eastern and southeastern Europe: Poland, Hungary and Romania.


Another little tidbit


Overall, Germany's population is estimated to have reached 81.8 million last year while its unemployment rate - unlike those of its European neighbours - has actually fallen to 6.8%.


So once again Germany appears to be a huge counter point to your grand opinions.
   823. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:34 AM (#4202929)
And an update from the last thread about immigration from Mexico.

The largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States has come to a standstill. After four decades that brought 12 million current immigrants—most of whom came illegally—the net migration flow from Mexico to the United States has stopped and may have reversed, according to a new analysis of government data from both countries by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center.

The sharp downward trend in net migration from Mexico began about five years ago and has led to the first significant decrease in at least two decades in the unauthorized Mexican population. As of 2011, some 6.1 million unauthorized Mexican immigrants were living in the U.S., down from a peak of nearly 7 million in 2007, according to Pew Hispanic Center estimates based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Over the same period, the population of authorized immigrants from Mexico rose modestly, from 5.6 million in 2007 to 5.8 million in 2011.


   824. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:36 AM (#4202930)
Really? You think you came off well in that thread? You were utterly and totally wrong on virtually every single point you tried to make and what's more you were revealed to know virtually nothing on any of the topics you had such strong opinions on.

Every single point? We were really only arguing one point, and despite all your bloviating and your odd resurrection of that thread, you never refuted my point. *You* were the one who cited Borjas, and then I ran with it. As I said in that thread:

You have a very strange habit of posting things that prove the other person's point while stridently claiming they prove yours.

The premise was that low-skilled illegal immigrants undercut the wages of native-born low-skilled workers. You post an article quoting "America's leading authority on the economics of immigration" as saying low-skilled illegal immigrants had an 8.2 percent negative impact. Then you come back and say, Wait a minute, they revised the numbers! It was only a 4 percent negative impact.

How is this a "gotcha"? Obviously, negative 4 is smaller than negative 8, but it's still negative, which was the point all along.


Your big rebuttal was this:

Well, they actually don't really know what the number is. They ran a simulation with certain assumptions and found that the impact would be 3.6% over 20 years. But be my guest and hold on to that new number like your life depended upon it despite the fact that they have already admitted they used flimsy data once.


What a circus. *You* cited Borjas, it blew up in your face all Yosemite Sam-like, and then you stomped off like a petulant child. Now, for reasons known only to you, you popped up here some 5 months later to resurrect that old conflagration, and try to claim that Borjas was my "beloved source." It's not only comical, but shamelessly dishonest. I know being a Cubs fan can drive people crazy, but come on.
   825. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:40 AM (#4202931)
You live a delusional life. Congrats, life must be blissful on Andora Six.
   826. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:43 AM (#4202932)
And an update from the last thread about immigration from Mexico.

The largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States has come to a standstill. After four decades that brought 12 million current immigrants—most of whom came illegally—the net migration flow from Mexico to the United States has stopped and may have reversed, according to a new analysis of government data from both countries by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center.

The sharp downward trend in net migration from Mexico began about five years ago and has led to the first significant decrease in at least two decades in the unauthorized Mexican population. As of 2011, some 6.1 million unauthorized Mexican immigrants were living in the U.S., down from a peak of nearly 7 million in 2007, according to Pew Hispanic Center estimates based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Over the same period, the population of authorized immigrants from Mexico rose modestly, from 5.6 million in 2007 to 5.8 million in 2011.

LOL. As I just said in #824, you have a very strange habit of posting things that prove the other person's point while stridently claiming they prove yours.

If not basic supply and demand in the U.S. labor market, how do you explain the drop-off in illegal immigration from Mexico during the Great Recession?
   827. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:52 AM (#4202937)
So once again Germany appears to be a huge counter point to your grand opinions.

Are you serious? Did you even read your own link? Here's the lede:

Germany has been looking for skilled workers, and last year saw the highest rate of immigration in more than 15 years. More and more people are coming from crisis-wracked EU countries.

[...]

More than half of those seeking Mourmouri's advice are highly qualified.

"Many of these people are engineers, doctors and academics who simply have no opportunities at home. There are also a lot of young people," said Mourmouris.

German business and industry are glad to see the skilled workers. "Due to Germany's aging population, the country needs some 2 million skilled workers from abroad," said Dieter Hundt, president of the German Employers Association. Workers are especially in demand in the technical sector.

The entire point of this discussion, and the entire point of last March's discussion, was the impact of low-skilled immigration on native low-skilled workers. And you believe a story that talks about large numbers of "engineers, doctors, and academics" emigrating to Germany is a "gotcha"? Absurd.
   828. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:53 AM (#4202938)
So because immigration from Mexico has declined it obviously means that immigrants have suppressed wages? Nice leap based on no evidence on than your really strong feelings on the subject.

   829. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:55 AM (#4202940)
The entire point of this discussion, and the entire point of last March's discussion, was the impact of low-skilled immigration on native low-skilled workers. And you cite a story that talks about "engineers, doctors, and academics" emigrating to Germany as a "gotcha"?

So what about the other half? Once again Joe hand waves away anything he doesn't like but if he spots a speck of sand on the floor that happens to look like something he stridently believes in he'll grab it and wave it around to the entire world like he just found a 10 pound bar of gold.
   830. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 01:03 AM (#4202942)
So because immigration from Mexico has declined it obviously means that immigrants have suppressed wages? Nice leap based on no evidence on than your really strong feelings on the subject.

Huh? How did you get from A to B?

I never claimed there had been an uptick in illegal immigration during the recession. I was replying to 'Bitter Mouse's calls for more immigration, including more low-skilled immigration. It's simply ludicrous to suggest that adding more low-skilled workers at a time of high unemployment among low-skilled workers would have anything other than a negative effect on wages.

So what about the other half? Once again Joe hand waves away anything he doesn't like but if he spots a speck of sand on the floor that happens to look like something he stridently believes in he'll grab it and wave it around to the entire world like he just found a 10 pound bar of gold.

The low-skilled half? What about them? If an economy suddenly adds 500,000 more doctors and lawyers and engineers, common sense says there will be increased demand for housekeepers, kitchen staff, laborers, etc. But that's not remotely what happened in the U.S. over the past decade when it comes to illegal immigration. There haven't been any doctors or engineers swimming across the Rio Grande.
   831. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 01:27 AM (#4202945)
But that's not remotely what happened in the U.S. over the past decade when it comes to illegal immigration. There haven't been any doctors or engineers swimming across the Rio Grande.

Oh really?

For the first time, the influx of Asians moving to the U.S. has surpassed that of Hispanics, reflecting a slowdown in illegal immigration while American employers increase their demand for high-skilled workers.

An expansive study by the Pew Research Center details what it describes as "the rise of Asian-Americans," a highly diverse and fast-growing group making up nearly 6 percent of the U.S. population. Mostly foreign-born and naturalized citizens, their numbers have been boosted by increases in visas granted to specialized workers and to wealthy investors as the U.S. economy becomes driven less by manufacturing and more by technology.

International students studying at U.S. colleges and universities also are now most likely to come from Asian countries, roughly 6 in 10, and some of them are able to live and work in the U.S. after graduation. Asian students, both foreign born and U.S. born, earned a plurality (45 percent) of all engineering Ph.D.s in 2010, as well as 38 percent of doctorates in math and computer sciences and 33 percent of doctorates in the physical sciences.

In recent years, more than 60 percent of Asian immigrants ages 25 to 64 have graduated from college, double the share for new arrivals from other continents.

As a whole, the share of higher-skilled immigrants in the U.S. holding at least a bachelor's degree now outpaces those lacking a high-school diploma, 30 percent to 28 percent.

   832. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 01:28 AM (#4202946)
I was replying to 'Bitter Mouse's calls for more immigration, including more low-skilled immigration. It's simply ludicrous to suggest that adding more low-skilled workers at a time of high unemployment among low-skilled workers would have anything other than a negative effect on wages.


If it is simply ludicrous I would think you could actually cite some evidence besides just saying over and over how insane or ludicrous it is.
   833. Tripon Posted: August 08, 2012 at 01:32 AM (#4202947)
What are you guys citing as low skilled labor? Construction? Landscaping? Working as a cook?
   834. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 01:41 AM (#4202948)
But that's not remotely what happened in the U.S. over the past decade when it comes to illegal immigration. There haven't been any doctors or engineers swimming across the Rio Grande.

Oh really?

This is like Bizarro World. I mentioned low-skilled immigration from Mexico "over the last decade," and you come back with an article from 5 weeks ago that discusses a very recent uptick in high-skilled immigration from Asia.

If it is simply ludicrous I would think you could actually cite some evidence besides just saying over and over how insane or ludicrous it is.

The Mexicans choosing to stay at home in Mexico, whom you cited in #823, seem to understand how supply and demand affects the labor market. Perhaps one of them can explain it to you.
   835. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:13 AM (#4202950)
This is like Bizarro World. I mentioned low-skilled immigration from Mexico "over the last decade," and you come back with an article from 5 weeks ago that discusses a very recent uptick in high-skilled immigration from Asia.


I asked about about the low skilled immigrants coming to Germany and you replied that it doesn't matter because of the high skilled workers coming and that it doesn't apply to America. I gave a link that shows it does apply to America but apparently you want to hand wave it away because you're bringing up things from a decade ago when talking about what we need to do today.

The Mexicans choosing to stay at home in Mexico, whom you cited in #823, seem to understand how supply and demand affects the labor market. Perhaps one of them can explain it to you.

So no evidence then? Of course not.
   836. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 08, 2012 at 08:37 AM (#4202984)
Re the disability issue, what is the argument liberals are making? That the system is not scammed royally by many people who are able to work claiming disability?


I'll take this one, Ray. No. The system is not "scammed royally by many people," etc, et al. Sure, there exist scammers in the margins, but you'll be hard pressed to show any reasonable evidence of large scale corruption or scamming. (Not that this will stop you from using marginal anecdote to "prove" your point and avoid the fact that the scamming you assume to exist en masse doesn't actually exist en masse, but, well, you know, Rafeal Belliard hit a couple of homeruns, but he wasn't a power hitter.)
   837. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 08, 2012 at 08:39 AM (#4202985)
I'm pretty sure Joe's intransigence and aversion to any sort of fact/statistical based reasoning on the immigration/jobs debate is a function of his religious like faith in supply side economics. It certainly looks, at casual blush, like his position there is a simple inversion of traditional supply-sider argumentation re: "job creation." He seems to think that the demand for immigrant labor is driven by the supply of immigrant labor, rather than the more obvious fact that the supply for immigrant labor is driven by the demand for it.
   838. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 08, 2012 at 08:45 AM (#4202988)
He seems to think that the demand for immigrant labor is driven by the supply of immigrant labor, rather than the more obvious fact that the supply for immigrant labor is driven by the demand for it.


And, when the immigrants arrive their presence - buying houses, food, clothing, needing haircuts, and so on - sparks additional demand. The number of jobs is not fixed. If it was additional laborers in an economy would do what he seems to think it does, but economies are more complex than that.
   839. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 08, 2012 at 08:55 AM (#4202994)
I've taken a lot of heat here for advocating higher wages at the lower end of the job market. So has 'snapper.'


Something we agree on. Higher minimum wage would help a great deal.

I was busy so I never answered this question.

Unless the "safety net" pays less than the lowest-paid job, the system you describe has all sorts of problematic disincentives. (Can we agree that it's repugnant for people in the "safety net" to make more for not working than people who bust their butts as housekeepers, farm workers, etc.?)


The safety net should ideally function similarly to a progressive tax code, but in reverse. There is an amount of total aid when the recipient has no income. As the income goes up the aid goes down, but slower than the income goes up. Thus there is always an incentive to work more and make more. At some point the aid stops, because the recipient makes enough to get by without it. So the safety net does not pay more than the lowest paying job, the net suppliments the lowest paying job, but the lowest paying job still has more total income than someone with no job.

The idea is you encourage people to work. But there is a minimum floor where people have what they need to live, provide for their children and so on. Of course it is never so simple as it should be, because there are in fact some people who will try to cheat the system and there are those who will make the whole thing very complex in execution, but the idea is pretty basic.
   840. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 08, 2012 at 08:56 AM (#4202996)
And, when the immigrants arrive their presence - buying houses, food, clothing, needing haircuts, and so on - sparks additional demand. The number of jobs is not fixed. If it was additional laborers in an economy would do what he seems to think it does, but economies are more complex than that.


Agreed. Let's call this a quiet, non-handslappy high five, I guess.
   841. zonk Posted: August 08, 2012 at 09:04 AM (#4203003)
I want to go back to Mitt's taxes for a moment, especially in light of Joe bringing up the "50% pay no income taxes" canard --

Josh Marshall had an interesting post/exchange with a PE guy yesterday regarding Romney and taxes - and pointed out that Romney has never explicitly said he paid income taxes - just "taxes". Obviously, since I assume Romney has traveled, bought goods and services in a variety of states, and owns plenty of properties -- I'm quite sure he's paid TAXES, but I can't find a single statement from Camp Romney that explicitly says income taxes.... unless someone can point me to one that I missed?

The TPM Post is here -- key excerpts below.

there’s a possibility that Romney paid very little (i.e. less than 10%) income taxes during the 2002 to 2009 period in many of those years. It is quite possible that some of those years could have approached zero. There’s a lot of different ways to make that happen, through standard structuring/gifting, offshore planning, charitable contributions, and favorable recent tax laws for carried interest and capital gains. I think you should try and pivot the discussion around “were these income taxes that Romney paid” and not “did Romney pay taxes.”

* * *

Yes, but you’re missing the piece on the timeline where Romney cut a retirement deal with his partners to buy out his shares in the Bain Capital management company. Where it could be zero is if Romney had previously contributed his shares of the Bain Capital management company that he controlled 100% of into his IRA over the years.

* * *

This is pure speculation — but I think you if you and your team worked a little harder talking to estate planning lawyers and trust experts who work with senior private equity partners and professionals (good luck getting them on the record, but it is really much more nuanced for private equity than your everyday run of the mill wealthy individual), you could sketch out a number of hypothetical situations and I think add more credibility to Reid’s position.

It’s entirely possible Romney paid zero income taxes, and possibly nominal capital gains taxes (i.e. less than 15 percent). In fact, since he wasn’t being paid income but presumably was liquidating his stake in Bain Capital, in the perspective of the IRS, he wasn’t earning any income — just selling assets (Bain management company back to his other partners).


FWIW - while taxes aren't my particular bailiwick, the company I work for is a major player in Tax and Accounting publishing and software. We have a good number of well respected, non-partisan analysts -- including a pretty well known expert in retirement and estate tax planning. For the record, he's apolitical -- socially moderate, but a fiscal hawk -- he doesn't really have a horse personally in the coming election... but I've worked with him for about 10 years, so I ran the item above by him and he agrees that it's entirely possible that Romney paid no income taxes at various points over the last 10 years using some of the suppositions above. He's a little less sure about the ability to avoid capital gains taxes - but did say that a smart, aggressive accountant might be able to find a way to do it that was at least defensible (i.e., in such a way that if the IRS audited and tried to pursue recompense - it would be hazy enough that they'd almost certainly settle for less than the straight-up bill).

   842. CrosbyBird Posted: August 08, 2012 at 09:12 AM (#4203010)
I'll take this one, Ray. No. The system is not "scammed royally by many people," etc, et al.

Many is a tricky word to refute. It's quite possible that several hundred or even several thousand people are scamming the system. There are some egregious examples and while it's difficult to get disability if you don't completely deserve it*, it's not impossible.

But say there are 10000 people scamming the system (I would say that's an insanely high estimate, mind you). There are almost 14 million people collecting disability; we'd be talking about less than 1% of the people on disability being cheats. Those 10000 people would cost the system around $11M out of the $10B spent each month. It's hard to imagine any sort of system that would have much greater chance of catching those people without delaying/denying legitimate claims or costing more than $1 per recipient to implement.

It's much like the voter fraud argument. The cost (in terms of legitimately qualified voters being discouraged from exercising their voting rights) greatly exceeds the benefit (eliminating what amounts to an exceptionally tiny number of cheats even with the most generous estimate).

*My mother tried to get disability (before realizing what the government means by disabled), and I've seen the forms and have some insight into the process. It is a substantial undertaking to demonstrate complete inability to work, and it's not like the government just takes your word for it.
   843. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 08, 2012 at 09:18 AM (#4203012)
It's much like the voter fraud argument. The cost (in terms of legitimately qualified voters being discouraged from exercising their voting rights) greatly exceeds the benefit (eliminating what amounts to an exceptionally tiny number of cheats even with the most generous estimate).


This is exactly my point. It's another example of Ray wanting to thrown the baby out with the bathwater, because he has decided that the baby is part of the problem without actually thinking through the issue in any detail at all. It's up to opponents of SSI disability to show there's anything approaching the level of "fraud" to rationalize the elimination or modification of a program that does so much social good otherwise.
   844. CrosbyBird Posted: August 08, 2012 at 09:25 AM (#4203016)
The safety net should ideally function similarly to a progressive tax code, but in reverse. There is an amount of total aid when the recipient has no income. As the income goes up the aid goes down, but slower than the income goes up. Thus there is always an incentive to work more and make more. At some point the aid stops, because the recipient makes enough to get by without it. So the safety net does not pay more than the lowest paying job, the net suppliments the lowest paying job, but the lowest paying job still has more total income than someone with no job.

Exactly. Under the current system, there are indeed perverse incentives, but that's a problem of implementation as opposed to an inherent problem with the system.

Our current system gives people reasonable benefits if they are completely destitute, but gives them practically nothing if they're just poor. The aid doesn't scale very well, so it creates a gap that encourages some abuse (although the amount of abuse is highly exaggerated).
   845. Spahn Insane Posted: August 08, 2012 at 09:33 AM (#4203021)
Incidentally (and I speak from some experience representing clients in this area, though not for the past 11 years), qualifying for SSI payments, if you're a younger individual (under age 50) is not easy. I feel that's worth mentioning, in light of Joe's labeling it "the new welfare."

I don't know how you define "easy," but there's been a huge uptick in people receiving SSI benefits in recent years. I guess it's possible that a million Americans had the misfortune of becoming disabled just as their unemployment benefits were running out, but it seems highly unlikely.


Like I said, it's been a while since I practiced in this area, so I can't speak from firsthand experience in terms of how leniently my clients are being treated at the application and appeals stages, but historically, it's been the case that SSI requires disability such that you really can't do any class of job (i.e., can't stand for 8 hours, can't sit still for 8 hours, can't do manual labor, can't do anything requiring fine motor skills; education level comes into it too). I can't say how much that's changed in 11 years (I'll research it when I get a few minute), but as seen here, your "10 million" figure is wrong; the combined total of those receiving "SSI only" or "SSI and Social Security" is around 7 million. EDIT: 9 million, if you include those over 65, but I don't think that's who you were talking about.
   846. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 08, 2012 at 09:40 AM (#4203025)
My mother tried to get disability (before realizing what the government means by disabled), and I've seen the forms and have some insight into the process. It is a substantial undertaking to demonstrate complete inability to work, and it's not like the government just takes your word for it.


In 2007 my brother was involved in an auto accident in rural north GA. The truck he was in hit the median at speed, rolled 15-20 times, killing the driver and leaving my brother essentially dead on the pavement. He was helicoptered to trauma in Atlanta where he was unconscious for 32 days. He had spinal fusion on the C1 and C2 vertebrae, a trach tube to breathe, and a fluid valve to drain his lungs while he was bed ridden. He rehabbed for 12-18 months after coming out of the coma, has significant personality changes due to blunt force concussive damage to his brain, and has days where he simply can not stand, much less do basic labor, for more than a few hours at a time.

It took him 3 years to get through SSI and validate that he was, in fact, disabled.

He still works odd jobs where he can, to supplement the very small check he gets from SSI, but it's virtually impossible for him to hold down a long term job because an employer can't have a guy that has to call out as regularly as he would.

I'll need to see some serious, hard statistical evidence from the "it's a scam" crowd before taking their position seriously. I strongly suspect they are projecting ideology onto the world rather than observing the world and constructing a pragmatic lens from those observations.
   847. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 08, 2012 at 09:45 AM (#4203031)
I can't say how much that's changed in 11 years (I'll research it when I get a few minute), but as seen here, your "10 million" figure is wrong; the combined total of those receiving "SSI only" or "SSI and Social Security" is around 7 million. EDIT: 9 million, if you include those over 65, but I don't think that's who you were talking about.


If he's counting the over 65s, then that would probably account for the "huge uptick" in SSI benefits. Something about Boomers hitting retirement age, etc.
   848. Ron J2 Posted: August 08, 2012 at 09:46 AM (#4203032)
#842 Can't find the article right now, but I recall reading in the Economist that a very high percentage of California police officers retire with disability benefits.

I did find a briefing note that claims, "the average cost to his city of employing a police officer or firefighter was $180,000 a year" (the person quoted was Chuck Reed, the mayor of San Jose and a Democrat), but it didn't have any details on the seemingly very high levels of successful disability claims.
   849. booond Posted: August 08, 2012 at 09:52 AM (#4203041)
If he's counting the over 65s, then that would probably account for the "huge uptick" in SSI benefits. Something about Boomers hitting retirement age, etc.


There was an uptick in SSI from people near 65 who lost jobs and needed to grab that money to survive.
   850. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 08, 2012 at 09:53 AM (#4203043)
#842 Can't find the article right now, but I recall reading in the Economist that a very high percentage of California police officers retire with disability benefits.


Federal benefits? Assuming it's the case, that sounds like an example of California's police unions gaming the system.
   851. Ron J2 Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:05 AM (#4203053)
#850 Honestly don't recall whether they were federal benefits, but I know that the thrust of the article was indeed what you said -- that there was systemic gaming of the disability system by the police union.

I have found a number of letters to the editor that seem to be in response to the article. At any rate lots of angry, your author doesn't understand how hard it is to qualify for disability.
   852. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:16 AM (#4203057)
Wayne Allen Root, coming strong with the crazy:


I am President Obama’s classmate at Columbia University, Class of ’83. I am also one of the most accurate Las Vegas oddsmakers and prognosticators. Accurate enough that I was awarded my own star on the Las Vegas Walk of Stars. And I smell something rotten in Denmark. Obama has a big skeleton in his closet. It’s his college records. Call it “gut instinct” but my gut is almost always right. Obama has a secret hidden at Columbia- and it’s a bad one that threatens to bring down his presidency. Gut instinct is how I’ve made my living for 29 years since graduating Columbia
Now all of this mystery could be easily and instantly dismissed if Obama released his Columbia transcripts to the media. But even after serving as President for 3 1/2 years he refuses to unseal his college records. Shouldn’t the media be as relentless in pursuit of Obama’s records as Romney’s? Shouldn’t they be digging into Obama’s past–beyond what he has written about himself–with the same boundless enthusiasm as Mitt’s?

...

The first question I’d ask is, if you had great grades, why would you seal your records? So let’s assume Obama got poor grades. Why not release the records? He’s president of the free world, for gosh sakes. He’s commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. Who’d care about some poor grades from three decades ago, right? So then what’s the problem? Doesn’t that make the media suspicious? Something doesn’t add up.

Secondly, if he had poor grades at Occidental, how did he get admitted to an Ivy League university in the first place? And if his grades at Columbia were awful, how’d he ever get into Harvard Law School? So again those grades must have been great, right? So why spend millions to keep them sealed?

Third, how did Obama pay for all these fancy schools without coming from a wealthy background? If he had student loans or scholarships, would he not have to maintain good grades?

I can only think of one answer that would explain this mystery.

Here’s my gut belief: Obama got a leg up by being admitted to both Occidental and Columbia as a foreign exchange student. He was raised as a young boy in Indonesia. But did his mother ever change him back to a U.S. citizen? When he returned to live with his grandparents in Hawaii or as he neared college-age preparing to apply to schools, did he ever change his citizenship back? I’m betting not.

If you could unseal Obama’s Columbia University records I believe you’d find that:

A) He rarely ever attended class.

B) His grades were not those typical of what we understand it takes to get into Harvard Law School.

C) He attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student.

D) He paid little for either undergraduate college or Harvard Law School because of foreign aid and scholarships given to a poor foreign students like this kid Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.

If you think I’m “fishing” then prove me wrong. Open up your records Mr. President. What are you afraid of?


   853. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:18 AM (#4203060)
#842 Can't find the article right now, but I recall reading in the Economist that a very high percentage of California police officers retire with disability benefits.

Federal benefits?


Likely not, likely some program negotiated with their municipality. Theres' been stories in NYC about a disability "ring" involving a few corrupt ex-cops, and a few corrupt MDs and attys.

A lot of time the threshold for non- SocSec "disability" programs- private/state etc., is a lot lower than the Federal kind, and there is less oversight, more opportunities to game the system.

   854. The Good Face Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:24 AM (#4203065)
Theres' been stories in NYC about a disability "ring" involving a few corrupt ex-cops, and a few corrupt MDs and attys.


Let's not forget about this gem.
   855. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:25 AM (#4203068)
To my mind the question society needs to answer regarding welfare, disability, and so on is (to be simplistic) what is the goal? What are the desired trade off between providing benefits and preventing gaming the system?

A) Provide the most benefits for the money and accept some gaming of the system as the cost of providing benefits.
B) Provide benefits and enforcement with the money, discouraging gaming of the system, but knowing it still goes on. How much enforcement to be determined by an estimate of $ spent on enforcement versus $ spent on those gaming the system.
C) Benefits need to only go to those who are deserving. Gaming the system is morally wrong and needs to be prevented, so spending more money to reduce gaming the system than is saved is OK.
D) Governments should not be providing these benefits in the first place.

All of the options above (and yes there are more options and various complexities - including how much money should be spent on the effort) are valid options for a philosophy on how to allocate money. I favor A, but I am very OK with B. I suspect most conservatives lean strongly towards C. And of course some would argue for D.

Scary anecdotes and such are really disguised (or not so disguised) arguments to push the discussion towards C.
   856. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:29 AM (#4203071)
If he's counting the over 65s, then that would probably account for the "huge uptick" in SSI benefits. Something about Boomers hitting retirement age, etc.


An old parasite is still a parasite. Have they stopped making ice floes?
   857. Shredder Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:29 AM (#4203072)
If you could unseal Obama’s Columbia University records I believe you’d find that:

A) He rarely ever attended class.
Do they actually take attendance and note it in your record at Ivy League schools? When I was in college a particular professor may take attendance for his/her own purposes. I'm pretty sure I took attendance for the Speech Com classes I taught, but that never went into anyone's records. The only thing you got in your transcripts was grades. And if he "rarely went to class" and still had good grades, who would even care?
   858. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:32 AM (#4203076)
Secondly, if he had poor grades at Occidental, how did he get admitted to an Ivy League university in the first place? And if his grades at Columbia were awful, how’d he ever get into Harvard Law School? So again those grades must have been great, right? So why spend millions to keep them sealed?


My favorite is the "Why spend millions to keep the sealed?". Really? It is costing millions to not release school records? And how does being a successful bookie (excuse me oddsmaker) make him more credible?

Had Mitt released all his school transcripts? Have various political leaders on both sides called for either of them to release their school transcripts?

I would love for this to go viral. Anything to keep talking about Mitt's tax returns, even if we have to also talk about crazy birther theories regarding Obama at the same time. I think the GOP or some PAC needs to grab this and run with it. I am positive this is exactly what Mitt needs to bond with the public and to make sure Obama is "vetted" at long last.
   859. The Good Face Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:34 AM (#4203080)
An old parasite is still a parasite. Have they stopped making ice floes?


Finally, a compelling argument to do something about global warming.
   860. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:35 AM (#4203081)
August 08, 2012 at 10:16 AM (#4203057)
Wayne Allen Root, coming strong with the crazy:


This is gonna be a fun campaign season.
Though to be honest I kind of like one of his suggestions- Romney *should* offer to release his returns in exchange for Obama releasing his college records

Of course I say that without knowing what is in either man's stuff-

Romney knows what is in his tax stuff, and he may decide that under no circumstances will he release- it's just not worth the risk that maybe Obama will accept the offer...

One other thing, Root asks, how did Obama, a man without much $, get into Ivy League Schools, my guess would have been "affirmative action," but no, Root says, "maybe he got a leg up as a foreign exchange student"

I do not know how the acceptance of international students works at Obama's schools, but I do know how it works at several NYS schools and... no, being a "foreign exchange student" does not get you a "leg up" insofar as admissions and finances are concerned- in fact it does the nothing or even the opposite.
   861. zonk Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:36 AM (#4203083)
Do they actually take attendance and note it in your record at Ivy League schools? When I was in college a particular professor may take attendance for his/her own purposes. I'm pretty sure I took attendance for the Speech Com classes I taught, but that never went into anyone's records. The only thing you got in your transcripts was grades. And if he "rarely went to class" and still had good grades, who would even care?


Great... there goes my political career -- there are multiple people that can speak directly to my poor record of college class attendance; one of whom still holds a grudge 20 years later because I scored better on a final for a class he diligently attended while I slept in/slept one off.
   862. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:36 AM (#4203085)
Shouldn’t they be digging into Obama’s past–beyond what he has written about himself–with the same boundless enthusiasm as Mitt’s?


Yeah, lemme know when the big media investigations on Romney's church and pastor are scheduled to air. I heard he has to wear magic underwear or he doesn't get to be god of his own planet when he dies.

So again those grades must have been great, right? So why spend millions to keep them sealed?


Harvard charges money to not release transcripts? How does that work, exactly?
   863. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:42 AM (#4203094)
In 2007 my brother was involved in an auto accident in rural north GA. The truck he was in hit the median at speed, rolled 15-20 times, killing the driver and leaving my brother essentially dead on the pavement. He was helicoptered to trauma in Atlanta where he was unconscious for 32 days. He had spinal fusion on the C1 and C2 vertebrae, a trach tube to breathe, and a fluid valve to drain his lungs while he was bed ridden. He rehabbed for 12-18 months after coming out of the coma, has significant personality changes due to blunt force concussive damage to his brain, and has days where he simply can not stand, much less do basic labor, for more than a few hours at a time.

It took him 3 years to get through SSI and validate that he was, in fact, disabled.


And so your attempted refutation of my point by telling me I am focusing on the "scammers in the margins" is followed by you posting evidence of activity in the margins.
   864. zonk Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:47 AM (#4203100)
Serious question...

Has anyone -- beyond graduate school applications -- ever released, sent, or even seen their college transcripts? I've been in the professional world for 15 years now, applied for various positions, associations, etc. I've had my education credentials (i.e., proof of degree) verified, but to the best of my knowledge, neither I nor anyone else has viewed my 'college transcripts'...even my first white collar job out of college, it never came up... and some of the other stuff - 'senior papers'? I suppose if you have a post-graduate degree, such things are held a little more 'securely'/permanently -- but despite being an English major that wrote dozens if not hundreds of papers, I seriously doubt that either I or my alma mater could produce a copy of one if both our existences depended on it.

Maybe I should be a little more active in alumni matters --- perhaps there's someone famous or running for office whom I could vaguely recall and about whom I could make 'suppositions' about for $$$$. I was a classmate of Zach Braff and somewhat knew him (a friend dated him briefly)... Anyone wish to offer me a check to spill some of his college beans?
   865. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:47 AM (#4203101)
I do not know how the acceptance of international students works at Obama's schools, but I do know how it works at several NYS schools and... no, being a "foreign exchange student" does not get you a "leg up" insofar as admissions and finances are concerned- in fact it does the nothing or even the opposite.


Where I went foreign students had a strong leg up in aid and admissions. Of course a varied background (like spending time as a child in Indonesia) also would have helped there. But, I went to a small left wing liberal arts college. And I do mean left wing. I was centrist or even to the right of that student body. Flag burnings on a semi-regular basis (by others, not me). It was silly and actually drove me to the right for a while (well more center actually), because they were so over the top. I hear things have gotton much more normal there now though.
   866. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:47 AM (#4203102)
And so your attempted refutation of my point by telling me I am focusing on the "scammers in the margins" is followed by you posting evidence of activity in the margins.


No, Ray, my post was to provide clarity and intellectual honest as to my position in this debate. I'm not a lawyer. I'm more interested in honest discourse than holding cards to the vest and hoping to score gotcha points later on.
   867. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:48 AM (#4203105)
Like I said, it's been a while since I practiced in this area, so I can't speak from firsthand experience in terms of how leniently my clients are being treated at the application and appeals stages, but historically, it's been the case that SSI requires disability such that you really can't do any class of job (i.e., can't stand for 8 hours, can't sit still for 8 hours, can't do manual labor, can't do anything requiring fine motor skills; education level comes into it too)

I think perhaps that some may be confusing/conflating two programs

SSI is "Supplemental Security Income"- you can qualify without being disabled- if you are over 65, otherwise if younger you have to be disabled- SSI also has income qualifications

Social Security disability requires you to be disabled and under 65

so having SSI rise at the same time

1: The economy is in the toilet; and
2: The babyboomer cohort is trendling past 65

Is something that should be expected .
   868. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:49 AM (#4203106)
I'm sure the Romney campaign, who desperately need the centrist-undecided voters to flock to their cause, love this guys neo-Birther outburst.
   869. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:49 AM (#4203111)
Has anyone -- beyond graduate school applications -- ever released, sent, or even seen their college transcripts?


Nope. Nor my gradute school transcripts (other than employers verifying back in the day I did in fact get my Masters Degree). Once you are in the real world basically no one cares.
   870. Lassus Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:51 AM (#4203112)
And so your attempted refutation of my point by telling me I am focusing on the "scammers in the margins" is followed by you posting evidence of activity in the margins.

I understand - and was waiting - for this point. It simply brings home the persecution philosophy that drives all your positions: It is not the minority but the majority of people who are trying to screw me - and all like me - with the help of the government, which also exists solely to screw me.

How can you wonder why people find such positions untenable? They are the definition of manic.
   871. Spahn Insane Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:52 AM (#4203114)
I think perhaps that some may be confusing/conflating two programs

SSI is "Supplemental Security Income"- you can qualify without being disabled- if you are over 65, otherwise if younger you have to be disabled- SSI also has income qualifications


Right, which is why the chart I linked stratifies "old age payments" versus "disability payments," as well as recipients over and under 65. (And yes to the income qualifications, which I didn't mention.)
   872. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:53 AM (#4203115)
Serious question...

Has anyone -- beyond graduate school applications -- ever released, sent, or even seen their college transcripts?


10-15 years ago there was a phase when employers were asking to see them- because a few high profile cases indicated that gee, sometimes people lie about their qualifications... but that phase ended.

My firm does not ask to see transcripts, and I don't think I've seen mine is nearly 18-20 years
   873. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:55 AM (#4203119)
Here is an article Joe K might like. It lays out the case for why Romney is the favorite.
   874. Spahn Insane Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:55 AM (#4203120)
Do they actually take attendance and note it in your record at Ivy League schools? When I was in college a particular professor may take attendance for his/her own purposes. I'm pretty sure I took attendance for the Speech Com classes I taught, but that never went into anyone's records. The only thing you got in your transcripts was grades. And if he "rarely went to class" and still had good grades, who would even care?

I don't recall my undergrad school even having a formal attendance policy. My law school had a school-wide policy (think you were required to attend 80 percent of class sessions to be allowed to sit for the final exam, which in most classes constituted 100 percent of your grade), but few if any profs enforced it.
   875. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:57 AM (#4203122)
Has anyone -- beyond graduate school applications -- ever released, sent, or even seen their college transcripts?


Eh, I had to submit my graduate school transcripts to a university where I applied for an academic research post, but I can sorta understand that given the nature of the work it entailed (prions). Other than that, I don't think I've ever had any sort of academic credential requested by a potential employer.
   876. Randy Jones Posted: August 08, 2012 at 11:00 AM (#4203128)
Two of the jobs I applied to out of grad school asked for my undergrad and grad transcripts. Both were US govt jobs though, one a civilian position with the Army and the other, coincidentally, with SSA(which is the job I actually took). No other job I applied to asked for my transcript. For reference, this was in 2004.
   877. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 08, 2012 at 11:04 AM (#4203135)
I understand - and was waiting - for this point. It simply brings home the persecution philosophy that drives all your positions: It is not the minority but the majority of people who are trying to screw me - and all like me - with the help of the government, which also exists solely to screw me.

How can you wonder why people find such positions untenable?


Maybe, but I bet *those* people don't contribute more to society than they receive, like poor Ray here. I think he's a surgical oncologist at St Jude CRH or something.
   878. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 08, 2012 at 11:09 AM (#4203142)
Maybe, but I bet *those* people don't contribute more to society than they receive


Seriously though I believe pretty much everyone recieves more than they put in, because it is a non zero sum game with positive externalities. The whole is worth more than the sum of the individual parts is how many progressives look at things. Libertarians seem to think the opposite, which explains much of the disconnect.
   879. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 11:14 AM (#4203148)
I asked about about the low skilled immigrants coming to Germany and you replied that it doesn't matter because of the high skilled workers coming and that it doesn't apply to America. I gave a link that shows it does apply to America but apparently you want to hand wave it away because you're bringing up things from a decade ago when talking about what we need to do today.

Total nonsense. The U.S. had 10 to 15 million mostly low-skilled illegal immigrants pour into the U.S. over the past 10-15 years. Your big rebuttal was a link that showed a very recent uptick in high-skilled immigration from Asia, but showed no resulting demand for additional low-skilled workers.

Your goofy "Evidence? Of course not" shtick is equally inane. You complain of "hand-waving" but then hand-wave persistent high unemployment among low-skilled workers and wage stagnation at the lowest ends of the workforce while pushing some strange version of supply and demand that doesn't exist in the real world. The idea that five jobs are created every time five people sneak across the border is utterly ludicrous.

I'm pretty sure Joe's intransigence and aversion to any sort of fact/statistical based reasoning on the immigration/jobs debate is a function of his religious like faith in supply side economics. It certainly looks, at casual blush, like his position there is a simple inversion of traditional supply-sider argumentation re: "job creation." He seems to think that the demand for immigrant labor is driven by the supply of immigrant labor, rather than the more obvious fact that the supply for immigrant labor is driven by the demand for it.

Um, no. My argument all along has been that there's low demand for low-skilled workers, as illustrated by the high unemployment rate and the stagnant wages at low end of the workforce, which makes additional low-skilled immigration economically unwise. McCoy is the one claiming that the mere presence of low-skilled workers creates jobs, and there's zero evidence of that being true. If the mere existence or presence of low-skilled workers created jobs, then places like Mexico and Guatemala would have very low unemployment rate and upward wage pressure. (Ditto for the U.S.)
   880. just plain joe Posted: August 08, 2012 at 11:16 AM (#4203152)
Has anyone -- beyond graduate school applications -- ever released, sent, or even seen their college transcripts?


I had to supply copies of my transcripts when I applied for a U.S. government job in 2008. I'm fairly certain this is still the official policy for all jobs filled through OPM.

   881. Lassus Posted: August 08, 2012 at 11:22 AM (#4203157)
I need to start lying on more job applications.
   882. The Good Face Posted: August 08, 2012 at 11:30 AM (#4203165)
I need to start lying on more job applications.


Being deemed overqualified is usually worse than being deemed underqualified. I've often seen (and advocated for) moderately underqualified people get jobs on the basis that they have the potential to grow into the job. Also, you can pay them less. Overqualified applicants have their resumes shitcanned.

Although if you're ambitious enough, I guess you could just lie with wild abandon and get yourself into a job that you have absolutely no business being anywhere near. When I was in college, one of my professors was fired when it was discovered that not only did he not have the PhD he claimed, he had no degree at all. Ballsy guy.
   883. The District Attorney Posted: August 08, 2012 at 11:31 AM (#4203168)
I was a classmate of Zach Braff and somewhat knew him (a friend dated him briefly)... Anyone wish to offer me a check to spill some of his college beans?
No, but I am wondering why you let him live.

(Just kidding, of course! Sure he's a great guy!)
   884. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 11:45 AM (#4203191)
As if on cue, here's a story from Drudge:

Slow path to progress for U.S. immigrants — 43% on welfare after 20 years

Immigrants lag behind native-born Americans on most measures of economic well-being — even those who have been in the U.S. the longest, according to a report from the Center for Immigration Studies, which argues that full assimilation is a more complex task than overcoming language or cultural differences.

The study, which covers all immigrants, legal and illegal, and their U.S.-born children younger than 18, found that immigrants tend to make economic progress by most measures the longer they live in the U.S. but lag well behind native-born Americans on factors such as poverty, health insurance coverage and homeownership.

The study, based on 2010 and 2011 census data, found that 43 percent of immigrants who have been in the U.S. at least 20 years were using welfare benefits, a rate that is nearly twice as high as native-born Americans and nearly 50 percent higher than recent immigrants.

[...]

Mexicans were most likely to use means-tested benefit programs, with 57 percent, while 6 percent of those from the United Kingdom did. The rate for native-born Americans is 23 percent.

And this is all immigrants. A study of low-skilled immigrants would assuredly yield even worse results (unless we assume there's more demand for housekeepers than doctors).
   885. booond Posted: August 08, 2012 at 11:54 AM (#4203207)
Being deemed overqualified is usually worse than being deemed underqualified.


This is correct. I made numerous resumes to fit each job title as I noticed I wasn't getting any offers from jobs that were a level below. I tweaked experience so that it matched what they wanted and the interviews poured in. Didn't matter as a buddy hired me when he had an opening.
   886. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 08, 2012 at 11:56 AM (#4203210)
Oh. A story from *Drudge.* Let me race over there for that sort of unbiased analysis.

EDIT: And just for kicks, it's a link to the Moonies Times. Pass.
   887. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 11:57 AM (#4203214)
Oh. A story from *Drudge.* Let me race over there for that sort of unbiased analysis.

Yeah, we all know how Drudge does a lot of first-person reporting. I guess all the WaPo and NYT links there are useless, too.

And just for kicks, it's a link to the Moonies Times. Pass.

Yup, because your liberal rags certainly don't have the guts to explore non-P.C. topics. According to the NYT, every illegal immigrant is a future brain surgeon.
   888. Lassus Posted: August 08, 2012 at 11:58 AM (#4203216)
I've often seen (and advocated for) moderately underqualified people get jobs on the basis that they have the potential to grow into the job.

I'm sending in an app for one of these today. I'm also playing Powerball. We'll see what happens.


Didn't matter as a buddy hired me when he had an opening.

Ayup.
   889. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 08, 2012 at 11:59 AM (#4203217)
Yeah, we all know how Drudge does a lot of first-person reporting.


Drudge sets narrative for the echo chamber on the right. Nothing more, nothing less. To think a link to the Moonies via Drudge is going to be something that leads to legitimate analysis is to belie your own neck-deep swimming in the pool of Kool-Aid.
   890. zonk Posted: August 08, 2012 at 11:59 AM (#4203219)
Yup, because your liberal rags certainly don't have the guts to explore non-P.C. topics.


They're also not owned by someone who thinks he's Jesus, but you can't have everything, I guess...
   891. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:01 PM (#4203222)
Drudge sets narrative for the echo chamber on the right. Nothing more, nothing less. To think a link to the Moonies via Drudge is going to be something that leads to legitimate analysis is to belie your own neck-deep swimming in the pool of Kool-Aid.

If you define "legitimate analysis" as "discussed in the NYT," then of course it won't. The liberal rags you prefer are the Pravda of our times.

"10 percent unemployment among low-skilled workers? No problem! We need even more low-skilled immigrants!"
   892. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:01 PM (#4203223)
And to complete the circle-jerk nature of your link, Drudge links to the Moonbats who cite a study from an immigration "think tank" run by Mark Krikorian (who makes his day to day living writing up partisan bits for the National Review and NRO.)

But hey, keep pretending you're not just echoing out the echoes of echoes past, man. You have cognitive dissonance to avoid.
   893. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:02 PM (#4203224)
If you define "legitimate analysis" as "discussed in the NYT," then of course it won't. The liberal rags you prefer are the Pravda of our times.


Keep thinking that, chief. Rub one out while you're reading your propaganda of choice. Whatevs.
   894. OCF Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:02 PM (#4203225)
..no, being a "foreign exchange student" does not get you a "leg up" insofar as admissions and finances are concerned- in fact it does the nothing or even the opposite.

My recent experience comes from dealing with kids in Southern California high schools who do math contests, and would like to go to MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Caltech, etc. Their immigration status covers a wide range of possibilities (and I only know about immigration status in rare cases), mostly from China, Korea, and Taiwan (but with occasional eastern Europe thrown in). One message I've heard is that you do not want to be considered an international applicant to MIT - the international pool there is insanely competitive. But it may make less difference at Princeton.
   895. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:04 PM (#4203228)
I am shocked, simply shocked to discover ...
CIS was started in 1985 by a Michigan ophthalmologist named John Tanton — a man known for his racist statements about Latinos, his decades-long flirtation with white nationalists and Holocaust deniers, and his publication of ugly racist materials. CIS' creation was part of a carefully thought-out strategy aimed at creating a set of complementary institutions to cultivate the nativist cause — groups including the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and NumbersUSA. As is shown in Tanton's correspondence, lodged in the Bentley Historical Library at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Tanton came up with the idea in the early 1980s for "a small think tank" that would "wage the war of ideas."


Through it all, CIS pumped out study after study aimed at highlighting immigration's negative effects.


These studies have hardly been neutral. One of them concludes that because foreign women ("Third World gold-diggers") can obtain work permits by marrying American citizens, it's obvious that fraudulent marriage applications are "prevalent among terrorists." Another claims that because many immigrants have worked in Georgia since 2000, it's clear that unemployment among less educated native workers is up. A third says that because immigration levels have been high recently, immigrants make up a growing share of those drawing welfare.


But every one these claims, each of them at the heart of a different recent report from CIS, are either false or virtually without any supporting evidence. That came to fore again last September, when CIS organized a panel to accompany the release of yet another new report, this one claiming that municipalities in substantial numbers were permitting non-citizens to vote. When challenged, the panelists could only come up with a single possible example of the purported trend.

"CIS' attempts to blame immigrants for all of the U.S.'s problems have been laughable," said Angela Kelley of the Immigration Policy Center, a Washington, D.C., organization that uses well-known scholars to produce reports on immigration-related issues and has debunked many of the studies issued by CIS. "It is clear that CIS is not interested in serious research or getting the facts straight."


Drudge, pumping a story by the Washington Times sourcing a faux think tank? What are the odds?

Note: All quotes from the Southern Law Poverty Center.
Here is the link.
   896. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:04 PM (#4203229)
And to complete the circle-jerk nature of your link, Drudge links to the Moonbats who cite a study from an immigration "think tank" run by Mark Krikorian (who makes his day to day living writing up partisan bits for the National Review and NRO.)

Now who's "hand-waving"? The data was straight out of the U.S. census. Do you believe the Obama administration rigged the data?
   897. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:06 PM (#4203231)
Drudge, pumping a story by the Washington Times sourcing a faux think tank? What are the odds?

Note: All quotes from the Southern Law Poverty Center.
Here is the link.

Good grief, you're refuting data from the U.S. Census Bureau with quotes from the nutjobs at SLPC? Comical.

People here bash me when I express even the mildest doubt about unemployment numbers, but now you guys are doubting the Obama admin's Census Bureau?
   898. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:12 PM (#4203240)
Good grief, you're refuting data from the U.S. Census Bureau with quotes from the nutjobs at SLPC?


No. I am refuting the biased analysis of census data. I am sure the Census data is pretty darn good - though it does tend to undercount immigrants and other populations. Something they have tried to correct for and the GOP has stubbornly fought against - but that is a different argument.

So you think the SLPC and the Immigration Policy Center are less valid than the Washington Times and the CIS? It doesn't strike you as interesting that the CIS has an avowed "Low Immigration aim" and was founded by a clear racist?
   899. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:17 PM (#4203243)
Now who's "hand-waving"? The data was straight out of the U.S. census. Do you believe the Obama administration rigged the data?


Run along and put on your Steve Sailor suit, man. I don't have time for this.
   900. zonk Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:23 PM (#4203249)

No. I am refuting the biased analysis of census data. I am sure the Census data is pretty darn good - though it does tend to undercount immigrants and other populations. Something they have tried to correct for and the GOP has stubbornly fought against - but that is a different argument.

So you think the SLPC and the Immigration Policy Center are less valid than the Washington Times and the CIS? It doesn't strike you as interesting that the CIS has an avowed "Low Immigration aim" and was founded by a clear racist?


Oh please - next you'll be trying to tell me that Michael Young wasn't the most valuable player in the AL in 2011 even though he had the most hits in the AL last year. Michael Young had more hits than anyone else in the AL last year except Adrian Gonzalez, with whom he tied. This is a FACT. It was documented on bb-ref. Therefore, there is no coherent argument to be made that Michael Young wasn't the most valuable player in the AL in 2011.
Page 9 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-23-2014
(9 - 4:50pm, Oct 23)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(896 - 4:48pm, Oct 23)
Last: Howling John Shade

NewsblogKey question GMs have to weigh with top World Series free agents | New York Post
(17 - 4:47pm, Oct 23)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3369 - 4:46pm, Oct 23)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogAd Week: What Is Madeleine Albright Doing on the Wheaties Box?
(11 - 4:44pm, Oct 23)
Last: SoCalDemon

NewsblogI hope this doesn't get me fired. | FOX Sports
(14 - 4:39pm, Oct 23)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(41 - 4:39pm, Oct 23)
Last: bobm

NewsblogMcSweeneys: NEW BASEBALL STATISTICS.
(32 - 4:24pm, Oct 23)
Last: Der-K and the statistical werewolves.

NewsblogGold Glove Awards finalists revealed | MLB.com
(23 - 4:11pm, Oct 23)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogSalvador Perez, Hunter Strickland Exchange Words In World Series (GIF) | MLB | NESN.com
(25 - 3:59pm, Oct 23)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogStatcast: Posey out at the plate
(22 - 3:56pm, Oct 23)
Last: Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame)

NewsblogAJC: Hart says ‘yes’ to Braves, will head baseball operations
(9 - 3:51pm, Oct 23)
Last: Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(358 - 3:20pm, Oct 23)
Last: Squash

NewsblogMartino: Michael Cuddyer is a perfect free agent fit for NY Mets, who like him
(17 - 3:14pm, Oct 23)
Last: BDC

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(185 - 2:33pm, Oct 23)
Last: Jay Z

Page rendered in 1.1512 seconds
52 querie(s) executed