On 16 Aug 2012 11:27:21 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 15 Aug 2012 17:51:20 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 15 Aug 2012 12:51:07 GMT, Han wrote:

Jack wrote in
:

On 8/14/2012 7:49 PM, HeyBub wrote:
It is a federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal
office.

It's a federal crime to break into our country and be here
illegally, and the Feds ignore that crime as well...

Agriculture as we know it would cease if we didn't have illegal
aliens harvesting ... Guess who hires them

I call BULL**** on that one, Han. With so many people out of work
right now, I'd bet not one of those jobs went empty for very long if
we were to finally deport all the illegals.

I'm going by reports of harvest gone unharvested when Alabama or
Arizona or both decided to let illegals deport themselves, and they
did.

Did you mean Georgia? The farmers should have known that was coming
and made sure they had workers lined up beforehand, don't you think?
Or, if the state gov't pushed the deadline or hit them without
warning, they should have helped find workers for the farmers, don't
you think? I'm thinking the two groups bent -themselves- over this
time.

Alabama. This is a site that promotes the law that says you have to be
legal grin and led to the harvesting problems
http://www.alipac.us/f12/ala-governo...eting-illegal-
immigrants-257760/

Jesus, Han. You really -are- a liberal. sigh OK, how long did
farmers (and others who employ illegals) have to comply with laws
which were already on the books? How long did they have between the
time the bill was introduced and passed? The time frame is likely
_years, not just months. Why hadn't they rehired _legal_ replacements
during those many months and years, hmm?


'Course, I also believe that folks on unemployment should be given
only a limited time of being able to turn down jobs not in their
particular line of expertise. After 6 months (or less?), they
should be required take any job they might qualify for (a couple
days training or less?) to get off the unemployment roles. Unlimited
unemployment checks breed worse things. Get 'em off their asses!

I think that much unemployment or underemployment stems from
insufficient wages. But then, we have gotten used to cheap food and
other things cheap, so we're not willing to pay what we in all
likelihood should. I agree that people should take a job, almost any
job once their unemployment runs out. Who (OTOH) is in charge of
generating jobs for those whose prior jobs have disappeared? All this
is hugely easy for me to say, because I don't need a job anymore ...

That's just it. Unemployment isn't running out. Some people have been
on it for over three years, Han! I think that after whatever the
initial run is (I think it was 13 weeks when I last used it, back in
the '70s) and the unemployed person hasn't found work, they should be
forced to take whatever job IS available in their town, at their
unemployment office. If the wages are less than their unemployment
check (usually for very highly paid people), maybe cover the
difference? But the unemployment office isn't forcing anything. That
should change. Forcing unearned money on people isn't good for anyone
involved: Not the worker, not the EDD office, and not the taxpayers.

I'm not familiar with all the laws about unemployment, especially since
they seem to change often in terms of time periods covered. The problem
is not unemployment compensation in general, but the way the US (in
general) fails to generate employment and educational opportunities,
especially when the economy turns sour.

You're absolutely right. Since CONgress is all about power and money,
that's the way they think. They have no idea what honesty, truth,
integrity, or good work feel like.


I think that covering the
difference between previous high wages and the lower wages in current
opportunities has been considered in some places. But that can get dicey
very fast, especially in the middle income ranges. Example: Your
previous job had generous benefits and pension arrangements, but you were
RIF'ed. There is a new job somewhere else, but at 60% of your previous
wages, with less benefits and pension arrangements. If you do take that,
not only will you have to really limit your expenditures (including
probably selling your house at a moment it isn't advantageous), but your
resume will show that precipitous decrease. Not good for the next job.
Maybe that scenario isn't too important for farm workers and others, but
it is a very important point to a large portion of currently unemployed
middle income people.

If people hadn't been living so _far_ above their means in the first
place, the reduction wouldn't hurt nearly as bad and wouldn't cause
many of them to lose their homes, etc.

I also believe that many, if not most, middle management jobs
shouldn't have ever existed, so don't get me started there.

It'll hurt, with millions losing their jobs, but we need to shear off
all the unnecessary governmental divisions NOW. Duplication is really
rampant when as many as 30 agencies cover the same tasks. I don't
even want to hear about deficits when they can be immediately reversed
by cutting the minions who spend them. I want to see the US -debt-
start going down and down in my lifetime, please!

--
All of us want to do well. But if we do not do
good, too, then doing well will never be enough.
-- Anna Quindlen