Biden No Garden Variety Liberal (He's Cream of the Crop)

[MJZiggy]

RG, It is a crime to hire an illegal. That is a disincentive, yet people do it anyway. Why? Because it's a cheap way to get things done. You cannot make it cheaper to hire a legal worker than to hire an illegal one. The sheer number of companies doing it make the odds of getting caught worth the risk. Think about the costs of trying to raid every company out there that could possibly be hiring an illegal worker. They used to try and do that and that is the enforcement policy that landed us where we are today. Frankly, I'd rather think outside the box to solve the problem and spend the money on something a little more worthwhile than paying people to run through the kitchens of every office, restaurant, farm and other organization that exists in the country looking for people who don't have the right papers.

And don't be snide about my taxes. If you're talking about a mandate, you should speak to how you think it should be funded.

And as to your parting shot, there's no reason to be an ass.

[retailguy]

RG, It is a crime to hire an illegal.

Yes, it is. But like deportation, overstaying a visa, sneaking into the country, or failing to leave when your visa expires, it isn't enforced with the regularity that it should be.

That is a disincentive, yet people do it anyway. Why? Because it's a cheap way to get things done.

That's one answer, and yes this happens. However, there are others. You mentioned migrants earlier. Let's use that example. There are jobs in this country that Americans do not want to perform. Sometimes it isn't a question of money, but, a question of not filling jobs. I used to live in California, where they pick a fair amount of strawberries. It's hot exhaustive work, and not for the faint hearted. People would rather stay home on welfare than work for what strawberry farmers pay. Some farmers hire illegals, because that's what they can find, who are willing to both work for what they pay, and willing to actually do the back breaking work.

You cannot make it cheaper to hire a legal worker than to hire an illegal one.

It doesn't need to be cheaper. You need to make the risk of hiring an illegal too great to take the chance. I don't pretend to have all the answers to that one, but I've got some theories that I think are better than what goes on today.

Your whole point about "rising" food costs won't happen. Too many foreign countries are shipping product here and are able to keep prices low. Farmers MUST find a way to compete. There is no other alternative.

There must be some kind of tax incentive, coupled with a national Social Security Database check, that would make it "attractive" for companies to participate. Maybe couple that with a guest worker program? Again, I don't have formulated answers, but I know that what BOTH SIDES are doing isn't working. At all.

The sheer number of companies doing it make the odds of getting caught worth the risk.

Yes and no. See above. I don't believe that there are this many "evil" companies, or rather companies run by "evil" people. Quite honestly, in California there are many people who believe as you do, and hire illegals as a matter of "principle".

I know a contractor in Washington State that is illegal. He's been here 20 years. Hires ONLY illegals. He thinks that he's in a position to help. I think he's making the problem worse. He disagrees.

Think about the costs of trying to raid every company out there that could possibly be hiring an illegal worker. They used to try and do that and that is the enforcement policy that landed us where we are today.

I'm not advocating raiding every company. I have seen firsthand that it doesn't work.

I would argue with you, that your policy of "looking the other way" or legalizing illegals has more to do with where we are than the enforcement. Quite honestly, those illegals that I've done taxes for, didn't file because they believed they needed to pay their fair share, they filed because they believe there will be an amnesty one day, and they want clear and convincing proof that they've been here and qualify.

Frankly, I'd rather think outside the box to solve the problem and spend the money on something a little more worthwhile than paying people to run through the kitchens of every office, restaurant, farm and other organization that exists in the country looking for people who don't have the right papers.

What you're proposing isn't out of the box. It's the same old hand wringing exercise that liberals have been doing for years. Just open the borders... Just give them licenses. Let them vote. buy houses. get free education. Basically reward them for breaking the law. I don't support that, even if we do a crappy job enforcing those laws.

And don't be snide about my taxes.

Look. You brought them up. I didn't. You "exaggerated" the impact of your taxes by being snide. If you don't want to open yourself up to those comments, don't make them. Reality - We ALL need to pay our fair share, whether we agree with policy or not. I have no idea what you make. You have no idea what I make. But you were griping about it, so I commented on it.

If you're talking about a mandate, you should speak to how you think it should be funded.

I don't think we need to spend any more money on ANY facet of Government then we already spend, including Border Patrol. I do believe that we need to spend that money differently.

Here is the most "liberal" thing I'll ever say - (listen close). How about a law, that says if the Border Patrol raids you and finds illegal workers, the business reimburses the Border Patrol the cost of the investigation? Of course, the Government needs to provide a database that the company can use to check legality for this to work, but why not? We pay every other kind of God Damned fee imaginable. You think that wouldn't cause some companies to think twice?

And as to your parting shot, there's no reason to be an ass.

Zig, I happen to think your comment was designed to be the same. You got very sarcastic, and quite honestly trotted out an idea that I could've bashed you over the head with and chose not to do so. You were talking about how you'd be "inconvenienced" if you had to pay more for food, tacitly agreeing that we need illegal workers to keep food prices down. I let that go.

I merely responded to what you said, and the argument you put forth. I didn't say you couldn't afford to pay taxes, YOU did. If that's the case, you should be focused on getting a better job, and not worrying about global policy...

In the end, I don't think I was any more of an ass than you were.

[MJZiggy]

RG, you seem to be putting words in my mouth as I didn't suggest DOING anything. Find where I advocated opening the borders. You won't. I didn't. I further didn't suggest that they be able to vote, but if they can get licenses, at least we know who they are and have some ID on them.

I suggested that the things that you're coming up with to be punitive because people aren't following the letter of the law are going to be expensive and difficult to enforce. What I'm suggesting is to find a less vitriolic way of dealing with the issue. Perhaps one that is favorable to all involved. We've got people complaining in other threads that inheritance taxes are killing the farmers, yet you figure that they will find SOME way to compete in a global market using legal workers who as you yourself just admitted aren't willing to do the work required to compete. Where are the farmers going to get the revenue to stay competitive? From government subsidies, of course. Seems to me you don't like those, but it's what it's going to take to keep our farmers afloat, unless you're suggesting that we import all of our food, thus increasing our dependence on other countries. I'd rather not do that.

You've also just taught me something interesting. See? I always thought that illegals did not contribute to our tax revenue. So these people are working AND paying taxes and you want to get rid of them. Why exactly? Because they didn't do the right paperwork? I think I'd rather deport the crackhead who's collecting whatever form of welfare is left and neglecting their kids, I think.

I further get the feeling that if you make penalties so stiff for hiring illegals, you're going to have people screaming about punishment that does not fit the crime. You also won't be able to use the SS system for tracking it because you can go downtown and buy a SS# for a couple hundred bucks. Doesn't do you much good down the line, but it gets you working right now.

[bobblehead]

You cannot make it cheaper to hire a legal worker than to hire an illegal one.

Actually you most certainly can. for instance, If I hire an illegal to save...say $1 an hour it benefits me 2000 a year. If the chance of getting caught in any given year is 20% it will take 5 years to catch me, saving me 10k. If the fine for hiring said illegal is 100k it is far cheaper to simply hire the legal. Its called cost analysis and companies do it all the time.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You cannot make it cheaper to hire a legal worker than to hire an illegal one.

Actually you most certainly can. for instance, If I hire an illegal to save...say $1 an hour it benefits me 2000 a year. If the chance of getting caught in any given year is 20% it will take 5 years to catch me, saving me 10k. If the fine for hiring said illegal is 100k it is far cheaper to simply hire the legal. Its called cost analysis and companies do it all the time.

Your example is hilarious. Let me know when it gets anywhere near 20% and business starts getting those kind of fines.

That will be the day the republican party loses the business crowd.

BRING IT ON!

[bobblehead]

You cannot make it cheaper to hire a legal worker than to hire an illegal one.

Actually you most certainly can. for instance, If I hire an illegal to save...say $1 an hour it benefits me 2000 a year. If the chance of getting caught in any given year is 20% it will take 5 years to catch me, saving me 10k. If the fine for hiring said illegal is 100k it is far cheaper to simply hire the legal. Its called cost analysis and companies do it all the time.

Your example is hilarious. Let me know when it gets anywhere near 20% and business starts getting those kind of fines.

That will be the day the republican party loses the business crowd.

BRING IT ON!

I thought it was clear I was pulling numbers out of the air to make a point. You put the real numbers out there (doing my research as I'm lazy) and i will calculate the appropriate fine. My point was that you can indeed make it cheaper to follow the law by making the consequences sufficient. You are a sharp guy, I'm surprised you could miss my point that badly.

Let me try again so you get it. Say I can hire an illegal for $7 less an hour so its 14k a year and I have a 2% chance of getting caught. I save 700k and the fine is 1 million it is cheaper to hire the legal...better?? you can use any numbers, if the penalty is more than the benefit the behavior will change.

How about the libs constituent....trial lawyers. If ford can settle exploding gas tanks on pintos for 5 million, but it costs 11 million to fix the problem they will leave it as is. But if a trial lawyer can win a 100 million verdict then ford will fix the problem. Its really quite simple.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You cannot make it cheaper to hire a legal worker than to hire an illegal one.

Actually you most certainly can. for instance, If I hire an illegal to save...say $1 an hour it benefits me 2000 a year. If the chance of getting caught in any given year is 20% it will take 5 years to catch me, saving me 10k. If the fine for hiring said illegal is 100k it is far cheaper to simply hire the legal. Its called cost analysis and companies do it all the time.

Your example is hilarious. Let me know when it gets anywhere near 20% and business starts getting those kind of fines.

That will be the day the republican party loses the business crowd.

BRING IT ON!

I thought it was clear I was pulling numbers out of the air to make a point. You put the real numbers out there (doing my research as I'm lazy) and i will calculate the appropriate fine. My point was that you can indeed make it cheaper to follow the law by making the consequences sufficient. You are a sharp guy, I'm surprised you could miss my point that badly.

Let me try again so you get it. Say I can hire an illegal for $7 less an hour so its 14k a year and I have a 2% chance of getting caught. I save 700k and the fine is 1 million it is cheaper to hire the legal...better?? you can use any numbers, if the penalty is more than the benefit the behavior will change.

How about the libs constituent....trial lawyers. If ford can settle exploding gas tanks on pintos for 5 million, but it costs 11 million to fix the problem they will leave it as is. But if a trial lawyer can win a 100 million verdict then ford will fix the problem. Its really quite simple.

I didn't miss the point...you missed the point that your argument is ridiculous. If we were to do this in reverse..i could say that if we spent 10 mill on every student we could wipe out illiteracy....we have to make our examples and points in the real world.

Your example is again flawed. No one hires one illegal..so multiply that by lets say 5-10 at the minimum (i realize that yes, there are single hirees, but, let's talk about the majority).

No, fine of a million is going to deter someone who saves 3.5...and, again, there is no fine ever going to be put at a million.

Like i said..that will be the day business leaves the republican party.

But, again, your example is so far from reality that you are talking basically out of your ass. Zirkle was fined a mill under the Rico statute and they don't employ just one person.

Under the plan, which becomes effective March 27, the minimum penalty for willingly hiring an unauthorized worker would go from $275 to $375. The maximum penalty will jump from $2,200 to $3,200, and the maximum for multiple violations will increase from $11,000 to $16,000.

You really think business is going to support increasing fines? LOL The dems won't be in favor of it..and business won't....buhbye republican party.

It is funny to hear you argue this..and then watch you guys argue against raising the minimum wage. If the wage increase is going to hurt businesses..isnt' that same gonna be true?

[bobblehead]

You again mistake me for being someone who is loyal to the republican party. I am loyal to what is smart/right. The fines indeed should be put at levels that persuade people to follow the law....anything else is just stupid. If the consequence for murder were $2200 guess what...a lot of people would be murdered.

We have proven that spending a ton of money on education doesn't necessarily equate success, but I will concede it helps. What you are talking about though is SPENDING money, or positive reinforcement...I am talking fines...negative reinforcement so your comparison isn't valid in the least. I am talking punishment, you are talking benefit...see the problem. I'm not sure how to put it any other way.

My example is flawed only in that our political system is flawed. It shouldn't matter that doing the right thing by the american people will cost a party big business money. I am arguing the way things should be, not the way they are.

Finally, this has nothing to do with a mandated minimum wage...an arbitrary number. It is supply of the work force. If you allow 20 million illegals to be employed you are deflating wages plain and simple. I have NEVER said a minimum wage increase will hurt business, it hurts people working on the low end...part time summer employees ect. I have said over and over again that the way to increase the lower wages is to strain the work force...drop unemployment to 2.5%, stop business from hiring 20 million illegals. Its supply and demand, when you get the supply of responsible workers down, the employer will sacrifice more of his bottom line to employ a good worker (ie...pay more).

[bobblehead]

[
Your example is again flawed. No one hires one illegal..so multiply that by lets say 5-10 at the minimum (i realize that yes, there are single hirees, but, let's talk about the majority).

Again, arbitrary numbers....make the fine a multiple of the violations. You said you do get my point but then you say this...i'm frustrated, I'm gonna go kick my dog.

[texaspackerbacker]

BHead, I don't confuse you for somebody who is loyal to the Republican Party.

What I do see you as, though, is somebody who, similar to the Libertarians you seem to fancy, doesn't like the idea of the government "making" anything happen.

The government doesn't "make' hiring illegals cheaper than hiring legal workers. The MARKET does that--the MARKET being something I would think you and the Libertarians would cherish over any government "making" of anything to happen.

True, illegals have broken the law. So have a lot of other people in a lot of situations. Limited resources make rounding up/punishing/whatever all of the various kinds of lawbreakers unfeasible. Therefore it comes down to prioritizing.

Illegals committing secondary crimes should be dealt with swiftly and severely, taking advantage of the fact that OUR civil rights and Constitutional protections don't apply to them. However, the great majority of illegals aren't hurting anybody, and are, in many cases, doing the jobs other people don't want to do for cheaper wages than others will do them, which is a benefit to all of us. I say leave them alone.

[bobblehead]

Limited resources make rounding up/punishing/whatever all of the various kinds of lawbreakers unfeasible.

couldn't we just print the money necessary to pay some people to round them up and then let the multiplier turn it into a positive for the economy??

[mraynrand]

Limited resources make rounding up/punishing/whatever all of the various kinds of lawbreakers unfeasible.

couldn't we just print the money necessary to pay some people to round them up and then let the multiplier turn it into a positive for the economy??

Better yet, let's go break some windows - the repair work will stimulate the economy.

[bobblehead]

Limited resources make rounding up/punishing/whatever all of the various kinds of lawbreakers unfeasible.

couldn't we just print the money necessary to pay some people to round them up and then let the multiplier turn it into a positive for the economy??

Better yet, let's go break some windows - the repair work will stimulate the economy.

Yea, cops get OT tracking down the vandels...carpenters get some work fixing them. Guys in factories have to manufacture more glass. Vandalism is good mmmkayy.

[Zool]

TI apparently endorsed Biden.

http://joe-biden.ytmnd.com/

[mraynrand]

TI apparently endorsed Biden.

http://joe-biden.ytmnd.com/

Well, that changes everything for me. I'm votin' for Obama now!!!