(03-11-2013 11:38 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 11:33 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 11:02 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 11:01 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Then it's not 'illegals' receiving benefits is it? Don't like it, change the citizenship law.

The anchor baby law was never intended to be an anchor baby law.

Then like I said you should lobby to change the law

(03-11-2013 11:16 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 11:01 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Then it's not 'illegals' receiving benefits is it? Don't like it, change the citizenship law.

That would cost to many votes.

So you want to dispose of democracy when the majority does not do what you want.

Not at all. Not sure where you got that. Just saying geopolitical reasons will prevent any substantial immigration reform.

Just a fancy way of saying racist.

(03-11-2013 11:45 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 11:42 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Let's look at this part of the data for a moment.

23% of District of Columbia residence on food stamps.

29.2% of District of Columbia residents are government employees.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160337/alaska...yment.aspx
Well over half of that 29.2% (18.8% to be exact) are federal employees with an average annual wage of $126,000. Safe to say those aren't receiving food stamps.
For arguments sake lets say that none of the government employees, federal or state, are receiving food stamps. That would mean 32% of non-government employees in DC receive food stamps.

Is this the direction the country needs to be headed?

That is a butchering of the statistics. That assumes that all food stamp recipients are employees. If your narrative were true (and it is to an extent) it's an indictment of the private sector's failure to bring along those at the bottom of the wage ladder with the ballooning income at the top.

It's a mistake in the way I wrote it. The DC population number I used was 506k. Removing the government employees that were assumed to not receive food stamps left a population of 402k. If 23% of the DC population receive food stamps (128k) and we reason that no government employee receives food stamps, then 128k of 402k residents (31.8%) receive food stamps.
There is an assumption there, and I did use the phrase 'for sake of argument' to clarify. The 32% figure is of the DC population and only assumes that none of them are government employees, not that all food stamp recipients are employed .

As for the wage ladder ballooning at the top, you are correct. I don't think however that it is poor reflection on the private sector since so many of DC residents that are in the private sector are lawyers or contractors to government agencies. A number of non-government employed residents of DC just happen to have high paying jobs. (The median private sector household income is 80K in DC as opposed to around 50K in the rest of the country.)
DC's poverty rate isn't any higher than that of VA. The problem is that of the "poor" residents in DC, 64% don't work. Even among married households 48% of the time neither individual works at all. http://www.city-data.com/poverty/poverty...umbia.html



*having trouble with the population numbers... cant find the article that said 5.6 million residents in DC but I know that isn't right. Think it was a miss-print and should have said 506,000. Trying to find it now.

(03-11-2013 12:22 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 11:45 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 11:42 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Let's look at this part of the data for a moment.

23% of District of Columbia residence on food stamps.

29.2% of District of Columbia residents are government employees.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160337/alaska...yment.aspx
Well over half of that 29.2% (18.8% to be exact) are federal employees with an average annual wage of $126,000. Safe to say those aren't receiving food stamps.
For arguments sake lets say that none of the government employees, federal or state, are receiving food stamps. That would mean 32% of non-government employees in DC receive food stamps.

Is this the direction the country needs to be headed?

That is a butchering of the statistics. That assumes that all food stamp recipients are employees. If your narrative were true (and it is to an extent) it's an indictment of the private sector's failure to bring along those at the bottom of the wage ladder with the ballooning income at the top.

It's a mistake in the way I wrote it. The DC population number I used was 617,996. Removing the government employees that were assumed to not receive food stamps left a population of 443,721. If 23% of the DC population receive food stamps (141,147) and we reason that no government employee receives food stamps, then 141,147 of 443,721 residents (31.8%) receive food stamps.
There is an assumption there, and I did use the phrase 'for sake of argument' to clarify. The 32% figure is of the DC population and only assumes that none of them are government employees, not that all food stamp recipients are employed .

As for the wage ladder ballooning at the top, you are correct. I don't think however that it is poor reflection on the private sector since so many of DC residents that are in the private sector are lawyers or contractors to government agencies. A number of non-government employed residents of DC just happen to have high paying jobs. (The median private sector household income is 80K in DC as opposed to around 50K in the rest of the country.)
DC's poverty rate isn't any higher than that of VA. The problem is that of the "poor" residents in DC, 64% don't work. Even among married households 48% of the time neither individual works at all. http://www.city-data.com/poverty/poverty...umbia.html



*having trouble with the population numbers... cant find the article that said 5.6 million residents in DC but I know that isn't right. Think it was a miss-print and should have said 506,000. Trying to find it now.

Fixed with accurate population numbers. I have no idea where 5.6 million came from, but the percentage didn't change so my math was right regardless.

(03-11-2013 11:45 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  it's an indictment of the private sector's failure to bring along those at the bottom of the wage ladder with the ballooning income at the top.

The private sector isn't a fvcking charity......

(03-11-2013 12:52 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 11:45 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  it's an indictment of the private sector's failure to bring along those at the bottom of the wage ladder with the ballooning income at the top.

The private sector isn't a ******* charity......

I never said it was, I was just pointing out the implications of his argument. Doesn't mean I think anyone owes anything to anyone (though I do think an employer owes a living wage to an employee)

(03-11-2013 01:04 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  (though I do think an employer owes a living wage to an employee)

And what's that?

(03-11-2013 12:20 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 11:38 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 11:33 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 11:02 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 11:01 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Then it's not 'illegals' receiving benefits is it? Don't like it, change the citizenship law.

The anchor baby law was never intended to be an anchor baby law.

Then like I said you should lobby to change the law

(03-11-2013 11:16 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 11:01 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Then it's not 'illegals' receiving benefits is it? Don't like it, change the citizenship law.

That would cost to many votes.

So you want to dispose of democracy when the majority does not do what you want.

Not at all. Not sure where you got that. Just saying geopolitical reasons will prevent any substantial immigration reform.

Just a fancy way of saying racist.

Or racial pandering.

(03-11-2013 01:06 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:04 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  (though I do think an employer owes a living wage to an employee)

And what's that?

I call it a pay check

(03-11-2013 01:13 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:06 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:04 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  (though I do think an employer owes a living wage to an employee)

And what's that?

I call it a pay check

......at an amount agreed upon by both parties.

(03-11-2013 01:15 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:13 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:06 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:04 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  (though I do think an employer owes a living wage to an employee)

And what's that?

I call it a pay check

......at an amount agreed upon by both parties.

Pretty much.

(03-11-2013 01:07 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 12:20 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 11:38 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 11:33 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 11:02 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  The anchor baby law was never intended to be an anchor baby law.

Then like I said you should lobby to change the law

(03-11-2013 11:16 AM)VA49er Wrote:  That would cost to many votes.

So you want to dispose of democracy when the majority does not do what you want.

Not at all. Not sure where you got that. Just saying geopolitical reasons will prevent any substantial immigration reform.

Just a fancy way of saying racist.

Or racial pandering.

Glad someone gets it.

(03-11-2013 01:15 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:13 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:06 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:04 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  (though I do think an employer owes a living wage to an employee)

And what's that?

I call it a pay check

......at an amount agreed upon by both parties.

Id just like to see these Progs come up with a figure. 9 dollars? Why not 10? Why not 15? Why not 50? It's all subjective bullsh*t meant to rile up the voters. It could go to 50 and once the shifts took place, 50 would be the new poverty level and they'd be b*tching about a new "living wage". They're just too stupid to realize it.

(03-11-2013 01:17 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:15 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:13 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:06 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:04 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  (though I do think an employer owes a living wage to an employee)

And what's that?

I call it a pay check

......at an amount agreed upon by both parties.

Id just like to see these Progs come up with a figure. 9 dollars? Why not 10? Why not 15? Why not 50? It's all subjective bullsh*t meant to rile up the voters. It could go to 50 and once the shifts took place, 50 would be the new poverty level and they'd be b*tching about a new "living wage". They're just too stupid to realize it.

You need a vacation, a beer, a blowjob, or something. Don't know why you are so angry but it's going to kill you. A heart attack at 40 is not the American dream.

(03-11-2013 01:20 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:17 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:15 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:13 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:06 PM)Rebel Wrote:  And what's that?

I call it a pay check

......at an amount agreed upon by both parties.

Id just like to see these Progs come up with a figure. 9 dollars? Why not 10? Why not 15? Why not 50? It's all subjective bullsh*t meant to rile up the voters. It could go to 50 and once the shifts took place, 50 would be the new poverty level and they'd be b*tching about a new "living wage". They're just too stupid to realize it.

You need a vacation, a beer, a blowjob, or something. Don't know why you are so angry but it's going to kill you. A heart attack at 40 is not the American dream.

I went and fired off about 100 rounds from my PSL-54C, 20 rounds of .45, about 10 of .380 (too expensive, thanks Obama), and about 30 rounds through my Mosin Nagant at a range in SC this weekend. I'm good.

(03-11-2013 01:20 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:17 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:15 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:13 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:06 PM)Rebel Wrote:  And what's that?

I call it a pay check

......at an amount agreed upon by both parties.

Id just like to see these Progs come up with a figure. 9 dollars? Why not 10? Why not 15? Why not 50? It's all subjective bullsh*t meant to rile up the voters. It could go to 50 and once the shifts took place, 50 would be the new poverty level and they'd be b*tching about a new "living wage". They're just too stupid to realize it.

You need a vacation, a beer, a blowjob, or something. Don't know why you are so angry but it's going to kill you. A heart attack at 40 is not the American dream.

Answer the question transistor. I already know you're an idiot, but I think it's funny when you show off about it.

(03-11-2013 01:20 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:17 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:15 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:13 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:06 PM)Rebel Wrote:  And what's that?

I call it a pay check

......at an amount agreed upon by both parties.

Id just like to see these Progs come up with a figure. 9 dollars? Why not 10? Why not 15? Why not 50? It's all subjective bullsh*t meant to rile up the voters. It could go to 50 and once the shifts took place, 50 would be the new poverty level and they'd be b*tching about a new "living wage". They're just too stupid to realize it.

You need a vacation, a beer, a blowjob, or something. Don't know why you are so angry but it's going to kill you. A heart attack at 40 is not the American dream.

Try being told your EKG showed signs of an old heart attack when you go in for a physical at 32. I got that news last year. When I asked what "old heart attack" meant the doctor said 4-7 years ago. All I could do was laugh. Went home, had a drink and told my wife it was her fault since we had known her for about 7 years.

In all seriousness, most wages are generally fair for the work being performed. It just so happens that fast-food or being employed in the "custodial arts" isn't enough to support a family now. Instead of looking for different or additional employment, individuals and families are looking to the government to make up the difference so that they can live above their means.

(03-11-2013 01:06 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:04 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  (though I do think an employer owes a living wage to an employee)

And what's that?

That's where a married guy with 4 children working at a car wash can afford a 3000 square foot house, two cars, college tuition for his kids, and still have enough left over to contribute to Obama.

(03-11-2013 01:46 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:06 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:04 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  (though I do think an employer owes a living wage to an employee)

And what's that?

That's where a married guy with 4 children working at a car wash can afford a 3000 square foot house, two cars, college tuition for his kids, and still have enough left over to contribute to Obama.

Not all of us are chemistry geniuses living in the desert.

(03-11-2013 02:10 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:46 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:06 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:04 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  (though I do think an employer owes a living wage to an employee)

And what's that?

That's where a married guy with 4 children working at a car wash can afford a 3000 square foot house, two cars, college tuition for his kids, and still have enough left over to contribute to Obama.

Not all of us are chemistry geniuses living in the desert.

man up transistor, answer the question.

(03-11-2013 02:17 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 02:10 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:46 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:06 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:04 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  (though I do think an employer owes a living wage to an employee)

And what's that?

That's where a married guy with 4 children working at a car wash can afford a 3000 square foot house, two cars, college tuition for his kids, and still have enough left over to contribute to Obama.

Not all of us are chemistry geniuses living in the desert.

man up transistor, answer the question.

He can't/won't. Libs don't operate that way, you know this. They just throw around ideas and talking points without basis or merit.