Since you are referring to something misspelled or a correctly spelled word placed in the wrong place, I assume you are referring to a post I made. Just insert whatever word or phrase makes me seem the smartest to you and that is what I meant.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 7:29 AM Jaime Solorza <[email protected]> wrote: > Good morning. Enacted vs in-acted ? Your phone has a strange sense of > phrasing... sarcasm? > On Mar 14, 2016 6:19 AM, "Lewis Bergman" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Every government action has unintended consequences. The fact that they >> have to be in-acted for a general problem with general solutions means that >> they fit only a small portion of the situations with any appropriateness. >> Everyone else just gets jammed through the same hole as the few that are >> the peg. >> >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:35 PM Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> That's a tough one. >>> >>> On one hand, with the government already giving out welfare checks that >>> could help with labor costs on small and medium farms - work the farm, get >>> a check. So, what's to encourage a farmer to pay more than minimum wage >>> (discouraging potential applicants internationally) if he can just tell the >>> Fed "send me workers". >>> >>> I also personally know cases of very good high level workers in various >>> industries who had problems for over a year finding a job - but once they >>> finally did after hundreds of applications, they were back to making six >>> figures or higher. It's hard to work somewhere for 20 years or more and >>> retire there unless in government or state work. >>> >>> Decent idea, but it would need some controls in place so it doesn't >>> cause inadvertent issues. >>> >>> +1 >>> On Mar 13, 2016 9:26 PM, "Rory Conaway" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I got to thinking about the labor issue with the farms. I’m having a >>>> hard time understanding how we can have tens of millions of people on >>>> government assistance and we can’t find farm workers. I’d like to make >>>> working on farms or other businesses being a requirement for a welfare >>>> check. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Rory >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Josh Reynolds >>>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 13, 2016 7:09 PM >>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT Anti-immigration - Puck 1893 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Some are here for jobs, some are here to escape massive corruption and >>>> drug cartels. These are jobs that most American's don't want to do - either >>>> the work is "too hard" or pay "too low" - which really the latter is true. >>>> I came from a farm community (Kentucky Tobacco) and have seen how hard they >>>> work. Many have two or three jobs, and they share a trailer and a truck. >>>> They take shifts sleeping on the available beds, and send most of their >>>> checks home to their families to take care of them. Some save to bring >>>> their families here. Very few of these workers were paid minimum wage, but >>>> they were often given a trailer to stay in (for the group). Rows and rows >>>> of trailers per farm. >>>> >>>> You deport these guys, American agriculture will suffer. The farm >>>> subsidies get sucked up by the conglomerates, and the regular guys get very >>>> little. >>>> >>>> The drug demand has nothing to do with illegal or legal. Have you ever >>>> done any drugs? Ever? My guess is no, but I've been wrong before - ask my >>>> wife! Drugs are an escape, a booster, and the harder ones are ruthlessly >>>> addictive, both physically and psychologically. Just once or twice is >>>> enough to make it very difficult if not impossible to overcome by yourself, >>>> if ever. And they are SO CHEAP (meth, heroin). >>>> >>> On Mar 13, 2016 8:49 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> Really, you think we would have massive illegal immigration if we had no >>>> jobs being offered then? >>>> You also believe that if nobody demanded drugs there would be people >>>> killing each other to get it here? >>>> We can disagree on if punishing a drug user is either right it would >>>> make any difference on then wanting the drug. But you surely cannot argue >>>> that it is demand that drives the supply, not the other way around. >>>> My point is just that the demand for cheap labor and the willingness to >>>> break the law to get it drives illegal immigration. I think you are letting >>>> your desire for penalty fee drug use get in the way of your judgement. >>>> OK, I made that last part up but you really don't understand the basics >>>> of supply and demand? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 8:08 PM Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> agreed >>>> >>>> Legal or illegal, has nothing to do with drugs. If people want to do >>>> something they will. >>>> >>>> On Mar 13, 2016 7:28 PM, "Jerry Head" <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> " Kind of like the drug problem. As long as you don't penalize the user >>>> you get increasing demand." >>>> >>>> This has got to be one of the most ignorant comments I have ever seen >>>> on this list. >>>> Wow.... >>>> >>>> On 3/13/2016 6:35 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote: >>>> >>>> I agree with that. Kind of like the drug problem. As long as you don't >>>> penalize the user you get increasing demand. If you don't punish the >>>> employer you get increasing demand. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 2:56 PM Jaime Solorza <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Far less than many believe.... you need documentation which of course >>>> can be faked...but percentage wise more welfare in southern states. Most >>>> undocumented workers fend for themselves holding two or three shit jobs no >>>> one wants. See who is working on highways late at night or in hot sun in >>>> Texas...a white foreman and ton of Hispanics.... I have travelled just >>>> about every rode in Texas.... go to Chile harvests in Hatch,NM. Like I >>>> said..no demand, no supply.... simple Adam Smith theory in action. >>>> >>>> On Mar 13, 2016 1:06 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Immigration should have been unfettered in 1893 because there was no >>>> welfare state in existence then. The combination of unrestricted >>>> immigration and a comprehensive welfare system has the potential to >>>> bankrupt the U.S. I have no idea if immigrants make up a larger part of the >>>> welfare system than any other, just that the potential is there. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 11:35 AM Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>
