From what I read, the guard is empowered to execute the laws of the Union when not in federal service. My point though, is that gun lovers would have more recourse to the 2A if they were willing to muster and become sufficiently weapons and procedure proficient for basic law enforcement assistant roles when needed. Even peace officers have to maintain their qualification in order to keep and bear arms. From that perspective, gun lovers have no moral justification for not being willing to practice what regular peace officers must practice in order to to keep and bear arms.Quote:
Quoting blueeagle
Here is a brief history and application of Posse Comitatus:
Quote:
History
The original 1878 Posse Comitatus Act was indeed passed with the intent of removing the Army from domestic law enforcement. Posse comitatus means “the power of the county,” reflecting the inherent power of the old West county sheriff to call upon a posse of able-bodied men to supplement law enforcement assets and thereby maintain the peace. Following the Civil War, the Army had been used extensively throughout the South to maintain civil order, to enforce the policies of the Reconstruction era, and to ensure that any lingering sentiments of rebellion were crushed. However, in reaching those goals, the Army necessarily became involved in traditional police roles and in enforcing politically volatile Reconstruction-era policies. The stationing of federal troops at political events and polling places under the justification of maintaining domestic order became of increasing concern to Congress, which felt that the Army was becoming politicized and straying from its original national defense mission. The Posse Comitatus Act was passed to remove the Army from civilian law enforcement and to return it to its role of defending the borders of the United States.
Application of the Act
To understand the extent to which the act has relevance today, it is important to understand to whom the act applies and under what circumstances. The statutory language of the act does not apply to all U.S. military forces.[2] While the act applies to the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines, including their Reserve components, it does not apply to the Coast Guard or to the huge military manpower resources of the National Guard.[3] The National Guard, when it is operating in its state status pursuant to Title 32 of the U.S. Code, is not subject to the prohibitions on civilian law enforcement. (Federal military forces operate pursuant to Title 10 of the U.S. Code.) In fact, one of the express missions of the Guard is to preserve the laws of the state during times of emergency when regular law enforcement assets prove inadequate. It is only when federalized pursuant to an exercise of presidential authority that the Guard becomes subject to the limitations of the Posse Comitatus Act.
Source: http://www.homelandsecurity.org/jour...Trebilcock.htm
Amnesty for Non-Violent First Offenders
Printable View
-
10-11-2007, 11:21 AMdanielpalosRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First Offenders
-
10-11-2007, 11:58 AMcdwjavaRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersThat would be provided the state in question had a provision to deputize these folks and was willing to do so. I do not know of any state that does "deputize" John Q. Citizen on a regular or even contingency basis.Quote:
Quoting danielpalos
Additionally, firearms proficiency is actually pretty low on the priority scale for modern policing.
Kinda sorta ... they have to fulfill their agency's POLICY on firearms use and training in order to maintain their peace officer status (i.e. keep their job), but that does not necessarily require regular qualification. An agency COULD - in theory - not require their people to qualify at all.Quote:
Even peace officers have to maintain their qualification in order to keep and bear arms.
In fact, there are junior college police agencies in this state that do not carry arms, and there are many peace officer classifications that do not regularly carry arms but have full or limited powers of arrest.
- Carl -
10-11-2007, 03:25 PMcloudnineRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First Offenders
Somewhere a couple pages back, someone mention about a reformed ex-con working as a police officer. After hearing about the shootings in... was it WI?... where the man wasn't subjected to an indepth background check and became a cop and ended up killing a bunch of high schoolers because his ex-girlfriend was in the group... I think I might have a problem with ex-cons becoming a cop.
-
10-11-2007, 03:34 PMblueeagleRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersI said NON-VIOLENT offenders. Look, Ex-cons are joining the military left and right. They carry AUTOMATIC weapons, fly modern fighter AIRCRAFT, etc. I have not heard one incident of a Ex-con going on a murdering rampage.Quote:
Quoting cloudnine
Police corruption is a huge problem anyway. Human rights are being violated every single day. Look at what happened in Jena, LA... -
10-11-2007, 05:55 PMcdwjavaRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersOnce again ... there is a lot more to police work than carrying a gun.Quote:
Quoting blueeagle
Of course it's a problem, but it's hardly "huge". If it were "huge" - like shoplifting, rape, and robbery - it would be on page B12. I'm happy that we are doing our job when every case of a bad cop makes NATIONAL news, because that tells me that it is still unexpected and rare enough to be nationally news worthy.Quote:
Police corruption is a huge problem anyway.
Huh?Quote:
Human rights are being violated every single day. Look at what happened in Jena, LA...
The police charged 6 suspects for beating the snot out of some kid ... maybe they overcharged, maybe they didn't. These kids woulda been hit with felonies out here! Not likely attempted murder, but they would still all face one or more violent felonies! The assault was NOT a schoolyard brawl, it sent a kid to the hospital.
Charging high is not a violation of "human rights".
- Carl -
10-14-2007, 02:50 PMaaronRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersThe police recommended a charge of aggravated assault. It was the prosecutor who raised the charge. The charges have now been reduced to... aggravated assault. I can't fault the police on that one.Quote:
Quoting cdwjava
The prosecutor, though, is a real piece of work. -
10-19-2007, 05:24 PMtam37Re: Amnesty for Non-Violent First Offenders
what was the question here?
-
10-19-2007, 05:27 PMtam37Re: Amnesty for Non-Violent First Offenders
We're breeding sociopaths...leeches and monsters. God help us.
-
10-19-2007, 05:53 PMaaronRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First Offenders
It's almost Halloween - the season for sociopaths, leeches and monsters.
-
10-19-2007, 06:51 PMdanielpalosRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First Offenders
And, speaking of the deveel's advocate (yes I read Larry Asprin).
Wouldn't denying and disparaging convicted felons privileges and immunities be considered a form of attainder, after their release from custody by having paid their debt to society?
It may not matter as much while they serve time, but after they have paid their debt to society, they should be able to reclaim their full privileges and immunities accorded by Article 4, Section 2, and the proscription against Bills of Attainder for both the Union and the several states.
What rationale is given for attainding people after they have paid their debt to society, or is it considered analogous to the gift that keeps on giving? -
10-19-2007, 09:54 PMblueeagleRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersAgreed. It's against common ethics to punish a man for crimes he has already paid for.Quote:
Quoting danielpalos
-
10-19-2007, 10:18 PMcdwjavaRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersThen, perhaps, someone should start a campaign to educate potential employers why they shoudl hire the convicted felons.Quote:
Quoting blueeagle
Perhaps when lawyers stop suing employers for the actions of their employees who had prior records an employer might be more open to hiring a convict. But, when an employer gets sued because he hired a felon with a history of sex crimes (that the employer was not aware of) and the employee attacks a child, then the employer is likely to avoid ANY convict.
In order to minimize liability, an employer is likely to avoid ANY potential problems. Sometimes that might mean avoiding convicted felons.
- Carl -
10-20-2007, 06:58 AMblueeagleRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First Offenders
So just let them starve to death because they cant find a job?
-
10-20-2007, 09:58 AMcdwjavaRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersFirst, I don't know of any who CAN'T find a job, they often just refuse to take or keep the jobs that ARE available until they have proven themselves again. Most I know seem to have a hard time living within the rules an employer sets and then when confronted with their failure to perform or coming in late, they choose to quit rather than conform, and blame it on the employer. But, that's just based on my 16 years of observations ... my anecdotal observations may not be indicative of the national experience.Quote:
Quoting blueeagle
Second, they won't starve because our great nanny state will grant them limited benefits courtesy of us taxpayers.
- Carl -
10-20-2007, 10:34 AMcbgRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First Offenders
There are plenty of people who DON'T have criminal records that can't find a job, either. Are you suggesting that an employer should be required to hire the ones WITH records over the ones who do not?
-
10-20-2007, 07:33 PMblueeagleRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersHey, I understand exactly what you mean. I think everybody who WANTS to work should have a fair, honorable job. I have NO respect for anybody who just refuses to work. I understand if they have a disability, but if you're healthy you need to work.Quote:
Quoting cbg
-
10-20-2007, 07:34 PMblueeagleRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersNanny state? Far from it. We can't even give poor CHILDREN health care.Quote:
Quoting cdwjava
-
10-20-2007, 07:52 PMcdwjavaRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersI don't know where YOU live, but out here they cannot refuse anyone medical care.Quote:
Quoting blueeagle
If you are refering to a recently vetoed bill, take a look at the reasons why it was vetoes.
And don't even get me started on child birth! My kids were born in San Diego hospitals in full maternity wards ... three guesses as to who paid the bills for the other four rooms?
We're halfway to socialism now ... the remaining footpath could well be trod in 2008.
- Carl -
10-20-2007, 09:01 PMblueeagleRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersSocialism isn't really a bad thing. Look at FDR. The New Deal programs were considered socialism, but they saved our country.Quote:
Quoting cdwjava
Did you know that even if we taxes the rich 90% they would still live better then most Americans? Think of all the ways we could use that money... -
10-20-2007, 09:38 PMcdwjavaRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersWhy would we want to tax only the rich? The rich invest their money and create growth and jobs ... I don't. The government doesn't.Quote:
Quoting blueeagle
The rich are the ones who employ people and spur industry and growth ... the government does not do that. The government provides some services, but they do these generally in an inefficient manner largely because they do not HAVE to be cost conscious, and they are in a non-competitive environment.
I'll illustrate how bad it was. My uncle - an attorney - had an office that employed 8 people (one other attorney, paralegals, assistants, and a receptionist) ... the CA and US tax rate was so high he figured out he would take home MORE money by retiring than he would be remaining in practice. So, 7 jobs left the marketplace because it was not financially sensible for him to stay in operation. yes, he waited until all the staff had new jobs before he closed his doors, but a system that discourages the successful from improving their lot and expanding is doomed to implosion.
I am certainly not in the wealthy category and never will be. But, I am all for allowing people to make as much as they can earn, and as much as the market will bear. Taxing success discourages success. The wealthiest 5% already pay ... what? 50%+ of all the taxes??
I'd much rather see cuts in spending than increased taxes. How about getting the federal government out of those areas where they have no Constitutional imperative? I see an imperative to provide for a common defense, but no such imperative to provide handouts to people for refusing to work. I get kinda miffed when I go into unemployed derelicts' homes and see their home entertainment center with the massive HD/Plasma TV and hear them complain about their "outrageous" $100 subsidized rent while they lounge around healthy and drunk or high, and meanwhile I have to pay my mortgage and repair the 5-year-old 36" TV in my living room ... it ain't fair.
When I stop seeing the waste inherent in government handouts, then we can talk about new taxes. Until then, I vote "no" on every tax increase. In my entire adult life I have voted for only one - and that was a school bond measure that the district did an OUTSTANDING job selling to the public. I saw where the money was going to go and there was nothing at all hidden in the plan.
Every tax - even the "temporary" ones - stifles the economy.
- Carl -
10-20-2007, 10:27 PMblueeagleRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First Offenders
Cuts in spending ain't a bad idea really. I just found out my taxes are being used to fund a star bucks in the local public school... How is this helping the kids learn?
Isn't it the rich who's sending all our jobs over to China and India? Yes, I think it is... Why do they do this? Because Americans demand a livable wage. Heaven forbid we want to provide for our family's... I would like to see them try to live on what most people make!
The rich don't give a damn about the working class/middle class. All they care about is getting rich. There are few exceptions, but most would no hesitate to fire a American if it meant getting cheaper labor elsewhere.
The rich cannot be trusted with their money. -
10-20-2007, 11:20 PMcdwjavaRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersKeeping them awake? :DQuote:
Quoting blueeagle
I wasn't a coffee drinker in high school, and there was no Starbucks way back then.
Plus, I'd venture to guess that the taxpayers did not actually pay for it ... I'm pretty sure that if that happened, Starbucks would pay for it themself. But, I'd be interested in seeing the article on that one.
Ah, so let's tax them and drive more busineses out! Great!Quote:
Isn't it the rich who's sending all our jobs over to China and India? Yes, I think it is... Why do they do this? Because Americans demand a livable wage. Heaven forbid we want to provide for our family's... I would like to see them try to live on what most people make!
In CA we see a lot of businesses leaving the state to locations just on the other side of the border (Nevada, in particular) where the tax benefits are better for them ... better tax environments make for better investments.
Also, many business that have left the country - and even CA - have returned. The education of the work force and the infrastructure is better here than in most expanding nations, so many kinds of employment are better done here even if the higher wages have to be paid.
Some, maybe ... but not all. Besides, since when did it become wrong or evil to want to be rich?Quote:
The rich don't give a damn about the working class/middle class. All they care about is getting rich.
Ah, but the government can?Quote:
The rich cannot be trusted with their money.
Frankly I trust myself to spend MY money more than I trust the government. I don't want the Gov. telling me what is in my best interest; I can decide what's in my best interest for myself, thanks.
Fortunately, most of the USA is anti-socialist so with any luck any future socialist expansion programs will be thwarted.
- carl -
10-21-2007, 12:08 AMblueeagleRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersWell, they had to expand the school. The local school raises taxes ever single year.Quote:
Quoting cdwjava
Even with higher taxes the rich make more money then most of us. If they have to give up their 200,000 dollar car and their 2,000,000 dollar house, then so be it. Let them live like everybody else.Quote:
In CA we see a lot of businesses leaving the state to locations just on the other side of the border (Nevada, in particular) where the tax benefits are better for them ... better tax environments make for better investments.
Good. I guess they got some sense knocked into them. They should make a PUBLIC apology, and pay the good people they laid off a large settlement.Quote:
Also, many business that have left the country - and even CA - have returned. The education of the work force and the infrastructure is better here than in most expanding nations, so many kinds of employment are better done here even if the higher wages have to be paid.
Although, I'm not really a religious man, every major religion on Earth considers greed a sin.Quote:
Some, maybe ... but not all. Besides, since when did it become wrong or evil to want to be rich?
Not the one we have now... They can fund a 7 TRILLION dollar war, but they cant provide health care for children. Makes me sick.Quote:
Ah, but the government can?
-
10-21-2007, 12:22 AMcdwjavaRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersIn my state schools cannot raise taxes.Quote:
Quoting blueeagle
Why should they have to give it up?? Heck, buying that car, that house, and living a life of luxury can also employ a bunch of people. Giving it to the government in taxes for bloated social programs won't employ anyone.Quote:
Even with higher taxes the rich make more money then most of us. If they have to give up their 200,000 dollar car and their 2,000,000 dollar house, then so be it. Let them live like everybody else.
Last time I checked, the government was not into legislating morality. If it were, then why are MY values so offended at every turn?Quote:
Although, I'm not really a religious man, every major religion on Earth considers greed a sin.
Besides, who are you or I to determine what is greed and what is not?
There is funding for children's health care. And there will be more. The original proposal was for an expanded program ... but there was stuff tacked onto the healthcare bill that was ridiculous. Read it.Quote:
Not the one we have now... They can fund a 7 TRILLION dollar war, but they cant provide health care for children. Makes me sick.
Besides, defense is a constitutionally mandated function of government - healthcare is not.
- Carl -
10-22-2007, 12:35 AMblueeagleRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersLucky you. Here they love taking every dime we have to pay for crap they don't need (football stadium, etc)Quote:
Quoting cdwjava
Well maybe, but living a life of luxury also hurts the environmentQuote:
Why should they have to give it up?? Heck, buying that car, that house, and living a life of luxury can also employ a bunch of people. Giving it to the government in taxes for bloated social programs won't employ anyone.
Iraq is a waste of tax payers money. We could not find any Weapons of mass destruction, or any links to terrorism. That country is is far worse shape now then they ever were.Quote:
Besides, defense is a constitutionally mandated function of government - healthcare is not.
Back on the topic of ex offenders getting employment.
As you know I have a misdemeanor DWI. I'm not proud of this, but I don't need to pay for this for the rest of my life.
I thought I had a better chance at getting a job then a violent felon... until the other day when I picked up a job application, and it said in big letters, "have you ever been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor . I could not believe this! Whats next, denying jobs to those with traffic tickets? Or maybe we should deny jobs to everybody. After all, we've all broke some law at least once.
Not everybody with mark on their record is a danger to society. Most non-violet offenders I know would never dream of doing the crap some of these rapist and murders do. Most are just young people who made one mistake.
Poverty and crime go hand in hand. Those who are poor are more likely to steal in order to feed their family then somebody with a job. Proven fact.
Did you know employers can get a 8,500 dollar tax cut for hiring ex offenders? And that ex-offenders can be bonded with the state? This dramatically lowers any risk in hiring these people. -
10-22-2007, 01:02 AMcdwjavaRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersAnd most employers are not interested in past convictions. It really depends on the business. One of our local hotels has gotten screwed a couple of times because they hired people with criminal records for fraud and forgery ... oops - they stole from guests. Guess what they don't hire anymore?Quote:
Quoting blueeagle
Yep! Prior convicted criminals! (At least not those with theft or fraud priors.)
Not so. At best, it's arguable.Quote:
Poverty and crime go hand in hand. Those who are poor are more likely to steal in order to feed their family then somebody with a job. Proven fact.
If one cites poverty as the determinant factor in crime, then the Great Depression would have been a grand crime wave - this just was not the case. The statistics may show that many of those who commit theft are at or near the poverty level, but there are almost certainly other factors involved in that poverty - generally it is substance abuse, NOT a lack of jobs. I actually have the texts somewhere at home that DO cite these stats. But, the issue is arguable ... the chicken and the egg thing.
I did not know that. Is that a Texas thing?Quote:
Did you know employers can get a 8,500 dollar tax cut for hiring ex offenders? And that ex-offenders can be bonded with the state? This dramatically lowers any risk in hiring these people.
Then the question becomes: Why do employers feel that the $8,500 bonus is not worth the added risk?
- Carl -
10-22-2007, 11:55 AMblueeagleRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersIt varies from state to state. Some states it's only a 2,400 dollar tax break. But still, thats a good deal.Quote:
Quoting cdwjava
Federal bonding will issue a 10,000 dollar bond on all Ex-offenders. It's actually cheaper then getting a bond on somebody without a record.
Did you know some states will even pay HALF the offenders wages for the first 6 months? Pretty cool, huh?
Heres some links. Check them out.
http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/s...23/focus2.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelp...12/daily4.html
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/2007_Pre...s20070501.html -
10-22-2007, 03:03 PMdanielpalosRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersIf the public sector cannot guarantee a job to anyone who wants to wok; then, people shouldn't have to work to receive UI based income. Pursuing education, the arts, or simple happiness should be sufficient reason to claim UI based income.Quote:
Quoting blueeagle
Why is there any burden of proof placed on real individuals, and not the legal fiction of individuals and their management concerning at-will employment?
What about a hypothetical public policy that requires the employer and the employee to split the premium cost. In that case, it would be up to the employer and employee to determine what justifies ending an at-will employment relationship. -
10-22-2007, 08:13 PMblueeagleRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersI love this idea. I can't think of anything that would make me happier then getting paid not to work. But I wonder, how much money do you suggest they send us? I say at least 50,000 a year.Quote:
Quoting danielpalos
-
10-22-2007, 08:19 PMcdwjavaRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First Offenders:rolleyes: And how much would *I* be taxed for that privilege?Quote:
Quoting blueeagle
- Carl -
10-22-2007, 08:26 PMblueeagleRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersDon't the tax payers pay your salary? This really isn't that much different. Even if it is unrealistic. :PQuote:
Quoting cdwjava
-
10-22-2007, 08:37 PMcdwjavaRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersYeah ... but my salary is also taxed. So, if such a nightmare scenario were to come to pass (and it effectively exists now with the lax welfare laws we have in place), I would see even less of my meager public servant salary.Quote:
Quoting blueeagle
- Carl -
10-22-2007, 08:42 PMblueeagleRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersI doubt anybody on welfare gets 50,000 a year. Maybe 500. I doubt they even receive that.Quote:
Quoting cdwjava
-
10-22-2007, 08:59 PMcdwjavaRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersThe ones around here get far more than $500/yr. ... and if you count rent subsidies and food subsidies it actually amounts to quite a sum.Quote:
Quoting blueeagle
- Carl -
10-22-2007, 10:21 PMblueeagleRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersThe rich draw welfare too. Our government gives the millionaires anything they wants.Quote:
Quoting cdwjava
-
10-22-2007, 10:26 PMcdwjavaRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersAfter they're soaked.Quote:
Quoting blueeagle
Look, you can try to cut it anyway you want, but the simple fact is that some 5% of the taxpayers pay more than 50% of all taxes.
But, like I said, it is the rich that generate jobs - not the poor. And since most of those in the "rich" category (not that 5% category) are small business owners and thus the largest US employers, it's not a good idea to soak them too hard.
- Carl -
10-22-2007, 10:30 PMblueeagleRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First Offenders
Yeah, I really don't apporve of the small business owners. Not after they spoke against raising the minimum wage. I would love to see them live on 5.15 a hour...
Anyway, Did you check the links I gave you about hiring ex-offenders? One was about California. -
10-22-2007, 10:50 PMcdwjavaRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersHave you ever run a business? I have. Most small businesses are NOT big money affairs and a few dollars (when adding on benefits and payroll taxes) can add up quickly. So, you pass the costs on or cut employees ... and maybe you go under.Quote:
Quoting blueeagle
And do you REALLY think that the min. wage increase increases buying power? it doesn. because everything goes up to cover those increases ... and, jobs are lost to help pay for the increases. And, of course, EVERYONE ELSE asks for pay increases, too. It does not end with the min. wage employees and that is one reason why small businesses are against it. If I pay an employee .50 over min. wage and the min. wage goes up, he's going to advocate for a pay increase by at least the same percentage ... and the costs are passed on. And, when prices go up, volume sales go down ... and businesses fold or cut back to pay for it.
And so it goes.
Yeah.Quote:
Anyway, Did you check the links I gave you about hiring ex-offenders? One was about California.
Interesting - I hadn't really known about them. I know that one of our tow companies hires a lot of parolees, so he may be getting some kind of benefit. But, even if he weren't he's just that kind of guy ... unfortunately, about half of them take advantage of his good nature.
- Carl -
10-22-2007, 11:48 PMblueeagleRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersNever owned one, but I have worked in one. The tight-wade owner paid us all minimum wage. He drove a LEXUS and lived in a 450,000 dollar house. While the workers lived in poverty.Quote:
Quoting cdwjava
There are several benefits to raising the minimum wage. Due to higher salary's workers will be able to invest more into the economy. Education levels will rise since more people can afford college tuition. Finally, it will save tax payers money by reducing the number of people on welfare.Quote:
And do you REALLY think that the min. wage increase increases buying power? it doesn. because everything goes up to cover those increases ... and, jobs are lost to help pay for the increases. And, of course, EVERYONE ELSE asks for pay increases, too. It does not end with the min. wage employees and that is one reason why small businesses are against it. If I pay an employee .50 over min. wage and the min. wage goes up, he's going to advocate for a pay increase by at least the same percentage ... and the costs are passed on. And, when prices go up, volume sales go down ... and businesses fold or cut back to pay for it.
And so it goes.
Those with more money spend more. It's a fact of life. You just don't see many poor people driving fancy cars or living in big houses. This increase in spending help bring in more sales tax. This money can pay be used to pay for local services (better road, cleaner water, etc). We might could even give our law enforcement a raise. ;)
A higher paid work force will begin to invest in, not only their own education, but their children's as well. Thus creating a more educated society (which we REALLY need). Workers with higher educations get better jobs, which allows them to contribute even more to the system.
Most people who draw welfare do so because they're poor. Raising the minimum wage will help eliminate poverty; therefore, we will have fewer people drawing welfare. You do want to eliminate welfare, right?
I hope you see where I'm getting at. Human labor is worth more then 5.15 a hour, or even 7.50.
I didn't know about them either until quite recently. I was actually surprised the government is doing this, I always thought they didn't care about ex-offenders.Quote:
Yeah.
Interesting - I hadn't really known about them.
These programs should really be advertised more. I suspect more employers would hire ex-felons if they knew about the bonding program. This would help make up for the money they loose in higher insurance rates.
It's good somebody cares enough to give people a second chance. I have never worked in towing, but I hear they pay pretty good. It's sad some people take advantage of him, but what about the other half who don't cheat him?Quote:
I know that one of our tow companies hires a lot of parolees, so he may be getting some kind of benefit. But, even if he weren't he's just that kind of guy ... unfortunately, about half of them take advantage of his good nature.
- Carl
-
10-23-2007, 12:02 AMcdwjavaRe: Amnesty for Non-Violent First OffendersYeah, I worked in a place like that, too. When the tips dried up, I got another job. Fortunately, I did not have to stay there.Quote:
Quoting blueeagle
But with ALL costs going up within 6 months of such an increase, this added buying power is short-lived.Quote:
There are several benefits to raising the minimum wage. Due to higher salary's workers will be able to invest more into the economy.
What? raising the minimum wage is not going to effect the ability to send a child to a 4-year-college. Community colleges are not expensive, but 4-year-colleges are. And many people from impoverished backgrounds already qualify for assistance or aid. I'm in that middle ground - too much money to qualify for aid, and too little money to pay for college outright. My kids have to seek scholarships and will have to work part of their way through school ... kinda like I did.Quote:
Education levels will rise since more people can afford college tuition. Finally, it will save tax payers money by reducing the number of people on welfare.
A raise in the welfare also raises the poverty line. That line is dynamic and not static. It also depends on where you live.Quote:
Most people who draw welfare do so because they're poor. Raising the minimum wage will help eliminate poverty; therefore, we will have fewer people drawing welfare. You do want to eliminate welfare, right?
In parts of my state, $50,000 is barely a living wage ... where I live right now, it's an outstanding income and you can live well on that amount. Since many of the large coastal urban areas are unable to pay wages that support a majority of people, many with the means (those in the middle) are fleeing and the middle class is fleeing to the valley and the north part of the state because their salaries can go further there. The cost of living is what it is, and a minimum wage increase is not going to change that for the better.
It depends on the labor. I can get the kid next door to mow my lawn for $2.50 ... why should I be mandated to pay him $7.50 when the value of the job is not worth that?Quote:
I hope you see where I'm getting at. Human labor is worth more then 5.15 a hour, or even 7.50.
I'm not for slavery, but neither am I for an arbitrary and ultimately meaningless and ineffectual increase in a wage that will ultimately increase costs for everyone.
Probably true.Quote:
These programs should really be advertised more. I suspect more employers would hire ex-felons if they knew about the bonding program. This would help make up for the money they loose in higher insurance rates.
The worry would be offenders that put the employer at risk for more damaging behaviors (sexual assaults, attacks, etc.).
They are the only reason he keeps giving these guys a chance.Quote:
It's good somebody cares enough to give people a second chance. I have never worked in towing, but I hear they pay pretty good. It's sad some people take advantage of him, but what about the other half who don't cheat him?
- Carl