Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (140559)	7/9/2010 1:52:17 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541747

One of the most disturbing aspects of field work is the exposure to organophosphate chemicals (which basically act like nerve agents) and produce a cholinergic response in the body. No one knows, exactly, how many undiagnosed poisonings there are in the US, but the number must be large- and low level exposures do damage that is not immediately life threatening, but can permanently impair the body (for example, there is now evidence that gulf war syndrome may have been triggered by our troops exposure to organophosphates as well as very low concentrations of nerve agents as old chem weapons depots in Iraq (from the Iran iraq war) were destroyed.) On top of this a certain percentage of the population is especially sensitive to organophosphate poisonings (we know this because these people are also super sensitive to succinylcholine given in hospitals during intubation- instead of being a neuromuscular block lasting a few minutes, for people sensitive to op's there would be an apnea lasting several hours- and these people would have to be put on respirators.) It's serious stuff. But of course why let mundane issues like field poisonings (along with heat stroke, dehydration and the numerous other health issues facing agricultural workers) interfere with the vision of the happy berry pickers frolicking in the fields?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (140559)	7/9/2010 7:57:57 PM
From: quehubo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541747

I was responding to the mantra that we cant find Americans to do the work illegals do. It is complete nonsense and pushed by people who have a stake in taking advantage of illegals. The simple truth is that if business needs workers and there are tens of millions of legal citizens looking for work. Now they may prefer cushy jobs making $60K working some easy secure job for the government. But when the government stops with the handouts they will work. Wages and benefits would be much better if illegals were not taking out the floor everywhere. I really dont have a problem with someone saying a living wage has to be paid to every retail worker, field worker or whatever. I am not promoting paying $35 hour for a laborer in the field, but I dont think field workers should be making whatever the market of illegals supports Really poor? My wife grew up in Asia dirt poor. I grew up in a house that struggled paycheck to paycheck through the recession in the 70's. To earn a decent living in the USA you only need a few traits and capabilities, show up to work on time and be interested, be able to read and write, be willing to work hard and be flexible, continuously learn whatever you need to get ahead. Many of the people I see struggle the most in life do so because they are stupid and or lazy. There is not much you can do for them. I dont recall ever seeing a skinny poor person in this country, at least not a legal one. I have spent plenty of time in the checkout line with fat ass families using government funds buying all sorts of crap I would never eat. Cash used to buy smokes and alcohol and food loaded into a vehicle I would not put so much money into.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (140559)	7/10/2010 12:50:35 PM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541747

How long would you extend unemployment benefits? The extension asked for by Dems involves going on past 99 weeks. So how much longer would you advise? As you think, you may also want to consider this? The current laws on straightout welfare are limited to two years and then the checks stop. 99 weeks is almost two years. Would you bump the unemployed ahead of the standard welfare recipient? Or would you extend benefits for both groups? This would be fair and not doing so would be grossly unfair considering that the typical unemployed worker right now may have other assets to draw on....a house, an IRA, savings in the bank. OTOH the typical welfare recipient has nothing....no assets of any kind. To extend unemployment benefits beyond two years while not extending welfare would actually be cruel, not just unfair. The other thing to consider is that unemployment insurance is funded by employers to cover six months. It is an actual insurance program, in that the money is paid into the pool ahead of time by regular contributions from employers and it is a state administered program. Benefits beyond that are paid by the fed. govt. and really should then be classified as welfare because the money is not coming from an insurance pool, it's coming from appropriations. With that in mind, consider this. Able-bodied married workers aren't entitled under the current laws to welfare. Women can't have a husband and get welfare. Aid to dependent children, yes, but not welfare, i.e. the stipend for living expenses. For this reason, it seems to me that extending unemployment beyond six months and what the insurance pool provided for to married workers is also grossly unfair to current welfare recipients. And likewise for single men. Single men can't draw welfare under the current laws. Should they receive benefits past six months? The request for extending benefits past 99 weeks is more problematic than might seem, and I think my questions are fair. But I am curious to know what your limits, if any, are to extending unemployment. You seem to be more empathetic than me or than Q, so maybe you can put a measurement on your empathy.