Alabama is a good test case for American workers. Anti immigrant laws drove out the bulk of the illegal migrant workers and how Americans did at the jobs they occupied give us some good hard data on just how well our US workers will be replacement workers.


The governor says it will work itself out. How are you ever going to train or make someone to do back breaking work that Americans are refusing to do.

Story.

For jobless Aberdonians, Alabama has work for you.

Some critical thinking is called for here.

Grow Alabama is a trade group for farmers. Farmers really like paying very low wages to people to whom they have no lingering responsibility, so it's unsurprising that the results of their test yielded that result.

Next year, a company which employs citizens and legal workers will bid to pick those crops. The price (and wages) will be much higher than what the farmers were accustomed to paying, but I don't care.

Field work IS hard - I did it as a young man, but it was a good formative experience that kids today are denied.

My prediction is that if Alabama continues this stupid course their farmers will go broke. No one is going to pay the prices for food that American workers will cause. Remember, not all states are as stupid and their costs are going to be lower. Also remember, the countryside around me is full of farms owned by American companies shipping produce to the USA. Those Mexicans will just start working in the same industry down here as demand grows in the US for cheaper food.

Americans like cheap food just like Americans like cheap Chinese goods. Unless Alabama can change that, their farmers are going to join the ranks of the unemployed.

I do care and so do the "poor" Americans, the 99% of Americans, who will be forced to pay $50 for a dozen strawberries. People get desperate enough you'll see pride break and 2 options form. Illegal activity OR bend your ass over and pick strawberries for $2 an hour and meet a quota. But the American free ride is over and the high cost of products that are caused by Union "Family Wage Jobs" will be over soon enough.

I'll buy you a shot of your favorite on that day too.

There is a third option as well. Quite bitching about Sancho and Pancho picking strawberries.

A small adjustment to your statement and I'll agree.

My solution and a growing number of Americans looking for solutions will find self sustainability. Increased crime will also occur. I know a lot of people don't have this option but I think sooner then later you're gonna see more utilitarian yards in Aberdeen and small towns across America.

Ultimately unless we break the unions that will try to form and cause the price increases of our food products, you're right, broke farmers.

Great topic.

Do you think Alabama farmers were paying the hispanic workers $2.00 per hour? If so, shame on them. Do you think the farmers should be allowed to pay legal workers $2.00 per hour? Our choice is $50 strawberries or work have legal American workers work for $2.00 per hour or accept illegal workers?

I agree it's a great topic. I also understand (don't confuse with agreement) you disdain for unions. But, I'm not sure what the unions have to do with this situation.



I suspect prices will continue to rise. Especially when we eliminate the corporate welfare of farm subsidies. But, maybe eliminating those subsidies would be considered a tax increase by the Norquist groveling Republicans have will stay.



If they are getting $2.00 per hour, then I hope the bitching doesn't stop.

We may like cheap food, but we gotta eat. If fifteen cents a pound for tomatoes is what it costs to hire legal workers, I'm fer it.

And put a tariff on imports.

I Agree
Thank you

Welcome to the dark side.

Removing text from a quote is bad form.

Wages directly affect product/service costs. If you owned a company and decided to contract or even hire employees wouldn't you want full control over their wages or contract price? How else are you going to be able to stay competitive?

How are you going to maximize and retain YOUR company's profits?

Oh well, shit, your employees just unionized! My company, non union, can under cut yours. Even using legal workers I can.

Unfortunately, I distracted from the original point, The test case wasn't on payment/wages it was on, ability. So to wrap it all up I'm guessing the Grow Alabama guy proved Americans are to Fat,out of shape, and (I say) over paid to pick our own crops.

Grow Alabama: Here we go, we'll just get 25 Americans, make sure they haven't picked a crop much less a McDonalds quarter pounder off the floor. Alrighty. Now we'll go get Pancho, Sancho, Jose, and Hector from the next field over. Now everyone, on your marks, get set, Pick!

Now a fair control group would have been 25 of our Mazatlan employees.

Tariffs for high wages? Do you think that is going to happen? We are signing free trade agreements not enacting tariffs.

Few Americans can do farm work. Stoop labor is rough on the body. We need illegals legalized.

Wages are an issue as well.

Do you know anyone that has exhausted their unemployment and every other source of income they could have. There are no jobs and yet there is need for people in the workplace. They simply cannot afford to hire them because the economy has cut so deeply into profits. Did you know that $5 an hour for 40 hours a week over a months time would get them a room in a flophouse and feed them for a month?

Yet it cannot happen. Instead they are unemployed, hungry and desperate. Some are reduced to working for that wage but are paid cash. I know some people doing this.

The minimum wage should be brought back into line. I'll bet that is ringing your liberal bells.

There is something to be said of the Mexican Indians. They are short (my 5 foot wife feels tall down here) and closer to the ground is good, they have been doing agricultural work for thousands of years and their bodies have adapted to it, and their work ethic is the only thing between them and starvation.

If farming wasn't such a hard life they would be envied for being superstars with some unique abilities. Unfortunately farmers, who grow everything we eat, are usually at the bottom of the human economic chain.

Are you suggesting I changed your meaning by only putting in the portions on which I was commenting? I certainly didn't intend to.

You wrote:



The only question I had in your comment was the $2 an hour statement. On the other hand, you selectively edited my comments to provide another meaning entirely. If I misunderstood your "$2 an hour" claim, I apologize. Unless I misunderstood completely, what I did was in no way, "bad form". While I assume you were ribbing me a bit, to deliberately edit for the purpose of changing the meaning is "bad form".

OTOH hand, the problem could resolve itself when enough Americans are reduced to the level of desperation that motivates poor Mexicans to head north.

1) If you think it's "your" company, you're deluding yourself. Without a union, you're absolutely replaceable.

2) Median income directly affects the market for your product. Even WalMart is beginning to panic that people can no longer even afford *their* crap. It is a race to the bottom, and only an idiot thinks they're immune from the suppression of wages that comes from de-unionizing, offshoring and illegal workers.

3) I don't care how they maintain their margin. I care how I maintain my family's margin.

If it could happen in the home of the richest person in the world, it could happen here.

Except there are 90 guns per 100 people on this side of the border. Desperation is an undesirable outcome.

In line with what? The good old days?



The US gdp per capita is $46,000. There is plenty of money to go around, what is needed to be brought back into line is the Gini index.



Bonus chart.

Do you think that is going to happen now? If not, what do we do about now?

Now you have people who have exhausted every other means except, perhaps, moving to a new area. There is a wage at which businesses can afford to hire extra people. Instead they stretch themselves thin with the fewest workers they can get by with. Less service, zero growth, survival mode.

There are lots of things we can do right now to make the problem worse, and making the working class poorer is atop that list.

The fact that we've got seven GOP presidential candidates arguing over who is going to raise taxes on the working class more while eliminating taxes on the unearned income of the wealthy, doesn't imply that it is in any way helpful.

If your argument against any and every form useful advice is that it's politically impossible then save your breath. The impossible is preferable to the possible yet self-destructive.


News flash: businesses "stretch themselves" with the fewest employees possible, regardless of the wages.

The idea that employers hire because they have some money laying around is the most ridiculous kind of nonsense. Businesses hire the bare minimum employees necessary to fulfill orders for their stuff.

True to some degree. To the extent that businesses have now stretched themselves, not true.

My point is that the working class that is not working is now at the point that a piece is better than the whole thing that they cannot get. I guess the work around is for them to work for cash and steal a little metal where they can find it.

First, businesses aren't stretched, workers are.
Second, the root cause of overworked employees isn't directly because of poor sales, but because it's a buyers market for labor. If you work your employees until they drop, no biggie. People are the most renewable resource.

Low wages won't inspire employers to stock up while they're cheap, but the lower wages among the same pool of workers WILL further suppress demand. Workers get the same pie slice from a smaller pie. Only the CEO who gets paid for cutting compensation makes a killing.

Wages have been dropping for 30 years. So has employment. More of the same poison mislabled "medicine" isn't the solution.

Perhaps we as a Nation should reconsider indentured servitude? And after that, when all possible profit has been extracted from the labor force then we could re-institute slavery. The ultimate celebration of capitalism over labor. All we need to do is loose our moral compass. Woot woot woot.

Exactly right. It's the logical end result of austerity (tax cuts bring in revenue! wink wink) creating the need for more austerity (look at that deficit! Tax-cut Tinkerbell sez you didn't clap hard enough, so no medicare for you.) At some point, cheap labor becomes free labor, then eventually employment as charity. You're lucky that Wal Mart gives you some way to occupy your time.

What's the plan for imports?

Everyone... get out your Thumper Decoder Rings!

How about to collect a welfare check you have to work one day a week in the fields. The Farmers will get free labor that they already pay for with their taxes and the people on the dole getting their welfare check actually have to do something to earn it.

“There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.”
Henry Ford

Why? Fordism. In a Fordist system the worker is paid relatively high wages in order to buy in large quantity the products turned out in mass production. In an economy that is driven by consumerism, this is critical to keep the economy going and growing. Until we get back to having the one, we won't have the other.

That's why I'm pro-union. During the decades with the highest percentage of union membership, the economy, especially the middle-class, thrived. The economy has been falling ever since union membership started falling.

And the top 1% and 0.1% were doing mighty fine, too. In spite of the fact that the graduated income tax levels were at their highest historical levels of around 90%. Nobody was turning down raises/profits because of the tax load.

In January minimum wage in Washington goes above $9 an hour. Texas has a minimum wage of $7.25 which happens to be the federal minimum wage. Florida is $7.31. California is only $8.

Our brain trust in Washington DC decided that free trade was the answer which put us in competition with Mexico whose minimum wage is less than a dollar an hour and who is not even the lowest minimum wage of our competitors but they are the closest geographically.

Annual income in the 183 countries and regions in the world is approximately US $6,078, while China’s is only US $896. Just take the federal minimum wage and we are over $15,000 a year.

It is up to the American consumer, the Canadian consumer, the European consumer to buy the more expensive products from those countries with the higher standards of living if we want to work and pay those higher wages. You know the real story there. Whatever is cheapest sells, no other considerations.

So, please take your capitalism over labor argument to a real level and tell us how we put people to work. I personally would like to see everybody earn $100,000 a year but I cannot make sense of that when our biggest competition, China, makes less than a $1,000.

Why can't our unemployed workers find jobs and what realistically can we do about getting them work?

There's some high octane irony.

Let's use Michelle Bachmann as an example. Her farm has been given $260,000 in federal farm aid welfare, which they received for doing nothing.

So, setting aside the issue that since her farm is getting subsidies, which suggests that they produce a big crop of nothing, how many welfare recipients has that farm financed?

Realistically? Nothing. Not a damn thing. Half of government is run by people who consider their fate directly tied to the misery index. The other half are afraid of doing anything that fox news will make fun of or will alienate their donors.

There's no political will to do anything that works. "The people" are only background noise, only of concern to the extent that their donors might be distracted by them.

In the longer term, we can help to create that political will by supporting the OWS folks. It needs to be more than background noise. If they are loud enough, we might be amazed at how the politically impossible becomes inevitable.

Would NRA, WPA, CCC, Social Security or the New Deal have been possible in 1928? Less than 10 years later it was law.

The Arab uprisings could be the key. We have to make noise. Some of us will shed blood just like in the labor movement. But, when the political will returns, what do we do?

Taking from the rich will only go so far. That is just an easy observation that there are unfair differences. Straightening out taxes will not solve everything either.

We picked a world economy over doing what was right for us. We got cheap prices by taking advantage of cheap labor which cost jobs here and we have become addicted to these things. We have a healthcare cost crisis that half of us think is because of big business and half of us think is because the government meddled with medicare and laws that required heaps of paperwork (both are right, in my opinion). We punted costs down the road and they finally have caught up with us. We think we are the world's police force and the world has grown to depend on us.

All these problems and more, all fueled by short sighted political will in our history.

Those genies are out of their bottle. If it were just as simple as bad business, bad government it would be easier to fix. Unfortunately it is bad citizens. Most of the political will we have to overcome is our own.

That is our biggest challenge.

I thought it was a straight forward question.

If the cost of USA strawberries goes up, and imported strawberries are cheaper because their labor costs are still low, whats the plan.

Really? Realistically? I'd say we join our fellow citizens on the OWS lines around the country. Join them and convey the message that we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore. Withdraw our money from the banks and put it in credit unions. Oh, and disabuse yourself of the idea that tyranny can't happen here because this the land of the free. It is happening here, now.

Jobs will return when we crash the system that has trashed our economy, when we help others throw off the shackles of slave labor...instead of competing to be slaves as well.

Much better. I don't have the definitive answer. But, I know America has competed over and over again against low wage countries. When our manufacturing plants have stayed here, we win because of technology and productivity. We do that in farming now with other crops. Maybe we can do that with strawberries, too.

When our companies take their technology overseas, it's a whole different story.

Pick only one:
a) Living wages
b) Cheap strawberries

Those who pick "B" still pay the same share of their (reduced) income for strawberries, but a much higher share of their income for fuel, mortgages and medical insurance. As their wages drop, so do the tax revenues they produce.

We've all been convinced that rising wages is bad because those who live on capital investment consider inflation to be the worst possible thing.

So, your answer is to replace humans with machines?

That way most all the wages go away.

Automation happens. What's the solution for that? When robots do all the work, who gets the benefit of the robots labor?

If your answer is "the guy who owns all the robots", the inevitable result is revolution.

Taking our money out of banks and into credit unions is a great idea. Most of our day to day money is in TSCU already. Retirement accounts with the big money is still in the hands of the enemy. Not sure what to do about that since we need returns.

I still say that the things that got us here are at least 50% of our own making. Still, just getting corporations and their money out of politics would make a big dent in our problems.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/09/why-hasnt-technology-created-more-american-jobs.html

The assembly line helped the American Auto industry. Corporations are farming thousands of acres now with a few people sitting in the cabs of combines. If the alternative is to put humans back in the fields at $2 per hour in order to keep our strawberries cheap, then yes... bring on some automation. But, if we are able to bring more automated factories and/or farms back to America, we should find more opportunities for individuals to work.

I think there will always be plenty of jobs machines don't do. I don't think the answer is lowering our wages and standard of living in order to compete.

I agree!

It certainly is if we are competing against people who do. It is the reason union jobs have disappeared. It is the reason that jobs have gone overseas. High wages and few jobs isn't an answer either.

If you want to introduce tariffs and trade wars into the conversation, you may be right.

Finding better, more productive ways to harvest is the way.

That sounds a lot like meeting at the lowest common denominator. Or, as LJ would put it, a race to the bottom. I prefer the idea of being self-sufficient, rather than let the poorest countries dictate our wages and standard of living.

Alas, a chance to respond! I didn't want you to think I neglect your rebuttal!


Ok, I can't wrap my brain around that. I've have read every ounce of liberal literature I could get. I've interviewed liberal family and coworkers. They can't fathom the reasoning behind that. I would attempt the communist manifesto, but if you could give me the direct page it could be on that would be helpful. What I can wrap my brain around is that is in no way a response to any level that I am speaking on.

Maybe! Maybe a liberal friend of mine will be afforded a beer and conversation on this to try to explain. Not to be condescending, but I don't think I will understand it if you try to explain it. Quite frankly it's really a pathetic statement. As I understand it:

My company, to which I am head fucking owner and sole proprietor, can somehow be "replaced" if it weren't for the benevolent compassion of the employees who depend on me for their paychecks. See - That's how I translate it. Maybe my friend will do a better job explaining this lunacy.



What is a fact: The higher I have to pay to produce a product the higher I have to charge for it. Over head, physical resources, human resources all equate to a products final cost. Union cause undue higher wages for workers/positions that should be paid at a significantly lower wage.

An employee paid $5 to pick a banana that will be priced at $5.25

An employee paid $5 to pick an apple that will be priced at $5.25

The same conundrum if each employee is paid $.05 and the product is priced at $.10

The price of goods are dependent on cost of goods to be produced. All Unions do is raise the amount of each. Then take a cut of the EMPLOYEES pay so the employee is in actuality paid less.



You would if you were Sam Walton OR the on Board of Directors at Walmart OR a stock investor. It's not your family they are looking out for it's theirs. Welcome the the US of fucking A.

It's sounds like you are what is known as a "paycheck liberal". You got paid every two weeks and then bitched that the Owner/CEO got paid more. I doubt that you have ever operated a successful company. Ever.

Because, of course, the porn shop splooge mopper deserves the the same as the porn shop owner.

I have relied on others for paychecks. I have provided another persons paycheck. I pay taxes on a level that the idiot who charges the Walmart electric cart could never comprehend.

We are all born equal. But for fuck sake, I am on a level that far surpasses your average paycheck liberal, yet I am on a level that is far less then those who have achieved more. I don't strive to drive their positions down in life. I strive to achieve the level they are at.

I won't ask for the government to intercede in their success to give me a piece of it. Because a government strong enough to give is a Government strong enough to TAKE.



Herman Cain told people to get off their asses and get a job.

5th-in-line: "Get off your asses and create a job for yourself AND someone else."

Even with unions you are replaceable unless you, with hard work and going the extra mile, make yourself valuable. Unions very seldom have the power to keep a marginal employee at work. It would not even behoove them to do so since the weaker the company is the weaker the worker's jobs are that do perform.



Fair enough. Then the company should have no care about how you maintain your family's margin. However, I have never worked for a company that felt that way. I think the survival of a company and their employees ultimately depends on both the worker and the employee caring about both their margins. Anything else is going to destroy both in the end.

I disagree, especially in the health care and education fields.

Right. I forgot about education. My statement didn't really cover public unions.

You could have demonstrated your ignorance much more succinctly.

a) I don't believe you. (Welcome to GHT, Tom Flanagan! Yeah, that's the ticket!)

b) Notwithstanding a) You don't know what you're talking about.

Wages aren't "undue". If employees are not getting a fair shake, they are within their rights to negotiate a better deal. If their better deal doesn't work for you, go into a different business.

It'd be easier for people to afford products if their wages kept up with their productivity, but they don't, so each year, they're able to afford less of what their employer produces (increasingly efficiently), so the employer cuts wages a little more to maintain margin.

"Why are sales down?" I guess an MBA isn't worth all that much.

I. Don't. Care. About. The. Walton. Family. "What's good for GM is good for the USA" is exactly the servile idiocy that is wrong with this country. If you don't have the wits to make a profit in business, then go back to your janitor job at Deja Vu.

IN THIS STATE, the guy who charges the WalMart cart pays about 17% of his income in state taxes. You, the job-creatin' top 1% sumbitch that you are, already know what you pay - about 3%.

I've never worked for a company which had maximizing my income as a strategic goal. They all wanted to keep my salary at the lowest possible point at which they wouldn't have to train my replacement. I increased my salary by developing skills to make training a replacement prohibitively expensive.

It's business. I sell the hours of my life to someone in exchange for a share of the proceeds of the product sold. Corporations don't care about my wellbeing.

At best, the goals of employee and company are aligned. That's how it should work. The companies which are most vehemently opposed to unions are least aligned with the employees wellbeing. Employers don't hire through benevolence. Managers who make business decisions based on charity and affinity are replaced.

Washington state minimum wage = $8.67, assume 2080 annual work hours. OR $18033 annual hours.

Pretend the owner ( ) of the company that is created the minimum wage position, pays himself $350K annually.

Under your tax withholding examples of 17% and 3% who's paying more in WA State taxes. Need help with the math Mr. MBA?

Wow that's really unfair. BTW, Mr. MBA what are the taxes paid by the company just for creating that minimum wage position here in the Emerald State.

Maybe your B.S. (oops) I meant "MBA" would get you a job at Deja Vu. But again I doubt you've started a successful company here in our beautiful WA. Ever. Ever.



This is bold faced idiot statement. Yet supports the fact that your "MBA" got you a "paycheck" position in a company. Now as a liberal your're bitching because you didn't get paid like the owner/CEO did.

Bravo! Take a bow!

Now be honest and admit YOU, as an employer, wouldn't either.

As a percentage of their income, which is what LJ is referring to, the minimum wage worker is. Because 17 is bigger than 3. Get it now?


If by "bold faced idiot" you mean "completely true" then you are correct, sir. Wages for the middle class have fallen over the last 30 years while productivity has skyrocketed, meaning fewer people doing more work for less money. This is why we're now having such trouble mounting an economic recovery--the largest percentage of the population hasn't got the money to buy stuff, because a tiny fraction of the population has most of the money--and isn't numerous enough to buy enough to get demand in gear again.

True enough. I'd use the revenue to look out for me.

Which raises the question of how should the employees look out for themselves? The answer of course is to join unions and lobby for labor friendly government.

Goes to show you, wolves dislike armed sheep.

Thinking of employees as a resource to exploit is easier than thinking of them as partners in your success. The latter isn't necessary or useful when they're completely powerless.

There never was a misunderstanding. My solution which is opposite to every gov'mint loving liberal is: Equalize them to the lower number: 3%. I'm positive the poor minimum wage worker would love paying less in taxes. And yet the total amount taxed to $350K "Rich" would stay the same. 3% of $350K is a lot of fucking money. But this would require a considerable slash in government. 3% of $18033 is nothing AND would equate to a lot more spendable/savable income for them.

OK. Let's start by cutting your share of every government program that benefits you personally, including police and fire protection and free use of public roads. Then we can cut off your electricity and water as well--sure, you pay your bills, but who pays for the right-of-way maintenance to get the powerlines and water pipes to your house?

Sure, we could go to that extreme if you feel like it. I personally have zero issues cutting those services. But that is where you display YOUR irrationality. Probably in some attempt to get me to cry out “Hey, not my services!” Quite frankly I CAN live without the government. Yet that doesn’t promote a healthy society. As a Constitutionalist (State and Federal), I recognize a need for government, as well as a need for taxation to support that government. Where you, LJ, Stash and I (x5) butt heads is the level of both of those. So, I will continue this as a win/win demonstration.

Under the suggestion that we level the taxation percentage rate to 3% across the board it instantly releases $210 per month from the taxes a poor minimum wage worker. How much money can single person - minimum wage worker get on their DSHS card? I would bet its $180-$200 a month. Sounds to me like we really, as a state, don’t need the government taking those taxes from the PMWW (Poor/Minimum Wage Worker) only to issue it back on something they now depend on for FOOD. Then the assholes like Ron Armstrong can’t get on the radio and bitch about the PMWW using the DSHS card for junk food or New York steaks and lobsters. Gut DSHS. Win/Win.

Let’s now pretend that the PMWW has a grade school child. Well as a responsible parent, I myself drive or rather have my wife drive my children to school. So I don’t feel like paying for the PMWW’s kid to get a free ride. Free Education, absolutely! But the PMWW has to get their kid to school. They now have additional funds not taxed from their paychecks, $210, right? Well do they buy New York steaks or use some of it to get the kids to school. So let’s slash the school bus drivers / maintenance / Buses out of the state budget. Unnecessary service, right? Oh yeah, Win/Win. Well my wife is employed by the Hoquiam School district as a, yep, a fucking school bus driver. Wow! Yeah, fucking Wow. I’m actually advocating for my wife to get fucking fired. Sounds like I can take a personal hit regarding a state tax funded service. Call that a Win/Win?

There are HUNDREDS of non-ESSENTIAL services that can be cut from the budget. I go the opposite direction from you and offer to LOWER the PMWW taxation and you’ll argue to actually TAX the poor at a higher percentage rate. What the fuck is that? Seriously?

I’m not asking to be taxed less, just not more. You have the numbers. You’re a fairly smart guy. Do this math; right now I have a check on my office desk for $20k (rounded down cause it’s not quite $21K) that is ready to be sent to just WA state, for taxes that I owe from JUST this last year. Pay for education, Pay for ESSENTIAL DSHS services, there are people in society that can’t work and need the help. Not entitled to it, but need it. But for fucks sake, taxing everybody more to create financial slaves to the government. And that’s what I call it. Taking $200 to issues less back on a food card. That’s criminal.

We haven’t even broached the fact that the tax credits for the PMWW at time will get them MORE returned on their 1040ez forms. How about this fact to kick you in the nuts, the $20K+ I’m paying takes into account the so called “loop holes” and tax credits I can take.

Now an apology goes to Bogus Bill. One thing I hate is Thread Hijacking and I am partly at fault for hijacking his thread. The topic started out at some university study showing Alabama residents being too fat and lazy to pick their own crops. Some propaganda shit to probably push for allowing/tolerating illegal immigration or Amnesty for them. Maybe some benevolent, wise, Moderator can ascertain where the best place to split this Thread at and do Bogus Bill a justice to his intent.

Hows that for being able to keep track of a conversation, Thumper

BTW: That's Awesome! Can you get me a copy of that at greater then the 500px X 351px it is at. I'd like to use it as desktop wallpaper.

And now we know who the job-creatin' sumbitch hires.

No problem. We pretty well covered it in a completely guessable way: Raise food prices through the roof just to pay farm working Americans a decent rate for producing less than their border crossing southern neighbors. Like that makes sense financially.



Be thankful that is only yearly. Wait until you grow enough that they demand those taxes quarterly. Businesses in Washington bear way more than their share of taxes. Washington definitely is not business friendly.

I can sympathize with your tax rant. Tell us all one thing though: We owe 14 trillion dollars. It is too darned late to be cutting taxes. Without raising taxes AND cutting all that non-essential crap our government buys, how are we going to pay our bills?

Would food prices go "through the roof"? We started out talking about labor intensive crops like tomatoes. According to Philip Martin, a labor economist at the University of California, writing in the New York Times :
"If farm wages rose 40 percent, each household would spend about $15 more a year, and each seasonal farm worker would be lifted above the federal poverty line."


It must be hell in other states. Forbes Magazine rates us #5 on its list of Best States For Business And Careers.

Uh-huh. Well, I guess there are some places in Antarctica where there are caves in the ice. Otherwise, not.



Drive, school. Two more things that you can't have without government.



Pesky thing, that Constitution. The 14th Amendment guarantees that kid equal treatment, which means equal education, which means transportation to school to get that education.



No, I call it the "logic" of a typical Teabagger who claims to be a "constitutionalist" and yet is ignorant of what's in the actual Constitution.

If I was to suggest streamlining state government, I'd start with consolidating the departments of Ecology and Fish & Wildlife. But that doesn't address the real issue.

The real issue is that for the hyper-wealthy, taxes are at their lowest levels in 50 years while incomes are skyrocketing. Somehow, 50 years ago, with much higher tax rates, people got filthy rich anyway. All of the philosophical bullshit you can heap on the subject doesn't change the fact that higher taxes on the rich encourage investment and economic growth, while lower taxes on the rich encourage profit-taking and economic stagnation. We were a stronger nation and more socially and economically healthy when the rich were paying their fair share. Now we're neck-deep in shit and fewer than a million out of the 330 million people in this country are laughing all the way to the offshore banks, while the rest of us are treading water and hoping nobody decides to try waterskiing around us.

I don't know how much you make a year and I don't care. If it's less than a million dollars you're getting screwed just like the rest of us, but apparently you enjoy it.

I'd suggest Somalia. There still in a civil war of sorts. We fought ours already and 5th's side lost.

The ratings all depend on what you are looking for. Does Washington have a big pool of unemployed workers? Sure.

Now if you were to ask a group of 500 CEO's as this survey's story did, you would find Washington number 36 and Texas and N. Carolina number 1 & 2. Washington State was #4 on the biggest losses in this scoring system the during the last 5 years.



Bottom of the list: California.



If you take all the tomatoes I eat per year, that would be about $4 per tomato.

That's not very much pizza, ketchup or spaghetti sauce.

This, Beavis is a bold faced lie. An attempt to get me to defend the 14th Amendment rather then what should happen. If this quoted crap can in any way be shown in the text of the 14th amendment. PROVE IT! Until then sit down, shut your whiny mouth and let the adults run the country.



And like a chess game Beavis I already suspect your response and have planned accordingly. It'll be entertaining proving just how full of shit you are to the readers on this post.


I enjoy keeping my money for myself. You enjoy government endorsed theft. And the fact is this.

Once assholes like you start making money at the rate I make it and taxes at the rate I pay them, you'll finally figure out how fucking unfair it is.

American Greed is at an all time high. You just proved American Jealousy/Envy is equally as high.

There are lots of taxes you pay running a business.

Sales tax - the customer pays it, you collect it, the revenuers get ticked if you don't pay it to them. Little businesses sometimes forget that they collected it from the customers and resent giving it to the real owner.

FICA - All contributions were spent on things besides what it was meant for. I resent this one only because our congress could not keep their hands off of it. If there is a chunk of money sitting in the coffers there is some pork being dreamed up by a congressman to spend it on.

B&O - Small businesses don't feel this too badly. For 5Star it means not being competitive when it goes up.

Income tax - If you, with a business, are paying this it means you are making money.

L&I - Collect $500 a week for doing nothing. Okay, this tax is too high. Still with high utility bills and such, it is a nice stopgap for the newly unemployed. If this is on your hate list, I understand it.

Which of the above taxes don't you like?

http://www.stnonline.com/resources/special-needs/federal-laws

Good thing you're not one of those aforementioned adults. Kids are entitled, on fourteenth amendment grounds, to transportation.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the cornerstone of disability rights. It declares that a state may not "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This phrase has been interpreted to mean that children with disabilities have equal protection of access to school bus transportation. This constitutional right has been incorporated into the foundation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.



Is the capacity for higher cognitive function isolated to the same part of the brain that is responsible for douchebaggery? In my experience, precociousness in one is always coexistent with diminished capacity for the other.

Why do you think it is unfair? Do you think any type of income tax is unfair? any type of progressive income tax? Is the rate unfair?

Is there such a thing as a fair tax?

I actually can identify with 5th on this. You start a company. Your company grows. You spend quite a bit of your income on equipment etc because your company is growing. IRS time comes around and that equipment you needed, you paid for, is counted as earnings. Now you have to scrape the bottom of your financial barrel OR borrow from a bank to pay taxes.

This really slows down growth in small businesses. Your accountant tells you that you have made money but you don't have extra money. You have equipment or whatever. If you went the loan route you spend the next year paying it back and not buying anything else PLUS trying to salt away extra in case you have a big tax bill again the next year.

It is the rules. We all live by them but you can see how taxes can stifle growth. Small businesses can only grow slowly.

Yes, you are putting back into the business and you end up with a large tax bill.

However, right now, " Internal Revenue Code allows you to deduct up to $500,000 of the cost of new equipment or other assets in 2010 and 2011."

Is there?

Previously, business equipment purchases had to be depreciated. You could only write off a percentage of the value of the equipment each year. Nowadays very few business purchases even need to be depreciated. Cars, equipment, computers... all written off in the first year.

Except for self employment taxes, in my experience, owning a business is a net tax break relative to wage earning.

If we have an accountant aboard, I think he will tell you you are wrong.

From the IRS link



If your equipment gets outdated before you recover your costs and you retire it...you lose the remaining depreciation.

==================

It just dawned on me that you and Thumper are saying the same thing. This is part of the governments stimulus program to get businesses spending, not a forever change of heart by the IRS.

Tax deductions are wonderful but FIRST you have to make the profit to deduct it from. Tough to do in today's small business world.

Making a profit is definitely the hard part.

... but then again, (in the absence of bank loans) I get to keep the stuff purchased with gross revenue for the business.

Take the business of rentals. The profits generally aren't very good, once you deduct the "depreciation" but you get to keep the property that the rents are purchasing.

I once heard someone say that prostitution is the best business. "You got it...you sell it...you still got it!"

You can write-off $250,000 this year in equipment purchases. That means you don't have to depreciate it. Real property or equipment over that amount you do have depreciate. For a small company, this does help.

For someone who claims to be a "Constitutionalist," you're pretty ignorant of what's in there.



Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954) is the standard by which the equal protection clause is applied to education. Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the court (it was a unanimous decision) said this:

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.



Aww. Aren't you cute. Are you out of Cheetos? Is that why you're having a tantrum?



Still waiting for "proof" of anything, aside from the fact that you are a complete blithering idiot content to spew Koch Brothers talking points instead of expending a little energy to think for yourself.

In other words, I'm not surprised at all.

Wow. Spending a few hours going through Codes and Regulations it’s shocking how far the bleeding heart liberals have gone to destroy the Constitution. Or rather hijack its intent. What started out equalization of men has been twisted and shit on to somehow incorporate water noggins gets free rides to school.
http://www.stnonline.com/resources/special-needs/federal-laws
http://www.scn.org/~bk269/94-142.html
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/20/33/I/1400
I can follow the faulty logic. I can see how juveniles can get there using it but it’s all that more infuriating and disgusting that while pretending to swear to protect and defend the Constitution, it’s been destroyed and eroded. Maybe further then restoration through non-violent measures can dictate. We’ll see. The Constitution was written from the hands of violent men. Maybe it will be have to be restored the same way.
Good move, though. Never would have expected the water noggins.

You think a PMWW paying a pittance from their wages, taking advantage of social welfare programs, getting their taxes returned on 1040ez, getting additional funds sent via IRS/Treasury dept, due to additional “loop holes” is fair? How could I think it’s “FAIR” that the PMWW get a higher “refund” then they pay into a system that is just as fucked up as liberals think my view of following a Constitutional Republic should be? Only then to have the so-called 99% fed misinformation by want-to-be-puppeteers like you, LJ and cretins like Bevis because you like Big Govermnemt. Think about it for a second.

The first bit of misinformation is that somehow the 14th amendment guarantees water noggins a free ride to my tax funded educational system. Pssst, If the poor get all plus more of their taxes back, who do you think is paying for it? Sure as shit it's the 1%.

It’s unfair because I am taxed in dollar amount greater than what a PMWW makes in a single year but somehow that just not fucking enough. But, yes I know, my side lost.

So now I have to figure out how to be smarter with my money. Seems like I may just merge with a foreign company, which has been proposed, move it’s physical location out of country, send my earning out of the US, live on credit cards and pay those credit card with funds from outside. I know 1’s and 0’s maybe I take a few days to discuss with my $$ people what to do differently to keep as much of my money out of the hands of the 99% via the organized crime syndicate in DC.

Federal Income Tax, 16th Amendment. Absolutely, it’s unfair. Look what it’s done to Americans today and the class warfare spawned from it. I believe the least amount of Federal Government possible is the best Federal Government possible.

State income tax, is just as susceptible to people dodging taxes as I possibly demonstrated above. Also as susceptible as politicians buying votes with it. Anything progressive makes my skin crawl because that is a catch phrase of incrementally stealing more over time and generally affects only the “middle class”.

I figured you were going present that. My rebuttal was on transportation, which lumberjack covered with the water noggin transportation law. And as stated it appears bleeding heart liberal have hijacked the itent of the 14th Amendment well enough to somehow apply "Equal Protection" to free school rides for water noggins.

But as you have seen exampled in Michigan, maybe the Koch family will be responsible for a non violent revolution. Enough people can and will get together to vote in legislators that will repeal "Laws" that are in place today. So that we can slash the shit out of government spending, cripple public/private Unions, Oh and repeal enough tax loop holes for the PMWW so that they don't receive tax refunds at all. Sounds like a good start to me.

By the way, just because I have the same ideals as the Koch brothers doen't mean I adopted theirs and didn't think of these or come to believe these for myself. I've been championing the same talking points for a couple decades. Maybe it makes me, in your opinion, just as big a douche bag. But I can live with that as long as the PMWW pays their fair share. Also so that when someone starts a company, takes the financial risk, they get to control their financial rewards.

I can see your side of the debate. I can see Lumberjacks side of it as well. And you're right, you never will see the side of it from the 1%'s view. You don't have that capability. I do, becuase I am on that side.

Yeah. That's the ticket.

You are one of the 1% of the richest? And you only pay $23,000 a year for state taxes?

Nope. Plus all tax breaks included it's just over $20K that I will be mailing off.

What this does demonstrate it some serious wisdom on your side and considerable folly on Lumberjacks. I have no doubt that his belief or how he read that statement was a proclamation from me that I am in the 1% of the richest. I'm positive of the fact that by the time he read through my posts of "greed and selfishness" that his eyes were so crossed in vexation that all he could read was covered in the scowl of pure hatred of me. It's his nature to hate those that will not cower to the slavery of a government he's trying to create. If you read his posts throughout the life of this board you will see that he embodies the meaning of Socialist/Liberal. I am his complete opposite. Which would make me American.

I'm not as rich as the 1%. But I am on their side. I exclude myself from the "99%" side as a side to fight for in the OWS movement/message. I also side with the Koch Brother's. I have no inclination or want to be like the 99%, but I don't blame 1% for not being at their level of success. Nor do I want to steal from them as Lumberjack, Beavis and idiots in the OWS movement do. Work/Persistence/Intelligence rose me to a tax level above your average worker. More of the same plus a little future "luck" will propel me towards the 1% Club.

Thank you for your question.

Well, apparently it didn't get YOU to school, so maybe not all of them get free rides after all.

Equal under the law means equal under the law. A black kid in rural Mississippi who can't depend on the racist white state government to give him a chance for an education is entitled, as an American citizen, to the same opportunity the upper-middle class kid in Manhattan gets. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." What part of that do you not understand?




Nah. You're just an annoying ignoramus. You don't have the resources or intellect to be as big a douchebag as the Kochs.



Well, I'm not delusional, so I guess not.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!"

-Samuel Adams, of the real Tea Party

Yes.



If I’m not mistaken, the Earned Income Tax Credit was the ALL MIGHTY RayGun’s idea. You’ll have to ask him. He’d probably have the same answer now, as he did during his time in office.



I don’t get it. I’m a want-to-be-puppeteer?



Pausing… Still don’t get it.



Do you think it enhances your argument to be an ass? You can be if you choose, but it doesn’t help. Just as Beavis and Ikayak have pretty much jumped the shark a long time ago, you’re warming up the ski boat.

Oh, and the equal protection claus does guarentee every child equal opportunity. If the publc school is going to stop over there and give that child a ride to school, then they will stop over there and give that child a ride, too. If that child needs accomodations, make it happen.


Thank you, Captain Obvious. (Thumper will be glad you’ve taken his title)



I submit, you probably pay enough. But, if nothing changes, when you get up into the $Millions and $Billions of dollars, you won’t. I support a progressive income tax. You don’t.



Yeah, but crackers still put those stupid flags on their cars. “Old times there are not forgotten…”



The loopholes are already there. You’re not creating a new one.



No, it’s not.



As Buffet say’s, “His side is winning.”


And, Republicans like Norquist, Santorum, Gingrich, et al, agree with you. Now is the great national debate. Shall we race to the bottom like Texas? Or shall we invest and strive for greatness. Your side lost once. I can only hope it loses again.

Men are created? Men didn't just evolve equally out of the ooze?

Interesting that our Founding Fathers considered the creation of men "self-evident", prima facie.

Oh pity those with eyes that do not see.

Btw, there's a comma after "equal", not a period.
You cut the statement short.


Also pity those who worry more about the Kochs and redistributing the wealth of others, rather than supporting policies which would make it more possible for people to create and increase their own.


5th: I appreciate your post made without the usual vile language. It even reads as somewhat intelligent.

This is the politics forum, Iky. For once I'm not taking the bait.



The first half of that sentence does not agree with the second half. I support policies which would make it more possible for people to create and increase their own. I do not support policies which reward a tiny minority of the population for breaking the law and stacking the deck against the other 99 percent, which is what we've got now.

I love a story with a happy ending, bro.

5th has problems with punctuation. What he actually meant was "Plus all tax breaks included it's just over $2, O.K., that I will be mailing off."

We can do this all night, kiddo.

Unfortunately YOU forget the base definition of Liberty. We can debate whether or not our current FEDERAL government is acting or governing in a despotic manner. Probably ending in an agreement to disagree.

Thanks for your honesty. Which is why you continue to attempt to puppeteer the masses of PMWW to vote into law endless entitilement programs that will fail or bankrupt this nation for having chased the 1% and their property from our borders. Who will you tax then?



We find agreement there too. Reblifucks and Demoncrats are both culpable for the distruction of our nation and it's wealth. At the same time destroying our currency and enabling class warfare.




What, you want to be a full fledge puppeteer? Well fine then congratulations you control the PWMM mindless moron class. Feel better?




Out of due respect I will approach discussion of those with handicap with diplomacy and tact.

To those you puppeteer: Dude, totally dropping the keys and stepping away from the speedboat, man. Here's my Stash man. It's good shit. Roll one or pack a bong, man.


Michigan started out by disabling the Public sector unions. Teachers were the highest group in attendance of the protesters who ultimately failed. We can start the process here by getting Rob McKenna elected as Govenor. However, as a Stateman I believe a strong educated states citizenry is beneficial to all in the state.

However, no one smart would ever agree with the and well, ya know, my side lost.



Back! Thumper, I swear I will thump you good. Get away from the title.


What, then, would encourage the PWMM to become a millionare or billionare? Shortly after they would see you using the mindless masses to steal their money.


You've already established that in your opinion fair and equality need not apply to the rich.





Some smarter then you would tend to disagree with you. I'll side with Tom on this one, again.

Beavis may be too cowardly to approach or "bite at this" with his failed attempt at Buddhism (sheesh these teenages eating cheetos he drools all over reading up on wikipedia knows more on buddhism then he does. Maybe his latest bucket of Popeyes interferes with his view of the monitor {Doesn't this board have a rule against him posting his NAMBLA fantasies})but I'll 1/2 agree with you. You only see one Creator. Or as Stash says, You only have one voice in your head, there are those with many.


no argument here.


Why? I'm paying for their schooling and their adequate transportation there to.



He's does that alot. Lumberjack and Stash too. it's supports the want-to-be puppeteering statement I made earlier.

Preachin to the choir, Toots.

Oh, C'mon! Don't do that, that bad voices will come back.

Sometimes I wonder if my tax bracket will raise if I control that part better. IRL I'm the same vulgar Heathen.

That's unfortunate. I'd rather write it to Washingtn state and have Christine Gregoire or who ever the Govenor is fight with DC over how much of it they get.

You are welcome.



If the Wrong Wing have their way and continue drinking the Norquist Kool-aid, maybe. Otherwise, no. We’ll do fine. Social Security has never missed a payment and has brought many seniors out of poverty. A little tweaking for the baby-boomers and it will be fine.



I assumed there would be some.



Finally! But, in reality all that has to happen is the Republicans and/or your side getting some of your hooey in place. There are those who flail at the incompetence of government and when they get in charge, they prove it. The Koch Brothers and Scott Walker and Cantor, Boehner, Kasich, etc. are personified commercials for my side.



Thank you. I promise, it won’t hurt.



If they were under the RayGun delusion that “government is the problem”, or the Norquist “drown it in the bathtub” slime, maybe. But, most understand that taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. With a 90% upper tax bracket, Republican President Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System (I realize he screwed up because the Constitution doesn’t mention 4 lane roads or asphalt). Obama cut taxes for 95% of Americans and the Republicans pissing all over themselves because he wanted to allow the top 1% or 2% tax cut to expire and go back up to the 39% it was during the very successful Clinton years. Evil redistributionist! What tripe. Again, I support a progressive tax system. You don’t.

There is plenty left to the states. But, there is a minimum Federal Standard. If you are in the United States, you should be able to travel anywhere and know there are basic rights and standards. That promotes the general welfare.

No bait. You opened the door. The Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Independence were and are very much all about politics. If the Founding Fathers are not correct in their premise, that it is prima facie men are CREATED equal, logically implying a CREATOR, "endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights", then their conclusion declaring the Right of the People to alter or abolish any Form of Government destructive to that premise, is rendered invalid.




Check the news. People who break the law are being held accountable. Have the Kochs stacked the deck and made it impossible for me to make steady financial gains? Not in the least. Stop blaming the 1% and coveting their wealth and take responsibility for the decisions and choices you have made in your own life which have placed you where you are today. You want great wealth? Choose this day to love and serve the One who will freely give you riches in this life and the next. The only thing you have to take is His Gift. And yeah, that's politics. It's all about your Creator and His governance.

I'll stick with my one voice. Those with many need to put their crossbows down and get back on their meds.

Oh, so it wasn't another attempt to hijack a politics thread and rant about religion?




LMAO

The wheels on the (short) bus go round and round...

Do you believe that Thomas Jefferson also belongs on the short bus, Beavis?

You use the Declaration for argumentative support, yet you dishonestly edit it to fit your own ideology. The source of our unalienable rights? All of the signers of the Declaration knew. Thomas Jefferson knew. Big picture men, Beavis, declaring big picture prima facie truth.

You affirm that the black kid in rural Mississippi has the same unalienable equal rights and liberties as the kid in Upper Manhattan, and so you should, yet you deny the source and foundation of that prima facie truth that renders him equal. That's irrational.

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever." ~Thomas Jefferson

Which bus will you be riding on Judgment Day, Beavis?

Indeed he did.

Given that The Origin of Species wasn't published until 1859, I think I can forgive Thomas Jefferson for reflecting the state of scientific belief at the time--note, for example, that there is no specific reference to "Jehovah," "Jesus," the "Christian God," or so forth. That something created the universe was the best they could do in 1776. Less than a hundred years later Charles Darwin came along and provided a better answer.



Iky, what's irrational is this easily-exploded insistence that the Founding Fathers were devotees of your particular brand of fundamentalist Christianity. They weren't, and this was not founded as a Christian nation. We've had this argument and you've been proven wrong again and again and again. Enough already.



Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. --Thomas Jefferson, 1821, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom.

While Jefferson denied the divinity of Jesus Christ, he did not deny the divinity of God.

Of course his neighbors did not injure him personally by their religious nor non-religious beliefs, just as it does not injure me personally that I have eternal life in Jesus Christ and you don't.

Your post does not negate the fact that Jefferson knew that it is prima facie the unalienable rights and liberties of man are endowed by God. It's folly for you, Beavis, or anyone else to attempt deny that.






He provided a different faith based religion.


"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." ~Dr. George Wald



Get back to me when you're a Nobel recipient and elected to the National Academy of Sciences and to the American Philosophical Society, Beav.

In the church of ikayak, That means he went to hell, right?

Or are you suggesting that any superstition is better than none at all?

John 14:6: no exceptions listed.

How about I just give you the rest of the article you so conveniently left out, my contextually-challenged pal?

One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.46

The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at least once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at-least-once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough.

Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.48

Wherever life is possible, given time, it should arise. It should then ramify into a wide array of forms, differing in detail from those we now observe (as did earlier organisms on the earth) yet including many which should look familiar to us -- perhaps even men.

"The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.53 --Dr. George Wald

Get back to me when you're back on your meds and the voices stop telling you to believe fairy tales over hard science, Iky.

Exactly. According to the mythology, there are no exceptions... not even for those married homosexuals or even funkycamper.

Where is the context? You've quoted the same person but didn't actually include the quote ikayak cited, so there's still no context. Where does ikayak's quote fit in the piece you quoted? Was it a different article?

Iky's quote comes before my first quote, in the same article. Iky just trimmed off the references. Basically the doc says yeah, given a really short period of time it's hard to believe spontaneous generation and evolution could happen--but we're not talking about a really short period of time, we're talking about billions of years, so it's actually impossible to believe that it would NOT happen--because life tends to find a way if there is any way possible. Every scientific observation, every specimen, every study ever done or bit of evidence collected supports evolution. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for creationism. None.

So why are you imploring us to heed the theological advice of someone who is in hell?

OK, thanks. I'll have to look up that article. If "...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God." is not sarcastic or tongue in cheek, I would think it would be cause for concern. An honorable scientist wouldn't disregard scientific evidence just because they didn't get the results they like, or because the results challenged another preconceived notion. But, I'll read it for myself and see.

While I admire many things the Founders did, I think this discussion is rather silly. You're all laying too much stock into the issue of inalienable rights, imho. The Founders only thought you had inalienable rights if you were a white, property-owning male. No inalienable rights for women, most people of color, and white men without sufficient property ownership. Add to that, the Bible has many references justifying slavery, sections glorifying the total annihilation of various peoples, and often states that our happiness will be in heaven and not on earth. So much for the inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness which are obviously man-given and not God- or god-given.

Jefferson was correct in his affirmation of God as man's Creator and Endower of man's unalienable rights. The fact that according to God's Word, unless he acknowledged Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior before he died he is spending eternity separated from God, does not change that.

Christ's Word recorded in Matthew, Chapter 11 gives indication that those who deny Him and do not repent will find their eternity separated from God (in hell, as you indicate) more tolerable or less tolerable. This is just a guess, but knowing the mercy of God, there's a good chance that those who believe in and have publicly acknowledged God as man's Creator and Endower, will be among those finding their eternity in hell at least somewhat more tolerable than those who have not. Perhaps their torment will consist only of their eternal sorrow and regret.