Morning report

[AMuzi]

For a week I've read that today would bring a killer storm
30cm of snow and death by -5F in strong winds.

It's 22F, no wind, 5cm of fluffy easy to shovel snow.
Actually nice for those who do not shovel.

meh.

(no ride today)
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Our prediction as a result of the storm is for over an inch of rain, sustained 40 mph winds, and temps in the high 50's though friday night. Unseasonable warm for northeastern massachusetts in late december, though not unheard of.

[Tom Kunich]

On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 5:54:36 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> For a week I've read that today would bring a killer storm
> 30cm of snow and death by -5F in strong winds.
>
> It's 22F, no wind, 5cm of fluffy easy to shovel snow.
> Actually nice for those who do not shovel.
>
> meh.
>
> (no ride today)

It must be that global warming the Stupid Five keep telling us about.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/22/2022 8:54 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> For a week I've read that today would bring a killer storm 30cm of snow
> and death by -5F in strong winds.
>
> It's 22F, no wind, 5cm of fluffy easy to shovel snow. Actually nice for
> those who do not shovel.
>
> meh.

Local predictions seem to have shifted a bit later. Apparently the
system is not moving quite as fast as they thought it would. It's still
expected to be very ugly.

Predicting weather is obviously tricky. Our local weather man often
shows multi-trace graphs of (e.g.) precipitation amounts as predicted by
five different models. At least three or four are usually in close
agreement, but sometimes one or more differs widely. As I understand,
those are all generated by rather complex computers.

But things are better than they ever were. IIRC, Benjamin Franklin was
one of the first to realize that intense storms were phenomena that
traveled from place to place along predictable paths. Until then, the
general thinking was that they were acts of God sent down on specific
locales.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Roger Merriman]

Hills and terrain can make difference to weather, nr my work is Heathrow
and it’s a very built up bit of london so can get very hot as there isn’t
enough green ie trees for shade and so on.

Nr my folks the hills and valleys can funnel wind and some areas are more
exposed than others so the wind chill or snow and so on is difficult to
predict with any accuracy ie might be rain might be snow might be something
in between might rain and then freeze which is fairly tedious as getting
about becomes tricky.

Roger Merriman

[Joy Beeson]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 07:54:34 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

> (no ride today)

Drove the car to get a blood draw, bought milk and eggs on the way
home. I'm planning to stay in through New Year's.

Snow isn't supposed to start until five, but I could feel flakes on my
arms while walking to the compost heap in house clothes. Couldn't
feel the snow when standing still.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net

[AMuzi]

I am a critic of that but 22F for Christmas week with a
little snow is perfectly normal here.

[Radey Shouman]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> On 12/22/2022 8:54 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> For a week I've read that today would bring a killer storm 30cm of
>> snow and death by -5F in strong winds.
>> It's 22F, no wind, 5cm of fluffy easy to shovel snow. Actually nice
>> for those who do not shovel.
>> meh.
>
> Local predictions seem to have shifted a bit later. Apparently the
> system is not moving quite as fast as they thought it would. It's
> still expected to be very ugly.
>
> Predicting weather is obviously tricky. Our local weather man often
> shows multi-trace graphs of (e.g.) precipitation amounts as predicted
> by five different models. At least three or four are usually in close
> agreement, but sometimes one or more differs widely. As I understand,
> those are all generated by rather complex computers.

Predicting weather is hard, but noticeable progress has made -- I trust
short term weather forecasts much more than I did years ago. The big
change, however, has been breathless, hyperbolic, fearmongering "news"
coverage of quotidian weather events. Many times I have had my mother
call me up, and tell me she's seen some crazy weather report on tv of
how bad it is up my way. Usually I have to say it's perfectly normal
here, Mom.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/22/2022 3:29 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>
> Predicting weather is hard, but noticeable progress has made -- I trust
> short term weather forecasts much more than I did years ago. The big
> change, however, has been breathless, hyperbolic, fearmongering "news"
> coverage of quotidian weather events. Many times I have had my mother
> call me up, and tell me she's seen some crazy weather report on tv of
> how bad it is up my way. Usually I have to say it's perfectly normal
> here, Mom.

I've noticed that trend toward fear mongering in weather as well. Of
course it matches that trend in society as a whole; but ISTR hearing of
instances in which weather forecasters were sued for mistakes, or at
least threatened with lawsuits.

The incidents I find online are pretty ludicrous:
https://kahanelaw.com/wacky-wednesday-weatherman-sued-for-wrong-prediction/

https://torontosun.com/2016/06/22/montreal-businessman-sues-weatherman-over-bad-forecast-claims-he-cancelled-events-based-on-rain-that-never-came

But I thought I recalled one involving an unpredicted storm at sea
resulting in loss of life.

If that's a concern at the agencies giving predictions, I suppose they
feel there's little to lose by crying "wolf."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

I would say that weather prediction around urban areas is fairly good but the further you get away from the urban centers the worse the predictions get.

[AMuzi]

Those are excellent examples, thanks.

Civil lawsuit claims and actual reality may exist in
different separate universes:

https://abcnews.go.com/Travel/fat-fly-passenger-sues-southwest-airlines-discriminatory-actions/story?id=16271932

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 2:33:25 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/22/2022 9:43 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 5:54:36 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> >> For a week I've read that today would bring a killer storm
> >> 30cm of snow and death by -5F in strong winds.
> >>
> >> It's 22F, no wind, 5cm of fluffy easy to shovel snow.
> >> Actually nice for those who do not shovel.
> >>
> >> meh.
> >>
> >> (no ride today)
> >
> > It must be that global warming the Stupid Five keep telling us about.
> >
> I am a critic of that but 22F for Christmas week with a
> little snow is perfectly normal here.

Of note for this area - from a predicted high of 55 tomorrow afternoon the temps are to drop to the low 20's by midnight, then stay below freezing through wednesday - Appreciably colder than usual, but again, not unheard of

[Catrike Rider]

The media's primary function is to scare people, whether it be
physical/medical conditions, weather, finance, or politics. This
whole "huge winter storm" thing is "ho hum."

[Mark Cleary]

> >Those are excellent examples, thanks.tt of

> The media's primary function is to scare people, whether it be
> physical/medical conditions, weather, finance, or politics. This
> whole "huge winter storm" thing is "ho hum."
> >Civil lawsuit claims and actual reality may exist in
> >different separate universes:
> >
> >https://abcnews.go.com/Travel/fat-fly-passenger-sues-southwest-airlines-discriminatory-actions/story?id=16271932

The Morning report here a 200 miles south of Andrew is the same really. The big, huge hype by the weather channel and blizzard with tons of snow. It was supposed to start 6 am today. I went out at 5:30 was quite nice at 32 degrees and almost no wind. DId a 62 mile ride in 3:45 minutes and just bit of snow flurries at the end and getting colder. Now of course it is 4 degrees and wind blowing like madd with light snow. Basically it is December in Illinois one has to simply expect it to be. The hype I just don't get they cry wolf too often.
Deacon Mark

[Tom Kunich]

I have to agree with you. What is "huge"? The yearly winter storm that comes at or near Christmas? Are people going to die from it? You bet your ass. People driven into homelessness but the conscious obliterations by Obama and now Biden of jobs. People with far too little to eat with the cold winter conditions. But more people are going to die than needed to because the Democrats require dead people to prove that they really care. Why they care so much about Americans that they give a Billion and a half dollars to the Ukraine while letting billions of known criminals across our southern border.

[AMuzi]

I just talked with a customer who is a semi driver. He's in
Wyoming where it dropped 51 degrees in two hours and there's
a snow whiteout in high winds. State Patrol reports 700
service calls and 110 semi wrecks.

But hey we've seen this before:
https://vintagenewsdaily.com/the-winds-of-hell-historical-photos-of-the-1940-armistice-day-blizzard/

[AMuzi]

You have to either laugh or cry.

The last minute porkathon in Congress includes
appropriations for 'border security' of Tunisia and Egypt
but specifically enjoins the Administration from any
spending on US border enforcement.

[John B.]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 16:03:11 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

I thought her argument that "they should have told her when she bought
the ticket' a bit odd. When I was working I flew rather frequently and
bought my tickets by calling the travel agent who delivered the
ticket's sight unseen, so to speak.

And, what's the airline to do if you appear and won't fit into the
seat?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Hey Tommy, I understand that you Republicans are liars

A New York Republican who won a U.S. House seat in November is under
pressure to explain himself amid evidence he fabricated parts of his
life story.
https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-business-queens-ae463f9ef3497ce4479f9fe5f2defde1
Apparently just like you, Tommy, his "resume" is simply a collection
of lies.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

Unfortunately Mr Santos will fit right in with the other
elected liars:

https://heavy.com/news/2017/02/richard-blumenthal-vietnam-service-did-lie-about-serving-in-military-donald-trump-quote-report/

[Frank Krygowski]

Sorry, Andrew, those two tales are not even close to equivalent. About Blumenthal, while he's
not perfectly blameless, it sounds like he almost always made his service record very clear:
"In addition, The Day reported that after viewing years of Blumenthal speeches and political debates, they found that he typically specified that his service was in the Marine Corps Reserve, and in some instances he explicitly said he did not serve in Vietnam. On one such occasion reported by The Day, Blumenthal said during a Democratic primary debate, “Although I did not serve in Vietnam, I have seen first-hand the effects of military action.”

If he occasionally falsified, despite having been perfectly honest most of the time, that sounds far
different from Santos claiming to attend two colleges that had no record of him, claiming to work for
multiple firms that had no record of him, etc. and having all that publicly posted or printed.

Doesn't the latter sound very much like Mr. Kunich? It does to me.

- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

Interesting. He apparently was in the "Reserves" and not the actual
active duty military. Who, to anyone who actually served, is consider
a "play boy".

As for Vietnam service... a little known fact was that if you decided
that you liked it, and tried to extend your service there you had to
have a letter from your wife or family stating that they knew that you
were volunteering :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 07:31:01 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

It's not just Republicans... It's almost all politicians...

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/499065-lies-damned-lies-and-the-truth-about-joe-biden/

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 6:11:03 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>
>
> The last minute porkathon in Congress includes
> appropriations for 'border security' of Tunisia and Egypt
> but specifically enjoins the Administration from any
> spending on US border enforcement.
>

Does it? Or is this more along the lines of how the Respect for Marriage act (doesn't actually) "codifies and protects religious discrimination and child grooming."?

https://www.govexec.com/management/2022/12/here-are-major-takeaways-17-trillion-omnibus-spending-bill/381162/

"Border security: Border Patrol is in line for a whopping 17% funding boost, which includes the funding for 300 new Border Patrol agents that the Biden administration had repeatedly stressed as necessary to handle the record-high numbers of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. If Border Patrol is unable to meet the hiring goal, it can use the funds on other efforts to boost morale. Customs and Border Protection would see its regular funding increase by 12%, though it would see a separate, one-time appropriation of $1.6 billion to address the uptick at the border. The encounters are only expected to increase when the pandemic-era policy known as Title 42 expires, though the Supreme Court has temporarily paused that from occurring. Immigration and Customs Enforcement would similarly receive a one-time boost of $340 million. None of the funds in those distinct appropriations could be used to hire permanent federal employees. The regular funding mechanism provided CBP's Office of Field Operations with money to offset shortfalls from its fee collections that the agency had warned could lead to furloughs. The Homeland Security Department would see a total increase of $3.2 billion."

You're likely referring to the line in the bill that states "None of the funds in those distinct appropriations could be used to hire permanent federal employees."
- I've been digging into the seeming contradiction between "includes the funding for 300 new Border Patrol agents" and "None of the funds in those distinct appropriations could be used to hire permanent federal employees." No luck so far.
- That said, it's a far cry from "specifically enjoins the Administration from any spending on US border enforcement". In fact, it's quite the opposite.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Gee, That sounds familiar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy

" After April 1972, Bush may have failed to meet the attendance requirements established for members of the Air National Guard. In mid-1972, he failed to meet the Air Force requirement for an annual physical examination for pilots and lost his authorization to be a pilot.[10] According to Bush's pay records, he did not attend any drills between mid-April and the end of October 1972. He drilled in Alabama in October and November 1972, and again in January 1973; what duties he performed are unknown. "

[Catrike Rider]

300 new border patrol agents is an increase of one and a half percent,
and they are already understaffed with many thousands of potential
illegal border crossings next year.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

so? CBP noted they are ~1000 short of the goals established by the trump administration in 2017 - a 5 year plan to hire 1700 new agents. 300 for this years budget is in line with that goal. The issue isn't the money - it was appropriated back then. The issue is getting people that _want_ the job. This has been a historic challenge when the unemployment rate is low, plus CBP has an attrition rate twice that of any other federal department. This isn't new, it's been that way for decades.

> and they are already understaffed with many thousands of potential
> illegal border crossings next year.

There were 2.76 million illegal encounters for FY'22. An uptick of a "many" thousands is statistically insignificant. The speculation that the expiration of title 42 will lead to some massive surge is just that at this point - speculation.

Neither of your comments address Andrews claim that the legislation "specifically enjoins the Administration from any spending on US border enforcement". Try and stay focused kitty.

[AMuzi]

As the old saying goes, you can tell when they're lying.
Their lips move.

[AMuzi]

No I was not. As others have noted the small budgeted
increase does not offset recent depletion of staff.

You may have missed prohibition of Federal funds, "to
acquire, maintain, or extend border security technology and
capabilities, except for technology and capabilities to
improve Border Patrol processing." (extraneous commas in
original)

Border Patrol no longer prevents entry. Au contraire. Their
mission has become care and feeding then internal transport
of illegal aliens to an estimated six million wandering
about here so far during this Administration. Border Patrol
estimates that another 10 to 12 million have entered without
processing.

But hey. we taxpayers, a disfavored minority, are shoveling
money to other countries to secure their borders.

Laugh or cry but this is not a coherent or sensible policy.

[Tom Kunich]

Very obviously man-made global warming.

[Tom Kunich]

On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 3:11:03 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:

A Billion and a half to protect Ukranian border security while US borders have now been flushed down the toilet with the help of people pretending to be Republicans.

[Tom Kunich]

No one ever said that Flunky would be worried in the least about anything he lies about. Increasing border control agents does exactly what when they are ordered to take no actions other than welcoming illegal aliens into this country?

[Catrike Rider]

Sensible is in the eyes of the beholder. The Democrats haven't been
able to load the SCOTUS with more lefties so instead they're loading
the population with more lefties...

[Tom Kunich]

That's pretty much exactly what they're doing. These illegals are almost entirely Central and South American countries that VOTED in communism and now that they are starving to death from it move to American where they are busy making exactly the same mistakes.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, December 23, 2022 at 11:34:57 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/23/2022 4:24 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 6:11:03 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> The last minute porkathon in Congress includes
> >> appropriations for 'border security' of Tunisia and Egypt
> >> but specifically enjoins the Administration from any
> >> spending on US border enforcement.
> >>
> >
> > Does it? Or is this more along the lines of how the Respect for Marriage act (doesn't actually) "codifies and protects religious discrimination and child grooming."?
> >
> > https://www.govexec.com/management/2022/12/here-are-major-takeaways-17-trillion-omnibus-spending-bill/381162/
> >
> > "Border security: Border Patrol is in line for a whopping 17% funding boost, which includes the funding for 300 new Border Patrol agents that the Biden administration had repeatedly stressed as necessary to handle the record-high numbers of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. If Border Patrol is unable to meet the hiring goal, it can use the funds on other efforts to boost morale. Customs and Border Protection would see its regular funding increase by 12%, though it would see a separate, one-time appropriation of $1.6 billion to address the uptick at the border. The encounters are only expected to increase when the pandemic-era policy known as Title 42 expires, though the Supreme Court has temporarily paused that from occurring. Immigration and Customs Enforcement would similarly receive a one-time boost of $340 million. None of the funds in those distinct appropriations could be used to hire permanent federal employees. The regular funding mechanism provided CBP's Office of
> Field Operations with money to offset shortfalls from its fee collections that the agency had warned could lead to furloughs. The Homeland Security Department would see a total increase of $3.2 billion."
> >
> > You're likely referring to the line in the bill that states "None of the funds in those distinct appropriations could be used to hire permanent federal employees."
> > - I've been digging into the seeming contradiction between "includes the funding for 300 new Border Patrol agents" and "None of the funds in those distinct appropriations could be used to hire permanent federal employees." No luck so far.
> > - That said, it's a far cry from "specifically enjoins the Administration from any spending on US border enforcement". In fact, it's quite the opposite.
> >
> No I was not. As others have noted the small budgeted
> increase does not offset recent depletion of staff.
>
> You may have missed prohibition of Federal funds, "to
> acquire, maintain, or extend border security technology and
> capabilities, except for technology and capabilities to
> improve Border Patrol processing." (extraneous commas in
> original)

That's an exceptional selective reading and interpretation, and the little quote you selected removes the context that it specifically is referring to the funds set aside for for the purposes defined. The full passage states that the money set aside for border processing can't be used for any other purpose than border processing. There is an additional $230 million appropriated for 'acquiring, maintaining, or extending border security technology and capabilities' elsewhere in the legislation, and further appropriations set aside specifically for hiring border agents.

It _doesn't_ mean that _no_ federal funds can be used for those purposes. It's a far cry from "specifically enjoins the Administration from any spending on US border enforcement". In fact, it's quite the opposite.

[AMuzi]

Here's your happy Holiday message, brought to you (er,
brought upon us?) by the kumbaya bipartisan gang of thieves
in DC:

https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/dr-rand-paul-releases-2022-festivus-report-government-waste

I go way back to Sen Proxmire's 'Golden Fleece Awards' but
we're exponentially beyond those days now. Laugh or cry as
you read through it.

[John B.]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 10:34:54 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

Ah well, this morning's news has it that the U.S. has just passed a
"$1.7 Trillion spending Bill". Sure to be plenty of money next year

[Catrike Rider]

Another bourbon please... Make it a double....

[Catrike Rider]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 05:35:40 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The fools passed it without even seeing what was in it...

[John B.]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 06:52:01 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"

Controlling the influx of foreigners into the U.S. is relatively easy
to do. (1) A law that deny's any and all government support,of any
sort, to non citizens and (2) a mandatory 1 year's jail and $10,000
fine, per employee, for anyone that employs a foreigner unless he/she
has a proper work permit.

Oh Yes! And enforce the law :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 06:08:15 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

+1

[John B.]

Good Lord! The "bill" was 4,000 pages long. Do you expect the
legislatures to read all that over their morning coffee?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 06:45:40 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

They could have had the spending bill done months ago so that it could
have been evaluated. They didn't, and it's obvious why.. It's full of
pork.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/23/2022 6:08 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> Controlling the influx of foreigners into the U.S. is relatively easy
> to do. (1) A law that deny's any and all government support,of any
> sort, to non citizens and (2) a mandatory 1 year's jail and $10,000
> fine, per employee, for anyone that employs a foreigner unless he/she
> has a proper work permit.
>
> Oh Yes! And enforce the law :-)

Trouble is, companies need workers. And aliens tend to work cheap.

Start here to enforce the law?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/us/mar-a-lago-undocumented-workers.html

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/columns/2021/07/31/want-stop-immigrant-job-stealers-start-mar-lago/5429144001/

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 18:54:24 -0500, Catrike Rider

Well that is Democracy in action, isn't it? After all, if I want you
to vote for me don't I have to make it worth your while in some
manner?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

Our Statutes could be better but are sufficient if any
Administration enforced them.

[John B.]

As I have posted, current U.S. unemployed seems to be in the 6 million
range
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployed-persons\and and
illegal workers seem to be in the 7 million range.
https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-millions-undocumented-immigrants-essential-americas-recovery-new-report-shows/
So, it appears that if the illegal workers were removed from the
economy there would be plenty of jobs for the USians. It seems
illogical to pay one man unemployment while hiring an illegal who
probably does not contribute to the tax base.

I might point out that one of the reasons that Thailand currently has
about 1% unemployed (less the 1% before Covid) is that they
stringently limit the number of foreigners allowed to work in the
country as does every other Asian country I have lived in.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

I can't say for the present but about 15 years ago my (Thai) wife
wanted to visit her elder sister who had married a U.S. Serviceman and
thus was allowed to immigrate to the U.S.

You cannot imagine the hassle we had to go through to get a 1 month
visitor's visa. Primarily some sort of proof that she would leave when
scheduled. A personal guarantee from her husband (Me-U.S. citizen)
that she would return was not sufficient and we finally had to get a
younger brother who owns a rather large company to have his company
guarantee her return.

Today I read that millions of illegal's are living and working in the
U.S.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

I don't think it's often as simple as that. I've voted for and
campaigned for people who I thought were much more competent than their
opposition, even though I foresaw and received no economic benefit for
myself. And I routinely vote for tax levies (such as school levies) that
cost me money but have no effect on my family, since my kids are long
since grown and moved away.

I'll note that when I said "more competent," there have been examples
who are or were members of both major political parties, plus an
occasional independent.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

You seem to take my comment personally when I meant it to be a general
statement. However. How many times have you heard or read someone
running for public office saying "If elected I will ....". And it is
always something that the voters feel will benefit them.

As an example, I remember just after WW II the Portsmouth Navel Yard
had almost nothing to do and it was widely know that many employees
were pinching in, in the morning, and turning right around and going
to a day job and then coming back to punch out at quitting time.

The chap running for U.S. Senator made a speech in Portsmouth and
stated that "If I am elected I can promise you that the navy yard will
not be closed".

And strangely enough got all the votes from the town of Portsmouth.


--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 19:57:04 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 12/23/2022 6:08 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> Controlling the influx of foreigners into the U.S. is relatively easy
>> to do. (1) A law that deny's any and all government support,of any
>> sort, to non citizens and (2) a mandatory 1 year's jail and $10,000
>> fine, per employee, for anyone that employs a foreigner unless he/she
>> has a proper work permit.
>>
>> Oh Yes! And enforce the law :-)
>
>Trouble is, companies need workers.

Because Biden and some state governments pay people not to work...

In 24 states, unemployment benefits and ObamaCare subsidies for a
family of four with no one working are the annualized equivalent of at
least the national median household.

https://nypost.com/2022/12/18/it-pays-not-to-work-in-bidens-america-thanks-to-welfare-benefits/

[Catrike Rider]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 08:19:03 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

That's why we need Congressional term limits.

[John B.]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 05:32:39 -0500, Catrike Rider

And just how do you plan to get such a law passed. If it applies to
the Senate and House it seems as though the "law" would have to
originate there.

But having said that what moves would a new Legislature make to get
elected? That would differ from what his predecessor had made ?


--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 17:42:41 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

It was just wishful thinking. I have no hope of it ever being done.

>But having said that what moves would a new Legislature make to get
>elected? That would differ from what his predecessor had made ?
>

Term limits would turn some of the Congresscrooks into lame ducks..

[Catrike Rider]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 06:02:38 -0500, Catrike Rider

32 degrees here this morning and it might be colder tomorrow night. I
might have to see if I can find a pair of socks in the bottom of my
dresser drawer.

It won't get back to high seventies until late next week so I can get
one more ride in this year. I won't ride if it's under 65 and not even
then unless it's sunny.

WE'll go kayaking before I wear socks, long pants and long sleeve
shirts on a bike ride.

[Tom Kunich]

They are using the excuse that illegals work cheap. But they also aren't qualified for most jobs in the US.

[AMuzi]

The system is complex and frustrating enough. And I speak as
someone who has sponsored immigrants and helped along with
the years-long tortuous naturalization process. That in many
iterations over the past 40 years or so.

But application has always been random, chaotic and
unpredictable. In recent years, and dramatically moreso
under this Administration, the border is wide open to
welfare, dope runners, slavers, spies and all manner of
criminals while actual legal immigration is stymied at every
turn.

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/12-passengers-rescued-from-boat-in-huntington-beach/

https://patch.com/new-mexico/albuquerque/69-immigrants-rescued-stash-house-covid-19-memorial-proposal

on and on all year.

[AMuzi]

You didn't do enough to get on this list!

https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/dr-rand-paul-releases-2022-festivus-report-government-waste

[AMuzi]

It's worse than that.

Government 'poverty' rates do not include public transfers,
housing, food, medical, rent. In Phil Gramm's nicely done
paper a month ago, he shows that the standard of living for
the lowest income quintile (the 20% with virtually no work)
is significantly higher than the second quintile (the least
wealthy workers).

As I've noted here for years, among other pernicious
policies, labor regulation and the payroll tax (applied to
the first dollar) hurt the working poor disproportionately.

[AMuzi]

Minus 5F today which is significantly warmer than minus 15F
yesterday. Winds have dropped from 35mph (brutal) to about
20mph. Which is nice as I just finished a minor outdoor car
repair.

[John B.]

Obviously you never worked for a government agency. If you had you
would realize that the overwhelming drive is to "protect the budget" -
your organization's budget - and you protect it by spending every last
penny, and then a little more, which proves that you will need a
larger budget next year.

And this is not a joke either. I've been in Air Force units that flew
"boring a hole in the sky" missions day after day simply to burn up
fuel allocations and conversely I have been in units where specific
aircraft were "grounded" as they had used up their fuel allocation.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

I read somewhere that in places like Detroit they are into 2nd and 3rd
generation unemployed. If that is true then obviously the "poor" have
sufficient funds to live and reproduce.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 06:02:38 -0500, Catrike Rider

I wonder. If one knows that he has only "X" years to make his bundle,
wouldn't he just try harder?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 08:03:29 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>They are using the excuse that illegals work cheap.

Cheap? As of Jan 1, 2023, general minimum wage in Mexico is 207.44
MXN (Mexican pesos) per day ($10.71 USD), and 312.41 MXN per day
($16.13 USD) in the Free Economic Zone along the Northern Border.
Notice that's per day, not per hour.
<https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/mexico-increases-general-minimum-wage-2>
Where would you rather live? California minimum wage is $15.50 per
hour or $124 USD per day.
<https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_minimumwage.htm>

>But they also aren't qualified for most jobs in the US.

US residents are not qualified for most US jobs done by Mexican
immigrants. Have you ever done stoop labor in the fields? I did it
for one day when I was in college and immediately decided that I
wasn't qualified.


--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[John B.]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2022 13:20:18 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 08:03:29 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
><cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>They are using the excuse that illegals work cheap.
>
>Cheap? As of Jan 1, 2023, general minimum wage in Mexico is 207.44
>MXN (Mexican pesos) per day ($10.71 USD), and 312.41 MXN per day
>($16.13 USD) in the Free Economic Zone along the Northern Border.
>Notice that's per day, not per hour.
><https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/mexico-increases-general-minimum-wage-2>
>Where would you rather live? California minimum wage is $15.50 per
>hour or $124 USD per day.
><https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_minimumwage.htm>
>
>>But they also aren't qualified for most jobs in the US.
>
>US residents are not qualified for most US jobs done by Mexican
>immigrants. Have you ever done stoop labor in the fields? I did it
>for one day when I was in college and immediately decided that I
>wasn't qualified.

True! Far, far, better to just sit at home and draw your unemployment.
--
Cheers,

John B.