A friend was buying baby stuff for another friend. Somehow this ended up. With a rumor that he got his wife pregnant. When it got back to me, another friend asked if i though he was happy about it. I said he is probably mad as hell because he was fixed 20 years ago after his second kid. Good news traveled faster than the real news- it was for someone else.
So perhaps Ukraine security services planted the story that the rebels shot down a military plane, they went to bragging between themselves, and there is every piece of evidence you brought up.
Or it was a false flag operation by senior ukranian military designed to outrage EU countries to impose the sanction against Russia that they rejected the previous day due to fears of wreckibg their own economy.
There is no logic error, Ukraine could have expected to benefit from the start. Having Russia abandon the rebels would be a huge victory for them. Its not the first time something like this has happened either.
If the prevailing wage is $20 an hour for a job and illegals come in and do it for minimum wage or less and the employer is only penalized up to minimum wage, they may take the chance. Especially when they can close down and open under a new name using the payments you mention as a reason for the bankruptcy.
But that still relies on them being caught and prosecuted which doesn't seem to be any priority. Especially so in the safe haven areas l.
But judging from your reply, i'm guessing yoh difn't bother reading my post or are trolling. Nowhere did i say raising minimum wage was always bad and in fact, i specifically said there were times it was not harmful.
And no, you cannot do a studdy on a single factor in the economy and expect it to be always accurate. The economy is not just a complex system, it is also irrational and changes on nothing more than emotion at times. My point still stands.
Yes, this is true and thank god the Ukranian government was listening in on those claims and had the recordings ready for dissemination moments after the crash. I mean if they didn't have it ready, the outrage against Russiia may have festered as much and Europe may not have been considering sanction agaist Russia that they rejected the day before over fears it would also harm their economies.
Now with lightning fast kneejerk reflexes, those sanctions can be reconsidered and Russia may separate themselves from the separatists.
Its all to convienient if you ask me. To much evidence too fast that carries weight from something that was being rejected to be accepted.we talk about the propaganda machine that was the USSR forgeting that the Ukraine was very much part of just decades ago. I don't trust either- although i think it is entirely possible rebels shot it down mistaking its identity. I also think it is entirely possible that Ukraine did so in order to bulster outrage into action against their enemies. They are after all, the only party with something to gain from this horrid experience.
Thats utterly rediculous. If the illegals weren't flooding the market with cheap labor, the cost of those jobs would be significantly higher. Charging the difference of minimum wage is still cheaper than being completely legal.
Illegal labor drive the pay for everyone in that line of work down.
The problem is a complex one but raising minimum wage is a lot like raising taxes. In periods of good economic health, its impacts are hidden and negligable. In periods of poor economic health, they are noticable and strongly impactful. Over a period of time, the prices of products and services equalize the impacts of them. Who gets hammered the hardest is the small business with a handful of employees because they both do not have the market force to alter pricing to adjust and have the least capitol to float on while adjusting.we do know that a combination of raising taxes and interest rates tipped the economy over and started the great depresion.
Now where it is not like a tax is in that many businesses including small businesses already pay above minimum wage to most of their employees. Where minimum wage is most prevailent seems to be areas with a lot of unemployed and fast food joints. Low unemployment sort of forces employers to pay more in order to stop employees from switching jobs to get raises or the benefits they want.
So raising the minimum wage will hurt strugling economies more so than thriving economies. As an invester, if anything lowers my rate of return, i look for something else to put my money in. So until prices for goods and services equalize with the increased costs, you may find areas people refuse to invest in seriously slowing any recovery efforts.
But iit is not just taxes or minimum wage that can cause this damage. Increased energy costs and regulation can have the same impacts.
The problem is that it is too soon to know if it is negatively affected. Most the increases have not gone into effect yet and will not for some time. Another ptoblem is the jobs being added don't get created on a whim. Six months is a short period of time to determin a tend over something only partially implimented. And i don't see anything showing the job growth in these stated are not jobs that would already pay more. Not every job pays minimum wage. Not every employee attempts to make a career from a minimum wage job
There is absolutely nothing racist about calling it the white house. The name has absolutely no connection to anyone living in it or who has lived in it. In the war of 1812, the whitehouse which was never previoudly called that nor was it white like we see today, was burnt by the invading english from Canada. The presidential manor was white washed in a hurry to hide the soot snd burn marks while the interior was rebuilt. That is when it became the white house and got its permenant white color.
Your friend is a complete idiot and i hope i cured your ignorance. The name references the first time the US was ever invaded and how we survived not anyone who lived there. It is imposible for it to be racist. This is not secret history either. It should have been in the lessons in grade school if not highschool. You can find out all about it online and any number of other sources if you want to find out more. The war of 1812 is particularly interesting in that we didn't have a standing army and it prety much ended with an agreement to forget it happened but the battle of new orleans which took place six months after it ended with a bunch of dirt farmers in ths south and thdir second amendment shows that once organized, we would have kicked their asses.
Large employers get steep discounts on the insurance which drives everyone else insurance up but they are able to offer this as incentives to attract talent when they cannot justify higher pay.
The employer typically never bothered with insurance outside of a company doctor until the government attempted to limit what it could pay people. That's right, I said limit as in you cannot make more than this from one employer. That's when insurance and other fringe benefits became popular.
But the reasons the employer does not want to pay you the difference is because you would find that what they pay is peanuts compared to what you would have to pay on your own.
It really is misleading because it doesn't give a bigger tax break, it allows the tax breaks to be realized sooner.
In other words, outside of expensing which is limited to 25k (maintenance, fuel, and so on as a cost rather than a standard mileage), the depreciation differences are only in that you can depreciate a truck faster then a passenger car. This actually makes sense because if the SUV didn't exist and a 6000 lbs truck was being used for work, it would wear out faster than a passenger car and need replaced sooner. The only reason a loop hole exists is because automakers were making 3/4 and 1 ton SUVs to escape the cafe standards that would have sent them the way of the station wagon.
But the more important point is that when you depreciate something, you have to count anything over the depreciated value as a capitol gain when selling it. So you are only deducting the expected loss in value faster for one set than another but would have to keep them the same amount of time before ending up with another tax on top of it if the real value didn't match. People get caught in this all the time, they depreciate the most possible then when selling something, they find that they owe a capital gains tax because the real value was worth a lot more than the 80% depreciated value.
What do you mean assuming? We are out of Iraq completely until we sent an advisory force in (because of ISIS) that should have been there already. Afghanistan has saw a substantial troop withdraw and is likely going to be just as empty as Iraq (yet again setting up the stage of a Taliban, ISIS, or other org to walk in).
The budget has not went down after these ended or reduced in costs. The money simply is being spent somewhere else.
It wasn't being at war that ended the great deression, it was the process of removing s significant portion of people from the work pool and then needing to supply several war torn countries right after it.
Interestingly, the great deression was largely the results of keynsian economics. There were a lot of other factors too but its interesting to how we forget
In congress, the rules are that you need to pay for new spending spending in the budget. This is done by either raising revenue, rnding or cutting other expenditures, or showing the need for the spendingis so dire it negates the rules. There is a process for the last by funding things off budget.
When something is off budget, the funding simply disapears when it is not needed any more. When it is on budget, this funding can be used to psy for new spending. On budget more or less institutionalizes the amount being spent so it can always be spent until some act removes it. Congress and the president know exactly how much is being spent on or off budget. When Obama moved the war spending to on budget, he institutionalized the spending so with Iraq being over, the funing that went to that war could be spent on other things instead of no longer spending it.
That is the difference between the two. It alway went to the debt. What obama did was officially recognize it as part of the budget and the result is that congress has a slushfund for new spending and increasing spending now when the wars wind down.
I don't ever remember Reagan trying to cut off the revenue tap. This revisionist history is interesting. But completely incorect. The national debt actually increased- not decreased under clinton. Reagan's tax cuts saw an increase in revenue collected. This was likely because he removed many of the loop holes in the tax code that the rich used to escape paying taxes like buying a vacation home, taking their secretary there ang banging her, then deducting the costs of the home as a business expense.
You should actually look some shit up before making such stupid statements based on someone else lies posted on the internet. Thst or go shill somewhere there isn't inteligent people gathering.
Bullshit. You act as if policy can never be changed, altered, or implimented. Obama either continued, changed, or ignored Bush's policies making them his. That or he is totally incompetent and sitting in the office of president purely for fund raising benefits and title benefitd. Despite his and his administrations obvious incompetence of current events, i seriously doubt he is completely incompetent.
Most Americans were native born making them a native american.
Or were you trying the "but your ancesters were immigrants" bit? If thats the case, the American indians are foreigners too which makes your "unless" part silly.
I see what you did there. Interesting to say the least. This could be the first internet salvo toss in the war of information as the topic says. Nice job working it in there. I'll even add some skepticism for free.
If it is true that Ukrainian jets were flying behind the Malaysian jet, they could have mistaken it as a Russian cargo plane transferring supplies to the rebels.
It could have been a false flag operation in which the plan all along was to induce blame on the rebels and Russia in order to convince Europe nations to implement the sanctions they were rejection because of fears of what it would do to their local economies. This later also has the benefit of encouraging outsiders to support Ukraine and help them fight off the nasty Russian backed rebel scum.
But as long as we are speculating, I'm going to punt and claim it was a bizarre meteor strike like the one seen in Russia and North Carolina recently- except it hit the plane in one seriously incident of bad luck.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see it fixing any problem. Its just busy work more or less unless it has steep penalties and i don't think min wage would be enough.
A friend was buying baby stuff for another friend. Somehow this ended up. With a rumor that he got his wife pregnant. When it got back to me, another friend asked if i though he was happy about it. I said he is probably mad as hell because he was fixed 20 years ago after his second kid. Good news traveled faster than the real news- it was for someone else.
So perhaps Ukraine security services planted the story that the rebels shot down a military plane, they went to bragging between themselves, and there is every piece of evidence you brought up.
Or it was a false flag operation by senior ukranian military designed to outrage EU countries to impose the sanction against Russia that they rejected the previous day due to fears of wreckibg their own economy.
There is no logic error, Ukraine could have expected to benefit from the start. Having Russia abandon the rebels would be a huge victory for them. Its not the first time something like this has happened either.
If the prevailing wage is $20 an hour for a job and illegals come in and do it for minimum wage or less and the employer is only penalized up to minimum wage, they may take the chance. Especially when they can close down and open under a new name using the payments you mention as a reason for the bankruptcy.
But that still relies on them being caught and prosecuted which doesn't seem to be any priority. Especially so in the safe haven areas l.
I'm parroting the gao reports.
But judging from your reply, i'm guessing yoh difn't bother reading my post or are trolling. Nowhere did i say raising minimum wage was always bad and in fact, i specifically said there were times it was not harmful.
And no, you cannot do a studdy on a single factor in the economy and expect it to be always accurate. The economy is not just a complex system, it is also irrational and changes on nothing more than emotion at times. My point still stands.
Yes, this is true and thank god the Ukranian government was listening in on those claims and had the recordings ready for dissemination moments after the crash. I mean if they didn't have it ready, the outrage against Russiia may have festered as much and Europe may not have been considering sanction agaist Russia that they rejected the day before over fears it would also harm their economies.
Now with lightning fast kneejerk reflexes, those sanctions can be reconsidered and Russia may separate themselves from the separatists.
Its all to convienient if you ask me. To much evidence too fast that carries weight from something that was being rejected to be accepted.we talk about the propaganda machine that was the USSR forgeting that the Ukraine was very much part of just decades ago. I don't trust either- although i think it is entirely possible rebels shot it down mistaking its identity. I also think it is entirely possible that Ukraine did so in order to bulster outrage into action against their enemies. They are after all, the only party with something to gain from this horrid experience.
No, its not opinion. Its accepted observations of economic reality.
You are not going to find any meaninfull study concerning it because the economy is more complex than a single point of input.
Thats utterly rediculous. If the illegals weren't flooding the market with cheap labor, the cost of those jobs would be significantly higher. Charging the difference of minimum wage is still cheaper than being completely legal.
Illegal labor drive the pay for everyone in that line of work down.
The EPA is under the executive which occupies the White House.
I do not disagree with your comment, i just fo not see its relevance.
Yes and no.
The problem is a complex one but raising minimum wage is a lot like raising taxes. In periods of good economic health, its impacts are hidden and negligable. In periods of poor economic health, they are noticable and strongly impactful. Over a period of time, the prices of products and services equalize the impacts of them. Who gets hammered the hardest is the small business with a handful of employees because they both do not have the market force to alter pricing to adjust and have the least capitol to float on while adjusting.we do know that a combination of raising taxes and interest rates tipped the economy over and started the great depresion.
Now where it is not like a tax is in that many businesses including small businesses already pay above minimum wage to most of their employees. Where minimum wage is most prevailent seems to be areas with a lot of unemployed and fast food joints. Low unemployment sort of forces employers to pay more in order to stop employees from switching jobs to get raises or the benefits they want.
So raising the minimum wage will hurt strugling economies more so than thriving economies. As an invester, if anything lowers my rate of return, i look for something else to put my money in. So until prices for goods and services equalize with the increased costs, you may find areas people refuse to invest in seriously slowing any recovery efforts.
But iit is not just taxes or minimum wage that can cause this damage. Increased energy costs and regulation can have the same impacts.
The problem is that it is too soon to know if it is negatively affected. Most the increases have not gone into effect yet and will not for some time. Another ptoblem is the jobs being added don't get created on a whim. Six months is a short period of time to determin a tend over something only partially implimented. And i don't see anything showing the job growth in these stated are not jobs that would already pay more. Not every job pays minimum wage. Not every employee attempts to make a career from a minimum wage job
There is absolutely nothing racist about calling it the white house. The name has absolutely no connection to anyone living in it or who has lived in it. In the war of 1812, the whitehouse which was never previoudly called that nor was it white like we see today, was burnt by the invading english from Canada. The presidential manor was white washed in a hurry to hide the soot snd burn marks while the interior was rebuilt. That is when it became the white house and got its permenant white color.
Your friend is a complete idiot and i hope i cured your ignorance. The name references the first time the US was ever invaded and how we survived not anyone who lived there. It is imposible for it to be racist. This is not secret history either. It should have been in the lessons in grade school if not highschool. You can find out all about it online and any number of other sources if you want to find out more. The war of 1812 is particularly interesting in that we didn't have a standing army and it prety much ended with an agreement to forget it happened but the battle of new orleans which took place six months after it ended with a bunch of dirt farmers in ths south and thdir second amendment shows that once organized, we would have kicked their asses.
The GOP took the white house? And here I thought there was another 2 years or so before they even got the chance to do something like that.
I think you forgot shovel ready....
Or was that implied?
http://useconomy.about.com/od/...
Guess I should have included the link.
Except those number are not accurate.
Here is an unbiased set of numbers that also note out of ordinary reasoning behind the increases.
Large employers get steep discounts on the insurance which drives everyone else insurance up but they are able to offer this as incentives to attract talent when they cannot justify higher pay.
The employer typically never bothered with insurance outside of a company doctor until the government attempted to limit what it could pay people. That's right, I said limit as in you cannot make more than this from one employer. That's when insurance and other fringe benefits became popular.
But the reasons the employer does not want to pay you the difference is because you would find that what they pay is peanuts compared to what you would have to pay on your own.
It really is misleading because it doesn't give a bigger tax break, it allows the tax breaks to be realized sooner.
In other words, outside of expensing which is limited to 25k
(maintenance, fuel, and so on as a cost rather than a standard mileage), the depreciation differences are only in that you can depreciate a truck faster then a passenger car. This actually makes sense because if the SUV didn't exist and a 6000 lbs truck was being used for work, it would wear out faster than a passenger car and need replaced sooner. The only reason a loop hole exists is because automakers were making 3/4 and 1 ton SUVs to escape the cafe standards that would have sent them the way of the station wagon.
But the more important point is that when you depreciate something, you have to count anything over the depreciated value as a capitol gain when selling it. So you are only deducting the expected loss in value faster for one set than another but would have to keep them the same amount of time before ending up with another tax on top of it if the real value didn't match. People get caught in this all the time, they depreciate the most possible then when selling something, they find that they owe a capital gains tax because the real value was worth a lot more than the 80% depreciated value.
What do you mean assuming? We are out of Iraq completely until we sent an advisory force in (because of ISIS) that should have been there already. Afghanistan has saw a substantial troop withdraw and is likely going to be just as empty as Iraq (yet again setting up the stage of a Taliban, ISIS, or other org to walk in).
The budget has not went down after these ended or reduced in costs. The money simply is being spent somewhere else.
It wasn't being at war that ended the great deression, it was the process of removing s significant portion of people from the work pool and then needing to supply several war torn countries right after it.
Interestingly, the great deression was largely the results of keynsian economics. There were a lot of other factors too but its interesting to how we forget
I think you are slightly confused.
In congress, the rules are that you need to pay for new spending spending in the budget. This is done by either raising revenue, rnding or cutting other expenditures, or showing the need for the spendingis so dire it negates the rules. There is a process for the last by funding things off budget.
When something is off budget, the funding simply disapears when it is not needed any more. When it is on budget, this funding can be used to psy for new spending. On budget more or less institutionalizes the amount being spent so it can always be spent until some act removes it. Congress and the president know exactly how much is being spent on or off budget. When Obama moved the war spending to on budget, he institutionalized the spending so with Iraq being over, the funing that went to that war could be spent on other things instead of no longer spending it.
That is the difference between the two. It alway went to the debt. What obama did was officially recognize it as part of the budget and the result is that congress has a slushfund for new spending and increasing spending now when the wars wind down.
I don't ever remember Reagan trying to cut off the revenue tap. This revisionist history is interesting. But completely incorect. The national debt actually increased- not decreased under clinton. Reagan's tax cuts saw an increase in revenue collected. This was likely because he removed many of the loop holes in the tax code that the rich used to escape paying taxes like buying a vacation home, taking their secretary there ang banging her, then deducting the costs of the home as a business expense.
You should actually look some shit up before making such stupid statements based on someone else lies posted on the internet. Thst or go shill somewhere there isn't inteligent people gathering.
Bullshit. You act as if policy can never be changed, altered, or implimented. Obama either continued, changed, or ignored Bush's policies making them his. That or he is totally incompetent and sitting in the office of president purely for fund raising benefits and title benefitd. Despite his and his administrations obvious incompetence of current events, i seriously doubt he is completely incompetent.
Most Americans were native born making them a native american.
Or were you trying the "but your ancesters were immigrants" bit? If thats the case, the American indians are foreigners too which makes your "unless" part silly.
I see what you did there. Interesting to say the least. This could be the first internet salvo toss in the war of information as the topic says. Nice job working it in there. I'll even add some skepticism for free.
If it is true that Ukrainian jets were flying behind the Malaysian jet, they could have mistaken it as a Russian cargo plane transferring supplies to the rebels.
It could have been a false flag operation in which the plan all along was to induce blame on the rebels and Russia in order to convince Europe nations to implement the sanctions they were rejection because of fears of what it would do to their local economies. This later also has the benefit of encouraging outsiders to support Ukraine and help them fight off the nasty Russian backed rebel scum.
But as long as we are speculating, I'm going to punt and claim it was a bizarre meteor strike like the one seen in Russia and North Carolina recently- except it hit the plane in one seriously incident of bad luck.