It's actually possible costs could go down--because there would be fewer back and forths and fewer trips to court.

freeman3 wrote:To sum up the CBO study:

5 billion in increased income would go to those who are beneath the poverty line;
12 billion in increases income would go to those who have incomes between 1-3 times the poverty line;
2 billion in increased income would to those with incomes 3-6 the poverty line.
17 billion in income would be lost to those with incomes of more than 6 times the poverty line.
Overall, income would be raised by two billion
16.5 million workers making up to $10.10 under current law would see an increase in earnings while 500,000 low -wage jobs would be lost. 900,000 workers would see their incomes rise above the poverty threshold.
There may be no free lunch but a policy that benefits 97 percent of low -wage workers (16.5 million increased earnings/17 million=total low-wage workers affected (16.5 getting higher wages plus 500,000 lost jobs), 900,000 lifted out of property and an overall increase of 2 billion to the economy seems like good policy to me.

Life got busy so I am about 10 pages and 10 days behind. Overall I think this is compelling that some increase in the minimum wage makes sense. However, it is not as clear cut at this sentence fragment describes:

There may be no free lunch but a policy that benefits 97 percent of low -wage workers (16.5 million increased earnings/17 million=total low-wage workers affected (16.5 getting higher wages plus 500,000 lost jobs

as you are ignoring increased costs. It's less clear cut when you factor in cost increases as a result of raising the minimum wage. I don't think that will change the increase of a couple of dollars, but it warrants caution beyond that. A $10 minimum wages goes further in the U.S. than in Europe.

I liked the Freudian contained in this sentence fragment:

900,000 lifted out of property

Has anyone seen this:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/neel-kas ... 1406779207

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/us/go ... .html?_r=0

I walked for hours and hours in search of a job, giving me a lot of time to think. Five days into my search, hungry, tired and hot, I asked myself: What would solve my problems? Food stamps? Welfare? An increased minimum wage?

No. I needed a job. Period. Like others, I have often said the best social program in the world is a good job. Even though my homeless trek was only for a week, with a defined endpoint, that statement became much more real for me. A job was the one thing that could have solved my food, housing and transportation problems.

California's record poverty is man-made: over-regulation and over-taxation that drive jobs out of state, failing schools that don't prepare students for the skilled work force and misguided water policies that prevent us from saving surplus water in wet years to prepare for our inevitable droughts. We have the power to tackle poverty if we implement smart, pro-growth economic policies, as many other states have done.

Ray Jay wrote:Has anyone seen this:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/neel-kas ... 1406779207

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/us/go ... .html?_r=0

I walked for hours and hours in search of a job, giving me a lot of time to think. Five days into my search, hungry, tired and hot, I asked myself: What would solve my problems? Food stamps? Welfare? An increased minimum wage?

No. I needed a job. Period. Like others, I have often said the best social program in the world is a good job. Even though my homeless trek was only for a week, with a defined endpoint, that statement became much more real for me. A job was the one thing that could have solved my food, housing and transportation problems.

California's record poverty is man-made: over-regulation and over-taxation that drive jobs out of state, failing schools that don't prepare students for the skilled work force and misguided water policies that prevent us from saving surplus water in wet years to prepare for our inevitable droughts. We have the power to tackle poverty if we implement smart, pro-growth economic policies, as many other states have done.

It's clearly a publicity stunt. The good voters of CA know best--as they continue their march to the first welfare State in the US.

He's right. Jobs are the issue. However, California voters don't seem to grasp that.

Doctor Fate wrote:No, let me quote me, "It would not change." I would place statutory limits on judges to stop the revolving door sooner than it stops now. I want parents to keep their kids. I don't want them to have so many "chances" that they destroy their children's lives in the future.

Sure looks like a change to me - "place statutory limits on judges" is a change, if they do not have them now.

Put me in charge.

So... YOU get to decide. Your honesty is refreshing - basically a conservative is all for reducing the scope of government, except the bits they want to run. ;-)

Look, the workers are already there. The courts are already there. All I want to do is cut out some of the "one more chance" opportunities and make putting the kids in "forever homes" a bit easier.

[/quote]Question: Are there loads of "forever homes" (what a mawkish term!) waiting for these extra kids you will send them?

Ray Jay wrote:Has anyone seen this:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/neel-kas ... 1406779207

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/us/go ... .html?_r=0

I had seen it. I think it is cute when a rich politician (in this case a guy involved in the corporate welfare of TARP) spends a short time doing some poverty-tourism and comes to the conclusion they already had in mind beforehand.

When they try it for a year, I might be a bit more impressed (we have seen similar exercises by UK politicians for the last few decades).

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:No, let me quote me, "It would not change." I would place statutory limits on judges to stop the revolving door sooner than it stops now. I want parents to keep their kids. I don't want them to have so many "chances" that they destroy their children's lives in the future.

Sure looks like a change to me - "place statutory limits on judges" is a change, if they do not have them now.

Yes, the LEGISLATURE would pass a law. You asked about "the Executive" extending its power. I want limits on judicial discretion.

Put me in charge.

So... YOU get to decide. Your honesty is refreshing - basically a conservative is all for reducing the scope of government, except the bits they want to run. ;-)

Nice try. Misleading, verging on dishonest, but a nice try.

The GOVERNMENT IS ALREADY DOING THIS!

Is that clear enough?

All I want to do is refine what it does.

And, as I said, it might save money because there would be fewer iterations--fewer trips back and forth from foster care to "mom" and/or "dad."

Look, the workers are already there. The courts are already there. All I want to do is cut out some of the "one more chance" opportunities and make putting the kids in "forever homes" a bit easier.

Question: Are there loads of "forever homes" (what a mawkish term!) waiting for these extra kids you will send them?

Actually, I think there are. One of the things that discourages more families is all the red tape. The other that discourages them is the extension ad nauseum of parental rights.

Again, my preference is always for the natural parents. However, when they abdicate for extended periods of time, due to drugs, alcohol, whatever, it is the child who suffers. I want to alleviate some of that. If you're all for extending the suffering, well, good for you.

Let's hear Danivon's idea on how to solve the issue. Now THAT would be refreshing, rather than the "nay-saying" that was just produced.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Has anyone seen this:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/neel-kas ... 1406779207

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/us/go ... .html?_r=0

I had seen it. I think it is cute when a rich politician (in this case a guy involved in the corporate welfare of TARP) spends a short time doing some poverty-tourism and comes to the conclusion they already had in mind beforehand.

When they try it for a year, I might be a bit more impressed (we have seen similar exercises by UK politicians for the last few decades).

On the other hand, it is 100% impressive to watch what is actually happening in California. Why, just look--California is #7 in unemployment!

Unemployment Rates for States
Monthly Rankings
Seasonally Adjusted
June 2014p
Rank State Rate
1 NORTH DAKOTA 2.7
2 NEBRASKA 3.5
2 UTAH 3.5
2 VERMONT 3.5
5 SOUTH DAKOTA 3.8
6 WYOMING 4.0
7 HAWAII 4.4
7 IOWA 4.4
7 NEW HAMPSHIRE 4.4
10 MINNESOTA 4.5
10 MONTANA 4.5
10 OKLAHOMA 4.5
13 IDAHO 4.7
14 KANSAS 4.9
15 LOUISIANA 5.0
16 TEXAS 5.1
17 SOUTH CAROLINA 5.3
17 VIRGINIA 5.3
19 COLORADO 5.5
19 MAINE 5.5
19 MASSACHUSETTS 5.5
19 OHIO 5.5
23 PENNSYLVANIA 5.6
24 WISCONSIN 5.7
25 MARYLAND 5.8
25 WASHINGTON 5.8
27 INDIANA 5.9
28 DELAWARE 6.1
29 ARKANSAS 6.2
29 FLORIDA 6.2
29 WEST VIRGINIA 6.2
32 ALASKA 6.4
32 NORTH CAROLINA 6.4
34 MISSOURI 6.5
34 NEW MEXICO 6.5
36 NEW JERSEY 6.6
36 NEW YORK 6.6
36 TENNESSEE 6.6
39 CONNECTICUT 6.7
40 ALABAMA 6.8
40 OREGON 6.8
42 ARIZONA 6.9
43 ILLINOIS 7.1
44 CALIFORNIA 7.4
44 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 7.4
44 GEORGIA 7.4
44 KENTUCKY 7.4
48 MICHIGAN 7.5
49 NEVADA 7.7
50 MISSISSIPPI 7.9
50 RHODE ISLAND 7.9

Oh, sorry. I had that wrong. It's the 7th worst.

His biography is so typical. Has said his grades were not that good in high school so he got a bachelors and masters degrees in mechanical engineering from the University of Illinois. So he goes to work for a couple of years (maybe finding that engineers have to work pretty hard for really not that much money)and then gets an MBA from the Wharton School of Economics. Gets a job with Goldman Sachs , apparently based on his technical background. By 2006 he tags along with Paulson to Treasury. How someone with 5 years experience in the financial field oversaw TARP is unbelievable. Gets hired by PIMCO (the huge bond fund) where his funds under-perform. Talk about entitlement...his resume is a microcosm of where our economic system is going wrong. Trained as an engineer where he could have earned an upper- middle class living making a real contribution to society, instead he goes off to business school to make easy money. Then he wants to turn around and show everyone how they too can make it. But of course is against raising the minimum wage for people who actually work hard. Just go back to your ten million dollar mansion and count your money, Mr. Kashkari. California is doing just find without you and we will always do much better economically than those red states that want to lecture us about our welfare state. I do find it ironic that poverty in the state is concentrated in the in-land areas where many whites have gone to flee the cities with all those immigrants ( of course the cities are doing just fine).

freeman3 wrote:His biography is so typical. Has said his grades were not that good in high school so he got a bachelors and masters degrees in mechanical engineering from the University of Illinois. So he goes to work for a couple of years (maybe finding that engineers have to work pretty hard for really not that much money)and then gets an MBA from the Wharton School of Economics. Gets a job with Goldman Sachs , apparently based on his technical background.

Yup, dime a dozen. I mean just walk down the streets of East LA--you can't turn around without bumping into a Wharton graduate.

By 2006 he tags along with Paulson to Treasury. How someone with 5 years experience in the financial field oversaw TARP is unbelievable. Gets hired by PIMCO (the huge bond fund) where his funds under-perform. Talk about entitlement...his resume is a microcosm of where our economic system is going wrong. Trained as an engineer where he could have earned an upper- middle class living making a real contribution to society, instead he goes off to business school to make easy money. Then he wants to turn around and show everyone how they too can make it. But of course is against raising the minimum wage for people who actually work hard. Just go back to your ten million dollar mansion and count your money, Mr. Kashkari. California is doing just find without you and we will always do much better economically than those red states that want to lecture us about our welfare state. I do find it ironic that poverty in the state is concentrated in the in-land areas where many whites have gone to flee the cities with all those immigrants ( of course the cities are doing just fine).

California is doing great. Look at the unemployment numbers . . .

Oh, well, how about poverty?

But, at least in Jerry Brown you don't have a scion of a political family, one who has been a life-long politician and has done nothing outside of politics of significance . . .

By the way, RJ, CBO explicitly factors in price increases in determining effect on family incomes (look at paragraph a under the graph showing estimated effect on family income). It also, of course, factors in a drop of income to higher-income employers paying higher labor costs. There is no undetermined cost that one can fret about.
DF, Jerry Brown has done a good job unlike Kashkari with his mutual funds...

freeman3 wrote:By the way, RJ, CBO explicitly factors in price increases in determining effect on family incomes (look at paragraph a under the graph showing estimated effect on family income). It also, of course, factors in a drop of income to higher-income employers paying higher labor costs. There is no undetermined cost that one can fret about.
DF, Jerry Brown has done a good job unlike Kashkari with his mutual funds...

One year from now you will want some ketchup to go with those words.

bbauska wrote:Let's hear Danivon's idea on how to solve the issue. Now THAT would be refreshing, rather than the "nay-saying" that was just produced.

It is not a simple solution. it's not necessarily soluble completely (I don't believe in a magic wand, you see).

But greater emphasis during education on financial matters is a part of it, and would reduce the dependence on 'good' or 'bad' parents.

Decent support for families in trouble, focused on what the kids need, and not simply money (but not reductive or punishing of the parents).

incentives to foster and adopt to be increased, because the alternative is homes which are pretty awful for vulnerable children.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Let's hear Danivon's idea on how to solve the issue. Now THAT would be refreshing, rather than the "nay-saying" that was just produced.

It is not a simple solution. it's not necessarily soluble completely (I don't believe in a magic wand, you see).

But greater emphasis during education on financial matters is a part of it, and would reduce the dependence on 'good' or 'bad' parents.

Decent support for families in trouble, focused on what the kids need, and not simply money (but not reductive or punishing of the parents).

incentives to foster and adopt to be increased, because the alternative is homes which are pretty awful for vulnerable children.

Thank you. I agree with all of that. I would limit the time because education on financial matters would have a light at the end of the tunnel plan. I know you don't agree, though.

What happens if people don't attend the education classes?