Phan In Phlorida wrote:Al Gore’s son arrested on drug charges

Was driving Prius at about 100 mph

My first thought:

"The Prius can make it up to 100?"

Driving a Prius at 100mph defeats all of its promise in reducing greenhouse gases.

TomatoPie wrote:Driving a Prius at 100mph defeats all of its promise in reducing greenhouse gases.

Quite an inconvenient little truth, eh, TP?

Woody wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:Driving a Prius at 100mph defeats all of its promise in reducing greenhouse gases.

Quite an inconvenient little truth, eh, TP?

Throws off the entire global warming algorerithm

TomatoPie wrote:Driving a Prius at 100mph defeats all of its promise in reducing greenhouse gases.

Actually, I'd love to see a comparison of the emissions of a Prius at 100 MPH and a, I don't know, Ford Explorer at 65 MPH. I'd bet the Prius would still be greener.

Since Al Gore invented the hybrid, he was able to soup up his son's version to exceed maximum speed.

thephan wrote:Publicly funded Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP), ... matches tens of thousands of young people between ... with employers.

New York's teen employment rate is 16.9%, the lowest of any big city and half of the 34.6% national average.

Today, the program serves 20% fewer young adults than it did in 1999, and last year it turned away 30,000. The report cites minimum wage-increases in the Empire State -- one of 30 states that mandates a minimum higher than the federal floor -- as a factor in the program's decline.

"The higher state minimum wage that went into effect in 2005," writes author David Jason Fischer, "added to the challenge of funding SYEP by increasing the cost per participant, making it difficult to keep SYEP enrollment levels the same without year-over-year budget increases or additional administrative cuts." New York's minimum wage increased once again this year to $7.15 from $6.75, adding another $3.5 million in costs.

The harm from minimum-wage laws is well-documented... and most who do earn the minimum aren't living in poverty. They are retirees, homemakers, part-time workers, and teenagers in the Big Apple -- fewer of whom will have summer jobs in the future thanks to the higher minimum wage.

Perhaps we could get the author to respond...

pacino wrote:

thephan wrote:Publicly funded Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP), ... matches tens of thousands of young people between ... with employers.

New York's teen employment rate is 16.9%, the lowest of any big city and half of the 34.6% national average.

Today, the program serves 20% fewer young adults than it did in 1999, and last year it turned away 30,000. The report cites minimum wage-increases in the Empire State -- one of 30 states that mandates a minimum higher than the federal floor -- as a factor in the program's decline.

"The higher state minimum wage that went into effect in 2005," writes author David Jason Fischer, "added to the challenge of funding SYEP by increasing the cost per participant, making it difficult to keep SYEP enrollment levels the same without year-over-year budget increases or additional administrative cuts." New York's minimum wage increased once again this year to $7.15 from $6.75, adding another $3.5 million in costs.

The harm from minimum-wage laws is well-documented... and most who do earn the minimum aren't living in poverty. They are retirees, homemakers, part-time workers, and teenagers in the Big Apple -- fewer of whom will have summer jobs in the future thanks to the higher minimum wage.

Perhaps we could get the author to respond...

The author has already responded to this...in this thread.

Here is his response to the WSJ:

Your July 3 editorial, “Minimum Wage, Jobless Kids,” twists the findings of the Center for an Urban Future’s report “Summer Help,” which I authored, almost beyond recognition. Notwithstanding your focus on the minimum wage, our primary finding was that the biggest reason enrollment for New York City’s Summer Youth Employment Program has decreased by 20 percent was the precipitous decline of federal dollars to support the program—from $42.5 million in 1999 to $5.4 million last summer. It is irresponsible, to say the least, to hijack this point in order to argue against the minimum wage—a premise with which we strongly disagree, and that much research has refuted.

Despite its clearly mischievous intent, the editorial has the germ of a point: if any situation justifies a sub-minimum wage, it is publicly subsidized employment for part-time workers who are not their families’ primary wage earners. Given the proven value of summer youth employment, it might well be a better public investment to employ a larger number of teens at a slightly lower hourly wage. To stretch this point into a blanket condemnation of the minimum wage, however, is a dishonest distortion of our work.

pacino wrote:

thephan wrote:Publicly funded Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP), ... matches tens of thousands of young people between ... with employers.

New York's teen employment rate is 16.9%, the lowest of any big city and half of the 34.6% national average.

Today, the program serves 20% fewer young adults than it did in 1999, and last year it turned away 30,000. The report cites minimum wage-increases in the Empire State -- one of 30 states that mandates a minimum higher than the federal floor -- as a factor in the program's decline.

"The higher state minimum wage that went into effect in 2005," writes author David Jason Fischer, "added to the challenge of funding SYEP by increasing the cost per participant, making it difficult to keep SYEP enrollment levels the same without year-over-year budget increases or additional administrative cuts." New York's minimum wage increased once again this year to $7.15 from $6.75, adding another $3.5 million in costs.

The harm from minimum-wage laws is well-documented... and most who do earn the minimum aren't living in poverty. They are retirees, homemakers, part-time workers, and teenagers in the Big Apple -- fewer of whom will have summer jobs in the future thanks to the higher minimum wage.

Perhaps we could get the author to respond...

Yeah, if only this david jason fischer fella would discover our corner of the internets here at BSG...

GunbladeVIII wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Al Gore’s son arrested on drug charges

Was driving Prius at about 100 mph

My first thought:

"The Prius can make it up to 100?"

Me too

Imagine that. The author is a fellow moderator. I am completely surprised and shocked. I must look like a fool for having posted that when it was in fact my fellow moderator's work. It's almost like it was ironic.

A recent CNN poll has 35% percent of Democrats preferring Senator Clinton as their candidate, over 23% for Obama and 18% for Gore. Who are these people? My social circles are at least 80 percent Democrat and I've never heard anyone say that they either think she has the best chance of winning a national election or would make the best president. So who is CNN polling?

pacino wrote:Imagine that. The author is a fellow moderator. I am completely surprised and shocked. I must look like a fool for having posted that when it was in fact my fellow moderator's work. It's almost like it was ironic.

I'm so far out of my depth when it comes to gauging subtlety at this level 8)

Anyway, let's talk about Housh's point. First off, what he (I assume Housh is a he) holds up for me as well, and I wonder if indeed any of the left-leaners here know a lot of Hillary supporters. (Phan Paul maybe, depending I guess where he lives in Arkansas.)

Actually I'm agnostic on whether or not she'd make the best president. Her biggest problem is that she would find it almost impossible to get Republican support for anything; any Repub who voted with her, on just about anything, would get pilloried and, in all likelihood, primaried.

But there's another factor that's more important, IMO. Consider how many Democrats won congressional races last year in districts that voted for Bush in 2004. I don't remember exactly, but I'm guessing in the neighborhood of 12-15.

Then consider what margin they won by, and whether or not there were extenuating circumstances beyond the Democratic "wave"--e.g. the Tom DeLay or Bob Ney seats, the guy Sherwood in PA who choked his mistress, et al (and it really was et al)--that presumably won't be in play for 2008.

Finally, consider what the likely approve/disapprove numbers are for Hillary Clinton in those Bush-voting, currently Dem-represented districts. If these numbers are as one would expect, it will be exponentially harder for those freshman Dems to defend their seats (and remember that the first re-election bid in the House is statistically the toughest by far).

My guess is that Hillary Clinton at the top of the Democratic ticket in 2008 causes a swing in the House of at least -10 for the Democrats. Even putting aside what her general election chances would be compared to other viable Dems in the nomination race, is that down-ticket cost worth it to *anyone* but her?

I just don't like the idea of Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton presidencies.

TomatoPie wrote:

Warszawa wrote:Heard Ron Paul on Michael Smerconish this morning. I wish he was running as an independent. Wondering what the conservatives on the board think of him.

:?:

Conservatives???

I think he's sincere, honorable, and a little too nutty for public office.

sorry conservative

Warszawa wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

Warszawa wrote:Heard Ron Paul on Michael Smerconish this morning. I wish he was running as an independent. Wondering what the conservatives on the board think of him.

:?:

Conservatives???

I think he's sincere, honorable, and a little too nutty for public office.

sorry conservative

I seem to remember some Vox chap posting here

philliesphhan wrote:I just don't like the idea of Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton presidencies.

Well at least its better than Bush-Bush-Bush-Bush-Bush-Bush

TomatoPie wrote:

Warszawa wrote:Heard Ron Paul on Michael Smerconish this morning. I wish he was running as an independent. Wondering what the conservatives on the board think of him.

:?:

Conservatives???

I think he's sincere, honorable, and a little too nutty for public office.

Obviously lying, insincere and stupid was the right way to go, huh?

Paul is admirably principled (true of many libertarians). It's just that those principles include stripping the public sector of things people generally like--most of the Cabinet agencies, for instance. Everyone is for smaller government in the abstract; in practice, though, they all want to hang onto the goodies.

An EXCELLENT case against national healthcare. I couldn't have put it better myself.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015020.php