Contact


4 Comments

  1. JOEL5454
    Posted April 18, 2011 at 11:12 am | Permalink

    WE NEED TO KNOW WHERE ARE YOU LOCATED WHEN IT COMES TO NEW JERSEY,WE NEED A NUMBER AND CONTACT INFO SOON AS POSSIBLE,WE NEED TO TALK TO GOVERNOR CHRIS CHRISTIE NOW IF THEY WANT THE YOUNG AND MATURE AFRICAN AMERICANS IN NEW JERSEY. WE NEED TO TALK NOW! THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, PS WE PLAN TO HAVE A PRESS CONFERENCE ABOUT WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO IN ALL THE BLACK DEMOCRATICALLY RUN COMMUNITY’S IN NEW JERSEY!

  2. Hon. Hadren W. Simmons, Chairman, CW, Nwk. GOP
    Posted June 17, 2016 at 1:56 am | Permalink

    Kindly provide info. About NBR, and what the process is in becoming affiliated with same. Also, is there an existing NJ Chapter of NBR that needs to be re-activated, or one started? Thank you for your time and attention. HWS

  3. Posted February 10, 2017 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    I do not know who is behind this website.

    For information and views about the National Black Republican Association, please visit: http://www.nbra.info

    Frances Rice
    Chairman
    National Black Republican Associaton

  4. michael zitterman
    Posted February 23, 2017 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

    THE CONCEPT OF “MINIMUM WAGE” IS A CANCER TO OUR NATION’S ECONOMICS, SINCE IT TENDS TO CREATE A PERMANENT UNDERCLASS, MAKES THE USA, INC. LESS COMPETITIVE, STIMULATES UNAUTHORIZED VISITORS, CONFLATES AN “ENTRY LEVEL” WAGE WITH A LIVING WAGE, AND WAS TWICE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY. THE MAJOR BENEFICIARY OF MINIMUM WAGE IS THE BANKING INDUSTRY.

    IF THE ABOVE WEREN’T ENOUGH, PLEASE ENJOY THE FOLLOWING:

    We will always have problems, but unless we recognize, analyze to understanding, we will not possess the requisite information to mitigate those problems.

    I propose that the MINIMUM WAGE concept appears to be classism, at its core, and it appears that those promoting minimum wage and increases thereto are accepting of a larger permanent underclass, and that many of our problems are rooted because of minimum wage.

    DEFINITIONS:
    1. Entry level wage – paid for a first job or a first job within in a new endeavor
    2. Market wage – paid, based upon agreement between an employer and
    employee
    3. Subsistence wage – an ambiguous wage to enable one to exist
    4. Fair wage – an interesting and ambiguous concept, depending upon
    perspective
    5. Living wage – that wage which enables one to exist (a modified subsistence
    wage?)
    6. Contractual wage – a wage by contractual agreement, e.g., a union wage
    7. Minimum wage – a wage promulgated by federal and state authorities as the
    minimum any employee must be paid – it appears to be a conflation of an
    entry level with a living wage, which appears to be a nonsensical
    oxymoron.

    MINIMUM WAGE, What’s It All About?
    Increasing the minimum wage would have two principal effects on low-wage (minimum wage) workers, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Most of them, i.e., those who keep their jobs, would receive higher pay that would increase their family’s income, and some of those families would see their income rise above the federal poverty threshold. Those who lose their jobs (per CBO projections) would see their incomes fall (brilliant observation).

    Unfortunately and, perhaps, insidiously, no mention is made of those who will not be able to find entry-level jobs and will be cast within a low and, perhaps, permanent underclass.

    That manufactured situation would cause frustration, depression, and desperation, which, probably is not a healthy situation for a community of any size.

    Any and all legislation, that would tend to create that situation, should be held as irresponsible, mean-spirited, shortsighted, and damaging to our economics, and if that thought were valid, any advocate for such legislation must be dismissed with prejudice.

    The CBO projects that, once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, an increase of the Federal minimum wage of $7.25 to $10.10, as advocated by President Obama would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent.
    Stipulated and underscores, “Any and all legislation that would tend to create that situation should be held as irresponsible, mean-spirited, shortsighted, and damaging to our economics, and if that thought is valid, any advocate for such legislation must be dismissed with prejudice.”

    The CBO estimates that the increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion.

    However, those earnings would not go only to low-income families, because many low-wage workers are not members of low-income families. Just 19 percent of the $31 billion would accrue to families with earnings below the poverty threshold, whereas 29 percent would accrue to families earning more than three times the poverty threshold, CBO estimates.
    Moreover, the increased earnings for some workers would be accompanied by reductions in real (inflation-adjusted) income for the people who became jobless because of the minimum-wage increase, for business owners, and for consumers facing higher prices.

    DISCUSSION:
    If it were mandated, by legislation, that federal expenditures for personnel must be reduced by 12%, effective January 1, 2017, would it be better to lay off 12% of the federal workforce or to reduce wages and benefits by 12%?

    When one is laid off, there are many negative results, including, but not limited to depression, unable to meet financial obligations, losing property, such as his or her home, and adversely affecting his or her future in so many other ways.

    When one has a moderate reduction of income, but maintains his or her job, he or she will not be thrilled, but will adjust his or her lifestyle, accordingly.

    Which is better for a community, legislating the loss of jobs or a moderate reduction of income with all maintaining their jobs?

    Similarly, which is better, a higher minimum wage with fewer jobs or more jobs?

    Should it be Congress’s responsibility to advocate, propose, and pass legislation that would positively benefit our Nation?

    What is the “theory” that legislation, that is projected to cause 500,000 lowly paid workers to lose their jobs, would be beneficial to our Nation?

    The 500,000 only represents those low paid workers, who would lose their jobs, but does not include the vast numbers of new potential entrants into the workforce who will be unable to find those “entry-level” jobs.

    An entry-level job is critical to one’s future as it is the first rung of his or her ladder to the future. Our “leaders” should pass legislation, which would stimulate the creation of more entry-level jobs, now fewer.

    Whereas Senator Diane Feinstein was a co-sponsor of the $10.10 proposed legislation, on July 22, 2015, I was told by a member of her staff that, in April, she co-sponsored proposed legislation promoting a $12.00 minimum wage, thus the estimate of 500,000 lost jobs rises to X lost jobs and even fewer will find entry-level positions.

    It appears that Einstein’s definition of insanity is alive and well.

    Redundancy can be good: “Any and all legislation that would tend to create a situation that would cause fewer jobs and fewer opportunities should be held as irresponsible, mean-spirited, shortsighted, and damaging to our economics, and if that thought were valid, any advocate for such legislation must be dismissed with prejudice.”

    It appears as though ANY minimum wage is damaging to any community.

    The concept of “minimum wage” is a classic oxymoron and it is an irrational conflation of an “entry-level” wage with a “living-wage”. I offer five characterizations of wages: entry-level, minimum wage, living wage, union wage, and market-wage.

    Manufacturing within U.S.A., Inc. is becoming less competitive as wages rise.
    Many service jobs are, also, being off-shored.
    How many jobs has China, et al taken from us?
    NONE. We have given them our jobs.
    How often do we hear the question posed by Mr. Wonderful (Shark Tank), “Have you priced this item from China”?

    CAN IT GET WORSE? OH, YEAH!
    I posed the following “theoretical” question to staffs of Senator Diane Feinstein, Senator Bernie Sanders, and my Congressman, Brad Sherman:
    If minimum wage were $25, how would that affect high school graduation rates and the increase or decrease of unauthorized visitors and how would “no minimum wage” affect those two segments?

    After more than 15 calls to DC and SF, Senator Feinstein has not offered a reply.

    After 6 calls to Senator Sanders’ DC office, the best I could get was that a staff member said she was uncomfortable giving her opinion, but will make an effort to obtain a reply from the Senator. A campaign volunteer said he agreed with the obvious answers, but still supported Senator Sanders.

    After too many calls with Congressman Brad Sherman’s staff in DC and in Van Nuys, one staff member offered, off the record, that he or she and his or her father agreed with the obvious.

    It appears that the higher the minimum wage, the result will be lower high school graduation rates and a higher number of unauthorized visitors.

    This is more evidence to confirm that it appears as though ANY minimum wage is damaging to any community.

    Any artificialities (in this case, any minimum wage) inserted into the economy will have unintended consequences.

    Politicians who advocate minimum wage are ignorant (doubtful to perhaps), afraid to speak truth (for fear of losing their positions), or attempting to win votes (pandering), but regardless of the reason, any advocate for such legislation must be dismissed with prejudice.

    We, the People, desperately, need leaders, not politicians who have embedded within their DNA the “need” to lie.

    mz
    mikiesmoky@aol.com
    07/28/2015
    818.988.2792

    On July 4, 2015, Congressman Sherman and I were walking out of Woodland Hills Park as I asked him about minimum wage and he responded that there is some good in the concept.
    On August 27, 2015, I was told, by a staff member of Congressman Sherman, that the congressman believes, in some situations, a “minimum wage” is appropriate.

    If that report were true, it appears to be a stellar example of obfuscation and political-speak (redundancy).

    Congressman Sherman (Ca-D, 30th) supports the “minimum wage” concept, as do almost all Democrats.

    If my narrative were valid, why would anyone advocate for any minimum wage?

    ADDENDUM:
    A pragmatic and rational solution for those who want all employees to receive some type of amorphous “living” wage would be a massive expansion of the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) for those over the age of 25.

    Last edited: 08/27/2016

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*