PDA

View Full Version : Immigration - Liberalism fails again



llotter
08-04-2006, 11:59 AM
I just wanted to make some common sense observations on the immigration issues that have been whip-sawed into frenzy recently. It is axiomatic that if you subsidize something, you get more of it and if you tax something, you get less. Obviously, we have been subsidizing illegal immigration for years, providing health care, education and welfare that pay off much better than those available where these immigrants came from. We also bend over backward to accommodate the language and other cultural differences, making negligible efforts to either deport or assimilate. It is any wonder that with all the incentives and none of the penalties the tide of illegal immigrants has blossomed over the decades?

The wildly successful history of building our great country depended on those immigrants adopting a common set of ‘American’ values. The essence of those values were individual freedom and responsibilit, independence and hard work and the resulting rewards would belong to them and their family. It was only common sense that immigrants moving from the unsuccessful to the successful meant adopting those fundamental beliefs that worked so well and that obvious common sense prevailed until liberalism turned everything on its head. As if it wasn’t bad enough for these do-gooders to redistribute everyone’s income among our own citizens, they insist that whoever comes here from anywhere in the world get first dibs on our incomes. Is it any wonder that we have a mega problem when this sort of logic rules the day?

Sid_Vicious
08-04-2006, 01:07 PM
I must ask a burning question, "Are you saying that the in-charge government are liberals?" No time in history as far as I can tell, have we had a totally, one-party in charge with all of the dominant law passing ability, and these guys are certainly pandering to the immigrations(illegal), instead of being the conservatives they are labeled to be over history. Just who is to blame for an immediate shutdown of the border crossings and hunt and prosecution of those here TODAY? A lot of positive could and should be done with this current admin, and they are doing just the opposite, actively making things worse. The excuse of "Both parties are just as bad" doesn't wash in this current moment. The power is all on the right side of the political fence..sid

llotter
08-04-2006, 05:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I must ask a burning question, "Are you saying that the in-charge government are liberals?" No time in history as far as I can tell, have we had a totally, one-party in charge with all of the dominant law passing ability, and these guys are certainly pandering to the immigrations(illegal), instead of being the conservatives they are labeled to be over history. <hr /></blockquote>

To answer your question directly, yes, they are liberals by the most common definition: big spenders, way beyond the limits of the Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8. Unfortunately, the Republicans have adopted many of the Lefts/Democrats positions that government should be the ‘nanny state’ to take care of the education, health, retirement, home buying, welfare etc. It is a sad situation for us remaining conservatives with only Mr, Bad or Mr Even Worse to vote for but we still feel obliged to make our case.

We did have ‘one party’ rule from 1954 to 1994 in the Legislative Branch, save four years in the Senate from ’82 to ’86. When we had Democrat presidents, we did suffer ‘one party’ rule. The Supreme Court has been liberal since the mid ‘30s when old FDR threatened to pack the court to get his way. It was under Lyndon Johnson that the ‘war on poverty’ started in Washington and that is generally when most of the began their spending spree that continues today, in spades. Once people become dependent on government, it is next to impossible to reverse those destructive policies. The Republicans learned that lesson when they finally won back the House in ‘94 and attempted to reign in the spending and even brought the government to shut-down in ‘96 but were quickly dealt a defeat and backed down.

The point of my post, however, was just to say that there are many government benefits here that attract immigrants and that the Liberals have made these available, through both the legislature and the courts over the past several decades.. I would think that the first thing we should do is end those benefits for non-citizens and save money in the process. Granted, the current administration has done nothing to address the problem other than their Guest Worker program with which I don’t agree. The Democrats haven’t contributed anything better.

Gayle in MD
08-05-2006, 06:53 AM
You are really re-writing history. Go back and study what really happened regarding the Government shut down, for one thing. Go find out who has really been behind illegal immigration for years.

Also, do a bit of a study and learn for yourself what would have happened to this country without some compassionate leberal intervention during times when this country was going down the tubes.

Reaganomics lead to huge deficits after he was out of office. It is the same thing as Bush is doing, spend now, and the hell with the future generations. There is no ecomomist who will agree that tax cuts, paid for with borrowed money from foriegn countries, leads to positive long term results, particularly when the foriegn country is China.

There is a trail of self proclaimed conservative Republican Presidents and representatives involved in our illegal immigration population. Reagan was the first president to offer amnesty to them. Their numbers increased tremendously after he did that. Reagan, BTW, was not a liberal, just FYI.

llotter fails again. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

moblsv
08-05-2006, 07:48 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>There is no ecomomist who will agree that tax cuts, paid for with borrowed money from foriegn countries, leads to positive long term results, particularly when the foriegn country is China.<hr /></blockquote>

There have been several economists, including Keynes, who have supported the concept that debt could be useful in times of early growth or trouble. However, EVERY one of these economists have either warned of the pitfalls of this excessive debt, not paying it back, or have flat out come out against the Bush policies and warned of the dire consequences that they foresee as a result.

These economists who are willing to accept debt do so for the purpose of investing in the economy, not in giving tax breaks to the rich.

Some of the more notable economists/investors who come to mind are:

Keynes: who states something along the lines that "During times of economic trouble, governments should borrow and spend to boost industrial activity ... [but they were supposed to] pay back the debt, when the economy was nicely chugging along.

Greenspan: Who warns of tax cuts harming economic growth and was responsible for reducing interest rates in order to increase spending (and debt) also warns: "When you begin to do the arithmetic of what the rising debt level implied by the deficits tells you, and you add interest costs to that ever- rising debt, at ever-higher interest rates, the system becomes fiscally destabilizing, ... Unless we do something to ameliorate it in a very significant manner, we will be in a state of stagnation."

Warren Buffet: Warns of a sharp decline in the Dollar and practically predicts a financial crash if we fail to address the debt.

Your overall point is absolutely correct. It is not the Liberals or Democrats who are driving this debt and risking bringing about a future economic disaster and the decline of our country, it is the Reagan / Bush policies. The Bush policies are not only unsound from the standpoint of degree of the debt but also unsound in what they do with the debt.

pooltchr
08-07-2006, 07:13 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> The excuse of "Both parties are just as bad" doesn't wash in this current moment. The power is all on the right side of the political fence..sid <hr /></blockquote>

Sid,
The problem with this line of thinking is that you are making the assumption that Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal. It has become pretty obvious in recent years that not all Republicans are conservative. Our current President has shown to be extremely liberal with fiscal policies and immigration. You can't assume that because the Republican party is in the majority, that the congress is leaning right. In fact, given the number of "moderate" republicans in office along with the number of "moderate" and "liberal" Democrats, I would say that if anything, Washington is leaning farther left now than they were when the Dem's had the majority.
Steve

wolfdancer
08-07-2006, 08:18 AM
Steve, so then any of the perceived "failures" of this admin, can be blamed to a few rogue, Republicans, siding with the unpatriotic,liberal,left,Dems.
How does one get to be endorsed by the Conservative party, yet have commie leanings? Isn't there some sort of vetting process like taking the E-Harmony test, to insure party compatibility? I would give them ten $1 bills and have them walk through an area say, where homeless crippled vets, are begging for change....if they don't come back with the ten bucks....they're history. If they come back with the $10 and some change....(we won't go into how they got the change) they pass.
While I understand what you are saying, about this non-conformist element of the right....it sounds like an Orwellian concept to me. One can now be con"dem"ned as either a liberal, or not conservative enough,and thus the true conservative is exonerated from passage of any controversial legislation, or personal wrongdoing.
Tom DeLay......was actually a liberal
Hallelujah !!! This new right wing epiphany explains how
a Republican majority congress, and a Republican President, can run up the biggest debt ever.....damn liberals

pooltchr
08-07-2006, 08:49 AM
Wolf,
The parties want people with their name-tag in office. Neither one really seems to concerned about political philosophy or any of the things you might expect. We are dealing with a guy in our state government who was paid to change his affiliation in mid term so the speaker could remain in his position. Party names mean nothing! This is why anyone who says they would never vote for a Republican, or would never vote for a Democrat, is really not making an intelligent decision. If you only consider party affiliation, and not the individual running, you deserve what you get. The two party system is coming dangerously close to being a 1 party system. We need individuals in office that stand up for what is right, as opposed to what the party line happens to be. It's just not happening these days.
Steve

Gayle in MD
08-08-2006, 03:17 AM
We can talk party lines all day, but ultimately, the Reagan/Bush policies have given birth to the most dangerous
two political power vampires to ever attack this country....The Corporate Fascist Pigs, who are draining our country the same way they drain their Corporations into the ground to line their own pockets, and the fanatical Religious right liberal haters, who have built a case against liberalism on pure mythology.

Many books tell this story...

Latest...

Kingdom Coming Michelle GoldBurgh...

Take This Job And Ship It Will get back later with the Authors name....

Outsourcing America Lou Dobbs

Republicans are responsible for the mess we're heading for, period. The beginning was when they attacked Bill Clinton, spent a fortune to cripple his presidency. It's amazing how much he accomplished given the ridiculous, costly underhanded methods that Republicans used throughout his presidency.

When one gets an oversight of what they have donw to this country, economically, Constitutionally, and in Foriegn Affairs, it is impossible to come up with any other time in our history when one party has accomplished so much destruction to America, and divided our country with so much hatred and lies. Apparently, Barry Goldwater saw the birth of the neocon movement, and according to John Dean, he named it "Without Conscience" which is the title of Dean's new book. The Republican tactic of painting a whole program, such as Social Security, and the War on Poverty, with a broad brush, in order to condemn its viabililty, and success, and at the same time, ignore anything good that was accomplished through it, is short-sighted, and unrealistic. Nothing is perfect, but Clinton accomplished great strides in tweaking out waste, and providing positive changes in many programs which accomplish great good for our country.

Bush, OTOH, has been pouring money into the pockets of Billionaires since the day he got into office, and Changing things around to cover up his, and his Daddy's wrong doing, even retroactively, in the case of his father. There has never been a more currupt man in the White House, or a more corrupt party in power. Republicans should be swept out of the Hill, and power washed into the Potomac!

Gayle in Md. Already tired of the new republican tactic...Oh, twasn't us, twas them other Republicans! Yeah, right, but who the hell voted for them....Republicans, that's who.

moblsv
08-08-2006, 06:45 AM
How much longer can we "grow" the economy through consumer debt?

http://www.latimes.com/business/investing/la-fi-credit8aug08,1,1217902.story?coll=la-headlines-business-invest&amp;ctrack=1&amp;cset=true

onsumer borrowing unexpectedly accelerated in June as Americans used credit cards to finance more of their purchases, a Federal Reserve report showed Monday.

Consumer credit, or non-mortgage loans to individuals, rose $10.3 billion to $2.19 trillion, following a revised $5.89-billion increase in May. The two-month gain was the biggest since September-October 2004.

Americans are relying more on credit card debt because rising interest rates and a cooling housing market make it harder for them to take out home-equity loans. Higher prices at filling stations are also prompting consumers to borrow more, economists said.

"The jump in consumer credit coming at a time when consumers are hard hit by soaring gasoline costs could indicate some financial woes on the part of borrowers," said Chris Rupkey, an economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. in New York. "It looks as if consumers are relying more on credit cards now that other avenues of credit such as mortgage refinancing have been shut off to them."

Consumer credit was expected to rise $3.6 billion in June following an originally reported $4.4 billion increase in May, according to the median forecast in a Bloomberg News survey of 36 economists.

Revolving debt, such as credit cards, rose by $6.65 billion in June after rising $7.42 billion in May, Monday's report showed. Non-revolving debt, such as loans to buy cars and mobile homes, rose by $3.62 billion in June after declining $1.54 billion a month earlier.

Overall U.S. consumer debt rose at an annual rate of 5.7% in June.

The Fed's campaign to quash inflation has driven up the cost of credit card borrowing. The average rate on a credit card increased to 13.14% in May 2006 from 12.76% a year earlier, according to Federal Reserve statistics.

Fed policymakers, who meet today, are likely to leave the benchmark interest rate at 5.25%, according to a Bloomberg News survey of economists, as they pause to assess the effect of past increases on the economy.

The economy expanded at a 2.5% annual pace in the second quarter, down from growth of 5.6% in the previous three months, as consumers put the brakes on spending.

A gain in sales of motor vehicles may have contributed to the increase in non-revolving debt. Automakers sold cars and light trucks at an annual rate of 16.3 million units on June, compared with 16.1 million in May, according to Bloomberg data.

A cooling housing market is reducing demand for home-equity loans. Sales of existing homes, which make up 85% of the market, fell 1.3% in June to the lowest level in five months.

Qtec
08-08-2006, 08:20 AM
Just another example of Rep 'newspeak'!
Actually, its sounds like classic karl Rove! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I can see it now,

Libby in the dock, "OK I confess, I,m a Liberal". LOL

Abramoff, "It was my Liberal tendencies that made me do it".

Cunningham, "I confess, I,m a closet Democrat. Thats why I,m on the take".

DeLay, " My Liberal voting record got noticed and thats why I am being targeted. These Cons will stop at nothing! I,m totally innocent of these charges. Its now common knowledge that that trip to St Andrews was part of a secret report I was doing on Global Warming. " /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Etc....to infinity!

Q. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

DickLeonard
08-09-2006, 09:00 AM
Gayle I have maintained since Ronnie "the actor" Reagan that the Republicans are trying to destroy this country's ability to pay SS to its retirees and George is in the same mold bankrupting this country so they can put forth investment accounts for everyone. So Kenny Boy could manage them from prison.####

DickLeonard
08-09-2006, 09:11 AM
LLotter what world history did you read. Most immigrants that came to this country were discriminated against. They had to organize clubs to help their brothers, some clubs turned into Mafia headquarters. The only job open to Italians was ditch digging. The Irish were glad someone relived them of that job.####

nAz
08-09-2006, 09:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>

Gayle in Md. Already tired of the new republican tactic...Oh, twasn't us, twas them other Republicans! Yeah, right, but who the hell voted for them....Republicans, that's who. <hr /></blockquote>

LOL!

Gayle in MD
08-09-2006, 01:07 PM
Thanks...some interesting examples there. It'll take us ten years or more to undo all the damage from Bush's spend now, worry later policies. It's a joke listening to conservative theories about economics. All the howling they do about social security, and such, while they don't mind Bush selling us out through massive debt, and tax cuts for the filthy rich, and waging a trumped up war wrought with thievery and incompetence, and costing over a billion dollars a day. Talk about not able to see the forest for the trees! He's been robbing Peter to pay Paul, with the help of his majority on the hill, for six years! Where does it end?

Gayle in Md.

llotter
08-09-2006, 04:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
LLotter what world history did you read. Most immigrants that came to this country were discriminated against. They had to organize clubs to help their brothers, some clubs turned into Mafia headquarters. The only job open to Italians was ditch digging. The Irish were glad someone relived them of that job. <hr /></blockquote>

The common sense point I have been making is that we would be having less immigration problems and less expense if we did not offer all sorts on incentives/rewards to all the illegals that manage to make their way into this country. I make the simple point because I don't think it is made very much and it is so obvious that I am surprised at the snide, condescending sarcasm that resulted…but I guess that is what comes from the Left, whose trademark is supposedly being open to differing points of view.

As to you point about discrimination, I would say that those problems are better dealt with under a policy of subsidiarity. Organizing to help each other out doesn’t seem all that bad. It is yet another mistake of liberalism that insists on amassing centralized power in their march toward utopia. Discrimination used to be a mark of refinement and good taste, achieved through a good education, choosing what is better or best over the lesser quality. And it provided a measure for individuals to know if they are meeting the ‘standard’ or not.

The Law, of course, should be blind and treat all citizens equally and where that is not the case, it should be corrected. The Left, however, turns the tradition of Rule-of-Law on it head by removing the blindfold from the eyes of justice and putting and bureaucrat and a police officer overseeing what was once private activity, like student populations, employment, country clubs and everywhere people come together for whatever reason. They have made discrimination against the law and to me the solution to a pseudo crime is a sign of how empty is that philosophy.

Sid_Vicious
08-09-2006, 06:37 PM
Let me be Sid Vicious clear. The laws on the books for ILLEGAL ENTRY and slipping around the laws of the usa SHOULDB THE UNUBSTRUCTED, ESTABLISHED, WRITTEN LAW TO CAPTUREURE THE ILLEGALS, DERPOT THEM THE HELL-OUT-THIS-COUNTRY OF THOSE CAPTURED OR FOUND, FINE ALL-EVERYONE, THE CORPS AND EMPLOYERS(GOVERNMENT ESPECIALLY, I REPEAT ESPECIALLY, THE MAJORITY OF CURRENT ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEE WHO DO NOT UNANIMOUALY ENFORCE(RIGHTIES NOW MAINLY) FOR NOT ENFORCING THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS, ALS0, I INCLUDE THE IN-OFFICE DEMOCRATS DEFINITELY!

CONSERVATYIVES WITH THE VOTE ARE NOW THE DIRECT, LAW ENFORCING BUNCH BY PURE NUMBERS. THEY ARE THE POWER, ALL OF THE POWER. LIBERALISM IS GETTING TO BE A WORN OUT LABEL.

I'm for giving illegals nothing, including the water stations in the desert. If enough of them die, sad as it sounds out there, the less the others will think about trying. It is a Republican crew NOT doint that, so b!tch directly at them..

We have an invasion, much like Lebomon today. A war of attrition, and we best heed the stateside battle...sid~~~the middle class best plan economic strategy, cuz this is a war we will immensely get hammered by

llotter
08-09-2006, 06:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You are really re-writing history. Go back and study what really happened regarding the Government shut down, for one thing. Go find out who has really been behind illegal immigration for years.

Also, do a bit of a study and learn for yourself what would have happened to this country without some compassionate leberal intervention during times when this country was going down the tubes. <hr /></blockquote>

I am sure you remember that the ‘good times’ under President Clinton was facilitated to at least a significant degree by the dramatic downsizing of the military (the peace dividend following the defeat of Soviet Union) and the election of a conservative Republican Congress in ’94 who really did want to reform welfare and cut back on the federal government. Remember President Clinton’s initial attempts to centralize our health care system which helped the Republicans gain control in the next election. So it was Republican help that the Peace dividend wasn’t absorbed into another big government program and instead helped balance the budget.

As to who is really behind illegal immigration, I guess there is enough blame to go around but certainly the Left/Democrats are as culpable as the Republicans and maybe even more. After all, it is the minorities that the Dems claim to represent and it is the minorities that vote heavily Democrat so they have an interest in increasing that population as well as ‘Big Business’. And business is not a wholly owned branch of the Republican Party by any measure. They simply contribute more, by a relatively small margin, to the party that’s in power.

I can understand compassionate liberal intervention (btw, how is it possible to be compassionate with other peoples’ money? Is that a self-contradiction?) during times of great need even though I vehemently oppose it, especially at the federal level. It is not only unconstitutional but it is antithetic to our liberty. But setting aside my personal objections (and those of the Constitution), the programs should end when the need ends but, as one of my heroes, Ronald Reagan, famously said, No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!’

[ QUOTE ]
Reaganomics lead to huge deficits after he was out of office. It is the same thing as Bush is doing, spend now, and the hell with the future generations. There is no ecomomist who will agree that tax cuts, paid for with borrowed money from foriegn countries, leads to positive long term results, particularly when the foriegn country is China. <hr /></blockquote>

You talk as though the Left/Democrats have clean hands when it comes to outrages spending but that totally overlooks the unfunded liability of the entitlement programs. This obviously represents trillions in debt handed to succeeding generations and neither we nor they even get to vote on it. Many economists advocate tax cuts as a way to stimulate the economy and tax cuts do not add to the deficit if the stimulus works as planned. The cause of the deficits is over spending and admittedly, the Republicans are very guilty of that, especially over the last six years. But again, if well over half the budget obligations are liberal Democrat entitlement programs, it is hard to say that all the excessive spending should be laid at the feet of only Republicans.

You should also know that the ‘rich’, as defined as the top 1% of taxpayers paid a larger percentage of the of the total income tax revenue in 2005 (34.27%) than they did in 2000 (33.60%). The same can be said for the top 5% and the top 10%. So it appears that the stimulus was effective. And, if you want to design a tax cut to stimulate the economy it largely has to go to those who pay taxes and the top 10% pay 66% of the income tax.

wolfdancer
08-09-2006, 07:02 PM
Well, there you have the answer, Dick. the Irish immigrants of my ancestry, and the Italians that followed did not meet the marks of refinement and good taste, did not measure up to the standards, and it was just others exercising their good tastes, and not discrimination, that they were up against. I'm not sure how subsidiarism entered the picture (some reference to the tenth amendment, maybe?) ..but since they banded together to beat back the discriminatory policies of local police, and local gov'ts....seems like both parties were "subsidiariating"

I didn't realise that it was the "liberals" that were pushing for more immigration, legal or illegal. I thought it was the big business faction of the right, needing cheaper labor, and wanting to erase the last vestiges of organized labor, that ...
Well, not to worry...when the left tries to push this immigration thru....I'm sure GWB will veto it.
Amazing how, with an autocratic right wing President, and a plutocratic right wing majority Congress, for the last 6 years, (only seems like 60 yrs) that the "liberals" can be blamed for so many things.
But when someone thinks that asking for a fair wage for fair labor, and joining together to demand that fair wage is "stealing"...I wouldn't waste my time trying to reason with them. Unfortunately, we are only limited to sarcasm here, and cannot get a real response past the board censors.
The real problem here is that while I can generalize the right as favoring big business over the working class, the wealthy over the poor, and against all entitlement programs, including SS, and Medicare. They are generally good people. But apply the liberal label, and that seems to stand for a plethora of evils....it's the new McCarthyism charge of "Communists"....and some people didn't realise they were communists until they had been imprisoned,lost their homes, jobs, and had their life ruined., The HUAC hearings were as Draconian as the Inquisition, and looks like we are heading that way again......I don't see much difference now with the **** that are running around now thinking that they are the true American's, God is on their side, and everyone who does not agree with them is a traitor. God willing that the country survives the domestic terrorism of the Bushites, and the foreign terrorism that threatens us, and has been strengthened by his policies....in Twenty years people will look back and equate this faction with that "Red Menace everywhere" era.....

Gayle in MD
08-10-2006, 09:37 AM
HA ha ha ha...I needed a good laugh today, thanks...

You're hero, Ronald Reagan, as you speak of culpability for the illegal alien problem, invited more illegal aliens into this country with his amnesty for all illegals, than any other single event in history. His, "spend now, worry later" Reaganomics, threw this country into the same mess that GWB is creating. Don't talk to me about liberals, and the rule of law, when you have a man in the White House, who has thumbed his nose at more laws than one could shake a stick at, including constitutional law, from failing to enact our immigration laws, to creating signing statements to ignore Congressional law, and as a method of getting around existing laws, to lying before the Congress, the Senate, and the world, about WMD's in Iraq.

You talk about attacks against private activity, when Conservatives have tried to step into personal private issues as a matter of course, from Terry Scheibo, to a woman's right to have control over her own body, to being able to have a private telephone converstaion, and you're worried about Country Clubs, AH HA HA HA. You speak of empty philosophies, while our people die everyday in a mislabeled war, which isn't against terrorism at all, but a Civil War between Iraqi's, supported by the empty philosophy "Fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here" ha ha ha...ask England if that empty philosophy is working.

You worry about money helping people in this country, who paid into social security their whole working lives, and so that our old and ill will not have to beg on the streets to eat, while overlooking entirely the conservative approach of tax cuts for the wealthy, who steal more of their rightful percentage from the IRS than any other single group, with their money hidden in far away locations, and their "Take over" methods of down-sizing in order to bilk their employees out of their retirement, and then you want to talk about unfunded liability, and culpability, ha ha ha, and other people's money, ha ha ha. Believe me, nothing is worse than a President, who wages a trumped up war, which only makes everything worse, while at the same time, cuts taxes, and goes into unprecedented debt, which is compounding daily, and then tells the world, he'll let the next president worry about it.

You're worried about some measly entitlement programs for the old and needy, meanwhile, George Bush has a former oil lobbyist running our energy policy, as we're gouged at the tanks everyday, and stops Americans from getting cheaper drugs from Canada, as the pharmeceutical industry gouges us every day, wages a war for Halliburton, which is stealing from us all, right and left, and ties a minimum wage increase, to more billions free to the rich, and you want to talk about the redistribution of money, AH ha ha ha....


This country is in more financial danger than ever before, in recent history, debt growing, and interest compounding everyday, and no sight of relief, and your concern is that the hungry might get a few bucks to feed their children, while the rich Corporate Fascists pigs outsource our jobs, and their brilliant president provides them with plenty of cheap labor from Mexico, ha ha ha...no wonder you're so far off the pressing issues....

Hey, it's pretty simple, follow the money, it isn't going to the poor, or the middle class, that's just Republican rhetoric to distract you away from looking at whose getting richer, and whose getting poorer, and how money is being re-distirbuted from the working class grunts, into the hands of the rich!

You've been duped, my friend, distracted by a pawn, who works with a pick-pocket, whose picking your pockets dry, and you don't even know it! When you reach in that pocket and there's nothing left, you'll try to blame it on the blind guy sitting in the street, with no legs, playing the guitar, whose basket you threw a quarter into on your way into the airport!

You don't have a clue!

Gayle in Md.
I refuse to allow conservatives to add yet another rebonics switch on words in order to avoid.... Culpability!

pooltchr
08-10-2006, 10:39 AM
Gayle,
Suppose we institute tax cuts for the poor. Let's give back everything the bottom 10% of all income earners in the country paid in taxes. How much would they get back, and what would it cost the government? The answer to both questions is the same...ZERO! The poor don't pay taxes, the wealthy do. How can you give a tax cut to someone who pays no taxes to begin with? The purpose of tax cuts is to stimulate the economy. When you give tax cuts to those who pay the majority of taxes, that puts more money into the economy. Those wealthy people are for the most part business owners, who can now spend money building their business, paying their employees, and spend more on personal items, so the car dealership, and the appliance store are doing more business, so their employees are still working, etc.....trickle down economics! Put the money at the top, and it moves through different levels of the economy, stimulating each level.

When you think about it, it actually makes sense!
Steve

Sid_Vicious
08-10-2006, 11:56 AM
Gayle,

You left out that Bush is also giving illegal aliens rights to social security and social services, hospitalization, and who knows...probably unemployment. Whomever it is who blows nonsense about our own legal Americans getting handouts is as dense in the head as a 2" slate bed at the PH. We got some odd thinkers, I'm tellin' ya. Like I've said many times, "Everyone who talks against real Americans getting unwarranted social services, should be ashamed." You're better off being illegal these days...sid

Gayle in MD
08-10-2006, 12:10 PM
Steve,
IMO, the middle class is carrying the brunt of Bush's economic policies. If trickle down economics worked, why did we have the mess we had after Reagan got out of office? Why have the State governments who have implemented their own minimum wage increases, shown economic strides.

I believe the poor should be assisted, enough, so that they don't starve, but I don't think they should get a blank check to sit on their a$$es.

Also, I think that the extremely wealthy, don't use their tax cuts to create more jobs for the rest of us, I think they are the reason why jobs are being outsourced to other countries for cheap labor, and the reason why illegal aliens have no problem getting hired by huge Corporations. I also don't think they pay what they're supposed to pay in taxes, when I say supposed to pay, I mean they NEVER did pay what they were supposed to pay, and they still don't.

If we have to pay for tax cuts by going further into debt to China, I hardly think we're getting ahead given the coumpounded interest we are paying out. Even Allen Greenspan said tax cuts for which you must borrow money, dig any economy into a hole!

All you have to do is check the statistics on the exhorbitant profits that wealthy CEO's are stuffing in their pockets, and then read the statistics on how middle class families are struggling, and it becomes pretty clear who's getting shafted!

If this economy was booming, why are we selling our souls to China? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif


Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
08-10-2006, 12:44 PM
Gayle, here's a quote from lloiter
"You should also know that the ‘rich’, as defined as the top 1% of taxpayers paid a larger percentage of the of the total income tax revenue in 2005 (34.27%) than they did in 2000 (33.60%). The same can be said for the top 5% and the top 10%. So it appears that the stimulus was effective. And, if you want to design a tax cut to stimulate the economy it largely has to go to those who pay taxes and the top 10% pay 66% of the income tax."

Those poor souls !!
There's a reason, they pay most of the taxes, since they also make most of the income. While being taxed unfairly according to this "report", the very wealthy managed to increase their wealth disproportionaly to the rest of us.
Do you really need a tax cut, once you make over $30 million a year?
While this "effective stimulus" may be stimulating for the extreme rich, maybe even orgasmic for them....I'd be more interested in the GNP/ job market/ balance of trade, reports, to see if anything is trickling down to the rest of us. Could they have picked a better word then trickle to describe orts we are given, after the wealthy dine?
Sorry,I just can't empathize, with their tax problems.....I guess people like llitter could add a little more to their own returns, and encourage others to do likewise...
Here's my thoughts:

http://www.unleadedjokes.com/php/images/Gen121.jpg

Deeman3
08-10-2006, 12:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> Gayle,

You left out that Bush is also giving illegal aliens rights to social security and social services, hospitalization, and who knows...probably unemployment....sid <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Sid, respectfully, where has GWB proposed to give Social Security, Social Services and employment to the illegals? Please tell me as I missed the news on this. </font color>

DeeMan

wolfdancer
08-10-2006, 01:03 PM
Sorry, but I did see something on that, even a mention of
"priority"
If our "Great White Father" is trying to both develope a stronger relationship with Mexico, and buy political support for the Republican Party, from our large Hispanic population here....seems to me, both countries would be better off, if we
aided Mexico in becoming a self-sustaining economic country,
instead of encouraging immigration to here. ...or is the master plan, to BK this country, and establish a "new order", a Constitutionally empowered ruling elite to replace the de facto ruling elite, now in power?

Deeman3
08-10-2006, 01:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>The real problem here is that while I can generalize the right as favoring big business over the working class, the wealthy over the poor, and against all entitlement programs, including SS, and Medicare. They are generally good people. But apply the liberal label, and that seems to stand for a plethora of evils....it's the new McCarthyism charge of "Communists"....and some people didn't realise they were communists until they had been imprisoned,lost their homes, jobs, and had their life ruined.,


<font color="blue"> Wolfdancer,

I don't believe that most of us here have attached the communist label to what we (and some of you) call liberal. I don't believe we have even questioned your right to question policy nor to critique what is happening in the country and world. Certainly no one has even considered that you might lose your jobs, homes and standing in the community. If you take the far right shouters such as Coulter, and label us all on that far out scale, wouldn't that be exactly what you are saying about us? Is that any different from my saying you are a disciple of Karl Marx, just becasue you may have more left opinons than I do? I don't believe I have ever done that.</font color>
The HUAC hearings were as Draconian as the Inquisition, and looks like we are heading that way again... <font color="blue"> First, this is hyperbole! The House on Unamerican Activities was terrible but you might remember they were exonerated while the Inquisition was used to ACTUALLY burn and kill people. Many people's careers were ruined but it's little distance from drawing and quartering every one that was tried.</font color>
...I don't see much difference now with the **** that are running around now thinking that they are the true American's, God is on their side, and everyone who does not agree with them is a traitor. <font color="blue"> Again, with the exception of a few nuts on both sides, your side is the only one saying this. When did any of us call you a traitor? and if a Hannity does, how would that ever impact your life?</font color> God willing that the country survives the domestic terrorism of the Bushites, and the foreign terrorism that threatens us, and has been strengthened by his policies....in Twenty years people will look back and equate this faction with that "Red Menace everywhere" era..... <font color="blue"> I hope you don't believe this but maybe you do. If anything, there are more people free to speak out openly against this administration and country than ever in our history. If what you say were true, the bigger group of anti-Bush folks would be clamming up while the truly brave would be arrested and thrown in jail. This has happened in our past. Now, you can openly say what you want with some possibility that someone here might question your loyalty to the U.S. You guys are pretending to be brave oppressed souls risking some Inquisition when, you are just trying to equate yourselves with people who really did sacrifice to be heard. You know no one is coming to get you and that may, in fact, disappoint you in some ways. This aint the 1960's. They haven't even turned a fire hose on you and you are being oppressed with Draconian measures.

There is no Red Menace mentality other than that of our own making. No one has attempted to change our laws in ways that will impact that unless you are making calls to Abdul in Turkey and I don't think it's too much to ask that someone make sure none of us is trying to blow us an airplane. </font color>

DeeMan <hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
08-10-2006, 03:46 PM
Mr.Sands, to begin with...it's all a little exaggeration for the sake of ....? But there's a ring of truth in everything I wrote (IMHO)
first point....McCarthy used to paint people as communists, and many of these communist "connections" were just union related activities, with no political idealogy involved....that's why I wrote, some folks didn't know they were communists until they were adjudged as being one.
Being branded a liberal now, has some of the same odious connotations ....and many people thought they were just voting for one candidate over the other. they didn't realise there was all this baggage attached, to voting say, for Kerry, over Bush....and then for opposing many of the Bush policies.
Karl Marx, communism has nothing to do with the issue,except that liberals are suspected of..just about everything...
Point 2...you have nut cases on the right, if you will.....and we have our share on the left....your guys get the time slots and the network though, to voice their opinions, and when I listen to O'Reilly and Coulter...I am listening to extremists, whose contempt for others, is passed off as Patriotism.
Point 3....I have to disagree with you there...it's a fine point though...you say more people are free to speak out then ever before....I say, we have had that right now, for a couple of hundred,plus, years. Except for the anti-Viet Nam war demonstrations though...there hasn't been this many people, that upset with our Gov't, and willing to voice their dissatisfaction.
point 4...while A Bush policy of domestic terrorism, might be a slight exaggeration...worldwide,I think we now have more enemies then we did before 2000.
As to the Policies of GWB, President Reagan summed it up nicely:
"Where we're going, we don't need roads"



Did I say I was a brave oppressed soul, fearing inquisition?
Did I claim I was going to shoot the first right wing super-patriot that broke into my house?
I managed by accident of birth, to fit in between wars, and have no idea how I would respond under fire. I was against the Viet-Nam war though, and had I been a little younger then, I might now be a member of the "Front de Libération du Quebec".
I think the reality of ceding civil rights, in the interest of National Security, could be on the near horizon.
And it seems to me that McCarthy had free rein to investigate anybody.....as did one J.Edger Hoover....who used the information collected for his own use.
The chances for abuse are real, as they have proven to be in the past.
I resent the charge that just speaking out here, against all this right wing babble, somehow means we are attempting to portray ourselves as heroic......I would never accuse a right-winger of that.
Well, I see you have yielded to the power of the Dark Side, and can no longer reasonably discuss issues.

Gayle in MD
08-11-2006, 06:19 AM
Deeman,
I have to say, if we're to be honest, there have been many statements made by both you, and Steve, that suggest that those of us who expect this administration to ...

Tell the truth,
Abide by our written law,
Turn first to diplomacy, second to war and bombs, as a last resort....
and accept accountability for possibly the most incompetent prosecution of a war in which this country has ever been involved.

....that we....Want therapy for the terrorists, are unaware of the dangers they present, for example, hate America, hate George Bush, are cowards, and lean towards Marxism.

If these sentiments don't sound like the extreme right wing nuts like Coulter, tell me why they don't.

In my case, I don't think that it's just par for the course for a president to lie about sending our people to fight a war. Also, when an administration is known for being secretive, power grabbing, uses intimidation to skew Scientific studies, goes around the written law, and pays, and plants phoney journalist in the press room, holds secret meetings with certain CEO's in the Oil Industry, and seems to turn to National Security to justify their law breaking, I think that it is hard to determine which threat is of the most danger to America as we know it, Bush/Cheney, or terrorists.

There has been no accountability for their failure to heed warnings of the impending attack on 9/11, and to watch, as they used such a tragedy, to justify their pre-White House Secret Agenda, after a questionable election, has not instilled any confidence in them, on my part.

Regardless of how anyone feels about the War in Iraq, there is certainly no question that our enemies have increased, become emboldened, enlisted greater numbers to their cause, and the Middle East is certainly in shambles. Many Congressmen who have visited there, have come back to say that the administration has not been forthright in their reports of situations on the ground, both Republican and Democrat. Representatives from both parties have certainly agreed on the Administration's failure in prosecuting the war, Their rosey reports, their attempts to remove checks and balances, by going around Congress, and their resistance to even show up to discuss their actions.

For some to question loyalty to our country on the part of those of us who are enraged over such consistant attacks on our constitution, our rule of law, and the blatant dishonesty which we have witnessed, is, in my way of thinking, the most unamerican activity I have witnessed in a very long time.

As for the economy, when I read that this Administration included rolling hamburgers in their statistics on manufacturing, I realized that probably, things are much worse than we know, not only in Iraq.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
08-11-2006, 08:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Mr.Sands, to begin with...it's all a little exaggeration for the sake of ....? <font color="blue"> I agree with that... </font color> But there's a ring of truth in everything I wrote (IMHO)
first point....McCarthy used to paint people as communists, and many of these communist "connections" were just union related activities, with no political idealogy involved....that's why I wrote, some folks didn't know they were communists until they were adjudged as being one.
Being branded a liberal now, has some of the same odious connotations ....and many people thought they were just voting for one candidate over the other. they didn't realise there was all this baggage attached, to voting say, for Kerry, over Bush....and then for opposing many of the Bush policies. <font color="blue"> There is not a lot a of baggage attached, just a few right wing morons trying to out shout the left wing morons... </font color>
Karl Marx, communism has nothing to do with the issue,except that liberals are suspected of..just about everything...
Point 2...you have nut cases on the right, if you will.....and we have our share on the left....your guys get the time slots and the network though, to voice their opinions, and when I listen to O'Reilly and Coulter...I am listening to extremists, whose contempt for others, is passed off as Patriotism. <font color="blue"> The left has the same time slots available on other networks, It's just that Fox is popular and the left media outlets have almost no ratings. That's not my fault. </font color>
Point 3....I have to disagree with you there...it's a fine point though...you say more people are free to speak out then ever before....I say, we have had that right now, for a couple of hundred,plus, years. Except for the anti-Viet Nam war demonstrations though...there hasn't been this many people, that upset with our Gov't, and willing to voice their dissatisfaction. <font color="blue"> Exactly, many more people are able to openly criticise without fear of some government punishment. You think we are the most upset in our history? Naw, not even close. Don't you remember the bloody demonstrations in the streets in the 1960's? People are not even upset enough to gather more than a few thousand together in San Fransisco.... </font color>
point 4...while A Bush policy of domestic terrorism, might be a slight exaggeration...worldwide,I think we now have more enemies then we did before 2000. <font color="blue"> Maybe, but as bad as our boys fighting them, and stirring them up over there, it's better than absorbing bombs here, you remember 9/11? </font color>
As to the Policies of GWB, President Reagan summed it up nicely:
"Where we're going, we don't need roads" <font color="blue"> I dojn't know if there is a way to build "roads" in the Middle East! I did not fly planes into their home. NOw that we, or Isael is, everyone is yelling ablout fair play. Where is the fair play when a group wants to destroy you, and do not even want to talk about it? </font color>



Did I say I was a brave oppressed soul, fearing inquisition? <font color="blue"> No, but it could sound that way if you read it with a sympathitic ear! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font color>
Did I claim I was going to shoot the first right wing super-patriot that broke into my house? <font color="blue"> You know you face very little danger in that. Hell, there was not even a big physical backlash against Muslims after 9/11. </font color>
I managed by accident of birth, to fit in between wars, and have no idea how I would respond under fire. I was against the Viet-Nam war though, and had I been a little younger then, I might now be a member of the "Front de Libération du Quebec". <font color="blue"> You'd learn to pray like the rest of us. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>
I think the reality of ceding civil rights, in the interest of National Security, could be on the near horizon. <font color="blue"> I don't believe that. We are too strong and diverse a country to give up our fundamental rights. </font color>
And it seems to me that McCarthy had free rein to investigate anybody.....as did one J.Edger Hoover....who used the information collected for his own use. <font color="blue">I think we have grown a lot since J.Edgar Hoover and don't put that much authority into anyone's hands anymore. If this were true, DeLay would still be in office and many people who oppose the white house would be in trouble. I am thanksful it is no longer that way. </font color>
The chances for abuse are real, as they have proven to be in the past.
I resent the charge that just speaking out here, against all this right wing babble, somehow means we are attempting to portray ourselves as heroic......I would never accuse a right-winger of that. <font color="blue"> Sorry, if that was not the case. Really. It did just sound like you guys are under some flurry of anti-American rhetoric and that may be true in the extream right media but not here. </font color>
Well, I see you have yielded to the power of the Dark Side, and can no longer reasonably discuss issues. <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue"> I hope that's not the case but if you see my comments as that radical I'll back off. I really don't want to hurt anyone here. </font color>

DeeMan

pooltchr
08-11-2006, 11:13 AM
Gayle,
Have you actually read the entire 9-11 Commission report?
I am presently about 1/4 of the way through it. If you haven't read it, you should. In addition to the accounts of what actually happened on 9-11, there is a large segment that outlines OBL, his history, and the history and desires of the Islamic extremists who are dedicated to murdering every American. Yes, there are people in this world who want you, Gayle, and me, Steve, and EVERY American DEAD. The only way I see to deal with that is to make sure they reach room temperature before I do. If that sounds radical, then I'm a radical! So be it!
Steve