Where's The Fence?
Barack and Hillary want to "re-think" the building of the border fence which they voted for...
Why do we put up with these idiots in Washington? When will they realize the American people want the borders secured? Arrgghh!
posted by Hawkeye® -- Friday, February 29, 2008
7 Comments
7 Comments:
When will the American people realize that their economy will collapse without the migrants they despise?
Cheers
Elroy
Elroy,
You crack me up! So let me get this straight. The American economy will collapse without illegal aliens who...
+ Work for sub-minimum wages, and...
+ Deprive Americans of work (to the tune of $130-150 billion per year).
+ Pay low or no income taxes.
+ Pay little or no Social Security, but...
+ Get Social Security benefits.
+ Don't pay for health care, but...
+ Get Medicare benefits, and...
+ Are uninsured, but...
+ Get free medical care.
+ Stole 57,600 vehicles in 2003 from 1 city alone (Phoenix, AZ).
+ Cost Arizona taxpayers over $1 billion annually in services for schools, medical care, welfare, anchor babies, loss of tax base and prisons.
+ Smuggle drugs into the US, which...
+ Drains $180 billion out of the US economy.
+ Send money to their foreign relatives, which...
+ Drains more millions out of the US economy.
+ Cost the US $1.6 billion per year in prisons.
+ Give birth to 300,000 "anchor babies" per year, which...
+ Costs $109 billion/year for food, housing, medical and schooling up to age 18 (not including the mother).
+ Will cost Americans $3.9 trillion over the next 10 years.
Have I got that straight? Are you off your meds again? Need some links? Then go HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE, for starters. Or, just Google "cost of illegal aliens".
Oh Hawkeye, your grasp or reality really is nebulous, isn’t it? You need a little less Rush in your life – or Sean – or Michel ‘The Great One’(?!) Levine ¬– and a little more thinking.
You completely fail to understand that the costs you quote are necessary for maintaining an underclass, no matter what their colour/race/creed/religion/choice of football team, and for as long as you condone such bad pay the costs will continue, be the workers black, latino, caucasian, Melanesian, Polynesian, semetic, asian or all and any degrees inbetween.
Here’s the news; people don’t steal cars and commit crime because they are Mexican, they do it because they are poor. It is not a cultural phenomenon, nor is it genetic, inherent in midrchondrial DNA, a conspiracy, phrenology, or anything else. Poverty, my friend, is what causes these things, and these people are poor because they are so badly paid.
And that’s the point; if white, protestant American citizens did the jobs currently done by migrant Mexicans, business would not be able too afford it – the labour costs would be too high, and these costs would flow into prices causing massive inflation.
And seeing as you are running a multi-trillion dollar was with no end in sight on an eroding tax-base (The Bush tax cuts? Big mistake. Big, big mistake), you need that underclass more than ever.
But America was built on the exploitation of an underclass; you used to call it ‘slavery’ but the dynamic is much the same, and you still express your hatred of the people who do your donkey work for you.
Slavery, by the way, is still alive and well in the USA – just take a look here. http://www.amazon.com/Nobodies-
Modern-American-Global-
Economy/dp/1400062098
If people were paid properly then a lot of the costs you mention would disappear, along with the costs of jails etc, but as it is the costs of doing business are being passed from bosses to the wider community. What is it about this that is hard to fathom?
And if you say ‘But you said that we can’t afford to pay people properly!’ well yes, that’s true- I did – this is what we call a conundrum, a dilemma, a quandary, and one built by your current system. It is not the fault of the Mexicans, it is the fault of an economic regime that allows companies to make absurdly large profits which are then spread around a fortunate few.
If you really want to rid the USA of Mexicans then make Mexico a better place to be. I am aware of the perception that NAFTA has enriched Mexico at the expense of the USA, but Mexico has lost out from it too.
Here’s a quick quote from the Economic Policy Institute:
"In Mexico, real wages have fallen sharply and there has been a steep decline in the number of people holding regular jobs in paid positions. Many workers have been shifted into subsistence-level work in the 'informal sector'... Additionally, a flood of subsidized, low-priced corn from the U.S. has decimated farmers and rural economics."
Someone’s making out like bandits, but it ain’t Mexicans. The Washington Consensus and Freidmeanesque free-trade economics have made millions poor around the world, USA included, and you and your fellow ‘Reagan Republicans’ need to be aware of the consequences of you action and policies. That they have wound up hurting you too just show that you’ve been had.
Mexicans don't go to America to become rich – they do to become less poor, and a lot don't even manage that.
Welcome to the real world.
Cheers
Elroy
PS I know the biofuel revolution has put up the price of corn, but that just means that now poor Mexicans can’t afford it. Complicated old world, ain’t it?
Elroy,
the costs you quote are necessary for maintaining an underclass
America neither needs an underclass, nor can it afford one. Studies have shown that an underclass is a net drain on the economy, and poverty induces a net deficit. In other words, we spend more on poor people than they contribute to society (including the working poor, and legals as well as illegals).
While it is true that some individuals and/or businesses may benefit from low cost labor on certain transactions, the country as a whole suffers -- including those very same businesses and individuals -- on a wider scale.
as long as you condone such bad pay the costs will continue
I do not "condone" bad pay. I favor fair wages. Illegals promote "bad pay" by undercutting fair wages.
people don’t steal cars and commit crime because they are Mexican, they do it because they are poor
Wrong. They steal cars and commit crime because they are "criminals". They ALL committed a crime merely by entering the country illegaly. Many break the law by using stolen identities. They break the law by not paying taxes. And then 30% or so continue to commit crimes because they are prone to criminal behavior.
Poverty, my friend, is what causes these things
Agreed. But it is not poverty in America, it is poverty in Mexico, Latin America, and the rest of the world. Illegals come here to flee poverty in their home country. When they do so, they bring their poverty to America and force honest, hard-working US taxpayers to bail them out. That in itself is a "crime" IMO.
if white, protestant American citizens did the jobs currently done by migrant Mexicans, business would not be able too afford it – the labour costs would be too high, and these costs would flow into prices causing massive inflation.
If illegal aliens didn't come to America causing trillions of dollars in expenses to deal with them, Americans would have more money to pay "white, protestants" to do the jobs.
The Bush tax cuts? Big mistake. Big, big mistake
Why? Because they caused the longest period of continuous job growth in American history? Because they actually reduced the deficit by generating increased tax revenues? And if the tax cuts were so bad, why did Congress recently pass another bi-partisan "tax cut" in the form of rebates called an "economic stimulus" package. Wake up man.
America was built on the exploitation of an underclass; you used to call it ‘slavery’
It would be ludicrous to suggest that slavery played no part in American history, but anyone with the remotest understanding of that history will tell you that the Civil War was won by the North because its slave-free industrial advantage was far superior to that of the slave-dependant South. They will also remind you that the greatest period of industrial growth in America took place following the abolition of slavery and prior to the imposition of the permanent income tax in 1913.
you still express your hatred of the people who do your donkey work for you
I don't hate anybody. I am angered by a lack of border security. I am angered by the failure of my government to enforce its laws. I am angered that as a taxpayer I am forced by my government to support those who have broken laws to come here, continue to break laws while they are here, and are not required or even encouraged to assimilate. If I "hate" anybody, it's those talk-a-good-game, do-nothing politicians in Washington.
If you really want to rid the USA of Mexicans then make Mexico a better place to be
I don't want to "rid the USA of Mexicans", but I don't want it to be overrun by illegals of any nationality. And I would like Mexico to be a "better place", but unfortunately the USA has no jurisdiction over Mexico. You might recall that Mexico is a sovereign country and it un-neighborly to intrude in the affairs of a foreign nation (as you are so apt to remind us).
a flood of subsidized, low-priced corn from the U.S. has decimated farmers and rural economics
I'd be interested to know where this "low-priced corn" can be found. I could make a killing. Check out corn prices HERE. Oh yes, in your "PS" you recognized that you goofed and tried to slither your way out it with that snide remark that Mexicans can't afford it. Well, don't blame me... blame the enviro-nuts who believe in man-made global warming. As I recall, they were on your side of the aisle.
you and your fellow 'Reagan Republicans' need to be aware of the consequences of you action and policies. That they have wound up hurting you too just show that you've been had.
First of all, this is a judgmental statement which alludes to something, but I know not what. You talk about some vague "action and policies" -- which refer to nothing specific -- that have "hurt" me, but I know not how. Second, if I've been "had", it would not be by 'Reagan Republicans', it would be by a government that has failed to follow the principles of Reagan conservatism. (I got that from Rush, Sean and Mark Levin -- heh, heh).
Hey, Hawkeye! Delete that first attempt to post and use this one.
‘America neither needs an underclass, nor can it afford one. Studies have shown that an underclass is a net drain on the economy, and poverty induces a net deficit. In other words, we spend more on poor people than they contribute to society (including the working poor, and legals as well as illegals).'
While it is true that some individuals and/or businesses may benefit from low cost labor on certain transactions, the country as a whole suffers - including those very same businesses and individuals -- on a wider scale.’
Social spending, like it or not, is necessary to prevent the wheels of society from falling off completely. If you are going to run Freidman/Thatcher/Reagan-style monetarist fiscal policies that require a certain amount of unemployment (the desired amount is somewhere between 5% - 15%), as the Washington Consensus demands, the result will be poor people.
The problem is what to do with them. You could a) make sure that they have enough money and resources to live in reasonable comfort, like in Scandanavia; b), make them beg and jump through all manner of hoops in order to secure inadequate funding, leading to crime and having to work below minimum wage; or c) leave them to die on the streets.
Conservatives always sound like they would prefer ‘c’; however, as they have conniptions at the thought of ‘a’ they so grudgingly put up with ‘b’ with as much ‘c’ as they can get away with.
I would like to do away with social spending too; I would like a situation where it was not necessary, but as it is we need to just accept it as a part of life and not constantly whine about it. I don’t see what is wrong with making sure that one’s fellow man has the wherewithal for existence – if nothing else, look upon it as an insurance policy against people stealing your car and televison.
But I must ask, on what basis do you state that you spend more on the working poor than they contribute to society? These are the people that do all that nasty work that no one else wants to do, work that is vital for the functioning of society. They don’t particularly want to do it, or like it, yet they do it for a pittance as for some that’s all there is but still you condemn them for it! How dare you! For shame!
And you are still blaming the victim. In a deregulated labour market, businesses will pay their workers as little as they can get away with, and if conservatives got their way and abolished the minimum wage, businesses would pay even less – don’t forget, the working poor don’t want to be poor
The rush to globalization has not helped, either – millions of jobs performed by regular working stiffs have vanished overseas, and whether or not you might view this as desirable (GWB certainly did), the consequences are real and can be seen in states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania et al.
Likewise, millions of jobs have been lost to automation, but while the profits have been reaped by the corporations the losses, the human and social costs, have been shouldered by the state.
The only way to eradicate poverty is by making sure that resources are allocated more equitably, which basically means less billionaires. Rush, Sean and Mikey would call this ‘re-distribution of wealth’ and then wash their mouths out with soap and water, but there is no other way.
‘I do not "condone" bad pay. I favor fair wages. Illegals promote "bad pay" by undercutting fair wages’.
I’m glad to hear it. I thought that conservatives were committed to eradicating the minimum wage, but I must be wrong – you must for raising it. Good. But what will Beerme say?
However, again I ask, do illegals promote ‘bad pay’ by accepting it? Or do businesses undercut fair wages by offering it? It takes two to…
And what, BTW, is a ‘fair wage’?
‘Wrong. They steal cars and commit crime because they are "criminals". They ALL committed a crime merely by entering the country illegaly.’
Oh dear. Just because someone enters the country without papers, that does not mean they will steal your car. Your logic is utterly specious. Get a grip, Hawkeye! Don’t forget, many, many of your so-called ‘illegals’ are law-abiding tax-payers.
‘Many break the law by using stolen identities. They break the law by not paying taxes. And then 30% or so continue to commit crimes because they are prone to criminal behavior.’
As do all other demographics. White, brown, yellow, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Catholic – they all do the above. It is not an issue of ethnicity or cultural identity.
‘Agreed. But it is not poverty in America, it is poverty in Mexico, Latin America, and the rest of the world. Illegals come here to flee poverty in their home country. When they do so, they bring their poverty to America and force honest, hard-working US taxpayers to bail them out. That in itself is a "crime" IMO.'
Blimey! Are you seriously telling me that with out Hispanics there would be no poverty in the USA? Wow! You are far more out of whack with reality than I ever thought before! They don’t ‘bring their poverty’ – how do you ‘bring poverty’? They bring their bodies to work so that they would no longer be poor.
But it might be enlightening for you to investigate why Latin America is so poor – you could well find the sticky prints of Milton Friedman.
‘If illegal aliens didn't come to America causing trillions of dollars in expenses to deal with them, Americans would have more money to pay "white, protestants" to do the jobs.’
'Trillions of dollars’ are going to be expended for as long as the US has a population of working poor. The question is, are white protestant Americans going to be willing to work for the same money as is paid to the ‘illegals’? And if not, where will the extra come from?
‘Why? Because they caused the longest period of continuous job growth in American history? Because they actually reduced the deficit by generating increased tax revenues?’
Hello? Whoa! Waaaaay too much Rush! I really sometimes wonder about you Hawkeye, and I think that if you maybe knew the truth you might change your tune. The tax-cuts caused nothing of the kind. GWB has presided over massive net job loss.
Be aware, I am not against tax-cuts – I just think that they should be targeted at the bottom end as treacle-down economics is a chimera, a delusion, a utopian ideal that does not work in the real world. In the real world, people that lose their jobs lose their houses and wind up with nothing.
Unemployment is up, wages are down in real terms, more jobs have been created in the government sector than the private sector (Sing ‘Yay!’ for small government!), foreclosures are in overdrive, the deficit is exploding, the war is costing trillions, private debt is at unheard of and unsustainable levels, the economy is probably in recession and stagflation looms, the middle class is being gutted and oil is $100 + per barrel. I’m not making this up. This is not a drill. If this is good economic management then that bridge in Sydney is still for sale.
‘And if the tax cuts were so bad, why did Congress recently pass another bi-partisan "tax cut" in the form of rebates called an "economic stimulus" package. Wake up man.’
A quick squirt of free money is not going to do the trick. All that will do is fleetingly kick the retail sector but not address the underlying issues. A band-aid at best. Bzzt. Try again.
‘It would be ludicrous to suggest that slavery played no part in American history, but anyone with the remotest understanding of that history will tell you that the Civil War was won by the North because its slave-free industrial advantage was far superior to that of the slave-dependant South.’
The Union definitely had the advantage of industrialization, but anyone with the remotest understanding of history will tell you that slavery did not end with the civil war; it changed its shape, became sharecropping and whatever, but the exploitation and oppression of African-Americans continued unabated.
‘They will also remind you that the greatest period of industrial growth in America took place following the abolition of slavery and prior to the imposition of the permanent income tax in 1913.’
Then I would also remind them that just about every other industrialized country on the planet also experienced the same growth, proving that it was less to do with ending slavery and more to do with rampant and systemic exploitation of the poor.
‘I don't hate anybody.’
I don’t mean you personally, I mean conservatives in general, although you don’t sound particularly charitable towards Latinos when you declare they are all criminals.
‘I am angered by a lack of border security. I am angered by the failure of my government to enforce its laws. I am angered that as a taxpayer I am forced by my government to support those who have broken laws to come here’
Hmm. Very much the legacy of Reagan, if I remember rightly.
‘continue to break laws while they are here, and are not required or even encouraged to assimilate.’
They said the same about the Irish, the Italians, the Poles, the Greeks, the Germans and every other wave of immigrants to have come ashore, just as the Algonquin said the same of the Pilgrims. This is nothing new.
If I "hate" anybody, it's those talk-a-good-game, do-nothing politicians in Washington.’
Me too.
‘I don't want to "rid the USA of Mexicans", but I don't want it to be overrun by illegals of any nationality. And I would like Mexico to be a "better place", but unfortunately the USA has no jurisdiction over Mexico. You might recall that Mexico is a sovereign country and it un-neighborly to intrude in the affairs of a foreign nation (as you are so apt to remind us)’
And as you so readily forget. My crickey, have you no idea of the USA’s record of intruding in the affairs of foreign nations? Particularly Latin American ones? And how much do you know about NAFTA? The operations of the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF? Improving the lot of Mexicans will stop the flow of immigrants. Full stop.
‘I'd be interested to know where this "low-priced corn" can be found. I could make a killing. Check out corn prices HERE. Oh yes, in your "PS" you recognized that you goofed and tried to slither your way out it with that snide remark that Mexicans can't afford it.’
It was no goof. I was merely pointing out how complicated it can all get. The fact remains that subsidized corn was dumped on the Mexican market for years, which put the local farmers out of business. Some found other things to grow, but now that they have forced to be dependant on US corn the price had rocketed and the people can’t afford it.
Basically, the support for US corn producers is largely responsible for the marauding hordes of Mexicans, so remember that the next time you are motoring through Iowa.
‘Well, don't blame me... blame the enviro-nuts who believe in man-made global warming. As I recall, they were on your side of the aisle.’
And for the record, I do not like biofuels. They produce more greenhouse gas in production than they save and compete with food for land. They are a bad, bad idea. GWB likes them though.
‘First of all, this is a judgmental statement which alludes to something, but I know not what.’
The fiscal policies of Reagan and Friedman.
‘You talk about some vague "action and policies" -- which refer to nothing specific -- that have "hurt" me, but I know not how. '
Well, they caused a flood of Mexican immigration for one thing. And the economic destruction described elsewhere.’
‘Second, if I've been "had", it would not be by 'Reagan Republicans', it would be by a government that has failed to follow the principles of Reagan conservatism. (I got that from Rush, Sean and Mark Levin -- heh, heh).'
Au contraire! It is the policies of Reagan and Friedman that have led to the chaos we see today. The Keynesian social contract of the post-war era was smashed by these ideas, ideas which were taken up with gusto by BushCo and have now become tenets of conservative faith. This is the big thing, Hawkeye – they don’t work, as the USA is just now finding out
Regeanomics shifted the equation from ‘tax and spend’ to ‘borrow and spend’, but only if the spending was quarantined to the rich. It is all now falling apart. Be careful what you wish for.
Cheers
Elroy
Elroy,
Only to happy to delete one of your comments... (:D)
It's too late to read your comment now. I'm off to bed. Early day tomorrow.
Elroy,
If you are going to run Freidman/Thatcher/Reagan-style monetarist fiscal policies that require a certain amount of unemployment (the desired amount is somewhere between 5% - 15%)
Well then, I guess the Bush tax cuts were TOO good, because unemployment figures started going down almost as soon as they were implented and have actually been running at 5.0% or below for some time now. In February, the unemployment rate was only 4.8% ...I guess that's a BAD thing?
If you are going to run a Socialist/Communist-style economic policy, that WILL insure full employment... but everybody will be poor.
Conservatives always sound like they would prefer ‘c’; however, as they have conniptions at the thought of ‘a’ they so grudgingly put up with ‘b’ with as much ‘c’ as they can get away with.
Give me a break. Conservatives would love to have full employment. Everybody who's working ("legally", that is) pays taxes and contributes towards unemployment. With low unemployment, tax revenues are high, and unemployment expenses are low. Conservatives don't want unemployment.
I agree that full employment places upward pressure on inflation and prices, but that is a problem that is far more easily addressed than unemployment.
I don’t see what is wrong with making sure that one’s fellow man has the wherewithal for existence
In general, I have no problems with that either... but under certain limitations. Qualifications for "welfare" (which is really what we're talking about here) should be limited to those who: a) are legal citizens, b) have physical disabilities, c) were recently unemployed and are between jobs (ie, and it is time-limited to encourage re-employment), or d) meet other agreed upon "reasonable" qualifying criteria (ie, old age, unwed mothers with infants, mentally challenged, etc). Illegal aliens don't make the cut IMO.
But I must ask, on what basis do you state that you spend more on the working poor than they contribute to society?
Check the links. The answer is there.
They don’t particularly want to do it, or like it, yet they do it for a pittance as for some that’s all there is but still you condemn them for it! How dare you! For shame!
That's not what I said. That's your interpretation. I simply said that we spend more on the working poor than they return to the state (in the form of taxes, etc). That has no bearing at all on how I feel about them. Don't put words in my mouth please.
And you are still blaming the victim.
You have a perverted view of justice if you believe that a person who commits a crime, and then forces me to subsidize them and their children (against my will) is the "victim". Maybe we should send 12 million illegals to Australia and let you support them?
businesses will pay their workers as little as they can get away with
Businesses are in business to make a profit. They do not to employ people for the sake of providing employment, nor to provide people with a comfortable life style. Businesses generally pay wages at the prevailing rates, depending upon the employment market where the business is located. Businesses also pay wages and salaries commensurate with the skill level requirements of the job. Higher skill requirements and a more competitive job market force businesses to pay more. Areas with higher populations and fewer employers tend to pay less. It's a matter of supply and demand. If a flood of workers willing to accept low wages are available that meet the requirements of the job, businesses will offer less. Illegals have simply flooded the market, typically at the low end.
if conservatives got their way and abolished the minimum wage, businesses would pay even less
I don't think conservatives want to "abolish" the minimum wage, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that raising the minimum wage puts people out of work. Companies that hire employees at the minimum wage, typically do so because profit margins are thin. When you raise the minimum wage, cash-sensitive companies can afford to hire fewer workers. Bottom line: more people at lower wages, or fewer people at higher wages. Cash is a limited commodity for some companies (if you weren't aware of that).
don’t forget, the working poor don’t want to be poor
Really? No kidding? But seriously though, there are in fact some who would rather be poor than work if they can get somebody else (like dumb Americans) to provide for them.
The rush to globalization has not helped, either – millions of jobs performed by regular working stiffs have vanished overseas
For once I agree with you, and there are plenty of liberal CEOs who are as much to blame as conservative CEOs. I can cite you a good example of TIME magazine (no conservative bastion), who recently implemented a project using overseas contractors. The project team kept changing about every 3-4 weeks as TIME management found lower and lower cost services in a different third world country.
the consequences are real and can be seen in states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania et al.
Job losses in those states have had little to do with NAFTA as some would like to claim, and everything to do with the U.S. being unable to compete with other countries who flooded the American market with low-cost foreign imports that were made by companies that were subsidized by their government (think steel, rubber and automotive). Job losses in those states started in the 1970s, well before NAFTA.
Likewise, millions of jobs have been lost to automation
I don't know about "millions", but certainly thousands or tens of thousands. Automation was successfully resisted by the unions for years, until Japanese companies started beating the pants off the American auto industry. Automation it seems, also produced much higher quality vehicles. And the typical consumer that has a choice between quality and crap (especially if the price is comparable), will typically go for quality. Unless of course, some other higher personal value is at work such as patriotism, peer pressure, etc.
the profits have been reaped by the corporations
U.S. automaker profits have been in the toilet. See HERE and HERE for example. All this despite the investment costs in automation.
the human and social costs, have been shouldered by the state.
And if you had your way, the human and social costs of the state would skyrocket.
The only way to eradicate poverty is by making sure that resources are allocated more equitably
That's your biggest problem... thinking that poverty can be eradicated. Jesus said, "For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me" (Matthew 26:11). The 'War on Poverty' was initiated by President Lyndon B. Johnson on January 8, 1964. We spent billions of dollars. And then Bill Clinton "end[ed] welfare as we know it", with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The 'War on Poverty' was a complete failure.
Communism in the USSR attempted to make sure that resources were "allocated more equitably", and the Soviet Union collapsed. Other failed experiments with communism are recorded in the New Testament and in the diary of Governor Bradford of the American pilgrims at Plymouth Rock. Get over it already. Marx and Lenin are dead. Mao and Fidel are dying a slow death.
Rush, Sean and Mikey
Just for the record, it's "Mark" Levin.
‘re-distribution of wealth’... there is no other way.
Your statement is 'reductio ad absurdum'.
I thought that conservatives were committed to eradicating the minimum wage, but I must be wrong – you must for raising it.
See my comments above.
However, again I ask, do illegals promote ‘bad pay’ by accepting it? Or do businesses undercut fair wages by offering it?
In a free market, transactions are completed when there is an "agreement" (ie, a contract, if you will) between buyer and seller. If there is a flood of low-wage illegals offering to "sell" their services on the cheap, you can be sure there will be some "buyers". If the illegals were gone, the buyers would be forced to pay higher "price tags".
And what, BTW, is a ‘fair wage’?
In my opinion, a 'fair wage' is essentially the same as the 'prevailing wage' for any particular job in a given geographic region.
Just because someone enters the country without papers, that does not mean they will steal your car.
No kidding? Really? "Truly... you have a dizzying intellect". I didn't say that. If you had read a bit further, you would see that I next said, "And then 30% or so continue to commit crimes because they are prone to criminal behavior". They are the ones who steal the cars, smuggle drugs, rape, murder, and generally act in "a fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan".
many of your so-called ‘illegals’ are law-abiding tax-payers.
How can you have a law-abiding illegal. That is an oxymoron... but you're good at those aren't you?
(Crime) is not an issue of ethnicity or cultural identity.
Think so? Then check out THIS.
Blimey! Are you seriously telling me that with out Hispanics there would be no poverty in the USA?
Hardly, Bloke! I already told you that there is poverty among legal U.S. citizens as well as illegals. (You certainly do have a short attention span.) There is poverty among blacks, whites, and even native Americans dontcha know! But since the single largest percentage of illegals happens to be Hispanic, they are the single largest percentage of illegals contributing to poverty in America. (But I guess you couldn't figure that out.)
how do you ‘bring poverty’?
You run across the border with no money in your pocket. Sheesh!
They bring their bodies to work so that they would no longer be poor.
So, you agree then that they are poor when they arrive. This statement contradictS your previous sentence.
But it might be enlightening for you to investigate why Latin America is so poor
Latin America is poor for any number of reasons, among them being: a) An adverse business investment climate, b) government corruption, c) high taxes, d) property rights issues, e) liens perfection and execution, f) customs procedures and costs, g) registries, h) trade issues, i) regulations, and j) commercial codes. And businesses won't invest where socialists like Hugo Chavez are liable to nationalize all your assets without warning.
'Trillions of dollars’ are going to be expended for as long as the US has a population of working poor.
That estimate of 'trillions of dollars' was specifically for the cost of illegals ONLY. I don't mind spending money on American citizens, but not for illegals.
The question is, are white protestant Americans going to be willing to work for the same money as is paid to the ‘illegals’?
No. That's NOT the question at all. The question really is, "Are American businesses willing to pay the prevailing wage rather than an artificially low wage offered by illegals?" And the answer must be "Yes". If they can't compete without paying prevailing wages, then they need to go out of business. It's as simple as that. You compete. Some win. Some lose. You take a risk and hope for reward. But not everybody can make it.
Hello? Whoa! Waaaaay too much Rush!... GWB has presided over massive net job loss.
The 52-month period of continuous job expansion is real. I don't make this stuff up. See HERE. It has been "the longest uninterrupted period of job growth since employment surveys have been taken", according to the US Dept of Labor. And it is directly attributable to the Bush tax cuts as per the US Dept of Treasury.
Now, you may be correct that there has been a net job loss since GWB took office. However, a look at this graph shows that the job declines started during the last year of the Clinton administration. You may remember that Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve started raising the Federal Funds Rate in 1999 to try and dampen the euphoria of the "Dot-Com bubble". Not only did the bubble break, but when it did a recession ensued. This was followed closely by the attacks of 9/11, its impact on the airline industry, the war in Afghanistan, the creation of the Homeland Security Dept, and the corporate accounting scandals of 2002. It's a wonder the economy bounced back at all.
Be aware, I am not against tax-cuts
Good for you.
I just think that they should be targeted at the bottom
It's pretty hard to give tax cuts to the "bottom", when they pay little or no taxes to begin with. The bottom 40% of income earners pay NO TAX for example. For tax year 2005, the bottom 50% of U.S. income earners paid only 3% of the taxes while the upper half paid the other 97%. And the top 25% paid 86% of the taxes, while the bottom 75% paid only 14%.
Unemployment is up, wages are down in real terms
I think you should explain "real terms", because unemployment was 4.8% in February. And U.S. employment levels have remained remarkably high as the population has increased (click on the magnifier to get a better view). Also, the average hourly earnings of production employees has been steadily rising at about 4% per year. From this graph, there has been a six-year uptrend of inflation, but the long-term trend is still down. The "instantaneous" annual rate of inflation is currently about 4%. Just looking at the 6-year uptick, the annual average rate of inflation increased from about 2% to about 3.5% currently. And the long-term trend over 18 years saw the annual average rate of inflation decrease from about 3.3% to about 2.5% (in "real terms"?).
more jobs have been created in the government sector than the private sector
Links... documentation... proof?
the deficit is exploding
Perhaps it appears that way in unadjusted dollars, but when corrected for inflation, the deficit as a percentage of GDP is not outrageous. See HERE for appropriate graphs.
private debt is at unheard of and unsustainable levels
My own personal debt is at extremely low levels, but then I live according to the Biblical principle "Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law" (Romans 13:8). Perhaps we need to start teaching these Biblical principles to our children, eh?
the economy is probably in recession and stagflation looms
Speculation.
the middle class is being gutted
Speculation with dramatization.
oil is $100 + per barrel
Yes, and in inflation-adjusted dollars it was just as high in 1979 (see HERE). Or, you can get the same thing from the NY Times HERE if you prefer. In fact, you should check out the NY Times multimedia presentation, which suggests that in terms of barrels of oil consumed, the average price was much higher in 1979, relatively speaking.
A quick squirt of free money is not going to do the trick... A band-aid at best. Bzzt. Try again.
Amen. Much deeper tax-cuts are needed to really get the economy going.
slavery did not end with the civil war... the exploitation and oppression of African-Americans continued unabated.
Yes, and no thanks to the Democratic Party. For a good history of anti-black policies of the Democratic Party, go HERE
just about every other industrialized country on the planet also experienced the same growth, proving that it was less to do with ending slavery and more to do with rampant and systemic exploitation of the poor.
I guess you read that in 'Das Kapital'. Try learning the facts.
you don’t sound particularly charitable towards Latinos when you declare they are all criminals.
Only the illegals are criminals. The offense of illegal entry might be considered 'minor' compared to murder or rape, but it is a crime nonetheless.
Very much the legacy of Reagan, if I remember rightly.
Reagan did in fact pass an amnesty bill. It was supposed to be a one-time event subject to the condition that the causes of illegal immigration would be addressed. The do-nothing Congress failed to act (as usual).
They said the same about the Irish, the Italians, the Poles, the Greeks, the Germans and every other wave of immigrants
They may have said it, but you didn't see signs in railroad stations and public buildings written in Italian, Polish, Greek or German. You didn't see public school teachers forced to teach students in Italian, Polish, Greek or German. Savvy?
Improving the lot of Mexicans will stop the flow of immigrants. Full stop.
Your ideas on how to do that would be greatly appreciated.
now that they have (been) forced to be dependant on US corn the price had rocketed and the people can’t afford it.
Mexicans are "dependant" on US corn? What, they can't grow it themselves? If Mexico cannot respond to a changing economic environment, how do you propose that we can "improve their lot"?
And for the record, I do not like biofuels. They produce more greenhouse gas in production than they save and compete with food for land. They are a bad, bad idea. GWB likes them though.
I know, and on this one I really DO agree with you. They're a bad idea and I don't support Bush on this issue.
The fiscal policies of Reagan and Friedman... caused a flood of Mexican immigration for one thing. And the economic destruction described elsewhere.
I doubt it. Poverty in other countries can hardly be attributed to Reagan and Friedman. Reagan was a free trader and fought tooth-and-nail against protectionist practices, even to the extent that it hurt America, vis-a-vis Japan. And if their policies caused America to prosper so much that poor foreigners wanted to come here, then you must face the prospect that those policies were correct and beneficial. You can't have it both ways.
The Keynesian social contract of the post-war era was smashed by these ideas
And it needed "smashing". Actually, I don't think it was smashed hard enough. Unfortunately, it is trying to make a come-back.
The "Keynesian Social Contract" (KSC) suggested that government and business play an equal role in the development of economic growth and social improvement. In theory, there is some validity to this argument. As is often the case however, the problem is when it comes to putting theory into practice.
When government begins to take on a disproportionate share of its "role", the partnership becomes lop-sided. Inevitably, as happened in the U.S., government becomes the "800 pound gorilla" that starts telling business what to do, how to do it, when to do it, and... oh yeah, tie one arm behind your back while you're doing it. When the government imposes burdensome regulation and punitive taxation on businesses, then investment is curtailed, creativity is stifled, and technological innovation is hampered. Beginning in the 1960s, government intrusion into all areas of business caused companies to compete at an unfair advantage which resulted in plant closings and job losses.
From HERE: "By 1980, a series of systemic shocks had profoundly shaken this (KSC) vision of the relative roles of market and state. The private sector contended that corruption, inefficiency and ineffectiveness made government an unworthy partner in the development process. Across the industrialized north, reform-minded leaders sought to dismantle the "welfare state," reduce the tax and regulatory burden on business, and establish the private sector as the motor of a particular vision of development which focused on economic growth."
Using the analogy of an automobile, Ronald Reagan sought to restore some horsepower to the American economic engine which had become bogged down without lubrication or maintenance for many years. The government had become obsessed with the quality of the interior and comfort of the passengers, to the neglect of the automobile's main purpose - to move forward.
The state needs to find a way to work "cooperatively" with the markets in order to enhance both economic and social development. Liberal Democrats seem unable to fathom this concept as they plod over the old ground of "windfall profits" taxes, burdensome regulation, and excessive paperwork requirements.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home