Tax Day and Government Strangeness

Ah, it’s tax day, and for the sake of diverting your minds from the suffering associated with this federal holy day we have a few tidbits from Europe of what government could be for us.

From France we have the laudable effort to prevent excessive thinness. Government will allow judges to decide when a website or advertisement is promoting thinness that "alters a model's health". I'm all for not encouraging people to starve themselves for success, having had a friend make herself ill with anorexia during the '80s, but it will be interesting to say the least to see how enforceable such a law as France is committed to can be.

Then, from Spain, we have the effort to make the military more "feminine". You think I'm kidding. Hardly. From the article I quote-

When Spanish Prime Minister JosÉ Luis RodrÍguez Zapatero's new cabinet members took their oath of office before King Juan Carlos on Monday, one of them, the recently-appointed Defense Minister, stood out from the rest. Literally. Carme ChacÓn, 37, is not only the first woman to head Spain's armed forces. She is also seven months pregnant.

And that's not the best of it. Down the article we also have the following-

By appointing ChacÓn (who lacks military training), Zapatero may also be making a kinder, gentler statement about the armed forces... The figure of a pregnant woman - "a woman in full womanhood," as MontaÑo puts it - only drives home that distinction. "It shows that the army doesn't just have to fulfill this masculine role of force," she says. "It can be more feminine, more humanitarian."

That'll beat terrorism in our time.

Meanwhile, in the land of spaghetti westerns, Sylvio Berlusconi plays a reprise role as Europe's most entertaining prime minister, having been elected to a third term after a two-year hiatus. He follows in the footseps of the French, promising to crack down on crime by immigrants. However, he does so in a nation little more united than it was in the late 1850s when Italy was cobbled together from a loose collection of principalities and city-states. Italy is a nation that can't seem to demand accountability from itself, its representatives, or its criminals. In a world of cynics cynicism becomes its own reason not to solve problems.

Welcome to "High Noon", Italian style.

As you're paying for what your government is and is becoming, a good look at Europe is helpful, as is giving a little thought to whether what we see there is our past or our future.

Posted by Lee Emmerich Jamison at April 15, 2008 10:13 AM
Comments
Comment #250592

Your excessive thinness link doesn’t work.

I just paid the IL state income tax yesterday, you always end up owing them money because of interest on savings.

A COPD patient on disability informed me that he is getting the tax rebate or refund from Bush even though he doesn’t pay taxes. I thought it was an advance on next years refund.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 15, 2008 10:51 AM
Comment #250596

ohrealy,
It should be fixed now.

“Rebate” is political speech, which means it means only what politicians would have us think it means, and then only so long as that does not sound mean. In other words, political speech is demeaning.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at April 15, 2008 11:14 AM
Comment #250597

The differences in taxing systems between nations are vastly more numerous, Lee, than their similarities. Moving in one direction or another on America’s tax system, in no way indicates that our tax system would be very much LIKE any other nation’s tax system. And our demographics and economy are sufficiently different from that of other nations to insure that whatever tax system America has, the consequences and benefits of it will be unique to America’s demographics, economy, and future course.

It is not a valid argument that our current, or different tax systems of the future, would make America like any other nation, not even in terms of the benefits and consequences of the tax system itself. America is a unique nation. Always has been. Always will be. The French have a democracy, and so do we. But, we are very different nations, with very different governments, with very different objectives, despite their both being democratically elected governments with rule of law and individual liberty protected.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 15, 2008 11:17 AM
Comment #250599

My wife and I are both in semi-retirement and both have a small business. Our contribution to Social Security and Medicare as both employer and employee exceeded our income taxes for 2007.

Did FDR and the LBJ crowd, the “great society”, ever imagined a day when payments to these two programs would exceed the income tax one would pay and still be not only broke, but trillions in debt?

It is estimated that the total of all wealth in America is around $60 trillion. If we could somehow confiscate every item of wealth from every American household, including cash and investments it would fall short of the estimated $75 trillion to fully fund Social Security for all current workers and retirees. Medicare and Medicaid is also in a sea of red ink.

Now comes the new great society crowd with another grand scheme to milk the taxpayer of even more of their money with national health care.

Folks, any damn fool can understand we’re broke. What kind of magical thinking would allow one to believe we can afford such largess? Can anyone help me understand how we can possibly pay for what we already owe, and what Obama and Clinton are proposing also.

Posted by: Jim M at April 15, 2008 11:21 AM
Comment #250602

I guess Mischa Barton better stay away from France. She has disappeared from the Bebe and Neutrogena ads here. Her image used to be the most common advertisement on bustop advertising in the suburbs last year. John Leguizamo was seen most frequently on ads in the city, pushing alcohol, some kind of high end Wodka.

Where is the money coming from, for this extra refund rebate whatever it is, if its not an advance on next years refund?

Posted by: ohrealy at April 15, 2008 11:29 AM
Comment #250608

JimM said: “Did FDR and the LBJ crowd, the “great society”, ever imagined a day when payments to these two programs would exceed the income tax one”

FDR sought an insurance plan, not a retirement plan. But, it would not pass without the assent of those who said, “If I pay in, I damn well expect to get back”. Which of course destroyed the FDR’s concept of an insurance plan, which does not “give back” unless or until a qualified need is demonstrated.

It is high time Soc. Sec. reverted to an insurance plan against poverty and quit paying benefits to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet when they retire.

Medicare worked great. Now it doesn’t work great. Thanks to BOTH Republicans (no competition Rx bill) and Democrats (failure to address rising health care delivery, education, insurance, and malpractice costs for decades).

Many options are on the table. Many more need to be put there. Then a consensus reached. Only the American voter can force that consensus to be arrived at by knocking Congress’ incumbent reelection rate down from 90+ % to the 50% range. That will get politician’s attention, incumbents and freshman alike.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 15, 2008 12:10 PM
Comment #250609

David,
This was not a comment on the taxing systems of various governments, merely an observation that, like everything else, government is not static. It is always becoming something. There has been such a push among many to find models for what we are becoming in Europe (in part following the perpetual self-loathing of American aristocracy and their vision of the state of our civility vis-a-vis the European’s) that I thought a look at Europe’s less exalted side was worthwhile.

I have an open mind as to what works in Europe, but my ancestors left the place for a number of good reasons, some of which are still valid.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at April 15, 2008 12:18 PM
Comment #250611

JimM said: “My wife and I are both in semi-retirement and both have a small business. Our contribution to Social Security and Medicare as both employer and employee exceeded our income taxes for 2007.”

Then you didn’t pay any income taxes, right? Or, was your income so high that after deducting SS and Medicare and business expenses, depreciation, etc., you still owed additional income tax? If so. Lucky you. Luckier than most in the world to be so affluent as to be able to pay your nation and government back for the incredible benefits of living and working in America.

I paid my taxes quite willingly and without begrudging self-employment tax. But, then, I am pleased to live here in America and proud of my nation and I defend the people’s choice to pay taxes in order to sustain the one of the greatest governments and nation’s on earth. And I continue to work and teach that America can achieve more of the great ideals that founded her.

I don’t have a problem with my government extracting taxes to pay for America. I have a problem with politicians in our government wasting and diverting my tax dollars from their intended and expressly expected purposes, paying debts in full, operating government as efficiently as possible, and fulfilling past obligations before assuming new ones as a general rule. Oh, yes, I have a very large problem with them.

My question is: Why don’t you? Why not adopt an anti-incumbent position instead of a partisan one, so that we the people can better control government through elections instead of allowing the wealthy special interests and partisan wealth gatherers and sharers to control it for their own favors and enrichments?

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 15, 2008 12:25 PM
Comment #250613

The self-employment tax has always been too high. People deduct enough expenses to reduce their taxable income to the lowest possible amount. A person in this position could easily pay more in local property taxes than income tax. They should complain more about the local government exactions.

Many local government officials are criminals, using their position to benefit private interests. Later on, some of these people end up running for higher office, and the process continues in the national government, but the source is what is going on at the local level.

If every member of the USHOR was defeated, those that replaced them might skip a beat, but would end up in the same bribery and waste cycle. They are not all political virgins running to bring good government to us all.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 15, 2008 12:41 PM
Comment #250616

David,
Omigod, what claptrap! “…one of the greatest governments…on earth”? You have spent the past several months excoriating this “great government” with every word you have written. “…adopt an anti-incumbent position instead of a partisan one…”? This from a person who has shamelessly touted Senator Obama and called President Bush and Senator McCain every nasty name in the book.
Our country was its greatest when our government operated as our constitution envisioned: as a limited government. Today’s expansive government creates the very problems you so rightly decry. The wealthy and powerful work to control government because government intrudes into every aspect of American life, which, I believe, was Lee’s point. Get government out of our lives and we will get the wealthy and powerful out of government.
And, as far as driving incumbents out, you are on a fool’s errand. We have lost that battle. They…the politicians…have structured the election rules such that it is virtually impossible for us to vote out an incumbent. And, when, on occasion we do succeed, we get a carbon copy of the previous ne’er-do-well hack.
Not one of our current crop of presidential candidates has even hinted at reducing the rate of incumbent reelection or at reducing the size and scope of government.

Posted by: Steve at April 15, 2008 1:04 PM
Comment #250617

http://www.caltax.org/publications/waste_fraud_mismanagement_highlights_2008.html

As California goes, so goes the nation.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 15, 2008 1:18 PM
Comment #250619

Steve,
In defense of David, if everything you say is true to your beliefs your participation in this blog is utterly illogical. Burying your head in the sand would be a perfectly reasonable response to such attitudes.

What David says of the government is true (to a large extent, subject to some quibbling)…
What is really disheartening is when the people within government (that is, all of We who participate) who understand not all cooperative human activity should default to the inefficiency of formal government (conservatives, generally speaking) become so cynical that we fail to stand up for what we believe. The idea that we get criminals no matter what (ohrealy) is the real fool’s errand.

We are the government. We get what we will put up with. That includes the overreaching of the power-hungry classes. When we’re ready to stop putting up with it it will change.

In Corinthians 15:12-19 the Christian apostle Paul makes what is probably the worst logical argument for faith in the Bible. That’s only true if you are not a believer, though. As someone who believes in American democracy his logic, applied to democracy, is impeccable. If we accept that American democracy is good government and participate with the intent to make it good government we will get our goal. If, Steve, we decide it is not worth participating we will get a government worthy of the phrase “fool’s errand”.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at April 15, 2008 2:02 PM
Comment #250623

lee

sorry but steve is right. i said a while back we had hit the complacency stage, and you shot me down. you were partialy correct. actually we are heading out fo complacency into slavery, to our gov’t. since FDR we’ve slowly created a large class of people whom believe that gov’t is the be all end all, and this country owes them something. LBJ made it even worse. we have leaders who routinely give them selves pay raises, and retirement, and benefits the private sector will never see. they control the rules of the game, we no longer do. the genie is out of the bottle.

democracy as a form of gov’t doomed once the general electorate realizes they can vote themselves generous gifts out of the public treasury. health care, retirement, gov’t bailout of private industry, bailout people who make bad personal decisions ie. subprime mortgage debacle, welfare, foodstamps, and i’m sure there’s more.

Posted by: dbs at April 15, 2008 3:01 PM
Comment #250626

Steve said: “Omigod, what claptrap! “…one of the greatest governments…on earth”? You have spent the past several months excoriating this “great government””


I think your local community college offers remedial reading courses you may want to research. I have spent several years writing and complaining about what too many politicians are doing within government.

I defy you to find quotes of mine in context which say our government design is either bad or ignoble. The design of our democratically elected Constitutional republic is the greatest in the world. What politicians and political parties do with it is too often the scourge and bane of our future, and it is they, not our government, that need to be evacuated and replaced.

Let me know if you need tutoring for those reading classes. I am sure I can find a conservative or liberal as the case requires with the appropriate skills to help you out.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 15, 2008 3:31 PM
Comment #250628

Lee exquisitely and so succinctly said: “If we accept that American democracy is good government and participate with the intent to make it good government we will get our goal.”

We agree on the content, if not the phrasing. I would be more pedantic and say:

“If we accept that the democratically elected Constitutional republic handed us by our forebears is by design, inherently good, balanced, and enduring for the nation’s and her people’s future, and we participate in our elections with the intent to uphold and maximize that design for its stated purposes, then we will see more American ideals realized.”

What I witness today is a majority of Congress and our president minimizing and in significant areas, sidestepping that design for personal or political gain and benefit instead.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 15, 2008 3:42 PM
Comment #250630

Thanks dbs, I agree wholeheartedly. Politicians derive power, once elected, by virtue of our income and payroll tax system which is used as a weapon to reward some and punish others. Rewards go to those who support the politician (voters needed to stay in power) and those out of favor, or whose votes are not needed, are punished.

If we honestly look at the voter base of Democrats we find it comprised of many who depend on government for their subsistence. This huge group includes the poor and the elderly. And we find democrats pander to these two huge voting blocks with promises of more government spending for them at the expense of the middle class.

Republicans depend on the wealthy and business as their primary base. And we find republicans often pandering to these two groups by virtue of tax advantages and favorable legislation at the expense of the middle class.

Caught in the middle is the working class who in the long run pays for the pandering by both parties.

The FairTax will go a long way in changing business as usual and allow the middle class to vote at the ballot box and with their pocketbook.

Posted by: Jim M at April 15, 2008 3:45 PM
Comment #250634

I don’t understand how payments into social security and medicare can, at the same time, be a lousy deal for the taxpayer (due to poor total returns on the money paid) and a lousy deal for the government, who, in spite of receiving all this money and paying a low interest rate for it, still cannot provide the basic benefits it has promised. (only 75% of benefits promised by 2042). Also, I’m just about in the middle of the baby boom generation. I will be 91 in 2042, an age of which I fully plan to be dead. Isn’t this “crisis” a rather temporary one? Once the baby boomers have passed, won’t there be a more favorable ratio of workers to retirees?
Re: John McCain’s proposal to suspend the federal gas tax for the summer driving season. Doesn’t that lower the price per gallon? Doesn’t a lower price increase demand? Isn’t our ability to supply refined gasoline products already stretched to the limit? We have a resource that is finite, in short supply and this man is suggesting a plan to encourage the use of more of it?
Re: the feminization of the Spanish Military. If you ever have been in a knock-down drag-out fight with a woman you would know that they are more than capable of a good scrap. :)

Posted by: charles ross at April 15, 2008 5:25 PM
Comment #250635

Jim M. regarding your comment about the base of the Democratic party being dependent upon the federal government, I’m not sure that is true. It is a fact that those at the bottom of the economic ladder, by and large, do not vote; so they are not part of anyone’s “base”. It is also true that certain states, in election after election, vote consistently either Democratic or Republican. If you break down the flow of money through the federal government to the states it shows a constant pattern of money flowing from blue states (democratic leaning) TO red states (republican leaning). So for example, is money coming from Massachusetts (blue) to Oklahoma (red) or vice-versa? The answer is fairly obvious.

Posted by: charles ross at April 15, 2008 5:37 PM
Comment #250636

charles

“Re: John McCain’s proposal to suspend the federal gas tax for the summer driving season. Doesn’t that lower the price per gallon? Doesn’t a lower price increase demand?”

not likely, the federal excise tax on gas is 18 cents, hardly a earth shattering reduction. more symbolic than anyting else. probably would be better to suspend the excise tax on diesel since that effects every part of the economy.

“Isn’t our ability to supply refined gasoline products already stretched to the limit?”

yes thanks to the fact that a new refinery hasn’t beeen built in decades.


“Re: the feminization of the Spanish Military. If you ever have been in a knock-down drag-out fight with a woman you would know that they are more than capable of a good scrap. :)”

good one ! i’ve seen a few cat fights in my day, and they are pretty nasty.

Posted by: dbs at April 15, 2008 5:39 PM
Comment #250650

“If we honestly look at the voter base of Democrats we find it comprised of many who depend on government for their subsistence. This huge group includes the poor and the elderly. And we find democrats pander to these two huge voting blocks with promises of more government spending for them at the expense of the middle class.

Jim M you seem to have forgotten who gets most of the handouts these days. Its the corporations. The new medicare bill benefitted the Pharma’s more than any one else. Bear Sterns. The current bailout of homeowners seems to be benefitting the corporate homebuilders. The bankruptcy bill benefitted the Banks and credit card companies. And so on ad nauseum.

Jim M said “If we could somehow confiscate every item of wealth from every American household, including cash and investments it would fall short of the estimated $75 trillion to fully fund Social Security for all current workers and retirees.”

Jim M where did you get your figures for this red herring? check this out.
http://www.factcheck.org/article302.html

Posted by: j2t2 at April 15, 2008 8:43 PM
Comment #250652
yes thanks to the fact that a new refinery hasn’t beeen built in decades. Posted by: dbs at April 15, 2008 05:39 PM

Truth About Oil & Gasoline Primer

While no new refineries have been built since 1976, the industry has added the equivalent of one new average-sized refinery each year over the last decade.


Since 1985, refining capacity has increased by
20 percent even though we have 57 fewer
refineries because it has been more efficient to
expand at existing refineries. The infrastructure
to bring crude in and get products out is in place,
the permitting process is quicker, and it is more
cost-effective to add on to a refinery versus
building a new one.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 15, 2008 9:16 PM
Comment #250667

Lee and David,
I feel like I have entered an alternate reality. I said that reducing the incumbancy reelection rate was a fool’s errand. In response, you suggested that I have given up on government and should bury my head in the sand.
The House of Representatives reelection rate was 83.8% in 1900. It dipped as low as 68.8% in 1930. By 1948, it was 90.5%. Since then, the lowest it has been is 86.4%, in 1962. By 2002, it had risen to 97.8%. And, yet, David suggests that if we can lower it to 50% we will get our government back on track.
The power of the “incumbency,” coupled with gerrymandering and increasingly partisan districts makes it likely that the trend toward 100% incumbent reelection will continue, not abate. If we are to improve the quality of our elected representatives, it will not come from threatening them with losing elections. That is what I meant by calling it a fool’s errand.
Our elected representatives respond, understandably, to that which gets them reelected: money. For it is money that is the single biggest advantage of the incumbent. With House races costing each candidate more than $1 million, and Senate races costing over $5 million, the effect of money is enormous. Incumbents have so many advantages when it comes to raising money, that the only realistic opponents they face are ones who can finance their election campaign with their own funds. And, such candidates are 1) few and far between and 2) not necessarily the candidates who would best represent the average voter.
But, conceding reelection to incumbents is not equivalent to “giving up on good government.” There are even scholars who argue that some good things come from reelecting incumbents: institutional memory, consistency, long-range thinking, and some insulation from the demands of specific donors or other powerful individuals.
I wish that we had more competitive elections. But, much more than that, I wish we had a government that focused on the duties set forth for it in our constitution rather than on directing the lives of each individual, group, and business. Before our government takes one more step toward becoming our country’s biggest insurance company (not a duty enumerated in the constitution and one that can be performed by private enterprise), it should establish clear standards for entry into our country and for citizenship (duties clearly enumerated in our constitution and reserved solely for the federal government.) We, all of us, should talk, write, scream if we must, until they hear us. We must say as loudly as we can, “you, there, in government, you work on your stuff; we, here, in everyday life, we will work on our stuff.”

Posted by: Steve at April 16, 2008 12:54 AM
Comment #250675

charles ross,
“If you break down the flow of money through the federal government to the states it shows a constant pattern of money flowing from blue states (democratic leaning) TO red states (republican leaning). So for example, is money coming from Massachusetts (blue) to Oklahoma (red) or vice-versa? The answer is fairly obvious.”

Woah, brother, we need to see some source on that one. Texas is not to my knowledge a net tax beneficiary and Washington D.C. is not at a tax loss. There has to be some pretty extraordinary evidence strung out between those extremes to quell the trend. Besides, it is not states that decide the distribution of money. It is congressional districts, since the House is where funding measures must originate. I think you would be hard pressed to show that there is a net outflow from Democratic districts to Republican districts.

I stand to be corrected. Have a source?

Posted by: Lee Jamison at April 16, 2008 9:05 AM
Comment #250678

David,
Regarding your comment #250628 what should stand out to any concerned citizen is the fact that We are the ones who enforce the Constitution. It is not the courts. It is not the Congress. It is not the Executive. If the Republic is to be preserved in the form described to us in our founding documents voters must accept that all of these branches of government have much to gain from siezing our power for themselves.

Ours is a true revolutionary government, a continual, orderly, coup d’etat. The revolution will either live to the benefit of the people or it will live to the benefit of the political class. When We the People, comfortable in out protections, go to sleep having forgotten that fact we will surely wake to find ourselves and our children in chains.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at April 16, 2008 9:20 AM
Comment #250684

Lee, everything you say is above is only true in the imagination and realm of ideals. In life reality, none of what you say above is true.

Flip flopping majorities between Dems and Reps. is not, in any way, shape, or form, ongoing, orderly, coup d’etat’s. What it is is status quo power sharing.

And in reality the Courts and Executive are in control of enforcing, or not, the Constitution as conscience and political winds dictate. Not the voters who reelect incumbents at a rate 92 to 98% in each and every election. No coup d’etat, there either by voters.

You speak of what should be. But, one cannot get there by ignoring the location of where one actually is. The road to your view of what should be cannot be embarked upon UNTIL 25% of the voters adopt an anti-incumbent strategy at the polls.

That is the first step toward the voters wresting control of government representatives from the pockets of wealthy and powerful minority special interests, and the first step toward the people’s orderly coup d’etat, necessary to enforce Constitutional ideals and limitations.

As literal head of that movement at this point in time, I can truly say, that movement has not yet begun. Its rationale and legitimacy have been established and perhaps a million voters accept its prescriptions. That however, is anything but a movement. Still, many of us work to make it so, and one day, our efforts may bear fruit. But, that day is not today, and that election is not this year’s. The DuoParty/Lobbyist Corporatists are still very much in control of the people, the election process, and the voter’s choices at the polls.

Obama may be a candidate garnering financial support from individual voters, but, that is like a drop in the ocean relative to creating the tidal wave of anti-incumbency needed for the people to take control of holding their politicians in government accountable and responsible for failure at election time, as was meant to be the case.

A fresh face like Obama’s running for an expired, term limit vacated office is evidence of nothing of which we are now speaking. The movement is not underway yet to make your and vision of what should be, a reality. Though there is hope in the dramatic increase in young persons registering and voting in this year’s election. If they will embrace the anti-incumbent movement in the years as voters, the movement may actually see some movement.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 16, 2008 10:21 AM
Comment #250687

Steve said: “If we are to improve the quality of our elected representatives, it will not come from threatening them with losing elections.”

True, threatening won’t do it. Actually voting for challengers instead WILL. And politely asking them to step down for failing to solve he nation’s and the people’s challenges is a guaranteed non-starter.

Your comment makes no logical sense. Improving the quality of elected representatives must begin with removing poor quality from office. With between 92 and 98% reelection rate, that is job #1. And the only way poor quality representatives can be removed is by an anti-incumbent vote for a challenger, preferably one of better quality than the outgoing politician. But, there is a shortage of quality people to run for public office these days, and the way must be paved for quality people to desire to run for office, and that can be accomplished in part by the people demonstrating a will to hold politicians to a higher standard and government to a higher standard as well.

Then, and only then, will many quality people consider running for office worthwhile, with the advent of knowing they will have comrades of equal caliber to work with in office toward resolving the challenges our nation and people face.

National Debt, looming entitlement crises, diminishing educational quality, population growth and density centers, infrastructure failure in capacity and innovation, corruption in our political and governmental systems, are all major challenges which have been facing our politicians and people for several decades now. Yet, each and everyone of these challenges has worsened, not improved, creating potential crises, instead of being resolved into national assets.

The road to resolving even some of these challenges rests with voters holding their representatives accountable and responsible for these failures by un-electing them and electing challengers instead. The Freshman replacement will understand what cost the outgoing politician his office at the hands of the voters, and the vast majority of Freshman will choose to avoid the same fate by avoiding the same actions and deeds which failed the voters and the nation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 16, 2008 10:41 AM
Comment #250716

Lord knows I don’t echo David very much, but here he is right on the money. Why, for heaven’s sake, is the default position that we reelect our representatives? Shouldn’t that be reserved only for the very best of the lot? If we are unhappy with Congress (and they have the lowest level of approval of any governmental entity) it is how we supply people to operate the place that is to blame.

No matter how one goes about changing things in government it is the people who will have to provide the leadership to see it through. That’s us. It’s our job.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at April 16, 2008 2:32 PM
Comment #250720

It seems next year’s Congress will have at least a few fresh faces. 64 members of Congress have already announced they aren’t seeking reelection. A couple may be seeking a senate seat, but it’s a good start nonetheless.

Posted by: Mr. Haney at April 16, 2008 2:48 PM
Comment #250722

Oops, the actual number is 45. I didn’t subtract out the governors.

Posted by: Mr. Haney at April 16, 2008 2:57 PM
Comment #250728

Mr. Haney, its actually not as positive as it first appears. These 45 Freshman coming in Jan. 2009, will be passively elected by the public. By that, I mean that the folks who analyze the election results will not have any reason to view those new faces as a result of a growing anti-incumbent voter dissatisfaction. Hence, the motivation for politicians to alter their priorities and agendas in favor of the voters and nation’s future, is unchanged by these 45 new faces, save for perhaps the possibility that some of the incoming will in fact, have better priorities than the outgoing.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 16, 2008 4:29 PM
Comment #250743

“By that, I mean that the folks who analyze the election results will not have any reason to view those new faces as a result of a growing anti-incumbent voter dissatisfaction.”

I have serous doubts that those folks who analyze elections would recognize a growing anti-incumbent movement even if it existed. The majority conclusion after the 2006 election was that the Democrat party gained control of Congress due to anti-Iraq sentiment. To me, it’s clear that the Republican party lost power because its leadership’s policy was to grow government spending just like the Dems. The only difference being what parts of the government they wished to grow. The Republican leadership abandoned the principles for which they were granted power in mid-90’s, and so they lost their power.

“The road to resolving even some of these challenges rests with voters holding their representatives accountable and responsible for these failures by un-electing them and electing challengers instead.”

How can we hold representatives accountable when we strongly disagree on what actions (or lack there of) are responsible for these failures?

Posted by: Mr. Haney at April 16, 2008 6:39 PM
Comment #250752

Folks, the genie is out of the bottle. Large numbers of Americans have discovered what B. Franklin feared, that we can vote ourselves money and services, never intended by our founders, at the ballot box.

The rascals that most of us say we want thrown out of office are there because they are doing what the majority of voters want…bringing home the bacon.

My bacon may be different than your bacon but it makes no difference in how things are done in Washington. In some respects I believe the Republicans got into trouble because they were attempting to emulate the big spending Democrats and bring home the bacon to their supporters. It then became a race to see who could pork up support the most and we all loose.

I don’t expect the Democrats, now overtaken by the socialists, to reform and return to fiscal discipline so our only hope lies with the Republican party being smart enough to return to their historical conservative ways.

Unfortunately our nominee, John McCain, helped in becoming our nominee by these very same socialist, is not a fiscal conservative. And so, the socialist grand strategy will work as no matter who is elected president we will have a big spender.

Throw in the possibility of a veto proof Democrat congress and we’ll all be shaking our pants for loose change to buy groceries. It will solve one problem however, there will no longer be class envy when our largest corporations and all the rich have left the country and only us poor slobs are left.

Some will be left wondering what happened. Others won’t care as long as they have the government nanny sending them food stamps, housing allotments and promises of more. Yes, we will have shitty universal health care, even lower SS benefits, and cars no one can afford to drive getting 35 miles to the gallon.

But then, I am an optimist and see a silver lining. From ruination will spring a new American dream. And we will no longer be a target for our enemies as no one will give a shit what America thinks or does, we’ll be just another have-not nation. And, who knows, tomorrow I may be more positive.

Posted by: Jim M at April 16, 2008 7:49 PM
Comment #250758

“I don’t expect the Democrats, now overtaken by the socialists, to reform and return to fiscal discipline so our only hope lies with the Republican party being smart enough to return to their historical conservative ways.”

“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived, and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic- John F Kennedy

Speaking of myths Jim M. Your understanding of what socialist means is out of whack for 1 and 2 how far are you talking when you say historical? Must be the days of Eisenhower cause they havent shown much since then. Of course they didnt take Dwight D.’s advice either.

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again…
There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things.
Among them are H.L. Hunt…a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, writing to his brother Edgar, May 2, l956

“Unfortunately our nominee, John McCain, helped in becoming our nominee by these very same socialist, is not a fiscal conservative. And so, the socialist grand strategy will work as no matter who is elected president we will have a big spender.”

What a line of crap. The borrow and spend conservatives of the past 3 decades are what has caused your party to choose a more moderate albeit past his prime candidate who ran in the primaries against Tancredo, Hunter and Romney as well as Huckabee. They were soundly rejected by the repub party, not the dems and certainly not the socialist. Although Im sure some others would like to take credit for it the rejection came in the repub primaries. Just by looking at the numbers of dems who voted in the primaries it becomes obvious that they didnt cross over to affect the repub voting. However the cons you seem to think so much of have been asking those in the movement to vote in the dems primary so they can get Hillary a victory for their own selfish reasons. But what else would you expect from the “they that talk it but dont walk it crowd” when it comes to integrity. Conservatives speak a line of crap, always have since the days of Reagan but by now should have come to the realization that they are the problem.

“Throw in the possibility of a veto proof Democrat congress and we’ll all be shaking our pants for loose change to buy groceries. It will solve one problem however, there will no longer be class envy when our largest corporations and all the rich have left the country and only us poor slobs are left.”

Well after the past 8 years of repub control what else did you expect Jim M.? Borrow borrow borrow.Spend spend spend. Trash the country, screw the middle class, start a false war, cut taxes and poof there goes the budget.What a surprise. If the false patriots you call the rich choose to leave the country then it is because they have no love of country and I say good riddence.


“Some will be left wondering what happened.”

Not what, but how did we let it, why did we continue to believe the neocons and the false prophets of conservatism who have intentionally brought us to where we are today.

Others won’t care as long as they have the government nanny sending them food stamps, housing allotments and promises of more.
Such compassion Jim M. ship jobs out and ship people in to lower wages then complain about food stamps. What did you think would happen as you applauded these actions ?


Yes, we will have shitty universal health care, even lower SS benefits, and cars no one can afford to drive getting 35 miles to the gallon.

Well thank your fellow conservatives for that Jim. M this is their mess, they have ran the show, starved the beast and ran off with the money. All the other 1st world nations hace universal care and it works for much less than we spend. The free market works on some stuff, but as is life, not well on everything. Once you guys can face up to this, things might work out well.


“But then, I am an optimist and see a silver lining. From ruination will spring a new American dream. And we will no longer be a target for our enemies as no one will give a shit what America thinks or does, we’ll be just another have-not nation.”

Wasnt that the plan of the conservatives all along. Be careful what you wish for sure rings true now doesnt it Jim M.. I dont know what you thought was going happening as you and your fellow cons fell for Reagans line and then Bushes line but this was the plan, what was you thinking?
Borrow and spend, start a neverending war and then cut taxes? What was you thinking?


And, who knows, tomorrow I may be more positive.

Another blurb to brighten your day.

“Inscription on a 6000-year-old Egyptian tomb:
We live in a decaying age.
Young people no longer respect their parents.
They are rude & impatient.
They frequently inhabit taverns & have no self control”

Posted by: j2t2 at April 16, 2008 9:14 PM
Comment #250787

j2t2, You have a very interesting, though jaundiced, view of American history as regards spending and fiscal restraint. FDR and LBJ weren’t responsible for the big spending liberal socialist country we have today…no, it was conservatives.

I really enjoyed the squirming performance of both Clinton and Obama during last nights debate when they failed to answer simple questions about how they were going to pay for more socialism.

Neither of them could decide who was wealthy and deserved to have the fruit of their labor and capital stolen. Of one thing they were certain however, we need to raise taxes to pay for all their planned socialist spending to purchase more votes.

Posted by: Jim M at April 17, 2008 11:19 AM
Comment #250794

“j2t2, You have a very interesting, though jaundiced, view of American history as regards spending and fiscal restraint.”

Not as jaundiced as your inaccurate framing of these 2 issues Jim M.

“FDR and LBJ weren’t responsible for the big spending liberal socialist country we have today…no, it was conservatives.”

Jim M if memory serves wasnt it the “free market cons caused” depression and WWII that got us a defict going? To blame that on FDR is so fascist conservative as to be ridiculous. FDR’s SS plan was funded seperate from the general fund and would have been just fine had it been left alone. To blame FDR for that is also a typical reframing of the facts by the fascist conservatives of the country.
LBJ didnt get us into vietnam nor out of it, but when combined with the war effort the great society programs did run up the tab. Of course the dems are rank amateurs when it comes to running up a tab when you compare them to the big spending, lowering taxes for the aristocracy and borrowing fascist conservatives like Reagan and Bush.

“I really enjoyed the squirming performance of both Clinton and Obama during last nights debate when they failed to answer simple questions about how they were going to pay for more socialism.”

Didnt watch it. They are all pandering at this point, as we are to far in debt from drinking the conservative movement koolaid to catch up to the 1st world countries that have a decent universal health care system. However to your real point, I suppose from the fascist conservative viewpoint these UHC programs might appear to be socialist but in fact they are not. The fascist conservatives use this mis leading rhetoric on fellow movement members as they are the only ones that are foolish enough to beleive it. Quit drinking that kool aid Jim M. you’ll be better off for it.

“Neither of them could decide who was wealthy and deserved to have the fruit of their labor and capital stolen.

Maybe that is because they are only socialist in your mind and not in the real world. Wouldnt any socialist know who was wealthy and who wasnt? Thats assuming of course the silly rhetoric of “the fruit of their labor and capital stolen.” was anything more than propaganda for the weak minded and unknowing kool aid drinkers.

Of one thing they were certain however, we need to raise taxes to pay for all their planned socialist spending to purchase more votes.”

Yeah some choice either the fascist conservative borrow and spend or the socialist with their constant demands for more. What needs to be done is to get the money we pay in taxes out of the hands of the true socialist organizations within the government (such as the military) that seem to spend so much of it for us. What is it almost half of our taxes go to them? And for what to send them to Iraq to destroy the country in the name of democracy. Meanwhile the Iraqi’s make a bundle from the oil revenues that we were told would pay for the “war”. If they are not doing that then they are giving it to foreign corporations for wepons systems. Then they have the gall to say its for the defense of this country. Only a free market fascist conservative would fall for that old line eh Jim M.. Then we wonder why we pay so much in taxes and get so little in return. But to top it off we get on our better than thou high horse and blame the unfortunate in this country for high taxes. To much kool aid for me Jim M..

Posted by: j2t2 at April 17, 2008 1:10 PM
Comment #250801
Jim M if memory serves wasnt it the “free market cons caused” depression and WWII that got us a defict going?

Fail, see me after class.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 17, 2008 2:31 PM
Comment #250809

Rhinehold, Pray tell school me once again. What do you have thats new?

Posted by: j2t2 at April 17, 2008 3:31 PM
Comment #250812

Subject: WHAT COSTS MORE PER YEAR THAN THE IRAQ WAR???

Social Security Change For 2008
The United States Senate voted to extend Social Security Benefits to
Illegal Aliens beginning in 2008.

All three of the candidates for president voted for these outrageous give-a-ways of American taxpayer dollars. As I said in a previous post, no matter who is elected we’re f**ked.

This doesn’t bother the liberal socialist but those with a brain might find some objections.

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens
each year. http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs
such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
http://www.cis.org/rticles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal
aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school
education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of
English! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the
American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare
and Social Services by the American taxpayers.
http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused
by the illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s
two-and-a-half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their
children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt..01.html
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLIN illegal aliens
that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from
Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and
marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border. Homeland Security
Report. http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12. The National Policy Institute, ‘estimated that the total cost of
mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost
of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.’
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back
to their countries of origin. http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. ‘The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex
Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States ‘.
http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
Total cost is a whooping… $338.3 BILLION A YEAR!!!

Posted by: Jim M at April 17, 2008 4:00 PM
Comment #250848

Jim M are you sure of your facts on this? That works out to just under $17,000 per illegal if you count 20,000,000 illegals in the country. Im sure its quite a bit but the $383.3 billion figure seems high.

seems to me we should fix the NAFTA issues so the illegals can go back home and afford to live there.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 17, 2008 9:38 PM
Comment #250856

$17000/illegal seems reasonable with my back of the envelope numbers. The 2008 federal budget is ~3 trillion for 300 million people which is $10000/person. Add in state spending which was around ~$3200/person in 2001…so round that up a bit for inflation and local expenditures. With ~$14000 total government spending per capita, illegals are only costing 20-25% more than the average.

Posted by: Mr. Haney at April 18, 2008 3:36 AM
Comment #250862

Well that may be accurate Mr. Haney but if you go to the one simple idea web site of d.a.n’s, which looks like where these figures came from, the site says the figure is between 70 and 338 billion. I’m not disagreeing just checking facts, earlier in this thread I was told the costs to fund SS was $75 trillion but couldnt find the numbers to back it up and Jim M didnt respond with any backup so I was left wondering if he was hitting the far right kool aid stand a bit to often.
Because I have trust in the one simple idea website I dont really disagree with the numbers I just think the $338b figure is the worst case scenario. Sometimes though when the figures come from some of those far right sites they tend to be less than accurate.
Another example is “Social Security Change For 2008
The United States Senate voted to extend Social Security Benefits to
Illegal Aliens beginning in 2008.”
Do you have any backup on this? Everything I have found has said it is not accurate. Now that doesnt mean its not but when these things are used to change the subject to just another tired silly unfounded attack on liberals, as Jim M is want to do, then I look at them with both eyes open.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 18, 2008 10:20 AM
Comment #250869

j2t2, you’re arguing with a “brainless” racist xenophobic moronic messsage. The long list of figures is from anti-immigrant people, not anti-illegal immigrant people. Some of the figures assume that anyone Hispanic is illegal, in some figures all immigrants are assumed to be illegal, some of them are from websites that are just plain nuts, and all of them assume that immigrants are somehow tax exempt.

For example, The largest figure is “$200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.” The link for this is a series of quotes from an interview on a Lou Dobbs show complaining about a summit that Bush went to with Vicente Fox in Cancun. The actual quote is ” put the suppressed wages at $200 billion a year, as a result of immigration, both legal and illegal.

So the entire list of figures is a complete fraud.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 18, 2008 11:55 AM
Comment #250885

j2t2,

I was in no way defending the list and have no way of knowing whether or not it is correct because I didn’t bother to do the research. I was merely pointing that ~$17000/illegal isn’t far from the ~$14000/person the government spends. When you factor in higher crime rates, higher incarceration rates and emergency medical costs, illegals should certainly be costing more than the average. Is the number really $17K/illegal? I don’t know. Still, I would have rather the money spent on illegals lining the back pockets of U.S. citizens.

ohrealy,
I have no animus with people coming here for a better life. I just want them to play by the rules like you and I do. We have laws. Enforce them or change them so they are enforceable. I don’t want illegal workers to suppress wages for those poor folks who are already citizens. Protecting these folks jobs from illegal employment is the government’s job. Instead, most of the folks in DC (both sides) pander to illegal immigrants instead protecting their own constituents. Is a citizens first, immigrants second approach really moronic?

Posted by: Mr. Haney at April 18, 2008 2:16 PM
Comment #250887

“I’m not disagreeing just checking facts, earlier in this thread I was told the costs to fund SS was $75 trillion but couldnt find the numbers to back it up and Jim M didnt respond with any backup so I was left wondering if he was hitting the far right kool aid stand a bit to often.” j2t2

I must correct my statement. According to US New and World Report, 4/21/08 in the article “The Return of Big Government” the figure used for unfunded entitlement obligations is $44 trillion. My earlier reference to a larger number included those expected to be on the roles in the future and the unfunded amount if benefits and payroll taxes remain the same.

Still, $44 trillion is a pretty big number.

Posted by: Jim M at April 18, 2008 2:20 PM
Comment #250911

j2t2,

The Depression was not caused by ‘free market cons’ and I would think that you know that if you studied it at all.

The reason we have deficits now is that we are unwilling to live within constraints. That is evidenced by our personal lending/savings practices as well as what we expect from government. It has NOTHING to do with events that occured 80 years ago, other than people fooling themselves into thinking that unchecked borrowing solves anything. Short term, pointed and necessary borrowing to achieve a goal, is a good idea. Borrowing without end or limit, is a bad idea.

It was then, it is today.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 18, 2008 5:55 PM
Comment #250921

First off, the U.S. has been, and can be enriched by legal immigration.
However, we are not enriched by uncontrolled, massive, immigration (legal or illegal), because it creates chaos and societal disorder.

Some of those sources may not be verifiable, and some may indeed be false.

That is why it is best stick with the net losses as an estimated range of $70 Billion to $338 Billion per year in net losses to American tax payers due to illegal immigration.

At any rate, those that say illegal immigration is not costing Americans a lot of money every year in net losses are wrong.
The net losses are huge, and the costs are being shifted to average tax payers, while greedy illegal employers are profiting from it.

The $70 Billion estimate is very conservative.
The $338 Billion estimate may be high, but that is debatable too, since none of the estimates can accurately estimate the untold cost of crime and the thousands of Americans killed annually by illegal aliens.

However, even by the most conservative estimate, the net losses are huge.

Also, more Americans have been killed in 3 years by illegal aliens than the 4037 U.S. Troops killed in Iraq in 5 years.
How does one put a price on that?

Based on a CNN poll (www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/), illegal immigration was 5th on the list:

  • ISSUE # 1: 42% - Economy, Economic stimulus

  • ISSUE # 2: 21% - War in Iraq

  • ISSUE # 3: 18% - Health care
  • ISSUE # 4: 10% - Terrorism
  • ISSUE # 5: 07% - Illegal Immigration
  • ISSUE # 6: 02% - Other: Abortion, Education , Energy, Environment, Free trade, Guns, Homeland Security, Housing, Iran, Same-sex marriage, Social Security, Stem cell research, Taxes ;

Lastly, we should not harbor hatred for illegal aliens merely looking for work.

If voters want to be upset about illegal immigration, they need to look no further than Congress, and the three candidates running for president (all have “D” grades from betterimmigration.com), and John McCain voted for the first amnesty of 1986, which more than quadrupled the problem.

Illegal immigration will never be addressed as long as too many voters repeatedly reward irresponsible incumbent politicians with 93%-to99% re-election rates.

At any rate, the voters will have the government that the voters elect, and deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 18, 2008 7:50 PM
Comment #250938
Jack wrote: As you’re paying for what your government is and is becoming, a good look at Europe is helpful, as is giving a little thought to whether what we see there is our past or our future.
Perhaps worse, as these abuses and problems continue to go ignored by Do-Nothing Congress for years and decades, while growing in number and severity, and too many voters repeatedly reward too many irresponsible incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.
  • Posted by: d.a.n at April 18, 2008 10:50 PM
    Comment #250982

    P.S. If anyone can disprove any of the 14+ examples on that list, I will contact the original sources to contest their assertions.

    • (01) Sources: Federation for American Immigration Reform; U.S. Census Bureau; Center for Immigration Studies;

    • (02) Sources: Center for Immigration Studies; National Research Council; Census Bureau; Urban Institute; Inspector General’s Office of the Department of Treasury;

    • (03) Sources: Center for Immigration Studies; National Research Council; Census Bureau; Urban Institute; Inspector General’s Office of the Department of Treasury;

    • (04) Sources: Federation for American Immigration Reform; “National Comparison of Tuition and Required Fees 1998-99 through 2002-03,” Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board, December 2002; Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: 1990-2000,”; Office of Policy Planning, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, January 2003;

    • (05) Sources: Federation for American Immigration Reform, Texas Dual Language Program Cost Analysis, The Urban Institute;

    • (06) Sources: CNN; Lou Dobbs; Elaine Quijano, White House Correspondent; Federation for American Immigration Reform; GAO Report (www.gao.gov/htext/d05646r.html); “The Unfair Burden: Immigration’s Impact on Florida,” Executive Office of the Governor; “California’s Illegal Immigration Costs: A Call for Federal Leadership,” Office of the Governor; National Institute of Corrections, Federal Bureau of Prisons; New York State Senate Committee on Cities estimates annual criminal justice costs for criminal aliens in New York is $270 million per year;

    • (07) Sources: CNN; Lou Dobbs; GAO Report (www.gao.gov/htext/d05646r.html); Federal Bureau of Prisons; Federation for American Immigration Reform;

    • (08) Sources: CNN; Lou Dobbs; Heritage Foundation, Center for Immigration Reform (www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html); National Research Council; The Urban Institute; General’s Office of the Department of Treasury; National Academy of Sciences;

    • (09) Sources: CNN; Lou Dobbs; Elaine Quijano, White House Correspondent; Rep. James Sensenbrenner, Judiciary Committee Chairman;

    • (10) Sources: CNN; Lou Dobbs; GAO Report (www.gao.gov/htext/d05646r.html); One-Simple-Idea.com/BorderSecurity.htm#Homicide; Human Events Online: Mac Johnson (www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=10663); Federation for American Immigration Reform; Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa (year 2006: 4,380 homicides annually by illegal aliens);

    • (11) Sources: U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security - Majority Staff of the House Committee on Homeland Security; U.S. Border Patrol; U.S. Dept. of Justice; U.S. News and World Report; The Financial Times; Wasthington Times; Police Dept. of Laredo, TX.; FBI; DEA; John S. Comer, Assistant Special Agent in Charge Phoenix Field Division, Drug Enforcement
      Administration;

    • (12) Sources: National Policy Institute; Current Population Survey (CPS); Center For Immigration Studies; GAO, “Criminal Aliens: INS’ Efforts to Identify and Remove Imprisoned Aliens Need to be
      Improved”;

    • (13) Sources: CNN; Lou Dobbs; Center For Immigration Studies; Violent Crimes Institute; www.house.gov/mccaul/pdf/Investigaions-Border-Report.pdf; Federation for American Immigration Reform; Heritage Foundation; CDC; Columbia News Service; Frosty Wooldridge (21 sources: www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm);

    • (14) Sources: GAO Report (www.gao.gov/htext/d05646r.html); www.drdsk.com/articles.html#Illegals; VictimsOfIllegalAliens.com; www.FamilySecurityMatters.org; ImmigrationsHumanCost.org; one-simple-idea.com/BorderSecurity.htm#Crime; Federation for American Immigration Reform; ALIPAC.US;

    Again, the U.S. has been, and can be enriched by legal immigration.
    However, we are not enriched by uncontrolled, massive, immigration (legal or illegal), because it creates chaos and societal disorder.
    We should not harbor hatred for illegal aliens merely looking for work.
    If voters want to be upset about illegal immigration, they need to look no further than Congress, and the three candidates running for president (all have “D” grades from betterimmigration.com), and John McCain voted for the first amnesty of 1986, which more than quadrupled the problem.
    Illegal immigration will never be addressed as long as too many voters repeatedly reward irresponsible incumbent politicians with 93%-to99% re-election rates.

    At any rate, the voters will have the government that the voters elect, and deserve.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 19, 2008 3:42 PM
    Comment #267665

    The novel Brave New World by Aldous Huxley was published as a warning. It tells the tale of London in the year 2540, in a dystopian future in which the government controlled every aspect of the citizens’ lives, down to not allowing any dissenting, or in other words free, thought. This was Huxley’s vision of what will happen to societies if the government was allowed enough leeway to impose their iron fist into the everyday lives down to thoughts, words, and free choice of the citizens. This novel was controversial, and still is, but what is worse still is that his and also George Orwell’s cautionary tales of restriction of governmental regulation are beginning to come true, even here in the land of the free, the USA. For instance, the California government has allowed zoning of Los Angeles to include where fast food restaurants cannot have a store open. Burger joints are becoming outlawed, and one of the next targets is the payday loan industry, which has already come under fire. Many politicians and candidates are pledging to rid their respective states, municipalities, and also the entire United States of this legitimate and valuable service industry. Many of these politicians are hoping to get elected so that they can serve their own self interest or the banking lobby’s interests. How far should they be allowed to go before we, the American people, say enough? Post Courtesy of Personal Money StoreProfessional Blogging TeamFeed Back: 1-866-641-3406Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.htmlBlog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/

    Posted by: Payday Loan Advocate at October 21, 2008 3:46 AM
    Post a comment