Third Party & Independents: Archives

Don’t blame all democrats, I’m glad it was defeated. I suspect our representatives are not true representatives any more than republicans are. I consider them only slightly better.

Posted by: womanmarine at September 27, 2007 12:18 PM

womanmarine, yes, I was careful to include Democrats in my thanks to those who helped stop this deception and sell out. Not all Democrats support their party on this issue, as the number of Democrats participating in NumbersUSA support attests.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2007 12:31 PM

The bill asks for 200 billion dollars. 50 billion more than was estimated. Money we will have to borrow. At the same time, some economists are predicting a thirty’s era like depression may hit this country soon.

So - the good news for those that care about this issue (count me out) is that soon immigrants may no longer want to come to this country.

Posted by: Max at September 27, 2007 12:59 PM

Yes, activism can work. But it’s also helpful to have a party that will actually listen when so many of our people take the time to speak out. The Democrats pulled the amendment, because they are capable of doing so. Unlike the Republicans who ignore activism and public opinion, and roll right over the country to get the things they want.

“I extend my thanks and appreciation to my fellow Republican, Democrat, Third Party, and Independent comrades”

If you really want to thank Democrats who are your comrades in Numbers USA, you might want to call them your Democratic comrades. “Democrat comrades” is not only grammatically incorrect, but has over time become an intentional wrong usage by the right because they know it sounds distasteful and insulting.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 27, 2007 01:09 PM

Democrat politicians might want to consider what their pursuit of an amnesty to get votes is doing to their existing voter base. That probably explains Congress’ new record low approval rating.

Just look at all of the F’s and D’s at the bottm of this IMMIGRATION REPORT CARD (over 95% are Democrat politicians).

In all fairness though, Republican politicians did nothing for many years about illegal immigration until the 7-Nov-2006 election approached and the Republican politicians’ poll numbers were looking dismal.
Even now, I am not convinced that Republicans are now serious about addressing illegal immigration either.
The Republicans are simply taking the opposite position as a wedge issue.
If Republicans were really serious about illegal immigration, why did they not do anything about it in the last decade (or before)?
Why suddenly NOW are the Republicans using this issue?
Yes, it can be VERY effective at turning voters against the Democrat politicians, but the real question is still:

Are any of our bought-and-paid-for, do-nothing Congress persons really serious about fixing ANYTHING ?

And why should politicians take time away from trolling for big money, pandering, Gerrymandering, ignoring the Constitution, bribing voters with their own tax dollars, votin’ on pork-barrel, graft, pork-barrel, giving themselves raises (9 times in the last 10 years), fix anything:

• when most voters reward them with 90% to 95% re-election rates?


• when winning seats is obviously the only thing that matters?


• when dismal approval ratings (now at a record low of 11%) still translates into 90% to 95% re-election rates?

This is what Congress does.
They take turns making a big deal about problems without ever resolving them problems.
They just use these issues to divide the voters, and they are experts at doing it.
And too many voters fall for it; empowering the corrupt to grow more corrupt, FOR-SALE, irresponsible, and incompetent.
I have watched BOTH Republican and Democrat debates for many months and they are both pathetic.
I don’t believe any of them. The are all FOR-SALE, and the proof of it is overwhelming.
The nation’s problems going ignored year after year is proof of it.
The increasingly REGRESSIVE systems and disparity trend is proof of it.
The increasing number of violations of the Constitution is proof of it.
The many examples of selling out Americans and pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other is proof of it.
What’s it going to take?
Another Great Depression?
Stay on this course, and watch it unfold.
Our problems are not unsolvable.
But the petty, divisive, distracting, delusional, misplaced, blind partisan loyalties make them unsolvable.
Too many politicians love to fuel the partisan warfare, and too many voters love to wallow in it, because it is easier to blame the OTHER party than admit equal culpability.

womanmarine,
Your right. It’s not just Democrat’s fault.
It’s Republicans’ fault too.
But you know who is 50% to blame?
The voters who reward them for it.
As long as solving the nation’s problems take a back seat to winning seats for OUR party, deterioration will continue … at least, until that becomes too painful (and probably too late).

Posted by: d.a.n at September 27, 2007 01:22 PM

Adrienne, I would not say Third Partyic comrades, now would I? There are Democratic candidates and their are Democrat candidates. One would not say the Democrat Party. That is, and should be, Democratic Party. But, the candidates they promote are Democrats, like my comrades at NumbersUSA, or my Democrat friend.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2007 01:24 PM

The Democrats pulled the amendment, because they are capable of doing so.

Actually, the pulled it because they got caught. There is every indication they will attempt again in a future bill as long as they are in charge. This way they can support their base and ideological views without angering the independants and 3rd party candidates in order to ‘keep their phoney baloney jobs’.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2007 01:27 PM

d.a.n said: “The Republicans are simply taking the opposite position as a wedge issue.
If Republicans were really serious about illegal immigration, why did they not do anything about it in the last decade (or before)?”

Sums up my view on most Republican politician’s stand quite nicely. Notable exceptions were Tancredo and Hunter for example who have for years been on record as being for border security.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2007 01:27 PM

One caution, folks.
It is “defeated” only for now. Harry Reid has promised to reintroduce the amendement within six weeks.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 27, 2007 01:35 PM

But, the candidates they promote are Democrats, like my comrades at NumbersUSA, or my Democrat friend.

David, you used the word comrades in your post. That is a plural. So yes, you could have a Democrat comrade, but more than one would make them your Democratic comrades.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 27, 2007 01:39 PM

That’s true about Tancredo and Hunter.
I was generalizing.
I should be careful to say “most”.
Unfortunately, Tancredo supports a 30% National Sales tax (which is very REGRESSIVE as ALL sales taxes are; consider 8% local taxes added to that 30%; it will guarantee black markets).
I can’t find any politicians that aren’t screwed up in a major way on at least one major issue.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 27, 2007 01:44 PM

D.a.n. said” “I can’t find any politicians that aren’t screwed up in a major way on at least one major issue.”

Isn’t that the ever loving universal truth ?!!

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2007 02:29 PM

Dan,

We’ve pointed out repeatedly that the ‘30% national sales tax’ plan (fair tax) is not regressive because of the prebate, I’m not sure why you continue to pass out misinformation like this? Generic stales taxes are regressive, sales tax plans with pre- or re-bates are not.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2007 02:30 PM

Adrienne, right I should have written “I extend my thanks and appreciation to my fellow Republicanish, Democratic, Third Partyish, and Independentic comrades”. But, I will concede if it let’s you get back to the topic which the Rules indicate should be the case.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2007 02:37 PM

Rhinehold, D.a.n, the topic here is the Dream Act and illegal immigration. Take the tax discussion to an appropriate tax based article on WB.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2007 02:39 PM

David,

Agreed, and the fact is that the Democrats are intent on passing ANOTHER amnesty, the result of which we already know the outcome. Learning from history is not one of the Democratic Party’s strong suits it appears. Neither is principle or open government as we can see by their attempt to sneak this into another bill.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2007 02:46 PM

Rhinehold, you got that right. Dead on right! There are a few level headed Democrats in the Senate on most issues like Russ Feingold. But, they are an increasingly endangered species like moderate Republicans have become.

The Democrats made a serious error in promoting Sen. Reid to the majority leader. He is going to cost the Democrats even more than he already as amongst Independent voters.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2007 03:18 PM

David, Exactly. There is no coincidence that Congress’ approval rating is 1/3rd of Bush’s! And the Democrats are blindly assuring themselves that they will make gains in both houses of Congress and the Presidency…

I can’t help being reminded of Planes Trains and Automobiles when Steve Martin wakes up in the car to find John Candy is asleep as well…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2007 03:28 PM

Confirmed:

The Washington Times reports, however, that Reid will push for passage of the DREAM Act, which would grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, by different means (possibly in its stand-alone form [S. 774, sponsored by Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin {D-Ill.}]) before the Senate adjourns for the year (i.e., on or about November 16).

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2007 03:30 PM

Rhinehold, the poll internals though, show the public leaning heavily toward Democrats to run the country, despite this historically low approval of Congress in general.

It is these poll internals on who is better to lead the country, Democrats or Republicans, that we need to watch for signs that the Democratic agenda is disappointing the Independents who are decidedly leaning Democrat in polls to date. The independents will determine the Presidential winner, and could upset Democrat’s confidence in Congressional gain margins. We’ll have to wait and watch those polls.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2007 03:35 PM

They are granted legal status and have six years to complete two years of college or serve in the military.

And whose to pay for 2 years of college? I can see how this will turn into another accounting nightmare (by design). Posted by: d.a.n at September 27, 2007 03:37 PM

David:
“I will concede”

Thank you. I know you would never concede unless you knew I was right! ;^)

Posted by: Adrienne at September 27, 2007 03:49 PM

This Democrat agrees eompletely with David Remer about Harry Reid. When he is not being wishy washy he is being underhanded. I can’t stand him. The interests of this nation will never served properly by politicians such as Reid, Lieberman and McConnel. McConnel is the bigest snake in the grass but, Reid and Lieberman are only a nose shorter.

If the Democrats hope to continue getting my support they will forget about amnesty and crack down on illegal immigration. Let no one tell you that there are to many illegal immigrants in this country to do much about it. A united effort by federal, state and local governments can and should force most illegals to leave. I agree that this is extremely harsh on the illegal immigrants which I in no way blame for what has been happening. It is also a harsh solution and will cause much economic hardship, especially for those who depend on the sweat of the immigrant to garner their profits. But, these are the people who have flaunted the laws of our nation for their own gain and they deserve more than bankrupcy for what they have done.

When we get the illegal immigration problem under control, we can change the immigration laws to allow more workers into the country when employers show that they cannot find enough workers even though they are offering very good wages. Unless it is done this way, those who have ignored our laws for their own benefit will go unpunished and the outcome will be unacceptable to the majority of the American people.

Posted by: jlw at September 27, 2007 04:54 PM

David,

While I was not opposed to the legislation based on it’s own merits (yep, based purely on ideology), I totally agree with you about hiding or slipping legislation into other completely unrelated bills. The same was done with the minimum wage increase, which I supported, but as a “stand alone” bill.

I think “one bill, one purpose” legislation should be a top priority. Let the passage or defeat of legislation be based solely on it’s own merits. It would also speed up the legislative process. It’s become common for amendments to pending legislation to number into three digit figures.

Posted by: KansasDem at September 27, 2007 05:49 PM

jlw, what many Democratic followers, I think, are not aware of is this. If the Congress and White House makes a concerted effort and halts 95% of the illegal traffic at our borders, then, the Congress and the People will be far more amenable to weighing illegal immigrant’s situations individually, and devise appropriate plans that humanely treat their illegal status, some being allowed to remain, some being deported, and many offered the opportunity to go to the end of the line without legal consequence.

But, unless and until, our government achieves reasonable border security against our enemies, against importing of public health threats via unimmunized and non-medically screened illegal immigrants, and against Mexico’s growing claims on our sovereignty and political process, the resistance and outright opposition to Democrats and Republicans alike on this issue can only continue to grow, fanning ever greater racial tensions in our cities and towns.

It was Republican dominated government that allowed this situation to grow out of control. It is the Democratic politicians who intend to continue its growth for no more reason than increasing their voter base with immigration.

If, and it is a big if, the voters reject incumbents in the Primaries in unprecedented numbers, and again in the general election, their freshman replacements will recognize from the polling data and exit polls, that this dilemma, created and fostered by incumbent politicians, will no longer be tolerated. And then, we will get responsible representation and legislation on this issue. VOIDing Incumbents is how the people can get responsible representation back for themselves.

The threat of VOIDing them in phone calls, faxes, and emails, is what caused the withdrawal of the Amendment form the Defense Appropriations bill. Imagine how much more responsible their replacements would be if incumbents got the boot in unprecedented numbers in both parties. It would be the biggest political landslide in favor of good and responsible governance since the election of George Washington.

I will continue to work to make that happen. I pray millions of others will work along side me in this effort. Our children’s futures will suddenly begin to look brighter instead of dimmer.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2007 05:57 PM

KD said: “I think “one bill, one purpose” legislation should be a top priority.”

I could not agree with you more. This BS by the political party leadership to hide their actions from the American public and media has GOT to STOP! But, it won’t unless voters give them the boot sending an unmistakable message to their challenger replacements.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2007 06:06 PM

I think “one bill, one purpose” legislation should be a top priority.

Me too.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 27, 2007 06:39 PM

“If the Congress and White House makes a concerted effort and halts 95% of the illegal traffic at our borders, then, the Congress and the People will be far more amenable to weighing illegal immigrant’s situations individually, and devise appropriate plans that humanely treat their illegal status”

David R. Remer,

I think that’s exactly right.

#1. Secure our borders and ports. Period!
#2. Empower ALL law enforcement officers to detain anyone who’s in this country illegally. The Federal government MUST pay 100% of the tab for the apprehension, detention, etc.
#3. Apprehension, detention, deportation, etc. must always meet the utmost standards of humane and decent treatment, basically “do unto others …..”. Detainees should be treated no better and no worse than you or I would be if arrested for any misdemeanor.
#4. The Federal government must also bear ALL costs regarding any crime committed by any illegal immigrant, including arrest, investigation, prosecution, imprisonment.
#5. Improve our system of monitoring the expiration of visas, etc. We’re not talking about brain surgery, this is the computer age. When it’s time to leave our country YOU MUST GO!
#6. ALL costs associated with apprehension, detention, deportation, etc. should be recouped by stiff fines against employers of illegals.

Then, and only then, the public may calm down and be willing to consider changes to our immigration policy. Every day we fail to do these things the vigilantes gain strength, and sooner or later the lid will blow!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KansasDem at September 27, 2007 08:17 PM

David R.: The problem with voting against incumbents in the primaries is that more often than not, incumbents are not challenged in the primaries. The Democratic Party is not going to fund any opponent that would dare challenge one of their pet politicians unless that politician is in serious trouble for reasons other than policy. We Democrats must challenge our party at the grass roots level and provide and support candidates if we wish to challenge the national party. The grass roots tried to send a message to the Party when they voted out Lieberman only to see the Republicans and Independents destroy their efforts. The Republican candidate got something like 8% of the vote. Afterwards the Party welcomed Lieberman back with open arms.

In my opinion, the crucial thing that the people must do to take back their government from the corporations is not vote out incumbents. The only way we are going to be successful is make up our minds to publicly finance elections and shove it down the throats of the politicians. Even if the corporations had to give the new kid a million bucks to vote their way, it would be a bargin considering that they stand to gain billions. There are 435 members of the House which holds the purse strings. Whats 435 million dollars every two years to the corporations? Chump change. Although the corporations aren’t handing out million dollar bills to Congress, they are probably spending close to that for lobbyists, hookers, alcohol and other perks.

Posted by: jlw at September 27, 2007 08:52 PM

Billions? Anyone wonder why people don’t think Democrats don’t get the fact that we are in serious debt here…?

Posted by: rhinehold at September 27, 2007 08:55 PM

Rhinehold: I get your point. Perhaps we can slash the defense budget in half next year.

Posted by: jlw at September 27, 2007 10:21 PM

jlw,

No compaints from me, if you agree to slash the wealth distribution programs (currently around 65% of the budget) as well.

You forget, I’m a Libertarian. I’m all for small government and individuals taking on their responsibilities to help their fellow man on their own, not at the point of a gun.

BTW, here’s my example of our wealth redistribution programs.

5 people are eathing lunch in a park. A person comes up upset and asking for some money. 4 of the people say ‘ok, we’ll each give you 10 dollars, but that guy over there has to give you 10 too’. When the guy refuses (for whatever reason, let’s say he planned on buying his wife a present for her birthday with that money) the other 4 go over and forcibly take it from him to give it to the other one.

Joy! What kind people those 4 were…

BUT, people are concerned that those people won’t get the help they need without those ‘forced charity’ dollars. So here’s my offer.

For every dollar spent on charity, that person doesn’t have to pay one dollar of their income tax for that year. Not the tax on that one dollar, the whole dollar. Only up to the portion of their income tax that goes to those programs, so around 65% of their income tax burden would be ‘forgiven’ if they give that money that would have been collected to an approved national charity (United Way, Red Cross, etc).

What say you, jlw?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2007 11:09 PM

1) We’re talking about a relatively small subset of the illegal immigrant population.

2) If you raise enforcement so the families are caught early on, this doesn’t apply for the most part.

3)Good behavior, integration into the community, service in the economy, in public life, and/or the military are required

4)The people addressed by this law would be folks who themselves committed no crime, who really could not make the decision for themselves.

5)These people have to come forward and identify themselves to gain this benefit. Would terrorists or moochers do that?

6)The people who take this route are more likely to avoid the path of reliance on entitlements and government programs. It practically requires them to go that route.

Remind me why the failure of this bill is a good thing.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 27, 2007 11:47 PM

Because anyone knowing that this outcome will be reapplied again in 10 years time will forgoe the legal process to enter the US and come in illegally so that their children can have the benefit of US citizenship.

Basically, the same reason they do so now.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2007 11:50 PM

jlw,

I may print that and post it on the wall!!!!!!!!

Very well said. It bears repeating:

“The only way we are going to be successful is make up our minds to publicly finance elections and shove it down the throats of the politicians. Even if the corporations had to give the new kid a million bucks to vote their way, it would be a bargin considering that they stand to gain billions.”

Posted by: KansasDem at September 28, 2007 01:25 AM

Rhinehold: I am a union man and not interested in receiveing charity. Besides that, you seemed to be confused about which direction the wealth is being redistributed.

The social contract that the government has with the workers as well as the social safety net is for the benefit of the wealthy rather than the workers and the poor. The wealth that the government redistributes is barely enough to save the rich man’s rear end.

The bottom 40% in this country get a whopping 4.5% of the wealth and probably half of that comes from the government redistribution of wealth scheme. So, if I have it straight, we do away with the government part, the bottom is cut to 2.25% and charity will make up the difference.

I would prefer letting the top 10% keep 50% of the wealth and the other 90% of us get 50%. Then if we increase the bottom 40% from 2.5% to 12%, that means that the 50% in the middle will get 35.75% instead of 25.4% of the wealth generated in this country each year. If we do this, the bottom 40% might even be able to afford to pay some taxes to the government instead of recieving care packages from the government.

KansasDem: If you think it won’t ruin your reputation, feel free to use anything I say that you consider appropriate on the wall. You might want to clarify that the new kid is a new politician.

Posted by: jlw at September 28, 2007 02:48 AM

Rhinehold-
You make a valid point, but I think if you ramp up security on the border and get our act together on internal enforcement, such planning will be an iffy proposition at best.

My paradigm for my angle on the immigration issue is motivation, incentive and disincentive. If somebody believes that if they hang around ten years that they are more likely than not to be caught, then they won’t plan so much for this. If we make it cheaper to immigrate, open it more to the poor and lower middle class of other countries, they might take their motivation to come here, and go by legal channels.

In parallel with that, we should add more staff to the bureaucracy that handles that. There’s nothing more pointless than shouting into the bullhorn on the need for security, then turning around and understaffing the ranks of people needed to pull that off.

I hear people talk about border security and dealing with illegal immigration all the time. Unfortunately, I don’t think these people say that with much of a clear idea of how to do it. They think, “oh, a wall”, and that’s often the end of it.

We have to think of the problem in terms of its true complexity, not just have a kneejerk reaction to what one isolated part of the policy might cause to occur.

I feel that this provision would help solve the problem, turning undocumented minors who have more or less grown up in the country into documented adults. Citizenship will not come without cost, but neither will security.

Folks talk about amnesty, but let’s be serious: there are millions here already who won’t be going home. We can either allow them to remain undocumented, or we can make arrangements to systematically work out what to do with them. If they’ve kept up their good behavior, we can let them, by various routes, become citizens. If they’ve been criminals, moochers off the system, we send them back. Ditto for repeat offenders.

Enforcement, meanwhile, should be beefed up and optimized. Carrot and stick. We’re not trying to repel invaders here, we’re trying to both force and invite people to cooperate with us, push and pull. If we look at the illegals as an enemy to be defeated, rather than the result of a system of immigration and border security that doesn’t work, then we will end up engaging in a losing battle.

The key here is to regain control of our territory, real control, not asserted control, or wishes for control. If you don’t want measures of forgiveness to seem like an open ticket to immigration, then seriously beef up internal enforcement, so that anybody who comes here thinking they’ll get similar free rides will find themselves on a free ride home more often than not.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2007 09:07 AM

Stephen, defeating this bill was a GREAT thing precisely because it does not SECURE our Borders. It doesn’t solve the problem, it only attempts to deal with the symptoms.

jlw and KD, “The only way we are going to be successful is make up our minds to publicly finance elections and shove it down the throats of the politicians. Even if the corporations had to give the new kid a million bucks to vote their way, it would be a bargin considering that they stand to gain billions.”

And why would politicians pass such legislation against their own greedy interests if they are NOT be removed from office in record numbers? You both are trying to put the cart before the horse. Congress acts in their own interests first, not the peoples. Unless and until the voters make them pay a political price for that, they have no incentive to legislate against the corrupt and lucrative system that keeps incumbency rates high.

That is precisely why voting out incumbents is the only avenue toward restoring responsible governance, it is the only incentive the voters have in their power to offer to motivate politicians to make the voter’s issues and concerns first priority.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 28, 2007 11:54 AM

David R. Remer-
People sometimes pine for absolute power and tire themselves out too much to wield actual power.

We want to know who is in this country and why. We want the labor market to be clear of those who can essentially be blackmailed into accepting low or absent wages. We want foreigners to respect our territorial sovereignty, and immigrants to respect the process of citizenship.

Even if it’s tough as nails, a policy that fails to truly fulfill these objectives will be pointless. We should look at the current administration and understand that looking tough and making progress in problem solving are two different things.

Often, what happens is that those pushing these measures are so emphatic in their support that they will not see the potential problems beforehand, or address the real problems after they start occuring. In short, too much certainty in politics that a particular measure can do good or will do good can be a recipe for unaccountability and corruption, disaster and misfortune.

The current system is a result of our despair in the face of corruption. For so long, we’ve been telling ourselves that it’s inevitable, and have essentially failed to respond to it. That many Republicans saw government as irredeemable, and saw use of power to aid powerful special interests as a necessary evil, if not a desirable good, didn’t help things.

We have to calm down, take a deep breath, and ask ourselves, what do we want?

Can we get what we want? A fence on the Southern border will not necessarily have a proportional, permanent effect on overall illegal immigration. It might reduce it by a fraction, yet have illegal immigrants flow around it by various means. We have to ask ourselves, are their more or fewer illegal immigrants since the walls went up. Just citing border crossing statistics misses the point; there might be fewer crossing that way, but necessarily fewer crossing the other way?

We have to ask whether similar, less expensive methods might have the same effect, or even do things better. Greater internal enforcement will help to go after those whose illegal immigration involved a legal entry into the country, followed by an overstayed visa. They’ll also take care of categories and nationalities whose crossing would hardly be impeded by a physical barrier across the Southern border.

People talk about terrorists crossing along our land borders, but aren’t we forgetting about those crossing the ocean by air? That’s how the original cell crossed into the country. If we don’t vastly improve security there, we let a large proportion of the illegal immigrants in this country go scott-free, and fail to deal with one of the most critical routes of ingress into this country.

I think a wall would be a lot of expense that increased border patrols and improved internal enforcement would probably better handle.

Tell me: would you support those things first, and be willing to wait on a wall until enforcement by other means proved unable to handle things? Right now, the system is degenerated to the extreme, and the logic goes that this would at least do something to cut down on it. But would it be cost-effective, an efficient use of tax dollars? I think we should have to prove regular, assertive enforcements of our laws by normal means to be insufficient before we would avail ourselves of such an uncertain and radical strategy. At the very least, if you improved enforcement first, you have a much better basis for making the wall truly work as part of a system, rather than as a facade on a broken system.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2007 01:35 PM

Stephen Daugherty: Many people see the illegals as the enemy to be defeated. Many others have no problem in determining who the true enemy’s are.

The enemy is the employers Who say we have jobs, come to America. Many employers see humans as just another commodity that has to be purchased to perform the work that secures the employers profit. That commodity can be purchased cheaper if it comes from a foreign market.

The enemy is the government that say’s come on in, don’t sweat the immigration laws, we are not going to enforce them.

The stance that the Democratic Party is taking on this may be good in the long run. In the short run, it is going to be a big negative for our party.

IMO, there is a potential for four major issues in the upcoming election. They are Iraq, healthcare, the economy and illegal immigration.

The Republicans are cunning and treacherous at playing the election game. On the Iraq issue, troops are going to be coming home in the spring, summer and probably a big October suprise. Maliki has every intention to do what he can to help the Administration. You don’t bite the hand that is making you personally rich and the Administration has already threatened to replace him. There are three possible senarios for Iraq by next fall. One is that things will be pretty much the same in Iraq. Another is that Iraq erupts into a full scale civil war. And the other is that things are visibly improving.

Health care may not be as big of a deal as the Democrats are hoping for. The Republicans will muddy the water with plans of their own and besides that, the people have been hearing the health care swan song from the government for nearly two decades now and most of them have a we will believe it when we see it attitude.

Contrary to popular belief, The Market can be manipulated not only by the Fed but by large investors as well. I think they will do as much as they can to try to keep the market strong and the economy crawling along. I don’t think this economy can keep crawling along for another year before it falls into a recession, but powerful forces are going to give it their best shot.

There is a possibility that Illegal immigration could become a major issue in the election and if it is, we stand a good chance of loosing. Both Republicans and Independents are saying the the Democrats are willing to give the jobs of Americans to the illegals, willing to wreak their livlyhoods, drive their families out of the middle class all for the sake of votes. This has been happening for years now. It is obvious anymore. Dangerous jobs along our highways used to be $15 to $20 per hour. They are now $6 to $7 per hour and the workforce is very visible. In my area, this is really begining to hurt our economy. There isn’t as much money being spent in the shops, the grocery stores and walmart. We don’t have a Hispanic community here. The illegals are crowded together in close living quarters surrounded by an alien culture. On payday they can be seen lined up at westeren union sending money to their bank accounts in Mexico.

Perception is a major factor in politics anymore. What happened in the past doesn’t effect the process as much. Our party is doing what it can to bolster the opositions argument. Fox news is running a headline I can’t quote but it goes something like this, Pelosi says border fence is rediculous idea. That headline is going to play well here in The Heart of it All and my state of Ohio is nearly always a crucial factor in the elections. Ohio has a long history of picking the winner in presidential elections.

I don’t believe the stance our party is taking is to get votes. I can see a necessity and a nobler cause, but there is such a thing as moving to far to fast. The American people aren’t going to grab a copy of the Democrats Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act and take it home to read. The people are going to see one big poisonus word, AMNESTY.

Posted by: jlw at September 28, 2007 03:14 PM

David R. Remer wrote: VOIDing Incumbents is how the people can get responsible representation back for themselves.

Well, repeatedly rewarding do-nothing politicians with perpetual re-election certainly ain’t workin’ is it?

Illegal immigration is only on of many serious problems that will never be adequately addressed as long as those problems take a back-seat to winning seats for MY party and the tedency to pull the party-lever. The only cure for it will be the consequences of it. And we are on our way. The last election (7-Nov-2006) saw a 3.6% increase in anti-incumbent voting (relavitive to past elections). Now Do-Nothing Congress’ approval ratings are down to a record low 11%. This will probably translate into some more anti-incumbent voting. However, not as much as one might expect, because of the extremely powerful tendency to pull the party-lever and misplaced partisan loyalties.

Congress _ Years _ TOTAL_DEM_REP_IND_TOTAL_DEM _REP_IND_ RE-ELECTION RATE
92nd __ 1971–1973 _ 100 _ 54 _ 44 _ 2 _ 435 _ 255 _ 180 _ 0 __ 98.0%
93rd __ 1973–1975 _ 100 _ 56 _ 42 _ 2 _ 435 _ 242 _ 192 _ 1 __ 98.1%
94th __ 1975–1977 _ 100 _ 61 _ 37 _ 2 _ 435 _ 291 _ 144 _ 0 __ 93.3%
95th __ 1977–1979 _ 100 _ 61 _ 38 _ 1 _ 435 _ 292 _ 143 _ 0 __ 99.9%
96th __ 1979–1981 _ 100 _ 58 _ 41 _ 1 _ 435 _ 277 _ 158 _ 0 __ 97.8%
97th __ 1981–1983 _ 100 _ 46 _ 53 _ 1 _ 435 _ 242 _ 192 _ 1 __ 94.1%
98th __ 1983–1985 _ 100 _ 46 _ 54 _ 0 _ 435 _ 269 _ 166 _ 0 __ 96.6%
99th __ 1985–1987 _ 100 _ 47 _ 53 _ 0 _ 435 _ 253 _ 182 _ 0 __ 97.9%
100th _ 1987–1989 _ 100 _ 55 _ 45 _ 0 _ 435 _ 258 _ 177 _ 0 __ 98.4%
101st _ 1989–1991 _ 100 _ 55 _ 45 _ 0 _ 435 _ 260 _ 175 _ 0 __ 99.8%
102nd _ 1991–1993 _ 100 _ 56 _ 44 _ 0 _ 435 _ 267 _ 167 _ 1 __ 98.9%
103rd _ 1993–1995 _ 100 _ 57 _ 43 _ 0 _ 435 _ 258 _ 176 _ 1 __ 98.8%
104th _ 1995–1997 _ 100 _ 48 _ 52 _ 0 _ 435 _ 204 _ 230 _ 1 __ 92.1%
105th _ 1997–1999 _ 100 _ 45 _ 55 _ 0 _ 435 _ 207 _ 226 _ 2 __ 99.1%
106th _ 1999–2001 _ 100 _ 45 _ 55 _ 0 _ 435 _ 211 _ 223 _ 1 __ 99.5%
107th _ 2001–2003 _ 100 _ 50 _ 50 _ 0 _ 435 _ 212 _ 221 _ 2 __ 99.1%
108th _ 2003–2005 _ 100 _ 48 _ 51 _ 1 _ 435 _ 205 _ 229 _ 1 __ 98.8%
109th _ 2005-2007 _ 100 _ 44 _ 55 _ 1 _ 435 _ 202 _ 231 _ 1 __ 99.2%
110th _ 2007-2008 _ 100 _ 49 _ 49 _ 2 _ 435 _ 233 _ 202 _ 0 __ 95.6%

Some say ousting irresponsible incumbents won’t change anything.
Perhaps.
But repeatedly rewarding them with 95.6% re-election rates won’t either.
In fact, it will probably make it worse.
So, perhatps the problem is not the OTHER party?
Perhaps the problem is most politicians in BOTH parties?
After all, BOTH have had a chance to address many growing problems, but NEITER do, as demonstrated by the growing illegal immigration problem, and the other numerous REGRESSIVE systems that are worsening the wealth disparity trend for the last 30+ years:

• [1] illegal immigration is like a REGRESSIVE tax, causing job displacement and many burdens and costs to be shifted to tax payers that already pay REGRESSIVE sales taxes and REGRESSIVE income taxes for the burdened social servcies.

[2] the ridiculous federal tax system which is effectively REGRESSIVE,

• [3] inflation is like a REGRESSIVE tax, since the poor are limited in ways of preserving wealth with property, gold, stocks, homes, etc.; the mismanaged money system creates inflation; predatory interest rates and lending practices (raising ARMs from 6% to 14%); and the Fed gets to earn interest on money created out of thin air; how did this ever come about?


• [4] dozens and dozens of REGRESSIVE sales taxes (city, state, county sales taxes, fuel taxes, telephone excise taxes and fees, etc.)


• [5] corporate income taxes are more like hidden REGRESSIVE taxes passed on to consumers; have you seen owners of corporations cutting their salaries?


• [6] property taxes in many cases are REGRESSIVE, since like sales taxes, as income decreases, the property tax as a percentage of income increases.


• [7] caps (e.g. currently $97,500) on Social Security taxes is a REGRESSIVE tax; thus the wealthy collect Social Security, but they do not contribute proportionately with respect to income;

Posted by: d.a.n at September 28, 2007 03:18 PM

jlw wrote: The enemy is the employers Who say we have jobs, come to America. Many employers see humans as just another commodity that has to be purchased to perform the work that secures the employers profit. That commodity can be purchased cheaper if it comes from a foreign market.

The illegal aliens simply looking for work are not bad people, and most illegal aliens are only looking for work.

The real enemy is:

+ our despicable politicians who despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens for voters and profits.
+ the greedy illegal employers and some with vast wealth and power that control and influence politicians for profit.
+ the voters that whine about all of it, but repeatedly reward them for it with perpetual 95% re-election rates.

___________________________________
= US. The U.S. We have met the enemy, and it is us.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 28, 2007 03:32 PM

jlw, the word AMNESTY loses all of its power to move voters IF the borders are secured and the illegal immigrants stop flowing across our border. Secure the border, stop the flow, and AMNESTY will take on the humanitarian and feel good connotations Democrats want it to take.

Democrats have their heads up their butts on this issue. They could completely STEAL this issue away from Republicans by pushing National Security at our borders and making the budget battle over it with Republicans a losing issue for the GOP.

But, the FACT is, they don’t want to stop the flow, anymore than GW Bush wants to end the war in Iraq. They have the same access to the data regarding the patrolled border double fence S. of San Diego as Republicans have. It was expensive and enormously effective. But, they argue the expense and deny the effectiveness, just as Bush argues the goal and denies the lack of progress in Iraq. And for the same reason. The reality and truth they argue against is an obstacle to their long term strategic goal.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 28, 2007 04:06 PM

Stephen D. said: We want to know who is in this country and why. We want the labor market to be clear of those who can essentially be blackmailed into accepting low or absent wages. We want foreigners to respect our territorial sovereignty, and immigrants to respect the process of citizenship.

Then you Democrats should be ALL FOR securing our borders and permitting immigrants to enter this country ONLY I.N.S. ports of entry where we can Identify who they are, and question their past and intent for coming here, and where they can be medically screened and immunized before rubbing shoulders and coughing into the air our we and children have to breath.

But, you argue Amnesty and Leaving Borders open which is utterly and completely opposite in effect to the goals your party rhetorically says they are for. Or, you argue for spending money on illegals already here, instead of an all out effort to secure our borders as quickly and effectively as possible. What good does it do to identify and assess a million illegals already here in a years time when while doing that, another million are crossing in the interim?

The logical consequences of what you propose are in direct contradiction to what you say you are for. Just like Bush’s policies in Iraq go in the opposite direction to what he says he seeks there. The sophistry of the words ring deceptive when the actions contradict those words. In other words, the words lie. The consequences of the actions are the truth of it.

Failure to secure our borders leaves the way open for continued uncontrolled flow of illegals into this country. Democrats oppose securing the borders. Therefore, Democrats seek an uncontrolled flow of illegal immigrants across our borders. And to hell with the public health, terrorist, and overpopulation consequences of it.

It just doesn’t get plainer than that. The only thing debatable is why Democrats are lying like this on the issue. But, in light of the research indicating 3/4 of Hispanic speaking immigrants become Democratic voters, it doesn’t appear one has to look far as to why Democrats are lying like this: Political power at the polls into the future. Which amounts to selling out American citizens and their families today.

And I am telling you, this will kill the Democratic Party tomorrow in exactly the same way the lies about Iraq killed the Republican Party in 2006. It will only take another terrorist attack, or public health epidemic from across our borders, or a deep recession which lays off citizens while illegals get paid in the black and underground marketplace, to end the credibility of the Democratic Party.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 28, 2007 04:32 PM

They could completely STEAL this issue away from Republicans by pushing National Security at our borders and making the budget battle over it with Republicans a losing issue for the GOP.

Maybe.

Look at the members and endorsed politicians at ALIPAC.US, NumbersUSA.oom, BetterImmigration.com (Report Cards), etc. (probably 90% Republicans).

And I am telling you, this will kill the Democratic Party tomorrow in exactly the same way the lies about Iraq killed the Republican Party in 2006.

I doubt that. Not anytime soon anyway.

Democrat politicians don’t have to worry too much, because:

• (1) while the borders are still wide open, and laws are still not enforced, 2 million illegal aliens still continue to flow across the border (per year; 5,480 per day; 228 per hour; 3.8 per minute).


• (2) Most Republican politicians really don’t care either; otherwise, they would have during the last 8 years they had the majority.


• (3) Either way, both Democrat and Republican politicians BOTH get what they want (profits from cheap labor, and votes; a lot of votes once amnesty is passed).


• (4) Based on past elections, most Democrat voters are probably still support the Democrat politicians positions on illegal immigration. After all, most voters of BOTH parties place more importance on winning seats in Congress than solving problems.


• (5) The Republicans will retain (maybe gain) seats, and illegal immigration continues (2 million per year).


• (6) Eventually, when the Democrat politicians finally get their SHAMNESTY BILL passed (years from now), the Democrat politicians will have tens of millions of new Democrat voters, and Republican politicians will be toast. See? It’s all about winning seats.


• (7) Then Republicans will have to pick a new issue (facade) to pretend to care about. But Republicans are really still winners, because borders are still wide open, immigration laws are still ignored, they still have tons of cheap labor for profits (perhaps even more than the current 2 million per year).

They are BOTH despicable.
The real losers are the voters and illegal aliens the politicians pit against each other to fight over the diminishing scraps.
But most voters don’t deserve any sympathy, since they only have themselves to thank for it.
By the time enough voters figure it all out; how they were played like pawns, it will be too late (if it isn’t already).

At any rate, I don’t know who is worse?

• Republican politicians using illegal immigration to get cheap labor for profits
  
• or, Democrat politicians using it to get votes and cheap labor for profits.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 28, 2007 05:27 PM

David R. Remer-

Then you Democrats should be ALL FOR securing our borders and permitting immigrants to enter this country ONLY I.N.S. ports of entry where we can Identify who they are, and question their past and intent for coming here, and where they can be medically screened and immunized before rubbing shoulders and coughing into the air our we and children have to breath.

Many of the people go through those ports of call anyways. A third enter legally, but overstay visas and commit other similar offenses. Many are smuggled through in vehicles crossing the border. As for medical screening? Good heavens. Even legal immigrants and citizens returning from abroad can bring back diseases. The communities of undocumented workers probably pose the worse health threat, and unless you ramp up internal security or find some way to integrate them into society, in which case they’ll have the access to healthcare that would prevent them from being a population in which an epidemic could incubate.

But, you argue Amnesty and Leaving Borders open which is utterly and completely opposite in effect to the goals your party rhetorically says they are for. Or, you argue for spending money on illegals already here, instead of an all out effort to secure our borders as quickly and effectively as possible. What good does it do to identify and assess a million illegals already here in a years time when while doing that, another million are crossing in the interim?

Do I argue amnesty and leaving borders open? No. Of course, you might see fit to define those terms so broadly that nothing short of your fence will suffice, but in any political debate, such victories are hollow. The whole point of talking about these things in a political forum is to gain agreement and consensus. I don’t argue for a blanket amnesty, though in certain cases I’d say we’d be better off being a little forgiving. And leaving borders open? If by that you mean unfenced. yes, but if by that you mean insecure, poorly patrolled, poorly manned and inspected, then you haven’t read a word I’ve written. It’s a cheap debating tactic. I think Bush’s border security and internal immigration enforcement create a dangerous situation.

I asked you in my last response whether you would be willing to settle for beefing up security first before we go for the more radical approach. You never answered. Instead, it’s more charges of sophistry, more allegations that I simply want the exact opposite of what you do.

Why do you not address what I actually say? Are you that distrustful? Are you simply lumping me in with the rest of my party, deciding that I’m no better than a mouthpiece for them?

Borders matter less in this day and age than internal security. They’re still important, which is why I emphasize beefing up security and patrols their. The fact remains, though, that many of these people are already past. Fact remains, the countries that we share a land border with are not the only ones illegal immigrants can cross from. Fact remains, there are ways of getting past the border without being intercepted by the patrols, and even ways to do it so they knowingly wave you through.

The question is, what do we do with the people who are already here? If we’re not going to deport them all, and Amnesty risks encouraging more of them to come over, what happens?

What happens if the fence doesn’t do its job like you planned? It’s easy to see a scenario in which people will be unwilling to admit it’s failure. What then? Do we poor more good money after bad? Would be willing to find fault with the fence once it’s built, or would you be like all the Democrats and Republicans who lack the courage to admit that we will have to seek out difficult alternatives.

This is what makes me highly skeptical of any such zealous approach. The intent to have something work can motivate people to repress the idea that it might not work, to dismiss early warning signs. People become so fond of their illusions about how the world works that they stop the feedback from reality dead from from their senses.

The Republicans won’t end the war. They won’t admit that they can’t cut taxes forever, or that they’re the ones who overspent for the last six years. They won’t admit any number of things because the zealots lead their ranks, and the moderates among them either left the party, or are just too preoccupied with being a good Republican to follow their instincts.

The Border fence sounds like more of the same. Don’t take care of the basics, just propose something grand and do it with unquestioning confidence, unremitting fearmongering regarding the consequences of not doing it your way.

When I hear such arguments, I just feel tired. Not more of this, I say to my self.

The basics of our government need to be rebuilt. That is my philosophy, and if you look, the philosophy of many Democrats.

But if you are unwilling to take us at our word, then you will not be able to get by a perceived past in order to deal with the actual future. Democrats like myself did not win by having poor faith in other people’s common interests. We did not win by thinking other people stupid, or perversely set against their own interests.

It’s nice that you feel you can insinuate all of these evil things about the Democrats, but let me tell you: You will not win by vilifying the very people you hope to convince. Just watching the Republicans ought to have taught you by now. People envied their ability to influence people through their irrational sides, but playing upon people’s fears and hatreds comes with a price, as you absorb the negative emotions, and alienate those who feel compelled by your adversarial approach to throw up their defenses.

Quit spinning fantasies of what might happen to the Democratic party. Given that I don’t buy that the fence is a necessity the way you believe it is, given that I have policy alternatives in mind, and believe in them whether or not you consider my statements sincere, your tactics will not persuade me any further.

I am reminded of Dennis Kucinich’s recent vote against the S-CHIPS program, on the grounds that it wasn’t all he wanted. Those who wait to do any good until they can do all good, however admirable in principle, however good in intention, leave much positive progress undone for their perfectionism.

The world rarely changes all at once. Sometimes a lesser event is needed to set a greater one in motion. Perhaps a fence is needed. But until people are convinced that everything else is insufficient, the support behind it will be weak, and weakly supported programs corrupt easily.

What’s more, why go for the great expense of the wall first, before you’ve tried lesser measures. If you rule out more moderate plans and waste people’s time and energy trying to force the more radical solution on people, you’ll suck all the oxygen out of the air for any other solution.

I’m sick of folks relentlessly pursuing victories of ideals while letting the nuts and bolts drop out of the machine. I am convinced that if we just considered it for a moment, most Americans could agree, in general, on what what they want done, on what standards they’d apply. I think if you were willing to drop the border fence, you’d find more support than you’d expect.

Instead, you just buy all the inside shop talk about what special interests are doing, and so on and so forth. America is dry grass at this moment, and all it takes is a spark. Unfortunately, people have found it far more fashionable to believe that no positive political movement could sweep change over this country.

Tell me: if you have no faith in Democrats to pursue their best interests, how will you ever convince them to do so? Why would you even really try? Modern politics has unfortunately convinced people that making enemies or creating enemies to be feared is more important than making friends, and reinforcing the bonds of fellowship. Nobody can really win by themselves in politics.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2007 09:54 PM

I think if you were willing to drop the border fence, you’d find more support than you’d expect.

David, It’s the fence. If you’d just drop the fence, the Democrats will come around and start enforcing the existing laws (i.e. internal enforcement) and give you “more support than you’d expect”.

You know something … if I thought anyone was really serious about Border Security, I’d drop the fence. But Border Security would still require:

• border patrol


• border patrol vehicles


• cameras might would help


• aerial surveillance might help (helicopters and/or unmanned drones)


• stations spaced at intervals (not necessarily) evenly spaced)


• a road would be nice for patrols to patrol


• motion sensors might help


• siesmic sensors might help


• the 169,000 troops in Iraq are enough to have a person every 187 feet along the U.S./Mexico AND the U.S./Canada border

A fence, if maintained, could slow down trespassers or illegal aliens in vehicles or motorcycles. Especially if there is also a ditch too.

But, let’s say we give up on the fence and ditches.

Do you really think Democrat politicians will then secure the borders and enforce immigration laws?

No.
They won’t.
It’s not really about a fence or a ditch.
It’s about votes and profits from cheap labor.
Politicians are not serious about Illegal immigration, because:

• Democrat politicians want votes and cheap labor for profits


• Republican politicians want cheap labor for profts


• and most voters whine about it, but still reward the politicians with 95.6% re-election rates.

Government won’t become responsible and accountable until the voters do too.
Voters won’t become responsible and accountable until the consequences of their apathy, complacency, and misplaced partisan loyalties become too painful.

The thing to worry about is not only the nation’s many problems growing in number and severity.
The thing to truly worry about is human nature, and decades of increasing selfishness, apathy, complacency, misplaced loyalties fueled by laziness (evidenced in many ways, such as obesity, declining education, debt, and growing moral and fiscal bankruptcy), and most (if not all) politicians that are master parasites and experts at tapping into the voters’ laziness for their own nefarious purposes).

Does that sound too harsh on politicians?
Well, what would you call politicians that effectively pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profit from cheap labor? Yes, I would call that person a master parasite. And that is exactly what the majority of politicians in Congress are.

And if that weren’t bad enough, think some fo these other fine deeds by our Congress persons while our troops risk life and limb, do without medical care, body armor, promised benefits, and two, three, and four tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oh … and Congress gave itself another raise this year (its 9th raise in 10 years).

But most voters repeatedly reward them for it with perpetual re-election and then sit back dumbfounded sayin’ “What the hell happened?”

That is what Americans should truly worry about.
It isn’t that we can’t solve problems if we wanted to.
It isn’t “spinning fantasies”.
The problem is that we don’t want to solve problems … at least, not until the consequences become too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 28, 2007 11:29 PM

Dan-
The problem is, you don’t recognize the power of the voter’s will. Even if pain finally becomes the driving factor, it will be the wish for something better that drives people.

You, however, hold out no hope short of catastrophe that people will go for that.

To me, it makes no sense not to push for things earlier than that. In truth, the call for more security regarding immigration is long overdue. I do want more of it. When I see the whole Border Fence thing, though, I think it’s more a product of people overcompensating for years of neglect on a problem, rather than actually thinking out the alternatives.

What I’m telling David is that you should try reducing the problem by conventional means before you go for such a radical solution on this scale. If you can make things work that way, you’ve saved yourself the expense and the international black eye of the Fence.

At the end of the day, the fence is an expression of impotence in the face of a problem, and expression of hostility towards our southern neighbor, and a display of our fear towards the rest of the world. A wall is what you use to defend against an enemy, but at the end of the day, our problem isn’t one of those. Our problem is that we aren’t managing immigration and border security that well. There are ways of solving that problem short of the extreme of putting up hundreds of miles worth of fencing.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 29, 2007 11:02 AM

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Dan- The problem is, you don’t recognize the power of the voter’s will.

No.

The problem is:

• (1) Democrat politicians (and their loyalists) that want votes, and profit from cheap labor.


• (2) Republican polticians that want profit form cheap labor.


• (3) and too many voters that whine about it, but repeatedly reward the same politicians with 95+% re-election rates.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Dan- The problem is, you don’t recognize the power of the voter’s will.

False. I understand all too well the peoples’ will to pull the party-lever and the evidence to back that up is based on Congress’ 95% re-election rates. The problem is rewarding corruption with 95% re-election rates. You don’t recognize the power of blind partisan loyalties and the voters’ tendency to merely pull the party lever because it is easy to let someone else do their thinking for them rather than recognize the sad truth … that the politicians in BOTH parties are so corrupt, irresponsible, and incompetent that it doesn’t matter who is worse. Need proof of it? Congress has a dismal 11% approval rating, but watch come Nov-2008 … 90% to 95% of Congress will still be re-elected, and the nation’s problems will continue to grow in number and severity. I’ll bet $1000 on it. Why? Because that is what history shows us. Before the last election in 7-Nov-2006, Congress’ approval ratings were very low too. The Main Stream Media was calling Congress the “Do-Nothing Congress”. And it was. And is still is. But what did most voters do in the 7-Nov-2006 election? They still rewarded Congress with 95.6% re-election rates. There was a 3.6% increase in anti-incumbent voting, but it will take far, far more than a mere 3.6% increase in anti-incumbent voting for Congress to get the message. In the mean time, the nation’s problems will continue to grow in number and severity. The wealth disparity trend will continue to widen.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Even if pain finally becomes the driving factor,

Not “if”. Will.

There’s no doubt about it.
History shows progress is VERY slow: 2.00 steps forward and 1.99 steps backward. Maybe too slow.
If we don’t act soon enough on many issues, the painful consequences will be unavoidable. Some already are unavoidable, and the painful lessons are already in the pipeline.
That’s not doomsday rhetoric. That’s a fact. It exists now and has existed for millenia.
In the U.S., Look at the widening wealth disparity.
That doesn’t do much to help the 80% of Americans with only 17% of all wealth.
That doesn’t do much to help the 40% of Americans that have essentially ZERO net worth.
That doesn’t do much to help the 20% of Americans that have negative net worth (i.e. debt).
In 1980, the wealthiest 1% owned 20% of all wealth.
In 2007, the wealthiest 1% own 40% of all wealth.
National Debt is $9 Trillion.
Social Security is actually flat broke (the surpluses are nothing but a promise to repay amounts borrowed from it).

Stephen Daugherty wrote: … it will be the wish for something better that drives people.

True. You are stating the obvious.

It will be their choice.
It will be for something better.
It will be the pain of the consequences of their own decisions that drives them.
It always is. Just look at history. It repeats itself in many ways.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: You, however, hold out no hope short of catastrophe that people will go for that.

Not true. Not catastrophe. Not doomsday.

Just pain and misery that could have been avoided. That’s all.
It is our human nature to repeat the same mistakes over and over.
Would you like to see a few million examples of it?
That is supported and verifiable by looking a human history and psychology.
Only after many re-iterations do we finally learn and adjust.
History shows us that. To refute it is to ignore history and reality.
The problem with learning the slow, hard, painful way is that as the world population doubles from the current 6.7 Billion to 13 Billion by year 2039, all these problems become more difficult and take longer to resolve. People talking using massive immigration to solve fiscal problems don’t understand that immigrants (legal or not) are a drain on the U.S. Not a cost benefit.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: To me, it makes no sense not to push for things earlier than that.

No?

And that is exactly the problem.
What you are describing is at the root of human suffering.
That is exactly why we will suffer the unnecessary consequences.
Because we will wait too long to address them.
Just wait unitl the last moment, or wait until it is too late; unitl there are no good solutions; until the painful consequences are unavoidable.
Or are you saying we have plenty of time and resources to address this growing list of problems? Especially in view of growing corruption, fiscal irresponsiblity,

Stephen Daugherty wrote: In truth, the call for more security regarding immigration is long overdue. I do want more of it.

Then where is it?

I don’t see Democrat politicians or Republican politicians doing much about it.
In fact, most Democrat polticians are trying hard to sneak through another SHAMNESTY BILL.
Most Republican politicians don’t really care about stopping illegal immigration. They are mostly just interested in using it to make the Democrat politicians look bad. And it is working. I’m not really fooled by it, because Republican politicians had 8 years to do something about it and didn’t do a thing until the last minute in 2006 when they saw their poll numbers falling. And then it was only for a few hundred miles of fence and no money to build it.

Democrat and Republican politicians could secure the borders now without a fence, but they won’t because both want profit from cheap labor, and Democrat politicians want votes (and an amnesty).

Stephen Daugherty wrote: When I see the whole Border Fence thing, though, I think it’s more a product of people overcompensating for years of neglect on a problem, rather than actually thinking out the alternatives.

Like I said, even if we took the fence off the table, it would change nothing. Democrat and Republican politicians could secure the borders now without a fence, but they won’t because both want profit from cheap labor, and Democrat politicians want votes (and an amnesty).

Stephen Daugherty wrote: What I’m telling David is that you should try reducing the problem by conventional means before you go for such a radical solution on this scale. If you can make things work that way, you’ve saved yourself the expense and the international black eye of the Fence.

Yeah, yeah.. The fence is just an excuse. I recommend the Republicans take the fence off the table and call that bluff.

In fact, Democrat and Republican politicians could secure the borders now without a fence, but they won’t because both want profit from cheap labor, and Democrat politicians want votes (and an amnesty).

Stephen Daugherty wrote: At the end of the day, the fence is an expression of impotence in the face of a problem, and expression of hostility towards our southern neighbor, and a display of our fear towards the rest of the world. A wall is what you use to defend against an enemy, but at the end of the day, our problem isn’t one of those. Our problem is that we aren’t managing immigration and border security that well. There are ways of solving that problem short of the extreme of putting up hundreds of miles worth of fencing.

Yes, there are ways, but none will materialize. And the fence only represents $8 Billion (about 7 days of interest on the $9 Trillion National debt).

Democrat and Republican politicians could secure the borders now without a fence, but they won’t because both want profit from cheap labor, and Democrat politicians want votes (and an amnesty).

The fence is not the real road-block. But I am going to start recommending that everyone wanting a fence withdraw it and then see if either or both Democrat and/or Republicans will secure the borders.
It ain’t likely, because Democrat and Republican politicians could secure the borders now without a fence, but they won’t because both want profit from cheap labor, and Democrat politicians want votes (and an amnesty).

Again, the real problem causing not only the illegal immigration problem, but all problems facing the nation is:

• (1) Too many irresponsible, corrupt, do-nothing Democrat politicians (that want votes, and profit from cheap labor).


• (2) Too many irresponsible, corrupt, do-nothing Republican polticians (that want profit form cheap labor).


• (3) and too many voters that whine about it, but repeatedly reward the same politicians with 95+% re-election rates by blindly pulling the party-lever; placing all importance on winning seats in Congress above all else; above the nations’ many pressing problems that are threatening the future and security of the nation.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 29, 2007 01:39 PM

Dan-
Parties are to blame, right? No, I’d say it’s a political and economic philsophy that preaches cheapness at all costs, that treats being in business and making a profit as if its some sacred right. It’s an approach to government that sees government interference that cuts into profits as a violation of the free market.

Much of the reason why I broke with the Republican party when I was young was that I had a notion of regulation that some non-economic goods were more important than the almighty buck. The Environment. National Security. Worker safety and quality of life. You get the idea.

Not that I’m for intensely complicated rulebooks and all that, when it’s not absolutely necessary. If you can simplify a list of regulations into a simple set of requirements, you make enforcement and compliance easier. I want a government that works, does some good rather than one that makes unenforceable pronouncements from on high.

The thing is, linear measures are poor guides for history. History has a tendency to not move for quite a while, then release tension, like a fault snapping in an earthquake. As one fault line releases tension, that tension gets stacked on top of the other tensions further down the line. You may think you have history figured out, but the truth is, nobody really does.

One thing for sure: There will be more incumbents turned out as this next election proceeds. What’s more, although it doesn’t seem like it, change is on the horizon.

Let me put it this way: The Republicans have been sitting on, inhibiting a tone of changes in society. They’re like the brakes on that mine cart in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom The Republicans have been pulling that handle hard, and it just broke off in their hands.

You will see liberalism work back into the political system, slowly at first, then like a flood. The current situation is the result of Bush and the Remaining Republicans essentially using their shoe rubber to keep things from happening, and the old-style Democrats yielding in the face of that. However, that situation is temporary. As time goes on, as the memory of Conservative power fades, the Democrats will start stretching their legs, changing things.

I don’t count on things being easy or simple, though. It’s not that progress doesn’t occur fast, it’s that we don’t necessarily know what is progress, or when we’ve gone far enough or too far. History is made and experience by imperfect human beings. But neither nature nor God set us on this earth with absolutely no idea of what is in our own best interests. People can be difficult, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re impossible.

On the subject of overpopulation, it is a problem, but we are no more likely to solve it by stopping immigration.

I’ve seen years of people getting tough on things, declaring war on drugs, terrorism, poverty and other things. With rhetoric you can often get away with a lack of care for the small stuff and inconsistencies that you can’t in real life. The reason you seem to favor this fence seems to be that you think nothing else will get past. The real problem is that you’ve been taught to think not in terms of what people can agree with, but in terms of defeating political enemies. Well, that’s sometimes workable, but the obsessive focus on the relative simplicities and malleabilities of rhetoric and political fights is part of the reason we have this problem in the first place.

If I were to diagnose the problem, it’s not parties, though an excessive loyalty to them relates to the real problem. No, it’s an attitude towards government that is not about solving problems for the American people and the public in general.

Everybody has their interests, their desires. The role of a government is moderate, mediate, and at times inhibit the actions of those within its sovereign borders. Sometimes government can and should leave things up to the people to decide among themselves. But that doesn’t mean that the government, on principle, should be unwilling to step in.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 29, 2007 03:22 PM

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Dan- Parties are to blame, right?

No. We are all culpable. Not just parties. Parties are a symptom and evidence of a more fundamental problem.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: No, I’d say it’s a political and economic philsophy that preaches cheapness at all costs, that treats being in business and making a profit as if its some sacred right. It’s an approach to government that sees government interference that cuts into profits as a violation of the free market.

Greed, laziness, complacency, and apathy to varying degrees in all of us the problem.

However, there are categories.
There are cheaters and heroes and winners and losers:

• Cheaters: most (if not all) politicians in BOTH parties. The are experts at capitalizing on the apathy, laziness, complacency, and ignorance of the masses. Their finest invention is the party-lever, and voters that don’t want to think things through for themselves are all too happy to pull the party-lever.


• Heroes: the people (but a extreme minority) that do their own thinking for themselves, and don’t just buy the party line or pull the party-lever.


• Winners: most politicians (that is, if they have no conscience to spoil their unjust rewards and givnig themselves are raise every year while other suffer).


• Losers: most voters (and their families) because:
  • (1) Despite Congress’ dismal 18% approval rating now (2007), most American voters will continue to repeatedly reward incumbent politicians with 90%-to-95% re-election rates. If the voters prove me wrong, I may have renewed faith in Americans. If not, then American voters have the governemnt and predicament that they deserve.
  
  
  • (2) 40% to 50% of American voters will not even bother to vote.
  
  
  • (3) Come Nov-2008, 2010, and 2012, most voters will still pull the party-lever. Partisan loyalties are powerful, and trump reason. This disconnect is evidenced by Congress’ low approval ratings, but 90%-to-95% re-election rates. The only thing that will trump misplaced loyalties will be the inevitable pain of the consequences. However, it may be too late by the time the sources of those painful consequences are understood (if ever). Most voters believe that THEIR party is the solution. However, we have been letting BOTH parties take turns for centuries, and BOTH seem to be merely taking turns at abusing power and wealth, and carrying the water only for the vastly wealthy who fill their campaign war chests that ensure the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies (since voters elect (90% of the time) candidates (usually incumbents) that spend the most money).
  
  
  • (4) Most voters (99.85% of 200 million eligible voters) will continue to send in their campaign donations ($2.00 per person on average), while remaining ignorant of the fact that 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more; averaging $6667 per person) come from only a very tiny 0.15% of the total 200 million eligible voters.
  
  
  • (5) Most voters will still not know who their state and federal senators and representatives are, much less their voting records. 90% of the time, voters simply vote on the candidate that spends the most money (which is usually the incumbent; as evidenced by Congress’ 90% to 95% re-election rates since 1996).
  
  
  • (6) Most voters will continue to emphasize the few real differences and ignore the many things and solutions that most voters already agree upon; allowing the nation’s pressing problems to grow dangerously in number and severity. It is easier for voters to blame the OTHER party than admit that politicians in BOTH are so corrupt and FOR-SALE, that most real differences are irrelevant. The voters are the one largest group (200 million eligible voters) responsible for their own problems. But the majority of voters choose to blame politicians, rather than take responsibility themselves. Blaming others is always easier than careful and honest introspection and education. Like water and electricity, that flow along the path of least resistance, so do humans choose the same path. At least until the consequential pain trumps laziness.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Much of the reason why I broke with the Republican party when I was young was that I had a notion of regulation that some non-economic goods were more important than the almighty buck. The Environment. National Security. Worker safety and quality of life. You get the idea.

I recall being a staunch Republican at one time. However, from my 50 years of experence, time, history, and observation, I finally realized the truth. It is folly to giving loyalty to politicians of EITHER party, when most (if not all) politicians in BOTH are so corrupt, irresponsible, repeatedly break promises, repeatedly ignore problems, bribe voters with their own tax dollars, give themselves raises every year (9 of the last 10 years), etc., etc., etc., etc.. I could list more examples, but it would probably crash the watchblog.com server computer. These are not merely normal failings and human faults. They are examples of excessive greed and selfishness. The sooner enough voters stop rewarding Congress with 97.5% re-election rates, the sooner politicians (in BOTH parties) will get the message. If not, then the inevitable lesson gets more painful and the deterioration takes longer to undo.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Not that I’m for intensely complicated rulebooks and all that, when it’s not absolutely necessary. If you can simplify a list of regulations into a simple set of requirements, you make enforcement and compliance easier. I want a government that works, does some good rather than one that makes unenforceable pronouncements from on high.

I agree completely, and understand all too well how complexity makes things ripe for abuse (by design). Government is not really that complicated. You know where it always fails? It always fails to recognize and compensate for human nature. Voters fail and refuse to see the truly deep-seated corruption and still pull the party-lever. They will be sorry that did that.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The thing is, linear measures are poor guides for history. History has a tendency to not move for quite a while, then release tension, like a fault snapping in an earthquake. As one fault line releases tension, that tension gets stacked on top of the other tensions further down the line. You may think you have history figured out, but the truth is, nobody really does.

History never repeats itself EXACTLY. But the general story does. Our problem is one that runs in cycles. We are in a worsening cycle of selfishness, greed, apathy, complacency, growing ignorance, and a general decline. Evidence of it is the growing disparity trend of the last 30 years.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: One thing for sure: There will be more incumbents turned out as this next election proceeds. What’s more, although it doesn’t seem like it, change is on the horizon.

I agree. I hope it is enough, and in time.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Let me put it this way: The Republicans have been sitting on, inhibiting a tone of changes in society. They’re like the brakes on that mine cart in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom The Republicans have been pulling that handle hard, and it just broke off in their hands.

This is where we part ways. I see BOTH just about equally corrupt, irresponsible, and incompetent. Remember Vietnam? Remember that Democrats held the majority of Congress for 60 of the last 70 years? Why do you suppose people in 1992 finally decided to try Republicans for a while? Unfortunately, what voters failed to realize then and now is that letting the two main parties take turns is not the solution. The voters must hold Congress accountable; all of them; in BOTH parties. Unfortunately, the current 97.6% re-election rates between Nov-1996 and Nov-2006 are sending a very loud message. With such high re-election rates, is is no surprise that politicians still do almost what ever they damn well please. Even break the law and possibly still get a pardon.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: You will see liberalism work back into the political system, slowly at first, then like a flood. The current situation is the result of Bush and the Remaining Republicans essentially using their shoe rubber to keep things from happening, and the old-style Democrats yielding in the face of that. However, that situation is temporary. As time goes on, as the memory of Conservative power fades, the Democrats will start stretching their legs, changing things.

Bush is a $%&*#!^@. There’s no doubt about it. But he has a party that supports his B.S. And there are Democrats that aren’t standing up to Bush either. They could have. I was hoping they would. But they are just as corrupt and wishy washy as the Republicans. Most (if not all) are irresponsible, corrupt, incompetent, and greedy. They spend most of their time campaigning and trolling for big money, rather than solving the nation’s pressing problems, and the evidence of it is the growing list of problems growing in number and severity. Illegal immigration is a good example of BOTH Republican and Democrat politicians sinking to one of the most despicable acts I’ve seen by either one for years:

• (1) Democrat politicians (and their loyalists) that want votes, and profit from cheap labor.
• (2) Republican polticians that want profit form cheap labor.
• (3) and too many voters that whine about it, but repeatedly reward the same politicians with 97.6% re-election rates (average between Nov-1996 to Nov-2006).

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t count on things being easy or simple, though. It’s not that progress doesn’t occur fast, it’s that we don’t necessarily know what is progress, or when we’ve gone far enough or too far.

Our list of growing problems and being ignored for decades is a good measuring stick. People are slowly catching on. But will it be enough in time?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: History is made and experience by imperfect human beings.

That human factor is the part that we fail to adequate account for with adequate Education, Transparency, and Accountability. Sounds simple, but it first requires Virtue and Conscience. Our problems are not unfixalbe. Our problem is the will to fix them.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: But neither nature nor God set us on this earth with absolutely no idea of what is in our own best interests.

I am angostic, so Gods have nothing to do with it in my opinion.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: People can be difficult, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re impossible.

I wouldn’t be absolutely certain of that. Do you know how many wars there have been in the last 100 years? Humans are not nice to each other. And with the world-population at 6.7 Billion and scheduled to reach 13 Billion by 2039, I am not encouraged. I fear for my son’s (now age 25) future, but I’m glad I won’t be around to have to deal with it.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: On the subject of overpopulation, it is a problem, but we are no more likely to solve it by stopping immigration.

Yes. But I’m not sure it will happen. There are people in government that have more sinister plans. They view human populations as something to be exploited (for profit or votes). Also, it’s not just the U.S. the we have to worry about.

With the world population growing by 249,000 per day (10,375 per hour; 91 million per year), it is more serious than 99.9% realize.
In 2006, there was 1.15 acres of arable land per person (i.e. 7.68 billion acres / 6.68 billion people).
By 2039, there may be only 0.53 acres of arable land per person (i.e. 7.68 billion acres / 13 billion people and 38,610 square miles per year of arable land being lost).
There are many think tanks around raising red flags, but almost no one is listening.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’ve seen years of people getting tough on things, declaring war on drugs, terrorism, poverty and other things. With rhetoric you can often get away with a lack of care for the small stuff and inconsistencies that you can’t in real life. The reason you seem to favor this fence seems to be that you think nothing else will get past. The real problem is that you’ve been taught to think not in terms of what people can agree with, but in terms of defeating political enemies. Well, that’s sometimes workable, but the obsessive focus on the relative simplicities and malleabilities of rhetoric and political fights is part of the reason we have this problem in the first place.

Not true.

Like I said, forget the fence.
And they watch and observe.
Democrat or Republican politicians will STILL do nothing.

Also, I would not call discussion on Debt, illegal immigration, taxation, Social Security, voting, the Constitution, etc. “obsessive focus on the relative simplicities and malleabilities of rhetoric”. In fact, I’m of the increasing opinion that trying to educate voters is a waste of time. The only education they are likely to understand is the painful consequences of their own apathy and complacency.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: If I were to diagnose the problem, it’s not parties, though an excessive loyalty to them relates to the real problem. No, it’s an attitude towards government that is not about solving problems for the American people and the public in general.

Yes, but it is truly more basic than that.

The real problem is an unpleasant fact of human nature.
For example, consider the average re-election rate for Congress from Nov-1996 to Nov-2006 is 97.6%
So, with such high probability of re-election, why pay any attention to voters that re-elect them anyway?
Why do voters give Congress dismally low 11% approval ratings and then reward politicians with 97.6% re-election rates?
A dismal 11% approval rating for Congress and 97.6% re-election rates make no sense, Right?
Why does this happen?
That simply makes no sense.
At least, not until you understand human nature.
Humans take the path of least resistance, just like electrons in a copper cable or flowing water.
There are some people that understand this fact of human nature very well, and know how to capitalize on it.
They know how to capitalize on the majority of voters apathy, complacency, and lack of awareness, while avoiding detection; ironically without victims wanting to admit to ever being manipulated or scammed.
So the majority of voters seek the path of least resistance and effort.
And the polticians are all too eager to oblige with a party-lever.
Now voting and letting THEIR party do their thinking for them is easier than ever.
And it is VERY powerful.
From my own experence, I recall being a staunch Republican at one time.
However, time, history, and observation finally convinced me of the folly of giving loyalty to politicians of EITHER party, when most (if not all) politicians in BOTH are so corrupt, irresponsible, repeatedly break promises, repeatedly ignore problems, bribe voters with their own tax dollars, give themselves raises every year (9 of the last 10 years). It takes years for most to realize this. I could list more examples, but it would probably crash the watchblog.com server computer.
No amount of logic or reason can overcome it … at least, not until that finally becomes too painful.
And that is why education in a voting nation is so important.
How can voters make informed choices if they are never aware (nor want to admit) of the extremely effective control mechanisms that trick them into empowering and rewarding the very people that are using and abusing them?
There is one consolation: Most voters will eventually get that education (if it comes in time).
It will be the smart way:

• (a) the informed, intelligent, logical, educated, peaceful way,


• (b) or the unnecessarily late, painful, hard way (again).

Just based on history, and the pace of progress (very slow; 2.00 steps forward and 1.99 steps backward), I believe we can safely bet on (b).

So, the problem is all of us.
It’s not just the IN-PARTY, or the OUT-PARTY, or the politicians, or the voters.
It is truly about some (without scruples) who use others, and the majority of others (most voters) that allow it (due to apathy, complacency, and disinterest).

If there is a way to make things better, I think it will require better education (not just the three R’s, but about government and the unpleasant fact of human nature; and how to deal with it).

Responsibility = Power + Conscience + Education + Transparency + Accountability

Corruption = Power - Conscience - Education - Transparency - Accountability

Corruption grows when and where there is:

insufficient Conscience, which creates a lack of caring, which creates

insufficient Education, which paves the way for growing ignorance, which creates

insufficient Transparency, which creates opportunities for self-gain, which creates

insufficient Accountability, which means there are no consequences, which creates

insufficient Responsibility,

and Power amplifies the problem, as laws are perverted to do the very things they were originally supposed to prevent.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 29, 2007 06:02 PM

Dan-
Agreement with our policies would be a start. Then you add the fact that the folks in Washington have been remiss in fulfilling their promises. That’s what’s frustrating here.

What’s also frustrating is that you seem to be a one issue person. Both parties are corrupt, both deserve to be voted out, Etc.

Well what do you got to replace it?

In the meantime, I agree with most of what the Party professes. Nobody’s forcing me to believe these things.

I think the parties can be reformed, but it will take what you might call a secularization of focus, where the focus is on practicalities, rather than on bashing dogmas against each other.

I think it’s important to get past the rigid definitions of these groups, because in reality, none of them are solid, monolithic. I think it’s important to understand the way philosophies and belief leak back and forth between these supposedly separate groups of people. These commonalities can provide paths for political movements and shifts to take.

Understanding this, I see stumbling through history in pain to be unnecessary. We don’t have to continually knock our heads against the wall to see change happen. We can take a short cut.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 29, 2007 09:03 PM

Stephen Daugherty wrote: What’s also frustrating is that you seem to be a one issue person. Both parties are corrupt, both deserve to be voted out, Etc.

Yes, politicians in BOTH parties are corrupt, irresponsible, and incompetent because:

• they are more concerned with re-election and the security of their cu$hy, coveted seats of power
• gettin’ all they can while they can
• votin’ on pork barrel, graft, waste, and corporate welfare (see; CAGW.ORG for pork-barrle report cards)
• Congress voting itself 9 raises in the last 10 years
• refusing campaign finanace reform
• ignoring Article V of the Constitution
• Habeas Corpus
• starting wars based on flawed intelligence
• irresponsible spending
• taxing
• creating massive $9 Trillion National debt (63% of GDP)
• plundering $12.8 Trillion from Social Security
• Gerrymangering
• earmarks
• SHAMNESTY BILL; tryin’ to sneak amnesty into BILLs
• eminent domain abuse, and supported by the Supreme Court too
• regressive tax system
• regressive inflation from excessive money creation
• abused presidential pardons
• growing government to nightmare proportions
• pandering
• bribing voters with their own tax dollars
• refusing to secure the borders and ports
• refusing to enforce existing immigration laws
• selling out Americans; raising limits on H1B Visas and Green cards
• shifting $70 Billion to $338 Billion in annual net losses by illegal aliens to American tax payers
• pitting Americans and illegal aliens agaisnt each other for votes and profit from cheap labor
• campaign finance fraud
• lies (broken promises and lies: “read my lips”, “I did not have sex with that woman”, “We found the Weapons of Mass Destruction”, etc.
• caps on Social Security taxes (very REGRESSIVE; the wealthy participate, but do not contribute an equal percentage of income tax)
• waste: the missing hundreds of billions in the Pentagon?
• waste: unused airline ticket totaling $100 Million
• waste: embezzled funds from the Department of Agriculture
• waste: credit card abuse at the Department of Defense
• waste: Medicare overspending, waste and fraud; Medicare pays as much as eight times what other federal agencies pay for the same drugs and medical supplies
• waste: Funding ficticious colleges and students
• waste: manipulating data to encourage spending
• waste: state abuse of Medicaid funding; 32% of illegal aliens receive welfare
• waste: earned income tax credit overpayments of $9 Billion
• waste: redundancy piled upon redundancy piled upon redundancy
• waste: 342 duplcate development programs
• failing miseably to prevent the preventable: 11-SEP-2001

Want to continue this debate? I say they are corrupt, and you don’t?

Yes, BOTH deserve to be voted out.
But that’s up to the voters.
Until the, the voters have what they deserve.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: What’s also frustrating is that you seem to be a one issue person.

Not true.

What are these 15 important issues (and numerous sub-issues) on my web-page?
What on that appears to be one issue?
One issue voters are easy to manipulate.
As for voting out irresponsible incumbent politicians, isn’t that what we were supposed to be doing all along?
Are you saying we are supposed to keep rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with 97.6% re-election rates?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Well what do you got to replace it?

Challengers.

There are lots of them.
But unfortunately, most voters like yourself that ask “Well what do you got to replace it?”, so the incumbents enjoy a 97.6% re-election rate.
Unfortunately, over 90% of time, voters vote for the candidate that spends the most money, which are usually incumbents, who have many unfair advantages.
Then when those politicians frustrate you and you say as above “the folks in Washington have been remiss in fulfilling their promises. That’s what’s frustrating here.”
Don’t you think rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with 97.6% re-election rates might have a little something to do with why “the folks in Washington have been remiss in fulfilling their promises. ? Eh?
Sorry to be so logical, but don’t you think there is a connection between the two?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: In the meantime, I agree with most of what the Party professes. Nobody’s forcing me to believe these things.

Most? Just not refusing to secure the borders?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I think the parties can be reformed, but it will take what you might call a secularization of focus, where the focus is on practicalities, rather than on bashing dogmas against each other.

What it will take is what is most likely already on the way: Pain. It is the only motivator stronger than blind partisan loyalties. But I understand all too well how difficult it is to cut through the misplaced loaylties.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I think it’s important to get past the rigid definitions of these groups, because in reality, none of them are solid, monolithic. I think it’s important to understand the way philosophies and belief leak back and forth between these supposedly separate groups of people. These commonalities can provide paths for political movements and shifts to take.

The only thing leaking back and forth are billions of tax dollars being wasted and stolen.

Government is FOR-SALE. Politicians refuse all attempts at campaign finance reform.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Understanding this, I see stumbling through history in pain to be unnecessary.

Sure, it is unnecessary.

But that is exactly what has happened, and that is exactly what will happen.
History shows it.
Just in the past 90 years we have had 7 wars (2 still ongoing; 3 if you consider Korea unfinished).
We’ve had a civil war.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: We don’t have to continually knock our heads against the wall to see change happen. We can take a short cut.

I agree.

And the short cut is not rewarding Congress with 97.6% re-election rates; empowering, rewarding, and programming them to become more corrupt, irresponsible, and incompetent.

“continually knock[ing] [y]our head against the wall to see change happen” is repeatedly re-electing irresponsible incumbent politicians.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 29, 2007 10:33 PM

Stephen, the parties are to blame, as are the voters that support them without demanding and holding them accountable for results.

The parties exist to server one purpose only today, to win and keep control of power. History of the last 25 years proves the parties have failed in even this their number one reason for existence. But, it also means that all other considerations including party philosophy, ethics, national needs and long term growing problems all take a back seat to the next election which is always less than 2 years away.

Pandering to voter’s short term benefits regardless of long term fiscal detriment is precisely how the Democrats lost to the Republicans in 1992. If you believe the Democratic Party has learned its lesson, you will be sorely disappointed. There are some Democrats in Congress like Steny Hoyer, Russ Feingold, and a handful of others who know such pandering and short term fiscal irresponsibility as evidenced by Democratic earmarks in this year’s bills, belie their party having learned its lesson.

Which is why these few, are meeting with the National Press Club and hammering home the message that the Democratic Party must stop acting as agent for itself, and truly begin to act as the agent for responsible governance short, and especially, long term.

Sen Reid and a great number of other Democrats in the Senate and House don’t get it, don’t want to. Their entrenched view holds to the old yarn: ‘You can’t do what’s right if you don’t have the power to make things happen.’ Which keeps the horse race the dominating and overriding priority for the Democratic Party, instead of good and even great governance.

A large number of Democrat incumbents who support this party and elections first, responsible governance last historical perspective, need to be removed before the Democratic Party can be forced to subscribe in a majority, to the view that only responsible governance can insure the long term efficacy of both the party and the nation.

Obama understands this. Hillary obviously does not. Hillary leads because the majority of Democratic voters also subscribe to the short term horse race goal, instead of the long term responsible governance goal. If Hillary wins, it will continue to be politics in the front seat, responsible governance and national problem solving in the back seat.

I fervently hope Obama can pull his campaign out of 2nd place in Iowa and N.Hampshire, and win, to provide the Democrats in Congress the vision and perspective so desperately needed by our fiscal situation. If he doesn’t, it will be Wa. D.C. Politics as usual with endless deficits and no resolution to political fiscal mismanagement.

As Bernanke, Greenspan, and Hoyer and Comptroller Walker have all indicated in the plainest possible terms, we don’t have any more time to politic around the fiscal responsibility needed for the next 75 years of our nation