I thought farm workers were already exempt from minimum wage, there's no way big ag would agree to this stuff if the fed's try to enforce min wage there.
I think it is a total, pathetic attempt by Bush to pander for the Hispanic vote. Dumbass, you are rewarding these people for BREAKING our laws. Once you have amnesty, we will be overrun and more of our money will go south to Mexico. GWB, carry out your constitutional duties by defending our border states from an invasion of illegal drugs and immigrants. Put the military on the border, round up the folks that are here illegally and send them packing. What is so difficult about that? Our healthcare system is collasping in these border states because of these folks getting freebies even though they are not even citizens. This is the final nail in the coffin with me and Bush. If I would have wanted a liberal Democrat, I would've voted for Gore. Bush is an enemy of personal and economic liberty and I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade. I can't believe the arrogance of the GOP that says "so what if we screw over our base, betray everything we claim to believe in on the domestic front, our voters won't go elsewhere. Who are they going to vote for, Dean?" Bastards.
So you're not voting for Bush, you'll probably vote libertarian like you usually do because of this issue, right? http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.html Ouch! No help there...maybe you can join the the Know-Nothings, that actually sounds about right to me.... http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/knownot.html
Actually Pat Buchanan's policies on this one subject are more close aligned with bamaslammer and me! Yowza.
Did you see Pat on Good Morning America this morning? I was....I was actually nodding my head in agreement.... With Pat Buchanan.... What a world! I think the true right is a bit peeved at Bushie boy these days.
Just because one aligns oneself with a party, doesn't mean that you are in complete lock-step with everything they stand for. And that "Know-Nothing" comment, what a bunch of crap. I don't have a problem with people immigrating LEGALLY. It's the people who piss on our laws by hopping the fence and piece of **** limpdick politicians who want to pander to their votes who draw my ire. My mother is an immigrant and so are her parents. In fact, I'm first generation American. But they came in legally. Big difference. But I guess lobbing accusations of racism (by throwing me with a bunch of nativists) is par for the course with you, Sam. Your arrogance is sometimes downright amazing.
Yes, you're mother is of Japanese descent, I'm aware of that. Actually, I just thought it was fun to align you with the 'know-nothings', if they were called the "nativists" it wouldn't be quite as amusing and I wouldn't have bothered. On the larger issue, you haven't failed in the past to proclaim loudly and colorfully about the Libertarian party this and Libertarian party that in the past, more out of jingoistic populism rather than in any true Libertarian sense. Free and open access to markets is the linchpin of a libertarian philosophy. It's just not enough to say "Governement is evil!!!" like you frequently do, that is incomplete, and ignorant, and more along the lines of a silly bunker dwelling conspiracy theorist ranting than an expression libertarian philosophy. What a true libertarian in the philosophical or economic would say is that "Governement interference is not necessary BECAUSE free markets always provide the most efficient (and thus the most desirable) outcome". That holds true for labor markets as well as any other, if you're a true libertarian. Otherwise, it seems like you're just cherry picking, to suit your own jingoistic agenda.
I think you are mischarcterizing my beliefs. My problem with this whole Bush deal is that it rewards and encourages further lawbreaking. It's bad enough we have over 8 million illegals running around here who broke the law to come into this country. Free markets require a rule of law to sustain and protect them and without that, they can not exist. Govt. in some forms (DOD, highway construction, etc.) is benefical, but the vast majority of it is simple transfer from the producers to the non-producers. When you have a whole culture where the prevailing wisdom is "good enough for govt. work" is the axiom and there is no free market forces driving any excellence like in govt, you have the bloated, horrific gluttonous beast that rules over us rather than fufills its constitutional dictates. I wish that lawmakers had to square the new vote-buying schemes they hatch with the Constitution, which they do not. So what if I believe that the U.S. does and always should hold dominion over the rest of the world? Of course we are the best! I'd much rather us be the supreme military power than say.....China or a united Europe. I know you probably think it would be nice if the U.S. SHARED power, but let me tell you, you don't want that. Nor do you want us to be secondary to some other state. I question the patriotism of anyone who doesn't want us to continue to be the world's reigning power. It's like saying that you are a Rockets fan, but it wouldn't be fair to the rest of the NBA to win two championships in a row, so let's let the Jazz win one. Now back to the immigration debate. The issue at hand is the reward of people breaking the law. When we pay these "guest workers" (or whatever bull**** term that pandering weasel Bush wants to pin to it) to leave our country with Social Security benefits they have no right to, we are simply encouraging more illegal immigration. Because if they (our govt) did it once (the payoff), they will do it again. I don't have a problem with people coming here legally. But when you hock a lugey on the laws of the land I swore to protect and defend, I get irate. When our govt wants to reward those people for doing exactly that, I am enraged. I think that our borders are a security risk and a real danger to the "Homeland," but Bush wants to sacrifice that on the altar of political points. With the exception of the tax cuts and his war on terrorism, Bush has done nothing to earn re-election. When compared to Dean, he is simply bad as a compared to horrible. I don't want to pick the lesser of two evils; I want a candidate who believes in the preservation of liberty both economic and social and the defense of this nation. Neither Dean or Bush do that.
I think that our borders are a security risk and a real danger to the "Homeland," but Bush wants to sacrifice that on the altar of political points. With the exception of the tax cuts and his war on terrorism, Bush has done nothing to earn re-election. When compared to Dean, he is simply bad as a compared to horrible. I don't want to pick the lesser of two evils; I want a candidate who believes in the preservation of liberty both economic and social and the defense of this nation. Neither Dean or Bush do that. Out of curiousity, do any of the candidates currently running in the Democratic primaries appeal to you? Are there other mainstream Republicans that appeal to you? This is one of the reasons I had so much hope for Clark. He seemed to have the potential to be a non-politician and maybe be able to resist the pandering by credibly being above it all, but the more I see him, the more he seems like he's trying to be a politican (which he's not good at). I'd also vote for McCain for similar reasons - he used to be the pure politician, but I get the sense that he's honestly trying to rise above that.
I hate to say it, but I'd have to vote for none of the above. I had no love for Clark, because of what I knew of him from his time as general, which was not distinguished in the least. In fact, I can think of no general who was so disliked. Now if General Shelton ran, which he will not, he would be a good candidate. None of the major party candidates are anyone of merit and/or deserving of the position of C in C, including our present one. I know that must come as a surprise to many of you, but I just can't believe some of the things that Bush has done on the domestic side. They are a betrayal of the principles he supposedly cherished and the doing of Karl Rove and his "great plan." With the Republican Party, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." With the Democrats, I was that way back in 1980, as a 12-year old who followed politics from the time he could read. My Dad voted for Carter, thinking him, a Southerner, would be the kind of moral compass who could lead America to a better day. Instead, he got stagflation, a gutted military and a rudderless foreign policy. My Dad, a life-long Democrat, crossed the party lines back then to vote for Reagan and has never looked back. Now, my old man, a former Marine like myself, is now thoroughly disgusted with the GOP as he was with the Dems 24 years ago.
Actually I did not. In the last election I agreed more with an amalgam of the third party candidates than I did with either major party candidate.
You don't work your way up by getting pay increases at entry level/low skill jobs. You work your way up by getting better jobs by improving your skills and abilities and demonstrating a work ethic that makes you attractive to employers.
Too bad he's getting slammed by liberals and conservatives alike. Nutcase conservatives can get all up in arms about it, but this is a great step in the right direction, especially considering the slant of so much Bush has said and done. Liberal should take it for what it is, a moderate policy being proposed by a rightwing President. Sometimes those on the far left should realize supporting Bush when he's relatively moderate can have the great effect of marginalizing the far right's influence. I heard Bush's speech, and for once he didn't sound totally stupid. As for being 'overrun,' as one here has suggested...I think you need to review a little history of exactly who 'we' are as a people.
You know, I'm not really convinced that this is a political ploy to get hispanic votes, because I feel like whatever minimal gains he might get in the hispanic community, they will be offset by other people disliking the policy. What I really think is at play is this: now that we have the illegal aliens on official payrolls, they have to pay social security and medicare taxes. However, since we can kick them out after 3 years (or 6 if they get their 1 extension), they're not going to be able to cash in on this. This will reduce the long term social security deficit. Sure, employers will have to kcik in an extra 6.2% payroll tax, but that cost will be offset by the fact that they now have a more stable stream of low income workers. So the 6.2% (of minimum wage) is basically an insurance premium against variance in the (heretofore) illegal alien labor market. Do I think it's a clever idea? Yes. Do I think it's a sleazy idea? Without a doubt. This seems really exploitative to me, and I for one am disgusted by it. I'm all for more open immigration; I think that's a great idea. But I have to also say that I agree with Bama that it doesn't seem right to reward people that broke laws in entering our country illegally by legitimizing their previous act. Let's have a fair immigration policy, where we don't just tease people for 3 (or 6 years), get their payroll taxes, and kick them out. As a child of immigrants, I'm a bit disturbed at what this policy is doing to the American dream.
Gee whiz...I wonder if the pResident is going to grant amnesty to illegal aliens like the guy next to him in this picture???
Anybody who thinks that this policy is about pandering for Hispanic votes or a "moderate" solution is dead wrong. While those might be welcome side effects, they are not the engine of this policy. I don't know if you've read the WSJ editorial page ever, but one of the core concepts of conservatism since the 80s has been access to cheap, illegal immigrant labor. This might not be important to the christian right, or various xenophobic buchananites, but access to Pedro so he can clear your driveway, etc. has been important to the guys who write the checks and to whom the Repulbican party has ultimately sold its soul for a long time ago. Pretty much every single policy enacted by this President has been designed with the goal of protecting the interests of large corporations and promoting socioeconomic conditions so that the upper classes can retain and accumulate ever larger quantities of wealth, subsequently one hand washes the other come campaign time; it's no coincidence that hte President has broken all records (despite McCain Feingold) for fundraising this year. More of the same...
I just don't understand some of the people on this board. I don't agree with some of Bush's recent actions such as the Medicare legislation and as much as I see benefits from this legislation, I do have my doubts. But these are both very Democrat style issues. I would imagine you guys if you were truly looking out for your ideals would be ecstatic with the recent legislation. I think the republican party is taking issues away from the democratic party and it will hurt them tremendously during election time. SamFisher, If they simply wanted to continue to take advantage of the people, why not leave the system how it is? I personally feel that having illegal immigrants actually helps the economy be more efficient because it limits the silliness of a minimum wage. Though many of these people recieve services they pay a considerable amount in other taxes like sales tax. Now these people will be here legally and will pay taxes, but will have to recieve at least the minimum wage and will have to recieve benefits like everyone else. What would you and RM Tex propose they do about the illegal immigrant population here?? At least now they can be documented, not taken as much advantage of and will pay taxes.
FD Khan, I never said I opposeed the amnesty grant at all. I just pointed out the rationale for the policy by those who made it; It doesn't matter if it's legal or illegal...as long as there is the ability for a plentiful supply of cheap brown people, the bankrollers of the GOP are happy. Tax cuts targeted to the top 1%, repeal of the Estate tax (which only affects the ultra ultra rich) repeal of various adminstrative regulations in various contexts, such as FCC cross market ownership regulation, sweetheart tax breaks for energy companies, , privatization of medicare resulting in wealth transfers to insuresrs and pharmaceutical companies, and now protection/promotion of a below minimum wage labor supply There's a common theme behind all these actions. I'm just pointing it out; the goal/function of the Republican party is to protecct the intersts of the power classes in every possible socioeconomic, and to clear the way for them to accumulate more wealth in exchange for campaign cash and hence political power....and then one hand washes the other and the cycle goes all over again Why do you think that the income inequality in this country continues to skyrocket and the middle class disappears? And the great part is that its accelerating even today...the headline in the times this morning was how luxury goods retailers had a great Q4, while discount stores like Wal-Mart (the place where more Americans shop than anywhere else) had average-to disappointing Q4s. The Rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Guess which one you are? I just wonder how long the GOP can continue this charade before there are serious social consequences on a massive scale.
