USA Politics

I think a path to citizenship is essential. Studies have shown time and time again that illegal immigrants tend to be more law-abiding and pay more taxes than citizens in their own right. A lot of them would be citizens, they just can't get to that point. I see nothing wrong with getting people into a country who want to work there.

Indeed, immigration is the engine that has driven America's prosperity. Denying immigration is tantamount to denying US heritage.

It's funny how (historically) anti-immigration crazes in the US and Canada are only intense when it's someone who is other. Anti-Irish, anti-Jew, anti-Slav, anti-Asian immigration laws and campaigns fill Canadian history, and I know the US is the same.

The foremost expert in US immigration history, Bob Zecker, is a former prof/occasional drinking buddy of mine, and I've heard his rants a few times. Hilarious man.
 
Certainly, every group of people that has come over here has not been treated well, the deal with Mexico is different though for a few reasons

1) Just the sheer numbers
2) The number that come over illegally
3) a seeming unwillingness/slowness  to "Americanize", namely speaking Engligh, compared to previous groups
4) the "rable-rousers" that insist on that American culture adjust to the immigrants versus the previous gradual integration where the new citizens Americanize and America adopts some of their culture (from food, to customs, to clothing, etc).
5) the general feeling that our relatives (in some cases immediate relatives) did it the right way and did not seem to complain/demand as much (again this is probably a vocal minority of Mexicans in the US).
 
Immigration did indeed fuel this country's growth. But in this day and age there needs to be control of the flow. I just wish the politicians on both sides were serious about all sides of the debate, instead of using the issue as a political football.

As for a pathway to citizenship, there should be a vetting process to verify who is applying, a conduit to there home countries to verify birth records and criminal history. The candidate, if approve for citizenship would pay a fine. I suggest they learn to speak english, not because I am xenophobic, but to help them better understand thier rights and responisbilities and to have a better understanding of how things work, like employment, social services and their legal rights and responsibilites.  I also belive they need to reform the I-9 employment eligibility form that employers must submit. I also believe they should have employment, as not to be a burden to an overtaxed system, but it is a catch 22. How could they verify their employment if they are off the books.

People that are for the blanket deportation of all illegals don't really know how impossible it would be logistically. As for securing the border, we can have all the boots on the ground and eyes in the sky, but it won't do much good if the laws are'nt enforced.

I think assimilation is for the good of the person coming here. My Grandparents emmigrated from Hungary and Italy. They learned english as quickly as they could so they could know everything that is going on first hand and communicate effectivley. They also made the practice of speaking english in their houses so my parents would have a good grasp of the language.
 
It is looking more and more likely that Rick Perry is going to run for the GOP nomination.  There is no clear front runner, he cannot run for governor again (term limits), he just had a succesful budget session and can say the state still has $6B in reserve.  He can appeal to the social and fiscal conservatives in the GOP without being too much of a religious zealot to turn off moderates (compared to Santorum, etc).
 
How fucking stupid can you be? I mean, I saw that, and I was like...really? The guy's name is Weiner. What a tool. He really shafted himself on this one. Exposed what a fool he is.

I can keep going!
 
I figured I'd see a Weiner joke in here somewhere.  By the way, some free advice to all:  I don't care how proud you might be about your cock, it is ALWAYS a bad idea to take a picture of it, let alone send that picture via the interweb.  It can't possibly end well.  

LooseCannon said:
How fucking stupid can you be? I mean, I saw that, and I was like...really? The guy's name is Weiner. What a tool. He really shafted himself on this one. Exposed what a fool he is.

I can keep going!
Click to expand...

In refusing to resign, Weiner is standing firm.  
 
I'm one of the few hoping he doesn't resign. I'm not familiar with his politics and never heard of the guy until now. The reason I want him to stay is because I think it was wrong that Bill Clinton got impeached for the reason he did. (Yes he lied to a jury but his sexual behavior should've remained private. I blame the media for this) I think Weiner's situation is the same, and it is about time people seperate politicians personal lives with their political careers. Although I do believe that what he did was incredibly stupid.
 
Thank God this debt ceiling is over, I generally enjoy following politics .. but this was quite frustrating to watch and I can promise the deal reached will not cut the deficit anywhere near as adverised.   

I am of course assuming the Senate passes it today and Obama signs it.

It was nice to see Rep. Giffords show up for the vote yesterday in the House.
 
Yeah. I think everyone's disgusted with Congress. Republicans get what they want in the short term but the Democrats do in the long term. It's not a terrible deal. It's better than no deal. Default? Downgrade? Both of those are nightmare scenarios for the entire world.
 
Aaaaah, I remember the good old days 2000-2001. Only 5.6-5.8  trillion dollars in debt and 60% of the GDP.

Then came the wars and it increased (Bush managed to reduce it short term like he promised somewhere in the middle of his term) due to less revenue and higher expenses. Then came the recession in 2007... And here we are.
 
I have mentioned it before, but I think the longer term solution to this is something along the lines of the base closing commissions of the early 90s.  After the Cold War ended, it was decided we could cut the number of bases we have to save money.  Congress would never agree on what bases need to be shut down, there were way too many  in Congress that wanted to protect bases in their district/state needed for defense or now (which I suppose is part of their jobs to keep jobs in their district). 

A base closing commision was formed with military experts, Dems and Republicans and they came up with a fairly extensive list.  When it went to Congress, their only options were to vote yes or no (no amendments).  It passed and did a good service to the country by saving money and keeping a strong defense for the new post Cold War world.  It certainly was not perfect, but it was on balance really good.

I know there was recently a debt commissions with Alan Simpson (amongst others), but the problem with that was the scope was way too large, giving everyone the opportunity to vote no.

There are cuts to be made in social programs, defense, health, SS, etc and make the programs better at the same time.  A series of panels similar to the base closing one focusing on small issues (bases, weapons systems, unemployment, SS, Medicare, Corporate taxes, etc) and let Congress vote them yes or no. Alternate them between programs/taxes associated with the GOP and Dems evenly. 

Panels should have simple charters of how to spend the least amount of money to ensure a program (or series of programs with the same goal) meet the stated goal of the program and have both a short term and long term view.


I do think with the current deal, Obama got the thing he most wanted, being that this will not come up again until 2013.  His poll numbers have taken a huge hit as well, a CNN poll out today had him at 45%, which is in line with other recent polls.
 
Everyone's numbers dropped. Every poll I saw blamed the Republicans more than Obama - Obama's support, if I had to guess, was lost from the hardcore left-wingers who would have rather seen default than a compromise.

If I recall correctly, there will be a new super-commission come out of this that will have some very interesting powers. I don't know how close it will be to the base closing commission, but from what I understand, a lot of Tea Party Republicans were told they wouldn't get a chance to be on the committee if they voted against the compromise. Which is apparently important. So, hopefully it has more power than Simpson-Bowles, which was, after all, a fact-finding, non-binding committee.
 
I am a bit unclear how the new comission will work, it shows some promise.  I do think the Tea Party gets and deserves some credit for making this an issue and making at least some "cuts" (put cuts in  quotes since they are not actually cutting anything, but slowing future spending increases).  The terms of the debate have shifted quite a bit from a few years ago. 

No one looked good in this process and it is somewhat surprising they got at least some "cuts" through, a divided Congress does not happen all that often.  It will be interesing to see how this plays out after the elections if Obama wins and if the GOP captures the Senate (or narrows the gap down to 1 or 2 seats).

The one thing that would be troubling for Obama in polls is that he is upside down with independants now, if he is to be reelected, he needs to be at least even with them and rally a fair portion of the first time voters from last time to come out and vote again.  If I were to bet, it would be for him to be re-elected now based on the GOP field now. they need someone else to step in to have a decent shot at it.  Perry seems the best bet at this point in time. 
 
Rick Perry would be a disaster as a president. Ugh. Romney? I could deal with Romney. Huntsman? Sure. Pawlenty? Boring, but whatever. Perry? No thanks. Not after the crap he's pulled in Texas.
 
Not fond of Perry on several of his social issues, though I really have that problem with a lot of GOPers .. but on a fiscal front, he has had a good run here.  Texas is in much better economic shape than most states (and certainly better than all the large states like CA, NY, IL, OH, PN, MI, FL, etc)  and that is what he can run on and possibly win ... the next election will be all about economics, I suspect social issues and foreign policy will be well in the background (beyond attack ads and plays to the bases).
 
I honestly don't know if I agree with you, there. He's done a lot of fiscal magic to make it work for Texas, like pushing back the school payments to the day after the fiscal year in order to get them off the books. The cuts have been intense as well, but that's what Texas elected him to do, I suppose.

I think the social stuff is just as important, as the President gets the bully pulpit to push whatever he wants.
 
No doubt there has been some budget trickery, but I still think he can make the case that relative to other states (which use the same tricks) TX is in better shape not just with the state budget, but housing prices, unemployments, etc.  Compared to other states though, the cuts really have not been that intense, most of the local districts around here have been able to balance their budgets with minimal teacher cuts and transportaion projects are moving forward quickly. 

I suspect he can score points on Texas adding jobs during the recession in most sectors, from tech, service, to manufacturing.  The state just scored a pretty major locomotive project near Fort Worth from GE, when most every other challenging location was in Mexico, there are plenty of stories like that of companies moving here, a fairly large rail project just completed 1 year early, under budget and with 0 federal dollars, etc.

I think this prayer deal he is doing today is stupid and really wish the GOP could jettison some of the more hard line social conservatives ... as I am sure there are Dems that wish they could jettison some wing of their party (or Social Conservatives that might want to jettison me :) )

But, I do think this election will focus more on economic issues versus social as the last election did.  Given the current field, if he entered I have to think he has a very good shot at winning the nomination and is the type of candidate (a non -Washington politician with some record of success) that would give a good contrast to Obama and hope that people want change and will see him as a clear change.  The challenge as always will be the Dems trying to paint him as a conservative whack job and the GOP to portray him as a normal right of center candidate and Obama is a leftist ...
 
I can't pretend to be as familiar with his record as you are. I only read the occasional report about Texas, and I think when it comes to finances, you still have to look at Romney or Pawlenty or Huntsman, though they ruled in better times, I think. Romney's still the thousand-pound gorilla in the room. I think Perry would start out strong and flame out fast, to be honest, in the primaries. Though, that's why the primaries happen.

If he gets in, he's going to be an instant target for the progressive machine. It'll hurt him in the northern states. He'd have to work hard to get votes from the Bachmann people as well. He polls less favorably than some suggest. But he could win, and be competitive for the same reasons George W. Bush was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top