I'm against illegal immigration

[AceTracer]

I'm against abortions.
I'm against illegal drug use (I don't drink, smoke, or do drugs)
I'm against terrorism.

You know what else I'm against?

I'm against banning abortion.
I'm against this nation's "war on drugs" and "war on terror".
I'm against our broken immigration system.

Banning abortion doesn't stop women from having abortions; it just kills more women.
Our "war on drugs" hasn't helped anyone except the people who build prisons.
Our "war on terror" has only helped terrorists achieve their goals of keeping us perpetually afraid.

I think that our system is broken, and it needs to be fixed. There are 20 million illegal immigrants in this country, and only 10,000 green cards (http://www.dianahsieh.com/images/blog/immigration-764383.jpg) are allotted every year. If you do the math, that means it is virtually impossible for an unskilled immigrant without relations in the US to become a citizen. You all say you're for legal immigration, but what if legal immigration is impossible?

Even if you are a skilled immigrant without US relations, and successfully run through the gauntlet that is our current immigration system, find an employer willing to sponsor you and pay the $10,000 in legal fees, it can still take 6-10 years to receive a green card and 10-16 years to become a citizen.

Whether you like it or not, people will always use drugs, people will continue to get abortions, and people will continue to emigrate to this country, as they have for hundreds of years. We can try to find practical, reasonable approaches to dealing with these issues, or we can continue our myopic absolutist policies.

We already know which one doesn't work.

[LedZap]

Let's see if I've got this right so far...You have no clue on abortions , you want all drugs to be LEGAL so we don't have to build more prisons , and you want to end the war on terror...so what if the terrorists bring the war back to us. Right ?

[AceTracer]

Banning abortion doesn't reduce the number of abortions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8305217.stm), it just kills more women.

Drug addiction is a health issue and needs to be handled as such. Our prisons are not meant to be drug treatment centers or mental health facilities, and yet that's what the majority of them are. Why are we spending $100,000 on an inmate when $20,000 in treatment will do a better job? Do you like seeing all your tax dollars going to waste?

The TSA spent $200 million on behavioral experts (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20005453-10391695.html); they have yet to spot a single terrorist. We take off our shoes, put our liquids in little bottles, fly with air marshals, and how many terrorists have been caught through these safeguards? Zero. The underwear bomber, just like the shoe bomber, was deterred by an ordinary citizen. We've spent billions on homeland security, and we're no safer now than we were before 9/11.

In any case, this thread is about immigration. Maybe let's stick to that?

[LedZap]

So just get rid of the TSA then ? Citizens will take care of it ? Did you ever think that the lack of terrorists might be due to the fact that the TSA is there and the terrorists (knowing that) aren't trying to get in ?

[AceTracer]

The lack of terrorists? There've been two terrorists in just the last six months, and the TSA failed to catch either of them.

But I'm sure they're doing a great job, just ask the TSA themselves.


An internal TSA report said screeners in Los Angeles and Chicago airports missed fake bombs on agents in more than 60% of tests in 2006. (Source (http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/story?id=5579637&page=1))

I've never seen such a disproportionate waste of tax payer money as the TSA.

[LedZap]

The lack of terrorists? There've been two terrorists in just the last six months, and the TSA failed to catch either of them.

But I'm sure they're doing a great job, just ask the TSA themselves.



I've never seen such a disproportionate waste of tax payer money as the TSA.
I'll repost this ...
Did you ever think that the lack of terrorists might be due to the fact that the TSA is there and the terrorists (knowing that) aren't trying to get in ? We've spent a lot of money on nukes also...and look , not one nuclear attack.

[AceTracer]

And I'll repost this...

Terrorists are still trying to get in, and the TSA isn't stopping them. There isn't a single terrorist that has been stopped by the TSA, of the several that have tried.

If the TSA has done anything, it's show how incompetent they are at stopping terrorism. I imagine that would give a terrorist incentive, not remove it.

[LedZap]

The TSA is stopping them...by just being there as a deterrent.

[AceTracer]

The TSA is stopping them...by just being there as a deterrent.
If that helps you sleep at night, go right ahead thinking it's true.

[LedZap]

Personally , I worry more about border and port security , than airlines.

[AceTracer]

Personally , I worry more about border and port security , than airlines.
Ah, but see there's no benefit to that. Sure, only 7-10% (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp) of the cargo that enters U.S. ports is scanned for chemical, nuclear or biological agents. But that's only a problem if we were trying to secure our borders. We're just trying to provide the illusion of security. So we spend billions of dollars on things like the TSA, so that people feel safe, and you can sleep at night. Meanwhile, nobody is actually at those ports, so why waste any money on that? It doesn't help maintain our illusion of security.

And using your logic, shouldn't our wide open ports have caused some kind of horrible terrorist attack by now? There's no deterrent!

And you should be thankful all those Mexicans crossing the border aren't terrorists, because they aren't being deterred at all! Did I mention all the terrorists caught so far were either American citizens or had valid visas?

[LedZap]

Not by "now" , but as soon as Iran can build a nuclear device , IMO. And once again as I've pointed out before , the TSA works as a deterrent. There's been no hijacked airplanes smashing into buildings since the TSA.

[AceTracer]

And once again, as I've pointed out before, the TSA has yet to deter a single thing. There's been no hijacked airplanes smashing into buildings thanks to the quick thinking of brave American citizens acting on their own.

I like this game, let's keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

[LedZap]

And once again, as I've pointed out before, the TSA has yet to deter a single thing. There's been no hijacked airplanes smashing into buildings thanks to the quick thinking of brave American citizens acting on their own.

I like this game, let's keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

OK...to re cap...you say get rid of the TSA , we don't need them cause the citizens will take care of any threat on the airlines...just like 9-11 , right ? Why is it that you can't see that the reason there has been no terrorists caught by the TSA , is because by simply being in place deters any "intellegent" person from trying to perform an act of terrorism. Guns and knives are the terrorist weapons that work.Terrorists know they can't get these weapons by the TSA. So they tried other "weapons" that obviously didn't work.

[AceTracer]

OK...to re cap...you say get rid of the TSA , we don't need them cause the citizens will take care of any threat on the airlines...just like 9-11 , right?
Right. The citizens on Flight 93 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93) took care of their threat on 9/11. Just as every other airline threat has been taken care of since, no thanks to the TSA.


Guns and knives are the terrorist weapons that work. Terrorists know they can't get these weapons by the TSA.
I wasn't aware that guns and knives were allowed before 9/11. The TSA has only been around since 9/11, so what did we do before then? Just allow anyone with a gun or knife to board a plane? That seems a bit dangerous, it's a wonder more planes weren't hijacked sooner!

Also, I don't remember any of the 9/11 terrorists using guns or knives. Do you really want to get into the argument over things allowed by the TSA that can potentially be used as weapons? Because I can come up with quite a few.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/bag_check.png

[LedZap]

One out of Four (but they ALL DIED)...the other three jets killed thousands of people. I guess the citizens missed those...oh well , right ?

Before the TSA you could get on board with a knife or whatever , no problem. And you don't remember them using knives on 9-11 ? Almost all airliners hijacked before that were taken by gun wielding terrorists.

[AceTracer]

One out of Four...the other three jets killed thousands of people. I guess the citizens missed those...oh well , right ?

Before the TSA you could get on board with a knife or whatever, no problem.
Weird, because I do remember flying before 9/11, but I don't remember a lot of guns or knives. In fact, I distinctly remember that knives with blades larger than four inches were prohibited (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/521678/posts).

You know what's still allowed on planes? Metal scissors with pointed tips and blades shorter than four inches. Also, tools (including screwdrivers) up to seven inches in length. Also, DOT approved lighters. Says so right here on the TSA website (http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-prohibited-items.shtm). But no one could use those as weapons, right?


And you don't remember them using knives on 9-11?
No, I remember them using box cutters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks#The_attacks) .

[Montanarchist]

This is a great thread, absolutely agreed!

[LedZap]

You obviously have no idea the damage that can be done with a pad knife (box cutter).I've used them for years doing carpet and vinyl floor coverings. Being 10 X sharper than a standard knife with a heavier handle they make excellent slashing weapons. WAY better than a 4 inch pocket knife....metal scissors , please ,that's ridicules.And DOT approved lighter ? What are you going to do with that , besides smoke in the restroom ?

You may think you "remember" that there were no weapons on airliners before 911.You are wrong. There were lots of hijackings with guns and knifes. But not after 911. It's a no brainer. Before there were no scanners , you could walk right on board with whatever you want. The TSA changed all that...no hijacked airplanes.

[AceTracer]

You may think you "remember" that there were no weapons on airliners before 911. You are wrong. There were lots of hijackings with guns and knifes. But not after 911. It's a no brainer. Before there were no scanners , you could walk right on board with whatever you want. The TSA changed all that...no hijacked airplanes.
Well, thanks for the revised history lesson. I remember it differently.


Prior to the 1970s American airports had minimal security arrangements to prevent aircraft hijackings. Measures were introduced starting in the late 1960s after several high-profile hijackings.

Sky marshals were introduced in 1970 but there were insufficient numbers to protect every flight and hijackings continued to take place. Consequently in late 1972, the Federal Aviation Administration required that all airlines begin screening passengers and their carry-on baggage by January 5, 1973.

(Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_security#United_States))

[Carrot]

I
I think that our system is broken, and it needs to be fixed. There are 20 million illegal immigrants in this country, and only 10,000 green cards (http://www.dianahsieh.com/images/blog/immigration-764383.jpg) are allotted every year. If you do the math, that means it is virtually impossible for an unskilled immigrant without relations in the US to become a citizen. You all say you're for legal immigration, but what if legal immigration is impossible?

Even if you are a skilled immigrant without US relations, and successfully run through the gauntlet that is our current immigration system, find an employer willing to sponsor you and pay the $10,000 in legal fees, it can still take 6-10 years to receive a green card and 10-16 years to become a citizen.


This point is one I don't understand. You seem to be suggesting doling out green cards to anyone who asks is the answer. Changing the lable from "illegal" to "legal" doesn't do anyhting. People are alright with legal immigrants because they are usually higher skilled, and have lived in the us over 10 years and can speak good english.

[LedZap]

Right. The citizens on Flight 93 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93) took care of their threat on 9/11. Just as every other airline threat has been taken care of since, no thanks to the TSA.



This is the kind of statement I constantly get from you that is so logically flawed.To say that the citizens on board the 911 hijacked planes ( ALL of them DEAD) took care of their threat. Dieing is not "taking care of your threat".

[LedZap]

Prior to the 1970s American airports had minimal security arrangements to prevent aircraft hijackings. Measures were introduced starting in the late 1960s after several high-profile hijackings.

Sky marshals were introduced in 1970 but there were insufficient numbers to protect every flight and hijackings continued to take place. Consequently in late 1972, the Federal Aviation Administration required that all airlines begin screening passengers and their carry-on baggage by January 5, 1973.

(Source)

Exactly...and it still didn't work. Since TSA there have been no hijacked airplanes.

[Carrot]

This is the kind of statement I constantly get from you that is so logically flawed.To say that the citizens on board the 911 hijacked planes ( ALL of them DEAD) took care of their threat. Dieing is not "taking care of your threat".

I think you're dissillusoned with the amount the TSA does.

You had to be scanned pre 9/11, the only difference at check in is the liquids and sometimes shoes. While other things are allowed on.
The stats ace posted, along with the fact that people have gotten onto planes with devices, shows that it hasn't made much of a difference.

You say there have been no planes hijacked since 9/11 with the new deterrent, but how often did it happen before 9/11 when there wasn't a deterrent?
Once on a public flight, once on a fedex flight by an annoyed employee.

It's better to have them than not, but to call it effective, let alone cost effective is a stretch.

[LedZap]

I think you're dissillusoned with the amount the TSA does.

You had to be scanned pre 9/11, the only difference at check in is the liquids and sometimes shoes. While other things are allowed on.
The stats ace posted, along with the fact that people have gotten onto planes with devices, shows that it hasn't made much of a difference.

You say there have been no planes hijacked since 9/11 with the new deterrent, but how often did it happen before 9/11 when there wasn't a deterrent?
Once on a public flight, once on a fedex flight by an annoyed employee.

It's better to have them than not, but to call it effective, let alone cost effective is a stretch.

You had to be scanned pre 9/11, the only difference at check in is the liquids and sometimes shoes?.....The difference is what happened on 911 without TSA compared to now.

[Carrot]

I hardly think pointing out a one-off isn't repeating itself is a sigin of success. That, and intelligence has been stepped up.

A major hijacking only occured once in 30 years without the TSA. So lets wait another 20 years before we tout it's brilliance......

[LedZap]

I hardly think pointing out a one-off isn't repeating itself is a sigin of success. That, and intelligence has been stepped up.

A major hijacking only occured once in 30 years without the TSA. So lets wait another 20 years before we tout it's brilliance......

That's fine. But getting rid of it as the citizens can take care of themselfs against armed terrorists is moronic at best.

[Carrot]

That's fine. But getting rid of it as the citizens can take care of themselfs against armed terrorists is moronic at best.

True, saying citizens should be the ones responsible for their own security with terrorists and airtravel is fairly idiotic. Unless EVERYONE on a plane is required to have a gun,lol, I actually think that could work.



.

[AceTracer]

I'm not saying citizens should be solely responsible. I'm saying the TSA has been absolutely useless since its inception, and we should get rid of it. Let's go back to the old system of private contractors hired by the airlines, and use the $7 billion on something a bit more productive.


For fiscal year 2008, the TSA had a budget of roughly $6.8 billion. Congress appropriated $4 billion and law mandated an additional $500 million, while fees brought in the remaining $2.3 billion.
That is a lot of tax payer money to spend on an agency that has failed every test given to them.


Failure of TSA screeners to detect fake bombs brought through security by undercover TSA agents, with detection levels much lower than private security agents on the same tests. In the most recent tests, conducted in 2006, security screeners at LAX failed to identify 75% of fake bombs, while Chicago O'Hare screeners missed 60% of the bomb components. Private screeners in San Francisco missed only 20% of the prospective bomb parts.
(Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration#Criticisms) )

[AceTracer]

It kind of baffles me that there is clear evidence that a government bureaucracy is wasting $7 billion a year doing a worse job at something than private companies, and you're all for it.

The health care reform law will cost $9 billion a year and that will actually save lives everyday, but that's somehow the spawn of Satan.

Baffling.

[Limbo]

It kind of baffles me that there is clear evidence that a government bureaucracy is wasting $7 billion a year doing a worse job at something than private companies, and you're all for it.

The health care reform law will cost $9 billion a year and that will actually save lives everyday, but that's somehow the spawn of Satan.

Baffling.

How can you be so certain of the effects and costs of Obamacare?

It seems to me that it is much more likely that Obamacare will wreck the system of private insurance that works so well for the middle class. People will wait to buy insuranxce (and pay the fine) until they get sick, and then buy the best insurance they can find once they are sick. This is exactly what is happening in Massachusetts and it's financially unsustainable.

Frankly the approach taken by Obama and his Demorat cohorts is wreckless and irresposible and driven by ideology. A more measured, stepwise approach is what they should have done.

[AceTracer]

People are alright with legal immigrants because they are usually higher skilled, and have lived in the us over 10 years and can speak good english.
What percentage of those people do you think have ancestors who were skilled workers, spoke perfect English, and applied for the proper documentation before coming to this country?

The utter hypocrisy of people who are okay with their family doing it 100 years ago, but not with other families doing it now is also baffling. And the funny thing is, immigration was viewed the same way back then. The influx of Irish, Italian, and Polish immigrants caused the same ire from earlier British, German, and Dutch immigrants. And now the descendants of those same immigrants are doing the same thing to Mexicans today.

Sadly, history has a way of repeating itself.

[AceTracer]

It seems to me that it is much more likely that Obamacare will wreck the system of private insurance that works so well for the middle class.
Do you really believe this? Because if there's one thing that everyone on both sides of the aisle could agree on it's that the current system was broken. Let's remember that Republicans and Democrats agreed on 80% of the bill, and the bill itself has its roots in the plan Republicans gave as an alternative to Clinton's health care plan.

I hate the health care law, and I've given my reasons for it, but to claim that the current system "worked so well" is...well, baffling.



A more measured, stepwise approach is what they should have done.
We seem to have completely opposing viewpoints. This is the measured, stepwise approach, and it's bullshit. The bill is nothing but a bailout for the health insurance companies. With no public option, we're required to buy insurance from private companies, they know this and will hike up their rates sky high and know we have to pay for it. It's the law.

[AceTracer]

I still don't understand why you're ok spending $7 billion/year in tax payer money to do a job that private companies can clearly do better on their own, but aren't willing to do the same elsewhere.

It's these weird conflicting arguments conservatives make that confuse me. You want free trade, but are against immigration. You want Social Security and Medicare, but are against big government. You want less government spending, but are against cheaper, better alternatives to prisons, the "war on drugs", and the "war on terror".

True libertarians, though we disagree on a lot, seem to at least be consistent in their viewpoints, and we agree on certain things (like stopping wasteful government spending in the name of national defense and homeland security).

[Limbo]

Do you really believe this? Because if there's one thing that everyone on both sides of the aisle could agree on it's that the current system was broken.

Yes, there were problems with the system, but the 90% of Americans with insurance were receiving the best healthcare in the world. In an ideologically and politically driven rush, they wrecked the system for the majority of Americans to cover the 10% without good insurance (and most of them were still receiving good care when they needed it). That's the travesty of Obamacare.

If Obamacare is not gutted, you will get your single-payer, government run system because Obamacare as it is written will wreck private insurance. The Dems will use this as a justification for a government takeover of the system.

[AceTracer]

Yes, there were problems with the system, but the 90% of Americans with insurance were receiving the best healthcare in the world. In an ideologically and politically driven rush, they wrecked the system for the majority of Americans to cover the 10% without good insurance (and most of them were still receiving good care when they needed it). That's the travesty of Obamacare.

If Obamacare is not gutted, you will get your single-payer, government run system because Obamacare as it is written will wreck private insurance. The Dems will use this as a justification for a government takeover of the system.
Can you elaborate on how it will wreck the current system, and how it will wreck private insurance? Nothing will change for Americans who currently have health insurance. If you can tell me what will change that would affect current Americans with health insurance, I'd love to hear it.

And how will it wreck insurance companies? In 2014 you'll be required to buy health insurance. It's the law. And better yet, the government will help you pay for it! Do you know how many industries would kill for that kind of law?

[Limbo]

Can you elaborate on how it will wreck the current system, and how it will wreck private insurance? Nothing will change for Americans who currently have health insurance. If you can tell me what will change that would affect current Americans with health insurance, I'd love to hear it.

Companies will just pay the fine rather than pay for health insurance for employees. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36926.html)




And how will it wreck insurance companies? In 2014 you'll be required to buy health insurance. It's the law. And better yet, the government will help you pay for it! Do you know how many industries would kill for that kind of law?

There is another option you failed to mention, and that is to not buy insurance and pay a small fine. Under Obamacare, as I already pointed out, coverage will start immediately when you buy insurance and insurance companies will not be able to deny coverage or charge more for people with pre-existing conditions. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that many people will just keep paying the small fine for not having coverage, and then buy Cadillac coverage when they need it, and then drop it again once they don't need it anymore.

This can only lead to skyrocketing rates or huge losses for the insurance companies. Even Massachusetts has a 6 month waiting period for pre-existing conditions to discourage gaming of the system.

http://american-conservativevalues.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/obama-care.gif

[AceTracer]

If companies dropped health insurance that'd be the greatest thing that could ever happen to their employees. The companies would then pay the government $2000 per employee under the current plan, and the government could in turn provide subsidized coverage to the employees without a middle man. The problem with our health insurance system is that we pay obscene amounts of money, much of it wasted in administration costs, and aren't any healthier for it. All of the other industrialized nations pay between two to three thousand dollars per capita (http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm) for their citizens, and they all have better quality of life. If companies want to pay the government to provide their employees with health insurance, I'm all for it.

So you're against the one thing everyone agrees on, that preexisting conditions should be covered, because of the possibility of some people to game the system?

The only people that wouldn't get insurance are the people who willingly don't get insurance now because they don't need it. You yourself mentioned "only" 10% of Americans lack health insurance, and of those only a percentage choose to go without it because they don't need it. Even if everyone of those people tried to game the system, it'd be a rounding error to the insurance companies, especially compared to all the new people they'd have signing up thanks to the mandate.

[AceTracer]

I love the fact that I started a thread about immigration, and everyone wants to debate with me about everything except immigration.

[Carrot]

What percentage of those people do you think have ancestors who were skilled workers, spoke perfect English, and applied for the proper documentation before coming to this country?

The utter hypocrisy of people who are okay with their family doing it 100 years ago, but not with other families doing it now is also baffling. And the funny thing is, immigration was viewed the same way back then. The influx of Irish, Italian, and Polish immigrants caused the same ire from earlier British, German, and Dutch immigrants. And now the descendants of those same immigrants are doing the same thing to Mexicans today.

Sadly, history has a way of repeating itself.

Perhaps, becase back then there was shortage of labour, and this was recognised so immigration was actively encouraged. There weren't any systems to leech off either.

Back then, the immigration was required for building a nation and a needed increase in poulation and labourers, now (illegal/uneducated) immigrants can't be said to be aiding the economy.

The government recognises this, back then they were doling out green cards to anyone who landed on US shores, now not so much.

[Montanarchist]

Perhaps, becase back then there was shortage of labour, and this was recognised so immigration was actively encouraged. There weren't any systems to leech off either.

Back then, the immigration was required for building a nation and a needed increase in poulation and labourers, now (illegal/uneducated) immigrants can't be said to be aiding the economy.

The government recognises this, back then they were doling out green cards to anyone who landed on US shores, now not so much.But if that's the case open borders wouldn't be a problem since there's no demand for mexican laborers.

[Limbo]

If companies dropped health insurance that'd be the greatest thing that could ever happen to their employees. The companies would then pay the government $2000 per employee under the current plan, and the government could in turn provide subsidized coverage to the employees without a middle man.

If it's cheaper for companies to pay a $2000 fine rather than buy insurance for employees, then obviously the insurance would cost a lot more than $2000. That means taxpayers will be footing the bill for the difference. I know to a liberal, there is no limit to what taxpayers can fund (just ignore what is happening in Greece, Spain, etc.).



The problem with our health insurance system is that we pay obscene amounts of money, much of it wasted in administration costs, and aren't any healthier for it. All of the other industrialized nations pay between two to three thousand dollars per capita (http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm) for their citizens, and they all have better quality of life. If companies want to pay the government to provide their employees with health insurance, I'm all for it.


You cannot ignore cultural differences when comparing the overall health of Americans and Europeans. You can't attribute all the differences to the healthcare system alone. Europeans tend to have a healthier, more active lifestyle. My experience is the health care system here in the States is far superior to the system in Canada where I lived for the first 30 years of my life.



So you're against the one thing everyone agrees on, that preexisting conditions should be covered, because of the possibility of some people to game the system?

The only people that wouldn't get insurance are the people who willingly don't get insurance now because they don't need it. You yourself mentioned "only" 10% of Americans lack health insurance, and of those only a percentage choose to go without it because they don't need it. Even if everyone of those people tried to game the system, it'd be a rounding error to the insurance companies, especially compared to all the new people they'd have signing up thanks to the mandate.

What I am against is setting up a system that will bankrupt the country and lead to worse health care for most Americans in the long run.

[Carrot]

But if that's the case open borders wouldn't be a problem since there's no demand for mexican laborers.

What? Sometimes I think you get lost with all your free market models.

They ome over in the hopes of getting work....or are competeing with citizens, sometimes by undercutting the minimum wage, and not paying taxes....

[Patt]

Meanwhile, there is this from the Democrats - a small move, but an important one that will be hidden in the Financial Regulation package.


The White House and congressional Democrats have made repeal of the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act a priority, after negotiations over health care reform with the insurance industry broke down. McCarran-Ferguson allows insurers to be regulated (http://healthtopic.nationaljournal.com/2009/10/impact-of-antitrust-exemption.php) by states instead of the federal government. http://www.mainjustice.com/2009/10/21/democrats-press-antitrust-exemption-repeal-for-insurers/ You get the import, I hope. It takes away yet another of the State's implicit rights to regulate themselves, thus giving the Federal Government the right to say what is and isn't mandatory within a state regarding health insurance. I, can on the one hand, understand the desire to open state's markets to smaller insurance companies in the fostering of competition. I cannot though understand the need to remove yet another 10th Amendment Right.

Schumer's saying that this is an 'accident of history' is his thinking that he and his cronies now know more and are more competent than those that went before him. I truly dislike that attitude. It's gotten us into too many messes since Obama and his elitists came to town.


Leahy’s bill would repeal the exemption established in the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act for any companies engaged in price fixing or bid rigging — which are both already illegal. He has introduced similar legislation in other Congresses, including a broader repeal of the underlying law. Reid is a co-sponsor of the current bill.

In the House, where Democratic leaders are exploring the issue further, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) has introduced legislation that would essentially end McCarran-Ferguson and give the federal government the right to regulate insurers at the national level. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28276.html Emphasis is mine.



Interesting that they couldn't get this into the Health Care Bill so they are back for another bite. This time though, they need to do it under cover of darkness. So, instead of some people harping on Republicans for NOT supporting the Financial Reforms package, like Pelosi the big mouth bitch said today, perhaps they should dig a little deeper and see that the minority is trying to stave off attacks on the people's rights to govern themselves. This time, through the 10th Amendment.

[Montanarchist]

What? Sometimes I think you get lost with all your free market models.

They ome over in the hopes of getting work....or are competeing with citizens, sometimes by undercutting the minimum wage, and not paying taxes....Obviously because there's a demand for cheap labor created by the minimum wage and taxation (among others). If anti-market limitations (borders, wage floors, etc) were removed then the wages would approach an equilibrium in both the USA and Mexico since american and mexican laborers would be competing with each other on equal terms.

[Carrot]

First of all, many mexican immigrants are unemployed.

If those limitations were removed you still have a large amount (even more) immigrats competing for a limited amount of jobs... puttingyour own citezens at isk of losing theirs. Why accomodate when your own economy is struggling?

And even then, mexicans would be willing to work for less because money sent back to mexico has a greater value than if it is used in the states... so they could still work for less than is feasable for someone living in the states....

Just take a second and think of the consequences if the states threw open it's borders and gave anyone that asked a geencard...

[Montanarchist]

First of all, many mexican immigrants are unemployed.Yes. My argument is mainly theoretical.
If those limitations were removed you still have a large amount (even more) immigrats competing for a limited amount of jobs... puttingyour own citezens at isk of losing theirs. Why accomodate when your own economy is struggling?Creative destruction. Yes, there would be unemployment, but an economic crisis means that we're moving forward. Low wages would send price signals, giving rise to entrepreneurs that in time will make use of the labor surplus.
And even then, mexicans would be willing to work for less because money sent back to mexico has a greater value than if it is used in the states... so they could still work for less than is feasable for someone living in the states....It would even out over time. Mexican suppliers wuld respond to the spike in demand.
Just take a second and think of the consequences if the states threw open it's borders and gave anyone that asked a geencard...The problems I see are mainly of administrative nature for the govt, which is easily fixed by removing the administrative parts of govt.
But technically speaking, anyone can have a greencard. As long as your born inside of the United States.

[Carrot]

Yes. My argument is mainly theoretical. Creative destruction. Yes, there would be unemployment, but an economic crisis means that we're moving forward. Low wages would send price signals, giving rise to entrepreneurs that in time will make use of the labor surplus.It would even out over time. Mexican suppliers wuld respond to the spike in demand. The problems I see are mainly of administrative nature for the govt, which is easily fixed by removing the administrative parts of govt.
But technically speaking, anyone can have a greencard. As long as your born inside of the United States.

The thing is, I've nticed that your arguments tend to assume people a) Are knowlegable b) are quick to react c) rational and d) consider the larger picture. But I think when you look at what people actually do, it doesn't conform to theory. Especially when only a select amount of variales are looked at.

And to be born in the united states, you have to get in it first.

[AceTracer]

Perhaps, becase back then there was shortage of labour, and this was recognised so immigration was actively encouraged. There weren't any systems to leech off either.

Back then, the immigration was required for building a nation and a needed increase in poulation and labourers, now (illegal/uneducated) immigrants can't be said to be aiding the economy.

The government recognises this, back then they were doling out green cards to anyone who landed on US shores, now not so much.
This doesn't make any sense. More people means more taxes being paid into the system. We already have 20 million illegal immigrants in this country, wouldn't we want to make them citizens to make sure they were paying taxes and contributing to our system?

If you're afraid of immigrants leeching off government services then keeping them illegal is exactly what you don't want to do.

[Carrot]

It doesn't make any sense that a large influx of uneducated people into a struggling economy with already high competition forjobs will have a negaive impact?

Why not just try hrder at NOT letting them in, illegal or not? Suddenly changing "illegal" to "legal" and allowing even more in won't fix anyting....

[Montanarchist]

The thing is, I've nticed that your arguments tend to assume people a) Are knowlegable b) are quick to react Comparative advantage in entrepreneurship. The ones who are knowledgable and the ones are quick to react will take their chance. This excludes the vast majority of people, but it still works.
c) rationalAll human action is axiomatically rational. Decisions may not be thought through all the way, but they serve a purpose. In one way or another.
and d) consider the larger picture.When did I assume this?
And to be born in the united states, you have to get in it first.No, only your parents. Otherwise it almost doesn't matter what you do, if you're born in the US you're being held to a different standard.

[Carrot]

@mont
and e) that they wn't try to abuse the system.

a&b
yes, it excludes the vast majority of people, especially when it comes to the situation we're looking at


c
...they servea purpose. If you tnk doughnuts are possesed then it's "rational" not to eat thew. But you know what I mean when you say rational.

d
it's insinuated as part of ts scenario.

Well yea...to be born in the united states your parents have to get in it...you can't if you're not born.

[AceTracer]

If it's cheaper for companies to pay a $2000 fine rather than buy insurance for employees, then obviously the insurance would cost a lot more than $2000.
It absolutely would. The article you linked to showed that Verizon spends over $2 billion on health insurance, and would only pay $600 million in fees to the government.

You miss my point though. The problem is that health care is too expensive in this country, unreasonably inflated by a broken system that health insurance companies take advantage of. If we took those private companies out of the equation, removing virtually all promotional and administrative costs, it wouldn't cost double what it does in every other industrialized nation to get proper health care.

If companies want to stop paying for private insurance, and instead pay fees to the government who in turn use those fees to provide cheaper government subsidized care, I'm all for it. I'm sure there are conspiracy nuts out there who think this was the plan all along.

[AceTracer]

Meanwhile, there is this from the Democrats - a small move, but an important one that will be hidden in the Financial Regulation package.
Nothing in your post showed any evidence that this was "hidden" anywhere in the finance reform bill.

[Limbo]

You miss my point though. The problem is that health care is too expensive in this country, unreasonably inflated by a broken system that health insurance companies take advantage of. If we took those private companies out of the equation, removing virtually all promotional and administrative costs, it wouldn't cost double what it does in every other industrialized nation to get proper health care.
.

As usual, your reasoning is sloppy, biased and inaccurate.

Check out the rates of obesity around the world. Obesity is a good measure of overall poor health, poor diet and lack of exercise, all of which are related to high health care costs:

http://miscellanea.wellingtongrey.net/comics/2007-05-06--world-fatness.png

According to the CDC (Obesity costs billions) (http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/r040121.htm), obesity related healthcare costs were $75,000,000,000 in 2004 and have been increasing every year since.

Now if we look at your much beloved liberal and politically correct Sweden ;), the obesity rates are about a third of ours. So if we were as fit as the Swedes, we could cut our healthcare costs by at least $50,000,000,000 a year!

And what about the excessive litigation we have here in the United States (from Wiki)?


"About 10 percent of the cost of medical services is linked to malpractice lawsuits and more intensive diagnostic testing due to defensive medicine, according to a January 2006 report prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP for the insurers’ group America’s Health Insurance Plans. The figures were taken from a March 2003 study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that estimated the direct cost of medical malpractice was 2 percent of the nation’s health-care spending and said defensive medical practices accounted for 5 percent to 9 percent of the overall expense."

So add in another $150,000,000,000 sucked out of the system by the greedy lawyers (who are totally in bed with the Demorats), and that's $200,000,000,000 in extra costs that you wouldn't get in Europe.

So don't tell me the higher costs of healthcare in the U.S. are purely the result of the system itself and "greedy insurance companies". That is a phoney argument. Of course, Democrats love phoney arguments, because they are the only thing they have to promote their horrible and damaging agenda.

Luckily, most Americans get it and will express themselves accordingly in November.

[AceTracer]

Am I understanding your post right?


Americans are unhealthy, so health care costs more money.
If Americans were as healthy as Swedes, American health care wouldn't cost so much.

You just pretty much proved my point for me.

[AceTracer]

Does this mean you agree that we should get rid of farm subsidies?

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kyvytnlXKa1qz63hpo1_500.jpg

[LedZap]

Am I understanding your post right?


Americans are unhealthy, so health care costs more money.
If Americans were as healthy as Swedes, American health care wouldn't cost so much.

You just pretty much proved my point for me.

No...this was your "point"...

"The problem is that health care is too expensive in this country, unreasonably inflated by a broken system that health insurance companies take advantage of. If we took those private companies out of the equation, removing virtually all promotional and administrative costs, it wouldn't cost double what it does in every other industrialized nation to get proper health care."

You stated nothing about "Americans are unhealthy, so health care costs more money."

[Limbo]

Am I understanding your post right?


Americans are unhealthy, so health care costs more money.
If Americans were as healthy as Swedes, American health care wouldn't cost so much.

You just pretty much proved my point for me.

Don't be a smart a$$. You know what I meant.

[Montanarchist]

and e) that they wn't try to abuse the system.Taking advantage of the system is always what's being done. Incentives have to be aranged in a manner which prevents this from happening.
yes, it excludes the vast majority of people, especially when it comes to the situation we're looking atBut it still works since it does not concern the vast majority of people.
c
...they servea purpose. If you tnk doughnuts are possesed then it's "rational" not to eat thew. But you know what I mean when you say rational.In this case you need to come with a more strict definition of "rational".
People will act rational for their gain, they will seek out good solutions to problems and ways of improving their standard of living. If they're presented to them, they'll take them. This is how A&B works with C. The not so productive can benefit from the productive, and vice versa.
it's insinuated as part of ts scenario.Still not sure what you mean?
Well yea...to be born in the united states your parents have to get in it...you can't if you're not born.Yes...? my point is that you're guranteed a citizenship if you're born in the US, but you have a lot of work to get through for the same citizenship if you want to come in from the utside. But in both cases you can have the exact same qualifications.

[Carrot]

1. But that is hardly ever achieved.
2. I don't think so.
3. People will often arrive at the most immediate solution rather than a well thought out "good" one. I don't need to come up with a better definition of rational, or ae you saying every descision ever mde is rational.
4. Bah
5. Yes, but then you have less underqualified people overall, and less people competeing for jobs that aren't tere.

There's a reason why no country has ever opened it's borders to low swkilled workers when there's a shortage of jobs.

[Montanarchist]

1. But that is hardly ever achieved.
2. I don't think so.
3. People will often arrive at the most immediate solution rather than a well thought out "good" one. I don't need to come up with a better definition of rational, or ae you saying every descision ever mde is rational.
4. Bah
5. Yes, but then you have less underqualified people overall, and less people competeing for jobs that aren't tere.

There's a reason why no country has ever opened it's borders to low swkilled workers when there's a shortage of jobs.
1. Agreed, but that doesn't make it impossible on a theoretical level.
2. Why not? An ordinary person does not need to know how to build a computer, but others do and he can take advantage that quite easily. That's what trade is.
3. The solution has to work on some level. Even if it takes a lot of triall & error you end up with something workable in the end, otherwise there couldn't be any civilization for us today.
4. Okay...
5. How do you figure? You'd have more people over all, there's nothing t say that they'd be either over or underqualified.
6. And that reason is...?

[Carrot]

1. Theoretical
2. You need a core, wether it be manifacturing, mining etc. They cant just all manage making burritos for each other, and the lack of investment/skills from them will mean any significant entrepreneurship above won't have anythin to stand on.
3. There are alot of dead ends in that respct.
5. You still have underqualified people flooding in, and 1/2nd generations being born into a system hat isn't ready to support them. More overall.
6. It doesn't make sense to let people in when your own citizens are unemployed in a bd market situation, you just end up with more unemployed..

[Limbo]

OT question for Carrot,

Hey Carrot, have you been following the oil leak problem we are having here in the Gulf of Mexico?

I am surprised it is taking them so long to choke off the flow.

I am wondering why they don't just drop some really heavy shit on the leak site. It seems to me that as long as the force of the weight is greater than the force of the oil, the leak would stop, assuming there is some kind of seal. Getting a seal could be the hard part since the sea bed is quite uneven. There has to be some heavy yet flexible material that would do the trick.

Since you are studying to be an engineer, it would seem to me to be something you may have thought about.

[Carrot]

OT question for Carrot,

Hey Carrot, have you been following the oil leak problem we are having here in the Gulf of Mexico?

I am surprised it is taking them so long to choke off the flow.

I am wondering why they don't just drop some really heavy shit on the leak site. It seems to me that as long as the force of the weight is greater than the force of the oil, the leak would stop, assuming there is some kind of seal. Getting a seal could be the hard part since the sea bed is quite uneven. There has to be some heavy yet flexible material that would do the trick.

Since you are studying to be an engineer, it would seem to me to be something you may have thought about.

Well first of all, I'm definately no expert.

The seal would be the main issue. Supposing you do just dump something heavy on it, where is the seal located?

If it is against rock you would have an immense amount of irregulrities in the surface to contend with. And then theseal itself would have to form to fit them, and be strong enough to do so. Usually high pressure seals can only be applied on two very high tolerance surfaces.

then you have to consider porosity. If the heavy container enclosed the leak and made contact with the sand, then I would imagin ivariably the oil coul force it's way through the sand and not even need to breach a seal.

These complications would probably mean that to have any kind of effective seal/weight thing would take a considerable amount of time, and in the end not be a long term solution. Also, I imagine crude oil could have an adverse effect on a seal given those conditions.

I don't know what the pressures are, but even then, you have to maneuver a massive weight and drop it a considerable distance into a very specific location.

So, it's definately not that simple I don't think.

[LedZap]

The Top kill method reportedly is working as they have forced the oil back down the well bore. They are still pumping drill mud in and it's leaking out (instead of oil). When they are sure they have enough in they will stop pressurizing the drill mud to see if it's heavy weight alone will hold down the oil. At that point they will inject fast curing cement to plug the well.

Live feed of drill mud being released...

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_homepage/html/rov_stream.html

[MrJim]

Weren't they going to just drill the oil out of the damaged rig using another rig? Very simplistic, I know, but it's been floating around the rumor mill.

[Carrot]

Mving a rig into position would probabyl take to long without plugging it first.

[LedZap]

Mving a rig into position would probabyl take to long without plugging it first.

There's Three full size rigs operating above the site right now. Two are drilling seperate relief wells and the other is operating the Top Kill , along withanother HUGE drill ship pumping oil out of the broken rise , 3 giant container ships full of drill fluid and many other support vessels.

Check out this link...http://bp.concerts.com/gom/kentwells_update24052010.htm

[Carrot]

I guess Im just not really up to date then. :)

[Florida0829]

Weren't they going to just drill the oil out of the damaged rig using another rig? Very simplistic, I know, but it's been floating around the rumor mill.

Sadly Jim , They have Alredy said , This will take 2 to 3 months to do.

[Limbo]

then you have to consider porosity. If the heavy container enclosed the leak and made contact with the sand, then I would imagin ivariably the oil coul force it's way through the sand and not even need to breach a seal.

Yeah, hadn't thought of that. Anything heavy on top of the sand would compress it to some degree, but the uneven surface would still be a problem.

Everything seems to conspire to make this a very difficult problem to solve quickly since time is of the essence (it's interrupting Obama's golf and basketball :D ).

Zap, what the heck is "top kill"?

[MrJim]

So when (ever?) they finally do plug this thing, have they decided how to clean this mess up? The oil will remain on top (separated from water), so they would need something similar to a giant grease trap catching the oil as it tries to float ashore. That sounds like a huge project as well, and hurricane season (forecast to be a rather bad one) is approaching.

[Carrot]

There are already machines designed to clean up oil spills. Although they aren't that good they usually get the job done.

[Florida0829]

I hate to tel you Jim , It's WORSE than that ,

The FSU ship coming back in found A BIG chunk , At deep depths , of over 2000 foot deep , BIG Slick of oil Deep under the surface..

This is Worse than it appears.

[Carrot]

Is it brine?

[LedZap]

Yeah, hadn't thought of that. Anything heavy on top of the sand would compress it to some degree, but the uneven surface would still be a problem.

Everything seems to conspire to make this a very difficult problem to solve quickly since time is of the essence (it's interrupting Obama's golf and basketball :D ).

Zap, what the heck is "top kill"?

Watch this video...really amazing....http://bp.concerts.com/gom/kentwells_update24052010.htm

[LedZap]

I hate to tel you Jim , It's WORSE than that ,

The FSU ship coming back in found A BIG chunk , At deep depths , of over 2000 foot deep , BIG Slick of oil Deep under the surface..

This is Worse than it appears.

The Ixtoc I oil spill in 1979 put out more oil per day into the gulf than our recent one.AND it lasted for 9 MONTHS. They never did figure out what happened to all that oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I

[MrJim]

The Ixtoc I oil spill in 1979 put out more oil per day into the gulf than our recent one.AND it lasted for 9 MONTHS. They never did figure out what happened to all that oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I

Yeah, they have talking about the current spill, the 'worst in U.S. history,' without mentioning that the Mexican oil spill you brought up here was far worse (so far). Not to gloss over the fact that we have a dire situation, however.

[Limbo]

Watch this video...really amazing....http://bp.concerts.com/gom/kentwells_update24052010.htm

hmmm... if the well is sealed enough to allow them to pump it full of heavy mud, you wonder why it is still leaking.


The Ixtoc I oil spill in 1979 put out more oil per day into the gulf than our recent one.AND it lasted for 9 MONTHS. They never did figure out what happened to all that oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I

There is always seepage of crude oil into the ocean from natural causes. Oil deposits become exposed and the pressure blows the oil into the ocean. In fact, the oil leaking into the gulf of mexico is a small amount compared to seepage that occurs from natural sources, it is just a problem because it is so concentrated in one area.

See here for example: Estimates of natural oil seepage (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10388&page=191)

[Patt]

Who besides me thought Obama looked like an absolute moron as he picked up tar balls? Tell me, that's really assessing the situation? Please.

Drag that man's butt into the marsh and I bet he'd give Bobby Jindal anything he asked for and would haggle with BP later.

HEY - FYI, do you guys remember the press giving Bush crap about 'go shopping' after 9/11? Obama said the very same thing today when he told people to come to the beach for the weekend and help support the communities. How come no one's picked up on that?

Freakin' dead brain cell media --- meh!

[Limbo]

Who besides me thought Obama looked like an absolute moron as he picked up tar balls? Tell me, that's really assessing the situation? Please.

Drag that man's butt into the marsh and I bet he'd give Bobby Jindal anything he asked for and would haggle with BP later.

HEY - FYI, do you guys remember the press giving Bush crap about 'go shopping' after 9/11? Obama said the very same thing today when he told people to come to the beach for the weekend and help support the communities. How come no one's picked up on that?

Freakin' dead brain cell media --- meh!

Speaking of brain dead media, can you imagine the firestorm if a Republican candidate had gone on the public record saying that the whitehouse had offered him a job in return for dropping out of a senate primary? A felony punishable by up to a year in jail?

We might not have to wait until 2012 to get rid of Obama if had anything to do with this. Maybe his crooked Chicago-style Democrat politics will catch up with him a little early. They gotta be more than a little bit worried about this.

[Patt]

I think we may just have us a little LBJ in the offing if this keeps up: Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President.

Okay - so let me hope here for a sec. It won't hurt - much. http://i852.photobucket.com/albums/ab89/patteurope/LG%20Smileys/LG%20Smileys/emoticon-0128-hi.gif

[LedZap]

Plus Bubba broke the law as well.

[juswanano]

What percentage of those people do you think have ancestors who were skilled workers, spoke perfect English, and applied for the proper documentation before coming to this country?

The utter hypocrisy of people who are okay with their family doing it 100 years ago, but not with other families doing it now is also baffling. And the funny thing is, immigration was viewed the same way back then. The influx of Irish, Italian, and Polish immigrants caused the same ire from earlier British, German, and Dutch immigrants. And now the descendants of those same immigrants are doing the same thing to Mexicans today.

Sadly, history has a way of repeating itself.
There weren't any immigration laws to break 100 years ago . those immigrant of 100 years ago came here and contributed, they found work and became citizens simply by helping to build something .
There is no utter hypocrisy . There is no comparison between those of 100 years ago and and the leeches of today.
If a 100 years ago any money was sent 'back home' it generally was so someone could comer here to work and contribute . Today they live off the system though their anchor babies while sending millions earned under the table back home to help their Tio Juan to put gas in his heavy chevy to cruise to the mota contacts casa to hook up his primo .

[Patt]

Plus Bubba broke the law as well.

Darrel Issa is on his ass. That's going to get mighty sticky !!

[Montanarchist]

1. Theoretical
2. You need a core, wether it be manifacturing, mining etc. They cant just all manage making burritos for each other, and the lack of investment/skills from them will mean any significant entrepreneurship above won't have anythin to stand on.
3. There are alot of dead ends in that respct.
5. You still have underqualified people flooding in, and 1/2nd generations being born into a system hat isn't ready to support them. More overall.
6. It doesn't make sense to let people in when your own citizens are unemployed in a bd market situation, you just end up with more unemployed..

1. Still not impossible.
2. I don't see the problem? Demand is demand and supply is supply. The market forces themselves are callous, it doesn't if an industry is technically more important the same rules apply.
3. Yes there is. Just like in evolution we can't see the future so we pretty much have to guess blindly in the large scheme of things, but the if you reward the right guesses and you have more people guessing you're more likely to find the right path.
We can never know if we're on the right path, but in any case it is a functioning path.
4. I agree with your point, but in the long run it is positive, in the long run the economy starts anew as the old economy is wiped out in a crisis.

[Carrot]

1. Yeah well, most things aren't.
2. Take mining towns for example, given that base growth can be centred around it with pilot businesses providing services. As sson as that base goes the town collapses. It's the same scenario if you have an influx of people to an area where there are no jobs.
3. This point began assomehow that poor, uneducated, unskilled immigrant workers who usually send most of their money back home in poor market conditions will somehow set up businesses to supply enough jobs. It's not going to happen, they won't trail and error unless it''s differen routes across the border.
4. Lte people in when there is an EXCESS of jobs and a NEED for labour rather than letting them in when the economy is dipping and NO jobs resulting in a longer time before recvery.

[AceTracer]

A few years ago I was looking into moving to Vancouver, Canada. Not for any political reason, I just love Vancouver, and I'd like to live in all my favorite cities around the world at some point. In any case, I was looking at immigrating under a skilled worker visa (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/apply-how.asp). You qualify as a skilled worker if you meet the number of "points", and I did, assuming I lined up a job first.

Now that isn't much of a problem, Vancouver has a big tech industry, and at the time they even had a labor shortage, importing skilled workers from other countries (the US, ironically, does the same). But while reading a book on the subject (http://www.amazon.com/Living-Abroad-Canada-Carolyn-Heller/dp/1598800469), I found that Canada has a policy that they have to hire Canadians first, and only after an employer has shown that no satisfactory candidate is available are they able to look for workers abroad.

I don't see why the US can't set up a similar system; that would quell your fears over whether aliens will took our jerbs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brj2UkUPjCI). I think there are a lot of jobs Americans simply don't want to do. The same thing is happening in Europe; as Europeans grow richer they're leaving menial jobs to immigrants.

[Carrot]

OK, at least you aren't calling for giving anyone who asks a green card any more. And realising that there needs to be jobs to fill rather than increasing competition for each job in what is effectively a recession.

OK, set up that system... not much would change with regards to illegal immigration though. Because you've basically just done a complete U turn with your argument.

[LedZap]

That happens quite often.

[AceTracer]

I said our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. 10,000 green cards and 85,000 H1B work visas a year is ridiculous, and it's virtually impossible for illegal immigrants without US relations to become citizens today.

I think the path to immigration should be made much easier than it is now, and yes, anyone who wants to immigrate to this country should be able to. I'm not sure how requiring that Americans be considered first is the same as preventing immigrants from working here entirely, unless you think Americans will be hired (or even apply) for 100% of the jobs illegal immigrants are currently doing.

I'm not saying that I personally even like this idea, but it's better than what we have now. The reason we have 20 million illegal immigrants is because it's next to impossible to immigrate legally. I'm for anything that makes it easier.

[AceTracer]

That happens quite often.
I know this is difficult for you to comprehend, because you have your beliefs, and right or wrong you're not changing them for anyone. But reasonable people, they tend to be open minded, explain their feelings and hear those of others, and try to work together to reach parity, even if they don't agree 100% on everything.

An example of this is Democrats, willing to negotiate and make concessions on bills, and Republicans, sitting in the corner pouting and saying no to everything, ultimately getting nothing they wanted anyway.

[LedZap]

I know this is difficult for you to comprehend, because you have your beliefs, and right or wrong you're not changing them for anyone. But reasonable people, they tend to be open minded, explain their feelings and hear those of others, and try to work together to reach parity, even if they don't agree 100% on everything.

An example of this is Democrats, willing to negotiate and make concessions on bills, and Republicans, sitting in the corner pouting and saying no to everything, ultimately getting nothing they wanted anyway.

Your joking right ? Democrats, willing to negotiate and make concessions on bills ? Good one...I guess.

[AceTracer]

I'll let conservative David Frum explain it to you (http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo).


A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

...

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

[Carrot]

Ace you started syaing you wanted to give out green cards to everyone who asked. Then you just said they should only be given out if there are jobs available with no current citizens to fill them, and that american citizens should be considered first....I don't think anyone would have a problem with that.

The reason they are trying to limit the number of immigrants is dueto te strain they put on the system, and that they don't contribute well to the economy, suddenly changing them all to "legal" will help a tiny bit with taxes but he you have two problems
1. The fact that more will come, and the numbers will still put strain on the system and send money home.
2. They went there illegally and havn't been paying taxes anyway, wy would they suddenly decide to pay them?

IN the current environment large amounts of immigrants, illegal or not, simply can't be supported and will not help the economy. WHich is WHY they're trying to keep them out in the first place.

[LedZap]

I'll let conservative David Frum explain it to you (http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo).

No mention of how "Democrats, willing to negotiate and make concessions on bills" . There are plenty of articles about how the Democrats SHUT OUT Republicans and their MANY ideas for health reform. The whole idea that demorats are willing to negotiate and make concessions on bills, and Republicans, sitting in the corner pouting and saying no to everything is totally false.

[AceTracer]

I wish you would stop stating my position for me, since you don't seem to understand what my position is.

I'm for simplifying the process of becoming a citizen.

At no point did I say we should start handing out green cards at the border to anyone that asks. But I think there should be some kind of process for immigrants without US relations to become citizens, because there is no process to do so right now.

From my original post:

We can try to find practical, reasonable approaches to dealing with these issues, or we can continue our myopic absolutist policies.
The title of this thread is "I'm against illegal immigration". I still am, but I think we need to find a practical, reasonable approach to dealing with this issue. We need to provide a path to citizenship, so that illegal immigrants, and anyone that wants to immigrate, can do so.

You say you don't have a problem with that plan, but Bush couldn't get his guest worker program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guest_worker_program) through a Republican Congress, so I guess a lot of people do, huh?

[Carrot]

At no point did I say we should start handing out green cards at the border to anyone that asks.

We need to provide a path to citizenship, so that illegal immigrants, and anyone that wants to immigrate, can do so.

That was almost too easy...

I wasn't going to go through all your posts to get a specific quote,but there's one in the very same one! That and all the problems I've stated still remain.

There is a reason why immigration is trying to be limited, making it very easy to obtain a green card doesn't solve those problems.

And looking at that link, one of the main issues wiht it was that it WOULDN'T allow them to become citizens, lloks like no-one liked it.

[AceTracer]

No mention of how "Democrats, willing to negotiate and make concessions on bills" . There are plenty of articles about how the Democrats SHUT OUT Republicans and their MANY ideas for health reform. The whole idea that demorats are willing to negotiate and make concessions on bills, and Republicans, sitting in the corner pouting and saying no to everything is totally false.
Here, let me highlight it for you.


Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.
Obama didn't need (and didn't get) a single Republican vote to pass the health care bill. So why would he want Republican votes? Why did he set up that summit, where he sat for 6 hours and patiently listened to Republicans? Why did he try time and time again to come to some kind of agreement with Republicans, who in turn demanded he throw the bill out? All he had to do was put pressure on Democrats to pass it themselves, but he wanted to negotiate and make this a bipartisan bill.

Likewise with the global warming bill. It's important for the Democrats that Lindsey Graham is behind it (http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/05/06/06greenwire-im-in-this-to-win-graham-says-of-senate-climat-26513.html). Democrats can pass it without a single Republican vote. So why are they choosing to deal?

[LedZap]

"let me highlight it for you. "....some guy's opinion ? Whatever Ace. And Obama's joke "summit" (great publicity stunt). every idea the Reps had were ignored. If Obama wanted Rep votes , it was to try to make himself look good as he and the other idiot democrats rammed that ghastly bill down our throats.

[AceTracer]

That was almost too easy...
Holy crap, I'm seriously pounding my head against the desk right now.

Yes, I think anyone should be able to become a citizen.

That doesn't mean I don't think there should be a process. That process may involve securing a job first, or any number of things, but I do believe there needs to be a path to citizenship, and none exists right now for unskilled workers without US relations.

It's not black or white.

Make it impossible to immigrate or open the flood gates aren't the only two options.


And looking at that link, one of the main issues wiht it was that it WOULDN'T allow them to become citizens, lloks like no-one liked it.
Exactly my point! You say that most people wouldn't have a problem with a bill that is more lax than the one Bush failed to pass.

[Carrot]

I don't get why you keep telling me what bush did and didn't do.

Also, you should have clarified your argument.

There is a major difference between letting someone secure a job first (possibly first offered to american citizens), before being let into the country, working for a number of years and then getting citizenship and between allowing "anyone to become a citizen". Those are MAJOR details with WHO you allow to become a citizen. Not something to be glossed overand almost ignored as you have.

[LedZap]

I don't get why you keep telling me what bush did and didn't do.



That's what Libs do.

[Limbo]

There is a major difference between letting someone secure a job first (possibly first offered to american citizens), before being let into the country,

When I graduated from university in Canada (Vancouver) with a degree in computer science and started looking for work, employers told me right to my face that they didn't hire new grads because they had enough experienced people coming from overseas to fill the jobs, so I was getting screwed by my own stinkin government. What a lovely feeling that was. The only place I could get a job was in the U.S.

[Carrot]

To be fair, theres a massive difference between a graduate and someone experienced though. Still, I'm surprised companies weren't trying to train their own grads.

[AceTracer]

I don't get why you keep telling me what bush did and didn't do.
I keep telling you because you seem to agree there should be a path to citizenship, and don't think anyone is against that. I'm showing you that even a Republican president who was for a lesser approach couldn't get it through Congress.


Also, you should have clarified your argument.
I repeatedly tried to.

[Carrot]

I keep telling you because you seem to agree there should be a path to citizenship, and don't think anyone is against that. I'm showing you that even a Republican president who was for it couldn't get a much tougher bill through Congress.

a0 Depends how it is layed out.
b) I said anyone here, if they had to give proof for a job, and the job was offered to americans first.



I repeatedly tried to.

Not very well. Saying "anyone" does not equal "anyone who fullfills multiple criteria".

[AceTracer]

That's what Libs do.
I really love the cogent arguments you're adding to this debate. Keep up the good work!

[AceTracer]

Not very well. Saying "anyone" does not equal "anyone who fullfills multiple criteria".
Ok, well you seem to understand my point now, and it seems you agree with me.

And it seems we both agree with Barack Obama (Source (http://www.ontheissues.org/international/barack_obama_immigration.htm)).


We want to have a situation in which those who are already here, are playing by the rules, are willing to pay a fine and go through a rigorous process should have a pathway to legalization. Most Americans will support that if they have some sense that the border is also being secured. What they don’t want is a situation in which there is a pathway to legalization and you’ve got another several hundred thousand of folks coming in every year. That is a central position we should be able to arrive at.


We need immigration reform that will secure our borders, and punish employers who exploit immigrant labor; reform that finally brings the 12 million people who are here illegally out of the shadows by requiring them to take steps to become legal citizens. We must assert our values and reconcile our principles as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. That is a priority I will pursue from my very first day.


Q: Under an Obama administration, what rights do immigrants have if they’re working without proper authorization come January 2009?

A: I think that if they are illegal, then they should not be able to work in this country. That is part of the principle of comprehensive reform, which we’re going to crack down on employers who are hiring them and taking advantage of them. But I also want to give them a pathway, so that they can earn citizenship, earn a legal status, start learning English, pay a significant fine, and go to the back of the line. But they can then stay here and they can have the ability to enforce a minimum wage that they’re paid, make sure the worker safety laws are available, make sure that they can join a union.


We’ve got to fix a broken immigration system not just for the undocumented but for legal immigrants. Because the backlogs are horrendous, the fees have been increased and doubled and tripled, and as a consequence more and more people are having difficulty just trying to reunify their families even if they’re going through the legal pathways, and that puts more pressure on people to go into the illegal system. That is something we’re going to try to pass.

Q: Are you going to create a path to the citizenship for undocumented workers?

A: We have to make sure that employers are held accountable, because right now employers are taking advantage of undocumented workers. And we’ve got to give a pathway to citizenship. But people have to earn it. They’re going to have to pay a fine. They’ve got to make sure that they’re learning English. They’ve got to go to the back of the line so that they’re not rewarded for having broken the law.

[LedZap]

I really love the cogent arguments you're adding to this debate. Keep up the good work!

I like how you put down Reps for disliking the Health Care Bill then posting this : "I hate the health care law, and I've given my reasons for it"...welcome to the Republican Party and keep up the good work.

[Carrot]

As long as each point is fullfilled, then yes.

The border needs to be secured.
Employers need to be discouraged from using illegals.
And due to the practicalities of trying to deport any, then I suppose the best action to take is to legalise them.

However, doing so without securing the border woudl just make the situation immesurably worse, which doesn't look feasable at the moment.

[AceTracer]

I like how you put down Reps for disliking the Health Care Bill then posting this : "I hate the health care law, and I've given my reasons for it"...welcome to the Republican Party and keep up the good work.
I didn't put down Republicans for disliking the health care bill, I put down Republicans for pouting in the corner instead of doing anything about it.

So if you dislike the health care bill you're automatically a Republican? Dennis Kucinich is arguably the most liberal man in Congress; he voted against (http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/a-national-measure-inextricably-enmeshed-with-local-interests/) the original bill passed by the House that included the public option. I agree with him.

[LedZap]

I put down Republicans for pouting in the corner instead of doing anything about it.

.
Repeating Lib talking points make you look ignorant. Everyone that observed the "passage" of Obamacare saw how every idea the Republican party had was ignored by the Democrats. That's just one reason Independants like me will be voting the Dems out.

[AceTracer]

Repeating talking points make you look ignorant.
Again, I would refrain from criticizing people for something that you do more than anyone.


Everyone that observed the "passage" of Obamacare saw how every idea the Republican party had was ignored by the Democrats. That's just one reason Independants like me will be voting the Dems out.
You keep saying that, but repeating something doesn't make it true.

You obviously didn't watch the summit or you'd see that Obama actually did agree with Republicans on some points. Unfortunately I can't link to the specific parts of a video, but Republicans talked about how it was unfair that Nebraska, Lousiana, and Florida had special deals (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6006838-503544.html) in the bill, and Obama agreed. All but one of those deals were eventually removed from the bill.

Obama was also willing to talk about tort reform, as he mentioned on several occasions including in his State of the Union address, but Republicans again refused any kind of negotiations other than throwing out the bill entirely and starting over.

But I've come to the realization that it doesn't matter how many examples I give you, how many other conservatives I quote with the same opinion, or how right I ultimately am, you're going to continue to believe what you want to believe and hold steadfast to that belief.

[LedZap]

Obama was also willing to talk about tort reform...but absolutely against it. Obama actually did agree with Republicans on some points..to try and make himself look good....before ramming it down our throats.

[AceTracer]

"Many in this chamber -- particularly on the Republican side of the aisle -- have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care," the president said last Wednesday to a joint session of Congress. "Now, I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I've talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs."

The president then announced that he was directing Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius to move forward on an initiative considered under the Bush administration to evaluate different kinds of malpractice reform through state-based demonstration projects.

(Source (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6006838-503544.html))
Obama was willing to add tort reform, but not cap judgments. Republicans said no deal, and so they got nothing.

[LedZap]

"Republicans said no deal" ? They had NO SAY in anything. Your jokes are getting really old. There's NO WAY Pelosi or Reid would allow Tort reform.

[Limbo]

Obama was willing to add tort reform, but not cap judgments. Republicans said no deal, and so they got nothing.

Good one, the fact that there is no tort reform in Obamacare is the fault of the Republicans.

[LedZap]

Good one, the fact that there is no tort reform in Obamacare is the fault of the Republicans.

Yeah...this whole thread belongs in "Attempted Wit and Humor".

[Popycock]

If Obama gets his health careless bill established and eventually eliminates health insurance companies, tort reform
would be meaningless. Because you're not gonna be able to sue the government when a doctor removes the wrong
testicle or any other appendage.

[Limbo]

Yeah...this whole thread belongs in "Attempted Wit and Humor".

Yeah, and all this time I thought there was no tort reform because the Dems didn't want to alienate all the trial lawyers in their ranks when actually it happened because the republicans pouted in the corner... learn something new every day! /sarcasm

[AceTracer]

Republicans had a say in the matter for a year, and up to the very last minute they refused to do anything but ask for the whole thing to be thrown out. Like David Frum said, we'll never know what concessions the Democrats would've made because the Republicans never bothered to find out.

To be honest, I keep criticizing the Republicans for this, but I really kind of love it. I really truly hope that you continue to allow your party to be run by extremists. I'd much rather see Obama go against Palin than Romney.

[AceTracer]

The question isn't whether Democrats wanted tort reform - of course Democrats didn't want tort reform - it's how much the Democrats would give up in order to pass the rest of the bill, and that's a question that's been left unanswered.

Also, Obama was pushing for tort reform long before he was POTUS.


White House officials said Thursday that the state-level experiments could include a method, already being used in roughly half the states, in which patients who want to sue must first get a certificate from a panel of medical experts that their case appears to have some merit. Other experiments, the White House said, could involve an idea, proposed by Obama in unsuccessful legislation with then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2005 during his first year in the Senate, that is being tried in a few hospitals: a program in which doctors disclose mistakes early, apologize and try to negotiate a payment to the patient.
You guys like to think Obama is a lot more liberal than he really is. He's actually a pretty moderate centrist. I think you project the ideals you want him to have, because if he's too reasonable you can't pass him off as a commie pinko bastard. But as I've already shown twice in this thread, his policies are not so unreasonable to conservatives. That's why I disagree with him on most issues; he's too moderate and too willing to compromise.

[LedZap]

"he's too moderate and too willing to compromise. ".....................Like I said...attempted wit and humor.

[Limbo]

"he's too moderate and too willing to compromise. ".....................Like I said...attempted wit and humor.

Well, he did make a baby step forward. He actually posted something truthful! See below:


of course Democrats didn't want tort reform

Maybe this will start a new trend. Or then again, maybe not.

[AceTracer]

Laughing off my arguments, accusing me of lies, and no rebuttles.

Ok! Looks like we're done here.

[LedZap]

Nobody accused you of lying ace...."Obama's actually a pretty moderate centrist" was pretty funny though.

[Patt]

Well, he did make a baby step forward. He actually posted something truthful! See below:


Originally Posted by AceTracer of course Democrats didn't want tort reform


Maybe this will start a new trend. Or then again, maybe not.

Like the massive deficits and over the top spending, Democrats simply cannot sustain truth telling. Except of course if they are Howard Dean and they're pissed that they've lost their cushy insider job with the DNC. Then, and only then, are they apt to tell the truth about the Trial Attorney's and how they are in bed with the Democrats and will cease all funding if they even say the word tort at all, much less saying it in conjunction with the word reform.

[LedZap]

Pedro's not helping things...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_xsXbR1QEGZI/TALTRubpTfI/AAAAAAAAGYk/jEEeOh3QOqI/s1600/68487.jpg

[AceTracer]

Pedro's not helping things...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_xsXbR1QEGZI/TALTRubpTfI/AAAAAAAAGYk/jEEeOh3QOqI/s1600/68487.jpg
They're all like that too. Just like every tea partier wants to crash into an IRS building.

[LedZap]

They're all like that too. Just like every tea partier wants to crash into an IRS building.

Don't get your underwear all dirty Ace , OK ?

[Rec]

They're all like that too. Just like every tea partier wants to crash into an IRS building.


Dang, Ace cannot distingish the difference in a illegal and a tea party member, hmmmmmmmmmmm and likes Obama,,,,,figures travesty personified both cases!!! lol

[MrRee]

What do you expect from someone who can't even accept which end is up Rec ?

[MrJim]

Pardon me, but is that Luke Wilson in the picture? Someone Photoshopped his head?