Dems wouldn't lose in November if they had cajones

[srellim234]

I've been sitting here thinking about all the gloating about this party and that party and I realized that the Dems wouldn't necessarilly lose in November if they had the cajones to call the Republicans' bluff.

All these threatened filibusters in the Senate would be a thing of the past if the Dems picked just one issue and said,"O.K. Go ahead. Get out and read your phone book and wife's recipe cards, put on your Depends and talk away."

A huge public display of the Republicans shutting down the govenment, filibustering against reforming the educational loan system which woud cut government spending (even by the Republican Party's own accounting) by cutting out the private banks as the middle men would expose the current crop of Republicans for what they are: Republican and conservative in name only and clearly in the pocket of the very banks they claim to disagree with bailing out. Let the public see how obstructionist and "on the take' these guys really are.

Once this current crop of Republicans are gone we can work on getting the current crop of Democrats out of Washington as well and maybe the next Congress will start looking out for America for a change.

[audtatious]

Yes, there would be no filibuster if the Dems simply believed everything they were saying and would push through the legislation. Instead they waited until they now need minute GOP support in order to push it through without resulting in the "Nuclear Option"...errr.....reconciliation

[themadscientist]

I've been saying "try it" for a week now. If they really think the American people want this bloated thing, why the hesitation gents? They are full of it, they know it, and the Republicans should hold out. "any" change is not what America wants. They want productive change and this bill is not it. The issue needs to be really looked at, not buried under paper and partisan crap.

[HashiriyaS14]

I agree that a lengthy filibuster on important legislation would be political suicide for a lot of Republicans in the Senate, particularly moderate ones, and it would thus probably never happen.

Once the bluff was really called, the Olympia Snowe's of the world would not really want to be associated with that kind of spectacle, although it would really have to be GOOD legislation. They could get away with filibustering something objectionable.

I *do* think that the Dems are going to lose seats in November, but I think the healthcare win means they're going to lose FEWER. Even bad legislatino is better than being construed as ineffectual, and it's better to pass SOMETHING historic than to pass nothing at all (which is why they were willing to be so secretive about it)

The Dem majority of 2008 was a freak and there will certainly be some backslide, but I'm not sure that it has Presidential re-election implications. The majority of people who voted for Obama were generally for increased financial regulations, national healthcare, repeal of "don't ask don't tell", etc. If that stuff happens, however messily, you can expect those original voters to stand by their man. The details won't matter, all that will matter is the sound byte of "four years ago I promised X, and I delivered". If the DJIA is at 12,000 it will probably seal the deal. People like sound bytes and tidy graphs, they don't like details.

[audtatious]

Wonder how the population is going to react to Obama's next pet project: Immigration reform

Seems he wants a quick-path to citizenship for all the illegals here because they will fill the much needed niche market of "low paying jobs".....Guess that increases the "30 million uninsured" that are supposed to be covered by the new bill to 50 million.

[telcoman]

Wonder how the population is going to react to Obama's next pet project: Immigration reform

Just as enthusiastic as the population was over Obama's election and the health care bill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03...epage

Telcoman

[szh]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03...epage

A good article and I do agree with the points made in it!

But there is a major difference between legal immigration and illegal aliens - even Friedman says so very carefully and accurately:

Quote »"I think keeping a constant flow of legal immigrants into our country — whether they wear blue collars or lab coats — is the key to keeping us ahead ...".[/quote]So, if you are being deliberately disingenuous about that very specific distinction, then you are not understanding audtatious's point at all and should not be given any attention.

I am a legal immigrant to this country. I went through the process, hired the lawyers, did my years as a permanent resident, paid my taxes through it all, etc., etc., etc. I "paid my dues", so to speak ... took me years to accomplish this.

I did not sneak into the country, did not avoid paying taxes, or take away jobs by working for lower salaries, or take any advantage of the US laws and freedoms (free emergency and neo-natal care at hospitals for example) ... and then randomly get a general amnesty at some point to become a resident.

So, as a legal immigrant, and now a citizen for over 25 years, I am totally supportive of the US process of becoming a resident and eventual voting citizen of this country. At the same time, I am very opposed to illegal aliens receiving general amnesties, driver's licenses, free emergency care in hospitals, and many other "rights" that should be reserved for citizens and legal residents.

You did not mention this, but frankly, I strongly believe giving a general amnesty to illegal aliens is unfair and a face-slapping insult to those of us who followed the legal process and rules. So, any "reform" that attempts to be unfair in this manner is one I will vote against ...

Z

[telcoman]

A good article and I do agree with the points made in it!

But there is a major difference between legal immigration and illegal aliens - even Friedman says so very carefully and accurately:

So, if you are being deliberately disingenuous about that very specific distinction, then you are not understanding audtatious's point at all and should not be given any attention.

I am a legal immigrant to this country. I went through the process, hired the lawyers, did my years as a permanent resident, paid my taxes through it all, etc., etc., etc. I "paid my dues", so to speak ... took me years to accomplish this.

I did not sneak into the country, did not avoid paying taxes, or take away jobs by working for lower salaries, or take any advantage of the US laws and freedoms (free emergency and neo-natal care at hospitals for example) ... and then randomly get a general amnesty at some point to become a resident.

So, as a legal immigrant, and now a citizen for over 25 years, I am totally supportive of the US process of becoming a resident and eventual voting citizen of this country. At the same time, I am very opposed to illegal aliens receiving general amnesties, driver's licenses, free emergency care in hospitals, and many other "rights" that should be reserved for citizens and legal residents.

You did not mention this, but frankly, I strongly believe giving a general amnesty to illegal aliens is unfair and a face-slapping insult to those of us who followed the legal process and rules. So, any "reform" that attempts to be unfair in this manner is one I will vote against ...

Z

You made excellent points. I also thought Friedmans column was an excellent one.However if someone gets run over by a bus and gets rushed to a hospital they are treated in the emergency room without regard as to whether they are a legal or illegal immigrant or a citizen with or without healthcare insurance. Guess who pays?We all do and thats why the healthcare bills passage was so important.Over 50 years of many presidents trying and Obama was finally successful.The top brain surgeon in the United states today at Johns Hopkins was as a 13 year old an illegal immigrant from Mexico jumping a fence to get into the United States.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/vi...n.htm

I think the immigrants should stay and the tea party members should follow Rush and leave.

Telcoman

[audtatious]

Howard...The left's talking points is that anyone against illegal immigration reform is against all immigrants and then "racism" is thrown around. That is furthest from the truth. We embrace those who come to this country legally and appreciate what they offer to our society. While I can understand why some will try any means to get here, it's not acceptable nor right. It's also not right for those who are working through the process to get here legally to get derailed by those who shove themselves to the front of the line.

As far as ER visits, that's not going to change. You will still have people abusing the system. The new health care plan mandates everyone purchase insurance. How will someone living on welfare and on medicaid buy insurance? They won't. They will still do exactly what they are doing today and we will still pay for it. When the Constitutionality of mandated health insurance is challenged, and probably defeated, then there goes the other funding that is being banked on by the Gov. and those with insurance, jobs, families, etc. will all be forced to reach further and further into their pockets to pay for a system that is not doing anything.

So, in general, those who work hard and have coverage today will pay more and more over time while the pool of those paying nothing will grow. The people calling an ambulance to take them to the hospital for a cold or because the need a morphine fix will still continue to do the same thing.

[HashiriyaS14]

While I certainly understand that someone who immigrated legally would be upset at others being offered shortcuts, I do generally think that the primary issue of people being illegal immigrants is their being ILLEGAL, not their being here.

The solution is to make them legal, or make it easier for them to become legal. Much of the downward pressure on pay is because they're illegal and get paid under the table in cash, thus exempting them from minimum wage laws. If they were subject to the same minimum wage laws as everyone else this wouldn't really be an issue anymore, and the way to do this is to get them on the books.

We just can't have people who are "off the grid". People who are uninsured, unregistered, people on whom we have no background information, people who aren't paying taxes, etc. The solution is to get all these people ON the grid, or to (I suppose) deport them.

Given that we're not (I repeat, not) going to deport ten million people, we need to get them on the grid and then also make it much tougher for MORE people to get here illegally.

We need to get the people who are here legalized, so they can pay taxes and be part of society, and then we need to beef up border security immensely to stop the flood from continuing.

At the same time, we need to be spending a ton of money in Mexico in aid and support. It's cheaper for us in the long run to improve the lot of Mexicans in Mexico than it is for us to absorb them here. We need to make them NOT want to run here. It should be a foremost foreign policy priority of the United States to helping form Mexico into a stable, prosperous, and developed nation.

You can't have a bullet-ridden drug-producing troubled nation on your border and not expect to reap some hell from it. The only solution is to fix their problems, because their problems are our problems. It'd honestly be cheaper to fix their problems than it would be for us to insulate ourselves completely.

[AZhitman]

However if someone gets run over by a bus and gets rushed to a hospital they are treated in the emergency room without regard as to whether they are a legal or illegal immigrant or a citizen with or without healthcare insurance. Guess who pays?We all do and thats why the healthcare bills passage was so important.

That doesn't change under this bill, Howie.

You should read more.

p.s. Better yet, just agree with Hash. He's a smart cookie.

[szh]

Howard...The left's talking points is that anyone against illegal immigration reform is against all immigrants and then "racism" is thrown around. That is furthest from the truth. We embrace those who come to this country legally and appreciate what they offer to our society. While I can understand why some will try any means to get here, it's not acceptable nor right. It's also not right for those who are working through the process to get here legally to get derailed by those who shove themselves to the front of the line.

Exactly my point, yes. There are laws, processes and other things to worry about.

For example, explicit country quotas that limit the number of immigrants from every country. As a result, I have never bothered to apply for my sister's (both still live overseas) to migrate here, because following the legal process can take well over 10 years in the case of a sibling.

My mother died while I still had the process going for her - the process was faster for parents, but still over 5 years long.

And, following the process does not guarantee a thing - they could all have been rejected in theory by any immigration officer and appeals take longer than the original application.

Yet, if they had illegally come in to the country (or just stayed back on one or the other of their visits over the years) , they would have received an amnesty - on two occasions that I can remember hearing).

It is that systematic unfairness that I am opposed to.

Hash, if we want to offer a residency to the estimated 10 to 12 million illegal aliens who are here, then there needs to be some fairness so it does not leave a bad taste in the mouth of people who do follow the laws and process.

The current backlog of country quotas needs to be cleared so the process is faster for legal applicants.

Perhaps, the already illegal ones who are offered a residency should be required to return to their country for some period (let's say 3 years) as a condition of acceptance - even a guaranteed acceptance of residency - with only exceptions being made for a few cases of economic hardship.

And, finally, if "immigration reform" and "general amnesty" work causes the current quota laws to be violated (meaning that legal applicants are delayed for years more!), then this is also unacceptable and must change as part of the process.

Z

[szh]

While I certainly understand that someone who immigrated legally would be upset at others being offered shortcuts, I do generally think that the primary issue of people being illegal immigrants is their being ILLEGAL, not their being here.

I generally agree - up to a point.

Being here illegally means that they also use resources that they are not entitled to. Without paying their fair share of the taxes necessary to make those resources become available. If they had been legal to begin with, the extra taxes and economic spending, etc., would have offset that - maybe not sufficiently, but certainly some.

We just can't have people who are "off the grid". People who are uninsured, unregistered, people on whom we have no background information, people who aren't paying taxes, etc. The solution is to get all these people ON the grid, or to (I suppose) deport them.

Yes, but getting them ON the grid must be done fairly - particularly if it impacts the people who are legally trying to get through the process. See my other post comments about making them on the grid perhaps should require some period of return to their home country first as a possible way to make the system work.

Given that we're not (I repeat, not) going to deport ten million people, we need to get them on the grid and then also make it much tougher for MORE people to get here illegally.

Yes. Those two have to go hand in hand for sure. Else, the problem repeats itself some years down the road.

Z

[szh]

The top brain surgeon in the United states today at Johns Hopkins was as a 13 year old an illegal immigrant from Mexico jumping a fence to get into the United States.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/vi...n.htm

I am sure there are interesting exceptions of this nature - but that does not make what he did correct, sorry!

The Head of neuro-surgery or thoracic surgery (I forget which) at Walter Reed some years back was a doctor from Pakistan. (As I vaguely recall, he also operated on one of our Presidents, but I may be wrong about that).

The difference between this Doctor and the person you referenced? Real simple! He migrated here legally.

Z

[AZhitman]

The top brain surgeon in the United states today at Johns Hopkins was as a 13 year old an illegal immigrant from Mexico jumping a fence to get into the United States.

Wonder who paid for his education.

Scholarships? Grants? Hmmm.

So, a citizen got passed over for a criminal. No wonder BO is your hero.

[HashiriyaS14]

Being here illegally means that they also use resources that they are not entitled to. Without paying their fair share of the taxes necessary to make those resources become available. If they had been legal to begin with, the extra taxes and economic spending, etc., would have offset that - maybe not sufficiently, but certainly some.

Yes, but getting them ON the grid must be done fairly - particularly if it impacts the people who are legally trying to get through the process. See my other post comments about making them on the grid perhaps should require some period of return to their home country first as a possible way to make the system work.

I can understand a lot of this.

Honestly, I feel that the LEGAL immigration process is much too onerous, for what it's worth. It should be much easier, quicker, and simpler, particularly for potential immigrants with professional backgrounds who can add great value to the United States.

The taxes not paid by any illegals already here are a sunk cost that we aren't going to get back. The only solution is to get these people legal and on the record so we can START taxing them.

The biggest problem with the illegal bloc is that there are just too many of them. Too many to send back to their home countries temporarily, too many to deport, too many to do ANYTHING with other than say "you're here, we're going to make you legal, now it's time to follow the rules". All you can do is make it very easy for them to become legal and then make the penalties very very stiff for anyone who remains illegal and gets discovered. Remove the motivation to be illegal.

This IS unfair to some parties, but I believe the only reasonable concession is to make the process easier for those parties as well. For those who already went through the hard way, I'm not sure you can make that right in any reasonable fashion, except maybe allow them to bring over other family very easily.

[AZhitman]

Would I jeopardize some peoples' flawed perceptions of me if I agreed with you on this point, Hash?

Good.

To add to what you said, you used one word that, in my opinion, is misused WAY too much, and creates more problems than it's worth:

"Unfair".

Let's get past the notion that everythnig has to be fair, and let's REALLY get past the otion that the government can somehow artificially level a playing field that has been uneven since the beginning of time.

Some are more attractive. Some are stronger. Some are smarter. Some are more energetic, more athletic, more motivated, etc etc etc. Get over it. Just means that those of us who AREN'T just have to work a little harder.

Take the concerns about "fairness" out of the equation and the solution gets FAR simpler.

[audtatious]

Honestly, I feel that the LEGAL immigration process is much too onerous, for what it's worth. It should be much easier, quicker, and simpler, particularly for potential immigrants with professional backgrounds who can add great value to the United States.

The immigration process today was setup to evenly allow people from other countries around the world to come here. This leads to a balanced society. The main reason, IMO, there are such delays for legal immigration is due to the flood of illegals from S. American countries who are coming here to spit out anchor babies.

[szh]

Would I jeopardize some peoples' flawed perceptions of me if I agreed with you on this point, Hash?

Good.

To add to what you said, you used one word that, in my opinion, is misused WAY too much, and creates more problems than it's worth:

"Unfair".

Let's get past the notion that everythnig has to be fair, and let's REALLY get past the otion that the government can somehow artificially level a playing field that has been uneven since the beginning of time.

Some are more attractive. Some are stronger. Some are smarter. Some are more energetic, more athletic, more motivated, etc etc etc. Get over it. Just means that those of us who AREN'T just have to work a little harder.

Take the concerns about "fairness" out of the equation and the solution gets FAR simpler.

(I am not entirely where you are going with this, so I probably missed something.)

Anyway ... for the sake of argument, okay, let's assume that being "fair" is not in the cards. So, let's say that all current illegals are given general amnesty tomorrow and become residents the day after.

How would you propose telling those who have been following the rules just the way we told them they should that their application is now going to be delayed many, many years because the quota is full or the immigration folks are now busy processing the "line jumpers"?

What if these applicants are highly qualified people who could benefit the US pretty much immediately? Should we allow them to "jump the line" too? If so, who decides who gets to do so? And when?

Aren't we effectively telling them that the "correct" process is to come into the country illegally and simply wait for the next general amnesty?

Slippery slope ...

Z

[szh]

I can understand a lot of this.

Good!

Honestly, I feel that the LEGAL immigration process is much too onerous, for what it's worth.

Yes, but not surprisingly, there were (and still are to some degree) reasons that it is that way - else the process would be too costly and impossible to make work.

It should be much easier, quicker, and simpler, particularly for potential immigrants with professional backgrounds who can add great value to the United States.

Ideally, that would be excellent! But, it is not that simple. Determining the applicant's "worthiness" takes time and money and examiners willing to do their job well.

This has not worked well in the past - the old INS was slow and cumbersome, and the new agency has not done anything to speed that up either. Typical bureaucratic problems.

Plus, people commit fraud for example ... lying about their backgrounds, etc. How much effort do you want to put into the process? As much as is done for security clearance checks? That is a damn expensive process!

And, there have been cases of some of our US embassy personnel overseas getting bribed to look the other way.

The taxes not paid by any illegals already here are a sunk cost that we aren't going to get back. The only solution is to get these people legal and on the record so we can START taxing them.

Conceptually a great idea!

The biggest problem with the illegal bloc is that there are just too many of them. Too many to send back to their home countries temporarily, too many to deport, too many to do ANYTHING with other than say "you're here, we're going to make you legal, now it's time to follow the rules". All you can do is make it very easy for them to become legal and then make the penalties very very stiff for anyone who remains illegal and gets discovered. Remove the motivation to be illegal.

Okay, let me play devil's advocate for a second.

We already have simple penalties for illegals - we deport them, etc., etc., etc. Yet, when the government takes steps to enforce the rules we already have, everybody gets on their high horse about that - the government is accused of dictatorship, heavy-handedness, police state actions, and much worse! Wouldn't enforcing stiffer penalties be more impossible to really do?

Plus, the process for being legal takes time, yes, but it is not impossible to do. How would you propose making it easier without causing instant flooding of the system? Beyond its capacity to make it work?

Finally ... what makes you believe that illegals will give a damn about stiffer penalties? There are no real deterrents that can make sense ... being illegal and getting caught does not carry the death penalty, fortunately! Given our legal system, they could not be tried and found guilty in rational time frames anyway - the appeals alone would tie up the courts for years.

All at impossible costs to sustain practically speaking.

This IS unfair to some parties, but I believe the only reasonable concession is to make the process easier for those parties as well. For those who already went through the hard way, I'm not sure you can make that right in any reasonable fashion, except maybe allow them to bring over other family very easily.

The problem is that these "rules" and exceptions, etc., get complex pretty rapidly. And, that makes things quite unworkable since the resources necessary to measure success and adherence to the the rules become impossible to do. Simply too expensive.

Z

[AZhitman]

(I am not entirely where you are going with this, so I probably missed something.)

Anyway ... for the sake of argument, okay, let's assume that being "fair" is not in the cards. So, let's say that all current illegals are given general amnesty tomorrow and become residents the day after.

How would you propose telling those who have been following the rules just the way we told them they should that their application is now going to be delayed many, many years because the quota is full or the immigration folks are now busy processing the "line jumpers"?

What if these applicants are highly qualified people who could benefit the US pretty much immediately? Should we allow them to "jump the line" too? If so, who decides who gets to do so? And when?

Aren't we effectively telling them that the "correct" process is to come into the country illegally and simply wait for the next general amnesty?

Slippery slope ...

Z

All true, and great points.

I also considered the fact that many of these people never gave a damn about following the rules before, why would they all of a sudden voluntarily participate in an "amnesty" program?

Here's a thought: What if, instead of Mexico, the US shared a border with Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Venezuela and North Korea? How would we manage THOSE borders?

Figure that one out, and there's your answer.

[audtatious]

Those here would immediately jump into the amnesty program as they would legally be able to get more services than they get today as an illegal. Those who are too afraid to get services due to their illegal status will also jump directly into the services system.

We will also see quite a large inflow of new illegals to get into the new program. In addition, like amnesty under Reagan, those who get amnesty will get to bring over their immediate family. So, between those two alone I expect a doubling of the 20 million number.