Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 20 May 2007

Various big media television networks ^ | 20 May 2007 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[Alas Babylon!]

The Talk Shows

Sunday, May 20th, 2007

Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor; Paul Hays, former House reading clerk.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., presidential candidate; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; Douglas Brinkley, editor of President Ronald Reagan's diaries; Michael Deaver, Reagan's deputy chief of staff; Ed Meese, Reagan's attorney general.

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; military historian Fred Kagan; retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton.

THIS WEEK (ABC): House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; talk show host Rachael Ray.

LATE EDITION (CNN) : Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez; Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Mel Martinez, R-Fla.; Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif.; Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, presidential candidate; Shibley Telhami of the Brookings Institution; Vali Nasr of the Council on Foreign Relations.

[sgtyork]

That is such a great solution, just raise the price of labor. Where have we always heard that solution?? Put those evil mill owners out of business for the good of the worker. Worked great for the auto industry.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There’s no point in getting hysterical here. Why are you throwing rocks at the supply-demand solution?

There is a natural price of labor with the working conditions you describe and apparently the lumber mills are having a hard time paying it. This may mean that there isn’t enough demand for your lumber (there are competing materials and competing sources) at the prices you can produce it at. Perhaps you just don’t have a viable business model and should look at liquidating the company.

Your inability to pay attractive wages has very little to do with the auto industry which somehow over decades agreed to high labor costs (distorted by unions) that are now fixed and so high that they cannot survive.

[PerConPat]

Am I nuts, or no?

I don't think so. But I must admit that not I'm not exactly sure where you are going here. Is it your contention that government intervention in the US market place is driving illegal immigration? I suppose that some employers of illegal immigrants will say they have no choice because of labor costs. I wonder if that is because their competition has hired "cheap labor."

Perhaps the invisible hand will eventually regulate wages in the best possible manner, no matter the availability of potential workers who reside just a quick border crossing away in a country led by users that could not care less about the standard of living for their fellow citizens.

[sgtyork]

Yes, because marginal companies are using resources that can be better used somewhere else.

Now that there is a real labor shortage (supply low) employers that can pay more and still have a profit will succeed. Employers that cannot increase their offered wages will not get the labor and stop growing or will go out of business. That is the operation of the market. Importing a flood of ill educated foreigners makes allows the inefficient companies to continue - with citizens like Deputy Frank Fabiano paying the price

http://www.nbc5.com/news/13342414/detail.html?rss=chi&psp=news

with US citizens paying the price in a diminshed healthcare system

In the spring issue of the “Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons”, Madeline Pelner Cosman wrote that 84 California hospitals are closing because of the burden of illegal immigrants on the healthcare system. She also writes that a number of infectious diseases that had been previously irradicated in the United States are now on the rise. These diseases include: drug-resistant tuberculosis, malaria, leprosy, plague, polio, dengue, and Chagas disease.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/05/25/161448.php

[PerConPat]

Correction: But I must admit that I'm not exactly sure...

[lag along]

you can read her book. she believes, as the constitution sets out, that international treaties entered into by the US have to be looked at and followed when they apply to the case at hand. I was shocked when I read that until I went back and looked at the Constitution.

[greyfoxx39]

Wow...now I am shocked! Wonder if the framers meant that it was to affect the present day cases?

[lag along]

yes. why would any country enter into a treaty that would not be honored.

[jackv]

Thanks, bray. It gets increasingly difficult to enjoy FR with all of the Bush bashing about this or that. I cannot abide it! He has the most difficult job in this world and gets enough crap from the liberals. The conservative only purist crowd has only helped the liberals.

[jackv]

As I have discovered, one cannot shed light on a closed mind.
Thanks, MNJonnie and bray, for your constant sense of reason. And constant support for our troops.

[Cyropaedia]

The President has his hands on the wheel, pedal to the floor, and driving full speed towards the edge of the cliff yet you're telling the passengers to keep the noise down.

How quaint.

[FreeReign]

Horse hockey Diogenesis.Yes the President is responsible for upholding the law BUT the people of this country are also responsible for voting out the strong anti illegal alien congress we had in Nov. '06. There's is NO excuse for that -- NONE!

Congress has free franking, access to media and mutual admiration societies (i.e. huge campaign war-chests financed by legislative trade-offs combined with "buy-ins" and investment by local organizations of all sorts) -- that make un-electing an particular incumbent who wants to stay practically close to impossible. Not impossible -- it does happen, but it is rare.

That makes even more remarkable that the voters voted against 20 good incumbent, anti-illegal immigration, conservative, Republican seats in the House in Nov. '06.

Given the illegal alien mess that we are in, there is no excuse for those who voted against these good incumbents.

[FreeReign]

out of over 500 responses to this thread...I received TWO? well it certainly doesn’t look like FReepers are very interested in saving the GOP much less the sovereignty of the U.S.A.

Fred has already mentioned enforcement.

[Current Occupant]

Looks like this has turned into an immigration thread. I say they are all looking at it the wrong way, to get the illegals out of the country should be their goal but the Admin. and our critters don’t want that.

Until they change their thinking we are going to have amnesty. Until the thinking changes to get them out of the country there will be illegals and we will pay for them.

[mountainfolk]

One of my earliest letters to the editor was against LEGAL immigration. I do not recall the explicits but it had to do with thinking other countries should drop their socialism and go capitalist so their people would stay home. Later I thought we should have a moratorium of five years on all immigration in order to assimilate those who were flooding this country. Now I think we need a ten to fifteen year moratorium for the same purpose. HOWEVER, reality intrudes. The senate and congress are now majority RATS. We had our chance to pass an immigration bill when Republicans were the majority but it was not acceptable any more than the current one and the RATS now have greater input so a compromise is the only way any bill will pass. President Bush did not elect the congress, voters did. It is the congress that will send a final bill to the President. He will sign it because something has to be done to stop the flood of humanity that is swamping our country. The RATS may change the terms of the law if, with the help of the Bush haters, they gain the CIC office. They can also do it without being in that office. There has to be a start somewhere. I believe that the disrespect shown President Bush comes from the denial of the responsibility that voters have to elect representatives who will support him in the areas vital to this country. I am disgusted with the disrespect shown President Bush and have come to believe that many of those doing so have ulterior motives and a vested interest in sowing discord in the Republican party and splitting conservative voters.

[bvw]

In my own PA District the new Democrat Pat Murphy -- at least by way of his DC office -- says he will vote AGAINST this immigration bill. That was a strong NO, btw.

Anti-war Iraq War vet Murphy defeated Fitzgerald, who was wobbly on the war, fwtw.

[FreeReign]

Are you going to tell me with a straight face that the Judicial Branch is not granted power by the Constitution to determine what laws are Constitutional and what laws are not Constitutional.

Yes. It was a power that was usurped by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison. It was a power that was later allowed to be used by lower courts. It is not explicit in the Constitution. IMO both Congress and the President have equal authority to judge the constutionality of any law. Indeed, it is their solemn duty. The Consitution does not make the Supreme Court the final arbiter of what is or is not consitutional. Ultimately it is left to the people.

U.S. Constitution;

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court and in such inferior Courts ...

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...

The Judicial Branch is granted power by the Constitution to determine what laws are Constitutional and what laws are not Constitutional. The only recourse for their mistakes is that judges may be impeached for bad behavior.

[bvw]

Hey, my vote counts as a thousand. At least in my own mind, that is. Thank you!

[Diogenesis]

you are quick to always blame voters and Freepers.

why?

[Finny]

Is it your contention that government intervention in the US market place is driving illegal immigration?

Thanks for stating it such -- yes, I would say that government intervention in the U.S. marketplace is a major factor. When coupled with liberal policies that extend such "free" government benefits to illegal immigrants that only the stupidest would decline to come to the U.S., it's like mixing bleach and ammonia. There's bound to be a reaction.

... in a country led by users that could not care less about the standard of living for their fellow citizens.

Free marketplaces have created the highest standards of living in history. Prosperity and charity are the best guarantees of higher standards of living. Not government regulation of commerce in the name of "caring about our fellow citizens." I do believe that the root cause of the immigration problem -- legal and illegal -- is the Federal government.

[FreeReign]

...you are quick to always blame voters and Freepers. why?

I'm "quick" to "always" blame voters?

Your post is dumb? Why?