Skip to comments.
Many see Bush immigration proposals as non-starter (Proposal Faces "Fierce" Resistence In House)
Reuters ^
| 01.07.04
| Alan Elsner
Posted on 01/07/2004 2:27:14 PM PST by Pubbie
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 next last
To: Libertina
The part of the Family Reunification thing is not yet worked out.
161
posted on
01/07/2004 8:41:50 PM PST
by
Pubbie
(* Bill Owens 2008 *)
To: Pan_Yans Wife
With electronics it usually does. But that's usually because they're luxury items.
You'll tend to notice that with services, I.E. - Cable, Sattelite, Cell Phone, etc. there's no real apperent competition just across the board agreed to price fixing. Also with staple supplies you don't see much competition unless it's some exotic varient of that staple item liek Gruyre cheese or bottled water in a fancy bottle.
162
posted on
01/07/2004 8:43:46 PM PST
by
Tempest
To: Pubbie
uh huh...
163
posted on
01/07/2004 8:45:39 PM PST
by
Libertina
(If it moves, tax it. If it doesn't move it's a sitting duck - tax it TWICE!)
To: Tempest
But doesn't that also have to do with trends?
Like the designer coffee shops... when more open up selling latte, with cinnamon and a shot of vodka, the retailers have to drop their $5.00 a cup price?
164
posted on
01/07/2004 8:46:31 PM PST
by
Pan_Yans Wife
(Freedom is a package deal - with it comes responsibilities and consequences.)
To: harpo11
I have been livid about this since yesterday and have read my eyes off trying to see the points on both sides of this issue both pro and con here with the wonderful Freepers and nothing has swayed me and I agree with every word you posted Harpo11 in your post 140.
My youngest son in the building trades here in Columbus, Ohio is having terrible times getting work due to Mexican illegal work crews getting much of the available work. My Daughter in law a fine teacher is so frustrated with Leave No Child Behind as her 5th grade class is 50% illegal kids and some of them sleep in cars.
I have backed W all the way except his stance on immigration and this time he has really disappointed my entire Conservative family BIG TIME! All I can do is pray my Republican congressman and my two Republican Senators hold up and come out opposed to this new proposal. Karl Rove thanks a lot you have really come up with something that is rocking your party and your President's base!
165
posted on
01/07/2004 8:47:01 PM PST
by
AnnO
To: Libertina
166
posted on
01/07/2004 8:47:29 PM PST
by
Pubbie
(* Bill Owens 2008 *)
To: Pan_Yans Wife
"Like the designer coffee shops... when more open up selling latte, with cinnamon and a shot of vodka, the retailers have to drop their $5.00 a cup price?"
Sorry but here in LA it doesn't matter if I go to a Diedrichs, Gloria Jean's, Starbuck's, or Coffee Bean. They're all about the same gouging price for a cupped of steamed coffee.
Anyways back to the original thread topic ;)
I just read a rather compelling and just arguement in contention with President Bush's proposal today.
In case you're interested here's the link.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1053294/posts
167
posted on
01/07/2004 8:49:59 PM PST
by
Tempest
To: Tempest
Great link... bump
168
posted on
01/07/2004 8:52:01 PM PST
by
Pan_Yans Wife
(Freedom is a package deal - with it comes responsibilities and consequences.)
To: AnnO
Beautifully and passionately stated AnnO. I hope things will work out for your son. And thanks for your comments. My brother and brother-in-law lost hi-tech jobs due to sending jobs offshore. It's no longer a government "by the people, for the people and of the people."
It has become government by the illegal alien, for the illegal alien and of the illegal alien.
169
posted on
01/07/2004 9:00:13 PM PST
by
harpo11
(OK, Let Me Try to Get It, If You Are An Illegal Alien You Can Get Rewarded, But, If You Are Rush???)
To: Pubbie
Good night and regards to you also, Pubbie. Just remember my first post to you re: bills we thought had no chance of passing, or being supported by the Supreme Court - but were. Anyway, we are on the same side and no one wants to lose hope in a leader. Take care.
170
posted on
01/07/2004 9:08:35 PM PST
by
Libertina
(If it moves, tax it. If it doesn't move it's a sitting duck - tax it TWICE!)
To: telebob
HeHeHe. It's good to hear from another possessing of a devious heart. Now let's all wait gleefully for the Demon-craters to hit de tar baby.
My major predictions now number three:
1. This new tidbit.
2. That a goodly portion the much-ballyhooed and elusive "Weapons of Mass Destruction" are safely tucked away on (or under) French soil.
3. That the newly-dissed yet principled and rational Joe Lieberman will cross the Great Aisle and swap his (D) for an (R) well before next summer's Witches' Sabbath, aka the Democratic National Convention.
I haven't heard these gems anywhere else other than issuing forth from my own brain, addled as it is. So I'm either a total lunatic (most likely the case) or I should have my own radio talk show -- or at least a posh office in downtown DC.
It's tough being humble....... 8~)
171
posted on
01/07/2004 9:11:20 PM PST
by
tracer
To: Lazamataz
"Look, lets face it. Bush is a flaming liberal."
No, he just wants the opposition to think that he is (see above).
Methinks they named the wrong North American president "Fox"...
172
posted on
01/07/2004 9:14:38 PM PST
by
tracer
To: Pubbie
See telebob's #112.....
173
posted on
01/07/2004 9:21:32 PM PST
by
tracer
To: rintense; futureceo31; IGOTMINE
You mean like how Bush was smart and only signed Campaign finance reform because he knew the Supreme Court would overturn the law??? Sounds like you hate this law but can't stand to say anything negative against Bush so you make rationalizations for him.
God Save us from Bush stratergery.
174
posted on
01/07/2004 9:39:30 PM PST
by
Destro
(Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
To: tracer; Lazamataz
Methinks they named the wrong North American president "Fox"... Have you Bushbots lost all sense of reality? Even Clinton did not generate this much slavish rationalization.
You did not answer Laz's question. Is this another CFR like stratergery by Bush?
175
posted on
01/07/2004 9:42:23 PM PST
by
Destro
(Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
To: gubamyster
bttt
176
posted on
01/08/2004 1:21:22 AM PST
by
lainde
(Heads up...We're coming and we've got tongue blades!!)
To: WOSG
Two words: free and market. The LIBs love "free," but they LIE about the meaning of the word "market." Define it and enact policies to ensure it remains relatively "free" over generations. If you mean that employers, many of which receive protections from liability by incorporating (SCOTUS: a corporation is a "creature of the law"), and which benefit from the wealth and investments of U.S. citizens primarily -- and the blood of its heroes fighting to sustain it -- will be "free" to import foreign guest workers to substitute for American labor, then it's not truly "free" any more.
Freedom 101 from Jefferson: it comes with responsibilities.
The tax basis for participation will be different in some states (foreign workers on short-term seasonal or "project" assignments routinely get around state and local tax liability). Moreover, there are associated macroeconomic and business costs that are not even reflected in the $ contract between employer and employee:
1. Top consulting firms actually get paid $MM to "train" companies to deal with language and culture issues that DESTROY economic value at firms (all things considered, and assuming an ability to substitute even with HIGHER paid American labor)
2. Tax burden on infrastructure -- health care, insurance, training, welfare, SS, prisons, on and on. Business 101: the full cost of an employee is not simply a function of the negotiated salary. Cheap imported labor, for a large minority share of the pool, merely passes on HIGHER costs for that illusion of "cheaper" labor onto states and the Feds (US via taxes). The net result is an effective cost subsidy for less competitive enterprises for a large minority share of the total firms employing such labor.
3. Productivity. US Federal Reserve bank economists have proven quantitatively in several studies that few have the guts to report on that immigrant labor subsitution has dramatically REDUCED productivity growth in the United States. In other words -- NO KIDDING -- language, training, social and cultural gaps do matter and are weighing on the total wealth creating capacity of the United States.
What we have done is basically create a huge share of the U.S. economy (ballparked in studies at 10-12% of GDP) that is fundamentally dependent upon indirect labor cost subsidies through illegal and legal immigrant labor.
"Free Markets 101" -- that results in ineffective allocations of investment capital that DESTROYS long-run productivity and job creation for short-term gains for a relatively narrow fringe of firms.
Moreover: Many immigrant laborers have subsidies from foreign governments affecting the cost basis for their participation in the non-market "free for all." Indeed one of the lesser known dirty secrets of the racket is that governments in China, South Korea, Egypt, and elsewhere deliberately have incentive/subsidy programs to send people here to work in professional jobs (with rotations back home expected after a few years) or even to set up small "mom and up" shops. Why? Hard currency is the name of the game. They need the $ flowing back into the economies to subsidize a host of programs. The world outside the US exports two things mainly -- natural resources and cheap/slave labor.
The bottom line is that the WH is taking a radical libertarian approach, which, like the "free trade" argument, is not about "free trade" or "free labor markets" at ALL. They are policies for "open markets" that seek the ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF SOCIALIST SUBSIDIES AND INEFFECIENCIES RESULTING FROM POORLY REGULATED MARKETS (E.G., ALLOWING COUNTRIES TO EFFECTIVELY "DUMP" LABOR AND ASSOCIATED POLITICAL COSTS ONTO THE U.S. MARKET -- E.G., MEXICO). MEXICO WOULD HAVE EXPLODED IN ANOTHER REVOLUTION A LONG TIME AGO -- MAYBE RESULTING IN A REAL FREE MARKET THAT WOULD SEE THE END OF THE SOCIALISTS -- WITHOUT SUCKERS IN THE US TO SUPPORT THEM.
Even the advocates who know what the heck they are talking about are careful not to call it "free markets."
To: CA Conservative
Looks like it's time to dig out that Adam Smith book -- "capitalism" is not about everyone out for themselves. That's called selfish mercantilism or simply parasitism, and no society on earth has long survived with the parasites controlling most of the economic decisions. If this is news to you it is because you probably were "educated" in the post-1960s culture of America where the term has been hijacked by two camps -- both internationalist in agenda: neo-libertarians and socialists. There is a middle ground, and it was at the heart of Adam Smith's notion of "capitalism" benefiting societies as well as individuals (striking a rational balance), as well as concepts like "scientific management for profitability" (American Management Association) and U.S. economic policies right through the 1960s.
Two words: free and market. The LIBs love "free," but they LIE about the meaning of the word "market." Define it and enact policies to ensure it remains relatively "free" over generations. If you mean that employers, many of which receive protections from liability by incorporating (SCOTUS: a corporation is a "creature of the law"), and which benefit from the wealth and investments of U.S. citizens primarily -- and the blood of its heroes fighting to sustain it -- will be "free" to import foreign guest workers to substitute for American labor, then it's not truly "free" any more.
Freedom 101 from Jefferson: it comes with responsibilities.
The tax basis for participation will be different in some states (foreign workers on short-term seasonal or "project" assignments routinely get around state and local tax liability). Moreover, there are associated macroeconomic and business costs that are not even reflected in the $ contract between employer and employee:
1. Top consulting firms actually get paid $MM to "train" companies to deal with language and culture issues that DESTROY economic value at firms (all things considered, and assuming an ability to substitute even with HIGHER paid American labor)
2. Tax burden on infrastructure -- health care, insurance, training, welfare, SS, prisons, on and on. Business 101: the full cost of an employee is not simply a function of the negotiated salary. Cheap imported labor, for a large minority share of the pool, merely passes on HIGHER costs for that illusion of "cheaper" labor onto states and the Feds (US via taxes). The net result is an effective cost subsidy for less competitive enterprises for a large minority share of the total firms employing such labor.
3. Productivity. US Federal Reserve bank economists have proven quantitatively in several studies that few have the guts to report on that immigrant labor subsitution has dramatically REDUCED productivity growth in the United States. In other words -- NO KIDDING -- language, training, social and cultural gaps do matter and are weighing on the total wealth creating capacity of the United States.
What we have done is basically create a huge share of the U.S. economy (ballparked in studies at 10-12% of GDP) that is fundamentally dependent upon indirect labor cost subsidies through illegal and legal immigrant labor.
"Free Markets 101" -- that results in ineffective allocations of investment capital that DESTROYS long-run productivity and job creation for short-term gains for a relatively narrow fringe of firms.
Moreover: Many immigrant laborers have subsidies from foreign governments affecting the cost basis for their participation in the non-market "free for all." Indeed one of the lesser known dirty secrets of the racket is that governments in China, South Korea, Egypt, and elsewhere deliberately have incentive/subsidy programs to send people here to work in professional jobs (with rotations back home expected after a few years) or even to set up small "mom and up" shops. Why? Hard currency is the name of the game. They need the $ flowing back into the economies to subsidize a host of programs. The world outside the US exports two things mainly -- natural resources and cheap/slave labor.
The bottom line is that the WH is taking a radical libertarian approach, which, like the "free trade" argument, is not about "free trade" or "free labor markets" at ALL. They are policies for "open markets" that seek the ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF SOCIALIST SUBSIDIES AND INEFFECIENCIES RESULTING FROM POORLY REGULATED MARKETS (E.G., ALLOWING COUNTRIES TO EFFECTIVELY "DUMP" LABOR AND ASSOCIATED POLITICAL COSTS ONTO THE U.S. MARKET -- E.G., MEXICO). MEXICO WOULD HAVE EXPLODED IN ANOTHER REVOLUTION A LONG TIME AGO -- MAYBE RESULTING IN A REAL FREE MARKET THAT WOULD SEE THE END OF THE SOCIALISTS -- WITHOUT SUCKERS IN THE US TO SUPPORT THEM.
Even the advocates who know what the heck they are talking about are careful not to call it "free markets."
To: Sabertooth
Ha! They believe Bush is their friend? Then Bush is halfway home! No one should ever believe government is their friend. Perhaps they are just taking the bait.
To: Destro
No, I think there is some merit to some of the proposal, but can not see it coming to fruition. And if you did a little research, especially about immigration, you'd know that I am not afraid nor do I hold back with any negative comments about Bush when I disagree with him.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson