500,000 march in LA

[SuperJerk 0]

Who the hell creates wealth? The rich.

 

Not all entrepenuers are rich, but they are the ones creating the jobs. I'd argue that the creation of jobs is more important to the economy than the creation of wealth. Creation of wealth is meaningless if it doesn't get distributed.

 

There are no perfect solutions in economics. Sometimes taxing people is good, sometimes its bad. Sometimes spending is good, sometimes its bad. Neither the Keynesians or the libertarian/supply-siders have been able to deliver us into economic Utopia. Free markets can be awesome things when you have a well-educated group of entrepenuers making rational decisions, but that doesn't always happen, so you need some regulation. And government decisions about economic policy can lead to a multitude of unintended consequences. Policy makers need to be pragmatic and look at situations on a case-by-case basis, instead of trying to apply blanket economic theories that never work all the time.

[NoCalMike 0]

Who the hell creates wealth? The rich.

 

Not all entrepenuers are rich, but they are the ones creating the jobs. I'd argue that the creation of jobs is more important to the economy than the creation of wealth. Creation of wealth is meaningless if it doesn't get distributed.

 

There are no perfect solutions in economics. Sometimes taxing people is good, sometimes its bad. Sometimes spending is good, sometimes its bad. Neither the Keynesians or the libertarian/supply-siders have been able to deliver us into economic Utopia. Free markets can be awesome things when you have a well-educated group of entrepenuers making rational decisions, but that doesn't always happen, so you need some regulation. And government decisions about economic policy can lead to a multitude of unintended consequences. Policy makers need to be pragmatic and look at situations on a case-by-case basis, instead of trying to apply blanket economic theories that never work all the time.

 

 

Yeah well it's too bad America is turning into an Oligarchy that is ruled by the Wealthy Upper Class IE: A very small percentage of us.

Elimination of the middle class is the goal.

[what 0]

How did these people get time off from work?

 

I guess it's not lettuce season.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Who the hell creates wealth? The rich.

 

Not all entrepenuers are rich, but they are the ones creating the jobs. I'd argue that the creation of jobs is more important to the economy than the creation of wealth. Creation of wealth is meaningless if it doesn't get distributed.

 

There are no perfect solutions in economics. Sometimes taxing people is good, sometimes its bad. Sometimes spending is good, sometimes its bad. Neither the Keynesians or the libertarian/supply-siders have been able to deliver us into economic Utopia. Free markets can be awesome things when you have a well-educated group of entrepenuers making rational decisions, but that doesn't always happen, so you need some regulation. And government decisions about economic policy can lead to a multitude of unintended consequences. Policy makers need to be pragmatic and look at situations on a case-by-case basis, instead of trying to apply blanket economic theories that never work all the time.

 

There are perfect solutions in economics. In economics, its all math.

 

The imperfection comes from the way we've designed our political process. That process is the one that takes the elegant economic solution, and craps on it with special rules, provisions, taxes, disincentives, incentives, and other policy "tools" for personal (or political, gain.

 

It ain't the math that's broken, its the process.

 

To NCM: If the middle class goes, so goes America. Thus, its in the interest of this so called oligarchy to ensure the middle class stays fat and happy and complacent, which is what's going on right now anyways.

 

I would hardly call America an Oligarchy though. Upward mobility is still able to happen to all but the poorest, and hell, even the hispanic immigrants are showing the ability to move from poorhouse to middle class house in 1 generation.

 

The problem is that people like you expect change NOW, when its a gradual process. And when change is made to happen NOW, that process is subverted, and everyone suffers in the end.

[SuperJerk 0]

There are perfect solutions in economics. In economics, its all math.

That, my friend, is a fundamental disagreement of which I believe no amount of discussion will resolve. Human behavior can not be reduced to a mathematical equation, in my opinion.

[Guest Brian]

Incredibly bad economic policy.

 

First you had wage and price controls that nixon institutited. That kept inflation artificially lower, like shaking a bottle of coke with the cap on. when the controls were lifted, inflation went nutso.

 

On top of that we had a very fuel dependent economy, and oil prices (a raw input into many goods) rose, that went nutso.

 

Finally, you had politicians thinking that the phillips curve always held (you can trade off between inflation and unemployment, higher inflation will lead to less unemployment and vice versa)

 

the phillips curve obviously wasnt true.

 

add that all together, and you get a bowl of economic soup that sucks.

 

Now onto taxes...

 

Who the hell creates wealth? The rich. Now, while it is true that the rich benefit more from personal property rights than middle or lower income peoples , it doesnt follow that they should pay taxes much over those income groups. They should pay more (since they benefit more), but really, there's no reason to increase taxes.

 

The bigger problem is reducing the size of the government and our insanely massive debt before other nations decide to pull their funding of our debt and thereby sink our economy.

 

FYI: We didn't tax the shit out of the rich in the fifties, just saying. Don't beleive a political comic pundit. You can tax the shit out of them because loopholes are in the millions. You can thank all your politicians for that.

 

(flat tax).

 

InuYusha, if you'd like more detail on stagflation, pm me. You know, since im the economist around here

 

EDIT: You will never get any to agree on what anyone's "fair share" of anything is.

 

Maybe if the government didnt do so fricking much that it really shouldnt be doing we wouldnt be worried about who to tax and how much.

 

But we gots to have our medicare, big ass army in a foreign country, welfares, pork transportation bills and gotta fund education so we dont leave any children behind.

 

did i make enough fun of both sides there? i hope so

 

MENTAL. MASTURBATION.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

as if theres something wrong with a little tug

[The Czech Republic 0]

Don't beleive a political comic pundit.

QFE. Cannot stress that one enough.

 

The stock that people put into fucking AL FRANKEN's comments never fails to astound me. "so-and-so's a big fat liar...Al Franken said so! There's no liberal media bias, Al Franken said there's regular media and conservative media!" Since when did Stuart Smalley become the sole arbiter of journalistic integrity? Geez.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Brain: You know why there were only 220 mexicans at the Alamo?

 

Gorilla : Why?

 

Brain: They only had one car.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Don't beleive a political comic pundit.

QFE. Cannot stress that one enough.

 

The stock that people put into fucking AL FRANKEN's comments never fails to astound me. "so-and-so's a big fat liar...Al Franken said so! There's no liberal media bias, Al Franken said there's regular media and conservative media!" Since when did Stuart Smalley become the sole arbiter of journalistic integrity? Geez.

We live in a world were Bill O' Reilly is treated with respect by people who know nothing about journalistic integrity. Of course Al "I'm Smarter Than You Because People Say I'm a Political Satirist Even Though I'm just a Stupid Ass Pundit" Franken is going to be treated like the be all end all politcal genius of our times by people who wouldn't know an original opinion if it bit them in the ass.

[NoCalMike 0]

Who the hell creates wealth? The rich.

 

To NCM: If the middle class goes, so goes America. Thus, its in the interest of this so called oligarchy to ensure the middle class stays fat and happy and complacent, which is what's going on right now anyways.

 

I would hardly call America an Oligarchy though. Upward mobility is still able to happen to all but the poorest, and hell, even the hispanic immigrants are showing the ability to move from poorhouse to middle class house in 1 generation.

 

The problem is that people like you expect change NOW, when its a gradual process. And when change is made to happen NOW, that process is subverted, and everyone suffers in the end.

 

 

No, there was change. The middle class was expanding. Then Reagan decided Amnesty was a good idea, at a time there were a few million immigrants. Conservative economics aka Cheap Labor at all costs type thinking, reversed the progress that was being made.

 

Corporate Politics, Send the Manufacturing OUT OF THE COUNTRY, and IMPORT the cheap labor.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

And there is nothing wrong or bad about free trade or free movement of labor. Amnesty did not stop middle class expansion. Our economy cooled off, and then a dipshit president decided that bankrupting us might be the best idea ever.

 

I'm just going to assume that youre entirely against free trade and the free movement of labor, regardless of the fact that no protectionist measure has ever benefited the economy of the host nation, nor the fact that from your most basic economic textbook to the phd-level, free trade is regarded as a VERY GOOD THING.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

And there is nothing wrong or bad about free trade or free movement of labor. Amnesty did not stop middle class expansion. Our economy cooled off, and then a dipshit president decided that bankrupting us might be the best idea ever.

 

I'm just going to assume that youre entirely against free trade and the free movement of labor, regardless of the fact that no protectionist measure has ever benefited the economy of the host nation, nor the fact that from your most basic economic textbook to the phd-level, free trade is regarded as a VERY GOOD THING.

 

 

A good thing? For who? The company? I guess you would be right. For everyone else.. not so much. When they have free reign to do whatever they what to whomever they want they do only for the company. You see it all the time where big multi-corps try to get their employees to pay for MORE of their benefits. Where they only give them the minimal amount in a raise MAYBE once a year at best. People are selling their lives at an hour at a time and these rich assholes do give damn. They are just "human resources". Sorry SJ, there is just no dignity in your "economics" and it is sickening. The old catchphrase "You scratch my back I'll scratch yours" has long been forgotten.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

FREE TRADE is good for EVERYONE! EVERY COUNTRY!

 

Adam Smith (1776)

It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy... If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage.

 

http://www.econlib.org/library/enc/FreeTrade.html

 

Adam FREAKING Smith!

 

Ever since Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations in 1776, the vast majority of economists have accepted the proposition that free trade among nations improves overall economic welfare. Free trade, usually defined as the absence of tariffs, quotas, or other governmental impediments to international trade, allows each country to specialize in the goods that it can produce cheaply and efficiently relative to other countries. Such specialization enables all countries to achieve higher real incomes.

 

http://www.econlib.org/library/ENC/FreeTra...tomsUnions.html

[Slayer 0]

But... ee-vil corporations! EEEEEEEVIL CORPORATIONS!

[Stephen Joseph 0]

One day I am going to bang my head so hard against this monitor I'm going to break it or the monitor...

[SuperJerk 0]

Don't beleive a political comic pundit.

QFE. Cannot stress that one enough.

 

The stock that people put into fucking AL FRANKEN's comments never fails to astound me. "so-and-so's a big fat liar...Al Franken said so! There's no liberal media bias, Al Franken said there's regular media and conservative media!" Since when did Stuart Smalley become the sole arbiter of journalistic integrity? Geez.

We live in a world were Bill O' Reilly is treated with respect by people who know nothing about journalistic integrity. Of course Al "I'm Smarter Than You Because People Say I'm a Political Satirist Even Though I'm just a Stupid Ass Pundit" Franken is going to be treated like the be all end all politcal genius of our times by people who wouldn't know an original opinion if it bit them in the ass.

 

You left out the part where he got a degree in government from Harvard. That doesn't make him automatically right about everything, of course, but you guys are acting like he's just some schmuck who used to be on SNL. People tend to either be ignorant of or ignore the fact that he has the credentials to back his opinions up. Just because he used to be a writer/performer for Saturday Night Live doesn't invalidate his educational background, which is considerable. I wouldn't discount Franken's assessment of O'Reilly and others simply because he has documentation to back his opinions up with, regardless of where he went to school.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

I don't put stock into any TV pundit

[EricMM 0]

If we move some money to Mexico at the cost of America, it will make America better, and it will make a few Americans much better.

 

But it won't always make America better.

 

Because trickle down economics are bullshit, especially with this president.

[Jingus 0]

At the end of the day, economics is like any other science: we're pretty sure that these rules are true and unbreakable... unless at some point in the future we find a way to break 'em. Nobody really knows for certain why the economy acts the way it does. (And if they do, well, they ain't sharing the secret with us.)

[Guest The Satanic Angel]

Relevant, methinks. If not, so sorry.

 

CNN.com

 

Smugglers welcome tighter borders

More fences, more patrols mean more business

 

Wednesday, April 5, 2006; Posted: 8:24 p.m. EDT (00:24 GMT)

 

Immigrant smugglers say tougher border patrol will translate into more business for them.

 

DOLORES HIDALGO, Mexico (AP) -- Barely 18, Jose belongs to Mexico's new generation of migrant smugglers -- young, savvy and happy to see Uncle Sam further tighten border security.

 

Why? It's good for business, he says.

 

Jose figures more migrants will seek his help if the U.S. Senate approves legislation to double the Border Patrol and put up a virtual wall of unmanned vehicles, cameras and sensors to monitor the 2,000-mile border with Mexico.

 

Cases are coming to light of smugglers making $1 million or more. And Jose reckons the earnings will rise yet higher if new obstacles go up.

 

"This is never going to end," he said. "The United States cannot work without Mexicans."

 

Jose is a lanky, baby-faced teen in a baseball cap who says he started smuggling people late last year and made $16,000 in his first three months. His mother worries but needs the money -- Jose was making $53 a week cutting lettuce.

 

Talking to a reporter outside their humble, adobe house near Dolores Hidalgo in central Mexico, Jose and his mother asked to withhold their surname for fear of arrest.

 

"We're always going to look for a way to get in, and there's always a way," Jose said. "This is a business for everyone." (Watch how one family fought to become Americans -- 2:30)

 

Not so, says John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who chairs the Senate's Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship subcommittee. The way to hurt smugglers' business is by "securing our borders and working cooperatively with other nations on enforcement," along with providing a temporary worker program, he said in a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press.

 

The Senate is debating a series of immigration bills. Some simply bolster border enforcement and crack down on employers. Others offer a temporary worker program and possible legalization of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. The House version would impose criminal penalties and build 700 miles of border fence.

 

Victor Clark, a Mexican border expert in Tijuana who has studied smugglers' patterns for decades, agrees with Jose. "This is going to have the opposite effect of what the U.S. government wants, since the demand for migrant smugglers is going to go up," he said.

 

The smuggling business flourished after the U.S. Border Patrol cracked down on the busiest crossings into Texas and California in 1994.

 

Migrants were funneled into the remote Arizona desert, and domestic flights into Hermosillo, Sonora, the biggest Mexican city near the Arizona border, jumped from 20 a week in 1994 to nearly 500 today. The airport's baggage claim area is often nearly empty because migrants arrive with little more than a duffel bag for the rest of their journey.

 

Many risk death walking for 30 hours in 100-degree temperatures through remote desert terrain. The smuggler leading them may well be linked to organized crime, though Jose says he isn't.

 

That too is a change from the days when it was considered something of a community service in Mexican villages, and older, trusted men would show relatives and neighbors the safest routes.

 

Now a growing number of smugglers are like Jose -- in it just for the money.

 

"The new generation of migrant smugglers are youths who see their clients as merchandise," Clark said. "Many of them abandon the migrants in the desert or give them drugs, or tell migrants they know the way when they don't, and they end up dying along with the migrants. Others have turned to violence to steal clients from other smugglers."

 

Smuggling people into the United States from around the world has become a $10 billion-a-year business, rivaling drug profits, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials who started tracking smuggler profits three years ago. (Watch and decide whether Mexico embraces a double standard when it comes to border security -- 2:19)

 

A Texas-based smuggler who was sentenced to nine years in federal prison in December earned nearly $1 million driving about 6,000 illegal Latin American migrants to work in Chinese restaurants throughout the upper Midwest.

 

In January, ICE investigators arrested two Texas families who allegedly earned $1.6 million in two years by hiring a fleet of trucks near the border city of El Paso, Texas, to transport migrants across the United States.

 

"One truck driver, all he did was transport aliens," said Dan Page, acting special agent in charge for ICE in El Paso.

 

In the central Mexican ranching town of San Diego, migrants board smugglers' trucks and vans nearly every Sunday to head for the border.

 

"The smugglers around here have the biggest houses," said resident Guillermo Melchor, who said he paid $1,300 to get to Houston, Texas, through a trafficking network.

 

He made it, but said his 23-year-old friend, crossing separately, died of a heart attack after taking a stimulant from a smuggler to endure the long desert walk.

 

Jose charges $1,200 per person, sharing his earnings with a driver who waits on a highway outside Laredo, Texas, to pick up the migrants, and another man who provides a Houston safehouse for new arrivals.

 

He said he made his first $16,000 smuggling 40 people in four journeys from the cactus-studded state of Guanajuato by bus to the border, then across the Rio Grande to meet the driver.

 

They usually wade across at night, then walk for two hours through the scrubby south Texas desert, with the lights of Laredo in view. Jose's rules are simple: Keep alert. No talking. No smoking. If you see a light flash or hear a noise, it could be the border patrol. If you see someone, run like crazy.

 

Jose says he treats his migrants well and even helps those he finds abandoned in the desert -- for a price, of course.

 

After all, he said, "It's business."

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Ayup.

 

Like with the drug war, once again our government is trying a supply side solution to a demand side problem.

 

The result will be similarly bad.

 

FYI: FREE TRADE HELPS EVERYONE, EVEN THE POOREST.

[LJSexay 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/06/imm...n.ap/index.html

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Republicans and Democrats closed in on a last-minute compromise Thursday on legislation opening the way to legal status and eventual citizenship for many of the 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally.

 

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said he had been assured President Bush supports the measure, and would publicly say so later in the day.

 

As outlined, the measure would provide for enhanced border security, regulate the future flow of immigrants into the United States and offer legalized status to the millions of men, women and children in the country unlawfully.

 

"We've had a huge breakthrough" overnight, said Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee.

 

Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, agreed, but cautioned that the agreement had not yet been sealed.

 

Even so, the presence of both leaders at a celebratory news conference underlined the expectation that the Senate could pass the most sweeping immigration bill in two decades, and act before leaving on a long vacation at the end of the week.

 

The developments marked a turnaround from Wednesday, when it appeared negotiations had faltered. The key sticking point involved the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, and the struggle to provide them an opportunity to gain legal status without exposing lawmakers to the political charge that they were advocating amnesty for lawbreakers.

 

While final details were not available, in general, the compromise would require illegal immigrants who have been in the United States between two years and five years to return to their home country briefly, then re-enter as temporary workers. They could then begin a process of seeking citizenship.

 

Illegal immigrants here longer than five years would not be required to return home; those in the country less than two years would be required to leave without assurances of returning, and take their place in line with others seeking entry papers.

 

Not everyone was satisfied. A spokesman for Sen. John Cornyn said the Texas Republican was opposed to the measure. There was no immediate reaction from GOP Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona or Jeff Sessions of Alabama, two other prominent critics of earlier proposals dealing with illegal immigrants.

 

Beyond the illegal immigrants, there were other thorny issues to be clarified. Senate leaders had yet to publicly unveil draft legislation to make sure that only legal workers were hired in the future, for example.

 

Nor was it clear what type of assurances, if any, Democrats had received from the White House and Republicans about compromise talks with the Republican-controlled House later this year. The House has approved legislation limited to border security, and while GOP leaders have signaled support for a broader measure, Democrats have expressed concern in recent days that they will be pressured to make unacceptable additional concessions to achieve a final compromise.

 

=0!!!

[The Czech Republic 0]

Whenever some of these immigration reform bills are discussed on talk radio (which I had to hear over break...ugh), my fellow right-of-center guys are like "okay...hey...but wait a minute.........THIS AMOUNTS TO AMNESTY!!" with no lack of righteous indignation.

 

1) Why don't I have any righteous indignation?

2) Do they even, really?

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Government Official

"And how many years have you been here?"

 

II #1

I've been undocumented for 5 years!

 

II #2

 

ME TOO!

 

II #3

 

ME TOO!

 

You know, they all can say they've been here for 5 years undocumented...

[Guest The Satanic Angel]

And do they expect all 11 million illegals to come forward?

[LJSexay 0]

one could easily provide documents, like bills and whatnot, to prove youve been here for a certain amount of time.

 

I actually think this 'compromise' is promising.

 

If it can get my friend out of her 19 year horror story as someone put it.. then I am all for it.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

It wouldn't be that hard to get illegals to leave the country. Make it a felony for an employer to knowingly hire an illegal immigrant, and fine them 1000 bucks for every day they employ that person illegally. Also, cut off all medical care or other services to any illegals. They'll leave pretty damn quickly after that.

 

Also, put up a damn wall on the southern border already. It's not just Mexicans coming across that border, you know. We're supposed to be so concerned about potential terrorism in this country, but we don't do much about some of the most gaping holes.

 

Also, if Mexico protests, say "fine, we'll just start charging your country for all the expenses your people are incurring here." That would be fair.

[SuperJerk 0]

To my knowledge, the press isn't linking this issue to national security at all.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

But they should be.

 

No one looks at the big picture. They talk about the southern border as if it's just Mexicans sneaking across. Yes, that's the majority, but there are others too. They neglect the fact that none of these people have been screened for criminal backgrounds or diseases. They also forget that yes, while having cheap labor can help the US in the short term, in the long term it is going to cost us huge amounts of money in lost taxes, as well as having these people use our medical systems, welfare, etc. And let's not even get into the potential cultural and language issues, etc.

 

Instead the argument becomes "America is a free country built on immigration! (of course forgetting that we're only concerned about illegal immigration)" It's a lot more complex than that.