Dream Act... That's certainly apropros!

D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
So.... With the economy in the toilet, unemployment stubbornly stuck at near double-digits, REAL unemployment at about 16%, virtually NO economic stimulation or signs of life regarding growth in the business sectors... The issue of the Bush tax cuts... the issue of the federal budget... TSA basically trashing the 4th Amendment... what have Democrats decided to tackle first in this lame duck session? The Dream Act!

Is this not a fitting and appropriate title for head-in-the-clouds Democrats? Now, don't be fooled by the seemingly soft and fuzzy name... this is the product of Harry Reid who promised his Hispanic constituency, he would do something for all the illegal aliens who voted for him! They actually focus-grouped the original title which indicated what the bill actually is, The Pathway to Amnesty Act... it didn't poll well, so they decided on, The Dream Act!

Basically, it allows people who are here illegally, to serve 2 years in the armed forces or some other public service, and be granted citizenship as a reward. They have to have been 16 or under when they came here illegally, but really, how is that going to be verified or confirmed? I guess, we take their word for it?
 
The Dream Act's primary purpose is to give citizenship to people who came here as children and are culturally American anyway. Children should not be held responsible for the crimes of their parents.
 
REAL unemployment at about 16%,
Click to expand...
Why is U6 the "real" unemployment number? You just pull it out and try to shock people with the higher number. The number is always and has always been higher. But you don't want to compare the current U6 number to previous U6 numbers, you want to compare it to previous U3 numbers. Which is just hackery.
 
Watermarx said:
The Dream Act's primary purpose is to give citizenship to people who came here as children and are culturally American anyway. Children should not be held responsible for the crimes of their parents.
Click to expand...

So you finally admit that their parents are criminals.
I knew you would eventually see the light.
Thanks
 
Dixie said:
So.... With the economy in the toilet, unemployment stubbornly stuck at near double-digits, REAL unemployment at about 16%, virtually NO economic stimulation or signs of life regarding growth in the business sectors... The issue of the Bush tax cuts... the issue of the federal budget... TSA basically trashing the 4th Amendment... what have Democrats decided to tackle first in this lame duck session? The Dream Act!

Is this not a fitting and appropriate title for head-in-the-clouds Democrats? Now, don't be fooled by the seemingly soft and fuzzy name... this is the product of Harry Reid who promised his Hispanic constituency, he would do something for all the illegal aliens who voted for him! They actually focus-grouped the original title which indicated what the bill actually is, The Pathway to Amnesty Act... it didn't poll well, so they decided on, The Dream Act!

Basically, it allows people who are here illegally, to serve 2 years in the armed forces or some other public service, and be granted citizenship as a reward. They have to have been 16 or under when they came here illegally, but really, how is that going to be verified or confirmed? I guess, we take their word for it?
Click to expand...

Actually the first thing Democrats took on was extending unemployment benefits for Americans, but Republicans want no part of it. There is one job available for every five people that lost their job because of failed Republican governance and failed Republican policies.

So Republican's first vote was their The Pathway to Serfdom... it didn't poll well, so they decided on, The Destroying the American Dream Act!

So.... With the economy in the toilet, unemployment stubbornly stuck at near double-digits, REAL unemployment at about 16%, virtually NO economic stimulation or signs of life regarding growth in the business sectors... The issue of the Bush tax cuts... the issue of the federal budget... TSA basically trashing the 4th Amendment... what have Republicans decided to tackle first in this lame duck session?

Fixing the economy...a ban on earmarks...

earmarks.jpg


Ron Paul on Earmarks

Channel: C-SPAN
Date: 3/10/2009

Transcript:

Ron Paul: Thank you, Madame Speaker. I would like to address the subject of earmarks today. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding here among the members about exactly what it means to vote against an earmark. It’s very popular today to condemn earmarks and even hold up legislation because of this.

The truth is that if you removed all the earmarks from the budget you would remove 1% of the budget. So there’s not a lot of savings. But, even if you voted against all the earmarks, actually, you don’t even save the 1% because you don’t save any money. What is done is those earmarks are removed and some of them are very wasteful and unnecessary, but that money then goes to the executive branch.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-11/ron-paul-on-earmarks/
 
Last edited:
cawacko said:
How are Republicans able to control the agenda of Congress while still in the minority (unless I don't understand how a lame duck session of Congress works which is quite possible)?
Click to expand...

We're talking about each party's agenda, not controlling the agenda.

The first thing Democrats tackled in the lame duck session was an extension of unemployment insurance for American taxpayers who lost their jobs because the elite and bankers turned Wall Street into a Las Vegas gambling casino, went on a gambling binge with taxpayer's money and collected huge personal gains for themselves and sacrificed taxpayer's personal earnings to cover their personal irresponsibility.

Republicans want no part of this extension of unemployment insurance for American taxpayers who lost their jobs. Their noble cause; an extension of Bush's tax cuts for the same elite and bankers. A big fat reward for destroying our economy and for stealing the nest egg of millions of hard working taxpayers.

In 1961, Democratic President John F. Kennedy asked Americans to willingly make sacrifices for our country and our people.

Republicans have finally answered that call. They're more than willing to offer up a huge sacrifice; they offer all those American taxpayers who lost their jobs, some who will no longer be able to provide a roof over the head of their family or put food on the table for their children.

We certainly can't ask the elite and bankers who sacrificed taxpayer's personal earnings to cover their personal irresponsibility to sacrifice being able to buy an $83,000 Mercedes Benz E-Class car, not just once, but every single year for the next decade.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy
 
Last edited:
Ya'll take Dixie far to serious. He's a fanatical partisan. If the good ole boys say abortion is ok, then he'll rationalize that. If the good ole boys support teaching evolution and not creationism, he'll support that. If the good ole boys support Obama, he'd do that. If the good ole boys agree we should nationalize our steel and automotive industries he'd support that. Can anyone honestly say they've ever heard an original thought from Dixie? Ever? Hasn't he always spun whatever it is the good ole boys believe?

Dixie's brand of "Good ole boy" ideologically driven brand of identity politics rose to it's zenith during W's administration and proved only two things. That it is inept at governance and that it is bankrupt. It has been so thoroughly discredited that it is now operating at the margins of society to gain support. Which brings me to the following rhetorical question, who cares what Dixie says? Hasn't he been wrong on virtually every issue?

As for the Dream act. Any foreign national, regardless of circumstances, who puts their ass on the line to defend our nation should automatically be on the fast track to US Citizenship. I have only one thing to say to the sons and daughters of illegal immigrants who serve in our millitary to defend our nation. Thank you!
 
Last edited:
Actually the first thing Democrats took on was extending unemployment benefits for Americans, but Republicans want no part of it.
Click to expand...

Well let me ask you something, Bfoon... Just how long do you think we need to keep extending these benefits? You do realize, the EMPLOYER pays roughly half the cost, right? So what do you think that is doing for job creation? Every time we extend unemployment benefits, it is costing American businesses more money if they have to lay someone off. That cost factor is certainly a consideration in hiring, don't you imagine? If I know that I am going to have to pay you 3 years of unemployment, instead of 26 weeks... that might make me think twice about whether I really do need to hire you or not.

You approach this from a purely liberal emotive aspect, and don't consider consequences. How long are we supposed to pay the unemployed? Indefinitely? At some point, don't we have to say, enough is enough, we can't afford to just keep extending these benefits? Especially, when this is costing us new job creation!
 
The truth is that if you removed all the earmarks from the budget you would remove 1% of the budget. So there’s not a lot of savings.
Click to expand...

It's not the actual COST of the earmarks! These earmarks are most often used to buy votes needed to pass very costly legislation, that would otherwise not be passed. It's not the cost of the earmarks, it's the cost of the legislation they are used to pass into law!
 
Dixie said:
It's not the actual COST of the earmarks! These earmarks are most often used to buy votes needed to pass very costly legislation, that would otherwise not be passed. It's not the cost of the earmarks, it's the cost of the legislation they are used to pass into law!
Click to expand...


Name a few specific pieces of legislation that were passed due to the use of earmarks to buy votes.
 
Dixie said:
Well let me ask you something, Bfoon... Just how long do you think we need to keep extending these benefits? You do realize, the EMPLOYER pays roughly half the cost, right? So what do you think that is doing for job creation? Every time we extend unemployment benefits, it is costing American businesses more money if they have to lay someone off. That cost factor is certainly a consideration in hiring, don't you imagine? If I know that I am going to have to pay you 3 years of unemployment, instead of 26 weeks... that might make me think twice about whether I really do need to hire you or not.

You approach this from a purely liberal emotive aspect, and don't consider consequences. How long are we supposed to pay the unemployed? Indefinitely? At some point, don't we have to say, enough is enough, we can't afford to just keep extending these benefits? Especially, when this is costing us new job creation!
Click to expand...

Well Dixie, you will have to come up with another lame excuse to punish human beings. Because extended benefits are 100% federally funded. The employer does not pay. So try to dream up another reason you dirt bag.


dol_sym.gif


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Emergency Unemployment Compensation 2008 (EUC08) and Federal-State Extended Benefit (EB) Summary data for State Programs

The EUC08 program, signed into law on June 30, 2008, provides up to 13 weeks of 100 percent federally-financed compensation to eligible individuals in all states.

http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/euc.asp

-----------------------------------------------------------

Here's a State site with a 'frequently asked questions' page.

logo.gif


Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC)

I’m an employer. How does EUC affect my experience rating and benefit charges?

EUC will not affect your experience rating or benefit charges. It is 100 percent federally funded. You will not receive a “Notice to Base Year Employer” (EMS 166). If you are a reimbursable employer, you will not be billed.

http://www.esd.wa.gov/uibenefits/fileweekly/extension/emergency-unemployment-compensation.php
 
NigelTufnel said:
There's a good one. Is it really an earmark, though? And it was later rescinded so does it count?
Click to expand...

I think they rescinded the bridge to nowhere as well......it was still an earmark.....most earmarks would get rescinded as soon as it becomes public just how frickin ignorant our congressmen really are......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top