Theodore Roosevelt on Immigration 100 years ago

#21

dude you're straying from the subject... but of a few things i can come up right now:
the civil rights movement comes to mind, the fact that they give more programs to help poor people, this new congress is trying to raise the minimum wage,etc. , but like i said they are not that different.

anyway you seem like a dude whos really obssesed with the whole "blue state/red state crap" sorry dude but they are basically the same.

heres an example of the difference between those 2:

republcans: "sure rich people are pissing at you, but you become a republican and youll be one of the pissers"

democrats: " yeah rich people are pissing at you, but here's an umbrella"

and im pretty sure that alot of those injuries where work related, and i bet if people stopped exploiting them mayvbe they wouldnt get injured so much, besides that i already explained that before, so im not going to repeat myself.

another question, how much do poor people pay in taxes and the like?

#22

both of you, is that it?

#23

Poverty level 16K a year pay whatever the percentage is for that Fed tax bracket- I'd have to look at the IRS website- but it is a percentage they pay- and they pay it - unlike illegals who pay NOTHING or as above post; 0 Fucking ZERO

Soc Security, FICA, Medicare, etc out of payroll taxes- that can be anywhere between 2-10% for any income bracket- it can vary state to state again they pay it - unlike illegals whom pay NOTHING or as above post; 0 Fucking ZERO

What's raising the minimum wage got to do with Civil Rights??? Its an economic/ inflation deal -- minimum wage for US Citizens has to rise according to inflation for a strong economy and its hasnt relative to inflation for the last 50 years (yes its been raised but not on par with inflation)

What's civil rights got to do with Illegals - they dont deserve a minimum wage- NOT US Citiizen

As for the exploited illegals and injures due to being exploited (if that's at all true) -- who gives a shit, I dont, exploit the fuck out of 'em --- If they dont like being exploited 'Get the FUCK OUT and GO HOME'

Illegals arent entitled to shit- their Illegal and NOT US Citiznes (and their children born here shouldnt be)

This really isnt about economics, race, civil rights.... Its a bunch of shitbags that cant fix their own country and since the grass is greener here they think that they can 'Break our laws and ARE Entitled to do whatever the fuck they want and get the same benefits as US Citizens.

Again they arent entitled to anything other to die while crossing a rain swollen river or in a rat infested jail

Its illegal they arent afforded any rights, liberties or the pursuit of happiness

#24

dude i was talking about some other issue with buff when i was talking about civil rights and minimun wage...

and you still haven't answered the questions i asked about the so called "ted kennedy economic BS" and you probably never will, so really im done with this thread. so keep ranting away as much you like.

#25

See Ted Lie

Fiscal lunacy.

Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
January 16, 2002

Senator Ted Kennedy is arguably the biggest spending politician in the history of the United States. There may be no member of Congress in either party whose spending initiatives are more responsible for our $4 trillion national debt than Ted Kennedy. For more than 30 years, Kennedy has been a major driving force in Congress for expansions in Medicare and Medicaid, food stamps, and public housing, and hundreds of other pricey federal programs that have caused a quadrupling in the size of the budget since Ted's father bought him a seat in the United States Senate. He cosponsored this year's dreadful education bill that will nearly double the federal education budget over the next five years.

The National Taxpayers Union has given Kennedy a lifetime "F" grade for his disservice to the taxpayers and his utter disregard for fiscal sanity.

So there is more than a little irony in Ted Kennedy now giving holier-than-thou lectures about fiscal responsibility. What's next, Arthur Andersen CEO Joseph Berardino preaching about business ethics?

Kennedy blasted the Bush tax cut from last May, blaming tax relief for the recession, the disappearing surplus, rising interest rates, higher unemployment, and just about the breakdown of Western civilization. But here's a short list of the logical inconsistencies in Kennedy' anti-tax-cut screed:

Kennedy blames a tax cut ” 75% of which has not even taken effect yet, for an economic downturn that began at least six months before the tax plan was even passed into law.

Kennedy says that tax cuts are causing higher interest rates when interest rates have fallen, not risen during the Bush presidency.

Kennedy says that the tax cut is responsible for the $150 billion reduction in the surplus in 2001, but the only tax cut that has taken effect so far has been the $40 billion tax rebate, which was the Democrats' own idea. Tax-rate cuts can't possibly have caused the shrinkage of the deficit because tax rates haven't been cut yet. (You have to wait till 2005 or so for those cuts.)

Kennedy manages to slither to the left of his Majority Leader Tom Daschle by calling for one of the largest tax increases in American history. Kennedy would raise income-tax rates on the rich; he would resurrect the death tax; and even tax rates on many middle-income families would be raised in Kennedy's $1 trillion tax-hike scheme.

What we have here is Kennedy-economics. But it is certainly not John F. Kennedy economics. It was almost exactly 40 years ago when President Kennedy called for a 30% across the board income-tax-rate cut. JFK argued that high tax rates were one of the primary deterrents to prosperity. He believed that without tax cuts, "it is a paradoxical truth we will never reach our industrial potential to balanced the budget." He said that every American should receive a tax rate reduction, because "a rising tide of prosperity will lift all boats." There was none of this class warfare, hate-the-rich rhetoric that has become such an unhealthy obsession with his younger brother, Tom Daschle and the modern-day Democratic party.

In fact, JFK's tax cut was a much larger tax cut for the rich than Bush's. JFK cut the top income-tax rate from 91% to 70%. Bush only cuts the top tax rate from 40% to 35%. JFK understood what his little brother can't comprehend: that when the rich face lower tax rates, they will save, invest, work, and hire more.

Ted Kennedy's speech on the evils of tax cuts, is not so much an indictment of the economic policies of Bush as it is the economic policies of his brother.

Kennedy has also introduced a new and baffling economic theory unknown and unarticulated until today. According to this Kennedy theory, the way to get out of a recession is to raise taxes on Americans so that families can spend less, and the government can spend more. This new theory is inconsistent with classical economics, supply-side economics, and even Keynesian economics. Kennedy seems to be making the nonsensical argument that if we increase the tax penalties on investment, business expansion, and job creation, we will get more investment, business expansion, and job creation.

Kennedy's prescription for more economic recovery is not new, nor is it fiscally responsible. It is boilerplate liberalism: more government spending. On top of the 11% increase in government spending already approved by Congress for 2002, Kennedy seeks at least $50 billion more federal domestic expenditures for 2002. Apparently, Kennedy and his economic wise men are unaware of the catastrophic failure of these tax-and-spend policies in Japan.

The reassuring news for tax-cutting Republicans is that they not only have economics on their side; they have politics on their side too. The latest CNN poll shows that by a 2-to-1 margin, voters oppose the Kennedy idea of terminating the Bush tax cut.

Kennedy and Daschle continue to push the Democratic party further and further to the loony left ” away from the center ground that the Clinton New Democrats of the 1990s successfully captured for their party. The first rule of politics is that when your enemy is busy digging himself into a ditch, let him keep digging.

#26

This letter was borrowed from the San Antonio Express this morning;

Legislation Scary

After living on the East Coast for nearly eight years, I returned to San Antonio with hopes of attending graduate school at my alma mater, UTSA (UT at San Antonio).
I examined the possibility of begining classes in the fall, but to save on out-of-state tuition and fee costs, I decided to postpone my postgrad pursuits until next spring. By then I will have met the one-year residency requirement.

As a U.S. citizen, I have always been frustrated by this requirement, so I was especially perturbed to learn that illegal immigrants under the new immigration bill would be granted tuition subsidies. The bill would allow states to offer in-state tuition to any illegal alien who obtains the new Z visa.

Why would an illegal alien be given better access to educational resources than a U.S. citizen- or legal resident, for that matter? This is only one of the many ridiculous provisions of the immigration proposal.

President Bush recently accused conservative critics of the proposal of trying to scare the American public. I don't need anyone to convince me that this particular part of the bill is frightening. I cannot speak for other Americans, but a bill that promotes the educational interests of noncitizens over law-abiding citizens, for me, is beyond horrific.

-M.T. Stewart

#27

QUOTE(SEF @ Jun 2 2007, 08:32 AM) dude i was talking about some other issue with buff when i was talking about civil rights and minimun wage...

and you still haven't answered the questions i asked about the so called "ted kennedy economic BS" and you probably never will, so really im done with this thread. so keep ranting away as much you like.

Takes time to research 30 yrs of crappy politiking--- Buff's teh Man, I'll post some more articles as time allows

#28

Extra!: Immigration

April 30, 2007

(CNN Student News) -- The subject of immigration has been hotly debated since the founding of the United States. Questions about who should be allowed to enter and how they should be treated when they do have generated reams of immigration legislation. Use the information in this Extra! to help students examine the issue of immigration.

Categories of immigration

Family-based immigration law allows close relatives of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents to join their families in the U.S.

Employment-based immigration law allows people who have skills and talents needed in the U.S. to be admitted to work on a temporary or permanent basis. U.S. employers who demonstrate a need for foreign workers usually sponsor employment-based immigrants.

Humanitarian relief law offers protection within U.S. borders to a certain number of people who are fleeing persecution in their homeland. Refugees and asylum-seekers are included in this category.

Lottery-based immigration law provides approximately 50,000 visas annually to immigrants from countries with relatively few people admitted into the U.S. This is done through a lottery system, and its goal is to help maintain diversity.

Some terms to know

Alien: Any person who is not a citizen or national of the United States.

Asylee: An alien who is found to be unable or unwilling to return to his or her country of nationality; one who seeks the protection in the U.S. because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution. Persecution or the fear thereof must be based on the alien's race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

Immigrant: A person who has been given legal permanent residency in the U.S.

Legal permanent resident (LPR): Any non-U.S. citizen who is legally and permanently living in the U.S.; also known as "permanent resident alien," "lawful permanent resident," "resident alien permit holder" or "green card holder."

Naturalized citizens: Legal permanent residents who have lived in the U.S. for at least five years, have not committed any serious crimes, have paid their taxes and are of "good moral character" can apply to become U.S. citizens through the naturalization process. They must be able to understand, speak and read English and pass an exam on U.S. history and government.

Non-immigrant: Someone who is admitted into the U.S. for a short period of time but is not given permission to live in the U.S. permanently.

Refugee: Any person who is outside his or her country of nationality and who is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution.

Undocumented immigrant: An illegal alien.

Visa: A document by which the U.S. government regulates immigration by granting or denying permission to enter the country. There are two types of visas: immigrant and non-immigrant. Congress limits the overall number of immigrant visas. Many immigrant visas are also subject to per-country caps.

Sources: U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, Center for Immigration Studies

#29

Clean renewable energy, dispite Democratic opposition

The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, http://www.saveoursound.org/About/Position is strongly against the wind farm going in THEIR neighborhood because "This will cause visual, noise and light pollution."

The charge has been led by Senator Ted Kennedy, who has always been an advocate of the environment and a sound energy policy, until this project came along in his own backyard.

#30

Politicians that point fingers while in a glass house
My name is Mary Jo Kopechne.
I would have been 65 years of age this year.
Read about me and my killer below:

When Sen. Ted Kennedy was merely just another Democrat bloating on Capitol Hill on behalf of liberal causes, it was perhaps excusable to ignore his deplorable past.

But now that he's become a leading attack dog, positioning himself as Washington's leading arbiter of truth and integrity, the days for such indulgence are now over.

It's time for the GOP to stand up and remind America why this chief spokesman had to abandon his own presidential bid in 1980 - time to say the words "Mary Jo Kopechne" out loud.

As is often the case, Republicans have deluded themselves into thinking that most Americans already know the story of how this "Conscience of the Democratic Party" left Miss Kopechne behind to die in the waters underneath the Edgartown Bridge in July 1969, after a night of drinking and partying with the young blonde campaign worker. But most Americans under 40 have never heard that story, or details of how Kennedy swam to safety, then tried to get his cousin Joe Garghan to say he was behind the wheel.

Those young voters don't know how Miss Kopechne, trapped inside Kennedy's Oldsmobile, gasped for air until she finally died, while the Democrats' leading Iraq war critic rushed back to his compound to formulate the best alibi he could think of.

Neither does Generation X know how Kennedy was thrown out of Harvard on his ear 15 years earlier -- for paying a fellow student to take his Spanish final. Or why the US Army denied him a commission because he cheated on tests.

As they listen to the Democrats' "Liberal Lion" accuse President Bush of "telling lie after lie after lie" to get America to go to war in Iraq, young voters don't know about that notorious 1991 Easter weekend in Palm Beach when Uncle Teddy rounded up his nephews for a night on the town, an evening that ended with one of them credibly accused of rape.

It's time for everyone to state unabashedly that they will no longer "go along with the gag" when it comes to Uncle Ted's rants about deception and moral turpitude inside the Bush White House.

The Democratic Party should be ashamed to have the national disgrace from Massachusetts as their spokesman.