|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 25, 2006 17:45:46 GMT -6
Below is a link to today's Senate vote on the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, S. 2661, which passed 62-36. with 2 not voting. 23 Republicans and 38 Democrats voted FOR the bill. 32 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted AGAINST the bill. The link to this vote can be found at: projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/2/votes/157/Below is a list of Democrats who voted FOR the bill: Daniel Akaka, Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Joseph Biden, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Maria Cantwell, Thomas Carper, Hillary Clinton, Kent Conrad, Mark Dayton, Christopher Dodd, Dick Durbin, Russell Feingold, Dianne Feinstein, Tom Harkin, Daniel Inouye, Tim Johnson, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, Herb Kohl, Mary Landrieu, Frank Lautenberg, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, Joseph Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Robert Menéndez, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, Bill Nelson, Barack Obama, Mark Pryor, Jack Reed, Harry Reid, Paul Sarbanes, Chuck Schumer, Ron WydenDemocrats voting AGAINST the bill: Robert Byrd, Byron Dorgan, Ben Nelson, Debbie StabenowDemocrats not voting on the bill: Jay Rockefeller, Kenneth SalazarRepublicans voting FOR the bill: Robert Bennett, Sam Brownback, Lincoln Chafee, Norm Coleman, Susan Collins, Larry Craig, Mike DeWine, Pete Domenici, Bill Frist, Lindsey Graham, Judd Gregg, Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, Mel Martinez, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Gordon Smith, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Ted Stevens, George Voinovich, John Warner Republicans voting AGAINST this bill: Lamar Alexander, Wayne Allard, George Allen, Kit Bond, Jim Bunning, Conrad Burns, Richard Burr, Saxby Chambliss, Tom Coburn, William Cochran, John Cornyn, Michael Crapo, Jim DeMint, Elizabeth Dole, John Ensign, Michael Enzi, Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Kay Bailey Hutchison, James Inhofe, Johnny Isakson, Jon Kyl, Trent Lott, Pat Roberts, Rick Santorum, Jeff Sessions, Richard Shelby, John Sununu, Jim Talent, Craig Thomas, John Thune, David Vitter
|
|
|
Post by lc on May 25, 2006 20:06:59 GMT -6
Unlawful,
It is now abundantly clear that I am as dense as a stone. Only now do i finally come full face with the realization that the democratic party simply doesn't give a crap about anyone. They just care about winning elections and whatever shifting base can get that done, well whatever.
Neither party will ever get my vote unless the alternative candidate is Belzebub or Adolph Hitler.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on May 25, 2006 22:01:48 GMT -6
CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" last night covered it well with his commentary. "Commentary: Bush, Congress tell working folk to go to hell" "President Bush says that the installation of the new Iraqi government was a "watershed event," but at the same time warns Americans of the challenges and loss as we continue to prosecute the war against Iraqi insurgents. Sen. Harry Reid declares that legislation that would render English the national language is racist..." The Full story is here: www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 26, 2006 12:51:48 GMT -6
Unlawful, Only now do i finally come full face with the realization that the democratic party simply doesn't give a crap about anyone. They just care about winning elections and whatever shifting base can get that done, well whatever. Neither party will ever get my vote unless the alternative candidate is Belzebub or Adolph Hitler. My sentiments exactly. I was actually about to help on a campaign for a California Democratic Congressional Candidate, Steve Young. I originally liked his positions on trade, Iraq, civil liberties, and immigration. When I initially heard about him, he was strongly in favor of prosecuting employers for hiring illegal aliens. Now he's down to only fining illegals $3,000 for being here. Needless to say, he lost my support. Illegal aliens are taking at least 7 million jobs of the 143 million in this country. Without them, at least 7 million more Americans would be working, and wages would be higher as a result of the labor supply reduction. Furthermore, the increased wages that would have resulted would increase consumer spending, increasing demand for production, increased demand for labor to provide the production, thus further increasing both wages and employment. From any available numbers, illegal immigration suppresses wages and employment far more than outsourcing. Currently available statistics can directly account for only 3 million jobs lost as a result of outsourcing. (There are probably more, but this is the highest claim I've seen.) In contrast, illegal immigrants have displaced 7 million Americans from jobs, and have reduced average annual wages 4%, or $1700/year, for a total aggregate consumer income loss of about $243 billion annually. The 2005 GDP "growth" figure concocted by the Bureau of Economic Analysis shows an annual GDP increase of $384 billion. The additional $243 billion in consumer spending would probably double that number. And the labor cost increases to Corporate America wouldn't hurt any, because the reduction in profit margins and resultant capital reductions wouldn't reduce investment significantly, since investment capital is overabundant at present. The cost increases resulting from increased wages would have a minuscule effect on prices, since prices are determined by what consumers will pay for a product, not how much it costs to make. The only price effect would come from consumers having more income available to drive prices upward. But with "sticky" prices, and tightening borrowing practices, even this would have only a slight effect on prices. Limiting our labor force size, and increasing wages as a result, would have nothing but positive effects on the economy. Consumers would have more buying power, and that buying power increase would be through actual income increases, not credit increases, as has been the case since the beginning of the Bush dictatorship.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 26, 2006 13:36:46 GMT -6
CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" last night covered it well with his commentary. "Commentary: Bush, Congress tell working folk to go to hell" "President Bush says that the installation of the new Iraqi government was a "watershed event," but at the same time warns Americans of the challenges and loss as we continue to prosecute the war against Iraqi insurgents. Sen. Harry Reid declares that legislation that would render English the national language is racist..." The Full story is here: www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/Graybeard, I heard much of this episode of Lou Dobbs. I didn't "see" much of it because I was too busy trying to find out which treasonous Senators sold out the American middle class by voting in favor of this immigration "reform" fiasco. It's getting harder to even support the Democrats, much less the Republicans. At bare minimum, a majority of House Republicans claim to oppose the current Senate version of the Immigration/Amnesty Bill. We'll see, however, if they actually vote the way they claim they will vote. Talk is cheaper than action. And I suspect House Republicans are mostly talk. Furthermore, even the allegedly "tough" bill that the House is backing does not mandate employer prosecution until 6 years after passage. And no doubt even that aspect will be removed during Senate-House negotiations. (Those "poor," unjustly maligned employers. How can they survive if they don't have cheap semi-slave labor to maintain their exorbitant profits.) My wife and I have already called Feinstein's office to let her know we'll be voting for her opponent in the next election. In this November's election, I will vote exclusively on each candidate's position on illegal immigration. It's the only issue that doesn't seem to have an already pre-determined outcome. The Democrats failed to stop NAFTA, failed to stop CAFTA, failed to stop Iraq, failed to prevent voter fraud in 2004, failed to prevent the extension of the tax cuts, failed to censure Bush, failed to stop the Bankruptcy Bill, decided not to try to impeach Bush, and failed to stop the Medicare Prescription/Pharmaceutical Welfare bill. Now their only success may well be to kick the middle class and American workers in the teeth, by supporting massive amnesty for illegal aliens. Just great. Thanks Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, and Nancy Pelosi. Why in hell should anyone vote for them again? What we really need is another political party, since both parties represent Corporate interests almost exclusively.
|
|
|
Post by lc on May 26, 2006 22:08:52 GMT -6
Agreed,
and greed.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 27, 2006 15:17:58 GMT -6
The best hope I've seen for another party is the Reform Party. The other possibility is creating one of our own. How about a new "Populist" Party? Or an American Populist Party.
At some point this country needs to have public financing of elections. And very strict term limits. As in 1 consecutive term only. Representatives should not be encouraged to solicit campaign contributions. That's how they've become so beholden to Corporate interests. And if they could only serve one term, even without any limits on campaign contributions, they'd receive a lot less big money contributions due to the limited "returns" on the donors' investment.
In this day and age of mass media propaganda, candidates need to have such access severely limited. That would force them to get to the point and use their limited media time wisely. Who knows, it might force them to accidentally disseminate some truth during their campaigns.
One of the lessons learned in medical school, and medical residency, is not "what to say," but "what not to say." This is especially true on surgical services. What you say, and the time you have to say it, is EXTREMELY limited. It trains doctors to disseminate as much information in as few words as possible, as well as to state their information in as accurate, neutral, and unbiased a manner as possible. One may get only 60 seconds to sum up a patient's condition. That time needs to be used wisely.
It should be the same way with political campaigns. Give all candidates the same, extremely limited amount of time to state their cases. The public would be much better informed. It would simply be a case of "less is more," because the less politicians said the more the public would understand. Time limits create obfuscation limits.
Today's political system is designed to obfuscate, instead of clarify, a politician's position. A case in point was the last interview I heard from Barbara Boxer regarding immigration and employer sanctions. Talk about B.S. She barfed up some concoction about how employers would have to sign a document to "prove" that they had tried to find an American to do the job before hiring an illegal alien. (You know, one of those "jobs no American will do.") Complete, absolute nonsense. Worse still, she probably has a lot of support from the Republican pseudo-free market advocates.
In medicine, one of our caveats is the K.I.S.S. principle. It's the "keep-it-simple-stupid" principle. In other words, never make anything more complicated than necessary. Save the complexities for those things that really ARE complicated.
Most everything in politics is the same. Yet the K.I.S.S. principle is never used. Too much truth might be disseminated if it was. Making issues complicated protects the guilty and allows for political positions that go completely against the best interests of a politician's constituents. Unfortunately, this obfuscation usually works. Politicians get elected representing the interests of rich Corporate donors exclusively, to the detriment of the remainder of their constituents. They simply obfuscate well enough to deceive voters that their policies are really in the voters' best interests. It's a real testament to how well millions of dollars-worth of spin works.
The immigration issue is a case in point. It could be solved with a 1-page bill. Force employers to verify Social Security numbers when hiring. Prosecute them severely if they don't. How hard is that? In fact, House bill H.R. 98 (not the Sensenbrenner Bill) does essentially this very thing. (And of course, it hasn't even come up for a vote, because it doesn't provide sufficient "obfuscation" of the issue to suit our Corporate-controlled representatives.)
My recommendation on Immigration: Pass H.R. 98 with no amendments and enforce it. See what happens to the illegal immigration problem. Then add to it or alter it if necessary.
Fences might help some. Prosecuting smugglers might help some. Making illegal immigrants felons probably won't do much good. Making those assisting illegal immigrants felons might help some. Denying social services would do little.
But prosecuting employers for not verifying Social Security numbers would help tremendously. This could be done either through an electronic strip, or by calling the Social Security Administration directly. This is not only do-able, it's already being done by banks. This one simple policy would virtually eliminate the problem of illegal immigration. Of course, that really IS the problem. Neither political party really wants to eliminate the problem, because it would go against the greed-motivated interests of their rich Corporate donors. So they concoct a confusing bill that purports to actually do something to reduce illegal immigration, when it's actually an attempt to increase immigration. And it also serves to drive American wages down, while hiding behind such falsehoods as "fairness," "racism," "xenophobia," "compassion," and "jobs-no-American-will-do."
Again, many problems today have technically simple solutions. Illegal immigration is one of them. However, getting Corporate-controlled legislators to keep those solutions "simple" is not as simple. In fact, that's where the real complexity lies. How to get the politicians to carry out the will of the people, instead of obfuscating the issues so they can carry out the will of Corporate America instead. This is the real "complexity" of today's political scene.
|
|