U. S. Politics II

[Howlin' Howland]

[quote name='Annelise' post='1650121' date='Jan 15 2009, 12.08']What do you guys think? Would you be in favor of prosecutions or no? Is Obama disappointing here, or do you think he's being appropriately practical? Not stirring the pot in the name of getting things done?[/quote]


This is bannana republic talk. Dictators often seize power because if they don't they will be prosecuted. The US cannot afford to go down this path even if they could. Sensure and history is enough of a check on presidents. I don't want to see a Coup in my lifetime.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kay,

[quote name='Kay Fury' post='1669848' date='Feb 1 2009, 01.44']Oh yeah, all those government jobs in the New Deal- that didn't help at all.[/quote]

There is a fair amount of debate as whether the make work projects of the New Deal or the hands off economic policies of the Republican congresses that followed FDR are what really brought back the US economy post WWII.

[sToNED_CAT]

I don't understand how can anyone say that New Deal worked. It was probably good thing politically (saved the US from fascism or socialism) but economically? I don't think so. The Depression basically lasted until WWII. That's more than 10 years if you think New Deal was started by Hoover, 8 years if under FDR. WWII and the drafting of million men that were removed from labour force helped the country not New Deal. So US govt should either start WWIII or do something with 20 mil. of illegals.
I'm actually surprised Republicans are not pointing out that expelling 20 mil. people from US would "create" a lot of jobs too and without such big goverment spending. Dems could have some difficulties to explain some of their voters, why they allow illegals to "steal their jobs" during the recession.

[Altherion]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1670016' date='Feb 1 2009, 14.58']Government jobs require taxes be levied or loans taken out first to pay for them. Therefore government jobs, while sometimes necessary, are removing funds from the larger economy that could be used for valuable production. In other words "make work" projects are usually just moving the same value that existed around without adding new value that could result in new jobs and economic growth.[/quote]
"Make work" is independent of who is paying for it. If somebody is building a hydroelectric plant, then value is being created regardless of whether they're working for the Army Corps of Engineers or for a private construction firm. Conversely, if somebody gets a secretarial (or worse, a managerial) position without well defined responsibilities because they're somebody's nephew or niece or something of the sort, then they're being paid without contributing anything regardless of who foots the bill. The government is no different from any corporation when it comes to job creation or the usefulness of these jobs. The differences lie in how it gets the money and who runs it.
[quote]There is a fair amount of debate as whether the make work projects of the New Deal or the hands off economic policies of the Republican congresses that followed FDR are what really brought back the US economy post WWII.[/quote]
Oh, come on. WWII [i]itself[/i] brought back the US economy, partly because it created jobs on an unprecedented scale (to the extent that women were actually brought into manufacturing on a mass scale for the first time) and partly because the US was the one and only world-class economy wherein a substantial fraction of industry and infrastructure was not reduced to rubble at the end. I didn't think there was any debate about that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Altherion,

After WWII ended there was a post-war recession as people came out of the military and miltary production was retooled to civilian production. Why didn't the great depression reassert the hold it had on the US economy before the war?

[Altherion]

[quote name='anguy' post='1670028' date='Feb 1 2009, 15.33']The Depression basically lasted until WWII.[/quote]
No, it did not. Here is a [url="http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2008/08%20August/0808_gdp_nipas.pdf"]pdf chart[/url] of, among other things, the GPD of the US in current dollars. It bottoms out around 1933 after which it continuously improves except for a slight dip in 37-38. The problem was that the economy had fallen so far that recovery took a long time, but the situation was improving even before WWII. What the war did was make the US the dominant one of two superpowers in the world and it is not clear that this would have happened without it, but the economy had climbed back to where it was before the Depression began at the eve of WWII.
[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1670034' date='Feb 1 2009, 15.47']After WWII ended there was a post-war recession as people came out of the military and miltary production was retooled to civilian production. Why didn't the great depression reassert the hold it had on the US economy before the war?[/quote]
First, it's not clear why it should reassert itself when the things that caused it were gone for two decades. Second, FDR & Co. had made several crucial changes to the structure of the economy that made it significantly more robust when confronted with the troughs of capitalism's cycles. Third, as I said, economic competition becomes easier when every economy except yours is in ruins and needs help rebuilding. Sure, there was some readjustment required to accommodate the returning soldiers, but American exports more than doubled at the end of the war (see pdf link above).

[Annelise]

Re: Gregg and 60.

[quote]But Republicans on Capitol Hill and in New Hampshire are putting fresh pressure on Gregg to stay in the Senate if Lynch refuses to appoint a Republican. On Saturday, Joe McQuaid, the publisher of the state’s influential Union Leader, blessed the move, saying that Gregg would be an “excellent choice” for Obama’s Cabinet —but only if Lynch appointed a Republican.

On Fox News Sunday, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) sounded unworried at the prospect of Republican Sen. Judd Gregg leaving the Senate to become Commerce Secretary, though he was coy about why he is so confident. He said there's no "deal" worked out but Gregg "would not leave his Republican colleagues in a lurch. Sen. Gregg clearly has thought this through."[/quote]



As far as Geithner and Daschle (who apparently is still expected to be confirmed), I don't understand why Senate Republicans aren't coming out en masse against them. In Geithner's case, I realize it was closer than any other Treasury Sec in a long time as it is, but there was also 4 of the Dem caucus who voted nay. I can't figure why they didn't make more of a fight over it (or Daschle, if that predicition proves true).

[Annelise]

[quote name='anguy' post='1670028' date='Feb 1 2009, 09.33']I'm actually surprised Republicans are not pointing out that expelling 20 mil. people from US would "create" a lot of jobs too and without such big goverment spending.[/quote]

My friend was just suggesting this the other day. I think that's actually a can of worms that Republicans aren't eager to open.

I'm certainly no expert but I thought many of those jobs aren't exactly desirable and I reckon there would be some business owners making frowny faces at having to hire American citizens (who would want more money, I'd think). I am not sympathetic, they shouldn't be relying on illegal employment IMO, but I wonder if that would work against economic recovery.

And mass deportation would, at a guess, also be expensive, generate a lot of press, and would probably entrench Hispanics in the Dem Big Tent. It would also, I think, leave a hole in the workforce even given today's higher unemployment rate, much less during average times. Even where some would fill the void during lean times, I expect many would go back to their old employment niche once the economy improves.

[Kelli Fury]

[quote name='anguy' post='1670028' date='Feb 1 2009, 08.33']I'm actually surprised Republicans are not pointing out that expelling 20 mil. people from US would "create" a lot of jobs too and without such big goverment spending. Dems could have some difficulties to explain some of their voters, why they allow illegals to "steal their jobs" during the recession.[/quote]

These are jobs filled by illegal immigrants because they cannot support anyone else. They don't even come close to paying minimum wage, much less a living wage. You would make more on unemployment. During the dust bowl, some people were forced to take those jobs, but as an alternative to literal starvation. I know some boarders have had trouble finding work, but I don't know any who are looking into migrant crop harvesting. And by all means, if you would like to become a migrant farm worker- apply. Probably they'd be more than happy to hire you.

[sToNED_CAT]

[quote name='Kay Fury' post='1670183' date='Feb 1 2009, 15.13']These are jobs filled by illegal immigrants because they cannot support anyone else. They don't even come close to paying minimum wage, much less a living wage. You would make more on unemployment. During the dust bowl, some people were forced to take those jobs, but as an alternative to literal starvation. I know some boarders have had trouble finding work, but I don't know any who are looking into migrant crop harvesting. And by all means, if you would like to become a migrant farm worker- apply. Probably they'd be more than happy to hire you.[/quote]

Well how many illegals really work in agriculture today?1 million maybe? The rest have other jobs, the days when they were just farmer workers are long gone. For example the jobs in construction industry are well compensated. Also they are the ones who cause the wages in certain professions to be that low. I agree that it's quite unlikely that their current employers can replace them 20 mil. Americans while paying higher wages, but there's no need to "create" 20 mil. new jobs, 5 mil. would be more than enough. I'm not saying it would solve all problems, but it would certainly help with unemployment of low income classes without billions of $ invested by govt.
And no need to deport anyone simply start applying strict fines on employers. Concentrate on professions with higher salaries first.

[Shryke]

[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/01/steele-the-gop-does-not-h_n_162896.html?page=26&show_comment_id=20350371#comment_20350371"]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/01/s...omment_20350371[/url][quote]RNC Chairman Michael Steele took to the Sunday talk show circuit for the first time since he was elected to the post. And while he pledged to help restore the Republican Party to a more powerful perch, he outlined a game plan that seemed reminiscent of years past.

[b]Pressed by Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, Steele diagnosed the GOP ills as a problem of the messenger but not the message[/b] -- he even suggested that the party should look back to New Gingrich's Contract With America for inspiration.[/quote]
[quote]That mindset extended itself throughout the conversation on policy and politics, where Steele did little to distance himself from the issues that defined the GOP's poor showing in recent elections. [b]He put forward Gov. Sarah Palin's name -- among others -- as the future of Republican leadership.[/b] And on immigration, he pledged "no change in the position on the party..."[/quote]

Oh man, the GOP is just getting funnier and funnier.

[Kelli Fury]

[quote name='anguy' post='1670205' date='Feb 1 2009, 13.41']Well how many illegals really work in agriculture today?1 million maybe? The rest have other jobs, the days when they were just farmer workers are long gone. For example the jobs in construction industry are well compensated. Also they are the ones who cause the wages in certain professions to be that low. I agree that it's quite unlikely that their current employers can replace them 20 mil. Americans while paying higher wages, but there's no need to "create" 20 mil. new jobs, 5 mil. would be more than enough. I'm not saying it would solve all problems, but it would certainly help with unemployment of low income classes without billions of $ invested by govt.
And no need to deport anyone simply start applying strict fines on employers. Concentrate on professions with higher salaries first.[/quote]

Well the point is there aren't really highly paid illegal immigrants. It is in the employer's interest to employ legal work if they can, assuming they are paying above minimum (the main incentive to hire illegal is the opportunity to pay so little). All other things being equal, they'd all rather hire an American and not assume the risk of getting in trouble- hence they are not taking "our jobs" And as far as construction wages going down, that is a result of the market change. Less stuff is being built. And I don't think illegal labor has any causal effect on construction labor in those areas being cheaper on the whole. These are places with low or no union presence, and unions drive wages (even for those who aren't in the union) for the area up. A better solution in those areas is to unionize the labor.

[Shryke]

Obama goes after more big targets:
[quote]The Obama administration has asked the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the Pentagon's budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent -- about $55 billion -- a senior U.S. defense official tells FOX News.

Last year's defense budget was $512 billion. Service chiefs and planners will be spending the weekend "burning the midnight oil" looking at ways to cut the budget -- looking especially at weapons programs, the defense official said.[/quote]
[url="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/30/defense-official-obama-calling-defense-budget-cuts/"]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/30...se-budget-cuts/[/url]

Well, no better time to do it then during the honeymoon period.

[Annelise]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1670289' date='Feb 1 2009, 16.16']Oh man, the GOP is just getting funnier and funnier.[/quote]

Evidently Steele is very conservative. And according to what I've read, he is a good salesman and politician. From that perspective, his selection does seem like their primary concern is marketing, so to speak.

[Guest Raidne]

[quote name='anguy' post='1670028' date='Feb 1 2009, 09.33']I'm actually surprised Republicans are not pointing out that expelling 20 mil. people from US would "create" a lot of jobs too and without such big goverment spending. Dems could have some difficulties to explain some of their voters, why they allow illegals to "steal their jobs" during the recession.[/quote]

Some of them are, although not in the way you suggest. Arizona, as a state, has made [url="http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/gc_1185221678150.shtm"]E-Verify[/url] mandatory for all employers in the state, and I believe there's a bill in the federal legislature that would do the same thing around the country.

And it's too to say that illegals get all the jobs nobody would want otherwise. Take construction or landscaping - people [i]used[/i] to want to do a lot more of it in places like Texas, but it's less desirable now because the prices have fallen so low because of illegal labor. Not that those jobs would be affected by E-Verify anyway.

[Watcher]

[quote name='anguy' post='1670028' date='Feb 1 2009, 07.33']I don't understand how can anyone say that New Deal worked. It was probably good thing politically (saved the US from fascism or socialism) but economically? I don't think so. The Depression basically lasted until WWII. That's more than 10 years if you think New Deal was started by Hoover, 8 years if under FDR. WWII and the drafting of million men that were removed from labour force helped the country not New Deal. So US govt should either start WWIII or do something with 20 mil. of illegals.
I'm actually surprised Republicans are not pointing out that expelling 20 mil. people from US would "create" a lot of jobs too and without such big goverment spending. Dems could have some difficulties to explain some of their voters, why they allow illegals to "steal their jobs" during the recession.[/quote]

Doesn't being in the military mean you have a government job? As an owner of a construction company who would you rather hire, one of the 7,000 people Starbucks just laid off, or someone that's been working construction for 5 years but is here illegally? As one of the 5,000 collage educated people Microsoft making well over the national average that just got laid off, are you willing to clean offices after hours for $5.75 an hour with no benefits. And again the people that would be deporting them, government workers or contractors.

[Annelise]

[quote name='anguy' post='1670205' date='Feb 1 2009, 14.41']Well how many illegals really work in agriculture today?1 million maybe?[/quote]

This is a little dated (2005).

[quote]More than 10 million illegal immigrants are thought to live in the United States. The overwhelming majority are Hispanic; most are from Mexico. A new report from the Pew Hispanic Center examines where and how these undocumented immigrants live and work.

Illegal immigrants can be found working in many sectors of the U.S. economy. About 3 percent work in agriculture; 33 percent have jobs in service industries; and substantial numbers can be found in construction and related occupations (16 percent) and in production, installation and repair (17 percent).[/quote][url="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4703307"]http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4703307[/url]

A few snippets re: possible complications wrt mass deportation:

[quote]Without migrant farm labor, O'Neill said Pennsylvania would lose an estimated $100 million to $175 million a year from direct sales.

"It's not just the farmers, because if the farmers go out, you lose processors," he said. "There's a domino effect in how this impacts business. Then it's going to affect customers."[/quote][url="http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/511037.html?nav=742"]http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content....37.html?nav=742[/url]

And..

[quote]Francisco and Raymundo are at the heart of a labor polemic. Critics contend that north country farmers are contributing to a system that depresses wages, fills domestic positions with illegal foreigners and promotes human trafficking.

Yet, a growing legion of political and agricultural leaders say that unless federal laws are changed to permit farmers to hire more workers like Francisco and Raymundo, the north country's farming industry — where labor is increasingly hard to find and expenses are overwhelming profits — will collapse.

The New York Farm Bureau estimates there are up to 25,000 migrant workers in the state, and Jefferson County Agricultural Coordinator Jay M. Matteson estimates there are 300 to 400 migrant workers in Jefferson County alone.[/quote][url="http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20081012/NEWS03/310129984/Illegal+aliens+hard+at+work+on+north+farms"]http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article...+on+north+farms[/url]

[Shryke]

This story just keeps getting funnier:[quote]The BFF of Tony Perkins (of the Family Research Council), former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke, is going apesh*t over the election of Michael Steele to run the RNC. He refers to the former Maryland Lt. Gov as “Obama Junior”[/quote]
[url="http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/david_duke_loses_it_over_michael_steele_at_rnc/"]http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comment..._steele_at_rnc/[/url]

The GOP is just getting more and more entertaining.

David Duke:[quote]I am glad these traitorous leaders of the Republican Party appointed this Black racist, affirmative action advocate to the head of the Republican party because this will lead to a huge revolt among the Republican base. As a former Republican official, I can tell you that millions of rank-and-file Republicans are mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore! We will either take the Republican Party back over the next four years or we will say, “To Hell With the Republican Party!” And we will take 90 percent of Republicans with us into a New Party that will take its current place![/quote]

[Galactus]

[quote name='anguy' post='1670028' date='Feb 1 2009, 15.33']I don't understand how can anyone say that New Deal worked. It was probably good thing politically (saved the US from fascism or socialism) but economically? I don't think so. The Depression basically lasted until WWII. That's more than 10 years if you think New Deal was started by Hoover, 8 years if under FDR. WWII and the drafting of million men that were removed from labour force helped the country not New Deal. So US govt should either start WWIII or do something with 20 mil. of illegals.
I'm actually surprised Republicans are not pointing out that expelling 20 mil. people from US would "create" a lot of jobs too and without such big goverment spending. Dems could have some difficulties to explain some of their voters, why they allow illegals to "steal their jobs" during the recession.[/quote]

The depression is pretty complicated, but basically there was the initial slump, that got a bit better after the first New Deal programmes started up, and then a second slump later on (that seems to have been connected to a contraction in Europe: Everyone was preparing for war)

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1670034' date='Feb 1 2009, 15.47']Altherion,

After WWII ended there was a post-war recession as people came out of the military and miltary production was retooled to civilian production. Why didn't the great depression reassert the hold it had on the US economy before the war?[/quote]

Because the european economies rebounded much faster than expected (thanks to the Marshall plan, which was essentially the New Deal writ larger) combined with some new trade policies.

[quote name='Kay Fury' post='1670183' date='Feb 1 2009, 20.13']These are jobs filled by illegal immigrants because they cannot support anyone else. They don't even come close to paying minimum wage, much less a living wage. You would make more on unemployment. During the dust bowl, some people were forced to take those jobs, but as an alternative to literal starvation. I know some boarders have had trouble finding work, but I don't know any who are looking into migrant crop harvesting. And by all means, if you would like to become a migrant farm worker- apply. Probably they'd be more than happy to hire you.[/quote]

Mind, they hired a lot of mexicans, phillipinos and others back then too.

[TrackerNeil]

[quote]I am glad these traitorous leaders of the Republican Party appointed this Black racist, affirmative action advocate to the head of the Republican party because this will lead to a huge revolt among the Republican base. As a former Republican official, I can tell you that millions of rank-and-file Republicans are mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore! We will either take the Republican Party back over the next four years or we will say, “To Hell With the Republican Party!” And we will take 90 percent of Republicans with us into a New Party that will take its current place![/quote]

Uh-huh. Reminds me of Tony Perkins last February, who flatly stated that he could never, ever, ever back John McCain for president. When McCain won the nomination, Perkins had a miraculous change of viewpoint and enthusiastically supported him. All of that leads me to believe that David Duke will be right back in the fold in 2012 even if Steele should be the GOP nominee for president.

Conservatives, after all, [i]do [/i]know how to line up.