Simply by being here illegally, they are committing crimes against people AND property....

They are CRIMINALS in every definition of the word..

This is fact..

If they want a better life, let them do it LEGALLY...

Illegal immigrants are no different than the guy who robs a bank.. He just wants a better life too!!

Illegal immigrants are no different than the woman who wants out of a loveless marriage and kills her husband. SHE just wants a better life too...

If illegal immigrants want a better life, have them obtain it LEGALLY in accordance with the laws of the land.

They don't want to do that?? They want to take short cuts and cause Americans grief and hardship??

Frak them.... They are a disgrace...

Yea, bet you would do EXACTLY that...

If you had loved ones killed by illegal immigrants, you would fight tooth and nail to have ALL illegal immigrants deported...

The costs of illegal immigration in terms of innocent American lives and blood is simply too high...

This is fact...

i would certainly be angry at the individual, and perhaps also at the universe for being so unjust. however, i would NOT transfer my ire to the other 99% of immigrants who committed no crimes against people or property.

because that's... just... https://youtu.be/gmx3zfe63ZQ?t=36s

Exactly..

I am just knuckle-dragging ground pounder...

Highty tighty hooty tooty statistics and such don't interest me..

Seeing Americans brutally murdered and killed and raped and attacked by illegal immigrants and seeing those Americans ignored in pursuit of a ideological political agenda that condones such brutality against Americans??

That just pisses me of...

It's one of the few VERY few times that emotion overrides logic..

You can provide all the studies and stats you want that "proves" that illegal immigrant violent crime is inconsequential..

And I will STILL maintain that it is NOT inconsequential to the Americans whose lives are ended and ruined and made a living hell...

And NO AMOUNT of stats will convince me otherwise.

The costs of illegal immigration in terms of innocent American lives and blood is simply too high...

And, if a loved one of yours had been brutally murdered, raped or attack by an illegal immigrant, I am certain you would feel the same way...

ANECDOTAL:

Example: Jason said that that was all cool and everything, but his grandfather smoked, like, 30 cigarettes a day and lived until 97 - so don't believe everything you read about meta analyses of methodologically sound studies showing proven causal relationships.

It's completely natural that you would think that.. :D

Since we both agree that AG Sessions didn't lie, the methodology as to how we both came to the same conclusion is too minor a point to quibble...

You're still being ridiculous. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

"Let's agree to disagree"
-Boris The Animal, MIB III

:D

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/03/02/beyond-sessions-trumps-russian-scandal-is-here-to-stay/#comment-95985

:D heh

It's an appeal to emotional FACT...

FACTUALLY, the issues of violent crime and illegal immigration are NOT correlated.

EXCEPT to those who are VICTIMS of the violence of illegal immigrants..

That's the point that you refuse to concede...

And that correlation takes on MORE prominence because it's AMERICAN citizens who are the victims...

michale, i think you know i'm perfectly willing to acknowledge when you're right about something (the presidential election being foremost). but in this case, you're so far from right you'd need to run a marathon toward right just to get to wrong.

Yes you are always willing..

And you would also in this case if we were discussing the same issue..

You are correct in YOUR issue and I acknowledge that..

But I am correct in MY issue as well...

You are talking about the migratory habits of the european swallow and I am talking about the migratory habits of the african swallow...

that is an appeal to emotion fallacy. if someone is really really mad at immigrants then it must be all of their fault? FACTUALLY, the issues of violent crime and illegal immigration are NOT correlated.

Pew skewed the results to produce the desired conclusion..

no, the passage you cited means pew separated legal and non-legal immigrants in their study, so the correlation would be specific to illegals. i'm not sure how you managed to read bias into that, but it's not there.

factually, most correlation studies have found that immigrants - even the illegal ones - have below-average levels of crimes against both people and property. the only type of crime they have going against them is of the "public order" variety, and that's just because their mere presence on our soil is considered to be one.

michale, i think you know i'm perfectly willing to acknowledge when you're right about something (the presidential election being foremost). but in this case, you're so far from right you'd need to run a marathon toward right just to get to wrong.

JL

Houston is a sanctuary city and, as such, anything city officials say is biased and unreliable..

Once again... My bust...

Kathleen Steinle's parents would disagree...

It's also important to note that estimates of those not residing in the country legally, particularly for smaller regions, are difficult to pin down. Pew computed its estimates for unauthorized immigrants by subtracting known lawful immigrant totals from foreign-born survey estimates.

In other words, Pew skewed the results to produce the desired conclusion..

Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo says his experience serving in different departments aligns with research suggesting immigrants don’t commit crimes any more frequently than natives. It’s important, he says, for law enforcement to reach out to immigrant communities, as some new arrivals fear police from prior negative experiences in their home countries. “We spend a lot of time immersing ourselves in these communities to build trust and hopefully reduce skepticism,” says Acevedo, who frequently appears on local Spanish media. “We need to not do anything to hinder the trust that we’ve taken decades to build.”

Houston is a sanctuary and, as such, anything city officials say is biased and unreliable..

You can find all the high and mighty, hooty tooty "research" from Left Whinery places you want.

But it won't change logic and it won't change facts..

If illegal immigrants are deported and STAY deported, those that DO kill, rape and attack Americans WON'T be able to do it in America...

This is an undeniable FACT that simply CANNOT be refuted by ANY Left Whinery study you want to find...

It's a FACT that if Obama hadn't ignored Immigration laws, Kathleen Steinle would still be alive..

It's THAT simple...

http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-undocumented-immigrants-crime-pew.html

no matter whose hand it is, that is NOT a subject, it is TWO subjects. they are NOT related.

JL

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime-1436916798

It's behind a PayWall, so I can't see if it's fact or opinion..

carol neulander, mother of three, was beaten to death inside her own home, by men in the employ of her husband, rabbi fred neulander. he and other rabbis have been living in our communities for years. it's high time we start paying attention to the crimes committed by rabbis.

Are the rabbis in this country illegally??

If not, then they are irrelevant to the subject at hand. Which is ILLEGAL immigrants committing crimes against American citizens...

I am correct. Period..

incorrect.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime-1436916798

"There is NO right...NO legal right, NO constitutional right, NO human right, NO civil right for any foreigner to come to the United States....

PERIOD.."

You are correct, as far as that goes....

BUT...

and this is the BIG, CRUCIAL BUT...

ONCE they are HERE, they are entitled to the same RIGHT of Due Process as anyone else who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because of the 14th amendment, which does not restrict such rights to ONLY citizens.

The Constitution expressly limits to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal elective office.

All other rights, however, are written without such a limitation. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees extend to all "persons." The rights attaching to criminal trials,
including the right to a public trial, a trial by jury, the assistance of a lawyer, and the right to confront adverse witnesses, all apply to "the accused." And both the First Amendment's protections of political and religious freedoms and the Fourth Amendment's
protection of privacy and liberty apply to "the people."
The fact that the Framers chose to limit to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal office is one indication that they did not intend other constitutional rights to be so limited.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens."For more than a century, the Court has recognized that the Equal Protection Clause is "universal in [its] application, to all persons within
the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to differences of ... nationality."The Court has repeatedly stated that "the Due Process Clause applies to all 'persons' within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful,
temporary, or permanent."When noncitizens, no matter what their status, are tried for crimes, they are entitled to all of the rights that attach to the criminal process, without any distinction
based on their nationality.

According to one of our Founding Fathers, James Madison, and which has become accepted law since then, the Constitution presumptively extends not just to citizens, but to all who are subject to American legal obligations, and certainly to all persons within
the United States.

The ABOVE was quoted from the Thomas Jefferson Law Review by the Georgetown University Law Center.

Toe MAY toe, Toe MAA toe... Semantics..

- because it makes no difference.

It makes ALL the difference when discussing ILLEGAL immigrants and the crimes they commit.. It makes ALL the difference to the parents of Kathleen Steinle, a fact you continue to ignore/discount..

rounding up and deporting illegal immigrants would prevent fewer rapes and murders than randomly arresting names out of a phone book.

Yea, that's yer claim... But it is unsupported by facts..

THAT's the distinction you ignore...

not ignoring, discounting - because it makes no difference. the two issues DO NOT CORRELATE. rounding up and deporting illegal immigrants would prevent fewer rapes and murders than randomly arresting names out of a phone book.

therefore, any reference to specific rapes or murders committed by illegal immigrants, while certainly relevant to the enforcement of felonies, is not relevant to the immigration debate. each of the issues merits attention separately, but one has nothing to do with the other.

JL

And if the subject were US citizens, you would have a point..

But the subject is ILLEGAL immigrants..

Actually, I used the same rationale to condemn the illegal immigrants as I used to condemn the Palestinians..

NOTHING justifies terrorism with regards to the Palestinians..

i'm not ignoring it, i'm calling it what it is, a red herring.

The fact that you consider that tens of thousands of American citizens are being raped and murdered and robbed and beaten a "red herring" is indicative of the problem you face...

Clowns and electricians and hungarians in this country legally are LEGAlly IN THIS COUNTRY..

THAT's the distinction you ignore...

It's a special circumstance..

You are familiar with that concept, right??

congratulations, you've just used the same rationale as the palestinians - with equally sketchy facts.

But my point, which you STILL haven't addressed is why you ignore the victims of illegal immigrant crime...

i'm not ignoring it, i'm calling it what it is, a red herring. the rates of violent crime among illegal immigrants are lower than the rates of violent crime among US citizens. I'm not ignoring it, it just isn't a big enough trend within the overall population to be worth paying attention to.

you might as well be skewering me for my failure to pay attention to rapes and murders committed by clowns or electricians or hungarians. rape, murder and kidnapping are all serious crimes, but do not correlate in any way with illegal immigration. i'm sure you can find an example somewhere of an electrician or hungarian or clown who committed a violent crime, but there's simply no relationship whatsoever between one and the other.

JL

But my point, which you STILL haven't addressed is why you ignore the victims of illegal immigrant crime...

Nothing ANY of ya'all have said addresses that ONE point...

Cite....

And if holocaust survivors were killing, robbing and raping Americans by the tens of thousands, I would say they should be deported...

Whatever they have had to endure doesn't justify them victimizing American citizens..

Wouldn't you agree???

Yea, then start with the criminals who are criminals simply by BEING here..

No, they don't, slowflake. :)

Yes, they do...

Busy... later.

Of COURSE yer busy.. How convenient.. :D

"I say to any creature who may be listening, there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions."
~Jean-Luc Picard

clear, simple and WRONG.

JL

so you ARE willing to self-deport back to your family's country of origin. happy trails!

JL

Are you?? Then start with the criminals whose crimes are compounded by the FACT that they are in this country illegally..

"Start with"? There's no need to pick and choose which criminals to "start with."

Oh, that's right.. Yer a Left Whinery crime fighter and only go after those on the Right..

What part of "ship them all out" is too difficult for you and needs further clarification? I'm going to have to start calling you slowflake, snowflake.

Yea, that's what you claim.. But the facts say different.. :D

No, they don't, slowflake. :)

Busy... later.

No, your point was, as usual, irrelevant to the discussion of ILLEGAL immigrants and, as such, was ignored..

I'm an equal opportunity crime fighter.

Are you?? Then start with the criminals whose crimes are compounded by the FACT that they are in this country illegally..

Oh, that's right.. Yer a Left Whinery crime fighter and only go after those on the Right..

Yet none that violated federal statutes. LOL :)

Yea, that's what you claim.. But the facts say different.. :D

The same cannot be said for your ILLEGAL immigrants..

"Your illegal immigrants"? I don't have any "illegal immigrants."

You asked: Why are ya'all so adamant to support the "rights" of criminals???

My point that went right over your pea brain was that I don't have a preference for one nationality of criminal over another; I have no tolerance for any of them. My disdain for criminals is not limited to undocumented persons and therefore is immune to the ginning up of hate by the fascist Cheeto.

I'm an equal opportunity crime fighter. Ship them all out starting with Florida. Get packing.

You sure are having a lot of DUUUUHHHHH moments, aren't you?? :D

Yet none that violated federal statutes. LOL :)

The driver — who faces murder, vehicular manslaughter and driving while intoxicated charges in connection with the Feb. 19 crash — is an immigrant in the country illegally who has been deported from the United States at least five times, according to police and court records.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-alvarado-crash-immigration-20170307-story.html

Yep... NO HARM whatsoever... :^/

If Obama had enforced the laws, these people would still be alive...

Ahhh yes....

Illegal immigrants do NO harm and should be allowed to stay in this country illegally... :^/

Yes, it IS a simple question..

At least for those who don't find the answer politically inconvenient..

And the answer is NO..

There is NO right...NO legal right, NO constitutional right, NO human right, NO civil right for any foreigner to come to the United States....

PERIOD..

This is fact...

Anyone who DOES come to the United States without following the laws of said coming, are CRIMINALS and should be dealt with accordingly...

Simplicity itself..

It's only because of partisan ideology that there are those who want to equivocate and obfuscate that simplicity..

Because they are American citizens and have the RIGHT to be here..

The same cannot be said for your ILLEGAL immigrants..

You sure are having a lot of DUUUUHHHHH moments, aren't you?? :D

Why are ya'all so adamant to support the "rights" of criminals???

I know, right? Why stop at illegal immigrants? Why don't we round up all those people who've broken the law and ship them out first? I don't care where they're born. Send them out... starting with Florida.

/sarcasm off

That increase was passed in 2007.

Yes, I know that. It was passed in early January 2007 when the Democrats took control of the House. They wasted no time in passing it while the majority of Republicans in the House voted against it. After it passed the Senate (they insisted on tax cuts), it called for the minimum wage to be raised from $5.15 to $7.25 in 3 increments beginning 60 days after its enactment and yearly on that date thereafter.

MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES
$5.85 07/24/2007
$6.55 07/24/2008
$7.25 07/24/2009

Now, let's address the belief that the Democrats controlled the House and Senate in 2009. In actual fact, the Democrats controlled the House but not the Senate for the majority of 2009. Here's why:

* On 01/20/2009 upon Obama's inauguration, Democrats held 57 Senate seats with 2 Independents -- Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman -- who caucused with Democrats. That is 1 shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Those 59 in January 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during Obama's inaugural luncheon and was never able to return to vote in the Senate (brain tumor), and Al Franken was not officially seated until 07/07/2009 due to a contested recount demanded by his opponent Norm Coleman. So the actual Democratic Senate seat number in January 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.

Democrats managed to barely pass the stimulus bill around this time with ZERO support from Republicans in the House, and in the Senate three Republicans -- Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Arlen Specter -- voted to break a filibuster, thus guaranteeing it's passage.

* In late April 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat -- I call him Defector Specter. Kennedy was still at home dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. So the number in late April 2009 was 58 votes.

* In May 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until late July 2009. Even though Al Franken was finally seated 07/07/2009 and Byrd returned on 07/21/2009, Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned. The minimum wage increased in late July 2009, while Democrats continued to focus on the ACA. Senator Kennedy died on 08/25/2009. Kennedy's empty seat was then temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until 09/24/2009.

* The swearing in of Paul Kirk in late September 2009 FINALLY gave Democrats 60 potential votes in the Senate. So "total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months from 09/24/2009 through 02/04/2010, when Scott Brown-R was sworn in to replace Kennedy's Massachusetts seat.

The FACT then is: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years, and Democrats had "total control" of the Senate from 09/24/2009 through 02/04/2010... A GRAND TOTAL OF 4 MONTHS, and they were working on passing the stimulus and health care with little help from Republicans who wanted nothing to do with health care. It was during that very small 4-month window that the ACA/Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.

So there's your history. While it's true that Democrats could have endeavored to piggy back another minimum wage hike on top of the July 2009 hike already scheduled, maybe a look at history might provide some clues as to why that wasn't exactly the course they took under the circumstances. :)

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/b8/ae/a8/b8aea85ffe3e47a4b2b320b44a37cd62.jpg

It's a simple question...

a right could be a legal right, a constitutional right, a human right, a civil right, or any combination. it could be expressed, partially expressed or implied.

to "come" could mean for a short visit, a long visit, to immigrate, to flee oppression, to join one's family, to seek work, or any combination of those.

"illegally" could mean against local ordinances, state or federal statutes, case law, common law, folkways, or any combination of those.

"America" could mean the political borders of the USA and its territories, north america, all the americas, the caribbean, or any combination of those.

no, it's most definitely NOT a simple question. but since you ask, do you have any proof that your own family came here legally? and if it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they did, are you willing to self-deport back to their country of origin?

unless you're part seminole or choctaw, guess what, you're a non-american.

JL

Do you think non-Americans have a RIGHT to come to America illegally??

It's a simple question...

The rights I am referring to don't apply to ILLEGAL immigrants..

I understand why you would think that..

But it is not reality..

"Why are ya'all so adamant to support the "rights" of criminals???"

Because those very same rights that are enshrined in the Constitution (remember that little document?) apply to all of us and are the same things that prevent us from having a not free police state government!

the trouble with THAT math is that it doesn't add up. it wastes 99% of the time and money that could have been spent actually targeting and reducing violent crimes everywhere, and ultimately doesn't even accomplish its objective.

JL

Unless, of course, the Left Wingery ties the hands of those newly hired cops and those newly hired cops are endlessly demonized for simply doing their jobs..

Yes.. It's POSSIBLE that hiring more cops *MIGHT* bring down the violent crime rate..

But it's DEFINITE that deporting Illegal Immigrants will bring down the violent crime rate of illegal immigrants committing violent crimes..

And it will also free up resources and jobs for AMERICANS...

THAT is the math that works best for me..

think, mcfly!

JL

are you telling me that adding twenty extra beat cops won't prevent more than one single violent crime? do the math.

JL

If that were the goal, then you MIGHT be right..

But the goal is to lower the rates of theft, rape and murder by ILLEGAL immigrants...

And the ONLY way to accomplish that goal is to deport ILLEGAL immigrants...

"Simple logic"
-Spock

But the mere fact that they are in the country ILLEGALLY is considered "special circumstances"..

If the Obama Administration had enforced the laws like President Trump is enforcing the laws, then the scumbag who brutally murdered Kathleen Steinle would not have been in the country and Steinle would still be alive today...

The blood of Steinle and ALL the other Americans who have been brutally killed and murdered by illegal immigrants is on the hands of Obama and the entirety of the Democrats...

But even THAT fact is beside my point..

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a7/6c/39/a76c39c61f4cc406eb944069b644e4cb.jpg

that is an opinion, which as far as i can tell is based on the generalization that people categorized as criminals are more likely than the other people to steal, rape or murder.

the trouble with that generalization is that in the case of illegal immigrants, it's completely false. in spite of being identified as criminals due to their unlawful presence in this country, illegal immigrants are LESS likely than the average person to steal, rape or murder. that's a fact.

therefore, if our goal were to have lower rates of theft, rape and murder, statistically speaking, mass deportation of illegals would actually take us in the wrong direction. the goal could only be reached using that methodology if we started leaving illegal immigrants alone and deporting everyone else.

as ridiculous as it may sound, that's a logical inference based on the facts. want to lower the rates of theft, rape and murder? see below:

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/file.php?2,file=32585,filename=American_Indian.JPG

The Democrat Party is not the Peaches & Cream Everything Is Awesome that people here like to pretend it is..

It has some REAL problems vis a vis patriotic Americans who put country before Party... This became painfully obvious this last election..

Denying that those problems exist will simply guarantee that the Democrat Party will continue to be Minority Party in perpetuity...

In short, the usual stuff is not working..

Why not give Altohone's idea a try???

I wasn't trying to sell you on the idea, just referring to the enforced duopoly.

A

That increase was passed in 2007.

A

I think the Tea Party showed the way - an amorphous movement with a simple agenda and a strong backing can make a big impact in American politics - especially with a charismatic leader like Bernie.

2009
Democratic control of the House.
Democratic control of the Senate.
A Democratic president.

NO increase in the minimum wage.

The federal minimum wage was last raised on July 24, 2009, when it rose from $6.55 to $7.25 per hour.

They are what they do, not what they say.

I promise you that some Democrats voted for that minimum wage hike. :)

However, the voters get who they vote for. Money in politics is used to buy votes via convincing people to pull the "correct" handle. For the most part, this is a functional democracy, even if it isn't perfect.

The last person who I saw fighting for campaign finance reform at any important level was John McCain. Then he almost got primaried from the right in Arizona and gave up trying to do the right thing.

Who do you blame for the politicians we have today?

I think I just read that Australia went 20 years without a recession and their minimum wage is around $17.70 per hour.

Did you get a chance to read the article about 3rd parties?

A

2009
Democratic control of the House.
Democratic control of the Senate.
A Democratic president.

NO increase in the minimum wage.

They are what they do, not what they say.

A

I know you know that globalization isn't the sole factor in the decline of the middle class.

164

No.
The answer to all those questions is the same.
The rich who have controlled both parties for decades.

The elimination of defined benefit plans increased their profits.
They pushed the politicians to enact the policies to kill the unions, increase labor competition, keep the minimum wage low, and people unable to save... and yes, exploitive credit too.
They prevent the politicians from enacting the policies to mitigate the harm.

A

I thought my words about wanting to prevent an even uglier theoretical future were clear.

I guess not.

The part of your comment about trying to make the poor and lower middle class feel better takes us back to the argument we had months ago...
"Better than the Dark Ages"!!!
Remember that?

I support a larger pie more equally shared too, which is why I oppose the corporatist Democrats who cater to the rich, and why I think you and everyone else should too.

A

That Neil is still here.

I'm just making sure we don't get all soft on who allowed the following to happen:

Who do you think eliminated the defined benefit plans in the corporate world?

Where was the law that stated everybody had to get a defined benefit plan? In the 1950's when these developed labor was in short supply so unions could extract them from management.

And thus:

Who destroyed the unions?

Basically Reagan, with the help of the people who voted for him.

Who made saving for retirement impossible for all those Americans?

Most people I know do this to themselves. We buy "things" today and don't save for tomorrow. The credit card gave people an ability to spend future earnings with ease and just about everybody decided to go to the party.

Who opposes higher minimum wages?

Not any Democratic politician I've heard from in the last two decades.

No, but the only American politician in two decades I've seen claim he is going to reverse globalization is Trump (there, I used his name for this special occasion).

Bernie flirted with attacking globalization, but shot at the wrong target (the TPP) and refrained from trying to reverse globalization via tariffs. He fundamentally misunderstands global trade and America's role in it.*

Where Bernie got it right was to tax the wealth created and spend it in this country on the people.

* America only makes up a small percentage of the total World trade. If America kept high tariffs in place while the rest of the World lowered them then American goods would only be competitive in American markets. Within a generation American companies, protected from external competition, would start slipping behind the rest of the World and we would lose the most valuable strength America has - innovation. if you don't think this is true, look at the history of the American automobile industry and imagine if we had tariffs in place to make sure Ford, Chrysler and G.M. had protected markets since the 1970's - Ford Pinto anybody?

Geez man.
A wealthy guy channeling the poor to attack the middle class is bizarre.

Who do you think eliminated the defined benefit plans in the corporate world?
Who destroyed the unions?
Who made saving for retirement impossible for all those Americans?
Who opposes higher minimum wages?

And what happened to the neil who supports higher taxes on the rich, universal healthcare, a progressive firebrand, etc.?

I don't get you sometimes.

A

There is an argument that an American living in the second lowest quintile by household income (that is roughly $20K to $40K) are unimaginably better off than all but the very richest people 100 years ago. In terms of life expectancy, opportunities for travel, TV, smart phones, music, etc., etc.

Regardless, the vast, vast majority of our country cannot be classes as living only off the "necessities" - the minimum amount of food and just enough warmth to keep us alive. So what is your definition of "necessity", and how do you think it would sound to a Chinese villager who has spent 30 years in a rice paddy hoping to have enough to scrape by for one more year?

I'm of the school of thought that we need to make the pie larger and we need to make the pie shared more equally at the same time. Some people want to make the pie larger, but keep all the extra pie to themselves. They are in control at the moment and, in a democracy, we only have ourselves to blame for that.

People who think that the pie is getting bigger but most people are getting less are not looking at the data. The percentage share may be getting smaller for some, but the Elephant diagram in the last post shows that almost everybody is getting more pie.

Yup.
A new and global middle class is great, but it doesn't mean you support destroying the one in America right?

A

Of the 12 million foreclosures, a tiny fraction occurred during the "pandemonium", so that argument doesn't substantiate the need for tolerating the massive fraud, or opposition to policies that could have prevented foreclosures.
It was a choice, and Obama and Geithner were on the side of the banks.

Prosecutions for the fraud that created the pandemonium could have taken place once the finance sector was stabilized and BEFORE the statutes of limitations for the crimes expired.
It was a choice not to prosecute, and Obama and Geithner were on the side of the banks.

And the complexity of the counterparty risk and systemic risk the big banks created is above all the reason they should have been broken up.
Instead, with the help of policies supported by Big Money Democrats, they have all gotten bigger.
It was a choice, and Obama and Geithner were on the side of the banks.

Pandemonium isn't a valid excuse.

A

It took decades to establish a solid middle class, and it will probably take a few more decades of the status quo to destroy it.

We are creating a huge new middle class - one that is 3-4x the size of the one in the affluent countries and one that will create far more wealth for everybody.

Take a look at the "Elephant" diagram in this blog from the invaluable Branko Milanovic:

https://milescorak.com/2016/05/18/the-winners-and-losers-of-globalization-branko-milanovics-new-book-on-inequality-answers-two-important-questions/

Note that the middle class in the developed world has seen little or no income growth (and in some parts, income decline). However look at what is happening to the rest of the world. All those people who couldn't afford to buy anything, even if they had access to them, are on a spending spree the likes of which has never been seen before.

Hey Michale - I thought there was a new Sheriff in Town and the Iranian's weren't going to dare to do this any longer?

"long term" was meant as in not there yet.

If policies favoring the wealthy continue to destroy the middle class in the US, our economy will look exactly like many/most in Africa... and I don't think you were saying that is positive...

... the rich profiting off only the consumption of necessities by the poor.

That limits the economy as a whole and reduces profit opportunities for the rich.

It took decades to establish a solid middle class, and it will probably take a few more decades of the status quo to destroy it.

The slowly worsening reality is bad enough.

I would prefer we not test the hypothesis in America.

A

Despite ALL the facts to the contrary... :D

But, you still believe that NOT-45 won the election..

So....... :D

Today John King on CNN refused to run photos of Trump's Muslim Ban signing since the WH had done the signing behind closed doors (since 45 is sulking over Sessions being outed and having to recuse himself) -- and CNN said its not PRAVDA (essentially).

It's funny.. You condemned CNN to hell when the reported critically of NOT-45..

NOW CNN is yer cat's meow...

Yea, NO credibility gap there.. :D

President Bannon wants to ditch Priebus too -- good times. Institutional Repubs will have their come-to-Jesus moments when they realize the insane orange man is heading for disaster and ditching Priebus will allow President Bannon to call the shots.

Today John King on CNN refused to run photos of Trump's Muslim Ban signing since the WH had done the signing behind closed doors (since 45 is sulking over Sessions being outed and having to recuse himself) -- and CNN said its not PRAVDA (essentially).

From the minute the criminal took office with his GOP coconspirators, patriotic Americans have rebelled. Trump is a cancer and the country's immune system has been fighting back ever since. (Metaphor courtesy of Paul Waldman.) It is wonderful to know the Trump infestation is peopled by the same old bunch of rightwing idiots its always been, and that slivers of even them are having doubts.

Bannon may be smarter than Trump, but he's not smarter than the combined intellects of people all over the government who recognize the cesspool-like rot of this administration. We are learning America is stronger than the Trump-Bannon-GOP-Deplorable Gang and that's good to know.

Of course, the LOCK HIM UP part refers to Obama, right?? :D

This is an incredibly interesting article about the history of third parties and a potential path forward... or, for Establishment defending Dems, keeping tabs on what the millions who have left the Democratic party may be up to.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/bernie-sanders-democratic-labor-party-ackerman/

Here's an excerpt-

"In a genuinely democratic party, the organization’s membership, program, and leadership are bound together tightly by a powerful, mutually reinforcing connection. The party’s members are its sovereign power; they come together through a sense of shared interest or principle. Through deliberation, the members establish a program to advance those interests. The party educates the public around the program, and it serves, in effect, as the lodestar by which the party is guided. Finally, the members choose a party leadership — including electoral candidates — who are accountable to the membership and bound by the program.

It might seem obvious that those are the characteristics of a truly democratic party. Yet the Democratic Party has none of them."

-
-

I suspect that most of you will be completely unfamiliar (as I was) with how the regulatory and legal restrictions that have maintained the two party system came about.

There's a really interesting section on how the US system would violate just about every EU election law, and that they view our system as more akin to those in authoritarian countries.

We are exceptional again!!!

A

Do I REALLY need to list all the wire-taps that Odumbo oversaw???

Warning, it's a really REALLY *REALLY* long list...

My guess is this will all come down to whether our former president knew about this wiretapping — whoever authorized it and wherever it came from — and, if so, when. And also how he reacted to it and what he did from there. It's all, in the grand Clintonian tradition, about what the definition of "ordered" is.
https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/03/05/obamagate-is-a-lot-more-than-a-hashtag/

I think it's so totally awesome that Dumbocrats pushed and pushed on the BS accusation against AG Sessions..

Now ALL of Obama's malfeasance is going to come out!!!

And not even the liberals in California can save him!! :D

WOOT!!!!!

I haven't been this happy and pumped since President Trump devastated NOT-45 in her "50-state sweep" hehehehehehehe :D

One Demand.

Kick is a "her." :)

Are these allegations true? We don’t know yet, but if any part of them are then Obama and/or his officials could face serious trouble.

Obama's gonna do da perp walk!!!! :D

If the stories are correct, Obama or his officials might even face prosecution.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/yes-obama-could-be-prosecuted-if-involved-with-illegal-surveillance/

Once again... It's *ALL* about the '-X' after the person's name....

The suspicion/allegation is: Not only did Russia hack the election, but there are also enough ties between people in the Trump orbit and operatives of the Putin regime that there are grounds to believe that the Trump campaign was complicit in Russia’s hacking of the election. Transparently, the aim is to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s election victory.
http://tinyurl.com/h94etmg

And the Democrat House Of Cards come tumbling down!! :D

Who could have POSSIBLY called it!??

Oh... wait... :D

Please lay out how you would have addressed the problems at the time (this is open to everybody). You can do it with 20-20 hindsight, but you have to explain how to address the risk.

I am just commenting how funny it is that ya'all can justify ANYTHING, as long as you have an excuse..

If it had been Republicans in charge and did the EXACT same thing, you would be damning them all to hell..

But, since it was Democrats, "Well, it's necessary.."

It's ALL about partisan ideology...

NOTHING else here is in play...

So THAT makes it A-OK, then right?? :D

How would you have handled the failure of all the counterparty risk models Michale? How would you have ensured that banks didn't completely stop lending and call in all their loans in a race to the bottom? How would you have convinced Bank A not to call in the loans to Bank B, causing Bank B to call the loans in on the customers of Bank C, forcing Bank C to fail and then renege on it's loans to Bank D that underpins Bank A - and this is an incredibly simple example - most of the banks were everybody else's counterparty risk holders and there was no system in place that recorded most of the largest bets (there was no derivatives clearing house, and basically still isn't). Banks with massive risk in instruments that had been regarded as too safe to sell because nobody wanted to buy cash equivalents one day suddenly had to calculate the real value and didn't know who was on the other side of the risk.

Please lay out how you would have addressed the problems at the time (this is open to everybody). You can do it with 20-20 hindsight, but you have to explain how to address the risk.

Actual evidence would be nice to see.

We haven't gotten any yet, but Dems are pretending otherwise.

I guess that depends on your definition of "haven't gotten any."

https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/tapping-into-democratic-national-committee/

There's more but not quite enough made public. Stay tuned.

It's not just morally wrong, but also bad politics to stoop into the gutter with the republicans.

I guess that depends on your definition of "stoop into the gutter."

There are a lot of people who took their jobs seriously when they raised their right hands and were sworn to protect America from enemies both foreign and domestic, and some of them aren't Democrats. :)

Looks like the Borg have arrived.. :D

Because your partisan blinders simply will not let you blame Obama for ANYTHING...

I have criticized President Trump for quite a few things..

With a handful of exceptions, NO ONE here has criticized Obama for ANYTHING....

Depends on the circumstances...

But, all things being equal, I would agree with you..

My overall point here is simple..

Illegal immigration has a REAL and EXPENSIVE cost associated with it..

Everyone here wants to ignore that cost SOLELY and COMPLETELY based on partisan ideology..

And THAT stinks...

The whole thing is weird to me as well. Why would workers vote for Reagan? Especially after he put down the air traffic controllers? I mean the first time I can see it - Reagan was the sunny, smiling, optimistic believe in America at a time when America was feeling very sorry for itself - but the landslide in 1984? What were Reagan Democrats thinking?

The tried policies and talking points that we hear from Bernie and the left today failed disastrously in 1984, and then again in 1988, and these back-to-back failures shaped a generation of Democratic politicians and thinkers.

My take is that the leadership of the left realized that the people weren't paying attention to the important stuff and that the right wing of the country had learned how to make shiny objects more important than sound policy. Bribing people with tax cuts worked. Vilifying government and 'the elites' worked so well the left wing are now in bed with the right, as we just saw from Jimmy Dore. Things aren't going just the way he wants them, so it must be Obama's fault? F that.

I'm not jealous of these workers, but since average household income is just over $50,000 and most people don't have any retirement savings there is a lot of anger out there at defined benefit programs.

Why do you think Scott Walker got elected and survived a recall? That was a salutary lesson for Democrats - he won his recall election in 2012 by a larger margin than his original 2010 election for his policy of limiting collective bargaining privileges for state employees.

And Scott Walker is an arse of the first degree - it isn't like he is likable - his smarmy co-efficient is up there with Jimmy Dore.

Actually, what had occurred is this..

Obama went to the FISA court for permission to put a tap on Candidate Trump and a few associates..

The FISA court, who routinely rubber stamps government requests for taps, said, " ARE YOU FRAKIN' NUTS!!!!!" and then denied the request..

A few weeks later, Obama re-applied, this time omitting Candidate Trump's name. This one was approved and Obama went ahead and wire-trapped Candidate Trump in violation of the FISA order...

Seventh time: If this were some sort of illegal wiretap by Obama and some rogue, Watergate-like operators, and they are caught, everything that they recorded will be released

Now that Congress and the DOJ and the FBI are investigating Obama's role in all of this, you are right..

It's ALL going to come out and Odumbo is gonna do the perp walk!!! :D

Can't wait!!! :D

Oh... It was a time of pandemonium...

So THAT makes it A-OK, then right?? :D

OK. Technically they are all criminals. But they are not all dangerous criminals.

No, not ALL of them.. But that's irrelevant to the criminality of their actions..

Can you honestly tell me that you have never exceeded the speed limit, did not come to a full stop at a stop sign or driven through a park running over children, animals and no littering signs ? :D

What you are talking about are infractions, not crimes..

It would be like comparing armed robbery to jay walking...