I’ve often asked, “Who’s advising Bush and what was he/she thinking?” I’ve never paid much attention to Karl Rove, who apparently stays behind the scenes (in hiding?). As President Bush’s “chief strategist”, he’s giving the leader of the free world some dumb advice.
Take the amnesty for illegal aliens scheme, for example. If I ever met him in person, he wouldn’t like me — just like liberals out there in the blogosphere — because I’d tell him exactly what I think of his advice. Dump Karl Rove!
Yesterday’s illegal immigration post was sort of contentious. I like a rigorous discussion, and illegal immigration is an issue that needs to be discussed. Our country can’t afford not to. Some people are so afraid of being called a “racist.” I’m not one of those people. Encouraging more Mexican immigrants to swarm into the country illegally was a dumb idea. But I guess Rove thought that pandering to Hispanics was the way to go. Good luck with all that.
It’s times like these when I’m glad I’m not a registered Republican. It’s funny how some black liberals castigate me for “espousing partisan rhetoric” and advise me to be “more independent”, and they’re the ones who are registered Democrats “espousing” their own rhetoric! Hypocrites. Wake me up when it’s over.
Bush obviously doesn’t care about his base. There can be no other explanation. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is among the Republicans he’s upset over this issue. From the Washington Times:
The plan has deeply angered many Republicans, who say it is meant to pander to the growing Hispanic vote, and they blame the idea on Bush advisers, including chief political strategist Karl Rove.But in the interview, Mr. Frist emphasized that he is not taking orders on platform matters from the White House and specifically not from Mr. Rove.
“People always say, ‘How close are you working with the administration, with Rove?’ ” Mr. Frist said. “I have talked to Karl about the platform for a total of less than two minutes since I began working on this in the last month.”
The Democratic platform, adopted in Boston last month at the party’s national convention, supports offering citizenship to illegal immigrants in the United States who clear background checks.
Mr. Bush’s guest-worker plan has not been well-received even by some of the president’s closest friends and allies.
“I’m trying to understand it. But to me, illegal means illegal,” Sen. Zell Miller, a conservative Georgia Democrat who will deliver the keynote speech at the Republican National Convention next week, said of the Bush proposal.
“We are a nation of immigrants, of course; we all know that, but we are also a nation of laws and I’m having trouble reconciling that,” Mr. Miller said earlier this year.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, one of the most visible skeptics among Republican lawmakers, said, “Those that seek the American dream must follow American laws. I applaud the president for addressing this difficult and complex issue, but have heartfelt reservations about allowing illegal immigrants into a U.S. guest-worker program that seems to reward illegal behavior.”
This isn’t news to Bush. He knows what his conservative base thinks about illegal immigration. When he’s re-elected in November, and I’m fairly certain he will be (Face it: John Kerry doesn’t stand a chance.), I hope he becomes a real conservative and surrounds himself with the same.
I’m criticizing George Bush more than usual lately, but my problems with him actually began over a year ago when he failed to condemn the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold skin color preferences in Grutter v. Bollinger. He said:
“Diversity is one of America’s greatest strengths. Today’s decisions seek a careful balance between the goal of campus diversity and the fundamental principle of equal treatment under the law.”
The “decisions” didn’t seek any such thing. By definition there is no equal treatment when you judge students by different standards based on race, people! Is that so difficult to understand? Bush said a bunch of other stuff, but that’s all I heard.
So what are conservative conservatives supposed to do? Maybe I’ll write in a candidate at the polls. Any suggestions?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 52 comments }
There’s a lot with which I disagree with GW (’campaign finance reform’ being another of them); but the fact of the matter is that there are only two candidates with any real chance of winning- Bush or Kerry. Therefore if my vote is to have any real effect, I figure I need to vote for one or the other. And it’s going to be GW; he’s by far the better of the two. One thing he definitely has right is the war on terrorism. And he also has taxes right. Kerry has neither- and would probably be worse than GW when it comes to GW’s weak points.
I will disagree with you on one point- I believe GW genuinely believes he’s doing the right thing by offering amnesty to illegal aliens. I also believe he’s genuinely wrong, but that’s another matter.
But his genuine character means he may well tackle Social Security and things like it, despite political ramifications; and that must be reformed (and I’d personally like to see it abolished entirely, with those on it guaranteed, those paying into it given the choice of staying or leaving, and no new people admitted). It also means that if he can be shown how he is wrong on immigration, he may change his mind.
You know, I think it’s the beauty of the Republican party … we don’t all agree. There are “issues.” I appreciate the healthy (sane) debate among conservative. The dems are more the party of appeasement. They each have their own issue (Abortion, or peace, or the environment, or socialism) and they all sit under this weird and wacky tent … agreeing to support each other… but not debating.
Another big difference between Bush and Kerry are their plans for health care.
Big government might be growing under GW, unfortunately; but it would probably grow a great deal faster under Kerry.
I’m also not registered with a political party, and don’t like the partisan rhetoric — especially when it gets mixed in with theology.
I would much rather have a conservative vs moderate national debate than the moderate vs liberal debate that we have now.
This is the one issue that if I had 5 minutes with the President, I would very passionately urge him to change his position.
Pandering to the Hispanic voters is pointless. They only reside, en masse, in a handful of states and they are very clearly aligned with a party in each of them.
So, why is our national security open to rise because those who shouldn’t be violating our rights to national sovereignty in the first place might get their feelings hurt.
I want the National Guard on both of our borders. I want everyone caught to be immediately shipped back to their country of origin. I want our border security taken seriously. It is no longer a matter of whether Jose or Maria slip past the border patrols. We now have Mohammed and Khalid aiming to slaugher millions of our citizenry because we have the gall to support Israel and promote freedom and democracy throughout the world.
This isn’t an issue with regards to race. This issue involves our survival. We cannot allow our borders to remain open to anyone and everyone who wants to just saunter across.
I will still vote for Bush. Unless I get hit on the head with a baseball bat and lose all of my mental faculties there is no way on God’s green earth that the empty suit from Taxachussets will EVEr get my vote.
However, we must deal with our borders. We must do it NOW!!!
I want the National Guard on both of our borders. I want everyone caught to be immediately shipped back to their country of origin. I want our border security taken seriously. It is no longer a matter of whether Jose or Maria slip past the border patrols. We now have Mohammed and Khalid aiming to slaugher millions of our citizenry because we have the gall to support Israel and promote freedom and democracy throughout the world.
Right on, kdeweb. Ditto to infinity and beyond!
Going wobbly on the president again, eh La Shawn? Tsk, tsk. It’s that kind of attitude on the part of conservatives that will end up electing John Kerry, who will be much worse on his most conservative day that Bush is on his most liberal.
If the president cannot count on conservatives for support then whom can he count on? I find this public “agonizing” by some conservatives to be very nauseating, especially at a time when the president needs our help the most.
I’m inclined to agree with you on illegal immigration. However, I don’t really know the whole story, and Linda Chavez, who I respect, came out in favor of the policy. At first, I was strongly against the amnesty. After reading her column on townhall, I’ve downgraded to mildly against.
I’m totally against the medical spending on drugs and campaign finance reform.
However, in an area where I do have expertise, education, I’m actually strongly for the spending in No Child Left Behind. I used to believe the Federal Government had no place in Education. I still do in principle, and would like to return to the days where there actually was local control.
I’ve taught remedial reading with phonics for the last 10 years. The number of adults who read poorly is terrible, and the number of children not reading at a proficient level is just under 70%. Phonics fixes these reading problems.
Here’s a quote from my web site: I agree in spirit with the position that education should be a local matter and under local control. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case in our nation. I have known several parents in several different states who tried to get phonics programs into their local schools prior to the passage of NCLB, with no success. See here for an example of one father who tried to get phonics in his son’s school. Textbook decisions are made on a high level in today’s schools. Schools are no longer responsive to input from local parents, or often, even to input from local teachers.
Read the whole thing here: http://www.thephonicspage.org/Other/onpresidentbush.html
President Bush has pushed for phonics in education against the wishes of the NEA and most liberals (I’ve found some liberals who support phonics, mostly parents who fixed their kids’ reading problems with phonics!) NCLB requires phonics and testing for states to receive money. How well you read is more highly correlated with how much money you make than IQ.
My neighbor teaches 2nd grade. She says that they have a new phonics program with testing every 2 weeks that is making an amazing difference. She says it helps her find those kids who would have slipped through the cracks in the past and get them up to par.
If you have kids or grandkids in school, I challenge you to have them read to you from something other than one of their textbooks and see how they’re doing. Approximately 5-10% of the children of my college educated friends have kids who can’t read. The numbers are worse for those with less education and for those in inner city schools. You can teach them to read for free with the lessons at http://www.starfall.com or at my website at http://www.thephonicspage.org.
I’m sure Laura Bush had something to do with his push for phonics and testing. I’ve found that many veteran teachers and most librarians have discovered the need for phonics. When I first started tutoring, I used whole word methods that the literacy program I joined recommended. After 4 weeks of no progress, I called my dad, a public school teacher, and he said “teach her phonics.” (My dad is very conservative. He retired 5 years early because the liberals, administrators and the NEA started to drive him crazy. He loved the actual teaching.)
Well Tom, I have to tell you what I tell liberals. I’m an Independent for a reason. President Bush, who I like very much, is not above criticism. If I think he’s doing something damaging to this country, I’ll say so. He’s soft of immigration and seems like a deer-caught-in-the-headlights when it comes to confronting Big Media. I hate it.
Conservatives aren’t above criticism, including the ones who have problems with the way I express my opinion.
–GW (”campaign finance reform”)–
I didn’t like it either, but the people wanted it and now they can see the incumbent protection act in action.
Didn’t Cabana Boy vote for it?
—
Elizabeth – if you really want to know the damage of no phonics, my mom is an example. She went to school in the 40s and the ivory tower elitists thought back then phonics wasn’t a good idea.
She became a secretary and had a dictionary on her desk.
I had phonics, but I’m a product of new math.
Don’t worry about Big Media, the blogosphere is beginning to take care of it.
As to the border issue, pay attention to AZ and their referendum on the ballot. They got almost 2x as many sigs as they needed.
What MALDEF, La Raza, and the activists fail to realize is that they don’t have the power they think they do. When this country is attacked, if they came across the border, they won’t be able to stop the rest of us from demanding what we’ve been arguing for for awhile now.
La Shawn, thanks for responding back. Aren’t you concerned that criticisms leveled at the president during this time might unnecessarily weaken him?
I certainly wish the President would stand firm on issues and not equivocate. And I really wish that he would heed his own conscience, and not the advice of a “strategist” or consultant. Alas, that’s the culture we live in now.
Tom, I do believe the criticisms might weaken him, but I won’t be held hostage by fear. Bush has to think about his base. He can’t treat us any way he wants and expect us to keep quiet for his sake. Where’s the give and take?
Sandy P-
Sorry about the new math thing. I started out tutoring in math (my dad was a math teacher, so he taught us well–both how to do math and how to teach it), but I switched to phonics because if you can read, you at least have some hope of teaching yourself math or getting help in the future.
If you can’t read, once math gets beyond the basic level and starts written explanations and word problems, you’re doomed.
Maybe once phonics starts to catch on again, I’ll start on a math website. I’ll let you know! Actually, there may be some out there already. My husband just completed a Masters in Operations Research, very heavy on math and stats, and he said there was a lot of very detailed help out there on the web for the math (he had a lot of re-learning to do, it had been 15 years since he had done calculus.)
Your comments resonate with me. I find myself wondering many times what on earth W is thinking. My feelings are somewhere between these 2 views:
1.) We can’t have everything we want. Even Reagan made some compromises to push things he felt more important through.
2.) We should not allow the conservative viewpoint or republican party to be “watered” down.
I don’t have any answers but it needs to be discussed.
I’m a registered Democrat, but I’m voting for Bush. I’ve become more conservative on issues over the last 3 years. I’m strongly considering changing my affiliation to Independent.
Troy – You’re the kind of person I want to reach. Welcome to my blog!
La Shawn,
The one thing you and I have in common with many other conservatives is that we don’t hesitate to castigate President Bush when we feel he is wrong. Will this weaken him and possibly get Kerry elected? I hope not, but like you, I can’t help speaking out. The only problem is that Democrats and liberals refuse to criticize their man, Kerry, or even stand for it from others.
La Shawn said:
Perhaps this is true, but the country would be horribly served if John Kerry were elected. I want the president to win, and I am willing to keep quiet about things that displease me right now. 80-09% of a loaf is better than no bread at all.
issues, issues, issues, issues, after the issues comes drama, America needs more people who will volunteer for military service to guard our borders….who will volunteer for services we all need. How about the unemployed, the whiners who say we’ve lost jobs. Apparently the illegals wouldn’t mind working these jobs. Most of our military personnel are already fighting for our freedom, how about more volunteers.
I agree with Tim B that 80-90% of a loaf is better than none.
However, I agree with La Shawn about the value of criticism. As a leader, if you are surrounded by yes-men, you are more prone to error.
Also, there is a difference between constructive and non-constructive criticism. If you are just criticizing to cut someone or something down, that’s not productive. If you have a better idea, that’s productive.
Finally, I’m not sure how much this criticism actually hurts. I think that people are more willing to listen to people who speak the truth at all times, and that this it makes their arguments in favor all the more powerful. I don’t like to listen to people on either side who don’t have their own opinions about at least one issue. I’d rather converse with people who are open minded and open to persuasion.
‘And it’s going to be GW; he’s by far the better of the two. One thing he definitely has right is the war on terrorism. ‘
How does he have he right? Not only has Osama Bin Laden NOT been caught, he has taken actions leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent deaths and in all made the world a much more dangerous place, and taken actions that could lead to more terrorist acts. Sure, he deposed of two terrible regimes….but i dont see how this means he is doing a good job of destroying international terrorism. He has infact increased the risk of it, something he has a lot to answer for.
‘And he also has taxes right.’
By introducing tax cuts that benefit the richest 1% in America, while the number of people living in poverty increases?
The fiasco that is public education is what drove me to be a Republican in the first place! I went to grad school … where I learned all those “wonderful” theories; whole language, and that children don’t need to learn the words and works of “dead white men.” ugh. I home school all (5) of my kids. I pity the kids that attend the public school in my town. I’m fine with the “No child left behind” plan… but really, this is an issue that require change at the base level. The government can’t solve all problems.
When I first heard on the news that this amnesty for illegal aliens thing is coming down the pipeline from the Bush Administration, I came home on that same day and told me family that there is finally an issue that I clearly disagree with the POTUS of ours. (Amazingly I’m cool with most everything else that the Bush Admin is doing including the more controvertial issues like the environment, education, health care, international trade, etc.) With my family knowing how huge of a Bush supporter that I am, I even told them I was dissapointed for the first time at Bush’s decision about what to do with the illegal aliens. My personal stance is with a lot tougher boarders, and tougher policy to deal with illegals. But after many days and weeks of thought and discussion with myself, I realized something. Bush is not stupid. Karl Rove is definitely not stupid. And how many more good heads that Bush has around him for analyzing major decisions like these? Bush has probably one of the best, most capable, and smartest teams with him in the history of our presidents. Aside from his immediate aides, advisors, and cabinet members, he also has the best experts, specialists, sociologists, psychologists, historians, economists, think tanks, etc. at his disposal. So who am I, with my one brain and limited knowledge and expertise on this issue, to question the Bush and his army of minds and thinkers? I have to admit that my view on this issue is mainly based on emotions. But there must be some good and logical reason of goodness that they made this decision, although at my level of understanding I could not completely give a thumbs-up for this amnesty thing. I don’t believe Bush is pandering to the illegals, mainly the latinos. If he is prone to pandering like kerry, this admin would of pandered long ago to a lot more other groups. This is not a clear right or wrong issue like abortion or gay marriage which I have very strong stances on. So I’m willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt that he and his team is doing the right thing.
Here’s a paragraph from Linda Chavez:
These proposals may not offer perfect justice — who can blame those who resent rewarding “line jumpers” with legal status while millions of other would-be immigrants wait patiently to enter the country legally. But “earned legalization” is probably the best solution to a largely intractable problem. There is no way that the United States can find and deport 8-12 million illegal aliens in this country, and even if we could, we would do more harm than good.
Read the whole thing here http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindachavez/lc20040108.shtml
Like I said earlier, her thoughts on the subject made me rethink my position. I think she has more knowledge about the situation than I do.
Stupid off topic question, but since the subject was brough up, is Tatiana an ethnic sounding name? At one time my Girlfriend and I discussed what we would name our daughter, if we ever got married and had a child (female), and she suggested that name. I liked it, especially using the shortened “Tiana”, but never thought about any ethnic (so called) quality.
Just curious. It wouldn’t change my mind in any case.
The quality of Bush’s political decisions fell sharply when Karen Hughes left. Her return hasn’t had the positive impact I had originally hoped. I wonder if her hiatus has made it difficult for her to effectively disagree with others that remained throughout Bush’s presidency.
– all made the world a much more dangerous place, –
No, Omar, the world was always very dangerous, it’s just we’re now paying attention.
–and taken actions that could lead to more terrorist acts.–
We’re going to get hit either way, some would prefer to fight.
–By introducing tax cuts that benefit the richest 1% in America, while the number of people living in poverty increases?–
Cite, please.
Sandy P., I don’t have handy a cite that the wealthiest got a benefit from the tax cuts, but I assume that’s not the part you wanted a cite for.
More Americans Are Living in Poverty, Census Bureau Says
By BRIAN KNOWLTON
Published: August 26, 2004
WASHINGTON, Aug. 26 — The number of Americans living in poverty rose by 1.3 million last year, to 35.9 million, while those without health insurance climbed by 1.4 million, to 45 million, the Census Bureau reported today.
It was the third straight annual increase for both categories. [snip]
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/26/national/26cnd-cens.html?hp
Bush suckered people on taxes.
He had a Republican controlled congress and the best he could do was get a “tax cut” with a big sunset clause?
Immigration and border control were one of the questions I posted on Blogs for Bush when Matt asked for them. I am an Independent but no way could I vote for Kerry. I think that Bush will have more time to think through the immigration thing, it will require congressional action and I write my Rep and Senators so I think we can still have input. If Kerry should win, I think our nation will go down the tubes to socialism and more people dependent on big government. I like his initiatives with NCLB. Having taught in a Jr Coll.
I can tell you our HS grads reading skills are really poor.
Debate is always a good thing. I see nothing wrong with LB’s issues with the President.
I am a dyed in the wool Republican. Yet, if someone in my party goes off the cliff on an issue, I am bound to call them on it. The reason? I am an American first, last and always. I will not allow party loyalties to prevent me from speaking up for what is best for my country.
I’m not drinking any Kool-Aid.
I do hope Bush beats John Kerry in November, but I have to say I hope it is very close; lest the Republicans actually believe that the wimpy/weenie conservatism of Rove is a winning strategy.
‘No, Omar, the world was always very dangerous, it’s just we’re now paying attention.’
These two wars have driven more angry young men directly into the arms of extremist lunatics like Bin Laden.
‘We’re going to get hit either way, some would prefer to fight.’
Attacking Iraq, a country that had no working links with Al Qaeda was a move that didnt prevent, or indeed fight international terrorism.
‘Cite, please. ‘
What i said is quite well known, especially the fact that the number of people living in poverty has increased every successive year of the GWB term. Bush has made numerous tax cuts, the majority of which benefit the corporate big wigs and the already rich in America.
Heres a bit of dulled down information from Fox news –
‘The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in a report released Friday, said that those in the top 1 percent of income got a bigger tax cut than those in the middle brackets. Kerry’s economic platform calls for withdrawing tax cuts that went to those earning $200,000 or more, but Bush has said those tax cuts benefit small business and other job creators.’
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128901,00.html
Heres an example from a different site.
‘Bush also wants to accelerate the income-tax cuts slated for 2006. Look at this folly. The top 5 percent of taxpayers would get 70 percent of the benefits on that one. The bottom 80 percent would get 6.5 percent of the benefits. Ditto with accelerating the 2004 tax cuts: 64.4 percent to the top 5 percent of taxpayers; 7.7 percent to the bottom 80 percent.’
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0115-05.htm
Bush’s tax cuts have undeniably benefitted the richest people in America hugely, all the while as more and more people fall below the poverty line every year.
Omar,
What you want to bring up is not worth arguing about: we are all partisans here and won’t change our minds.
I am interested, however, in your views on what everyone else is talking about here:
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
The Left is absolutely silent on this so please have at it!
No, it is all related. The rich *do* enjoy a substantial break from the tax cuts, but even without this they usually have the means for various loopholes (incorporation, trusts). I still say the whole way the government collects revenue is fundamentally flawed.
As for immigration, as the saying goes: the left wishes cheap votes, and the right wishes cheap labor.
Omar, you need to start reading some economic blogs.
You’d be comfortable at Brad DeLong’s place for starters.
Now we’re going to have to discuss % v. $.
And we’re going to have to discuss tax levels, who pays the most, and then we’re going to have to include food stamps, TANF, EITC, Sec-8 and a whole host of other programs.
Then we’re going to have to factor in that the poor are living the 70s middle class lifestyle.
And are we talking about Americans?
– but Bush has said those tax cuts benefit small business and other job creators.’–
And who do you think the backbone of this country is? MSFT? Coke?? Haliburton?
My husband’s a sub-S – you want to talk about both sides of SS which we might never see? How about paying taxes on money which wasn’t in the bank account to use for 2-3 years? How about us being our retirement?
How about the what, 4 million or more people we’ve taken in over the past 4 years, which brings us back to illegal immigration? Or how about that the US poverty level for a family of 4 equals the per capita GDP of Portugal?
You know, the Heritage Foundation mined the 2000 census. Quite an interesting read.
And doesn’t the bottom pay only 4% of the taxes? why should they get back 70%, especially when they might be getting program aid?
La Shawn,
Politics is the art of the possible, and you have to start somewhere – and starting with, say, a plan to seal the borders 60 days before a national election is outside the realm of the possible.
Part of the reason we’re working to re-elect President Bush while at the same time working overtime to ensure him a Republican Congress in 2005 is because this will be our window of opportunity – and it will only last about 14 months, before the Congress starts working on the 2006 mid-terms and regardless of the result of that election, President Bush becomes a lame-duck in 2007 and will have steadily declining ability to shape events.
What we are working for is a Republican President with a friendly Congress unfettered by the need to worry at all about re-election (and its also pretty cool that there’s not much evidence that Cheney wishes for the top spot in 2008, so even he’s not really a factor). It will be that 14 month period from November of 2004 to January of 2006 that we’ll finally prove or disprove the Republican Party’s ability to strike at real reform – we’ve been hobbled this past four years by a very narrow Senate majority (which we actually lost for a bit) and the exingencies of wartime.
Give the President his due, and his chance.
I agree 100% LaShawn. Immigration is a huge problem. I’m at ground zero for this debate in Southern California. They just closed down an ER up in Los Angeles because of the strain of illegals getting free care and draining the system. John & Ken on KFI radio out here are hammering on this issue. They have started what they call their “political human sacrifice” for the fall elections. They are aiming to take out amnesty friendly congressman David Dreier and Joe Baca. I love them because they don’t care about party labels and they are going after them to send a message that this issue will not be taken for granted any longer.
Everyone – I appreciate all input. We don’t all agree, obviously, but we need to get this stuff out in the open. I’ve been reading a lot of material from diverse sources, and the consensus is that illegal immigration is BAD. We are importing an underclass of people who taxing our healthcare system, etc, and bestowing anmesty upon lawbreakers will only make things worse.
Illegal aliens pay some taxes, but not enough to compensate for the drain on the economy. They have access to free government programs through their children even if the adults don’t qualify. This problem didn’t start 10 years or even 20 years ago. It started in the 60s when immigration quotas were considered “racist.” Now we’re in a real mess. Arab terrorists are smarter than we are. Do you think they’re dumb enough to attack us again the same way? Of course not, but they’re continuing to take advantage of our bleeding-heart, hare-brained, suicidal stupidity: crossing the porous southern border!
It makes me ill. It really does.
I agree with a lot of what was said on “illegal” immigration. I have been shaking my head for several years now over this topic because I just don’t get why people don’t understand the word “illegal.” The canard that these people come here to do work that Americans refuse to do is disingenuous at best. The president needs to take a tough stand on this issue and not assume that amnesty is the answer. There are too many problems that come along with illegal immigration, i.e. rising medical costs, lower wages for Americans who want to work in certain jobs, etc. This situation is going to blow up in our faces, if it hasn’t already, if we don’t act now. Heather McDonald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, has an excellent article on the growing problem of illegals in CA and other places. And of course, Michelle Malkin has been talking about it forever.
‘What you want to bring up is not worth arguing about: we are all partisans here and won’t change our minds.’
Im not being insulting here, but that is the perfect definition of a bigot.
‘The Left is absolutely silent on this so please have at it! ‘
Silent? Not at all. I oppose illegal immigration and believe it should be clamped down on. I certainly dont think people who sneak into a country illegally have a right to stay there afterwards. What i dont agree with is racial profilling.
‘Omar, you need to start reading some economic blogs…’
Sandy, you have failed to address any of my raised points. The bottom line is, Bush’s tax cuts heavily benefit the top 5% income earners, while everyone else loses out. This goes on while those below the poverty line goes up annually.
‘but Bush has said those tax cuts benefit small business and other job creators’
In essence, by saying this Bush is saying his tax cuts are worked around the system of trickle down economics. Big wigs are benefitting.
‘How about the what, 4 million or more people we’ve taken in over the past 4 years’
The majority of which are asylum seekers or economic migrants….not illegal immigrants.
‘Or how about that the US poverty level for a family of 4 equals the per capita GDP of Portugal?’
Red herring. What is the relevance of this? There is non whatsoever. Aside from the fact cost of living in these 2 countries is vastly different, it doesnt address the fact that the number in poverty is increasing, as tax cuts benefit America’s wealthiest.
‘And doesn’t the bottom pay only 4% of the taxes? ‘
What do you mean by bottom? Pretty ambigious. The middle earners in America pay the most tax, in a crude sense.
Omar,
Unless you provide a breakdown yourself, you cannot castigate someone else for not doing the same.
You state that 5% (up from 1%, huh? LOL) benefit while the rest don’t. Back it up with some data, or it is just an opinion.
You also state that small buisness and job creators (look around, the biggest companies are always downsizing, the growing small and mediums are upsizing) are the big wigs. That dog doens’t hunt.
I’ll give a you a real world example: My childhood pal Tim founded his own computer support company. He put himself through school by delivering newspapapers and by working his ass off to keep a good GPA. He did computer work on the side, and built up a reputation for being reliable and competent. Before he even graduated college, he had more work on the line than he could handle, so he brought somebody on board, and became an employer. Now he has a staff of 10 people, with benefits (incl. 401k). The 2 most recent hires could only have been afforded because of the Bush tax cuts.
Now, Timmy is far from rich big wig. His money goes into his business. He drives a nice, but modest car. He works 10+ hour days, and is luck to get Sunday off. He’s spent the last decade sinking every penny of profit right back into his company, when he could have taken a job somewhere and gotten the same cash in his pocket as he has today, but would have generated not a single job. This is real job creation. This is how companies that someday employee hundreds or thousands of people begin. Like Apple, HP, Ford and many others. These are the people (not just Timmy, but the 10 folks under him as well) that are directly benefiting from those tax cuts. And not a single one of them is in the 5%. Not a one of them has an income over 100k, even.
This is not a freak, isolated incident.
Of course the richest folks saw the most money come back to them… they paid the most money in the first place. HOWEVER, they got less, percentage wise, than people in the lower income brackets did.
‘You state that 5% (up from 1%, huh? LOL) benefit while the rest don’t.’
The top 1% (Which ironically includes Cheney and Bush, both BORN rich) benefit the most from the cuts. The 5% claim is from an article i provided already, showing how this group were getting a huge 70% of the benefits from the cuts.
‘benefit while the rest don’t.’
Dont put words in my mouth. I never actually said this. What i said was they benefit MUCH more than virtually everyone else. I also said this goes on as the people in poverty increases annually.
‘You also state that small buisness and job creators (look around, the biggest companies are always downsizing, the growing small and mediums are upsizing) are the big wigs. ‘
To be quite honest, anyone in the top 5% earner range is a big wig. They clearly arnt blue collar, or indeed white collar. These guys are the people that RUN businesses, small or large.
Nice case example, but what does it prove? Im arguing about unfair benefits given to people who already earn a huge income. Why should the tax burden be placed on people like factory workers, or retail workers? Why should the rich get richer because of Government cuts, as the poor get poorer? Trickle down economics is a failure at tackling the disproportion of wealth in America. And the disproportion is HUGE.
“The 5% claim is from an article i provided already, showing how this group were getting a huge 70% of the benefits from the cuts.”
Yes, but the top 5% of taxpayers shoulder 53+% of the tax burden. (I’m in too magnanimous a mood to make hay out of the fact that the 70% statistic you cite relates to cuts which aren’t slated to go into effect until 2006.)
The tax burden remains rough proportional parity to how it’s been for years; in fact, the upper brackets’ tax burden has actually gone up with the Bush cuts in proportion to the lower brackets, even as the rate that they pay has gone down. Look at it this way: all tax brackets received tax cuts. The top 5% shoulder more than half of the tax burden. It’s only natural that their cut looks “disproportionately large”; they pay a disproportionately large amount of taxes. You want equality of income? Go to Cuba. Everyone is equal there; it’s just that some Cubans are more “equal” than others.
/
Omar, Omar,
I’m sorry, but when you said “The bottom line is, Bush’s tax cuts heavily benefit the top 5% income earners, while everyone else loses out.” I took that to mean, as I said “You state that 5% … benefit while the rest don’t.”
While the 2 statements don’t have the same exact meaning (don’t benefit is not as bad as lose out) it’s not quite putting words in your mouth.
Now, you’re assertion that: “To be quite honest, anyone in the top 5% earner range is a big wig. They clearly arnt blue collar, or indeed white collar. These guys are the people that RUN businesses, small or large.” is patently false. To say that anyone that runs a business of any size, small or not, is in the top 5% is ludicrous. They may all want to be in that top 5%, but that does not make it so.
The further up the income ladder you go, the more the tax burden grows. AS has been stated elsewhere, that top 5% pays over 50% of the tax burden.
How has the tax burden gone up on factory workers and on retail workers? Again, some facts if you please. Have their taxes gone up? The tax system in this country does not look like a pyramid, unless you turn the page upside down.
And the rich getting rich and poor getting poorer… the standard of living for US poor has continued to go up, for decades. Even when income hasn’t increased, the non-cash benefits have. (that’s where money from the top 5% covers for the bottom).
Now, while I will not advocate that you move to Cuba (but if you do, bring me back some cigars, please), but if you think the system is unfair, how about helping implement the proposed Fair Tax system, where the whole IRS schema is tossed, and we go to flat sales tax based system.
No more wage taxes, no more hidden labor costs. Average costs of goods would drop, and we’d all have more in our pockets. And we all get a monthly credit to cover living expenses based on the poverty line.
‘(I’m in too magnanimous a mood to make hay out of the fact that the 70% statistic you cite relates to cuts which aren’t slated to go into effect until 2006.)’
Fair enough, but maybe you should of looked at this statement before getting all zealous.
‘Ditto with accelerating the 2004 tax cuts: 64.4 percent to the top 5 percent of taxpayers; 7.7 percent to the bottom 80 percent.’
‘You want equality of income?’
What? Im a socialist, but this is besides the point. What i want im saying is Bush made tax cuts that BLATANTLY benefitted the top earners, while anyone below got unequal benefits from Bush’s sweeping tax cuts.
‘ The further up the income ladder you go, the more the tax burden grows.’
Well this goes without saying. This doesnt mean that higher earners pay more tax as a percentage of their income.
‘AS has been stated elsewhere, that top 5% pays over 50% of the tax burden.’
Since you seem so insistant on ‘facts’ why dont you provide some? Ive provided two sources backing up what i was originally saying, one of which was that infamous Republican megaphone – Fox news. So its not like they were ‘loony left’ ones either.
‘How has the tax burden gone up on factory workers and on retail workers? Again, some facts if you please.’
Since you asked, not a problem.
‘After four years of President George W. Bush’s tax cuts, the nation’s middle class pays a larger share of federal taxes while the portion paid by the wealthiest Americans has decreased, the nonpartisan CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE (CBO) reported Friday. The amount of tax cuts the top 1 percent of the country received is nearly 78 times that of the middle 20 percent.’
http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/globaleconomy/ns08162004.cfm
Heres another interesting snippet.
‘The top 1 percent of the country, those earning $1.1 million or more, pay 20.1 percent of the total, compared with 22.2 percent in 2001.
While those at the top of the earnings scale are lowering their taxes, the nation’s middle class is bearing more of the cost of paying for government services. The share of federal taxes paid by households earning between $51,500 and $75,600 increased, with the highest jump coming for those making $75,600. Their share of all taxes rose from 18.7 percent in 2001 to 19.5 percent today.’
The CBO report is linked from this site.
Couple of more thoughts…
We’re importing an “underclass of people” LaShawn? So is it really a class issue after all?
That illegals fill jobs Americans won’t do is disingenuous? I think some of you don’t live in the real world. I managed a dry cleaning plant in San Diego in which most of my employees had what were probably forged documents. We did let one go that was obviously illegal. We would have had to close the plant down if it weren’t for those folk and the Cambodian refugees I hired. I hired several “real” Americans, including one black and one former Navy. They were abject failures, two were thieves. I wouldn’t trade one of my “illegals” for a hundred of you conservative Christian Social Darwinians. Its ALL about jobs and the business owners, mostly Republicans, who hire them. California’s financial problems stem primarily from the tax revenue lost in the stock market crash, especially high-tech companies, the rape of our citizens by Texas energy producers in collusion with the Bush-Cheney administration and the failure of the Federal government to reimburse us for the costs of imprisonment of illegals, who have been arrested for criminal activity.
We are all dealing with the legal, the theoretical, the Biblical here. As manager of that plant, what would you have done? What would you do now? How would you harvest the fruit and vegetables in CA that provide for half of what all the rest of you eat and also feed the world. Enough of theory…what do we do in the real world besides blog each other with the same repetitious and old arguments?
Omar,
First, please make it clear who your are quoting or responding to in your posts. You’ve mixed in 2 or more arguements, and to look at your post, it would appear to be 1.
Now, to answer your question:
My data is directly from the IRS. You can check it out on their site.
For 2001, the break down was as follows:
The top 1% of earners pay 33.89% of the total income tax burden.
The top 5% (including the top 1%) pays 53.25%.
The top 10%, 64.89%. Top 25%,82.90% and the top 50% pays 96.03%.
That also means that the bottom 50% pays less than 4% of the income tax burden.
That top 5% are those whose INCOME (different than wealth) exceeds $127,904 a year. This includes couples that file jointly. There were 6,440,853 tax returns that fit this description in 2001.
As for your link to the ALF-CIO… not quite a neutral parry, ne? They have an axe to grind, and they have a history (this analysis included) of taking the facts selectively.
If you read the CBO report itself, you see that every quintile has had a tax DECREASE. Nobody has had their taxes increased. The 78 times # you quote has no bearing, since it doesn’t account for anything bu raw numbers, and doesn’t provide any background to make it relevent (such as how much money was given by each group in the first place)
).
Also, the AFL-CIO analysis fails to take into account tax breaks, rebates or shelters that are not available to the upper percentages. Putting money into a ROTH IRA, for example, grants a tax credit to those making under a certain dollar figure (I don’t recall the #, but I do recall the year that I could stop claiming it
Now, for Stan:
Stan, what about the CA legislature? With no power plants built to address the growing demand, and with some rather bizzarre price caps applied to the local producers… do they share no blame? How about the Clinton administrations energy policies, that also helped set the stage? Or the economic policies that put in place the incentive for a companies like Enron, WorldCom and others to jigger their books, and create a false stock market bubble?
None of this happened overnight. It took years (to decades) to build up into the crisis it became. For years, even before the sh!t hit the fan, CA was held up by the energy industry as the example not to follow. That it took as long as it did to come crashing down was the real surprise.
As for the tax revenues… playing games with already hinky numbers, to go on an irresponsible spending spree, that is the problem. When the numbers got adjusted, and the stock bubble was shown to be smoke and mirrors, of course the plans based on these numbers went to the pan as well.
Ms. Barber, I agree that the immigration policy is a bad policy, just as the President’s “Steel Tariffs” policy was bad policy. But that is no reason to dump Karl Rove. The man has done an excellent job; he’s superior to his peers even though he proves time and time again that he is not perfect. And I hear you loud and clear on the black liberals who tell “us” about our views and positions while they “chain” themselves to the Democrat plantation. We may be glad not to be Republicans, but Democrats are far worse for black people as far as I’m concerned. IMHO.
Peace and best wishes to you and yours.
Victor Deane
Skippack, (suburban Philadelphia) Pa.
West Philly origin
Unless he’s changed his position recently, as far as I know, Bush is very much against any “amnesty”. Instead, what’s he’s for is for _temporary_ but legal immigration.
That may not make much sense to a northern state, but here in the South west, illegal immigration is both a joke and a problem. However, most of these “immigrants” are just young men who want to work in the US for awhile, and then go back home. Bush’s policy is to register them and allow it, instead of pretending to ban it, but really just winking.
As I see it, he’s ending the hypocrisy.
Comments on this entry are closed.