Pandering for Votes

Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

Thread Originator Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   Don Perkins Citizen Username: Cowboy Post Number: 228 Registered: 9-2003 Posted on Wednesday, January 7, 2004 - 11:01 am:        It's pandering for votes time. This time its for Hispanic votes. Bush is going to propose some grand plan whereby people who broke the law to get in the United States, and then broke the law by obtaining employment, and then broke the law by using false Social Security cards to avoid arrest. Now these people can "earn" a legal status by signing a few documents and promising to follow the law from now on. Arizona, Florida, California, (and let's not forget Texas), are all key states with large numbers of Hispanic voters. If the 2004 election is close Bush (or is it Rove) is going to need these Hispanic votes and so he's paying for them today by trashing the rule of law in America. In my opinion, outside of the war on terror and the much-needed tax cuts, Bush has done little to deserve reelection. Let's seal up the boarders and enforce existing law.   cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 639 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Wednesday, January 7, 2004 - 12:30 pm:        His policy statements so far don't include existing illegal immigrants being able to sign on to this program. There's so much here that isn't clear yet. But you saying this is entirely political isn't entirely correct. Bush didn't support Prop 187 before his national aspirations. His brother Jeb as well has had a consistent view about making some policy to address and accommodate both sides of the equation on this. While you decry illegal workers here, what about locking up entire corporate offices for hiring them as well? Start with the farmers while you're at it. If they weren't hired, they wouldn't come here. Attack the demand side, not the supply. Not saying I agree or disagree yet. Have to see.   Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 6069 Registered: 4-1998 Posted on Wednesday, January 7, 2004 - 12:33 pm:        This may be pandering, but it also makes sense. It will increase payroll revenues to governments. It will also DOCUMENT people. If you're serious about combatting terrorism, you want the populace DOCUMENTED.   Michaela May Citizen Username: Mayquene Post Number: 6 Registered: 1-2004 Posted on Wednesday, January 7, 2004 - 1:26 pm:        It's two-fold I think. I read the other day that the Labor Department was advising companies how to forego spending more money on overtime -- they said that to comply without increasing spending they could cut wages. It could also be another measure to legalize cheap labor, and give employers increased power of many immigrants they hire. Under the plan, they must have a job here -- that gives their employers a lot of leverage they wouldn't have over a citizen. Bush gets to "pander" to Hispanic voters with suggested policy that appears to benefit undocumented immigrants AND he gets to aid big business at the same time.   Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 289 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Wednesday, January 7, 2004 - 1:32 pm:        I would raise the minimum wage at the same time. The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today..FDR.. Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth...G.W. Everyone wants a voice in human freedom. There's a fire burning inside of all us...L.W. Dave Ross is the coolest!!(being banned sucks)   Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 6075 Registered: 4-1998 Posted on Wednesday, January 7, 2004 - 1:39 pm:        quote: Bush gets to "pander" to Hispanic voters with suggested policy that appears to benefit undocumented immigrants AND he gets to aid big business at the same time. Good point.   DrFalomar Citizen Username: Drfalomar Post Number: 128 Registered: 7-2003 Posted on Wednesday, January 7, 2004 - 1:59 pm:        Illegal, low-paid, and politically impotent workers are vital to the American economy if we want to compete with the virtual slave labor used in China, which taking jobs away from even poverty-stricken Mexico. That would help explain why Bush is doing what he can to keep them here.   cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 643 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Wednesday, January 7, 2004 - 2:32 pm:        An interesting article on low-wage workers not being vital to our economy, and having them stifles innovation and ultimately the very industries themselves. Innovation is born of necessity -- high labor costs among them -- and without innovation, productivity is hurt. This is apparent in manufacturing, where the output as a percentage of our GDP falls consistently in the same range of 13-17% as I recall, but the number of jobs needed to accomplish it diminish. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/krikorian200401070923.asp   chocoholic Citizen Username: Shrink Post Number: 72 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Wednesday, January 7, 2004 - 4:03 pm:        What will be interesting is how the republican base is going to react. Also , how will low wage American workers, who are most likely to be hurt by this bill, going to react.   Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 293 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Wednesday, January 7, 2004 - 4:22 pm:        The more I think about this issue, the more I am convinced a 1.50 increase in the minimum wage should be thrown in. We are attracting cheap foreign labor because U.S. citizens are unwilling to accept these jobs. Up the wages and you will have less need for foreign workers. With stocks and profits up, this is a good time to do it. The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today..FDR.. Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth...G.W. Everyone wants a voice in human freedom. There's a fire burning inside of all us...L.W. Dave Ross is the coolest!!(being banned sucks)   DrFalomar Citizen Username: Drfalomar Post Number: 129 Registered: 7-2003 Posted on Wednesday, January 7, 2004 - 11:21 pm:        cjc, an excellent article, that, which changes my opinion considerably, although i would add that the article is considering the long-term effects of low-cost labor. In the near term, everyone makes out ok, at least as well as they have, with no incentive to change, and the short term is what the bush administration is all about, as john farmer's column pointed out today. his long-term thinking, as a politician, need only to extend for ten more months. i'm very glad that bush is only middle-aged and in very good physical shape and health because he will surely live long enough to see what his policies will do to the country in six to ten years, to be held accountable for it, and to be vilified justifiably.   John Davenport Citizen Username: Jjd Post Number: 112 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 2:01 am:        Bush has shot himself with today's announced policy. His Republican base will be enraged, not understanding that his proposed plan does NOT give permanent resident or green card status to current illegal immigrants, but only legalizes them for 3-6 years as temporary workers. And he won't gain Hispanic votes with this tactic, because most Hispanics will realize that this is nothing close to what they wanted, i.e. a general amnesty for past illegals and a more open door for future legal immigration. Agribusiness loves the plan, but they will not get anything out of it, because it probably will not pass. Thus Bush will have alienated everybody. At least I hope I'm right!   bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4217 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 5:15 am:        The chances of this getting through Congress are about the same as a snowballs chance in Hell. Good, if somewhat cynical, campaign tactics however.   tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2034 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 7:41 am:        Cjc, California strawberries are going to be picked by low-wage workers. They are vital to certain sectors of our economy. If we legalize and protect the current batch of low-wage workers, they will be replaced by a new batch.   Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 295 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 8:30 am:        "There is a tremendous need in the hospitality industry for people filling jobs that most Americans don't want to do. We need to use labor from other parts of the world," said Joe McInerney, president of the American Hotel and Lodging Association. So instead of making these jobs more attractive with higher pay, we have chosen to import illegal labor. These are consumer discretionary jobs--if mcdonalds wants to raise prices(rather than simply pay executives less) for their hamburgers and french fries by a couple cents, it is still up to the consumer to decide. The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today..FDR.. Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth...G.W. Everyone wants a voice in human freedom. There's a fire burning inside of all us...L.W. Dave Ross is the coolest!!(being banned sucks)   cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 646 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 8:50 am:        If these workers are 'legalized", I think their bargaining power will be enhanced. Unions would find them attractive (if you can't beat them, co-opt them), worker protections ensue and I believe there would be upward pressure on wages. They also would be minimum wage jobs at the very least. Something has to be done to offset the inordinate costs these workers and their families bring when they strain the services of states where they are plentiful (AZ, TX, CA especially). I'm a conservative (as you know). Many on my side have had a quick, angry knee-jerk reaction to this. The more I read on this idea, the more I like it as a start to begin to solve a big problem no one has taken serious action on. tjohn -- I don't follow you. Are you saying businesses and farms will avoid the newly legit workers and try to find more illegals? Enforcement with real penalties would stop that.   Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 296 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 8:57 am:        If this is a one time thing, fine. But if this becomes a pattern where unskilled labor comes into this country taking low paying wages in order to fatten Mcdonals executives pension plans, then we have a problem. The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today..FDR.. Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth...G.W. Everyone wants a voice in human freedom. There's a fire burning inside of all us...L.W. Dave Ross is the coolest!!(being banned sucks)   JJC Citizen Username: Mercury Post Number: 156 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 8:58 am:        This has no chance of passing into law. Moreover, it is another one of the Shrubs "unfunded initiatives". It sounds good to the group he is pandering to but it is all talk.   Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 433 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 9:03 am:        cjc, we're in agreement for a change. Enforcement and real penalties for employers is the only way to stop future illegal immigration. Easier to crack down on hundreds of employers than to stem the tide of millions of people entering the country for jobs. Unfortunately, nothing in Bush's proposal seems to address the issue of employers who hire illegals. If there's real enforcement, I would favor this idea, but until then, this proposal isn't going to solve the problem in the long term.   cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 648 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 9:38 am:        Jeez.....first Nohero and I agree on Pete Rose, and now this with Boogie. Mercury's position must be changing or something...   Ainsworth Hunt Citizen Username: Ainsworth Post Number: 130 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 9:51 am:        http://100777.com/   ashear Citizen Username: Ashear Post Number: 903 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 8:38 am:        The danger of this is that if it is nor coupled with enfrocement of existing saftey and labor laws it will leave these workers highly vulnerable. As I understnad it the workers would be sponsored by an employer. If they lose the job they lose their status. This would give the employer enourmous power. Since current labor and worker saftey regulation enforcement is pitiful this is a real concern.   Copihue Citizen Username: Cop Post Number: 207 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 8:43 am:        cjc, the article you refer to assumes that there is a technological answer to every low-skill labor task. For example, he writes about the Australian system of growing raisins: let the grapes dry in the vine and then cut the vine with the raisins in it. He claims a 200% increase in the productivity of the acreage. If that is true, why is it that grape growers tend of the vineyards so carefully? What happens to the root if you cut the vine? do you also have to till the soil? what happens in a dry year, a new vine would be much more susceptible to dying and having no crop at all. That's a huge risk. I don't buy it. ps Ainsworth, why have you put up this link? Pack your own chute.