AZ Immigration law

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' date='04 May 2010 - 04:35 PM' timestamp='1273005358' post='885978']
Do you think younger folks tend to get "singled" out more than older folks? By police or otherwise...
[/quote]
Definitley. I have much less of a problem with "age-ism" than "racism." Age, is universal. Race is unique to the individual. They have no control over it. My issue is not with protecting illegals from being found out...its with protecting LEGAL AMERICANS, who fit the "new" description of criminals because they are of hispanic descent and don't speak English, from un-constitutional inquiries/stops/searches/seizures by law-enforcement.

[Jamie_B]

How THIS doesnt anger people more than the poor....


[url="http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06132008/watch3.html"]The 2nd Gilded Age[/url]

[quote]Steve Fraser, historian and author of WALL STREET: AMERICA'S DREAM PALACE, discusses the modern parallels and differences to the first Gilded Age, the big disparity between the rich and poor, and the increasing strain on working Americans. [/quote]

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='big_dish' date='05 May 2010 - 11:19 AM' timestamp='1273072768' post='886314']
I just dont understand the outrage towards people who make more than you. Regardless of what they make, why should they pay an insane amount of money for using the same roads, same emergency services, same public school districts (not that their kids use it) etc etc etc... why should a family of four pay $1,000,000 in taxes when a less well off family of four has to pay $5000? [b]Just because they've worked harder or smarter than you?[/b] Why should more of their money go to pay for neccesary services and the lazy people out there? I understand inevitably they will pay much more just for the sake of not taking home 99.9% of what they earn and completely messing up the taxation system, but to expect them to pay an OBSCENE amount of money for taxes (while using the EXACT same services as you, or less) is just ludicris. I dont think someone paying $1,000,000 (or 27%) needs to pay a higher percentage than I do (at 40%). [b]Just because he worked hard enough to get ahead in life he needs to be penalized even more?[/b]
[/quote]
Can we at least penalize the ones who didn't work hard enough i.e. the children of the billionaires who never [u]had[/u] to work hard a day in their life only to recieve the keys to a multi-billion dollar conglomerate 30 years later and promptly cut 10% of the work force to streamline more profit into their forgein accounts?

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' date='05 May 2010 - 01:57 PM' timestamp='1273082222' post='886355']
[b]What bothers me is that few, if any, of the people hating on Welfare and other such programs talk about cleaning it up, re-forming it, or fixing it. You're just shouting about your hatred of the leeches and essentially painting every welfare recpient with the same brush. It comes off as a gross over simplification of a difficult situation and makes you seem really callus and/or ignorant of the realities that face the lower class.[/b]
[/quote]

I'll agree... yet, same thing is done right here on this very board regarding the rich, upper class.

If welfare, or any other social program that we have, were run such that the abuse was removed and it only went to those that it was actually designed for... I'd have 0 problem with.


[quote name='Squirrlnutz' date='05 May 2010 - 02:17 PM' timestamp='1273083435' post='886360']
Definitley. I have much less of a problem with "age-ism" than "racism." Age, is universal. Race is unique to the individual. [b]They have no control over it[/b]. My issue is not with protecting illegals from being found out...its with protecting LEGAL AMERICANS, who fit the "new" description of criminals because they are of hispanic descent and don't speak English, from un-constitutional inquiries/stops/searches/seizures by law-enforcement.
[/quote]

I didn't know a 17 year old had any control over being 17... hmmm, learn something new everyday...

when you're talking about "isms"... you're talking about profiling. And, like it or not, it is a fact of life in EVERYTHING (often times it can be a good thing). What we should be doing is combating those that abuse that profiling...

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='BengalRep85-9' date='05 May 2010 - 12:25 AM' timestamp='1273033557' post='886223']
I think he's saying its a good thing they don't pay taxes so it can go back into the company and create jobs....

I thought that's what profits were for?
[/quote]

Not sure if Gait was saying that honestly or tounge-in-cheek but this idea always kills me. I get how in "theory" money saved not paying taxes = expansion and more jobs. But we live in a country where we have to make fucking laws forcing people to wear seatbelts so they don't get splattered across the pavement when their leased BMW hits a divider at 40mph...if you think we can just give billionaires tens of millions of extra dollars and expect them to create more jobs for lay-man [b]without forcing them [/b]to do it, you're crazy.

Do people honestly believe that the focus of upper management at Exxon is their social responisibility to grow our economy and expand our workforce during these trying times?

Modern technology is MANDATING a reduced workforce. Computers and robotics are faster, more accurate and considering benefits, much less expensive than human labor. Efficiency is the main focus everywhere. "How can we do more with less" is the rallying cry. Inherently this isn't a bad thing, rather its revolutionary and IMO will take us places we've never imagined...but coupled with archaic ideas about giving the luckeist few some more good breaks in the hopes that they return the favor to society is dangerous.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' date='05 May 2010 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1273085361' post='886368']
I'll agree... [color="#FF0000"]yet, same thing is done right here on this very board regarding the rich, upper class.[/color]

If welfare, or any other social program that we have, were run such that the abuse was removed and it only went to those that it was actually designed for... I'd have 0 problem with.




I didn't know a 17 year old had any control over being 17... hmmm, learn something new everyday...

when you're talking about "isms"... you're talking about profiling. And, like it or not, it is a fact of life in EVERYTHING (often times it can be a good thing). What we should be doing is combating those that abuse that profiling...
[/quote]


One side of the coin has the capital to influence the policies to protect themselves, the other not so much. The last few min of the video I posted talks to that very point.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' date='05 May 2010 - 02:54 PM' timestamp='1273085676' post='886370']
Not sure if Gait was saying that honestly or tounge-in-cheek but this idea always kills me. I get how in "theory" money saved not paying taxes = expansion and more jobs. But we live in a country where we have to make fucking laws forcing people to wear seatbelts so they don't get splattered across the pavement when their leased BMW hits a divider at 40mph...if you think we can just give billionaires tens of millions of extra dollars and expect them to create more jobs for lay-man [b]without forcing them [/b]to do it, you're crazy.
[color="#FF0000"]
Do people honestly believe that the focus of upper management at Exxon is their social responisibility to grow our economy and expand our workforce during these trying times? [/color]

Modern technology is MANDATING a reduced workforce. Computers and robotics are faster, more accurate and considering benefits, much less expensive than human labor. Efficiency is the main focus everywhere. "How can we do more with less" is the rallying cry. Inherently this isn't a bad thing, rather its revolutionary and IMO will take us places we've never imagined...but coupled with archaic ideas about giving the luckeist few some more good breaks in the hopes that they return the favor to society is dangerous.
[/quote]


No, the purpose of Exxon is the purpose of any industry, profit. Which in and of itself isnt a bad thing but when we have gotten to where we have gotten where industry has such influence over our democracy at the expense of the common man we have a problem.

[sois]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' date='05 May 2010 - 10:57 AM' timestamp='1273082222' post='886355']
I share your dis-like for people having kids when they shouldn't...but that statement is pretty unfair to the folks who really have had some bad luck which resulted in them not being able to support the "children they already have," the people who these government assitance programs were designed to help.
[/quote]

Sorry, wording was sloppy. My computer dons't have a backspace key so I have to my posts flow. I think my keyboard is the new Microsoft Tourrettes Comfort Curve Keyboard 6900 model.

I didn't intend it for those folks. I intended it for people who are already poor and think it's a good idea to have a kid. Like how are there so many kids in that Slumdog Millionaire movie. I probly couldn't even get a boner if I had to do it on a cardboard box with a million kids running around.

If you have bad luck, I have no problem with the government helping out. It's the people that have kids who are already on food stamps and free lunch at school who then decide to have another one.

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' date='05 May 2010 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1273085361' post='886368']
I'll agree... yet, same thing is done right here on this very board regarding the rich, upper class.

[color="#FF0000"]Agreed, but the ones who get mis-characterized can atleast eat every day.[/color]

If welfare, or any other social program that we have, were run such that the abuse was removed and it only went to those that it was actually designed for... I'd have 0 problem with.

[color="#FF0000"]Definitely not saying they are, but rather the focus of the discussion should be how to make them better[/color]



I didn't know a 17 year old had any control over being 17... hmmm, learn something new everyday...

when you're talking about "isms"... you're talking about profiling. And, like it or not, it is a fact of life in EVERYTHING (often times it can be a good thing). What we should be doing is combating those that abuse that profiling...
[/quote]

I think that age discrimination is really maturity discrimination. The value of "17 years old" is not the issue, but rather its the maturity level and decision making ability of a 17 year old that is of concern and is only loosly tied to the actual value of that age. The individual has some degree of control over their own maturity. With this law, skin tone and bone structure are the pertinant values and a person has no control over either.

I'm okay with profiling to a small degree, while hoping we prosecute those who abuse it...but this law mandates it. With the history this country...hell the human race...has had with discriminating-persecuting-destroying those who look different and act different, I don't think its positive-forward thinking to use race as a possible indicator of criminal activity.

[John~Galt]

[quote name='Elflocko' date='04 May 2010 - 11:09 PM' timestamp='1273032594' post='886220']
You're usually more articulate than this ^^^


Care to translate?
[/quote]

Thank you for the compliment. I think of myself as more acerbic than articulate but thanks all the same.

It is a simple question of social spending versus employment and advancing technology. Long term we are better off with more jobs being available and advancements in technology. More jobs=wider tax base and a higer standard of living for more people.

Taxes are taken out of personal income as it is. The stockholders, CEO, geologists and all the way down to the lowly leatherneck all pay taxes on money they earn from Exxon all ready. Corporate income tax is taken out before dividends, bonuses, payroll etc. which are all taxed at the personal level. The money that Exxon generates is double taxed and even triple or quadruple taxed depending on how the payees allocate their earnings.

[John~Galt]

[quote name='Elflocko' date='04 May 2010 - 11:48 PM' timestamp='1273034903' post='886230']
Yeah, all of those $7 an hour jobs at the mini mart Exxon provides are just what the economy needs...
[/quote]

Exxon generally doesn't own convenience stores, they simply provide the petroleum.

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='John~Galt' date='05 May 2010 - 02:48 PM' timestamp='1273096136' post='886396']
Thank you for the compliment. I think of myself as more acerbic than articulate but thanks all the same.

It is a simple question of social spending versus employment and advancing technology. Long term we are better off with more jobs being available and advancements in technology. More jobs=wider tax base and a higer standard of living for more people.

Taxes are taken out of personal income as it is. The stockholders, CEO, geologists and all the way down to the lowly leatherneck all pay taxes on money they earn from Exxon all ready. Corporate income tax is taken out before dividends, bonuses, payroll etc. which are all taxed at the personal level. The money that Exxon generates is double taxed and even triple or quadruple taxed depending on how the payees allocate their earnings.
[/quote]


Interesting perspective.

[John~Galt]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='05 May 2010 - 08:23 AM' timestamp='1273065789' post='886284']
Buffet said he wasnt trying to avoid the higher taxes, so I imagine he didnt take advantage of any of the loopoles.

But my entire argument was that people get much more angry, and you specifically, at the poor for their "suckling at the teet" than they do the rich. I continue to see a rabid furvor at the poor but a almost lackadaisical attitude towards the rich (keeping in mind that were talking in generalities and not "all" here) with some even ok with the way they are ripped off by the rich, but those poor...oh those poor...
[/quote]

I am not sure rip off is the proper word. Sure there are the bad actors that do violate the law.

Having the knowledge to navigate the tax code to take full advantage of the tax code is perfectly legal and the right thing to do. The wealthy remain wealthy not through some giant loophole or ponzi scheme. Average people can have the same advantages if they take the time to educate themselves. You can literally find all the knowledge you need in a good library. It just takes a little bit of time and effort. The wealthy of course hire accountants and attorneys to know the tax code front to back. Wealth does have it's privileges.

[Jamie_B]

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/pm120/

[quote]Tax breaks for billionaires
Loophole for hedge fund managers costs billions in tax revenue

by Randall Dodd

This policy memo focuses on the privileged tax treatment given to hedge fund managers that results in a conservative estimate of over $6 billion in forgone tax revenue.

Private investment companies, organized as hedge funds or private equity firms, have recently grown into major economic forces in the U.S. economy. They mobilize capital, and often leverage it with borrowed funds, in order to accumulate a tremendous amount of assets under their management. These investments include leveraged buyouts; market-neutral investment strategies in publicly traded stocks and bonds, energy, and other commodities; various arbitrage strategies; as well as many lesser known and some entirely unreported transactions. Hedge funds are big players in the large corporate take-over activity that reached $3.6 trillion in 2006¸ and they are also responsible for a significant share of trading volume on the major stock exchanges and in some over-the-counter derivatives markets.

These private pools of capital are unregulated, or exempt from Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulation, under both the Investment Advisors Act and the Investment Company Act. While these exemptions were once justified on the grounds that such investment firms were small, closely held, and did not raise their capital in public capital markets, the exemptions are no longer consistent with today’s reality. Today these firms are huge, have a wide number and range of investors, and the Internet has blurred the distinction between public and private marketing.

In addition to being unregulated, these financial institutions also reap substantial benefits from special tax provisions that, like the regulatory framework, are no longer appropriate. The professional fund managers of these hedge funds and private equity firms are allowed to treat a substantial portion of their compensation as capital gains, meaning they are most likely taxed at 15% rather than the 35% rate that applies to ordinary income such as wages and salary. Such an exemption, however, makes little sense: in economic terms, the fund managers (also known as investment advisors) perform a professional service, much like lawyers or doctors, and receive remuneration for their labor.

These investment advisors and hedge fund managers can take advantage of this tax structure because they are often compensated through a scheme that, in part, pays them according to the returns on the fund. The industry standard for hedge fund managers is “two and twenty,” which is shorthand for an “overhead” fee of 2% of capital under management plus carried interest (often called a “carry”) of 20% of the returns on the fund. Thus a $100 million fund earning 20% would pay its fund manager $2 million for overhead and $4 million in carry. The carry portion of their compensation is treated under the tax code as capital gains for the fund manager and is taxable at the much lower capital gains tax rate of 15%.

This policy memo focuses on this special tax break, explaining why it is not economically sound and offering reasonable estimates of what it costs the U.S. Treasury and ultimately other tax payers in terms of lost tax revenue.

Tax treatment distorts economic incentives
There are two things economically wrong with this special tax provision for hedge fund managers. First is its impact on economic efficiency. It creates inconsistent economic incentives (i.e., distortions) for some labor income to be treated as ordinary income while other labor income is treated as capital gains, and the work done by investment advisors is undeniably a professional, laboring activity.1 Fund managers at pension funds, trusts, and endowments who provide similar professional services are paid a salary and possibly a bonus, and these are all treated as ordinary income. Only because hedge funds and private equity firms are organized as limited liability partnerships—which are already treated favorably for tax and liability purposes—are these same professional services taxed differently. The result is a distortion in the compensation and after-tax income between these super rich hedge fund managers and millions of others in the workforce.

The second thing wrong with this exemption is that these super rich fund managers do not need and certainly do not deserve special tax breaks. Alpha Magazine reports the compensation for hedge fund managers each year. The top earner for 2006 received $1.7 billion, the second highest received $1.4 billion, and the third $1.3 billion. That adds to $4.4 billion for three people. The top 25 hedge managers received, on average, $570 million for a total of $14.25 billion.

Not only do these rich individuals have no need of tax breaks, the hedge fund and private equity industries have demonstrated time and again that they are not exemplary economic citizens who deserve privileged tax treatment. While most fund managers are probably law-abiding investment advisors, there are innumerable examples of wrong doing. The major types of failures and illegal activities include insider trading, IPO manipulation, embezzlement, and defrauding mutual fund investors.2

Defending this tax break are highly paid lobbyists such as Douglas Lowenstein and Grover Norquist who loudly and repeatedly make the claim that taxing hedge fund managers like everyone else will harm the average working family. They claim that taxing hedge funds like normal income will harm pension fund returns. This is wrong on two levels. First, the tax change would apply to hedge fund managers and not investors (many pension funds invest in hedge funds). Second, pension funds do not pay taxes. These lobbyists also claim that it would increase the cost of consumer goods and services because so many stores and chain restaurants are owned by private equity firms and hedge funds. This, too, is preposterous because, again, the tax does not apply to the investors or owners of those businesses but only the investment advisors who manage the funds of those investors. Moreover, the businesses owned by private pools of capital will have to compete with other similar businesses providing consumer goods and services—only now on a level playing field—and they will not be able to arbitrarily raise their prices.

The revenue costs
How much revenue does this loophole cost the federal government? The following analysis creates a reasonable estimate using what information is available from the unregulated, non-transparent hedge fund industry.

The data come from market research firms Greenwich Associates and HedgeFund.net. These firms study the industry in order to help investors become more informed about the size, returns, and range of opportunities available in the area of professionally managed private capital pools. The size of the hedge fund industry is best measured by the amount of capital invested in these funds. HedgeFund.net estimates what is called “assets under advisement” to be $2.4 trillion for 2006. Greenwich Associates regularly reports on its survey of a large number of fund managers, and the results for the past three years show that hedge fund investments’ across-the board-investment strategies returned 10.5% to investors after fees. This implies that returns were 13.1% before fees, and if investment managers received the industry standard 20%, then their remuneration treated as “carry” was $63 billion for 2006 (20% of returns calculated as rate of return times capital of $2.4 trillion).

Of course not all hedge funds are located in the United States, but estimates are that 70% of hedge funds measured by capital invested are based domestically.3 The funds may also have subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands for certain other tax purposes, but the fund managers are taxed based on where they live, and most live in the United States. If we take a more conservative estimate that 50% of hedge fund assets under advisement are managed by advisors located in the United States, then half of those investment advisory earnings are taxable under U.S. law. At the current 15% capital gains tax rate, the taxable amount would result in $4.75 billion in tax payments; at the top rate (35%) on ordinary income, it would sum to $11.05 billion. The loss to the U.S. Treasury, therefore, amounts to at least $6.3 billion a year.

In addition to these aggregate numbers, there are a few specific figures coming out of the private capital market worth considering. Alpha Magazine’s figures for the top hedge fund managers and its estimates of the break out of compensation between salary and bonus can be used to further estimate the revenue implication by applying that break out to the portion of total compensation that is likely treated as capital gains. The different tax rates then can be used to calculate how much these three individuals benefit from this quirk in the tax law.

A simple calculation shows that this preferential tax treatment for the top 25 individuals alone costs the Treasury almost $2 billion.4 It serves to suggest that our estimates of tax losses are indeed conservative, as the losses from these 25 managers alone amounts to almost a third of our total.

Conclusion
Congress has the opportunity to correct a bad economic policy and free up resources to fund better priorities. This analysis points to the need to update the nation’s tax laws dealing with private pools of capital. The current law is generating inefficiencies and great inequality by granting tax breaks to individuals who do not need and do not deserve such favors. The nation has greater and more deserving priorities. If the amount of tax revenue lost to private equity firm managers is equivalent to that lost with hedge funds, then the combined amount would be $12.6 billion. This forgone revenue stream could, for example, fully fund the five-year, $35 billion expansion of SCHIP, the public health insurance program for low-income children.

Notes
1. While investment advisors often invest their own capital in the funds they manage, this tax issue concerns the returns on their labor and not their capital.

2. As for insider trading, the SEC is investigating numerous cases of hedge funds exploiting insider information about merger and acquisition announcements to trade ahead in the credit derivatives markets. In terms of IPO manipulation, Deutsche Bank and several hedge funds were recently prosecuted in France for manipulating an IPO of a telecom firm. Dozens of hedge funds have also been found to have ripped off mutual fund investors by late trading and market timing a large number of mutual funds. This problem was brought to light by Eliot Spitzer’s investigation into Canary Capital Hedge Fund and Bank of America. For recent examples of embezzlement look to the cases involving Bayou Capital, IPOF Fund, and Wood River. In addition there have been some colossal failures, including: Long Term Capital Management (interest rates), Amaranth and Mother Rock (energy), Red Kite (copper), and Bear Sterns’ hedge funds (subprime debt).

3. Alpha Magazine reports that 77 of the largest 100 hedge funds are located in the U.S., and that the 100 largest hedge funds manage 70% of the total capital invested in hedge funds.

4. The calculation is based on Alpha Magazine figures for average compensation breakdown between salary and bonus, which is 70% bonus, and assumes the bonus was treated as capital gains. Thus 70% of compensation is taxed at 15% capital gains rate and benefit is the difference between that and 35%. If entire compensation were taxed at capital gains rate, then the benefit would be 43% higher.[/quote]

[John~Galt]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='05 May 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1273096891' post='886402']
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/pm120/
[/quote]

Sure it isn't our money but here is how we can grab a big chunk of it.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='John~Galt' date='05 May 2010 - 06:06 PM' timestamp='1273097175' post='886404']
Sure it isn't our money but here is how we can grab a big chunk of it.
[/quote]


Then taxes period "isnt our money"

[Homer_Rice]

A special Cinco de Mayo message...to Arizona (NSFW--a little cussing):

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKhChMHhBN8[/media]

[CTBengalsFan]

[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=brewer/100505]Gov. Jan Brewer wrote up a response for ESPN.com[/url]

Here's a snippet:

[quote]There have been countless distortions, honest omissions, myths and bad information about Arizona's new law -- many, undoubtedly, spread to create fear or mistrust.

So here are the facts:

1. The new Arizona law creates a state penalty to mirror what already is a federal crime. Despite the most vile and hate-filled portrayals of proponents of the law as "Nazis," actions that have been condemned nationally by the Anti-Defamation League, it is ALREADY a federal requirement for legal aliens in the United States to carry their green card or other immigration document. The new Arizona law enforces what has been a federal crime since before World War II. As anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar laws. [color="#FF0000"]I think this is an important point. Who travels abroad without their passport on them 24/7? Is that unreasonable?[/color]

2. Contrary to many of the horror stories being spread -- President Obama suggested families risk being pulled over while going out for ice cream -- law enforcement cannot randomly ask anyone about their immigration status. Much like enforcement of seat belt laws in many states, under SB 1070 there must first be reasonable suspicion that you are breaking some OTHER non-immigration law before an officer can ask a person about their legal status. Only then, after law enforcement officers have a "reasonable suspicion" that another law has been broken, can they inquire about immigration status -- but ONLY if that individual's behavior provides "reasonable suspicion" that the person is here illegally.

"Reasonable suspicion" is a well-understood concept that has been thoroughly vetted through numerous federal court cases. Many have asked: What is reasonable suspicion? Is it race, skin color or national origin? No! Racial profiling is prohibited in the new law. Examples of reasonable suspicion include: a person running away when approached by law enforcement officers, or a car failing to stop when the police turn on their lights and siren.

3. Arizona's local law enforcement officers, who already reflect the great diversity of culture in our state, are going to be trained to enforce the new immigration law in a constitutional manner. It is shameful and presumptive for opponents to question the good will and the competence of Arizona's law enforcement personnel. The specter that is raised of rogue, racist police harassing people is insulting to those in Arizona who risk their lives in the name of law enforcement every day.[/quote]

[TheBeaverHunter]

I like tacos and fajitas, a lot. Although I don't like seeing illegals everywhere....cutting grass, working farms, robbing people, busting open pinatas, piling 12 deep in an old beat up van, buying hamburger and beans at the store, sitting on 5 gallon buckets drinking a cerveza. This is such a tough decision, I'm glad it's out of my hands.

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='04 May 2010 - 11:31 AM' timestamp='1272987094' post='885826']
Is he very liberal or are you just very conservative?
[/quote]

Politics is all about perspective. Obama would be pretty conservative in 1930's USSR. I would be EXTREMELY liberal in 1940's Germany.

I think that for this perspective, he is pretty damn liberal compared to most others in the US. As for me, I catch myself disagreeing with conservatives pretty damn often now. I consider myself more of a libertarian.

[bengalrick]

[quote name='kennethmw' date='04 May 2010 - 11:40 AM' timestamp='1272987612' post='885827']
When you consider that the Health Insurance Reform Bill that was passed is a "kissing cousin" to the Bill that was developed by the republicans in '93 to combat "HillaryCare", yes, I would say it was bipartisan. I do realize, however, that to most Conservatives and republicans, bipartisan means Conservative ideas only, no liberal ideas allowed.
[/quote]

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=define:bipartisan&aq=f&aqi=g-sx3&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

[i]Bipartisan = supported by both sides; "a two-way treaty" [/i]

What was the vote again? How many republicans supported this?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='06 May 2010 - 11:28 AM' timestamp='1273159709' post='886539']
Politics is all about perspective. Obama would be pretty conservative in 1930's USSR. I would be EXTREMELY liberal in 1940's Germany.I think that for this perspective, he is pretty damn liberal compared to most others in the US. As for me, I catch myself disagreeing with conservatives pretty damn often now. I consider myself more of a libertarian.
[/quote]

Thank you Obi-Wan ("Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.")



[quote name='bengalrick' date='06 May 2010 - 11:30 AM' timestamp='1273159845' post='886541']
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=define:bipartisan&aq=f&aqi=g-sx3&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=[i]Bipartisan = supported by both sides; "a two-way treaty" [/i]What was the vote again? How many republicans supported this?
[/quote]


Get out of town, I mean I know your busy with school and family, but have you not been paying attention? They arent voting against based on disagreements in policy, many of their own ideas have been included in this policy, they are voting against based in politics, they want to have him fail so they can retake power. I hope most see this childish behavior for what it is and dont give them a damn bit of power.

[bengalrick]

As far as the subject at hand on this thread, this is one of my main beefs with conservatives and republicans. It isn't about votes either with me.

I put it all in perspective. If I was living on the border of Mexico and the US, and tried to legally get my green card to no avail, I would sneak the fuck over here too, to help support my family better. Not to make excuses for people in this situation, but that is my perspective.

I think that you are not going to be able to deport, and people aren't going to turn theirselves in if they are punished. Its not fair for Americans or legal immigrants but those are the facts. So I think we need to have work permits for Illegal immigrants so that a) they are documented they can prove theirselves and hopefully this will lead to fast track to citizenship c) they can start to pay taxes.

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='06 May 2010 - 11:35 AM' timestamp='1273160140' post='886544']
Thank you Obi-Wan ("Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.")






Get out of town, I mean I know your busy with school and family, but have you not been paying attention? They arent voting against based on disagreements in policy, many of their own ideas have been included in this policy, they are voting against based in politics, they want to have him fail so they can retake power. I hope most see this childish behavior for what it is and dont give them a damn bit of power.
[/quote]

I have been paying some attention. They ARE voting on disagreements in policy. Granted they did get rid of the shittiest parts, but they also left out the main things that would have bridged the gap and solved some of the problems. If they would allow people to purchase HC out of state that would cut costs and help many people. If they would tackle tort reform more, even though it is a small part of the problem, it is a problem and a real bridge. And why were they trying to take away HSA's? I have one and I think it is great. It shows me the true costs of health care. Luckily this was taken out, but I just don't see how this is a bipartisan bill. And if it weren't for the American people standing up, it would look much, much different.

as far as wanting them to fail to retake power... pot meet kettle. What did the dem's do after 2004? I hope that when rep's take back over, they don't fall into the same trap.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='06 May 2010 - 11:45 AM' timestamp='1273160717' post='886547']
I have been paying some attention. They ARE voting on disagreements in policy. Granted they did get rid of the shittiest parts, but they also left out the main things that would have bridged the gap and solved some of the problems. If they would allow people to purchase HC out of state that would cut costs and help many people. If they would tackle tort reform more, even though it is a small part of the problem, it is a problem and a real bridge. And why were they trying to take away HSA's? I have one and I think it is great. It shows me the true costs of health care. Luckily this was taken out, but I just don't see how this is a bipartisan bill. And if it weren't for the American people standing up, it would look much, much different.

as far as wanting them to fail to retake power... pot meet kettle. What did the dem's do after 2004? I hope that when rep's take back over, they don't fall into the same trap.
[/quote]


The problem with buying insurance out of state is that the insurance companies will just move to the state with the least regulation and continue to gouge the consumers. I actually agree with you that Tort reform no matter how small in savings should have been included. But the american people didnt stand up to this because of their knowledgable disagreements with it, they were scared into absurd lies like death panels or coverage for illegals which neither of which were ever part of the bill, or they were scared by the "s word". If you want legitimate complaints then complain about how once again the special interest groups got ahold of something and screwed it up for everyone. Without their involvement we likely could of had a public option.