Post by: Scout26 on January 06, 2008, 09:05:19 AM
In his first term he'll want to change the US so it's just like Illinois.
In his second term he'll want to change the US so it's just like Chicago.
Any questions
Post by: Finch on January 06, 2008, 09:12:17 AM
You gunna tell us sumtin we don't know?
Post by: The Rabbi on January 06, 2008, 09:26:41 AM
He talks about getting beyond partisan feuds but his programs are so far left they are bound to be even more divisive.
Can anyone explain his appeal??
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 06, 2008, 09:46:02 AM
Getting beyond partisan feuds just means that the other side should shut up and accept the superior wisdom of your side. Which is what I'm all about, of course.
Post by: wooderson on January 06, 2008, 10:53:20 AM
Post by: De Selby on January 06, 2008, 11:12:41 AM
John Kennedy II. An 'outsider' group's first great hope for a win, pretty, a talented orator, speaking of 'change' and responsibility without being particularly radical about it.
Have to agree.
When you watch him speak, you realize that he is easily one of the smartest politicians out there. And I mean that to say, smartest at being a politician, not "smartest" and a politician.
Post by: longeyes on January 06, 2008, 02:44:41 PM
If he runs against McCain it will be senility versus infantility, perhaps a fitting symbol of where America stands today.
Post by: Lennyjoe on January 06, 2008, 02:49:04 PM
Quote
Can anyone explain his appeal??
He's a smooth talker. That's about it.
Earlier today I had some spare time at the mall before my movie started (National Treasure 2) so I dropped into Border books. I seen his book sitting on the shelf and thought I'd see what he had to say. I breezed thru it for a spell. Needless to say, I about threw up in my mouth after the chapter with his views on the Constitution.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 06, 2008, 02:49:51 PM
I honestly just dont get him.
Post by: grampster on January 06, 2008, 05:01:04 PM
Obama is a smooth talking snake oil salesman; which is pretty much what every one of the candidates are to varying degrees. There is only one candidate that thinks and talks in terms of what America should be about if the constitution was our guiding principal. Everybody thinks he's a loon, so never mind.
Maybe who is president is less important than who is running the congress and on the federal benches. America probably needs a president who is a smooth talking snake oil salesman because that is just exactly who the rest of the world responds to as well. The problem with Obama is that he is a socialist just like most of the democrats, although the masses of D's don't have a clue about the long term ramification of that. Unfortunately, most of the R's are socialists as well.
If we had a congress that was serious enough about energy, border security/immigration, and finding some kind of a national project that would excite the masses like building nuclear power plants, exploiting our own resources in a sane fashion, and maybe dividing the nation up into quadrants and building a high speed, elevated electric rail system put out to bid by private industry and hiring the unemployed healthy folks, stepping up to the plate in that regard, perhaps whoever is president could re analyze just what our national interest are abroad. Maybe then we could pull this country back together a bit.
Ask Obama if he has ever read The Closed Circle, by David Pryce-Jones. It is the definitive text book on the Arab culture. If he hasn't read it, tell him to keep his mouth shut about how to deal with anybody in the ME. If he hasn't read that book he doesn't know his ass from in a hole in the ground about how to deal with reality in the ME, or eastern Europe for that matter. In fact, ask all of the candidates if they've read the book.
We live in a complicated world that we overcomplicate and I see no one capable of dealing with the reality of that. I think I am going to quit thinking about how we have come to be governed by fools and start living in a little cocoon here in W. Michigan. I don't have many years left. I've actually done my bit so after tonight I don't give a rat's ass any more. I'm going to drink expensive booze, smoke a fine cigar once in awhile, play in the snow, and float around on my lake in the summer reading good books that make me happy. I'm gonna be just like all the other eloi. I think maybe that is better rather than weeping when I look and my grandchildren because I wonder if they will curse me in 30 years for allowing the ***h**** to screw up the world.
If I hear one more politician talking about "fundamental change" and not offering up just what the **** they mean by that, my brain is going to explode. I'm done!!
Post by: wooderson on January 06, 2008, 05:08:07 PM
Quote
America doesn't want to deal with the serious business of terrorism, the border, medical care, etc etc.
I know this will come as a shock, grampster, but there are still large sections of the populace that don't live in constant fear of terrorism or illegal immigrants. They aren't insane or lazy or apathetic - they just have a different take on risk analysis in their lives than you.
If a Democrat is elected, it will be in part because America does want to "deal with" medical care - and doesn't care with how it's been dealt with thus far.
Post by: grampster on January 06, 2008, 05:19:02 PM
Now I'm done, this time for good.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 06, 2008, 05:42:50 PM
Obama is a product of the Daley political machine.
Obama gets into office.
Obama appoints Daley to a high-level position, or even takes him as VP.
Daley runs the Oval Office as puppetmaster, just like he runs Illinois with his bootlicker of a governor.
Brrr...
Post by: Scout26 on January 06, 2008, 05:45:59 PM
Quote from: wooderson
.......speaking of 'change' and responsibility without being particularly radical about it.
Or being particulary particular about it either.
Post by: gunsmith on January 06, 2008, 06:02:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNZaq-YKCnE
People are pretty sick and tired of the rino faction that the mass media tell them are conservatives.
I really liked Jimmy in 76 because I was young, stupid and knew that Nixon was a corrupt liar.
Jimmy said he would legalize marijuana too!
We've got tens of millions of people who think history is boring and American Idol is exciting.
Obama is the perfect American Idol candidate.
FoulNews can't say that because they are under contract to tell us how great American Idol is.
Post by: longeyes on January 06, 2008, 06:35:32 PM
Quote
I know this will come as a shock, grampster, but there are still large sections of the populace that don't live in constant fear of terrorism or illegal immigrants. They aren't insane or lazy or apathetic - they just have a different take on risk analysis in their lives than you.
Half of America is befogged by illegal drugs, prescription drugs, or the soma we like to call tv. Half of America is ignorant as dirt about damn near everything--and many of those have graduate degrees. The concept of "risk analysis," much less long-term thinking, is alien to these folks--and yet too many of them somehow manage to crawl to the voting booth and enact holy suffrage. What a farce.
No, Virginia, there's no threat from Islamist terrorism and no threat from illegal immigrants. Go masticate some more lotus; you can get the jumbo size at Costco, on sale this week.
What Grampster said about pragmatic political agendas is right on, but where in the world is there any talk of serious and adult initiatives that would sober us up and inspire us to our heritage of greatness? You'd think all we had to worry about was the "unfairness" of Bush's tax cuts and giving free health care to illegal aliens.
Post by: wooderson on January 06, 2008, 06:50:30 PM
The question is one of simple risk - do I need to live my life, essentially, with the threat of terrorism lurking around the corner? Do I need to plan my future around it? Do I need to craft my desired public policy around the threat of it? Am I willing to give up certain liberties and freedoms to be a certain percentage safer?
Grampster, it appears, believes that he does. I don't, nor do many others. My assessment is that I'm more likely to get creamed by an elderly driver or someone on a cell phone than I am by anyone wearing a bloody turban. (And yet I still don't wish to make "morons driving badly need to be stopped" a central feature of policy.)
Frankly, a lot of y'all spend your time (based on statements at APS) living in a much greater state of fear than I do. (And as illustrated here, y'all probably think people like me are cavalier in the face of danger.) Maybe because you have families and I don't, maybe it's something unconscious. But the politics of terror and "ILLEGALS!!!" are grounded in worries (or fears) that I simply do not share.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 07, 2008, 04:26:37 AM
No, Virginia, there's no threat from Islamist terrorism and no threat from illegal immigrants. Go masticate some more lotus; you can get the jumbo size at Costco, on sale this week.
What "threat" is there from illegal immigrants? Neat lawns? Clean motel rooms?
I have already demonstrated conclusively that there is no increased crime, so that can't be it.
You have an elitist snob mentality, that you are the only one who recognizes this threat and anyone who doesnt agree with you must be delusional. I think its the opposite.
I am more in fear of Obama than Osama.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 07, 2008, 04:31:07 AM
No, Virginia, there's no threat from Islamist terrorism and no threat from illegal immigrants. Go masticate some more lotus; you can get the jumbo size at Costco, on sale this week.
What "threat" is there from illegal immigrants? Neat lawns? Clean motel rooms?
I have already demonstrated conclusively that there is no increased crime, so that can't be it.
You have an elitist snob mentality, that you are the only one who recognizes this threat and anyone who doesnt agree with you must be delusional. I think its the opposite.
I am more in fear of Obama than Osama.
I really have no idea why you're so blatantly defensive of these lawbreakers. All I can think of is that perhaps you profit from hiring them, and I sincerely hope that's not the case. I can't think of any other reason why someone would make such an adamant stand against basic law and basic sovereignty of the country. Why are you defending them?
And you've demonstrated "conclusively?" Where?
Gee, I guess that MACHETE FIGHT on a public intersection in Nashua that turned out to be mostly ILLEGALS didn't happen.
I guess the ILLEGAL carnival worker who raped a woman in Keene in a very public park, which had never happened before, didn't happen.
If I'm an elitist for wanting lawbreakers and identity thieves rounded up and deported the hell out of the country, so be it.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 07, 2008, 04:33:50 AM
Post by: roo_ster on January 07, 2008, 05:31:55 AM
I've provided both logical and statistical evidence. You respond with anecdote while Longeyes responds with paranoia and conspiracy theory. Which side wins that debate?
If you re-define "logic and statistical evidence" as snide Nazi references, O Son of Godwin, your above statement is spot-on accurate.I have provided you with a large amount of data over time as to the effects of illegal aliens on my taxes, down here in N Texas.
For some reason, you think we ought to just keep on getting kicked in the financial Jimmy. Don't be surprised when we don't just sit idly by while your precious illegals suck on the gov't teat and illegal alien employers screw over their neighbors.
Post by: grampster on January 07, 2008, 05:33:18 AM
Grampster, it appears, believes that he does. I don't, nor do many others."
I've gone back and read my remarks. I did not say, or even imply that I was willing to give up any rights. (other than expressing my frustration with our political scenario and now wanting to become eloi.) In fact, I said just the opposite! If you're going to quote me, at least give me the courtesy of doing it correctly.
I'm used to dealing with reality and have experienced a good deal of it, from the end of WWII to the present. I'll stand by my words, Wooderson. Actual history is more enlightening than the history that is made up or twisted to serve the needs of fantasy. I've chosen not to live in that fantasy world; at least until last night.
Upon reflection this morning, I don't think my honor will allow me the peaceful transition into the bliss of being an uninformed or willfully ignorant eloi. Too many of my family, friends and others have paid too much of a price for me to be that cavalier and bullheadedly ignorant as some are.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 07, 2008, 05:41:09 AM
I've provided both logical and statistical evidence. You respond with anecdote while Longeyes responds with paranoia and conspiracy theory. Which side wins that debate?
If you re-define "logic and statistical evidence" as snide Nazi references, O Son of Godwin, your above statement is spot-on accurate.I have provided you with a large amount of data over time as to the effects of illegal aliens on my taxes, down here in N Texas.
For some reason, you think we ought to just keep on getting kicked in the financial Jimmy. Don't be surprised when we don't just sit idly by while your precious illegals suck on the gov't teat and illegal alien employers screw over their neighbors.
You have not provided any info on the effects of illegals on your taxes in North Texas. Frankly it is irrelevant to a discussion of crime, but nice try anyway.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 07, 2008, 06:30:09 AM
gampster, you owe it to your grandchildren to continue fighting. Also, I would support Ron Paul as well based on some issue, but on others he is simply too radical. He cannot get elected, the electorate being what it is. I like the fact that he brings out a lot of the problems to discussion, and just like Tancredo can help push the debates in the right direction. Just because he is not currently viable as a winner candidate should not be a source of discouragement or general dispair.
I agree that Obama is the American Idol candidate. A typical glossy empty liberal.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 07, 2008, 06:58:20 AM
Rabbi, if statistics is what you wish, 30% of the inmates in our jails and prisons are illegal aliens. Each prisoner-year costs roughly $50k to the taxpayer. Is this a sufficient problem for you?
You have a source for this statistic? Perhaps something from the Bereau of Prisons or some other credible unbiased source?
Post by: grampster on January 07, 2008, 08:40:17 AM
From the Center for Immigration Studies.
About the Center for Immigration Studies
Who We Are
The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit research organization founded in 1985. It is the nation's only think tank devoted exclusively to research and policy analysis of the economic, social, demographic, fiscal, and other impacts of immigration on the United States.
Our Mission
It is the Center's mission to expand the base of public knowledge and understanding of the need for an immigration policy that gives first concern to the broad national interest. The Center is animated by a pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted.
Publications
The Center publishes Backgrounders, papers, and other reports. For a complete list, go to the publications page.
Listservs
The Center maintains two e-mail lists covering immigration news from around the world. To read about the lists and how to subscribe, click here.
The Katz Award for Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration
The Center hopes to raise the bar in immigration coverage by the media making an annual award to the journalist who best challenges the norm of immigration reporting. Read about our winners.
Support the Center
The Center is a tax-exempt educational organization as set forth in Sec. 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and thus contributions to the Center are tax-deductible. To make a tax-deductible donation Click Here.
The High Cost of Cheap Labor
Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget
Executive Summary
This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.
Among the findings:
*
Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
*
Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
*
With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.
*
On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.
*
Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them.
*
If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.
*
Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status -- what most illegal aliens would become -- can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments.
*
Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent.
*
The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain -- many legal immigrants are highly skilled.
*
The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work.
*
The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants' education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact.
A Complex Fiscal Picture
Welfare use. Our findings show that many of the preconceived notions about the fiscal impact of illegal households turn out to be inaccurate. In terms of welfare use, receipt of cash assistance programs tends to be very low, while Medicaid use, though significant, is still less than for other households. Only use of food assistance programs is significantly higher than that of the rest of the population. Also, contrary to the perceptions that illegal aliens don't pay payroll taxes, we estimate that more than half of illegals work "on the books." On average, illegal households pay more than $4,200 a year in all forms of federal taxes. Unfortunately, they impose costs of $6,950 per household.
Social Security and Medicare. Although we find that the net effect of illegal households is negative at the federal level, the same is not true for Social Security and Medicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs. However, they create a net deficit of $17.4 billion in the rest of the budget, for a total net loss of $10.4 billion. Nonetheless, their impact on Social Security and Medicare is unambiguously positive. Of course, if the Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico signed in June goes into effect, allowing illegals to collect Social Security, these calculations would change.
The Impact of Amnesty. Finally, our estimates show that amnesty would significantly increase tax revenue. Because both their income and tax compliance would rise, we estimate that under the most likely scenario the average illegal alien household would pay 77 percent ($3,200) more a year in federal taxes once legalized. While not enough to offset the 118 percent ($8,200) per household increase in costs that would come with legalization, amnesty would significantly increase both the average income and tax payments of illegal aliens.
What's Different About Today's Immigration. Many native-born Americans observe that their ancestors came to America and did not place great demands on government services. Perhaps this is true, but the size and scope of government were dramatically smaller during the last great wave of immigration. Not just means-tested programs, but expenditures on everything from public schools to roads were only a fraction of what they are today. Thus, the arrival of unskilled immigrants in the past did not have the negative fiscal implications that it does today. Moreover, the American economy has changed profoundly since the last great wave of immigration, with education now the key determinant of economic success. The costs that unskilled immigrants impose simply reflect the nature of the modern American economy and welfare state. It is doubtful that the fiscal costs can be avoided if our immigration policies remain unchanged.
Policy Implications
The negative impact on the federal budget need not be the only or even the primary consideration when deciding what to do about illegal immigration. But assuming that the fiscal status quo is unacceptable, there are three main changes in policy that might reduce or eliminate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. One set of options is to allow illegal aliens to remain in the country, but attempt to reduce the costs they impose. A second set of options would be to grant them legal status as a way of increasing the taxes they pay. A third option would be to enforce the law and reduce the size of the illegal population and with it the costs of illegal immigration.
Reducing the Cost Side of the Equation. Reducing the costs illegals impose would probably be the most difficult of the three options because illegal households already impose only about 46 percent as much in costs on the federal government as other households. Thus, the amount of money that can be saved by curtailing their use of public services even further is probably quite limited. Moreover, the fact that benefits are often received on behalf of their U.S.-citizen children means that it is very difficult to prevent illegal households from accessing the programs they do. And many of the programs illegals use most extensively are likely to be politically very difficult to cut, such as the Women Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program. Other costs, such as incarcerating illegals who have been convicted of crimes are unavoidable. It seems almost certain that if illegals are allowed to remain in the country, the fiscal deficit will persist.
Increasing Tax Revenue by Granting Amnesty. As discussed above, our research shows that granting illegal aliens amnesty would dramatically increase tax revenue. Unfortunately, we find that costs would increase even more. Costs would rise dramatically because illegals would be able to access many programs that are currently off limits to them. Moreover, even if legalized illegal aliens continued to be barred from using some means-tested programs, they would still be much more likely to sign their U.S.-citizen children up for them because they would lose whatever fear they had of the government. We know this because immigrants with legal status, who have the same education levels and resulting low incomes as illegal aliens, sign their U.S.-citizen children up for programs like Medicaid at higher rates than illegal aliens with U.S.-citizen children. In addition, direct costs for programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit would also grow dramatically with legalization. Right now, illegals need a Social Security number and have to file a tax return to get the credit. As a result, relatively few actually get it. We estimate that once legalized, payments to illegals under this program would grow more than ten-fold.
From a purely fiscal point of view, the main problem with legalization is that illegals would, for the most part, become unskilled legal immigrants. And unskilled legal immigrants create much larger fiscal costs than unskilled illegal aliens. Legalization will not change the low education levels of illegal aliens or the fact that the American labor market offers very limited opportunities to such workers, whatever their legal status. Nor will it change the basic fact that the United States, like all industrialized democracies, has a well-developed welfare state that provides assistance to low-income workers. Large fiscal costs are simply an unavoidable outcome of unskilled immigration given the economic and fiscal realities of America today.
Enforcing Immigration Laws. If we are serious about avoiding the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, the only real option is to enforce the law and reduce the number of illegal aliens in the country. First, this would entail much greater efforts to police the nation's land and sea borders. At present, less than 2,000 agents are on duty at any one time on the Mexican and Canadian borders. Second, much greater effort must be made to ensure that those allowed into the country on a temporary basis, such as tourists and guest workers, are not likely to stay in the country permanently. Third, the centerpiece of any enforcement effort would be to enforce the ban on hiring illegal aliens. At present, the law is completely unenforced. Enforcement would require using existing databases to ensure that all new hires are authorized to work in the United States and levying heavy fines on businesses that knowingly employ illegal aliens. Finally, a clear message from policymakers, especially senior members of the administration, that enforcement of the law is valued and vitally important to the nation, would dramatically increase the extremely low morale of those who enforce immigration laws.
Policing the border, enforcing the ban on hiring illegal aliens, denying temporary visas to those likely to remain permanently, and all the other things necessary to reduce illegal immigration will take time and cost money. However, since the cost of illegal immigration to the federal government alone is estimated at over $10 billion a year, significant resources could be devoted to enforcement efforts and still leave taxpayers with significant net savings. Enforcement not only has the advantage of reducing the costs of illegal immigration, it also is very popular with the general public. Nonetheless, policymakers can expect strong opposition from special interest groups, especially ethnic advocacy groups and those elements of the business community that do not want to invest in labor-saving devices and techniques or pay better salaries, but instead want access to large numbers of cheap, unskilled workers. If we choose to continue to not enforce the law or to grant illegals amnesty, both the public and policymakers have to understand that there will be significant long-term costs for taxpayers.
Summary Methodology
Overall Approach. To estimate the impact of households headed by illegal aliens, we rely heavily on the National Research Council's (NRC) 1997 study, "The New Americans." Like that study, we use the March Current Population Survey (CPS) and the decennial Census, both collected by the Census Bureau. We use the March 2003 CPS, which asks questions about income, household structure, and use of public services in the calendar year prior to the survey. We control total federal expenditures and tax receipts by category to reflect actual expenditures and tax payments. Like the NRC, we assume that immigrants have no impact on defense-related expenditures and therefore assign those costs only to native-headed households. Like the NRC, we define a household as persons living together who are related. Individuals living alone or with persons to whom they are unrelated are treated as their own households. As the NRC study points out, a "household is the primary unit through which public services are consumed and taxes paid." Following the NRC's example of using households, many of which include U.S.-citizen children, as the unit of analysis makes sense because the presence of these children and the costs they create are a direct result of their parents having been allowed to enter and remain in country. Thus, counting services used by these children allows for a full accounting of the costs of illegal immigration.
Identifying Illegal Aliens in Census Bureau Data. While the CPS does not ask respondents if they are illegal aliens, the Urban Institute, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and the Census Bureau have used socio-demographic characteristics in the data to estimate the size and characteristics of the illegal population. To identify illegal aliens in the survey, we used citizenship status, year of arrival in the United States, age, country of birth, educational attainment, sex, receipt of welfare programs, receipt of Social Security, veteran status, and marital status. This method is based on some very well-established facts about the characteristics of the illegal population. In some cases, we assume that individuals have zero chance of being an illegal alien, such as naturalized citizens, veterans, and individuals who report that they personally receive Social Security benefits or cash assistance from a welfare program or those who are enrolled in Medicaid. However, other members of a household, mainly the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, can and do receive these programs. We estimate that there were 8.7 million illegal aliens included in the March 2003 CPS. By design, our estimates for the size and characteristics of the illegal population are very similar to those prepared by the Census Bureau, the INS, and the Urban Institute.
Estimating the Impact of Amnesty. We assume that any amnesty that passes Congress will have Lawful Permanent Residence (LPR) as a component. Even though the President's amnesty proposal in January seems to envision "temporary" worker status, every major legalization bill in Congress, including those sponsored by Republican legislators, provides illegal aliens with LPR status at some point in the process. Moreover, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has indicated his strong desire to give LPR status to illegal aliens.
To estimate the likely impact of legalization, we run two different simulations. In our first simulation, we assume that legalized illegal aliens would use services and pay taxes like all households headed by legal immigrants with the same characteristics. In this simulation, we control for the education level of the household head and whether the head is from Mexico. The first simulation shows that the net fiscal deficit grows from about $2,700 to more than $6,000 per household. In the second simulation, we again control for education and whether the household head is Mexican and also assume that illegals would become like post-1986 legal immigrants, excluding refugees. Because illegals are much more like recently arrived non-refugees than legal immigrants in general, the second simulation is the more plausible. The second simulation shows that the net fiscal deficit per household would climb to $7,700.
Results Similar to Other Studies. Our overall conclusion that education level is the primary determinant of tax payments made and services used is very similar to the conclusion of the 1997 National Research Council report, "The New Americans." The results of our study also closely match the findings of a 1998 Urban Institute study, which examined tax payments by illegal aliens in New York State. In order to test our results we ran separate estimates for federal taxes and found that, when adjusted for inflation, our estimated federal taxes are almost identical to those of the Urban Institute. The results of this study are also buttressed by an analysis of illegal alien tax returns done by the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Treasury in 2004, which found that about half of illegals had no federal income tax liability, very similar to our finding of 45 percent.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 07, 2008, 08:49:43 AM
Rabbi, if statistics is what you wish, 30% of the inmates in our jails and prisons are illegal aliens. Each prisoner-year costs roughly $50k to the taxpayer. Is this a sufficient problem for you?
That really isn't very telling. First off, I don't believe that one third of U.S. prisoners are illegals.
Secondly, you have to compare apples to apples. Look at the average socio-economic level of immigrants. Compare their incarceration rates to the same U.S. born socio-economic level.
You will find the rate of illegals incaracerated is actually less than the rate of U.S. born people in the same socio-economic class.
Further, if illegals spawned the crime wave everyone seems to think, why has crime actually fallen in this country in the last 20 years?
Post by: MechAg94 on January 07, 2008, 09:04:20 AM
Post by: Boomhauer on January 07, 2008, 10:41:23 AM
I also recognize that the Islamic terrorists (whether or not the rest of the Islamic world practices a "peaceful religion") would like to see us dead and the world under Islamic law...so I am just returning the love in wanting them dead...I do recognize, however, that most of the crap that goes on at the Department of Homeland security is farce when it comes to actually doing something about the threat, and that the Patriot Act and other measures are very, very scary...
Post by: roo_ster on January 07, 2008, 11:49:11 AM
I've provided both logical and statistical evidence. You respond with anecdote while Longeyes responds with paranoia and conspiracy theory. Which side wins that debate?
If you re-define "logic and statistical evidence" as snide Nazi references, O Son of Godwin, your above statement is spot-on accurate.I have provided you with a large amount of data over time as to the effects of illegal aliens on my taxes, down here in N Texas.
For some reason, you think we ought to just keep on getting kicked in the financial Jimmy. Don't be surprised when we don't just sit idly by while your precious illegals suck on the gov't teat and illegal alien employers screw over their neighbors.
You have not provided any info on the effects of illegals on your taxes in North Texas. Frankly it is irrelevant to a discussion of crime, but nice try anyway.
Illegal Alien Prison Pop Numbers, Public Hospital Use, Public School Use,
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=4416.msg65933#msg65933
Impact of Low-Skilled Folks (Note ~2/3 of illegals are classified as "low skill")
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=6654.msg105550#msg105550
Illegal Aliens in Prisons, To Include BOP, GAO, dallasnews.com, census.gov and Data Importable into Spreadsheet
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=2711382&highlight=illegal#post2711382
Illegal Aliens & Meth
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=2558717&highlight=illegal#post2558717
Illegal Alien Impact on Property Taxes, Schools, Hospitals
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=2148467&highlight=illegal#post2148467
Bureau of Econ Analysis Growth Rates
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=1692447&highlight=illegal#post1692447
Other Posts with Data:
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=3297.msg49582#msg49582
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=8211.msg136789#msg136789
Oddly enough, there was a fellow going by the handle, "The Rabbi" in many of those threads I posted above.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 07, 2008, 12:03:19 PM
Post by: Paddy on January 07, 2008, 12:39:27 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on January 07, 2008, 12:50:33 PM
Rabbi, you're hilarious. You make all sorts of ridiculous assertions, then when you're proven wrong, the proof is irrelevant.
No, every assertion I have made has been backed up with evidence or logical argument. JFruser cannot seem to grasp the difference between statistical evidence and anecdote.
The simple fact is that if illegals were the crime scourge they have been made out to be then crime rates where most illegals live would skyrocket. And they haven't. In fact there is less crime, both violent and property, in those areas now than there was 10 years ago. And more illegals to boot.
This is a simple fact.
And yet the "enforcement" crowd cannot get their minds around it. They know there must be a trick somewhere but cannot find it. But until they do they will never stop believing that illegals constitute a crime wave of historic proportions. No matter how often challenged they will respond with irrelevant arguments and numbers. But nothing is going to change the facts on the ground.
They are the sheeple of the enforcement movement. Facts will not sway their firm convictions.
Post by: roo_ster on January 07, 2008, 12:57:16 PM
Quote from: http://www.dailygut.com/index.php?i=3526
So, while watching the debates over the weekend, I figured out why Obama is rising in popularity, and why Hilary is sinking like something that sinks. Obama doesn't have to do a damn thing but sit there and look pretty, and we love him. And Hilary doesn't have to do a damn thing but sit there and look constipated, and you hate her.
In a nutshell: Obama is a stripper and Hilary is your wife. Think about it. When you go to a strip club, you see the very best attributes of the stripper you're ogling. You see her curves and her implants, but you see none of her problems. You don't see her meth habit, her biker ex-boyfriend, the box of severed ears she keeps in her closet. But with your wife, you are familiar not with only the good, but with the bad. The very bad. And this is why men sometimes prefer strippers to their wives.
But, once you leave your wife and start dating a stripper - you quickly find out that she's far worse than your wife could ever be. Your wife doesn't eat her own hair, for example. If the elections were held now, Obama would probably win - which is essentially like marrying a stripper after spending a weekend with her in Vegas, doing lines off her butt. But unlike that entirely made up scenario which definitely didn't happen to me in 1992 when I had long hair and a competitive bobsled racer's physique, a quickie election can't be annulled. If you tie the knot with Obama, as shapely as he is, you're stuck with him for at least four years.
And that's why I recommend ditching both of them and voting for me. I promise a unicorn in every pot and a houseboy in every bed.
And if you disagree with me, then you sir, are worse than Hitler.
In a nutshell: Obama is a stripper and Hilary is your wife. Think about it. When you go to a strip club, you see the very best attributes of the stripper you're ogling. You see her curves and her implants, but you see none of her problems. You don't see her meth habit, her biker ex-boyfriend, the box of severed ears she keeps in her closet. But with your wife, you are familiar not with only the good, but with the bad. The very bad. And this is why men sometimes prefer strippers to their wives.
But, once you leave your wife and start dating a stripper - you quickly find out that she's far worse than your wife could ever be. Your wife doesn't eat her own hair, for example. If the elections were held now, Obama would probably win - which is essentially like marrying a stripper after spending a weekend with her in Vegas, doing lines off her butt. But unlike that entirely made up scenario which definitely didn't happen to me in 1992 when I had long hair and a competitive bobsled racer's physique, a quickie election can't be annulled. If you tie the knot with Obama, as shapely as he is, you're stuck with him for at least four years.
And that's why I recommend ditching both of them and voting for me. I promise a unicorn in every pot and a houseboy in every bed.
And if you disagree with me, then you sir, are worse than Hitler.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 07, 2008, 01:03:37 PM
And that there's funny, I dont care who you are.
Post by: grampster on January 07, 2008, 03:17:42 PM
Any comment about the cut n paste that I posted?
Post by: The Rabbi on January 07, 2008, 03:27:14 PM
So Reb,
Any comment about the cut n paste that I posted?
Yes. It was a waste of bandwidth. The question of whether illegals are a net value to society or a net drain on society has never been settled and there are plenty of studies on both sides.
Any comment about the cut n paste that I posted?
Post by: longeyes on January 07, 2008, 03:28:48 PM
Quote
he simple fact is that if illegals were the crime scourge they have been made out to be then crime rates where most illegals live would skyrocket. And they haven't. In fact there is less crime, both violent and property, in those areas now than there was 10 years ago. And more illegals to boot.
This is a simple fact.
And yet the "enforcement" crowd cannot get their minds around it. They know there must be a trick somewhere but cannot find it. But until they do they will never stop believing that illegals constitute a crime wave of historic proportions. No matter how often challenged they will respond with irrelevant arguments and numbers. But nothing is going to change the facts on the ground.
They are the sheeple of the enforcement movement. Facts will not sway their firm convictions.
This is a simple fact.
And yet the "enforcement" crowd cannot get their minds around it. They know there must be a trick somewhere but cannot find it. But until they do they will never stop believing that illegals constitute a crime wave of historic proportions. No matter how often challenged they will respond with irrelevant arguments and numbers. But nothing is going to change the facts on the ground.
They are the sheeple of the enforcement movement. Facts will not sway their firm convictions.
Well, I guess the answer to crime is simple then: just swap out the old, felonious native population and swap in the new, crime-averse illegal alien population. Paradise is just around the corner. Funny, though, that the crime rate in Mexico, where most of the illegals hail from, is sky-high, particularly the violent kind. You'd have thought Mexicans would bring "Mexico" with them...
Post by: The Rabbi on January 07, 2008, 03:31:33 PM
Quote
he simple fact is that if illegals were the crime scourge they have been made out to be then crime rates where most illegals live would skyrocket. And they haven't. In fact there is less crime, both violent and property, in those areas now than there was 10 years ago. And more illegals to boot.
This is a simple fact.
And yet the "enforcement" crowd cannot get their minds around it. They know there must be a trick somewhere but cannot find it. But until they do they will never stop believing that illegals constitute a crime wave of historic proportions. No matter how often challenged they will respond with irrelevant arguments and numbers. But nothing is going to change the facts on the ground.
They are the sheeple of the enforcement movement. Facts will not sway their firm convictions.
This is a simple fact.
And yet the "enforcement" crowd cannot get their minds around it. They know there must be a trick somewhere but cannot find it. But until they do they will never stop believing that illegals constitute a crime wave of historic proportions. No matter how often challenged they will respond with irrelevant arguments and numbers. But nothing is going to change the facts on the ground.
They are the sheeple of the enforcement movement. Facts will not sway their firm convictions.
Well, I guess the answer to crime is simple then: just swap out the old, felonious native population and swap in the new, crime-averse illegal alien population. Paradise is just around the corner. Funny, though, that the crime rate in Mexico, where most of the illegals hail from, is sky-high, particularly the violent kind. You'd have thought Mexicans would bring "Mexico" with them...
Post by: longeyes on January 07, 2008, 03:32:29 PM
Quote
The question of whether illegals are a net value to society or a net drain on society has never been settled and there are plenty of studies on both sides.
Most of the kids in the L.A. Unified School District are either illegals or children of illegals. Budget per year is about $6 billion. That's a "drain" on somebody, and since it comes from my property taxes, I'd say it's on me.
People breaking the law can never be of "net value" to a society, not if you value the rule of law. Unfortunately, an increasing number of Americans no longer do. They will come to regret that.
Post by: longeyes on January 07, 2008, 03:35:18 PM
But assimilation went by the wayside when multiculturalism became the religion of the American elite.
A Mexican with a job in the U.S. is still a Mexican.
Post by: Paddy on January 07, 2008, 03:40:01 PM
Quote
A Mexican with a job in the U.S. is still a Mexican.
Exactly right. Because the bulk of his earnings go back to Mexico and are not spent in the U.S. (envios dinero, 'we send money'). But, any extraordinary expenses are borne by the public ie, crime, injury, etc.
So, we, as a country, are ahead.........how?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on January 07, 2008, 04:18:14 PM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp
Post by: The Rabbi on January 07, 2008, 05:01:53 PM
Quote
The question of whether illegals are a net value to society or a net drain on society has never been settled and there are plenty of studies on both sides.
Most of the kids in the L.A. Unified School District are either illegals or children of illegals. Budget per year is about $6 billion. That's a "drain" on somebody, and since it comes from my property taxes, I'd say it's on me.
People breaking the law can never be of "net value" to a society, not if you value the rule of law. Unfortunately, an increasing number of Americans no longer do. They will come to regret that.
In fact most of the so-called "gov't subsidy" that goes to illegals goes for public education for their kids. Really not a bad bargain in the scheme of things.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 07, 2008, 05:04:08 PM
Here's a cut n paste for your reading pleasure.
From the Center for Immigration Studies.
About the Center for Immigration Studies
From the Center for Immigration Studies.
About the Center for Immigration Studies
Do you have anything from an unbiased website? The CIS is basically the equivalent of the KKK in regards to immigration.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on January 07, 2008, 05:24:16 PM
Post by: longeyes on January 07, 2008, 05:29:53 PM
Quote
And those same kids will grow up and start businesses or work in jobs paying taxes to support your retired butt. Sounds like a fair trade to me.
They will have to graduate first, which too many don't--and they will have to stay out of gangs and out of jail.
I expect to suppport myself in retirement through savings and investments, a concept I realize is rapidly disappearing as people live for today and expect Big Gov't to take care of tomorrow. A saver today is considered either a chump or a thief.
Post by: Paddy on January 07, 2008, 05:33:40 PM
Quote
And those same kids will grow up and start businesses or work in jobs paying taxes .........
hahahahaha. That's a good one. Truth is, they won't even be able to speak English, let alone 'start businesses', unless you mean pushing a churro wagon.
Post by: Ben on January 07, 2008, 06:41:59 PM
http://atomictrousers.blogspot.com/2008/01/woman-who-changed-world.html
As the article says, Obama might have beat Ryan regardless, but if nothing else, I give you eye candy to make up for the closing of the Ukrainian army thread.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 07, 2008, 07:52:56 PM
Rabbi, if statistics is what you wish, 30% of the inmates in our jails and prisons are illegal aliens. Each prisoner-year costs roughly $50k to the taxpayer. Is this a sufficient problem for you?
That really isn't very telling. First off, I don't believe that one third of U.S. prisoners are illegals.
To answer Tecumseh's question, my numbers come from people I know that work for Dept of Corrections and see prisoners every day. I do not believe they lie to me, and neither do I believe there is something wrong with their eyes or ears. I have seen the same or comparable numbers elsewhere as well. I am sorry you do not believe it. Frightening, isn't it?
Quote
Secondly, you have to compare apples to apples. Look at the average socio-economic level of immigrants. Compare their incarceration rates to the same U.S. born socio-economic level. You will find the rate of illegals incaracerated is actually less than the rate of U.S. born people in the same socio-economic class.
I think your analysis is based on the tacit assumption that certain types and numbers of crimes are going to be committed no matter who is around. I submit to you that if the criminal is not there to commit the crime, it will not be committed. Illegal immigration and lack of enforcement mean that all sorts of people can come to our communities freely, from the best to the worst. I say we do not need the worst and should not let the worst in because some good ones sneak in as well. The good ones can come here legally. That is why I have always supported controlled legal immigration.
Quote
Further, if illegals spawned the crime wave everyone seems to think, why has crime actually fallen in this country in the last 20 years?
It is my time to say that the above is not telling. Total crime numbers are influenced by too many factors. Let's not cloud the issue with uninterpretable data when something far more straightforward is available. The reality is that if borders were controlled and immigration laws enforced, we would not have those 30% having committed crimes and now being paid for by the taxpayer in our jails and prisons. It does not get any simpler and more obvious than that.
Adding to what longeyes has mentioned, I must point out car insurance as well. A few years ago, a friend of mine got his new Ford totaled by an uninsured illegal. If the illegal were not here, he would not have totaled my friend's car. It simply does not get more clear-cut than this. Another friend of mine got her red Nissan truck stolen and taken to Mexico. It was taken apart and unsalvageable. Thankfully, in both cases, my friends were insured, so it was not a total loss. But, insurance companies do not print money to pay claims. That money comes from premiums my friends, longeyes, and I pay to the insurance company. That is an example of money I directly lose on account of illegals.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 07, 2008, 09:37:19 PM
Equally crime existed before illegals came here. If what you are saying is true then the fact there are more illegals here should mean there is more crime. But there isn't. Are illegals displacing criminal American citizens in the crime job market? Are Americans becoming more law-abiding?
With record low unemployment the anti crowd cannot argue that illegals are stealing jobs from honest hard-working Americans. Interestingly this is a pretty traditional argument I havent heard.
With lower crime numbers the anti crowd cannot argue that illegals have unleashed a crime wave. Despite what you might read on these boards.
With lower expenditures for gov't services the anti crowd cannot argue that illegals are soaking up gov't benefits. Welfare rolls have fallen in exactly those areas that have the highest concentration of illegals.
So instead of statistics the anti crowd has to argue anecdotally. Pretty weak.
Post by: gunsmith on January 08, 2008, 12:05:55 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on January 08, 2008, 03:24:49 AM
I thought we were discussing Obama!?
OK. Obama will constitute a one man crime wave if, g-d forbid, he's elected, stealing tax money that rightfully belongs to the people. He will suck up excess gov't services. He will put at least one sort of honest hardworking American out of work.Deport Obama in '08!
Post by: longeyes on January 08, 2008, 07:11:35 AM
Quote
In fact most of the so-called "gov't subsidy" that goes to illegals goes for public education for their kids. Really not a bad bargain in the scheme of things.
It's a bad bargain because we are spending billions of dollars--I believe the State ed budget is now $66 billion a year--that does little but support what has become a corrupt educational system. There isn't much "educating" going on, unless it's to promote diversity and multiculturalism. Where is all the money going? To prop up ever-increasing teacher salaries and, even worse, the hordes of "administrators" whose work tasks can't be identied, much less justified. And, oh yeah, there are some construction companies, well-connected to the mayor and other poliiticos, who are becoming very, very rich building schools. It's a nice racket if you can get in on it. How is it being financed? Massive taxpayer debt. All that will come to roost. One of these days California will no longer be able to borrow--then what? Look for Schwarzenegger's State of the State message to have broad predictive relevance, both inside and beyond California.
Post by: Scout26 on January 08, 2008, 07:17:08 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on January 08, 2008, 08:00:45 AM
The dirty little secret of Obama's campaign is the backing and support he gets from Mayor Daley's machine. Very quietly......
It worked for the Kennedy's. I'd love to see an analysis of voting in Chicago districts after the general election. Wonder how many "working stiffs" voted.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 08, 2008, 08:36:28 AM
As far as anecdotal evidence goes, we are sadly reduced to exactly that state of information gathering. Interest groups out there cook the numbers the way they see fit, including our own government. A damaging report will not be released in the current atmosphere of blatant support of illegals by refusal to enforce laws. On top, there are plenty of groups like ACLU that will sew your skin off for publicizing reports like that or doing anything on the executive level. The common citizen is left to make his own conclusions based on the evidence he can gather the old-fashioned way. At least in SoCal, the evidence is extremely damning. Soon to come to a theater near you...
Post by: The Rabbi on January 08, 2008, 09:44:00 AM
So therefore they don't do those things.
I have known several who were hard-working individuals. So all of them must be like that.
Case closed.
Post by: roo_ster on January 08, 2008, 10:15:12 AM
Quote from: http://www.slate.com/id/2181460/
Identity Crisis
There's something pathetic and embarrassing about our obsession with Barack Obama's race.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Jan. 7, 2008, at 12:04 PM ET
To put it squarely and bluntly, is it because he is or is it because he isn't? To phrase it another way, is it because of what he says or what he doesn't say? Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is the current beneficiary of a tsunami of drool. He sometimes claims credit on behalf of all Americans regardless of race, color, creed, blah blah blah, though his recent speeches appear also to claim a victory for blackness while his supportersmost especially the white onessob happily that at last we can have an African-American chief executive. Off to the side, snarling with barely concealed rage, are the Clinton machine-minders, who, having failed to ignite the same kind of identity excitement with an aging and resentful female, are perhaps wishing that they had made more of her errant husband having already been "our first black president."
Or perhaps not. Isn't there something pathetic and embarrassing about this emphasis on shade? And why is a man with a white mother considered to be "black," anyway? Is it for this that we fought so hard to get over Plessy v. Ferguson? Would we accept, if Obama's mother had also been Jewish, that he would therefore be the first Jewish president? The more that people claim Obama's mere identity to be a "breakthrough," the more they demonstrate that they have failed to emancipate themselves from the original categories of identity that acted as a fetter upon clear thought.
One can't exactly say that Sen. Obama himself panders to questions of skin color. One of the best chapters of his charming autobiography describes the moment when his black Republican opponent in the Illinois Senate raceAlan Keyesaccused him of possessing insufficient negritude because he wasn't the descendant of slaves! Obama's decision to be light-heartedand perhaps light-skinnedabout this was a milestone in itself. But are we not in danger of emulating Keyes' insane mistake every time we bang on about the senator's pigmentation? If you wanted a "black" president or vice president so much, you could long ago have turned out en masse for Angela Davisalso the first woman to be on a national ticketor for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. So, why didn't you? Could it have been the politics?
Last week happened to be the week that the nation of Kenyabirthplace of Obama's fatherwas convulsed by a political war that contained ghastly overtones of violent and sadistic tribalism. It would sound as absurd to a Kenyan to hear praise for a black candidate as it would sound to most of my European readers to hear a recommendation of a "great white hope." A white visitor to Kenya might not be able to tell a Kikuyu from a Luo at a glance, but a Kenyan would have no such difficulty. The time is pretty much past, in our country, when a Polish-American would not vote for a candidate with a German name or when Sharks and Jets were at daggers drawn, but this is all because (to borrow from Ernest Renan's definition of a nation) people agreed to forget a lot of things as well as to remember a number of things. So, which are we doing presently?
Sen. Obama is a congregant of a church in Chicago called Trinity United Church of Christ. I recommend that you take a brisk tour of its Web site. Run by the sort of character that the press often guardedly describes as "flamboyant"a man calling himself the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.this bizarre outfit describes itself as "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian" and speaks of "a chosen people" whose nature we are allowed to assume is "Afrocentric." Trinity United sells creationist books and its home page includes a graphic link to a thing called Goodsearchthe name is surmounted with a halo in its logowhich announces cheerily that "Every time you search or shop online! Our Church earns money." Much or most of what Trinity United says is harmless and boring, rather like Gov. Mike Huckabee's idiotic belief that his own success in Iowa is comparable to the "miracle" of the loaves and fishes, and the site offers a volume called Bad Girls of the Bible: Exploring Women of Questionable Virtue, which I have added to my cart, but nobody who wants to be taken seriously can possibly be associated with such a substandard and shade-oriented place.
All this easy talk about being a "uniter" and not a "divider" is piffle if people are talking out of both sides of their mouths. I have been droning on for months about how Mitt Romney needs to answer questions about the flat-out racist background of his own church, and about how Huckabee has shown in public that he does not even understand the first thing about a theorythe crucial theory of evolution by natural selectionin which he claims not to believe. Many Democrats are with me on this, but they go completely quiet when Sen. Obama chooses to give his allegiance to a crackpot church with a decidedly ethnic character.
The unspoken agreement to concede the black community to the sway of the pulpit is itself a form of racist condescension. The sickly canonization of Martin Luther King Jr. has led to a crude rewriting of history that obliterates the great black and white secularistsBayard Rustin, A. Philip Randolph, Walter Reutherwho actually organized the March on Washington. It has also allowed a free pass to any demagogue who can manage to get the word reverend in front of his name. The white voters who subconsciously make the allowance that black folks sure love to hear their preachers are not only patronizing their black brothers and sisters but also helping to empower white ministers or deacons who make the same pitch, from Jimmy Carter to Mike Huckabee. The Iowa caucuses of 2008 were not the end of our long national nightmare about race, but another stage in our protracted national nightmare of piety, "uplift," and deceptive optimistic windbaggery.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
There's something pathetic and embarrassing about our obsession with Barack Obama's race.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Jan. 7, 2008, at 12:04 PM ET
To put it squarely and bluntly, is it because he is or is it because he isn't? To phrase it another way, is it because of what he says or what he doesn't say? Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is the current beneficiary of a tsunami of drool. He sometimes claims credit on behalf of all Americans regardless of race, color, creed, blah blah blah, though his recent speeches appear also to claim a victory for blackness while his supportersmost especially the white onessob happily that at last we can have an African-American chief executive. Off to the side, snarling with barely concealed rage, are the Clinton machine-minders, who, having failed to ignite the same kind of identity excitement with an aging and resentful female, are perhaps wishing that they had made more of her errant husband having already been "our first black president."
Or perhaps not. Isn't there something pathetic and embarrassing about this emphasis on shade? And why is a man with a white mother considered to be "black," anyway? Is it for this that we fought so hard to get over Plessy v. Ferguson? Would we accept, if Obama's mother had also been Jewish, that he would therefore be the first Jewish president? The more that people claim Obama's mere identity to be a "breakthrough," the more they demonstrate that they have failed to emancipate themselves from the original categories of identity that acted as a fetter upon clear thought.
One can't exactly say that Sen. Obama himself panders to questions of skin color. One of the best chapters of his charming autobiography describes the moment when his black Republican opponent in the Illinois Senate raceAlan Keyesaccused him of possessing insufficient negritude because he wasn't the descendant of slaves! Obama's decision to be light-heartedand perhaps light-skinnedabout this was a milestone in itself. But are we not in danger of emulating Keyes' insane mistake every time we bang on about the senator's pigmentation? If you wanted a "black" president or vice president so much, you could long ago have turned out en masse for Angela Davisalso the first woman to be on a national ticketor for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. So, why didn't you? Could it have been the politics?
Last week happened to be the week that the nation of Kenyabirthplace of Obama's fatherwas convulsed by a political war that contained ghastly overtones of violent and sadistic tribalism. It would sound as absurd to a Kenyan to hear praise for a black candidate as it would sound to most of my European readers to hear a recommendation of a "great white hope." A white visitor to Kenya might not be able to tell a Kikuyu from a Luo at a glance, but a Kenyan would have no such difficulty. The time is pretty much past, in our country, when a Polish-American would not vote for a candidate with a German name or when Sharks and Jets were at daggers drawn, but this is all because (to borrow from Ernest Renan's definition of a nation) people agreed to forget a lot of things as well as to remember a number of things. So, which are we doing presently?
Sen. Obama is a congregant of a church in Chicago called Trinity United Church of Christ. I recommend that you take a brisk tour of its Web site. Run by the sort of character that the press often guardedly describes as "flamboyant"a man calling himself the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.this bizarre outfit describes itself as "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian" and speaks of "a chosen people" whose nature we are allowed to assume is "Afrocentric." Trinity United sells creationist books and its home page includes a graphic link to a thing called Goodsearchthe name is surmounted with a halo in its logowhich announces cheerily that "Every time you search or shop online! Our Church earns money." Much or most of what Trinity United says is harmless and boring, rather like Gov. Mike Huckabee's idiotic belief that his own success in Iowa is comparable to the "miracle" of the loaves and fishes, and the site offers a volume called Bad Girls of the Bible: Exploring Women of Questionable Virtue, which I have added to my cart, but nobody who wants to be taken seriously can possibly be associated with such a substandard and shade-oriented place.
All this easy talk about being a "uniter" and not a "divider" is piffle if people are talking out of both sides of their mouths. I have been droning on for months about how Mitt Romney needs to answer questions about the flat-out racist background of his own church, and about how Huckabee has shown in public that he does not even understand the first thing about a theorythe crucial theory of evolution by natural selectionin which he claims not to believe. Many Democrats are with me on this, but they go completely quiet when Sen. Obama chooses to give his allegiance to a crackpot church with a decidedly ethnic character.
The unspoken agreement to concede the black community to the sway of the pulpit is itself a form of racist condescension. The sickly canonization of Martin Luther King Jr. has led to a crude rewriting of history that obliterates the great black and white secularistsBayard Rustin, A. Philip Randolph, Walter Reutherwho actually organized the March on Washington. It has also allowed a free pass to any demagogue who can manage to get the word reverend in front of his name. The white voters who subconsciously make the allowance that black folks sure love to hear their preachers are not only patronizing their black brothers and sisters but also helping to empower white ministers or deacons who make the same pitch, from Jimmy Carter to Mike Huckabee. The Iowa caucuses of 2008 were not the end of our long national nightmare about race, but another stage in our protracted national nightmare of piety, "uplift," and deceptive optimistic windbaggery.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
Post by: wooderson on January 08, 2008, 10:48:45 AM
Quote
The dirty little secret of Obama's campaign is the backing and support he gets from Mayor Daley's machine. Very quietly......
Ooooh, Mayor Daley's machine! Clearly a massive influence in national politics.?
Post by: Paddy on January 08, 2008, 10:51:29 AM
Quote
Sen. Obama is a congregant of a church in Chicago called Trinity United Church of Christ. I recommend that you take a brisk tour of its Web site. Run by the sort of character that the press often guardedly describes as "flamboyant"a man calling himself the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.this bizarre outfit describes itself as "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian" and speaks of "a chosen people" whose nature we are allowed to assume is "Afrocentric."
Right. He's a racist with Islamic roots and a madrassa education. Why the hell is he even being considered Presidential material?
?
Post by: Manedwolf on January 08, 2008, 11:09:12 AM
You are fond of large text and bold...
?
Quote
The dirty little secret of Obama's campaign is the backing and support he gets from Mayor Daley's machine. Very quietly......
Ooooh, Mayor Daley's machine! Clearly a massive influence in national politics.?
You just have NO clue, do you?
Daley makes Boss Tweed look like a shoplifter. Illinois' governor is just his bootlicker. He would love to bring his corruption to a national scale.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 08, 2008, 11:20:26 AM
I think most people would have no problem voting for a Black man. I know I wouldn't. But the first Black man I vote for is sure not going to be Barak Obama.
Post by: wooderson on January 08, 2008, 11:46:47 AM
Unless you're a conspiracy theorist (cough) who thinks that a large-city Mayor - even 'Boss Tweed III' - has the potential to hold absolute sway over the President. Come on, we're talking about political analysis that seriously floated the possibility of Daley being VP - why even listen to that?
Post by: roo_ster on January 08, 2008, 12:26:18 PM
You are fond of large text and bold...
The default font for quoted material is kinda tiny and some folks have complained they can not read it. So, I put it in 12pt.
The bold face is what I thought interesting.
Post by: Scout26 on January 08, 2008, 06:51:30 PM
I live here in Illinois, You don't understand the power that Daley and his cronies (e.g The Mob) have in Illinois. Yes, he may not be able to influence the vote in Florida, but Money and Clout go a looooong way. Just look how many Daleyites were in the Clinton White House (Rahm Emanuel, Bill Daley, etc....)
Our Governor owes his job to Richie. He's gone out of his way to avoid offending any of Richie's boys (Emil Jones for example) but has gone after Mike Madigan like a starving pit bull on fresh piece of steak.
Quote
Different Daley, different era,
Yep, the son has it down to a science. His Father was just a piker compared to Richie.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 08, 2008, 06:53:27 PM
Wooderson,
I live here in Illinois, You don't understand the power that Daley and his cronies (e.g The Mob) have in Illinois. Yes, he may not be able to influence the vote in Florida, but Money and Clout go a looooong way. Just look how many Daleyites were in the Clinton White House (Rahm Emanuel, Bill Daley, etc....)
Our Governor owes his job to Richie. He's gone out of his way to avoid offending any of Richie's boys (Emil Jones for example) but has gone after Mike Madigan like a starving pit bull on fresh piece of steak.
I live here in Illinois, You don't understand the power that Daley and his cronies (e.g The Mob) have in Illinois. Yes, he may not be able to influence the vote in Florida, but Money and Clout go a looooong way. Just look how many Daleyites were in the Clinton White House (Rahm Emanuel, Bill Daley, etc....)
Our Governor owes his job to Richie. He's gone out of his way to avoid offending any of Richie's boys (Emil Jones for example) but has gone after Mike Madigan like a starving pit bull on fresh piece of steak.
Quote
Different Daley, different era,
Yep, the son has it down to a science. His Father was just a piker compared to Richie.I know several people who live in the state, and they all say that Chicago was likely a lot less corrupt when Capone ran it.
Post by: wooderson on January 08, 2008, 06:58:38 PM
What I'm saying is that it's completely irrelevant, except as background for Obama (if that). And that throwing out IL '60 is even more irrelevant, given that it's as solid-blue as solid-blue gets, even without someone from the state running.
As for Daleyites in the Clinton White House... I count two there. One of whom wasn't actually a Daleyite - Emanuel came up working with the national Democrats before he helped elect Dick Daley - and within a couple of years had bolted for the Clinton campaign.
Post by: longeyes on January 09, 2008, 01:22:00 PM
Quote
Right. He's a racist with Islamic roots and a madrassa education. Why the hell is he even being considered Presidential material??
He's being considered because the most powerful political movement in the world isn't Islamist jihadist, it's White Guilt. It propels the Left everywhere.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 09, 2008, 01:24:35 PM
He's a Rorschach test.
Because he says nothing, he means something else to everyone who looks at him and is fooled. He's a projection of their own psyche, wants, needs, and politics, because he says nothing, but smiles and makes them hopeful.
Post by: Paddy on January 09, 2008, 01:26:48 PM
Quote
He's being considered because the most powerful political movement in the world isn't Islamist jihadist, it's White Guilt. It propels the Left everywhere.
I hadn't even thought of that. He's the 'affirmative action' candidate. heh.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 09, 2008, 01:29:27 PM
I'd just heard the best simple explanation for Obama.
He's a Rorschach test.
Because he says nothing, he means something else to everyone who looks at him and is fooled. He's a projection of their own psyche, wants, needs, and politics, because he says nothing, but smiles and makes them hopeful.
I could buy that if he hadn't announced. But he has been running for how many months now?He's a Rorschach test.
Because he says nothing, he means something else to everyone who looks at him and is fooled. He's a projection of their own psyche, wants, needs, and politics, because he says nothing, but smiles and makes them hopeful.
A certain number of people will support him just because he's Black.
A certain number of people will support him just because he's not Hillary.
And I guess a certain number really believe he will "get beyond partisanship" although it boggles the mind that someone could actually buy that nonsense.
I still don't see his appeal. His politics are left, maybe even more than Hillary's. And his foreign policy makes me think of Ron Paul, but not as principled.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 09, 2008, 01:33:12 PM
"Because he gives me hope."
"Because he'll change things."
But when pressed, they can never say WHAT he will do, or how or what he will change.
Just vague security-blanket concepts. That's it.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 09, 2008, 02:01:22 PM
Post by: The Viking on January 09, 2008, 02:09:00 PM
The dirty little secret of Obama's campaign is the backing and support he gets from Mayor Daley's machine. Very quietly......
It worked for the Kennedy's. I'd love to see an analysis of voting in Chicago districts after the general election. Wonder how many "working stiffs" voted.Post by: The Viking on January 09, 2008, 02:11:15 PM
Wooderson,
I live here in Illinois, You don't understand the power that Daley and his cronies (e.g The Mob) have in Illinois. Yes, he may not be able to influence the vote in Florida, but Money and Clout go a looooong way. Just look how many Daleyites were in the Clinton White House (Rahm Emanuel, Bill Daley, etc....)
Our Governor owes his job to Richie. He's gone out of his way to avoid offending any of Richie's boys (Emil Jones for example) but has gone after Mike Madigan like a starving pit bull on fresh piece of steak.
I live here in Illinois, You don't understand the power that Daley and his cronies (e.g The Mob) have in Illinois. Yes, he may not be able to influence the vote in Florida, but Money and Clout go a looooong way. Just look how many Daleyites were in the Clinton White House (Rahm Emanuel, Bill Daley, etc....)
Our Governor owes his job to Richie. He's gone out of his way to avoid offending any of Richie's boys (Emil Jones for example) but has gone after Mike Madigan like a starving pit bull on fresh piece of steak.
Quote
Different Daley, different era,
Yep, the son has it down to a science. His Father was just a piker compared to Richie.I know several people who live in the state, and they all say that Chicago was likely a lot less corrupt when Capone ran it.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 09, 2008, 02:15:19 PM
Post by: The Viking on January 09, 2008, 02:22:59 PM
That was my point.
Sorry for being tired and not grasping it.Time to hit the sack I guess.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 09, 2008, 02:28:16 PM
Wasn't Capone honest about being a gangster as well?
Post by: wooderson on January 09, 2008, 03:40:29 PM
Wasn't being " the guy I'd like to have a beer with" widely touted as one of Dubya's strengths before a majority of the country wised up?
Quote
He's being considered because the most powerful political movement in the world isn't Islamist jihadist, it's White Guilt. It propels the Left everywhere.
Yes, clearly, being that he's a black guy, Obama is only successful because white folks is guilty. God almighty.
Post by: longeyes on January 09, 2008, 04:44:21 PM
Quote
I'd just heard the best simple explanation for Obama.
He's a Rorschach test.
Because he says nothing, he means something else to everyone who looks at him and is fooled. He's a projection of their own psyche, wants, needs, and politics, because he says nothing, but smiles and makes them hopeful.
He's a Rorschach test.
Because he says nothing, he means something else to everyone who looks at him and is fooled. He's a projection of their own psyche, wants, needs, and politics, because he says nothing, but smiles and makes them hopeful.
Remember Jerzy Kozinski's BEING THERE? Chance the Gardener?
Or maybe Obama is just a Black political version of Max Headroom?
Post by: Bogie on January 09, 2008, 05:48:49 PM
Post by: wooderson on January 09, 2008, 07:59:24 PM
Quote
I was referring to the fulsome gushing and the inability to explain his "charisma."
How is one supposed to explain "charisma"? Is "charisma" quantifiable? Where is this "fulsome gushing" - people say he's charismatic (see above) and a fine orator.
You're making unwarranted assertions to justify this "white guilt" BS. You don't 'get' Obama, and you buy into some really dumb cards about "white liberals" - and when you mix the two together...
Why you expect our public leaders to be political theorists and ideologues, I don't know - and I don't know why you don't apply these standards to the other 16 candidates. What makes Huckabee charismatic and why does he cause otherwise sane people to talk about how pleasant he is? Why did anyone think that little troll Giuliani was worth a vote?
As I said: JFK II - young, pretty, a good narrative, an outsider group on the inside, a fine public speaker. It ain't that difficult.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 10, 2008, 05:32:17 AM
You are fond of large text and bold...
The default font for quoted material is kinda tiny and some folks have complained they can not read it. So, I put it in 12pt.
The bold face is what I thought interesting.
And thank you for doing so. I also size up my quotations, sometimes.
Post by: longeyes on January 10, 2008, 06:10:28 PM
Quote
How is one supposed to explain "charisma"? Is "charisma" quantifiable? Where is this "fulsome gushing" - people say he's charismatic (see above) and a fine orator.
You're making unwarranted assertions to justify this "white guilt" BS. You don't 'get' Obama, and you buy into some really dumb cards about "white liberals" - and when you mix the two together...
Why you expect our public leaders to be political theorists and ideologues, I don't know - and I don't know why you don't apply these standards to the other 16 candidates. What makes Huckabee charismatic and why does he cause otherwise sane people to talk about how pleasant he is? Why did anyone think that little troll Giuliani was worth a vote?
As I said: JFK II - young, pretty, a good narrative, an outsider group on the inside, a fine public speaker. It ain't that difficult.
You're making unwarranted assertions to justify this "white guilt" BS. You don't 'get' Obama, and you buy into some really dumb cards about "white liberals" - and when you mix the two together...
Why you expect our public leaders to be political theorists and ideologues, I don't know - and I don't know why you don't apply these standards to the other 16 candidates. What makes Huckabee charismatic and why does he cause otherwise sane people to talk about how pleasant he is? Why did anyone think that little troll Giuliani was worth a vote?
As I said: JFK II - young, pretty, a good narrative, an outsider group on the inside, a fine public speaker. It ain't that difficult.
I'm old-fashioned, sorry; I'm still waiting for substance. Some inspiring policies and not just b.s. about hope and change. Obama is the opiate of new American masses.