Obama: Legalize illegals to get them health care

[Marzy 1]

Republicans see a backdoor move toward 'amnesty'

Republicans see death panels, too.

I said it before, but since I think it applies here, too, I'll say it again. Why do people think there is a problem with illegals getting health coverage but don't have a problem with covering welfare recipients who have never payed a dime in taxes beyond sales tax? They are both mooching.

I can understand the economic differentiation, but ethically, there is not a leg to stand on if you claim that illegals shouldn't get coverage and citizens who don't pay income tax should. In order for this to make ethical sense, you have to argue that some people are better or more deserving than others simply because of their birth country. That claim, in my opinion, is inherently unethical in itself.

Anyone with Caucasoid background is illegal (where's everyone's brains?)! No one here speaks the native tongue yet somehow Europeans move into a country, refuse to speak the native language, throw the inhabitants into parcels of the worst land and we're worried about illegal immigrants? We're the illegal immigrants! European peoples took land, lied to the inhabitants, did not honor contracts, slaughtered the owners and starved them out.... and now somehow this holier than thou attitude erupts only a couple hundred years later; a flash in history....

I think Mexicans have more Native American blood than Caucasoid peoples! (just being devils advocate here)!

I'm definitely an illegal immigrant!

Born in America is American citizen. Therefor, the illegal immigrants hundred years ago are gone. Nobody owes them now. Did you ever ask a fundamental questions like "what is America if the Europeans didn't come in US?"

Illegal immigrant is a person who violates the law of Immigration. It's 2009 now. If you like 19th the way of living, I don't mind helping you finding a place that doesn't have electric, government, and etc that you wanted.

Edited September 20, 2009 by S*J

[NickD 203]

Major criticism I have heard against Obama, he is too politically correct and tries to be a nice guy where he should be pointing at these congressman with a strong finger that have been bought and purchased by the major health insurance companies that already have been screwing us to death. I agree with this.

Was happy to hear he is finally having second thoughts on Afghanistan, would take trillions of our dollars to build an infrastructure and schools plus getting rid of thousands of warlords before Afghanistan, if they will, to be a democracy, and the Taliban is not as bad as they say, mostly all intelligent people trying to bring law and order to their country. Best advice, is to get out, and get out now and leave the terrorists to trained specialists, not a job for the military.

Obama said he will listen, are any of you telling him your wishes? Or just bitching?

[sly_wolf 199]

Republicans see a backdoor move toward 'amnesty'

Republicans see death panels, too.

They also see dead people.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

Republicans see a backdoor move toward 'amnesty'

Republicans see death panels, too.

I said it before, but since I think it applies here, too, I'll say it again. Why do people think there is a problem with illegals getting health coverage but don't have a problem with covering welfare recipients who have never payed a dime in taxes beyond sales tax? They are both mooching.

I can understand the economic differentiation, but ethically, there is not a leg to stand on if you claim that illegals shouldn't get coverage and citizens who don't pay income tax should. In order for this to make ethical sense, you have to argue that some people are better or more deserving than others simply because of their birth country. That claim, in my opinion, is inherently unethical in itself.

40% of working individuals do not pay income tax. They DO pay SS and medicare tax and one can presume there will be brand new taxes for healthcare, similar to the payroll tax for SS and medicare. I guess I miss your point. I am against government run health care for the same reasons we all experience with government run visa services, pension investment services, etc. The government pretty much sucks at anything they try to do, and are inefficient at ALL of it.

But it is not correct to assume that only welfare recipients do not pay income tax. A family of four needs to have INCOME well in excess of $40,000 before they will pay any income tax, even more if they have any children in college and are eligible for education credits.

There are plenty of reasons to be against government run health care, we do not need to invent new ones.

It is a pipe dream for anyone to believe illegal aliens will be turned away for medical care. They will be treated in the future as they are treated now and we will pay for it. Obama should be honest about this "You pay for it now!" that is the simple and true answer.

If they want illegal aliens out, just implement a tax of $500,000 per day per illegal alien on the payroll. If someone is caught with an illegal mowing the grass at their mansion...they LOSE the mansion to pay unpaid taxes. No court action needed, it is not a crime, it is tax collection. When the economic RISK of employing illegal aliens (they are NOT immigrants, my wife is an immigrant, they are illegal aliens) outweighs the economic BENEFITS of employing illegal aliens, then the jobs will vanish like buggy whips and 8-track tapes. When the jobs vanish the economic benefits of being here illegally will vanish and so will the illegal aliens, finding their way BACK the same as they came...back to the free healthcare their country offers (and they abandoned in favor of living here)

The Democrats will not do this, they need an underclass to vote for them, an underclass made up of immigrants who are catered to with language services to assure they will never really succeed in America, who needs them and will perennially vote for them. The Republicans will never do it because they need an underclass to provide cheap labor for business so the business will perennially vote for them., and so they can do things like raise the minimum wage and look good, knowing business will avoid the minimum wage thing anyway by hiring illegals. Great system.

And the ironic thing is that America has ALWAYS had and has always required, an underclass willing to work for little or nothing in order that some of us can pretend to care for them and pretend to be for things such as socialized medicine, while having a very high standard of living at a very moderate cost. Slaves were replaced by oppressed black people, civil rights freed the blacks and oppressed the hispanic who rushed in to fill the void. Pull the illegals out of the equation and the cost of lots of everyday items will skyrocket, fueled by the minimum wage we have so blithley inflicted over the years, and none of us will even have an extra 2 nickles to rub together to mull over such high brow topics as "health care for everyone" Wooo Hooo.

The fact is the "illegal alien" problem is easily solved, eveyone knows how. It is simply an economic equation. We could rid the country of illegal aliens just as easily as getting people to buy cars, insulate their homes, buy high mileage automobiles...with an economic incentive (or dis-incentive) This is basic economics 101. Nothing else has any prayer of working. Fences? LOL, yeah, like the Maginot line kept out the Nazis. The "virtual fence" would be no economic advantage, no jobs. Easy to accomplish. NO ONE will face the 800 pound gorilla in the room. We all need illegal aliens for our personal benefit, one way or another, giving them medical care is the same as giving room and board to slaves when they were the underclass. We have to. We can try to pretend we don't have to. Obama can say "they will not be covered" and we can all nod our heads and agree "OK, great, it is only for US, not for THEM" LOL

[Heracles 417]

And the ironic thing is that America has ALWAYS had and has always required, an underclass willing to work for little or nothing in order that some of us can pretend to care for them and pretend to be for things such as socialized medicine, while having a very high standard of living at a very moderate cost. Slaves were replaced by oppressed black people, civil rights freed the blacks and oppressed the hispanic who rushed in to fill the void. Pull the illegals out of the equation and the cost of lots of everyday items will skyrocket, fueled by the minimum wage we have so blithley inflicted over the years, and none of us will even have an extra 2 nickles to rub together to mull over such high brow topics as "health care for everyone" Wooo Hooo.

There are plenty of first world countries that demonstrate how you can pay people a fair wage and not need to rely on the notion of a underclass. Sure things costs 10% to 40% more in AUS but at least everyone gets a fair chance at a high standard of living. It's relative anyway as they all earn a higher salary.

Having seen both types of systems I prefer the social-democracy model. At least we the people all do better, all prosper, there. That is, rather than just seeing 1% of people control 90% of the wealth; as is the case in the US. Which leaves the 99% to fight for the remaining 10%. That is the biggest con of the century here. Seeing people trampling over one another to get their share of the 10%.

I saw a bit of Michael Moore's latest film and I commend him. I have hated on the guy for years but he has finally produced a bipartisan film which shows the reality of what is going on in this country. Where the mega rich win no matter what. Where they get bailout rather than go bankrupt; like the 99% in similar circumstances have to do.

Edited September 20, 2009 by Booyah!

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

Republicans see a backdoor move toward 'amnesty'

Republicans see death panels, too.

I said it before, but since I think it applies here, too, I'll say it again. Why do people think there is a problem with illegals getting health coverage but don't have a problem with covering welfare recipients who have never payed a dime in taxes beyond sales tax? They are both mooching.

I can understand the economic differentiation, but ethically, there is not a leg to stand on if you claim that illegals shouldn't get coverage and citizens who don't pay income tax should. In order for this to make ethical sense, you have to argue that some people are better or more deserving than others simply because of their birth country. That claim, in my opinion, is inherently unethical in itself.

Anyone with Caucasoid background is illegal (where's everyone's brains?)! No one here speaks the native tongue yet somehow Europeans move into a country, refuse to speak the native language, throw the inhabitants into parcels of the worst land and we're worried about illegal immigrants? We're the illegal immigrants! European peoples took land, lied to the inhabitants, did not honor contracts, slaughtered the owners and starved them out.... and now somehow this holier than thou attitude erupts only a couple hundred years later; a flash in history....

I think Mexicans have more Native American blood than Caucasoid peoples! (just being devils advocate here)!

I'm definitely an illegal immigrant!

Interesting when one studies anthropology and sees that the MIGRATION of humans to the American continents began just 12,000 years ago. That means the "native Americans" are NOT native Americans but Asians that migrated here earlier than the Europeans by land routes. The course of mankind's migration tracing back to the middle east and NE Africa. By this model, we should turn over the USA to Somalia aznd give it back to the rightful owners??? Maybe we shouldn't have dinged those Somali pirates with head shots!

I was born here, I am not an immigrant, nor am I illegal and have no shame for what other people did before me without my consent. I do not apologize for it, it is not mine to do so. The history of the world is such as it is. I cannot change it, nor ignore it. Various peoples have arrived and dominated the landscapes of continents and still do. The current situation is just that. No more permanent or static that the one which existed 10,000 years ago, or 500 years ago. Except that given modern transport methods we can expect to see change faster. Given the current birth rates we can expect to see the American continents once again dominated by Hispanics in 50 years or so, ending the "reign of the Europeans" in record time. Then you will be happy. Good times are comin', no need to be sad every day.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

And the ironic thing is that America has ALWAYS had and has always required, an underclass willing to work for little or nothing in order that some of us can pretend to care for them and pretend to be for things such as socialized medicine, while having a very high standard of living at a very moderate cost. Slaves were replaced by oppressed black people, civil rights freed the blacks and oppressed the hispanic who rushed in to fill the void. Pull the illegals out of the equation and the cost of lots of everyday items will skyrocket, fueled by the minimum wage we have so blithley inflicted over the years, and none of us will even have an extra 2 nickles to rub together to mull over such high brow topics as "health care for everyone" Wooo Hooo.

There are plenty of first world countries that demonstrate how you can pay people a fair wage and not need to rely on the notion of a underclass. Sure things costs 10% to 40% more in AUS but at least everyone gets a fair chance at a high standard of living. It's relative anyway as they all earn a higher salary.

This model has never been accepted by Americans. If it was there would be an easy and overnight solution to the problem. And SOMEONE, ANYONE would be demanding this, but NO ONE does. No political party, no organizations, no organized representation of people anywhere in this country will just sit down and say "Look, we KNOW what we need to do about this" We want high standard of living AND cheap prices.

Americans WANT a downtrodden underclass. They always have. If we did not we would INSIST on strict rules to protect the illegal workers from being taken advantage of by predatory employers. We would INSIST on them learning English so they can succeed and truly qualify for GOOD jobs in this country. My wife, who speaks English quite well, enough that she worked as an English translator BEFORE coming here, studies hard in English to be "perfect" to qualify for good jobs in the future. So do many other immigrants in her class. From Europe, Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Latvia; From Asia, China, Bhutan, Indonesia BUT no one from a Spanish speaking country! Why? They are here working in landscaping and roofing jobs, but Lowe's and Home Depot displays everything in Spanish and English (In VERMONT, a stone's throw from French Quebec???) so there is no need for them to learn English. The Quebecois already speak English and have a much higher standard of living so they do not need signs in French in the USA. Illegals are catered to JUST ENOUGH to keep them disinterested in language classes and just enough to keep them in the underclass.

If we REALLY wanted to benefit mankind, we would end the economic incentive for illegal aliens to be HERE and spend OUR money to send English teachers to Mexico, central and South America so their economies could grow like ours and Europe's (it is not a coincidence the EU chose English as its official language, though NONE of the members have English as their official language. does that tell you anything????)

I will cast my lot with anyone who has the courage to say the truth. I wish Bush would have, I wish Obama would. the next time he is asked, he should say the truth.

[Heracles 417]

Interesting point of view. There is certainly a truth to everything you are saying.

You know what it comes down to though Gary, whether people admit it or not, Americans now are the underclass. Comparing middle class Americans to that of their Australian or other equivalents clearly illustrates this. Any system that promotes the mega rich as well as the poor ends up being a two tier second or third world country. Where a select few are mega rich with everyone else ending up dirt poor; with an almost non-existent middle class.

Nearly all other first world countries (including socialists that are all about wealth spreading) have extremely stick laws and punishment against employing illegal aliens. Those who hire them can go to prison and that is on top of the 5 figure fines per offense. The problem here regarding illegal aliens is that those who speak up against it are painted as being racist and erroneously accused of being against immigration. Whereas, those who condone it think they are doing somebody a favor, on top of screwing the rich of course. In reality they are only screwing the middle class and particularly the poor. The rich actually benefit the most from cheap #### labor. Controlling the labor pool is exactly how countries like Australia have managed to increase the median working wage to $51K. Whereas illegal alien advocates are grossly mistaken if they think allowing millions and millions of low-skilled poor to enter the country will benefit it or them in anyway.

Edited September 20, 2009 by Booyah!

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

Interesting point of view. There is certainly a truth to everything you are saying.

You know what it comes down to though Gary, whether people admit it or not, Americans now are the underclass. Comparing middle class Americans to that of their Australian or other equivalents clearly illustrates this. Any system that promotes the mega rich as well as the poor ends up being a two tier second or third world country. Where a select few are mega rich with everyone else ending up dirt poor; with an almost non-existent middle class.

Nearly all other first world countries (including socialists that are all about wealth spreading) have extremely stick laws and punishment against employing illegal aliens. Those who hire them can go to prison and that is on top of the 5 figure fines per offense. The problem here regarding illegal aliens is that those who speak up against it are painted as being racist and erroneously accused of being against immigration. Whereas, those who condone it think they are doing somebody a favor, on top of screwing the rich of course. In reality they are only screwing the middle class and particularly the poor. The rich actually benefit the most from cheap #### labor. Controlling the labor pool is exactly how countries like Australia have managed to increase the median working wage to $51K. Whereas illegal alien advocates are grossly mistaken if they think allowing millions and millions of low-skilled poor to enter the country will benefit it or them in anyway.

Yep. Even MEXICO has stricter laws about illegal workers. But Americans are bargain hunters. They look at initial cost and nothing else. People in Europe still make a living fixing shoes and purses, when was the last shoe repair place you saw here? Payless Shoess put them out of business, not mention the shoe salesman. WalMart blantantly buries the small business for $10.99 sweaters made in countries with no worker protections. We tax compnaies right out of our country to where we hardly manufacture anything we invented and then blame the "illegal immigrant" OUR good jobs were taken by foreigners that have never been to America. Call the customer service line of your "American" cell phone company and the phone is answered in India by someone without Social Security, minimum wage or workplace safety rules. But we still promote the "tax the rich corproation" BS and employ illegal workers and downtrodden workers in other countries so we can get a cheap head of lettuce, and unlimited texting for $39.95 per month.

The problem exists because we WANT it to exist. Of course those who point out that the current system enslaves a class of people are called "racists" by those who benefit from it. Go figure.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

Interesting point of view. There is certainly a truth to everything you are saying.

You know what it comes down to though Gary, whether people admit it or not, Americans now are the underclass. Comparing middle class Americans to that of their Australian or other equivalents clearly illustrates this. Any system that promotes the mega rich as well as the poor ends up being a two tier second or third world country. Where a select few are mega rich with everyone else ending up dirt poor; with an almost non-existent middle class.

Nearly all other first world countries (including socialists that are all about wealth spreading) have extremely stick laws and punishment against employing illegal aliens. Those who hire them can go to prison and that is on top of the 5 figure fines per offense. The problem here regarding illegal aliens is that those who speak up against it are painted as being racist and erroneously accused of being against immigration. Whereas, those who condone it think they are doing somebody a favor, on top of screwing the rich of course. In reality they are only screwing the middle class and particularly the poor. The rich actually benefit the most from cheap #### labor. Controlling the labor pool is exactly how countries like Australia have managed to increase the median working wage to $51K. Whereas illegal alien advocates are grossly mistaken if they think allowing millions and millions of low-skilled poor to enter the country will benefit it or them in anyway.

For every person held in the gutter, it takes someone to hold them there. The more people we ALLOW to enter the country and stay in the gutter, the more of us it takes to keep them there. WHEN we face the truth and do things to promote THEIR chances of success, in our country AND theirs, then we will raise their standard of living and we will go to the top with them.

Canada survives as a viable country by educating its people AND having a hungry trading partner consuming 81% of what they make. If our southern neighbor were as prosperous as or northern neighbor, wouldn't it be good for everyone? Would be nice to have a couple hundred million Mexicans eager to buy our products and have the money to do it with.

Pussyfooting around the illegal alien problem only promotes the enslavement of the next underclass, and it may be US.

[Heracles 417]

The first issue I observe regarding the financial environment here is that people are not paid a fair wage. Fair wage is not what a business deems worthy to pay them but what an individual deserves to be paid to earn a fair living. No person working full-time should have to work three jobs just to pay the rent.

As you pointed out, a good portion of your average Americans solely look for cheap prices and basically don't realize the only way retailers have been able to lower the cost or keep it low is by shipping jobs offshore, to third world countries. For anyone living around a large city and has a white collar job, this generally has not affected them negatively but actually benefited them. However, the people who have been hit the hardest are those who cherish and need these low prices the most; middle-America. This demographic has effectively shot itself in the foot by doing so. Cheap prices also have another cost which is shoddy quality. As such, nothing should ever be left to the individual, as the average Joe is simply not clued up enough to make the right decision.

The blind pursuit of profits for shareholders is the other skeleton in the closet. Such attitude serves to promote constant cost cutting and cutting corners, without any regard of its long term impact on the nation. Dividends to shareholders should be at the bottom of the totem pole rather than first. Why should I work my butt off for 45 hours a week and generate healthy source of revenue for the organization? Only to be paid a salary, while the shareholders walk away with money for doing nothing. I am not suggesting they should not earn dividends but not at the expense of those who actually do the work. The larger the returns for shareholders, the more management and key staff are paid. This as we saw is one of few key things that led to the present financial crisis; as it promoted very risky and dishonest practices.

I don't agree with Michael Moore on much, however, he is spot on when he suggests capitalism in America needs to be rewritten. Capitalism does work and well, however, it almost always does so for those that are rich. Whereas, something that is gaining steam and is used in various other first world countries is social-democracies. Under such a system it's more about a reasonable playing field, a fair wage for all rather than a select few. It still supports capitalism but it means that a billionaire or a multi-billion dollar corporation will earn $6 billion rather than $10 billion for that year. As a result of the lower profit, they will have paid everyone a reasonable wage and must deliver value to the community too. It ensures billionaires and the wealthy only receive tax cuts when they reinvest in their communities, rather than solely engaging in activities that only increase their already bulging billions. You could think of it as a checks and balances system for capitalism and greed.

Edited September 20, 2009 by Booyah!

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

The first issue I observe regarding the financial environment here is that people are not paid a fair wage. Fair wage is not what a business deems worthy to pay them but what an individual deserves to be paid to earn a fair living. No person working full-time should have to work three jobs just to pay the rent.

As you pointed out, a good portion of your average Americans solely look for cheap prices and basically don't realize the only way retailers have been able to lower the cost or keep it low is by shipping jobs offshore, to third world countries. For anyone living around a large city and has a white collar job, this generally has not affected them negatively but actually benefited them. However, the people who have been hit the hardest are those who cherish and need these low prices the most; middle-America. This demographic has effectively shot itself in the foot by doing so. Cheap prices also have another cost which is shoddy quality. As such, nothing should ever be left to the individual, as the average Joe is simply not clued up enough to make the right decision.

The blind pursuit of profits for shareholders is the other skeleton in the closet. Such attitude serves to promote constant cost cutting and cutting corners, without any regard of its long term impact on the nation. Dividends to shareholders should be at the bottom of the totem pole rather than first. Why should I work my butt off for 45 hours a week and generate healthy source of revenue for the organization? Only to be paid a salary, while the shareholders walk away with money for doing nothing. I am not suggesting they should not earn dividends but not at the expense of those who actually do the work. The larger the returns for shareholders, the more management and key staff are paid. This as we saw is one of few key things that led to the present financial crisis; as it promoted very risky and dishonest practices.

I don't agree with Michael Moore on much, however, he is spot on when he suggests capitalism in America needs to be rewritten. Capitalism does work and well, however, it almost always does so for those that are rich. Whereas, something that is gaining steam and is used in various other first world countries is social-democracies. Under such a system it's more about a reasonable playing field, a fair wage for all rather than a select few. It still supports capitalism but it means that a billionaire or a multi-billion dollar corporation will earn $6 billion rather than $10 billion for that year. As a result of the lower profit, they will have paid everyone a reasonable wage and must deliver value to the community too. It ensures billionaires and the wealthy only receive tax cuts when they reinvest in their communities, rather than solely engaging in activities that only increase their already bulging billions. You could think of it as a checks and balances system for capitalism and greed.

I don't agree with Micheal Moore on anything. Wages should be what the market bears but should not be reduced by the gvernment taking money from the corproations which can only be recouped by lower wages or sending jobs offshore.

The best thing we could do is eliminate all forms of corporate, payroll and income tax and replace it with a consumption tax. The corporations and jobs will come back when we are the cheapest place to do business. We will have more money for real wages, more money in our pockets and a nuetral net revenue stream for the government. There will be no more "tax the rich" schemes as we will be taxed on what we spend, not what we earn. Any tax increase would affect everyone, though not equally since rich people spend more and would be taxed more UNLESS they save the money in which case it will be available for investment. No more 1040s to fill out. No more tax compliance costs, no more tax consrns when making business decisions. No more tax lobbyists. Billions held in offshore tax shelters will come home for spending and investment.

[Heracles 417]

The best thing we could do is eliminate all forms of corporate, payroll and income tax and replace it with a consumption tax. The corporations and jobs will come back when we are the cheapest place to do business. We will have more money for real wages, more money in our pockets and a nuetral net revenue stream for the government. There will be no more "tax the rich" schemes as we will be taxed on what we spend, not what we earn. Any tax increase would affect everyone, though not equally since rich people spend more and would be taxed more UNLESS they save the money in which case it will be available for investment. No more 1040s to fill out. No more tax compliance costs, no more tax consrns when making business decisions. No more tax lobbyists. Billions held in offshore tax shelters will come home for spending and investment.

I have heard a few people talk about this tax but its just not realistic. What happens when people stop spending? Who pays the bills? The government could effectively be bankrupted. it could never happen right? wrong! What happens during a recession? Buying groceries is not going to pay for the military's $750 billion dollar budget.

It also assumes that the country's issues are due to tax. That is dead wrong. Countries with a high standard of living actually have high tax rates, particularly for the well off.

Edited September 21, 2009 by Booyah!

[spookyturtle 9,466]

The best thing we could do is eliminate all forms of corporate, payroll and income tax and replace it with a consumption tax. The corporations and jobs will come back when we are the cheapest place to do business. We will have more money for real wages, more money in our pockets and a nuetral net revenue stream for the government. There will be no more "tax the rich" schemes as we will be taxed on what we spend, not what we earn. Any tax increase would affect everyone, though not equally since rich people spend more and would be taxed more UNLESS they save the money in which case it will be available for investment. No more 1040s to fill out. No more tax compliance costs, no more tax consrns when making business decisions. No more tax lobbyists. Billions held in offshore tax shelters will come home for spending and investment.

I have heard a few people talk about this tax but its just not realistic. What happens when people stop spending? Who pays the bills? The government could effectively be bankrupted.

It also assumes that the country's issues are due to tax. That is dead wrong. Countries with a high standard of living actually have high tax rates, particularly for the well off.

The government is bankrupt, more or less.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The best thing we could do is eliminate all forms of corporate, payroll and income tax and replace it with a consumption tax introduce a flat rate income tax on each and every dollar earned - actively or passively.

Now I'm on board.