mawilson

This administration prefers illegals over legals and has no respect for our laws, our defense, our sovereignty nor the value of our citizenship. They must go!

Yet it's the right thing to do. Recessions happen for a reason. The economy needs to
deleverage and wring out imbalances. Any attempts to artificially prop up the economy with
stimuli, tax credits for home buyers and other spending programs will only delay the day of
reckoning and make it far more painful when the correction finally comes.

Often I think people look too much at how Hamas has treated Jews and Israel has treated Arabs. You will gain much more incite if you look at how each government treats their own.

Essentially what Krugman is arguing is that it would be better if states could run large deficits like the federal government does. I disagree. Now the argument about federal spending to stimulate the economy is wishful thinking. If that were the case, then Greece would have a great economy. After all, their government has been spending more than their GDP. It's fighting against yourself. Like bailing a hole in a boat out with a bucket.
Let's look at the economy on a large scope. The federal government runs a deficit (in theory) to stimulate the economy. Where did the money come from? Well under deficit situations, there are two ways it can be done.
1) Sell treasuries (bonds) that agree to pay more money in the future (interest) in order to get the money now.
2) If not enough treasuries are sold, then the federal reserve can print up the money.
Greece can't do # 2 because they're tied to the Euro. The US can. But that just devalues money, which is a burden on everybody.
The great example over the last few years/decade has been California vs Texas. One state has had high government spending, high taxation, and is not very business friendly. The other state has been the opposite in all regards. The Texas economy kicks California's butt any way you look at it.
Krugman brings up an interesting point in taxation via generality vs specific incomes. It's not so much that corporations want less for themselves and more for everybody else. It's that everybody wants lower taxes for themselves and higher for everybody else. There are very few people who think taxes should go up for their own bracket. But almost everybody thinks that other people should pay higher taxes. This is why governments get into debt in the first place. It's always the notion that somebody else should pay for something (by governments spending on it)
The temptation to have somebody else pay for it by government is spread out the larger the government is. Not many people think their own city should pay to build a new arena. More people think their state should pay to build a new arena. Almost everybody doesn't see a problem with their federal representative getting money from the federal government to build a new arena. But the result is the same regardless of which government level pays for it. Actually it's worse, the higher up you go because the benefit of the arena is overwhelmingly for the local population. Less so at the state level population. And non-existent at the federal level. As such, we again run into cities have tight budgets. States having moderate budgets. Federal having a terrible budget.
Making up the money in federal taxes later when the economy recovers? That's assuming that the increase in taxes is greater than the future budget. And how often does that happen? Economies don't grow because government spends too much money. They grow when private companies are successful and consumers have employment in private jobs. One need only look at communist countries where there is no unemployment. But the economy is terrible.
If Krugman thinks the economy will flourish by "putting more money in your pocket." Then the most efficient way of doing this will be to not take the money out of your pocket in the first place. Less and/or lower taxes. But the idea of governments borrowing/inflating or taxing people and then giving that money back out in the form of stimulus spending is inefficient at best.

I think this is #######. When Reagan entered office, he was as much of a Cold-Warrior as any... It just so happened that Reagan was president at the time when the USSR was in economic trouble, and Gorbachev had few options other than negotiating.
Reagan was just in the right place at the right time.

Not all white-on-black crimes are 'hate crimes'. It's possible the guy's race had nothing to do with it.

They are good at producing arrogant know it alls.

And who would give a plus one to this filth? To say that the Jews lack innocence because they did not resist is absolutely disgusting!
No 1. In many ghettos they fought back against the SS soldiers when they entered the camps. Infact polish resistence armed them with machine guns.
No 2. Many didn't actually know what was going to happen to them until they were already being killed.
That post actually scares me. Moreover it invalidates many of the previous arguments, as coming from a "Neutral position"

You stand in front of it like a fuckin idiot and stubbornly refuse to move, trying to prove a point.

Old news

If you read the thread you will see that they were acting under International Law.
Personally I would rather be an enemy of Obama rather than an ally. You get much better treatment.

Bingo.
I just don't know how anyone fails to grasp this simple concept. These jobs would not pay poorly had the workforce been more restricted. For example, take a city like San Fran where people are afraid to work with their hands or deem the work bellow them. Who would pick up the trash? Who would do any sort of blue-collar work? Had there been no illegal aliens or an unlimited cheap labor pool, they would have to pay people $15 or $20 an hour to do the work period.
I have numerous personal examples of this in country where the labor pool is heavily restricted. A friend quit being an architect to clean construction sites because he works 30 hour weeks and is paid over $100K. As he said, he has no stress, receives a range of benefits and works 10 hours less than others. Actually, I have a number of friends and family that have quit white-collar jobs to take on various manual unskilled work - like landscaping; with many making between $2 to $5k a week. How is this possible? This work is beneath them right? Wrong, it's an example of supply an demand. It's also why as mentioned earlier, a Latin American family [forget from where] has managed to raise over hundred grand working as office cleaners and now own three investment properties in the US. How is this possible? Because they didn't have to compete with millions of illegals aliens. As a result, they are paid a good wage working in AUS.
In summary, wages will never increase and the 60,000,000 Americans living in poverty will never get a chance to succeed. What Aus demonstrates is that as long as the labor pool is restricted, it works against big business and everyone working has a chance to prosperity.

While I never said the US should shut its border, many seem to forget this is not the 1700s or 1800s; that is, a time when the US had under 50 million people. The country now has 310 million and projected to reach 500 million in few decades. American cannot possibly have nor needs an anything-goes immigration policy. The biggest irony is that mass immigration goes against [contradicts] the environmental policies libs stand for. It goes against trying to help those Americans currently living in poverty or even support workers rights and so forth.
Coming from a country where 1 in 4 citizens [in 2010] was actually born abroad, I just have to laugh. Yes actually born abroad (like my parents), rather than some my great great yada yada story. So any assumption that someone like myself, an immigrant too, is somehow against immigration is ludicrous by any stretch. What I stand for is responsible immigration for the country before it ends up some stereotypical overpopulated third world country.

Huh?
They have Israeli passports, they can vote, they have representation in the Knesset. What rights are they missing?
Because 6 million Jews were slaughtered?
Because the UN is a joke, with Libya being on the Human Rights Council.

There never was a Palestinian state. Israel took Gaza from Egypt and the West Bank
from Jordan during the 1967 war. (By the way, Jordan had "occupied" the West Bank since
1950 and no-one seemed to care.)
I don't understand this sentence.
Why should it? Why doesn't Pakistan (or Britain, or the United States) give up the nukes? What a silly question.
Which one? Pre-1967 border (aka the "green line")? 1949 Armistice Line?
Because they are terrorists. Other countries, including the United States, assassinate known
terrorists who pose a threat to their national security.

Israel annexed the land from 1967 while defending itself from arab agression
Israel kills in response to terrorist killings
Israel won't sign a NPT because it is the only country on earth that other countries and groups have sworn to eraticate (nukes are for defense)
International border with whom? Egypt,Jordan, and Lebanon have recognized borders. You mean Syria which takes its direction from Iran and directs Hezzbolah and arms Hamas?
Israel will stop assasinating people when the type of people they assasinate stop directing the killing of innocent Israelis
Pregnant women... the absurdity of this comment speaks to your stupidity
Last I checked, non-jews have full citizenship in Israel, including the right to vote. CHeck the Israeli knesset, there are many muslim reperesentatives
The holocaust can never be milked enough...
UN resolutions... have you even looked at the condemnations issued by them.. it would seem like Israel is one of 5 countries in the world the amount they are cited... bias?
By activist you mean terrorist?
Isreal fear a free Palestine... Thats why the troops pulled out and let them vote for their own leadership and Palestinean authority... Look who they put in office.
Did you just compare your Palestineans to naked indians.
My Zionist newsletter speaks from logic not hate, from fact not heresey.

I know this topic is very controversial and I am not sure what every answer is. But I find it over the top when people rant and rave about Israel being a terrorist government. I have read the same biased opinion of it from so many people who are either from a certain region of the world or of a certain religion. I know there are others in that region who would actually like peace with their neighboring Israelis but mostly I read so much hate and anger from both sides. It's no wonder why they are so defensive of them self as a nation when other nations, not very far from them, are always wanting them out of there completely. How sweet. I do not support every single thing Israel does, but I definitely support their right to have a presence in what are also their lands. I am not against a Palestinian state to be formed somehow, but do I really see that happening in a peaceful way?? Not anytime soon. That's my opinion. I am also biased, in favor of Israel.

Huh?
They have Israeli passports, they can vote, they have representation in the Knesset. What rights are they missing?
Because 6 million Jews were slaughtered?
Because the UN is a joke, with Libya being on the Human Rights Council.

Huh?
They have Israeli passports, they can vote, they have representation in the Knesset. What rights are they missing?
Because 6 million Jews were slaughtered?
Because the UN is a joke, with Libya being on the Human Rights Council.

There never was a Palestinian state. Israel took Gaza from Egypt and the West Bank
from Jordan during the 1967 war. (By the way, Jordan had "occupied" the West Bank since
1950 and no-one seemed to care.)
I don't understand this sentence.
Why should it? Why doesn't Pakistan (or Britain, or the United States) give up the nukes? What a silly question.
Which one? Pre-1967 border (aka the "green line")? 1949 Armistice Line?
Because they are terrorists. Other countries, including the United States, assassinate known
terrorists who pose a threat to their national security.

Huh?
They have Israeli passports, they can vote, they have representation in the Knesset. What rights are they missing?
Because 6 million Jews were slaughtered?
Because the UN is a joke, with Libya being on the Human Rights Council.

Bingo!
Some seem to forget that this is not the 1870 when the US had Canada's population. The country now has ~310 million people, with over 60,000,000 living in poverty; which is more than entire population of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore combined. Its absolute rubbish that companies cannot find workers and need to bring in more. Not only is it a cunning lie but it's an action against the American people.

Gotta love it when old members create new screenames, talk ######, and then accuse others of trolling.