Obama losing the crowd....on immigration?

[JustRalph]

Graph 63% oppose
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=A1main0902.gif&docId=715413&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=1643&caption=&id=715421

He who waits......

Article

http://news.investors.com/082914-715413-americans-oppose-obama-immigration-executive-order-ibd-tipp-poll.htm?p=full

[classhandicapper]

I recently saw an article that suggested that some illegals that had left voluntarily would be aggressively be invited back via advertising (certain conditions). I mean how sick is that?

1. We know you broke the law.

2. You are now gone and no longer a legal, financial, or any other kind of burden to us.

3. But since what you did happen a long time ago or because we may understand why you did it, we'll ENCOURAGE YOU to come back and be a problem again.

4. Of course remember who helped you break the law again and vote for us.

These guys are criminally insane or intrinsically evil.

[Clocker]

I recently saw an article that suggested that some illegals that had left voluntarily would be invited back (certain conditions). I mean how sick is that?

Part of a law suit filed by the ACLU (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/28/Feds-Agree-Buy-Ads-on-Mexican-Media-Place-Billboards-on-Border-to-Reach-Deported-Illegals-Allowed-to-Return).

As part of a legal settlement that will allow some illegal immigrants who deported themselves from Southern California to return to the United States, the federal government has agreed to advertise the settlement on various Mexican and Spanish-language media outlets.

The ACLU filed a class-action lawsuit last year on behalf of eleven illegal immigrants who deported themselves. The settlement reached on Wednesday will only cover "longtime California residents with relatives who are U.S. citizens and... young migrants whose parents brought them into the country illegally" who deported themselves between 2009 and 2013. An ACLU official has indicated that there were nearly 250,000 people who were "deported voluntarily from Southern California between 2009 and 2013" and estimated to the Los Angeles Times that the "number of repatriations could reach into the hundreds or thousands."

[Clocker]

It is apparently the view of the constitutional law professor in chief that the ability to immigrate to this country is a human right. From a Time story (http://time.com/3248311/obama-immigration-rights-labor-day/)about his Labor Day speech at an AFL-CIO festival in Milwaukee:

“Hope is what gives us courage; hope is what gave soldiers courage to storm a beach,” Obama said, harkening back to his 2008 presidential campaign. “Hope is what gives young people the strength to march for women’s rights and workers’ rights and civil rights and voting rights and gay rights and immigration rights.”

It was the first time “immigration rights” had been included in the president’s familiar riff on civil principles, and the first time Obama has used the phrase outside the context of referring to “immigration-rights activists.”

The statement, seemingly delivered off the cuff, is the latest indication of Obama laying the groundwork for unilateral executive action that could defer prosecutions for millions who arrived in the United States illegally.

[woodtoo]

L.Ronstad qoute "poor poor pitiful me"

[Robert Goren]

Graph 63% oppose
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=A1main0902.gif&docId=715413&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=1643&caption=&id=715421

He who waits......

Article

http://news.investors.com/082914-715413-americans-oppose-obama-immigration-executive-order-ibd-tipp-poll.htm?p=full I wonder if they rephrased the question a little bit to read "Should Congress work with the president on immigration reform?" what the numbers would be.
The fact that 47% say the country is in recession tells you the bias of the poll. If the country was in recession it would be the first recession in history with +3% GDP and it would also be the first recession in history in the midst of a huge bull stock market. We may have a recession in the future(who knows what the bankers are up to this time), but anybody who thinks we are in one know is just plain not paying attention.

[davew]

Interesting that ACLU is suing.

As far as I can tell, the people south of the border do manual labor, fast food, and low level entry positions. The jobs they will displace are the high school drop-outs, drug addicts, and fat/lazy Americans. As an employer, there is advantage of having employees that show up on time and eager to work.

There is no way this will help the 45% unemployed African Americans become employed. It does not matter what union they join (does the American Civil Liberty Union pay black people money for nothing?)

[Clocker]

The fact that 47% say the country is in recession tells you the bias of the poll. If the country was in recession it would be the first recession in history with +3% GDP and it would also be the first recession in history in the midst of a huge bull stock market. We may have a recession in the future(who knows what the bankers are up to this time), but anybody who thinks we are in one know is just plain not paying attention.

People that don't follow economic and financial news typically answer questions like this based on their personal situation and that of friends and family. They don't know or care about how the country is doing, they care about their own little corner of the world.

[Robert Goren]

Interesting that ACLU is suing.

As far as I can tell, the people south of the border do manual labor, fast food, and low level entry positions. The jobs they will displace are the high school drop-outs, drug addicts, and fat/lazy Americans. As an employer, there is advantage of having employees that show up on time and eager to work.

There is no way this will help the 45% unemployed African Americans become employed. It does not matter what union they join (does the American Civil Liberty Union pay black people money for nothing?)Are you going to buy a burger from someone who doesn't speak English? I have my doubts on that one.

[JustRalph]

I wonder if they rephrased the question a little bit to read "Should Congress work with the president on immigration reform?" what the numbers would be.
The fact that 47% say the country is in recession tells you the bias of the poll. If the country was in recession it would be the first recession in history with +3% GDP and it would also be the first recession in history in the midst of a huge bull stock market. We may have a recession in the future(who knows what the bankers are up to this time), but anybody who thinks we are in one know is just plain not paying attention.

Keep selling that crap. An artificially propped up market making Wall Street rich and hurting the middle and lower class should be a jail-able offense. That's a new word I just made up.

GDP numbers are questionable and fall into what constantly seems to be a "readjusted" numbers. Millions and millions of people out of the workforce. You can hide a recession with numbers and bullshit. People can see through it.

[JustRalph]

Are you going to buy a burger from someone who doesn't speak English? I have my doubts on that one.

Robert, all due respect, you are out of touch. Every restaurant in America is full of Spanish speakers, and poor blacks.

You would have to look hard to find a burger that wasn't provided by a Spanish speaker somewhere along the line.

[Robert Goren]

Keep selling that crap. An artificially propped up market making Wall Street rich and hurting the middle and lower class should be a jail-able offense. That's a new word I just made up.

GDP numbers are questionable and fall into what constantly seems to be a "readjusted" numbers. Millions and millions of people out of the workforce. You can hide a recession with numbers and bullshit. People can see through it.There is no doubt that the rich has done very well under Obama. Whether he intended to or not, he has proved once and for all that "trickle down economics" don't work. But that won't stop the GOP from pushing that theory going forward.

[LottaKash]

There is no doubt that the rich has done very well under Obama. Whether he intended to or not, he has proved once and for all that "trickle down economics" don't work. But that won't stop the GOP from pushing that theory going forward.

But "trickle up poverty", surely does....The "chairman", oh excuse me, the president, is right on schedule with all of that... And, it is quite obvious to some..

[Clocker]

Whether he intended to or not, he has proved once and for all that "trickle down economics" don't work. But that won't stop the GOP from pushing that theory going forward.

There is no such thing as a theory of "trickle down economics". It is a political term used to disparage policies of the other side.

Inequality of income has increased more under Obama than under Bush or any other recent president. The rich are getting richer because the economic and social policies of this president, combined with the fiscal policies of the Federal Reserve, have made it much more profitable to invest in the stock market than to invest in new businesses that create jobs.

[davew]

Are you going to buy a burger from someone who doesn't speak English? I have my doubts on that one.

I already do, the fast food joints where I am at are populated by foreigners.

[Tom]

We do not need any reform.
We need to enforce the laws we have now.
We do not need the workers - we have millions out of work.

[classhandicapper]

There is no doubt that the rich has done very well under Obama. Whether he intended to or not, he has proved once and for all that "trickle down economics" don't work. But that won't stop the GOP from pushing that theory going forward.

It doesn't work when you are inflating financial assets with easy money from the Fed to finance deficit spending. That's a bubble that gets the rich richer (at least temporarily) and confiscates money from savers who aren't getting an appropriate interest rate.

It works when the wealthy have incentives to invest in America by building new factories, new buildings, starting new businesses etc... But if you raise the cost of doing business with bad health care laws, increased costs of regulation, higher taxes at any level etc... capital flows away towards a better deal. Companies and many individuals are sitting on massive piles of cash right now but they won't put it to work in the US because the environment is hostile.

[Robert Goren]

There is no such thing as a theory of "trickle down economics". It is a political term used to disparage policies of the other side.

Inequality of income has increased more under Obama than under Bush or any other recent president. The rich are getting richer because the economic and social policies of this president, combined with the fiscal policies of the Federal Reserve, have made it much more profitable to invest in the stock market than to invest in new businesses that create jobs.Bingo! At least the old lie that investing in the stock market was creating is gone by the way side too. A lot of American business is void of new ideas for new and better products. The one thing I will say that the stock market is not too high when you look at P/E ratios. Stock prices are a little bit on the cheap side if you at that. I always worry about what the banks are up to. Every recession in my lifetime and my Dad's was caused by the banks. I think the banks must recruit their officers from Gamblers Anonymous. If you took a look at the 2008 banking crisis, you would seen a bunch of bankers acting like problem gamblers.

[classhandicapper]

Bingo! At least the old lie that investing in the stock market was creating is gone by the way side too. A lot of American business is void of new ideas for new and better products.

It CAN work via the stock market IF the money flowing into stocks and bonds is financing new business, business expansion, etc... as intended. The entire purpose of the stock market is to raise capital. But that is not happening now on a wide basis because as I said in the previous post, the business environment in the US is hostile relative to alternatives.

Instead, companies are using cash to buy back their own shares and increase their EPS and stock prices that way, to buy foreign companies to avoid higher US taxes, to pay down expensive debt and refinance etc.. They are using their inflated stocks as currency to buy other businesses. They are engaging in financial transactions that create wealth for themselves because it's a better deal than actually building something in a country like the US right now. Change the environment and you will get a change in the behavior.

Bankers are not just gamblers. They are gamblers backstopped by the Fed and the government.

Imagine yourself as a horseplayer that gets to bet on whatever you want with your own money. You'd probably manage your bankroll carefully.

Then imagine a situation where if you win you get to keep the money, but if you lose, the Fed lowers interest rates, prints money, and bails you out. In that situation you'd probably play the game as aggressively as you could. So do banks. They know if they screw up the Fed will transfer wealth from savers like you and I to the banks by lowering interest rates and buying bad loans off their balance sheet. And if they screw up badly enough Uncle Sam will transfer even more from us by borrowing, giving them the money, and passing the tab onto the next generation.

[Robert Goren]

It CAN work via the stock market IF the money flowing into stocks and bonds is financing new business, business expansion, etc... as intended. The entire purpose of the stock market is to raise capital. But that is not happening now on a wide basis because as I said in the previous post, the business environment in the US is hostile relative to alternatives.

Instead, companies are using cash to buy back their own shares and increase their EPS and stock prices that way, to buy foreign companies to avoid higher US taxes, to pay down expensive debt and refinance etc.. They are using their inflated stocks as currency to buy other businesses. They are engaging in financial transactions that create wealth for themselves because it's a better deal than actually building something in a country like the US right now. Change the environment and you will get a change in the behavior.

Bankers are not just gamblers. They are gamblers backstopped by the Fed and the government.

Imagine yourself as a horseplayer that gets to bet on whatever you want with your own money. You'd probably manage your bankroll carefully.

Then imagine a situation where if you win you get to keep the money, but if you lose, the Fed lowers interest rates, prints money, and bails you out. In that situation you'd probably play the game as aggressively as you could. So do banks. They know if they screw up the Fed will transfer wealth from savers like you and I to the banks by lowering interest rates and buying bad loans off their balance sheet. And if they screw up badly enough Uncle Sam will transfer even more from us by borrowing, giving them the money, and passing the tab onto the next generation. I see your point, but if you have watched a problem gambler in self-destruct mode, you know it doesn't matter that it is own money or not. I doubt if it matters much to the bankers either. If you go back to 19th century and early 20th century before there was anyone to bail them out, they acted exactly the same.

[Clocker]

Obama losing the crowd....on immigration?

The phrase "losing the crowd" assumes that he had control of the crowd previously. The secret of leading from behind is to determine where the crowd wants to go and then get out in front of them and act as if they are following you.

Obama thought he had a grip on the issue, and apparently had planned a major grant of amnesty by executive action. Reaction was all over the map, including a lot of opposition within the White House. The right policy had nothing to do with it, it was all about the November elections.

So he decided to do nothing, because in his infinite wisdom, we needed to have a national debate on amnesty before we did anything. And we all lived happily ever after.

[dartman51]

If he can't get them one way, he'll get them another.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/03/you-wont-believe-why-obama-holder-punished-this-texas-catering-business/


Culinaire International unlawfully discriminated against employees based on their citizenship status, the Justice Department claimed, because it required non-citizen employees to provide extra proof of their right to work in the United States.

Culinaire has agreed to pay the United States $20,460 in civil penalties, receive training in anti-discrimination rules of the Immigration and Nationality Act, revise its work eligibility verification process, and create a $40,000 back pay fund for “potential economic victims.”

“Employers cannot discriminate against workers by requiring them to produce more documents than necessary in the employment eligibility verification and reverification processes,” Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights division, Molly Moran, said in a statement. :bang: :bang: :mad: