tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.comments2013-01-03T05:53:29.294-08:00Left Right Across and HoldBernardo de la Pazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13311733730523945450noreply@blogger.comBlogger163125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-75038531713677332562013-01-02T23:57:45.589-08:002013-01-02T23:57:45.589-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Mrs.Game1019https://www.blogger.com/profile/15082732933052904939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-47986589475150627282011-08-03T07:35:47.274-07:002011-08-03T07:35:47.274-07:00Borderline?Borderline?Steve Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11281228341784551551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-61131421055733033612011-07-25T09:51:02.829-07:002011-07-25T09:51:02.829-07:00Well I suppose its inevitable that a little venom ...Well I suppose its inevitable that a little venom is always going to creep into posts of mine on subjects like this.<br /><br />Furthermore, I haven't done a study of it, but I'm perfectly willing to concede the death penalty doesn't deter crime any better than imprisonment - and there probably are statistics to prove it.<br /><br />The real issue for me is economics. You, me, and every other taxpayer is being forced to pay for the continued existence of people like this - and that just irks the H*ll out of me.<br /><br />The money they're going to spend on psychoanylizing this guy would probably keep a law abiding - but poor - citizen of Norway in decent health care for life. And that's just for starters.<br /><br />When its all over, the worst part is Norwegians are going to have to pay for this guy's room and board for who knows how long.<br /><br />OK, I'm a liberal. I've got "Das Kapital" on the bookshelf and an ACLU membership card in my wallet to prove it. But try as hard as I might I can't see any point in this craziness.<br /><br />Here's an idea. Let everyone who is against the death penalty sign up and register for a Foundation. Then send the bill for Mr. Breivik's upkeep to it and let them pay for it. Problem solved...<br /><br />Excelsior!Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02107206395412209448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-24813983996518278822011-07-25T08:21:47.559-07:002011-07-25T08:21:47.559-07:00Chris, Chris, Chris, what's happened to you?
...Chris, Chris, Chris, what's happened to you?<br /><br />I feel - not think, because aren't feelings more important? - I should caution you about resorting to such hate-filled and biased statements. Don't you realize that implementing the death penalty does not make citizens safer? Not to mention that even the prospect of the death penalty poses substantial risks to innocent people: just ask your average university professor for supporting statistics.<br /><br />And what if he's gay? After all, don't studies show that most far-right-wing radical men are actually homosexuals that have not acknowledged their 'true sexual nature', which is why they act out so violently? Good heavens: You could be accused of homophobia for your callous and unfeeling comments. And if he converts to Islam, he will be part of a repressed religious minority in Norway! <br /><br />We simply must look at this situation from the predominate social philosophy: we have to consider that Breivik is the Real Victim here...<br /><br />It's clear the man is being unjustly accused before all the facts are in. If you didn't know better, you'd think he was a white-upper class lacrosse player from an ACC school!<br /><br />Take a moment to consider that Breivik has made an honestly frank admission that his actions were based on what he firmly believes. And we all know that public policy should ONLY be made on the basis of such 'strong feelings'. And when efforts are 'proper' social engineering don't work (or are not implemented to ones satisfaction), we *must* resort to the use of force. After all, you have to force people to be free.<br /><br />You need to watch your back, my friend, unless you unintentionally open yourself for the unfounded accusation you are, in fact, a stealth conservative (gasp!)... Oh, the horror!<br /><br /><br />Finally, I could continue these feeble attempts to Swiftly opine along these lines, but let me pause for a moment and state for the record that I agree with 100% percent.<br /><br />- SteveSteve Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11281228341784551551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-64327662898187984202011-07-24T04:44:48.808-07:002011-07-24T04:44:48.808-07:00I've said before that everything should be on ...I've said before that everything should be on the table. That includes tax increases. It also includes some serious cuts in spending. It's not either-or. But I want cuts that take effect NOW and on the same schedule as tax increases - not at some nebulous 'projected' point down the road.<br /><br />I think the serious problem goes back to the fundamental question of what is a proper function of government. Frankly, I think we're paying WAY too much for what we get in return. (And, yes, that does include defense spending.) It's been said by some we could save 100 BILLION just by eliminating the Dept of Education. Is that a Bad Idea? I'm not 100% sure... But I *do* know we're not seeing the results for the money we spend. <br /><br />If government has been proven to be unable to accomplish a task more effectively and efficiently that private concerns doing the same thing, then why keep doing it? Or worse yet, always - ALWAYS - operate from the position that "we just need to throw more money at it". Why should it be so hard to fire an incompetent civil servant (they work for US don't they?) <br /><br />We need some Big Cuts in existing and proposed programs. We need drastic changes in our tax code ("fairness" is non-existent). We need to accept there are no sacred cows everyone is being hurt by where we are and everyone needs to step up and shoulder part of the burden. The first thing I'd like to see is an immediate 10-20% cut in Executive/Congressional/Judicial STAFFING and budgets.<br /><br />Here's a simple idea no one is pitching...<br /><br />Cycle everything back to the 2009 spending level. No increases for new programs started since then (all suspended). No budgetary increases for COLA, etc. No raises. No etc.,etc.,etc... And freeze spending at that point - NO INCREASES OF ANY KIND! - until we get a balanced budget WITH a deficit reduction plan AND a new tax code (e.g. Fair Tax).<br /><br />Not a complete solution by any means, but it's a start.<br /><br />- Steve<br />(We're going to end up agreeing on the basics of this, except for the details.)Steve Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11281228341784551551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-28791050316489423552011-07-22T17:58:14.312-07:002011-07-22T17:58:14.312-07:00I thought the Post article was balony, but I also ...I thought the Post article was balony, but I also think the problem is one of spending AND revenue. Note, on the chart you reference, the deficit nose dived after the Bush tax rate reductions (please, don't call them "tax cuts") of '01 and '03 - which goes directly against the conservative mantra that lower tax rates result in higher tax revenue.<br /><br />If I remember correctly, the CATO Institute opined that the Bush tax rate reductions would eliminate the Federal DEBT in something like 5 years - a miscalculation of a mere 10 trillion by the crack CATO team.<br /><br />If you want, I'll send you a Price Waterhouse compilation of U.S. venture capital investments during the period 1995 to 2011. Incredibly, VCI's literally dropped off a cliff during the period Q1, 2000, to Q1, 2003 - and have not since recovered.<br /><br />Which is amazing, because this is just the opposite of what the Bush tax rate reductions were designed to do.<br /><br />My short answer is that American investors used the extra capital from the tax rate reductions to plow more money into mortgage derivitives, and that money went up in smoke when the housing market went sour.<br /><br />I've got a lot more to say on this, but I wonder if we are headed for a disagreement characteristic of what is happening in Washington right now. My take on this is that you aren't really serious about DEBT (not deficit!) reduction unless everything is on the table - including tax increases.<br /><br />Like the guy in Full Metal Jacket said, "Its a big sh*t sandwich and we all gotta take a bite."Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02107206395412209448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-51001390300261187482011-07-20T08:33:49.762-07:002011-07-20T08:33:49.762-07:00You know, I really have no doubt this Irwin guy is...You know, I really have no doubt this Irwin guy is a smart man. This makes articles like this one all the more puzzling. I can't decide which aspect of it annoys me the most.<br /><br />It is, in the first place, condescending. Here, the author has decided to explain something sophisticated to an unsophisticated public. There's nothing wrong with that. Some of my favorite authors, like Isaac Asimov and George Gamow were people who could reduce difficult scientific subjects to a level I could understand.<br /><br />But in this regard, this author fails utterly. If you have the conceit that you can explain complicated subjects to the average man, the least you ought to be able to do is understand the average man's conceptual framework. Apparently, Mr. Irwin has no idea of either WHAT he is talking about or WHO he his talking to.<br /><br />In the second place, the article is clearly tailored to a pre-conceived conclusion. For instance, Mr. Irwin promotes government bonds as a necessary fundamental of a nation's financial health. I.E.: We invest in government bonds because they are a "safe" place to keep our money. Yet he fails to point out that the interest paid out on those bonds consists, not of created wealth, but of more taxes just transferred from taxpayers to bond holders.<br /><br />Hard as I try, I can't help but wonder what this guy was smoking. The average man's solution to debt is so simple a child could understand it: figure out what you want, then go out and earn enough to pay for it.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02107206395412209448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-41544760114936142852011-07-20T07:12:44.942-07:002011-07-20T07:12:44.942-07:00I followed your link and read the article. After I...I followed your link and read the article. After I stopped laughing (which took awhile), I just had to respond...<br /><br />You and I are on the same page 100% this time. (Big Surprise)<br /><br />Mr. Irwin - and, by extension, Columbia grads and profs as well - clearly have a lack the empirical knowledge or experience in how things work. What this article proves they are good at doing, however, is hopping from one side of a fence to the other while saying nothing of substance. I have trouble remembering another 'primer' going around in such circles chasing its own tail. Egad.<br /><br />I would suggest, at a bare minimum, a simple reading of good ol' Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations before opining on economics. As much as we don't *like* his Law of Supply and Demand, it has an uncomfortable reality of being quite accurate and proven in the Real World.<br /><br />Irwin seems to operate on the idea that you can always POSTPONE paying off debt without suffering consequences. This was a popular view during the dot-com run up and other runaway market situations. But that pay-me-now-pay them-later only works while living in the ivory tower. Yes, there are times when an individual can shift *some* of the cost of debt to a more advantageous economic time (via inflationary pressures), but that is a HUGE gamble and not for the faint of heart - and is COMPLETELY inappropriate as a strategy for *government* monetary policy...<br /><br />I could go and on, but you said most of it already.<br /><br />* sigh* Just another example of what our education establishment is doing to damage the minds of our highly impressionable youth. I weep for the future.<br /><br />- SteveSteve Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11281228341784551551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-34434713867976187372011-06-25T11:23:11.515-07:002011-06-25T11:23:11.515-07:00The most ironic thing about your comment is that J...The most ironic thing about your comment is that John Tanton has always been associated with Planned Parenthood - and the eugenics movement as well. John Tanton was one of the founders of Northern Michigan Planned Parenthood. If you want, google "John Tanton and eugenics" or "John Tanton and Planned Parenthood". The results will be eye opening.<br /><br />OK, I'll concede that liberals have a bunch of Margaret Sangers in their closets - and (grudgingly) admit that anyone can use these unpleasant histories selectively to comprimise the aims of genuinely honest and objective assertions made by persons like yourself.<br /><br />Sorry. Peace.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02107206395412209448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-60780011833311282502011-06-23T16:03:31.565-07:002011-06-23T16:03:31.565-07:00I don't see myself as naive on this subject, b...I don't see myself as naive on this subject, but it doesn't bother me, even if true.<br /><br />Let me acknowledge that the 'stealth racists' certainly try to influence the immigration debate. No argument there. But to say that racism is the 'driving force' behind immigration reform ignores many valid non-racial issues.<br /><br />And I agree with you that self-identified racists are a very small step on the ladder from hell above those who are 'stealth'. Both are despicable. We agree here.<br /><br />However, let us not use too-broad a paint brush against the conservative / Republican political spectrum. 'Stealth' agendas abound on both sides.<br /><br />As an example, I hold up Planned Parenthood - an organization with an often ignored (hidden) agenda all the way back to its founding by Margaret Sanger. Research on this issue is left as an exercise to the student and the curious, but I am sure you are already aware of the point I'm making...<br /><br />In short, let us agree that regardless of the issue under discussion and the subsequent position taken, there are numerous adherents that supporters would rather not have. And, likewise, there are ideologues who - for whatever reason - distance themselves from their stated goals to support actions by favored individuals. For example, the mind-boggling support by N.O.W. for Bill Clinton, in spite of his actions and treatment of women. Similar examples can be found, too numerous to count, on both sides of the political spectrum.<br /><br />The paint splatters of such can cover us all to the point where we cannot accomplish anything for fear that our efforts will be discarded SOLELY because of a few bad apples. Fortunately, you and I try to stay on track - although we are sometimes dragged kicking and screaming back off the rabbit-trail. Mea culpa.<br /><br />Perhaps it would have been better to say *I* do not have racist or bigoted motivations in my support and research into what I see as much-needed "immigration reform". Many concerned with this issue (and I think MOST) do not use a racist filter. I will not claim *all* look through the correct lens, but we cannot ignore the legitimate proposals because SOME nasty folks like doing ANYTHING that gains an advantage for their cause.<br /><br />We are all agenda-driven, in one form or another. Some - like you and I - are just up-front about it.<br /><br />No problem.<br /><br />- SteveSteve Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11281228341784551551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-23163085217755390602011-06-09T20:21:43.378-07:002011-06-09T20:21:43.378-07:00I went to a bookstore and asked the saleswoman, &q...I went to a bookstore and asked the saleswoman, "Where's the self help section?" She said if she told me, it would defeat the purpose.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02107206395412209448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-16815428126659257762011-06-09T13:23:27.375-07:002011-06-09T13:23:27.375-07:00You crack me up!You crack me up!Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02107206395412209448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-39114300026993065432011-06-09T12:58:46.084-07:002011-06-09T12:58:46.084-07:00Yes, the medications are taking hold nicely. I'...Yes, the medications are taking hold nicely. I'm on wet packs, sponge baths and a chemical bouillabaisse every-hour-on-the-hour. But you already suspected that. I know you're just jealous because the voices don't talk to you as much as they talk to me. Curiosity killed the cat, but for awhile there, I was a prime suspect. The guy in the next bed makes synthetic hairballs for ceramic cats. <br /><br /><br />The day nurse is a prim-and-proper, crisply starched and cold professional at all times, but the night nurse is kinda cute. Nice figure, too. She has a very friendly smile when she comes at me with the needle...Steve Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11281228341784551551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-18939698645429834362011-06-09T12:45:39.919-07:002011-06-09T12:45:39.919-07:00Sorry, I had already loaded up several muskets, le...Sorry, I had already loaded up several muskets, leaned them against the wall next to the gun port and provided the women folk with powder, musket balls and wadding so I could hold off your furious charge. At the end I expected Hand to Hand Combat - with the survival of the Free World hanging in the balance.<br /><br />Yet once again you turn out to be rational and reasonable. Where's the fun in that?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02107206395412209448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-10262656906212510302011-06-09T12:10:00.621-07:002011-06-09T12:10:00.621-07:00You said what I wanted to say, and did it clearly....You said what I wanted to say, and did it clearly. My point is that in coming to this country to become a citizen, you leave your previous allegiances behind and adopt a new one... and we are all equal under the law. No one is better, worse or receives preference, except in accordance with the consequences of his actions. The condition of one's previous existence is not an advantage or a barrier to one's future.<br /><br />By "cultural bigot" I mean that disapprove of the attempt to grant (or claim) special dispensation or preferential treatment because of where one is FROM or what one believes, etc. *Individuals* may CHOOSE to grant such preference to other individuals - within the limits of areas they control - but such cannot (should not) happen as a result of action by government, e.g. using the power of government to dictate personal behavior between individuals.<br /><br />Many who come to this county do not have a cultural history based on the foundational principle of Rule Of Law. They need to understand the depth of that principle and accept it: That one rule is one of the Main Things that makes this country special.<br /><br />It is not a question of "qualification" as much as it is one of "attitude". <br /><br />Sorry I was not more precise. We're still in the same general area.<br /><br />- SteveSteve Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11281228341784551551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-17430450578986133242011-06-09T11:32:13.160-07:002011-06-09T11:32:13.160-07:00OK - now I think perhaps we've arrived at an i...OK - now I think perhaps we've arrived at an issue on which we may sharply disagree - and one which transends the subject of illegal immigration.<br /><br />I'm not sure the extent is of what you mean when you say:<br /><br />"We have a specific set of traditions, laws, and general belief system upon which this county was founded. It is acceptable (and I think should be mandatory) that immigrants accept OUR system of doing things."<br /><br />But, really? Laws I can of course understand. But a "specific set of traditions ... and general belief system(s)"? How specific? And what do you mean by "cultural bigot"?<br /><br />Forgive me for saying this, especially to you my friend, but it seems like every time I see these terms used they preface a fairly narrow definition of what qualifies a person to be a true American.<br /><br />My own opinion is what makes this country great is that a man's religious beliefs, cultural traditions and even primary language have absolutely no place whatsoever in defining citizenship, so long as he observes the law.<br /><br />Man, I have a lot more to say about this but I think we'll both be girding ourselves for a fruitful new debate. Loose the hounds!Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02107206395412209448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-68104194728477816072011-06-09T10:18:32.095-07:002011-06-09T10:18:32.095-07:00Yes, we agree on the main points. A couple of resp...Yes, we agree on the main points. A couple of responses...<br /><br />1. I don't like "shoot to kill" either. But there is a problem with putting moral boundaries on the reaction to an 'invasion force' (that's what it is, sorry). We could go down this road a long ways, but I don't see it as necessary, since both of us are concerned with the operational consequences of saying "Stay Out-We Don't Want You Here." We *do* want them, but borders are borders and there are numerous - and more critical - reasons other than Immigration why a Secure Border is desperately needed.<br /><br />2. I do NOT believe racial or religious bigotry is a factor AT ALL. On the other hand, YES, I am a 'Cultural Bigot'. We have a specific set of traditions, laws, and general belief system upon which this county was founded. It is acceptable (and I think should be mandatory) that immigrants accept OUR system of doing things. And #1 on that list is the Rule Of Law. Sure, we have our problems (who doesn't?) but, YES, I think in many ways we *ARE* better than other countries.<br /><br />3. The entitlement issue I raised really doesn't belong in this discussion. The shift to an Entitlement Attitude is a Bigger Issue culturally and has far-ranging impacts going WAY beyond its effect upon immigration. Sorry for bringing it up.<br /><br />4. Yes, I *do* recognize the (typical) personal attitude by the 'illegals' to be desirable. Highly so. But no matter how wonderful they are, no matter how great the benefit may be, support for the Rule of Law *must* come first... FIX THE PROCESS and there will be no issue with those who are already here.<br /><br /><br />Like you said - we're close enough to being on the same page here. Nice Session.<br /><br />- SteveSteve Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11281228341784551551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-18705441044098915122011-06-09T07:17:22.343-07:002011-06-09T07:17:22.343-07:00Judging from your response, I think we've pret...Judging from your response, I think we've pretty much exhausted the issue of illegal immigration. In fact, except for a few differences in semantics, I'd say we probably agree on all the major points.<br /><br />To be sure, I'm not as sanguine about the prospects of establishing the kind of secure borders you propose. Yet, except for the "shoot to kill" idea, I wouldn't object to the effort. <br /><br />In the real world, border guards with "shoot to kill" authority would be being asked to shoot and kill women and children - which brings up a whole new order of disturbing questions. Would we require they only shoot adult men? How could they distinguish between men, women and children, especially at night? And, not the least, what kind of individual do you think, would be able to shoot and kill an unarmed person under those conditions? If you have moral objections to doing this yourself, and I take it for granted you do, would you not then be suggesting we only hire guards low moral character?<br /><br />That aside, the real problem with "guest worker" law as it is written today is completely economic in nature. Undocumented imigrants living here, now, offer businesses which employ them a tremendous advantage over temporary workers brought in to this country on an as needed basis. I based this post entirely on recognizing that reality, and from your response it looks like you recognize it as well.<br /><br />Steve, knowing you as I do, I'm certain you are if anything less bigoted than I am. Yet I can't help but believe there is a huge component of racial, religious and cultural bigotry involved here. I don't doubt at least 99% of the illegals we're dealing with are brown, Hispanic and Catholic. Would this be viewed as nearly as large a problem if they were white, western European and Protestant?<br /><br />Come on man, whether we care to acknowledge it or not, a substantial share of the electorate views this whole problem of illegal immigration as an assault on traditional American values. Frankly, I completely reject that attitude, and we're not going to make any real progress until we get past it.<br /><br />One other thing. To my mind, you're making your most important (and true) point when you say: <br /><br />"Could it be related to the fact there are a lot of people who choose to live off government subsidy instead of actively pursuing employment?"<br /><br />Let's be honest. Just about every one of the illegals residing and working here come from countries which have virtually no entitlement or welfare programs like the kind we have here. You could even say they bring with them an attitude of personal accountability and self reliance which is sorely lacking in today's America.<br /><br />Seriously. Think that through. The central objection which libertarians have to big government subsidies is that they encourage more reliance on the state and less reliance on the individual. Yet here we have over 10 million new, potential citizens who daily express this core libertarian principle.<br /><br />Wouldn't it at least be worthwhile to consider this an asset rather than a liability? And, having made that connection, what sorts of legislative strategies could we employ to turn this asset into a positive benefit for American society as a whole?<br /><br />Once again, in case I haven't been clear enough, despite our differences in the ways we express ourselves, I think we're probably close enough on our basic ideas that we've reached agreement on all the important points.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02107206395412209448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-76393069592346193312011-06-08T13:28:11.177-07:002011-06-08T13:28:11.177-07:00Forgive me. I was unaware Georgia had a guest-work...Forgive me. I was unaware Georgia had a guest-worker program that was fully-functional without operational issues. I'm sure it had no end of applicants being quickly approved and the next case handled promptly and effectively by industrious government employees. And that HB87 eliminated that program. And that so-called 'illegals' were actively pursuing registration and taking advantage of every opportunity to become 'legal' until HB87 passed...<br /><br />Cynicism aside, I generally agree with your point. <br /><br />However, let's consider:<br /><br />1. We have (overloaded) programs for guest workers. The 'how do I get in' process is BROKEN.<br /><br />2. There are 'undocumented' workers being employed in violation of the law. That makes them CRIMINALS. Sorry. <br /><br />3. Some industries (e.g. farming) which benefit from 'non-enforcement' of existing laws. (If my car body-and-paint business would be more profitable if we didn't enforce speeding laws, why shouldn't we get rid of them too?)<br /><br />4. There are a lot of otherwise employable people unwilling to work at existing pay scales for the work the 'undocumented' are willing to do. Why? Could it be related to the fact there are a lot of people who choose to live off government subsidy instead of actively pursuing employment?<br /><br />5. We have (immigration) laws that are not working or (at least) are not being enforced. Why? If they *shouldn't* be enforced, why do we still have them? <br /><br />...etc., etc., etc.<br /><br />YES, I agree that the majority of legislative actions in this state (and especially at the federal level) are taken NOT to 'solve problems' but to pander for votes. This is not an ideological issue: politicians of all stripes are guilty. Chris, to point your finger-of-shame at Republicans specifically is beneath you; both parties are to blame, and you know it.<br /><br />I summarize (again) my three steps (general) plan to address the 'immigration problem':<br /><br />1. Secure the border. For real. Seriously. Even to the point of 'shoot-to-kill', if that is what it takes.<br /><br />2. Fix the Immigration process. Top to bottom. That includes creating a quick, verifiable guest-worker process in addition to granting long-term Visa and eventual citizen status.<br /><br />3. Put the results for #2 in place, and THEN begin the process of integrating existing 'illegals' into the New System - in other words, THAT is when we can start over.<br /><br />Now, I applaud the desire to enforce the laws we have on the books: the Law of the Land is the law of the land. That said, I agree that the attempt to use the existing law within the context of an immigration system that is clearly BROKEN is a waste of time. Further, I think all efforts to 'round them up and ship them back' are futile if the border itself is not secured. I believe we should IGNORE the 'existing illegals that are already here'... For Now. When we have done steps 1 and 2, *THEN* we can address what to do with those already here.<br /><br />Honestly, this is NOT as complex a problem as it appears: it's just that the solution will be painful, and we cannot simply 'wish it away'. The political focus is on "what can we do that helps get me re-elected?" - changing that attitude is the key to problem.<br /><br />However, I acknowledge the implementation of a viable long-term solution will be extremely painful and some folks will be inconvenienced (to say the least). But any approach that does not address ALL the issues in the appropriate order is doomed to failure.<br /><br />- Steve<br /><br />P.S. It's all just another example of Unintended Consequences... And these (bureaucrats) are the ones we want to let run details of our day-to-day lives? Give me a break.Steve Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11281228341784551551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-89016925290627553162011-05-23T18:34:18.213-07:002011-05-23T18:34:18.213-07:00I wasn't being sarcastic about your "Serv...I wasn't being sarcastic about your "Service Camps" idea. Not in the least. Maybe it needs a little work, but all in all - I meant what I said to be taken literally.<br /><br />On the subject of tort reform, gosh, Steve - stop and think for a minute. I mean seriously. In our debates over climate change, you're the guy who has been CONSISTANTLY arguing against action because you are not satisfied all the facts are in. <br /><br />Yet, you argue for radical change in our courts on the basis of something "everybody knows"? Come on man. Where are your facts? Where is the empirical proof?<br /><br />I think what you're doing here is reading sensationalized stories about "ambulance chasers" and outrageous settlements and simply ASSUMING this characterizes the whole system. <br /><br />Steve, really, this is a breathtaking departure from the aproach you take towards the science behind climate change.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02107206395412209448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-7609177378058829282011-05-23T13:20:44.407-07:002011-05-23T13:20:44.407-07:00The operative concept here is "Who Decides?&q...The operative concept here is "Who Decides?" - the one paying the bill.<br /><br />As to your point on "creating really bad policies"... I prefer leaving the ultimate control and choice to the consumer, as opposed to assigning the task to a well-intentioned bureaucrat, who seeks to limit MY choices based on HIS determination of what is MY best interests. That some people are unlikely or even incompetent to make such decisions is a given, but we MUST have a system which does not restrict the freedom (and control) of choice from those willing to do so and live with the consequences. <br /><br />The whole idea of minimum federal standards is to leave the door open for the STATES to expand upon those minimums (not replace them) as they desire for their state. This allows the marketplace to inform such august bodies how well they have done their jobs (e.g., if your state has what YOU, as the end-consumer, consider 'needless' requirements, you are free to pursue options in other states according to your desires, and those state are compensated accordingly. This is to provide the incentive to legislate regulatory requirements with consideration of the free-market, instead of purely limiting the input to those with a vested interest. The idea of far-ranging 'deductibles' (or discounts), as determined by the provider (insurance company), for life-style choices provides a similar incentive for consideration in the marketplace.<br /><br />My tort reform suggestion is to take a direct stab at the ambulance chasers... IMHO, it is they, who by wielding an unrestricted ability to SUE, SUE, SUE who generate the sky-high malpractice premiums, which, in turn, drive up the cost of insurance by 'encouraging' doctors and facilities to perform test after test after test - not because they are truly needed for diagnosis, but because they are needed to avoid lawsuits. I believe asking the lawyer to PERSONALLY have some skin in the game will reduce 'questionable' lawsuits and reduce costs across the board. I don't think the evidence is anecdotal; I think it is very real, and no one wants to annoy the Trail Lawyers about how they make their living for fear of upsetting the political donation money tree. Sure, we can study it: but do we really expect "what everyone already knows" to be disproved?<br /><br />I don't really *like* the Service Camp idea. Yeah, it's that Dickens thing, not to mention where many of the original settlers for Georgia came from... Notice I didn't say folks are stuck there "forever", but I think the number of people that would honestly and joyfully accept such conditions INDEFINITELY would be surprisingly high... and it's also a decent landing spot for Welfare recipients (another rabid, spittle-generating hot topic, I'm sure).<br /><br />But if I am forced to deal with the Reality of providing care for those who simply WILL NOT or CAN NOT PAY FOR IT, there *must* be consequences for that decision. TANSTAAFL.<br /><br />Yes... more to come, I'm sure.<br /><br />- SteveSteve Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11281228341784551551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-56881986677971606252011-05-23T12:37:35.128-07:002011-05-23T12:37:35.128-07:00Yes - I have several.
I like just about all your ...Yes - I have several.<br /><br />I like just about all your ideas, except for a few technicalities - which aren't really all that crucial.<br /><br />I guess the biggest one is concerning #3. The purpose of being able to buy across state lines is assumed to encourage healthy competition among insurance companies. I myself believed that before I looked into it. <br /><br />What happens though, is large, multi-state insurance companies can target one or more "sympathetic" state legislatures to create rules which allow for really bad health insurance policies. They can then market these policies across the country and thereby get around a great many sensible regulations imposed by many states.<br /><br />Unfortunately, to prevent this from happening, the federal government would have to intervene by mandating that all insurance regulations in every state meet certain minimum standards.<br /><br />I really doubt if all the states would go along with this. But even so, theoretically, it could be done - so long as the minimum standards were thoughtfully designed.<br /><br />The thought of Steve Green getting pregnant brings up all kinds of disturbing images, but...<br /><br />The objection to pregenancy coverage for certain policy holders reminds me a little bit of the objections which taxpayers with no children have to paying taxes for elementary schools. Problem is, this opens up a huge can of worms. For instance, why should young people pay for insurance against conditions common among old people? Why should thin people pay for insurance against conditions common among fat people?<br /><br />You can come up with hundreds of questions like this - but the bottom line is that when you start segregating the scope of coverage demographically, all you are really doing is creeping back to the overall problem which the individual mandate was designed to fix. Or, to put it more plainly, sure, people who are unlikely to get pregnant are sharing the cost of pregnancy with those who are - but then again, people who are likely to get pregnant are sharing the cost of hip replacements - which they themselves are unlikely to need. But I think all that could be worked out.<br /><br />I'm just a teensy uncomfortable with "tort reform". As a practical matter, I've mentioned before that Texas already has tort reform in place, yet health care costs in Texas are among the highest in the country.<br /><br />Generally speaking, health care providers have access to legal resources far beyond that which any ordinary citizen can pay for. As a counter-balance, lawyers in most states are allowed to pursue litigation on a contingency basis - and, the higher the potential judgement, the greater the odds are that single citizens can retain adequate counsel. To asssume - a priori - that instituting "loser pays" restrictions and damage award limitations would automatically improve the system is not necessarily justified.<br /><br />Frankly, we are constantly bombarded with the meme that a huge part of the high cost of health care is accounted for by malpractice insurance which health care providers must pay for. But, wouldn't it be wise to first consider how much successful litigation against malpractitioners has had to actually REDUCE costs? I think its fair to study the problem in depth before we go instituting radical changes based on what is essentially anecdotal evidence.<br /><br />Finally, I salute you for an uncommonly open minded approach towards disadvantaged citizens. Knowing you as I do, I completely understand you don't envision some kind of Dickensonian nightmare in which poor people are transformed into an underclass of serfs.<br /><br />Steve Green's "Service Camps" would consist of free people performing useful and necessary work, with the added incentive of gaining the pride and dignity which only comes from living up to one's responsibilities and obligations.<br /><br />More - later, I've run out of gas...Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02107206395412209448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-79730960230688992892011-05-23T11:01:43.942-07:002011-05-23T11:01:43.942-07:00I have no sympathy for Jared Laughner. String him ...I have no sympathy for Jared Laughner. String him up, and do it publicly. There are numerous others - including many 'favorite-sons' of the No Death Penalty crowd - that I would include alongside this idiot.<br /><br />I agree that substituting compassion for common sense is a path to disaster. Actions have Consequences, regardless of Intentions. Avoidance - or simply "not thinking about" the Real (or even potential) Consequences is foolish at best.<br /><br />Then again, I could also argue that you're just venting your frustrations and are clearly upset because the voices won't talk to you... ;-)<br /><br />- Steve<br /><br />BTW - I think you left out a "not" in your last comment, intending to say "NOT gun down" their fellow citizens. How nice to see that you also suffer from the occasional typo as I do.Steve Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11281228341784551551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-51744317919179396822011-05-23T08:41:13.652-07:002011-05-23T08:41:13.652-07:00But somehow I think things have gone terribly wron...But somehow I think things have gone terribly wrong when we in all cases substitute compassion for common sense. Sure, maybe the Jared Laughner's of this world can all point to some exterior forces they have no control over which drive them to commit these heinous acts.<br /><br />But the problem is, sooner or later society has to come to grips with common sense rules for dealing with serious crime. As I've said before, these are rules which transcend the definition of "punishment". Honestly, we just don't have the time and money to create compassionate alternatives for Jared Laughner or anyone else like him.<br /><br />Heck, considering all the hundreds of thousands the justice system is going to spend to be compassionate to Mr. Laughner, wouldn't it be better to use the same money being compassionate to disadvantaged people who at least have the prescence of mind go out and gun down their fellow citizens?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02107206395412209448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-11365217221239748512011-05-23T08:34:27.041-07:002011-05-23T08:34:27.041-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02107206395412209448noreply@blogger.com