The Hill: Opinion: Vote in French presidential election should be a warning for America

[DjTj]

What is wrong with having skills in order to come to a country? I don't think it means you must have skills. I think it means that there are only so many that can be allowed before we start failing the system. To me, that's a responsible approach. Post Hoc or not, it didn't work. There were no strings attached to the Amnesty as far as I am aware, to the immigrants. If you were here, you got amnesty. I can think of nothing anymore no strings attached then that. Now, politically, there were absolutely strings but the agreement was never held up so even that had no strings.

Amnesty eliminated a past problem but did not create any viable path for future immigrant labor. Most of those political strings tied to the amnesty bill did go into force, and have prevented illegals from obtaining citizenship for the past 25 years. That's part of the reason why there are so many illegals today.

Well, all I can tell you is that I have lived with them since I was a small boy, I have gone to school with them, I have worked with them, I shop at the same stores, I go to the same restaurants, I know the situation pretty dang well. They don't all want to live here. Many, many work here, send money home and live back in Mexico.

I know this is true for many foreign laborers, and probably for most of them when they get here, but many of them will put down roots and end up settling here. I would like those who choose it to have a path to citizenship, with strings attached.

Many do not want to work legally. They want to work for money under the table because they don't want to pay taxes. They will tell you this right up front in many cases. I will not labor the point because I don't know that I can say any more then this. Not all, but many. You are free to believe what you wish.

You can be paid under the table and avoid taxes whether you are legal or illegal. Avoiding taxes is a time-honored American tradition, practiced by small business owners, independent contractors, waitresses, and private equity fund managers for generations.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Amnesty eliminated a past problem but did not create any viable path for future immigrant labor. Most of those political strings tied to the amnesty bill did go into force, and have prevented illegals from obtaining citizenship for the past 25 years. That's part of the reason why there are so many illegals today.

It would have but it was not carried out. There was not supposed to be an illegal problem after the amnesty but the Democratic Side of the house did not hold up their end of the agreement. It is what it is. Not trying to be argumentative here. I'm simply trying to say that the solution was not to have this problem again.

I know this is true for many foreign laborers, and probably for most of them when they get here, but many of them will put down roots and end up settling here. I would like those who choose it to have a path to citizenship, with strings attached.

I don't have a problem with this. I just think that we have no way of setting this kind of solution up. At this point, we have too many illegals that are coming into the country. We can not sustain.

You can be paid under the table and avoid taxes whether you are legal or illegal. Avoiding taxes is a time-honored American tradition, practiced by small business owners, independent contractors, waitresses, and private equity fund managers for generations.

Absolutely and I am no more in favor of that then I am the other. I believe everybody should have to pay their share. Now, we may disagree on what fair share is but I 'm pretty sure that we can agree that Americans should not be working under the table either. That doesn't help solve the problem either.

[Larry]

It would have but it was not carried out. There was not supposed to be an illegal problem after the amnesty but the Democratic Side of the house did not hold up their end of the agreement. It is what it is. Not trying to be argumentative here. I'm simply trying to say that the solution was not to have this problem again.

Love the reasoning.

"Reagan promised that the amnesty would produce a utopia in which illegal activity would never happen again. It didn't. Therefore, obviously The Democrats must have not done what they were told."

[twa]

Conservative heartthrob Obama advises French not to end austerity measures

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/wh-france-dont-end-austerity-measures/525066

Let them eat cake

[ABQCOWBOY]

Love the reasoning.

"Reagan promised that the amnesty would produce a utopia in which illegal activity would never happen again. It didn't. Therefore, obviously The Democrats must have not done what they were told."

The Democratic Party agreed to get much tougher on illegal immigration if Reagan went along with Amnesty. Reagan did do what he said he would and the Democratic Party never did go along with their part of the agreement. I don't know that you need to love the reasoning or hate it or what. As I said before, it is what it is. This is why there was never a contingency set up for future illegal aliens. At the time, it was thought that it would not be a problem as there would not be nearly as many under the agreement.

[jpyaks3]

Conservative heartthrob Obama advises French not to end austerity measures

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/wh-france-dont-end-austerity-measures/525066

Let them eat cake

Well hopefully Hollande will do whats best for his country. Austerity measures have already shown to be a failure almost everywhere they are implemented so I would hope Hollande sticks to his promises to the French people.

[JohnLockesGhost]

How in the world do you arrive at a conclusion like that? Not trying to be rude, just interested in your logic.

It's easy when you create your own definitions.

[Destino]

It's easy when you create your own definitions.

Like defining anything left of you as leftist? There aren't many places in the world where Obama would be considered a leftist.

[Thiebear]

Destino: Hes a NeoCon in pure definition?

Liberal Social agenda with WarHark tendencies mixed in with a lack of transparancy?

[Predicto]

Like defining anything left of you as leftist? There aren't many places in the world where Obama would be considered a leftist.

Some conservatives have already tried to redefine the Nazis as leftists. Definitions mean whatever people want them to mean, I guess.

[Koolblue13]

http://karenlebillon.com/french-school-lunch-menus/

I wish our school lunches and view of eating were half as good as the French. Kind of off topic, but so is the rest of the thread and this was kind of cool.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Why the obsession with comparing ourselves to Sweden? Sweden is nothing like the US in terms of size (physical and otherwise), economics, political systems, or proximity to third world nations.

[twa]

Well hopefully Hollande will do whats best for his country. Austerity measures have already shown to be a failure almost everywhere they are implemented so I would hope Hollande sticks to his promises to the French people.

where were they implemented?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/299233/show-me-savage-spending-cuts-europe-please-veronique-de-rugy#

I look at the data and I am asking: What “savage” spending cuts?

Look at this chart. It is based on Eurostat data which you can find here. Following years of large spending increases, Spain, the United Kingdom, France, and Greece — countries widely cited for adopting austerity measures — haven’t significantly reduced spending since 2008. As you can see on this chart:

...

The most important point to keep in mind is that whenever cuts took place, they were always overwhelmed by large counterproductive tax increases. Unfortunately, that point is often overlooked. This approach to austerity — some spending cuts with large tax increases — is what President Obama has called the “balanced approach.”

However, as I have mentioned previously, while this balanced approach may sound good and appeals to our sense of fairness and moderation, but it can be a recipe for disaster. That’s because it fails to stabilize the debt, and it is more likely to cause economic contractions

[Predicto]

Thanks for the National Review editorial. As always, it advances the discussion so well, with its non-biased analysis.

The comments to the editorial point out the obvious bait and switch she is pulling.

Normalize your nominal chart. You can find that here. Now adjust by the GDP deflator and population growth.

Then ask about the savagery of spending cuts.

For instance, with those adjustments the 2011 level in the U.K. is 12% lower than the 2007 level shown on your chart.

The graph isn't really helpful: there's no suggestion that the figures take into account inflation - the y-axis should say something like "Billions (2012 €)".

Also, it does not take into account population changes. This sort of data needs per capita values, not overall ones.

[JMS]

Love the reasoning.

"Reagan promised that the amnesty would produce a utopia in which illegal activity would never happen again. It didn't. Therefore, obviously The Democrats must have not done what they were told."

Exactly correct. Both party for policical reasons favor illegal immigration. The only voice against it is really in the grass roots of the republican party but even they don't have any real control over this issue because the GOP foundationaly supports it. Just like the Democats do. Hispanics are the biggest minority group in the United States and so far they largely vote as a block. They are social conservatives and fiscal liberals thus have a foot in both parties and the brain trust of each party wants to be their home.

[Larry]

where were they implemented?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/299233/show-me-savage-spending-cuts-europe-please-veronique-de-rugy#

I look at the data and I am asking: What “savage” spending cuts?

Look at this chart. It is based on Eurostat data which you can find here. Following years of large spending increases, Spain, the United Kingdom, France, and Greece — countries widely cited for adopting austerity measures — haven’t significantly reduced spending since 2008. As you can see on this chart:

...

The most important point to keep in mind is that whenever cuts took place, they were always overwhelmed by large counterproductive tax increases. Unfortunately, that point is often overlooked. This approach to austerity — some spending cuts with large tax increases — is what President Obama has called the “balanced approach.”

However, as I have mentioned previously, while this balanced approach may sound good and appeals to our sense of fairness and moderation, but it can be a recipe for disaster. That’s because it fails to stabilize the debt, and it is more likely to cause economic contractions

1) You might want to use the "quote" function, to show that most of your post is actually quoting the lead-in to the article.

2) Love the way the writer asserts that these spending cuts were bad, because they also raised taxes, to reduce their deficits. (And, apparently, raising taxes are evil for the economy, and don't help with the deficit. But spending cuts without tax increases are just peachy.)

3) Also love the way I have to go through multiple screens to get at the charts, the source for the charts is the author, herself, and we have to go past multiple charts before we get to this one:

The first chart where the data has been adjusted into something relatively stable (inflation-adjusted dollars), instead of adjusting to "purchasing power parity" (which, I assume is "we picked some other way of adjusting for inflation, that makes the numbers look better".)

Frankly, that third chart seems to have some really clear cuts in it. At least in some countries. (Not so much in others.)

[ABQCOWBOY]

Exactly correct. Both party for policical reasons favor illegal immigration. The only voice against it is really in the grass roots of the republican party but even they don't have any real control over this issue because the GOP foundationaly supports it. Just like the Democats do. Hispanics are the biggest minority group in the United States and so far they largely vote as a block. They are social conservatives and fiscal liberals thus have a foot in both parties and the brain trust of each party wants to be their home.

I think that today, this is a much more true statement then it was 30 years ago.

[Larry]

Exactly correct. Both party for policical reasons favor illegal immigration. The only voice against it is really in the grass roots of the republican party but even they don't have any real control over this issue because the GOP foundationaly supports it. Just like the Democats do. Hispanics are the biggest minority group in the United States and so far they largely vote as a block. They are social conservatives and fiscal liberals thus have a foot in both parties and the brain trust of each party wants to be their home.

I'd agree with you that neither Party really wants to stop it. I'm not at all certain that it's because they're catering to the illegal vote, though.

My own suspicion is that the GOP's reasons for not wanting to do anything about it is more subtle.

I think that part of the reason they don't want to fix it, is because the presence of illegals drives down the price of labor, and the GOP is in favor of driving down the price of labor.

(I also find myself reflecting back on the GOP's old "southern strategy" letter, in which said strategist suggested that the GOP should cater to the "negrophobe whites" who were opposed to the voting rights act, but shouldn't actually try to repeal it, as long as it hasn't been repealed, then they'll have those votes.)