DHS puts stop to deportation of illegals

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by infinitekid2002

After that big Stimulus Package what have we gained? .....more debt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AR...ph_2011-05.jpg

Try opening your eyes, or maybe reading the answers in these threads (posted over and over). The stimulus ended the recession, stopped the big corporate bankruptcies, boosted the stock market tremendously, and is (slowly) bringing down unemployment, which was always predicted to take the longest to recover.

There is a graph elsewhere in these threads, which shows that the stimulus spending represents a very small portion of the debt, and in fact much of the stim money has been paid back with interest. The majority of our debt is from: existing debt, the decade-long wars, 2 rounds of unfunded Bush stimulus checks, and reduced fed revenue caused by the recession.

As I've said over and over, just look at the economic situation during Reagan's first term, and when you see how remarkably similar it is, ask yourself why Reagan is a god to you guys, while Obama is the destroyer of America.

[infinitekid2002]

Ended the recession?-laughable

Look at the Unemployment rate and Consumer Confidence data.

Does anyone really think that the Government is good at spending money? or anything for that matter?

[BD SM3RF]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

Normally, the use of "socialist nanny state agenda" would raise the big red flag that you're one of those uninformed haters, but since you're new, I'd like to hear what you've concocted in your mind about what you think Obama has done, and what "direction" you think he's taking things.

I'll even give you a head start:
It's not taxes, because other than the federal tobacco tax (raised in about every state as well), he hasn't raised a single tax, rather he's lowered them.

It's not healthcare reform, as there's no added gov't-run services, and requiring that people stop freeloading and pay into their health insurance is the opposite of socialist, plus it's been implemented already in Massachusetts by the repub who wants to be prez.

So what exactly is socialist? I'd argue that you don't love this country, because here we are on a BMW forum, and you're trying to pull one over on your fellow citizens. That sure sounds like treason to me.

Its none of the FEDERAL governments business what kind of car I drive, whether I am a member of a labor union, what kind of light bulb I want to buy, if I have health care coverage. Its not the Feds responsibility to regulate every breath I take. You clearly know little about business other than how to cash a paycheck. Business are already spending hundreds of missions trying to figure out how to comply with Obama care and are downsizing in preparation for the increase in costs it and all the other gov. regulations will cost. You mention freeloading... What do you call 99 weeks of unemployment? If you only knew how many people refuse to work knowing that the extended unemployment is available.

If taxes haven't gone up it isn't for a lack of trying and Big O makes it very clear he wants to raise taxes and where he can't get legislation he is imposing regulation which stifles business investment due to the uncertainty about what tomorrow will bring. He has made it clear he wants to fundamentally change America and since business have no idea what that will ultimately look like since Obamas actions never square with what he says they are hiding and sheltering their assets rather than investing.

Cut the corporate tax rate in half and within in a year the government will be brining in more tax revenue than it is today and jobs will be created as business regains confidence in the competitiveness of the US. Right now US companies are sheltering profits in oversees shell companies to dodge the second highest corp tax rate in the world. I feel for our President as he is clearly in over his head never having created a single job in his life.

Our country has been marching down a socialist path for many many year; Obama has just put the peddle to the metal printing and borrowing money at a rate that would make even a drunken sailor blush. (sorry that was just unfair to drunken sailors)

If the US Government were a business it would have been bankrupt long ago and will soon implode without drastic downsizing. We could tax the rich at 90% and that might get close to balancing the budget for 1 year and then where would we be?

Ok as promised when you boil it all down... US government social welfare state = Bernie Madoff. The whole thing is an unsustainable ponzi scheme. Obama is the current poster child but he and many that have gone before that have been unwilling to stand against the whole culture of buying your vote today with the future earnings of my kids really frosts me.

[BD SM3RF]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

Try opening your eyes, or maybe reading the answers in these threads (posted over and over). The stimulus ended the recession, stopped the big corporate bankruptcies, boosted the stock market tremendously, and is (slowly) bringing down unemployment, which was always predicted to take the longest to recover.

There is a graph elsewhere in these threads, which shows that the stimulus spending represents a very small portion of the debt, and in fact much of the stim money has been paid back with interest. The majority of our debt is from: existing debt, the decade-long wars, 2 rounds of unfunded Bush stimulus checks, and reduced fed revenue caused by the recession.

As I've said over and over, just look at the economic situation during Reagan's first term, and when you see how remarkably similar it is, ask yourself why Reagan is a god to you guys, while Obama is the destroyer of America.

Don't compare this to Reagan. Reagan (to steal Obama's line) inherited the mess made by Carter. This is Jimmy Carter's second term and it will end in a similar landslide defeat ushering in (hopefully) another wave of conservatism that will put an end to the institutional Ponzi Scheme we are living under.

Business cycles come and go regardless of who is president. Reagan's policies helped Energize the business cycle in the mid 80s leading to one of the longest economic expansions in history and Obama is effectively driving us into a double dip recession second only to the great depression. Tarp was a bailout to Wall Street. Stimulous was mostly a bailout to public sector unions. Sorry but that was never going to help energize the private sector economy which is responsible for all the wealth creation in this country. Without expansion in the private sector all we have is a Ponzi Scheme that will shorty implode on itself.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by infinitekid2002

Ended the recession?-laughable

The recession ended in June of 2009 - look it up, Einstein.

Originally Posted by ecleland

Don't compare this to Reagan. Reagan (to steal Obama's line) inherited the mess made by Carter. This is Jimmy Carter's second term and it will end in a similar landslide defeat ushering in (hopefully) another wave of conservatism that will put an end to the institutional Ponzi Scheme we are living under.

You say don't compare this to Reagan, then you reiterate why it's a perfect comparison. All of you repubs seem to be driven by the same fear - that is, Obama's getting reelected, the economy's recovering, and the repub candidates suck. You can say this is Carter's 2nd term, but you know it isn't true.

But most laughably is your "wave of conservatism" crap. We had 8 years of that, it was called Bush/Cheney, and it sucked. If you want to know what the American people think of conservatism, look at the riots in Wisconsin.

As for your other "points", they're so full of bull, I'm not going to waste my time commenting. All I can do is recommend reading these threads, and turning off Fox news. Of course, it's very likely that you're one of the recently banned teabaggers, so in that case you don't need my advice.

Oh, and you've got a horrible spell-check/wordfind problem going there.

[infinitekid2002]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

The recession ended in June of 2009 - look it up, Einstein.
You say don't compare this to Reagan, then you reiterate why it's a perfect comparison. All of you repubs seem to be driven by the same fear - that is, Obama's getting reelected, the economy's recovering, and the repub candidates suck. You can say this is Carter's 2nd term, but you know it isn't true.

But most laughably is your "wave of conservatism" crap. We had 8 years of that, it was called Bush/Cheney, and it sucked. If you want to know what the American people think of conservatism, look at the riots in Wisconsin.

As for your other "points", they're so full of bull, I'm not going to waste my time commenting. All I can do is recommend reading these threads, and turning off Fox news. Of course, it's very likely that you're one of the recently banned teabaggers, so in that case you don't need my advice.

Oh, and you've got a horrible spell-check/wordfind problem going there.

And you attribute the end of the recession solely to his Stimulus Package? Who's the "Einstein" now?

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by ecleland

You clearly know little about business other than how to cash a paycheck. Business are already spending hundreds of missions trying to figure out how to comply with Obama care and are downsizing in preparation for the increase in costs it and all the other gov. regulations will cost.

Let me give you a debating tip - since you clearly don't know who I am, or what I know about business, you'd be wise to avoid shoving both of your feet into your mouth with a presumption like that. What you've proven, my little troll, is that you are in fact a liar.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by infinitekid2002

And you attribute the end of the recession solely to his Stimulus Package? Who's the "Einstein" now?

When did I do that?

So let me get this straight - the recession did or didn't end? Because first you said it didn't, and now you're making up a claim that assumes the recession did end. You can't have it both ways, but you're trying hard.

[infinitekid2002]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

When did I do that?

So let me get this straight - the recession did or didn't end? Because first you said it didn't, and now you're making up a claim that assumes the recession did end. You can't have it both ways, but you're trying hard.

Well it's not exactly a song is it? whether we are fully out of the recession is debatable. But to say it was some sort of magic potion and everything is fine now is a joke. For instance our unemployment rate is still at 9.1%, housing market is crap, and the stock market is highly volatile. Doesn't sound like we are doing so well.

[11Series]

Originally Posted by ecleland

We have been told that Obama and walk and chew gum at the same time on several occasions so doing both (enforcing all our laws) should be a cake walk for our brilliant Harvard educated President.

Nice rant. Strong on bullsh!t, and devoid of anything that actually addresses the issue at hand.

Now come back to reality. Democrats AND Republicans just agreed to cut funding for DHS. Now DHS MUST re-prioritize and cut services. That is reality. We've got two choices, which do you support:

1) We can focus our DHS resources on getting the terrorists, criminals, and drug dealers illegally entering the US that are actually a threat.

OR

2) We can focus our DHS resources on hunting down and deporting the spouses and relatives of our OWN US SOLDIERS, and some kids who's PARENTS violated US law.

Which do you choose? Ball up and make the hard choices the DHS have to make.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by infinitekid2002

Well it's not exactly a song is it? whether we are fully out of the recession is debatable. But to say it was some sort of magic potion and everything is fine now is a joke. For instance our unemployment rate is still at 9.1%, housing market is crap, and the stock market is highly volatile. Doesn't sound like we are doing so well.

Believe it or not, I'm not disagreeing with you here. And I also never said the stimulus was a magic potion, but I did see that all the most renowned economists at the time, including the nobel prize winner, were in support of pumping stimulus money into the economy.

In fact, I'm of the opinion that the economy is cyclical, wordwide, and self-churning, and that the US president has only a small effect on the economy. One also has to consider the wrangling in congress, and how much of an administration's policy actually gets through.

Having said that, it is still a crap economy for those out of work, or those trying to sell real estate. The recession was years in the making, and it's going to take years to get past the peak. But now the Dow is wavering around 12000, not 7000, and GM & Chrysler are making big profits, and we still have a ridiculously high standard of living, which is good (I guess).

[BD SM3RF]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

Let me give you a debating tip - since you clearly don't know who I am, or what I know about business, you'd be wise to avoid shoving both of your feet into your mouth with a presumption like that. What you've proven, my little troll, is that you are in fact a liar.

Is that a denial? Doesn't sound like one to me. Why don't we end this.. Call me Dumb! That is generally the final Liberal argument.

[BD SM3RF]

Originally Posted by 11Series

Nice rant. Strong on bullsh!t, and devoid of anything that actually addresses the issue at hand.

Now come back to reality. Democrats AND Republicans just agreed to cut funding for DHS. Now DHS MUST re-prioritize and cut services. That is reality. We've got two choices, which do you support:

1) We can focus our DHS resources on getting the terrorists, criminals, and drug dealers illegally entering the US that are actually a threat.

OR

2) We can focus our DHS resources on hunting down and deporting the spouses and relatives of our OWN US SOLDIERS, and some kids who's PARENTS violated US law.

Which do you choose? Ball up and make the hard choices the DHS have to make.

How many terrorist has DHS captured? Yea I can't think of one but I have seen them pat down a lot of 90 year old ladies in the name of random fairness so lets cut DHS funding to $0 and go back to the way it was before. Let the CIA do what the CIA does best (capture and/or kill terrorist in the dead of night) Same way Obama killed Osama. Let local law enforcement work with ICE to simply enforce currently immigration law and get congress to pass some kind of guest worker program whereby we can legitimize and track needed foreign workers until such time that they return to their home countries or follow the existing path to citizenship

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by ecleland

How many terrorist has DHS captured? Yea I can't think of one but I have seen them pat down a lot of 90 year old ladies in the name of random fairness so lets cut DHS funding to $0 and go back to the way it was before. Let the CIA do what the CIA does best (capture and/or kill terrorist in the dead of night) Same way Obama killed Osama. Let local law enforcement work with ICE to simply enforce currently immigration law and get congress to pass some kind of guest worker program whereby we can legitimize and track needed foreign workers until such time that they return to their home countries or follow the existing path to citizenship

ok.

[11Series]

Originally Posted by ecleland

How many terrorist has DHS captured? Yea I can't think of one but I have seen them pat down a lot of 90 year old ladies in the name of random fairness so lets cut DHS funding to $0 and go back to the way it was before. Let the CIA do what the CIA does best (capture and/or kill terrorist in the dead of night) Same way Obama killed Osama. Let local law enforcement work with ICE to simply enforce currently immigration law and get congress to pass some kind of guest worker program whereby we can legitimize and track needed foreign workers until such time that they return to their home countries or follow the existing path to citizenship

Yes, let's absolutely create a guest worker program. These folks can then legally be here doing the work we demand, and their families and children will be here legally too.

Then we can completely stop trying to deport many of the same folks I described in category 2, and DHS can focus even more on terrorists, and criminals.


But that is all great theory of what COULD happen in the future. Now back to reality. Here in reality today, DHS very much is part of our anti-terrorism net. I'm sorry you aren't informed about what DHS does. Here is a place to start informing yourself: http://www.dhs.gov/files/counterterrorism.shtm But it isn't just terrorism they are fighting, they are fighting drug dealers and criminals too. Are you saying the Coast Guard (DHS) doesn't fight drug dealers?

Here in reality today, Democrats AND Republicans just agreed to cut funding for DHS. Now DHS MUST re-prioritize and cut services. That is reality, even if you have a plan to pass a great law sometime in the future. Today we've got two choices, which do you support:

1) We can focus our DHS resources on getting the terrorists, criminals, and drug dealers illegally entering the US that are actually a threat.

OR

2) We can focus our DHS resources on hunting down and deporting the spouses and relatives of our OWN US SOLDIERS, and some kids who's PARENTS violated US law.

Which do you choose? Ball up and make the hard choices the DHS have to make. I find it pretty funny that you cannot answer a simple question about DHS priorities.

[BD SM3RF]

Originally Posted by 11Series

1) We can focus our DHS resources on getting the terrorists, criminals, and drug dealers illegally entering the US that are actually a threat.

OR

2) We can focus our DHS resources on hunting down and deporting the spouses and relatives of our OWN US SOLDIERS, and some kids who's PARENTS violated US law.

Which do you choose? Ball up and make the hard choices the DHS have to make. I find it pretty funny that you cannot answer a simple question about DHS priorities.

That the choice is simply an either or is asinine to begin with. I agree our government has proven itself increasingly overbearing and incompetent but I do give them a little more credit than that. They can and must do both. And while they are at it the Drug war will be much easier to win when we stop sending the drug lords arms and use that money to do the job they are supposed to do (great work DHS) with a nice assist from DOJ.

[11Series]

Originally Posted by ecleland

That the choice is simply an either or is asinine to begin with.

It isn't asinine, it is the simple mathematical reality of cutting spending in order to balance the budget. Unless you are saying that it is asinine to attempt to balance the budget by cutting spending...

Originally Posted by ecleland

They can and must do both.

With what money?

You simply don't seem capable of doing even simple mathematics. You cut spending, you get less government. You guys who think cutting spending and cutting taxes is the answer to everything, and then expect to get the same amount of government are living in some sort of alternate reality.

You don't get to keep the same amount of gov't when you shrink government. You don't get to keep the same amount of DHS services when you shrink DHS budgets. What part of this can't you understand?

This is why I HATE the Tea Party Republicans.

Now, unless you have some voodoo magic spell where you can shift us into an alternate reality where you can keep 100% of government, while at the same time shrinking gov't, answer the question:


We've got two choices, which do you support:

1) We can focus our DHS resources on getting the terrorists, criminals, and drug dealers illegally entering the US that are actually a threat.

OR

2) We can focus our DHS resources on hunting down and deporting the spouses and relatives of our OWN US SOLDIERS, and some kids who's PARENTS violated US law.

Which is it? And stop taking mystical trips into alternate realities. This is the reality at hand that the DHS is forced to deal with.

[BD SM3RF]

Originally Posted by 11Series

It isn't asinine, it is the simple mathematical reality of cutting spending in order to balance the budget. Unless you are saying that it is asinine to attempt to balance the budget by cutting spending...





With what money?

You simply don't seem capable of doing even simple mathematics. You cut spending, you get less government. You guys who think cutting spending and cutting taxes is the answer to everything, and then expect to get the same amount of government are living in some sort of alternate reality.

You don't get to keep the same amount of gov't when you shrink government. You don't get to keep the same amount of DHS services when you shrink DHS budgets. What part of this can't you understand?

This is why I HATE the Tea Party Republicans.

Now, unless you have some voodoo magic spell where you can shift us into an alternate reality where you can keep 100% of government, while at the same time shrinking gov't, answer the question:


We've got two choices, which do you support:

1) We can focus our DHS resources on getting the terrorists, criminals, and drug dealers illegally entering the US that are actually a threat.

OR

2) We can focus our DHS resources on hunting down and deporting the spouses and relatives of our OWN US SOLDIERS, and some kids who's PARENTS violated US law.

Which is it? And stop taking mystical trips into alternate realities. This is the reality at hand that the DHS is forced to deal with.

Seriously? This isn't hard to understand. Let me draw a simple example. Lets say i lose my job and now must live on a reduced income. My choice isn't to (1) buy gas for the car or (2) put food on the table. The result is continue to do both at a reduced level.

Just so you know budget cuts in DC are often not actually cuts but reductions in the rate of growth. Anything short of a 9% increase in spending is considered a cut in DC speak. Washington Bureaucrats just like squealing like stuck pigs every time they are asked to do more with less. Something every business and family in this country is capable of doing on a regular basis.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by ecleland

Seriously? This isn't hard to understand. Let me draw a simple example. Lets say i lose my job and now must live on a reduced income. My choice isn't to (1) buy gas for the car or (2) put food on the table. The result is continue to do both at a reduced level.

Just so you know budget cuts in DC are often not actually cuts but reductions in the rate of growth. Anything short of a 9% increase in spending is considered a cut in DC speak. Washington Bureaucrats just like squealing like stuck pigs every time they are asked to do more with less. Something every business and family in this country is capable of doing on a regular basis.

So you want the gov't to work like an unemployed household?
Conservatives need to admit that the norm for society is for things to go up. For those of us who have jobs and are working (the norm), we get a raise every year, to help pay for living expenses which are always on the rise. Town budgets (normally) never go down, right? So property taxes go up, even if the real estate market is down.

How bout your BMWs? Do they go down in price, or do they normally go up every year? All of you are arguing for an idea that makes no sense, and doesn't reflect reality. For example, take any republican administration we've had; Bush 2, Bush 1, Reagan, Ford, etc. Did they actually make gov't smaller? Did budgets get smaller every year? No and no.

And if you look at the history of revenue, as we have in these threads, it's clear that the middle-class is taking on too much burden because of the constantly decreasing burden of the upper-class.

[BD SM3RF]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

So you want the gov't to work like an unemployed household?
Conservatives need to admit that the norm for society is for things to go up. For those of us who have jobs and are working (the norm), we get a raise every year, to help pay for living expenses which are always on the rise. Town budgets (normally) never go down, right? So property taxes go up, even if the real estate market is down.

How bout your BMWs? Do they go down in price, or do they normally go up every year? All of you are arguing for an idea that makes no sense, and doesn't reflect reality. For example, take any republican administration we've had; Bush 2, Bush 1, Reagan, Ford, etc. Did they actually make gov't smaller? Did budgets get smaller every year? No and no.

And if you look at the history of revenue, as we have in these threads, it's clear that the middle-class is taking on too much burden because of the constantly decreasing burden of the upper-class.

lts unsustainable but I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I will be proven correct when the bottom falls out of this Ponzi Scheme that keeps the welfare state afloat. There ain't enough rich people from which to confiscate the means to keep this going. We are in the process of strangling the goose that lays the golden eggs that to this point have made this the richest country in the history of man. Enjoy it while it lasts. Our kids are in for a rough ride.

[BD SM3RF]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

How bout your BMWs? Do they go down in price, or do they normally go up every year? All of you are arguing for an idea that makes no sense, and doesn't reflect reality. For example, take any republican administration we've had; Bush 2, Bush 1, Reagan, Ford, etc. Did they actually make gov't smaller? Did budgets get smaller every year? No and no.

I agree there are programs that should see increases but there are others that have long sense surved their purpose and should be eliminated (but that never happens).
I am looking for something rational. The Feds under baseline budgeting increase everything at 9% a year plus whatever new programs that get funded. That means the new 2006 BMW 425i i bought for 37k for would cost 62k today. That type of compounding annual increase is just insane and bankrupting our nation. The price difference between a 2006 and a 2011 3-series is not significant yet the product has improved quite a bit. Don't belittle BMW by comparing it to our out of touch and bankrupt government who does less with more every year.

[11Series]

Originally Posted by ecleland

continue to do both at a reduced level.

Congratulations! You actually finally answered the question with a reality-based answer instead of dream-world rhetoric!

But let's take a look at what you've just decided.

You have just said that you would be happy catching, arresting, and deporting FEWER drug traffickers, criminals, and terrorists who are actually a threat to us ---- just so you can continue to hunt down and deport the spouses and relatives of our OWN US SOLDIERS, and some kids who's PARENTS violated US law.


Really??? Are you being serious???

You want to catch FEWER violent criminals, gang members, drug cartel members, and terrorists, just so we can continue deporting soldier's spouses and kids in school?

You either still can't do math, or you have one sick and twisted set of values. We are definitely going to have to agree to disagree, because I don't want to see a SINGLE violent criminal, gang member, drug cartel member, or terrorist walk free because resources were cut from going after them. Why do you want to see MORE of these baddies go free?