Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Looks to Reprise Tax-Relief Measures - Stimulus proposal Echoes the Rebates.....
Wall Street Journal ^

Posted on 01/09/2008 11:35:01 AM PST by Sub-Driver

Bush Looks to Reprise Tax-Relief Measures Stimulus Proposal Echoes the Rebates, Breaks Given in '01 By MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS January 9, 2008; Page A3

WASHINGTON -- Faced with recession fears, the White House is considering tax rebates for individuals to encourage spending and tax breaks for businesses to encourage investment, according to people familiar with the matter.

The plan, if finalized by the administration and passed by Congress, would mark President Bush's first major steps to address the broad economic slowdown. He has limited himself to addressing the wave of home foreclosures and the Wall Street chaos caused by the collapse of the subprime-mortgage market.

With polls showing voters deeply concerned about their economic fortunes, the administration, congressional Democrats and the presidential candidates are competing to come up with responses.

In a Rose Garden press conference yesterday, President Bush said his administration will "look at all different options." He added: "We're watching very carefully, and we're listening to different ideas about what may or may not need to happen."

The president's main options include a tax rebate of perhaps $500 for individuals to encourage spending and a change in tax laws that would allow companies to deduct from their taxes a substantial portion of investments in equipment, according to people familiar with the discussions. President Bush is expected to prepare the economic-stimulus package before his State of the Union Address on Jan. 28.

The two measures at the top of the president's list would reprise his tactics during the economic slowdown faced during his early years in office. In 2001, while the economy was in recession, the Treasury sent checks of $300 or $600 to two-thirds of U.S. households during a 10-week period.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: 110th; bush; bushtaxcuts; economy; term2

1 posted on 01/09/2008 11:35:04 AM PST by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

“We’re watching very carefully, and we’re listening to different ideas about what may or may not need to happen.”....What needed to happen Jorge was stopping banks from making rediculous home loans to anyone who walked in the damn door!


2 posted on 01/09/2008 11:38:05 AM PST by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Win Win. If he gets them the economy gets a booster shot. If not it will blow back on Congress and the Democrat candidates.


3 posted on 01/09/2008 11:38:20 AM PST by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AU72

Keep in mind that the “rebate” discussed here is not really a rebate at all . . . it’s sort of like an advance on your tax refund. If you get a $500 “prebate” (as it’s more accurately called) in February but your tax return filed before April 15th indicates a rebate of $2,000, then your actual rebate becomes $1,500. If you file your tax return and it indicates that you OWE $2,000, then you actually have to pay $2,500.


4 posted on 01/09/2008 11:43:35 AM PST by Alberta's Child (I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

This would be great as tax cuts have shown time and time again to help the economy, but at the same time he needs to announce cuts in spending.


5 posted on 01/09/2008 11:46:03 AM PST by rwh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Bush proposes increasing debt and inflation to fix economy.

What a genius.


6 posted on 01/09/2008 11:53:09 AM PST by GovernmentIsTheProblem (The GOP is "Whig"ing out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Cut the taxes. Pay down the debt. I don’t want a prebate, a postbate or a master... well nevermind.

President Bush, it’s my responsibility to take care of myself. I don’t need you to be my nanny.

Reduce taxes all you like. I support the idea. Just use the increased revenue to pay down the debt, and start defunding the liberal infrastructure.

Start with the Department of Education.

While you’re at it, figure out how much taxes it takes to support education, reduce taxes by that amount, quit returning money to the states for education and let local communities take over the funding of their own schools.

We need to gutt the NEA as well, and privatization of schools would go a long way toward that necessity.


7 posted on 01/09/2008 11:53:44 AM PST by DoughtyOne (< fence >< sound immigration policies >< /weasles >< /RINOs >< /Reagan wannabees that are liberal >)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot; Mase; expat_panama

Check out the comments above. Amazing.


8 posted on 01/09/2008 12:02:08 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Bingo! This has been my mantra since I read my first salary pay stub and do my income taxes 40 years ago.


9 posted on 01/09/2008 12:12:45 PM PST by Cobra64 (www.BulletBras.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
If the Bush administration were serious about "fixing" the U.S. economy, it would pull the plug on this silly nation-building campaign in Iraq -- which has been an absolute disaster for our economy.

Rebates, prebates, and all the tax cuts in the world aren't going to fix this.

More than a year ago I said it was starting to look an awful lot like the mid-1970s for the U.S. economy, and I haven't seen anything -- including the pending prospect of a Democratic administration that will serve during a period of serious economic malaise -- to change my mind about that.

10 posted on 01/09/2008 12:21:14 PM PST by Alberta's Child (I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentIsTheProblem
Bush proposes increasing debt and inflation to fix economy.

What a genius.

Seems you didn't get the memo. Take an economics class and look at the economic growth since the President's tax cuts in '03.

The man does love to spend on entitlement programs; for which I strongly criticze him.

11 posted on 01/09/2008 12:23:13 PM PST by Cobra64 (www.BulletBras.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64

“Seems you didn’t get the memo. Take an economics class and look at the economic growth since the President’s tax cuts in ‘03.”

This is a handout not a tax cut - people who pay no taxes get checks too.


12 posted on 01/09/2008 12:27:45 PM PST by GovernmentIsTheProblem (The GOP is "Whig"ing out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rwh

Cut marginal tax rates.....


13 posted on 01/09/2008 12:27:51 PM PST by misterrob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentIsTheProblem

Read my previous post agreeing that we need a tax cut, not some silly rebate, pre-bater or master...


14 posted on 01/09/2008 12:39:11 PM PST by Cobra64 (www.BulletBras.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Agreed!


15 posted on 01/09/2008 12:51:38 PM PST by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64

but it was paid for on credit card, and the debts are unsustainable; we were having our cake and eating it too. Lower taxes but increases in government spending (a mix of supply side and keynesian economics) did boost the economy, but it cannot continue that way

(Like it or not, government spending can increase the economy because agencies spending the money in the right places and creating demands can be a huge economic incentive)


16 posted on 01/09/2008 12:54:00 PM PST by ChurtleDawg (kill em all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64

Same here. I appreciate the note of agreement.


17 posted on 01/09/2008 12:58:05 PM PST by DoughtyOne (< fence >< sound immigration policies >< /weasles >< /RINOs >< /Reagan wannabees that are liberal >)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ChurtleDawg
In my opinion the DoD, FBI, CIA, FAA, ICE, DEA (drug) are the only gov't entities that make sense for federal funding. Most federal agencies can be eliminated and/or addressed at the state level, or in the private sector.

What the hell are HUD, Education, Energy, Arts, SS, Medicare/caid... for? Other than hiring morons to sleepwalk 9-5 filling out forms.

This country is suffering from "entitlement crises." President Bush like to exacerbate this with DHS, No Child Left Behind, and Prescription Drugs. None of this crap existed 70 years ago.

18 posted on 01/09/2008 1:28:32 PM PST by Cobra64 (www.BulletBras.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64

I wonder what new programs will be created by the next president, regardless of political party...


19 posted on 01/09/2008 1:36:51 PM PST by LachlanMinnesota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: LachlanMinnesota
I wonder what new programs will be created by the next president, regardless of political party...

The Federal Department of Heating & Cooling.

Read this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950985/posts

20 posted on 01/09/2008 1:47:03 PM PST by Cobra64 (www.BulletBras.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
If the Bush administration were serious about "fixing" the U.S. economy, it would pull the plug on this silly nation-building campaign in Iraq -- which has been an absolute disaster for our economy.  Rebates, prebates, and all the tax cuts in the world aren't going to fix this.  More than a year ago I said it was starting to look an awful lot like the mid-1970s for the U.S. economy, and I haven't seen anything -- including the pending prospect of a Democratic administration that will serve during a period of serious economic malaise -- to change my mind about that.

I would submit to you that folks don't really understand the doctrine of foreign entanglements nearly as much as they think they do.  Our found fathers did not shy away from correcting situations they found to be objectionable, even if that meant distant wars on foreign shores.

Please read the following.

America and the Barbary Pirates:
An International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe
by Gerard W. Gawalt

Gerard W. Gawalt is the manuscript specialist for early American history in the Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjprece.html


Ruthless, unconventional foes are not new to the United States of America. More than two hundred years ago the newly established United States made its first attempt to fight an overseas battle to protect its private citizens by building an international coalition against an unconventional enemy. Then the enemies were pirates and piracy. The focus of the United States and a proposed international coalition was the Barbary Pirates of North Africa.

Pirate ships and crews from the North African states of Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers (the Barbary Coast) were the scourge of the Mediterranean. Capturing merchant ships and holding their crews for ransom provided the rulers of these nations with wealth and naval power. In fact, the Roman Catholic Religious Order of Mathurins had operated from France for centuries with the special mission of collecting and disbursing funds for the relief and ransom of prisoners of Mediterranean pirates.

Before the United States obtained its independence in the American Revolution, 1775-83, American merchant ships and sailors had been protected from the ravages of the North African pirates by the naval and diplomatic power of Great Britain. British naval power and the tribute or subsidies Britain paid to the piratical states protected American vessels and crews. During the Revolution, the ships of the United States were protected by the 1778 alliance with France, which required the French nation to protect "American vessels and effects against all violence, insults, attacks, or depredations, on the part of the said Princes and States of Barbary or their subjects."

After the United States won its independence in the treaty of 1783, it had to protect its own commerce against dangers such as the Barbary pirates. As early as 1784 Congress followed the tradition of the European shipping powers and appropriated $80,000 as tribute to the Barbary states, directing its ministers in Europe, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, to begin negotiations with them. Trouble began the next year, in July 1785, when Algerians captured two American ships and the dey of Algiers held their crews of twenty-one people for a ransom of nearly $60,000.

Thomas Jefferson, United States minister to France, opposed the payment of tribute, as he later testified in words that have a particular resonance today. In his autobiography Jefferson wrote that in 1785 and 1786 he unsuccessfully "endeavored to form an association of the powers subject to habitual depredation from them. I accordingly prepared, and proposed to their ministers at Paris, for consultation with their governments, articles of a special confederation." Jefferson argued that "The object of the convention shall be to compel the piratical States to perpetual peace." Jefferson prepared a detailed plan for the interested states. "Portugal, Naples, the two Sicilies, Venice, Malta, Denmark and Sweden were favorably disposed to such an association," Jefferson remembered, but there were "apprehensions" that England and France would follow their own paths, "and so it fell through."

Paying the ransom would only lead to further demands, Jefferson argued in letters to future presidents John Adams, then America's minister to Great Britain, and James Monroe, then a member of Congress. As Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, "I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro' the medium of war." Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: "The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . . Every national citizen must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion, and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. A naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both." "From what I learn from the temper of my countrymen and their tenaciousness of their money," Jefferson added in a December 26, 1786, letter to the president of Yale College, Ezra Stiles, "it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them."

Jefferson's plan for an international coalition foundered on the shoals of indifference and a belief that it was cheaper to pay the tribute than fight a war. The United States's relations with the Barbary states continued to revolve around negotiations for ransom of American ships and sailors and the payment of annual tributes or gifts. Even though Secretary of State Jefferson declared to Thomas Barclay, American consul to Morocco, in a May 13, 1791, letter of instructions for a new treaty with Morocco that it is "lastly our determination to prefer war in all cases to tribute under any form, and to any people whatever," the United States continued to negotiate for cash settlements. In 1795 alone the United States was forced to pay nearly a million dollars in cash, naval stores, and a frigate to ransom 115 sailors from the dey of Algiers. Annual gifts were settled by treaty on Algiers, Morocco, Tunis, and Tripoli.

When Jefferson became president in 1801 he refused to accede to Tripoli's demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000. The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the United States. Although as secretary of state and vice president he had opposed developing an American navy capable of anything more than coastal defense, President Jefferson dispatched a squadron of naval vessels to the Mediterranean. As he declared in his first annual message to Congress: "To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean. . . ."

The American show of force quickly awed Tunis and Algiers into breaking their alliance with Tripoli. The humiliating loss of the frigate Philadelphia and the capture of her captain and crew in Tripoli in 1803, criticism from his political opponents, and even opposition within his own cabinet did not deter Jefferson from his chosen course during four years of war. The aggressive action of Commodore Edward Preble (1803-4) forced Morocco out of the fight and his five bombardments of Tripoli restored some order to the Mediterranean. However, it was not until 1805, when an American fleet under Commodore John Rogers and a land force raised by an American naval agent to the Barbary powers, Captain William Eaton, threatened to capture Tripoli and install the brother of Tripoli's pasha on the throne, that a treaty brought an end to the hostilities. Negotiated by Tobias Lear, former secretary to President Washington and now consul general in Algiers, the treaty of 1805 still required the United States to pay a ransom of $60,000 for each of the sailors held by the dey of Algiers, and so it went without Senatorial consent until April 1806. Nevertheless, Jefferson was able to report in his sixth annual message to Congress in December 1806 that in addition to the successful completion of the Lewis and Clark expedition, "The states on the coast of Barbary seem generally disposed at present to respect our peace and friendship."

In fact, it was not until the second war with Algiers, in 1815, that naval victories by Commodores William Bainbridge and Stephen Decatur led to treaties ending all tribute payments by the United States. European nations continued annual payments until the 1830s. However, international piracy in Atlantic and Mediterranean waters declined during this time under pressure from the Euro-American nations, who no longer viewed pirate states as mere annoyances during peacetime and potential allies during war.

For anyone interested in the further pursuit of information about America's first unconventional, international war in the primary sources, the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress holds manuscript collections of many of the American participants, including Thomas Jefferson, George Washington (see the George Washington Papers), William Short, Edward Preble, Thomas Barclay, James Madison, James Simpson, James Leander Cathcart, William Bainbridge, James Barron, John Rodgers, Ralph Izard, and Albert Gallatin.

I realize there are some dissimilarities between this campaign and the efforts we wage today, but our forces are more advanced these days and our capabilities are vastly more robust.  I would wager that Jefferson himself would have upped the anti if he had the capabilities back then.  And if the world had been shrunk to the size it is today, he would have been forced to.

I would submit to you that Iraq posed a serious threat not only to the region, but as fertile ground for global terrorist training and staging.  We have allowed the left to frame this debate to a large extent.  And even though we don't buy into their mantra lock stock and barrel, I still think they influence you and I more than we realize.

The world has shrunk since our founding.  Today terrorists and their sympathizers are located in every society.  Even in the United States there are foreign operatives.  And there are also leftist/marxists who don't shed many tears when the U.S. suffers attack.  They think we deserve it.  And they reason that whatever takes down our form of government, is not really such a bad thing.

We are faced with a dilemma.  Do we withdraw from the world or do we remain a major player?  I know that most people don't see the dilemma in these terms.  In my opinion, these are the exact terms we face.

If we are not going to take on terrorists in their foreign enclaves, then we must deal with the terrorism they will manifest against us.  We will suffer the embassy bombings, the U.S.S. Coles, the bombing of barracks and many other unacceptable strikes against us.

What this means, is that we would have to begin to withdraw from foreign engagement.  We would have to close embassies.  We would have to withdraw from access to certain ports.  We would have to retreat in ways that are not readily apparent, but would ultimately be a significant negative impact on the influence we exert in the world.  Ultimately our reasoned trade would be affected.  Our alliances would ultimately be effected.  Our global hegemony would be reduced and eventually cease to exist.

When this took place, and on a sliding scale as we retreated, someone would step forward to fill the void.  Who?  Would it be a benevolent society, or would it be a society hell bent on becoming a global nationality?  We would only find out once we had abdicated.  And then it would be too late.

I do not share your vision of our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Once a nation steps forward to propose the demise of the United States, and then seeks to support everyone who conducts terrorism against our interests, it's time to sit up and take notice.  Hussein was providing $25,000.00 to the family of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel.  He was also supporting others who were hell bent on terrorism.  And I find it silly for folks to act as if he wasn't in cahoots with major terrorist organizations.  Those organizations were his cup of tea.  They were doing his bidding.  They shared ideological goals that are undeniable.

We have spilled our blood on the soil of Iraq.  Say what you will, the Iraqi people are appreciative.  We are fast becoming blood brothers with them.  IMO, this will stand the test of time.  I'll be here for you to take to task if I am wrong.

Once again, we have gone to a nation and rescued it's people.  Once again we will leave and they will remember us having been there.  Once again we will have proven that we do not seek to dominate, take land by force or rule others by our own standards.  They will govern themselves in peace.  And we will be forever etched in their history books as a people who cared enough to do what we have.

I take a very dim view of those who would urge us to stay at home, because the found fathers would have seen it that way.  No they wouldn't have.

We are the world's police force, and we better be up to the task.  We are, because these days we all live on the same block.  If someone wants to do us harm, they are less than a day away.  If we are not going to fulfill that function, someone else will.  And when they take over, you'll be sorry you ever suggested we should not have been.

I'm not angry with you.  I appreicate your point of view, even if I disagree with it.  You are not alone in your thoughts on this.  You have allowed me to address an important issue, and I'm sure you and I agree on a great many things.

You take care.

21 posted on 01/09/2008 1:51:04 PM PST by DoughtyOne (< fence >< sound immigration policies >< /weasles >< /RINOs >< /Reagan wannabees that are liberal >)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Looks like we're finally getting some more specifics on what he's proposing. I like the business part of the plan although the best thing he could do would be to cut the corporate tax rate.

As for the rebate.....it looks like he didn't learn his lesson from the 2001 vs. 2003 tax cuts. These proposed rebates are not pro-growth. Only by cutting the marginal tax rates and/or the capital gains tax rate will we see the kind of investment needed to maintain robust economic growth.

It'll be interesting to see how many dems support his plan at a time when it would be in their best interest to see the country slip into recession. It will also be interesting to see how many FReepers demand spending cuts prior to any reduction in taxes.

22 posted on 01/09/2008 1:53:15 PM PST by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Thanks for the interesting and informative post, DoughtyOne. My first reaction is that the founders of this country would probably have drunk themselves to oblivion and vomited all over the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution if they had known that 200+ years down the road the United States of America would p!ss away billions of dollars and thousands of lives to establish and prop up a government in a foreign country in which the enshrinement of Islam as the state religion and a guarantee of "free" health care for all citizens are written into the country's constitution.

But the real basis for my post was to point out just how catastrophic the Iraq campaign has been from an economic standpoint. To get a sense of just how disastrous this thing has been (and as time goes on it is getting more and more difficult for the U.S. government to hide this harsh reality from the people of this country), consider this . . .

The military costs of the Iraq war -- which are enormous -- have been dwarfed by what has basically become a massive welfare program. Because the U.S. dollar is the basis of all economic activity in Iraq, the U.S. has effectively absorbed a 51st state -- with California's population, the dysfunctional business climate of Detroit, and all the cultural stability of Rwanda.

Just think about that for a moment, and then understand that this is exactly what has driven the value of the U.S. dollar into the toilet in the last few years.

That's exactly what I meant when I said it's becoming more obvious by the day that the 1970s are here again. The good news is that the next Ronald Reagan is only a few years away. The bad news is that we have to survive another Jimmy Carter first.

23 posted on 01/09/2008 2:36:15 PM PST by Alberta's Child (I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I appreciate what you are saying, but I do have to admit I see it differently. IMO, the great “S&L Fiasco II” is upon us, only this time it involves banking as well as S&Ls and other lending institutions.

Whoever in their right mind thought that no interest no down payment loans that ballooned in ten years were going to remain solvent should be tucked away in a nice padded cell, not so much for their protection as our own.

While Iraq is costing us, it isn’t what has undermined confidence in the dollar. The wobbly banking system is what has everyone concerned. People talk about bailing out home owners and that’s all cuddly and palatable, but it’s the big financial institutions that constructed those loans to make money that we’re desperate to prop up.

Those who executed these despicable loans are the ones who have gutted our economy. And now we have Qatar and other foreign nations buying into those institutions to help prop them up. Chalk this up as one more wonderful fruit off the Free Trade tree.

We have spent a lot of our treasure during other periods in our history, to rescue nations from tyrants. We survived them and thrived. I just think that we have an invincibility complex.

We conduct a war and then allow a despicable financial crisis to develop and then watch as China arms and...

We put too many eggs in too many baskets. We overextend for sure. I’m still not convinced Iraq is our undoing. It may be contributory, but we needn’t be in the situation we’re in, and I don’t see Iraq as the major cause you do.

I appreciate your respnse. You take care.

24 posted on 01/09/2008 3:11:55 PM PST by DoughtyOne (< fence >< sound immigration policies >< /weasles >< /RINOs >< /Reagan wannabees that are liberal >)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Can’t he just fix the damn tax system?


25 posted on 01/09/2008 5:57:43 PM PST by pray4liberty (Watch and pray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mase
As for the rebate.....it looks like he didn't learn his lesson from the 2001 vs. 2003 tax cuts. These proposed rebates are not pro-growth. Only by cutting the marginal tax rates and/or the capital gains tax rate will we see the kind of investment needed to maintain robust economic growth.

Agreed. It would be nice to see some type of roll back of Sarbanes Oxley as well, but I don't have much hope for that. I'd also like the Fed to take note of the weird looking yield curve.

26 posted on 01/09/2008 6:04:56 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson