Posted on 05/25/2007 5:51:00 AM PDT by VU4G10
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration and key congressional Democrats and Republicans stepped up their efforts to sell a broad immigration compromise Thursday as lawmakers braced for a public backlash at home.
"Many Americans are rightly skeptical about immigration reform," President Bush said in a Rose Garden news conference. "This bill provides the best chance to reform our immigration system and help us make certain we know who's in our country and where they are."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
OMG
I hate being lied to.
First Clinton with "I did not have sex with that woman" and now Bush with this. Does living in the white house make you into a liar or is is just that they think we're so stupid as to believe them.
But I'm sure on everything else he's totally on the level /s
and...
Taxes are not Taxes, they are contributions.
and...
Slavery is not slavery, it is guaranteed employment.
and...
now we are expected to believe rewarding illegal and contumaciously criminal behavior when coupled with thirty pieces of silver is not amnesty.
(perhaps we should mail the congress critters and white house 30 dimes for the 30 pieces of silver)
Just because the illegal aliens can BUY the amnesty does not make it less amnesty.
I feel like they are trying to hypnotize me sometimes. Over and over again; it’s not amnesty, it’s not amnesty, when I clap three times you will awake and believe that it is not amnesty.
Saying it’s not over and over again won’t make it true. Are they trying to convince us, or themselves?
As I have said from time to time and stand by my statement. Presidents should ONLY be elected for one six year term. Every President has had a disasterous last two years. Regan and Iran Contra (I don’t care if it was not his fault...it was a distruction), Clinton had Monica, and now Bush has a Democratic Congress and making wrong decisions. If I am not mistaken, if Nixon had only done six years, the disaster of Watergate would not have interupted our country. That is what I think, but would welcome whatever comments you have.
He lies.
If you pay a branch to keep the fruit of the crime, it's amnesty. Period.
;>)
I like that idea. I've been thinking it's time for term limits too. Let each member of congress serve 6 years max too. Would get rid of a lot of the crap.
I wonder if Cheney feels the same way? Has he made any statement?
Bush will be the least popular ex-president if he signs the amnesty. The only place he will be able to get a speaking gig will be a Laraza convention in LA.
______________________________________________
Peter Schaeffer: "I really don't have a problem with Edwards investing in a shipwreck business. However, the S Corp assertion is serious. Years ago, I was self-employed. I heard of schemes like that back then, but never did it. The consensus was that it was treading too close to the law. Perhaps the law has changed, although I doubt it. A quick check online shows that the law has not changed."
To paraphrase Emeril: Dude, you gotta ratchet up the cynicism a notch.
Don't believe for a second that the "elites" labor [no pun intended]under the same legal code that they impose on their serfs.
And don't think for a second that those hedge fund guys are gonna pay 39+% income tax on the pirate booty - they'll fix the paperwork so that it comes out as a "Capital Gain" for which they'll pay AT MOST 15% [and after all the depreciation, amortization, R&D, and various other write-off shenanigans, their final rate will be vastly less than 15%].
Why do you think Microsoft never declares a distribution?
Or why did Ross Perot's 1992 tax returns show that almost 100% of his investments were in tax-free state & municipal bonds?
In their disclosures during the 2004 campaign, it came to light that the Kerry's [John & Teresa Heinz] were paying all of about a 12.5% tax rate on their income.
That's like a point less than Joe Sixpack pays on his Social Security alone.
The elites are just different than normal people.
And "employment", with its associated tax penalties, is just a polite euphemism for "slavery".
Sadly, those of us in the real world know that this simply means he has lost all interest in being responsive to us.
What is wrong with our presidents.
One doesn’t know the meaning of “is”.
Another can’t see a pig in a poke to save his reputation.
And the illegal guest workers flying the Mexican flag.
And the demonstrations liberally salted with communist and anarchist agitators.
Pardon me, ‘stakeholders’.
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.
Peter Schaeffer: "Peri rather explicitly does not even consider the possibility that immigration has impacted prices (mainly but not exclusively housing) in California..."
Peter Schaeffer: "If one takes into account housing costs, Calfornia is considerably more expensive than the US as a whole and real wages corresponding lower..."
This is all a huge win-win for established California elites. They get the re-introduction of de facto chattel slavery [Esmeralda, be a dear, and run get me another piña colada, would you please?], and, at the same time, that army of little brown wage slaves drives the values of their existing real estate holdings right through the stratosphere.
By the way, a little known fact of the California real estate market is that, in addition to having the "immigrants" drive up the DEMAND for California real estate, the elites have also restricted the SUPPLY of California real estate, via the Williamson Act:
http://www.google.com/search?safe=off&q=williamson+act
If you ever take the PCH north of Santa Barbara [which has some of the highest real estate prices in the known universe], then you'll see that suddenly all of the development stops completely, and you're out in the middle of strawberry fields for as far as the eye can see.
And you wonder to yourself why the development community hasn't built up there, so as to ease the cost of real estate down in Santa Barbara, and of course the answer is that the Williamson Act prevents the old farmland & ranchland from being divided into parcels smaller than 100 acres.
So the elites have artificially inflated the demand for real estate, and artificially strangled the supply of real estate, and, thanks to Howard Jarvis, exempted their property holdings from taxation, ergo - la voila! - they're all gazillionaire land barons.
PS: This is also the primary reason that California wine is so darned expensive, relative to e.g. Spanish, Italian, or even French wine. The Williamson Act presents a massive barrier to entry for would-be small vintners, who might be able to make a go of it with only five or ten acres; instead, the California wine market is dominated by the mega-millionaires [Francis Ford Coppola, Nancy Pelosi, etc] & the corporate megaliths [Gallo, Beringer, Mondavi, etc] who can afford the millions of dollars necessary to purchase a 100+ acre parcel of California soil.
PPS: And notice how the elites tax the wage slaves at 30% to 40% on the dollar [20+ points income tax, 13+ points social security, 3+ points medicare, etc etc etc], but they only tax themselves 20% on capital gains, and Prop-13 their way out of property tax obligations?
And almost none of those capital gains taxes are making their way into the welfare trough that Robert Rector has written about so much lately:
http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/Robertrector.cfm
So they get the cheap labor, they tax themselves at a far lower tax rate than everyone else, and, because capital gains taxes don't go into the same pot as social security & medicare taxes, they don't have to foot the bill for the $19K per year that the cheap labor costs the social welfare system.
Quite the scam they've got going there.
Must be nice to be an oligarch - funny how everyone pays lip service to the ideal of "equality before the law", but nobody actually believes in it.