I was talking about immigration. It's heated up quite a bit.

I'm sorry you get egged. My brother-in-law is an IT contractor in Kuwait; he's on the other side from me about the war, but we agree about protecting the troops. I just think the best way is to bring them home.

I was a bit confused that you think GWB means well. He never has before; why should he now?

I want to end a war with Iran that They are trying to sell us now. As a Pool Play I know how to I-raq for I(have)ran. Maybe Turkey should get into it, for I always thought America looked like a Turkey, and Turkey Day made Arlo what he is Today.
Surely you can see Iraq and Iran as the Gospool? Why can't they tie together with Turkey?
I've always like those rhymes.

1. According to Osama bin Laden, 9/11 happened because we have our troops in Muslim lands. Specifically his home country of Saudi Arabia and the neighboring GCC countries. When he protested to the Royal family, they told him that while they appreciate his concern, they disagreed with him and insisted that the US troops stay on the Arabian penninsula after the first gulf war due to the threat that Saddam posed to his neighbors. After the war, Saudi Arabia asked the US to stay and that's what we did.
2. I don't think anyone "fears" those coming in from Mexico. No one wants their tax dollars being spent on people who don't put into the system. Granted, if the immigrants coming in from Mexico were to pay taxes, I don't think there would be a problem in the first place. (ADG, the idea you had mentioned about nixing income tax was awesome.) If anyone feared any thing, it would probably be the security issues that have been raised by not knowing who goes in and out of our country. In times like these its completely understandabe.
3. Your analogy of the post office and allowing everything to be owned by the people is essentially socialism. The idea sounds great on paper but the human nature of wanting to get ahead will always debunk the theory that socialism actually works. Unless of course it's forced upon by the gov't (see Hugo Chavez & Venezuela) then it works just fine at the expense of the population.
4. I think we all know that abortions will never be outlawed and they never should be!. Though I wouldn't mind 3rd trimester abortions being outlawed. I think that any sane person would not wait until they're as big as a house to decide "what to do about the baby"..... that's just idiotic.

I really don't mean to rain on your parade or anything like that. I'm just a bit of a realist and the whole "sky is falling" mentality is what is making our democratic party look really bad.

The comedian Lewis Black said it best. "Here in America we have a two party system. The Republican party.. which is a party of bad ideas. And the Democratic party.... the party of no ideas. Either way we are f**ked."

Here's to a three party system. We need it badly. Much love blunderites.

For the sake of "illegal immigration" I think he does. Everything else, no. His proposed worker plan will allow those who desire to come over and make money to send back home the opportunity to do so and at the same time it will allow us to keep tabs on who comes in and out of the country. What company does your brother in law work for? The company I work for has a lot of contracts down there and I work with those guys in Kuwait regularly.

I'd like for everyone to come home too. My only concerns are that the US presence here is keeping everything from boiling over. If we leave, I can almost guarantee the gov't will dissolve and we'll have even bigger problems on our hands. At least that's what my translator buddy Ninos tells me. I think the one thing that bugs me the most is that Sadr's Mahadi Army has MUCH support here in this country and we won't negotiate with them because the US considers them terrorists. Even if that's the case, if the people support them... shouldn't we be talking to them? After all, that is what democracy is all about right? All I know is that I can't wait for 2008.

What will it (W's plan) do for workers here? All he wants is for employers to be able to undercut the American wage and plunge the majority into poverty and servitude. They're less likely to vote and be a problem that way. And he's doing a great job, Brownie! At least in Texas, it's working marvelously well.

My bro-in-law has told us the company he works for, but I have a Blunderite memory, so I can't tell you at the moment. We'll ask him. (Jay?)

hmmm. You've brought up an interesting point. Do you think that there could be legislation that states how many workers we will let in at a time and what industries they'll be allowed to work in? If Im not mistaken, those who come over for work are doing labor jobs, right? I don't think I've seen any migrant workers looking for jobs in more professional industries. I couldn't understand why he would intentially send the entire country into poverty... especially since he and his cronies depend on the every day consumer to buy gas so their oil stocks stay high. It doesn't make much sense..... then again.. who knows?

So many issues to address, so little time before bedtime... re. No. 2 and 4, You have been away from the U.S. a long time, I think. More later ...

hahaha quite possibly. Thanks for the open minded discussion. Take care!

Well the People should own the Oil and TV. Just say those 2 things and even the Telephone paid to fix healthcare and S.S? Isn't S.S Socialism?
What if the Firmen and Policmen were out to make a profit?
Most of my ideas I call Unionism. Unions will make a comeback, for Unions are the smaller gov we need. They can take care of healthcare, pensions and and employment.
What is so great about Capitalism run amuck? We have had wars for much of our 231 years. Crime in the street too.

Good luck with being in Baghdad. And stay safe. Prayers just said for you & the others there...

you do realize by giving television and telephone to the gov't, we are giving them a huge window to do away with the 1st amendment, right? Gov't media policy restricts much information from its users. For example, using NIPRnet to access the internet I enjoy a forum called www.ufck.org which is a board geared around music, politics and anything else you can think of... unfortunately, because it's called "ufck", it's been labeled as a sex site and I cant use it anymore. Totally sucks. Those countries where the gov't controls the media censures everything they deem unfit for the guy sitting at home perusing the web. Like in Malaysia, if you blog and post something insulting towards Islam, you'll be prosecuted! I don't know about you, but having first hand experience with gov't controlled media, US and other nations, I can honestly say this is a VERY bad idea. Social security isn't socialism. The way it works is that we are supposed to get back what we pay into the system. That's hardly socialism. Frankly, I think Social Security will fix itself once the baby boomer generation leaves us.

Policeman and fireman making a profit..... profit from what? Every city has it's fair share of corruption which is agiven in any large area where hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people live... there are rules in play and those who enforce those rules are elected into office. If things get bad, people vote out those in office. So... i really have no idea where you were going with this....

The union is a GREAT thing. But with everything has good points, they also have bad points. An employer who utilizes union workers can't fire them if they perform poorly on the job, which in turn affects everything from production to employee morale. For someone who says that we need smaller gov't, why would you suggest we expand it by giving the gov't control of oil and media? Sounds like a contridiction to me.

Capitalism has run amok, but doing away with it isn't the answer at all. Outsourcing is where our problem lies. It hurts us tremendously when companies will go overseas to cut costs so they CEO can retire with a 400 million dollar severance package. Makes me so mad!!!


Cheryl: I really appreciate it. Thank you!

I never said to give control of oil, the Tv or the telephone to the gov. Earlier I posted they should be set up "like" the Post Office but still be their own Company. I'm saying most of the profits of at least those three entities should pay to fix healthcare, S.S. and maybe to take apart this gaint miltary industrial complex we are enslaved too.

I'm not saying the gov should take over the Unions. The Unions can take over lots of what D.C. is trying to do right now, on a smaller level. The Unions can take care of work, healthcare and pensions on a city level right now. Companies can still fire people with Unions. But as far as I'm concerned where Companies have been run amuck for a long time, the work-men are in for a brake. I'd rather pay someone just to show up and do something, than to throw people out in the street like the robber-barrons of the steel industry thought nothing of in the 1880's.-if that mentality wasn't still around and Companies were all like Digital use to be which called itself the Family Company, we wouldn't need Unions, but we had best make the Unions stronger right now.

S.S. will not survive the Baby Boomers unless the GOV taxes the workers more. It is Socialism and there is nothing wrong with it. (Oh, unless the gov. only way to help is to tax the workers more)

This Land had best wake up real soon and find a way to invest our trash/cash into solar power, which we can plug our electric cars into at night. That will give this land a reason to live so high off of the hog, as it should.

And that will free us from oil, which then the terrorist can have to suit themselves. Tell them we are out of your land in the middle east, just leave Israel alone. Sometimes, in my mind I am sorry to say, the terrorist are the only thing standing in the way of Capitalism run amuck.
I hope that stirs some of you up!

And Bush has the nerve to offer Irag only 25% of its oil profits. I learned from an American Communist who has run for the White House that the People own the oil, not the Oil Companies.

In my dream of America's future, lots of people are going to get a big brake in their rent or mortgage.-That would sure beat throwing people out in the street on acount of the GOVERNMENT never saw trouble coming!

ufck you!
I ain't goin' nowhere!
I guess we'll just have to fix what really ain't broke!
reset the retirement age to something consistant with how it was set when SS first got started (maybe 70?) and poof! you'll have your surplus back again. SS wasn't intended to give anyone a cushy long term retirement. It was meant to insure you weren't poverty stricken in your final years.
We live longer now, so adjust the time line and just keep it pegged to true cost of living increases, and you'll have the safety net back in order.
And if you wanna retire at 65 (or earlier) you just collect less.
Maybe folks with substantial retirement accounts be allowed (or persuaded?) to defer SS monies for a period. perhaps pay them a bit more, but again, later in their retirement years, so that payouts are limited. Allow the reserves to build up again.
problem solved?
Next case!

yes, Arnie.... or...
maybe we could trim the defense budget a tad (billions) and use that money for our country.... you know like food, housing,education, social security...
we seem to be remarkably able to come up with funds when war (and private profiteering) is deemed necessary ... and remarkably broke when kids need health care...

....i may be gone sooner than later, but with my last breath you'll be hearing the truth as i see it...

that sounds fine kj, but I'm unfortunately a more realistic person when it comes to this sort of crap...
First of all, we've always had defense spending. It goes up, it goes down... but it's there. If you cut back on it in any significant amount, it becomes a grab bag of funds that congress goes after.
Social Security, and Medicare, are specific, targetted programs that both take away, and give back, to the SAME folks in both cases. When you pay your 'general' income taxes, you don't have any real connection to that money goin' out. But when you pay into SS and Medicare, you are entitled (important word) to receive SS payments, and Medicare coverage.
THe only issues are, how much you have to pay in, and how much (and for how long) you will be qualified to take out of those programs.
You can't walk up to a military base and ask for you share of the latest bombs? Or request an armed guard for your teenage daughter when she goes to her first movie with a boy!!!
So, although a nice idea, monies in the general fund (i.e. defense, education, etc.) either get reallocated to another of those same general areas, or they (in certain times) get refunded back to the payors as a tax rebate (or reduction). And that's rarely on an equitable basis...

Nope. I say push out retirement, add incentives to defer taking payments, and then juice up the payouts for those who really need it...

but then again, i could be wrong about everything... right?