The DREAM act just passed the house but has little hope of passing the senate. The main reason is that Republicans see it as granting amnesty to criminals. The targets of the bill are not the people who crossed the border illegally, rather it is their children who would benefit. The DREAM act states that children who were brought into America before the age of 16 would get an identity card and a path to citizenship. This isn't just a free gift, the child would have to agree to go to at least a two year institution of higher learning or serve in the military.
Even after having this explained to them republicans still don't get it. So I will attempt to explain it.
When a parent commits a crime, their children are not charged with the same crime. That would be stupid right? Yet that is exactly what republicans are attempting to do. They are trying to convince us that children in the care of their parents should be held accountable for what their parents do. Imagine if the next time someone is caught selling drugs while his/her children are in the home gets arrested the cops take the kids to juvenile hall instead of to foster care. People would be outraged!
I want to know what a five year old, or even an eleven year old kid is supposed to do when his parents choose to cross the border. Are they supposed to say,"I'm sorry I can't go with you, this is against the law". Even if a kid said that what would happen to him?
It is not fair for us to hold foreign children to a higher standard then our own. They are just children, they are dependent on their parents just like your children are. it is immoral to cal these children criminals, they did nothing wrong.
This act is the right thing to do. republicans say they love this country, they say it is the greatest nation, it is time for them to do something great.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
Bush tax cuts part II
The house just passed a resolution that would extend the Bush tax cuts to those making under $250,000, but would let the cuts expire for those making over that amount.When this goes to the senate it will fail because it has no republican support. Some of what I write here may sound familiar if you read my "Work" post from the other blog.
When George Bush implemented these tax cuts we were told that the money saved by the rich would be put back into the economy. That did not happen, what did happen was that jobs were sent overseas and the rich got richer while we slowly started to decline. What is so frustrating to me is that Republicans who complain about the deficit are shutting down a quick and fair way to put money back into the government. When the stock market tanked people were fired so that CEO's could keep their benefits. There are people who have been looking for work for two years, and yet we are supposed to feel sorry for those who put them in the unemployment line.
We have no way of knowing that extension of these tax cuts will do anything positive for the economy. We do however know for a fact that letting the tax cuts expire will provide the government much needed money.
It's simple psychology, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. We have seen this since Reagan was president, the rich get tax breaks that they are supposed to pass down to the rest of us, they never do, they keep that money as pure profit.
The only group of people who are making money in this rescission are those in the upper income. What this means is, that republicans want to reward those who got us here in the first place. John Boener whined about the injustice of making people pay their fair share. He said letting tax cuts for the rich return to normal levels was "chicken crap" . Really John? You know what I think is chicken crap, the fact that I lost my job so that one guy could make money in a recession.
You know what else is chicken crap Mr. Boener? The fact that employers refuse to make cheap or even free accommodations so that they can hire disabled employees.
but I digress
If you want to know what these people will do with the extra money look at what they are doing with it now. In my community there is a group of wealthy property owners who are buying up multi family units and renting them out. They have the money because of the cheap taxes they pay. They move from one town to the next getting these units ready to rent, in some cases they are building their own units. Usually building projects like this generate about jobs, but not in this case. In order to maximize profits this group is using the same 30 people for every job. They are also not doing maintenance on the properties they own so they are not contributing to the local economy by the purchase of goods and services. These are the people you want to reward? These parasites that drain us dry and walk away wealthy?
I say hell no! It is time they paid into the system like everyone else.
When George Bush implemented these tax cuts we were told that the money saved by the rich would be put back into the economy. That did not happen, what did happen was that jobs were sent overseas and the rich got richer while we slowly started to decline. What is so frustrating to me is that Republicans who complain about the deficit are shutting down a quick and fair way to put money back into the government. When the stock market tanked people were fired so that CEO's could keep their benefits. There are people who have been looking for work for two years, and yet we are supposed to feel sorry for those who put them in the unemployment line.
We have no way of knowing that extension of these tax cuts will do anything positive for the economy. We do however know for a fact that letting the tax cuts expire will provide the government much needed money.
It's simple psychology, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. We have seen this since Reagan was president, the rich get tax breaks that they are supposed to pass down to the rest of us, they never do, they keep that money as pure profit.
The only group of people who are making money in this rescission are those in the upper income. What this means is, that republicans want to reward those who got us here in the first place. John Boener whined about the injustice of making people pay their fair share. He said letting tax cuts for the rich return to normal levels was "chicken crap" . Really John? You know what I think is chicken crap, the fact that I lost my job so that one guy could make money in a recession.
You know what else is chicken crap Mr. Boener? The fact that employers refuse to make cheap or even free accommodations so that they can hire disabled employees.
but I digress
If you want to know what these people will do with the extra money look at what they are doing with it now. In my community there is a group of wealthy property owners who are buying up multi family units and renting them out. They have the money because of the cheap taxes they pay. They move from one town to the next getting these units ready to rent, in some cases they are building their own units. Usually building projects like this generate about jobs, but not in this case. In order to maximize profits this group is using the same 30 people for every job. They are also not doing maintenance on the properties they own so they are not contributing to the local economy by the purchase of goods and services. These are the people you want to reward? These parasites that drain us dry and walk away wealthy?
I say hell no! It is time they paid into the system like everyone else.
ending "DADT"
The Pentagon just released the results of a study about the effects of ending "Don't ask don't tell". I was not at all surprised to hear that there was no evidence to show that ending the practice would have long lasting or extremely negative affects. The study showed that there would be a short adjustment period, but that was all.
Also not a surprise to me was John McCain's reaction, in short he feels that the study is flawed. See that's what we have been taught to do in America, if we don't like the results of something we are supposed to say the whole thing is flawed.
What really bothers me is that McCain is a veteran, he was in Vietnam he saw people who were drafted. I cannot figure out how someone who knows how important serving his country was to him, could deny someone the same chance. What is more sad is that he would deny his own child the right to serve her country if she wanted to.
McCain and his supporters believe that the majority of combat troops would refuse to serve with someone who is gay. The survey that was a part of this study found that most military personnel did not think sexual orientation mattered. Why McCain is so upset is he thinks that combat troops should have been asked directly if they would serve with a gay person.
Gates and Mullen defend the study, saying that solders are not asked whether they "like" 15 month tours of duty. (Statesman, Pg. 2)
McCain firmly believes that the military would loose most of it's troops if it allowed gays to serve.
I have no doubt that there are homophobic people in all branches of the military, and some may find serving with gay people to much for them. Those people who actually leave active service, as opposed to those who bitch about it to friends and family, will probably be few and far between. A person joins the military because they have a belief that what they are doing is right, I do not believe that this conviction will be shattered by ending DADT. If the military does lose a few homophobic troops, they will be replaced by the 30,000 gay and lesbian civilians who want to serve in the military.
References
"Senator McCain flays military gay study" Utah Statesman Pg 2, December, 3 2010.
P.S. don't judge me on my incorrect referencing.
Also not a surprise to me was John McCain's reaction, in short he feels that the study is flawed. See that's what we have been taught to do in America, if we don't like the results of something we are supposed to say the whole thing is flawed.
What really bothers me is that McCain is a veteran, he was in Vietnam he saw people who were drafted. I cannot figure out how someone who knows how important serving his country was to him, could deny someone the same chance. What is more sad is that he would deny his own child the right to serve her country if she wanted to.
McCain and his supporters believe that the majority of combat troops would refuse to serve with someone who is gay. The survey that was a part of this study found that most military personnel did not think sexual orientation mattered. Why McCain is so upset is he thinks that combat troops should have been asked directly if they would serve with a gay person.
Gates and Mullen defend the study, saying that solders are not asked whether they "like" 15 month tours of duty. (Statesman, Pg. 2)
McCain firmly believes that the military would loose most of it's troops if it allowed gays to serve.
I have no doubt that there are homophobic people in all branches of the military, and some may find serving with gay people to much for them. Those people who actually leave active service, as opposed to those who bitch about it to friends and family, will probably be few and far between. A person joins the military because they have a belief that what they are doing is right, I do not believe that this conviction will be shattered by ending DADT. If the military does lose a few homophobic troops, they will be replaced by the 30,000 gay and lesbian civilians who want to serve in the military.
References
"Senator McCain flays military gay study" Utah Statesman Pg 2, December, 3 2010.
P.S. don't judge me on my incorrect referencing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)