Romney vs. Obama

[ylexot]

In the UK I would vote for the Conservative party. Here in the US I'd have voted for Bush I and not II - nor will I vote Romney. It's not that I'm necessarily for Obama, just that, as a Christian, I am disgusted by the rise of the Religious Right within the GOP. I feel if the Tea Party wishes to stand on its own 2 feet and separate from the Republicans then that's fine by me because I'll probably end up voting for the GOP again.

However for me, a vote for Obama is one less vote than the Republican/Tea Party will get.

Until then, a vote for Romney only serves as food for the Tea Party.

If you are against fiscal conservatism (Tea Party) and social conservatism (religious right), are you really conservative?

Personally, I'm a Libertarian...fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Equal rights? For who? For illegal immigrants? I think Obama is playing for the other team.

Other team?

In addition, Romney is smarter than Obama. I hope he will be able to handle fiscal crisis better.

I don't particularly enjoy either candidate, but I prefer Romney over Obama.

I think they are both quite smart, I would say Obama is somewhat smarter though. Mind you there is more to being a president than how fast your brain processes and how effectively it stores things, although it is very important.

LGBT rights are nothing compared to the problems this country is facing. Romney is not a conservative. Tea party will not have much say once Romney is elected.

Just because you have one problem doesnt mean you dont address other issues. Sadly the financial crisis has left many issues buried, such as the continuing degradation of the environment.

And Romney, he ticks all the conservative boxes, no? He's certainly quite to the right of center economically, and doesn't come across as being socially liberal.

 

[Spike15]

Whilst it's true the economic situation is by far the most important aspect, I'm also not convinced either party has a good answer, so it's a wash for me.

As for immigration, I think both sides recognize there is much more to do.

Romney was very successful in his job at Bain capital; many clients favored him over senior advisors. He also graduated Harvard with MBA at the top of his class. I trust him more to fix the bankrupted country.

Yeah, Obama already has a plan for illegal aliens. Legalize them all, and sign them up for affirmative action and welfare programs to keep new constituents happy.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Both parties play lip service to fiscal responsibility while embracing the opposite in practice. Raising taxes is unpopular with everyone in general unless it's on someone other than them. Cutting services is unpopular as well. The culture in this country is that everyone wants something but doesn't want to pay for it. Suggesting that people should either pay for it or not get it is a very unpopular stance for a politician of either party to take. Libertarians tend to take this stance and their showing in the polls reflects it.

That culture you speak of is present across the world! And Libertarians arent particularly fiscally responsible if you dislike cyclical economics.

That may well be but he's certainly not the only one in the country who's overpaid. There is a lot of heat directed toward him for no other reason that because he's wealthy. To be fair when Al Gore ran he got heat for the exact same reason. It is not popular at all to be wealthy in this country. The exception would be if you're a movie star or some other celebrity. Then it's ok. But a wealthy businessman is generally extremely unpopular.

I'm pretty sure being wealthy is popular enough in the US, the whole concept of the American Dream is quite popular in itself. Rich people are only begrudgingly accepted in Europe.

Sure, but does everyone have to include me?

If you have enough money to live comfortably already, then I guess so. Although I'm sure there are plenty of loopholes

It is broader than that, but from a political perspective that's how it would be painted. You want to raise capital gains means you want to tax old people more. That is how those opposed to it would paint it. Politics in America isn't about what's right it's about what you can pitch successfully so you can stay in power.

I don't know the numbers and am too lazy to look them up, but I would be curious what the demographics are on people who make the majority of their living off capital gains. I'd bet it skews older.

I'd say your suspicions would be somewhat correct, but those making their living off capital gains are very rarely impoverished, not being young should not exempt you from taxes and social responsibilities.

 

[Rachel A]

Romney was very successful in his job at Bain capital; many clients favored him over senior advisors. He also graduated Harvard with MBA at the top of his class. I trust him more to fix the bankrupted country.

Running a country is radically different from running a corporation. There are repeated examples of Bain purchasing companies, sucking them dry to maximize profits on the deal then cast them out when you they are no longer useful.

Do we need a commander in chief who looks at the profit line first and employees somewhere near the bottom?

If Mitt had a reputation for wanting to build up the assets purchased at Bain by investing in the work force then things might be different - however that would not have made the business nearly enough profits so would have never been considered.

I'm not sure myself I want a man who has a history of placeing jobs way down on his priority list as President. Especially given everything else I've stated elsewhere.

Economic turnarounds take a long time to happen - more so in this global economy. I feel we should let Obama run his course for another 4 years and see where we stand then.

 

[A.Nonymous]

That culture you speak of is present across the world! And Libertarians arent particularly fiscally responsible if you dislike cyclical economics.

I'm certainly not knowledgeable on world cultures. Perhaps there are responsible ones out there. I have no clue. The feasibility of Libertarian economics is kind of irrelevant really as they have no chance of being able to implement it any time soon.

I'm pretty sure being wealthy is popular enough in the US, the whole concept of the American Dream is quite popular in itself. Rich people are only begrudgingly accepted in Europe.

You'd be somewhat wrong there. Everyone wants to BE wealthy, but no one wants other people to be wealthy. Personally, I chalk it up to jealousy, but I'm sure it's far more complex than that. All I know is when W Bush ran he was criticized from the left for being wealthy. We were told we couldn't trust him because he came from wealth. When Gore ran the right said the same thing about him. He was raised by a wealthy Senator. How could we trust such a person with so much money? In fact, when Obama ran, much was made over the fact that he was not wealthy. (Well, not as wealthy as McCain at least.) I remember the press making a big deal over the fact that he had only recently paid off his student loans. This was a guy who was just recently broke. We should elect him. People here deeply distrust rich people. That much is true at the very least. Again the exception seems to be actors. People don't care that Tom Cruise got paid $20 mil for a movie, but they do care that Albert Pujols made that much for a season. Not entirely sure why. I can't recall anyone ever arguing that movie stars are overpaid.

I'd say your suspicions would be somewhat correct, but those making their living off capital gains are very rarely impoverished, not being young should not exempt you from taxes and social responsibilities.

While certainly not impoverished, I'm sure they'd make the argument that they have more than paid their fair share over the course of their life time. That's an argument that's going to resonate with a lot of people.

 

[Spike15]

Running a country is radically different from running a corporation. There are repeated examples of Bain purchasing companies, sucking them dry to maximize profits on the deal then cast them out when you they are no longer useful.

Do we need a commander in chief who looks at the profit line first and employees somewhere near the bottom?

If Mitt had a reputation for wanting to build up the assets purchased at Bain by investing in the work force then things might be different - however that would not have made the business nearly enough profits so would have never been considered.

I'm not sure myself I want a man who has a history of placeing jobs way down on his priority list as President. Especially given everything else I've stated elsewhere.

Economic turnarounds take a long time to happen - more so in this global economy. I feel we should let Obama run his course for another 4 years and see where we stand then.

Bain was purchasing companies that were already in the red due to the inefficient management.

How do you expect President to create jobs directly? By expanding the government and filing the positions with incompetent idiots? Those are not real jobs, and benefit a minority at the expense of the majority.

Romney did what was best for his company, and we need a President who will do what is best for the country.

Obama's approach to solving problems is throwing money at it and finding someone to blame. And what about his recent semi-amnesty with the right to work? This will only increase unemployment among the citizens of the United States.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Just to make sure we've got this straight. You do realize that just about every single sports team owner in the country does the exact same thing at some point or another. They threaten to leave town if a new stadium isn't built. They play multiple cities against each other. One of two things either happens. Either one of the cities caves and uses tax increases and eminent domain to build a new stadium or none of them buy it and the issue dies for a few years. Bush was the owner/managing partner of the Rangers at the time. Yet him doing it is "graft" and is apparently far more evil than when every other team owner does it. And you apparently blame Bush in particular for evil and not the state legislature who voted for it or the Democratic governor who could've veto'd it but didn't. A sports team owner advocating for a new stadium is evil. If the voters give it to him it's his fault and if the governor and legislature sign off on it, it's also his fault and his fault alone. Just want to make sure I'm following your logic. ...

I see you're starting to understand the widespread institutionalized corruption and love of money in politics and it appears you're all for it.

I conjecture that if this understanding was widespread, Bush would have never been Governor, much less President.

Asymmetrical information is often called propaganda.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue42/pols.bushstadium.html

"Not so fast, says Jim Runzheimer, an Arlington attorney and longtime critic of the stadium deal. Runzheimer claims that the pro-stadium forces spent more than $130,000 to pass the sales tax referendum (not including, one assumes, the cost of friendly photo-ops with the mayor at the stadium site). Opponents raised only $3,000. Calling the stadium project "a basic perversion of government," Runzheimer says that Arlington's city officials "used government and its taxing authority to benefit a small elite of powerful and privileged people." Those benefits could be direct; Runzheimer points out that Arlington city council members and other city officials receive free tickets and use of a skybox at Rangers' home games. Thus, they had a big incentive -- and possibly a conflict of interest -- in promoting the new stadium."

 

[A.Nonymous]

I see you're starting to understand the widespread institutionalized corruption and love of money in politics and it appears you're all for it.

I conjecture that if this understanding was widespread, Bush would have never been Governor, much less President.

Asymmetrical information is often called propaganda.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue42/pols.bushstadium.html

"Not so fast, says Jim Runzheimer, an Arlington attorney and longtime critic of the stadium deal. Runzheimer claims that the pro-stadium forces spent more than $130,000 to pass the sales tax referendum (not including, one assumes, the cost of friendly photo-ops with the mayor at the stadium site). Opponents raised only $3,000. Calling the stadium project "a basic perversion of government," Runzheimer says that Arlington's city officials "used government and its taxing authority to benefit a small elite of powerful and privileged people." Those benefits could be direct; Runzheimer points out that Arlington city council members and other city officials receive free tickets and use of a skybox at Rangers' home games. Thus, they had a big incentive -- and possibly a conflict of interest -- in promoting the new stadium."

So an owner of a sports team advocating for a new stadium for his sports team is evil. Got it. Also, we are all responsible for our grandfather's (alleged) sins.

 

[OutofDate1980]

...
Aannnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddd Godwin's law!!

First of all, assuming all of the above is true, are you really advocating that George W. Bush be held responsible for something his grandfather did years before he was even born. Seriously? So now the guy is not only evil for doing what every other sports team's owners do routinely, but he's also responsible for stuff his grandfather did before he was even conceived? Seems reasonable.

Second of all, Prescott Bush owned all of one share in the bank that was seized for "financing the Nazi's." Not to mention the fact that it was not unusual at all for companies to be invested in pre-war Germany. WWII comes around and those companies are still invested there so they're technically "financing the Nazi's." And companies like Standard Oil and GM did the exact same thing.

The Straight Dope: Was President Bush's great-grandfather a Nazi?

Also, Prescott Bush was not even a Nazi sympathizer. At least not according to the Anti-Defamation League - Prescott Bush's Alleged Nazi "Ties"

Please do some fact checking before posting silly things.

English courts are claimed to be an attractive forum for "libel tourists" who had little connection to the country. My source, The Guardian is a British news outlet, therefore, it is a more credible source then those you cited.

So you claim that family upbringing has no influence upon the child ?

Less we forget, Germany experienced the pitfalls of wealthy entities having an undue influence in the political process. Let's try not to repeat the errors of the past.

 

[rushmore]

Folks, we are all kidding ourselves to some degree, regardless of what "side" or not you may be on. By their very nature, most (not all) politicians are narcissists and the world revolves around them and their personal vested interests and or agendas, plus their political "entourage". My position is belief in liberty, a strong military, no censorship and a transparent government. I also believe in more classic economic principles, but appreciate "some" neo-classic principles are needed (people are greedy).

Here is see-saw summary of Obama and Romney in a "practical" perspective:


Who would I like to have a drink with and hang out with? Obama. Romney reminds me too much of "my" company's CEO and CFO (and a few others). All very good business leaders, but boring (in a respectful way, but still boring). Obama IMO would be cool to hang out with.

Who do we really know the most? Romney. We know his school records and grades and know his business background. Obama has yet to show any grades and has no real results as far as a business background or running an organization with success.

Who would be better to improve our GDP? Romney. He has lead companies, a state and has results. I can not say the same for Obama and results to date are not a positive trend. Blaming Bush got old two years ago.

The one thing that Obama and Romney DO have in common is social healthcare, but there are HUGE differences:

Romney's healthcare plan focused most of the expenditure on actual healthcare coverage, had specific language in the law that was comprehensively read by lawmakers, and was not a mass increase on state employee overhead.

Obama's healthcare plan has about 70% of the expenditure on hiring government staff (a lot in the IRS) and the balance is actual healthcare focus of laws. The plan has thousands of pages THAT WERE NEVER READ by the lawmakers. IMO, this is all more a Trojan horse to grow government and make more of the population dependent on government. This hole effort appears more a move towards socialism. If not, WHY so much money for this? There are far lower cost ways and if Romneycare was truly the template for Obamacare, there would be far more delineation of the plan and resulting expenditure on ACTUAL HEALTHCARE and NOT growing the government payroll.

As far as the supreme court, they stated this was a TAX, so democrats can not have their cake and eat it too. This is a tax and will hurt a lot of people, FAR more than it will help, since the plan will ultimately impede growth in the GDP. How can it not, when MORE money will be taken away from taxpayers and companies that hire people?

My MBA specialized in economics, so I at least have a decent appreciation of micro and macro economics. Bah, that was seven years ago, so might have forgot some of it.

Added: This is my first political post and probably not many more at all, since said everything I mainly believe on the subject in this post. I like discussing electronics way more, since all sides (in general) like them too

 

[A.Nonymous]

English courts are claimed to be an attractive forum for "libel tourists" who had little connection to the country. My source, The Guardian is a British news outlet, therefore, it is a more credible source then those you cited.

So you claim that family upbringing has no influence upon the child ?

Less we forget, Germany experienced the pitfalls of wealthy entities having an undue influence in the political process. Let's try not to repeat the errors of the past.

What? You're claiming that the Straight Dope and the Anti-Defamation League are not credible because they are American sources??? Do you realize how little sense that makes?

So you don't believe that Bush had only one share? And the story that the 1 share somehow turned into over a million dollars after the war seems plausible to you? Really? Lose the agenda and check the facts. The guy made money off Germany just like Standard Oil or GM did, but no one accuses them of being Nazi sympathizers. Also, for a Nazi sympathizer he was a pretty sucky one since he was supporting the Negro College Fund not long after war.

I believe you judge someone based on his/her character. Did Bush's Nazi grandfather raise him? No. If we judge people based on their family, then Obama is a black kid raised in a poor neighborhood by a single mom. He must be a punk who should be in jail.

Lose the agenda. All politicians are corrupt. Yet you seem to ignore that and focus specifically on a guy who's been out of office for 8 years and didn't do anything that anyone else in his position didn't do. I hate to break it to you, but Bush was not the first nor the last owner to advocate for public funds to build a stadium. I know you think he was, but really he wasn't.

 

[gamblor01]

Income tax surely needs to be hiked on income over say, $45-55K.

I have yet to see any evidence that income tax should be raised on people making $45-55k. In fact, I think that is a terrible idea but you seem quite convinced. I make considerably more than that and I am struggling right now to keep my family of 4 afloat. I have even taken many steps in the past 2 years to save money and I'm still struggling to keep my credit card debt down and my mortgage paid. Some things we have done to save money:

- Got rid of the housekeepers that came and cleaned our house once every 2 weeks
- Got rid of cable TV
- Switched from my own cell phone plan to my parents' family plan (note that I am grandfathered into VOIP service with Ooma that is absolutely free so we don't pay anything for home phone service)
- Stopped eating lunches out every day at work (instead I only go out to lunch on Fridays and pack my lunch Monday-Thursday)
- Stopped playing in my weekly pool league (which also cuts down the amount of beer I drink as well)
- Cancelled gym memberships and instead just run, bike, and do workouts at home

Etc. etc. There are probably other things I could cut back on as well. Maybe I don't need to contribute as much money as I do to my 401k? Maybe I could contribute a bit less to my college savings funds for my children -- though I'm kicking in very little each month (right now). Note that I don't drive fancy cars by any stretch of the imagination. I have a Ford Focus that I bought used and my wife drives a Ford Escape that is nearly paid off. I have seriously considered selling the Focus and having a single vehicle between us.

I agree we could increase the marginal tax rate on a few of the highest earners, but increasing it on people that make less than $55k/year would give the already strained low and middle class even less spending power. While I generally tend to agree with almost everything you have said, this is one idea I think is terrible, especially when we are trying to revive a sluggish economy.

I understand your guys point, I like romney, I've always been a republican and probably always will, I do agree with some democratic views. To me, I think Obama has proven to America that he can't get the job done so now its time to give someone else a chance

I think Obama has proposed a lot of great ideas and the Republicans in the House are unwilling to back any of them because they include small tax hikes on some tiny percent of Americans (who are insanely wealthy and would have no problem paying a bit more in taxes). So I think it's less Obama's fault and more the fault of Congress. Just the other day the House voted for the 31st time to repeal the Affordable Care act. 31 times? Really? Get over it and start doing something useful that will improve the economy instead of wasting time playing political games. If there is any proof that Congress is ineffective just look at all of the ridiculous games of chicken they played with the debt ceiling debates, the recent package including transportation projects and student loan percentage, and so on.

Instead of working together as a team to do what is best for the American people they just bicker with each other until the 11th hour (for their own political show), and then pass a watered-down version of what really needed to be done -- typically just a temporary extension that kicks the can down the road for another few months. And in another few months we wind up having the same debates all over again. That's not progress, it's insanity. So is proposing legislation 31 times in a 2 year period and expecting the results to change. Maybe if it were a 200 year period and/or the makeup of Congress vastly changed but it hasn't. So they're doing the same thing and expecting different results when the results aren't determined by random chance.

Yeah, Obama already has a plan for illegal aliens. Legalize them all, and sign them up for affirmative action and welfare programs to keep new constituents happy.

Providing illegal aliens a path to citizenship is not such a bad idea if they are actually working. There are probably some small number of people that just want a free ride but the majority of them I can only imagine just want to be successful and take care of their family like everybody else. Offering them a path to citizenship actually means increased tax revenue because if they are illegal right now they are either using someone's stolen identity to get hired, or they are being paid under the table by employers (which means no taxes are being paid).

I don't seriously believe anyone out there wants more people on welfare, just like I don't seriously believe anyone out there wants more abortions to occur. But I have yet to really review this so I have no definitive opinions on it yet. If parents bring their children to this country illegally it's not the child's fault so if they are being productive in society I don't see why we shouldn't at least offer them a chance at citizenship. Again -- I think they have to earn it though (high grades in school and/or a strong track record of employment, assuming they are old enough). If the person shows no initiative and has a record of being in and out of jail, etc. then we should kick their ass out of the country and definitely not offer them citizenship/throw them on welfare. But I don't think anyone is legitimately looking to do that.

Again, everything needs to be thoroughly scrutinized on a case-by-case basis and the few cases that have solid merit should maybe be offered a reasonable path to citizenship. Again, if they are legitimate citizens this does mean additional taxes will be collected so that's good right? There is no path to citizenship at the moment and it doesn't seem to stop people from coming here yet -- might as well collect some tax revenue from them if they are going to be here anyway...

How do you expect President to create jobs directly? By expanding the government and filing the positions with incompetent idiots? Those are not real jobs, and benefit a minority at the expense of the majority.

Romney did what was best for his company, and we need a President who will do what is best for the country.

Obama's approach to solving problems is throwing money at it and finding someone to blame. And what about his recent semi-amnesty with the right to work? This will only increase unemployment among the citizens of the United States.

Note that McCain was campaigning that we needed to bail out the banks so he wanted to "throw money at the problem" as well. In fact, I think that most politicians want to throw money at problems -- they just differ on out how to cover the costs of it. The Right suggests that we need to cut wasteful spending and the Left wants to raise taxes, particularly on the wealthy. However, "wasteful" and "wealthy" can have some seriously drastic definitions!

Also, Obama has proposed many projects that don't necessarily create federal jobs -- it's really more about using federal dollars to hire private companies to do work (build roads, bridges, communication networks, and so on). The plan isn't just to create new departments in the federal government and hire everyone to work for it.

 

[OutofDate1980]

What? You're claiming that the Straight Dope and the Anti-Defamation League are not credible because they are American sources??? Do you realize how little sense that makes? ...

So you are claiming the National Archives and the Library of Congress falsified these formerly classified documents ? Many people admire and envy thieves, especially if they got away with a lot of money.

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power | World news | The Guardian

"John Loftus, is a former US attorney who prosecuted Nazi war criminals in the 70s. Now living in St Petersburg, Florida and earning his living as a security commentator for Fox News and ABC radio, Loftus is working on a novel which uses some of the material he has uncovered on Bush. Loftus stressed that what Prescott Bush was involved in was just what many other American and British businessmen were doing at the time.

"You can't blame Bush for what his grandfather did any more than you can blame Jack Kennedy for what his father did - bought Nazi stocks - but what is important is the cover-up, how it could have gone on so successfully for half a century, and does that have implications for us today?" he said.

"This was the mechanism by which Hitler was funded to come to power, this was the mechanism by which the Third Reich's defence industry was re-armed, this was the mechanism by which Nazi profits were repatriated back to the American owners, this was the mechanism by which investigations into the financial laundering of the Third Reich were blunted," said Loftus, who is vice-chairman of the Holocaust Museum in St Petersburg.

"The Union Banking Corporation was a holding company for the Nazis, for Fritz Thyssen," said Loftus. "At various times, the Bush family has tried to spin it, saying they were owned by a Dutch bank and it wasn't until the Nazis took over Holland that they realised that now the Nazis controlled the apparent company and that is why the Bush supporters claim when the war was over they got their money back. Both the American treasury investigations and the intelligence investigations in Europe completely bely that, it's absolute horseshit. They always knew who the ultimate beneficiaries were."

"There is no one left alive who could be prosecuted but they did get away with it," said Loftus. "As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averill Harriman [to be prosecuted] for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany."

Loftus said Prescott Bush must have been aware of what was happening in Germany at the time. "My take on him was that he was a not terribly successful in-law who did what Herbert Walker told him to. Walker and Harriman were the two evil geniuses, they didn't care about the Nazis any more than they cared about their investments with the Bolsheviks."

What is also at issue is how much money Bush made from his involvement. His supporters suggest that he had one token share. Loftus disputes this, citing sources in "the banking and intelligence communities" and suggesting that the Bush family, through George Herbert Walker and Prescott, got $1.5m out of the involvement. There is, however, no paper trail to this sum."

 

[Spike15]

Providing illegal aliens a path to citizenship is not such a bad idea if they are actually working. There are probably some small number of people that just want a free ride but the majority of them I can only imagine just want to be successful and take care of their family like everybody else. Offering them a path to citizenship actually means increased tax revenue because if they are illegal right now they are either using someone's stolen identity to get hired, or they are being paid under the table by employers (which means no taxes are being paid).

I don't seriously believe anyone out there wants more people on welfare, just like I don't seriously believe anyone out there wants more abortions to occur. But I have yet to really review this so I have no definitive opinions on it yet. If parents bring their children to this country illegally it's not the child's fault so if they are being productive in society I don't see why we shouldn't at least offer them a chance at citizenship. Again -- I think they have to earn it though (high grades in school and/or a strong track record of employment, assuming they are old enough). If the person shows no initiative and has a record of being in and out of jail, etc. then we should kick their ass out of the country and definitely not offer them citizenship/throw them on welfare. But I don't think anyone is legitimately looking to do that.

Again, everything needs to be thoroughly scrutinized on a case-by-case basis and the few cases that have solid merit should maybe be offered a reasonable path to citizenship. Again, if they are legitimate citizens this does mean additional taxes will be collected so that's good right? There is no path to citizenship at the moment and it doesn't seem to stop people from coming here yet -- might as well collect some tax revenue from them if they are going to be here

No, it is a terrible idea to legalize them. Reagan already legalized 3 million of them in 1986; nothing good came out of it. It opened the doors for chain immigration of the type of immigrants this country doesn't need: uneducated and unwilling to assimilate. Yes, most of them want to take care of their family at your and America's expense, especially after they bring all their relatives via chain migration that need to be taken care of as well.

Second, it is unfair to the intelligent legal immigrants with the skills that we need. Their visas will be declined to accommodate illegal immigrants and their family members.

Third, it won't bring more revenue. Most illegal immigrants already pay taxes and into social security via fake SSN or special taxpayer number issued by IRS. After legalization, they will be able to take out of the system and more of them will have the nerve to get huge tax returns after claiming all their family members even those who live in Mexico (some already do it). They will take more than they contribute. It is a myth that they are getting paid under the table. I have seen them occupying jobs paying $20 per hour with benefits. Once you hire one in position of power, he or she will hire mostly illegal immigrants as well, for they don't speak English well and prefer someone Spanish-speaking.

They all will be legalized with no regard to merit, for most USCIS employees are too dumb to know whether someone has merit or not. Also, they can counterfeit any documents they need for legalization if amnesty is granted. Background checks are a joke. FBI has no clue regarding criminal history of most immigrants in USA or back home.

In addition, bringing more immigrants from undeveloped countries is bad for environment due to their increased carbon footprint.

Legalize 20 million illegal immigrants today, and United States will become a Third World country in 20-30 years.

 

[A.Nonymous]

So you are claiming the National Archives and the Library of Congress falsified these formerly classified documents ? Many people admire and envy thieves, especially if they got away with a lot of money.

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power | World news | The Guardian

"John Loftus, is a former US attorney who prosecuted Nazi war criminals in the 70s. Now living in St Petersburg, Florida and earning his living as a security commentator for Fox News and ABC radio, Loftus is working on a novel which uses some of the material he has uncovered on Bush. Loftus stressed that what Prescott Bush was involved in was just what many other American and British businessmen were doing at the time.

"You can't blame Bush for what his grandfather did any more than you can blame Jack Kennedy for what his father did - bought Nazi stocks - but what is important is the cover-up, how it could have gone on so successfully for half a century, and does that have implications for us today?" he said.

"This was the mechanism by which Hitler was funded to come to power, this was the mechanism by which the Third Reich's defence industry was re-armed, this was the mechanism by which Nazi profits were repatriated back to the American owners, this was the mechanism by which investigations into the financial laundering of the Third Reich were blunted," said Loftus, who is vice-chairman of the Holocaust Museum in St Petersburg.

"The Union Banking Corporation was a holding company for the Nazis, for Fritz Thyssen," said Loftus. "At various times, the Bush family has tried to spin it, saying they were owned by a Dutch bank and it wasn't until the Nazis took over Holland that they realised that now the Nazis controlled the apparent company and that is why the Bush supporters claim when the war was over they got their money back. Both the American treasury investigations and the intelligence investigations in Europe completely bely that, it's absolute horseshit. They always knew who the ultimate beneficiaries were."

"There is no one left alive who could be prosecuted but they did get away with it," said Loftus. "As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averill Harriman [to be prosecuted] for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany."

Loftus said Prescott Bush must have been aware of what was happening in Germany at the time. "My take on him was that he was a not terribly successful in-law who did what Herbert Walker told him to. Walker and Harriman were the two evil geniuses, they didn't care about the Nazis any more than they cared about their investments with the Bolsheviks."

What is also at issue is how much money Bush made from his involvement. His supporters suggest that he had one token share. Loftus disputes this, citing sources in "the banking and intelligence communities" and suggesting that the Bush family, through George Herbert Walker and Prescott, got $1.5m out of the involvement. There is, however, no paper trail to this sum."

I'm done with you on this since you clearly can't reason rationally on this subject. You've failed to explain how 1 share makes someone a Nazi sympathizer. You've failed to explain why the Anti-Defamation League finds this argument to be completely bogus other than saying they're in America so they can't be believed. You've failed to explain how 1 share turns into $1.5 mil and you seem to think this is rock solid evidence even though it's based on "unnamed sources" who admit that there is no proof to back up their claims. But we should believe them. Even though they're anonymous and admit to having no proof. It's obvious you have an axe to grind on this subject and aren't thinking logically and rationally.

BTW, I own 3 shares of WWE stock. So I'm personally responsible for every single wrestler abusing steroids. It's my fault. I really should do something about that. I also own a handful of shares of Apple. I'm responsible for the success of the iPhone. That's all on me.

 

[gamblor01]

No, it is a terrible idea to legalize them. Reagan already legalized 3 million of them in 1986; nothing good came out of it. It opened the doors for chain immigration of the type of immigrants this country doesn't need: uneducated and unwilling to assimilate. Yes, most of them want to take care of their family at your and America's expense, especially after they bring all their relatives via chain migration that need to be taken care of as well.

Second, it is unfair to the intelligent legal immigrants with the skills that we need. Their visas will be declined to accommodate illegal immigrants and their family members.

Third, it won't bring more revenue. Most illegal immigrants already pay taxes and into social security via fake SSN or special taxpayer number issued by IRS. After legalization, they will be able to take out of the system and more of them will have the nerve to get huge tax returns after claiming all their family members even those who live in Mexico (some already do it). They will take more than they contribute. It is a myth that they are getting paid under the table. I have seen them occupying jobs paying $20 per hour with benefits. Once you hire one in position of power, he or she will hire mostly illegal immigrants as well, for they don't speak English well and prefer someone Spanish-speaking.

They all will be legalized with no regard to merit, for most USCIS employees are too dumb to know whether someone has merit or not. Also, they can counterfeit any documents they need for legalization if amnesty is granted. Background checks are a joke. FBI has no clue regarding criminal history of most immigrants in USA or back home.

In addition, bringing more immigrants from undeveloped countries is bad for environment due to their increased carbon footprint.

Legalize 20 million illegal immigrants today, and United States will become a Third World country in 20-30 years.

Hmmm...well you make quite a few arguments but I'm not sure there is any hard evidence to support it. Again, this is a topic that I haven't seriously looked into so I haven't really reviewed any arguments or their merit. You have given me some things I need to lookup though.

 

[gamblor01]

BTW, I own 3 shares of WWE stock. So I'm personally responsible for every single wrestler abusing steroids. It's my fault. I really should do something about that. I also own a handful of shares of Apple. I'm responsible for the success of the iPhone. That's all on me.

So you're the one responsible! Shame on you!!!!

 

[A.Nonymous]

So you're the one responsible! Shame on you!!!!

That's me. Galaxy Nexus got pulled from the Play Store? My fault. I cackled and rubbed my hands together for hours over that one.

 

[Spike15]

That's me. Galaxy Nexus got pulled from the Play Store? My fault. I cackled and rubbed my hands together for hours over that one.

You are a terrible man LOL

 

[A.Nonymous]

You are a terrible man LOL

You should've seen what I did when I banned the Tab 10.1 from import. That was epic.

 

[OutofDate1980]

I'm done with you on this since you clearly can't reason rationally on this subject. You've failed to explain how 1 share makes someone a Nazi sympathizer. ...

Neither I or the sources I cited claim Prescott Bush was a Nazi sympathizer. The only one making that claim is you.

btw, the company cited only had 7 shares, so 1 share is about 14%.

 

[A.Nonymous]

So you're still going with a guy citing "unnamed sources" is more credible than the Anti-Defamation League and a journalist for the Chicago Tribune? I could cite "unnamed sources" that tell me that Obama is a communist plant. Does that mean it's true?

 

[Spike15]

Unnamed sources are very good. You can always find a lot of evidence to support your views.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Unnamed sources are very good. You can always find a lot of evidence to support your views.

Unnamed sources are only useful if their information is corroborated by real sources. Any article is only as good as it's primary sources. If your primary source is an unnamed source your information is crap IMO until you can verify it. Only thing better than an unnamed source is an unnamed source with no paper trail.