Thread: Congress: Middle class incomes drop as immigration surges

Originally Posted by Judy

And they would have been replaced with people like Luis Guiterrez and Barack Obama. It's not the people, it's their positions. We have to convince American Voters of what's right on these issues and offer solutions that actually solve the problems, then we have a chance to change the composition of the US Congress in a manner that actually serves our country and citizens.

I understand why people think term limits are the answer, (less of bad is better), I just know they aren't, because you're throwing the baby out with the bath water. And if people stop and think about it, they'll realize that restricting voter liberty and choices is not the answer in a free country of free citizens, the answer is making sure our citizens are educated enough on the issues to elect people on their positions and reject people with positions that hurt our citizens and country.

Another example of how term limits would have hurt our country is Senator Everett Dirksen, a Republican from Illinois, who served in the US Congress from 1933 until his death in 1969, 1933 to 1949 in the US House of Representatives and 1951 until 1969 when he died at the age of 73 in his fourth term as a US Senator. Dirksen wrote the US Civil Rights Acts that passed in a Democrat-gutted version in 1957, a comprise version to end a Democratic filibuster in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He had devoted his entire Congressional career to civil rights. On the negative, he was also one of the strongest advocates in the Senate for the War in Vietnam. It was Dirksen as Minority Leader who overcame the Democratic filibuster in 1964 of the US Civil Rights Act with a compromise version of his original bill. But it was also Dirksen who convinced Lyndon Johnson to escalate the War in Vietnam.

The recent GOP is largely responsible for many of the anomalies in our Congress with the GOP Platform on personal issues that alienate and offend social liberals and women voters. Ironically, these are the same personal issues that prevent solvency and sustainability that correlate directly with fiscal and economic instability, so the GOPers who on the one hand believe they are fiscal conservatives, really aren't, because their views on the personal issues make them fiscal liberals funding increased poverty, increased poverty spending, and increased federal taxes and/or public debt to support it. It's something the social conservatives in the GOP need to reflect upon.

People forget that we are not actually a Democracy, we are a Free Republic, and there is a difference, a very important difference, and thank God for that. Otherwise, we would already be a Socialist/Communist nation wearing uniforms with numbers tattooed on our foreheads living under the Tyranny of the Majority. Instead we are a Free Republic with majority rule couched with the needed protections of the minority, where ironically, the true values of liberty and freedom often reside, probably because a great many people can't understand or lack the vicarious empathy needed to understand the pain of authoritarianism that they've never experienced themselves.

Our Declaration of Independence was very clear on inalienable rights, and these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The latter is such an odd phrase when thinking of government, but under our national definition of independence, our founders were wise enough to include this simple, elementary, fundamental belief that our citizens are to be not only alive and free, but happy, and that it is our government's responsibility to protect those rights. How far we strayed from that with massive immigration, income taxes, free trade treason, the War on Drugs, and so much more, and how much work we have to do to restore the secured blessings of liberty and the domestic tranquility of our nation for all our citizens, as promised by the Constitution of the United States.

For every example you give of why term limits are not a good thing, I could probably give you two examples of why term limits would be a good thing. So, I'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat argument with you on the issue. Just saying .....

Oh sure, that's fine, MW, and I'm sure you could. I'm just saying I stand with the liberty and choices of American voters to elect who they want without term restriction. I've seen no good at all come from term restrictions on the President and see none that would come from placing term restrictions on members of Congress. I would support a decrease in their salaries. Serving in Congress was supposed to be a public service, not a career that pays better than 90% of the people they're elected to serve. The irony of people earning over $174,000 a year plus their benefits and enormous expense accounts opposing equal pay for women and increasing the minimum wage is way beyond enough to make me want to puke. But we don't hear much about that inequity or incongruity. Maybe we will soon. After all, that is an American Aristocracy we created ourselves by supporting these pay increases.

No wonder they never want to leave and go back home and work at Walmart on the night shift, which is all most of them are truly qualified to do, and even then, they'd probably run customers out of the store, so even then .... they might not make the cut. It also makes me want to laugh to listen to a bunch of politicians who have spent their whole lives living off the public politician dole babble about a free enterprise system they clearly know absolutely nothing about, one way or the other, and couldn't see the smoke from the mirrors if they're lives depended on it.

Originally Posted by Judy

I don't even support term limits because I truly believe that if a district wants to re-elect someone for 40 years, as Americans, they should be free to do so.

One problem with term limits is that it takes a while for elected representatives to develop expertise in specialized fields. In the absence of governmental expertise, the door is wide open for lobbyists to, in effect, write legislation.

I remain worried about unlimited spending, because IMO current regulations prevent transparency. Between weak requirements re identifying the source of funds and weak requirement re timely disclosure, it can be easy for special interests to mislead people.
**********************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

Originally Posted by Judy

Thank you again, Jean, for an outstanding article. You are doing such a fantastic job finding these wonderful articles that show a great many people are digging in to learn and report the truth about illegal immigration and legal immigration.

+1
**********************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

Originally Posted by kevinssdad

Boehner and Ryan will explain what the CRS missed to skew their calculation by mid-week next week.

I'd love to agree with this, but can't because I can't see the mainstream press pursuing it. More likely, IMO, is that Boehner and Ryan will ignore it or say something like, We'll look into it. Either way, it's end of story.
**************************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

Americanj jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

Originally Posted by vistalad

One problem with term limits is that it takes a while for elected representatives to develop expertise in specialized fields. In the absence of governmental expertise, the door is wide open for lobbyists to, in effect, write legislation.

I remain worried about unlimited spending, because IMO current regulations prevent transparency. Between weak requirements re identifying the source of funds and weak requirement re timely disclosure, it can be easy for special interests to mislead people.
**********************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

I have concerns with corporate spending, which is why I want the FairTax so we can prohibit corporate contributions to election campaigns. Corporations can't vote and should have no rights to contribute to political campaigns directly or indirectly. They're free to lobby in the sense of expressing their views, free to run advertisements to make known their views and positions, free to inform, influence and persuade on issues pertinent to their company and business interests, but there should be no money flowing from corporations to politicians for election purposes. None. No Chamber of Commerce, no American Bar Association, no American Medical Association, no Association of business or incorporated entities, Inc, LLC, PLC, GP or otherwise should be able to contribute to political campaigns, neither should Unions, Churches or Charities.

The only organizations that should be able to contribute to political campaigns are organizations comprised of resident individuals like the 501 C 4 lobbying organizations and these organizations should be able to cross donate to each other, but the donors must be individuals, not corporations or any type of entity that shields the owners from liability or any type of business sole proprietorship. There should also be no foreign money invested in our political campaigns, none, zero, zip.

These incorporated entities and associations would of course be free to speak out, endorse candidates, write letters to the editors, advertise and so forth, but they can not contribute to a political campaign. What is happening is bribery, plain and simple, in a cartel type manner, but because we tax them, they're entitled to "representation", and until we stop taxing them, we're stuck with the mess we have.

The FairTax solves that, legally, financially, and clears the way to actually solve the problem, does so in a correct and proper uniform manner, and puts the power of our country back with the people it belongs to, so we are truly the nation of the people, by the people and for the people, we were formed to be.

Main issues I see with no term limits is after so many years they always get sucked up into the big money game and lose focus of why many ran into politics in the first place wanting to do some good. But IF we could get rid of big money, lobbyists, and the way campaigns are currently done maybe having term limits wouldn't be so needed. But as it stands once you join that big political big money machine your in and its hard as hell for anyone to run against and dislodge them because a regular joe or jane with the support of the average people just can't get the money needed to get their message out there for people to notice. Those controling what messages can be seen and can't be seen are the ones pulling the money and the strings with the long term politicians.

Still I think term limits to some extent are a good thing especially on the courts. A judge hack who's appointed by a politician liar shouldn't be able to sit on the bench for life unless they commit murder. So many judges out there have no business on the bench and don't side with the law but instead come up with nonsense *new interpretations* to get their political side's views across. At this point a judge on the SCOTUS is more powerful then any Senator, House Rep, or even President on most matters. They have no real way to be gotten rid of other then death.

Excerpt:

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

Main issues I see with no term limits is after so many years they always get sucked up into the big money game and lose focus of why many ran into politics in the first place wanting to do some good. But IF we could get rid of big money, lobbyists, and the way campaigns are currently done maybe having term limits wouldn't be so needed. But as it stands once you join that big political big money machine your in and its hard as hell for anyone to run against and dislodge them because a regular joe or jane with the support of the average people just can't get the money needed to get their message out there for people to notice. Those controling what messages can be seen and can't be seen are the ones pulling the money and the strings with the long term politicians.

Well said, ReformUSA2012!

Judy wrote:

And they would have been replaced with people like Luis Guiterrez and Barack Obama.

You can't possibly know that, not unless you have a wart, wear a pointy hat, and have a crystal ball.

Judy Wrote:

It strikes me as bizarre that you want someone's income taxes based on their ability to pay

When did you hear me say that? Just because I don't support your so-called Fair Tax plan doesn't mean I don't think everyone shouldn't pay their fair share in taxes. The so-called Fair Tax plan you keep pushing has too many pitfalls to actually be considered a viable alternative to our current system. I'm all for tax reform, just not the plan your constantly pushing on us. Just saying .........

Originally Posted by MW

Judy wrote:



You can't possibly know that, not unless you have a wart, wear a pointy hat, and have a crystal ball.

Judy Wrote:



When did you hear me say that? Just because I don't support your so-called Fair Tax plan doesn't mean I don't think everyone shouldn't pay their fair share in taxes. The so-called Fair Tax plan you keep pushing has too many pitfalls to actually be considered a viable alternative to our current system. I'm all for tax reform, just not the plan your constantly pushing on us. Just saying .........

Well, who do you think they would be replaced with? You think it's someone we would want? If that's the case, then we'd already have a Congress full of them, but we don't, so the only way to build a good Congress is to keep the good ones and remove and replace the bad ones.

Fair share has nothing to do with either the income tax or the FairTax. In fact, there is no such thing and there can't be such a thing. When the FairTax talks about Fair, it's not talking about "fair share", it's talking about fair rules, where everyone is treated the same, which may be "fair share" or not, that depends on the specifics of the situation. Maybe that's why you're confused about the FairTax legislation.

And yes, I will continue to constantly push the FairTax, because it re-establishes protected trade and helps us stop illegal immigration. Illegal aliens will no longer receive tax credit welfare, they don't receive the FairTax Rebate, yet they have to pay the FairTaxes on their purchases of new goods and services. This puts them at a distinct disadvantage when trying to undercut American Workers who receive the Rebate. In addition, the FairTax for all practical purposes gets rid of all these phony 501 C 3 "charity" income tax frauds who use their organizations to support immigration. There will still be 501 C 3 entities, but under the FairTax, they're treated the same as any other business.

There's no reason on God's Green Earth that every person who wants to stop illegal immigration, bring an end to free trade treason, and put Americans back to work with better wages and more net disposable income to live on would not support the FairTax.

So, the FairTax is my litmus test for politicians and other people as well who are actually serious about fixing our country.