It is offensive to see Obama compared to Martin Luther King in a way that insinuates they have something in common. Obama quickly claims credit for anything positive that occurs and blames others for anything not popular. MLK was consistent in his cause,honest, never political,always positive. A role model for all regardless of race. Obama is an inept pawn for those putting him in a place where they can manipulate him for their own purpose. History may reveal who actually owned the position. Don't be surprised if another name shows up challenging Hilary, she is not bought and paid for by secret sources and may not have the agenda they want.
This executive order is not comprehensive and is not in the best interest of the country or illegal immigrants. Undocumented workers is a softer way of saying they broke the law which is a criminal act. 90% or more of those being forgiven will be working for wages that do not result in them paying income taxes. They will get an earned income credit and refund exceeding what they pay as income taxes, a hidden form of welfare. The employer and worker will pay social security taxes resulting in net taxes paid being a wash. The information not shared in this action is like the ACA lack of and misleading information so ignorant Americans fall for it.
There was no mention of what happens to the 8 million or more not covered by this order or those not "coming out" of the shadows. The republicans will fall for the ploy and step in stinking stuff
enough to enable Obama's owners to accomplish their real agenda.
If it were not so serious it would be like watching a vaudeville comedy routine.
Let's see now. Sneak in illegally, have a kid and stay for a few years then you will be able to come out in the open and rewards will come your way. This is the 4th president to do something like that so no reason to think the next one won't do the same. You do need to sneak in illegally soon to be sure you meet whatever time limit is imposed on the next amnesty for illegals. Breaking laws in the U.S. is not like breaking laws in other countries where there is no looking the other way then rewarding the law breaker.
If who is not now paying taxes is known then someone must know who they are and how much they would be paying to conclude there would be more tax revenue? But, they cannot be located and deporting them would not be possible? The two statements don't compute. What happens to the millions not under the umbrella of being here 5 years with a kid born here? What happens to those with a kid born here that have been here less than 5 years? Do they just stay in the shadows until the next time? What is going to prevent multiple returns like the killer of the California policeman that came back three times, is that just chalked up to sheet happens? This doesn't jive with the contention that the borders are more secure than they have ever been. Is this a politically motivated initiative? It just doesn't smell right?
The justification seem to come down to it isn't our character. To deal with illegal immigrants by deporting or other action for not obeying the law is not who we are.
Is this executive order the comprehensive immigration law that is supposed to be forthcoming? It certainly doesn't appear to meet the criteria of being comprehensive and addressing all the issues.
TVA compensation is out of control, with no objective oversight it will only get worse. Why should the rates be more than the average for similar or like work in the labor supply area in which they operate? Why would the bonus money not be used to reduce the underfunded pension plan and the debt, both in the billions? Why is one of the performance metrics not to reduce cost enough to offset inflation and other cost escalation?
Every person paying an electrical utility bill should write both Corker and Fleishman protesting excessive compensation by TVA.
This issue goes to the back burner after the POTUS does his amnesty thing and the sheet hits the fan. He will prevail and once he does pregnant Hispanic women will be coming across the border in droves. Although, preliminary information would not apply to them at present. But, who knows about the future.
Would anyone volunteer for that pipeline to come through your front or back yard?
Naw, I rather have an 18 wheeler or two parked in a couple of the drive ways in the neighborhood. Fortunately it is not currently showing being close to a residence front or back yard. You know if needed they would purchase a structure and property at a good and fair price.
The question is a lame response. I suspect that if you have done the kind of job you claim you do researching with an open mind and consider the facts, not emotional rhetoric, you have now had that moment when you think.......darn I am not in a strong position on this issue. Don't blame Obama he is just regurgitating what he is told by some very ignorant executive staff members that get their information from lobbyist.
Social security facts for those saying the money has been borrowed as the reason it is an issue.
o SS has been around ~78 years.
o ~57 million people are paid ~63 billion per month.
o 9 million are drawing disability
o 1 of 4 to draw are disabled
o 1 of 8 die before drawing
o SS is the only source of income for 37%.
o 2013 SS board report says SS is 100% covered thru 2033 then reduces to paying 75% of current benefit.
o Taxes paid by current workers and employers pay current recipients.
o In 1956 the number working and paying was 16 to 1.
o Today that number is 2.8 to 1.
o By 2033 it will be 2.1 to 1
o People are living longer and the baby boomers will cause a spike in the number drawing.
o A moderate adjustment to the annual cap, the tax rate and full eligibility age will assure a healthy program for most of this century barring an economic catastrophe.
Timbo...Probably not during Obama's reign. He can veto and the pubs can't override it. Those opposed are using tactics like ACA supporters that rushed through that piece of crap with misleading information and failure to be honest with people. Why not let people decide with facts and logic not emotion. I neither support or oppose but it irritates me for people to parrot the inaccurate statements opponents use to sway opinion.
Pipeline spills or incidents per gallon transported are like comparing air travel incidents per mile traveled to automobile deaths per mile traveled. However, even with the construction and material standards issued by the EPA and DOE which exceed any pipeline ever constructed those opposed are flapping their gums and doing their goose strut. A goose is good for crapping and squawking and little else.
alprova you economic idiot. The U.S. could seize the pipeline at any time if there were cost to the U.S. that Canada should pay.
U.S. construction workers would be doing the work should there ever be approval for the construction. OSHA, EPA, DOE would be all over it as it was being constructed. There are no real negatives to approval other than some very unlikely potential events in the mind of some few that benefit if it is not approved.
Fairmon was criticizing Buffett because he profits from the transportation of the oil.
Let me make something perfectly clear I was, did not and will not criticize Buffett. I own some Berkshire Hathaway stock and I like the way he manages his businesses. I was not criticizing him for his support of and influence with politicians just pointing out what may be a reason democrats are so opposed. I have no criticism for the Koch brothers, in fact I like their Libertarian views and they are major philanthropist t. I think George Soros is the most dangerous and conniving of all the wealthy people making the news.
alprova said...No self-respecting Republican is going around and touting jobs numbers anywhere near that high. 2,000 at best to build it,...20-30 to maintain it, and again, not one of them has to be American.
They will be American with over sight likely to be by a Canadian from TransCanada. I am not a republican but I can see the value and benefit of 2,000 construction jobs for 3 years or more. 30 or more maintenance jobs after that are damn important to those 30+ people. Unemployment is reduced by a few jobs here and there. Refining jobs are in addition to the maintenance jobs. There is no mention of the other revenue generated. Tell me again why Obama is so opposed to the Keystone pipeline?