Sotomayor confirmed.

Jobless claims down.

GDP down far less than expected last quarter.

Dow at 9300.

Go Obama!

Next up, Healthcare. Then, immigration.

Plans/legislation/solutions offered by Republicans?

*crickets*

July job losses WAAAAY down at 247,000

Unemployment rate DIPS from 9.6% to 9.4%

GO OBAMA!

American Reinvestment and Recovery Act!

Woot!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32327533/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

Even FoxNews has no alternative other than to report the good news.

Jobless claims down, unemployment rate down. Stimulus package working.

1 - Shut up and eat several hotdogs please.

Firstalicious baby!!

2/3 - Could you at least put some ice in your Kool-aid and wash your lip from time to time.

Do you really favor government run health care and why?

And what fix do you think he will propose to immigration? Why doesn't he just enforce our existing laws? And let's get real - illegal immigrants ARE criminals as they have violated our immigration laws. Hence the term "illegal" immigrant.

a .2% dip in the jobless rate from 9.6 to 9.4 is not a recovery. Are you people stupid? When was the last time this country had 9% unemployment for an extended period of time.

And government health care - shoot me now please! American health care is like one of the last remaining things that America produces better than other countries (the other being entertainment). If we go to socialized medicine we are going to lose not only the medical tourism, but all the dollars associated with that tourism (the hotels, the shopping, the eating out). Rich people from all over the world travel to America to get health care - do we really want that to stop?

Think about it. The consequences could be catastrophic.

Of course they should have been ticketed for parking in a clearly marked "No Standing Zone".

The perp freely admits the cop was right. Where's the story here? It's OK to break the law so long as no one is inconvenienced (one of the arguments trotted out by the violator)? Gimme a breast, oops, I mean break.

1) Let's stop using this "illegal immigrants" euphemism and call them what they are: invaders.
2) It is unlikely, but possible, that government-run healthcare would be better for most Americans. However, neither party is serious about understanding why health care costs so much in America. There are many possible reasons - shortage of doctors, the difficulty of achieving economies of scale when providing highly individualized treatment, and the importance of profit in medical R&D - but there hasn't been an earnest effort to understand why its cost has been rising so much faster than inflation. This absolutely needs to be investigated before either side of the political spectrum can claim that one solution is superior to the other. But, for now, Pelosi is the drooling moron with a loudspeaker chanting about the need to subsidize even the fattest, laziest, most irresponsible and undesirable people's healthcare, in keeping with the Messiah's teachings of "fairness."

Nobody is proposing government health care. Just a government insurance plan.

Immigration - you can't deport millions of people. Most undocumented immigrants work hard, pay taxes, and contribute.

9 - when we were losing 700,000 jobs per month under Bush, and now we're down to 240,000 in June, when the jobless rate is going down instead of up, that sure as heck IS a recovery!

I love watching fringe Republicans try and argue with results. It isn't "drinking kool-aid" to point to hard statistical evidence.

Jobless rate dropping.

Stock market climbing.

Go Obama! Pretty awesome for only 6 months on the job!

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/07/news/economy/jobs_july/index.htm?postversion=2009080708

11 - yeah, it's a good thing nobody is advocating government run healthcare. Just a government administered insurance plan.

Don't Republicans believe in capitalism anymore? Basic principle - market competition drives down costs and spurs innovation.

Most private insurers don't compete in their geographical markets. Thus, 30 cents of every health care dollar is health insurer profit.

Guess what? If the robust public option is as terrible as you say, then people will buy private insurance instead. That's how market competition works.

Republicans are just scared their corporate masters will lose their ability to fleece the American consumer out of 30% of the health care dollars spent.

Under government insurance, you pick your own private provider, your own private hospital/clinic. The insurance plan pays the bills (basic stuff).

12 - how are they paying taxes? They can't report to the government that they are here and I doubt they send anonymous money orders to the IRS. The employer can't report hiring them because then they are liable. Who in this equation is paying the taxes?

14 - payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc. etc.

I do agree, though, we should have a guest worker program and path to citizenship to get them paying all of the taxes. Glad you agree.

Or we could just have no guest worker program, no path to citizenship, increase deportations, and still make the ones remaining pay all the taxes owed. Idiot.

12 - Really? Then perhaps you missed Obama's speach to the AFLCIO where he openly states his desire for a single payer, government run health care system? And what, pray do tell, is a government insurance plan all about? And who pays for it? He is pushing for nationalized health care but you're too drunk on "change we can believe in" rhetoric to dig deeper and comprehend what is happening. Hell, he wants it rushed through Congress before anyone can really read it, much less evaluate it.

Immigration - and why can't they be deported? You might not want to because someone else will wash the cups for your mocha-latte in the morning but that is a different issue. And if they are undocumented workers, what taxes (other then sales taxes) do they pay? Perhaps that is offset by their use of ER's as primary care clinics, free lunch programs in schools, etc. That's right - it pisses me off that US Citizens and Legal Immigrants suffer at the expense of those to lazy, ignorant or outright unwilling to follow our immigration laws. It should anger you too - you're paying for it.

Again - show the direct cause and effect between Obama's policies and the market climbing? Between layoffs slowing? I can promise you, where I work, we don't make employment decisions based on who is in the Whitehouse.

I am not anti-Obama, I just happen to be pro-reality.

Rate of job losses at the end of Bush - 700,000+ per month

Rate of job losses after 6 months of Obama policies - just over 240,000

Isn't it great that we have at least 3 and a half years left of responsible and well reasoned governance left?

Complex solutions for complex problems. Go Obama!

15 - If they are undocumented, how are they paying payroll taxes? And I just LOVE how you don't want to call them illegal, but "just undocumented". Sounds so much less, oh, I don't know, criminal.

And we already have a guest worker program and path to citizenship. Just not one custom built to embrace the current criminals who have already violated our laws and don't want to go home.

17,

I'm talking about the legislation actually before Congress.

You're talking about a snippet from a speech in 2004.

How are those talking points working out for you? Decided to go the non-fact based approach?

You see, only bills from Congress become law. Not speeches from 5 years ago.

Connection between Obama policies and unemployment/stock market (basic stuff, but you're Republican so I'll indulge):

1) Stock market sees recovery/reinvestment plan, consensus is it will work. Prices look like a bargain, people get back in the market (put their money where their mouth is). Market goes up.

2) Recovery/reinvestment plan dollars start hitting the economy. Projects spur hiring. Hired people earn incomes. Hired people spend incomes. Economy improves. Layoffs slow. Unemployment dips.

Fantastic. Clear results.

Hate it all you like, but the policies work.

Nothing says success like success!

The Republican plan for the economy? *crickets* (the Boehner budget with no numbers)

GOP on healthcare? 3 page pamphlet with no numbers.

GOP on Immigration? Nothing.

Your party is intellectually bankrupt. All of the smart, moderate Republicans have been driven away and are now Independents and are up for grabs. They respond to plans and results. Not talking points.

Best wishes for 2010

Chumps.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/07/unemployment-rate-dips-percent-july-better-expected-showing/

Wesley Snipes didn't violate the tax criminal laws by intentionally not filing tax returns. The returns were "just undocumented."

Likewise, those fake $20 dollar bills my neighbor printed are "just undocumented" currency.

All our country needed was a Black president and an illegal immigrant on the SC to right our wrongs and steer this country towards prosperity.

Fuck you repubs!

19 - I guess you're an unemployed hick. You see, payroll taxes are deducted from your paycheck by your employer. AgriBusiness, Manufacturing, Tyson chicken... all these places that hire undocumented workers (thereby creating the incentive for immigrants to come here, thus the ones we should blame/punish) all of these companies take payroll taxes out of paychecks right off the top.

Have you ever earned a paycheck before? If you weren't unemployed trash I guess you would have known that basic fact.

Geez, what's left of the Republican party is so stupid and uninformed (and apparently unemployed). I remember when you guys used to have intellectual thinkers (Buckley) and sound plans for governance. What happened?

20, or it could be that the stock market tanked in anticipation of Obama's plans (when he had approval ratings of 65%+), but the stock market has recovered now that his poll numbers are slipping (to 50%) and his agenda is hitting numerous stumbling blocks, from his own party.

See anyone can make up correlations between politics and stock market gyrations.

22 - good point! Way to attract the moderates and expand the GOP tent!

keep up the good work!

#25=racist

23, you're apparently never held a real job, because payroll taxes are deducted only if the employer has the employee documented and on the books. Remember how your employer asked for two forms of ID and your social security number? I guess not, but maybe one day.
Undocumented immigrants don't work on the books with real W-2 stubs.

24 - argue with results all you like. Recovery/reinvestment act projects don't get done without workers working on them (duh). So, not so much made up as basic kindergarten stuff any retard would know.

Obama's approval is 57%. He won with 54% of the vote. What, pray-tell, is supposed to be the problem with his robust and winning coalition?

Why are Republicans so invseted in America failing? The market is up 40% from the lows, and unemployment is down.

Nothing says success like success.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/07/unemployment-rate-dips-percent-july-better-expected-showing/

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/07/news/economy/jobs_july/index.htm?postversion=2009080708

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32327533/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

Tastes delicious, doesn't it?

Is it just me or is this hot dog lawsuit fatuous beyond conception? First it should be bounced under preemption as warning labels are within the purview of the FDA. Second under admin law principles as being committed to agency discretion. Third under the reasonable STFU Doctrine. What next, a tattoo onj all our upper thighs warning that unprotected use leads to STDs.

Obama FTW!

27- on the books with fake and/or stolen ID. Works well: they pay but don't collect. A boon for honest Amurricans.

Illegal immigrants pay income taxes to the IRS -

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18077009/

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/business/19illegals.html

Illegal immigrants also pay payroll taxes - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html

Evidence and facts trump talking points and unsupported assertions every time.

What happened to the logical Republicans that could construct a well-reasoned argument and craft solutions for America? Oh yeah, they're called Independents now, and Obama has a +40 favorable rating with independents.

Eat it, Limbaugh ditto-heads!

23 = EPIC FAIL

Do yourself a favor and read 27 four or five times, then go pool yourself.

I don't see why illegal immigration apologists always insist on mentioning some tax or other that ends up getting paid by illegals, vaguely implying that they pay "most" of their tax burden.

I mean... I pay sales tax, too. Can I stop there, drop my health insurance, and just start going to the emergency room under a pseudonym every time I want to see a doctor? etc etc etc etc

Face the fact that a society of laws is undermined by a society of lawbreakers.

"17 - how are they paying taxes?"

Here's at least one of several explanations for how things really work. The vast majority of Illegals aren't the day laborers you see on street corners who just get paid in cash. They have otherwise legit jobs in factories and doing agricultural work. Their employers are fully legit companies and deduct payroll taxes just like they do for all their other employees. The only thing different is either

1. The employer either fudges on the I-9 and conveniently forgets about it in the hope that the DHS doesn't decide to check up to closely.

2. The employee provides fake ID and the employer doesn't care to look to deeply into the matter because they need people to work the graveyard shift/harvest.

As for other taxes, if you can find a way to avoid paying sales tax on normal consumer goods you're pretty good, and even if you rent, you're contributing your share to the property taxes your landlord pays.

Or the employer hires the illegal immigrant as an independent contractor and withholds nothing. The contractor is supposed to pay his own estimated taxes, but since they're "undocumented"...

Nah, that would never happen.

20 -

are you saying that you've read the bill? or are you just saying that you've listened to all of the rhetoric coming out of the politicians' mouths?

The actual language of the bill states that once the plan is enacted, no new private insurance plans can be implemented. Not to mention, when the government is playing insurance company, they get to decide what treatments you get. Addidionally, the government is going to have direct deposit power over your bank account so they can draft you for their services. It also exempts members of congress from the plan. Now why would that be? If it's so easy to just "keep the insurance if you like it," why would congress need to exempt themselves?

34 - Read 33.

Facts trump talking points every time.

You lose, ditto-head.

EPIC FAIL

If I pay sales taxes and rent (property taxes) that means I could go to any country and live there willy-nilly? Sweet.

Wait, how come Mexico doesn't seem to be giving too much consideration to its own illegal immigrants from Central America, who are paying Mexican sales and property taxes?

Where are the Republican facts? *crickets*

Unemployment dropping.

Stock market soaring. (up 40% in less than 6 months? Hell yeah, that's soaring).

All these pesky facts and results must be why Independents support Obama with a +40% favorable rating.

Go Obama!

Complex solutions for complex problems.

Who gives a shit about hot dogs. The Unemployment rate actually fell in July!!!!

We may just be coming out of this thing and, as usual, BIGLAW manged it poorly. All those deferred Associates will be called back by early to mid 2010, I predict but if they were smart, they'd eliminate Summer Associate programs which are relic legacy programs of a bygone era.

40 - that's why the Democrats are going to reform the system. Undocumented workers already overwhelmingly pay taxes (read post 33, damn those fact based arguments, eh?).

Now we just need to bring some order and reason to the broken system that's suffered under 8 years of Republican neglect.

And, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but immigration is a complex problem and will also involve a complex solution (one of those several hundred to one thousand page Democratic plans, instead of a 3 - 30 page Republican pamphlet/brochure).

Incidentally, hispanics are the fastest growing segment of the population and give Republicans an abysmal 8% favorable rating.

How's that strategy working out for you in 2010?

Chumps.

There are a number of problems with healthcare. 1, providers get paid by the patient/proceedure, so they are incentivized to see as many patients as possible and do as many treatments as possible. 2, patients are essentially in the buffet line when it comes to their care, since they only have to pay up to a certain amount, they don't give a damn when it goes above and beyond that amount. 3, tort reform, but I supposed I don't need to get into that here. and 4, you can't shop across state lines to get your care.

Not a damn one of these problems is solved by shifting the cost of insurance from the companies (which there are thousands of) to the government. It doesn't change any of the incentives involved, and it doesn't make healthcare more efficient. Have you seen some of the problems the dealerships are having implementing the clunkers program? yeah, the govt is not the solution, any way you want to slice it.

Former Thelen and current Orrick partner The Glass Cock here, agreeing with Dirty Harry that NOBODY puts ketchup on a hot dog.

Why are illegal immigrants always so short and bleary eyed?

So in other words, 43, Hispanics are the fastest-growing demographic because of illegal immigration, so you'd better not vote against amnesty plans because all those citizen-babies they're pumping out will never vote republican?

Talk about an offer you can't refuse. Nice idea of politics with a gun to one's head.

44 - wrong again with your flimsy talking points.

Private insurers take 30% of every premium dollar as profit. Medicare (aka government insurance) has far lower overhead. Medicare has economies of scale and successfully negotiates lower prices.

Tort reform is something worthwhile, but don't kid yourself, it's less than 1% of healthcare spending.

Your point (4) - the government insurance plan creates competition in all states AND economies of scale. Double benefit.

Problems with cash for clunkers? It is a huge success. Hundreds of thousands of cars sold. Fords sales up. Benefits middle class consumers (I know, you Republicans hate anything that doesn't go to the wealthy and then "trickle down" like the Bush tax cuts). You complain that the infrastructure spending is too slow, now cash for clunkers is too fast? Laughable.

Also, we're talking about a government run insurance plan to compete in the private market. If it will be as terrible as you claim, then the private insurance plans available in the market will compete it into oblivion. That's how capitalism/market competition work.

Market competition spurs innovation and drives down costs. Basic principle of capitalism.

Why are Republicans afraid of competition in the Health Care market?

You lose, ditto-head. Got any other talking points from the Heritage Foundation or the Lewin Group you'd like to trot out?

Chumps.

Last night PE and I went to a Puerto Rican brothel to celebrate Sotomayor's confirmation. We paired up with two beautiful chicas and went to adjacent rooms. Soon after I began sampling my slice of heaven, I heard PE's gal screeching from the next room.

It sounded like she was yelling "George Hughes, George Hughes" (not PE's real name) over and over. On the way back to our club, PE down played the incident. He said it happens all the time and asked that I leave it at that.

I have no clue what she meant. Any ideas?

You idiots really amaze me. Let me explain something to you. Unemployed folks don't give a fuck about republicans or Oabam or liberals or any of that shit. They care about getting a job so they can pay their mortgage and feed their kids.

Fuck obama. Fuck Bush. Fuck all you idiotic partisan douchebags who go around posting your idealogy as if the Dems/Repubs pay your goddamn salary. You are all pathetic sheep.

I simply pray that employment normalizes. I'll worry about Obama stealing my money after I get a job.

Why has this site turned into DaillyKOS the last couple of days? Can we lift the moratorium on the Kash + crustacean comments in order to counter this repetitive useless politics debate trend in the comment threads?

47 - didn't realize you were a native american.

They work, they overwhelmingly pay taxes (see post 33, facts are pesky things). Welcome to the melting pot.

Now all we need is a rational system that works, so that we can control the flow of people in the country by securing the border and providing a legitimate means of participating in our economy as guest workers. The Republican system of a porous border and no legitimate path incentivizes cheating and illegal crossing.

It would devastate our economy to deport ten million or more tax paying members of our labor pool. Plus, we don't have the law enforcement resources to track them down or the money to ship them back to Mexico.

Better to go with a rational solution that will actually work.

50 - you don't have to like Obama to like the fact that unemployment is dropping due to his policies.

:-)

51 - I guess the moderates and democrats got tired of the constant racism and Limbaugh talking points.

It'd be nice to get back to relevant ATL topics. Though it is amusing seeing how flimsy and unsupported the Limbaugh arguments are.

Anyone who favors a guest worker program should do a quick google search for "Saipan" and see how poorly it has worked there.

53, the number of employed people dropped by 155k, the number of unemployed dropped by 267k, but the number of people out of the labor force increased by 637k. Vast numbers of people giving up on their job search (and thus not counted as "unemployed") is not really something to celebrate.

55 - and who, pray-tell, is planning on adopting the distinguished Saipan approach? We're happy to learn from their mistakes though, in crafting the U.S. legislation in Congress.

56 - Jobless claims in June were just over 240,000. At the end of Bush they were over 700,000 per month. How is that not something to celebrate? Anyone with half a brain can see that 240,000 is far less than 700,000 and a remarkable amount of success/progress in just 6 months.

You need to see more improvement before you are impressed? No worries, we have 3 and a half more years to win you over (provided you are at all receptive to facts and evidence).

57 - Arin?

We can learn alot from the success of the various guest worker programs in the EU.

Cheap immigrant labor provides the primary means of competing with cheap Indian/Chinese labor.

Don't want greedy unions driving up our labor costs and making us uncompetitive? AND you don't want immigration? Sorry, mutually exclusive goals.

I think we're much more likely to follow the example of the best EU approaches rather than the distinguished Saipan approach.

58,

Nope. No clue who Arin is.

-57

51, it's one guy who doesn't seem to have a life now that the Obama campaign is over.

Two examples of successful government run health care plans -- Medicare and the U.S. military health care system.

It is ironic that the elderly tools that protest government run healthcare in the town hall meetings are beneficiaries of..... Medicare.

I think I have a new rule -- if you protest in townhall meetings about government health care, then you don't qualify for Medicare. That ought to shut up those old farts.

54 - I used DailyKos as an example of a politics website but I'm definitely not taking sides here. Just bored with reading the same comment thread on every goddamn post.

As soon as a firm no offers 75% of its summer class I'm sure we'll get back to legal-related hysteria and the politics will ease, though. PHJW NY, I'm looking at you.

-51

51,

Lots of us would prefer law related threads.

That being said, watching the "SotomayOR!" and "scary minorities" and other constant racists get their asses handed to them is more entertaining than watching their constant trolling.

48,

You can't possibly be that stupid. But in case you are, the problem with government competing against private companies is that the government has guns (the force of law and punishment) and can (and will) use that power to enable it to "cheat" to win. There is no such thing as "competing" with the government. The government is not only one of the combatants, it is also the referee and the judges in the fight.

The government does a lousy job at almost everything it does, and government run health care will be no exception. A few will fair better under such a system, but most will be much worse off then they were under the private system.

52,

First, I'm not a native american. We wiped them out. Spare me the bleeding-heart straw men.

Second, the links you post don't even begin to substantiate the assertion that illegal immigrants "overwhelmingly pay taxes", nor does it come close to implying that ANY of them meet their full tax burden. You are a flaming, arithmetic-challenged retard if you think otherwise. The articles themselves don't even make that dramatic claim.

It might devastate our economy and take massive federal resources if we insist on instituting a nationwide manhunt and deport 10 million illegals all at once. But it won't devastate our economy to gradually insistute enforcement of existing laws.

But, you can keep on blathering about "facts" that aren't facts and vapid rhetoric about how the white man stole everything and so any reason cited by anyone for opposing illegal immigration just proves that they are racist and (is there a difference?) Republican.

-47

65 - your screed doesn't make sense. Robust public option is for sale in the individual insurance market. Consumer decides whether to buy that or private insurance product. Simple capitalism at work. Competition good. Gov't doesn't force anyone to buy the government plan over a private insurer's plan. Any claims to the contrary are misinformation.

66 - I've posted factual journalism. Your response is "nuh-uh". Where's your support? *crickets* Facts trump talking points every time. I've posted facts, you've got Limbaugh fear and smear tactics.

You lose, ditto-head.

Dow up to 9400 today - the evidence of Obama success keeps rolling in.

Eat it.

Chumps.

52/66/probably a lot of other inane posts:

The "factual journalism" you proffer doesn't say what you're saying it says. Here's a hint: the facts you present as evidence are supposed to SUBSTANTIATE what you are trying to say. But they don't. Dipshit.

Take your 150 LSAT RC/LR skills and proceed, posthaste, to another line of work. And stop calling me a "dittohead"; I'm a fucking demo.

67,

Thank you for correcting me. However, you failed to address the fact that it is impossible to compete fairly with the government in a market "fight" when the same government is not only one of the combatants but also is the referee and the judges of the fight.

Nagn (aka not a government nut-hugger, aka 65, aka 1)

69 - you're confusing consumer purchases with boxing. The consumer purchases that which is a better deal. If they buy the government plan, that's because it is better than the private insurance plan. Your complaint seems to be that the private insurance companies won't be able to do as good a job as the government plan. Boo hoo, I'm really sad for their corporate profits, really...

68 - the articles clearly show undocumented immigrants pay taxes in large numbers. Again, love your "nuh-uh" response. Very persuasive.

I don't understand people who think that health insurance companies are their best friends. They're not. Wait till you have a catastrophic illness and you'll find yourself in the street once you hit the age and policy limits.

Yeah, 66/47 strikes me as more of a Lou Dobbs xenophopic racist than a ditto-head. Squealing about how the broken system of the last decade allowed lots of undocumented immigrants in the country, but we shouldn't fix it with immigration reform and instead kick them all out.

20 - Actually, you obnoxious, arrogant ass, I'm a Democrat.

Your condescention aside, the legislation that is currently on the table, at least what we know of it, sets the stage for additional "reforms". I am all in favor of fixing the problems, but the proposed legislation doesn't do that. It does, however, seek to establish government run insurance/payer program(s). And for someone with so keen an intellect as yours, clearly you an appreciate what track that begins to lead us down.

1- There is not a consensus in the stock market - which I presume you to mean the investment community, that the gov programs will or are working. The point as to prices being cheap is accurate but separate from Obama's efforts. If his policies EXTEND that confidence, then you have some semblence of true cause and effect.

2 - When will those dolalrs actually hit the economy? Have you bothered to pay attention to the projets (infrastructure for example - all those shovel ready projects) that are still YET to be implemented? And why are so many States facing layoffs and further cuts if the stimulus money was already in the system. Our own site intended to show where the money is being spent isn't living up to its billing.

My concern is that people like you who are unwilling to ask for genuine data, and not the same talking points (you've posted these exact same remarks in other threads) will do harm to what we are really trying to accomplish.

Simple lesson - don't ever claim victory until you actually have it. We have the opportunity, now we need to deliver. People like you give our party a bad name. You're every bit as harmful as you blather on about the Republicans.

In market competition, the products are the fighters and the consumers are the referees.

Referee/Judge decides the winner in a competition - consumers do that by deciding what to purchase.

Private health insurance companies are scared because their product/fighter is a bloated top heavy piece of shit that sends 30% of every health care dollar spent straight into corporate profits.

Market competition lowers costs. That's why the private insurers are so terrified - because they know the government insurance plan will be better and cheaper and they will have to either adapt to compete or else go extinct.

But, I like a capitalist system of robust competition, so that's just my opinion.

Yet to hear a good justification for why we should protect private insurer's near monopolies on their geographic markets... other than the fact that it benefits wealth Republican donors...

70,

I guess I shouldn't have said "you can't be that stupid." Sorry. Thought you were a troll. I guess you are that stupid.

I'm not "confusing consumer purchases with boxing." It's called an analogy. Look it up.

Only a fool would argue that a boxing competition is a bad analogy for marketplace competition. Sure, no one would be "forced" (literally) to buy the government plan. But the government will win the "fight" and private insures will be out of the ring (the market). They won't be able to compete with a fighter that is both the fighter, the referee, and the judge. You are still ignoring my main point.

69, 65, 1.

70,

I love how you confirm your awful comprehension and analytical skills by failing to notice that you have shifted your claim from "overwhelmingly pay taxes" to "pay taxes in large numbers". And also how you fail to note that neither fact, if true, would constitute a reason to ignore or abolish immigration laws. I wonder if you also think that only Mexicans and Guatemalans are capable of filling most jobs in this country that would otherwise be staffed primarily by legal immigrants?

My response, which you glibly and nonsensically characterize as "nuh-uh", has simply been to note that you were seriously exaggerating the newspaper articles you quote, and jumping to conclusions which wouldn't be apt even if the articles substantiated your claim, which they don't.

You. Are. An. Idiot. You get credit for voting for Obama; nothing more.

73 -

Stock market prices are only cheap if the economy is improving. Market going up reflects a consensus of future improvement. Basic stuff. More people buying than selling, because they expect it to pay off (and are putting money where their mouths are).

State layoffs are due to state budgets. Duh. Separate issue.

When will stimulus dollars hit the economy? They already are. Government contracting takes time, to protect against fraud/waste/abuse. More will be hitting in the coming months. There is about 6-12 months lead time to get money spent. That's just how government contracting works.

With stimulus dollars hitting the economy, we saw GDP decline slow drastically, and expected uptick for next quarter.

You've offered no data whatsoever. I've offered - employment numbers, stock market numbers, time correlation, posted articles, etc. etc.

And I haven't claimed "victory", just awesome progress (with supporting data/articles/facts).

Care to link to anything to the contrary, or are you just going to go with more unsupported assertions?

23 - Actually, I am gainfully employed. And I am a Democrat. As to your rude and infantile personal attacks, I choose not to participate in such pointless, and degrading games.

To legally administer the payroll taxes, which are taken both our of the wages paid to the EE and also matched by the employer, the employer is required to have a valid SSN to report said wages and taxes against. Being undocumented makes that a difficult proposition. Which is, in part, why firms like Tyson's got raided.

Please, please be quiet and stop giving Republicans a base to rebuild on.

In your analogy you have the government as the referee. You are a moron. The consumer is the referee.

Didn't say abolish immigration laws, just reform them to something that works. When our government created a laughably unworkable solution, no sense in making felons out of the people trying to navigate that system. The fact that they pay taxes shows that they attempt to be good citizens and aren't criminals.

What difference does it make if they pay taxes "in large numbers" versus "overwhelming" numbers? If it is large numbers, that still supports my conclusions and shows that a rational system means we could capture the tax revenue of all those that aren't paying. If it is overwhelming numbers, then it shows their good faith even more and there are still tax revenues to capture.

You're just playing semantics - both claims are supported by my links (which I'm sure you didn't read) - but in any event, trying to pin me to one claim or the other still supports MY conclusion. Neither supports yours and you've presented nothing to support your conclusion.

Thus - my claims - supported by facts/journalism and both iterations of my claim "large numbers" or "overwhelming" support my conclusion (doesn't matter to me which word is used).

Your response - overwhelming implies more than 50% but large numbers just means many.

So what? Your semantic argument doesn't undercut my conclusions.

What have you posted to support your conclusions?

*crickets*

Facts over talking points. Every time.

Chump.

13 - And you somehow seem to distinguish between a governement run insurance plan, to be provided to people at taxpayer expense, as NOT being gov run health care?

Please show where you, legitimately, arrived at the 30% profit number. And what is the acceptable profit margin you think businesses should be allowed?

41 - a 40% approval means there are 60% that DON'T approve. If you're going to try to use facts, use some that support your case not damage it.

Which on-line degree program are you in anyway?

48 -

The problem with the clunkers program is not the program itself, but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth. It's the bullshit involved. Great for consumers, but the dealerships are not getting paid.

And there you go trying to tout competition in order to appear to be capitalist. It's not competition when companies have to compete with an entity that doesn't have to turn a profit, who makes the rules of the game, and can print its own money.

If you think the insurance companies are bad, wait until the government is the one signing off on what you're covered for and what you're not. Oh, and Medicare is broke as fuck.

I would love to compete with you on such a playing field that you advocate, except I get to be the government and you get to be the citizen, and watch you wither away until you're stuck getting your health care from the medicare system. "access" to health care is not the same as "quality healthcare for all," such as you ensenuate.

77 - Gee, buy a stock when it is cheap, watch the price rise, then sell to take a profit. Basic stuff. Which is why the market has been bouncing lately.

State budget issues are tied to fed funds NOT pouring forth to support the infrastructure work as promised.

Gov contracting takes time??? What about all the "shovel ready" projects that were supposedly ready to go, and were just awaiting the funding to come through?

You've not offered genuine cause and effect. Quoting a stock market price does not prove your point.

You can rant all you want, and you may even believe your soundbites, that does not make them correct.

Frankly, if what youhad to say could stand on its own merits you wouldn't need to stoop to name calling and other snide, childish argumentative ploys.

I love how you all try to paint us into the corner as Republican cheerleaders. Fact is, Republicans suck too, we just don't fall for all the BS like you do on the other side.

The same can be said for various arguments I've seen on here claiming that we're all buddy-buddy with insurance companies. No one is claiming that insurances companies are great. What is worse, though, is insurance companies + government.

I just can't believe, after 8 years of your bitching about Bush and the fascists you claimed them to be (and no, I'm not propping him up, just making a point using your point of view), that you would advocate putting so much power in the hands of the government. They're not going to pull the plug on gov't healthcare when Republicans take over again, so just imagine the evil fascist right-wing nutjobs running your healthcare, and tell me how that sounds.

79/70/67/52:

I didn't make any analogy. I can only assume that you're either bewildered by your own incompetence, or simply confusing me with another poster.

I also didn't say anything about making felons out of anyone. I am simply noting that the arguments against deportation of known illegal immigrants do not outweigh arguments *for* deportation. Again, if this were conducted in a massive month-long program of midnight raids and shipping immigrants out in droves, yes this would hit our economy hard, and it might recover only after years, if at all. But the assumption that this is what would be required in order to enforce existing laws is a ludicrous straw man.

Yes, it's fabulous that many illegals pay taxes. No, this doesn't constitute grounds to legalize them all, if that is what you are saying. Immigration laws that are burdensome or easy to flout do not constitute a reason to condone illegal immigration, even while these same conditions DO provide incentives for it. Yet another logical subtlety which I'm sure you have no use of, because you are so sure of your conclusions that the process used in reaching them simply doesn't matter.

The fact that you see only a "semantic" difference between "overwhelmingly" and "often" suggests that this discussion is going to be fruitless. Not to mention that "overwhelmingly" seems to imply much, much more than 51%. But, what do such words mean to someone who doesn't care about how numbers relate to an actual logical argument? The fact that you think illegal immigrants paying taxes conclusively demonstrates anything at all, other than that some illegal immigrants pay taxes, is similarly troubling.

Meanwhile, your wonderfully stupid little catchphrase "Facts over talking points", no doubt, allows you to gloss over little inconveniences like, oh, say, the facts aren't as you've stated, or that they don't support the conclusions you draw. Mere roadblocks against an "argument" mediated solely by rhetoric.

Another subtle little nuance which seems to have escaped you, in your bluster and enthusiasm to condemn my "conclusions", is that I HAVEN'T DRAWN ANY CONCLUSIONS.. merely highlighted the idiocy of the arguments you proffer (starting with Mexican-are-a-growth-industry-so-you-repubs-better-watch-out, a delightful intellectual tour de force). In a nutshell: if your position is well-held, you certainly aren't showing it.

The crickets which you keep hearing seem to have taken up residence in the empty space between your ears.

-47 et al

*Yawn*

Nothing but name calling and talking points.

81 - I said a "+40%" favorable. Math is hard, but what that means is Unfavorable minus Favorable = 40%. I'll spell out for you, though, that would mean 70 favorable vs 30 unfavorable - ergo +40%.

So, you got no facts, can't understand math, nothing but xenophobic diatribes and misinformation on how insurance works.

Great government health insurance plan examples? Medicare. U.S. Military health care.

Facts over talking points. Sorry.

Chumps.

Forget it, 79 et. al., they've imploded.

They can't even state what their point is, let alone support it with anything factual.

You're wasting your time.

87 = 79 Sad.

Hmm, nice logic from the guest worker camp. Let me give it a whirl:

Fact: most illegal immigrants are Mexican (cite newspaper article).

Conclusion: most illegal immigrants should be deported.

QED with reference to substantiated facts.

WOW... that was SO EASY it's almost as though I was MISSING something CRUCIAL...

86 (and whatever other posts you made) - Can you please be quiet? You represent everything we said we disliked about the Republican party. People like you are the reason why it took as 8 long, hard years to get back into a position of power.

I'd really rather not waste it because people like you don't get it. You are part of the problem because you fail to understand the impact on all Americans. Our own party has it's share of problems (think Dodd and his special favors from a bank while on a committee intended to prevent that from happening).

Give your spleen venting a rest and let more reasonable dialogue prevail.

86 - The us Military health system is not insurance. And you really think Medicare is a positive example of a well run program? Aske people who ahve to rely on it.

How is asking people to follow our immigration laws xenophobic?

86 et al is just an ADD-addled hyper-lib who thinks Obama's going to be impeached, and control of the country returned to a third-term W, if a single Democratic election talking point turned out to be just a bunch of misleading rhetoric.

Incredibly ill-suited to politics, for someone who likes talking about it so much.

All people over age 65 have Medicare. Polls show they are far more satisfied with it than younger people with private insurance.

Your "nuh-uh" response is laughable and attacks against me personally don't bother me in the slightest.

The evidence shows an improving economy. America's health care system ranks #1 in how expensive it is and #38 in how effective it is.

Ad hominem attacks (aka childish name calling) are the last refuge of the outclassed in an argument.

You aren't even advocating a position, just lots of "No!" and "Shut up!". It's very effective.

Sorry you don't have a cogent argument to present.

92 et. al. remind me of the tea-baggers and birthers - they don't have a point to make, just want to drown people out with shouts.

It's amusing to watch adults have temper tantrums.

2/3/12/86 etc--you forgot the obligatory "thismessagehasbeenpaidforby[moveon.org / SEIU / DNC etc.]"

I noticed a conspicuous lack of latin names in the ATL roster. Sonia would have something to say about that.

Liberals are such hypocrites.

False accusations of ad hominem are the last refuge of people whose half-assed arguments have been destroyed on the merits but who keep talking anyway.

All established facts - Market up, unemployment down, immigrants pay taxes, American health care the most expensive in the world.

You've destroyed nothing except your own credibility. Your shrill tantrum is very amusing, though.

The facts are the facts. All you've done is make a bunch of noise and amuse me with your tantrum.

Especially amusing when the accuser calls out the other side (and reasonable people on his own side) as "chumps" repeatedly.

97 - U arrh rong!

Mi win argoomint! Hooray!

98 -

Yes. That is amusing.

Me - facts, cogent argument, name calling.

You - name calling and tantrum.

Never said I didn't call you a chump (and you are).

Again:

All established facts - Market up, unemployment down, immigrants pay taxes, American health care the most expensive in the world.

Mi sez yoo rong! Argoomint over! viktoree!

You've imploded. You're not making an argument, you've got no facts/links/evidence, and have basically been reduced to blathering at this point.

The established facts stand. Dislike them all you want.

Woooohoooo one hundred and FIRST!

102 - Haha!

-101

100/etc is still confused by the fact that more than one person can post on the Internet at the same time.

104 = irony

Near as I can figure, we've got multiple players on both sides.

Wow. What a dipshit. So now you just lump every critic and critical argument together into one meta-critic straw man who you strawfully knock down by showing the *facts* ... gosh I didn't know I was denying the economy was up, unemployment down, immigrants pay taxes, etc... I thought I was just pointing out the PATHETIC FAILURE OF YOUR ARGUMENTS TO COMPORT TO THE FACTS YOU PRESENT, e.g. you starting with newspaper articles showing that many illegals pay taxes, erroneously concluding that this means that illegals "overwhelmingly pay taxes" and further erroneously concluding that this means ANYTHING AT ALL, and EVEN FURTHER, apparently asserting this as final evidence that anyone who in any way opposes guest workers, amnesty, etc, is just a racist, Rush-listening republican... BECAUSE, LOOK, LOTS OF ILLEGALS PAY TAXES!

As I said, if I were to hold myself to the same logical standards, I could just say "The newspaper says them illegals R mexican, therefore we should deport them, LOOK MAN THOSE ARE JUST THE FACTS"

You. Are. An. Idiot. Please lock yourself in a closet until it's time to vote for Obama again. Come out of the closet just long enough to vote, then go right the hell back.

A 0.2% drop in unemployment? Obama wants to own that?

Interesting, because the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that civilian workforce participation decreased by 0.2%. Plus 247,000 jobs were lost.

It's basic economics, you stupid tit. That means people have STOPPED LOOKING FOR JOBS, not that Obama created jobs with stimulus cash. They didn't cover that in your masters in creative writing?

Making people stop looking for gainful employment--that sure sounds like an Obama thing.

104 = not irony.

100 has distinguished himself with a particular pattern of speech and idiotic sham logic. So, it's sometimes possible to identify a poster in absence of a self-identification.

"In fact, between 1960 and 2006, the share of personal health expenditures paid directly out of pocket by consumers fell from about 47 to 13 percent. " that comes from a study performed by McKinsey & Company.

101 hands a hotdog to 100/103.

106 - the argument is whether they were illegal invaders that should be deported/incarcerated (posts 11 and 19), or whether they contribute by paying taxes (post 33), add cost competitive workers to our labor pool (post 59), and therefore should not be treated as criminals due to the fact that our government has a broken immigration system (posts 43 and 52).

The fact that immigrants form an important role in our economy, pay taxes, and are generally law abiding neighbors means they shouldn't be treated as criminals. Our government created the broken system that allowed incentives to them coming here, opportunity for them to get in - so why punish them? Plus, we have neither the funds nor ability to get rid of them.

Sorry I overestimated you by assuming you could hold more than one thing in your head at a time. Won't happen again. Didn't realize you needed the entire thing restated for you each time.

109 - link please.

Kaiser Family Foundation study - http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/7951.pdf

When insurance is offered, it is becoming increasingly unaffordable for many. Between 1999 and 2008, the cumulative increase in premiums for employer-sponsored insurance was 119 percent—three to four times as great as the 34 percent increase in wages and 29 percent increase in overall inflation

Between 2000 and 2008, the cumulative increase in health insurance premiums
grew over three times as fast as wage increases.

Over time, the availability of employer-sponsored coverage has been declining. From 2000 to 2008, the
percentage of firms offering health coverage fell from 69 percent to 63 percent, largely driven by small
business’ offer rates. Sixty-two percent of firms with fewer than 200 workers offered health insurance in
2008, down from 68% in 2000

109 - nice selective quote choice. You do, of course, notice how that statistic completely leaves out the soaring rise in insurance premiums.

Not a very effective statistic. The Kaiser Family Foundation study, however, is directly on point.

Ball is in your court.

You need to stop throwing out straw men. Enforcement of immigration law doesn't have to be sweeping, aggressive, punitive, or inhumane. Yes, the system of laws is broken, as is the infrastructure that supports it. That does not directly make the government responsible for accomodating those who went outside the system, especially when it has been primarily private entities (business) which have both fueled the demand for extremely low-wage workers and promoted or tolerated the systems which allowed laws to be easily circumvented, thereby promoting lawlessness themselves.

Yes the situation that has resulted is extremely broken, yes it would be nice to find a fix for the problem that preserves national interests while minimizing harmful impact on illegal immigrants. Guest worker programs are one approach at addressing the underlying systemic problem (demand for extremely low-wage work) but don't directly touch on the question of the status of those already outside the system. That question is still somewhat open, and there are many illegal immigrants with no children or close ties to the community, for whom deportation is still a reasonable imposition. And it's highly questionable whether a path to citizenship is appropriate for the majority of illegal immigrants who would end up being grandfathered into a new system.

107 - Bush had us losing over 700,000 jobs per month. In 6 months, Obama has it down to 240,000 per month. Yeah, I think Obama wants to own that progress.

114 - it doesn't have to be, but it currently is under the existing system. That's not a straw man, that is an accurate description of the status quo. Immigrants taken in raids spend long periods of time in ICE detention facilities, have poor access to medical care in those facilities (sometimes with tragic results), and it has a terrible effect on their families. Sounds like we both don't like the status quo.

Thus, it needs to be fixed. When the people who went outside the system did it right under our noses and we benefitted from it, then they should be treated reasonably. If they have jobs, pay a fine and learn English, then we have people who are already integrated into our communities and are productive. They should stay. We need to control the border so we're in control of the future in-flow of people and need a system that documents them - guest worker and/or path to citizenship.

Deportation, currently the go-to consequence, is expensive, ineffective, antagonizes the hispanic community, and gins up the baser elements of the Republican fringe.

The current system with no border control, and harsh consequences for the immigrants, ignores the fact that our government is equally culpable for the development of this problem, is hugely expensive, and ineffective.

114,

Incidentally, seems like you're subtly shifting your position to only be against illegal immigrants without jobs/ties to the community (who are obviously outside the scope of a guest WORKER program).

If you're moderating in response to understanding my position, finally, then awesome.

First, I didn't mean that having a job would be a tie to a community. But I only mean to distinguish certain circumstances (e.g. a child who is a citizen) which would necessarily temper a gov't response that seeks to minimize harm; just because the harm is more specific and measurable. This mitigating factor, like the original economic conditions which created both the demand for low-wage work (in the US) and the demand for employment abroad (in Mexico) doesn't legitimize the actual illegal immigration, but does help excuse it. But citizenship would *reward* it. At best, I would say a path to a green card might be warranted.

You do, of course, realize that the "illegality" of the immigration only exists because our broken-ass, poorly designed system says its illegal, yes? Crossing the border looking for work isn't "illegal" in the same way that crimes that harm people are illegal.

My point being, the basis for the illegality/criminality is that we've classified them as such. It's not like they are morally deserving of punishment.

They broke 'the rules', but the rules themselves were broken. So, no reason they should bear the brunt of the consequences.

If you're willing to grant path to a green card, then it seems you agree with me over the illegal/invaders/criminals position, and just needed post 111 (perhaps without the snark, though we've both dished out plenty of that) to connect the dots.

115 - You mean during the 2 years that Pelosi and the Democrats held Congress?

We can throw token lepers back and forth, but fact is Obama's clothes aren't what they cracked up to be and he's using cooked accounting to pay for them.

113 - You mean the Kaiser study supports your desired argument. Let's call a spade a spade. The McKinsey study DOES speak directly to premiums, you just don't like what it says. Typical. Ignore the facts that don't fit your desired outcome and maybe they'll go away.

111/119 - Are they, or are they not, in this country illegaly? If they are here outside of the bounds of our existing immigration laws, irrespective of whether you like those laws or not, then by violating US Law, they are criminals.

You want to cherry pick who we apply laws to, and how they are applied.

I got your position the whole time, but you really didn't start talking somewhat reasonably until 111.

It's not really a fictitious construct that it's designated illegal, as you seem to be saying. You're supposed to apply for permission to come to the country. If it's not granted, you're supposed to not come. There are people who respected that determination for decades before finally being granted residence. Moreover, there are people all over the world who would like to live in the US. If there were no quotas or entry control, this country would become quite populated quite quickly.

Although it definitely constitutes "making an exception for oneself", there's no profoundly moral content to the offense of illegal immigration, but it still needs to be punishable or there can't legitimately be a law on the subject. Isn't there some argument to be made that an automatic green card for every current illegal immigrant would undermine the good faith with which others have adhered to the law? Is it possible that some should be denied resident status simply by lottery? Should they be made to bear any consequences other than those already incurred in the shadows, so to speak? And couldn't it be argued that the fact of illegal entry and residence might warrant an automatic bar on political participation? I don't think you will find any of these suggestions satisfactory. But, had a guest worker program been in place at the time they entered, their chances of permanent residence would have been no better than any other applicant to the normal green card program, right? And, if there were no such program, certainly some of them would have had their visa applications denied. In neither case would they have earned the right to vote.

In my opinion, you need to be arguing for special treatment of visa applications for people from specific designated countries rather than an ad hoc abdication of authority on the matter. For this, and for any arguments in favor of special treatment for current illegal immigrants, I think that your desired policy aims might be better couched in a larger discussion of America's very *special* relationship with Mexico and Central America. There are certainly ample grounds for that. But it has simply got to remain within the authority of the immigration bureaucracy – which, of course, also needs reform – to deport illegal immigrants even though they have not committed any criminal offenses.

I love it. Dow 6600 in March was Bush' fault but Dow 9400 is a la Obama. You folks truly strain credulity. But then what do you expect from a bunch of Poly Sci and English majors.

122- You surely realize that, as a practical matter, illegals are useful to republicans as well. Who else is going to do the lawnwork, household help and other hourly contractor work. Please, I agree we shouldn't cover their healthcare (or for that matter pay to educate their children but unfortunately we have to thanks to activist judges) but their utility simply should not be questioned. They are vital to countless small businesses.

flame

125 - Talk about an EPIC fail. Becuase you want to abuse them in servitude, you're ok with their being in this country illegaly? So much for being for the people. Sad

127:

See 126.

-126