WWTBAM Bored

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Defa ... ?id=412006

The House-passed stimulus package -- the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 1) -- contains specific language requiring that all contractors receiving funds under the bill use the federal E-Verify system to find out if workers are either U.S. citizens or legal immigrants authorized to work.

But Tully, with the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), says the Senate stimulus bill deliberately omits the E-Verify provision.

"We were actually told by a reporter who called our office to get our comments on this that...the U.S. Chamber of Commerce did a deal behind the doors with the Senate to get that language removed using E-Verify for the stimulus bill," she states.

Heard this on Lou Dobbs last night as well.

Way to go, guys! Change we can believe in!

It is perfectly consistent with the recent passage of the new SCHIP, which also stripped out the verification requirements.

Jeemie wrote:http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Defa ... ?id=412006

The House-passed stimulus package -- the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 1) -- contains specific language requiring that all contractors receiving funds under the bill use the federal E-Verify system to find out if workers are either U.S. citizens or legal immigrants authorized to work.

But Tully, with the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), says the Senate stimulus bill deliberately omits the E-Verify provision.

"We were actually told by a reporter who called our office to get our comments on this that...the U.S. Chamber of Commerce did a deal behind the doors with the Senate to get that language removed using E-Verify for the stimulus bill," she states.

Heard this on Lou Dobbs last night as well.

I wonder if the E-Verify system has ever been used on the workers that Lou Dobbs pays to clean up after his daughter's show horses.

So you are fine with illegals getting US benefits?

At your expense?

I just got through digesting Rahm Emanuel's press release, excuse me, the news that was reported in the USA Today about how much of Obama's personal "vision" got into the final bill and how he crafted the compromises.

I shouldn't call it a press release, because a marketing or journalism major would probably be given a failing grade for circulating such a blatant bid of cheerleading as Emanuel did, and almost any reputable business publication would toss a similar press release from a company into the circular file. Naturally, the MSM reported Emaneuel's Ode to Obama as gospel.

If Bush had attempted to circulate such a similar puff piece press release touting his leadership and vision when the first bailout bill passed, the press would have had a field day ridiculing him. But when Obama talks, people listen...

Flybrick wrote:So you are fine with illegals getting US benefits?

At your expense?

I don't think that jobs stimulus spending should go to employers who skirt the system by hiring illegal aliens, often at well below the market rate for legal labor.

However, the SCHIP spending is a different situation. Depriving seriously ill children of needed medical attention to save a few dollars is punishing those least to blame for our country's messed up immigration system. In many if not most cases, illegals will only try to avail themselves of medical attention in emergency situations.

Flybrick wrote:So you are fine with illegals getting US benefits?

At your expense?

Total non sequitur from what I posted. I merely pointed out Lou Dobbs' documented hypocrisy on the subject of illegal immigration.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:I merely pointed out Lou Dobbs' documented hypocrisy on the subject of illegal immigration.

No, you merely speculated on such hypocrisy.

You know little else of the situation other than from some liberal blog. Not withstanding the facts, is it hypocracy for me to purchase Jimmy Dean sausage from Wal-mart with me having certain 'knowledge' that ther are likely illegal immigrants working at the farms that raise the hogs, working at the packing plant, working at the distribution companies warehouse (even it it is just the janitorial staff) and some even working at Wal-mart?

The answer is a resounding 'no'.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

Flybrick wrote:So you are fine with illegals getting US benefits?

At your expense?

Total non sequitur from what I posted. I merely pointed out Lou Dobbs' documented hypocrisy on the subject of illegal immigration.

Pointing out that Lou Dobbs may be a hypocrite (since I don't know the story) does not change the truth of the matter that the Chamber of Commerce sold us down the river.

The world's biggest liar may say the sun is shining, but that does not make it dark out.

But you are going to defend Obama until the cows come home, aren't you?

No matter how many times he proves that "the change we need" is more of the same, wrapped up in different wrapping paper.

Jeemie wrote:No matter how many times he proves that "the change we need" is more of the same, wrapped up in different wrapping paper.

The "change we need" that I voted for was having an adult running the store, preferably one who shares many of my policy preferences. So far, I'm getting what I voted for. For me, warts and all, the contrast between President Obama and the prior Administration is a breath of fresh air. --Bob

Change is a two-way street.

Paul Krugman:

One might have expected Republicans to act at least slightly chastened in these early days of the Obama administration, given both their drubbing in the last two elections and the economic debacle of the past eight years.

But it’s now clear that the party’s commitment to deep voodoo — enforced, in part, by pressure groups that stand ready to run primary challengers against heretics — is as strong as ever. In both the House and the Senate, the vast majority of Republicans rallied behind the idea that the appropriate response to the abject failure of the Bush administration’s tax cuts is more Bush-style tax cuts.

And the rhetorical response of conservatives to the stimulus plan — which will, it’s worth bearing in mind, cost substantially less than either the Bush administration’s $2 trillion in tax cuts or the $1 trillion and counting spent in Iraq — has bordered on the deranged.

It’s “generational theft,” said Senator John McCain, just a few days after voting for tax cuts that would, over the next decade, have cost about four times as much.

Update: House passed stimulus package without a single Republican vote.

Bob78164 wrote:

Jeemie wrote:No matter how many times he proves that "the change we need" is more of the same, wrapped up in different wrapping paper.

The "change we need" that I voted for was having an adult running the store, preferably one who shares many of my policy preferences. So far, I'm getting what I voted for. For me, warts and all, the contrast between President Obama and the prior Administration is a breath of fresh air. --Bob

As I said...the wrapping is different....the results are the same.

Obama and Bush only differed on how the ship should be steered...they don't differ as to where it should go.

Now- if you could enlighten me as to where you have seen Obama "acting like an adult", I'd love to hear it.

'Cause I haven't seen it.

Is it "adult" to try and hand over the Census to a blatant partisan (imagine how you would have felt if Bush had let Rove run the Census).

Is it "adult" to hand the stimulus bill over to be written by Pelosi, reid, and their paid benefactors?

Adult to promise total transparency, and yet there just now is an unsearchable copy of the stimulus bill online for us to look at?

Adult that Obama said "No lobbyists in my Adminstration...except when there will be"?

Adult that the bill- all 760 pages of it- has been released for a vote today...just HOURS before the vote...so no one who wasn't in the reconcile meeting (which would include the entire GP) has a chance to read it?

Seriously...tell me how Obama has been any more "adult" that Bush, other than he believes what you believe?

ne1410s wrote:Change is a two-way street.

Paul Krugman:

One might have expected Republicans to act at least slightly chastened in these early days of the Obama administration, given both their drubbing in the last two elections and the economic debacle of the past eight years.

But it’s now clear that the party’s commitment to deep voodoo — enforced, in part, by pressure groups that stand ready to run primary challengers against heretics — is as strong as ever. In both the House and the Senate, the vast majority of Republicans rallied behind the idea that the appropriate response to the abject failure of the Bush administration’s tax cuts is more Bush-style tax cuts.

And the rhetorical response of conservatives to the stimulus plan — which will, it’s worth bearing in mind, cost substantially less than either the Bush administration’s $2 trillion in tax cuts or the $1 trillion and counting spent in Iraq — has bordered on the deranged.

It’s “generational theft,” said Senator John McCain, just a few days after voting for tax cuts that would, over the next decade, have cost about four times as much.

Update: House passed stimulus package without a single Republican vote.

How is this better than the Democrats thinking the solution to a debt-expansion-induced crisis is yet more debt expansion?

And the article is disingenuous.

The $786 billion, when accounting for debt service, will be in the $2-$3 trillion range.

This isn't even including the $2-$3 trillion on tap for TARP v 2.0- another underwriting for the banks so they can write down their debt obligations.

And think about that- while TARP 1.0 and 2.0, along with various other moves by the Treasury- will have given banks/financial institutions close to $10 trillion, guess how much home-mortgage owners...you know, the little guys- the ones the Dems claim to care about?...are getting?

$50 billion.

And yet the root cause of the problem is that the debt obligations of these little guys in NO WAYS matches their ability to pay.

The Dems give banks and financial firms...who already have protection from their debts via their limited liability protections...the ability to write down their debts at our expense...but we, the little guys, don't have the ability to write down OUR mortgages so they can reflect what we actually are able to pay.

And the Dems "care about the little guy"?

Jeemie wrote: Seriously...tell me how Obama has been any more "adult" that Bush, other than he believes what you believe?

I have a feeling as time goes on, more and more liberals are going to wise up to the fact that Obama does not believe what they believe. It's the preconceived image of Obama they had based on his slick PR campaign that believes what they believe.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Jeemie wrote: Seriously...tell me how Obama has been any more "adult" that Bush, other than he believes what you believe?

I have a feeling as time goes on, more and more liberals are going to wise up to the fact that Obama does not believe what they believe. It's the preconceived image of Obama they had based on his slick PR campaign that believes what they believe.

That'll take as long as it takes the right to realize Obama is not a Marxist.

Different wrapping...same direction.