toad

Ocasio

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

OK - accepting that # as the basis, how do we forgive $1.4 trillion, especially when the majority of that debt is held by private entities?   Serious question, if y'all think this is a good idea, and viable, let's walk thru how you get there.  

We haven't talked about how to pay for school for the rest of the students coming up - that's next. 

again - the paper I linked discusses all of this in far more detail than I can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

No...no one gives a shit about her behavior. What pisses them of is her socialist agenda and that they see a real threat in the fact that so many young people agree with her.

So, one freshman Congresscritter, with Socialist ideals, has managed to piss off a bunch of powerful Congresscritters.

What they hell are they afraid of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Mr. Chessie - 

Why doesn't anyone ever ask "However shall we pay for our military adventures?" Or giant tax cuts for the already rich? 

The military budget is phony beyond belief - does not include Intell services spending (NSA, CIA) or nuke weapons production, nor ICE. It is actually on the order of $ 1.1 TRILLION, twenty times more than Roosia, and at least five times that of China. 

And there is just as much corruption and thievery in the Medical-Industrial Complex

There is PLENTY of money out there. 

It just needs to be redirected. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I’m concerned, the banks should pay us back for bailing them out after scamming Americans in the early ‘oughts and taking the deeds to mucho real estate in the bargain.

If we weren’t able to send ‘em to jail, maybe we can hit them where it hurts.

Get Betty deVos on the cross while we are at it: she seems bound and determined to scam the federal tit for fake degrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:
3 hours ago, Dog said:

No...no one gives a shit about her behavior. What pisses them of is her socialist agenda and that they see a real threat in the fact that so many young people agree with her.

So, one freshman Congresscritter, with Socialist ideals, has managed to piss off a bunch of powerful Congresscritters.

What they hell are they afraid of?

Democracy

Hope & change

And all that jazz

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

As far as I’m concerned, the banks should pay us back for bailing them out after scamming Americans in the early ‘oughts and taking the deeds to mucho real estate in the bargain.

If we weren’t able to send ‘em to jail, maybe we can hit them where it hurts.

Get Betty deVos on the cross while we are at it: she seems bound and determined to scam the federal tit for fake degrees.

I'm with ya on the first two points - not sure I know enough about your complaint about Betsy DeVoss to comment intelligently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

As far as I’m concerned, the banks should pay us back for bailing them out after scamming Americans in the early ‘oughts and taking the deeds to mucho real estate in the bargain.

the banks paid back the bailout funds.  it was in the news and everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hermetic said:

the banks paid back the bailout funds.  it was in the news and everything

Yep it was..... OTOH how much of the bailout money was immediately shoved into CEOs' (and other corp. officers') pockets as "bonuses"?

As far as I'm concerned, it was a straightforward pillaging of US taxpayers.... those that still had jobs thru 2007~2009

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Bit of a side-step to the question, isn't it?   How do you actually accomplish what she says she wants to do?  Where does that money come from, and what DOESN'T get paid for to provide it? How do those #s work out?   This is the basis for my comment that most of what she proposes seems naive - a grand idea is great, but, if you can't engineer how to bridge the gap, it's not viable. 

Debt doesn’t matter to a Republican administration. 

More seriously, you do pay for it the way tax reform is paid for, higher growth.  I’m not a big fan of blanket foregiveness due to the unintended consequences, like lifetime students, but can easily see debt foregiveness for desired behaviors. But let’s do it like Oz saving individual mortgagees in 2008, not Tarp bailouts to the banks where the individual gets fucked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:
12 minutes ago, hermetic said:

the banks paid back the bailout funds.  it was in the news and everything

Yep it was..... OTOH how much of the bailout money was immediately shoved into CEOs' (and other corp. officers') pockets as "bonuses"?

As far as I'm concerned, it was a straightforward pillaging of US taxpayers.... those that still had jobs thru 2007~2009

that's besides the point, but those ceo's got the white house to bail them out, the treasury to crank the interest rate to zero, and the justice department to let them skate

they deserved their bonuses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Debt doesn’t matter to a Republican administration. 

More seriously, you do pay for it the way tax reform is paid for, higher growth.  I’m not a big fan of blanket foregiveness due to the unintended consequences, like lifetime students, but can easily see debt foregiveness for desired behaviors. But let’s do it like Oz saving individual mortgagees in 2008, not Tarp bailouts to the banks where the individual gets fucked.

As much as it pains me to admit that Jiblets actually contributed something worthy of consideration, I'm reading the study paper he shared and it presents some interesting ideas.   Still - $1trillion in student debt being absorbed by the federal government is huge - haven't gotten far enough to understand how/if the authors think that debit would balance in other areas of economic growth.   Kinda like free school lunches - I feel like if I'm paying for my kids, then everyone else should too - BUT - the counter to that is that the benefit to society of feeding those kids is a lot greater than the $3/kid/day.  SO - if it can be demonstrated that the Fed Government absorbing outstanding student loan debt results in a net positive?   It's worth considering. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

As much as it pains me to admit that Jiblets actually contributed something worthy of consideration, I'm reading the study paper he shared and it presents some interesting ideas.   Still - $1trillion in student debt being absorbed by the federal government is huge - haven't gotten far enough to understand how/if the authors think that debit would balance in other areas of economic growth.   Kinda like free school lunches - I feel like if I'm paying for my kids, then everyone else should too - BUT - the counter to that is that the benefit to society of feeding those kids is a lot greater than the $3/kid/day.  SO - if it can be demonstrated that the Fed Government absorbing outstanding student loan debt results in a net positive?   It's worth considering. 

It is, and we’d have to watch out for perverse incentives. Would the univ of Cali crank up tuition? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hermetic said:

that's besides the point, but those ceo's got the white house to bail them out, the treasury to crank the interest rate to zero, and the justice department to let them skate

they deserved their bonuses

We have different ideas about "besides the point" and VERY different ideas about "deserved"

I would say that they stole their bonuses, under circumstances that may or may not have been legal but were very unlikely to be prosecuted.

If you had a get out of jail free card, would you rob a bank? Then claim you "deserved" the money? I wouldn't

What makes this especially ironic is that you're in the anti-welfare brigade too.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

....   ... $1trillion in student debt being absorbed by the federal government is huge - haven't gotten far enough to understand how/if the authors think that debit would balance in other areas of economic growth.  ...   ...

Apologies for trimming this post, but this is the one point I want to address....

I would be very much opposed to the Federal gov't absorbing this debt.... ie paying off the grifter bankers (like Dan M#@&#rs) who are all already 1%ers.

Fuck 'em. They reaped big coin for years already, under special rules that they bribed the gov't to write which benefit nobody else, and they just got a massive tax cut. Let 'em write off the bad debt like smaller less-connected businessmen.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

It is, and we’d have to watch out for perverse incentives. Would the univ of Cali crank up tuition? 

That's what's happened in every institution of higher learning corresponding w/the increased availability of student loans.  I'm in over $80K for my 2nd son to go to an in-state school, not to mention what I've got for the other 3 that have finished, and am looking at for the one currently in college, and planning to sell organs for the 8th grader.  

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

So, one freshman Congresscritter, with Socialist ideals, has managed to piss off a bunch of powerful Congresscritters.

What they hell are they afraid of?

Her teeth.

She has very strong, sharp looking teeth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

That's what's happened in every institution of higher learning corresponding w/the increased availability of student loans.  I'm in over $80K for my 2nd son to go to an in-state school, not to mention what I've got for the other 3 that have finished, and am looking at for the one currently in college, and planning to sell organs for the 8th grader.  

 

 

I think the profit margin on guitars is higher, and certainly the market is a lot bigger.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

That's what's happened in every institution of higher learning corresponding w/the increased availability of student loans.  I'm in over $80K for my 2nd son to go to an in-state school, not to mention what I've got for the other 3 that have finished, and am looking at for the one currently in college, and planning to sell organs for the 8th grader.  

 

 

My takeaway; YOU HAVE SIX KIDS!! Holt shit, yeah college is gonna cost you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

I think the profit margin on guitars is higher, and certainly the market is a lot bigger.....

That's funny - I was talking kidneys, lungs - those I can kinda get by with only one.  Besides - I like my guitars more than that. ;-) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 2slow said:

My takeaway; YOU HAVE SIX KIDS!! Holt shit, yeah college is gonna cost you

My kids are gonna be the best thing I leave this cruddy planet - I'm OK prioritizing the investment in them over other things, and didn't want them to feel like, as it was for me, the military was the only option. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
11 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

I think the profit margin on guitars is higher, and certainly the market is a lot bigger.....

That's funny - I was talking kidneys, lungs - those I can kinda get by with only one.  Besides - I like my guitars more than that. ;-) 

More of a groaner, even to pun fans.

Still, I could probably grow a new kidney before Mrs Steam let me buy, say just as a blue-sky example, a 1934 Gibson L-5 or 1960 SJ-200

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

That's what's happened in every institution of higher learning corresponding w/the increased availability of student loans.  I'm in over $80K for my 2nd son to go to an in-state school, not to mention what I've got for the other 3 that have finished, and am looking at for the one currently in college, and planning to sell organs for the 8th grader.  

 

 

livers get a good coin I hear...but it's hard to find a good liver from a sailor ;-)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I would be considered a lefty in the US, more centrist here. I just watched her on CNN interview. She is an idiot. I mean really, 40 trillion bill in expenditures for medicare, free this and  free that!! She could not answer anything just mindless platitudes.

Now don't get me wrong Trump is so stupid he dangerous and Bush Jr was a moron too  so my opinion is  not based on my politics. 

I wonder with all the smart folks in the USA why there are so many dumb-asses in government.  We have them too. Ford, Sheer, Singh...Trudeau got the brains of his mother which is too bad. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

I think the profit margin on guitars is higher, and certainly the market is a lot bigger.....

profit margin on guitars aint so great at the end of the day and the markets shrinking every year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

My kids are gonna be the best thing I leave this cruddy planet - I'm OK prioritizing the investment in them over other things, and didn't want them to feel like, as it was for me, the military was the only option. 

Have them go to school in Canada tuition for ferinners is about 16,000 and residence is about 9,000. My kid is in university here and all in is 18,000 plus pocket money and my employer gives him 4000 against that.

Ah socialism is great :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HuronBouy said:

Have them go to school in Canada tuition for ferinners is about 16,000 and residence is about 9,000. My kid is in university here and all in is 18,000 plus pocket money and my employer gives him 4000 against that.

Ah socialism is great :D 

$18K for 4 years is still $72K - I've actually tried to get the current College freshman and the 8th grade sold on the idea of college overseas.  I'm short on the details, and my information is from a parent who's son went to study mechanical engineering in Stuttgart, but, there was a $600/yr admin fee, and $1500/semester for living expenses, but, I think everything else was provided by the FRG. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Gibson Jumbo would fetch you about what a kidney would..... But it'd have to be an original..... ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

$18K for 4 years is still $72K - I've actually tried to get the current College freshman and the 8th grade sold on the idea of college overseas.  I'm short on the details, and my information is from a parent who's son went to study mechanical engineering in Stuttgart, but, there was a $600/yr admin fee, and $1500/semester for living expenses, but, I think everything else was provided by the FRG. 

McGill U. tuition is $29K for foreigners.... Something like $4K for out of province Canadians, and $2800 for Quebecois.......

 Still a pretty good deal.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

$18K for 4 years is still $72K - I've actually tried to get the current College freshman and the 8th grade sold on the idea of college overseas.  I'm short on the details, and my information is from a parent who's son went to study mechanical engineering in Stuttgart, but, there was a $600/yr admin fee, and $1500/semester for living expenses, but, I think everything else was provided by the FRG. 

Last I saw was USA tuition in state school was around 25K plus residence, but I am unsure about this. We looked into Dartmouth for my son (for ski program) it was 65K tuition plus plus plus ...

My wife went to school in Switzerland and it was more or less free but only for permanent residents are you sure it is not the same thing in Germany.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

McGill U. tuition is $29K for foreigners.... Something like $4K for out of province Canadians, and $2800 for Quebecois.......

 Still a pretty good deal.....

You are correct I just checked my Uni where I am a prof and it is 30K I am way off . Grad school is 16K 

BTW I did my PhD at McGill in those days no differential for Canadians, tuition was 500/year for three years and then 25 admin fee to stay registered after that. This was in the 90's not the 30's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

that's besides the point, but those ceo's got the white house to bail them out, the treasury to crank the interest rate to zero, and the justice department to let them skate

they deserved their bonuses

We have different ideas about "besides the point" and VERY different ideas about "deserved"

I would say that they stole their bonuses, under circumstances that may or may not have been legal but were very unlikely to be prosecuted.

If you had a get out of jail free card, would you rob a bank? Then claim you "deserved" the money? I wouldn't

What makes this especially ironic is that you're in the anti-welfare brigade too.

the point was to make philly aware that the banks have already paid back the bailouts - and with interest.

the fact that most bank boards - in their glee over the lack of gov't punishment - stepped right over the mortgagees and gave the ceo's bonuses for the past (and future) profits, is besides that point.

the lack of prosecution rests with the department of justice - whine to them

and there is no irony in me being anti-welfare, it's just another tidbit that you pulled out of your ass.  you and philly are the kings of making shit up - it's quite amusing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, HuronBouy said:

Last I saw was USA tuition in state school was around 25K plus residence, but I am unsure about this. We looked into Dartmouth for my son (for ski program) it was 65K tuition plus plus plus ...

My wife went to school in Switzerland and it was more or less free but only for permanent residents are you sure it is not the same thing in Germany.   

My son is a sophomore at the University of Maryland.  In-state, live on campus is $26,796.  He is an RA, so that saves me roughly $12K.

Linky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hermetic said:

the point was to make philly aware that the banks have already paid back the bailouts - and with interest.

the fact that most bank boards - in their glee over the lack of gov't punishment - stepped right over the mortgagees and gave the ceo's bonuses for the past (and future) profits, is besides that point.

the lack of prosecution rests with the department of justice - whine to them

and there is no irony in me being anti-welfare, it's just another tidbit that you pulled out of your ass.  you and philly are the kings of making shit up - it's quite amusing

The only thing I have "pulled out of my ass" is the smoke you're trying to blow up there.

Agreed that the lack of prosecution is not the banks fault; it's as much the SEC as it is DOJ. Obama spoke about this issue and I disagreed with him at the time. The plutocrats hate-hate-HATE him anyway.

Please quote any shit I have made up. Take your time.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, HuronBouy said:

Last I saw was USA tuition in state school was around 25K plus residence, but I am unsure about this. We looked into Dartmouth for my son (for ski program) it was 65K tuition plus plus plus ...

My wife went to school in Switzerland and it was more or less free but only for permanent residents are you sure it is not the same thing in Germany.   

It depends on the state & school.   

Va Tech is relatively inexpensive, but, most kids don't stay on campus past freshman year.  https://vt.edu/admissions/undergraduate/cost.html
We were all in at around $23K/yr for my son, and his program had a lot of extra fees/material requirements ( Industrial Design ) 
UVA - https://sfs.virginia.edu/cost/18-19

VCU - https://www.vcu.edu/admissions/paying-for-college/

UPenn - http://www.sfs.upenn.edu/paying/cost-of-attendance.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:
20 minutes ago, hermetic said:

the point was to make philly aware that the banks have already paid back the bailouts - and with interest.

the fact that most bank boards - in their glee over the lack of gov't punishment - stepped right over the mortgagees and gave the ceo's bonuses for the past (and future) profits, is besides that point.

the lack of prosecution rests with the department of justice - whine to them

and there is no irony in me being anti-welfare, it's just another tidbit that you pulled out of your ass.  you and philly are the kings of making shit up - it's quite amusing

The only thing I have "pulled out of my ass" is the smoke you're trying to blow up there.

Agreed that the lack of prosecution is not the banks fault; it's as much the SEC as it is DOJ. Obama spoke about this issue and I disagreed with him at the time. The plutocrats hate-hate-HATE him anyway.

Please quote any shit I have made up. Take your time.

you just made up that shit about the sec or obama prosecuting the banks.  criminal charges are the purview of the doj

and you made up that shit about me and anti-welfare

you're funny though.  keep at it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrleft8 said:
3 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

So, one freshman Congresscritter, with Socialist ideals, has managed to piss off a bunch of powerful Congresscritters.

What they hell are they afraid of?

Her teeth.

She has very strong, sharp looking teeth.

Seriously, if she can elicit such a reaction from the likes of McConnell and his elk, they really must be delicate little snowflakes.

Imagine what would happen if she were to get her some seniority.

Unlikely, I know.  The machine will chug on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

Seriously, if she can elicit such a reaction from the likes of McConnell and his elk, they really must be delicate little snowflakes.

Imagine what would happen if she were to get her some seniority.

Unlikely, I know.  The machine will chug on.

Does McConnell actually have teeth..... Or is it more of a beak, like a snapping turtle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hermetic said:
23 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:
32 minutes ago, hermetic said:

and there is no irony in me being anti-welfare, it's just another tidbit that you pulled out of your ass.  you and philly are the kings of making shit up - it's quite amusing

The only thing I have "pulled out of my ass" is the smoke you're trying to blow up there.

Agreed that the lack of prosecution is not the banks fault; it's as much the SEC as it is DOJ. Obama spoke about this issue and I disagreed with him at the time. The plutocrats hate-hate-HATE him anyway.

Please quote any shit I have made up. Take your time.

you just made up that shit about the sec or obama prosecuting the banks.  criminal charges are the purview of the doj

and you made up that shit about me and anti-welfare

you're funny though.  keep at it 

Investigating and forming the basis for charges, when it comes to finance and investment and banking regulations, is...... which gov't agency??

Regarding Obama's prosecution or lack of it, you might be interested in these two little pop news articles, both from relatively unpolitical business and investment media:

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-wall-street-execs-werent-prosecuted-2013-1

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-story-behind-the-only-bank-prosecuted-after-the-2008-financial-crisis-2017-05-19

As for your being anti-welfare, you'd be the first rightie I ever heard of being in favor of it, if that's the case. Congrats.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HuronBouy raises a good point - 

"BTW I did my PhD at McGill in those days no differential for Canadians, tuition was 500/year for three years and then 25 admin fee to stay registered after that. This was in the 90's not the 30's." 

A uni education used to be nearly free in many places - including the US. 

The question Chessie needs to ask is not "However shall we pay for it?"  But rather  . . 

"Why did we do nothing while the Reich screwed over the generations that came after them?" 

(They took that money intended for higher ed, and gave it to the rich in the form of tax cuts) 

And thus, we also get exploding inequality. 

AOC gets this, even if many of ya do not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Apologies for trimming this post, but this is the one point I want to address....

I would be very much opposed to the Federal gov't absorbing this debt.... ie paying off the grifter bankers (like Dan M#@&#rs) who are all already 1%ers.

Fuck 'em. They reaped big coin for years already, under special rules that they bribed the gov't to write which benefit nobody else, and they just got a massive tax cut. Let 'em write off the bad debt like smaller less-connected businessmen.

-DSK

Best example of this is the amount of economic inefficiency brought about by recent graduates using time and effort to pay off debt as opposed to involving themselves in money making propositions.  It also controls the amount of their creativity in an economic sense because they do not have the option of exploring capital projects.  They are stuck with finding a job to pay off the debt.  There are only two things to sell in this world, capital and labour.  Piketty has shown that the return on capital has swung the balance so that its predominance works against the good of the economy.  This is shown by the predominance of "rogue", "dead" or "casino" capital, whatever you want to call it.  One of the ways of returning labour some form of balance would be to forgive university and trade school tuition.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:
1 hour ago, hermetic said:
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

and there is no irony in me being anti-welfare, it's just another tidbit that you pulled out of your ass.  you and philly are the kings of making shit up - it's quite amusing

The only thing I have "pulled out of my ass" is the smoke you're trying to blow up there.

Agreed that the lack of prosecution is not the banks fault; it's as much the SEC as it is DOJ. Obama spoke about this issue and I disagreed with him at the time. The plutocrats hate-hate-HATE him anyway.

Please quote any shit I have made up. Take your time.

you just made up that shit about the sec or obama prosecuting the banks.  criminal charges are the purview of the doj

and you made up that shit about me and anti-welfare

you're funny though.  keep at it 

Investigating and forming the basis for charges, when it comes to finance and investment and banking regulations, is...... which gov't agency??

Regarding Obama's prosecution or lack of it, you might be interested in these two little pop news articles, both from relatively unpolitical business and investment media:

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-wall-street-execs-werent-prosecuted-2013-1

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-story-behind-the-only-bank-prosecuted-after-the-2008-financial-crisis-2017-05-19

As for your being anti-welfare, you'd be the first rightie I ever heard of being in favor of it, if that's the case. Congrats.

surely you can't be insinuating that the white house dictated what the doj would prosecute?  the doj being independent and not interested in politics and all

and surely you can read that you typed "prosecution" - right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hermetic said:

surely you can't be insinuating that the white house dictated what the doj would prosecute?  the doj being independent and not interested in politics and all

and surely you can read that you typed "prosecution" - right?

At this point I'm not sure what we're arguing about, other than that we both think Obama did not do a good job with the Wall St miscreants after the 2007~2009 crash.

The President is of course going to have some influence over the Justice Dept, that's why he is the Chief Executive. Now, if he attempted to stop DOJ from investigating or prosecuting somebody who had very strong and well-known evidence against them..... or attempted to order the DOJ to prosecute people who had committed no crime but were political opponents...... hmm, would that be bad IYHO?

But neither is the case with Obama and Wall St.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

At this point I'm not sure what we're arguing about, other than that we both think Obama did not do a good job with the Wall St miscreants after the 2007~2009 crash.

The President is of course going to have some influence over the Justice Dept, that's why he is the Chief Executive. Now, if he attempted to stop DOJ from investigating or prosecuting somebody who had very strong and well-known evidence against them..... or attempted to order the DOJ to prosecute people who had committed no crime but were political opponents...... hmm, would that be bad IYHO?

But neither is the case with Obama and Wall St.

-DSK

I would suggest that "dealing with the miscreants" should have been done before the crash. They were essentially given a long leash, and allowed to pillage and plunder at will. Afterwards, rules were put in place that were so toothless that even the idiots could work around them..... But by then, the big horses had left the barn.

This is the same crew that's in power now, it's just 10 years later, and they're 10 years richer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The only one that angers me is the idea of abolishing immigration enforcement.  I think that several of her other ideas are incredibly naive, and wouldn't achieve what she might think they would.  Free school?   As a guy w/6 kids, I'd love to be free from the debt I've incurred to help my kids get a better start than I had. How do you pay for it?  

Modern Monetary Theory.

When tikipete was around, he could explain it better. Basically, the idea is that printing more money never has a negative consequence, so you print as much as is required.

There's really nothing all that modern nor monetary about it, but a magic money machine will always remain a popular theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
15 hours ago, hermetic said:

surely you can't be insinuating that the white house dictated what the doj would prosecute?  the doj being independent and not interested in politics and all

and surely you can read that you typed "prosecution" - right?

At this point I'm not sure what we're arguing about, other than that we both think Obama did not do a good job with the Wall St miscreants after the 2007~2009 crash.

The President is of course going to have some influence over the Justice Dept, that's why he is the Chief Executive. Now, if he attempted to stop DOJ from investigating or prosecuting somebody who had very strong and well-known evidence against them..... or attempted to order the DOJ to prosecute people who had committed no crime but were political opponents...... hmm, would that be bad IYHO?

But neither is the case with Obama and Wall St.

wait - you don't think there was any evidence of crimes committed by wall street?  seriously?

I believe the doj should have investigated and brought charges for any and all crimes committed.  and I believe the white house should not interfere with any doj investigation for political reasons.  then and now

but hey, if whataboutism help your hate - go with it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Modern Monetary Theory.

When tikipete was around, he could explain it better. Basically, the idea is that printing more money never has a negative consequence, so you print as much as is required.

There's really nothing all that modern nor monetary about it, but a magic money machine will always remain a popular theory.

As long as everything is quantified by money we will always need more.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hermetic said:

wait - you don't think there was any evidence of crimes committed by wall street?  seriously?

...    ...    ...

Where did I say that?

I think there were plenty of crimes committed, and have said so all along.

2 hours ago, hermetic said:

...   ...    ...

I believe the doj should have investigated and brought charges for any and all crimes committed.  and I believe the white house should not interfere with any doj investigation for political reasons.  then and now

...   ...   ...

Nice if you can get it. To think that "politics" won't influence decisions is naieve IMHO, best to go for transparency and principle. (As I said before) The President is the Cheif Executive and boss of DOJ, you can't keep him from influencing it without stopping him from doing his job. OTOH there is influence, such as choosing a certain person with certain opinions.... like Jeff Sessions' who publicly stated many times his opinion that we must pursue the War On Drugs vigorously..... and then there is obstruction/persecution, such as ordering 500 investigations of a political opponent or firing an investigator looking into a friend.

Obama could have used his office without crossing any lines. I don't believe he told Att'y Gen Holder "you're NOT going after any Wall St guys" but he could easily have made it a higher priority to investigate. He talked about it in a couple of interviews/press briefings, saying that it was not a high priority. Was that improper? Flirting with the grey area but not crossing any lines IMHO.

2 hours ago, hermetic said:

....   ...    ...

but hey, if whataboutism help your hate - go with it

What is it that I'm hating on?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Obama could have used his office without crossing any lines. I don't believe he told Att'y Gen Holder "you're NOT going after any Wall St guys" but he could easily have made it a higher priority to investigate. He talked about it in a couple of interviews/press briefings, saying that it was not a high priority. Was that improper? Flirting with the grey area but not crossing any lines IMHO.

What is it that I'm hating on?

not a high priority.  what was higher during that period?  and of course obama told holder not to prosecute - for political purposes.  then he fibbed about it in interviews.

your hate - which is funny - is based on the misconception that what is happening now has never happened before, and is therefore the most outrageous act ever committed.  you come across the same as the loony right of last decade.  but take consolation in the fact that you are not alone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, hermetic said:

not a high priority.  what was higher during that period?  and of course obama told holder not to prosecute - for political purposes.  then he fibbed about it in interviews.

...   ...    ...

Getting the economy going again? Re-engaging intel & security so that instead of blowing up stuff for Halliburtan to rebuild on a cost-plus basis in Iraq, the US military and various agencies were focused on actual security (apparently best accomplished by increasing drone warfare, but that's a whole 'nother issue). And of course turning the crank to get ObamaCare all sausaged together.

Couple of other pretty high priorities for those years, but those three jump to mind

13 minutes ago, hermetic said:

...    ...

your hate - which is funny - is based on the misconception that what is happening now has never happened before, and is therefore the most outrageous act ever committed.  you come across the same as the loony right of last decade.  but take consolation in the fact that you are not alone

Can you point to where I said this was the first time, never happened before, or anything similar; much less that it was the most outrageous etc etc? It certainly isn't; for that matter, one of the constant themes I preach in political discussions is that very little has changed in how this country does business. The Continental Congress was as big a group of back-room dealers, pork-barrelers, bait-n-switchers, etc etc, as any we've had since.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:
37 minutes ago, hermetic said:

not a high priority.  what was higher during that period?  and of course obama told holder not to prosecute - for political purposes.  then he fibbed about it in interviews.

...   ...    ...

Getting the economy going again? Re-engaging intel & security so that instead of blowing up stuff for Halliburtan to rebuild on a cost-plus basis in Iraq, the US military and various agencies were focused on actual security (apparently best accomplished by increasing drone warfare, but that's a whole 'nother issue). And of course turning the crank to get ObamaCare all sausaged together.

Couple of other pretty high priorities for those years, but those three jump to mind

what was holder's or the doj's role in any of those policies that would have prevented him from starting an investigation against wall street?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, hermetic said:

what was holder's or the doj's role in any of those policies that would have prevented him from starting an investigation against wall street?

For all I know, he -did- some investigating.... maybe a lot. But with the main efforts of the Obama Administration going into other avenues, and no political cookies to be handed out, he didn't end up charging any big fish. For what reason? Under-the-table political pressure from Barry? Possibly but I'd think not.

For whatever it's worth , the Wall Streeters hate-hate-HATED him just much as if he had pursued them as vigorously as Att'y Gen. Jeff Sessions went after drug offenders and illegal immigrants. Fuckin' ingrates.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look Mr. Chessie - 

It's going to be hard to have any reasonable exchange of views with you if you keep 

repeating Reich-wing lies. 

OAC and many of us want to abolish ICE, which in NOT THE SAME as abolishing immigration enforcement. 

There are many positions taken by OAC about which reasonable people can disagree - but that is never good enough 

for the US Reich. No, they seem to be totally unable to refrain from making shit up. 

Please stop repeating that crap. 

You wrote  . . 

The only one that angers me is the idea of abolishing immigration enforcement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Look Mr. Chessie - 

It's going to be hard to have any reasonable exchange of views with you if you keep 

repeating Reich-wing lies. 

OAC and many of us want to abolish ICE, which in NOT THE SAME as abolishing immigration enforcement. 

There are many positions taken by OAC about which reasonable people can disagree - but that is never good enough 

for the US Reich. No, they seem to be totally unable to refrain from making shit up. 

Please stop repeating that crap. 

You wrote  . . 

The only one that angers me is the idea of abolishing immigration enforcement. 

Abolishing the immigration enforcement agency == abolishing immigration enforcement.   If you disband a police force, who's left  to write tickets? 

BTW - the "reich wing" bullshit is funny, but, it really diminishes what little credence I'm currently willing to afford your position.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Abolishing the immigration enforcement agency == abolishing immigration enforcement.   If you disband a police force, who's left  to write tickets? 

BTW - the "reich wing" bullshit is funny, but, it really diminishes what little credence I'm currently willing to afford your position.  

is ICE the only Federal agency concerned with immigration enforcement?

I had the impression that it was not.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Abolishing the immigration enforcement agency == abolishing immigration enforcement.   If you disband a police force, who's left  to write tickets? 

BTW - the "reich wing" bullshit is funny, but, it really diminishes what little credence I'm currently willing to afford your position.  

Your statement is just ignorant. ICE did not exist before 2003, and the US had plenty of border enforcement before that time. 

Don't be a stooge for the Reich - your kids struggle to pay for school for a reason, and the Reich is it. 

I use strong terms to describe the Reich because they have worked hard to earn my scorn. 

Lying us into the Iraq War in 2003 was the last straw for me (I'm a Vietnam vet), and then you have the torture - which the Drumph actually brags about 

What scum they are 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

is ICE the only Federal agency concerned with immigration enforcement?

I had the impression that it was not.

-DSK

Well yes, Mr. Flyer - Chessie has drifted over into the realm of bad faith - i.e.,  defending the Reich's obviously made up shit. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ICE is a bad arm of the law. Our border patrol officers did just fine before they were given Gestapo status.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Well yes, Mr. Flyer - Chessie has drifted over into the realm of bad faith - i.e.,  defending the Reich's obviously made up shit. 

 

No. ICE is not the only Federal agency involved with immigration enforcement. The CBP is the main federal agency tasked with guarding the border. ICE is theoretically only involved in apprehending persons inside the USA illegally, and bringing them to court.

Also the Forest service, US Coast Guard, The Treasury Dept., and US postal Service are in theory part of the "border police".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

ICE is a bad arm of the law. Our border patrol officers did just fine before they were given Gestapo status.

 

Correct-a-mundo Mr. Left - 

OAC is not opposed to border enforcement, just Nazi-like border enforcement. 

Chessie now knows he was wrong - lets see if he has entirely gone over to the dark side and defends that lie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Correct-a-mundo Mr. Left - 

OAC is not opposed to border enforcement, just Nazi-like border enforcement. 

Chessie now knows he was wrong - lets see if he has entirely gone over to the dark side and defends that lie. 

BTW AJ..... Her initials are AO-C.... Just sayin'.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to his sig line, AJ Oliver is a “retired poli sci prof”.  If you ever wonder how kids get radicalized in college, he’s your answer.  

I wouldn’t let him teach my dog how to play fetch.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

ICE is a bad arm of the law. Our border patrol officers did just fine before they were given Gestapo status.

 

ICE is not the border patrol.  They are Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  They get called on when the Border Patrol fails.

Pretty much the same relationship as the Military and the State department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

No. ICE is not the only Federal agency involved with immigration enforcement. The CBP is the main federal agency tasked with guarding the border. ICE is theoretically only involved in apprehending persons inside the USA illegally, and bringing them to court.

Also the Forest service, US Coast Guard, The Treasury Dept., and US postal Service are in theory part of the "border police".

Since the instantiation of ICE, which agency has been charged with primary responsibility for immigration enforcement?    When someone advocates the abolishment of that agency, without stipulating to any re-assignment of that agency's enforcement responsibilities, it's not at all unreasonable to see that what is really intended by the call to "abolish ICE" is the elimination of immigration enforcement.   Does ICE need to be refocused?  Change their tactics?  Yeah - I'd agree and support that without hesitation.  

DHS was created because competing enforcement/intelligence agencies were too stove-piped, too unwilling to cooperate and share information assets.   ICE was put under DHS because it was decided that immigration was a national security interest.   IMHO - the only thing that DHS has gotten right is to push for greater intra-agency information sharing - beyond that? I'd love to see its responsibilities ( those that are still valid and should continue ) re-allocated to the most appropriate agency.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, J28 said:

According to his sig line, AJ Oliver is a “retired poli sci prof”.  If you ever wonder how kids get radicalized in college, he’s your answer.  

I wouldn’t let him teach my dog how to play fetch.

You had to teach your dog to play fetch? That's one stupid, lazy ass dog.....:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Since the instantiation of ICE, which agency has been charged with primary responsibility for immigration enforcement?    When someone advocates the abolishment of that agency, without stipulating to any re-assignment of that agency's enforcement responsibilities, it's not at all unreasonable to see that what is really intended by the call to "abolish ICE" is the elimination of immigration enforcement.   Does ICE need to be refocused?  Change their tactics?  Yeah - I'd agree and support that without hesitation.  

DHS was created because competing enforcement/intelligence agencies were too stove-piped, too unwilling to cooperate and share information assets.   ICE was put under DHS because it was decided that immigration was a national security interest.   IMHO - the only thing that DHS has gotten right is to push for greater intra-agency information sharing - beyond that? I'd love to see its responsibilities ( those that are still valid and should continue ) re-allocated to the most appropriate agency.  

CBP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

CBP

CBP does immigration enforcement, or border protection?  The two are a bit different, even if they have some shared objectives.  Look - I get your point, Lefty - but, that doesn't negate mine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, J28 said:

According to his sig line, AJ Oliver is a “retired poli sci prof”.  If you ever wonder how kids get radicalized in college, he’s your answer.  

It was the best job in the world - loved every minute of it.

And actually I got along pretty well with the more conservative students. In terms of 

building cred, it helps to accept them and their ideas as they are.

I thought our school did a good job of presenting students with a number of alternatives, and letting them decide for themselves. 

But with the growing insanity of the GOP, it's getting hard for people to defend them without lying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

what was holder's or the doj's role in any of those policies that would have prevented him from starting an investigation against wall street?

For all I know, he -did- some investigating.... maybe a lot. But with the main efforts of the Obama Administration going into other avenues, and no political cookies to be handed out, he didn't end up charging any big fish. For what reason? Under-the-table political pressure from Barry? Possibly but I'd think not.

For whatever it's worth , the Wall Streeters hate-hate-HATED him just much as if he had pursued them as vigorously as Att'y Gen. Jeff Sessions went after drug offenders and illegal immigrants. Fuckin' ingrates.

what was the role of doj in all these other avenues / other policies?  the doj deals with crimes not politics.  where, in your mind, were they diverted to that prevented them from investigating and prosecuting the crimes that wall street committed?  come on, your arguments are silly - just admit that the doj didn't go after wall street because the white house told them not to.  wall street would have caved and agreed to any fine and personnel changes the doj wanted to keep their ceo's out of court and jail.  instead they got bonuses - thanks to white house interference in the justice system.  wall street didn't hate obama, they loved him

and what the fuck does sessions have to do with this?  try and stay focused for once

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

CBP does immigration enforcement, or border protection?  The two are a bit different, even if they have some shared objectives.  Look - I get your point, Lefty - but, that doesn't negate mine. 

Not to beat a dead horse, but.....

The major difference between ICE and CBP is that while CBP is responsible for enforcing immigration laws at and near the borders, ICE is responsible for enforcing immigration laws within the remaining areas of the U.S. ... ICE attorneys are also responsible for representing the U.S. government in immigration prosecutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chessie - 

It is a flat-out lie to write that AO-C wants to abolish immigration enforcement. 

And you know it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Not to beat a dead horse, but.....

The major difference between ICE and CBP is that while CBP is responsible for enforcing immigration laws at and near the borders, ICE is responsible for enforcing immigration laws within the remaining areas of the U.S. ... ICE attorneys are also responsible for representing the U.S. government in immigration prosecutions.

It's not a dead horse, and you're correct.  CBP doesn't do internal enforcement, INS did, INS -> ICE.  If ICE is abolished, then there is no agency responsible for internal immigration enforcement, hence my comment.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrleft8 said:

You had to teach your dog to play fetch? That's one stupid, lazy ass dog.....:rolleyes:

My dog is blind, just like you, asshole!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, J28 said:

My dog is blind, just like you, asshole!

Even a blind dog can find his balls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, hermetic said:

what was the role of doj in all these other avenues / other policies?  the doj deals with crimes not politics.  where, in your mind, were they diverted to that prevented them from investigating and prosecuting the crimes that wall street committed?  come on, your arguments are silly - just admit that the doj didn't go after wall street because the white house told them not to.  wall street would have caved and agreed to any fine and personnel changes the doj wanted to keep their ceo's out of court and jail.  instead they got bonuses - thanks to white house interference in the justice system.  wall street didn't hate obama, they loved him

and what the fuck does sessions have to do with this?  try and stay focused for once

Try and pay attention for once.

The influence that any President will have, no matter what else, is his pick for Att'y Gen. He can pick a guy who's tough on finance fraud, he can pick a guy who's tough on drugs, etc etc. He can pick his friggin' kid brother.... y'know, the one with no legal education or experience. This is the way it is SUPPOSED to work.

Pres. Trump could have picked a lot of people, but he picked Jeff Sessions (for whatever reason) who is known to be very enthusiastic about the War On Drugs. It may be because Trump is secretly dealing drugs and wants Sessions would crack down (pardon the pun) on the competition. That would be improper. OTOH it's certainly expected that if President Trump talks tough about some type of crime, he would pick an Att'y Gen. with similar attitudes. Drugs, yeah Trump hates 'em! Illegal immigrants? Throw away the fuckin' key! Sessions was just the guy for this, and that is 100% OK.

Did Obama talk tough about cracking down on Wall St during his 2008 campaign? I'm sure he did some, I don't recall it as being a major theme. In fact during one of the debates he gave an explanation about why reinstating Glass-Steagall wasn't the best idea as well as why it was very (very!) unlikely to happen.

Did Holder not prosecute Wall St because Obama told him not to? If you can't give pretty strong evidence, that's just a smear. A lie intended as an insult.

Did Holder not prosecute Wall St because he felt it was a low priority and he knew that Obama agreed? Perfectly correct and proper.

BTW the SEC levied a lot of fines during those days.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ICE seems like a national police force with a mandate to behave aggressively in full battle rattle and on FOX News reassuring the faithful. I don’t think they are adding to our security as much as is assumed; scared illegal immigrants are easier prey since they don’t dare call a LEO on their abusing husband, their neighbor who deals drugs, or the murderer of their friend. 

This shock force has been rapidly hired and quickly trained and have been given messages from their CIC to not protect the head when guiding suspect into cars, and that Mexican heritage makes even judges untrustworthy.

Our immigration laws need updating, and we need to be leery of a nationalized police force that is willing to jail kids seeking asylum and roust the owners of businesses who have been here for decades and have families living here peacefully and productively. There does not seem to be a moral core to this group, and I do not trust them with our national heritage and tradition of being a nation of immigrants. 

Give their mandate and funding to the local or state police facing crimes committed by illegal aliens. They are responsible to their citizens and better suited to decide what they need to keep the peace. At the national level their is little accountability for methods and ample failures to legislate. The money they’ve taxed us for ICE is money poorly spent on racism and a long-standing failure of leadership. But it looks good on FOX I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ICE guys have been slapped on the wrist several times for intimidating lawful citizens, and  yet they still act like Rambo.

 They really need to be reigned in.

 Nobody likes to be frightened by scary guys dressed in black battle armor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

ICE seems like a national police force with a mandate to behave aggressively in full battle rattle and on FOX News reassuring the faithful. I don’t think they are adding to our security as much as is assumed; scared illegal immigrants are easier prey since they don’t dare call a LEO on their abusing husband, their neighbor who deals drugs, or the murderer of their friend. 

This shock force has been rapidly hired and quickly trained and have been given messages from their CIC to not protect the head when guiding suspect into cars, and that Mexican heritage makes even judges untrustworthy.

Our immigration laws need updating, and we need to be leery of a nationalized police force that is willing to jail kids seeking asylum and roust the owners of businesses who have been here for decades and have families living here peacefully and productively. There does not seem to be a moral core to this group, and I do not trust them with our national heritage and tradition of being a nation of immigrants. 

Give their mandate and funding to the local or state police facing crimes committed by illegal aliens. They are responsible to their citizens and better suited to decide what they need to keep the peace. At the national level their is little accountability for methods and ample failures to legislate. The money they’ve taxed us for ICE is money poorly spent on racism and a long-standing failure of leadership. But it looks good on FOX I suppose.

Amen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You haven't seen my wife's pug... Stupid? no.  Lazy?  Unless there's pork in her bowl. 

She could run for congress.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

Chessie - 

It is a flat-out lie to write that AO-C wants to abolish immigration enforcement. 

And you know it. 

Then, what does she want?

Please be specific.

The last time someone said we needed to open the border they ended up agreeing that immigrants should be screened.  That's what we do with the visa process.  Bringing them in setting them loose with a court date doesn't seem to work well.  Most of what ICE does is round up those who ignore the court date that they agreed to.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

The ICE guys have been slapped on the wrist several times for intimidating lawful citizens, and  yet they still act like Rambo.

 They really need to be reigned in.

Reigned in what kingdom, and by whom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Reigned in what kingdom, and by whom?

Reined......  Sorry. Auto correct wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, phillysailor said:

ICE seems like a national police force with a mandate to behave aggressively in full battle rattle and on FOX News reassuring the faithful. I don’t think they are adding to our security as much as is assumed; scared illegal immigrants are easier prey since they don’t dare call a LEO on their abusing husband, their neighbor who deals drugs, or the murderer of their friend. 

This shock force has been rapidly hired and quickly trained and have been given messages from their CIC to not protect the head when guiding suspect into cars, and that Mexican heritage makes even judges untrustworthy.

Our immigration laws need updating, and we need to be leery of a nationalized police force that is willing to jail kids seeking asylum and roust the owners of businesses who have been here for decades and have families living here peacefully and productively. There does not seem to be a moral core to this group, and I do not trust them with our national heritage and tradition of being a nation of immigrants. 

Give their mandate and funding to the local or state police facing crimes committed by illegal aliens. They are responsible to their citizens and better suited to decide what they need to keep the peace. At the national level their is little accountability for methods and ample failures to legislate. The money they’ve taxed us for ICE is money poorly spent on racism and a long-standing failure of leadership. But it looks good on FOX I suppose.

Philly - I can agree completely with the intent of this post.  The issue for me is that local enforcement in many places has refused to enforce immigration laws.   I agree that a family who's been here years, contributing to the community, deserves much more consideration than does a gang member who just got picked up for shooting someone.  What we need FIRST is a fix to the current mess that is our immigration policy, and for people on both sides of the discussion to recognize that adjustments are needed, and that they won't like some of those adjustments.   I've already said what I think is necessary, so I won't repeat it, but, enforcement follows statute, and if we want better enforcement?  IMHO, we need to fix the statutes first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, Chessie. The local authorities are responsible to their citizens, and kicking out your well respected and liked boss who has lived a life of civic engagement isn’t something they would do. It’s bad for business, bad for one’s Reputation and, arguably, bad for our country.

But it is currently the mission of ICE which has been transformed into Trumps nationalist army. 

Our immigration laws and procedures suck. Let’s fix that, then worry about documentating illegals in our country living peaceable, productive lives. 

Criminal illegals can be deported according to Federal statutes, and I don’t think the local governments will put up a fuss other than having a say in what sort of illegal activity merits that type of enforcement: speeding tickets or possessing weed shouldn’t be treated the same as MS13 types, for instance.

But I refuse to consider illegal entry a crime that automatically merits expulsion: our system created this system and we must deal with its implications humanely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Philly - I can agree completely with the intent of this post.  The issue for me is that local enforcement in many places has refused to enforce immigration laws.   I agree that a family who's been here years, contributing to the community, deserves much more consideration than does a gang member who just got picked up for shooting someone.  What we need FIRST is a fix to the current mess that is our immigration policy, and for people on both sides of the discussion to recognize that adjustments are needed, and that they won't like some of those adjustments.   I've already said what I think is necessary, so I won't repeat it, but, enforcement follows statute, and if we want better enforcement?  IMHO, we need to fix the statutes first. 

Local police do not enforce federal laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Why should they?

Philly suggested that ICE should be disbanded, and immigration enforcement passed to local authorities. I agree with his premise that local cops should have a better understanding of what's happening in the communities they police than would federal agents.  

You're right, that it's not within local purview to enforce federal law, but, it still happens.  A local cop pops someone for speeding, and finds 10 grams of coke in the car.  Does he let the guy go, call the Feds, or arrest him?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites