DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on January 26, 2012, 10:04:30 PM
-
(http://walt.mercersburg.net/me/resources/stopBlaming_files/cnslogoimp.gif)
Electric-Car Firm That Got Biden Visit,
$118M in Stimulus, Files for Bankruptcy
By Fred Lucas
January 26, 2012
(http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/medium/images/BIDEN%20AT%20ENER1-WH%20PHOTO-DAVID%20LIENEMANN.jpg)
Vice President Joe Biden viewed an electric car that used Ener1 batteries
as he toured the Ener1 battery factory in Greenfield, Ind., on Jan. 26, 2011.
(White House photo/David Lienemann)
(CNSNews.com) - Ener1--a company that manufactures batteries for electric cars, and that received $118.5 million in federal stimulus money, and that Vice President Joe Biden visited last year the day after President Obama's State of the Union Address announced today that it has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
In last year's State of the Union Address, delivered Jan. 25, 2011, President Obama set a national goal of having a million electric vehicles on the road in the United States by 2015 a goal that would be achieved, Obama said, by taking money out of the oil industry and "investing" it in new technology.
"With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels and become the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015," said Obama.
"We need to get behind this innovation," he said. "And to help pay for it, I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don't know if you've noticed, but they're doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's."
The next day, Biden visited the Ener1 plant in Greenfield, Ind. which the White House said at the time had received a $118.5 million grant from the Department of Energy and was the type of investment the president was talking about in his State of the Union.
Brian Levine, deputy domestic policy adviser to Biden, wrote an article about Biden's visit to Ener1 on the White House webpage for the White House Middle Class Task Force, which Biden leads. The article was headlined "Our Plan to Put One Million Advanced Technology Vehicles on America's Roads."
"Last night, President Obama set a goal of making the United States the first country in the world to put one million advanced technology vehicles on the road," Levine wrote. This goal is part of the President's plan to rebuild our economy by investing in innovation to create the jobs and industries of the future.
"Today, Vice President Biden visited Ener1, Inc., a manufacturer of advanced batteries for electric vehicles, in Greenfield, Indiana to announce our plan to reach this one million vehicle goal by 2015," wrote Levine. "The facility that the Vice President visited would not exist if not for a $118.5 million grant from the Department of Energy, which was part of a $2.4 billion Recovery Act investment in electric vehicles. Ener1 added 120 jobs across the company in 2010 and the future looks bright. They expect to expand the manufacturing and assembly operation in Greenfield from 80 workers today to over a thousand by the start of 2013."
At the Ener1 plant, Biden made a gaffe, mistakenly referring to Ener1?as Enron1.
?Well, ladies and gentlemen, here at Ener1, we?re going to harness electricity and bring it to the world like Edison did more than a century ago,? said Biden. ?We're going to reshape the way Americans drive, the way Americans consume, the way Americans power their lives. And in turn, we're going to reshape America itself. We may not make battery power so cheap that only the rich can afford to drive their cars on imported oil, but?but--with Enron1 (sic) leading the way, we're certainly going to come pretty close.?
Ener1 produces advanced lithium-ion battery systems for electric vehicles.
On Thursday, the company put out a statement announcing that it was filing for Chanter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York.
Ener1, the statement said, "announced that it has reached agreement with its primary investors and lenders on a restructuring plan that will significantly reduce its debt and provide up to $81 million to recapitalize the Company to support its long-term business objectives and strategic plan. To implement this restructuring plan, the Company has voluntarily initiated a 'pre-packaged' Chapter 11 case in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York, in which it is requesting that the Court confirm a pre-packaged Plan of Reorganization to implement the restructuring."
The Ener1 Chapter 11 filing came a year to the day after Vice President Biden visited the companies Greenfield plant and a year to the day after Biden?s aide wrote on the White House website: "They expect to expand the manufacturing and assembly operation in Greenfield from 80 workers today to over a thousand by the start of 2013."
The Obama administration has previously come under fire for a $535 million loan the Energy Department made to Solyndra, a California-based solar panel company. Solyndra filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last fall.
In his visit to Ener1 last year, Vice President Biden said that in order to reach the president's goal of one million "advanced-technology vehicles" by 2015, the administration was not only subsidizing companies like Ener1 but wanted to give a $7,500 rebate to people who purchased an electric car like those that would be powered by Ener1 batteries.
"As the president said last night, by 2015 we we will be the first nation in the world to have a million advanced-technology vehicles on the road, a million," said Biden.
"So, folks, here's how we're going to do it. Here's how we're going to meet that goal," said Biden. "It's not enough just to make these batteries. That alone, all by itself, will not get us there. We have to do three more things. We have to convince people at the threshold of this new automobile breakthrough, the new investment. We've got to convince them at the threshold to take a chance, to invest in these vehicles."
"In order to spur this, to increase the number of people that are using the automobiles run by the batteries you are producing, to increase demand," said Biden, "we proposed changing what is now an existing tax credit of $7,500 that if you buy an automobile like this to an immediate rebate. You get a check for $7,500--just like the cash for clunkers program. You don't have to wait. You don't have to wait till tax time to get the extra money to pay for that vehicle."
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/electric-car-firm-got-biden-visit-118m-stimulus-files-bankruptcy (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/electric-car-firm-got-biden-visit-118m-stimulus-files-bankruptcy)
-
So it goes, status quo....thanks "O" :o
-
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/b7a467a9.jpg)
-
But if you were to listen to him at the State of the Delusion, or Debbie Wasserman Schultz, you'd swear that everything was just hunky dory, and that he needs another 4 years to "hopefully" bring those above "changes" to real fruition
-
Wow...check out those headlines:
GDP Collapse, 1.7% for year
Government "Handouts" up 32%.
Food Stamps UP 45%
Still Bush's fault, though, right??
-
Bad for me to say
If you want your business to last don't take government money.
-
hear hear....I'll 2nd that
-
Remember Aptera, the 3 wheeled electric car that everyone in this forum wanted?
You can't have one. Aptera needed money, and they could not get government money without matching funds.
Here is what happened to Aptera.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGGhH1LlUUE&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGGhH1LlUUE&feature=related)
-
Remember Aptera, the 3 wheeled electric car that everyone in this forum wanted?
I never did......nor would I support being taxed for something I don't want either.
Now if some "rich" person wants to make it, via hiring staff, engineers, and the like, with their own money, with the help of other investers, if that's needed, what's wrong with that, and why is that "rich" person demonized if he's a success?? Why does construction in so-called "green energy" projects mandate some need for Government invovlement, and subsequent government tax dollars??, which then can become a complete waste, like here, and with the Solyndra's of the world??
Where in the Constitution does it mandate a need for the Federal Government to pick which private industries to "invest" our tax dollars in, and which ones not to??
-
The point is that the government did not invest in Aptera because matching funds were not found. Maybe it would have been a great success, maybe a total failure, but we will never know.
I have no opinion on this, but it was sad to see such a beautiful machine not be made.
-
since we`re on the subject of government money ,anybody here every got a government contract? i was in two businesses that did and it was not as pofitable as it is portrayed.Don`t get me wrong no business will turn it down,but it`s not as easy to deal with legally. the magic word is legally
-
The point is that the government did not invest in Aptera because matching funds were not found.
NOR SHOULD THEY HAVE. IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS IN TRYING TO PICK AND CHOOSE WINNERS WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS
Maybe it would have been a great success, maybe a total failure, but we will never know.
In its current form, its a total failure. Good thing the Government didn't waste our tax dollars on this. It's a great success or failure at those who wish to invest in such a program. NOT TO TAXPAYERS
I have no opinion on this, but it was sad to see such a beautiful machine not be made.
No one's stopping you from investing in such. But back to the much more pertinent question that not-so-surprisingly was not answered.....Where in the Constitution does it mandate a need for the Federal Government to pick which private industries to "invest" our tax dollars in, and which ones not to??
-
Yeah I remember that car. Looked neat and yeah i wanted one. shame they couldn't get the project off the ground.
-
anybody here every got a government contract?
i was in two businesses that did and it was not
as pofitable as it is portrayed.
Kimba i guess it depends what business you're in
but we dont usually even submit a bid when we get a gvt request
besides wanting to "low ball" everybody
the gvt is racist & qualifies bids on your skin color/race
we looked into being a "minority owned company"
back around 2003 I even contacted the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma
because we would qualify, but we decided it was
not really worth the trouble, plus we didn't feel right
about using skin color/heritage to gain advantage.
-
not really worth the trouble
I hear that from quite afew businesses when I bring this up.I get involved with city government and they tend to abuse outsourcing in the belief thier in charge ,not the business thier hiring.the false belief contracting mean all the perks but none of the responsibility.
-
I even contacted the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma because we would qualify, but we decided it was not really worth the trouble, plus we didn't feel right about using skin color/heritage to gain advantage.[/b]
And yet the left, like the NAALCP, embraces that philosophy. Pretty much the polar opposite of MLK Jr's platform. Sad, how they've mutated his message :(
-
There were four transcontinental railroads built across the western US between the Civil War and 1900 , five if you say North America. The Union Pacific, the Northern Pacific, the Great Northern and the Santa Fe/ Southern Pacific, and the Canadian Pacific. Each one got HUGE subsidies from the government in both land and money. Most went broke numerous times and corruption was far more rampant than any recent period.
Synthetic rubber was essential for fighting WWII, as the Japanese took over Indochina. It was developed with government money. Aircraft and air transportation was subsidized by the government in many ways.
Individual projects need to be judged on their own merits, and there is always the understanding that not all will be as successful as proposed. There will always be some failures. But to say that the government should not subsidize ANYTHING is insane. Were it not for ARPANET, we would not be having this discussion, not here, and almost certainly not anywhere else.
-
NO, projects need to be judged if they fulfull constitutional parameters. Nothing individual about that. They either do, or they don't. If a project doesn't fit within the pervue of what the Fed is allowed to do, the Fed has no business in trying to invest our tax dollars. National security projects do. Commerce projects can. And that would be ANY, not just those that are more politically correct, than others
-
The internet was invested in as a national security issue, thus it was a constitutional use of govt funds.
Energy independence is a national security issue, and electric cars and other alternative energy explorations and investments would fall into that realm, and thus a constitutional use of govt funds.
The problem is more management than constitutionality.
-
Corruption on the use of government funds is too public for the money to be effective. Meaning despite the bids are low balled it still cost more than normal. That low cost have often turn to a higher cost later on
-
The internet was invested in as a national security issue, thus it was a constitutional use of govt funds.
Energy independence is a national security issue, and electric cars and other alternative energy explorations and investments would fall into that realm, and thus a constitutional use of govt funds.
The former not so much, but the latter yes. Thus my reference that ANY and all areas of such be addressed per the Gov, and not trying to preselect which areas are to be pushed vs those to be punished
-
Are you saying that development of a secure independent communications channel had no national security or military applications?
-
Does the Hoover Dam fall within Constitutional parameters? Does the TVA fall within Constitutional parameters? Did finding the development of synthethic rubber?
I really do not think that the Founding Fathers had any position on electricity or ersatz rubber at all.
Perhaps the Aptera would have been a major breakthrough if it had been funded, perhaps not. We will never know.
All I can say was that it was a really cool idea and it is a shame that it did not work out.
-
Are you saying that development of a secure independent communications channel had no national security or military applications?
Literally anything can have "applications" that could include the Military or "national security", with the proper rationlizations. The issue is level. The Fed is mandated to protect this country. Now, that can include applications to protect us from internet/cyber atttacks. That does NOT translate into a Fed mandate in either producing or supporting the internet, with Federal tax dollars
Perhaps the Aptera would have been a major breakthrough if it had been funded, perhaps not. We will never know. All I can say was that it was a really cool idea and it is a shame that it did not work out.
We do know.....it was a failure. Sure its a "cool idea". Let some "rich" folks use their money to try and make it a success
-
Literally anything can have "applications" that could include the Military or "national security", with the proper rationlizations. The issue is level. The Fed is mandated to protect this country. Now, that can include applications to protect us from internet/cyber atttacks. That does NOT translate into a Fed mandate in either producing or supporting the internet, with Federal tax dollars
I believe the topic was whether the arpanet expenditures were constitutionally proper. My answer is yes. The Al Gore tax on your phone bill perhaps not so much.
-
Literally anything can have "applications" that could include the Military or "national security", with the proper rationlizations. The issue is level. The Fed is mandated to protect this country. Now, that can include applications to protect us from internet/cyber atttacks. That does NOT translate into a Fed mandate in either producing or supporting the internet, with Federal tax dollars
I believe the topic was whether the arpanet expenditures were constitutionally proper. My answer is yes. The Al Gore tax on your phone bill perhaps not so much.
My answer would be no. Especially given the selectivity of what companies the Government wants to push, vs those it wants to demonize. Either everyone gets expenditures, or no one. Simple as that
-
My answer would be no. Especially given the selectivity of what companies the Government wants to push, vs those it wants to demonize. Either everyone gets expenditures, or no one. Simple as that
Your answer indicates that you don't know the details of the arpanet project. You seem to want to make it a solyndra when that is not the case.
-
There is a good California answer from sirs: Arpanet and the Internet are valid projects, but paying for them with a slight tax is unconstitutional.
That's dumb. Whatever it is, the Internet is a service and is not entirely free. It is absurd to say that we must have it, but have no obligation to pay for it.
That is why California is in such a mess.
-
My answer would be no. Especially given the selectivity of what companies the Government wants to push, vs those it wants to demonize. Either everyone gets expenditures, or no one. Simple as that
Your answer indicates that you don't know the details of the arpanet project. You seem to want to make it a solyndra when that is not the case.
My answer to you and xo is clear......Either the Government supports ALL forms of energy, or none. It doesn't try to pick winners or losers.
And no, I'm NOT trying to make it a Solyndra. The fact that they didn't use any tax payer dollars kinds makes that point obvious. This was a missed Solyndra......THANKFULLY. I guess there weren't enough donors or big time Obama supporters at Arpnet
-
That is why California is in such a mess.
Umm, news Flash.....guess who's in charge?......guess who's been legislatively in charge for decades? Guess which state has nearly the highest taxes than any other state, in nearly every category of what can be taxed? Guessed who pushed those taxes? THAT explains why CA is in such a mess, but I do appreciate your concession of how screwed up it is. Thanks
-
.Either the Government supports ALL forms of energy, or none. It doesn't try to pick winners or losers.
==================================
That is dumb. There is no reason to support ethanol from corn, which uses more fuel than it replaces.
The proper thing to do is support those which are productive and save money and favorable to the balance of payments.
-
Either the Government supports ALL forms of energy, or none. It doesn't try to pick winners or losers.
==================================
That is dumb.
No ITS CALLED FAIR ( realize that word has been so mutated by the left, that it has no meaning for folks yourself. IT'S ALSO CALLED WORKING WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE CONSTITUTION
There is no reason to support ethanol from corn, which uses more fuel than it replaces.
IIRC, and I think it was an Ami article that helped highlight it, the amount of "energy" used to make these "green batteries" is staggering. FAR more burned fuels and pollution in what those batteries would supposedly save. Yet, there we are pouring billions of tax dollars into all forms of a pre-selected energy sector, and LOSING billions in the process
The proper thing to do is support those which are productive and save money and favorable to the balance of payments.
Then obviously we need to cease ALL payments, loans, and subsidies to any and ALL Solyndra-like enterprises
-
Arpanet funding was completely derived from the taxpayers
So was the Manhattan Project.
Both constitutional.
-
Arpanet funding was completely derived from the taxpayers
So which is it? Were they taxpayer funded along with matching "other funds", or were they not?
So was the Manhattan Project.
Both constitutional.
The latter, asbolutely
-
The former was a result of the latter. And definitely had a military application.
-
Sorry, not buying it, nor whould the tax payers. Let some uberrich folks look into it, then, if there are potentlal military applications, following some success, THEN there can be a discussion, as to what level of application
Which, to make painfully sure isn't going to be an attempt, is not remotely the same as the Military going out to get the best bid on their next super fighter or stealth radar detector or Frigate or something that could potentially bring a war to its end, which is a specific military objective, and not merely a potential application
-
we cant afford it BT!
-
CU you can't afford what?
-
Fatcats always say crap like this. It is the treatment that they give beggars. "Sorry, no money."
It was absolutely essential that Iraq had to be invaded. No one listened to those who said we can't afford it.
It is absolutely essential that the Air Force have new fighter planes, even though they are pretty much going to be obsolete when they finally are produced and the bugs are eliminated. We somehow need bases all over the globe. No one says "We can't afford that."
Mitt Romney wants to piss away even more on the military, when we spend more than all the rest of the planet combined.
\
When the time comes to pay for all this crap, the fatcats say, no, not ME. I am a job creator. Tax my peons, not me!
-
CU can't afford anything.
He is a pauper.
Obama has taken all his money.
-
Quote from: BT on Today at 04:39:11 PM
Arpanet funding was completely derived from the taxpayers
So which is it? Were they taxpayer funded along with matching "other funds", or were they not?
Completely funded by taxpayers means that no matching funds were involved.
I don't think you know what the Arpanet project was.
-
So, what is it?
-
google it
-
Great debate response. Pretty hard to claim I supposedly don't know what the project is, if you can't reference it ::)
-
It is not my job to educate you. But it is fun to see you opine on subjects you apparently have no knowledge of.
-
It's the function of those that participate in the saloon, to facilitate debate. At least it used to be. So sad
-
Yes opining on subjects you know nothing about and when gently pointed in the direction of enlightenment you demand that i provide your education for you.
Help your self conservative.
-
CU can't afford anything.
You're right....and in this economy the American People can't afford Solyndra!
Solyndra Employee: You Wonder Where All the Money Went (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lczSqZ2quT8#)
-
Yes opining on subjects you know nothing about and when gently pointed in the direction of enlightenment you demand that i provide your education for you.
Help your self conservative.
Opining on positions one fully supports is hardly opining on subjects one no nothing about, and reminding those, who apparently forget that this is a debate forum, that its somehow helpful if one is trying to claim X, to actually explain why, vs some generic "go fish" as in go google it
Helpful hints moderate
-
Arpanet research was funded to solve a military problem. That it would have a secondary use was not part of the discussion until the military problem was solved. Now unless you are saying that military expenditures that would save lives and shorten armed conflicts would not be constitutional, one can only surmise that you did not know what arpanet was.
"Opining on positions one fully supports is hardly opining on subjects one no nothing about"
In this case it looks like it is.
-
Actually, it wasn't, since my discussion was on the valididty of Federal expenditures, that are not clearly the pervue of the Fed, as outlined in the Consitutition. That Arpnet had an unintended 2ndary use, NOT related to the military, is precisely the expenditures of tax dollars, unneeded nor, supported by any Constitutional mandates
Glad we got that cleared up
-
Your constant trumpeting that you won an argument that you clearly have lost is getting old.
-
That Arpnet had an unintended 2ndary use, NOT related to the military, is precisely the expenditures of tax dollars, unneeded nor, supported by any Constitutional mandates
Well golly gee beaver, how would you know that there could be a secondary use, until you successfully fulfilled the mission assigned by the military and paid for with tax dollars. Constitutionally and well within provide for the common defense clause.
And if the technology had other uses well good for us.
-
One more time, if the Military's objectives turned out a 2ndary non-military application, by all means, anyone BUT the Government can make that into whatever success they think they can, with THEIR money and THEIR efforts. So sayeth the Constitution, in what the Fed can and can't do. Their failures also remain limited to them and their investors....NOT the TAXPAYERS
-
And who is stating that once the technology behind the internet (arpanet) was implemented, that the private sector didn't invest their own money and time into expanding it into what it is today.
Companies like Compuserve, AOL and Prodigy who built a user base. And companies like Hayes and US Robotics who built modems that allowed people to dial in to the internet. And the PC makers who saw the magic of putting into the hands of indibvgiduals the processing power that took us to the moon.
Secondary use. Private capital.
-
And who is stating that once the technology behind the internet (arpanet) was implemented, that the private sector didn't invest their own money and time into expanding it into what it is today.
No one.....are you purposely not paying attention? ::)
-
Actually I am. Why did you state that the investment in Arpanet was not as constitutional as the Manhattan Project.
And why reply #35, if it was clear that Arpanet was funded by taxpayer money?
It was clear from the onset that you had no clue as to what Arpanet was, because if you did, you wouldn't have responded the way you did.
-
Actually I am.
That's kinda what I thought.
And why reply #35, if it was clear that Arpanet was funded by taxpayer money? .........
......FOR A MILITARY OBJECTIVE. ONCE THAT OBJECTIVE HAD BEEN MET, THERE IS NO FURTHER CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE OR OBLIGATION FOR FUTHER TAXPAYERS $$$$'s
Yea, we're done here. I think we can move on now
-
The Interstate Highway System was designed as a National Defense item. They did not stop building after the goals of national defense were met. Why should the Internet be any different?
-
I'd love to see the evidence that our interstate system was facilitated as a military objective, but leaving that bit of unsupported claim aside, the commerce clause, and its relation to interstate shipping fits kinda ok, within the Constitution. Further investing in nothing more than a PC vehicle does not....much less the internet. By all means, invest in what's needed to guard against terrorist cyber attacks, but that would be the extent of Federal involvement
-
I'd love to see the evidence that our interstate system was facilitated as a military objective
It wasn't called the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956 for nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System)
And the federal government is still investing and improving on the backbone to the internet because military data, like everything else comprises more data and thus takes more bandwidth. And without that investment it would be unlikely they could control drones in real time at dial up speeds. And you do believe defense expenditures are constitutional, right?
-
Absolutely
A PC car however, is not
-
Don't believe i ever made that claim.
Although i am sure there are military applications for hybrid transports.
-
As I said, I'm sure there are military "applications" for anything under the sun, with the proper amount of rationalization. I'll leave that with the liberal left though, who find all sorts of things the Constitutiton never actually says, but with the proper amount of distortion and rationalization, they can find just about anything that the Fed should be using tax dollars for
-
BT are you claiming the gvt could basically fund any and every business
and claim "well it has a military application"?
They could start funding McDonalds franchises saying they are trying
to see how best to prepare meals for the soldiers?
The gvt could fund a bowling alley saying they
want to experiment on how best to entertain our troops?
The gvt could fund Walgreens because they could claim
"well we will learn how to run a pharmacy on a base"?
The gvt could fund barber shops claiming they would learn how to run
barber shops on a base or a ship?
The gvt could fund gun shops claiming they could
better learn how to store and order firearms?
Is there any limit BT?
-
My point exactly. Well layed out, C. Unless a program has been specifically layed out with a military objective and/or bids by companies that are attempting to fulfill a military ojective, merely claiming that there can be a military application is akin to a non-noted right to an abortion, based on a non noted right to privacy. Heck, just throw it under the Commerce Clause, and now you have 2 constitutiotnal mandates applied, when you include possible military applications
-
In Afghanistan the military has been using solar power extensively, which makes good sense, because trucking in Diesel and gasoline by truck is both expensive and dangerous. If you could run a Hummer or some other vehicle on half or a third as much fuel, that would be a major boon to the campaign in both dollars and lives. A solar-powered drone could be flitting over the enemy for months.
So of COURSE PC vehicles could be quite significant and useful. The Army has been funding robotic vehicles for quite some time now.'
Imagine if John Galt's motor that runs on static electricity from the atmosphere could be invented! ( :P)
-
BT are you claiming the gvt could basically fund any and every business
and claim "well it has a military application"?
No. and if you had read my replies you would see i never made that claim.
What i did say is funding research on programs like Arpanet and the manhattan project not only was constitutional but turned out to be excellent uses of taxpayer funds.
-
And what I, (and C by extension) has said, is that as long as tax payer funds are being applied towards those military objectives, whatever "applications" that may arise, if they are NOT directly military related, do NOT have a constitutional go ahead in spending oodles of tax payer dollars
-
I'm not sure how you are connecting the funding of the Arpanet Project with spending oodles of taxpayer monies on non military related applications.
But i am sure the forum is eager for your explanation.
-
It was generated from here (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16465.msg137849#msg137849), all the way back in reply #7, in which the whole notion of what should and should not be funded per the Constitution, generated from.
Hope that helped your apparent eagerness for an answer, though a curory scrolling back could have worked just as well
-
And your aptera response has what to do with Arpanet?
-
No. and if you had read my replies you would see i never made that claim.
What i did say is funding research on programs like Arpanet and the manhattan
project not only was constitutional but turned out to be excellent uses of taxpayer funds.
I did read your replies and still have the same question.....
BT where do we "draw the line"?
because all kinds of projects could be given cover by
claiming they have some sort of military or national interest?
-
Where do we draw the line?
You shrink the size of the federal government to where it was pre-woodrow wilson.Abraham Lincoln.
-
Where do we draw the line?
Asked (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16465.msg137905#msg137905) and answered (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16465.msg137922#msg137922) multiple (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16465.msg137928#msg137928) times (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16465.msg137932#msg137932) already (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16465.msg137944#msg137944) ::)
-
Where do we draw the line?
Asked (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16465.msg137905#msg137905) and answered (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16465.msg137922#msg137922) multiple (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16465.msg137928#msg137928) times (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16465.msg137932#msg137932) already (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16465.msg137944#msg137944) ::)
You do realize that i was quoting CU.
-
You do realize I was answering the question being posed
-
Then perhaps you should have replied to CU instead of me. Usually when you quote someone you are replying to them. Or were you trying to make it appear that that was my question?
-
Then perhaps you should have replied to CU instead of me.
It was an answer posed to the saloon, on a good question posed. My apologies if you were confused.
-
Not at all. Which is why i quoted CU when i was replying to him. Not sure why you didn't do the same. It just seems to misrepresent who was asking the question.
-
Again, my apolgies for the confusion, since the LAST thing I want to do is misrepresent anyone, especially you 8)
-
good policy
-
SIRS.....here is more of that wonderful gvt investing!
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/b666634a.jpg)
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/01/fisker-karma-hybrid-obama-waste-government-loan/1 (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/01/fisker-karma-hybrid-obama-waste-government-loan/1)
-
Like I said....Nov can't come fast enough >:(
-
Like I said....Nov can't come fast enough
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/33e387c9.jpg)
-
SIRS....here's more of that "gvt investment" for military applications that can now
be used for the greater good of society that I bet BT and XO just love! ;)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-you/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-you/)
-
So you were against the development of drones for military applications?
How about border patrol?
Problem with that?
Development of drones was constitutional.
That was my point.
Yours was?
-
So you were against the development of drones for military applications?
No....I never said that.
How about border patrol??Problem with that?
Yes....big problem.
Drones on the border are a giant waste of money.
A band-aid joke....like giving a heart attack victim some vitamin c
by people that want to skirt the issue & pretend they are doing something.
You stop the illegal invasion by requiring citizen ID Cards for any job & any service.
Done, over....the illegals A-holes go home and new ones dont come.
Development of drones was constitutional. That was my point. ?
Great...yea....cheer.....go team!......but nothing to do with my point.
Yours was?
my point is you cheerlead gvt investment touting the one's you seem to like
but you leave off the ridiculous wastes of billions some of them produce
and the ones that now will be flying over your house watching you.
my point was your "it's all good" only showing the good needs a counterpoint
cuzzzz it sho aint "all good"
-
Green tech research is not a waste of money though. Making a transport that travel long distance with less refueling is a great idea and devices with lower power needs is also a good idea.
We're not talking ultra-advance tech here. Alot of our home device can easily be redesigned to use less power. Example the vcr when turn-off is actually almost using the same amount of power as when it's in use.
Samething with alot of old tv's.
-
I don't believe i "cheerleaded" any expenditure.
What i did say was that spending taxpayer money for the development of Arpanet and the Manhattan Project were constitutional expenditures. And if the Manhattan Project developed expertise that could be used to commercial ends, like nuclear power plants, then the technology should be licensed to the highest bidder for commercial use and as a means to recoup tax payer monies.
I have never claimed that Solyndra was a wise use of taxpayer funds. Especially considering the weak prospectus they provided. Solyndra was a prime example of pay to play.
A practice i have never endorsed.
And i don't think a national ID card will do what you say as long as cash is legal currency.
-
We already have id's but it up to the arresting officer to not detain us.
http://www.truth-out.org/why-are-american-citizens-getting-locked-and-even-deported-immigration-authorities/1325169700 (http://www.truth-out.org/why-are-american-citizens-getting-locked-and-even-deported-immigration-authorities/1325169700)
-
I don't believe i "cheerleaded" any expenditure.
Ok
And i don't think a national ID card will do what you say as long as cash is legal currency.
If they were denied any and all service without Citizen ID card or something showing
legally in country...I doubt they would stay or ever come without electrical service,
without water utilities, without driver's license, without vehicle registration, without
without medical treatment at hospitals that was not life threatening, without any gvt aid,
without jobs ( any company caught paying cash to illegals fined $5K first offense, 25K 2nd offense).
I have to show ID to get on a plane and many times at stores when I use a credit card or
debit card.....to rid this country of this menace of illegal invaders American citizens would
gladly show a Citizen ID card.
-
We already have id's but it up to the arresting officer to not detain us.
a drivers license does not address whether someone is here illegally
because the pansy asses decided to give illegals the ability to get
a driver's license with the crap idea "well as long as they are here".
that insane logic of "well as long as they are here" has got us in
the nightmare invasion situation we are in.
-
Obtaining and providing proof of citizenship to anyone who asks for it seems a long way from the small government don't need no nannies conservative you claim to be.
Why is it always the law abiding who have to go the extra mile because the federal govt refuses to do its job.
Screw that.
-
i'm just saying make sure the deported are not american citizens.
i actually have a friend who almost got deported and homeland security was not exactly open to verifying his citizenship.
-
Why is it always the law abiding who have to go the extra mile
because the federal govt refuses to do its job. Screw that.
Is that what you tell them at the airport when you try to board an airplane?
-
I haven't flown in 6 years and i am an automatic pat down since i don't go through scanners because of the stents. And i would disband Homeland Security in a heart beat if i had the power.
But the few times i have flown, i can't recall anyone being caught with a bomb or a box cutter while going through security. You ever witness any arrests when you have flown? Any Islamonazi's caught in the act?
Anyone in the forum witnessed an arrest?
-
If you fly.....you show them an ID...whats the big deal?
You cash a check...you show them an ID.
You get pulled over...you show them an ID.
Hell at the tanning salon I have to put a finger in a fingerprint reader
showing a "citizen ID" would be a very small price to rid ourselves of an illegal invasion
http://justcommonsense-lostinamerica.blogspot.com/2011/03/where-to-go-when-your-local-emergency.html (http://justcommonsense-lostinamerica.blogspot.com/2011/03/where-to-go-when-your-local-emergency.html)
-
Why in hell would a tanning salon require a fingerprint ?
-
I'm going to have to disagree a little with you on this one C, and you know how staunch an anti ILLEGAL immigration fella I am. Bt already touched on it.....It's the FED's job. Just like gun laws, we already have laws against entering this country illegally. We don't need more laws or even more government bureacracy. We need the Fed to enforce existing law. This ID card, as well intentioned as it may sound, won't do anything if the Fed doesn't enforce its own laws. What makes you think they'd enforce some deportation if someone fails to produce this ID card?
Just my 2cents
-
What makes you think they'd enforce some deportation if someone fails to produce this ID card?
Thats the beauty of the Citizen ID Card.
You wouldnt have to deport anybody.
If illegal invaders cant get water, electric, housing, medical, gvt aid, or jobs
They go home and new ones don't come.
We must make it more difficult here than where they are or they will keep coming.
If i am Joe Illegal in Mexico and I have housing, electric, water, do I take off
for somewhere where I cant get even the basic necessities when i get there?
Hell no....I stay right where i'm at.....and thats where we want them.
-
Why in hell would a tanning salon require a fingerprint ?
I guess it's to prevent people from using someone else's tan account?
I suppose they could ask for ID....not sure why they prefer the finger print recognition.
Palm Beach Tan have it at all their stores here where I live.
(http://www.fi.muni.cz/research/laboratories/labak/msfinger.jpg)
-
Anyone in the forum witnessed an arrest?
=====================================
Not me, I did see a bottle of water confiscated. though.
Why not go the extra mile and just have everyone given a nice bar code tattoo or perhaps a chip implanted? That would save us all the hassle, wouldn't it?
Why does anyone in Texas need to go to a tanning salon? Doesn't the Sun shine in Texas?
-
If illegal invaders cant get water, electric, housing, medical, gvt aid, or jobs
regular americans have trouble accessing things
ex. red ink - chase bank.
we can`t afford to make thing less accessible. I believe lass week a guy was declared dead a couple of times and the veterans dept. is asking him to refund his benefits because he`s dead .
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/31/10279295-im-very-alive-army-veteran-declared-dead-4-times (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/31/10279295-im-very-alive-army-veteran-declared-dead-4-times)
-
Why does anyone in Texas need to go to a tanning salon? Doesn't the Sun shine in Texas?
It's not a matter of "needing to"...
but like with most things in this day & age
it's a matter of time and convenience.
Tanning salons do quite well in Texas.
People that work 40 hours a week and have a date Friday night
or a pool party on Saturday may want some color I suppose.
I don't tan in tanning beds due to my Irish ancestory and
skin cancer running in my family. But if I have an engagement
to attend and I want a little color I may drop by Palm Beach
and get a Mystic Tan.
(http://www.tanningbooths.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Best-Spray-Tan-Machine.png)
-
Why not go the extra mile and just have everyone given a nice bar code tattoo or perhaps
a chip implanted? That would save us all the hassle, wouldn't it?
No actually it would be a lot more hassle and it never seemed a problem
having a driver's license and it wouldnt be for a citizenship card.
-
regular americans have trouble accessing things
ex. red ink - chase bank.
we can`t afford to make thing less accessible
Look a Federal Citizen ID card would not be a big burden.
You'd keep it right with your driver's license and show it when needed.
You say "we cant afford"....
Well we cant afford the illegal invasion.
The illegal invasion is costing billions.
I had a friend that was at the public hospital on Tues getting therapy
During therapy he passed out & they thought he might be having a stroke
so they sent him to emergency at the same big public hospital
he actually had a nurse escort him over there with his charts
he thought with this possibly serious & a nurse escort he'd been seen pretty quick
do you know how long this guy born in the United States waited?
9 hours!
yes!....9 frickin hours laying on a gurney waiting to see a doctor!
he said plenty of ninos, amigos, muchachas were all getting service
the a-hole illegals getting service before an American!
oh yeah sure..."how do we know they were illegals"?
LOL....yeah I gotta bridge I'll sell ya.
it's shameful that illegals get service before an American Citizen
but thats what "well I guess since there already here" f-ed up logic gets you!
what we cant afford is this national disgrace called illegal immigration
-
What makes you think they'd enforce some deportation if someone fails to produce this ID card?
Thats the beauty of the Citizen ID Card.
You wouldnt have to deport anybody.
Then it serves no purpose, since we already have laws that provide emergency medical coverage to anyone. They can stay in other family's homes. They can continue to work as slave labor. It's very simple C, to "make it difficult", without adding layers and layers of more Government bureacracy. The Fed enforces existing law, both to those who illegally enter and to those who hire illegal immgrants
That's a FAR better beauty, with this conservative
-
actually cu your example about the ER is a terrible.
the first come first serve policy should always be the standard. I just can`t get behind a non-medical privledge. Also I personally experiance the legendary 6hr wait in the ER in sf general a similiar type hospital as your friend. I saw no amigos as you call them,mostly european decent in san francisco ER. it`s simply regional on whats crowding a ER. and the crowding of such service is driven by economic factors not citizenship status. if all illegals were gone today the ER will get crowded again in a few months by a new batch of folks.
-
actually cu your example about the ER is a terrible.
No it's reality.
Any major city in the United States has a huge burden in their hospitals of illegals.
Many emergency rooms have actually been closed.
the first come first serve policy should always be the standard.
No it shouldn't.
American citizens should get service first.
Most cases in public hospital emergency rooms are not life threatening.
Why should someone with the flu that is in this country illegally get "free"
service from the American taxpayer before an American citizen with the flu?
Also I personally experiance the legendary 6hr wait in the ER in sf general a similiar type hospital as your friend. I saw no amigos as you call them,mostly european decent in san francisco ER. it`s simply regional on whats crowding a ER.
Your snap-shot experience certianly does not match-up to the reality that
is reflected across the country on a daily basis.
and the crowding of such service is driven by economic factors not citizenship status.
exactly and most illegals that are in this country are
not exactly at the top end of the spectrum
if all illegals were gone today the ER will get crowded again in a few months by a
new batch of folks.
Thats insane logic and it's just not factual.
Study after study shows illegals cost our healthcare system billions.
To pretend that is not real is just fantasy land.
At least 60% of illegals have no insurance....
The percent for American Citizens is almost half that.
Illegals percentage wise are much more likely to want "free" medical care
if the illegals were not here there would be less burden on hospitals
For example the birthrate among illegals is much, much higher
So if they weren't here having all the ninos
the enormous costs of childbirth would not
simply be replaced by a "new batch of folks".
-
Then it serves no purpose
Uh?....It serves a great purpose!
Why pay to deport when you dont have to?
SIRS the beauty of this solution is it bi-passes deportation
but accomplishes the same thing
There would be no need to deport.
Most....the vast majority...if they cant get cars, water, electric, and jobs
will go home on their own....better they go home on their own than deport
since we already have laws that provide emergency medical coverage to anyone.
I thought it was a given that with a Federal Citizen ID card that requires
citizenship to recieve non-life threatening medical care, car registration,
utility services, jobs, any gvt aid, a bank account, ect.......that the law you
speak of would be super-ceded.
hey can stay in other family's homes. They can continue to work as slave labor.
Come on....really? 30 million people are gonna "stay in other's homes"?
Whose homes? 30 million people are gonna find citizens that have room
for 30 million "visitors"? They cant continue to work as slave labor...because
employers would be fined severly for hiring them. There are not 30 million
slave labor jobs available in the US. If they are locked out of work and
locked out of assistance they will leave. Millions will leave. It's really
not very complicated. Without food and shelter people will look elsewhere.
It's needs to be a FACT that if you are illegal it is not a "better life" to be in the
United States.
It's very simple C, to "make it difficult",
I agree....I have laid out my plan....whats your "very simple" plan?
Obviously what we have on the books now is not working.
without adding layers and layers of more Government bureacracy.
Again....it would not add layers and layers of Gvt....
it would actually greatly reduce layer after layer of gvt.
With the Citizen ID card you wouldnt need near as many people
dealing with all the problems illegals are causing. Currently we have
a huge burden our our gvts dealing with this flood of illegals.
Hospitals, schools, prisons, jails, courts, gvt assist agencies,
border patrol, ect.. x 1000. All these entities would be far far less
burdened because the vast majority of illegals would leave without
basic necessities. And more importantly millions more would not come.
You're not gonna immigrate to somewhere you will basically "starve".
The Fed enforces existing law, both to those who illegally enter and to those who hire illegal immgrants
Hows that plan been working out for ya?
Obviously thats not working.
It's time to try something else.
-
The priority in any ER I have ever been in has been the people with the most life-threatening situations are treated first. That is the way it should be.
For every dollar the illegals cost in services, they save citizens lots more in cheap labor, especially construction, roofing, gardening, tree trimming and such.
-
Then it serves no purpose
Uh?....It serves a great purpose!
If the purpose is to greater empower Government and its inner bureacracy, perhaps
Why pay to deport when you dont have to?
I can't even begin to imagine the cost of all the new government employees that will have to track these cards, organize them, hell, they'll even start to use them to focus on campaign strategies to better embrace a new demographic. And don't forget all the new heads of the department, and their assistants. Then add to that the costs of making the cards, maintaining them, replacing them, enhancing/upgrading them, etc., etc. etc. All at taxpayer expense
No, its not a cost I'm willing to support, given our current economic abyss Obama has put us in. The only beauty I can see is the boondoggle for the left with a whole brand new agency, with a whole flock of new federal & unionized employees. Sorry C, it really isn't a good idea to this conservative, IMHO, who supports a constitutional focused & limited sized government. Especially when we already have all the laws we need, on the matter. They're just not enforced, because its simply politically incorrect, especially for the current party in power.
-
The new batch would be the unemployed and maybe less than a few months .I
-
Sirs....it basically could be a driver's license that shows citizenship status.
We are not really talking about a lot of money compared to the billions
saved getting this scurge, this national disgrace out of our country
where they do not belong.
Millions of people get passports where their citizenship is verified.
You're telling me with this disaster of mass illegal immigration we cant get this done?
It's certainly much cheaper & more effective than some fence over hundreds of miles.
We need to come up with a new reality....
And that reality is "you're shit outta luck if you are in our country illegally".
You wont get utilities, you wont get car registration, you wont get employment,
you wont get loans, and you wont get gvt assist, & you wont get anyhing but
real actual emergency medical care.
This logic of "well as long as they are already here" is a bunch of bullshit!
the answer is "NO"....get the hell out of my country illegal invader!
-
Sirs....it basically could be a driver's license that shows citizenship status.
We already have that.....it's called a Driver's License. It's generally only issued to folks who are legally in this country, be it citizen or visa.
And yes, we are talking about a "lot of money", but worse, BIGGER GOVERNMENT
You're telling me with this disaster of mass illegal immigration we cant get this done?...We need to come up with a new reality....
Putting aside the HUGE advantage such a program would be to the left, as they get to manage, manipulate, and expand yet another federal bureacracy, who do you think is going to get it passed. In those immortal words, be careful with what you ask for. In what reality is such a program ever to be passed?
This logic of "well as long as they are already here" is a bunch of bullshit! the answer is "NO"....get the hell out of my country illegal invader!
A card, or lack there of isn't going to do it. Illegal immigrants are pulled over every day without a Driver's license, or other official cards. As long as there are those who'll house them and those who'll hire them under the books, without much fear of the law coming after them, whether they have this card or not, will make very little difference. It would however expand our government and its inheirent bloated and inefficient bureacracy, even bigger
IMHO
-
ok we can just respectfully disagree
but my Fedearl Citizen Card
repeat "my".....as in....done my way
would not add gvt...it would actually...net...greatly lessen gvt
and it would put an end to illegal immigration....period
ending illegal immigration = lots less gvt
as to your question....would it pass?.....hell no
i never said it it would pass
I said to BT...illegal immigration was "easy to solve"
because it is....very easy
deny them jobs/shelter/water/electric/medical/basic necessities
make life for an illegal miserable....as in a living hell
and they leave and more dont come
but no it's not gonna pass....
the people pimping out our country dont want it solved
so i'll eventually get my place in the country
and ride out the storm of watching our country become more 3rd world like
because no one wanted to make tough choices.....so be it
Harvard University professor Samuel P. Huntington stated in 2004 that:
Demographically, socially and culturally, the reconquista of the Southwest United States
by Mexico is well under way. No other immigrant group in U.S. history has asserted or could
assert a historical claim to U.S. territory. Mexicans and Mexican-Americans can and do make that claim.
in fact this weekend my brother and I are going to look at this spot
a place to eventually escape the creeping 3rd world
FM 47 Wills Point, TX 75169 70+- acreas Team Hulsey Tiffany & Tony Century 21 Millennium Group (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHsfwrzJksE#)
-
So...if your plan had no chance of passing, as you've conceded, and mine doesn't either (enforcing current immigration law and punishing those who hire illegal immigrants, because its too PIC), which is then the more conservative approach, to rhetorically focus on??
But yes, we can definately agree to respecfully disagree on this one
-
which is then the more conservative approach, to rhetorically focus on??
i'm not 100% sure i understand your question
but i basically think it's a mute point
i tell friends when we discuss this at the watercooler at work:
"I wouldnt worry about it....we're done.....we're gonna get taken over"
"it will take a few more years....birth rates will let the half wits ruin our country"
"but all is not lost....brain-power will find a pocket to survive and prosper in"
"basically "Balkanization" will eventually happen"
"just like in Iraq.....the country is and has been in shambles"
"but the Kurds live differently than most of Iraq"
check out link below....
i think this is where we're headed eventually...once the illegal invasion/take-over is full circle
http://www.theotheriraq.com/press_CBS.html (http://www.theotheriraq.com/press_CBS.html)
-
I see no problem with a federal ID card. Everyone in the EU has one: it's called a CARNET in Spain and France.
But a microchip would be harder to lose.
-
As long as strict policy are on place to insure legal americans gets protrections in case error arises in thier id's
Like that veteran who was declared dead four times and was requested to refund vet benefits because he's dead
-
which is then the more conservative approach, to rhetorically focus on??
i'm not 100% sure i understand your question
ok, well, since you state there's no chance your ID plan would pass, yet your criticising my support of enforcing existing law as the key to fixing our illegal immigration is, as you say, unrealistic, then we're both talking about unrealisic approaches. So, with that conceded which is the notion that is more founded in conservative philosophy:
- Enforce existing laws, punish those who break our laws
or
- Initiate a new government program, complete with its own new set of employess, bureacracy, and likely a whole new dept, akin to Homeland security, that requires a whole new set of taxes to pay for it all
Better understanding?
-
not really
there would basically be no big new gvt layer under my plan
no new agencies, no new Homeland Security....
just a new law....
a driver's license or Gvt ID would include citizenship status...just like a passport
citizenship would be required to secure medical, utilities, bank loans, car tags, housing, jobs
all the people processing those requests currently would still do so
i guess you support the current layers of huge gvt agencies that deal with illegals
but many it not all of those agencies would be done away with or greatly reduced w/my plan
because you wouldnt need them anymore because there would be hardly any illegals
so yeah i think unknowingly you support bigger gvt by supporting existing law and the huge bureacracy that deals with it thats not working
-
I'm afraid, yes really, especially since my version requires NO additional government entity, agency, mechanisms, or bureacracy, and as you've conceded is just as unrealistic as your version
-
SIRS.....have you seen this?
Shows what will happen if we don't stop importing the world's poor!
IMMIGRATION BY THE NUMBERS - PART ONE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qwsrt2tlzcU#)
-
And as you have conceded, your proposal of another level of Government, in trying to deal with it, has no chance in passing. So, what are we arguing about?
-
And as you have conceded, your proposal of another level of Government, in trying to deal with it, has no chance in passing. So, what are we arguing about?
SIRS....I know it's sometimes hard to see intentions on the internet,
but we are not argiung....I had moved on and just wanted
you to see this since we were on the topic of immigration.
btw: my propasal would not add another level of gvt,
it would actually greatly reduce gvt overall
but you're correct it would not pass because it would work!
the last thing the sabatogers of this great country want
is something that would halt their destructice plans.
-
It's kinda simple mathematics, IMHO. ANY addition to the status quo is an ADDITION, as in more Government. My notion, which you've passed on as the status quo, which it isn't, its merely the results of Government NOT doing what they're mandated to do, adds nothing. You are ADDING, which you can opine is "very little", but without removing something in the process, is ADDING to an already ginormous Government bureaucracy
So, while we can both be singing the same chorus on how detrimental ILLEGAL immigration (because we know there are a plethora of leftists who'll try to mutate our positions as being supposedly against immigration in general) is to this country, our unrealistic approaches are apparently very different, in that one (mine), supports a more narrow, enforce, enforce, enforce, using current law and current methods, while yours apparently is focusing on more bureaucracy and the ever famous saying "show me your papers" approach. And will STILL require a level of enforcement that we currently don't have
-
"it's kinda simple mathematics, IMHO"
Exactly...it really is.
"ANY addition to the status quo is an ADDITION, as in more Government"
Thats like saying if a company hires a cost cutter that slashes the budget
and slashes costs is "an addition" as in a new salary and thus enlarges
the losses.
You are ADDING, which you can opine is "very little", but without removing something in the process, is ADDING to an already ginormous Government bureaucracy
I am "adding" as in a cost cutter at an outta control company that would quickly
reduce the overall size of gvt and illegal immigrants....your way leaves many of the
incentives in place that attracts illegals and thus they would still come here to be
possibly caught.
"approaches are apparently very different, in that one (mine), supports a more narrow, enforce, enforce, enforce, using current law and current methods,
And that vast enforce, enforce, enforce has huge costs that would not be
needed in my solution. You would need zero "raids" in my solution,
you would hardly even need a border patrol except for a very small force.
while yours apparently is focusing on more bureaucracy
Absolutely incorrect.
There would be almost zero new bureacracy and no need for enforcement.
It would be like the way the gvt collects taxes.
They came up with a law for companies to withold
so they dont have to chase down every taxpayer.
Same would be with my plan.
Gvt would not need to grow to make this plan work.
My way would vastly reduce the size of gvt and save the
American Taxpayer billions....because it would work.
Thats the difference.....your way "enforce current law"
requires vast amount of gvt to enforce, police, deport, ect
My way the illegals would "deport themselves".
They wont stay here and starve.
-
C...How are you going to manage this new technology, track who doesn't and doesn't use the cards right, monitor how the cards are being used and by whom, upgrade the technology, enforce upon those who don't comply, if not for MORE government??
In this unrealistic proposal, what are you "cutting" to allow an addition of this card program
-
C...How are you going to manage this new technology, and track what
municipalities, states, law enforcement agencies are enforcing existing law?
SIRS how are you going to manage all the new technology needed to enforce existing
law if not for more government??
track who doesn't and doesn't use the cards right, monitor how the cards are being
used and by whom, upgrade the technology, enforce upon those who don't comply,
if not for MORE government??
SIRS how are you going to track what municipalities, states,
law enforcement agencies are enforcing existing law if not for more
government??
In this unrealistic proposal, what are you "cutting" to allow an addition of this card program
As soon as my simple low cost solution is implemented there would be a mass exodus of illegals
at basically no cost to the US taxpayer. They would leave without jobs, shelter, medicine, and utilities.
Under your plan expensive law apprehension would be needed, as well as deportment court
proceedings, and the expensive actual deportment or expensive imprisonment for violators that refuse to leave.
Under my plan there is no expensive costs to getting them actually from "Point A to Point B".
The illegals leave on their own because of denial of basic neccessaties of life.
They go home on their own instead of you catching them , judicating them, & then packing & shipping them.
-
C...I have to chuckle a little....all my means of enforcement already exist...ergo, NO ADDITIONAL Government. The Police, INS, DA's, etc....are all sworn to uphold & enforce existing law...ergo NO ADDITIONAL Government. The techology currently is present, that they all use...ergo NO ADDITIONAL Government
I could go on, but the point is, while I admire the passion you have for this new program, and the desire to "do something", far too often we rely on Government to "do something", and far more often than that, the something is generally far worse. All well intended as you are, more government sure isn't the answer to our illegal immigration problem
-
All well intended as you are, more government sure isn't the answer to our illegal immigration problem
Again we can agree to disagree because there is no doubt in
my mind we end up over time with far more gvt with your "solution".
-
More effective government is the answer, probably the only answer, to this problem.
Abolish the Congressional barber shop, then spend the money on immigration reform.
-
All well intended as you are, more government sure isn't the answer to our illegal immigration problem
Again we can agree to disagree because there is no doubt in
my mind we end up over time with far more gvt with your "solution".
And as I've demonstrated, pretty much the same conclusion regarding your well intentioned solution, I'm afraid
-
C...I have to chuckle a little....all my means of enforcement already exist...ergo, NO ADDITIONAL Government. The Police, INS, DA's, etc....are all sworn to uphold & enforce existing law...ergo NO ADDITIONAL Government. The techology currently is present, that they all use...ergo NO ADDITIONAL Government
yeah sure thing SIRS....by your so called "solution" of "enforcing existing law"
all the agencies you list are just sitting around twidling their thumbs and do nothing
all day long every day at work? Are you insane?
All of a sudden these gvt agencies that are very busy already are going to go and
apprehend estimates of 30 million people, investigate and validate whether 30 million
people are US Citizens or not, judicate 30 million people via immigration courts,
then either deport 30 million people or imprison millions of people....
and no extra gvt will be needed to accomplish this goal?
come on man.....you know thats fantasy land!
-
The fact is that President Obama has deported a record number of illegals in his term as President, and the only reason he has not deported more, is that he has spent all the money Congress has apportioned for this.
Illegals are not going to "self-deport" themselves in any great numbers. That is just silly.
-
C...I have to chuckle a little....all my means of enforcement already exist...ergo, NO ADDITIONAL Government. The Police, INS, DA's, etc....are all sworn to uphold & enforce existing law...ergo NO ADDITIONAL Government. The techology currently is present, that they all use...ergo NO ADDITIONAL Government
yeah sure thing SIRS....by your so called "solution" of "enforcing existing law"
all the agencies you list are just sitting around twidling their thumbs and do nothing
all day long every day at work?
----> they already exist----> NO ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
Again, you're confusing the lack of the Fed doing their job as some form of additional government if they were to do their job. But as you've accurately referenced, the mechanisms for my "solution" are already in place. They merely don't do their job, as it relates to enforcing immigration law
And no, I'm not insane either, as I haven't called on some massive million man round up. My solution uses the same component as yours....the act of enforcing the law, especially on those who would hire illegal immigrants, will cause most of that population to self deport, as the jobs shrink and potential for being caught increase. Whalaaa....and it didn't require any new agency, technology, or bureacracy
-
I just want to be sure this won`t get me deported. I did pointout thousand of legal americans do get detained and deported. just saying it`s not going to happen is not a good preventive measure.
-
As long as you're not here illegally, nope. But the more layers of Government & bureaucracy you add, the more that potential
-
say that to friend of mine. he was only applying for a passport and almost got detained and processed to be sent to hong kong. The system to prove citizenship has alot of room for improvement. Assuming it`s good enough doesn`t cut it.
-
Never said it couldn't be improved. Only saying more Government will lead to greater potential of that happening to your friend
-
So your theory is that if the government has eight people on the job it will do a WORSE job than if it has ten?
The reason we have so many illegals is because of poor enforcement, especially of finding and deporting those who overstay their tourist and other visas.
It is not a matter of government SIZE, it is a matter of the PROCEDURE.
Supermarkets can cash out many times more people with scanners than they could when they had to ring up every amount.
The new procedure is more accurate and more efficient. Cars are made with many fewer workers, now that they use robots, and the number of defects per unit is smaller as well.
-
So your theory is that if the government has eight people on the job it will do a WORSE job than if it has ten?
Umm, no. Not even close. Reading comprehension issues again? I'm the one advocating lesser, not more to do a better job. More precisely, if the Government has 800thousand on the job, and things are done properly, Government can do a FAR BETTER job, than a Million on the job, doing things inefficiently
-
I`m a city employee and my observation is the chaos is so big I don`t know how to say it. I can give examples of parts of the problem,but refuse to even try to solve it.
ex.! I helped a friend find funds in accounts simply forgotten by certain dept. and the accountting dept started asking me how to find them. In other words teach them how to do something thier already supoposed to know.
ex.2 My friend was asked to do a pet project for some bigwig higher up,so he requested more staffing to cover it. so two staff member got pulled from his dept. to assist him on that project. meaninmg he still got the same amount of people as before,but on paper he got more staffing.
the problem is not just the size or procedures of government. it`s alot more sadder and dumber problems.