Content by bjt
Posted at 12:13am on May 21, 2007 I'm worried Fred will hurt GOPs chances
By bjt
We have great candidates already. I fear that if Fred comes out of no where and takes the primary, it will look like the Republicans HAD to elect a Southerner.
I personally have a hard time seeing Fred's advantage over somone like Romney, other than the fact that he is Southerner.
I'd be happy to vote for Fred if he becomes our candidate. I'm just worried that people not from the South wil
Posted in Archived — Comments (35) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 10:02am on May 20, 2006 Another Elite doesn't get immigration....
By bjt
Check out this article: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWJhYWZhZTBiNTdmOGNjYTg4OTZiMTBmMWI1MD
Y0YWQ=
Its very telling that it includes the question "what's all the fuss about?"
Exactly. You don't get it! You don't know what the fuss is about. You are too busy riding around in limosines to understand the concerns of the middle class.
My reply:
1.
Because there is such a wage differential between the third world and the US, there will always be a magnet to attract workers from the third world. THIS WILL NOT END UNTIL THE WAGE DIFFERENTIAL ENDS!
Let that sink-in, Mr. logical economist.
We only have two possibilities for the market to solve this problem, 1) the third world's wages raise to match ours, or 2) there are so many cheap migrants entering the US that our wage rate drops so precipitiously that unskilled labor receives third world wages.
Which seems more likely?
The reason elites don't get all "the fuss" is because it won't affect them if the unskilled wage rate drops to third world levels.
Mr. Kudlow, and other economic elitists seem to ignore the laws of supply and demand. We only have two choices, and since we as a nation can't raise the third world to our level, it is inevitable that open borders will lead to third world wages inside our borders.
That is all the fuss, and it is understandeable that you and other elites don't care. But we do!
Without a strong middle class this country will lose its greatness.
2.
Also, his analysis of social security is laughable.
Low skilled wage earners take in more from social security than they pay out.
Its true that if we have more workers coming in they'll help pay for the current wave of retirees, but who is going to pay for these poor workers when they retire? They may "pay in" their entire lives, but the amount they pay in will not be sufficient to pay their own benefits. Thus will need an even bigger wave of cheap labor to pay for them... basically turning our pension system into a pyramid scheme that will eventually crash. (I should point out that I am, by trade, an actuary, and know what I am talking about.) It is this type of short-term thinking that created the social security crisis.
The reasons for stagnation in other Western societies is not due to demographics but do to socialist policies. A typical economist's crtique of these societies will not focus on demographics but the economics of entitlement. Look at France's enormous unemployment rate among the youth. You think if they had had more babies in the 70s and 80s that somehow their GDP per capita would be better?
3.
You used the straw man argument of rounding up people. We believe in attrition through enforcement against employers. This won't involve rounding up millions. They will simply go home over time as they don't have jobs. Even the president's plan will involve some amount of "rounding up.' At some point there will need to be consequences. For example, if we have a 1,000,000 people guest worker plan, we'll still have illegals, and we'll need to round them up.
Conclusion.
Indeed Mr. Kudlow, I understand why you don't get all the fuss; You probably never will. But your silly economic analysis is embarrassing.
Go back to offering platitudes to rich elitists who like to feel better about their status as millionaries.
The American public is fed up with the leadership from this class of people.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (71) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 8:21am on May 17, 2006 Is McCain the loser in the illegal immigration debate?
By bjt
I voted for George Bush both times and am a staunch Republican (yes with a capital "R".) I no longer am satisfied with President Bush because of his preference to create a poor lower class of society at the expense of the middle class.
The big question is, where is McCain on this? Presumably he is the Republican nominee in 2008. People like myself will do everything within our power to stop his nomination if he is not with us on halting illegal immigration.
Here is his latest important vote:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cf
m?congress=109&session=2&vote=00121
(He abstained.)
There is no leadership from him on this, why would we want to nominate him for high office? I'd rather go with someone on my side who may or may not lose. At least if a true candidate loses, the House and Senate can have someone to fight against, rather than have a leader in the same party, who leads in the wrong direction.