Arizona's New Immigration Law

Sooo...you like the current "pass through border" program better?
AND we may have to slam the borders closed to immigration altogether? BUT, if we have effectively gained control of the borders...we could do that at will. Currently we have NO such option.
First, eliminate the attraction for illegals to come here. Add in a job ammendment such as CRedskins suggested through which some tax money might be generated and some of these Federal programs that get abused will be at least partially paid for. Because we now have legal immigrants.
Philosophically IMO, one of the largest problems the US faces is pissin' somebody off. We are no longer able to do what is necessary for the greater good of the whole for fear of making a particular group...mad?

Why change what happeend to our traditonal values, tradional way of doing the border thing? I thought it was about keeping our heritage the same. Why the radical change at the border? It worked for the founding fathers it should work for us, right?

Taxes are a reality. Even Jesus said give Ceasar what's Ceasar's. I think it is cynical to boost up gullible people with the intoxicating idea of no taxes. There is a finite sum of money and it must be spread to the benefit of society, or we learn lesson of history (i.e. Mari antoinette etc etc). Having said that we are taxed too much though.
WHO has said no taxes? The discussion would be what is appropriate government spending, and then you set taxes, levies, tariffs, and other fees to meet that. When the government yearly takes more than 50% of some of it's citizens earnings, I would say that has gone a bit overboard.

Why change what happeend to our traditonal values, tradional way of doing the border thing? I thought it was about keeping our heritage the same. Why the radical change at the border? It worked for the founding fathers it should work for us, right?

We traditionally have been a very open society. It is only since the onset of gross overspending on government welfare that our borders have been an issue. When every person had to work for what they got, if more people came the better. Now that we have government safety nets, if people come simply to use those safety nets it overburdens our system.

See I can be as simplistic as you ;)

It worked for the founding fathers it should work for us, right?


they also had wooden teeth.

WHO has said no taxes? The discussion would be what is appropriate government spending, and then you set taxes, levies, tariffs, and other fees to meet that. When the government yearly takes more than 50% of some of it's citizens earnings, I would say that has gone a bit overboard.


agree.... but the out-of-control defense spending needs to be in that discussion.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to the track!

I understand that this is a issue that is not very easy to fix!
There are several issues that you may not agree with...

as minorities we need (hispanics) to draw from the experience and get unity from the African Americans... if for nothing else then it helps our numbers so that we get a voice.

It is not going to be a quick fix to this immigration problem as action on either side of this debate leads to more potential problems.

I just don't like the way it is being handled now!Agree with you on that for sure. :food-smil

Actually Sammy spread the wealth is the chief function of all economic systems including capitalism. Don't let Rush bully you. If all wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few then we cease to be a democracy we wind up being a kingdom. Let's say one an individual accumulates a trillion dollars then something is truly wrong, he will essentially own everything. The system fails at that point. He will then have to euthanized.You are wrong....about...a....great...many....things.....y oung jedi.

1) "Spreading the wealth" or wealth redistribution is not a function of any economic system. The only entitiy that would redistribute wealth is one with the ability to do so (guns, jails, etc.)....the gov't. The function of federal gov't should be providing for national defense, certain nationwide infrastructure projects, courts, limited regulation of businesses, and not much more (that's why we have states). What is not a function of gov't is to take personal property from one group simply because of how much money they make and give it to others in the form of govt' payments in one form or another. There should be a uniform percentage of tax on all, with the very poor exempt. Those who make more money will pay more into that system because x % of $ 150K is more than x % of $ 50K.

Do you think it's fair that 47% of households in the U.S. pay no federal taxes? Is it fair that the top 10% paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government? Is it fair that the bottom 40%, on average, make a profit from federal income taxes?

2) I'm not a regular Rush listener and haven't listened in months.....I'm working in the middle of the day. But, you may want to stay off Air America.....ooops you can't listen to Air America, they went bankrupt and shut down.

3) So by your logic we should be getting the shots ready for saden's boys Billy G, Warren B, etc. because they've been too successful :frusty:

agree.... but the out-of-control defense spending needs to be in that discussion.

Absolutely! I have gone on "good" rants about that. Just as I don't believe that anyone should be taxed over 50% of their assets by their government, there is also no way one government's "defense" spending should be even close to the rest of the world's combined, let alone more than all but the next closest one or two countries.

Absolutely! I have gone on "good" rants about that. Just as I don't believe that anyone should be taxed over 50% of their assets by their government, there is also no way one government's "defense" spending should be even close to the rest of the world's combined, let alone more than all but the next closest one or two countries.


and yet discussion about reducing it is off limits. sadly, it's political dynamite cuz the Dems are so scared of being painted as "soft on defense" and they're too spineless to respond to that criticism. they'd rather just run around going rah rah rah about it cuz they think being centrists and acting like republicans is good for winning elections cuz they take their liberal-left base for granted cuz, well, sadly they can.

Is it fair that the top 10% paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government?


i think so.
but i'm a socialist.