“[W]e have 20 million people unemployed and Republican leaders are now saying it’s time for amnesty?”
GOP pollster Leslie Sanchez said the political battle is necessary for Republicans not to lose Hispanics permanently.
“As Republicans we have fixed ideas in our minds about what immigration reform is. There’s a good healthy balance and the clock is ticking politically on this,” she said.
The difficulty for House Republicans is that many come from heavily white districts and face a bigger threat from primary challenges than in the general election. Embracing comprehensive immigration reform could mean risking primary defeat…
“They appear to be making a pure political calculation regardless of principle and policy because they think it’ll garner votes,” Kobach told The Hill. “I think individuals like Krauthammer and Boehner may have their thoughts they’ve developed from their high perches but members of Congress are in touch with voters and citizens of America are very anti-amnesty… we have 20 million people unemployed and Republican leaders and now saying it’s time for amnesty? That’s absurd.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
… and for what reason is it thought that income equality is a goal for which we should strive? Someone who has invested years of their life and effort to get a doctorate degree and is capable of designing high technology aircraft should have a higher income than a high school dropout who is only qualified to flip burgers at the local fast food joint. Same for someone who has attained an MBA and put forth 60+ hours per week in striving to become CEO of a corporation that employees 10′s of thousands of people and is spread across the globe. Why do you think the burger flipper should have an equivalent income as a CEO or Chief Engineer? Do you think that’s “fair”? Equality of opportunity is one thing, equality of outcome is something else entirely.
That’s just flat out wrong. From Bloomberg:
.
With the exception of Germany, none of those other countries are doing great economically and Germany is struggling as well.
You do realize that corporations and companies don’t really pay taxes, right? A certain return on investment and profit are expected and taxes are factored into the cost of doing business. If ROI and profit aren’t meeting goals, if costs can’t be cut, prices are raised. So, yeah, go ahead and raise corporate tax rates, the prices of the goods you buy are just going to be raised. Yeah, that’s smart, real smart.
AZfederalist on November 10, 2012 at 3:52 PM
Well hell, let’s raise the corporate tax rate to 50%. Close loopholes, end subsidies. Let’s also raise the personal tax rate for everyone by 20%. The “rich” can afford to pay 60%.
Since high taxes send economies into overdrive according econo guru Paul Krugman, let’s get this puppy humming.
I think we should also establish a government board to control profits.
Whaddya think?
Evil companies don’t need to make profits. Workers should receive everything, regardless of how well they work. Just the fact that the worker is a member of the proletariat is enough to pay that worker everything the company makes. Businesses are evil and if not controlled will make us all corporate slaves.
darwin on November 10, 2012 at 3:54 PM
Look buddy, I know you’re very gullible … but you should be able to understand that letting people keep more of the money they earn doesn’t cost anything.
If you now pay 10% income tax and we cut your rate by 5% all that’s happened is you’re keeping 5% more of what YOU earned. We didn’t steal it from someone else to give to you.
Understand? I sure hope so.
Stop reading communist websites, your brain is mush and will turn into liquid if you continue.
darwin on November 10, 2012 at 3:57 PM
“a one percent of GDP tax cut for the bottom 90% results in 2.7 percentage points of GDP growth over a two-year period. The corresponding estimate for the top 10% is 0.13 percentage points and is insignificant statistically.” http://blogs.reuters.com/taxbreak/2012/09/12/which-tax-cuts-stimulate-the-economy/
GDP growth, business investment, and a host of other economic indicators were all stronger during the 1990s, after taxes were raised on the rich, than during the supply-side eras of Presidents George W. Bush and Reagan. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2012/08/01/11987/infographic-seven-graphs-that-show-supply-side-doesnt-work/
Considering that more jobs were created under the Clinton administration and its higher taxes on the rich than were created following the Bush tax cuts. Upton admitted that “I don’t know specifically the answer to that question,” nonsensically pointing to Friday’s jobs report instead of trying to argue the premise of Hunt’s question:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-02/congress-will-agree-on-payroll-tax-cut-extension-upton-says.html
HUNT: Why under those pre-Bush tax cut tax rates did the economy do so well in the ‘90s? And why under the Bush tax rates, less for the wealthy, to do so poorly in this decade?
UPTON: Well, a couple things. One, spending went up, Al, the wars. I mean, that’s trillions of dollars. And also there was no change in the entitlements. And we also know -
HUNT: But that shouldn’t hurt the economy. That shouldn’t hurt economic growth.
UPTON: Yeah, but that impacts the debt and the deficit.
HUNT: But I’m asking, why did the economy grow a lot? Why were more jobs created in the previous decade under higher taxes than in this decade under lower taxes?
UPTON: I don’t know specifically the answer to that question. I can – I can maybe merit a guess. But, I mean, in large part is because our job – we lost jobs. I mean, look at the jobs report that came out this last week, three-hundred- some-thousand people actually stopped looking for jobs.
JustTheFacts on November 10, 2012 at 4:08 PM
Hey, why are you doing this? You have Obama … raise taxes as high as you want. Really. 50 … 70 … 80%. Just go for it. Take it all if you want. JUst remember, taking it all is only a one time deal.
darwin on November 10, 2012 at 4:17 PM
@AZfederalist on November 10, 2012 at 3:52 PM
You said that Bloomberg proved the Center for Tax Justice wrong about how the U.S. Has Lowest Corporate Taxes In The Developed World:
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/oecd201106.pdf
But A GAO study from 2008 shows the same thing: At the firm level …about 30 percent have an effective tax rate of less than 5 percent.” Read on it gets much worse:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/290/284522.pdf
JustTheFacts on November 10, 2012 at 4:35 PM
Whats wrong with making the Republicans look like they are willing to start working with/for Americans rather than working to save the wealthy from having to pay more in taxes.
Obama has not said he is going to tax corporations I was just presenting historical evidence.
All he is asking is to raise the taxes on those earning over $250,000.00 a year.
I am trying to show why the majority of Americans did not like or agree with Romney’s budget. Please show me how it could work without raising taxes on the midile class?
JustTheFacts on November 10, 2012 at 4:48 PM
Democrats had Congress from 2006, and the entire government from 2008 to 2010. They didn’t do anything about it.
darwin on November 10, 2012 at 4:49 PM
Buddy, all business costs are passed onto the consumer … namely the middle class and low income. Democrats know this. Businesses don’t pay taxes … consumers do. Increasing the cost of business just drives prices up, and lowers employment.
darwin on November 10, 2012 at 4:51 PM
If you want to raise taxes you have to do it to everyone. Even then it isn’t nearly enough to cover Obama’s spending. He has borrowed over a trillion dollars a year … for four years. You simply can’t get that kind of money by taxing, even if you took everything. His “tax the rich” is just a distraction. He will tax the middle class.
darwin on November 10, 2012 at 5:03 PM
@darwin on November 10, 2012 at 5:03 PM
#1. Bush handed Obama a deficit of $1.5 trillion a year NOT including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars so no matter what happened the deficit was going to increase by at least 1 trillion a year.
#2. Why was Bush considered the best president ever despite that the day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus — with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Because the county was making more money than it could spend Bush argued that unspent government funds should be returned to taxpayers, saying “the surplus is not the government’s money. The surplus is the people’s money.”
Bush argued that a tax cut for the wealthy would stimulate the economy and create jobs. Bush believed that when government helps companies, through corporate welfare they will produce more and thereby hire more people and raise salaries. The people, in turn, will have more money to spend in the economy. This theory was called trickledown economics believing that if the rich got richer some of their money would trickle down to the middle class.
In February 2001, Pew Research found that just 26% viewed the proposal as fair while more than twice as many (65%) said it was unfair. Of those who viewed the proposal as unfair, an overwhelming percentage (79%) said the wealthy would mainly benefit.
The Bush plan handed President Obama a national debt of $11.3 trillion that was rapidly growing because of the $1.5 trillion deficit — and projected shortfalls of $8 trillion for the next decade with a country in a recession despite Bush’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which allowed the government to spend up to $700 billion to shore up troubled assets for wall street that did nothing for the massive unemployment that had tripled during the Bush administration.
Whats wrong with returning to the Clinton policies that gave this county a surplus like when the Heritage Foundation came up with the Mandate crap back when Clinton tried to do single payer health care?
JustTheFacts on November 10, 2012 at 6:11 PM
Thanks for validating that you have zero credibility. Bush’s largest deficit before the Democrats took over congress was less than $500B. After the democrats took over Congress (where spending originates), in 2009, they took the deficit to almost $1.5T, BTW, they played keep away with Bush on that budget, using continuing resolutions until Obama came into office Deficits Chart
Epic fail
AZfederalist on November 10, 2012 at 6:29 PM
2006 report said; “From Surplus to Deficit
Legislation Enacted Over the Last Six Years Has Raised the Debt by $2.3 Trillion” 2006 report: http://www.cbpp.org/files/12-13-06bud.pdf
Deficit and debt increases 2001–2009. Gross debt has increased over $500 billion each year since FY2003. Most debt was accumulated as a result of what became known as the “Bush tax cuts”. By the end of Bush’s presidency, unemployment climbed to 7.2%.
Reported budget deficit data is from: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf
and http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0908.pdf
Reported debt change data is calculated from: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
On-budget vs. off-budget data is from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/spec.pdf see page 370 (Table 23-1).
2009 deficit is in the CBO Monthly Budget Review for October 2009: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10640/10-2009-MBR.pdf
JustTheFacts on November 10, 2012 at 8:09 PM
On Aug. 23, 2007 the national debt officially reached $8.98 trillion. That level represents an increase of $3.25 trillion (57 percent) since Jan. 20, 2001.
By October 2008, due to increases in spending, the national debt had risen to $11.3 trillion, an increase of over 100% from 2000 when the debt was only $5.6 trillion.http://web.archive.org/web/20070628035709/http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf http://www.sbscpagroup.com/blog/debt-nation-post-two/
JustTheFacts on November 10, 2012 at 8:32 PM
2006 report said; “From Surplus to Deficit
Legislation Enacted Over the Last Six Years Has Raised the Debt by $2.3 Trillion” 2006 report: http://www.cbpp.org/files/12-13-06bud.pdf
Deficit and debt increases 2001–2009. Gross debt has increased over $500 billion each year since FY2003. Most debt was accumulated as a result of what became known as the “Bush tax cuts”. By the end of Bush’s presidency, unemployment climbed to 7.2%.
Reported budget deficit data is from: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf
and http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0908.pdf
JustTheFacts on November 10, 2012 at 8:36 PM
Reported debt change data is calculated from: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
On-budget vs. off-budget data is from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/spec.pdf see page 370 (Table 23-1).
2009 deficit is in the CBO Monthly Budget Review for October 2009: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10640/10-2009-MBR.pdf
JustTheFacts on November 10, 2012 at 8:37 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2