Is There A BETTER Day to Start the New Politics Thread?

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 18:35:41

The population density was dumb as a stand alone point in the argument, but I think as a part of a more complete argument it makes some sense. Immigration is easier to absorb on a large scale in America because the country is so damn big.

Random, mostly unrelated thought: With Pompey getting relegated, Newcastle to London, the longest trek in the English Premier League next year, is a shorter drive than CBP to PNC Park in Pittsburgh.

There's no doubt many politicians are openly playing on racial or xenophobic fears in hyping immigration worries. And that's not good. But not everyone worried about immigration is a bigot, and it speaks poorly to Brown IMO that he would automatically make that assumption.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 18:47:05

Crist sidestepped the caucusing argument. All of his consultants dropped him and his campaign manager quit. He's not going to raise any freaking money. This isn't a Lieberman situation. There are real candidates running under both of the major party labels. Forget the fact that the Republican was a clown in CT in 2006 allowing Lieberman to win almost all the GOP vote, Lamont wasn't an elected figure so that made it possible for some national Dems to endorse Lieberman. No national GOP, and I would imagine very few state GOPers, will support Crist. Given that Meek is the only viable African American Senate candidate nationwide this year, there is no way the national Dems can even flirt with supporting a GOP gov running as an Indy. I don't think he has a viable path to victory. I don't understand what he's doing at all.

Jeb Bush
I am not surprised. This decision is not about policy or principles. It is about what he believes is in his political self-interest.
37 minutes ago via web

He really doesn't like Crist.

by **drsmooth** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 18:55:21

jerseyhoya wrote:There's no doubt many politicians are openly playing on racial or xenophobic fears in hyping immigration worries. And that's not good. But not everyone worried about immigration is a bigot, and it speaks poorly to Brown IMO that he would automatically make that assumption.

he who crafts the most succinct summation, resolves the most fractious & wandering conversations. well done, truly.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 20:21:48

Thanks doc

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WXCUtef9eA[/youtube]

Holy hell this is a haymaker from Sestak.

"Mr. Arlen Specter just looks out for himself"

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 20:25:35

I want to like Sestak because he is probably the dems only chance at keeping that seat, but he just creeps me the fuck out for some reason.

by **allentown** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 22:29:00

The Nightman Cometh wrote:I want to like Sestak because he is probably the dems only chance at keeping that seat, but he just creeps me the $#@! out for some reason.

Probably a matter of how little time he spent in the House, before deciding he wanted to do something else.

by **dajafi** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 23:02:01

jerseyhoya wrote:People aren't keen on folks from other countries coming in and increasing the worker pool at the low end of the spectrum, and I don't think it's hard to see why. Obviously immigrants bring a multitude of benefits as well, and it's a debate worth having over what the proper levels of immigration should be to maximize the benefits to the country on the whole and minimize the costs they impose on the state and disrupted workers.

I think it's pretty clear, and I doubt you'd disagree, that it's a mix of motivations. No doubt economic factors, justified or not, are in the mix. But so are the chauvinistic considerations Paul noted. And while I haven't seen data on this (maybe you have), I would guess that attitudes toward immigration somewhat track attitudes toward gay marriage in that younger people are more liberal-minded. If that's true, that suggests to me the prevalence of cultural, not economic factors. I would further imagine that this is roughly as true in the UK as in the US.

It hadn't occurred to me until the issue boiled over, but immigration could prove to be another issue that tests the capacity of our system to still address and solve big problems. Just not this year, in all likelihood. Ezra Klein got some good thinking on this from Lindsay Graham:

(Graham: ) And on immigration, Arizona has made comprehensive reform very difficult this year. And the manner in which it's coming up, where Sen. Reid brings it up at a rally because he's down 15 points in Nevada, is bad for immigration reform. In this environment, what you'd have is bipartisan rejection of immigration. You'd get 75 or 80 votes for the McCain-Kyl [border security] amendment. Then, when you tried to put the pathway to citizenship on the table without a long process of planning and thinking and building support, you'd probably get 60 people voting against it. So you would have lost on immigration again.

EK: But doesn't Arizona add urgency to immigration reform? Isn't it clear we can't just wait for things to get worse, and doesn't that mean the Senate has to begin work on this priority?

LG: It shows two things. First, it shows the urgency of comprehensive reform, but it also shows that the country is moving away from comprehensive and towards border security. If you polled Americans and asked whether we should do comprehensive reform or focus on the border first, you'd probably get 75 percent for focus on the border. What's happened from 2007 to now has made comprehensive reform harder, not easier. In 2007, we had an illegal immigration problem. We didn't have a raging war in Mexico problem. You got the rancher killed, which put everyone on steroids. Then you got this law in Arizona, which is not the right answer but is understandable from people who feel like they're under siege.

So you start with where most of us are at. You say, let's do border security this year. The problem is the Hispanic community sees this as a slight. And I'm sympathetic to that thinking. Border security has been used in the past as an excuse for not doing comprehensive immigration reform. My advice is that securing the border now gives a guy like me who wants to get to comprehensive reform the credibility to get there. But if you bring up immigration in this climate, you'll divide the country further. You'll get a huge vote for border security and interior enforcement, but when it comes to pathway to citizenship, you'll break down big-time. That's where the politics get hard, when you realize we've got 12 million people who can't just be deported and we need to give them a reasonable way to stay here.

Meanwhile, there's a fairly compelling case to be made that immigrants have provided much if not most of what economic dynamism has manifested in American cities over the last few decades. (See here for example.)

It's probably never going to match the kerfuffle over illegals and Arizona's "fuck you, Fourth Amendment" response to that problem, but likely a much more important consideration for our long term prosperity is moving toward an immigration policy that privileges highly educated, highly motivated people who'd like to come here, start businesses, create jobs and pay a shit load of taxes. If countries aren't already competing for "talent" as ferociously as companies, they will soon enough.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 00:31:15

A billionaire real estate mogul who made a half billion dollars is challenging Meek for the Dem Sen nod in FL. This is officially the most fascinating non presidential race in American politics since...the California recall? Even longer than that?

by **pacino** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 01:04:52

meek's congressional election history is kind of a sad reminder of our crappy gerrymandered system. he's served 8 years in congress and this is his first actual race. in this respect, he's completely untested and the viability of his electability has yet to be determined. the dude could literally have been in the house for the rest of his life and never faced a challenger.

by **dajafi** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:01:45

Rejected White House correspondents dinner jokesfrom the Clinton era:

With the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner this weekend, speechwriter Mark Katz tells Politico about two jokes he wrote for the dinner which were ultimately rejected by the speakers.

For Bill Clinton in 1998 after he had survived impeachment and fundraising scandals: "Looking back, maybe I should have raised money in the Oval Office and had sex in the Lincoln Bedroom."

For Al Gore in 2000 after his mediocre college grades became public: "It's true I got C's and D's my freshman year at Harvard, but, in my own defense, that was the year I invented the bong."

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:13:28

:that's humor:

So my mom's teacher's union is voting on concessions today after the budget failed hardcore last week, and they're coming to grips with how many people are going to have to be laid off to deal with the budget cuts/pay increases. They could have voted on this three weeks ago and probably passed the budget and had more money and saved more jobs, but the union had to hold the line. The rank and file weren't even asked if they wanted to vote on concessions. So they lost the budget vote, people are going to have to get fired, and now they might agree to the pay freeze/health care contributions anyway. The NJEA played this one real good.

by **pacino** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:25:56

oh boy, christie's the man!!!! we sure showed 'em

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:30:20

He is the man. The state can't afford the budget to grow faster than inflation year after year after year.

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:35:26

It would nice if Christie, you know, taxed.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:54:08

The Nightman Cometh wrote:It would nice if Christie, you know, taxed.

What part of highest state and local tax burden in the country do you not understand?

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 13:26:31

Senator George Lemieux (R-FL), Crist’s former campaign manager, former chief of staff, and guy Crist appointed to the Senate last year, is backing Rubio.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 13:48:24

At this point, I don't think Crist can even serve as a spoiler. Is he looking for some kind of sinecure? Because I don't think any Republican organization or conservative leaning think tank is gonna give him that either.

by **traderdave** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 15:34:27

TenuredVulture wrote:At this point, I don't think Crist can even serve as a spoiler. Is he looking for some kind of sinecure? Because I don't think any Republican organization or conservative leaning think tank is gonna give him that either.

Most Americans would probably say that government is already filled with sinecures.

On a side note, I wish your Mom the best, Hoya! Her situation is exactly why I thought it was incredibly irresponsible for the Governor to be publicly campaigning for school budgets to go down. Despite what he thinks, no message was sent with the budget defeats. If there WAS any message it is that faced with yet another tax increase (some substantial); the worst economy in two generations; constant campaigning at multiple levels to vote down the budgets; and more dark clouds on the horizon in terms of budgets next year, 41% of the state's taxpayers STILL voted in favor of education.

I looked at the vote a slightly different way out of curiosity. On average, 30% of NJ's school budgets failed annually from 2000 - 2009; that means that of 538 school budgets, 161 fail, on average, in any given year because of whatever. That also means that of the 377 budgets "up for grabs" in 2010, 222 passed, or nearly 60%. My point is that maybe Christie's campaign against teachers and school boards (most of which act responsibly in fulfilling their duties) was not as successful as we are lead to believe.

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 16:20:12

jerseyhoya wrote:
The Nightman Cometh wrote:It would nice if Christie, you know, taxed.

What part of highest state and local tax burden in the country do you not understand?

Probably the same part that makes you not understand that you have to tax a lot to get out of 10 (?) billion dollars in debt.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 16:57:40

The Nightman Cometh wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
The Nightman Cometh wrote:It would nice if Christie, you know, taxed.

What part of highest state and local tax burden in the country do you not understand?

Probably the same part that makes you not understand that you have to tax a lot to get out of 10 (?) billion dollars in debt.

If taxes were raised this year, the money would have gone to schools and other services that the state cut. It would have done nothing for paying down the state's debt, just had higher taxes and higher spending obligations moving forward. Hopefully a combination of pension reforms and a commitment to actually funding the damn system going forward will stop the unfunded liabilities from growing. Having some debt isn't the end of the world, and states aren't going to go out of their way to pay larger portions of it than they're scheduled to pay, especially when times are lean.

Archived

Is There A BETTER Day to Start the New Politics Thread?