Clinton backs N.Y. driver's license plan for illegal immigrants

[andyfox]

It's obvious Rangel's goal is to shift some of the income tax burden to higher earners. Hillary has already called for reverting to the pre-Bush marginal tax rates on people earning over $200,000/year. Support of Rangel's plan would lower taxes for those earning less for whom the alternative minimum tax has become onerous.

[andyfox]

Once the "loud people" (that's the president's term, not mine) got ahold of the issue, it was dead in the water. The president tried to lead the way; he was on TV a lot and giving speeches aplenty trying to use his bully pulpit to garner support from the Republicans for the bill.

Anyway there's plenty of blame to go around. There are also plenty of reasons--good ones, IMHO, why congress has an even lower approval rating than the president. And (again IMHO) the congressional Democrats harbor the lion's share of the blame for that.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Once the "loud people" (that's the president's term, not mine) got ahold of the issue, it was dead in the water. The president tried to lead the way; he was on TV a lot and giving speeches aplenty trying to use his bully pulpit to garner support from the Republicans for the bill.

Anyway there's plenty of blame to go around. There are also plenty of reasons--good ones, IMHO, why congress has an even lower approval rating than the president. And (again IMHO) the congressional Democrats harbor the lion's share of the blame for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll jump in here for a moment and say I don't think "blame" is at all the right word.

Bush and the Dems and many Republicans were trying to pass a bill that the majority of the people didn't want and found strongly objectionable.

The people actively and widely voiced their displeasure in no uncertain terms (with the help of a handful of Republican Congressmen) and Congress backed down.

That's what Congress is supposed to do, listen to the constituents: not pass bills that the American people don't want.

I don't think "blame" is the right word for Congress being actually responsive (for a change) to the wishes of the American people rather than trying to ram an unpopular bill down our throats.

The pro-bill forces tried every dirty trick in the book to end debate on the matter before it could be fully explored and before the American people would have time to fully voice their displeasure. Fortunately, with the speed of the Internet, enough awareness was raised that people all across the coluntry in great droves phoned and emailed their Congressmen to not do it or else. Some of Congress listened to that, considering their re-elections might well be at stake. This process is exactly as it should be.

Government by the people and for the people: not by the elitists and for the elitists.

Congrats to the American people for seeing through this deeply flawed bill, and for being active and loud enough, and to Congress for finally listening to what most Americans want rather than legislating from their elitist perspectives.

I think accolades rather than blame are in order. This is exactly how this country is supposed to work. America is NOT supposed to be a minority imposing their moral and social views and conducting social engineering upon everyone else. (edit: and this wasn't a matter of Constitutional rights being somehow violated, where the majority wishes might possibly be unconstitutional).

Regardless of how you view the particular issue in question, remember that next time on a different issue the shoe could well be on the other foot. How upset would you be then if Congress were to ram through a bill to which you and most Americans seriously objected? You might well then thank Americans for being "loud" in objecting to it...as they did this time.

Well, thanks for reading.

[bobman0330]

I kinda agree with JK here. Blaming Congress for the failure to pass immigration reform is silly. Congressmen would have been crazy to infuriate their constituents as much as a good immigration bill would have.

It's really the American people who deserve the blame.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
I kinda agree with JK here. Blaming Congress for the failure to pass immigration reform is silly. Congressmen would have been crazy to infuriate their constituents as much as a good immigration bill would have.

It's really the American people who deserve the blame.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you.

To me, using the word "blame" sounds like it's referring to doing something wrong or bad. I don't see it that way and apparently neither did most of America. The bill was, IMO, greatly flawed, although at the moment I don't recall all the particular aspects or ramifications.

Another point: just because it is possible that some changes should be made to immigration laws, doesn't mean that that bill was a good answer. I think the fact that it was called "Immigration Reform" might have had something to do with how the uninformed perceived it or how it was packaged and sold: who wouldn't want some sort of "reform", seeing all the problems or difficulties that exist now with illegal immigration? But as usual, the devil is in the details. Calling something "reform" doesn't mean it actually is reform, or a good thing.

I think the People, and Congress, need to read carefully bills that Congress proposes for vote, and to read about those bills as well. Only in that manner can a good analysis be attempted.

If something needs to be dealt with, it is just wishful thinking (and naive) to assume that the first bill that Congress attempts as a solution, will in fact prove to be a good solution.

Many things could be changed or improved in America (and not just regarding immigration). I'd bet that most bills attempting to do something to improve something that could stand improvement, won't actually improve it and may often make it worse. There is no good substitute for active and thorough debate. The rush to invoke cloture upon controversial issues is usually a tactic to head off thorough debate - and is therefore a truly, deeply reprehensible tactic IMO.

Congress has the responsibility to truly debate and analyze any significant bills that come to light. Given that Congress often shirks that responsibility, it is incumbent upon the American people to do the analysis to the extent possible and to convey their views and wishes to Congress in a loud and forceful manner on serious issues. IMO Congress far too often quickly passes a significant bill, hardly having even read or skimmed the content (or worse, an unrelated Rider to a Bill), and Congress far too often ignores the wishes of the American people and legislates from their Ivory Tower instead. This time enough of Congress actually listened to make a difference.

Thanks for reading.

[One Outer]

[ QUOTE ]
Only on people making over $200,000/year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, right.

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry but if the Democrats had actually tried to build a consensus and promoted the merits of the bill it would have passed.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would have passed if the citizens had not called & e-mailed their representatives by masses demanding it be rejected.

The bill gave amnesty to illegals if they followed certain guidelines. No illegals get citizenship as far as I am concerned.

As far as I am concerned, they can stay here, if they follow the guidelines in the bill that failed, but they can't become a citizen.

With all the manufacturing and low tech service jobs being shipped overseas, it won't be long before there will be plenty of legal citizens begging to change the bed linens of the hotels in N.Y. City.

In 1996, the average meat butcher in a meat processing plant made $16.00 an hour. Now they make $9.50. I wonder who the ones making $16 an hour in 1996 have been replaced with.

You give those 12 million plus illegals citizenship and they will come out of the woodwork, will no longer be under the thumb of their employers and will be able to stand up for their rights and prices will skyrocket.

If prices are going to jump, they might as well jump because employers had to fire the illegals and hire Americans.

[adios]

I'll make a brief comment. I agree with the points you made. I'll add that I think our representatives in Congress were more than a bit surprised at the outpouring of opposition to that bill. A major part of this is that the political landscape has changed a great deal IMO with the wide use of the internet now. Look for the politicians to attempt to gain more control over the content and what's available to internet users.

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll make a brief comment. I agree with the points you made. I'll add that I think our representatives in Congress were more than a bit surprised at the outpouring of opposition to that bill. A major part of this is that the political landscape has changed a great deal IMO with the wide use of the internet now. Look for the politicians to attempt to gain more control over the content and what's available to internet users.

[/ QUOTE ]


Where have I read this before...