. . . easy answer
In 2009, as unemployment soared under Obama, the U.S. government issued 1.131 million green cards, 808,000 of them for immigrants of working age, the fourth highest number of foreign workers brought into this country in history.Why, with 25 million Americans unemployed or underemployed, are we importing a million foreign workers? Why are we not sending the illegals back, as President Eisenhower did, and imposing a moratorium on new immigration, as FDR did, to save American jobs for American workers?
- Patrick J. Buchanan
Because the party in power relies on the Hispanic vote to stay in power. And, a significant proportion of the Hispanic vote believes that ANY action on immigration (legal or illegal) is racist.
Any more questions?
4 comments:
I have several questions:
1. Why did Patrick J Buchanan ask:
'In 2009, as unemployment soared under Obama,' when accepted economic thinking clearly states that change in economic policies (i.e. as implemented by a new administration) can take up to 18 months to take effect *from the time of implementation* (not from the time they gained political assent)?
2. Isn't that kind of cheap point-scoring totally childish?
3. Or just a bit childish?
Just asking because - even though I am becoming more unimpressed with Obama with every passing day - he only came to power in January 2009, therefore any changes made would not have had an effect *in* 2009.
Or:
4. Is the US economy so lightweight that it's not a supertanker, more of a rowing dinghy?
When I hear "generally accepted," I generally ask: Accepted by whom?
I happen to believe that there are both resultant effects and anticipatory effects.
That is, a good percentage of the business leaders in the country understand (or, at least believe they understand) the eventual outcome of Obama's overtly socialistic policies. Then they react in accordance.
For example, the elimination of the tax increases on "the rich" are particularl onerous to small businessmen and women. Many small businesses are "Type S" corporations, where the entire profit of the company is treated as taxible income to the owner(s), regardless of the salary he pays himself.
So, a large piece that could be used to create jobs is sucked up by the government.
His policies are generally anti-business, the business owners know it, so they are adjusting prior to those projected 18 months.
Make sense?
John Maynard Keynes, in answer to your question. Just as the defined metric to determine that a nation's economy is in recession is three consecutive quarters of negative growth, JMK also hypothesised (I think in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money [1936], my tattered copy of it is in the loft) that an economic output of a nation is to be measured in three successive quarters post event.
I am with you 100%! I am a little tired of the pandering and really disgusted that the president of Mexico thinks he has a right to an opinion. If he was doing such a great job we wouldn't have all the illegal immigration after all.
Post a Comment