Jump to content

MB.com Political Poll for July, 2 - July 9


Recommended Posts

So when do you want the machine gun nests, FutureGM? That sounds an awful lot like the Berlin Wall.

 

 

 

I'm all for beefing up the security, but dear god, there are better things to do then build a wall, especially since it won't stop people from trying and will probably lead them to more risky propositions to get over here.

 

 

Just my two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when do you want the machine gun nests, FutureGM? That sounds an awful lot like the Berlin Wall.

 

I'm all for beefing up the security, but dear god, there are better things to do then build a wall, especially since it won't stop people from trying and will probably lead them to more risky propositions to get over here.

 

Just my two cents.

Nowhere in my post do I mention anything that extreme. A wall is just a barrier that can help. The problem with a virtual wall is that it can only be used to try and help authorities track those caught crossing the border on tape, but not until long after they have entered the country. We don't have the manpower to go and round up everyone we catch on a camera.

 

I am personally far more concerned about terrorists blending in with other immigrants. I don't care that much about Mexican immigration, although I would like them to do it legally.

 

If I was to ask for one thing to help the immigration problem, it would be tougher actions against employers hiring illegals. It should have a greater effect than a fence would, because it cuts off the incentive for people to cross into this nation in the first place (better paying jobs than in Mexico).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the main causes of illegal immigration is really quite simple economically: we have a labor shortage and most, if not all, of Latin America (and many other parts of the world) have a labor surplus. Their excess labor migrates to the U.S. to fill jobs that aren't being filled here.

 

Supply and demand. What a novel concept!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didnt read the entire bill proposal. But my understanding was that the returning home was only to file the app. for the visa with the U.S. consulate abroad for your family members. Normally, once your granted a visa, the applicaiton for permanent residency is always filed in the U.S.

 

So I'm not clear on that part of the proposal. Regardless, the bill was still superior to the status quo, in which millions of immigrants are in the U.S. unregistered.

 

I also wanted to note that illegal immigrants do pay sales taxes, but the ones that even after a reform of this magnitude owuld become LPRs, would not actually have to pay into the income tax if theyre below the poverty line. And it evens out b/c theyd make 7.50 an hour as opposed to .65 cents an hour. Economically, the problem this bill has is that people hire illegals b/c they dont have to pay them minimum wage or give them laborer benefits. You legalize them, then it may increase the number of unemployed and public charges in the U.S. Which, would lead to a new crop of illegals coming in to work for cheap.

 

In a way in order to globalize or even to take a small step such as a more open border, some of the traditionally american labor rights MUST be altered. Otherwise, all that will happen is an increased class of unskilled unemployed people, who will need to be provided assistance by social programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how some of you so boldly state that Iraq is headed in the wrong direction, it's going to hell, etc. On what do you base those claims? Tell that to my fellow Marines who just came back from Iraq where Ramadi was the most violent city in Iraq when we got there and it was hell, until my unit took care of business there. Before we got there Ramadi was nothing and had nothing, now there is the medical college, dental college, school with 2,000 Iraqi kids, Ramadi General Hospital has been reopened, the local bank is now up and running, there is now clean running water to every house in the city, every house in the city now has electricity at night (and within a few months they'll have it 24/7), the list goes on. When my unit first got there they were engaged in heavy combat around the clock, for the last 2-3 months of our deployment 99% of our Marines never even fired a single shot. A lot of my fellow Marines DIED just so some Iraqi family could have clean water in their house, my fellow Marines DIED so Iraqi kids can go to school everyday and be safe and they certainly didn't die in vain.

 

Ramadi is just one of the countless examples of positive things going on in major Iraqi cities - but i'm sure you heard all this on the news, right? I'm sure your nightly fix of Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Keith Olbermann, and even douchebags like Bill O'Reilly informed you of all these positive things. It's not a republican vs. democratic issue to those of us actually doing the fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how some of you so boldly state that Iraq is headed in the wrong direction, it's going to hell, etc. On what do you base those claims? Tell that to my fellow Marines who just came back from Iraq where Ramadi was the most violent city in Iraq when we got there and it was hell, until my unit took care of business there. Before we got there Ramadi was nothing and had nothing, now there is the medical college, dental college, school with 2,000 Iraqi kids, Ramadi General Hospital has been reopened, the local bank is now up and running, there is now clean running water to every house in the city, every house in the city now has electricity at night (and within a few months they'll have it 24/7), the list goes on. When my unit first got there they were engaged in heavy combat around the clock, for the last 2-3 months of our deployment 99% of our Marines never even fired a single shot. A lot of my fellow Marines DIED just so some Iraqi family could have clean water in their house, my fellow Marines DIED so Iraqi kids can go to school everyday and be safe and they certainly didn't die in vain.

 

Ramadi is just one of the countless examples of positive things going on in major Iraqi cities - but i'm sure you heard all this on the news, right? I'm sure your nightly fix of Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Keith Olbermann, and even douchebags like Bill O'Reilly informed you of all these positive things. It's not a republican vs. democratic issue to those of us actually doing the fighting.

And why must you get all worked up over this? It's not a republican vs democratic issue, it's a free speech issue. Who gives a flying f*** what we the voters of this country think, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagreed with the bill because I thought it was far too lenient towards people that broke federal law.

 

It also did not have any clear plans towards punishing companies and businesses that are hiring illegals. If you crack down hard on those companies, and they stop hiring illegals, there will not be the same market for labor as there currently is. The problem, of course, is that companies love this cheap labor that they don't have to give any benefits to beyond basic pay. I mean, you can even lock hundreds of them in a Wal-Mart overnight and get away with it, more than once.

 

I also want to see a vast increase in the security along the US/Mexico border BEFORE there are any new bills passed dealing with immigration. Despite promises, Bush has done very little to increase security along the border since he first spoke from there more than a year ago. I like the idea of a double fence across the border, supplemented with cameras, UAVs, and a large increase in the number of Border Patrol agents.

Bush has done very little to increase security along the border? Yeah - he only sent the National Guard and gave homeland security a massive budget to work with.

 

The BP has been holding a massive recruiting campaign to hire 6,000 new agents which began around 2004 and they have been given the budget and means to do so, the only problem is that the qualifications necessary to be a BP agent are very high and very few American's are even qualified,. The only way the BP is ever going to dramatically increase the size of it's force is to lower their standards which should never happen, or hold a campaign similar the US Marshals Service a few years back with their "Shining Star" movement where people on active duty in the military who are about to get out can easily transition over to being a DUSM, or in this case a BP agent. Lower your standards are heavily recruit those who are getting out of the military. ICE is having the same problem, only 2,000 agents to hunt down 12 million illegals with the inability to hire mass quantities of new agents due to very high standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how some of you so boldly state that Iraq is headed in the wrong direction, it's going to hell, etc. On what do you base those claims? Tell that to my fellow Marines who just came back from Iraq where Ramadi was the most violent city in Iraq when we got there and it was hell, until my unit took care of business there. Before we got there Ramadi was nothing and had nothing, now there is the medical college, dental college, school with 2,000 Iraqi kids, Ramadi General Hospital has been reopened, the local bank is now up and running, there is now clean running water to every house in the city, every house in the city now has electricity at night (and within a few months they'll have it 24/7), the list goes on. When my unit first got there they were engaged in heavy combat around the clock, for the last 2-3 months of our deployment 99% of our Marines never even fired a single shot. A lot of my fellow Marines DIED just so some Iraqi family could have clean water in their house, my fellow Marines DIED so Iraqi kids can go to school everyday and be safe and they certainly didn't die in vain.

 

Ramadi is just one of the countless examples of positive things going on in major Iraqi cities - but i'm sure you heard all this on the news, right? I'm sure your nightly fix of Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Keith Olbermann, and even douchebags like Bill O'Reilly informed you of all these positive things. It's not a republican vs. democratic issue to those of us actually doing the fighting.

 

There is no doubt that the men in uniform are doing an admirable job. The problem is that there aren't enough of them there now and their presence cannot force a political solution

 

Let me ask you something about those same success stories. What would happen if the troops left?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me ask you something about those same success stories. What would happen if the troops left?

Everything would go to sh*t, insurgent-led tribes would take over, all of the progress made would be reversed in a matter of weeks if not days, the country would fall apart, and we'd end up having to go back a year or two later. Leaving before the job is finished is wrong in every sense of the word and will just end up causing more problems in the long run. Iraq is really NOT that bad right now and most areas and cities are for the most part very peaceful, the problem is the media focuses on a small handful of hot spots and that's all any of the civilians back here in America ever see and everyone just assumes all of Iraq is like that, and that couldn't be any farther from the truth. The media has distorted so many peoples views of what's going on over there and what the media shows is simply not what Iraq is really like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me ask you something about those same success stories. What would happen if the troops left?

Everything would go to sh*t, insurgent-led tribes would take over, all of the progress made would be reversed in a matter of weeks if not days, the country would fall apart, and we'd end up having to go back a year or two later. Leaving before the job is finished is wrong in every sense of the word and will just end up causing more problems in the long run. Iraq is really NOT that bad right now and most areas and cities are for the most part very peaceful, the problem is the media focuses on a small handful of hot spots and that's all any of the civilians back here in America ever see and everyone just assumes all of Iraq is like that, and that couldn't be any farther from the truth. The media has distorted so many peoples views of what's going on over there and what the media shows is simply not what Iraq is really like.

 

We've been there four years and if we left the country would go to hell. How much longer do we need? 10 more years? 15?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The head of the US Border Patrol just said a few weeks ago that they have not received the funding they were promised.

 

In addition, this report from Congress reports that the DHS is in trouble right now, and unlikely to be prepared to respond to a national emergency. Then again, they have yet to prove that they can, period.

 

By Spencer S. Hsu

The Washington Post

Updated: 12:32 a.m. ET July 9, 2007

The Bush administration has failed to fill roughly a quarter of the top leadership posts at the Department of Homeland Security, creating a "gaping hole" in the nation's preparedness for a terrorist attack or other threat, according to a congressional report to be released today.

 

As of May 1, Homeland Security had 138 vacancies among its top 575 positions, with the greatest voids reported in its policy, legal and intelligence sections, as well as in immigration agencies, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Coast Guard. The vacant slots include presidential, senior executive and other high-level appointments, according to the report by the majority staff of the House Homeland Security Committee.

 

A DHS spokesman challenged the report's tally, saying that it is skewed by a sudden expansion this spring in the number of top management jobs. Before then, only 12 percent of positions were unfilled in a department that has always been thinly staffed at headquarters, spokesman Russ Knocke said.

 

The findings have stoked fresh concern among some in Congress about the four-year-old department's progress in overcoming management problems, dating to its troubled 2003 creation from 22 components.

 

The DHS was reorganized in 2005 by its current secretary, Michael Chertoff. But it suffered a breakdown at multiple levels in responding to Hurricane Katrina that August, which prompted a new congressional overhaul.

 

"One of the continuing problems appears to be the over politicization of the top rank of Department management," concludes the report by the committee, chaired by Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.). "This could lead to heightened vulnerability to terrorist attack."

 

In an interview, Thompson said that vacancies have weakened morale and reflect an over-reliance on contractors. He also called the report a warning "that we can expect more vacancies to occur than what we have been accustomed to" at the close of the administration, when many top personnel will leave their posts.

 

Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.), ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, agreed that the inability to fill jobs is creating problems within DHS offices. While walking in his district yesterday, Davis said, he met constituents employed at an immigration agency who described lower morale because of the vacancies.

 

The DHS has one of the largest rosters of senior political appointees in the federal government, in part because of how it was created. The DHS says it has never had more than 220 senior political appointees, although the Office of Personnel Management told Congress of more than 360 in 2004, National Journal reported last month.

 

Of the 138 vacant positions, the DHS provided no explanation for 70, according to the House report. Seven others had tentative or pending appointees and 60 were under recruitment.

 

The department currently has 130 vacancies at senior levels, Knocke said, with 92 now in the process of recruitment.

 

A major focus of the current DHS leadership, Knocke said, is preparing a competent bench of managers by 2009, when a new presidential administration will come into power. Department officials said they have removed officials whose qualifications and political backgrounds were called into question in favor of more seasoned personnel.

 

For Deputy Secretary Michael P. Jackson, Knocke said, "planning for the transition is a huge part of how he spends his time each day -- to ensure that we have the right caliber of leaders in the number-two and -three positions at our component agencies and program offices, so that they are well trained, well experienced and ready."

 

Nevertheless, congressional auditors, management consultants and academic experts on government have warned that several trends are undercutting efforts to improve DHS management. The department faces high turnover because top officials are in demand in a private sector willing to pay lucrative salaries. It is heavily dependent on contractors, yet its staff to manage them is overstretched. Partisan political combat over homeland security issues has also made jobs less attractive.

 

Homeland Security employees reported the lowest job satisfaction among 36 federal agencies in a January survey by the OPM. The average tenure of the Secret Service director has dropped from 10 years during the past century to less than three years since 1992, and the agency has had three directors since it was moved into the DHS.

 

The head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Julie L. Myers, has served as a recess appointment unconfirmed by the Senate since 2005, when she came under fire by lawmakers who challenged her political connections and management qualifications.

 

Knocke said Congress has "sent the wrong message to employees" at times by attacking individual appointees and agencies, rather than "ensuring that they have confident leadership in place and the support of Congress behind that leadership and that agency."

 

Among those who have been questioned by congressional Democrats is W. Ross Ashley III, nominated by President Bush as head of a newly consolidated FEMA office overseeing billions in federal grants. Ashley was a senior executive for a DHS contractor, ChoicePoint, and has not worked in federal grant-making. FEMA remains a sensitive agency politically because of the prevalence of Bush political allies among its leadership at the time of Katrina, including ousted director Michael D. Brown.

 

David Heyman, homeland security director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, agreed that congressional battles over Iraq and immigration have created political distractions for the DHS. But he said that only senior leaders can make the new department succeed.

 

"The department has had great challenges forging a new entity out of 22 parts," Heyman said. "It's not the staff-level or civil servants who will be forging e pluribus unum -- out of many, one. It's the leadership that makes a difference."

 

Davis, the Virginia Republican, said that political appointees often leave administrations for new opportunities at this point in a president's term and that bureaucratic limits on government pay and hiring are legitimate problems.

 

But, Davis added: "This is an area where you can't afford to have these vacancies. The American people are counting on the administration to have these positions filled. This is our first line of defense in the fight against terrorism. You have to make it a priority."

 

Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not saying this in reference to Accord, but from what I've noticed, most of the people I know that have gone to Iraq, whether its marines or army, had an opinion on the war beforehand. And most of them have kept that opinion even afterwards.

 

I have actually never spoken to someone who fought in Iraq, who changed their opinion on the war after they came back. I'm sure people like that do exist, just think its a smaller percentage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've been there four years and if we left the country would go to hell. How much longer do we need? 10 more years? 15?

 

This is the million dollar question. Everyone who wants to stay there just points out how bad things will be when we leave. But how long do we stay?

 

The pro-war people said everything would go smoothly. It didn't.

The pro-war people said everything would settle down after a year, that it was just pockets of Sadaam loyalists. It didn't.

The pro-war people said after we got Sadaam and his kids, everything would be a-ok. Nope.

 

Now they are saying ok, maybe we approached it wrong and maybe things went badly, but NOW things will be ok and we should stick it out.

 

How has all credibility not been lost? Why should I believe the same people who have consistently been full of sh*t?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've been there four years and if we left the country would go to hell. How much longer do we need? 10 more years? 15?

 

This is the million dollar question. Everyone who wants to stay there just points out how bad things will be when we leave. But how long do we stay?

 

The pro-war people said everything would go smoothly. It didn't.

The pro-war people said everything would settle down after a year, that it was just pockets of Sadaam loyalists. It didn't.

The pro-war people said after we got Sadaam and his kids, everything would be a-ok. Nope.

 

Now they are saying ok, maybe we approached it wrong and maybe things went badly, but NOW things will be ok and we should stick it out.

 

How has all credibility not been lost? Why should I believe the same people who have consistently been full of sh*t?

Great post. Don't forget going over there b/c of the need to destroy the WMD, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've been there four years and if we left the country would go to hell. How much longer do we need? 10 more years? 15?

 

This is the million dollar question. Everyone who wants to stay there just points out how bad things will be when we leave. But how long do we stay?

 

The pro-war people said everything would go smoothly. It didn't.

The pro-war people said everything would settle down after a year, that it was just pockets of Sadaam loyalists. It didn't.

The pro-war people said after we got Sadaam and his kids, everything would be a-ok. Nope.

 

Now they are saying ok, maybe we approached it wrong and maybe things went badly, but NOW things will be ok and we should stick it out.

 

How has all credibility not been lost? Why should I believe the same people who have consistently been full of sh*t?

Great post. Don't forget going over there b/c of the need to destroy the WMD, too.

 

You're right. Within 3 weeks it will rotate to the link between Iraq and 9-11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...