Are UK and US on a collision course?
After such a sweet beginning, could Cameron be on collision course with Obama? No, not over THAT. I'm pretty sure the two men just about see eye-to-eye over both BP's responsibility and its economic importance, but have to do a bit of posturing for their public, by which I mean their media.
The pressure on Cameron to "stand up" to the president has more to do with internal conservative politics than the special relationship.
But there could be a falling out down the road. Or even just up the road, at the G8 in Canada at the end of this month. Just as the new prime minister is warning that what is on the way is not so much belt-tightening as a crash diet, the president is calling for the belt to be let out a little more.
President Obama's relationship with Gordon Brown always seemed rather frosty. I am told that Mr Brown's assumption that things would be done his way, and his "working methods" didn't go down well at the White House, although I am not sure if this tension was genuinely between the two men or just their officials. But at least Mr Brown was an
enthusiastic supporter of the president's plan to spend to avoid economic catastrophe.
On this side of the Atlantic the plan continues. Mr Obama has just written to leaders in Congress urging them to approve a $50bn plan to stop teachers, firefighters and police being laid off, to continue spending on scientific research and to pay for tax cuts of small business.
He says: "Taken together, these measures to jump-start private sector job creation, avoid massive layoffs at the local and state levels and help the unemployed are critical and timely ways to further the economic recovery and spur job creation. At this critical moment, we cannot afford to slide backwards just as our recovery is taking hold. We must take these emergency measures."
But the UK and much of the rest of Europe is following a different path. The model is Mrs Merkel's Swabian house wife, scrimping and saving, rather than a WAG on a spree, spending to fend off a Great Depression. Will American conservatives swallow hard and urge the president to follow Europe?
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~39~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
There is a crash coming,more spending on top of what we have spent already.At some point down the road we are going to have to pay for all this spending being done,it will come in the form of huge tax increases or the socialist form of new taxes.It will be put off until after an election,who ever wins the election will be blamed for the huge blunders we are making now.
When are we going to learn more government means more people sitting behind desks sending memo's to people to show how busy and important they are!
Complain about this comment
Only if Omamarama doesn't come to his senses.
While his distain for Great Britain is well documented (read his books), if he actually has any common sense (highly debatable) he will realize having our 2 countries operate in harmony will give much better results than if we work to polar extremes.
However, I doubt that he has the sense to come in from the cold, never mind know how to act appropriately on the world stage.
Complain about this comment
Oh yes - great soccer game yesterday! :)
Complain about this comment
Well, USA started cutting on spending before Europe, even with the HC bill.
After 8 years of Bush, you expect Obama administration to solve things straight?
And Why your blind eye on stupidity from the right, the same you expect to swallow?
BTW it is ironic how you British have no pride in British Petroleum?
OH, should i say BP?
Please, straight yourself.
Collision course?
Why not with the rest of Europe?
Oh, it is Great Britain.
You are exposing yourself, which is a good thing after all.
@ enzo11
British common sense?
If he really disdains GB, why would you care?
Do you need his approval this (see the space) much?
Why would we talk trash about people we do not personally know (just because they are NOT or behave like us)?
Complain about this comment
Excuse me? Follow Europe? Isn't Cameron's crash diet based on the Canadian model? I wouldn't follow Europe across the street. How many countries in Europe are teetering on bankruptcy?
Cameron will be too star struck by Obama to "stand up" to him. Banking Regulation should be the one and only topic of discussion at the G8. Get your banks in order first.
Complain about this comment
Anyone with a decent understanding of the Great Depression knows that cutting spending and deregulation aren't what got us out of it. It was increased spending to boost consumer confidence, stricter guidelines on banks and other financial institutions, and public sector job creation.
Conservatives drove the world into a ditch with their cheapness, and now we need to spend some money on a tow truck to get us out.
Complain about this comment
@ Ochyming
BTW it is ironic how you British have no pride in British Petroleum?
OH, should i say BP?
I Didn't have any pride in it when it was British Petroleum, changing it's name makes no difference. It's a large company that makes lots of money.
I didn't make it, nor do i have any control over what it does.
I do wish it hadn`t polluted the gulf.
But how do you feel pride in something that i have no say in?
Utter Nonesense
I am sure the special relationship will survive.
" Now bend at the waist and reach for your toes David"
Brit Living in SoCal
Complain about this comment
@ Alex Herr
not totally sure that is true
It was actually entering the second world war that ended the depression strangley (and Sadly).
Complain about this comment
#6 Alex Herr: "It was increased spending to boost consumer confidence, stricter guidelines on banks and other financial institutions, and public sector job creation."
Precisely! However cutting spending by the UK Government on programs or departments that do not serve the best interests of the taxpayers and citizens is critical to keeping their AAA credit rating. They must trim the fat on their next budget or their credit rating is at risk of being downgraded.
"$50bn plan to stop teachers, firefighters and police being laid off, to continue spending on scientific research and to pay for tax cuts of small business."
Sounds like sound advice to me Mark. These are exactly the jobs that should not be cut. A greater emphases on education will only benefit a country in the long run. If we are going to pollute the Earth, the least we can do is provide our children with an education and a safe home. Perhaps the next generation will be smarter.
Complain about this comment
There is no good reason for there any dispute of substance between President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron. They are in virtually the same place on the political spectrum; the economic relationships between the two countries are considerably less important than other economic relationships each of them has with others; and both countries share a similar world view on diplomatic and defense issues.
On economic policy it is always wise to be prudent with money, and it would be better for all involved if both countries (and many others) concentrated on using such stimulus funds as are or may be available to build long lasting assets rather than being (in effect) wastefully expensed on short term transfers to individuals that yield little or no lasting economic benefit.
I am not persuaded that subsidizing the teachers' unions, or other public sector unions, for example, is likely to be a particularly desirable or effective use of stimulus funds for which long term debt obligations are being incurred. Private sector taxpayers, whose job security and pension plans are rather less gold-plated, may find that more than a little galling.
Finally, whatever the UK, the various countries on the Continent, or America, may choose as policy, surely that matters far less than that China has started ordering more shipments of corn from America, and that the Chinese and Brazilian economies both grew at an annualized rate of something over 9 %. That is what is going to permit America, and others, to climb out of this hole.
One important issue is to get China to allow the Yuan to float properly. It is 40% - 60% undervalued against the US dollar. If this had happened over a period of ten or fifteen years, it would have been better. Trying to correct that valuation mis-match now, in a rush, so late in the day, is much trickier. An essential first step is to stop making the problem worse.
Nothing in the UK-US relationship is going to affect those major questions of economic policy.
Complain about this comment
I think that Cameron and Obama are headed on a collision course- but not one most commentators expect. The Churchill bust was a tempest in a teapot. (Obama can decorate the Oval Office as he wishes- and Churchill DID have a spy ring operating in the USA.) The gifts for HM and the PM were problematic, but more due to inexperience. (And Her Majesty has almost anything she wants and needs already...) The thing I see that could ruin the "Special Relationship" is more on the UK side. The UK Courts have refused to bow to Obama (and Brown) and released details on the treatment of Binyam Mohammed. The new Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has pledged for an inquiry into the UK's role in Torture. The Tories have criticized the actions of the Blair Government in invading Iraq. In short, the UK is acting like an independent country, instead of a lapdog. (Further, unlike the Republicans (except Ron Paul and Walter Jones) the Tories have actual principles, will try and keep them- and just may have learned something after the Iraq WMD claims were proven false, unlike New Labour, and the major US parties...)
Of course, I also saw a recent article on MSNBC.com that called Cameron "anti-American"...for calling for greater ties between the UK and India. Apparently we only consider politicians to be "pro-American" when they kowtow to us- or try and get us into their conflicts (see Netenyahu and Saakashvili).
Complain about this comment
No, the UK and US are not on a collision course. As result of divergent plate boundary forces, the North American plate and the Eurasian plate are moving away from each other.
So no collision course, in fact the opposite.
Complain about this comment
Should be common sense that there is a time to spend and a time to cut spending, and that it is not the same for everyone. And there are sectors to support, and others that are seriously bloated and need to be opened and gutted or the body politic will get sicker because of their disease.
Let us pray that our leaders keep their own counsel and ignore the rants of the press, their bloodlusting enemies, and the urgency of the moment and do what is needed for the long term health of their nations.
Good sense rarely appears in headlines.
Seems to me that the conservatives' tax cuts historically do not stimulate the economy because the bulk of the tax relief goes to corporations and the wealthy, who will not and cannot spend enough to lift the boat. The economy is stimulated by the confidence of the hundreds of millions of working folks - that they can continue to work and pay bills.
Without this there is no economy, except perhaps in the vaporous clouds of the financiers.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
I find my confidence in Economists somewhat shattered. Thus far they have fairly uniformly failed to predict disasters until they were either upon us or else passed us by.
It seems sensible to me that a bit of deficit spending can be a good thing, now and then. However, a country cannot make a policy of spending beyond its means for the long term - sooner or later the tab has to be paid. A lot of fiscal chickens have come home to roost - countries that have rid themselves of tawdry agriculture and industry in favour of the nebulous credit and finance industries have suffered. Countries that have recklessly spent and spent and spent because their governments knew that when the music stopped, it would be someone elses problem. This isn't a problem from a year or five years ago - this has been in the making for awhile.
Maybe I'm hopelessly naive, but when I look around I see a lot of bankrupt people. I'm thinking that more debt isn't the answer to their problems.
Complain about this comment
Look, Obama has a lot on his plate... He has only been office since January and he has accomplished a lot. The Nuclear signing, expansion of Medical Care ( better than what it was), Stimuls Package- finally have positive growth, still need more; remember, he wasn't the one to start all this. The former president and the goldman saches guy gave the first stimuls package to the banks w/o any rules attached. Obama is still fixing that.
Anyway, we can't take jobs aways from Education, Police Department, Fire Department; they're hurting enough as it is. Tax McDonalds, Starbucks, cigarettes, beer and liquor, Big Franchises because they can afford it. Then, these companies can just right it off. Taking away from the public sector is just stupid. Don't "Kill the goose that lays the golden egg..." (somebody said this). Which means the middle class.
Complain about this comment
Don't take money from the public sector, take it from the private sector who can afford some extra taxes, duh
Complain about this comment
Yep, on this one, America (or, at least, the administration - there are plenty of deficit hawks in Congress and the media) is right, and Europe, including Britain, is wrong.
Paul Krugman's blog is the go-to source for this.
Complain about this comment
A bust up over this - not a chance
If America wants to try a different economic strategy to GB why shouldnt it - they are different economies, very different in public spending. I hope the US policy works and I hope the GB/EU policy also works.
There are many other things we can fall out over - Hilary Clinton's comments on the Falklands, then again given what most American's I meet think of Hilary Clinton there does not seem much dispute about her abilities (or lack)
Complain about this comment
#8 readwriteandblue
@ Alex Herr
not totally sure that is true
It was actually entering the second world war that ended the depression strangley (and Sadly).
You just validated what Alex Herr @6 said.
Complain about this comment
Ref 3, Enzo
"Oh yes - great soccer game yesterday! :)"
Germany was fantastic, but I don't think they should have humiliated the Aussies the way they did.
Regarding the alleged collision course the US and UK are in, I believe the US has more important things to do than worry about Cameron's agenda. The Gulf crisis, a weak economy, unacceptably high unemployment, the erosion of good jobs in the USA, the state of our infrastructure and education system, our trade imbalance, budget deficits, mounting national debt, the burden of our unfunded liabilities, tensions in the Persian Gulf and North Korea, and the monetary pressures exacerbated by the European fiscal crisis and China's desire to establish a different reserve currency are far too important to worry about whatever Cameron thinks or does.
Please don't take it as a put down, but when a country is faced with problems that threaten its security and the well being of its citizens the focus must be on domestic priorities and defending its global interests.
Issues such as whether or not our leaders like each other or agree with each other's agenda are irrelevant and, in this case, inconsequential.
Complain about this comment
At what seems a superficial level the media in the UK appears to be whipping up anti-American sentiment again. It isn't hard when it is seething just below the surface anyway. As with all European countries, Brits look to blame others for their problems, invariably problems of their own making. It's easy for them to blame everything that goes wrong in the UK and the world on America. They sometimes say it's the American government they are criticizing not Americans but unlike most European nations, American government is for the most part reflective of the majority of American values and views. Exaggerating the differences among us hoping to exploit a rift is a mistake. If the UK works itself up into an anti-American frenzy, if it wants a collision, it will get one. America is not looking or hoping for one but if that's what the UK wants, that is what it will get just like "Olde Europe" got. It is very dangerous to collide with something much larger, more powerful, and traveling at much higher speed and energy level than you are. The damage is usually very one sided.
At a deeper level, the UK and US interests have been diverging for a very long time. The US remains a very dynamic place. In a severe recession, stimulus at least for the short run measured in years will hasten recovery from stagnation. The UK and Europe are in a very different situation. All of their numbers have been fudged as we now know. Europe is a dying enterprise that faked its growth, export, and other figures to pump itself up. Either based on false assumptions like the exports from Germany to Greece, contracts obtained through bribes, and other deceptive means, the EU is in fact a much weaker, poorer, less dynamic society with myriads of problems the US simply doesn't face. It is tightening its belt past the last notch knowing that it really will not likely recover at all this time. It is headed for a permanent lower standard of living, a lower level of existance, not nearly in the league with the US it is so jealous of and wanted to match and best so badly. The civilizations have been diverging for a long time, the evidence now no longer ignorable nor can they be pretended away. Europe is angry, jealous, bitter, and will also likely blame America for its own problems. Frankly we just don't want to hear it. My only regret...the Atlantic isn't the Pacific. If it were, the remote din of European squealing would be even fainter, even easier to ignore. I think the Megrahi incident was the last straw for us in the US. The UK could hardly have made its betrayal, mendacity, cynical self interest, and its sense of imperious self righteousness indifferent to its own promises or American sensibilities more plain, more irrefutable.
Complain about this comment
Re #6:
Your understanding of the ending of the Great Depression is woefully short of the mark. What got us out of it was the start of World War II! And the resultant full employment making war equipment. Anything else was just icing on the cake. And if you want to go down THAT road, I think you will find yourself on a very lonely trip.
Complain about this comment
Re#22:
What a depressing view you have of the world.
For your information:
1. The so-called "Megrahi Incident" was a result of SCOTTISH parliamentary decision making, not UK. Although I am sure someone like you will crank on that Scotland is part of the UK (which a fairly large minority of Scots would like to change).
2. There is no anti-US feeling bubbling just below the surface. (Although someone like you would be a casuse of such if it existed.)
3. There is more "sqealing" from the US than the UK about the subsidization of EU trade. Not that the UK is in favour of it either, but whining about it won't stop it. (The French will see to THAT!)
4. The majority of UK citizens don't like the EU much either. It has become foisted upon us as the Common Market has "evolved" from its marketing origins to a vastly different political animal, which some of us disliked so much we crossed the Atlantic to escape it.
Complain about this comment
Ref 13, KScurmudgeon
"Seems to me that the conservatives' tax cuts historically do not stimulate the economy because the bulk of the tax relief goes to corporations and the wealthy, who will not and cannot spend enough to lift the boat. The economy is stimulated by the confidence of the hundreds of millions of working folks - that they can continue to work and pay bills."
I agree, and would add that tax cuts at a time when our tax rates are perilously low and contributing to our huge budget deficits is not a good idea. Similarly, tax increases, regardless of how necessary they may be to balance the federal budget, would kill our feeble economic recovery.
Hopefully the disaster in the Gulf will not distract the administration at a time when leadership and additional public funding are needed to restore consumer and business confidence.
Conservatives are, understandably, worried about the economic recovery and reductions in unemployment and are desperately trying to lure President Obama into an exclusive focus on the oil spill, illegal immigration, and foreign affairs. Hopefully he will not take the bait.
Complain about this comment
@10 (IF): "On economic policy it is always wise to be prudent with money, and it would be better for all involved if both countries (and many others) concentrated on using such stimulus funds as are or may be available to build long lasting assets rather than being (in effect) wastefully expensed on short term transfers to individuals that yield little or no lasting economic benefit."
Your statement is especially meaningful because most folks don't understand that for every direct dollar the government disburses, regardless of what it's disbursed on, the government must collect well more than a dollar in tax receipts. This is because of the salaries, benefits, and logistics required by the government employees at all levels. This is NOT to say that government employees are either good or bad, or that government is good or bad; it is only to point out that, regardless of the benefits they provide, the costs to provide and maintain government employees represent a financial loss and a source of inefficiency. Since that's the case, then we absolutely should focus as much of our spending as possible on things that will act to expand the private wealth base which sustains and makes possible public spending.
There is no class of spending that automatically makes the grade:
a. Infrastructure repairs and maintenance are necessary, but probably don't qualify. Infrastructure CHANGES can qualify, however, if the net result is either increased efficiency or reduced costs that accrue to a large percentage of the local population.
b. Research and development might, but if it's applied research that just results in short-term benefits to a handful of folks, it probably doesn't qualify. More basic R&D can qualify, but it needs to be bounded by some level of peer review to make sure that the research isn't either duplicative or careless of the laws of physics.
c. Education is touted as an "investment in the future". That can be true; however, if education dollars don't result in either (a) children molded into adults who understand and carry out their responsibilities as citizens, and who are capable of reading, writing, "figuring", and thinking on their own sufficient to continue to retrain themselves throughout the rest of their lives, or (b) adults who are retrained to continue to be productive by doing new things as old jobs disappear, then education doesn't qualify.
@15 (KsC): "Should be common sense that there is a time to spend and a time to cut spending, and that it is not the same for everyone. And there are sectors to support, and others that are seriously bloated and need to be opened and gutted or the body politic will get sicker because of their disease."
Well and succinctly put! What troubles me is that there seems to be in our Congress an attitude that they haven't accomplished anything unless they pass a spending bill in the hundreds of billions of dollars. There's too much room for shenanigans in those large bills. They should break them up, methinks, precisely so the kind of precision you called for could take place.
@21 (StD): "The Gulf crisis, a weak economy, unacceptably high unemployment, the erosion of good jobs in the USA, the state of our infrastructure and education system, our trade imbalance, budget deficits, mounting national debt, the burden of our unfunded liabilities, tensions in the Persian Gulf and North Korea, and the monetary pressures exacerbated by the European fiscal crisis and China's desire to establish a different reserve currency are far too important to worry about whatever Cameron thinks or does."
Each of these topics deserves its own commentary. Suffice it to say you are exactly correct.
@22 (MAII): "The UK and Europe are in a very different situation. All of their numbers have been fudged as we now know. Europe is a dying enterprise that faked its growth, export, and other figures to pump itself up."
Marcus, I think we have altogether too much of our own fudgery to deal with before we start heaving stones at the Europeans.
Please recall that we are making very little progress toward unwinding the cross-connected, hyper-leveraged mortgage loans that got us into this mess in the first place. There's STILL no reason to believe that our banks really know what their true balance sheets look like, and this is 2 YEARS after we started. The banks took the monies loaned to them to start lending again, and used them to clean up their balance sheets and consume each other. They should have been punished severely over that one.
There are a number of things about Europe's trajectory that concern me (notably some events surrounding freedom of speech and freedom of the press), but the presumption that all is well over here by comparison just doesn't pass the smell test.
I really appreciated your engineering contributions a while back about the Gulf spill, and the precision and background you brought to the discussion. I suspect that if you approach the non-technical topics with the same precision and background, and the same lack of emotion, you will probably add the same kind of value.
Regards to all this HOT Monday morning from south of the Beltway!
Arclight
Complain about this comment
Are UK and US on a collision course?
God, I sincerely hope so!
Tell me what the UK has gotten out of its lock-stepping with the USA?
If the UK did a sovereign audit, I'm willing to bet everything that I own (Okay, okay, it's not much...but it's everything that I own!) that some American investment (bank) has bet against UK sovereign debt.
Standing up to Obama, standing up to the United States of America is very much needed because BIG does not mean RIGHT.
If Cameron needs a little mantra, may I suggest repeating:
"The last time, I received meaningful and helpful advice from Obama was... (When Cameron comes to this blank, when he cannot fill in the blank), it will remind him that he must think for himself and stand up for the United Kingdom.
Brits may not have liked Gordon Brown, but Gordon had the knack for dealing with the United States; he kept the US at arm's length and kept the atmosphere chilly. The fact that Gordon Brown wanted things done his way spoke to Brown's self-assurance that his way was the right way for the UK. He was not meeting with Obama to get the President's approval.
Mr Obama has just written to leaders in Congress urging them to approve a $50B plan to stop teachers, firefighters and police being laid off. Excuse me, but if there are too many teachers, too many firefighters and too many police is Obama planning to use these people as his own personal administrative assistants?
You cannot have a healthy capitalist economy that is not honestly based on supply & demand. You cannot have a healthy capitalist economy that has endless measures to skew either supply or demand. Any measure that skews is a wrong because you cannot go on skewing an infinitum.
If Obama believes that "we" must take these emergency measures; then, please tell Mr. Obama: "You have the UK's approval to take on whatever measures you deem fit, and the UK has the right to smile, laugh, copy i.e. decide for ourselves."
Europe is following a different path. I feel that the EU path is more realistic and therefore more economically sound.
Please tell the United States, that The United States should feel free to copy EU financial admininstration and auditing principles - no strings attached.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII - Your Xenophobic views that are totally blinkered and devoid of any sense of reality amuse me greatly..... I'm sure in your eyes the US is financially strong with nothing to worry about. All US companies are morally perfect and your Government and leaders an example to us all.
You should get out more !!
Complain about this comment
Meh. Or, are we comparing apples to oranges?
Perhaps the situations of civic infrastructure between Europe and the USA are just a wee bit different?
On the left side of the Atlantic, many of our cities have fallen into disrepair while our suburbs have grown significantly, thereby simultaneously shifting our tax-base while burdening our civic infrastructure. Meanwhile, our population has both grown AND become migrant due to our economic shift towards information and IT industries which tend to open, close, merge and relocate at the blink of a byte.
Our culture has already changed. The changes Obama's working on is an effort to adapt our civic government to today's USA.
e.g. Some sub-urban school districts are newly built, cutting edge, 'smart-schools'... while others (like Philadelphia) have a 50% High School drop out rate - which directly affects our area crime rates (hence the need for additional police and fire coverage).
SO - pouring money into civic infrastructure is something that needs to happen in order to correct a generation or two of gradual change in our culture and economy.
-- Will it help 'stimulate the economy'? Yes.
-- Does the problem exist because of the economic downturn? Not really.
Now for the other side of the Atlantic:
I would guess that your civic infrastructures are MUCH healthier and dynamic than ours and that your cities are healthy and growing while some of ours are stagnant and fighting decay.
-- Do you need to spend-spend-spend on civic infrastructure? I doubt it.
-- Should your women stay home, clip coupons and wear aprons? No comment.
Complain about this comment
22. MarcusAureliusII
It was Scotland who tried Megrahi under Scots Law, not the UK.
"The UK could hardly have made its betrayal, mendacity, cynical self interest, and its sense of imperious self righteousness indifferent to its own promises or American sensibilities more plain, more irrefutable."
Funny...change "UK" to "USA" and "American sensibilities" to "the rest of the world" and I think you have the sentiment of 90% of the globe toward the USA.
But you probably don't care about that.
Complain about this comment
Will American conservatives swallow hard and urge the president to follow Europe?
They don't have to swallow hard, they've been leading the pack on this since before Europe even recognized there was a Lehman sized problem in their own bailiwick. "Cut spending, cut taxes, cut services, cut wages, and deregulate, deregulate, deregulate" has always been the neo-Conservative mantra no matter what the issue. A small, ineffective government, unable to regulate a Freebooter Free Market has always been their goal - as opposed to the Controlled Capitalism that worked to minimize the fallout from excessive risk taking for 50 years.
As for UK and US relations, I think it wise to remember that the word "special" has many meanings. And not all of them mean something is good. It can simply mean outside the usual or common. I think it's fair to say that in terms of our shared history, the current relationship could be considered unique in the world.
Still, having a shared history does not mean we have to love one another blindly, nor does it mean we have to walk in lockstep. Nor is this desirable. I have said before on this site that I would have preferred that Tony Blair not slavishly follow GWB's lead on Iraq, when it was clear he knew the war was being manufactured - just like half the evidence in favor of it. I've also said that had the Bank of England refused, as Canada's Ministry of Finance did, to follow the exotic derivatives will o' the wisp money making machine, investors the world over would have taken note and we might have avoided the worst of the economic meltdown. But even the Bank of England didn't understand how these new financial instruments really worked and didn't care to listen when alarms were being sounded by those in their own country who did. But the same is true of America, and for all I know there was a chorus of European voices crying out danger in the economic wilderness. So there is equal blame to go around here.
That said, the UK must do as it thinks best to get itself out of this mess. Just as the US must do. Ultimately, I think all will depend on what happens in the Eurozone. I cannot see how the euro can survive in its current form for very much longer. It's only the nature of the collapse and the fallout from it that will determine how the rest of the world recovers and what our relationship will be like then. Things are playing out much too similar to the 1930s Gold Bloc crises for my liking. Though, thankfully, there are no Hitlers or Mussolinis on the horizon - at the moment.
Complain about this comment
Brits can blame America for their economy crashing and Americans can blame Brits for the apocalyptic oil disaster. We're even.
Complain about this comment
This may turn out to be a very good developement.The less collaboration Obama gets from abroad,the less likely he is to start another war.And without British and European collaboration,he may feel more compelled to seek peace and stop these obscene wars against Islam.Moreover,the less unity there is in Europe,the more likely that their economies will improve like during the Belle Epoch(1880-1914) when there was no European Union and their economies were quite strong!
Complain about this comment
#24 #30
He knows perfectly well Megrahi was released by Scotland, who have their own legal system. Devolved Scotland is responsible for its own justice matters and if they want to make big decisions like this, they need to be able to deal with the consequences. Americans need to protest to the Scottish Parliament , to a certain Mr Kenny MacAskill, if they want to take this matter further.
Of course, he just wants to drum up more anti-British sentiment amongst some of the other Americans on here with his usual dramatic exaggerations. Its a bit like his prophecies of doom, none of which will ever come true ,much to his eternal frustration.
Complain about this comment
The relationship between the U.S. and the UK will continue regardless of whoever occupies the White House of 10 Downing St because the two countries have common interests. Indeed, we're actually growing closer together as the Democrats engineer the growth of the state and the nationalization of our economy. Where once a majority of Americans believed in self reliance and limited government now they're content to hold their hand out for government subsidies and allow the expansion of government to solve their problems for them. From a nation of free citizens we are drifting closer to the British model where the people are subjects of the state and where sovereignty resides in the government, not in the people. We're not quite there yet but it's the dirrection we're drifting and left unchecked America will eventually be like Canada, indistinguishable from Europe except for our accent.
Complain about this comment
"Will American conservatives swallow hard and urge the President to follow Europe"?! Have you been paying attention to the Tea Party movement that began early last year? The mainstream media that has a liberal bias has demonized us so if you watch anything but Fox News you may be misled about what we're concerned with. The deficit spending tops the list.
The Republicans in Congress are outnumbered, and have had absolutely no say in any of the legislation passed since Obama took office. They have steadfastly opposed every destructive bill this administration has presented, but don't have the numbers to stop it. It has been the American people calling, emailing, texting, writing, and protesting that have gotten through to the Democrats to at least slow down the process. There are elections of some of the congressional seats coming up in November. It is the aim of concerned citizens to elect at least as many conservatives as it will take to block any more destructive legislation. The Tea Parties are leading the push and so far the primaries are offering strong candidates. So far, even the Democrats running have had to move their rhetoric to the center, denouncing Obama and his agenda, to win the primaries. Incumbents of both parties are in jeopardy of losing their seats. Americans are rising up and we will not be ignored.
Complain about this comment
Let's be honest, the BBC would LOVE IT if the UK and US were on a collision course... can't remember the last time the BBC said something positive about the US.. or the UK for that matter.
Complain about this comment
Mark: '"Will American conservatives swallow hard and urge the president to follow Europe?"
Of course they will!! But not because they necessarily see Europe's prescription for dealing with this crisis as the right one, or beneficial in the slightest. No. They will urge (well, accuse, name call, and generally flip out in order to scare the president into following Europe more like) for one reason, and one reason only. And that is to obstruct and destroy Obama's initiatives. As I said on your previous post about Hughy Long at #8 and Gavrielle_LaPost has said on this thread, this "cut cut cut" mentality is nothing new in the Republican party. They'll urge it, and do it if they can help it no matter what affects it has. No matter if it makes things worse or not. You see? Because they don't really care about the future of the nation, they care about the future of themselves.
But even, for argument's sake, if cutting spending is just what the economic doctor orders, I highly doubt that if and when the Republicans fight for it to be adhered to that Obama - and the Democrats in Congress -will give it much concideration, precisely because of the fact that Republicans have been crying wolf ever since he got into office on every single thing he has tryed to do. If they were a bit more selective in the things they got up in arms about; if they even (heaven forbid) tryed to work with him to help shape some of his various bills to insure that it would really be in the best interests of all Americans, then Obama would undoubtedly listen very intently and deliberate very intensely on the things they are due to suggest this time. But they didn't. And given their track record, why should Democrats believe them?
For my two cents, I think the 50 billion dollars on the public sector jobs is a good start, but it doesn't nearly go far enough. As Saint Dominick has already pointed out, our education, health care, and infrastructure is abysmal to put it nicely, and if there is anyhope of getting it up to (speaking of Europe) European standards, then we need to spend and spend massively. If the roles were reversed, and Europeans all wanted at least one car and to live in nice sprawling suburbs and had been working toward that for the last 50 years, then it would be Europe as the frivolous WAG and America as the thrifty house wife now. We made our bed, now we must lye in it.
Not that I'm saying that Everything Europe did over the last 50 years was right either. In fact its pretty clear that it spent too much on some programs as evidenced by the trouble that the Euro is having to endure now. My point is simply that we are in two different predicaments, and that as such we need two different solutions to get us out of these predicaments. This doesn't mean that the US and the UK - or anyone else for that matter - are necessarily on a collision course, it just means that not all international problems have - as Gordon Brown insisted - a one size fits all solution. Now of course we need to coordinate our various solutions so that they benefit the wider world as a whole, but we don't need to all adopt the same solution.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Actually, David Camereon is very wise to focus on reducing England's deficit as soon as possible. It makes him look like a leader- the real deal. This will only solidify UK's future to be the country that they want to be. (whatever direction that is- hopefully not anti-American)
USA is very important to UK. They should not be (and I'm not saying they all are) anti-American, even if we do not agree on everything. If another country tried to invade UK, USA would be with you in a heartbeat to kick them out of your country. In that aspect, we really have got your back in the best possible way. That is something worth more than money. You can put a price on it, but it is priceless to have an ally like that in this ever-changing world today.
So far, Obama and the Dems' only plan to reduce our deficit has been to spend more money. Not just a little money. A LOT of money.
Look, I know it will not be easy to find what programs to cut, and so on. But it is necessary to cut our deficit as soon as possible. We are in position right now to begin cutting our deficit. But if we do not start soon, it could spiral out of control before we know it. We still have time. But we need to act quickly. We need to work together.
When the economy first got sour, former President Bush passed things on to Obama. Now Obama is on the road to passing it off to the next Pres. It is a vicious cycle. Neither Bush nor Obama nor Congress so far have been man enough to do the right thing- work on cutting our deficit.
USA has a lot to offer and there are many ways to reduce our deficit. We can brainstorm and then some. We have greatly brilliant people. But we have to have lawmakers willing to make the right decisions.
Our current lawmakers are not up to the job- they seem intent on passing their liberal agenda over all else. They are working for liberal interests, not for the whole of USA which is neither right nor left, but middle. Trying to push their ultraliberal viewpoints on the rest of us is just as bad as the conservatives trying to push their ultrahardline viewpoints on the rest of us. Neither the far left nor far right extremists are good. We need people in the middle who can reason and compromise. The current Congress makeup is representing the far left.
Unfortantely, Obama is turning elitist, too. Like the Red Queen in AIWonderland, Obama's head is getting big. This is plain to see when he makes decisions like appointing two Supreme Court nominees both from Harvard and from New York City.
In NYC, people get robbed, mugged and shot at all the time. A man got stabbed the other day and no one would help him. I understand why, as a day or two after that, another man got robbed and killed for helping a man who was pretending to be stabbed and wounded. Some have large, beautiful houses, but many live in small apts., some with cockroaches. There are mass amounts of homeless people there. In the town I live in, it is rare to have such occurences. Violence is usually caused by domestic abuse issues. Neighbors trust neighbors, for the most part. There are some poor people, but they are not homeless. Most people, in town or outside, have a decent amount of land for their kids to play on. They can grow any vegetables they want on their land, also, creating their own Farmer's Market. Just have to do a little work.
City people and country people just have different values. We should be represented by both, but the Supreme Court is not representing us all accurately. Obama does not seem to have much interest in the country people. Is it the color of our skin? Maybe. Don't know.
Anyway, reducing our deficit is one of the smartest things we can do.
Complain about this comment
Readwriteandblue #7: '"I am sure the special relationship will survive.
" Now bend at the waist and reach for your toes David""
I know - as you said on the '"No Brit-Bashing" thread - that you believe that the world would not be the same without a bit of Yank bateing, which is why I dearly hope that the above quote is a joke.
But just in case it isn't, just thought I'd let you know that I don't find it funny in the slightest. Perhaps I'm a little flippantly hyper sensitive given the many, many unfairly harsh accusations I have been reading and hearing about from Britons over the oil spill of late - and from people no less promanant than Boris Johnson!! But in the interests of making sure all my bases are covered I figure its better to say this than not and run the risk of one more person potencially harbering ill will toward me because I am a citizen of the country that didn't join the war until we were attacked, treated you like garbage during the Bush 43 years, who's citizens hate Britain because some of them have mistakenly refered to "BP" as "British Pitrolium" and when doing so were angry about the spill, so the word "British" wasn't spoken with as much politeness and respect as many Britons are accustomed to etc etc etc.
I share Gavrielle_LaPoste's vision of the special relationship, in that the word "special" doesn't mean blind loyalty and agreement, but just out of the ordinary. And given that we have perhaps more shared interests - both domesticly I.E. intelligence and defence cooperation, investment etc and internationally I.E. the war in Afghanistan, economic colaboration etc - than (probably) most of the rest of the world, a rich history, shared culture, values (though we haven't exactly done a very good job of late of adhereing to ours; but that's another can of worms) legal system and language, I think anyone with a shred of rationality and objectivity in them will observe that the relationship is, indeed, special. Despite what the Foreign Affairs Select Committee says, it was not the phrase that lead to a subservience on the part of the UK at times during the Bush administration, it was Tony Blair - and his cabanit's - decisions.
Given how much Bush has angered Britons, and then Obama in his attempt to distance himself from Bush on the world stage went a little too far, I just hope that this partnership between Obama and Cameron (Clegg?) *bating of my own* can manage to keep everyone relatively happy. Its a very tall order, but after what the British people have had to endure this past decade, I just want everyone's self-esteem to be back to normal and above all, to not run the risk of offending anyone anymore.
Complain about this comment
@ LucyJ #40
Actually, New York City has a lower crime rate than Chicago, and crime there is at the lowest it's been in 15 years, based on FBI statistics. You can compare crime rates for any major city or area in the US here.
And there is no excuse for assuming that Obama doesn't care about white people living in the country or suburbs. He may have lived in Chicago, but he partly grew up with his white mother and grandparents living in what amounts to a suburb in Hawaii. You are, in essence, saying, he doesn't care about half his heritage or family.
It's the press that defined him as a "Black" man, because in America, we only evaluate people on the basis of their skin color or facial features. Too dark to pass as white means black, even if one parent is white. Obama always referred to himself as being of mixed race. Thereby, acknowledging both sides of his racial heritage. Unlike some, I doubt Obama is as much of a bigot as whoever fed you that line about him hating white people.
Complain about this comment
Orville Eastland #11: '"The thing I see that could ruin the "Special Relationship" is more on the UK side. The UK Courts have refused to bow to Obama (and Brown) and released details on the treatment of Binyam Mohammed. The new Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has pledged for an inquiry into the UK's role in Torture."
I rather see this as a test of our mettle. Do we really believe in the values we espouse so passionately? Do we really believe in due process? Innocent until proven guilty with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt? That torture is wrong and never gets us anywhere? If anything, these actions will - if the answer to all those questions is "yes" - bring us and the UK closer together, not break our bonds of affection. But given that the Obama administration is strongly objecting to the release of these details (which, by the way, it has been declared by experts that if done, will not threaten either the UK or US's national security) and our refusal to hold an inquiry of our treatment of Guantanamo Bay detainees of our own, I'm afraid that Obama's clever insertions of parts of the constitution into his elloquent speeches are just that; hot air. So the "special relationship" may be ruined, but not because our security will be threatened or anything like that, but because Americans will, at some point in the future, no longer share the same values as the British; or at least the American government.
"The Tories have criticized the actions of the Blair Government in invading Iraq."
True. But they supported the innitial decision to do so. That was the real issue. The only party not to support the invasion was the Liberal Democrats. Now, if the Tories were in power when we went in, there's no doubt that they would have made their voices heard and "stood up for Britain" much more than Blair did; in fact, I seriously doubt that the word "poodle" would cross any Briton's mind. But they did support the invasion.
"Further, unlike the Republicans (except Ron Paul and Walter Jones) the Tories have actual principles, will try and keep them..."
Amen to that!! You know what that's called? Its called not pandering to your extremeist base. The Democrats have learned not to do that; the Republicans, I doubt, ever will.
Complain about this comment
@ Philly-Mom #29
Excellent points. Thanks!
Complain about this comment
Gavrielle, on the census, President Obama only marked African-American.
I would love to say that he cares about us all equally, but I cannot say that necessarily.
I do not know if I would be in his favor because of several reasons.
I am white, country, not gay, not Muslim and not illegal.
Complain about this comment
33. At 4:13pm on 14 Jun 2010, Warren wrote:
"... he may feel more compelled to seek peace and stop these obscene wars against Islam."
"...obscene wars against Islam" ?
Right.
You mean like the intervention in Bosnia?
Or the expulsion of the Iraqi army from Kuwait?
Or the removal of a secular military dictator so that at least four different armed groups, all of whom are entirely made up of Moslems, can fight over the future of Iraq?
Or the replacement of the Taliban by other Afghans, all of whom are also Moslems?
Seeing the world through a bit of a twisted lens are we, Warren?
Here's a little balance for you, an object lesson in why religion and government should be kept far, far apart, whether in the age of Torquemada, the age of Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans, or the time of the Taliban:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/10307512.stm
“Somali militants have threatened football fans they will be publicly flogged - or worse - if they are caught watching the World Cup on TV.”
“On Saturday militants killed two people as they attacked a house where people were watching a game.”
-----------
So that's what it has come to: Killing people for watching Soccer on TV.
Does that strike you as an expression of religious piety?
Or does that strike you as a serious a mental health issue?
Yes, there is something obscene here, but it isn't war against Islam.
Complain about this comment
# 45 LucyJ wrote:
"I would love to say that he cares about us all equally, but I cannot say that necessarily.
I do not know if I would be in his favor because of several reasons.
I am white, country, not gay, not Muslim and not illegal."
So - just to be clear.
In your view President Obama only cares about non-white, city-dwelling, gay, Muslim illegal immigrants? [This will no doubt come as a considerable disappointment to Michelle, Sasha and Malia.]
Any evidence to support this...intriguing theory?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
37. At 5:57pm on 14 Jun 2010, Dinesh Patel wrote:
Let's be honest, the BBC would LOVE IT if the UK and US were on a collision course... can't remember the last time the BBC said something positive about the US.. or the UK for that matter.
Dinesh Patel,you will not say a truer sentence this day,spot on,best post
on this thread,& only tree lines,I would buy you a beer if I could.
Ps forgive me,if you don`t drink..
Complain about this comment
How much longer are we going to spend money we have to borrow? Having spent us into penury, Obama is still going ahead with his hare-brained, government care from cradle to grave ideas. He would do well to heed what the Europeans are doing to get themselves out of this economic morass. Will it be too late in November to alter his disastrous course into economic chaos? Let us all pray that that is not the case.
Complain about this comment
Nanook of the north?
"22. MarcusAureliusII
It was Scotland who tried Megrahi under Scots Law, not the UK."
Wanabee;
"For your information:
1. The so-called "Megrahi Incident" was a result of SCOTTISH parliamentary decision making, not UK. Although I am sure someone like you will crank on that Scotland is part of the UK (which a fairly large minority of Scots would like to change)."
Oh I see. America's mistake was in dealing with Westminster. It should have dealt with Glasgow instead, that's where the real power center in the UK is. It isn't that Westminster went back on its word, it's that it made promises it had no power to keep. America should keep that in mind from here on out regarding anything the British government in London says as worthless.
And it would be good advice to deal with Scotland directly...except they lie too. They said Megrahi had less than three months to live. In a few weeks it will be a year now and I haven't heard an obituary about him yet, has anyone else? Might as well just write off the whole UK as liars, backstabbers, and totally not to be trusted, dealt with, or even talked to. OK, you Brits have me convinced.
Complain about this comment
13. At 05:27am on 14 Jun 2010, KScurmudgeon wrote: “…Seems to me that the conservatives' tax cuts historically do not stimulate the economy because the bulk of the tax relief goes to corporations and the wealthy, who will not and cannot spend enough to lift the boat. The economy is stimulated by the confidence of the hundreds of millions of working folks - that they can continue to work and pay bills.
Without this there is no economy, except perhaps in the vaporous clouds of the financiers.”
This is brilliant! I have thought something like this for a while, but not as clearly defined and stated. Everyone acts as if the stock exchange results or the S&P is the economy. What would the big companies and the wealthy owners have without the people who work in their offices and factories?
Nothing, nada, zip! And if you then add in the consumers…….
Complain about this comment
The sharks are circling;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704324304575307244181856652.html?ru=yahoo&mod=yahoo_hs
The other big oil companies smell the blood in the water and are getting ready to pick BP's bones clean;
http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2010/06/14/in-washington-a-big-week-for-big-oil/?partner=yahootix
This is not just far from over, it is hardly the beginning. The evidence is coming out that not only is BP entirely to blame, not did it merely disregard all prudent care for the envorinment, the safety of its people, of the rig itself, it held them all including the American people with contempt. All it was interested in was finishing this rig as fast and cheaply as it could so it could go on to more of them. It was an accident on its way to happening. I'm more convinced now than ever that BP will not survive this. If I had shares, I'd sell now while there's still a market for them.
Complain about this comment
33. At 4:13pm on 14 Jun 2010, Warren wrote:
“This may turn out to be a very good developement.The less collaboration Obama gets from abroad,the less likely he is to start another war.And without British and European collaboration,he may feel more compelled to seek peace and stop these obscene wars against Islam.”
This post is a propaganda piece, it establishes false “facts” and then argues from the supposition that they are true.
False fact #1 Obama is “likely to start another war.”
False fact #2 the US is engaged in “wars against Islam.”
President Obama is unlikely to start any wars and did not, in fact, support the Bush Wars. The US was attacked several times before it reacted with a war. And the US is not targeting “Islam” though the terrorists we are after seem to be all Muslims, they are criminals and murderers, who struck at us first.
If you want to criticize GWB for badly conceived and poorly executed war, and for one unjustified war in Iraq, be my guest, and if you want to criticize long-standing bias toward Israel, likewise.
Complain about this comment
At 7:16pm on 14 Jun 2010, Gavrielle_LaPoste wrote:
@ LucyJ #40
Actually, New York City has a lower crime rate than Chicago, and crime there is at the lowest it's been in 15 years, based on FBI statistics. You can compare crime rates for any major city or area in the US here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, both of you are wrong. NYC has the lowest crime rate in 2009 of ANY major (over 1 million pop.) city in America. Its the lowest its been since the EARLY 1960s! 15 years ago crime was much higher in NYC than it is now (please check your facts!). In fact, outside of murders NYC has a LOWER crime rate than London (larceny, muggings, rapes, assaults etc.), especially since crimes are routinely under reported in England for political/prosecution/offender's age reasons. The only reason why the murder rate is higher in NYC than London is because guns are still legal in the US. Unlike either of you I actually LIVE in NYC, I also have to spend a month every year in London and I always feel safer in NYC. And don't tell me that there is no knife crime in London! However, NYC is the EXCEPTION not the rule most US cities like Chicago, LA, Phoenix, and Houston which all have very high crime rates.
BTW, people live in tiny Apartments in London too, and they pay much more to do so!
Complain about this comment
"50. At 11:25pm on 14 Jun 2010, starFloridian wrote:
"How much longer are we going to spend money we have to borrow? Having spent us into penury, Obama is still going ahead with his hare-brained, government care from cradle to grave ideas. ..."
___________
On January 20, 2001, the US federal government budget was in surplus, unemployment was low, inflation was low, economic growth was strong, America was at peace, America was well respected in the world, and the American economy was in tolerably good shape.
On January 20, 2009, the US federal government was in debt up to its ears, the economy was in a tailspin, unemployment was rising rapidly, America had become the world's biggest debtor, it had military committments all around the world that it couldn't afford, and astonishingly foolish lending policies had the economy in a credit-contraction spiral that was on the edge of turning into a depression.
There is a place to use the terms "hare-brained", "buffoon" or even "shockingly incompetent", to the President of the United States, when they are appropriate. Unless you have been doing the "Rip Van Winkle" thing, it is difficult to comprehend how you can complain about the current President without acknowledging the disastrous legacy of his predecessor, which accounts for the bulk of the spending splurge.
Given the legacy of that predecessor, please outline what you would have done differently from President Obama in the circumstances that would have left the American economy in any better condition than at present.
Complain about this comment
re. 40. LucyJ:
Look, I know it will not be easy to find what programs to cut, and so on. But it is necessary to cut our deficit as soon as possible. We are in position right now to begin cutting our deficit.
Cutting the deficit in the middle of a recession would push us into a worse recession--the so-called double dip. If you cut back drastically on government spending you throw more people out of work. If you raise taxes drastically you cause businesses to fail. The time to attack the deficit is after we are clearly out of the recession.
The whole approach to recessions, deficits, and government spending depends on whether you follow Keynesian or supply-side economics. Keynesian economics has the government temporarily running large deficits in order to pump money into the economy. Keynesian theory says that when the economy recovers, the increase in tax revenues from revived businesses will pay down the deficit. It's sort of like the biblical fat years and lean years. That's pretty much how the US managed to cut the deficit during the Clinton presidency. The increased tax revenues from the booming economy actually balanced the federal budget.
Supply-side economics says that you cut taxes to stimulate the economy. The theory is that reduced taxes puts money into the hands of individuals and businesses who then spend it and stimulate economic activity. There are a couple of problems with that. One is that money returned to the private sector doesn't always get spent in ways that stimulate the economy. People and businesses pay down debt, for example, which is a good thing for them individually but doesn't help the economy. Cutting taxes on the upper income levels may mean that they either put it in the bank or spend it on luxuries that don't stimulate the economy much. And we have the problem that both presidents in recent history who drastically cut taxes (Reagan and Bush II) ended up with ballooning deficits.
Reducing the federal deficit is something that all economists agree is important, but it is something that will have to take place over a long period of time. There isn't an overnight fix. And it will probably involve both increased taxes and reduced government spending.
Complain about this comment
# 53.
I hope that the oil flow is stopped and the mess cleaned up asap.
However I wouldn't wish BP to go under - BP employs 25,000 Americans (10,000 Britons) and 39% of the company is owned by American pension funds and individual Americans.
"I'm more convinced now than ever that BP will not survive this."
We'll have to wait and see if you're right....for the time being shall we put that call in the same category as your frequent predictions of the end of Europe?
I know you're getting a bit long in the tooth Marcus, but I hope you hang around long enough to see if your predictions come true or not?
Complain about this comment
The crash would be Englands fault since you drive on the wrong side of the road. Speaking of stinky roadkill, another wonderful and thoughtful article BBC, you should drop this as leaflets.
Complain about this comment
Mark, I love the picture! It really speaks to the double meaning I'm getting from this posting.
In the realm of Soccer, I sure hope that our two teams get a chance to collide again on the field, and I hope America wins.
In the realm of politics, I think a collision is possible; all you need to do is look at British-American history. But, I think the kind of political collision that is being alluded to here is a remote possibility even with the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster. I think our two countries are far more likely to drift apart than collide.
Lastly, I find the stories in the UK that stir up anger at America for some perceived anti-British sentiment over the oil spill to be distasteful and overly defensive. The reality is that I have little patience for such insecurity and pointless banter when most people in America have already refuted that such anti-British sentiment exists, and the disaster continues to unfold.
Complain about this comment
45. At 8:54pm on 14 Jun 2010, LucyJ wrote:
Gavrielle, on the census, President Obama only marked African-American.
I don't recall seeing a box for "mixed race" do you? Nor was there any provision made for multiple choice answers. It's an either/or question on the census. In any case, if he had checked the box for "white" instead, what would you have said then?
@Andrew #55
Thanks for the update on my home town. It's always good to hear that things are better than I thought.
Complain about this comment
You can check more than one box, Gavrielle. Or there is a blank section in which you can write a line, if your race is not mentioned.
What Obama chose to put is very telling.
After you have the President in office for the first two years, you begin to "get" him and see who he really is.
I really thought Obama was going to be for everybody. He had me fooled quite well. Then again, Obama kept saying he was different than other politicians and I believed him. What a dunce to think someone is actually different and to believe his words. When he said he wanted to make health care costs lower, but that he was against the mandate because he thought it was wrong, I believed him. I even taped several debates. Fast forward to today and Obama and the Dems have passed the mandate. A politician is a politician is a politician.
When some of my family and friends told me that Obama could be the way he is today with white people, I told them that was false. Not Obama, I said. Just give him a chance. Well, I gave him a chance and today I am eating all my words. My family and friends were right.
Holder. Rev. Wright. Some of the statements Holder has said are unforgivable. Napolitano seems to be in support of the illegals. Not so much for Americans.
The only two I really like that Obama picked are Clinton and Biden. They are truly amazing, impressive, put-together, quick on their feet and phenomenal most of the time. If it wasn't for Clinton and Biden, well, things would be very different. Thank you God for Clinton and Biden.
Complain about this comment
Ref 57 timohio-
"Cutting the deficit in the middle of a recession would push us into a worse recession--the so-called double dip. If you cut back drastically on government spending you throw more people out of work. If you raise taxes drastically you cause businesses to fail. The time to attack the deficit is after we are clearly out of the recession.
I dislike Richard Nixon on a personal basis. There is not a shed of problem with his political party. He changed my life in ways that were not profitable to me. One thing he did initiate was the "CETA" program at the start of the last economic meltdown. Other; political and personal problems Nixon suffered in his second term prevented him from becoming known as the next Franklin Roosevelt. Nixon wanted history more than anything.
Unfortunately for me; for years, I gave all the glory of the jobs programs that started in the Nixon Administration to the Gerald Ford administration. Age and research have corrected my personal prejudice which started from Nixon's 'wage and price' control policy that came close to bankrupting the economy.
The "CETA" program of the 1970's saved our U.S. economy in a way that extended the success of that economy. Nixon laid down the groundwork. Gerald Ford made it work when Nixon resigned in disgrace.
Obviously, from my blog-name, I live in Michigan. We are looking at an actual rate of unemployment of 20%.
That means that 80% of the working population still hold jobs. Tentative jobs; as they may see it from the rounds of terminations and 'early' buy-outs that corporate America carved from their fat.
Let us look at the mind-set of those 80% still employed. Those; rightfully, worrying about the security of their job.
Are they sitting on their wallet? This in a 'consumer economy'? Are they consumed with their personal, monetary security? Will they spend beyond immediate, personal need?
The U.S. public holds their money very 'close to the vest' in this economy built upon consumerism. Forming a great liability against growth.
We are scared and confused. Not a good atmosphere for those of us who sat at the back of the class to pass notes and shoot spit wads. We now become the great dissatisfied who demand that 'someone' make it right for us so that we can continue to live in comparative comfort.
Picture yourself in a job where you have seen talented, efficient people lose their jobs.
Now feel their fear as they realize they are easily redundant. Tomorrow; next week; next month may be their last day at work.
Would you open your wallet to the 'consumerism' that became our U.S. economy? Or would you sit tight upon your wallet?
I do not understand why a 'jobs' program has not been forthcoming. Do not give an unemployment check in lieu of an 'employment' check. Employment makes a person feel a part of a useful society. Unemployment makes one feel inadequate.
I admit that I worked long and very hard hours as an employee of a CETA program back in the mid-1970's. It felt much better than standing in an unemployment line. I was 'doing something'. I worked hard because of very good, close-at-hand, management that helped pay for my college education; which gave me a better opportunity to pay income taxes at a higher rate then what may be anticipated had I not attained a well-earned degree. I chose to challenge myself to win my grades; as opposed to challenging the college administration to give me the grade I challenged.
How many times was my experience amplified?
We are in an multiplied time to get the employable population back into meaningful production. We need to be 'retrained' to accomplish this. CCC, NRA-type of employment actions should be re-employed.
Think about it from a personal basis.
Turn over you personal investment dollars; through taxation, to someone looking to improve their own status for a return on your dollars. Would you, personally, be more willing to spend income in a recovering economy; than in an unstable economy where tomorrow may be your last paycheck?
I surmise that most of us on this blog have walked a kinder side of life. Have any of us really considered what will become of our old, less-rationally adept, attitudes when facing the power of youthful exuberance to survive?
I live in a terrible city. It is not pleasant. I am leaving this place I have loved for so much of my life because there is limited opportunity for young and old. I leave this city like a rat deserting a sinking ship. Only so I have a better chance to survive my gaining years.
Look. Look hard at where you live. Look at the life-style you life. How much longer can that endure without the hope that there will be jobs?
Complain about this comment
Ref 62 LucyJ-
"You can check more than one box, Gavrielle."
You are so right. Know your own heritage. Don't be ashamed. Check all the boxes that apply.
I'm not as 'white' as I seem to others.
Complain about this comment
45. At 8:54pm on 14 Jun 2010, LucyJ wrote:
I do not know if I would be in his favor because of several reasons.
I am white, country, not gay, not Muslim and not illegal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow... you sound like a real fair minded person! I'm glad you have your voting priorities straight. If that's how thinks work out in the "country" where you live I'll be happy to stay in NYC which you also have no problem passing judgment on (post#40) with virtually no facts at your disposal. You do realize that all those FOX News Anchors you get all your information from live here in NYC and are happy to indulge in all of our evil decadence, spending the money they make off of their carefully marketed rants and pontifications against us "pretentious city folk."
BTW... We do have real neighborhoods, neighbors, parks and Farmers Markets.
We also have Museums, Universities, Operas, Theaters, and Symphonies... you might even enjoy it if you weren't so worried about running into gays, muslims, or anyone who wasn't white... because I'm happy to say that we have those too :)
Complain about this comment
#62 LucyJ:
I give up LucyJ. What box should Obama have checked for his race? Or what shoud he have written instead of checking a box? Please I truly want to know the answer to this.
Complain about this comment
#40 LucyJ:
Focusing on reducing debt is exactly what Herbert Hoover did. He gave us the great depression.
Complain about this comment
Post 51 Marcus Aurelius
The Scottish Parliament is located in Edinburgh (Hint Scotlands Capital) Glasgow is the largest city in Scotland. It would help your argument to get your geogrphic/geopolitical facts correct. It's hard to take an opinion as serious when such a grade school mistake is made.
That is the same as saying New York City is the capital of The United States. right? But then hey studies have proven that most Americans can't find the US on a world map anyway.........LOL
Complain about this comment
scotscanuck wrote:
"The Scottish Parliament is located in Edinburgh (Hint Scotlands Capital) Glasgow is the largest city in Scotland. It would help your argument to get your geogrphic/geopolitical facts correct. It's hard to take an opinion as serious when such a grade school mistake is made."
I haven't read his remark that you are referring to but if his central point had nothing to do with geography how is it logical to dismiss someone's opinions or arguments based on that alone?
And you wish to be taken "serious?"
"That is the same as saying New York City is the capital of The United States. right? But then hey studies have proven that most Americans can't find the US on a world map anyway.........LOL"
Only in your anti-American mind do such "studies" exist.
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner wrote:
"On January 20, 2001, the US federal government budget was in surplus, unemployment was low, inflation was low, economic growth was strong, America was at peace, America was well respected in the world, and the American economy was in tolerably good shape."
Uh, the 9/11 attacks were being planned well before that and America had already been the target of many terror attacks. America was despised in the Middle East under Clinton and under every previous president post Israel's creation. America was despised in Europe and Bush was just a convenient excuse to express and promote anti-Americanism throughout the world!
Your facts don't jive with reality!
"On January 20, 2009, the US federal government was in debt up to its ears, the economy was in a tailspin, unemployment was rising rapidly, America had become the world's biggest debtor, it had military committments all around the world that it couldn't afford, and astonishingly foolish lending policies had the economy in a credit-contraction spiral that was on the edge of turning into a depression."
Actually, the worlds biggest debtor nation, compared to GDP, was and is Japan.
Spending, lending and borrowing beyond reason is something that most Western countries had and still have a problem with! It coming to head under Bush was decades in the making!
And to compare expenses under Clinton pre 9/11 to Bush post 9/11 is ridiculous for obvious reasons!
"Given the legacy of that predecessor, please outline what you would have done differently from President Obama in the circumstances that would have left the American economy in any better condition than at present."
I would not have bailed out the many people that borrowed beyond their means.
I would not have bailed out large banks without forcing the break up of those banks into smaller banks.
I would have stopped all foreign aid.
I would have declined to further support needless institutions such as the UN.
I would have gotten out of NATO and removed all bases in Europe and any other country that are obviously capable of providing for their own defense.
I would have deported all illegal immigrants.
I would have cut all welfare to those that can obviously work and that are not old, handicapped, or children unable to support themselves.
I would have dramatically reduced government services and programs that do not provide a net benefit.
I would have reduced the size of government.
I would have had groups of outside auditors come in and strictly and impartially see where savings can be realized.
I would have placed tariffs on the imports from countries that do not properly value their currencies.
I would have ceased nearly all trade with brutal regimes such as China.
I would have placed huge incentives for American companies to remain in America, to include not outsourcing jobs to other countries as some kind of incentive to buy our products, especially those involving high tech and defense.
I could go on and on and on!
Complain about this comment
#70
Is that what you Americans call "leadership" is it? Abandoning all your international and domestic commitments, and crawling back under a rock. Genius. I would love someone with more economic and political nouse than me to analyse your proposals and calculate the total disaster that would follow for your country and for the World.
With you in the White House, there would have been global chaos and total economic collapse. Way to go.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII:
Megrahi at least served 9 years. He will surely die of his cancer. It seems the US wants its full pound of flesh while the families of victims of Iran Air 655 will be getting none. And if you think having Megrahi serve his entire life in prison will act as any kind of deterrent, you are sorely naive. Guantanamo is full proof that the US is hardly interested in justice as much as it is in punishment.
Complain about this comment
Norman Tebbit lecturing President Obama on, of all things, xenophobia! You couldn't make it up could you?
Go on Norm......why not demand that he passes your "Cricket Test" too?
Complain about this comment
@LucyJ
Okay, so what exactly is Obama doing to white people that he isn't doing to Blacks, Asians, Latinos or other non-whites?
Complain about this comment
Re #51 MAII
Sir,
Thankfully, the vast majority of US citizens are not as xenophobic or paranoid as you. If they were, I would not have come to this great country.
With regard to your sneering remarks about the UK all being liars and cheats, I would simply remind you of a report issued by GWB (former US President) regarding WMD in Iraq. Nuff said?
Complain about this comment
@ lochraven: Comment 20
You are right of corse
I would just prefer them not to use that particular spending plan again
Complain about this comment
IN Regards to post 69
AlanT2 Another great post from another fantastic example of the American System.
Studies do exist (from the States) I might add that alot of American students cannot find their own country on a world map. Most Americans do not own passports and therefore do not feel the need to travel outside the continental US. Alot of Americans even think that the State of New Mexico is part of "Old Mexico" or the Mexican Republic if you doubt me call the New Mexico State Tourism Office and ask, That is the reason the licence plates Say "New Mexico USA Land of Enchantment" otherwise alot of your fellow citizens think it's an foriegn plate.
And yes if you want to be taken seriously you have to know what you are taliking about, and something as simple as thinking Glasgow is the capital of Scotland shows up as a very very very very fundemental lack of world geography.
So I politely suggest you leave the trailer park and travel beyond your "tri-county" area and see what the world is about. The US may be the worlds most powerful nation but alot (not all) of Americans are very ignorant and niave about what happens beyond their stateline.
Please don't bother getting up on your soapbox to reply about "Anti Americanism" because that tired old rant doesn't wash anymore. You are not the moral compass of the "free world" anymore after orchestrating the recent global financial crises, Unjust invasions of other nations, and your fundemental inability to see that it is the 21st Century in regards to Healthcare, Gay Rights, Gun Ownership etc etc etc etc etc etc.
I live in 2 countries The Peaceful Respected one Next door, with all the oil/gas/water which you Yanks are desparate for, and the UK. Both with higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality rates and better over all societies in general.
And before you go off an a tangent in regards to our military history, We entered WW11 years before you, served alongside you in Korea. In Afghanistan both the Canadian and Britiesh troops have died serving alongside the Americans at last count 149 Canadians out of a force of 2800 in Afghanistan and almost 300 British Soldiers have lost there lives so we have earned the "right" to criticise you and some of your policies. Americans tend to forget what fantastic allies Canada, UK, Australia, NZ have been and will be in the future
So just go sit back and enjoy the 4th of July wave the flag, have a barbeque and watch the pretty fireworks in the sky. And I will enjoy my nations birthday on July 1 and do the same.
Complain about this comment
President Obama could have checked both the African and Caucausian boxes. Or he could have written African-Caucausian on the blank line. At least then, he would be acknowledging both sides of his family, instead of just one and leaving the other out, as if it did not exist.
This is not just anybody. Its our President.
If he does not want to write his mixed race down, what message does this send out to our country?
Is he ashamed of us, despite the fact that he has our blood, too?
Back in the day, it used to be if someone was white, they were white. If someone was black or half black, they were black. It is no longer back in the day. Times have changed. Today, there are many mixed races. Someone can be both. So why deny the truth?
Andrew, NYC is also the same state that has Andrew Cuomo (white) running for Gov. with a white running mate. I remember Cuomo stating that if he is elected, then he would pick diverse people. Yes, instead of him saying he would pick the best people, he said he would pick the most diverse people.
Apparently, skin color matters more to some than talent or brains. It is sad to see people having to apologize or deter to others because of reverse racism, which is just as bad as racism.
We have organizations for every race except white. If whites try to have an organization like NAACP does, we are often called racist. Why is it okay for one race to have their own college/organization, yet not another race? Why do some races get special privileges because of their skin color? Why is this called diversity?
Why do people have to be chosen because of skin color? Can't people just be picked because they are good at what they do, regardless of skin color? I wish it were this way- about brains and talent instead of skin color.
Of course, NYC also may allow several giant megamosques to be built around 9/11. This tells me exactly what kind of a city NYC is leaning to.
Un-American.
LA also falls into this category.
Gavrielle, he refuses to look at facts before taking sides. For example, the Prof. Gates and Irish cop case. Obama took Gates side almost instantly for obvious reasons. A passerby called the cops because she saw someone breaking into a house. The cops came and asked for id. Gates refused. It became a national issue of race, when it really was all about home security, regardless of race.
Also, Gavrielle, he elected people like Holder, who called us a nation of cowards. I despise Holder with a passion because of who he is.
Un-American.
That movie, the Blind Side? It had many reviews saying it was too "white bread." Why? Because it shows a white person helping a black person. No, this is not Obama. But it is a sign of a new movement.
It used to be all about the struggle of a people who used to fight for equality.
Now the struggle is for them being the same kind of people they used to not like.
The roles have reversed.
Complain about this comment
When Obama was elected, there were some people who said,
"Black is the new white!"
Those people were right.
Complain about this comment
Hi LucyJ
in answer to the Questions about why white groups are acceptable.
It's because white is still the majority in the the USA, I agree that the scales do need adjusting, but race is alas an issue for some people still.
I don`t personally favor positive discrimination, it's still discrimination
I cannot say why your president ticked that particular Box but I can tell you that my father was dark skinned but you would have trouble believing I am his son due to the fact that I am very light. On that box I tick white because that is how people see me.
Regarding building Mosque's in NYC. In a city that could have been a religious flash point for years, the building of mosque's and thus the greater interaction with those of the Islamic faith who are for the greater part peaceful (so are most Christians and most Jews and most everybody except the religious zealots of every single faith) should be seems a positive thing. Greater awareness leads to greater tolerance.
Your comment on "I see what kind of city NYC is learning too" comes off as remarkably bigoted.
NYC is a major global city. It isn`t a backwoods "stays whiter at night" kind of place. It's a all races, all religions, do your best to get along kind of place.
As for black being the new white I thought that comment was hilarious.
It's worth noting the passion with which your president fought for healthcare reform. It seems an indication of a axe he wanted to grind over the treatment of his mother. A white woman.
White and country you may be, a minority you are not. At least not yet.
While still in the majority you might consider a broader view and encourage it in others, as sooner or later it might come back on you.
Complain about this comment
LucyJ various posts:
Your posts seem completely disgenuous to me. I find the veiled racist nonsense you peddle here on this and other blogs offensive and without merit.
Complain about this comment
(Begin quote)
71. At 10:06am on 15 Jun 2010, commonsense_expressway wrote:
#70
Is that what you Americans call "leadership" is it? Abandoning all your international and domestic commitments, and crawling back under a rock. ...
Filthy MacNasty replies;
Nah, it's called tired of being played for fools and forcibly bled for every nickel and dime that can be squeezed out of us so that someone we can't get rid of can give it to people who either don't deserve it or sneer at us for the 'gifts' they're receiving.
Or worse and damn irritating, expect it as if it's some kind deity given right.
(Quote continues)
... Genius. I would love someone with more economic and political nouse than me to analyse your proposals and calculate the total disaster that would follow for your country and for the World.
Filthy MacNasty replies;
(shrugs) For America? We'll survive and be better for it in the end.
If it were up to me the rest of the world could simmer in it's own juices.
(Quote continues)
With you in the White House, there would have been global chaos and total economic collapse. Way to go.
Filthy MacNasty replies;
As opposed to what's already been going on for the last couple of centuries?
Complain about this comment
On BP & the oil spill:
I'm an American and my impression is we're all thoroughly pissed at BP, but not at all at the British or PM Cameron. I suspect any frustration Pres. Obama has is based in some part on having to deal with this (oil spill) crisis instead of other important matters. Another reason BP doesn't take all the heat is there were several companies (one based in Switzerland, one in Dubai and another American) which were involved in this.
On cutting deficits:
If you can afford to pay down your debts you should, but when you're in an emergency you want to be careful to not pull the rug out from under the economy's "feet". America is coming out of the recession, but it's happening slowly and it's still bolstered quite a lot by government spending.
I think there is a serious interest in cutting wasteful spending if it's in areas which won't hurt the economy. We want to keep up spending in areas which are already at rock bottom.
While the economy is slow the state & local government tax revenues have been lower than normal. The federal government can help keep them up for a while.
Mark
Complain about this comment
I fail to see how spending vast sums of money, when we are spending an equal amount to what we borrow on being in some godforsaken country trying to prop up regimes at the American whim, and to appease the despots so that we can sell them more of our produce.
Imagine this, you want to have a loan, you can borrow up to half as much as your total income this year, which needs to be repaid next year, or you pay compound interest. Then next year you borrow the amount of the loan, plus the compound, the third year you borrow on the loan, the compound and the compounds compound.
Now let me ask you this.... if in the first place you could not afford the loan, how on earth can you afford it when compound interest is applied......... It makes no logical sense....... you would not do it in your home, why on earth does the government do it? Or is keeping the likes of the stock markets and banks in pocket, more important than the people?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
35 Scott0962 Wrote..
From a nation of free citizens we are drifting closer to the British model where the people are subjects of the state and where sovereignty resides in the government, not in the people.
**************************************
This is a common misconception among most Americans. What they dont seem to realize is they only have freedoms outlined in their constitution containing the "Bill of Rights". Outside of that Bill there is no freedom guaranteed.In the UK there is no such thing,(Magna Carta is an historical document,not a modern Bill of Rights")and as such no boundary or limitation on the poeples freedom. In fact UK nationals have every bit of self determination and freedom as US citizens.
Complain about this comment
40. Lucy Wrote
USA is very important to UK. They should not be (and I'm not saying they all are) anti-American, even if we do not agree on everything. If another country tried to invade UK, USA would be with you in a heartbeat to kick them out of your country.
*************************************
These days the UK is becoming more important to the USA as a military ally.Economically the US have lost some flavour because of the stronger ties with Europe and especially with countries such as the asian tigers.
You will see on the highways of Britain all the imported brands of asian vehicles more and more,where once you would see more US brands. Products from China and Japan and Korea and India are now much more common than us manufactured goods.
It is nice to know you think if Britain where invaded the US would come to our rescue in a heartbeat. BUT,it didnt happen last time we where on the brink. We fought and won our own deliverence from the ww2 threat before the US entered the war. Your country did come in to free the continent of Europe after the battle of Britain and the bombing blitz on our cities.
After saying all that we still do love our US friends,and will always stand with you.
Complain about this comment
78. At 6:35pm on 15 Jun 2010, LucyJ wrote:
Of course, NYC also may allow several giant megamosques to be built around 9/11. This tells me exactly what kind of a city NYC is leaning to.
Un-American.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy... you continue to speak about things of which you are completely clueless. I LIVED here through 9/11, my family and I know the events of that day better than you ever will. My father and brother were right across the street from the WTC when it happened and I was a few short blocks away. Don't tell me what it means to be American and that by virtue of living NYC we are all "un-American" to ignorant people living in the country. If we get attacked again where do you think it will happen!?! In your cozy countryside, no it will happen HERE so until YOU have to ride the subway everyday you don't get to lecture me about islamic terrorism, in fact you don't even get to lecture me about what it is to be an American.
What is proposed is a not a "megamosque" but a normal sized house of worship that happens to be close to ground zero. There are Churches, Temples, and Synagagues all in the same neighborhood. There are also likely more people in this city than in your entire state and all should be accomodated. Whether it's tasteful to build a mosque there is debatable and it has NOT been approved yet because of land mark issues. Frankly I don't care either way but I don't see it as "un-american" because the last time I checked this country had freedom of religion, but I guess that is becoming an "un-american" value in the minds of paranoid rural communities.
You have already exposed throughout all your posts how you feel about anyone living in a major urban area as well as anyone from a diverse background who doesn't apologize for it by also checking the box for "Caucasian" ...in your opinion they are all "un-american." Perhaps Obama only checked "African American" because he feels that's how he is viewed and has been treated by people outside his family? It sure seems how you view him.
BTW... We just had a president who was from Midland Texas for 8 years solely representing simple country folk... that worked out real well didn't it? He couldn't even do simple math when it came to the economy and seemed dumb founded that the combination of cutting taxes and vastly expanding spending caused a deficit and economic hardship.
Complain about this comment
Broke house rules how................?
Funny I post on lack of freedom of press and get moderated:
Complain about this comment
I have been moderated so I guess I will just agree with every one here..................lol
Complain about this comment
Is there anyone in britian age 25 to 40 that would like to swap views with an american pen pal via email on subjects like this, maybe even phone every so often, someone who is not on the govt payroll, retired, or has a silver spoon in their mouth that is an involved citizen in the community to give me a real british perspective first hand there.
Complain about this comment
RE: MarcusAureliusII ... and all that blogging.
Woah, there Marcy (or Claude, if you prefer) 'woah' I say! Your keyboard is afire, man, or lady (or even ... all of you). Averaging ten 'blogs' a day! You are a standard-setter for american productivity!
Obviously a full-timer. Retired? Benefits?
But why so angry?
Complain about this comment
Emps, I don't "think" we would come to UK's rescue if they were invaded. I know we would. For all the disagreements, that's the way it is.
So, invaders, beware.
Although USA could be invaded, as well, the odds are higher that our allies would be invaded before us because they are closer to the other countries. Then again, with incidents like Pearl Harbor, you never know. We must always be prepared. You should always be prepared, too.
I am all for building monuments dedicated to the 9/11 victims of all races, religions, ect. But to build religious symbols around our hallowed ground, especially the religion of the 9/11 hijackers, just doesn't seem right.
However, if people truly want to build religious symbols around 9/11, it should be for all religions, not just one. If NYC is so diverse, why can't all religions be represented there? To only let one religion build is biased and non-diverse. If a megamosque goes up, there needs to be a megachurch just as large built right next to it.
NYC does have some fantastic things about it. From my friends who have went there- the phenomenal foods, arts, shows, giant buildings, ect.
And not so fantastic.
The gay and transgender clubs.
The homeless people, who should have homes.
How can we give money to support the illegal immigrants, yet not the homeless Americans? Some of them are even veterans of our wars. The saddest of all is seeing the children of the homeless. It is heartbreaking. It would be very difficult to see all the time.
But people at NYC often don't look at each other when they pass by.
Compare the diversity of NYC to the non-diversity of the Midwest. Somehow, amazingly, it is the same America.
The people of the Midwest speak the same language and are mostly white. The people of NYC speak all different languages, they have their own sections of town (like one part of town you will find all Jamaicans, one part of town all Koreans, and so on- neighborhoods are often divided by race, rather than mixed- it was like this at my college also.)
We can't even communicate because we do not speak the same language in our own country. Well, except for body language communication.
Complain about this comment
Everyone has the right to say what they feel.
How Obama views himself is apparent.
Andrew, you have your opinions and I have mine.
Yes, my opinion is that NYC and LA are un-American.
Your opinion is that country people are ignorant.
Maybe its time to expand your mind. I am trying to expand mine. Maybe I do not always agree with all the other bloggers and I am sure that many probably do not agree with me, but I do think about what they say.
Being an American means the world to me. It is something special that should not be given out cheaply. There is no other country that can compare. I was born in the heartland and raised on my family's American values. You can call my American values whatever you want and I can call your American values whatever I want.
You may think I do not like people who are diverse, but I actually do. Just not mass amounts of them. I was raised to believe that you should never look down on someone or treat them badly because of their skin color. Call it what you want. The only immigrants I like in our country are the ones that put USA first above all other countries and follow our laws, including coming here legally and learning our language. However, there should be a limit.
Complain about this comment
93 LucyJ
"Although USA could be invaded, as well, the odds are higher that our allies would be invaded before us because they are closer to the other countries."
Hi Lucy, thanks for providing me with todays first laugh out loud moment!
Complain about this comment
93 LucyJ
Ok Lucy it seems clear from your posts that your opinions are coming from long list of misinformation about places that you've never been, so if you're really looking to expand your horizons (and I hope you are) here are some things that may help.
1) There are homeless in NYC. However, we don't make them here in some sort of factory. In fact, not very many of them are actually from here. Many come from throughout the country, even some from the countryside (some are also runaways from quiet towns were they had family issues from behind the scenes). They also go to other cities such as San Fransisco. The reason most come here (or at least stay here) is that we have an infrastructure that at least attempts to help... shelters, soup kitchens, NGOs, and religious organizations. I would love it if the government did even more for them but that doesn't exactly mesh too well with constant calls for budget cuts.
2)All immigrants throughout our history lived in clannish communities when they first arrived here in the US. Probably even your ancestors. Many come to places like NYC because there is more opportunity for work here and they also receive a support structure from their various communities that are already in place in the large cities. After several generations their offspring move out throughout the country, perhaps even to your neighborhood on occasion. The instant integration that you want so badly will never happen... these things take time and often their children growing up in their new society helps.
3) No one in this city has forgotten 9/11 (however, unlike the rest of the US we generally don't like to talk about it as much since it is a bit more personal for us), and most of us find building a mosque that close to the WTC distasteful and thousands have protested it. I personally don't see it as a major issue because we have far worse problems to worry about. There are also existing churches, temples, synagogues as well as mosques right next to the site already. So all religions are represented. The mosque is also not part of the memorial site only nearby and if you had ever been here you'd realize that the financial district is a very dense neighborhood so building a mosque anywhere there would make it near by the site.
4) Your vision of people in NYC not looking at each other and and full of crime seems to be from watching way too many movies like Death Wish or television shows like Kojak from the 1970s. New York City is no longer the murder capital of the country and has become the safest large city in the country, safer than any major City in the midwest as well. We have come a long way and brought our crime rate to levels it hasn't been since 1963. Is where you live safer than it was 50 years ago? The transformation began about 16 years ago and is amazing. We are naturally proud of this and don't like the old stereotypes. People here are extremely friendly compared to many other cities I've traveled to or lived in throughout the world and we are the largest tourist destination in the country for both americans and foreigners.
5) New York City is not "un-american" people here love our country especially many of the immigrants. However I am cynical about constantly telling everyone around the world about how great we are as a country because it is arrogant and the US is not perfect. So until we are perfect lets just continue working on our own problems before we waste time bragging about ourselves.
6) There is nothing wrong with gays and your opinions here seem religious in nature and I don't want to go down that road. However, if you are looking to open your mind you might want to begin by addressing that prejudice.
7) I don't think all people from the country are ignorant (in fact I have close friends in Kansas and Missouri), I just find YOUR opinions to be ignorant, especially about places that you've never been. I have actually been to the midwest, as well as countries on every continent throughout the globe but that does not make me an expert on your situation or theirs. However, I do know a thing or two more about the city I live in than you do, so don't tell me about my city like you know it better than me when you've never been here.
I hope some of this information helps enlighten some of your opinions. I mean that sincerely. All the best.
Complain about this comment
I will retract my statement that NYC is un-American, because I do feel kind of bad for saying it. Perhaps it was too harsh.
I apologize.
But I am still against building a megamosque with foreign money at 9/11, which would block the sun from shining on our hallowed ground. You may see that site as yours, but 9/11 belongs to us all. I have many friends and cousins who are training at American bases or in Iraq and Afghanistan now. People are serving in the military from all across the country, not just NY. In fact, I would maybe someday consider taking a trip to NYC in the safe parts with a lot of mace to see 9/11 site, but I could not go there if there was a megamosque. It would be too painful, like a continual flow of extra salty salt in a very deep wound. Let them build their megamosque pretty much anywhere else. Just not there.
Symbolism is worth more than money. Guilani knew that. That is why he refused to take millions from that Saudi oil sheik after 9/11, when the oil sheik told us we were to blame for 9/11 because Israel is our ally.
I will not retract my statement that I believe LA is un-American.
When kids in LA are told they will be suspended if they do not turn their American flag t-shirts inside out or go home and the majority of the school supports the assistant principal telling them that by marching out of school the next day and no one fires the assistant principal or reprimends him. That is un-American.
When I see the mass amounts of hispanic people cheering in various rallys for Team Mexico in LA, yet there is not a single rally for Team USA. When an immigrant says they will cheer for their homeland, but they are against Team USA.
That is un-American.
When students in LA are taken to protest another state's laws for a field trip, which is making the students take a political side. That is un-American.
When a teacher in LA tells her students that Mexicans need to rise up and take back occupied land in USA. That is un-American.
This is how I have come to my belief that LA is un-American.
Complain about this comment
@Lucy
It is easy to identify what you perceive as problems, but can you propose a solution?
a solution that is American.
Complain about this comment
Symbolism is worth more than money. Guilani knew that. That is why he refused to take millions from that Saudi oil sheik after 9/11, when the oil sheik told us we were to blame for 9/11 because Israel is our ally.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever since usa adopted israel, every sheikh and non sheikh tells americans the same thing...It didnt and doesnt stop americans to do bussiness with them..when you react so childishly every time someone points the obvious to you, that israel is your ally, then there is something wrong with you..Accept your relationship with israel and move on..
Complain about this comment
When a teacher in LA tells her students that Mexicans need to rise up and take back occupied land in USA. That is un-American.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what is american then? to tell the east europeans to go all the way to middle east and settle there?
Complain about this comment
My solution is for Americans to stand up for America and against anti-Americans in our country.
We must stand up to the illegals and anyone who supports them, no matter how powerful or no matter how much they threaten us.
We must defend our country against enemies, foreign and domestic.
The pathway for foreigners to become USA citizens should not include anyone who sneaks through our borders illegally or overstays their visa illegally.
But I also believe that the solution is to decrease the amount of immigrants who become USA citizens, as right now we are fighting terrorists and our economy is deeply hurting Americans. This is not the time to bring in mass amounts of immigrants. Small amounts, yes, but not large amounts.
Just look at Faisal Shazad. The guy attacked us about one year after he became a USA citizen. Terrorists will lie and say anything to get into our country and especially to be USA citizens.
Although we have some wonderful immigrants, there are many immigrants who feel loyalty to their homeland and not to America. These ones just want to use us and plunder our country. They do not understand what it is like to have ancestors who lived here for several hundred years in the same lands, to have had ancestors who fought and died for our country, to only know and be loyal to one country.
They do not understand what it is to be an American.
My solution is for Americans to take back our country before its too late.
Complain about this comment
The pathway for foreigners to become USA citizens should not include anyone who sneaks through our borders illegally or overstays their visa illegally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How did your ancestors come to usa, did they ask the natives to allow them to become the citizens? No one, except the native americans can claim whatever you claim..You are a settler and you are afraid of the neo settlers..afraid that they would do to you exactly what your ancestors and ancestors of everyone who is now opposing the neo settlers, did to the red indians..
Complain about this comment
So what, your argument is that USA should accept every person who comes here illegally wanting to be a citizen?
That would be millions, perhaps billions of people that would overwhelm us all. Including mass amounts of terrorists.
The truth is, the majority of these people from other countries who come here illegally need to stand up for their country, whichever it is, and work on making their country a better place. Their countries are beautiful and the people are beautiful. They have a beautiful culture. But they belong in their country, not ours. If these people put the same determination into their country that they do into coming into our country illegally, their countries would be vastly improved.
People coming here illegally should fight for making their country a better place and stop trespassing/invading our property.
The USA is where we are today because of the Americans who put us here. If we let anti-Americans become citizens, we will become anti-America.
Complain about this comment
So what, your argument is that USA should accept every person who comes here illegally wanting to be a citizen?
That would be millions, perhaps billions of people that would overwhelm us all. Including mass amounts of terrorists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no question of should accept, it has to accept..your ancestors when they landed on the native americans land were no less terrorists...infact they killed them, calling them red indians, stole their homes and when the terrorists took power, they gave the red indians what israel has given to the palestinians, ghettos, which they conviently call reservation, and changed the red indians into native americans..In a country where natives live like non-natives, people should be careful in showing their dislike towards immigrants.
Complain about this comment
BS.
By the way, Indians do not have red skin. They have tan skin.
Iran is not fooling anyone with their "aid" ship.
If Iran attacks Israel, USA will attack Iran.
Complain about this comment
By the way, Indians do not have red skin. They have tan skin.
Iran is not fooling anyone with their "aid" ship.
If Iran attacks Israel, USA will attack Iran.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not me or my ancestors who nicked named them as red indians, its your ancestors who called them that...kept on calling them until they totally occupied their land by the worst terrorism human minds could think of...Where is american aid ship? or did you use all your aid on haiti.
Complain about this comment
Of course, Iran and other countries will likely not attack Israel, because they know that Israel has the bomb.
Complain about this comment
Of course, it has never been confirmed. But if they didn't have it, we would have it.
No one wants this scenario. Hopefully, it will never come to such.
Complain about this comment
Of course, it has never been confirmed. But if they didn't have it, we would have it.
No one wants this scenario. Hopefully, it will never come to such.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this scenario and hope comes from someone whose country holds the unique trophy of using it twice within a few days interval..Once a user always a user..
Complain about this comment
101. At 6:35pm on 22 Jun 2010, LucyJ wrote:
My solution is for Americans to stand up for America and against anti-Americans in our country.
We must stand up to the illegals and anyone who supports them, no matter how powerful or no matter how much they threaten us.
[[ Illegal aliens, by and large do not threaten America. In economic terms they virtually certainly make the American economy far stronger than it would otherwise be.
As for the people who support them, those would be your neighbours.
Those are they people who employ them; eat the crops harvested by them, roast the chickens slaughtered by them; have their children and elderly parents cared for by them; have their meals cooked by them; have their gardens, lawns and swimming pools tended by them; purchase the electronic equipment assembled by them ... ]]
"But I also believe that the solution is to decrease the amount of immigrants who become USA citizens, as right now we are fighting terrorists and our economy is deeply hurting Americans. This is not the time to bring in mass amounts of immigrants. Small amounts, yes, but not large amounts.
Just look at Faisal Shazad. The guy attacked us about one year after he became a USA citizen. Terrorists will lie and say anything to get into our country and especially to be USA citizens.
[[ Fox News nonsense and sensationalism based on high profile individual cases is not a basis for rational policy decision making. Look at a representative sample size, and stick to surveys made by reputable non-partisan agencies before you start drawing conclusions about what shoulde or should not be done in respect of immigration, whether legal or illegal ]]
"Although we have some wonderful immigrants, there are many immigrants who feel loyalty to their homeland and not to America. These ones just want to use us and plunder our country. They do not understand what it is like to have ancestors who lived here for several hundred years in the same lands, to have had ancestors who fought and died for our country, to only know and be loyal to one country."
"They do not understand what it is to be an American."
My solution is for Americans to take back our country before its too late.
[[ Take it back from whom? There are 310 million American citizens, and perhaps 10 - 20m illegal immigrants.
Has your family been in the country "several hundred years"? The word "several" tends to mean "a lot more than two"
Non-Spanish permanent European settlement of mainland North America only commenced in 1608. That is only 400 years ago.
By 1776 the thirteen colonies, combined, had a total population of roughly 3m people (including, apparently, a number of my own ancestors). Most of our ancestors came to North America less than 150 years ago.
------------
Based on what I have seen, I would say that the most virulently patriotic tend to be the first generation children of immigrants.
As for immigrants themselves, I have heard a particular story told many, many times, in many different versions, by immigrants from many many different countries.
The story goes roughly like this: they love "the old country" dearly, and may remain fond of it until the end of its their days. After they come here, they think about "home" a lot. Most of them came here with nothing. They build a life for themselves, marry, raise families, and so on. After many years absence, they save up to go back "home" for a visit.
And when they get there, they realize that the roads are bad, the houses are small, and the plumbing doesn't work. People still bicker about small-minded things that aren't important. They realize that they don't belong to that life anymore. They still love their families, but they have moved on.
When they return from their trip, they realize that they are coming back to their real home. And they thank their lucky stars.
I have known immigrants all my life, and have heard this story more times than I can remember.
Without meaning to give gratuitous offense, my observation is that those people have a very very good understanding of what it means to be an American, and, I suspect, a darn sight better than you do yourself.
Complain about this comment
Int. For.,
So the 9/11 hijackers who were here illegally who killed thousands of Americans did not threaten America?
The illegal who killed the rancher in Arizona was not threatening?
The illegals who steal social security numbers do not threaten America?
The illegals who take away time from our children's classes because they don't know English do not threaten America?
The illegals who do not pay taxes do not threaten America?
Letting illegals get away with crimes that Americans are punished for does not threaten America?
Illegals with foreign interests do not threaten America?
Illegals who are in car accidents that injure people, then they speed off because they don't have insurance do not hurt America?
The list goes on and on...
The only solution is to deport all illegal immigrants.
Complain about this comment
97. At 5:16pm on 16 Jun 2010, LucyJ wrote:
"I will not retract my statement that I believe LA is un-American."
When I was a student at UCLA a couple of generations before you were born, Lucy, the retiring Chancellor wrote a book about the school's future, the future of the City of the Angels, of California and the American West Coast, and of a relatively new idea - the Pacific Rim.
He stated categorically that the next great growth and expansion of the human race would happen among the nations of the Pacific - that the economic, intellectual, scientific, cultural, and even political ideas that would close the 20th century and dominate beyond the 21st would be generated around that pond as the people there got to know each other and stimulated each other to unprecedented greatness.
UCLA, he said, was uniquely placed to be a driving force on that new frontier. History has already confirmed that he knew what he was talking about.
He also said that this was the natural extension of the American frontier and the continuing expression of the American spirit.
Lucy, for all that it implies there is no place more American than LA.
Don't turn your back on our future.
Kindly,
KScurmudgeon
been there, done that
...be there, do that!
Complain about this comment
@ Lucy J
your solutions are not American.
I will be very simple with my argument, as I see you are not a student of politics or History.
A true American would analyse the situation, its pros and cons, and then present a solution that is actually achievable to promote a better America. Your solutions will trample on basic human rights and even civil rights that Americans hold dear, and it would not be possible to implement democratically in the current political system of the United States
You say you "Lot's" of terrorist, do the math. The U.S. has uncovered or prosecuted 3 or 4 dozen "terrorists" in a country that has 300 million people. Compare that number to those who commited multiple homicides in the past ten years and the vast disparity between both numbers is quite obvious.
This shows how easily the public is influenced by media and premonitions of the immigrants "taking" over the country.
How exactly are the immigrants taking over? does your rationale stem from the fact that your president's father is Kenyan?
Complain about this comment
A true American is the one who wants to protect and defend our country from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
To me, all illegal foreign invaders are enemies and a threat to our country. Americans are now getting terrorized, raped, abducted, and slayed in our country by illegal foreign invaders.
The bloodshed must stop.
No mercy for any illegal foreign invaders.
There are millions of illegal foreign invaders and their supporters trying to overtake our country. They are not the first illegal foreign invaders and they will not be the last illegal foreign invaders.
But they underestimate the millions of true Americans who are on a noble and valiant quest to deport all illegal foreign invaders. We do not seek violence. We seek them to be peacefully deported.
Our goal is to defend USA. We do not quit, no matter how much they threaten and intimidate us with their gangs.
It is us or them.
Americans vs. illegal foreign invaders.
If you are on their side, then so be it.
The lines have been drawn.
Complain about this comment
Lucy 111 and 113.
Aaron's comment at 112 is correct:
"A true American would analyse the situation, its pros and cons, and then present a solution that is actually achievable to promote a better America."
_____________
You keep making the same mistake over, and over, and over in your postings. You look as sensational anecdotes in the gutter press (i.e., Fox News) and you mistake it for truth upon which to make policy decisions affecting millions of people.
Try looking at the facts on a larger, more statistically balanced basis, and start from the proposition that you want to choose the policy that will yield the most positive outcome for the United States.
What you don't want to do is make an unmerited commitment of scare public resources, e.g., policing, where a lot of money will be consumed without achieving anything beneficial. This is the story of the ill-conceived, misguided, poorly thought-out and horribly counter-productive "War on Drugs", which has done untold damage both in America and in foreign countries such as Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and Mexico, if not several others.
----------
When you complain about terrorists being illegally in the country, it seems as if you think the problem is that they are illegally in the country. It isn't. The problem is that they are terrorists.
You have this fixation, this obsession, with illegal immigration that seems to make it impossible for you to focus on important factors (e.g., that they are terrorists bent on violence), rather than irrelevant ones (e.g., that they are in the country illegally). As a result you don't seem to be able to assess which problems merit a high priority response, and which problems don't.
The same can be said about murder, rape, and all sorts of other crimes. The crimes don't suddenly become worse simply because they are committed by illegal aliens.
When you look at it overall, it appears that illegal aliens are probably about as law abiding as American citizens, and possibly more law abiding. Overall illegal aliens are yielding a significant benefit to America, although not as much as if there were legal immigrants.
Of all the problems America has to solve, fixing illegal immigration simply isn't one that is among the most urgent. It has its place, and it can't be ignored forever. But if it doesn't get done this year America isn't going to suffer because of it. On the contrary, America generally benefits from this "problem".
Complain about this comment
Hello IF. You should probably give up on Lucy, I do not think she will change her mind. Too much friend/family influence as well as Fox News I suspect.
Did you feel the earthquake where you are??
Complain about this comment
Deporting the illegal foreign invaders would be be a much more positive impact on USA than giving illegal foreign invaders citizenship, which would have an overall negative impact in every sector, except cheap labor. If you want stats that show the negative effects in every sector, go to FAIR.org. That will tell you all you need to know about the illegals. Or look up ALIPAC. Both websites have gazillions of stats that are 100% unbiased. Both websites tell the truth.
The question is, "Can you handle the truth???"
Am tired of hearing the stories about Americans getting raped, abducted, killed by illegals in Arizona and across USA, the parks being shut down in Arizona due to illegals, the Arizona police being threatened by illegal gangs, the athlete in Cali who was killed by an illegal that the police released because he was not a "threat", the illegals stealing people's soc. sec. numbers, the illegals stealing jobs, the illegals who run into people's vehicles, often injuring them or causing severe damage to the car and leaving them with the cost, the illegals who have children on welfare, the illegals who only speak Spanish or their home language, the list goes on and on.
I am against all illegals, not just Mexican ones. Could care less where the illegals are from. Deport all illegal foreign invaders!
Complain about this comment
InterestedForeigner (#115): "When you complain about terrorists being illegally in the country, it seems as if you think the problem is that they are illegally in the country. It isn't. The problem is that they are terrorists."
Yes. People who come to the US for purposes of terrorism are a tiny fraction of the immigrants, whether illegal or legal. And the terrorist most recently in the news (Faisal Shahzad) wasn't even illegal. He obtained citizenship and appeared to be a normal member of society until caught for the Times Square incident.
Complain about this comment
I am against all illegals, not just Mexican ones. Could care less where the illegals are from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you are just afrain of the neo settlers...they mean compitition for you, the older settlers..
Complain about this comment
So neither of you thinks that being in a country illegally is a problem?
Hello!
Wake-up call!
Deport all illegal foreign invaders!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No amnesty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
Okay, that fair.org was wrong.
I meant FAIR the organization not the website. Basically, FAIR backs enforcing existing immigration laws.
Look up ALIPAC for stats.
Complain about this comment
The correct websites are fairus.org, alipac.us, alipac.com, and there is even an alipac.net, which is specifically for Hispanic and Legal Immigrant Americans who are against illegals.
There are many stats, which show the many negative effects of illegals.
Complain about this comment
Amnesty and the
American Worker
A look at how illegal immigration has harmed working class Americans and how amnesty would make matters worse.
(from website of FAIRus.org)
Executive Summary
Unemployment is at its highest level in 27 years. Since the current recession began in 2007, the U.S. economy has lost over 8.4 million jobs, the largest drop since the Great Depression. According to February 2010 Census Bureau figures, 13.2 million native-born workers were unemployed — not including those Americans who have been forced to work part-time, taken temporary work, or who have given up looking for work altogether. At the same time, there are an estimated 7.5 million illegal aliens in the U.S. workforce.
The economic opportunities for less-educated native workers have steadily decreased as illegal immigration has increased. The correlation is evident and has been identified by a consensus of labor economists. The influx of uneducated, unskilled illegal alien workers has created a massive labor surplus at the lower end of the labor market. Today, the unemployment rate for those without a high school diploma is over three times that of those who have a college degree. And wages for the working class have stagnated since the 1970s, widening the income gap considerably.
There are many out-of-work Americans who want and need the jobs now being held by illegal aliens. Illegal aliens are doing work not just that American will do but that Americans are doing. From housekeeping to meatpacking, food service to construction work, the native-born make up the majority of workers in these occupations. However, as the share of illegal aliens rises, jobs available to native workers became scarce, and their wages and work conditions diminish.
Fewer Americans can now find entry level jobs, which provide valuable work experience for teenagers and young adults. Wages in many labor intensive occupations have also been kept low by illegal immigration. Jobs that once provided for a solid middle class lifestyle now pay so little and offer so few benefits that workers struggle to support their families. The argument that there is a labor shortage among low-educated, low-skilled workers is patently false. As Vice-President Biden’s chief economic advisor has noted, what is really lacking are employers who are willing to pay legal workers a fair wage.
Even if the Obama administration’s optimistic job growth projections materialize, there would still not be enough new jobs to keep up with the rate of U.S. population growth. In order to put Americans back to work and strengthen the U.S. economy, the federal government must pursue an immigration policy that acknowledges the balance between the supply of labor and the demand for jobs. Securing the border and taking meaningful action to prevent the employment of illegal aliens would immediately begin to free up millions of jobs now held by illegal aliens. Yet, the Obama administration supports amnesty for illegal aliens, which would continue to put of Americans out of work and keep wages artificially low for native-born workers.
An amnesty would reward those who broke the law to enter and work in the illegally U.S., and it would reward the employers who hired them. Those Americans who compete with illegal aliens for scarce jobs would continue to suffer. The lesson of the 1986 amnesty should serve as a model of how not to approach immigration reform, and as a stark reminder of the promises politicians made then to secure the border and end illegal hiring practices. For some reason, there are lawmakers today who want to repeat the failures of 1986 on a massive scale. The 1986 amnesty had terrible consequences for American workers. An amnesty today would further undermine the position of lower income Americans and generate enormous fiscal costs that would overburden U.S. taxpayers and cripple the U.S. economy.
Illegal immigration has become, in effect, an inexhaustible source of government sanctioned and subsidized low-wage labor, eroding the welfare of less-educated native-born workers. This report takes a look at how illegal immigration has put Americans out of work and reduced wage levels for all workers across broad sectors of the economy. It also underscores the failure of the 1986 amnesty and the realities of what an amnesty would mean today. Included in the report are the following points:
There are 25.8 million unemployed, underemployed, or “discouraged” U.S. workers. The unemployment rate for workers with less than a high school diploma: 15.6 percent; with only a high school diploma: 10.5 percent; blacks: 15.8 percent; teenagers: 25 percent; Second Gulf War veterans: 13.4 percent.
Real wages for American workers have remained stagnant for the past 35 years and the income gap has widened even as the U.S. GDP has continued to increase. Research has shown that the share of GDP attributable to immigrant (including illegal alien) labor is split between the immigrants and their employers.
Between 1980 and 2000 real wages fell for native-born workers with a high school diploma or less. For certain groups and in certain sectors, the drop was even greater. Overall real wages for males with less than a high school diploma fell 22.3 percent, and workers in the meatpacking industry saw a 45 percent decrease in their real wages between 1960 and 2002.
Almost half of all adult illegal aliens presently in the United States do not have a high school diploma, and 30 percent have less than a 9th grade education. They are competing directly against native-born teenagers and less-educated adults for jobs.
While economic conditions did improve for some recipients of the 1986 amnesty, this was largely confined to those who had the highest education levels and spoke English well. As a group, however, those who received amnesty in 1986 showed no upward mobility 15 years later.
The argument that an amnesty would bring in more tax revenue ignores the fact that the income of most illegal alien households is below the tax threshold. Instead of becoming net taxpayers, amnesty recipients would qualify for tax credits, as well as government entitlement programs. This would cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $700 billion a year.
Complain about this comment
So neither of you thinks that being in a country illegally is a problem?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If its a problem, it started centuries ago, just ask the right people, the ones now called by the settlers as native americans...only they are natives of america as the name clearly points out, the rest are all settlers, some come early others late...But a settler is a settler is a settler unless he is the native american..One settler telling other settlers to leave just doesnt make any sense.
Complain about this comment
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16660&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007
(fairus.org under illegal immigration examples of serious crimes committed by illegal aliens)
This website links to real crimes committed by illegals in 2009 and 2010. The list was taken directly from newspaper sources around the country. I wanted to paste it, but it was too long to do, because illegals commit that many serious crimes.
Illegal Immigration is a Crime
US Illegal Immigrant Laws
Each year the Border Patrol makes more than a million apprehensions of aliens who flagrantly violate our nation's laws by unlawfully crossing U.S. borders. Such entry is a misdemeanor, but, if repeated, becomes punishable as a felony.
In addition to sneaking into the country (referred to as "entry without inspection — EWI") in violation of the immigration law, others enter with legal documentation and then violate the terms on which they have been admitted. The immigration authorities currently estimate that about two-thirds of all illegal immigrants are EWIs and the remainder is overstayers. Both types of illegal immigrants are deportable under Immigration and Nationality Act Section 237 (a)(1)(B) which says: "Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act or any other law of the United States is deportable."
Illegal Immigration Is Not A Victimless Crime
Apologists for illegal immigration try to paint it as a victimless crime, but the fact is that illegal immigration causes substantial harm to American citizens and legal immigrants, particularly those in the most vulnerable sectors of our population — the poor, minorities, and children.
Illegal immigration causes an enormous drain on public funds. The seminal study of the costs of immigration by the National Academy of Sciences found that the taxes paid by immigrants do not begin to cover the cost of services received by them. The quality of education, health care and other services for Americans are undermined by the needs of endless numbers of poor, unskilled illegal entrants.
Additionally, job competition by waves of illegal immigrants desperate for any job unfairly depresses the wages and working conditions offered to American workers, hitting hardest at minority workers and those without high school degrees.
Illegal Immigration And Population Growth
Illegal immigration also contributes to the dramatic population growth overwhelming communities across America — crowding school classrooms, consuming already limited affordable housing, and increasing the strain on precious natural resources like water, energy, and forestland. The immigration authorities estimate that the population of illegal aliens is increasing by an estimated half million people annually.
Illegal Immigration Undermines National Security
While most illegal immigrants may come only to seek work and a better economic opportunity, their presence outside the law furnishes an opportunity for terrorists to blend into the same shadows while they target the American public for their terrorist crimes. Some people advocate giving illegal aliens legal status to bring them out of the shadows, but, if we accommodate illegal immigration by offering legal status, this will be seen abroad as a message that we condone illegal immigration, and we will forever be faced with the problem.
Border Patrol: Necessary But Not Sufficient
The Border Patrol plays a crucial role in combating illegal immigration, but illegal immigration cannot be controlled solely at the border. The overstayers as well as the EWIs who get past the Border Patrol must be identified and removed by the interior immigration inspectors of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
What Can Be Done?
There must be a comprehensive effort to end illegal immigration. That requires ensuring that illegal aliens will not be able to obtain employment, public assistance benefits, public education, public housing, or any other taxpayer-funded benefit without detection.
The three major components of immigration control — deterrence, apprehension and removal—need to be strengthened by Congress and the Executive Branch if effective control is ever to be reestablished. Controlling illegal immigration requires a balanced approach with a full range of enforcement improvements that go far beyond the border. These include many procedural reforms, beefed up investigation capacity, asylum reform, documents improvements, major improvements in detention and deportation procedures, limitations on judicial review, improved intelligence capacity, greatly improved state/federal cooperation, and added resources.
What About The Costs?
Effective control and management of the laws against illegal immigration require adequate resources. But those costs will be more than offset by savings to states, counties, communities, and school districts across the nation.
Complain about this comment
116. At 7:33pm on 23 Jun 2010, Vermilion wrote:
Did you feel the earthquake where you are??
____________
Yes. It was quite the topic of conversation in the office. It isn't everyday that women tell you that they felt the earth move ...
Complain about this comment
120. At 9:39pm on 23 Jun 2010, LucyJ wrote:
"So neither of you thinks that being in a country illegally is a problem?"
____________
No, but as compared to America's other problems, it just isn't anywhere near as big a problem as you are making it out to be.
You need to get a grip. When it comes to immigration, legal or illegal, you've completely lost any sense of balance.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Sure, blame the illegal workers for unemployment, and not all those industries which went bankrupt due to the incompetency and greed of the ceos and their croonies...Face it lucy your contempt and hysteria against the illegals is due to unemployment, and not because the fact that they are illegals...and if you go beneath these superficial connection that you posted, you will see that illegals actually take up jobs which your legals would never take...
Complain about this comment
IF at 126
That was funny! I felt it too, thankfully I knew what it was! My Husky was a little confused though. Thanks for the response.
Complain about this comment
At (129) colonelartists
"Face it lucy your contempt and hysteria against the illegals is due to unemployment, and not because the fact that they are illegals...and if you go beneath these superficial connection that you posted you will see that
"illegals actually take up jobs which your legals would never take..."
Well Said!
Complain about this comment
My first post ever..and I'm sure some of you will give me a royal blasting for my opinions and thoughts...but for what its worth, I stand with Lucy. I can completely understand what she is trying to say and believe that the majority of you are beating her over the head for what is an opinion that a HUGE amount of people in the US and UK believe, if they were only brave enough to voice it without being considered racist or bigots.
It has NOTHING to do with racism. It is about protecting what we and our ancestors have fought for and established, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the history of our "acquisitions".
When one sees a society being throughly used, pillaged and scourged by people that have not paid a dime into the system, that are quite obviously taking advantage of the hard work and funds that have been paid in by us and our predecessors, it leaves a very nasty taste in ones mouth.
My friends here and in the UK cover a variety of religions, races and creeds and they, at their most fundamental level share with me a solid belief system of fairness, justice, kindness, family and support. I would stand shoulder to shoulder with any wo/man that holds strong and true core values irrespective of their color, racial status or whatever other terms these days are deemed politically correct.
Conversely, put me side by side someone who wants to hurt me or mine, wants to take from me all I have worked for, that has a belief system riddled with a lack of basic values and I have a very big problem with that person. HUGE.
When a person moves in/to a different country, they should embrace that country. They don't and shouldn't have to lose their cultural identity, but there has to be some element of assimilation; the learning of the language, of certain etiquette, the acceptance of that countries heritage and laws. So often this DOES NOT happen. So much injustice is occurring these days to the people who have built these lands to greatness and civilisation and if you aren't seeing it or feeling it yet consider yourself fortunate.
One example...Tell me how a country cannot deport (for a number of years) a person of different faith spewing hate, death, murder and rape through the media to all people not of that faith? It is political correctness gone wrong and we are suffering and it will get worse.
A stand needs to be made and you all need to get off that comfortable fence and decide whether or not you like what it is you have in your lives and are prepared to protect it against those who WILL wrest it from your grasp.
In hope of seeing some backbone.
mrsdp
Complain about this comment
I feel in some way I must apologise that my post is not actually relevant to the question originally posed. However, my feelings on this subject were roused to a point that I just could not let this one lay.
FWIW...I truly hope that the US and the UK can see past this verbal bashing. We are stronger together. A person earlier said that the most important aspect of all of this is to just get it blocked and cleaned up as fast as possible. THEN lets look at where the blame needs to be focused.
Hear, hear.
Complain about this comment
Thank you, mrsdp. Truly your post makes me feel a lot better.
I like immigrants, just small amounts of them, ones that assimilate into our country, follow our laws, including learning English and coming here legally.
Americans like myself have to be stronger than ever in these difficult times when we are being put up against giant corporations and special interest groups who desire cheap labor. They desire to plunder and steal America from Americans. They want to take our country away from us.
They will do anything and I repeat, anything for cheap labor, because many know Americans merely want to get paid a decent wage. Many corporations know the best way to pay us less is by bringing in cheap labor, which will bring down the American workers wages and make Americans fight for these jobs, so that we are not only getting paid less, but happy to even have a job at all. It is all a scheme for future cheap labor.
Cheap labor, to me, is un-American.
But that is what many corporations and special interest groups are leaning toward doing. It is something that has been mounting for years.
But that is not the only problem. Every month, there are more serious crimes committed by illegals against Americans.
If you click on the link I listed on #125, you will be able to see direct proof of many of the serious crimes (all by legit newssources around the country- newpapers, ect.) committed by illegals against Americans in 2009 and 2010.
Those are just the ones we know about. Think how many more are out there.
If you are a victim who has been raped by an illegal, you would likely feel that one illegal is one too many. After all, illegals are not even supposed to be here.
If the govt. had done its jobs in protecting us from the illegals, there would be thousands of women who were not raped by illegals, thousands of Americans not murdered by illegals, ect.
So why isn't the govt. protecting us from illegals?
Why does the govt. want to give illegals citizenship?
The only answer I have is that the govt. simply wants to use us.
Some take the side of the illegals.
I take the side of Americans, because all I know is America.
But we must be courageous in these dark days. Because there is no one else but Americans to stop this. So many are up against us now.
The only thing saving America right now are the Republicans.
(except Bloomberg, who is similar to Bush in many ways)
Thank you dear God for the Republicans.
The Republicans are our last hope to save America.
Complain about this comment
132. At 09:32am on 24 Jun 2010, mrsdp wrote:
"...but for what its worth, I stand with Lucy. I can completely understand what she is trying to say and believe that the majority of you are beating her over the head for what is an opinion that a HUGE amount of people in the US and UK believe, ..."
____________
Mrs. DP:
Welcome.
The point is not that illegal immigration should be encouraged, but rather that the state has limited resources for dealing with all the demands it faces.
If you catch someone committing a serious offense, be it a violent crime or some other, and it turns out they are an illegal alien, then, of course, you are going to deport them. Fine. No disagreement there.
The issue is what priority should be given to addressing the problem of illegal immigration, and, consequently, what allocation of public money to enforce the law. Enormous demands are made upon our law enforcement agencies. But the police do not have infinite resources, and if they spend their entire budget chasing after illegal aliens they aren't going to be spending it on other things.
It does not help when irresponsible demagogues seeking political office try to whip public opinion into a frenzy, or knowingly try to take advantage of ignorance and prejudice by fanning the flames of intolerance. Immigration generally, and illegal immigration in particular are easy targets in that regard.
And when that happens, the chance of making well considered, thoughtful public policy decisions goes out the window.
Some of us are dedicated to the idea that rational men, thinking calmly, and discussing openly and respectfully are likely to come up with better and more considered policy options than a mob whipped into a fury by demagogues.
While lots of people find illegal immigration galling, it is neither as serious nor as urgent a problem as these demagogues would make it out to be, and the knee jerk solutions they propose would tend (a) to consume disproportionate allocations of public funds; and (b) to do the maximum possible damage to the American economy.
To several of us here that seems just plain dumb.
We think a better objective is to figure out what can be done to solve the problem in a constructive way that will yield the most benefit (or, conversely, the least harm) to America.
That's why, for two months and more, we have been telling Lucy to get a grip. But she doesn't seem to be able to see past the sensationalist nonsense in the gutter press, doesn't seem to be able to understand that she is being manipulated by demagogues, and doesn't seem to understand that there are a multitude of competing demands on the public purse, of which dealing with illegal immigration is just one.
Complain about this comment
Did anyone look at the link at #125?
Here, it is again.
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16660&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007
Those are just some of the serious crimes committed by illegals taken from newpapers like the Wash. Post.
At the bottom of the page, you can click on a link that tells you the crimes committed in 2004-2008.
Why won't our govt. protect us from the illegals?
Complain about this comment
Current immigration in perspective: Never Before Has Immigration from One Country Been so Massive
For those who argue that current immigration is nothing more than a continuation of our traditional admission of immigrants, the following will set the record straight. At no time in our history has there been an influx of illegal immigration like the country is experiencing today. The estimated 850,000 new illegal immigrant arrivals each year is about as large as the highest level of legal immigrant admissions in our history before the current mass immigration was unleashed by the 1965 Immigration Act, i.e., an average of 880,000 admissions per year from 1901-10. When illegal admissions are added to current legal admissions, today’s immigration level jumps to about 1,750,000 per year.
Those who suggest that the current influx of Mexicans is simply a repetition of other surges in our history such as from the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany or Italy should look at the facts. Mexican entries each year are running at about half a million per year (about 220,000 legal admissions and about 380,000 illegal entrants). A comparison of that wave of Mexican entries to the largest historical surges from European countries shows how the present influx is unlike any before it.
Ireland’s record decade for immigrants to the United States was 1841-50, the period of the ‘potato famine’ crisis, when the annual average was about 78,000 persons. The top of the scale for entries from the United Kingdom was from 1881-90 when annual admissions averaged less than 81,000 persons. That decade was also the peak entry for Germans, who came at an annual rate of about 105,000 persons. For Italy the country with the highest immigration in our history prior to the current wave of mass immigration the top decade for immigrants was during the “great wave” 1901-10 period when average Italian entries were less than 205,000 per year.
Immigration & U.S. Water Supply
Water shortages, which used to be limited to the dry western states, are now a problem throughout the U.S. Even regions that once seemed to have limitless supplies of water are facing shortages and have begun imposing seasonal water restrictions on residents.
In 2002, U.S. Geological Survey associate director Robert M. Hirsch reported that some parts of the country were depleting water that has been around since the Ice Age. He went on to predict that Southwest cities would face water crises in ten to 20 years. Now, six years later, water shortages are projected in 36 states by 2013. 1 Water shortages, it appears, will not be limited to the arid Southwest.
In addition to its impact on water supply, immigration-driven population growth also worsens water pollution. A recent EPA study reported that 44 percent of stream miles, 64 percent of lake acres, and 30 percent of bay and estuarine square miles are currently unacceptable for human uses such as fishing and swimming. Eighty-eight percent of costal beaches were found to be impaired.
In response to constantly increasing demand, ground water is being pumped faster than it is being replenished. Underground aquifers, the source of about 60 percent of the U.S.'s fresh water, are being steadily depleted. Meanwhile, surface water in lakes and rivers is endangered by our increasing population demands. A lack of affordable fresh water has led some towns to halt development; however, local solutions are inadequate to the nation-wide problem, which stems from our unsustainable immigration policies.
Immigration plays a key role in our growing water crisis because it is responsible for two-thirds of U.S. population growth.The 1.5 million immigrants who move to America each year place an ever-increasing burden on our national water supply. We should not fault recent immigrants for satisfying their water needs; however we must act in our nation’s interest by lowering immigration quotas to a level that is environmentally sustainable.
Around the United States
Cities
Even in the suburbs of notoriously wet Seattle, demand for water is outstripping supply. Even if all current conservation efforts work as expected, population growth means demand in the region will exceed supply by 5 percent in 2020.
Population growth has stimulated rapid development in Atlanta, which in turn is responsible for sending huge amounts of polluted runoff directly into streams and rivers. More than 1,000 stream miles in metropolitan Atlanta violate state water quality standards, largely due to storm water runoff.
The Chicago area is expected to suffer water shortfalls by 2020, by which time the area will have added 1.3 million residents.
Meanwhile in Las Vegas, a popular destination for recent immigrants, water authorities have begun paying residents $1.50 per square foot to replace their lawns with "desert landscaping." 5 With every newcomer demanding about 230 gallons of water per day from the already depleted supply, it seems inevitable that drought will continue so long as the population continue to grow.
States
In California, three years of drought have forced water authorities to cut Sierra-fed supplies to cities and irrigation districts by 85 percent. Tensions are high as urban centers outbid farmers for strictly rationed water.
Water is already a scarce resource in Texas and demand is expected to increase 27 percent by 2060, even as ground water and surface water sources dwindle. The Texas Water Development Board reports that lack of supply could cost the state economy $9.1 billion per year in 2010 and $98.4 billion per year by 2060."
Although Florida has hundreds of lakes and wetlands, sits atop enormous underground aquifers, and receives more than 50 inches of rainfall a year, it is facing serious water supply problems. The impending crisis is expemplified by Lake County, which expects domestic water demand to triple by 2030. District water managers conclude that projected increases will cause “unacceptable impacts” to over 9,000 acres of county wetlands and 3,000 acres of lakes.
In New Jersey, water authorities expect water use to rise nearly 80 percent by 2040.9 Meanwhile, 80 percent of the state’s rivers, lakes, and streams are already too polluted for fishing or swimming.10
Inter-state relations are also being strained by water shortages. In the case of Kansas v. Colorado. Kansas is suing Colorado for breach of the Arkansas River Compact of 1943, which regulates Arkansas River water rights. The lawsuit arose in the 1980’s after farmers in western Kansas alleged that Colorado was taking too much water, thus depleting their reservoirs. Twenty-five years later the two states are no closer to a resolution.
Great Lakes
Not even the Great Lakes are immune from water shortages. Water levels in Lake Michigan and Lake Huron could drop by five feet over the next century, according to a recent United Nations study. Much of the Great Lakes shoreline already suffers from contamination, and the proportion will increase as water volume falls. Cold-water fish species such as lake trout and salmon are expected to decline in correlation with decreasing water levels and increasing temperatures.
Complain about this comment
Why won't our govt. protect us from the illegals?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because your government is made up of people whose ancestors came to the land illegally...when the native americans get the opportunity to govern you and if they dont protect themselves from the illegals than you can ask this question..
Complain about this comment
The only grip I have is Aerosmith's Get a Grip. Love Aerosmith.
Why should being in a country illegally be grounds for citizenship?
Why won't our govt. protect us from the illegals?
Complain about this comment
In California, three years of drought have forced water authorities to cut Sierra-fed supplies to cities and irrigation districts by 85 percent. Tensions are high as urban centers outbid farmers for strictly rationed water.
Water is already a scarce resource in Texas and demand is expected to increase 27 percent by 2060, even as ground water and surface water sources dwindle. The Texas Water Development Board reports that lack of supply could cost the state economy $9.1 billion per year in 2010 and $98.4 billion per year by 2060."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And your point is what? that illegals consume more water than the early settlers? This explains why general petraeus fainted in the press conference...they actually drink less water...I thought it was some sort of a funny news that people were making fun when he fainted..
Complain about this comment
It is kind of funny, too, that there are some Iranians that love the USA. I have also seen a documentary how Iranians enjoy watching tv on satellite, they sometimes get satellites taken away from them and then they just buy more. Also, I have heard that many Iranians have had facial plastic surgery, especially nose jobs, likely because the rest of their bodies are covered up. It is strange that pets like dogs and cats are banned in households in Iran. I cannot imagine life without animals.
My point is that if the illegals are not deported, then in the future the stats listed above show that we likely will run out of resources much faster, including drinking water.
It is disheartening that the Obama Admin. and Mexico are suing Arizona.
It is also disheartening that Hillary told Equador that Obama Admin. was going to sue Arizona before telling the USA.
Now the state of California is talking about a resolution against the state of Arizona.
This could all be leading up to a Cultural or Civil War.
Complain about this comment
131. At 11:44pm on 23 Jun 2010, Aaron wrote:
At (129) colonelartists
["Face it lucy your contempt and hysteria against the illegals is due to unemployment, and not because the fact that they are illegals...and if you go beneath these superficial connection that you posted you will see that
"illegals actually take up jobs which your legals would never take..."
Well Said!]
The riposte is not entirely true. There is, perhaps a touch of hysteria, but as someone once said, "a paranoid may have real enemies."
It is not true that illegals and some legally visa-holding immigrants only take jobs that Americans dont want.
1. Personal knowledge: my uncle and cousins used to make a living from home repair and roofing. They can't compete with the illegals who have depressed wages in this field.
2. In the news: software companies bring in much cheaper programmers from Asia, reducing the wages in the field below acceptable limits [of western people, at least]. They then rub salt in the wounds by requiring the US personnel to train up their replacements.
3. Breaking the law is, by definition, criminal. This includes breaking the laws regarding immigration and residence. Yet people who use the word "criminal," or who want criminals arrested and punnished are often accused of racism [So criminal is a race?]. In addition to which, there are not a few illegal immigrants who break other laws as well.
And the hysteria on the other [PC] side is equally bad. Anyone who sees and objects to 1 & 2 is caled a racist, a fascist, etc., etc. There really are bigots and racists, but not everyone who sees these things is motivated by racism, facism, or other negative factors. Freud once said, albeit in a different context, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
In this context, sometimes a criminal is just a criminal.
Complain about this comment
There really are bigots and racists, but not everyone who sees these things is motivated by racism, facism, or other negative factors. Freud once said, albeit in a different context, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
In this context, sometimes a criminal is just a criminal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And when freud said that he was actually smoking a cigar, not watching others who were smoking...More crimes commited by the illegelites than the illgals....when non racists, non facists start arguing in the same way as racists or facists then they are actually supporting which they claim not to support...
Complain about this comment
USA and Mexico are on a collision course.
Complain about this comment
Didn't everyone have a 'sweet beginning' with the US President? Based on high hopes. We know that Sarkozy was, and still is, disappointed. It follows that Cameron, amongst others, would be too.
I'm not sure how much credibility Gordon Brown ever had. With his other non-attributes, anyone who had the uninspired idea of promoting Catherine Ashton as EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security, (instead of continuing to defend Blair) can't be a person endowed with genial, visionary qualities in any case.
Obama's ideas to kick start the US economy are made out of fear of any social reaction against necessary austere measures. But naturally he is still supporting the public sector more than the private sector. There are times when in principle one should ease up on the latter, to give more, real support to the former, the real creators of jobs and wealth.
http://mirino-viewfinder.blogspot.com/2009/11/high-hopes-for-europe.html
Complain about this comment
Obvious error last post-
'There are times when in principle one should ease up on the former, to give more support to the latter (...).
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS