Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[ruchir]

1. Many of us say that the market apparently takes care of everything. That is not true. All able bodied people are not able to find work all the time. We have, even in the US, a consistent unemployment rate. People are often laid off and jobs are shifted overseas. What should the unemployed do without social security? Sell drugs instead of buying them?

Again, sir, you are completely misreading why social security was set up in the first place. It was setup so that americans could have a steady flow of income after they retired. Retired being the key word. Social security is different from social welfare and you are mixing them. Okay, so the jobs are shifted overseas and the person becomes unemployed. So? He should immediately go on unemployment allowance? Here is a skilled guy, who has better chance of finding work than others, and you want him to go on unemployment allowance? Why no force him to find a job, any kind of job!!! For godness sake, if skilled people start going on unemployment allowance, then where will this country lead to? Can't this guy work as a janitor and earn a living? Do you think taking unemployment allowance is better than working as a janitor? I am not talking base don myths, you are, when you say that not all able bodied people will find work. Pray tell me, how do these illegal mexicans find the jobs? So, if a person is unemployed, don't you think he will be forced to accept these jobs that the illegals do? I mean, getting some money is definetly better than getting none, right? It is not a myth that there is no job for every american. If this was really a myth, US would not need to bring people from outside. The truth is that getting free money from govt has made many americans very very lazy. They feel that they are entitled to money just because they exist in this world.

2. Is there a study that says that social welfare directly increases teenage pregnancy? If so, could you refer me to it? I ask because you say that you 'guarantee' that teenage pregnancy will stop if welfare is stopped. Society, as Pfsr correctly pointed out, is a much more complex phenomenon.

Yes, there is a study. I don't know how to find it on internet but I have seen more than half a dozen TV programs on nearly all popular news channels. Every program links teen pregnancies to the money dolled out the govt for non-working mothers of infants. Listen to Bill Cosby on this issue.

3. If citizenship is not accorded by birth, how else should it be accorded? This is potentially an explosive situation because if one leaves it to discretions of 'certain' people, they might exploit that privilege to discriminate in terms of race and other issues.

What the hell are you talking about? Who says citizenship is not accorded by birth? Of course, it is accorded by birth. BUT, it should be accorded by birth only if BOTH parents are legal residents also. Mind here, I don't say parents have to be citizens. I say parents have to be legal residents. If they are not, this means they are criminals and don't belong in this country. Since a child can not be taken aways from the parents, the child has to leave the country with parents. It is not at all left to the discretion of ANYONE to decide anything. As long as both parents are legal resident, child of any race, creed or color will become the citizen.

4. Once again anecdotal. I wonder how you can talk about the American Health Care system as a whole (the problems therein are just way way too many) simply by saying that illegal immigrants fill up emergency rooms all the time? If I say that I have never seen a single unauthorized alien in emergency rooms my ten years here, will that make my point more justified than yours?

It will tell me that you have never gone to a ER at all, in 10 years. I will simply refuse to believe that. I have been to ER a few times, because of my son, and I know very what I see there. There is absolutely nothing anecdotal about it. Again, I will request you to watch news and analysis programs on TV, where there are debates on such issues.

[RicePlateReddy]

2. Is there a study that says that social welfare directly increases teenage pregnancy? If so, could you refer me to it? I ask because you say that you 'guarantee' that teenage pregnancy will stop if welfare is stopped. Society, as Pfsr correctly pointed out, is a much more complex phenomenon.

Yes, there is a study. I don't know how to find it on internet but I have seen more than half a dozen TV programs on nearly all popular news channels. Every program links teen pregnancies to the money dolled out the govt for non-working mothers of infants. Listen to Bill Cosby on this issue.

CLR is correct. There is no clear correlation at all. You have got to do better than quote Cosby or some TV program. If there is a strong correlation, there would have to be a credible article readily available to quote Also, do you know how much welfare pays? It is far from comfortable and if you think people get more babies to get more money, I am sure it is happening but likely, it is a tiny percentage that abuse it this way. Isn't it much easier to see the correlation between being poor and disadvantaged and having more kids that plays out repeatedly the world over?

4. Once again anecdotal. I wonder how you can talk about the American Health Care system as a whole (the problems therein are just way way too many) simply by saying that illegal immigrants fill up emergency rooms all the time? If I say that I have never seen a single unauthorized alien in emergency rooms my ten years here, will that make my point more justified than yours?

It will tell me that you have never gone to a ER at all, in 10 years. I will simply refuse to believe that. I have been to ER a few times, because of my son, and I know very what I see there. There is absolutely nothing anecdotal about it. Again, I will request you to watch news and analysis programs on TV, where there are debates on such issues.

That is a somewhat random generalization Ruchir. I have been to an emergency room several times too and never seen any obviously illegal aliens (sometimes, I was the only non white there). It really depends on where you have been to emergency rooms, no? In southern California, or in certain cities in Texas your hypothesis will be true most of the time. I won't profess an opinion about NY.

Also, your general stance against illegal aliens is too one sided. I hear you, and see the mockery of legal immigration -- the route many of us have honestly pursued; I personally feel the pain too. But let us also accept that a bulk of the illegal population work extremely hard on jobs no American would touch. Our garbages will never be cleared, our sewer system will not function, and our fruit and vegetable pickers will not be easy to come by if all illegal aliens are suddenly restricted. The cost of home repairs will soar too. We can't have our cake and eat it too. Personally, I think the best system is a worker visa system similar to our very prized H-1 for these people who fill a vital cog in the day to day economy.

[ruchir]

2. Is there a study that says that social welfare directly increases teenage pregnancy? If so, could you refer me to it? I ask because you say that you 'guarantee' that teenage pregnancy will stop if welfare is stopped. Society, as Pfsr correctly pointed out, is a much more complex phenomenon.

Yes, there is a study. I don't know how to find it on internet but I have seen more than half a dozen TV programs on nearly all popular news channels. Every program links teen pregnancies to the money dolled out the govt for non-working mothers of infants. Listen to Bill Cosby on this issue.

CLR is correct. There is no clear correlation at all. You have got to do better than quote Cosby or some TV program. If there is a strong correlation, there would have to be a credible article readily available to quote Also, do you know how much welfare pays? It is far from comfortable and if you think people get more babies to get more money, I am sure it is happening but it is a tiny percentage that abuse it this way. Isn't it much easier to see the correlation between being poor and disadvantaged and having more kids that plays out repeatedly the world over?

I can quickly quote one stat. I hope you will agree that biggest recipient of social welfare money is blacks and latinos. Now listen to this. Per census bureau, blacks and latinos also lead the nation in teen pregnancies, children out of wedlock, single parents. In fact, Latinos are# 1 (78%) and blacks # 2 (65%). What does this tell you? I will try to find something on internet too.

4. Once again anecdotal. I wonder how you can talk about the American Health Care system as a whole (the problems therein are just way way too many) simply by saying that illegal immigrants fill up emergency rooms all the time? If I say that I have never seen a single unauthorized alien in emergency rooms my ten years here, will that make my point more justified than yours?

It will tell me that you have never gone to a ER at all, in 10 years. I will simply refuse to believe that. I have been to ER a few times, because of my son, and I know very what I see there. There is absolutely nothing anecdotal about it. Again, I will request you to watch news and analysis programs on TV, where there are debates on such issues.

That is a random assertion Ruchir. I have been to an emergency room several times too and never seen any obviously illegal aliens (sometimes, I was the only non white there). It really depends on where you have been to emergency rooms, no? In southern California, or in certain cities in Texas your hypothesis will be true most of the time. I won't profess an opinion about NY.

Also, your general stance against illegal aliens is too one sided. I hear you, and see the mockery of legal immigration -- the route many of us have honestly pursued; I personally feel the pain too. But let us also accept that a bulk of the illegal population work extremely hard on jobs no American would touch. Our garbages will never be cleared, our sewer system will not function, and our fruit and vegetable pickers will not be easy to come by if all illegal aliens are suddenly restricted. The cost of home repairs will soar too. We can't have our cake and eat it too. Personally, I think the best system is a worker visa system similar to our very prized H-1 for these people who fill a vital cog in the day to day economy.[/quote]

Another figure I will quote from Census bureau. 27% of prison population in federal and state prisons across USA is only and only illegal aliens, mainly mexicans. So, I don't believe it for a second that most illegal aliens come here to work hard. Sorry, I don't share that sentiment, that is proudly propagated by Democrats and those businesses that hire them. I completely agree with you that there should be a visa system for them too. But it doesn't mean that until such a system comes into being, they should be allowed to enter USA. I don't agree for even a milli-second that there exist jobs in USA that american won't do. So tell me this, before the influx of mexicans started, who was doing these jobs? Or are you saying that such job (whatever they are) did not exist? NO, That is not the case. Americans became lazy by taking social welfare money. Businesses started hiring these illegals because they were charging half the money. Current situation is a net result of all such happenings.

Watch a TV program on Discovery channel - Dirtiest jobs in the world. It is a US based program, that busts the myth that there exist job in USA that americans won't do.

All in all, the dangers and problems of having illegal aliens in USA far outweigh the benefits of having them. That's my opinion.

[CLR James]

Ruchir,

I meant a net of social security in the general sense and not the specific program. Anyway, here is why I support welfare as well as illegal immigration.

1. Welfare 'doles', as KOP pointed out, are too meagre even for subsistence living. In its absence, people are much more prone to turn to crime (which sometimes pays) than to starve to death. Think about empires like that of Al Capone during the depression era. Why did the golden age of the mafia end with Roosevelt's new deal and postwar prosperity? Besides, things like universal healthcare, a decent minimum wage and social safety nets allow a population bargaining power in terms of wages. Bargaining power is important. Why should corporations do all the bargaining, with city as well as national governments? If multi-nationals can extract securities and guarantees from national governments before making investments, why can't a given people be able to argue for fair wages without the fear of starving to death? In a society without safety nets, the process of negotiation between employer and employee becomes a one way street. Do you want that? That is, in a society in which CEOs continue to fatten their salaries to absurd proportions while the common worker languishes.  In the last twenty five years, average CEO salary increased by 500 percent, from 108 to 647 K (both adjusted for inflation), while the pay of the average worker increased by 662 dollars! Is that social justice by any measure? When US Airways filed chapter 11 a few years back, the heads and managers firesold the company and gave themselves severance packages so big that there was nothing left, absolutely nothing for the workers. Even their retirement funds were stolen. I am sure this can be justified by some management logic, but here we are in a situation where managers set the logic and render unto themselves.

2. Do you think the American system can survive without Welfare and healthcare? The answer is yes, as long as other governments are paying for it. So republican hawks in Washington block universal healthcare, but General Motors shifts a million odd jobs to Canada. Why? To take advantage of universal health care of course!

3. I, like many social scientists of this era, believe that if capital can be global, labor should be allowed to be global too. Once again, it is a question of justice. If Walmart can enter a poor country and send an ordinary grocer there out of business, why can't he be allowed to sell hotdogs at that Yankee Stadium? If Ford can outsource jobs to cuts down on wages, why can't an out of work car mechanic at Detroit fairly compete for jobs in Shanghai if he so chooses? I see double standards here: we seem to be virulent nationalists when it comes to labor populations but strong internationalists when it comes to big money corporations. What I am saying is nothing new. It was a pretty ordinary fact of life even a couple of hundred years ago. America was founded on that principle! Chris Columbus did not have a visa, nor did the voyagers on the Mayflower. They came here to seek a better life and escape feudal oppression and unemployment resulting from the enclosures in England and Europe. So why do we suddenly build walls around the city on the hill? To keep labor captive within national limits so that their bargaining power is less. You seem to be pretty hung up on merit. Well, it is this system that allows Multinational Companies to pay the greatest ever car mechanic in Canton (like the Mike Jordan of all car mechanics) peanuts (even if you adjust for living standards) compared to the worst one in Seattle. If markets have to be free, so should labor. This is why I support immigration. Human beings, for the very reasons stated above, have done it for thousands of years to escape drought, poverty, political oppression and to search for better opportunities. Why can't it happen now?

4. I find the whole thing about illegal immigrants and ERs a frightful generalization that is potentially racist. I find it disturbing that you use such a broad brush to paint an entire population. Let me quote you:

all illegals use the ERs for any kind of medical need. On top of that, they don't pay the bills.

. I just find it difficult to believe that for poor people, for whom losing a single day or hour of work brings crises, would use the ER as a luxury or hang out place. Obviously they go there because they cannot find treatment elsewhere. But what do you want them to do? Go without treatment? If you say they should go back, I disagree for reasons stated above. They are behaving like all immigrants do: innovatively take advantage of every loophole to survive. The Kennedy family from Ireland sold illegal booze. Mexican girls are (as you say) getting pregnant and carrying on in the same glorious American tradition.

5. Lastly, I do not see teenage pregnancy as a moral issue. It is a health concern, but I am not for changing broader laws and broader freedoms to rectify it. I am not for coercing people, directly or indirectly, to alter their sex lives or their moral beings. I call your stance moral because you are taking it to the point where it inevitably becomes moral. Anyway, while we are at it, I think more of your tax dollars and mine should be spent on same sex benefits in workplaces. They are a group of people almost guranteed never to get pregnant.

Cheers,

CLR

[RicePlateReddy]

Great points CLR. And it is impossible to pigeonhole your views as either Dem. or Repub as a whole.

I am so glad you brought up point 1. The CEO compensation is as reprehensible as Telgi's stamp paper scam, but because it is done with a weighted voting system it is deemed as the capitalistic way and even the "American way". You must have read that United Airlines CEO was hugely praised by Wall Street for proposing a new revenue generation scheme. Pay a fee if you don't want your bags to come out last in line at the baggage carousel!

[keep-it-cool]

Dividends should NOT be taxed. I am a shareholder (part owner) of a company - the dividend is  my share of this company's profit. The company's profit has already been taxed once. Why should it be taxed again when it is distributed?

No reason why capital gains on any asset should not be taxed.

Well, I have Warren Buffet as company in disagreeing. The snippet below is because of the low long term capital gains tax:


Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to avoid paying higher taxes. "I don't have a tax shelter," he said. And he challenged Congress and his audience to see what the people who "clean our offices" are taxed, to loud applause.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html

a) I have not said that capital gains should not be taxed. Short term / speculative gains should be .. long term gains should not be.

b) Warren Buffet is a great stock picker. Here, I do not know whether he is making a case for taxing long term capital gains at a higher rate or bringing down the rate of tax on salaried income. I am in favour of the latter ... not for the former.

c) I maintain dividends should NOT be taxed. Buffet is silent on this aspect.

Lets take a simple example - of Buffet's secretary who currently earns US$60,000 (assumption) per annum. She gets taxed at 30% - i.e. pays US$18,000.

Now, a very hypothetical example - she decides to branch out on her own, forms a company (Secretary Inc) and offers secretarial support to the likes of Buffet. In the first year, she is the only employee of her company and Buffet is the only customer.

She continues to provide the same service to Buffet as she did in the previous year. Buffet pays her the same amount as she got paid the previous year (assume zero inflation) - no reason why a service should cost more if it is provided by an individual or by a corporate.

In the first year of operations, Secretary Inc (which belongs 100% to Buffet's ex-secretary) has a revenue of US$60,000. Let us say the ex-secretary takes US$45,000 as salary and that are no other expenses. That leaves a profit of US$15,000 in the corporate entity (Secretary Inc).

So, far what she has earned remains the same - only thing is that this has now been split - US$45,000 as salary and US$15,000 as profit in the company where she is the sole owner.

Now, onto the taxation bit

- Last year, she paid US$18,000 as income tax ... net take home of US$42,000.
- This year, she has a salary income of US$45,000 - she pays 30% income tax (US$13,500)
- Secretary Inc (which belongs entirely to her) has a profit of US$15,000 - pays 30% income tax (US$4,500)
- So far so good ... the tax outgo is the same - US$18,000 in both years for the same US$60,000 of income.
- Now, Secretary Inc pays out the post tax profit (US$11,500) to her as dividend .. after all, it belongs to her and there is no fresh investment required. This is again taxed (say at 30%) ... so, she pays out another US$3,450 as tax.

Net net, she used to take home US$42,000 post tax earlier ... now she has a take home of US$41,550 - just because the structure has changed!!

However great a stock picker Buffet may be, I just dont see why this is right.

Now, let us say that she is fed up with these taxes ... hence, decides against taking any dividend and sells out the company to someone else. She had a zero investment when she began the business. Whoever buys will have to pay at least US$11,500 - this being the accumulated cash/profit that now lies in the company. So, capital gains in the hands of Buffet's ex-secretary is now US$11,500 - which will again be taxed!!

Again, nothing has changed .. she was a secretary .. tried to set up a company .. did the same thing and earned the same gross income for a year ... now decides to sell it off without taking anything more from the prospective buyer than what she has generated post tax. But, she has to pay more tax!! WHY???

[LosingNow]

Dividends should NOT be taxed. I am a shareholder (part owner) of a company - the dividend is  my share of this company's profit. The company's profit has already been taxed once. Why should it be taxed again when it is distributed?

No reason why capital gains on any asset should not be taxed.

Well, I have Warren Buffet as company in disagreeing. The snippet below is because of the low long term capital gains tax:


Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to avoid paying higher taxes. "I don't have a tax shelter," he said. And he challenged Congress and his audience to see what the people who "clean our offices" are taxed, to loud applause.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html

a) I have not said that capital gains should not be taxed. Short term / speculative gains should be .. long term gains should not be.

b) Warren Buffet is a great stock picker. Here, I do not know whether he is making a case for taxing long term capital gains at a higher rate or bringing down the rate of tax on salaried income. I am in favour of the latter ... not for the former.

c) I maintain dividends should NOT be taxed. Buffet is silent on this aspect.

Lets take a simple example - of Buffet's secretary who currently earns US$60,000 (assumption) per annum. She gets taxed at 30% - i.e. pays US$18,000.

Now, a very hypothetical example - she decides to branch out on her own, forms a company (Secretary Inc) and offers secretarial support to the likes of Buffet. In the first year, she is the only employee of her company and Buffet is the only customer.

She continues to provide the same service to Buffet as she did in the previous year. Buffet pays her the same amount as she got paid the previous year (assume zero inflation) - no reason why a service should cost more if it is provided by an individual or by a corporate.

In the first year of operations, Secretary Inc (which belongs 100% to Buffet's ex-secretary) has a revenue of US$60,000. Let us say the ex-secretary takes US$45,000 as salary and that are no other expenses. That leaves a profit of US$15,000 in the corporate entity (Secretary Inc).

So, far what she has earned remains the same - only thing is that this has now been split - US$45,000 as salary and US$15,000 as profit in the company where she is the sole owner.

Now, onto the taxation bit

- Last year, she paid US$18,000 as income tax ... net take home of US$42,000.
- This year, she has a salary income of US$45,000 - she pays 30% income tax (US$13,500)
- Secretary Inc (which belongs entirely to her) has a profit of US$15,000 - pays 30% income tax (US$4,500)
- So far so good ... the tax outgo is the same - US$18,000 in both years for the same US$60,000 of income.
- Now, Secretary Inc pays out the post tax profit (US$11,500) to her as dividend .. after all, it belongs to her and there is no fresh investment required. This is again taxed (say at 30%) ... so, she pays out another US$3,450 as tax.

Net net, she used to take home US$42,000 post tax earlier ... now she has a take home of US$41,550 - just because the structure has changed!!

However great a stock picker Buffet may be, I just dont see why this is right.

Now, let us say that she is fed up with these taxes ... hence, decides against taking any dividend and sells out the company to someone else. She had a zero investment when she began the business. Whoever buys will have to pay at least US$11,500 - this being the accumulated cash/profit that now lies in the company. So, capital gains in the hands of Buffet's ex-secretary is now US$11,500 - which will again be taxed!!

Again, nothing has changed .. she was a secretary .. tried to set up a company .. did the same thing and earned the same gross income for a year ... now decides to sell it off without taking anything more from the prospective buyer than what she has generated post tax. But, she has to pay more tax!! WHY???

 
-
The reason is simple .. now she is a business-owner.. and therefore, "rich".. hence she should be taxed more, for the sake of progressiveness

The small to medium businesses, the corner stores, the 5-6 employee companies are the ones that keep this economy vibrant and dynamic...and are the engines of growth.

[ruchir]

My apologies for my language in earlier comments. That was my frustration getting better of me.

[ruchir]

CLR --

Our discussion should have ended right here, when you said you support illegal immigration. I suppose you also support illegal immigration of Bangladeshis in Bengal, Assam etc. too. Right? Do you know how badly lower class of Bengal, Assam, Mizoram, Tripura, Bihar has been affected by these illegal bangladeshis? Mind you, it is not the middle class that is affected, it is the lower class that is getting destroyed. Religious demography of these states is changing fast. But I guess you don't care about that. You just want to be compassionate to everyone, because everyone deserves free money and free movement. Who cares if they end up blowing people to pieces.

1. Welfare 'doles', as KOP pointed out, are too meagre even for subsistence living. In its absence, people are much more prone to turn to crime (which sometimes pays) than to starve to death. Think about empires like that of Al Capone during the depression era. Why did the golden age of the mafia end with Roosevelt's new deal and postwar prosperity? Besides, things like universal healthcare, a decent minimum wage and social safety nets allow a population bargaining power in terms of wages. Bargaining power is important. Why should corporations do all the bargaining, with city as well as national governments? If multi-nationals can extract securities and guarantees from national governments before making investments, why can't a given people be able to argue for fair wages without the fear of starving to death? In a society without safety nets, the process of negotiation between employer and employee becomes a one way street. Do you want that? That is, in a society in which CEOs continue to fatten their salaries to absurd proportions while the common worker languishes.  In the last twenty five years, average CEO salary increased by 500 percent, from 108 to 647 K (both adjusted for inflation), while the pay of the average worker increased by 662 dollars! Is that social justice by any measure? When US Airways filed chapter 11 a few years back, the heads and managers firesold the company and gave themselves severance packages so big that there was nothing left, absolutely nothing for the workers. Even their retirement funds were stolen. I am sure this can be justified by some management logic, but here we are in a situation where managers set the logic and render unto themselves.

See, this is what I don't understand. Why should a person get bargaining power from the govt.? You are creating a situation where people would rather sit at home, do nothing, and get free money; rather than going out and work. And who says the business will have the bargaining power? Govt. has already set the minimum wages, and per you the social welfare money is less than that. So, it is monetarily beneficial to work rather than get welfare money.

It is easy to talk about universal healthcare without talking about the quality of healthcare people will get. Till today, no US politician has been able to describe how universal healthcare will be funded. What are you going to do? Increase taxes even more? With all the illegals flooding this country, cost of healthcare has already gone up by 50%. Now you want to give universal healthcare (read free) to everyone, which will include those illegals too?

So, management cheats the funds of its employees. In retaliation, you want to gift free money to everyone? Is that sanity? Catch those guys who stole retirement funds and put them behind bars for life. Because people cheat doesn't mean you make the whole america lazy by donating free money and free healthcare. Again, I repeat, I am not against social welfare, but it should be only for deserving, like minors, handicapped, elderly. They deserve social welfare money. Able bodied don't deserve social welfare. It is because of this, US is fast becoming a country of lazy, drugged bums. Why do you think education is falling? Why do you think US needs people from outside to work? Why do you think illegal immigration exists? It is because people get free money and don't make any effort make use of their lives. They think that they are entitled to get money just because they are alive, because they exist. Well, in my book they don't deserve anything until they work for it.

2. Do you think the American system can survive without Welfare and healthcare? The answer is yes, as long as other governments are paying for it. So republican hawks in Washington block universal healthcare, but General Motors shifts a million odd jobs to Canada. Why? To take advantage of universal health care of course!

Yes, US can survive if welfare is used the way it is supposed to be used. Stop giving welfare to everyone and see how people line up for jobs. US jobs shift outside mainly because of wages. Companies like GM entered into some horrible deals with Unions, that they are now trying to get out of. They shift jobs outside so that they don't have to deal with unions here. That is the main reason, not healthcare (it's cost is one reason and that is mainly due to illegal immigration).

By the way, do you have any knowledge of how the so-called universal healthcare of Canada works? My aunt lives there, for past 20+ years. I know very well, how long you have to wait for doctors. I know very well that if you have money there, you don't get operated in Canada, you come to US to get operated. Pray, tell me why is that so?

3. I, like many social scientists of this era, believe that if capital can be global, labor should be allowed to be global too. Once again, it is a question of justice. If Walmart can enter a poor country and send an ordinary grocer there out of business, why can't he be allowed to sell hotdogs at that Yankee Stadium? If Ford can outsource jobs to cuts down on wages, why can't an out of work car mechanic at Detroit fairly compete for jobs in Shanghai if he so chooses? I see double standards here: we seem to be virulent nationalists when it comes to labor populations but strong internationalists when it comes to big money corporations. What I am saying is nothing new. It was a pretty ordinary fact of life even a couple of hundred years ago. America was founded on that principle! Chris Columbus did not have a visa, nor did the voyagers on the Mayflower. They came here to seek a better life and escape feudal oppression and unemployment resulting from the enclosures in England and Europe. So why do we suddenly build walls around the city on the hill? To keep labor captive within national limits so that their bargaining power is less. You seem to be pretty hung up on merit. Well, it is this system that allows Multinational Companies to pay the greatest ever car mechanic in Canton (like the Mike Jordan of all car mechanics) peanuts (even if you adjust for living standards) compared to the worst one in Seattle. If markets have to be free, so should labor. This is why I support immigration. Human beings, for the very reasons stated above, have done it for thousands of years to escape drought, poverty, political oppression and to search for better opportunities. Why can't it happen now?

One word answer why labor can never ever move freely. National Security. Money doesn't kill, people do. I have said this before. Sure, a grocer from India can come to Yankee stadium to sell hot dogs. He just needs to clear immigration check first. Same for a US mechanic going to China. So, Walmart runs a local grocer out of business and you hop made at Walmart because of that. Right? What about millions of IT jobs going to India and many people in US losing their jobs because of it?

See, suddenly you go from 21st century to 17th century. From today, to Chris Columbus. In the time of Columbus Islamic terrorism did not exist. In 21st century, every country is governed by a set of laws. If you want the 17th century rule in todays world, then you better accept death by stoning and Sati. In today's world every country looks out for itself, and tries to get a deal that is in it's benefit. So, US tries to hawk Walmart to India and India tries to hawk IT solutions to US. It is always give and take.

4. I find the whole thing about illegal immigrants and ERs a frightful generalization that is potentially racist. I find it disturbing that you use such a broad brush to paint an entire population. Let me quote you:

all illegals use the ERs for any kind of medical need. On top of that, they don't pay the bills.

. I just find it difficult to believe that for poor people, for whom losing a single day or hour of work brings crises, would use the ER as a luxury or hang out place. Obviously they go there because they cannot find treatment elsewhere. But what do you want them to do? Go without treatment? If you say they should go back, I disagree for reasons stated above. They are behaving like all immigrants do: innovatively take advantage of every loophole to survive. The Kennedy family from Ireland sold illegal booze. Mexican girls are (as you say) getting pregnant and carrying on in the same glorious American tradition.

If you want to call it racist, so be it. I will not apologize for that. And you are again misreading what I am saying. These very same poor people, who live on day-to-day basis, don't have the money to pay the ER bills. That's why they don't pay. I never said they use ERs to hang out. That's you thought, your mentality, your idea. Don't put it in my mouth. Heck, I want them to go back to their country and get treatment.

US is not a donation country where everyone, who is anyone, can come in with all their diseases and get free treatment. Sorry, I don't support that. Public hospitals run on my money and I don't want them to be spending even one second on criminals. Anyone who enters US illegally is a criminal. Criminals only belong in jails. If they are sick, they get treatment in jails. That's what I think.

As an aside, do you know how many diseases have popped up in US of late, that were thought to be eradicated? Diseases like Polio!!! These disease are rampant in a country called Mexico, from where most illegals come. Anyone who enters legally goes through a medical check. So now imagine the cost US is paying for illegal immigration -- advent of eradicated diseases and virus with strains never seen before in US.

I know they are taking advantage of the loopholes. That's why I want to block every loophole. BTW, there is no loophole they use to enter illegally. US constitution says that entry without documentation is illegal. As soon as they enter US illegally, they become criminals and lose all their rights except right to a lawyer. That's it.

5. Lastly, I do not see teenage pregnancy as a moral issue. It is a health concern, but I am not for changing broader laws and broader freedoms to rectify it. I am not for coercing people, directly or indirectly, to alter their sex lives or their moral beings. I call your stance moral because you are taking it to the point where it inevitably becomes moral. Anyway, while we are at it, I think more of your tax dollars and mine should be spent on same sex benefits in workplaces. They are a group of people almost guranteed never to get pregnant.

It seems nothing is a moral issue with you. You consider teen pregnancy as a health concern!?

You think any govt should actually reward a teen getting pregnant by giving her money to take care of the child? Well, I feel a govt should make laws that enhance better living in society. There are laws against spitting, but to you that might look like a moral issue too, right? How can you control a person's spitting behavior, is what you will say.

Do you know that sex with a minor is considered statutory rape in USA? So, if a 15, 16 year old willingly gets pregnant, per US laws she has been raped. Now, by giving her money, govt is actually rewarding her for hiding the identity of the rapist. If it was in my hands, I would first make her tell me who the father was, then do DNA testing to confirm the guy was the father and then put him in jail for statutory rape and give the girl welfare money. Then you see how quickly teen pregnancies would vanish from USA. And I would be doing so by fully applying existing laws, without changing anything in any law. Would you agree to that, or it would still be a moral issue with you?

[feverpitch]

Dear Ruchir,

Sorry to jump in, but your arguments [not you] are irresistible. 

There is a saying in Bengali that a recent convert to Islam eats onions twice a day. You seem to be suffering from the same affliction of the desi arriviste neo convert. Luckily you are not alone. You are in the good company of millions of Mexicans, Cubans, desis etc who offer their prayers religiously 5 times a day.

Our discussion should have ended right here, when you said you support illegal immigration. I suppose you also support illegal immigration of Bangladeshis in Bengal, Assam etc. too. Right? Do you know how badly lower class of Bengal, Assam, Mizoram, Tripura, Bihar has been affected by these illegal bangladeshis? Mind you, it is not the middle class that is affected, it is the lower class that is getting destroyed. Religious demography of these states is changing fast. But I guess you don't care about that. You just want to be compassionate to everyone, because everyone deserves free money and free movement. Who cares if they end up blowing people to pieces.

Well, you seem to know a lot. Why don't you enlighten us?

See, this is what I don't understand. Why should a person get bargaining power from the govt.?

Why would a bankrupt corporation expect, and always be bailed out by the government for, of and by the people?

You are creating a situation where people would rather sit at home, do nothing, and get free money; rather than going out and work. And who says the business will have the bargaining power? Govt. has already set the minimum wages, and per you the social welfare money is less than that. So, it is monetarily beneficial to work rather than get welfare money.

How many head honchos of big corporations were consulted before the minimum wage was decided? How many workers were consulted?

It is easy to talk about universal healthcare without talking about the quality of healthcare people will get. Till today, no US politician has been able to describe how universal healthcare will be funded. What are you going to do? Increase taxes even more? With all the illegals flooding this country, cost of healthcare has already gone up by 50%. Now you want to give universal healthcare (read free) to everyone, which will include those illegals too?

Are you a believer in eugenics?

So, management cheats the funds of its employees. In retaliation, you want to gift free money to everyone?

It's a govt of, for and by the people, remember?

Is that sanity? Catch those guys who stole retirement funds and put them behind bars for life. Because people cheat doesn't mean you make the whole america lazy by donating free money and free healthcare.

You are such a true patriot in the cause of America. How many stars and stripes do you have covering your body?

Why don't you for a change suggest how to catch these robber barons?

Again, I repeat, I am not against social welfare, but it should be only for deserving, like minors, handicapped, elderly. They deserve social welfare money. Able bodied don't deserve social welfare. It is because of this, US is fast becoming a country of lazy, drugged bums. Why do you think education is falling? Why do you think US needs people from outside to work? Why do you think illegal immigration exists? It is because people get free money and don't make any effort make use of their lives. They think that they are entitled to get money just because they are alive, because they exist. Well, in my book they don't deserve anything until they work for it.

Your Protestant ethic shines brightest!

Yes, US can survive if welfare is used the way it is supposed to be used. Stop giving welfare to everyone and see how people line up for jobs. US jobs shift outside mainly because of wages. Companies like GM entered into some horrible deals with Unions, that they are now trying to get out of. They shift jobs outside so that they don't have to deal with unions here. That is the main reason, not healthcare (it's cost is one reason and that is mainly due to illegal immigration).

What's wrong with Unions? They are as much an American invention as freedom fries and the stars-and-stripes g-string! No shade of evil empires [past and present] on them... so far as I know...

By the way, do you have any knowledge of how the so-called universal healthcare of Canada works? My aunt lives there, for past 20+ years. I know very well, how long you have to wait for doctors. I know very well that if you have money there, you don't get operated in Canada, you come to US to get operated. Pray, tell me why is that so?

Do you have anything outside of anecdotal evidence?

One word answer why labor can never ever move freely. National Security. Money doesn't kill, people do. I have said this before. Sure, a grocer from India can come to Yankee stadium to sell hot dogs. He just needs to clear immigration check first. Same for a US mechanic going to China. So, Walmart runs a local grocer out of business and you hop made at Walmart because of that. Right? What about millions of IT jobs going to India and many people in US losing their jobs because of it?

See, suddenly you go from 21st century to 17th century. From today, to Chris Columbus. In the time of Columbus Islamic terrorism did not exist.

True. Those days, there were only Christian terrorists. But don't let that fact bother you.

In 21st century, every country is governed by a set of laws.

Euripides said: "Question everything". Unfortunately for your lot, it is a waste of time.

"Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do & die"

Why can't you ask yourself who created the laws, and for whom?

If you want the 17th century rule in todays world, then you better accept death by stoning and Sati. In today's world every country looks out for itself, and tries to get a deal that is in it's benefit. So, US tries to hawk Walmart to India and India tries to hawk IT solutions to US. It is always give and take.

Are sati and death by stoning pareto optimal? 

If you want to call it racist, so be it. I will not apologize for that.

Neither you nor your ideological peer Bush can be blamed to be apologists by anyone. I think everyone here will concur on that.

And you are again misreading what I am saying. These very same poor people, who live on day-to-day basis, don't have the money to pay the ER bills. That's why they don't pay. I never said they use ERs to hang out. That's you thought, your mentality, your idea. Don't put it in my mouth. Heck, I want them to go back to their country and get treatment.

US is not a donation country where everyone, who is anyone, can come in with all their diseases and get free treatment. Sorry, I don't support that. Public hospitals run on my money and I don't want them to be spending even one second on criminals. Anyone who enters US illegally is a criminal. Criminals only belong in jails. If they are sick, they get treatment in jails. That's what I think.

So who fights the Bush wars? You, your kids or the kids of the average joe white?

As an aside, do you know how many diseases have popped up in US of late, that were thought to be eradicated? Diseases like Polio!!! These disease are rampant in a country called Mexico, from where most illegals come. Anyone who enters legally goes through a medical check. So now imagine the cost US is paying for illegal immigration -- advent of eradicated diseases and virus with strains never seen before in US.

Good riddance! The lesser there are Americans in this world, the better it is for the world! 

I know they are taking advantage of the loopholes. That's why I want to block every loophole. BTW, there is no loophole they use to enter illegally. US constitution says that entry without documentation is illegal. As soon as they enter US illegally, they become criminals and lose all their rights except right to a lawyer. That's it.

Ask any lawyer - the more rules you create, the more there are loopholes.

It seems nothing is a moral issue with you. You consider teen pregnancy as a health concern!?

You think any govt should actually reward a teen getting pregnant by giving her money to take care of the child? Well, I feel a govt should make laws that enhance better living in society. There are laws against spitting, but to you that might look like a moral issue too, right? How can you control a person's spitting behavior, is what you will say.

Yes. Now please elaborate.

Do you know that sex with a minor is considered statutory rape in USA? So, if a 15, 16 year old willingly gets pregnant, per US laws she has been raped. Now, by giving her money, govt is actually rewarding her for hiding the identity of the rapist. If it was in my hands, I would first make her tell me who the father was, then do DNA testing to confirm the guy was the father and then put him in jail for statutory rape and give the girl welfare money. Then you see how quickly teen pregnancies would vanish from USA. And I would be doing so by fully applying existing laws, without changing anything in any law. Would you agree to that, or it would still be a moral issue with you?

Your anger reminds me of the gods in the Old Testament. I hope you know that after the Old Testament, there was an updated version, called the New Testament.

[achutank]

Do you know that sex with a minor is considered statutory rape in USA? So, if a 15, 16 year old willingly gets pregnant, per US laws she has been raped. Now, by giving her money, govt is actually rewarding her for hiding the identity of the rapist. If it was in my hands, I would first make her tell me who the father was, then do DNA testing to confirm the guy was the father and then put him in jail for statutory rape and give the girl welfare money. Then you see how quickly teen pregnancies would vanish from USA. And I would be doing so by fully applying existing laws, without changing anything in any law. Would you agree to that, or it would still be a moral issue with you?

Your anger reminds me of the gods in the Old Testament. I hope you know that after the Old Testament, there was an updated version, called the New Testament.

aah now i get it we are talking hand jobs here. nudge nudge wink wink ole boy ruchir goody goody.

fever you funny fellow as usual poking fun at serious discussions.  cmon give the guy a chance, let those burritos come out, so much gas ain't good for his body no 

[keep-it-cool]

This thread has gone all heavy duty ... i never thought i'd see the day where taxes are preferable to any other thing

[LosingNow]

This thread has gone all heavy duty ... i never thought i'd see the day where taxes are preferable to any other thing

ROFLMAO

[Cover Point]

This was a good discussion. Surprisingly when I saw FP's response, I was starting to nod in agreement. Unfortunately instead of making (or elaborating on CLR's) points he decided to go into attacks on Ruchir.

I obviously dont agree with Ruchir on his points on this thread. I did not agree with his points on Homosexuals either, BUT I do admire the fact that he is willing to stand up for what he believes and takes on everyone else all by himself. He does so without resorting to personal attacks.

I think for the sanity of this thread, FP you should modify your post and make your points instead of attacking Ruchir.

[prfsr]

Ruchir,

Your claims about Canadian healthcare are not correct. The system works incredibly well given the resources of the country. The waiting is improving and while no system is perfect, it is a reasonable solution for the bottom 90% of the country. I have no problem with the top 10% going elsewhere for better service. People in the US do that too.

Social programs are for the less wealthy. Did you know that the life expectancy of Canadians is 4 years higher?

Many of the other claims too are unacceptable:

"it is not the middle class that is affected, it is the lower class that is getting destroyed" in Bengal, due to immigration?

"If it was in my hands, I would first make her tell me who the father was, then do DNA testing to confirm the guy was the father and then put him in jail for statutory rape and give the girl welfare money. Then you see how quickly teen pregnancies would vanish from USA. " You have to have a countrywide DNA database first.

"It is because of this, US is fast becoming a country of lazy, drugged bums." !!!!!!

"Why do you think education is falling?" Because of illegal immigrants? My friend, you have no idea
what you are talking about. I have firsthand knowledge of districts where standards are falling and there are less than 5% non-whites (legal/illegal)

"Why do you think US needs people from outside to work?"
Don't understand -- if the US people are lazy because of immigration, then how will bringing in more lazy people help?

"Why do you think illegal immigration exists? It is because people get free money and don't make any effort make use of their lives."
Do you have any idea how hard most illegal immigrants work?

-P

[feverpitch]

This was a good discussion. Surprisingly when I saw FP's response, I was starting to nod in agreement. Unfortunately instead of making (or elaborating on CLR's) points he decided to go into attacks on Ruchir.

I obviously dont agree with Ruchir on his points on this thread. I did not agree with his points on Homosexuals either, BUT I do admire the fact that he is willing to stand up for what he believes and takes on everyone else all by himself. He does so without resorting to personal attacks.

I think for the sanity of this thread, FP you should modify your post and make your points instead of attacking Ruchir.

CP,

I can guarantee you that I would not have tried to make mockery of Ruchir's statements had I not had prior experience of such discussions with him. On every other occasion, a reasoned debate has been swept into the gutter by Ruchir's virulent and quite useless personal attacks, especially with his wild claims that his personal experiences counting more than published research. Everyone who has had the misfortune of arguing a point with Ruchir will have had the same experience. From the looks of it, this thread has already been pulled down the same path. There comes a time when one needs to take a call — whether one should continue presenting sanity and balance [test match] in the face of ideological blinkers [Shahid Afridi], or go slam bang [T20]. Out on this thread, I took a call — something you will probably have agreed with otherwise [ie, had it come from someone else]. I decided, based on past experience, that it's better to land the first punch [hit out during power plays] than wait for the situation to get more complicated [conserve wickets and hit out during the death overs].

BTW, I hope you haven't changed your opinion on how to play odis overnite?

[ruchir]

Your claims about Canadian healthcare are not correct. The system works incredibly well given the resources of the country. The waiting is improving and while no system is perfect, it is a reasonable solution for the bottom 90% of the country. I have no problem with the top 10% going elsewhere for better service. People in the US do that too.

Social programs are for the less wealthy. Did you know that the life expectancy of Canadians is 4 years higher?

To support that kind of system, how much Income Tax do you have to pay there? People of Canada come to work in USA because they pay less taxes here. So, on one hand people claim that middle class is taxed enough already. On the other hand you want to have Universal healthcare. It is surprising that no one is able to explain how can universal healthcare be funded without raising taxes.

"it is not the middle class that is affected, it is the lower class that is getting destroyed" in Bengal, due to immigration?

Absolutely. Everything rises from lack of employment. Most of the poor bangladeshis coming into India take up lowly job like janitor, rickshaw pullers, construction workers for half the salary that poor bengalis were charging. Businessmen are happy to save the money. Who suffers? Poor Bengalis, Asamees, Tripurans, Biharis etc.

"If it was in my hands, I would first make her tell me who the father was, then do DNA testing to confirm the guy was the father and then put him in jail for statutory rape and give the girl welfare money. Then you see how quickly teen pregnancies would vanish from USA. " You have to have a countrywide DNA database first.

Absolutely not required. Once the baby is born (to a minor), take DNA sample from the baby. Ask for father's identity and get his DNA sample. Do a paternity test. If a match found, throw the father in jail for statutory rape, as the law says. As simple as that. Give the mother the welfare money only after she discloses the father's identity.

"Why do you think education is falling?" Because of illegal immigrants? My friend, you have no idea
what you are talking about. I have firsthand knowledge of districts where standards are falling and there are less than 5% non-whites (legal/illegal)

And how many districts are there like these, all over america? Of course, there will be exceptions.

"Why do you think US needs people from outside to work?"
Don't understand -- if the US people are lazy because of immigration, then how will bringing in more lazy people help?

Deliberate attempt to twist my words. I never said US people are lazy because of immigration. I said they are lazy because of free welfare money being given to able bodied people. I also didn't say that US brings in lazy people. Where did you get that from?

"Why do you think illegal immigration exists? It is because people get free money and don't make any effort make use of their lives."
Do you have any idea how hard most illegal immigrants work?

Obviously I don't. Right? I mean, how do you explain a FACT that 27% of inmates of state and federal jails are illegal aliens? That's how hard they work. And more over, why the hell should I care how hard a criminal is working? As soon as a person enters USA without proper documentation, he or she automatically becomes a criminal. There can not be any argument about that. So, why should I be sympathetic toward a criminal? Why should I care whether he is working hard or hardly working!? He is a criminal and for me, the matter ends right there.

[ruchir]

I can guarantee you that I would not have tried to make mockery of Ruchir's statements had I not had prior experience of such discussions with him.

Prioir experience... exactly the reason why I stopped myself till now to converse with you.

On every other occasion, a reasoned debate has been swept into the gutter by Ruchir's virulent and quite useless personal attacks, especially with his wild claims that his personal experiences counting more than published research.

Is it your opinion that my remarks are virulent and gutterly, or is it also the claim of anyone else? I have not seen anyone else making such claims. I guess, only a gutter person can recognize another gutter person. So, by calling me gutter, you are becoming one too.

Everyone who has had the misfortune of arguing a point with Ruchir will have had the same experience.

See above.

From the looks of it, this thread has already been pulled down the same path. There comes a time when one needs to take a call — whether one should continue presenting sanity and balance [test match] in the face of ideological blinkers [Shahid Afridi], or go slam bang [T20]. Out on this thread, I took a call — something you will probably have agreed with otherwise [ie, had it come from someone else]. I decided, based on past experience, that it's better to land the first punch [hit out during power plays] than wait for the situation to get more complicated [conserve wickets and hit out during the death overs].

You know, your head is lodged in such a dark place, possibly filled with garlic air, that your ability to think clearly has been considerably diminished. I think it is time for you to make an effort and pull your head out from that dark place.

Well, you seem to know a lot. Why don't you enlighten us?

It is difficult to enlighten someone who can't see clearly. To do that I will need to get my hands dirty by pulling your head. I don't wanna do that.

Why would a bankrupt corporation expect, and always be bailed out by the government for, of and by the people?

Ummm.... because it is that corporation that is providing employment to the people!?

How many head honchos of big corporations were consulted before the minimum wage was decided? How many workers were consulted?

  Are you asking a question of which you don't know the answer?

Are you a believer in eugenics?

And what has this got to do with effects of illegal immigration on US healthcare?

It's a govt of, for and by the people, remember?

And how is this relevant in a discussion of punishing cheating people, rather than distributing free money? Oh, by the way, if the argument is 'govt of, for and by the people' then why should govt charge any income tax? It should survive on any donations people can give to it.

You are such a true patriot in the cause of America. How many stars and stripes do you have covering your body?

Why don't you for a change suggest how to catch these robber barons?

What a sane argument from you while talking about catching cheating executives!!! I admire it. How to catch them? Start by finding out how they cheated . How's that?

Your Protestant ethic shines brightest!

As I suspected. You never cease to bring sane arguments in a discussion.

What's wrong with Unions? They are as much an American invention as freedom fries and the stars-and-stripes g-string! No shade of evil empires [past and present] on them... so far as I know...

You may not know, but GM entered into agreements with Unions (under pressure form politicians) to give very high pensions and health coverage to those who retired. As a result of that currently, GM pays from health coverage and pensions for as many retired people as the number of people on its rolls. Imagine that!!! Which private company in India pays pension? No wonder, GM and many other US auto and other companies runs into losses every year. It is because of such deals that were forced on them by unions, who had politicians to back them (# of votes). No wonder many US auto makers have plants outside US.

Do you have anything outside of anecdotal evidence?

Do you have anything to say?

True. Those days, there were only Christian terrorists. But don't let that fact bother you.

Again, a brilliant argument brought into a discussion, disregarding completely the way things are in the world today.

Euripides said: "Question everything". Unfortunately for your lot, it is a waste of time.

"Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do & die"

Why can't you ask yourself who created the laws, and for whom?

Hey man, you can question everything. But at least, your questions must make sense.

Are sati and death by stoning pareto optimal?

I don't even care to know what you are saying here.

Neither you nor your ideological peer Bush can be blamed to be apologists by anyone. I think everyone here will concur on that.

Again bringing everyone to concur your statement? By the way, did you forget I said I did not agree with war in Iraq? Oh, sorry... I forgot where your head is.

So who fights the Bush wars? You, your kids or the kids of the average joe white?

Do I care who fights the war? Who fought the war in 1991? Illegals? Huh?

Good riddance! The lesser there are Americans in this world, the better it is for the world!

There again, you show your true bigoted racist face. What can one argue with someone like you!!!

Ask any lawyer - the more rules you create, the more there are loopholes.

Oh my.... so what we should have is a society with no rules or laws. If there are no rules, then there will be no crime, and that will be your perfect world.

Yes. Now please elaborate.

First take your head out.

Your anger reminds me of the gods in the Old Testament. I hope you know that after the Old Testament, there was an updated version, called the New Testament.

Again a brilliant reply. I wonder what your version of testament says about having sex with 15/16 year olds?

[RicePlateReddy]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aSjJM.J0m9Ks&refer=us

Oct. 25 (Bloomberg) -- House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel said he will propose a $48 billion tax increase on executives of hedge funds and private-equity firms to pay for curbing another tax this year.

The New York Democrat said the proposal would more than double the tax rate on so-called carried interest, the compensation that executives at buyout and venture-capital firms, as well as real estate and oil and gas partnerships, receive for managing investments. It also would require hedge-fund managers to pay tax on income they defer in offshore accounts, he said.

The revenue would be used to pay for a stopgap measure that lawmakers must pass this year to temporarily protect 21 million U.S. households from the alternative minimum tax. The proposal will also be part of a broader overhaul that contains a permanent repeal of the minimum tax, a tax-rate surcharge on wealthy households and a lower corporate rate.

``We are not raising taxes,'' Rangel said at a Capitol Hill news conference today. ``We are restructuring the rates of taxes so that at the end of the day 90 million taxpayers will walk away saying, `I've got a decrease in taxes.'''

Republican Opposition

The measure will set up a showdown between Democrats who want to offset the lost revenue with new levies and Republicans and the Bush administration, which oppose any increase.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in a statement that the administration opposes Rangel's plans, which ``would dramatically raise taxes in ways that in my judgment would hinder America's ability to compete in the global economy.'' Paulson, 61, is former chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Rangel, 77, introduced the broader measure today and plans to present the one-year stopgap bill next week. Yesterday, he briefed members of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. ``I didn't get a lot of responses, though,'' he said.

After that half-hour meeting, Louisiana Representative Jim McCrery, the ranking Republican on the panel, said he didn't know all the details of Rangel's plan, though had heard enough ``to know that I can't support the bill.''

Rangel said the broader measure, which he has called the ``mother of all reforms,'' would contain a 4 percent tax-rate surcharge on adjusted gross income over $200,000 for married couples. The surcharge would rise to 4.6 percent for those with income of more than $500,000. In addition, households with income of more than $200,000 would have to pay rates as high as 19.6 percent on capital gains and dividends, instead of the current rate of 15 percent.

Surcharge

That provision alone would raise $831.7 billion, more than enough to cover the cost of eliminating the minimum tax, Rangel said. Even with the surcharge, most taxpayers who earn between $200,000 and $500,000 will pay less than they would under the AMT, he said.

The overhaul, which he said wouldn't be voted on this year, also lowers the corporate tax rate to 30.5 percent from 35 percent. To pay for that $363.8 billion tax cut, the proposal would repeal a special 32 percent tax rate for manufacturers and disallow the ``last-in, first-out'' accounting method that reduces taxes for businesses such as oil companies, wholesalers and automakers that hold inventory.

Social Security, Medicare

The proposal also imposes $9.4 billion in Social Security and Medicare taxes on lawyers, accountants and others who currently avoid them by organizing as a partnership. It would also raise $4.3 billion in taxes from investors by requiring stock purchase prices to be reported to the Internal Revenue Service beginning in 2009 and all other types of securities beginning in 2011.

Overall, Rangel said his measure would cut taxes for 90 million U.S. households by letting more poor families claim the $1,000 per child tax credit, doubling the earned income-tax credit for the working poor, and boosting the standard deduction by $850 to $11,550.

About two-thirds of Americans currently claim the standard deduction, according to IRS data. Those three provisions combined would save taxpayers $86.2 billion over the next decade.

The overhaul also would force U.S.-based multinationals such as Fairfield, Connecticut-based General Electric Co. to repatriate foreign earnings in order to maximize interest deductions and adds new penalties for companies using tax shelters that have no economic or business purpose. It would also impose $20.7 billion in new taxes on many mergers and acquisitions by extending the period intangible assets such as goodwill can be amortized by five years to 20.

`Mother of All Tax Hikes'

Republican leaders, in a statement, denounced the proposal as the ``mother of all tax hikes,'' saying it boosted taxes by $1 trillion over 10 years.

Still, Rangel said today that Paulson had suggested the business-tax changes. ``This is not my idea, it's Paulson's idea,'' he said.

Paulson acknowledged that he and Rangel had ``constructive preliminary conversations'' on reducing the corporate rate, though he said the proposal as written would ``hurt'' businesses and workers.

Dorothy Coleman, vice president of tax policy for the National Association of Manufacturers, said her organization views the bill as the start of a longer debate. She said it wasn't clear whether her group's members would be willing to accept the lower corporate rate in exchange for the loss of deductions worth more than $330 billion over the next decade.

`Concern'

``At first blush, the revenue raisers are things that raise a lot of concern around here,'' she said. She said the members of her Washington-based group, which represents a range of companies from Santa Clara, California-based Intel Corp. to Kansas City Power & Light Co., especially object to the proposal to increase taxes on U.S. businesses that operate overseas.

The proposal, however, got a warmer reception from Todd Malan, chief executive of the Organization for International Investment, a Washington trade group representing U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies such as Tokyo-based Sony Corp., the world's second-largest consumer electronics maker.

``We are still reviewing the details, and some of the smaller provisions will give some firms heartburn, however the significant cut in the corporate rate would make the U.S. a more attractive place for job creating investment,'' he said.

Congress is under pressure to pass a one-year minimum tax fix in the next two weeks. If the temporary measure is put off past early November, as many as 50 million tax returns will be delayed and millions of taxpayers will be forced to wait longer for refunds.

37.9% Rate

The fix will cost about $48 billion. Rangel said it would be funded through the carried-interest provision, which would raise $25.7 billion over 10 years, and the new tax on offshore deferred compensation, which would bring in $22.7 billion over that period. Buyout firm executives currently pay the 15 percent capital gains rate on carried interest. Under Rangel's plan, that would increase to a rate as high as 37.9 percent.

Rangel said today that the measure was aimed at restoring fairness to the tax code. ``Do people think a system is fair when you find people making hundreds of millions of dollars paying taxes at a lower rate than the secretaries and the janitors and the common laborers?'' he said.

The stopgap measure would also renew for one year about three-dozen narrow tax breaks expiring this year, ranging from a $9 billion research credit for businesses and a $3.6 billion deduction for state sales taxes to breaks for restaurants, NASCAR, teachers, and companies that employ American Indians.

Nov. 7 Deadline

Paulson added urgency to the debate this week by declaring that any tax changes should be made before Nov. 7 to give the IRS time to print forms and reprogram computers to reflect the change. All forms and computer programs reflect current law, which assumes the minimum tax will take effect, he said.

Paulson reiterated today that the administration opposes any fix that raises ``other taxes.''

The minimum tax, originally aimed at the wealthiest Americans, now affects taxpayers with incomes as low as $50,000. If it's not curbed, 21 million households will see their 2007 taxes rise by an average $2,000, Paulson said.

By proposing increases that mostly affect wealthy taxpayers to pay for legislation to limit the reach of the minimum tax this year, Rangel is turning the tables on Republicans and the Bush administration, which have increased pressure on Democrats to waive Congress' pay-as-you-go budget rules. Those rules require any new spending to be offset by new revenue or spending cuts.

Senate Showdown

Rangel's proposal also forces the Senate to consider raising taxes on executives of buyout firms, hedge funds, real estate partnerships, and venture capitalists this year. Majority Leader Harry Reid said in July that he was inclined to postpone that debate until 2008.

``This has set up a showdown between the House, which wants to pay as you go, and the Senate, which wants to pay when you're gone,'' said Clinton Stretch, managing principal in charge of tax policy at Deloitte and Touche LLP in Washington.

Republicans, including McCrery and Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, are pushing Rangel to waive the budget rules to pay for curbing the minimum tax this year. Paulson said today that while there only ``weeks to act'' on the one-year patch, the administration opposes any fix that raises ``other taxes.''

Rangel reiterated that he opposes disregarding the pay-as- you-go rules, and said he was dismayed at reports that even some Democrats in the Senate are considering doing so.

``I don't think the Senate has understood out commitment to our position,'' he said. ``I'm anxious to talk to the senators, but I can't talk to them if they're not paying for it.''

To contact the reporters on this story: Alison Fitzgerald at afitzgerald2@bloomberg.net ; Ryan J. Donmoyer at rdonmoyer@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: October 25, 2007 14:48 EDT

[keep-it-cool]

KoP .. thanks for posting ... my first (and continuing) impression of the US taxation system (from what little I have read) is that it is way too complicated.

I think tax shelters are the biggest sham. One should do away with them altogether. There is no reason Aishwarya Rai needs a windmill (she really has one!). Let people invest based on whether that investment makes sense on its own steam ... not as a tax saving device.

I also agree with taxing carried interest at a similar level to income tax and not capital gains ... someone seems to have got their priorities right out there.

[prfsr]

Your claims about Canadian healthcare are not correct. The system works incredibly well given the resources of the country. The waiting is improving and while no system is perfect, it is a reasonable solution for the bottom 90% of the country. I have no problem with the top 10% going elsewhere for better service. People in the US do that too.

Social programs are for the less wealthy. Did you know that the life expectancy of Canadians is 4 years higher?

To support that kind of system, how much Income Tax do you have to pay there? People of Canada come to work in USA because they pay less taxes here. So, on one hand people claim that middle class is taxed enough already. On the other hand you want to have Universal healthcare. It is surprising that no one is able to explain how can universal healthcare be funded without raising taxes.

Canada has higher taxes on aggregate. That is a fact. HOWEVER, the *income* taxes at the lower end are lower than the US (AFAIK). The taxes rise faster with income than the US. I used to be like you -- arguing that universal healthcare is a sad burden. It takes a while to realize the benefits. Most desis cannot bring their parents over in the US. In Canada, not only can you do it, they have free healthcare from day one. In the US, if you lose your job, your coverage often stops. Students have crappy coverage anyway. I shudder to think what would happen if I had a serious accident as a grad student. We paid several hundred a year and got max 50k/year coverage. If you were unfortunate to have a child that was not healthy you are in deep trouble. From a selfish point of view no tax ever makes sense. Until you start needing more than you can pay.

Visit Canada some day and see if the majority of the people seem like bums to you.

"it is not the middle class that is affected, it is the lower class that is getting destroyed" in Bengal, due to immigration?

Absolutely. Everything rises from lack of employment. Most of the poor bangladeshis coming into India take up lowly job like janitor, rickshaw pullers, construction workers for half the salary that poor bengalis were charging. Businessmen are happy to save the money. Who suffers? Poor Bengalis, Asamees, Tripurans, Biharis etc.

Sorry, if you knew anything about Bangladeshi immigrants you would know that the majority are extremely hardworking and have displaced the middle class. Doctors/engineers/professors/clerks and the like. They are more driven than us -- ask any Bengali who is not of Bangladeshi origin.

"If it was in my hands, I would first make her tell me who the father was, then do DNA testing to confirm the guy was the father and then put him in jail for statutory rape and give the girl welfare money. Then you see how quickly teen pregnancies would vanish from USA. " You have to have a countrywide DNA database first.

Absolutely not required. Once the baby is born (to a minor), take DNA sample from the baby. Ask for father's identity and get his DNA sample. Do a paternity test. If a match found, throw the father in jail for statutory rape, as the law says. As simple as that. Give the mother the welfare money only after she discloses the father's identity.

You cannot force people to take a paternity test. I may be wrong about this.

"Why do you think education is falling?" Because of illegal immigrants? My friend, you have no idea
what you are talking about. I have firsthand knowledge of districts where standards are falling and there are less than 5% non-whites (legal/illegal)

And how many districts are there like these, all over america? Of course, there will be exceptions.

I will try to dig up stats. It is my belief that standards all falling all over the country, relative to 1-2 decades back.

"Why do you think US needs people from outside to work?"
Don't understand -- if the US people are lazy because of immigration, then how will bringing in more lazy people help?

Deliberate attempt to twist my words. I never said US people are lazy because of immigration. I said they are lazy because of free welfare money being given to able bodied people. I also didn't say that US brings in lazy people. Where did you get that from?

Maybe I misunderstood. My bad. So you think that taking away welfare would solve problems?  Especially illegal immigration?

"Why do you think illegal immigration exists? It is because people get free money and don't make any effort make use of their lives."
Do you have any idea how hard most illegal immigrants work?

Obviously I don't. Right? I mean, how do you explain a FACT that 27% of inmates of state and federal jails are illegal aliens? That's how hard they work. And more over, why the hell should I care how hard a criminal is working? As soon as a person enters USA without proper documentation, he or she automatically becomes a criminal. There can not be any argument about that. So, why should I be sympathetic toward a criminal? Why should I care whether he is working hard or hardly working!? He is a criminal and for me, the matter ends right there.

How does being criminal prove that they were not hard workers? Maybe the illegal wages they get forces them to crime?

Your sympathy or lack of it is your business. The fact that most Mexicans work very hard to make a living and in fact send back money to support their family is widely acknowledged. I blame the system here that allows them to be exploited to be the problem. It is not about welfare/laws or anything else. The bottomline is that American businesses employ these people to save money and bribe govts to look the other way. If there were no jobs there would be much less immigration, legal or otherwise.

-P

[CLR James]

Ruchir,

I find it difficult to respond to you because you respond too positively to conservative stereotypes and myths. See, any social program has to be gauged by its merits and structural necessities in society. Ergo, I cannot take something away just because some people abuse it. Especially if it is founded on a humane principle. The public rationing system has traditionally produced black markets in India (more so in the seventies); it has produced rackets and goonda cartels. But take it away and millions will starve.

Republicans are fine with society being imperfect when it comes to corporate crime. But when it comes to welfare, even a New York Times columnist like David Brooks peddles his 'experience' in the inner cities as a crime reporter in the seventies. Well, he can keep his experiences to himself. I do not see why they should be given pious privilege when they do not match facts and figures. While we are at it, what do you have against Labor Unions? Do you think workers should just shut up and be satisfied, like little children, with whatever the management doles out to them? Unions, like any human formation, are far from perfect. It is very easy to demonize them without realizing that the things we take for granted in the work place, any work place, like healthcare and benefits, safe working conditions, regulated work hours, basic minimum pay, are the result of a century and half of Union struggle. These were not granted to society by benevolent corporations. They are the result of a social pressure that came from union activity.

You seem too hell bent on LAW. Ruchir, you should realize that a greater part of humanity in the world, about 2 billion people who survive on ONE dollar a day (lazy bums) cannot afford the law. They are deprived systematically of the basic amenities of life and of education and healthcare since birth. So they survive through everyday illegalisms. They steal electricity, illlegally recycle garbage, run organized beggary cartels, sell drugs, run massive underground economies, work honestly when they can, and then do petty crimes when out of work. In African republics especially, if they are given guns, they fight civil wars. They encroach upon prime real estate. I dare any government in the world to apply the law down to the last letter on this massive population. That would mean razing shanty towns to the ground, from Mexico City to Mumbai and beyond, stopping child labor peremptorily without making arrangements for primary nutrition and education for that very child, and in a measure that will be shocking to the Indian middle class, stopping the practice of hiring cheap domestic labor at wages far below the legal limit. Now the question is, where will these two billion people go? Has humanity made any alternate arrangements for them?

You see, it took human beings some fifty centuries of civilization to hit upon what we think are right ideas -- democracy, rights, equality, rule of law,  etc. These are indeed noble ideas and I respect them as much as you do. But I also know that these are, in the larger scheme of things, still 'airy' ideas. They still have to gain a base of social reality. That will take a few more centuries. The idea of the Welfare State is founded on that realization. The very notion that the same laws should apply to a rich kid and starving one remains an idealistic one till the field is leveled more. This is truer than ever now because globally, we are in another gilded age. Income disparities are rising to frightening proportions all over the world. An inner city kid picks up drugs because of despondency; it is not laziness that prompts farmer suicides by the hundreds in India. Take welfare away from these people (that has been happening systematically in the last two decades) and they will respond with the only ways left: terrorism and civil war.

[feverpitch]

Can we now officially anoint RJo as the Bobby Jindal of this forum?

[achutank]

SHASHI THAROOR ON SUNDAY
 
Should we be proud of Bobby Jindal?
28 Oct 2007, 0000 hrs IST,SHASHI THAROOR
   
 
 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Should_we_be_proud_of_Bobby_Jindal/articleshow/2495846.cms

 
The election of Bobby Jindal as governor of the US state of Louisiana has been greeted exultantly by Indians and Indian-Americans around the world. There’s no question that this is an extraordinary accomplishment: a young Indian-American, just 36 years old, not merely winning an election but doing so on the first ballot by receiving more votes than his 11 rivals combined, and that too in a state not noticeably friendly to minorities. Bobby Jindal will now be the first Indian-American governor in US history, and the youngest currently serving chief executive of an American state. These are distinctions of which he can legitimately be proud, and it is not surprising that Indians too feel a vicarious sense of shared pride in his remarkable ascent.

But is our pride misplaced? Who is Bobby Jindal and what does he really stand for?

There are, broadly speaking, two kinds of Indian migrants in America: though no sociologist, i’ll call them the atavists and the assimilationists. The atavists hold on to their original identities as much as possible, especially outside the workplace; in speech, dress, food habits, cultural preferences, they are still much more Indian than American. The assimilationists, on the other hand, seek assiduously to merge into the American mainstream; they acquire a new accent along with their visa, and adopt the ways, clothes, diet and recreational preferences of the Americans they see around them. (Of course, there are the in-betweens, but we’ll leave them aside for now.) Class has something to do with which of the two major categories an Indian immigrant falls into; so does age, since the newer generation of Indians, especially those born in America, inevitably tend to gravitate to the latter category.

Bobby Jindal is an assimilationist’s dream. Born to relatively affluent professionals in Louisiana, he rejected his Indian name (Piyush) as a very young child, insisting that he be called Bobby, after a (white) character on the popular TV show ‘The Brady Bunch’. His desire to fit in to the majority-white society he saw around him soon manifested itself in another act of rejection: Bobby spurned the Hindusim into which he was born and, as a teenager, converted to Roman Catholicism, the faith of most white Louisianans. There is, of course, nothing wrong with any of this, and it is a measure of his precocity that his parents did not balk at his wishes despite his extreme youth. The boy was clearly gifted, and he soon had a Rhodes scholarship to prove it. But he was also ambivalent about his identity: he wanted to be seen as a Louisianan, but his mirror told him he was also an Indian. The two of us won something called an ‘Excelsior Award’ once from the

Network of Indian Professionals in the US, and his acceptance speech on the occasion was striking — obligatory references to the Indian values of his parents, but a speech so American in tone and intonation that he mangled the Indian name of his own brother. There was no doubt which half of the hyphen this Indian-American leaned towards.

But there are many ways to be American, and it’s interesting which one Bobby chose. Many Indians born in America have tended to sympathise with other people of colour, identifying their lot with other immigrants, the poor, the underclass. Vinita Gupta, in Oklahoma, another largely white state, won her reputation as a crusading lawyer by taking up the case of illegal immigrants exploited by a factory owner (her story will shortly be depicted by Hollywood, with Halle Berry playing the Indian heroine). Bhairavi Desai leads a taxi drivers’ union; Preeta Bansal, who grew up as the only non-white child in her school in Nebraska, became New York’s Solicitor General and now serves on the Commission for Religious Freedom. None of this for Bobby. Louisiana’s most famous city, New Orleans, was a majority black town, at least until Hurricane Katrina destroyed so many black lives and homes, but there is no record of Bobby identifying himself with the needs or issues of his state’s black people. Instead, he sought, in a state with fewer than 10,000 Indians, not to draw attention to his race by supporting racial causes. Indeed, he went well beyond trying to be non-racial (in a state that harboured notorious racists like the Ku Klux Klansman David Duke); he cultivated the most conservative elements of white Louisiana society. With his widely-advertised piety (he asked his Indian wife, Supriya, to convert as well, and the two are regular churchgoers), Bobby Jindal adopted positions on hot-button issues that place him on the most conservative fringe of the Republican Party. Most Indian-Americans are in favour of gun control, support a woman’s right to choose abortion, advocate immigrants’ rights, and oppose school prayer (for fear that it would marginalise non-Christians). On every one of these issues, Bobby Jindal is on the opposite side. He’s not just conservative; on these questions, he is well to the right of his own party.

That hasn’t stopped him, however, from seeking the support of Indian-Americans. Bobby Jindal has raised a small fortune from them, and when he last ran (unsuccessfully) for governor in 2004, an army of Indian-American volunteers from outside the state turned up to campaign for him. Many seemed unaware of his political views; it was enough for them that he was Indian. At his Indian-American fundraising events, Bobby is careful to downplay his extreme positions and play up his heritage, a heritage that plays little part in his appeal to the Louisiana electorate. Indian-Americans, by and large, accept this as the price of political success in white America: it’s just good to have “someone like us” in such high office, whatever views he professes to get himself there.

So Indians beam proudly at another Indian-American success story to go along with Kalpana Chawla and Sunita Williams, Hargobind Khorana and Subramaniam Chandrasekhar, Kal Penn and Jhumpa Lahiri. But none of these Indian Americans expressed attitudes and beliefs so much at variance with the prevailing values of their community. Let us be proud that a brown-skinned man with an Indian name has achieved what Bobby Jindal has. But let us not make the mistake of thinking that we should be proud of what he stands for. 
 

[LosingNow]

But let us not make the mistake of thinking that we should be proud of what he stands for.
--
Eggjacktly.
Thanks for posting this, achu.

[prfsr]

CLR and Achu,
Wonderful posts. 
-P

[Cover Point]

CLR, very well written. You should meet an uncle of mine who lives here in Chicago. Or barring that pick up his book "Rethinking Progress".  You would appreciate a lot of his thoughts.

[feverpitch]

CLR, very well written. You should meet an uncle of mine who lives here in Chicago. Or barring that pick up his book "Reinventing Progress".  You would appreciate a lot of his thoughts.

[start : TheWall mode]

Aha, now look who is dropping names in order to show-off his new found knowledge!

[end : TheWall mode]

 

Btw, on a serious note, I couldn't locate any reference to the book on the net. Could you help with a link?

[Cover Point]

CLR, very well written. You should meet an uncle of mine who lives here in Chicago. Or barring that pick up his book "Reinventing Progress".  You would appreciate a lot of his thoughts.

[start : TheWall mode]

Aha, now look who is dropping names in order to show-off his new found knowledge!

[end : TheWall mode]

 

Btw, on a serious note, I couldn't locate any reference to the book on the net. Could you help with a link?

Sorry. I got the name jumbled. It is called Rethinking Progress by Harinder Lamba.
http://www.rethinkingprogress.com/

I had infact posted a link to this book about a year ago when the book had just come out.

The Author is related to me on my Wife's side so it is relatively safe to read his book

[CLR James]

CLR, very well written. You should meet an uncle of mine who lives here in Chicago. Or barring that pick up his book "Reinventing Progress".  You would appreciate a lot of his thoughts.

[start : TheWall mode]

Aha, now look who is dropping names in order to show-off his new found knowledge!

[end : TheWall mode]

 

Btw, on a serious note, I couldn't locate any reference to the book on the net. Could you help with a link?

Sorry. I got the name jumbled. It is called Rethinking Progress by Harinder Lamba.
http://www.rethinkingprogress.com/

I had infact posted a link to this book about a year ago when the book had just come out.

The Author is related to me on my Wife's side so it is relatively safe to read his book

I have heard about this book from someone. I will definitely check it out CP. Thanks a lot.

[LosingNow]

WTF.. I thought all liberals were Gangulians Ah, CP is a closet Gangulian..never mind

[Cover Point]

WTF.. I thought all liberals were Gangulians Ah, CP is a closet Gangulian..never mind

You know, I have a near and dear connection with Gangulians.

[CLR James]

CLR, very well written. You should meet an uncle of mine who lives here in Chicago. Or barring that pick up his book "Reinventing Progress".  You would appreciate a lot of his thoughts.

[start : TheWall mode]

Aha, now look who is dropping names in order to show-off his new found knowledge!

[end : TheWall mode]

 

Btw, on a serious note, I couldn't locate any reference to the book on the net. Could you help with a link?

Sorry. I got the name jumbled. It is called Rethinking Progress by Harinder Lamba.
http://www.rethinkingprogress.com/

I had infact posted a link to this book about a year ago when the book had just come out.

The Author is related to me on my Wife's side so it is relatively safe to read his book

Anyway, just thank your wife on my behalf. Since the brain component in the family comes from her side, I am sure she is a Gangulian. 

[Cover Point]

CLR, very well written. You should meet an uncle of mine who lives here in Chicago. Or barring that pick up his book "Reinventing Progress".  You would appreciate a lot of his thoughts.

[start : TheWall mode]

Aha, now look who is dropping names in order to show-off his new found knowledge!

[end : TheWall mode]

 

Btw, on a serious note, I couldn't locate any reference to the book on the net. Could you help with a link?

Sorry. I got the name jumbled. It is called Rethinking Progress by Harinder Lamba.
http://www.rethinkingprogress.com/

I had infact posted a link to this book about a year ago when the book had just come out.

The Author is related to me on my Wife's side so it is relatively safe to read his book

Anyway, just thank your wife on my behalf. Since the brain component in the family comes from her side, I am sure she is a Gangulian. 

Actually she isnt. She doesnt follow cricket and considers cricket her saut (I spend way too much time either playing or watching cricket)

The connection is even more dear to me and that Kban and WN can tell you about it.

[feverpitch]

CLR, very well written. You should meet an uncle of mine who lives here in Chicago. Or barring that pick up his book "Reinventing Progress".  You would appreciate a lot of his thoughts.

[start : TheWall mode]

Aha, now look who is dropping names in order to show-off his new found knowledge!

[end : TheWall mode]

 

Btw, on a serious note, I couldn't locate any reference to the book on the net. Could you help with a link?

Sorry. I got the name jumbled. It is called Rethinking Progress by Harinder Lamba.
http://www.rethinkingprogress.com/

I had infact posted a link to this book about a year ago when the book had just come out.

The Author is related to me on my Wife's side so it is relatively safe to read his book

Anyway, just thank your wife on my behalf. Since the brain component in the family comes from her side, I am sure she is a Gangulian. 

Actually she isnt. She doesnt follow cricket and considers cricket her saut (I spend way too much time either playing or watching cricket)

The connection is even more dear to me and that Kban and WN can tell you about it.

Gangulian is not about playing or even linking cricket. It's about a state of the mind.

[ruchir]

Your claims about Canadian healthcare are not correct. The system works incredibly well given the resources of the country. The waiting is improving and while no system is perfect, it is a reasonable solution for the bottom 90% of the country. I have no problem with the top 10% going elsewhere for better service. People in the US do that too.

Social programs are for the less wealthy. Did you know that the life expectancy of Canadians is 4 years higher?

To support that kind of system, how much Income Tax do you have to pay there? People of Canada come to work in USA because they pay less taxes here. So, on one hand people claim that middle class is taxed enough already. On the other hand you want to have Universal healthcare. It is surprising that no one is able to explain how can universal healthcare be funded without raising taxes.

Canada has higher taxes on aggregate. That is a fact. HOWEVER, the *income* taxes at the lower end are lower than the US (AFAIK). The taxes rise faster with income than the US. I used to be like you -- arguing that universal healthcare is a sad burden. It takes a while to realize the benefits. Most desis cannot bring their parents over in the US. In Canada, not only can you do it, they have free healthcare from day one. In the US, if you lose your job, your coverage often stops. Students have crappy coverage anyway. I shudder to think what would happen if I had a serious accident as a grad student. We paid several hundred a year and got max 50k/year coverage. If you were unfortunate to have a child that was not healthy you are in deep trouble. From a selfish point of view no tax ever makes sense. Until you start needing more than you can pay.

Visit Canada some day and see if the majority of the people seem like bums to you.

Hmmmm.... there are some valid points you raise - healthcare for parents, out of job coverage etc. But still, till today no politician has declared how to fund Universal healthcare in USA!!

There is one other difference between Canada and US. I think this is a HUGE difference. Canada's population is 33 million and change (http://www.statcan.ca/english/edu/clock/population.htm). US population is 303 million and change (http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html). So, US has about 10 times more heads to cover than Canada. I think that itself acts as a bottle-neck in applying Universal Healthcare in USA. No wonder no politician has been able to fund it. It will probably require 20 times the money that Canada uses for it's healthcare.

"it is not the middle class that is affected, it is the lower class that is getting destroyed" in Bengal, due to immigration?

Absolutely. Everything rises from lack of employment. Most of the poor bangladeshis coming into India take up lowly job like janitor, rickshaw pullers, construction workers for half the salary that poor bengalis were charging. Businessmen are happy to save the money. Who suffers? Poor Bengalis, Asamees, Tripurans, Biharis etc.

Sorry, if you knew anything about Bangladeshi immigrants you would know that the majority are extremely hardworking and have displaced the middle class. Doctors/engineers/professors/clerks and the like. They are more driven than us -- ask any Bengali who is not of Bangladeshi origin.

IF that is what you have read/heard/noticed, what can I say? I doubt Doctors, Engineers, Professors and Clerks of Bangladesh would be coming in hordes, migrating to India. I seriously doubt that, and that's why I find it very hard to believe your point.

It is only the poor Bangladeshis who come to India illegally. Such immigration affects the poor of the society, not the middle class.

"If it was in my hands, I would first make her tell me who the father was, then do DNA testing to confirm the guy was the father and then put him in jail for statutory rape and give the girl welfare money. Then you see how quickly teen pregnancies would vanish from USA. " You have to have a countrywide DNA database first.

Absolutely not required. Once the baby is born (to a minor), take DNA sample from the baby. Ask for father's identity and get his DNA sample. Do a paternity test. If a match found, throw the father in jail for statutory rape, as the law says. As simple as that. Give the mother the welfare money only after she discloses the father's identity.

You cannot force people to take a paternity test. I may be wrong about this.

Sure you can. This is a case of Statutory Rape.

"Why do you think US needs people from outside to work?"
Don't understand -- if the US people are lazy because of immigration, then how will bringing in more lazy people help?

Deliberate attempt to twist my words. I never said US people are lazy because of immigration. I said they are lazy because of free welfare money being given to able bodied people. I also didn't say that US brings in lazy people. Where did you get that from?

Maybe I misunderstood. My bad. So you think that taking away welfare would solve problems?  Especially illegal immigration?

My belief is that taking away welfare from 'able bodied people' will force them to find employment. This will reduce the jobs lefts for illegal aliens, hence reducing the attraction for them to come to US illegally. Another way is to give punitive punishment to businesses hiring such illegals.

"Why do you think illegal immigration exists? It is because people get free money and don't make any effort make use of their lives."
Do you have any idea how hard most illegal immigrants work?

Obviously I don't. Right? I mean, how do you explain a FACT that 27% of inmates of state and federal jails are illegal aliens? That's how hard they work. And more over, why the hell should I care how hard a criminal is working? As soon as a person enters USA without proper documentation, he or she automatically becomes a criminal. There can not be any argument about that. So, why should I be sympathetic toward a criminal? Why should I care whether he is working hard or hardly working!? He is a criminal and for me, the matter ends right there.

How does being criminal prove that they were not hard workers? Maybe the illegal wages they get forces them to crime?

Your sympathy or lack of it is your business. The fact that most Mexicans work very hard to make a living and in fact send back money to support their family is widely acknowledged. I blame the system here that allows them to be exploited to be the problem. It is not about welfare/laws or anything else. The bottomline is that American businesses employ these people to save money and bribe govts to look the other way. If there were no jobs there would be much less immigration, legal or otherwise.

'Maybe the illegal wages they get forces them to crime' -- So what do you want? These illegals should get more wages? You see where your argument is going? Of course these people will be exploited by giving them low wages. That's the reason I want to stop them from coming into US!!!! They come here, work here for low wages, get frustrated and commit crimes. Now if they were not here is the first place, such crimes would not have been committed. I say threaten to shut down every business that hires illegals. Enforce it harshly and you will see illegal immigration drop down to ZERO.

Have you heard of a gang called MS-13? It is supposed to be the most vicious gang in the world and it was born in Southern California. It consists 100% of illegal latino immigrants. It is said that MS-13 has over 25000 members, 95% of them illegals. Their claim to fame is that the cut the limbs of their opponents or snitches. Their street Cred is the number of wound marks on their body. The higher the number of marks, the more street Cred that person has.

How do you know that any mexican coming into US illegally is not coming to become a member of this gang? It is very easy to believe the Democratic cooked-up dream that most mexicans come here to work hard. This is nothing but Windows-like Screensaver. Democrats want votes. So they want to give all these illegal mexicans a free ride to citizenship, forgetting that these are criminals (breaking into USA). Evangelicals are worried about declining membership in Churches. Mexicans are religious people. So all churches support illegal immigration, so that they continue to get money from Vatican or wherever.

I will give you another of my much maligned personal example. Close to my home, there are McDonald, Burger King, Wendy's, Chi Burger, Checkers (burger). I go to Burger King once in a while. I used to see lot of mexicans working inside. Since past 3-4 months, I stopped seeing any mexican in that joint. It is either whites, blacks or Indians (India). Still, the rates are the same. No increase. Out of curosity I visited other fast food joints too, and did not find any mexican working anywhere. All rates were same, McD was still having its dollar menu.

This forced me to think that the stuff some people say, that if illegals don't work in fast food joints their rates will increase, americans don't wanna do these jobs etc..... all such stuff is crap. If forced, americans will work for the minimum wage. When hiring americans, these joints will not need to increase their prices.

Try it out in your city. See how many fast food joints (not selling mexican food) have mexicans working there.

[ruchir]

I find it difficult to respond to you because you respond too positively to conservative stereotypes and myths. See, any social program has to be gauged by its merits and structural necessities in society. Ergo, I cannot take something away just because some people abuse it. Especially if it is founded on a humane principle. The public rationing system has traditionally produced black markets in India (more so in the seventies); it has produced rackets and goonda cartels. But take it away and millions will starve.

Sir, don't take away something because 'some' abuse it. But if 50% of people abuse a gift, it is definetly time to do a re-think on the matter. 50% is an estimate from me. I submit that 50% of the who receive social welfare money don't deserve to receive it. They are not old or handicapped. They are not minor orphans. They are able bodied adults who can be hired for work. I have never said that social welfare should stop in USA. What I am saying is run it more intelligently. Do more scrutiny of who is receiving welfare money. See how people are abusing it and stop the abuse wherever possible. Surely that can be done by a country like USA. Right?

Republicans are fine with society being imperfect when it comes to corporate crime. But when it comes to welfare, even a New York Times columnist like David Brooks peddles his 'experience' in the inner cities as a crime reporter in the seventies. Well, he can keep his experiences to himself. I do not see why they should be given pious privilege when they do not match facts and figures. While we are at it, what do you have against Labor Unions? Do you think workers should just shut up and be satisfied, like little children, with whatever the management doles out to them? Unions, like any human formation, are far from perfect. It is very easy to demonize them without realizing that the things we take for granted in the work place, any work place, like healthcare and benefits, safe working conditions, regulated work hours, basic minimum pay, are the result of a century and half of Union struggle. These were not granted to society by benevolent corporations. They are the result of a social pressure that came from union activity.

You choose to attribute to me something that I never said in the first place. I never demonized Trade Unions or said they are not necessary. I made a comment on why GM was shifting its jobs outside. I made the point that using political force, trade unions forced GM to give pension and healthcare to retired personnel. Of course, from the union's POV they were doing the right thing. They are doing it for the benefit of it's members. No arguments about that. But when you look at it from GM's POV you will see that the only option left for them to remain a running business was to shift it's plants overseas. By staying in USA, they were having tremendous non-productive expenses, that were running them down to closure. Surely, if they closed down all those retired personnel, who were getting coverage from GM would have lost all their retirement benefits. Even trade unions could not have helped these retired guys. So, to take care of them and the current workforce, GM had to remain operational, and to do that GM found that one way was to relocated. You can't have your cake and eat it too... all the time. You can't force non-productive expenses on a business and wish it to remain operational and take care of you for rest of your life.

You seem too hell bent on LAW. Ruchir, you should realize that a greater part of humanity in the world, about 2 billion people who survive on ONE dollar a day (lazy bums) cannot afford the law. They are deprived systematically of the basic amenities of life and of education and healthcare since birth. So they survive through everyday illegalisms. They steal electricity, illlegally recycle garbage, run organized beggary cartels, sell drugs, run massive underground economies, work honestly when they can, and then do petty crimes when out of work. In African republics especially, if they are given guns, they fight civil wars. They encroach upon prime real estate. I dare any government in the world to apply the law down to the last letter on this massive population. That would mean razing shanty towns to the ground, from Mexico City to Mumbai and beyond, stopping child labor peremptorily without making arrangements for primary nutrition and education for that very child, and in a measure that will be shocking to the Indian middle class, stopping the practice of hiring cheap domestic labor at wages far below the legal limit. Now the question is, where will these two billion people go? Has humanity made any alternate arrangements for them?

Yet again, you thrust words on me that I never meant. I was talking specifically of US and you are talking about 2 billion people of world. I called the 'able bodied adults' of US bums and you are saying that I am calling every poor person a bum. The scenario that you painted above is not a valid scenario in USA, the country about which I have been talking. LAW is very easy to apply in USA, and that's what I have been saying. You are confusing it with the situation prevalent in other nations. There is a difference between USA and other nations.

You see, it took human beings some fifty centuries of civilization to hit upon what we think are right ideas -- democracy, rights, equality, rule of law,  etc. These are indeed noble ideas and I respect them as much as you do. But I also know that these are, in the larger scheme of things, still 'airy' ideas. They still have to gain a base of social reality. That will take a few more centuries. The idea of the Welfare State is founded on that realization. The very notion that the same laws should apply to a rich kid and starving one remains an idealistic one till the field is leveled more. This is truer than ever now because globally, we are in another gilded age. Income disparities are rising to frightening proportions all over the world. An inner city kid picks up drugs because of despondency; it is not laziness that prompts farmer suicides by the hundreds in India. Take welfare away from these people (that has been happening systematically in the last two decades) and they will respond with the only ways left: terrorism and civil war.

Here again, sir you start talking about social welfare in India and compare it to USA. Social welfare doesn't exist in India, as far as I know. If it did, farmers would not commit suicide.

You are, time and again, morphing Indian/World problems with US problems. IMO, they are very different. Social welfare problems of India are vastly different from US welfare problems. You just can't compare them. It would be comparing apples to oranges. I have been talking about US welfare problems, that too related to 'able bodied people' choosing not to work because they get free money. You are relating it to poor farmers in India and terrorism. That may be true for India, but not for US. That's what I want to make you realize.

What you have said makes sense to me. But it makes sense when I see it from India's perspective. It does not make sense when I see it from US perspective, and I am talking about US only.