Now that the immigration reform has failed, do we need a new Ronald Reagan in 2008 to move it forward?
Answer:
Seeing how the 1986 illegal immigration bill was joke, why would we want another one? It is true that our nation was built by immigrants, but it is also true that they were legal immigrants. If people want to come to this country, no problem, stand in line. But what we face is a large population group that has no respect or regard for our laws. Living in a boarder state and working closely with law enforcement, many of these people do not want to assimilate and breaking into our country is not the only crime they have committed costing California 1.4 BILLION annually in incarceration costs alone. Socially and economically, illegals cost California $10.5 BILLION per year. A good indication of this economic impact is that fact that ER hospitals all over California are closing due to the raising costs of treating illegals. Dividing this cost by the number legal tax pays in California means everyone pays more than a $1,000 per year just to cover the cost of illegals. I can think of a lot better ways of spending a $1,000 than paying for an illegal to sit in jail or bankrupt my local hospital.
Reagan was one big joke
I'll be looking at this issue very closely in the next Presidential election. I will ONLY vote for those politicians that stand for enforcing the current laws and deporting these illegals that are bleeding our services white.
If that means Donald Duck has the hardest stance on illegal immigration, then Donald Duck will get my vote.
A new Ronald Reagan?
Most definitely not.
Perhaps a new FDR would be more fitting...
What do you do when you want to screw only the working people of your nation with the largest tax increase in history and hand those trillions of dollars to your wealthy campaign contributors, yet not have anybody realize you've done it? If you're Ronald Reagan, you call in Alan Greenspan.
Through the "golden years of the American middle class" - the 1940s through 1982 - the top income tax rate for the hyper-rich had been between 90 and 70 percent. Ronald Reagan wanted to cut that rate dramatically, to help out his political patrons. He did this with a massive tax cut in the summer of 1981.
The only problem was that when Reagan took his meat axe to our tax code, he produced mind-boggling budget deficits. Voodoo economics didn't work out as planned, and even after borrowing so much money that this year we'll pay over $100 billion just in interest on the money Reagan borrowed to make the economy look good in the 1980s, Reagan couldn't come up with the revenues he needed to run the government.
Coincidentally, the actuaries at the Social Security Administration were beginning to get worried about the Baby Boomer generation, who would begin retiring in big numbers in fifty years or so. They were a "rabbit going through the python" bulge that would require a few trillion more dollars than Social Security could easily collect during the same 20 year or so period of their retirement. We needed, the actuaries said, to tax more heavily those very persons who would eventually retire, so instead of using current workers' money to pay for the Boomer's Social Security payments in 2020, the Boomers themselves would have pre-paid for their own retirement.
Reagan got Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Alan Greenspan together to form a commission on Social Security reform, along with a few other politicians and economists, and they recommend a near-doubling of the Social Security tax on the then-working Boomers. That tax created - for the first time in history - a giant savings account that Social Security could use to pay for the Boomers' retirement.
This was a huge change. Prior to this, Social Security had always paid for today's retirees with income from today's workers (it still is today). The Boomers were the first generation that would pay Social Security taxes both to fund current retirees and save up enough money to pay for their own retirement. And, after the Boomers were all retired and the savings account - called the "Social Security Trust Fund" - was all spent, the rabbit would have finished its journey through the python and Social Security could go back to a "pay as you go" taxing system.
Thus, within the period of a few short years, Reagan dramatically dropped the income tax on America's most wealthy by more than half, and roughly doubled the Social Security tax on people earning $30,000 or less. It was, simultaneously, the largest income tax cut in America's history (almost entirely for the very wealthy), and the most massive tax increase in the history of the nation (which entirely hit working-class people).
But Reagan still had a problem. His tax cuts for the wealthy - even when moderated by subsequent tax increases - weren't generating enough money to invest properly in America's infrastructure, schools, police and fire departments, and military. The country was facing bankruptcy.
No problem, suggested Greenspan. Just borrow the Boomer's savings account - the money in the Social Security Trust Fund - and, because you're borrowing "government money" to fund "government expenditures," you don't have to list it as part of the deficit. Much of the deficit will magically seem to disappear, and nobody will know what you did for another 50 years when the Boomers begin to retire 2015.
Reagan jumped at the opportunity. As did George H. W. Bush. As did Bill Clinton (although Al Gore argued strongly that Social Security funds should not be raided, but, instead, put in a "lock box"). And so did George W. Bush.
The result is that all that money - trillions of dollars - that has been taxed out of working Boomers (the ceiling has risen from the tax being on your first $30,000 of income to the first $90,000 today) has been borrowed and spent. What are left behind are a special form of IOUs - an unique form of Treasury debt instruments similar (but not identical) to those the government issues to borrow money from China today to fund George W. Bush's most recent tax cuts for billionaires (George Junior is still also "borrowing" from the Social Security Trust Fund).
Former Bush Junior Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill recounts how Dick Cheney famously said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Cheney was either ignorant or being disingenuous - it would be more accurate to say, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter if you rip off the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for them, and don't report that borrowing from the Boomers as part of the deficit."
No. Reagan did quite enough to destroy this country thank you very much...notice that MOST of the congressmen who voted FOR amnesty in 86 now is strongly apposed to it?
yea but amnesty is not fair
we need ron paul
he supported reagan!!
He is the best
vote for ron paul
Ronald Reagan was like the worst president ever after Bush!!!Vote for Tom Tancredo in 2008, he's going to be the best!
Yeah, but we trusted Ronnie to follow up with enforcement, but of course he was gone before it was supposed to kick in.
Who else would we trust? Maybe if they put in a citizen suit enforcement provision...
And maybe if the immigrant groups would quit getting into bed with big business...
No,one was quite enough.
What we need is someone who cares about our country and will build a fence and use military force to control our borders and deport those here illegally. If I find the guy or gal thats who I'm voting for.
The Immigration information post by website user , MyTend.com not guarantee correctness.
More Immigration Questions and Answers ...