southsider2k5

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 10:30 PM) Huh? In World War II the tax rate was in the 90s's. In 1950 the tax rate was in the 90's. In 1964 the tax rate was in the 90's. In 2010 the tax rate is far lower than the 90's. My first post clearly explains this: The web page you linked shows the exact same trend as I pointed out. Here are the immigration numbers: 1931-40 528,431 1941-50 1,035,039 1951-60 2,515,479 1961-70 3,321,677 1971-80 4,493,314 1981-90 7,338,062 As immigration increased from 1950 to 1990, taxes either remained constant, or decreased. Which is exactly what I said in my previous post: So the website you posted, has the exact same facts and trends as I suggested. Tax rates went down after WWII (I never said instantly, I said from 1940 to 1990) and during that time period immigration increased. This just doesnt make sense. Social security, medicare and medicaid are supported by citizens. If we were to increase the amount of citizens you would 1) increase the amount of benefits given and 2) increase the amount of revenue raised. It doesnt take a genius to create a system where immigrants will be legalized and get benefits respective to what they put into the system. Not everyone gets the same social security benefits, you can pay more money in, you can take money quicker, etc. I dont think any rationale person would suggest that an immigrant who is 65 and comes to the US and is then given citizenship is deserving of the same social security benefits as some one who paid into the system for 45 years. I do think its reasonable to allow immigrants to buy into the system at a higher percentage rate dependent on their age. Youd need some actuaries to figure out the math end of it, but it would not be to hard to figure out how much more money some one who is 35 entering the US would need to pay compared to some one who is 18 and compared to some one who is 65. Illegal immigrants arent eligible for these programs. My guess is that most illegal immigrants would be willing to sacrifice entry into these programs if it meant they would become legal citizens and have all of the freedom America provides. There are plenty of solutions to the monetary issues. And the deficit has gone...

Well seeing Jenks go out should make some people happy...

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 09:49 PM) Then why does post WWII taxes go down as immigration goes up? Just because the govt is bigger doesnt mean that immigrants cost more comparatively, as they would be paying into the system just like any other citizen. The costs for an individual immigrant should be the same cost as an individual US citizen. The only difference may be that the costs for each citizen have increased today, but that is why taxes are not capped at 25%. They don't really. They come down for a few years after WWII, but then go back up over 90% for the 50's and into the 60's. http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php The costs for an immigrant aren't the same, because they aren't paying into the system over a full lifetime, they pay less on average in taxes than typical American's, and because of that bracket, they use more in social services. And the costs for everyone have gone way up in the last 80 years because of the massive influx of government programs and social services that are out there now, which weren't before. Adding something like 12 to 20 million people will crush programs like social security, medicare, medicade, welfare, food stamps, etc.

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 09:45 PM) It's really amazing that our first round pick from a few months ago is pitching in a meaningful game in August. Well it had meaning before he got into the game...

Judging things on the 20's and 30's doesn't work because there wasn't a massive social system in place. There was literally no negative impact for the government to have immigrants then. Now because of the last 75 years or so of massive expansion of government, it costs a ton of money for migrants to come here. It is a totally different animal.

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 09:40 PM) Well, Gardenhire pulled Liriano before Ramirez batted, while Ozzie let Floyd stayed in. Right or wrong, Gardenhire is the huge winner in the managerial game tonight. I like the match-ups vs the Tigers, but would be nice to see Teahen called up for Viciedo with those 3 righties on the mound. He looks like a genius because of the middle of the Sox order couldn't hit with RISP.

The sad thing is that this all academic if we do anything with hitters on base.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 08:02 PM) It was a bang-bang play. Not really

Why do we take stupid pills every time we play the Twins? It also didn't help the ump blew the call at 1b.

One bad pitch, 1-0 Twins after a half inning...

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 04:50 PM) If you remove the rule, they cant break it anymore. So not only am I against changing the 14th amendment, Im for making it so that everyone can become an American citizen who wants to. Remove all quotas, remove all unnecessary restrictions, let freedom ring. When you open up the Immigration debate, you have to remember that there are people in the United States who strongly oppose the idea of restricting who can enter into our country. It would be amazing if the people of the United States could turn this on its head, and make it so that we allow everyone in the world a chance to have the freedom that so many of us take for granted. Freedom for all, not just for those of us who got here first. Are you open to an effective 50% tax rate to pay for everyone?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 06:42 PM) You can't tell me that swapping in Teahen for Kotsay at DH, and batting him 9th wouldn't be a huge upgrade for this roster. He's not taking Kotsay's spot at DH. That is the point. He is coming back as a super-utility guy. If he was coming back to DH, he wouldn't be playing in the field at Charlotte, he would be here DHing.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 05:43 PM) It seems like Kenny's small deals are always the best deals. Borchard for Thornton McCarthy for Danks Carter for Quentin I could even argue the last one, but there is no way that the Bmac deal was a small one. Brandon was our top prospect, and was supposed to be an anchor of our rotation for years.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 04:34 PM) On it's own no...but failing to fix it guarantees that anything else you try will fail. You've got an old, run down bridge, needs new paint, needs paving, but also needs a pillar that is in the process of collapsing replaced...no matter how good of a paint job or paving job you do, the thing's going to collapse if you don't fix that part. The argument all along hasn't been fixing quotas. It has been job programs, and enforcement, and verification. All of which we have done. Quotas have zero effect on people who are going to break the rules anyway.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 04:11 PM) But no actual fix to the immigration quotas. So that one thing is going to solve everything? OK.

QUOTE (hammerhead johnson @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 04:16 PM) Are you not liking these draft picks: Kenny Williams Jr. Tyler Williams Ozney Guillen Harold Baines Jr. LOL at naming your kid Tyler. This guy needs to watch some George Carlin DVDs or something. Exactly one of those guys was drafted earlier enough to matter.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 03:53 PM) Ok. I can still then argue that it's been a miserable failure because we didn't change the laws at the same time to create a long-term fix. All I was asking. Tell me if you have heard this all before... All of those same talking points are in there again 25 years later. Work programs, verification, enforcement, etc. You are right, we didn't create a long term fix, and it won't 25 years later. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d0.../d099query.html

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 03:32 PM) So...I just want to be clear...your only example is the one under Reagan, correct? Yes. And it has been a miserable failure. Just to be clear.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 03:25 PM) Well, I'm wondering if you can cite for me an example of amnesty happening at the same time as a major policy reform where the amnesty wound up being a major issue...such that if there were an amnesty tied up with the creation of a new job registration program the whole thing fell apart because of the amnesty. But frankly, any more than 1 would be interesting, because with 1 I can come up with all sorts of caveats..."yeah but there were only x number at the time...yeah but we were only doing x with regards to enforcement at the time, etc.". So what major moves in enforcement are we talking about besides, "we can't send them all back." I have seen things like border security spending doesn't work, and we shouldn't have laws that enforce immigration rules so far, and I fail to see where those would actually help the problem. Besides common sense tells you that even if you create a program, if the incentive to come here illegally isn't solved, nothing is fixed. Even if you create a jobs program, but leave all of the mack-truck sized holes that you want to leave, there will still be an immigration problem, because it will still be cheaper to sneak into the country illegally, and employers won't face large enough fines to deter them from hiring them, instead of going through some bureaucratic governmental hiring nightmare.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 02:11 PM) Most are hoping he just replaces Kotsay as part time DH. We shall see what Ozzie actually does. Except he won't, or they wouldn't be playing him everywhere in Charlotte, he would already be back here.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 03:23 PM) Was there an answer to my question about whether you had any example of a "failed amnesty" other than the one under Reagan? How many others do you need?

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 03:19 PM) Do they have a Chipotle's on Chicago? They have a ton of them in Chicago

QUOTE (hammerhead johnson @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 03:06 PM) Well, at least he'll be going up against awful opposing starters in most cases. He's matched up against Armando Galarraga this Sunday, for instance. After that, he'll get to face a Royals scrub. Which is probably why the rotation was set the way that it is was...

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 03:06 PM) The last amnesty was 24 years ago. Literally a generation ago. Opposing blanket amnesty seems to have worked well in D.C. Further, I don't understand how changing the definition of who can and can not become a citizen would make amnesty more difficult to take place. Its the opposite really. Giving away more citizenships make amnesty easier to grant.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 02:12 PM) You're just pulling numbers out of thin air now. No one, you or me, knows what % this will effect. And you completely ignore the broader point I was making - that you have to do ALL those different things, and the effect would go beyond the actual, direct enforcement. Also, remember recently, I posted an article showing that the level of illegals in the country had recently peaked, and was actually headed DOWN now? The main reasons for that are simple - lack of jobs, and the fear of increased enforcement measures. Less money, more risk, so they are headed out on their own. Your direct enforcement data won't show that. There you go. And it is also worth noting that it could also increase the wages in some of those jobs for American's to be able to do them, and still afford to live.