Politics & Government - 1 August 2007

TRUTH: Prior to 1965 when the disastrous Immigration Bill was passed, there was very little immigration. In fact, between 1925 and 1965, there was even a period of net emigration out of the United States. During this time, our grass was getting cut, our meat was being packed, our children were being watched and our houses were being cleaned. The idea that somehow we suddenly can't run a country without an unlimited supply of foreigners is absurd.

Those in favor of foreign labor are corporations who are addicted to cheap labor. They are the ones who are benefiting. But their benefit comes at the American tax payer's expense when you consider that the American tax payer is virtually subsidizing the labor costs of the greedy corporations by supplying the illegal foreign workers and their families with welfare, free education, free medical, WICs, housing assistance, etc. -- something the corporations won't do.

Americans won't allow themselves to be exploited like illegals do, but they WILL do the work that illegals do for fair compensation and benefits. If Americans did the work that illegals do at higher pay, would that benefit the consumer? You bet it would in the long run. But many Americans who do not care about America's future are consumers who favor the idea of exploiting illegal workers because it keeps commodity and service prices down in the short term.

2007-08-01 14:00:59 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Immigration

I won the judgement on a small claims case, however I 'm worried that the defandent may appeal? How many times can the defandent appeal a case?

2007-08-01 13:58:26 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics

2007-08-01 13:57:36 · 10 answers · asked by dustin m 1 in Military

What would you have done?

Before you think, put yourself in his position.

2007-08-01 13:55:27 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

2007-08-01 13:54:16 · 14 answers · asked by ? 3 in Law & Ethics

2007-08-01 13:51:44 · 2 answers · asked by DeAnna H 1 in Law & Ethics

This Stems From Questioning The Way I feel About The Death Penalty, A Mother Allegedly Killed Her Two Kids And Put The In A Trash Bag And Put The Under The Sink...

"Do You Believe In The Death Penalty, Why Or Why Not???"

*(I Don't Believe In It But Sometimes I Think About It)*

Think About It...

2007-08-01 13:49:43 · 42 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics

Why do Libs revere Robert Byrd so much? a former member of the KKK....How would they react if GW was a former KKK member? Why is William Jefferson still holding his job? If a Republican Senator had bribe money in his freezer, wouldn't he be run out of town?

2007-08-01 13:49:00 · 10 answers · asked by El Guapo 4 in Other - Politics & Government

since bush is no longer worried about him anymore he said it himself not my words.what you guys think ?

2007-08-01 13:48:58 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Politics & Government

can an officer randomly ask you to open your trunk without a warrant and if they can, do they need probably cause?

2007-08-01 13:47:35 · 15 answers · asked by Max S 1 in Law Enforcement & Police

With that blank stare on his face, was it a strong sense of guilt?

2007-08-01 13:44:19 · 31 answers · asked by somber 3 in Politics

I think if we found a way to get on the moon in less then 8 years who says we can't get a new source of energy in less than 10 years?

2007-08-01 13:42:39 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

2007-08-01 13:42:06 · 21 answers · asked by fright night 1 in Military

I think she should go with a southerner to balance the ticket.John F. Kennedy had the right idea when he chose Lyndon Johnson from Texas, to be his running mate. Al Gore's choice of Joseph Lieberman has to be the dumbest move in the history of electoral politics.

2007-08-01 13:41:17 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

Since the disastrous election of 2000, and the many questions following the election of 2004, and since in both California and Florida, experts were brought in and proved they could hack voting machines in a matter of minutes, which would affect the results of any U.S. election, do you think that the public should insist upon a paper trail, to allow a recount of votes if needed, and to allow voters to see if their votes were recorded correctly?

2007-08-01 13:40:35 · 10 answers · asked by Me, Too 6 in Elections

Has anyone ever got a reply from the "yahoo team" for something you thought was not a violation? I received a violation for asking everyone to sign a "protect the wolves petition"???It made me pretty mad!

2007-08-01 13:40:34 · 4 answers · asked by Chris 3 in Law & Ethics

Congress has no business dictating automotive fuel efficiency.
Everybody in Washington wants to force the auto industry to make more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. President Bush wants to require new vehicles to meet federal standards (to be determined) based on how heavy they are. The Senate wants to mandate that every car, pick-up truck, and SUV sold in 2020 average a fuel efficiency of at least 35 miles per gallon — far more aggressive than the 27.5 mile per gallon standard now in place for passenger vehicles. The House could offer an amendment on fuel standards from the floor on Friday. Either way, we’ll find out later this week what’s in store.

Would the market produce “too little” conservation without corporate average fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards? At first glance, no. The “right” (that is, efficient) amount of gasoline consumption will occur naturally as long as fuel markets are free and gasoline prices reflect total costs. In fact, a review of market data by Clemson University economist Molly Espey and Santosh Nair found that consumers actually overvalue fuel efficiency. That is, they pay more up front in higher car prices than the present value of the fuel savings over the lifetimes of the cars.

But driving imposes costs on others that aren’t reflected in fuel prices, like environmental degradation. Because gasoline prices do not reflect total costs, consumption is higher than it ought to be. Congress is therefore doing the economy a favor by mandating increased increments of energy conservation, right?

The argument is clever, but wrong.

Increasing CAFE standards will not decrease the amount of pollution coming from the U.S. auto fleet. That’s because we regulate emissions per mile traveled, not per gallon of gasoline burned. Improvements in fuel efficiency reduce the cost of driving and thus increase vehicle miles traveled. Moreover, automakers have an incentive to offset the costs associated with improving fuel efficiency by spending less complying with federal pollution standards with which they currently over-comply.

Those two observations explain calculations from Pennsylvania State economist Andrew Kleit showing that a 50 percent increase in CAFE standards would increase total emissions of volatile organic compounds by 2.3 percent, nitrogen oxide emissions by 3.8 percent, and carbon-monoxide emissions by 5 percent.

Another rationale for CAFE standards is that gasoline purchases send money to foreign terrorists who kill and maim with our dollars. Energy conservation, according to many, is our “ace in the hole” against al Qaeda and its ilk.

If there were a relationship between our “energy addiction” and Islamic terrorism, one would expect to find a correlation between world crude oil prices and Islamic terror attacks or mortality from the same. But there is no statistical relationship between the two. Terrorism is a very low-cost endeavor and manpower, not money, is its necessary determinant. That explains why even the lowest inflation-adjusted oil prices in history proved no obstacle to the rise of Islamic terror organizations in the 1990s.

While it’s true that nasty regimes like Iran are getting rich off our driving habits, the extent to which oil profits fuel its nastiness is unclear. After all, Pakistan is a poor country with no oil revenues, but it had no problem building a nuclear arsenal. The same goes for North Korea. Iran without oil revenues might look like Syria. Venezuela without oil revenues might look like Cuba. In short, while rich bad actors are probably more dangerous than poor ones, oil revenues don’t seem to make much difference at the margin.

Finally, we’re told that CAFE helps secure our energy independence. But the amount of oil we import is related to the difference between domestic and foreign crude oil prices. Reducing oil demand may reduce the total amount of oil we consume, but it will not reduce the degree to which we rely on foreign oil to meet our needs.

Regardless, tightening CAFE standards would have little impact on any of these alleged problems. If the Senate’s proposed CAFE standard of 35 mpg by 2020 were to become law, it would reduce oil consumption by, at most, about 1.2 million barrels a day. Given that the Energy Information Administration thinks world crude oil production would be 103.8 million barrels a day by 2020, the reduction would be 1.2 percent of global demand and result in a 1.3 percent decline in price; nowhere near enough to defund terrorists, denude oil producers of wealth, or secure energy independence.

Congress has no business dictating automotive fuel efficiency. That’s a job for consumers, not vote-hustling politicians. There are no problems for CAFE standards to solve. Hence, they shouldn’t be tightened; they should be repealed.

2007-08-01 13:36:29 · 16 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2 in Politics

I need them for school, and I'd rather buy them cheap somewhere, quickly...or if there is a link to either or both online, so I don't have to go to the law library,,,,that'd be great. thx.

2007-08-01 13:36:28 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics

Should the costs of EPA regulations be weighed against their prospective benefits?

2007-08-01 13:34:52 · 5 answers · asked by LillyAN 1 in Law & Ethics

2007-08-01 13:34:36 · 12 answers · asked by kin2308 2 in Elections

My husband received assignment somewhere else and so we had to break our lease early, and the apartment / rental company that leases the property said they needed to have a copy of my husband's orders and that he could not just show them to the management.

Is this legal?

2007-08-01 13:29:17 · 25 answers · asked by - ?!?!? - 1 in Military

2007-08-01 13:29:11 · 19 answers · asked by ally 1 in Law Enforcement & Police

2007-08-01 13:28:23 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Government

Raul Castro, who has been in charge of the Cuban government during Castro's illness, has suggested that the U.S. and Cuba begin talks on this subject. Because Cuba is a Communistic country, some people feel we should continue the embargo. However, others feel it should be relaxed and Cuba once again be accessible to U.S. citizens.

2007-08-01 13:27:41 · 11 answers · asked by Me, Too 6 in Other - Politics & Government

2007-08-01 13:27:33 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Politics & Government

My husband received assignment somewhere else and so we had to break our lease early, and the apartment / rental company that leases the property said they needed to have a copy of my husband's orders and that he could not just show them to the management.

Is this legal?

2007-08-01 13:27:13 · 9 answers · asked by - ?!?!? - 1 in Law & Ethics

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama took on President Bush, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf and his chief Democratic primary rival on Wednesday in a speech billed as major foreign policy statement by the Illinois senator.

Obama said he will be better focused than Bush on fighting terrorists in foreign lands — shifting away from Iraq and back to Afghanistan — as well as improving diplomatic relations and securing the homeland, according to excerpts from the speech prepared for delivery.

Obama, speaking at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars in Washington, D.C., also called for at least two more U.S. combat brigades to be sent to Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda, and he had tough words for Musharraf, saying in the absence of more action from the Pakistani leader in the fight against terrorists, the U.S. would step in.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291681,00.html

2007-08-01 13:26:31 · 11 answers · asked by HATE MONSTER™ 2 in Politics

I am tired of people complaining when they have no idea how hard it is. Nobody has a crystal ball to see the future but presidents get bashed on their decisions all the time because everybody has 20/20 foresight.

2007-08-01 13:25:29 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Government

2007-08-01 13:23:07 · 16 answers · asked by CharlieWarlie 3 in Law & Ethics

I can't wait to see the answers for this.

2007-08-01 13:22:50 · 11 answers · asked by Steve 3 in Other - Politics & Government