Dude, If I weren’t running for President, there’d be illegals all up in this ….
The greatest scandal in Washington is when you accidentally speak the truth. Last night Mitt Romney admitted that, but for his running for office, he’d take full advantage of undocumented workers. It was something he has done before when he wasn’t running for office, and it is an issue he would not care about if he were not running for office. Because, hey, undocumented workers are cheap labor, and what good businessman doesn’t love cheap labor. So telling that truth is a gaffe.
It is also a gaffe in another respect which speaks directly as to why Mitt Romney is stuck at 20% in all primary polls: Romney cares more about his political ambitions than his principles.
It is why he has taken every position on every issue known to man. It is why Rush Limbaugh says he is not a conservative. It is why the teabagging base of the GOP hates him. And it is why he will not be the nominee of the Republican Party.
Rick Perry did better last night, and with a few more performances like that, he will regain his polling standing as the conservatives deflect from Cain.
I don’t think any Repubs are actually “rising” on their own merit. It seems more like they are each taking turns sinking to the bottom of the bowl, forcing the larger chunks to the top for a short while.
My favorite TV show is and was seinfeld. In one episode George is stating something that another person said, and Jerry’s comments back to George were “and you miss interpret this how”?.
My point is, you guys and gals once again are misinterpreting what Mitt Romney said. He simply said that when he was repremanding, or firing his contractor that maintained his yard he told him that you can’t be employeeing illegal alliens, for goodness sake I am running for president.
My father ran his own business for 40 years. He taught me there are only two ways you motivate people, fear and reward.
Mitt saying you can’t bring illegal’s because he was running for office, is strickly a motivation tactic, to build strong fear into the contractor so that he will understand not to bring illegals anymore. The reason stated was strickly for the contractors benefit. If you have ever had a boss, or been in business, you know that these tactics are used. People don’t always state the complete reason why they want you to do the job for them, they know the job needs to be done, and they simply offer up the strongest reason they can think of to motivate you to do the job.
Interpreting this as that if Mitt were not running for office, that he would have hired a bunch of illegal alliens is just a childish immature interprtation, and has no business being part of any serious discussion about the debate.
so why didnt he say “it’s illegal” or “millions of american citizens need jobs” or “you are exploiting these people” or “you are dodging taxes” or… ANYTHING other than the single most selfish and slime-ball answer he could have given?
no Rusty, he cares about what will give him the most votes which is exactly why he has held every position on every side of every issue there has ever been in the last 20 years. He is the most transparent puppet in recent history.
It’s pretty choice, really, for a conservative to lecture *anyone* on how to interpret a plain English language statement.
Unfortunately, this tactic actually works with *other* conservatives.
C’mon, Rusty. Anyone who speaks English as a first language knows he was saying, “What if I got caught?”
For the record, I think these immigrant-labor “gotcha” scenarios are stupid. All they prove is whether a candidate has enough money to hire a nanny, a pool service and a lawn service. Unsurprisingly, many do.
My interpretation is the same as Rusty’s. Sorry, in Mitt’s remearks, there is nothing there.
It is a big deal, Charles Pierce explains:
Poor Mitt. Now he has to run all over the country making sure all his servants are legal. Hey Mitt, you better go check on the guys doing the demolition work on your La Jolla teardown.
can we start calling him Willard? it sounds SO much more hoity. Willard Thurston Romney
So let me continue on with your guys and gals logic, Mitt Romney, with a net worth of around 1/4 of a billion dollars, was intentially trying to save a few hundred dollars, by intentionally allowing his landscape contractor to higher illegals
So to continue on my last comment, if Mitt Romney was able to save $250 per month by intentially having his landscape contractor higher illegals, then Mitt Romney would save up another 1/4 of a billion dollars in only four million more months.
Come on guys, get real.
The amount of savings is a red herring. The issue is the rule of law. Mitt Romney intentionally did not give a crap about legal/illegal until he considered his own ambition. He did not care how hiring illegals benefits the 1% at the expense of the 99% until he thought he might get caught. There are Americans who are hurting for those jobs right now, and Mitt revealed he would be willing to screw them if he thought nobody was watching.
I disagree that there are Americans hurting for those jobs. These are the sort of jobs that nobody takes unless they absolutely have to. Those college graduates with nobody to hire them are not going to be able to pay back their loans working for a landscaping company.
I disagree that there are Americans hurting for those jobs.
Seriously? I think there a lot of Americans who are at the point of “absolutely have to.” They shouldn’t have to compete with people who aren’t even supposed to be here, or work for employers who break the law.
Besides, those jobs would look a lot better without the downward pressure on wages and working conditions caused by the easy tolerance of illegals. If employers could no longer hire illegals they would have to clean up their act. Americans would be more likely to take those jobs under the protection of American law.
“Americans would be more likely to take those jobs under the protection of American law.”
Maybe I should wait until what you’re smoking wears off. Have you ever done that sort of work? Unless it’s a large company, you’re probably working under the table anyway, and for no more money than Mexicans get. The difference is that Mexicans won’t complain about 12-hour days. Americans will work two 12-hour days and you won’t see them on the third day.
Ask the farmers down south how cracking down on illegals worked out for getting their crops in from the fields. It didn’t work out quite the way you envision.
Actually yes I have. I worked landscape several different places during the Reagan recession as a white college boy. I worked my butt off. I worked as grunt labor with DelDOT road crews. I mowed greens and grubbed out woods on golf courses. I cut grass freelance. Each time it was the only job I could get and I was damn lucky to have it.
“Ask the farmers down south…”
They are still weaning themselves from their lawbreaking job-killing business model. It will take time to make the transition to become law-abiding citizens.
“They are still weaning themselves from their lawbreaking job-killing business model. It will take time to make the transition to become law-abiding citizens.”
Farmers in this country haven’t picked fruit and vegetables with non-immigrant labor since before the Depression. Your blithe dismissal of reality sounds a lot like the predictions of the Temperance League on what American life would become once the demon rum was purged.
While I admire idealism, I’m not motivated to take political positions over it. Add up the cost of keeping illegals out and the increase in costs to cover both that expense and the higher expense of labor and you’ve got an “improvement” that probably isn’t worth the price. That seems a steep price to pay just to score a cheap point against Mitt Romney.
Nothing southern land owners love more than cheap, or free labor. Is it any wonder that the place that forced the great hypocrisy of america …. “all men are created free and equal.. just with slaves” is the same place that has created a goal for illegal immigrants while simultaneously talking about them like vermin? I do think MItt’s quip is just about as harmful as Sgt Thomas saying “if you want to hurt people, go to iraq” meaning he was just flapping is gums like the snot nose he is. It DOES however shoe how serious he is about cracking down on I.I…. not at all….. and THAT should be the message we should focus on….. ya know, to get Perry the Nomination so i dont have to campaign hard for Obama this time.
BTW, sgt thomas is NOT a snot nose. he is a damn fine guy who (can i use bitch and not be sexist?) bitch-slapped a bunch of ratty little NYPD. Lord Willard Thurstan Finnius J Applebottom Romney however IS little snot.
I agree with Geezer about the “job” issue. I have friends that own companies that do landscaping and pest control. They cannot hire anyone. Both are perfect jobs for high school grads without any skills. The pest control job is limited as the job applicants have to pass a piss test.
But this issue is that both the gentlemen want to hire and cannot and are both understaffed.
“Add up the cost of keeping illegals out ”
Cost? A half-dozen high-profile prosecutions and shutdowns of illegal employers ought to do it. All the other employers would then self-audit for compliance.
“Farmers in this country haven’t picked fruit and vegetables with non-immigrant labor since before the Depression. ”
Don’t think I didn’t notice you change the topic from “illegal immigrants” to “immigrants.”
Farmers are welcome to use legal immigrants under US law. If that’s what they want then let the farmers get their asses to Congress and demand workable legal programs for pickers. But until then they have to follow the law.
“They cannot hire anyone. ”
No – they cannot hire anyone at the rate they want to pay. They are still addicted to paying rates set by wide availability of illegal labor.
Hey Nemski — are your friends open to hiring HS grads with criminal records?
And there *have* been fair number of high-profile prosecutions of illegal employers for quite some time. What employers know, however, is that there are way more of them in this big country than there are people looking for them. So the risk is well worth it for some employers. It is worth noting that the current increased focus on employers is part of the “uncertainty” that employers want to get rid of.
New Bedford
Pottsville
“The pest control job is limited as the job applicants have to pass a piss test.”
im all for a good time, but if you cant put the bong down for 3 weeks to get a damn job, you dont deserve one. in this same vein, you should also pass a drug screen for unemployment. *ducks
Thanks for the links, Cassandra. I guess the half-dozen prosecutions of illegal employers will have to be repeated each year before the message starts to stick.
What happens in those however is the workers get arrested, shiped home, possibly detained, maybe prosecuted back wherever home is and the COMPANY that hired them gets a fine, the PEOPLE who exploited them get in their van and go back to Home Depot for another batch of almost-slaves. We need to treat hiring illegal immigrants as harshly as selling drugs to minors. THAT will get the message to stick.
If you are using drugs, it is time to grow up and quit. They are shooting up half of Mexico to get the drugs to you. Or grow it yourself, I guess.
Actually SB in Cassandra’s links the illegal executives went to jail and their companies shut down. More like this please.
upon closer inspection, yes. yes they do. good show.
“Cost? A half-dozen high-profile prosecutions and shutdowns of illegal employers ought to do it. All the other employers would then self-audit for compliance.”
Wrong again. They’ve already done that in meat packing plant after meat packing plant. Hasn’t had the effect you claim. We’re sending back 400,000 illegals a year. Hasn’t had the effect immigrant-bashers claim.
As for the legal/illegal issue, they can make legal as much or as little immigration as they like. If the GOP was the party of business only, and not also the party of xenophobes, they would just raise the limit for ag workers (and, I suppose, they would reclassify meat packers as ag workers, too).
Seriously, you discuss this issue in such unrealistic terms you sound like a Tea Partier.
“If you are using drugs, it is time to grow up and quit.”
Wow. Talk about nanny-state liberalism. Remind me to stop agreeing with you on things.
What – I didn’t say anything about government forcing you to quit. It was a suggestion backed by a reason, sorry if that confused you.
Grow it yourself if you want it – just stop shooting up Mexican families for your buzz.
“I didn’t say anything about government forcing you to quit. It was a suggestion backed by a reason, sorry if that confused you.”
What part was “grow up,” then? Because it sounded just like a nanny.
“Just stop shooting up Mexican families for your high.”
So it’s not government policy in creating a black market that’s to blame. It’s the fault of the individual drug user. That’s like saying you have done your part for animal rights by turning vegan. It salves your conscience without requiring you to do anything that actually, y’know, helps any animals.
“Grow it yourself if you want it”
You do realize, I hope, that the drugs coming in from Mexico are not the kind you can “grow yourself.” There’s far too much marijuana grown in the US to make cross-border smuggling of it cost-effective; its price per pound is a small fraction of the price per pound of stronger drugs like meth, heroin and coke.
And even if we were talking about marijuana, it’s rather obvious that some people don’t have the resources to grow it themselves, I think.
Must be nice to live in your world, where there’s an easy solution to everything — everyone should just live like you. Exactly what the Tea Partiers think.
Do you really think legalizing drugs will make the price cheaper and take the violence out? First of all, no drug will be legalized without a heavy tax applied. And the cartels will switch to smuggling tax-free drugs, with their same guns and supply routes.
Part of the price of doing (illegal) drugs is the risk of being caught, of being in unsavory places and situations, living in the untouchable caste once your “permanent record” gets messed up, etc. Legalizing and taxing the heck out of it won’t stop the illegal trade, but most folks wanting to do drugs will want to do that with minimum risk and will pay for that. Legal cigarettes and alcohol certainly never stopped the people trying to get by the tax stamps.
i disagree puck. I think there will still be tax free drug smuggling, but how much of a market is there for tax free alcohol or cigarettes? I know people who know people who know people who heard from people who know people who buy illegal drugs from time to time. if the choice is going to a shady part of town to meet someone you’ve never met for a product you cant verify until said person is long gone with your money…. or stopping in to WalMart for Marlboro Greens and paying a little more for the tax….. it’s wallmart every time
“Do you really think legalizing drugs will make the price cheaper and take the violence out?”
I don’t know, but I do know it’s been a long time since people were gunned down over a load of black-market booze.
To look at the question seriously, you first have to separate marijuana from all the other drugs. I agree with you about harder drugs — cartels will seek to stay involved. They might want to stay involved with pot, too, but they won’t be able to.
Marijuana is the only recreational drug that can be grown and prepared for use without any special knowledge or equipment (in theory; nowadays most serious growers use complex indoor equipment to evade detection and improve the crop’s potency), and will therefore be the easiest for people to, as you suggest, grow themselves.
Don’t kid yourself on the tax front: When sin taxes get too high, black markets do develop, and governments are well aware of it. That’s why Delaware has lots of “discount” cigarette shops — compared with NYC, they were selling at a steep discount, which led to lots of vanloads of smokes going from Delaware to NYC before Delaware bumped up its tax level.
Take a look at Portugal’s experience. If Amsterdam has handled legalization poorly, Portugal seems to have done it well.
All of which is beside the point. Your contention is that the drug user is responsible for the violence. The fact that drug use does not lead to such violence everywhere drugs are used shows that your contention is flawed.
Liberals will boycott a pair of shoes because it was made by children, but won’t boycott drugs that were made by murderers? Go figure.
As Benjamin Franklin said: “So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. “
“Liberals will boycott a pair of shoes because it was made by children”
It’s not a boycott if you never bought it in the first place.
“but won’t boycott drugs that were made by murderers?”
Interesting way to look at it. Stupid, but interesting.
Tell me, what other products do you boycott because they were “made by murderers”? Do you boycott industrial fertilizers because of Bhopal? Do you boycott electricity because of the deadly pollution caused by mountaintop removal? I could keep going — I could find a link to death and destruction for every product you use all day, from your antibiotics to your toilet paper to every petroleum-based thing you consume. Eventually we’ll reach something you’ll claim justifies the means.
You can grow your moral high horse as big as you want; it still looks like a self-righteous salve to your conscience to me. And when you seek to impose your morals on me, you are no different from the right-wingers with social issues.
I’m not imposing morals; I’m using persuasion. It clearly isn’t working on you.
Puck, have you ever hired anyone to do any work for you anywhere at anytime. Like house cleaning, yard work, have you ever taken a cab ride. If you have ever taken a cab ride, you hired that company to transport you somewhere, Just like Mitt Romney hired the landscape company to do yard work. I certainly hope you checked in advance, to make sure the cab driver with a strong accent was not an illegal. I am assuming that you made him show you his green card.
Otherwise, I simply don’t think you give a crap about legals, or illegals.
Like house cleaning, yard work, have you ever taken a cab ride.
One of these things is not like the other. And Old Rusty here is betting we don’t know better.
Rusty has a point. It isn’t reasonable to ask individual purchasers to solve the immigration and jobs problem all by themselves through individual purchasing decisions (although it helps). Instead, we need laws, and the machinery of government and the courts to uphold a fair labor market for all of us.
In that case, I withdraw the criticism. And I agree, laws are good.
But in a real market — not a free one, a real one — a rich country bordering a poor one will always have such problems. Actually, all it takes is a disparity of any sort. The Dominican Republic doesn’t have all that many jobs, but the ones it has offer typical Third World pay. Yet that’s about triple what a job in Haiti offered before the earthquake. So the DR, poor as it is, still attracts tens of thousands of illegal immigrants from Haiti.
The experience in California a year or so ago, when semi-legal marijuana dispensaries sprang up all over the Los Angeles area, gives a glimpse of what might happen were pot legalized. Despite the city briefly having more dispensaries than it had McDonald’s restaurants and doctors handing out prescriptions like dollar-off coupons, there was no big crime wave — no increase of any kind, best I can tell (haven’t seen any detailed stats, just noting the lack of any news about it). Plus it saves money. Justice officials say they would save $1 billion in police and prosecution costs if the state simply decriminalized pot. Without any tax beyond a sales tax, the state made $100 million. Legalization proponents say a $50/ounce tax would raise $1.4 billion for the state.
Of course, that’s just the positive side of the ledger. Many of the negatives would continue, some reduced, some not. Most costs to the users would remain; you would still need police and prosecutors for breakers of the new laws; increased use could increase any problems already associated with use.
But if you take away the element of illegality, you will take away much of the violence at the wholesale level. I don’t think too many liquor distributors have gunned each other down lately.
So why don’t I feel guilty? I suppose because it’s based on preconception: If Mexican mobsters weren’t shooting each other over drugs, they’d shoot each other over something else. Their disregard for the civilian population and willingness to kill innocents is a puzzle someone else will have to explain, but I’m sure as hell not taking the blame for their lack of self-control, compassion and common human decency.
“a $50/ounce tax would raise $1.4 billion for the state.”
There’s the difference. The median state tax on liquor is .75/750ml. Highest is $2.56 in Alaska; lowest is .30 in Maryland. Nobody is going to to risk breaking the law for those returns. Nobody wants to smuggle a pickup truck full of bottles to Alaska for $2.56 per bottle (or less).
Now, a pickup truck full 1-ounce bags of pot worth $50 each in tax-evasion profits alone, that’s another matter.
one ounce is a LOT of weed. street value depending on the quality is 200-800 dollars. 50 isnt that much in comparison to how it is broken up and sold in 1/8th and 1/4 ounces
SB, we’re talking about a $50 TAX on that ounce, on top of whatever the price for the newly legal ounce is. Evading that $50/bag will be the new basis for the black market. $2.56 for bulky liquor isn’t worth evading. But raise the liquor tax to $50/bottle and somebody will be running it somewhere in a truck with a gun in the glove compartment.
you’re thinking about it the wrong way. weed is usually sold either by a 1/4 oz or 1/8th oz. an ounce doesn’t equal a bottle of liquor… it is more comparable to a case of liquor. so you’re actually dealing with 12.50 or 6.12 per unit sold. still alot, but the appeal for black market smuggling is dimminished
SB, I am sure you have a superior knowledge of marijuana distribution. But I was working with the $50/ounce tax figure posted above. From the tax point of view it doesn’t matter how it is repackaged, except that packaging the bags into smaller quantities only increases the profit and black market incentive.
Bottom line, the (hypothetical) tax on a truckload of pot is a small fortune, compared with tax on a truckload of booze.
that’s very cute of you to say. Your logic is still flawed equating the bulk packaging of one good to the on-the-shelf packaging of another.
“a pickup truck full 1-ounce bags of pot worth $50 each in tax-evasion profits alone, that’s another matter.”
I’m sure some Angelinos kept their black-market suppliers in business, but the volume moved at the dispensaries demonstrated that a great many people would be willing to pay a somewhat higher price to conduct their business at a safe, legal retail outlet. A tax of $50/ounce comes to 8.3% working from a $600/ounce price. That’s not enough of a difference to make someone turn to a black marketeer.