There is a great post by Vanishing American with many powerful arguments on why to vote 3rd party this year. “Do you have a breaking point?” is well written and makes many important points.
http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2008/05/do-you-have-breaking-point.html
McCain’s passion is amnesty and more legal immigration. Hillary’s was health care. Just as Hillary would never give up health care, even after 15 years, so McCain will never give up amnesty as his passion.
Amnesty is McCain’s signature issue. It is his identity just like health care is Hillary’s. McCain needs amnesty passed in order to prove that McCain is right and good.
No president will give up having Congress vote him right and good on his identity issue. Bush used none of the power of the presidency to get amnesty. For McCain getting amnesty passed will prove he was right and he will use all the power of it to get it passed.
McCain will fight as hard to get amnesty as Bush fought to get Hussein. McCain will give any favor he has to, to whoever he has to to get amnesty. McCain will make any threat he has to. McCain will have the files of the government and be able to read them. That by itself creates a lot of fear
in a lot of people.
==From VA’s post
‘Change is never going to happen‘ – this is the implicit message of the two parties. Change can never happen because ‘we’ say so.
==
McCain will not change because we vote for him. If you want to personally change McCain on amnesty, voting for him won’t do it. McCain will take a vote for him the way Bush did in 2004, that it validates his removing Hussein.
==Another VA quote
But nonetheless, it’s claimed that third party candidates steal votes from one of the two ‘major’ candidates. People who make this claim are invariably party loyalists, or people who cannot imagine straying from the designated folds of Democrat and Republican, and they probably don’t realize how many people are disgusted with both parties and with the way the media are biased against any candidate who is outside the accepted system.
==
Bush spoke about a vendetta in connection with Buchanan Perot voters in 2000. It is possible to infer that the vendetta was of Bush against Buchanan Perot voters because they humiliated Bush senior in 1992. Amnesty and legal immigration are a way to punish Buchanan Perot voters because they want those stopped.
Is amnesty and legal immigration a way for Bush to get even with Buchanan Perot voters for humiliating Bush senior? Does McCain feel humiliated from losing in 2000? Does he blame the voters too? Do we want to vote for parties and party insiders who feel that those who don’t vote the way they say are disloyal? Bush didn’t feel that voters for Buchanan Perot were disloyal in a vacuum. Others in the party felt that way too. They enabled Bush to pursue his vendetta, which includes 8 years of over 1 million immigrants a year, partly from the increase from Bush senior’s 1990 Immigration Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990
After the Act, the United States would admit 700,000 new immigrants annually, up from 500,000 before the bill’s passage. The new system continued to favor people with family members already in the United States, but added 50,000 “diversity visas” for countries from which few were emigrating as well as 40,000 permanent job-related visas and 65,000 temporary worker visas.
==
Should we keep voting for those who think we are disloyal if we don’t vote for them, instead of their being disloyal to harm us? Do we want to be loyal to our rulers or make these parties be loyal to us? The mindset of the parties is that they are our hereditary rulers and we owe fealty to them. We need to vote 3rd party until we break them of saying that.
The only way the two major parties will change on amnesty and legal immigration is if we keep voting 3rd party on the presidential choice until one of the two parties ends legal immigration, that means 25,000 per year or less. If that sounds impossible, keep voting 3rd party. The 25,000 per year figure comes from the turning point in fertility in 1957. Immigration reached approximately 250,000 per year in 1957 and that caused fertility to peak, i.e. to come down. So that level of immigration is way too high. It causes a substitution of immigrants for births. So immigration has to be 1/10 of that level.
The pill was not available in the US until 1960, so it couldn’t have caused fertility to go down from 1957 to 1960.
==
As mentioned, Bush senior passed an increase in legal immigration in 1990. Around 1990 women’s median wages stopped going up as fast and women’s percentage in the labor force stopped increasing. (See data source links below.) But productivity went up another 50 percent by the mid 2000’s. Women’s median wage is 77 percent of men’s now. How could women’s wages go up while their percentage in the labor force went up before the Bush 1990 act and 1986 amnesty and then both stop increasing after these two acts? It had to be a substitution of immigrants for women. When women’s percentage in the labor force stopped going up, their wages should have gone up even more than before that when their percentage in the labor force and wages both went up.
The explanation is that employers were raising women’s wages to be closer to men’s before 1990 to induce them to join the labor force. Once employers got illegals and legal immigrants, they didn’t have to raise women’s wages to induce them to enter the labor force. So employers stopped raising women’s wages once they got the 1990 Bush expansion of legal immigration. That is why today women earn 77 percent of what men do.
http://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/category/women-labor-economics/
Employer’s didn’t need women here, they had legal immigrants to employ, men and women. So they stopped raising the wages of women to be closer to that of men. The same applies to minority pay.
McCain and Bush both don’t want to pay women as much as a man. McCain’s temper is reported to have boiled over and he called his wife a name:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_temper_boiled_over_in_92_0407.html
Does that show his respect for women? Or does keeping their wages from converging to that of men show McCain’s attitude towards women? Or Bush’s? Or Obama’s?
==Data Sources links on women’s wages and productivity.
Wages of men and women are little changed from 1990 while productivity has gone up substantially. The total change in productivity without compounding is about 40 percent from 1990 to 2007. But wages are almost the same over that period. See graph page 16:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf
==
Women’s percentage in the labor force saturated around 1990, i.e. stopped going up.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1999/12/art1full.pdf
Table 1 shows it stopped going up around 1990.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1999/12/art1abs.htm
==
So women’s wages and percentage in the labor force stopped going up together as they did before the 1986 amnesty and 1990 Bush legal immigration expansion. The explanation is that employers had to pay women more to induce them to join the labor force before the 1986 amnesty and 1990 Bush legal immigration expansion. Employers were forced to pay women closer to what men made. They also had to pay minorities closer to what whites were paid. Then that all slowed down or stopped after 1990. Employers stopped having to pay women a “premium” i.e. stopped paying them a lot less than men and paid them just less than men. They didn’t need women from here, they had women and men from amnesty and legal immigration and more illegals so they didn’t have to pay women as much as a man.
Republican party loyalists want to punish women for voting for Buchanan and Perot in 1990. Democrat party loyalists have the same attitude towards Nader voters in 2000. They want to punish these people. But these people are us. We have to stop voting for those punishing us. Let’s not vote for our own punishment by legal and illegal immigration and amnesty. Let’s vote for 3rd parties until the major parties stop legal immigration and amnesty. Let’s wait until women’s wages start getting closer to men’s again so that we can see that the employers have given up bribing their way to getting the party loyalists to punish us by any immigration. If you don’t want to vote for punishment immigration then vote third party. If you vote for McCain you are voting for punishment by immigration.
McCain may want us to be punished like he was by the North Vietnamese.
They say abuse creates abusers. If so, it would explain McCain’s attachment to amnesty and expanded legal immigration. Because it makes no sense in either case. The numbers show it hurts women. Why do McCain and Obama both want it so badly?
