Archive for the 'John Sidney McCain III' Category

John McCain: No Jobs for Boeing Bigots

March 22, 2008

(Spoof) John McCain announced with pride that he had stopped the Bigots of Boeing from getting jobs with the airline tanker deal with Airbus.

John McCain: If you have a good job, I’ve got an H-1B from India or China to take it. If you have a crummy job, I’ve got someone from Mexico to take it. Either way, your wages are going down.

(Men’s median wages the same since 1973. Women’s median wages are what men’s were in 1960, and that’s the way John McCain likes it. Graph page 16:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf)

McCain: Also, you subprime mortgage homeowners, I’ve got people from Mexico to take your house while they take your job. Building airplanes another job American bigots don’t want to do.

McCain: I’m John McCain and you’re a bigot.

==Youtube France thanks Jean McCain

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R2ss–tJ0A&eurl=http://www.ourfuture.org/merci-mccain 

==Zazona on McCain H-1b

http://www.zazona.com/ShameH1B/Library/Politicians/McCain.htm

Letter 1: McCain said that the visa cap should be unlimited until at least 2006 because there aren’t enough Americans to fill high-tech jobs. He said Americans lack the skills to work in high tech so he proposes training programs to allow them to compete with foreign workers.

==

http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgradescategory.php3?District=AZ&Category=5&Status=Career&VIPID=33

==Free Fax Congress against H-1b and immigration from your computer

http://www.numbersusa.com/faxcenter

or join the anti-immigration lobbyist Fairus:

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer

==Comment on immigration at Dan Stein (of Fairus)

http://www.steinreport.com/

==John McCain warmup speaker at a campaign stop. McCain has not yet arrived.

Lobbyist: Anyone in this crowd with a good paying job still?

A few hands are raised.

Lobbyist: Well John McCain has H-1B’s from India and China ready to take your job. Any of you object?

A man raises his hand.

Lobbyist: You are a bigot.

Lobbyist: Men’s median wages are the same as 1973 but productivity has doubled. Anyone object?

Same man raises his hand.

Lobbyist: What are you some kind of campaign stalker?

Man puts his hand down.

Lobbyist: Women’s median wages are the same as men’s were in 1960. Anyone object to that?

Same man puts his hand up.

Lobbyist: You aren’t a woman. Why do you care?

Man: I have a wife, a sister and a daughter. And my mom still works too.

Lobbyist: Well John McCain has women from Mexico to take all their jobs. What do you think of that Mr. Bigot?

 

 

Who won CNN Youtube Republican Debate?

November 29, 2007

The performance of the candidates in order, might be

  1. Fred Thompson
  2. Tom Tancredo
  3. Duncan Hunter
  4. Ron Paul
  5. Mitt Romney
  6. John McCain
  7. Mike Huckabee
  8. Rudi Giuliani

There are two groups. The first group are loyal to Americans as people and will fight for them. That group of 4 won because they had things to say to help Americans. Those 4 performed as follows in terms of winning the debate.

  1. Fred Thompson Had things to say. Didn’t surrender on the Confederate Flag. Thompson is willing to say what he thinks on social security, entitlements, immigration. etc. Fred had the most to offer on many subjects that was actually for the benefit of Americans. It was also at a good level of using specifics when needed to bolster an explicit set of policies to help Americans. None of the others used specific facts to support policies to help Americans as effectively as Fred.
  2. Tom Tancredo. Was more relaxed and confident than usual. He was funny and self-deprecating at times and comfortable in his skin.
  3. Duncan Hunter. Strong confident, pro-American.
  4. Ron Paul. Independent, didn’t waffle in face of some tough questions.

The second 4 had nothing positive to offer to Americans.

  1. Mitt Romney. Empty suit. Romney has nothing to offer to make our lives better. Romney made 250 million in the 1980’s and 1990’s by ending good paying jobs. Men’s median wages are lower than in 1973. Women’s median wages are what men’s were in 1960. See p60-233.pdf. Romney made money for himself by keeping them lower.
  2. John McCain. Was somewhat defensive and shrill.
  3. Mike Huckabee. He really made it clear at length that he has no loyalty to Americans, that Americans in general are closet racists and that he really despises those who think he owes them or any American citizens loyalty. For Huckabee, hating Americans opposed to immigration is a moral passion. He reacts with anger to any proposal to be loyal to Americans when their interests conflict with immigrants, which is often. Huckabee thinks that conflict is often and thinks Americans who want Huckabee to take their side are racist.
  4. Rudi Giuliani. He was defensive through the evening. Like the others in the anti-American 4, he makes it clear he has contempt and no loyalty for Americans where it counts, in wages and in keeping out those who come here and change our country, which is for the worse.

The top 4 were all comfortable in their skins. The bottom 4 were all uncomfortable. The top 4 were for the people. The bottom 4 had covert or even overt hostility to the people.

That included Romney on the Confederate Flag. Romney made clear his contempt and you could see his mind working to use this as a triangulation issue to advance himself, but he might cost himself votes in South Carolina where Fred Thompson is battling it out with Romney, both are at the top in South Carolina, which is the third event behind Iowa and New Hampshire.

Huckabee on tuition breaks for illegals came out with a passion against anyone who would deny anything to children of illegals or illegals themselves. For Huckabee this is a moral issue direct from God. Anyone who is opposed to Huckabee on helping illegals is not a good Christian or person and is evil. He made that clear.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/28/debate.transcript/index.html

==Hypothesis on why bottom 4 came off as against us

We discuss here a hypothesis of why the second 4 had nothing to offer Americans on good paying jobs, job security, stopping immigration, etc.

The second 4 think, or act as if, its racist to be loyal to Americans. These 4 are intentionally and affirmatively “racist” against Americans. They advocate good job destruction for Americans and their children. They advocate ending the safety of American communities and making them unsafe at night or even by day by immigration by those who have manifested animosity against Americans, especially white Christian or secular Americans.

The bottom 4 are immigration supremacists. Because immigration supremacy is built on calling whites racist to silence them its necessary to point out the anti-whiteness of this strategy and these candidates. Whites are the majority so a strategy to keep wages below the 1973 level for men for all groups has to be built on cowing whites into silence.

Their strategy is that whites who ask for good wages will be called racist when they propose the only real solution, ending all legal immigration. So we need to discuss at length the anti-white racism in the immigration supremacist position of the bottom 4 candidates.

The candidates who imply loyalty to Americans is racist are really implying that whites are racists who deserve nothing. This is the whites deserve to lose their good jobs, aren’t due anything for building the country or fighting the wars, and should be condemned if they say they are.

These candidates intentionally pursue big immigration strategies designed to make whites a minority, take away their good jobs and label all whites as racists. They are doing this to everyone else here too. Since big immigration as a strategy relies on labeling whites as racist to succeed, its necessary to point out the anti-whiteness of the candidates pursuing this approach. The bottom 4 are triangulating with the rest of whites as racist.

Although the 4 didn’t express these ideas explicitly, their behavior at the debate, and their past record are consistent with this hypothesis. They don’t have anything to offer to make American lives better. The top 4 did. The top 4 are immigration restrictionists in one way or another. The bottom 4 are immigration supremacists.

==Questions that should be asked.

A question that should have been asked, is: Do you think its racist to want to stop all legal immigration, and send all the illegals home?

To Huckabee, do you think Tom Tancredo’s statements or positions on immigration are racist?

Do you think America should remain a majority white country? What would you do to keep it that way? (This should be asked of Democrats as well.)

Are those who say America should stay majority white racist?

For Dems and Huckabee:

Do blacks have lower IQ than whites?

Is it partly genetic?

Is it racist to say so?

Does it matter?

Do “racial differences exist” between blacks and whites in crime?

For Hispanics?

Is it racist to say “racial differences exist” between blacks and whites in crime? Hispanics?

Does that imply we should not have immigration by blacks or Hispanics?

Is it racist to say so?

Is there regression towards the mean in IQ and behavior?

Does this mean we should not have immigration from the third world, even higher IQ or better behaved individuals?

Is it racist to say so?

Is it white supremacist to say so?

Is the Confederate Flag a symbol of white nationalism or white supremacism?

Do you consider Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, Virgil Goode, Trent Lott, or George Allen to have said anything that is white nationalist or white supremacist?

Do you believe America will become a white minority country?

Do you think its racist to say it should not?

Do you think doing anything to stop America becoming white minority is white nationalism or white supremacism?

Are you an immigration supremacist in the sense that you believe America will become minority white and that you call anyone who says to stop that a racist or white nationalist or white supremacist?

Is anyone who says America should stay majority white a white nationalist?

A white supremacist?

Do you believe every American either has to

  1. Support or accept minority status for whites, or
  2. Support keeping America majority white and thereby be a white nationalist or white supremacist?

Is ignoring the issue and letting it happen, America becoming minority white, the right thing to do?

Is anyone who talks about it as negative, a racist, white nationalist or white supremacist?

If saying America should be white majority is white nationalism, and saying it should be white minority is immigration nationalism, which are you?

Does your answer change if its white supremacist v. immigration supremacist as the labels?

Martin Luther King’s Dream: Wages frozen at 1973 Levels

May 12, 2007

Martin Luther King gave an important speech in the 1960’s where he said that he had a dream. In his dream, the median wages of all groups would forever be restricted to the median wages of all men in 1973, i.e. no group all men, blacks, women, etc. would have median wages higher than men did in 1973.

MLK’s dream would be achieved by the 1965 Immigration Act which was passed after he declared his bold vision that men’s median wages in 1973 would be a ceiling for all time for the median wages of all groups.

Despite this limit on wages, productivity has gone up substantially, and all the extra money goes into stock prices. Wealthy Senators are voting for more guest workers and legalizations to fulfill the dream of stock prices that go up forever, while median wages are stuck at or below men’s median wages in 1973

See p60-231.pdf, (You can find it easily at another time, just search p60-231 or p60-231.pdf and it finds this document, its at census.gov a US government entity), and look at graph on page 18. Its true, men’s median wages are lower than in 1973 and women’s are lower than men’s now. Other data show that black median wages are lower than whites are today, so they are lower than all men’s wages in 1973. Data links at link below:

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/a-nation-of-lou-dobbs-democrats/

Black median wages data:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p53b.html

black white median wage graphs

Most of the gap between black and white median wages that was closed, was closed before the 1965 Immigration Act. This happened while all wages compressed together. This is called the Great Compression of wages. It happened during immigration restriction from the 1920 to the 1965 Immigration Act. When all wages compressed together, blacks participated in that and their wages compressed towards that of whites.

The top 1 percent only got 10 percent of national income instead of the 20 percent they got before 1920’s immigration restriction or the 20 percent they get now. Senators are wealthy. They stopped this compression cold by restarting immigration in 1965. They traded off the chance of blacks to compress their wages to whites for higher stock prices in their stock portfolio. Teddy Kennedy is the 8th wealthiest Senator today. He got his wealth by stopping the rise of black wages to equality with white wages.

McCain Kennedy is the Stop Martin Luther King’s Dream Act. It stops King’s dream of equality of black median wages to white median wages. McCain is the 7th wealthiest Senator and Kennedy the 8th. They are stopping blacks from reaching equality with whites in median wages by keeping immigration going. This is what has held blacks from making progress in wages for over 30 years.

Search black median wages “Great Compression”

See NBER paper:

Claudia Goldin, Robert A. Margo

NBER Working Paper No. 3817*
Issued in August 1991
NBER Program(s): LS “Great Compression” site:Vdare.com

December 22, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
Increasing Inequality: NY Times’ Krugman Misses The Immigration Dimension

April 06, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
The Smoking Bottom Line: Immigration Boosting Profits, Cutting Wages

January 29, 2007
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
Yes, Tyler, Income Inequality Is Real. And Immigration Is A Cause.

Even WaPo is discovering this

Devaluing Labor
By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, August 30, 2006; Page A19 Washington Post
black wages site:Vdare.com

Meyerson says that the Great Compression caused the civil rights movement in 1964. This is half-right. In wage space, the civil rights movement happened before 1964. It was caused by immigration restriction and it already happened when black wages compressed to white wages. The 1965 Immigration Act had brought that to an end by the early 1970’s.

Moreover, by freezing all men’s median wages at the 1973 level, black’s median wages stopped going up as well, since what they were pegged to, all men’s median wages, had stopped going up in 1973. So in wage terms, the civil rights movement started with the 1920’s immigration restriction and ended with the 1965 Immigration Act. Civil rights in wages terms died around the same time as MLK was assassinated. But the assassin’s bullet for black wage progress was Ted Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act.

But Ted Kennedy is the 8th wealthiest Senator in the Senate today. Stock prices went up. This is because productivity kept going up but wages stagnated at 1973 levels. So the money went into profits so that pushed up stock prices. Kennedy has a huge stock portfolio. “8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611” See table below.

Explaining Black-White Wage Convergence, 1940-1950: The Role of the Great
Compression

Robert A. Margo
Department of Economics
Vanderbilt University

“NEW DATA SHOW EXTRAORDINARY JUMP IN INCOME CONCENTRATION IN 2004″ By Aviva Aron-Dine and Isaac Shapiro for a graph of income share of top 1 percent from 1913 to 2004.


Income Inequality U Shape Timeline

7 of the top 8 wealthiest Senators voted for S. 2611, amnesty, affirmative action, non-deportable crime, and a pathway for the top 1 percent of households to continue to enjoy 20 percent of each year’s income, compared to 10 percent before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. The only 1 of the top 8 who didn’t vote for S. 2611 didn’t vote, Jay Rockefeller. McCain is 7th and Kennedy 8th in wealth.


Open Secrets

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 to $234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

2 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 to $235,262,100 Voted Yes S. 2611

3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 to $101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611

4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,343,464 to $98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611

5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) $41,153,105 to $64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 to $90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

7 John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014 Voted Yes S. 2611

8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

More data here

Hutchison Pence amnesty and expanded guest worker info here.

Free fax to Congress on hot immigration bills: http://www.numbersusa.com/actionbuffet

==See Reference to this article at Vdare:

12 May 2007
Imported nonsense at the National Journal
[Patrick Cleburne] @ 10:45 pm

Republican GOP Presidential Debates Go Tom Tancredo

May 3, 2007

Islamic radicalism question. “How do we win the war on terrorism, when jihadis are so easily replaced, when killed?” (paraphrase). Brownback. Engage moderate Muslim regimes, in Pakistan and Egypt. Confront Iran.

Q: Zogby poll shows 10 to 12 percent support us in moderate countries like Turkey and Morocco, and rest hate us. A: We need to engage. Not much of an answer, blather.

Q to Huckabee. Would you have fired Donald Rumsfeld before election last November? A Yes.

Q: General shakeup in cabinet? A: Jim Gilmore, right hand in pants pocket. Engage in Middle East. Palestinians and Israels. Sunnis and Shiites.

Q: On Iran nukes. A: McCain, will wait until they have a nuke to respond. (That’s too late.)

Q: Help Israel strike Iran? A: Tancredo. Would depend on our analysis, but would support.

Q: Amend Constitution so foreign born can run? A: Huckabee Yes, McCain maybe, Guilani sort of Yes. Rest No.

Q: to Rudi, what did you learn about African American community or by interacting with them? A: Tried to move people out of welfare, followed Tommy Thompson program. Moved people off, crime down.

Q: Dislike most about America to Romeny A: No real answer.

Q: Global warming to Huckabee: A: Leave planet in better shape. No real answer on whether believes in global warming.

Q: Shortage of organs donated for transplant: A: Not president’s job. No cloning.

Q: Compassionate Conservative like Bush to Hunter: A Yes. Iran has crossed the line. US has license to take necessary actions to stop instruments being moved across line inside Iraq. Don’t wait for enrichment by Iran, move quickly. (Basically he would attack Iran. Way to go Hunter.)

Q: A: Ron Paul. To lower taxes, change policy.

Values segment.

Q: Roe v Wade overturn: A Rudi ok to overturn, but ok not to overturn. Court has to make that decision. States make own decision. Others want it. Tancredo yes. Gilmore is pro choice?

Q: To Romney. Personally pro life, but would protect the law as it was. Cloning is too far. Changed mind, is now pro life.

(The Republicans overall are the A team compared to the Democrats. They come across as presidential. They are all solid executives and solid on policy. Also much stronger. Dems lacked in strong leadership presences in their debate. )

Q: McCain restore unity? A I want to be president to defeat enemies and help allies. Take on radial Islamic extremism, which threatens our values and very life. Most experienced candidate. Don’t want to be proud of nation which thinks best years are behind us.

Q: Duncan Hunter. China dangerous. Iran pursuing nuclear weapons.

Q Unite? Huckabee: Morning in America. Vision for America.

Q Paul A: Military aggressiveness weakens national defense. Getting ready to go to war with 3rd world countries with minor forces.

Huckabee Q: Private employer finds homosexuality, can fire them: A: Leave it up to business. Answer is yes.

Romney: Separation of church and state.

Huckabee. My faith affects my decision process. I am troubled by someone who tells me their faith doesn’t affect their decisions.

Gilmore: Spending too much money in government. What is important to this country is not Karl Rove.

Q: Tom Tancredo: A Karl Rove would not be in the White House if I was. Differ on immigration.

Q: Guiliani. A. Neither party has monopoly on virtue and vice. Ran a city that was 5 to 1 Democratic. Most conservative govt last 50 years, reduced crime.

Q: Thompson: Vetoed 1900 things? Welfare reform. Reduced welfare in Wisconsin by 93 percent. Republicans lost way. Washington changed us instead of us changing Washington.

Q: Brownback. Corruption in Republican party. A: Also Democrats with money in deep freezes.
Q: Tancredo. Ethics violations. A: Failures by individuals. Not just Democrats. Don’t have to be a centrist. Had principles. Believe in your heart in things you say is what matters.

Q: McCain. A: Special interest have kept spectrum. Lost election 2006, lost way. Spending got out of trouble.

Q: Budget. What programs cut. A: Line item veto is best tool. Defense acquisitions.

Q: Huckabee. What letter grade on Iraq war handling. A: No grade until it was over.

Q: Romney. Judges. A: Will appoint pro life judges not just strict constructionists.

Q: Rudi. pro choice? A: Hate abortion. Encouraged adoptions, went up 65 percent, abortion down 16 percent. Support choice.

Q: Thompson. Racism a problem. A: A problem can do things about it.

Q: Tancredo. A: Who else should be nominee? Good men all here. Issues not addressed tonight, immigration reform. No more platitudes. No more not for amnesty but for letting them stay. Who is where on this incredible issue.

Q: Anti illegal immigration position? A McCain is for comprehensive solution for illegal immigration. Temporary worker program. 12 million illegals.

Q: Hunter: Global warming and need to be energy independent. Bring together to remove energy dependence on Middle East and help climate. Take taxes to zero on alternative energy sources. Support US industry not foreign.

Q: Ron Paul. Decisions. A: In medicine have to make decisions. Not go to war in Iraq.

Q: To Gilmore. Mothers nonviolent first time offenders. A: Insist on obedience to the law. Let courts and juries make decisions. When elected prosecutor, had to address them. Have to have the law apply. Was governor during 9-11 attack. Chairman on terrorism commission.

Q: Embryonic stem cell research. A: Romney against. Brownback against. Gilmore no.

Huckabee no. Hunter no. Thompson mixed. Adult. McCain: Fund this. Ron Paul. Shouldn’t be in Washington. Rudi: Support it with limitations. Tancredo: No taxpayer money.

Romney: Health program. Also tax relief middle class on investment income. Eliminate tax on dividends, interest and capital gains for middle class.
Brownback: Flat tax.

Gilmore: Cut alternative minimum.

Huckabee: Fair tax. Flatter, fairer, family, finite.

Hunter: US manufacturing move off shore. Dumb trade deal, our exports taxed twice. Eliminate all taxes on companies hiring American workers and making products in US.

Thompson. Vetoed 1900 items. Cut alternative minimum tax. Flat tax. Pay whichever is least.

McCain: Alt minimum has to be repealed. 3000 tax credit to purchase health insurance. Simpler, flatter, fairer tax.

Dr. Paul: Cut taxes. Also inflation tax.

Rudi: Adjust AMT. Get rid of death tax.

Tancredo: Fair tax. Repeal 16th Amendment. Consumption and income tax we will end up with. Deal with structural problem in mandatory spending.

McCain: Lieberman may appoint to Cabinet. John Chambers hire from industry. (But Chambers already works for the Chinese government?)

Hunter: Secure the border. 2000 miles porous. Hundreds of thousands come across border. Some come across from Iran, Communist China, Korea.

McCain: Yes believes in evolution. A: See hand of God at Grand Canyon. (Actually the number 1 shows God’s presence more than the Grand Canyon does.)

Rudi: Sunni v. Shiite. Sunni believe Caliphate selected, Shiites believe by descent. Slaughter of Shiites in early history. (Very good answer.)

Gilmore: Consistent conservative.

Ron Paul: Trust internet more than MSM. Never interfere with internet. Never voted to regulate internet. Freedom of expression. Pick and choose in MSM. Some friendly, and some not so.

Rudi: Weakness as candidate. Optimist.

Huckabee: CEO’s get bonuses and workers lose pensions in sellouts to overseas is wrong.

Tom Tancredo: Work to protect women’s rights. Abortion. Not right to kill another person.

Thompson. Over 3000 killed, several thousand injured.

Ron Paul: No national id card. Tancredo: no national id. But a verifiable social security card. Thompson no national id.

Pardon Libby: Judicial process should complete. Should not have prosecuted after knew someone else leaked. Brownback: No law violated. Gilmore. Pardon has to make case. Tancredo: Pardon Ramos and Compean first then Libby. Ron Paul: No pardon.

Romney and Rudi: national id only for immigrants, not citizens. (Silly distinction, meaningless.) Gilmore: No national id card.

Clinton back in White House: Romney, awful to have Clinton back in WH. Paul voted to impeach Clinton.

Rudi: Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. Not mentioned by Democrats.

(Almost every answer possible, the moderator would respond to Tom Tancredo’s answer with a sneer and gibe and put down. Tancredo said, Clinton is measuring drapes, and Chris Matthews put Tancredo down, you really think he is doing that? And this was typical of Matthews treatment of Tancredo. This was not done to other candidates like this. Another one was when Matthews asked Tancredo about Rove, and Tancredo said this is the closest Tancredo had ever been to Air Force One. Matthews then derisively said that isn’t air force one to put him down.)

Mistakes by Bush: Huckabee, taking power from states. Hunter: losing industrial base. China is cheating. Enforce trade laws, Bush doesn’t. Brownback: 3 state solution in Iraq. Push political solution. Tancredo: No child left behind, medical prescription were overreaching. Tancredo on Iraq Matthews cut him off and went to Thompson: Medical diplomacy. Dr. Paul: change foreign policy. Robert Taft foreign policy. Privacy of citizens. Warrantless searches. Not abuse habeas corpus.

Matthews thanked Mrs. Reagen but not any of the candidates, until after this was written.

MSNBC: The 10 most prominent candidates were debating ET at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., north of Los Angeles. The debate, co-sponsored by MSNBC and the political Web site politico.com, is airing on MSNBC-TV and C-SPAN radio and streaming live on MSNBC.com.Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, chairman of the Republican National Committee…

For former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the gathering is a chance to build momentum on recent polls that show him leading the field. A poll released Thursday by Quinnipiac University showed Giuliani leading his closest declared rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, by 27 percent to 19 percent. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney trailed in third, with 8 percent.

The other candidates on the stage Thursday night are Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado and Tommy Thompson, a former governor of Wisconsin and Bush’s first secretary of health and human services.

Re: President George Bush Renewing Efforts on Immigration

April 9, 2007

“President Renewing Efforts on Immigration Plan for Overhaul Faces Battle in Divided Congress”

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 9, 2007; Page A01

See comments by Patrick Cleburne at

Problem for Amnesty: Troops unwilling.

Follow up WaPo Article

Bush Pushes Immigration Plan, Guest Worker Program

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 9, 2007; 3:36 PM
Comments at Follow Up article
==Comments original WaPo article posted at WaPo below

What follows is a mess. Its notes while posting comments at WaPo on the Bush immigration speech. In some cases, the links that were used to source quotes are included. But these are not formatted as live links at this point.
==

Men’s median wages peaked in 1973. See p60-231.pdf a publication of the census at census.gov. Search on p60-231.pdf is enough. Income inequality is U shaped in the 20th century. Search on “u shaped” income inequality Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez. Saez is a Berkeley prof. He has data to download from his website. They have an NBER paper. They find that the top 1 percent got 20 percent of national income before immigration restriction in the 1920’s, they got 10 percent after and then after the 1965 Immigration Act, legal immigration, it has gone back up to 20 percent. Search NEW DATA SHOW EXTRAORDINARY JUMP IN INCOME CONCENTRATION IN 2004
By Aviva Aron-Dine and Isaac Shapiro to see a graph of the percentage share of national income of the top 1 percent. The Bush family is in the top 1 percent. So are Kennedy and McCain. So is Sheikh Pelosi.

==

quote Mr. Luntz is 80 percent right. The richest 20 percent of American households—and only the richest 20 percent—have enjoyed higher real incomes during the Bush expansion. Everyone else has lost ground; the lowest 20 percent has actually lost a full 1.8 percent. (For details, click here: Table 1.) end quote September 26, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
It’s Official: Immigration Causing Income Inequality
at Vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

==Edwin S. Rubenstein quotation:

Until recently, economists rarely mentioned the I-word when explaining the income distribution. The consensus among most academics was that the primary cause of increased inequality was “skill-biased technical change” (SBTC)—i.e., increased economic rewards to educated, technically savvy workers.

In a word, SBTC compensation was based on merit. How quaint!

Northwestern University economists Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon broke from the group naiveté in a paper published last year:

“If SBTC had been a major source of the rise in inequality, then we should have observed an increase in relative wages of those most directly skilled in the development and use of computers. Yet in the 1989-97 period….total real compensation of CEOs increased by 100 percent, while those in occupations related to math and computer science increased only 4.8 percent and engineers decreased by 1.4 percent.” [Where did the Productivity Growth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income, (PDF) Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon, Northwestern University]

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

==quotation Edwin S. Rubenstein:

quote In debunking SBTC the authors make a broader historical point regarding immigration:

“To be convincing, a theory must fit the facts, and the basic facts to be explained about income equality are not one but two, that is, not only why inequality rose after the mid-1970s but why it declined from 1929 to the mid-1970s. Three events fit neatly into this U-shaped pattern, all of which influence the effective labor supply curve and the bargaining power of labor: (1) the rise and fall of unionization, (2) the decline and recovery of immigration, and (3) the decline and recovery in the importance of international trade and the share of imports…”

“Partly as a result of restrictive legislation in the 1920s, and also the Great Depression and World War II, the share of immigration per year in the total population declined from 1.3 percent in 1914 to 0.02 percent in 1933, remained very low until a gradual recovery began in the late 1960s, reaching 0.48 percent (legal and illegal) in 2002. Competition for unskilled labor not only arrives in the form of immigration but also in the form of imports, and the decline of the import share from the 1920s to the 1950s and its subsequent recovery is a basic fact of the national accounts.” end quote. September 26, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
It’s Official: Immigration Causing Income Inequality Vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

==quotation Edwin S. Rubenstein:

quote But the foreign-born share of the labor force—15 percent in 2005—is also unprecedented. Since 2001 illegals have accounted for most of immigrant labor force growth.

Cheap immigrant labor induces only a nugatory increase in total native income. Its biggest impact, according to Harvard economist George Borjas, is to redistribute income from native workers to employers.

Recent data seem to confirm this. The construction industry is booming, home builders are racking up record profits, yet average construction wages have fallen between 15 percent and 35 percent across the country—the result of cheap immigrant labor.

Similarly, the service industries—restaurants, hotels, motels, cleaning companies, etc. – are major employers of immigrant labor. These industries are booming, creating wealth for executives and shareholders. But average real wages of service industry workers have declined since 2001. end quote April 06, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
The Smoking Bottom Line: Immigration Boosting Profits, Cutting Wages Vdare.com

==

http://www.vdare.com/walker/dui.htm

quote Traditionally, drinking to excess is valued in Mexican and Latin culture, where it is seen an expression of machismo. Moreover, MADD reports that Hispanics believe it takes 6-8 drinks to affect driving, while Americans think it takes 2-4 drinks.

In 2001, according to MADD, 44.1 percent of California’s drunk driving arrests in 2001 were of Hispanics, although Hispanics made up only 31.3 percent of the state’s population.

The general incidence of drunk driving has worsened in California—parallel with the skyrocketing Latino population. Accidents involving drunk drivers increased overall nearly 5 percent in the state in 2000, with an uptick in Los Angeles County of 7.6 percent in that year. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for Hispanics ages 1-44. end quote Brenda Walker Vdare.com

==

quote THE MIDDLE CLASS IS NOT BEING WIPED OUT, THIS ASSERTION IS NONSENSE, the unemployment rate is 5 percent and wages are rising. We are not going to deport 12 million people, without creating a police state that people woud never support.

By RealChoices | Apr 9, 2007 6:56:50 AM | end quote. Men’s median wages are lower than in 1973. See p60-231.pdf graph page 18 at census.gov. Just search on p60-231 in google.

==

L.A. Blackout
Acting on orders from the Mexican Mafia, Latino gang members in Southern California are terrorizing and killing blacks.
by Brentin Mock Southern Poverty Love Center.

quote “The way I hear these knuckleheads tell it, they don’t want their neighborhoods infested with blacks, as if it’s an infestation,” says respected Los Angeles gang expert Tony Rafael, who interviewed several Latino street gang leaders for an upcoming book on the Mexican Mafia, the dominant Latino gang in Southern California. “It’s pure racial animosity that manifests itself in a policy of a major criminal organization.”

“There’s absolutely no motive absent the color of their skin,” adds former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Michael Camacho. Before he became a judge, in 2003, Camacho successfully prosecuted a Latino gang member for the random shootings of three black men in Pomona, Calif. end quote

==
June 05, 2006
Time To Rethink Immigration (II): Freeing America From The Immigration Gulag

By Peter Brimelow
quote Moratorium on legal immigration. Not no gross immigration but no net immigration—which would permit an inflow of 200,000 a year or so, enough to take care of hardship cases, needed skills etc. Abandon the principle of “family reunification,” which in practice has meant uncontrollable chain migration. Immigrants should be admitted on own merits.

bullet Abolish “refugee” category. In practice, this is simply an expedited, subsidized immigration program for politically-favored groups. Anyway, humanitarian aid is best given in situ—for example, the “Somali Bantu” could have been resettled in Mozambique, not Maine. America is not the world’s Kleenex. end quote June 05, 2006
Time To Rethink Immigration (II): Freeing America From The Immigration Gulag

By Peter Brimelow Vdare.com

==

Immigration, legal, amnesty, refugee, means the end of social security, medicare, medicaid, functional schools, ERs, and health insurance at work. Men’s median wages were higher in 1973, see p60-231.pdf at census.gov, graph page 18. The reason they cut health benefits is the same reason, to cut our wages. Government can’t afford what we don’t make. We can’t have national health insurance for the 3rd world. We are losing our health coverage by legal immigration. We must have zero immigration to save our way of life.

==

Bush is disloyal to the American people.

..

Bush: America is an idea not people. The American
people can be discarded in the dustbin of history.

==

Bush what matters is the idea of freedom, not the people
who want to be free, they can be discarded as refuse.

Iraq was for freedom as an idea, Abu Ghraib was for the actual people. Bushism is Stalinism. Believe in Bush and you will be free in Stalin.

==

Bush’s Iraq promise was for freedom as an idea. Bush’s Abu Ghraib was for the actual people.

==

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=722

Brentin Mock continued
quote A comprehensive study of hate crimes in Los Angeles County released by the University of Hawaii in 2000 concluded that while the vast majority of hate crimes nationwide are not committed by members of organized groups, Los Angeles County is a different story. Researchers found that in areas with high concentrations, or “clusters,” of hate crimes, the perpetrators were typically members of Latino street gangs who were purposely targeting blacks.

Furthermore, the study found, “There is strong evidence of race-bias hate crimes among gangs in which the major motive is not the defense of territorial boundaries against other gangs, but hatred toward a group defined by racial identification, regardless of any gang-related territorial threat.”
Six years later, the racist terror campaign continues. end quote

SPLC L.A. Blackout
Acting on orders from the Mexican Mafia, Latino gang members in Southern California are terrorizing and killing blacks.
by Brentin Mock

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=722

==

Don’t protect politicians who commit crimes. They are disloyal to us on immigration. Let Bush go to jail for torture. Let Kennedy go to jail for Chappaquiddick. These politicians have a long list of suspect transactions. If you have even a little information send it to groups that forward information on crime or Judicial Watch or blog it anonymously. You don’t have to be a hero and go into the FBI. Turn your information over to organizations that go after politicians. You don’t have to tell your boss. There are tipster organizations you can contact.

==

quote The question is asked, who will pick the fruits and vegetables, who will do the construction jobs, who will do the jobs in the service industry? Which in turn begs the question, who owns the farms, who is having the house built, who owns the hotel and the restraunt? And the answer is the rich, the upper 10 who exploit these illegals,who are just trying to have a better way of life. If these people were made to pay better wages then maybe a lot more people could have a better way of life

By johnleebowes | Apr 9, 2007 10:41:40 AM | end quote. Put employers of illegals in prison and they can pick the fruit on a chain gang. What about politicians who vote the way they get contributions. They will want to have a jury decide if they did right, won’t they? To clear their name?

==

Jack Abramoff can probably fill the farms with chain gang pols from his contribution rolodex. And he isn’t the only one. The K street gang documented by the Post can fill our farms with their labor.

==

quote Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos, were sentenced to 12 years and 11 years, respectively, in October by U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Cardone end quote WND. Members of Congress and Senators and lobbyists will want juries to determine if the contributions they gave for earmarks were bribery, won’t they? They will want to clear their name before their constituents? If border guards go to jail for dangerous work, shouldn’t Senators who take money from special interests face the people on a jury?

“u shaped” income inequality Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez
http://www.vdare.com/walker/dui.htm

May 04, 2004
Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…Drunk Driving

By Brenda Walker

==

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=181

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-harbor4mar04,0,5714315.story?coll=la-home-headlines

How a community imploded
L.A. long ignored Harbor Gateway. Now a Latino gang calls the shots.
By Sam Quinones, Times Staff Writer
March 4, 2007

==

Thomas Piketty

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/mccain-fighting-to-recapture-maverick-spirit-of-2000-bid/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/03/AR2007030300841.html

==

April 08, 2007

NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON’T want your name and/or email address published when sending VDARE email.

04/07/07 – A Jewish Immigration Dissident Advises David Orland Not To Hold His Breath
Today’s Letter: A Reader Experiences Censorship

Re: LAPD: “We Don’t Get Into” Immigration Status Of Christmas Story Director’s Killer By Nicholas Stix

From: An “Irate Reader”

http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_040807.htm
==

“u shaped” site:vdare.com

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/

http://www.nber.org/papers/W8467

http://www.cbpp.org/7-10-06inc.htm

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060406_nd.htm

http://www.vdare.com/pb/060605_gulag.htm

http://www.vdare.com/bulletins/031907_bulletin.htm

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/03/04/mexican-gangs-ethnic-cleansing-of-black-amercans-in-los-angeles/

Duane Chapman bounty hunter mexico

http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/dog-bounty-hunter-star-duane-chapman-arrested-for-capture-1009823.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Chapman

==

m.jagger | Apr 9, 2007 11:38:04 AM is right. Also, as others pointed out, illegals here and those who would come here can make their own countries better rather than keeping us from having children by taking away job security for young adults. Think of all the children not born to Americans since Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act because men’s median wages stopped going up in 1973. quote ==

“Numbers Drop for the Married With Children
Institution Becoming The Choice of the Educated, Affluent”

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page A03

PORTLAND, Ore. — Punctuating a fundamental change in American family life, married couples with children now occupy fewer than one in every four households — a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census.

As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent.

“The culture is shifting, and marriage has almost become a luxury item, one that only the well educated and well paid are interested in,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, an expert on marriage and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Many demographers peg the rise of a class-based marriage gap to the erosion since 1970 of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II. end quote

The 1965 Immigration Act caused this. Men’s median wages are down from 1973. Search p60-229.pdf and go to page 14 on census.gov. 51 percent of women live alone. This is because men don’t make enough.Female fertility is then below replacement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=201

==

quote *Mens median wages peaked in 1973. See p60-231.pdf a publication of the census at census.gov. Search on p60-231.pdf is enough.* What OldAtlantic never mentions is wages of women have rising considerably and more than made up for the drop in the wages of men. These trends have very little to illegal immigration. end quote quote Until recently, economists rarely mentioned the I-word when explaining the income distribution. The consensus among most academics was that the primary cause of increased inequality was “skill-biased technical change” (SBTC)—i.e., increased economic rewards to educated, technically savvy workers.

In a word, SBTC compensation was based on merit. How quaint!

Northwestern University economists Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon broke from the group naiveté in a paper published last year:

“If SBTC had been a major source of the rise in inequality, then we should have observed an increase in relative wages of those most directly skilled in the development and use of computers. Yet in the 1989-97 period….total real compensation of CEOs increased by 100 percent, while those in occupations related to math and computer science increased only 4.8 percent and engineers decreased by 1.4 percent.” [Where did the Productivity Growth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income, (PDF) Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon, Northwestern University] end quote September 26, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
It’s Official: Immigration Causing Income Inequality

==

Second post has a different quotation from Vdare on U shaped timing show that share of top 1 percent, the Bush Pelosi McCain Kennedy group, went from 20 percent before 1920’s restriction to 10 percent during restriction back to 20 percent with legal immigration. This shows its legal and illegal immigration that is the cause of men’s median wages being below 1973. Sorry if 2nd post above looks like the same post over again, but the reply is different. Also thanks to Pacthed | Apr 9, 2007 12:14:00 PM | for his research and insights in replying to this, that the rise in women’s wages is simply creating men and women living apart with no kids or a single parent with kids. In fact, the Post has reported on that several times. 51 percent of women live without a spouse. Married with kids is the privilege of the affluent according to Post reporting. quote “Numbers Drop for the Married With Children
Institution Becoming The Choice of the Educated, Affluent”

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page A03

PORTLAND, Ore. — Punctuating a fundamental change in American family life, married couples with children now occupy fewer than one in every four households — a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census.

As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent.

“The culture is shifting, and marriage has almost become a luxury item, one that only the well educated and well paid are interested in,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, an expert on marriage and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Many demographers peg the rise of a class-based marriage gap to the erosion since 1970 of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II. end quote

The 1965 Immigration Act caused this. Men’s median wages are down from 1973. Search p60-229.pdf and go to page 14 on census.gov. 51 percent of women live alone. This is because men don’t make enough.Female fertility is then below replacement.

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/03/04/mexican-gangs-ethnic-cleansing-of-black-amercans-in-los-angeles/

Hispanic ethnic cleansing blacks site:Vdare.com

ethnic cleansing blacks site:Vdare.com

u shaped site:vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070318_diversity.htm

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=722

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/01/25/

http://wordpress.com/tag/income-inequality-graph/

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/mccain-fighting-to-recapture-maverick-spirit-of-2000-bid/

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

==

quote Economists Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon have compared wage and salary growth within the richest ten percent of American earners with that of the median wage earner. [Ian Dew-Becker, Robert J. Gordon, Where Did the Productivity Growth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2:2005. PDF]

Here are their results, adjusted for inflation, for the years 1966 to 2001:
bullet Median wage and salary: +11 percent
bullet 90th percentile: +58 percent
bullet 99th percentile: +121 percent
bullet 99.9th percentile: +236 percent end quote
January 29, 2007
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
Yes, Tyler, Income Inequality Is Real. And Immigration Is A Cause. Vdare.com

==

quote July 28, 2003
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
Hispanic Family Values?
Illegitimacy rates: unmarried Hispanic women aged 15-44 are about one-third again as likely to have a child as unmarried black women in that age bracket – 93.4 per 1,000 vs. 71.5 – and more than three times as an unmarried white women (27.9 per 1,000). [Source: Centers For Disease Control, pdf file]

bullet Abortion: Hispanic women are two and a half times more likely to have abortions than white women (33 per 1,000 annually vs. 13) and nearly-two thirds as likely as black women (49). [Source: Guttmacher Institute]

bullet Teenage pregnancy: Hispanics are high (about 94 per 1,000 vs. 32 for whites) and relatively worsening – they’ve now surpassed blacks (83 per 1,000). [Source: Centers For Disease Control, pdf file]

bullet Dependency: Nearly one-third (30.6%) of Hispanics receive means-tested benefits, compared to less than a tenth (9.2%) of non-Hispanic whites and just over a third (35.0%) of blacks. [Source: U.S. Census, pdf file]

bullet Criminality: just over one in every hundred adult male Hispanics (1.2%) was imprisoned in 2001 – almost a third of the non-Hispanic black rate (3.5%) and well over twice the non-Hispanic white rate (0.5%). [Source: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 2001, pdf file]

bullet Risky behavior: The Hispanic death rate from HIV disease is 2.5-times that of whites (7 per 100,000 vs. 2.8), and about one-third of the black rate (24). [National Center For Health Statistics, pdf file]

end quote
==

quote Memo From Mexico, By Allan Wall
Deadbeat Dads Don’t Stop At The Rio Grande

“Family Values Don’t Stop At The Rio Grande.”

That’s a slogan George W. Bush uses to justify illegal immigration.
Memo From Mexico, By Allan Wall
Deadbeat Dads Don’t Stop At The Rio Grande

“Family Values Don’t Stop At The Rio Grande.”
The problem of emigrants abandoning their families is so bad that some of these poor Mexican women have actually written to VDARE.COM for help! One of them told us (my translation) that

“…my husband is an illegal alien, and has been for approximately a year and a half. I haven’t seen him for 3 years and I would like him sent back to Mexico, where he was born… I am a desperate woman with 4 children and I can’t provide for them, we live in poverty…Help me…”

This desperate lady wants the U.S. to deport her husband, and she actually included the guy’s address in California.

That’s a slogan George W. Bush uses to justify illegal immigration.
One of the towns in Susuapan is Tremecino:

“In Tremecino 25% of the mothers are left alone with their children, expecting a husband who may return this year, in 2 years or more, if at all.”

By the way, in Tremecino, the average age of marriage or cohabitation is 14!

One of the inhabitants of Tremecino is Rosa:

“…She had 4 children when her husband emigrated to Tucson. She was expecting him to send her money but it never arrived, because the man became an alcoholic and found another woman.”

==

quote It’s not widely understood, but the 1986 federal amnesty for illegal immigrants set off a baby boom among unskilled Hispanics in California that began in 1988 and lasted into the late 1990s, with consequences for gang activity that have just recently become palpable.

Demographers Laura E. Hill and Hans P. Johnson of the Public Policy Institute of California wrote in 2002:

“Between 1987 and 1991, total fertility rates for foreign-born Hispanics [in California] increased from 3.2 to 4.4 [expected babies per woman over her lifetime]. … Why did total fertility rates increase so dramatically for Hispanic immigrants? First, the composition of the Hispanic immigrant population in California changed as a result of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. In California alone, 1.6 million unauthorized immigrants applied for amnesty (legal immigrant status) under this act. The vast majority were young men, and many were agricultural workers who settled permanently in the United States. Previous research indicates that many of those granted amnesty were joined later by spouses and relatives in the United States… As a result, many young adult Hispanic women came to California during the late 1980s. (“Understanding the Future of Californians’ Fertility: The Role of Immigrants”).

This ex-illegal immigrant baby boom created an indigestible population pig-in-a-python that overwhelmed California’s public schools in the 1990s, with many having to shift to disruptive year round schedules. The LA Unified School District alone has budgeted $19 billion for construction to accommodate the immigration-driven growth in student numbers. end quote March 18, 2007
Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…Gang Warfare

By Steve Sailer Vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070318_diversity.htm

==

Search construction industry wages site:vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060406_nd.htm

quote The last few years should have been good ones for labor. Since February 2004 more than 4 million jobs have been created. Output per worker increased by 3.5 percent in 2004 and 2.7 percent last year. Yet the balance of power continued shifting from labor to capital. Not only did profits spike as a share of GDP, but real median income actually declined in 2003 and 2004 (the latest available year.) end quote quote Recent data seem to confirm this. The construction industry is booming, home builders are racking up record profits, yet average construction wages have fallen between 15 percent and 35 percent across the country—the result of cheap immigrant labor. end quote April 06, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
The Smoking Bottom Line: Immigration Boosting Profits, Cutting Wages Vdare.com

==

quote Americans also know that there are resulting consequences for such massive uncontrolled illegal immigration. One result will be a population explosion! Do the math– it’s breathtaking! If all 20 to 23 million illegal aliens here today are given guest worker amnesty along with “family reunification,” it will add roughly 60 million people to the current legal population of 293 million.(12) In 2050, just forty-four years from now, demographers say there will be half a billion people residing in America!(13) Just imagine what kind of impact that will have on our natural resources and quality of life! end quote Daneen G. Peterson, Ph.D.
March 16, 2006 Anarchy Reigns ~ Enforce the Laws ~ Stop The Invasion

==

quote Today, California’s amnesty baby boom generation is between ages 10 and 19, entering their prime gang violence years. … California is now exporting its illegal immigration problem—gang wars, overcrowded schools, declining standards of living, and the like—to the other 49 states. end quote March 18, 2007
Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…Gang Warfare

By Steve Sailer

==

quote L.A. Blackout
Acting on orders from the Mexican Mafia, Latino gang members in Southern California are terrorizing and killing blacks.

According to gang experts and law enforcement agents, a longstanding race war between the Mexican Mafia and the Black Guerilla family, a rival African-American prison gang, has generated such intense racial hatred among Mexican Mafia leaders, or shot callers, that they have issued a “green light” on all blacks. A sort of gang-life fatwah, this amounts to a standing authorization for Latino gang members to prove their mettle by terrorizing or even murdering any blacks sighted in a neighborhood claimed by a gang loyal to the Mexican Mafia.

“This attitude is pretty pervasive throughout all the [Latino] gangs,” says Tim Brown, a Los Angeles County probation supervisor. “As long as [street] gangs are heavily influenced by the prison gangs, particularly the Mexican Mafia, racism is just part and parcel of why they come into being and why they continue to exist.” But with the Mexican Mafia’s shadow looming over Los Angeles, it may be a long time before the rapidly growing number of streets claimed by Latino gangs are safe for blacks, if ever.
“It’s not just Highland Park. It’s almost anywhere in L.A. that you could find yourself in a difficult position [as a black person],” says Lewis, the LAPD probation officer. “All blacks are on green light no matter where.”
by Brentin Mock end quote SPLC

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=281

==

7 of the top 8 wealthiest Senators voted for S. 2611, amnesty, affirmative action, non-deportable crime, and a pathway for the top 1 percent of households to continue to enjoy 20 percent of each year’s income, compared to 10 percent before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. The only 1 of the top 8 who didn’t vote for S. 2611 didn’t vote, Jay Rockefeller. McCain is 7th and Kennedy 8th in wealth.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.asp?type=W&cycle=2005&filter=S

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 to $234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

2 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 to $235,262,100

Voted Yes S. 2611

3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 to $101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611

4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,343,464 to $98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611

5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) $41,153,105 to $64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 to $90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

7 John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014

Voted Yes S. 2611

8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

S 2611 Roll Call Senators understand: immigration goes up, wages go down. Wages go down Senators’ stocks go up. Men’s median wages are lower than
in 1973, Senators’ stocks go up. Top 1 percent get 20 percent of national income today and 10 percent in 1965, Senators’ stocks go up. Bush family and Pelosi family are also in the top 1 percent.

==

quote Poll: Most Americans Don’t Want Continuing
Large U.S. Population Growth

As Nation Hits 300 Million Milestone, Voters Prefer
Reduced Immigration Over Adding Another 100 Million

Commentary by Roy Beck * endquote NumbersUSA Posted on another thread by
blowe1 | Apr 9, 2007 2:43:58 PM

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/04/sweet_blog_special_bush_return.html

8th amnesty?

==

quote What OldAtlantic never mentions is wages of women have rising considerably and more than made up for the drop in the wages of men. These trends have very little to illegal immigration. by RealChoices from Pacthed | Apr 9, 2007 4:39:28 PM above. In addition to Pacthed’s arguments above and earlier in response to this point by RealChoices it should be pointed out that women’s wages are still below men’s. But men’s are below what they were in 1973. So women’s wages now are still less than men’s wages in 1973. That is the argument of Bush, McCain and Kennedy for immigration, that its kept wages for women below what men’s wages were in 1973. How many women have thought that was society’s goal? I haven’t heard many women saying they wanted women’s wages to stay below men’s wages in 1973 for their entire working life from 1973 to now. Search p60-231.pdf in google and go to page 18 for the graph. It has men’s and women’s wages. Is the future for women that Kennedy promises them is that their wages will stay below the wages of men in 1973?

==

quote What OldAtlantic never mentions is wages of women have rising considerably and more than made up for the drop in the wages of men. These trends have very little to illegal immigration. by RealChoices from Pacthed | Apr 9, 2007 4:39:28 PM above. In addition to Pacthed’s arguments above and earlier in response to this point by RealChoices it should be pointed out that women’s wages are still below men’s. But men’s are below what they were in 1973. So women’s wages now are still less than men’s wages in 1973. That is the argument of Bush, McCain and Kennedy for immigration, that its kept wages for women below what men’s wages were in 1973. How many women have thought that was society’s goal? I haven’t heard many women saying they wanted women’s wages to stay below men’s wages in 1973 for their entire working life from 1973 to now. Search p60-231.pdf in google and go to page 18 for the graph. It has men’s and women’s wages. Is the future for women that Kennedy promises them is that their wages will stay below the wages of men in 1973? The ratio of women’s wages to men’s went from 60 percent in 1959 to about 77 percent in 2005. This is what women were hoping for? That 77 percent is 77 percent of men’s wages in 2005, but men’s wages in 2005 were lower than men’s wages in 1973. So women are getting less than 77 percent of what men’s wages were in 1973. Is that what women have been working for? Is that the future they want? A women who started working in 1965, the year of Kennedy’s immigration act and who worked to this year would have worked 42 years, all of them at less than 77 percent of what men made in 1973. Was that the goal? Do they thank Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act and its legal immigration for that lifetime of underpay?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=321

=

Another way to think of this. Suppose men made 100 in 1973 and women made 60 percent, or 60. Women go to 77 percent or 77, an improvement of 17. But if men’s wages had gone to 150 say and women’s percent stayed at 60, they would make 90 instead of 77. Moreover, if they had gone to 90 percent they would make 135 instead of 77, almost twice as much. Immigration did 2 things to women. It kept men’s wages down, and thus since women get a percentage less than 100 of men’s that means it kept theirs down. Second, the percentage of women’s pay to men’s pay was kept down by immigration. So women lost out twice from immigration, a lower percentage of men’s pay than they would have got, and their base in effect, men’s pay, didn’t move up. Even at 100 percent, women would only make what men did in 1973, since men only make that much.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=341

==

Women are often treated harshly by employers. Look at Mary Jo Kopechne who was left by Kennedy to die in an air pocket while he went back to his hotel and had a drink while she suffocated. See ytedk.com. Women are treated too harshly by employers for them to have a ceiling of men’s pay which doesn’t move since 1973. Women work too hard and are treated too harshly for their percentage of men’s pay to be kept at 77 percent by immigration instead of being close to 100 percent where it would have been after 40 years of women’s lib without the legal and illegal immigration influx. Women got the short end from Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration act 2 ways, men’s pay was frozen at the 1973 level and women’s percentage didn’t go to 100 percent, which it would have done without a market influx of low cost labor. Because health insurance benefits are cut back, women lose out a third time from immigration which has not just cut pay but also benefits including health insurance. Even if you get health insurance its not as good as it used to be.

==
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=341

Women also lose in that 51 percent live without a spouse and on pay that is 77 percent of what a man made in 1973. That’s a pretty hard life. If they are a single mom on 77 percent of what a man made in 1973 that is harsher still.

Immigration is leaving many women unmarried, perhaps childless, or perhaps single moms. With men earning what they did in 1973, they aren’t able to pay much child support, and many just skip out because they earn so little.

Mary Jo Kopechne was a secretary when she was left to die in an air pocket by Kennedy at Chappaquiddick. The scenario experienced by women , pay at under 77 percent of men’s and men’s pay frozen at the 1973 level, and a 51 percent chance to live without a spouse would have been her life had Kennedy let her live, albeit under his 1965 Immigration Act. This is what Kennedy calls upside.

==Mary Jo Kopechne Scenario

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Jo_Kopechne

Mary Jo Kopechne (July 26, 1940July 18, 1969) was an American teacher, secretary and administrator, notable for her death in a car accident on Chappaquiddick Island in a car driven by Senator Ted Kennedy.”

Ytedk archive site

also

July 20, 2004, 9:44 a.m.
Remembering Mary Jo
35 years later: Ted Kennedy’s under-investigated scandal.
Myrna Blyth National Review Online
If she had worked to 2007, she would have retired at age 67. That would have been as a teacher, secretary and administrator. She would have made typically less than 77 percent of what a man made her entire career. Because men’s wages topped out in 1973, she would have made no more than 77 percent of what a man made in 1973. That is what would have happened to her under Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act, if she hadn’t suffered under Kennedy’s 1969 Chappaquiddick Act.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040900105&start=41

Immigration kept men’s median wages to the 1973 level, and women’s wages to under 77 percent of men. That was legal immigration from Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. With zero immigration, women’s wages would have reached parity with men long ago. In addition, men’s median wages would be higher than in 1973.

Search p60-231.pdf and go to census.gov to see a graph on page 18 that shows men’s median wages are less than in 1973 and that women’s ratio to men’s wages went from 60 percent in 1960 to 77 percent in 2005. They were kept from going higher by immigration which has targeted women’s jobs, e.g. cleaning and nursing.

==

amonster | Apr 9, 2007 8:26:05 PM great find.

quote

Labor Day is almost upon us, and like some of my fellow graybeards, I can, if I concentrate, actually remember what it was that this holiday once celebrated. Something about America being the land of broadly shared prosperity. Something about America being the first nation in human history that had a middle-class majority, where parents had every reason to think their children would fare even better than they had.
The young may be understandably incredulous, but the Great Compression, as economists call it, was the single most important social fact in our country in the decades after World War II. From 1947 through 1973, American productivity rose by a whopping 104 percent, and median family income rose by the very same 104 percent. More Americans bought homes and new cars and sent their kids to college than ever before. In ways more difficult to quantify, the mass prosperity fostered a generosity of spirit: The civil rights revolution and the Marshall Plan both emanated from an America in which most people were imbued with a sense of economic security.

That America is as dead as the dodo. Ours is the age of the Great Upward Redistribution.
end quote.

from Devaluing Labor By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, August 30, 2006; Page A19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/29/AR2006082901042.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

Since 1973, men’s median wages are unchanged, see p60-231.pdf page 18 graph. Women’s wages were 60 percent of men’s in 1960 and are 77 percent in 2005.So women’s wages are less than 77 percent of what men’s wages were in 1973. This shows that before immigration, from 1947 to 1973, productivity and median wages went up 1 for 1. Since then, its all been to the shareholders, many of them rich senators like McCain and Kennedy.

==
Further comment on Meyerson quote that amonster | Apr 9, 2007 8:26:05 PM found above. quote

More Americans bought homes and new cars and sent their kids to college than ever before. In ways more difficult to quantify, the mass prosperity fostered a generosity of spirit: The civil rights revolution and the Marshall Plan both emanated from an America in which most people were imbued with a sense of economic security. end quote

Those words are so true. America was once so much more of a family than it is today. Today it is a Bush Hobbesian land. America was so much better 25 years ago. It was so much safer to walk at night. There was so much less fear.

Children could play on their own and roam and get into trouble. They were safe. Probably, no one on earth will ever know a land that great and good for centuries and possibly millenia to come.

You can see what America was in the movies from decades ago. That was once real and it was America. It was so safe and so more unified.

read more | digg story

McCain Fighting to Recapture Maverick Spirit of 2000 Bid

March 15, 2007

“In the seven years since John McCain and his ‘Straight Talk Express’ nearly derailed George W. Bush’s White House ambitions, the blunt-spoken senator from Arizona has become the very picture of the highly managed presidential candidate he once scorned.”

from McCain Fighting to Recapture Maverick Spirit of 2000 Bid By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 15, 2007; Page A01

7th wealthiest Senator is John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031402301.html
8th is Teddy Kennedy. 8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004.
Income inequality in the 20th century is U shaped curve. The top 1 percent got 20 percent before immigration restriction in the 1920’s, got 10 percent up to the 1965 Immigration Act and are back to 20 percent of each year’s income today. McCain and Kennedy are in that group. McCain married money and Kennedy inherited it.

=

7 of the top 8 wealthiest Senators voted for S. 2611, amnesty, affirmative action, non-deportable crime, and a pathway for the top 1 percent of households to continue to enjoy 20 percent of each year’s income, compared to 10 percent before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act.  The only 1 of the top 8 who didn’t vote for S. 2611 didn’t vote, Jay Rockefeller.  McCain is 7th and Kennedy 8th in wealth.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.asp?type=W&cycle=2005&filter=S

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 to $234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

2 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 to $235,262,100

Voted Yes S. 2611

3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 to $101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611

4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,343,464 to $98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611

5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) $41,153,105 to $64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 to $90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

7 John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014

Voted Yes S. 2611

8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

S 2611 Roll Call

http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Income-inequality.html

McCain is for amnesty, a path to welfare, affirmative action and non-deportable crime. Illegals move to the head of the line for jobs and school above everyone else. McCain Kennedy also increases legal immigration. Men’s median wages peaked in 1973, see p60-231.pdf census.gov page 18 for the graph. Income inequality is a U shaped curve in the 20th century. The top 1 percent got 20 percent of each year’s income before immigration restriction in the 1920’s, got 10 percent after, and get 20 percent today after the 1965 Immigration Act. McCain married money. Kennedy inherited it. They are in the top 1 percent who get 20 percent of each year’s income.

==

quote McCain is the seventh-richest senator by net worth, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan, nonprofit group that tracks money spent in political campaigns.

The latest personal finances report, filed last May, shows assets worth a minimum of $27.5million for the McCains, with the company accounting for about half of that. end quote McCain, his wealth tied to wife’s family beer business

Dawn Gilbertson
The Arizona Republic
Jan. 23, 2007 12:29 PM

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/special3/articles/0123biz-hensley.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Hensley_McCain

==

The top 1 percent of households got 15 to 25 percent of all income before immigration was restricted in the 1920’s. That then fell to about 10 percent from the 50’s to 70’s and then climbed back up to the 20 percent range now. Immigration restriction lowered the share that Kennedy got and raised the share the Mary Jo Kopechnes got. Kennedy reversed that in 1965 just like he took Mary Jo Kopchene’s life in 1969.

“NEW DATA SHOW EXTRAORDINARY JUMP IN INCOME CONCENTRATION IN 2004″ By Aviva Aron-Dine and Isaac Shapiro for a graph of income share of top 1 percent from 1913 to 2004.

http://www.cbpp.org/7-10-06inc.htm

=

=

quote 51 percent of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse – New York Times
In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, … preparing to live longer parts of their lives alone or with nonmarried partners. end quote. By SAM ROBERTS. Because men’s earnings are low, 51 percent of women live without a spouse. This is caused by Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act.

==

“Numbers Drop for the Married With Children
Institution Becoming The Choice of the Educated, Affluent”

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page A03

PORTLAND, Ore. — Punctuating a fundamental change in American family life, married couples with children now occupy fewer than one in every four households — a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census.

As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent.

“The culture is shifting, and marriage has almost become a luxury item, one that only the well educated and well paid are interested in,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, an expert on marriage and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Many demographers peg the rise of a class-based marriage gap to the erosion since 1970 of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II.

The 1965 Immigration Act caused this. Men’s median wages are down from 1973. Search p60-229.pdf and go to page 14 on census.gov. 51 percent of women live alone. This is because men don’t make enough.Female fertility is then below replacement.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incineq/p60204/fig1.html
This shows income inequality fell from the 1940’s to 1968 and then rose since. This is because of the 1965 Immigration Act.

Legal immigration takes away job security from men and so young adults don’t get married and have kids and stay married. Legal immigration must end completely and no amnesty.

==

Figure 1 – Change in Income Inequality for Families: 1947-1998 Census.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incineq/p60204/fig1.html

The Census page on income inequality is:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incineq/p60204.html

http://www.census.gov/acsd/www/sub_i.htm

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

See page 18 of above for graph of men’s median wages which shows it peaked in 1973 adjusted for inflation. It rose before then, while immigration was restricted and then the 1965 Immigration Act brought that to an end.

==Comments WaPo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007031402301&start=21

| digg story

Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act smited Graham family’s stability

February 19, 2007

Two posts at Vdare by Patrick Cleburne and Randall Burns lead into this article’s discussion of how Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act harmed the family of Senator Lindsey Graham while he and his sister were growing up. Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act created income inequality and economic insecurity to further undermine Senator Lindsey Graham and his sister’s start in life when both their parents died.

If you look at p60-191.pdf at Census.gov they have a graph showing income inequality went down from the start of statistics in the 1940’s to bottom out at the time of the 1965 Immigration Act and started up after 1968 and has gone up ever since. Men’s median wages flattened in 1973 and in 2005 were below 1973. See p60-229.pdf graph page 14. Most Senators timed the income inequality graph perfectly, coming of age as young adults when income inequality was low from the 1940’s to 1960’s and then building or increasing fortunes as income inequality increased from 1968 to the present.

In an earlier article, Graham was compared to several other senators who sponsored or cosponsored the S. 2611 amnesty bill who unlike Graham benefited from low income inequality when they started out as young adults and high income inequality in their peak earning years. Several Senators who conspored S. 2611 built or deepened fortunes from the misfortunes of others on the income inequality graph.

From an earlier Old Atlantic article:

The lives of Arlen Specter and the 6 cosponsors of S. 2611 are reviewed at the end of the article in terms of how they fit on the income inequality graph. Arlen Specter, John McCain and Ted Kennedy were born in the 1930’s and became young adults in the 1950’s while income inequality was falling. They could build careers and have families while still young. Two Senators, Chuck Hagel and Mel Martinez were born in 1946. They became 21 in 1967. They had families and full careers as they timed the income inequality graph perfectly, low income inequality when they were young and rising while they got on top. Both became rich on this curve.

Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback were born in the mid 1950’s. Graham had to start out as the curve was getting worse. He had to choose a career or family and chose career. He has never had children. Brownback solved this problem by marrying an heiress and has 5 children and a career. Brownback is running for president.

Patrick Cleburne comments on the prior Old Atlantic article at Vdare.com:
The Senate: In an Income Time Warp?”

Patrick Cleburne

A large number of Americans appear to have realized that income inequality has increased and that massive immigration is substantially responsible. And they are increasingly willing to say so.

A frequently-expressed view of Peter Brimelow’s is that the current generation of political “leaders” was formed intellectually before immigration was discernable as a social problem. Quite possibly they will literally have to die off before public policy will change – people rarely have new ideas.

Personally, though, I still think the more persuasive explanation is that these Senators are selfish, corrupt, and unAmerican.

Mr. Cleburne has some kind words for a previous Old Atlantic column and this blogger, which I thank him for. I am only too well aware of the editing work needed for this blog and I thank my readers for putting up with it.

What To Do With The Senate?” Randall Burns at Vdare.com

Randall Burns deepens our understanding of the comparison of the lives of the Senators by providing information on the life of Lindsey Graham. Burns points out that Graham helped to take care of a sister when both of their parents died.

His sister was taken in by relatives and Graham arranged to do his law school education near to where she was living and also with the military’s assent adopted her so she could take advantage of military health care.

As Burns points out, this was not selfish on the part of Graham. But in the context of the discussion here and in Mr. Cleburne’s column, Graham was distinguished from the selfish Senators as illustrating the impact of economic insecurity as he reached young adulthood. The other Senators’ lives illustrated selfishness and attributing to themselves the advantage of the timing of their birth on the income inequality graph.

The loss of both parents can only be a shock to the sense of economic security of any person. Since Graham had a minor sister at the time, that can only deepen that sense of economic insecurity. In the comparison of the lives above, Graham illustrated how economic insecurity was higher in the late 1970’s and 1980’s as income inequality was going up from its low in 1968 as the effects of Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act cut in.

By pointing this episode out, Burns deepens our understanding of this. Graham was subject to two shocks, one was the loss of his parents while he had a minor sister and the other was the rising tide of income inequality from Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. This meant it would be harder for her to have a job during school or for her relatives to support her who had taken her in.

In fact, Graham tells us she got 600 dollars per month from Social Security and that she needed that money. This shows how social security had taken the place for the Graham family of a job market with job shortages and high wages, which is the historic basis of income security for all but the rich.

Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act had taken from the Graham family the economic opportunity it needed both before and after the loss of Graham’s parents. The Kennedy 1965 Immigration Act had left the Graham family unprepared except by social security and the kindess of relatives for one of life’s blows, the loss of the two parents. We can infer that Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act kept Graham’s parents from having sufficient life insurance, and that they couldn’t afford sufficient life insurance because Kennedy took away the wages of both of Graham’s parents with his 1965 Immigration Act.

Kennedy McCain rode income inequality wave

February 13, 2007

Most Senators today were born or became young adults in the 1940’s or 1950’s while income inequality was going down. If you look at Change in Income Inequality for Families: 1947-1998 Fig 1 or p60-191.pdf at Census.gov they have a graph showing income inequality went down from the start of statistics in the 1940’s to bottom out at the time of the 1965 Immigration Act and started up after 1968 and has gone up ever since.

Census Income home page:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income.html

Census Income Inequality Home Page:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incineq/p60204.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incomestats.html#incomeineq

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income05.html 

Men’s median wages flattened in 1973 and in 2005 were below 1973. See p60-231.pdf page 18 or see p60-229.pdf graph page 14. Specter who sponsored S. 2611 was part of the group that could get married early, have kids, and still have a career. Now he is against the young people of today being able to do this.

The census gov charts show why young adults don’t get married and have kids, they are struggling against the H-1B immigration, amnesty, family reunification that Specter supports.

But Specter and most of the cosponsors rode the chart of income inequality from the time it was going down to the bottom of income inequality when they were starting out to the top where he is now on the top. He takes credit for the chart being his genius. That’s why they had it good and young people today don’t in their minds.

The lives of Specter and the 6 cosponsors are reviewed at the end of the article in terms of how they fit on the income inequality graph. Specter, McCain and Kennedy were born in the 1930’s and became young adults in the 1950’s while income inequality was falling. They could build careers and have families while still young. Two Senators, Hagel and Martinez were born in 1946. They became 21 in 1967. They had families and full careers as they timed the income inequality graph perfectly, low income inequality when they were young and rising while they got on top. Both became rich on this curve.

Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback were born in the mid 1950’s. Graham had to start out as the curve was getting worse. He had to choose a career or family and chose career. He has never had children. Brownback solved this problem by marrying an heiress and has 5 children and a career. Brownback is running for president.

The Senators who voted for S. 2611 with amnesty and more legal immigration rode the same inequality curve. When they started out, inequality was at a bottom and they could get good paying summer jobs, go to college, and have kids right after college. They think their life is normal or their hard work. Many were in the Senate in the 1970’s when income inequality started to go up, and most were in by 1980. So they have been on top while income inequality went up, but in their minds, they worked their way up, because when they were starting out they were doing so at the time of low income equality, the bottom of the income inequality bowl graph.

So they feel morally superior and entitled to vote for immigration, because their success is their hard work. Lobbyists give them money in and out of office and they don’t realize at a gut level its for causing this bowl shape of the income inequality graph by immigration. They know it intellectually, but don’t accept it emotionally because they remember when they started out, there was low inequality and they could work themselves up and have families at the same time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._2611

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/2/votes/157/

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02611:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02611:@@@P

S.2611
Title: A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] (introduced 4/7/2006) Cosponsors (6)
Related Bills: H.R.4437, S.2454, S.2612
Latest Major Action: 5/25/2006 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Passed Senate with amendments by Yea-Nay Vote. 62 – 36. Record Vote Number: 157.


COSPONSORS(6), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] – 4/7/2006
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] – 4/7/2006
Sen Hagel, Chuck [NE] – 4/7/2006
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] – 4/7/2006
Sen Martinez, Mel [FL] – 4/7/2006
Sen McCain, John [AZ] – 4/7/2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter 1930http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Brownback 1956http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham 1955

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel Born 1946

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M_Kennedy 1932

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Martinez Born 1946

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain Born 1936

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter Born 1930

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-191.pdf

You may want to open the above pdf in another window and look at the income inequality graph. It is a bowl shape that goes down from the late 1940’s to bottom out from 1965 to 1968 and then heads back up. It splits into two indices and these reach the 1940’s level of income inequlity sometime between 1980 and 1985. Income inequality then rose to its current levels the most extreme. The bottom of the bowl is the 1965 Immigration Act. Despite the effect of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, income inequality was at its low from 1965 to 1968 for all time that they have statistics.All the bill sponsors and cosponsors benefited from the time period at the bottom of this bowl.

Specter is the bill sponsor. He was born February 12, 1930 and 21 years later, in 1951, income inequality was headed down. That was when he was starting out as a young adult. Income inequality was falling rapidly in the early 1950’s. He could go to law school, get married, and have a family while he was a young adult and attribute all of that to his smarts and hard work.

Edward M. Kennedy was born February 22, 1932 and he was 21 in 1953. Although rich, he could feel that he was part of a generation where income inequality was falling rapidly. He became a young adult and even became a Senator in 1962 while income inequality was falling faster than at any time in history. He was the one who stopped that and reversed it by the 1965 Immigration Act.John McCain was born August 29, 1936 and was 21 in 1957. This was while income inequality was falling rapidly. He started out as a young adult during that time of rising boats for all. He was able to get married during this time. He was in a prison camp from 1967–1973 while income inequality bottomed out. When he returned he would divorce his wife, marry a millionairess and launch his political career. He was helping Charles Keating in the early 1980’s during the S and L scandal and was a member of the Keating 5.”

Melquíades Rafael “Mel” Martínez (born October 23, 1946) is a Cuban-born American politician,”. He started out as a lawyer in 1973 and built his practice for 25 years. He was 21 in 1967. The all time bottom in income inequality was 1968. He too could go to law school like Specter, get married, have a young family and build a legal career all as a young adult.”

Charles TimothyChuckHagel (born October 4, 1946) is the senior United States Senator from Nebraska. A member of the Republican Party, he was first elected in 1996 and was reelected in 2002.” Hagel enjoyed the same opportunity that Mel Martinez had, to become 21 in 1967 one year before income inequality bottomed out in 1968. Hagel thus could build his life while income inequality was low and enjoy rising income inequality later when he was an investment banker and businessma in the 1980’s. He could build a fortune in the 1980’s as income inequality was going up from over 20 years of the action of the 1965 Immigration Act. Hagel wants to keep his business network of rich guys in the same sweet spot of when they were born together and doing well so they can hire each other’s kids and avoid the fate that young people who are not children of business moguls like Hagel have to face.

“Lindsey Olin Graham (born July 9, 1955) ” “Graham graduated from the University of South Carolina at Columbia with a B.A. in Psychology in 1977 and from its school of law with a J.D. in 1981, and eventually entered private practice as a lawyer. He is a brother of the Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity. Graham has never married.” Graham unlike the others, could not build a career and have a family as a young adult. Graham is already illustrating the impact of the 1965 Immigration Act, its why he had to choose building a career or a family as a young adult. Graham chose to build a career, so he never had a family as a result.

“Samuel Dale “Sam” Brownback (born September 12, 1956) is the senior United States senator from the U.S. state of Kansas. On January 20, 2007 he announced his intentions to seek the Republican Party‘s nomination for President in the 2008 Presidential election.[1][2]“Brownback is married to the former Mary Stauffer, heiress[citation needed] to a Topeka, Kansas newspaper fortune. The couple are the parents of five children (three daughters and two sons; two of the children are adopted).”

So Brownback avoided Graham’s choice have a career or a family but not both, by marrying an heiress. So he could have both. But not those he governs. Brownback’s S. 2611 puts most Americans in the same boat as Lindsey Graham, if you want to build a career during this time of economic uncertainty, you have to defer marriage and children, maybe forever. For those making this choice, even becoming a US Senator may not be enough to reverse income inequality preventing them getting married and having kids when biology tells them to, as young adults.

==Reference Material

Table IE-6.  Measures of Household Income Inequality: 1967 to 2001*

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Variance        Mean

                        of the logarithmic                Atkinson

                        log of   deviation         -----------------------

 Year            Gini   income   of income   Theil  e=0.25  e=0.50  e=0.75

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

 2001           0.466    1.007       0.515   0.413   0.098   0.189   0.282

 2000 30/       0.462    0.983       0.490   0.404   0.096   0.185   0.275
1970           0.394    0.805       0.370   0.271   0.068   0.138   0.214

 1969           0.391    0.774       0.357   0.268   0.067   0.135   0.209

 1968           0.388    0.779       0.356   0.273   0.067   0.135   0.208

 1967 12/       0.399    0.813       0.380   0.287   0.071   0.143   0.220

=–

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/ie1.html

==

 Table IE-1.  Selected Measures of Household Income Dispersion:

      1967 to 2001      (Households as of March of the following year.  Income in current

      and 2001 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars 28/)

      -------------------------------------------------------------------

      Measures of Income Dispersion    2001   2000 30/ 2000 29/   1999
Household Income Ratios of

         Selected Percentiles         95th/20th                        8.38     8.10     8.11     8.26

         95th/50th                        3.57     3.46     3.46     3.48

         80th/50th                        1.98     1.95     1.95     1.94

         80th/20th                        4.65     4.56     4.56     4.62

         20th/50th                        0.43     0.43     0.43     0.42
Gini coefficient of

         income inequality               0.466    0.462    0.460    0.457
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Measures of Income Dispersion    1970     1969     1968   1967 12/

      -------------------------------------------------------------------

       Household Income at

         Selected Percentiles       In Current Dollars:

         20th percentile upper limit   3,687    3,574    3,323    3,000

         50th (median)                 8,734    8,389    7,743    7,143

         80th percentile upper limit  14,661   13,900   12,688   11,841

         95th percentile lower limit  23,178   21,800   19,850   19,000

In 2001 Dollars:

         20th percentile upper limit  14,556   14,789   14,350   13,474

         50th (median)                34,481   34,714   33,436   32,081

         80th percentile upper limit  57,881   57,519   54,790   53,181

         95th percentile lower limit  91,505   90,209   85,717   85,334

Household Income Ratios of

         Selected Percentiles

95th/20th                        6.29     6.10     5.97     6.33

         95th/50th                        2.65     2.60     2.56     2.66

         80th/50th                        1.68     1.66     1.64     1.66

         80th/20th                        3.98     3.89     3.82     3.95

         20th/50th                        0.42     0.43     0.43     0.42

Mean Household Income

         of Quintiles

In Current Dollars

         Lowest quintile               2,029    1,957    1,832    1,626

         Second quintile               5,395    5,216    4,842    4,433

         Third quintile                8,688    8,335    7,679    7,078

         Fourth quintile              12,247   11,674   10,713    9,903

         Highest quintile             21,684   20,520   18,762   17,946

In 2001 Dollars:

         Lowest quintile               8,010    8,098    7,911    7,303

         Second quintile              21,299   21,584   20,909   19,910

         Third quintile               34,300   34,491   33,160   31,789

         Fourth quintile              48,350   48,307   46,261   44,477

         Highest quintile             85,607   84,913   81,019   80,601

Shares of Household Income

         of Quintiles

Lowest quintile                   4.1      4.1      4.2      4.0

         Second quintile                  10.8     10.9     11.1     10.8

         Third quintile                   17.4     17.5     17.5     17.3

         Fourth quintile                  24.5     24.5     24.4     24.2

         Highest quintile                 43.3     43.0     42.8     43.8

Gini coefficient of

         income inequality               0.394    0.391    0.388    0.399

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/incineq/p60tb1.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/p60191.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/ineqtoc.html

“income inequality” site:census.gov

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-2611
January 29, 2007
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein

“Yes, Tyler, Income Inequality Is Real. And Immigration Is A Cause.” More on Rubenstein‘s ESR Research, which does statistical research.

Time to Rethink Immigration?
by Peter Brimelow
from National Review, June 22, 1992

Mr. Brimelow is Editor at VDARE.com.

Above is the famous Brimelow piece at National Review, when William F. Buckley was still for us on immigration restriction. William Kristol is now editor of National Review. Kristol, born in 1952, rode the income inequality wave and has pulled up the ladder on the generations that came after him.

The above was rewritten from a comment at Front Page Magazine on

The GOP’s Moment of Truth
By William Kristol
The Weekly Standard | February 13, 2007

William Kristol was born in 1952. He rode the same income inequality wave.

==Comment that was rewritten into above:

Kristol was born in 1952 while income inequality was going down. If you look at p60-191.pdf at Census.gov they have a graph showing income inequality went down from the start of statistics in the 1940’s to bottom out at the time of the 1965 Immigration Act and started up after 1968 and has gone up ever since.

Men’s median wages flattened in 1973 and in 2005 were below 1973. See p60-229.pdf graph page 14. Kristol was part of the group that could get married early, have kids, and still have a career. Now he is against the young people of today being able to do this.

The census gov charts show why young adults don’t get married and have kids, they are struggling against the H-1B immigration, amnesty, family reunification that Kristol supports.

But Kristol rode the chart of income inequality from the bottom of income inequality when he was starting out to the top where he is now on the top. So he is against us. He takes credit for the chart being his genius. That’s why he had it good and young people today don’t in his mind.

You can simply type in the names of the pdf files into google and those will give the link to the pdf files at the census site, you don’t have to hunt through it.

The Senators for S. 2611 with amnesty and more legal immigration rode the same inequality curve. When they started out, inequality was at a bottom and they could get good paying summer jobs, go to college, and have kids right after college. They think their life is normal or their hard work. Many were in the Senate in the 1970’s when income inequality started to go up, and most were in by 1980. So they have been on top while income inequality went up, but in their minds, they worked their way up, because when they were starting out they were doing so at the time of low income equality, the bottom of the income inequality bowl graph.

So they feel morally superior and entitled to vote for immigration, because their success is their hard work. Lobbyists give them money in and out of office and they don’t realize at a gut level its for causing this bowl shape of the income inequality graph by immigration. They know it intellectually, but don’t accept it emotionally because they remember when they started out, there was low inequality and they could work themselves up and have families at the same time.

==Comments at Vdare on this post

The Senate: In an Income Time Warp?”

Patrick Cleburne

A large number of Americans appear to have realized that income inequality has increased and that massive immigration is substantially responsible. And they are increasingly willing to say so.

A frequently-expressed view of Peter Brimelow’s is that the current generation of political “leaders” was formed intellectually before immigration was discernable as a social problem. Quite possibly they will literally have to die off before public policy will change – people rarely have new ideas.

Personally, though, I still think the more persuasive explanation is that these Senators are selfish, corrupt, and unAmerican.

Mr. Cleburne has some kind words for this column and this blogger, which I thank him for. I am only too well aware of the editing work needed for this blog and I thank my readers for putting up with it.
— Also

What To Do With The Senate?” Randall Burns at Vdare.com

These are discussed further in this article.

%d bloggers like this: