I don't think Herman Cain is the issue so much as that it signals the next hardball powergrab where cronies who pursue expansionary policy when Republicans are in power and contractionary policy when Democrats are in power is now on the table. This is already the Republican approach to appropriations. It's now becoming the Republican approach to monetary policy where the ability to place a thumb on the scales is more significant.
You can't combat this by sticking to the previous norm. You're basically allowing it to happen if you don't fight fire with fire in this case. The independence of the Fed has ebbed and flowed over the years, but I don't think it's ever fallen into this specific kind of partisan hackery. Previous intrusions into the Fed involved a lot more shortsighted efforts to boost growth in the short-term to aid those in power rather than playing a long-game of using apparatchiks to tilt the political field in perpetuity. Appointing people whose views on monetary policy boil down to "hurt the Democrats/help the Republicans" is very bad.
The country is falling apart. This'd be easier to swallow if we weren't armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons pointed at the rest of the world.
Economics is also the very last bastion in academia where views that can be described as mainstream conservatism actually are part of the legitimate debate between qualified experts. Mainstream conservatism as expressed through Republican politics has played itself into crazy-town on just about every other subject. As such, economic appointees is where they have the deepest bench of qualified people with non-crazy views to pick from. Seeing this last pillar teeter over in recent years is very disappointing.
White House officials have tried to pressure U.S. immigration authorities to release detainees onto the streets of “sanctuary cities” to retaliate against President Trump’s political adversaries, according to Department of Homeland Security officials and email messages reviewed by The Washington Post.
Trump administration officials have proposed transporting detained immigrants to sanctuary cities at least twice in the past six months — once in November, as a migrant caravan approached the U.S. southern border, and again in February, amid a standoff with Democrats over funding for Trump’s border wall.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s district in San Francisco was among those the White House wanted to target, according to DHS officials. The administration also considered releasing detainees in other Democratic strongholds.
White House officials first broached the plan in a Nov. 16 email, asking officials at several agencies whether members of the caravan could be arrested at the border and then bused “to small- and mid-sized sanctuary cities,” places where local authorities have refused to hand over illegal immigrants for deportation.
The White House told U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that the plan was intended to alleviate a shortage of jail space but also served to send a message to Democrats. The attempt at political retribution raised alarm within ICE, with a top official responding that it was rife with budgetary and liability concerns, and noting that “there are PR risks as well.”
After the White House pressed again in February, ICE’s legal department rejected the idea as inappropriate and rebuffed the administration.
What's petty about it? They want it. They literally made themselves into sanctuary cities. They should welcome that policy with open arms, and it saves cities who disagree with illegal immigration the burden of providing services they don't want to provide.
Also, as some have suggested, the sanctuary cities' economy will boom because of unfettered immigration. Win-win for everyone.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:What's petty about it? They want it. They literally made themselves into sanctuary cities. They should welcome that policy with open arms, and it saves cities who disagree with illegal immigration the burden of providing services they don't want to provide.
Doc, the point made by sanctuary cities is that they won’t take on the job of the Federal government as regards immigration status and/or detention in the wake of poor border enforcement.
This is a bit different than having folks within the Federal government throw a tantrum about that decision, then decide to transport illegal immigrants or asylum seekers to those same cities because the Federal government will not either modify the law, or add the appropriate resources to deal with the problem.
Your argument here is that if a city won’t take on Federal duties, then the Federal government gets to ignore the issue even more so by forcing their processing and care duties on to those cities, and purely for partisan political reasons.
That’s petty. It’s another great demonstration of the current Administration’s aversion to their responsibility, and their childishness.
canpakes wrote:Your argument here is that if a city won’t take on Federal duties, then the Federal government gets to ignore the issue even more so by forcing their processing and care duties on to those cities, and purely for partisan political reasons.
That's literally not my argument. What's the deal with people on this forum creating some sort of odd argument that they then address and then declare victory?
Look. If I learned one or two things on this forum it's this:
1) Illegal immigration doesn't cost municipalities any money (or rather they're a net positive to the taxpayer), and, in fact, increases the economics of everyone. Boom times for sanctuary cities.
2) Illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes and are model citizens. So, introducing a massive influx of illegal immigrants into a city will result in a net drop of criminal activity. Peace through diversity.
Getting illegal immigrants into large cities where there is opportunity and acceptance (Blue electorates, remember) just makes sense for everyone. Win-win!
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
I think DrC is just having fun in his usual endearing way.
Of course he knows very well that we aren't talking about any kind of rational and orderly immigration of people to the cities Trump hates for refusing to join him in treating immigrants as harshly as possible.
We are talking about a policy of simply turning up with a bus-load of exhausted, hungry and possibly sick people and simply dumping them in the street and driving off with the deliberate aim of creating maximum disruption. This is so transparently obvious that even ICE rejected it:
The attempt at political retribution raised alarm within ICE, with a top official responding that it was rife with budgetary and liability concerns, and noting that “there are PR risks as well.”
After the White House pressed again in February, ICE’s legal department rejected the idea as inappropriate and rebuffed the administration.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:That's literally not my argument. What's the deal with people on this forum creating some sort of odd argument that they then address and then declare victory?
Says the moron who just literally misrepresented the meaning and purpose of sanctuary cities. You have to have your head firmly in your ass to see this and say there is nothing petty about it.
canpakes wrote:Your argument here is that if a city won’t take on Federal duties, then the Federal government gets to ignore the issue even more so by forcing their processing and care duties on to those cities, and purely for partisan political reasons.
That's literally not my argument. What's the deal with people on this forum creating some sort of odd argument that they then address and then declare victory?
Look. If I learned one or two things on this forum it's this:
1) Illegal immigration doesn't cost municipalities any money (or rather they're a net positive to the taxpayer), and, in fact, increases the economics of everyone. Boom times for sanctuary cities.
2) Illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes and are model citizens. So, introducing a massive influx of illegal immigrants into a city will result in a net drop of criminal activity. Peace through diversity.
Getting illegal immigrants into large cities where there is opportunity and acceptance (Blue electorates, remember) just makes sense for everyone. Win-win!
Merely restating the same tongue-in-cheek argument doesn’t make the proposal any less petty the second time around. But I suppose that I can also play around with the same approach.
If you were a fellow who took in stray cats that were found in your neighborhood because you didn’t believe that you needed to call the city to have them hauled off, then your decision does not imply that agencies outside your city should strive to take all the cats that they’ve rounded up - no matter how cute or well-mannered they are - and dump them into your yard without your agreement, simply because they don’t like your approach.
There you go. Still a petty and childish action. ; )
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent