West finally concedes...

[rock on sooner]

after two partial recounts that only increased his opponent's lead. West
emailed his concessions, rather than the traditional telephone call. He
apparently still believes there are issues with the voting but not enough
to change the outcome. He outraised his opponent 4 to 1 with funds but
his Tea Party extremist viewpoint didn't sit well with his constituients, could
be an early view of 2014. Any thoughts about that?

[Midtowner]

Perhaps this is the beginning of the end for the Tea Party. The original Tea Party was actually a pretty good thing. The PAC-corrupted Tea Party is something the voters are catching on to and they are largely rejecting it.

[okie52]

after two partial recounts that only increased his opponent's lead. West
emailed his concessions, rather than the traditional telephone call. He
apparently still believes there are issues with the voting but not enough
to change the outcome. He outraised his opponent 4 to 1 with funds but
his Tea Party extremist viewpoint didn't sit well with his constituients, could
be an early view of 2014. Any thoughts about that?

Just 2 years ago repubs swept in to take the house and close the senate gap. They still have the majority of governors and state legislatures. I just see this as a cyclical event although I do expect the pubs to cave on illegals.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Rock, why do you hate fiscal responsibility?

[Midtowner]

Rock, why do you hate fiscal responsibility?

Financial responsibility =/= balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and middle class.

[rock on sooner]

Rock, why do you hate fiscal responsibility?

THA, I don't...you got me all wrong. My issue with the TPers, initially, was
signing on with Norquist and the unbending pledge of No tax increases, no way.
Absolutely, no. common. ground. When they first came to light I was skeptical,
based on their major advocate (Rove) but I was willing to give them a fair shot.
In 2010, the rally cry became "Obama must be a one term president." and then
the 83 members, in lockstep, blocked every effort any Dem made. Boehner couldn't
then and can't now, control that part of his caucus and, I believe that extremism
is greatly responsible, along with Romney's flipflopping, for the Pubs doing so poorly
in 2012.

Fiscal responsibility? There are several other threads on the board that I have posted
in, putting forth sound, fiscal ideas about cutting spending, closing loopholes, increasing
mfgr R & D with amnesty on off shore funds coming back home, downsizing gov't and
rightsizing the military. Sound ideas about extending the life of the SS Trust Fund and
helping to fix Medicare/Medicaid.

When I moved to IA 23 years ago, the state had a Pub governor that was a moderate
and did some good things, had a moderate Congressman in Leach, had a moderate
GOP senator in (now Grumpy Old Grassley), elected another moderate in Greg Ganske,
who did great things in health care efforts. That moderate gov is now an acolyte of the
TPers (Branstad) and wants to cut corporate tax rates on the backs of homeowners and
Grassley is a proponent of "death panels". Other TPers, King, an absolute embarrassment,
Bachmann, when she was in Iowa. All the candidates refusing, when offered $10 in spending
cuts for $1 in tax increase....just one in-your-face after another.

No, THA, show me some sensible proposals that the TPers have and I'll listen. I'll do more than
listen if they're willing to be forthcoming about give and take. All I've seen so far is no give and
all take.

[rock on sooner]

And, as to the topic of this thread, West is the poster boy for TPer extremism, imo.

[rock on sooner]

I gotta go deliver BackPack Buddies for my church. As AH-NOLD would say,
I'll be back!

[okie52]

Financial responsibility =/= balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and middle class.

LOL...got the party line down pat.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Financial responsibility =/= balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and middle class.

Not happening...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Rock, I am not going to quote your reply. It was good. 10-15 years ago, I would agree with you. I am so tired of being railroaded by the left, seeing taxes go up, used for things other than what should be intended. It is NOT the function of the government to redistribute wealth. It is also not the function of the government to have people live on the dole for generations. We spend money in a lot of ways that just should not be spending money on. So I am tired of it and have become inflexible and will shout from the highest roof tops that. Use my money that I provide to the government wisely...I can't do anything else but shout as they see fit that any other form of protest gets you to the hoosegaw...

[LiveLaughLove]

after two partial recounts that only increased his opponent's lead. West
emailed his concessions, rather than the traditional telephone call. He
apparently still believes there are issues with the voting but not enough
to change the outcome. He outraised his opponent 4 to 1 with funds but
his Tea Party extremist viewpoint didn't sit well with his constituients, could
be an early view of 2014. Any thoughts about that?

Yeah my thought is your premise is full of crap. He was redistricted into a more moderate to liberal district. If he had his old original district he would have won handily and his "extremism" wouldn't be an issue.

Just curious, have you ever said liberal extremism? If so, who would that be? Alan Grayson? Maxine Waters? Anyone?

Here's an idea. Why don't we compromise on spending cuts FIRST. Then we can talk tax raises.

You do know raising taxes on the rich by the 3% will fund the government for about one week, correct?

You do know if you capped all income at, lets say $120,000, nd confiscated all of the rest of the money in the country it would only run the government for about 6 weeks, right?

Then what?

This is exactly the emotionalism of "fairness" that means diddly squat to an actual thinking adult that is actually concerned with fixing this economy.

[rock on sooner]

I appreciate your position and to a degree do not fault it all. I've written
in other posts about my growing up and being fed commodities from Carter
Co., OK, being along with my folks picking up our allotment and seeing the
"welfare kings and queens" in their new, big Cadillacs picking up their allotments.
I am convinced that those who live on the dole for generations are truly a
distinct minority, but visible enough to paint with a much broader stroke
the unfair portrait of those on welfare. The vast majority want to work but
either can't find a job, aren't trained for what's available or can't afford to
move/get trained. I know many on the board believe that Obama wants
to redistribute but I look at it differently. I think he and most Dems want
to help the middle, want to help the working poor get into the middle and
help the poor get a better life, in general.

Having said that, and in light of the Dust Bowl documentary, bringing back
the WPA and the CCC could and would provide infrastructure improvements,
and provide training to many who otherwise wouldn't be able to get it. (The
trainers can be recently reassigned/downsized military engineers/mechanics/
electricians returning from war...you know, those who build small cities while
being shot at...) There are so many bridges, roads, highways, schools, streets,
public buildings etc that need work/repair.

Yeah, I know the argument about gov't not creating jobs but this is an instance
where government does just that. It doesn't have to be and wouldn't be a forever
thing, just like the WPA and CCC weren't. ( A huge number of returning WWII vets
worked in those programs...I've mentioned before Lake Texoma Dam, which created,
for a time, the largest manmade lake in the world, in terms of shoreline).

Most likely, I'm whistling in the wind but I believe the idea has merit.

Go ahead, THA, shout, somebody will listen and maybe do something. That somebody,
though, will need friends in both parties and if that somebody finds those friends then
there's a chance...just a chance.

[rock on sooner]

LLL, your "redistricting" argument cuts both ways, just so ya know.

All your points about how long the gov't runs...a week, six weeks...
you'll get no argument from me. Compromise on spending cuts first,
okay, what cuts you want? Done, What tax change/increase/loophole
closed I get? None, that's what I thought...all the Pubs want to be
reelected.

[LiveLaughLove]

LLL, your "redistricting" argument cuts both ways, just so ya know.

All your points about how long the gov't runs...a week, six weeks...
you'll get no argument from me. Compromise on spending cuts first,
okay, what cuts you want? Done, What tax change/increase/loophole
closed I get? None, that's what I thought...all the Pubs want to be
reelected.

That's rich. Obama gave away everything he possibly could to every constituency possible, and you only claim republicans are concerned with reelection. Right.

The republican won the district that had the majority of West's old district, just fyi.

West was an incumbent in name only where he had to run. I will say the republicans didn't want him any more than democrats did and that's why he got stuck in no mans land.

Back to the tax thing, if it will only run the government a few days, why is this the democrat line in the sand if not for pure politics. There's nothing serious about it. You guys and the democrats aren't serious about the fiscal problems of this country. You are only interested in political pandering and scoring political points.

The republicans shouldn't take any of you seriously until you offer major spending cuts that will actually help.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Rock, i mentioned way earlier a works program for those on assistance. However many of those are probably single parents, not sure if that was the case in the '30s. I bet there would be howls if that was reconstituted again. I like the infrastructure idea, we sure need it.

[rock on sooner]

That's rich. Obama gave away everything he possibly could to every constituency possible, and you only claim republicans are concerned with reelection. Right.

The republican won the district that had the majority of West's old district, just fyi.

West was an incumbent in name only where he had to run. I will say the republicans didn't want him any more than democrats did and that's why he got stuck in no mans land.

Back to the tax thing, if it will only run the government a few days, why is this the democrat line in the sand if not for pure politics. There's nothing serious about it. You guys and the democrats aren't serious about the fiscal problems of this country. You are only interested in political pandering and scoring political points.

The republicans shouldn't take any of you seriously until you offer major spending cuts that will actually help.

It is a two way street, LLL, you guys don't deserve serious consideration either,
so there!

[LiveLaughLove]

It is a two way street, LLL, you guys don't deserve serious consideration either,
so there!

Which is the typical liberal position. Now they just demagogue it, use a compliant media and let people think the republicans are the ones obstructing, and everything would be fixed if we just get our tax increases. A blatant lie.

Once again, you could have every penny above $120,000 from every person in America and it wouldn't even make a ripple. But your side will NEVER submit a meaningful non-military spending cut if any kind. Never. Heck, you can't get them to even submit a budget of any kind, let alone, a serious one.

[rock on sooner]

Which is the typical liberal position. Now they just demagogue it, use a compliant media and let people think the republicans are the ones obstructing, and everything would be fixed if we just get our tax increases. A blatant lie.

Once again, you could have every penny above $120,000 from every person in America and it wouldn't even make a ripple. But your side will NEVER submit a meaningful non-military spending cut if any kind. Never. Heck, you can't get them to even submit a budget of any kind, let alone, a serious one.

Listen, I'll try this again.

I'll give you the following:
Cut ALL non military spending ACROSS THE BOARD 3 1/2% next fiscal year, then 1/2%
each year following until 10% is reached.
Consolidate all military stations outside the US 3 and 2 into 1. Retrain/reassign redundancies
to civilian infrastructure work. CONSIDER reducing carrier battlegroups from 11 to 9. (Study the
hell out of it.)
Freeze government hiring now. Let attrition right size the bureaucracy. Freeze is for 3-5 years.

Three solid points that reduce spending, moving aggressively toward reducing the deficit.
What revenue increases will you put on the table?

Now, keep in mind that I just reread your response and it REALLY sounds like Rush or Beck
wrote it. No offense intended.

[OU_Sooners75]

Hell Rock, if you can give that, plus guarantee a balanced budget amendment, ill give you a 5% tax increase on any person or business making over $250,000/ year. I would offer up a 7.5% for all those people and businesses making over $2 million/year. And a 10% increase on those making over $15 million/year.

Who am I kidding, those numbers are way to high!

[hawaii 5-0]

I was using my Betsy Ross flag long before the Tea Party took it over (as well as the Don't Tread On Me flag).

When I fly it I don't wanna be mistaken for a Tea Party member.

5-0

[LiveLaughLove]

Listen, I'll try this again.

I'll give you the following:
Cut ALL non military spending ACROSS THE BOARD 3 1/2% next fiscal year, then 1/2%
each year following until 10% is reached.
Consolidate all military stations outside the US 3 and 2 into 1. Retrain/reassign redundancies
to civilian infrastructure work. CONSIDER reducing carrier battlegroups from 11 to 9. (Study the
hell out of it.)
Freeze government hiring now. Let attrition right size the bureaucracy. Freeze is for 3-5 years.

Three solid points that reduce spending, moving aggressively toward reducing the deficit.
What revenue increases will you put on the table?

Now, keep in mind that I just reread your response and it REALLY sounds like Rush or Beck
wrote it. No offense intended.

That all sounds great. Which Democrat politician is proposing this? Senator None from Nowheresville?

or Congresswomen NotAChance from Neverland?

As for me, I don't mind them raising taxes on the rich, the semi-rich or whoever. It just won't help anything except for liberal feelers.

[Skysooner]

That all sounds great. Which Democrat politician is proposing this? Senator None from Nowheresville?

or Congresswomen NotAChance from Neverland?

As for me, I don't mind them raising taxes on the rich, the semi-rich or whoever. It just won't help anything except for liberal feelers.

You mean like the Democratic Platform?

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120905/DEFREG02/120905002/Democratic-Platform-Supports-More-Defense-Cuts

[rock on sooner]

That all sounds great. Which Democrat politician is proposing this? Senator None from Nowheresville?

or Congresswomen NotAChance from Neverland?

As for me, I don't mind them raising taxes on the rich, the semi-rich or whoever. It just won't help anything except for liberal feelers.

I've floated these ideas all across the spectrum, with few acknowledgements,
none from the right (Priebus and Grassley, to name two). The responses I get
here are anything but serious. I can surmise from that that either no one has
given serious thought to a compromise or they have no serious thoughts. It
doesn't matter, though, because I'm not giving up. I think these things are
doable. More than that, these things are necessary. Can't cut to the bone right
off the bat and can't hit tax adjustments too hard, either, but easing into it to can
and should work to BOTH sides benefit. Jus sayin....

[LiveLaughLove]

You mean like the Democratic Platform?

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120905/DEFREG02/120905002/Democratic-Platform-Supports-More-Defense-Cuts

Yeah I know they are for defense cuts. Maybe you missed where I said besides defense cuts name a serious cut the Democrats will do or be for.

Funny the one thing the constitution says to spend money on is the one thing the Democrats WILL cut. And it won't come close to fixing the problem either.

Also funny how eerily similar to Athens it is. The Athenians were paying themselves largess, just as we are today. The generals warned them that they weren't adequately defending themselves and that they were inviting invasion.

Sure enough, as their enemies started gathering armies to conquer them, the generals begged them to restore their military, but this would mean less largess for the people. The people would not allow cuts to build up their military. They were destroyed easily.

So yeah, I'm sure the Dems would be more than happy to cut defense. After all, that's one of the few constituencies that they don't have in their hip pocket.

[Soonerjeepman]

I'm for a SMARTER, more efficient military, BUT there has to be cuts in welfare and other programs as well. I don't mind the wealthier paying their share...36%. THe problem is there are so many loopholes and they have the resources to get their taxes down to the teens..(Warren Buffet). That is the problem.

[LiveLaughLove]

Here's how serious they are about curbing spending.



Obama Announces $6 Billion To Promote Clean Energy … In Asia…

The White House announced the federal government will spend $6 billion over four years for a “sustainable energy future” plan with Asian countries that involves loaning tax dollars to other countries to increase their purchasing power for U.S. technology, services and equipment.

“Recognizing that energy and the environment are among the most pressing issues confronting our region, President Obama, in partnership with Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei and President of the Republic of Indonesia Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, today proposed the U.S.-Asia Pacific Comprehensive Partnership for a Sustainable Energy Future,” the White House announced Tuesday as Obama visits Asian Pacific countries.

The initiative comes after the Obama administration has been criticized for spending billions to subsidize U.S.-based green energy companies that went on to declare bankruptcy, including Solyndra, Ener1, A123, Beacon Power and other failed renewable energy ventures.

Now I realize this is a drop in the bucket also, but it's endemic of the problem we are dealing with with liberals. They are never short of things to spend money on.

This brings up another point about the tax increases. Even if they get them, they will not use it toward the deficit, they will spend it on new things.

[Midtowner]

Yeah I know they are for defense cuts. Maybe you missed where I said besides defense cuts name a serious cut the Democrats will do or be for.

Funny the one thing the constitution says to spend money on is the one thing the Democrats WILL cut. And it won't come close to fixing the problem either.

Also funny how eerily similar to Athens it is. The Athenians were paying themselves largess, just as we are today. The generals warned them that they weren't adequately defending themselves and that they were inviting invasion.

Sure enough, as their enemies started gathering armies to conquer them, the generals begged them to restore their military, but this would mean less largess for the people. The people would not allow cuts to build up their military. They were destroyed easily.

So yeah, I'm sure the Dems would be more than happy to cut defense. After all, that's one of the few constituencies that they don't have in their hip pocket.

OR we could be looking at the Roman Republic which attempted to relieve a powerful general of his command, (Sulla) threatening to deny him the riches he would have obtained in his war against Mithridates. This denial of goodies to the military resulted in the army coming back and staging a coup, which touched off a string of events ending the Roman Republic.

Neither situation is really on-point, but I mean c'mon.. who is going to actually invade the continental United States? No one has even tried that since what... the War of 1812?

[LiveLaughLove]

OR we could be looking at the Roman Republic which attempted to relieve a powerful general of his command, (Sulla) threatening to deny him the riches he would have obtained in his war against Mithridates. This denial of goodies to the military resulted in the army coming back and staging a coup, which touched off a string of events ending the Roman Republic.

Neither situation is really on-point, but I mean c'mon.. who is going to actually invade the continental United States? No one has even tried that since what... the War of 1812?

I thought you were educated. Aren't you a lawyer or something?

Do you really think I was trying to say we are in danger of being invaded? Or do you think I was speaking to the similarities of the rotting from within by the voting of largess to ourselves?

The invasion didn't wipe those people out Darrow. The electorate themselves did, long before the invasion.

The Athenians are spot on to where we are heading and any person with half a brain can see it.

[Midtowner]

I thought you were educated. Aren't you a lawyer or something?

Do you really think I was trying to say we are in danger of being invaded?

Unless you're admitting to being poor at verbal composition, you said this about Greece, which was what you were comparing us to.


Sure enough, as their enemies started gathering armies to conquer them, the generals begged them to restore their military, but this would mean less largess for the people. The people would not allow cuts to build up their military. They were destroyed easily.

Do you think food stamps are "largess"? Student loans? Pell grants? Infant nutrition assistance? Temporary Aid for Needy Families? Medicaid?

Or how 'bout this? A military which spends more than the next 20 or so countries (including allies) combined?

Or do you think I was speaking to the similarities of the rotting from within by the voting of largess to ourselves?

[LiveLaughLove]

Unless you're admitting to being poor at verbal composition, you said this about Greece, which was what you were comparing us to.



Do you think food stamps are "largess"? Student loans? Pell grants? Infant nutrition assistance? Temporary Aid for Needy Families? Medicaid?

Or how 'bout this? A military which spends more than the next 20 or so countries (including allies) combined?

Or do you think I was speaking to the similarities of the rotting from within by the voting of largess to ourselves?

My verbiage was spot on. You're ability to comprehend was what was lacking. It's almost embarrassing that someone that spent that much time in school reading documents is so lacking, but hey there's gotta be a bottom rung to every ladder, right?

Once again, let's cut the one thing the Constitution calls for spending money on. That's fine. Where should military spending be, General Patton? Should we only spend around equal to the top other country? Or maybe the third or fourth countries? What does your vast military acumen prescribe?

Yes those items are definitely largess, and should not be handled by the federal government. The local and state governments should handle those things individually to whatever levels they deem fit.

In the hands of the federal government it is used for nothing more than to keep people enslaved to the government, and it creates what we have now. Buying votes (which is why you are for it).

I'm not pollyanna, I know this will never happen. Pandora's Box is open, and it's not closing again. So we deal with it the best we can, and wait for the invasion (that part's a simile for our rotting from within, I don't mean a literal invasion. It's a descriptive vehicle coinciding with what happened to the Athenians. It helps draw a picture for the reader. Comprende?).

[LiveLaughLove]

Neg rep me again Mid. I take you very personally and I'll say it here not behind the scenes via reputation on here.

Still I won't neg rep you back. I have never done neg rep and won't now as a tit for tat.

It's childish. Which fit's you. Oops, gonna neg me again I suppose.

[Skysooner]

Yeah I know they are for defense cuts. Maybe you missed where I said besides defense cuts name a serious cut the Democrats will do or be for.

Funny the one thing the constitution says to spend money on is the one thing the Democrats WILL cut. And it won't come close to fixing the problem either.

Also funny how eerily similar to Athens it is. The Athenians were paying themselves largess, just as we are today. The generals warned them that they weren't adequately defending themselves and that they were inviting invasion.

Sure enough, as their enemies started gathering armies to conquer them, the generals begged them to restore their military, but this would mean less largess for the people. The people would not allow cuts to build up their military. They were destroyed easily.

So yeah, I'm sure the Dems would be more than happy to cut defense. After all, that's one of the few constituencies that they don't have in their hip pocket.

Sorry, I guess your reference was to the whole point and most of the reference was about defense so I answered that. Except for the most left wing libs, we are all for reducing spending as prudently as possible without wrecking the economy. We all have the same goal in mind, but there has to be done gradually or you bring the economy down, worsen the deficit, etc. It could be raising the retirement age on social security, capping benefits, etc. Medicare likely needs to be fixed too (no educated opinion on this as everything I read on it is contradictory and I'm not a health care expert). People will hold their feet to the fire over this.

[LiveLaughLove]

Sorry, I guess your reference was to the whole point and most of the reference was about defense so I answered that. Except for the most left wing libs, we are all for reducing spending as prudently as possible without wrecking the economy. We all have the same goal in mind, but there has to be done gradually or you bring the economy down, worsen the deficit, etc. It could be raising the retirement age on social security, capping benefits, etc. Medicare likely needs to be fixed too (no educated opinion on this as everything I read on it is contradictory and I'm not a health care expert). People will hold their feet to the fire over this.

I don't disagree. I am not personally opposed to tax hikes, but I completely understand why Republican politicians are.

I don't believe that people will hold them accountable though. The majority of the Democrat electorate that doesn't pay taxes will want their goodies more than they want the economy to get better.

For them, that IS the economy. And they will want more and more. What suffices today will not suffice tomorrow or the next day (once more for the comprehension challenged, I don't mean literally tomorrow or the next day, I mean down the road in the future, even though I clearly typed "tomorrow or the next day").

[Petro-Sooner]

We should raise taxes!! That will fix things

[Midtowner]

Once again, let's cut the one thing the Constitution calls for spending money on. That's fine. Where should military spending be, General Patton? Should we only spend around equal to the top other country? Or maybe the third or fourth countries? What does your vast military acumen prescribe?

Stop acting like such a jackass. You're not helping yourself at all. Entering WWI, our military spending was close to that of Greece. We don't need the military we have right now. Hell, if we weren't involved in all of these other countries the way we are, why would the terrorists be attacking us? Do you really think it's just because they "hate freedom"?


Yes those items are definitely largess, and should not be handled by the federal government. The local and state governments should handle those things individually to whatever levels they deem fit.

In the hands of the federal government it is used for nothing more than to keep people enslaved to the government, and it creates what we have now. Buying votes (which is why you are for it).

Or you could say the Republicans want to buy votes by giving gifts to their voters in the form of tax cuts. It's all a matter of perspective. That said, the welfare system is very much constitutional, you may be philosophically against it, but that and a dollar'll buy you a coke.


I'm not pollyanna, I know this will never happen. Pandora's Box is open, and it's not closing again. So we deal with it the best we can, and wait for the invasion (that part's a simile for our rotting from within, I don't mean a literal invasion. It's a descriptive vehicle coinciding with what happened to the Athenians. It helps draw a picture for the reader. Comprende?).

I disagree. Things are just fine. This country has been much worse off. Fought a civil war, in fact. The Earth kept spinning and we kept on adding stars to the flag rather than removing them.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Stop acting like such a jackass.Now THAT is rich...I'm talking Bruce Rich.

[LiveLaughLove]

Stop acting like such a jackass. You're not helping yourself at all. Entering WWI, our military spending was close to that of Greece. We don't need the military we have right now. Hell, if we weren't involved in all of these other countries the way we are, why would the terrorists be attacking us? Do you really think it's just because they "hate freedom"?
Or you could say the Republicans want to buy votes by giving gifts to their voters in the form of tax cuts. It's all a matter of perspective. That said, the welfare system is very much constitutional, you may be philosophically against it, but that and a dollar'll buy you a coke.
I disagree. Things are just fine. This country has been much worse off. Fought a civil war, in fact. The Earth kept spinning and we kept on adding stars to the flag rather than removing them.

Or you could say that people get to keep their OWN money. Hard to make a gift of something someone already owns.

Those past things were done by a different people than the current electorate, and that current electorate is growing.

In WW I, we didn't have the responsibility of world policeman that we have now. I don't agree with us being those policemen, but it seems we don't have much choice currently.

The Islamist's have attacked us ever since the birth of Israel and our support there. That will not stop regardless of how small we make our military or how uninvolved we become worldwide.

[LiveLaughLove]

Just in case any of you actually thought the Democrats are serious about curbing spending or curbing the illegal immigration problem.

http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20221119outrage_over_fed_ebt_push_for_aliens/srvc=home&position=2

A welcome to "immigrants" and how to get on public assistance right away. Nice.

Enslaving them as soon as possible on the Democrat plantation.

Not to be outdone the Mayor of Chicago wants drivers licenses for illegals, because you know, why not.