Illegal Immigration

The topic of illegal immigration is one that is somewhat conflincting for me. On one hand, when I hear the word illegal immigration, I think of a bunch of Mexicans crossing the border into the US and taking advantage of what America has to offer, like jobs and hospitals, which really does not sit well in my stomach. However, I also think of this guy I work with, Henry, who moved to America after leaving a dangerous Columbia, where his brother was shot and killed, and for a bit lived here as an illegal immigrant, but became a citizen once he had kids so that he could give them a little life. And thinking of that story does sit well in my stomach.

I guess if I am going to try to make a rational opinion on this, it is that we need to continue our efforts against illegal immigrants. They do absolutely nothing to benefit society, all they do is hurt it. They come here, they take jobs away from American citizens that a) need the money because of the recession and b) will pay income taxes when getting paid from this job. Also, our tax money that goes to hospitals, do they only help American citizens? Yes and no. Although immigrants do not get some of the nice hospitals that citizens have, they cannot be denied in an emergency room.

Now, I do not have the type of information that says how much money is put towards the efforts against illegal immigration, and how much money is lost from the American citizens and government because of the illegal immigration, but something tells me the numbers could be close. Now, if the efforts against it exceed the amount that we are losing to illegal immigration, then our efforts do seem useless and worth the money. But like I said, I do not have the exact numbers, but just thought I would mention it since I do not hear that type of fact said in the news.

Facebook Wrestles with Free Speech

With Facebook quickly becoming one of the most visited sites in the entire web, right behind Google, it is expected that there may be some controversy around it. For a while, there have been a lot of complaints about Facebook and it violating privacy issues, like sharing information on one's profile to companies wishing to advertise. But there has recently been a new issue lately that Facebook has to deal with, and that's Freedom of Speech.
A new user introduced to Facebook is met with a Terms Of Service, which indicates that anything violent, harmful, pornographic, or illegal will be taken down, and only if it falls in any of those categories. But a lot of countries are having to block Facebook because, assuming that it does not fall into any of those categories, people can post whatever they want, even if that means an opinion bashing another country or religion, since it is a "public image." These countries do not like that Facebook is allowing some of these messages to be posted. But most importantly, many people, countries, and organizations do not like how Facebook is making final calls on Freedom Of Speech.
It is kind of a tricky issue for me on this one, for which side I agree with. On one hand, people should be respectful of what they post, but on the other, this is an American-based website, so people should be allowed to say whatever they please, as long as it does not violate the terms of service. I know that people calling Facebook "an arbiter of Freedom of Speech" only enhances their superpower image, they were doing that before when people were spending hours a day on this site. With it being Facebook's site, I think they should hold the disgretion as to what is posted, and if someone does not like it, then they can simply delete their account.

Obama's Continuation on Bush's Tax Cuts

Everywhere on the news, one will find someone talking about the new agreement Obama made with Republicans regarding an extension of the Bush tax cuts. What is mostly being discussed is how most Democrats are strongly against this proposal that Obama has made with the Republicans. One of their reasonings behind this is that part of the bill keeps the wealthiest 2% from being burdened with high taxes. Like most Democrats, Obama is not in favor of this, however, unlike most Democrats, Obama feels that it is worth it if it means helping middle class families "sending their kids to college" and "put food on the table while looking for a job" (part of the bill also extends unemployment insurance).
I think what most Democrats are overlooking, and almost all media, is the fact that a bipartisan decision has finally been made, something everyone in government claims they wish to have. I think that that in its self is a huge positive, cause this bipartisan agreement is a big step for the country for something that will continue to grow. Obama has stated that both parties will have to accept things that they don't want for things that they do, and I completely agree. It is just common sense that if you are negociating with someone that has different views than you on almost everything, you may have to compramise somethings to receive somethings back. Even Mayor Bloomberg of New York, and independent, told "Meet the Press" today in an interview that Democrats need to "suck it up," which, again, I agree with. Normally, I lean more towards Democrats, but I am not happy with the way that they have been acting, which is like a little three year old whose mom didn't buy them the new toy at the store.
Another thing that is troubling to me is the fact that Bill Clinton's backing of the Tax Cut Bill had no effect on the democrats. When Clinton was President, the economy was booming. Personally, even as a Democrat who feels Obama does not have enough experience to make a decision like this, I would change my mind after seeing Clinton defend it. Clinton is not an amateur, and I would trust what he is saying, as he proved in his eight years that he knows what he is talking about.

Bernanke on 60 Minutes: Grim Outlook for Jobs

Ben Bernanke, one of the top economists in the nation and chairman of the United States Federal Reserve, appeared for an interview on CBS' "60 Minutes" this past sunday. After the government had just released reports of the unemployment rate raising to 9.8%, many viewers were tuning in to hear some good, possibly behind the scenes information to balanced out the previous news. These viewers were to be both excited yet dissapointed.
Bernanke told Scott Pelley of "60 Minutes" that he believes it could take anywhere up to four or five years to get the unemployment rate normal again. Bernanke began discussing, and most importantly defending, the recent $600 billion bonding bill, called QE2, in effort to get consumers and employers more proactive. While a lot of press have been saying a lot of things against QE2, like saying it will cause inflation, Bernanke says that not acting on this issue is a much greater risk than QE2. In addition, he does not see inflation as an issue.
It's good to see government officials going out and talking to the media and the public, but like all politicians, it seems scripted. The line "encourage consumers to buy and companies to create jobs" is a line I have heard all too often, and every time I hear it, it's value lessens for me. As far as QE2, it seems like almost another thing the government is doing to look more effective to the public, but if it is being defended by one of the nation's top economists, than I have a little more faith. Hopefully this is one of the last big spending bills the government will have to create to stimulate the economy.