pat buchanon plugs ron paul on tucker again

[atilla]

"as our friend ron paul said "they're over here because we are over there" i really beleive that"

i would bet that buchanon's contract with msnbc prevents him from making an endorement, but when tancredo drops out, maybe his sister bay (tancredos campaign manager) will endorse ron paul and send the signal the whole family is supporting him.

[PaleoForPaul]

He can still endorse people, but as you said, I'm sure he will not until Tancredo is out.

[LibertyEagle]

You guys should check out Buchanan's articles on Townhall. He inadvertently supports Paul one heck of a lot.

[guntherg16]

Pat Buchanan has a special section on his website set aside for 1 and only 1 '08 presidential candidate. Can you guess which one?

http://buchanan.org/blog/?cat=25

[Bradley in DC]

Dr. Paul got in the 1992 Republican presidential primary against Bush, but dropped out early on and supported Buchanan when he entered the race (he thought Buchanan would be a stronger challenger and didn't want to split the anti-Bush vote).

[tsoldrin]

Pat Buchanon see's in Paul what he himself could have been if he hadn't sold his soul for expediency. He saw the winds of change and put a foot in the neocon door, he just didn't see the winds reversing course. He's still okay in my book and probably one of the most informed pundits alive today, but he's not been nearly as critical of the Bush junta as he should have been ALL ALONG imo.

[Liberty]

Ron Paul was also mentioned on MSNBC's news ticker. Said he was meeting with veterans in Texas today. Any coverage by MSM is encouraging, considering what we've witnessed thus far. Tucker and Pat are the exceptions.

[Bob Cochran]

Pat Buchanan couches his thoughts on immigration in rather xenophobic terms, but still I agree that we need to enforce the existing laws.

I'm tired of reading in the Arizona Republic how we should feel so very sorry for those who crossed the border illegally, stayed illegally, used our tax-funded services, and expect to be able to stay without any consequences. There was a big outpouring of disappointment when the immigration bill was killed, and I came to see that these folks really did expect it to pass.

[LibertyCzar]

He can still endorse people, but as you said, I'm sure he will not until Tancredo is out.

Then they can both endorse Ron Paul. :D

[Roxi]

those who crossed the border illegally, stayed illegally, used our tax-funded services, and expect to be able to stay without any consequences

Just curious....everyone talks about how they use our tax funded services like welfare but how do they get on welfare with proper documentation?

[Kuldebar]

Just curious....everyone talks about how they use our tax funded services like welfare but how do they get on welfare with proper documentation?


Immigration and the Welfare State (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul269.html) -from the man...


Also, from Federation for American Immigration Reform (http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters7fd 8)

Why Are Immigrants On Welfare?

Some people mistakenly think that immigrants are not eligible for welfare. Several years ago, Congress did attempt to render immigrants ineligible for most forms of welfare. However, subsequent backpedaling by Congress and the executive branch has undone most of those reforms. Furthermore, many immigrant families get welfare through the eligibility of their U.S. citizen children. (It is also important to realize that even when immigrants are ineligible for federal welfare programs, the burden of their support is simply shifted over to the state and local welfare agencies.)

Refugees, asylees, and all amnestied illegal aliens are exempt from the public charge requirement.3 Congress has decided that the American people will serve as the sponsors for these immigrants and pick up the tab for their support.

All other immigrants must pass a public charge test and have a U.S. sponsor or sponsors willing to pledge their income to support them. Before a potential immigrant receives an immigration visa, American consular officers are supposed to evaluate whether he or she is likely to become a public charge, and, if so, to deny the visa. The consular officer is supposed to take into account a variety of factors: the amount of support the sponsor can give, the resources and skills of the applicant, and any special conditions (such as age or infirmity) that might affect the applicant’s need for support. The Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 set the new legal standard for the evaluation: the sponsor of the applicant must have an annual income of at least 125 percent of the federally designated poverty level. There are several problems with this standard:

* The sponsorship income level, only 25 percent higher than the poverty level, is so low that it does not prevent immigrants from going on welfare; in fact, it almost guarantees it. Say a sponsor begins with an income of 200 percent of poverty level and is, therefore, not considered “legally poor.” But after splitting that income with the immigrant, each will be at 100 percent of the poverty level. Where before we had one non-poor person, now we have two poor people. Since eligibility for some welfare programs kicks in before one’s income drops to 125 percent of poverty level, immigrants can easily wind up on welfare.

* While immigrants who receive welfare can be deported for violating the conditions under which they were admitted, this provision is rarely enforced; in fact, only twelve people have been deported under this provision since 1980.4 Administrative rulings have held that an immigrant cannot be held responsible for receiving welfare unless the welfare agencies have sent the immigrant a bill for their services, demanded payment, and been refused payment.5 Since welfare agencies do not do this, it is virtually impossible for an immigrant to be charged with violating the public charge provisions that can lead to deportation.

* Furthermore, numerous forms of welfare are not considered under the public charge test, including food stamps, pre-natal care, nutrition programs, housing assistance, energy assistance, job training programs, child care services, free or reduced school lunch, public shelters, health clinics, Medicaid, and any cash welfare programs that are not the family’s sole source of income.6 This insulates immigrants from being considered public charges unless they are completely dependent on welfare.

What Types of Welfare Are Immigrants Eligible For?

As of the 1996 welfare reform bill, the following applies to eligibility for federal and state funded welfare programs:

* Legal immigrants are barred from all federal means-tested public benefits for five years after entering the country and barred from SSI and food stamps until citizenship. They are also barred from all federal means-tested public benefits for five years.7
* Benefits available to immigrants include school lunch and breakfast programs, immunizations, emergency medical services, disaster relief, and others programs that are necessary to protect life and safety as identified by the attorney general, regardless of immigration status.8
* Illegal immigrants are barred from the following federal public benefits: grants, contracts, loans, licenses, retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, post secondary education, food assistance, and unemployment benefits. States are barred from providing state or locally funded benefits to illegal immigrants unless a state law is enacted granting such authority.

[atilla]

Just curious....everyone talks about how they use our tax funded services like welfare but how do they get on welfare with proper documentation?
don't know about the welfare exactly, however i do know the federal courts have ruled that school districts must enroll illegal kids and that hostpital emergency rooms must treat illegals. of course they should be able to then call "la migra" and have the interloupers deported but as has been reported on vdare many times over the years it doesn't do much good to report them as the feds seldom do anything.

i wouldn't be surprised if there has also been a federal court rulling that illegals must be given welfare too.

[guntherg16]

don't know about the welfare exactly, however i do know the federal courts have ruled that school districts must enroll illegal kids and that hostpital emergency rooms must treat illegals. of course they should be able to then call "la migra" and have the interloupers deported but as has been reported on vdare many times over the years it doesn't do much good to report them as the feds seldom do anything.

i wouldn't be surprised if there has also been a federal court rulling that illegals must be given welfare too.

I believe it's also anchor babies. They come here, give birth and because of the misinterpretation of the 14th amendment, the babies are considered citizens. Then the family gets on welfare.

[BillyBeer]

Pat has been saying that line for years.....at least there is ONE pundit who is for Ron Paul. Its something, and thats better than nothing.

[dmitchell]

Pat has been saying that line for years.....at least there is ONE pundit who is for Ron Paul. Its something, and thats better than nothing.
Don't forget about Tucker, who actually voted for Ron Paul in 1988! Anyway, great to hear from Buchanan, probably my favorite pundit.

[Kuldebar]

Pat B's only big flaw is his extreme isolationism. He believes in government managed trade.

The mercantilist view of the trade deficit is the one held by protectionists of various stripes, including paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts, CNN News anchor Lou Dobbs and the left-wing Economic Policy Institute. This view in effect holds that the trade deficit kills jobs. Paul Craig Roberts, Lou Dobbs and the Economic Policy Institute have all explicitly blamed the trade deficit for the--by American standards--slow job growth during recent years and Pat Buchanan used to repeat the calculation by a U.S. trade representitive that $1 billion in exports means 25000 jobs, which he then used to argue that this means that a trade deficit of $300 billion translated into 7.5 million lost jobs from trade. He has stopped using that calculation now presumably because even he realizes that it is absurd to try to argue that America with its current $700 billion trade deficit would have 17.5 million more jobs in the absence of trade.

Some analysis:
What Are We to Make of the Trade Deficit? (http://www.mises.org/story/1762)

[BillyBeer]

Don't forget about Tucker, who actually voted for Ron Paul in 1988! Anyway, great to hear from Buchanan, probably my favorite pundit.

Tucker has made a conversion lately to Paleocon/libertarian ideals. Maybe because Iraq and the "war on terra" arent going too well? I always thought it was funny how the MSM turned around his pillorying of Jon Stewart on Crossfire for kissing the ass of the establishment into some sort of amazing social critique by Stewart.

[BillyBeer]

Pat B's only big flaw is his extreme isolationism. He believes in government managed trade.


Some analysis:
What Are We to Make of the Trade Deficit? (http://www.mises.org/story/1762)

OK the problem with that is so called "Free Trade" is never free trade. People like Buchanan and Dobbs might be in favour of free trade if it actually happened. The likelihood of that occuring is as low as the likelihood of a true 100 percent free market ever happening.

[Nefertiti]

I have to admit, I agree more with Pat Buchanan on economic policy, but as you say Dr. Paul's ideals are probably never going to happen, and so I can live with it, especially since his ideas on foreign policy and local government I really like.

[Kuldebar]

OK the problem with that is so called "Free Trade" is never free trade. People like Buchanan and Dobbs might be in favour of free trade if it actually happened. The likelihood of that occuring is as low as the likelihood of a true 100 percent free market ever happening.

Probably. But, the corruption of the language by reporters and the people that discuss these things is pretty much undeniable. Most people with some historical perspective in economic will realize the conceit.

EXCELLENT article from the late, great Milton Friedman:

The Case for Free Trade (http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3550727.html)


Free trade is free trade, what we have now is managed trade heavily influenced by politics and special interests.


In his famous essay, “Politics and the English Language” (1946), Orwell discusses the many ways that our language “becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish,” but also argues that “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.” In other words, any corruption of the language can (and will) have a corrupting influence on the ways in which we think about the very things that language struggles to describe. This process is illustrated in Squealer’s announcements to the animals about their shortages of food: “For the time being,” he explains, “it had been found necessary to make a readjustment of rations.” His use of “readjustment” instead of “reduction” is a subtle attempt to quell the animals’ complaints about their stomachs—“reduction” is a word implying less of something, but “readjustment” implies a shifting of what is already there. (Thus one hears politicians speak of “the need to increase funding of government programs” instead of “tax hikes” or the invasion of another country as a “police action” instead of a “war.”) In “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell contends that such euphemisms are used because they prevent listeners from conjuring mental pictures of what is being described, which in turn lessens the amount of horror listeners can feel when considering the topic. -source (http://education.yahoo.com/homework_help/cliffsnotes/animal_farm/30.html)

[BillyBeer]

I have to admit, I agree more with Pat Buchanan on economic policy, but as you say Dr. Paul's ideals are probably never going to happen, and so I can live with it, especially since his ideas on foreign policy and local government I really like.

Exactly 100 percent free trade is an ideal, like a pure free market. Buchanans policies are definitely the lesser of two evils from which we are often forced to choose in the real world where irrationality comes into play.