It's the spending, stupid.

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by J. Hugh Sulliv » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 20:57:33




Quote:
>Indeed.  If we're talking about terrible candidates I've voted for, then Du=
>kakis.  I *could* make an argument for***and Kerry, but given how utterl=
>y disastrous Bush 43's two terms were, we're definitely talking the lesser =
>of two terribles there.

Just for starters my IRA was the most under Bush (the year before Obie
became president) that it had ever been.15 months after Obie it was
the lowest it had been since 1994. It still has not completely
recovered. Withdrawals is not the answer. Under Bush I was earning
more than I withdrew. That is not the exception to the rule.

Under Obie there is more unemployment, a greater deficit, more people
on welfare and more people on food stamps. Is that the way you measure
prosperity or am I missing something here?

Hugh

 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by dre » Sat, 13 Apr 2013 02:40:11

Quote:



> >Indeed.  If we're talking about terrible candidates I've voted for, then Du=

> >kakis.  I *could* make an argument for***and Kerry, but given how utterl=

> >y disastrous Bush 43's two terms were, we're definitely talking the lesser =

> >of two terribles there.

> Just for starters my IRA was the most under Bush (the year before Obie

> became president) that it had ever been.15 months after Obie it was

> the lowest it had been since 1994. It still has not completely

> recovered. Withdrawals is not the answer. Under Bush I was earning

> more than I withdrew. That is not the exception to the rule.

> Under Obie there is more unemployment, a greater deficit, more people

> on welfare and more people on food stamps. Is that the way you measure

> prosperity or am I missing something here?

If I were to take the strictly superficial view, I would agree with you 100%.  But since I know that the unemployment, the greater deficit, the increased welfare and food stamp rolls were up sharply at the very end of Bush's term, they're due to the Great Recession and not because of our Sekrit Kenyan Muslim President.  I'm also not so superficial as to mistake Republican intransigence for standing on principle, so I'm quite aware that they've not only denied our President the chance to actually govern in the manner that the American people elected him (twice) to do, but that they've also *actively* hamstrung the economic recovery that could help lead to general prosperity.

But then again, I was also more aware that under Bush (and BEFORE the Great Recession), there was more unemployment, a greater deficit, more people on welfare and more people on food stamps than under Clinton--and that that all occurred *with* the GOP having near-total control over the US government.

That is without even getting into the two pointless wars and the mass erosion of civil liberties.

 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by J. Hugh Sulliv » Sat, 13 Apr 2013 03:50:13



Quote:
>If I were to take the strictly superficial view, I would agree with you 100=
>%.  But since I know that the unemployment, the greater deficit, the increa=
>sed welfare and food stamp rolls were up sharply at the very end of Bush's =
>term, they're due to the Great Recession and not because of our Sekrit Keny=
>an Muslim President.  I'm also not so superficial as to mistake Republican =
>intransigence for standing on principle, so I'm quite aware that they've no=
>t only denied our President the chance to actually govern in the manner tha=
>t the American people elected him (twice) to do, but that they've also *act=
>ively* hamstrung the economic recovery that could help lead to general pros=
>perity.

Where our view differs to some extent is that if the GoP had not held
his feet to the fire the situation would have been much worse.

It seems to me he believes that, if you can tax them enough you can
(just one example) throw all sorts of money at teachers and that will
make them better teachers.

Quote:
>But then again, I was also more aware that under Bush (and BEFORE the Great=
> Recession), there was more unemployment, a greater deficit, more people on=
> welfare and more people on food stamps than under Clinton--and that that a=
>ll occurred *with* the GOP having near-total control over the US government=

Using that exact analogy you must agree that, if Bush was to blame for
what followed Clinton, Obie is to blame for what followed Bush.

How 'bout SS? I believe that the increase in average life span, and
quality of life, demands a change in the age one can draw SS but libs
view SS as untouchable. How do you feel about that. I say that with
two sons, 53 and 51, who will be directly affected by what I say so I
do have a dog in the hunt.

Quote:
>That is without even getting into the two pointless wars and the mass erosi=
>on of civil liberties.

Pointless wars I agree. But what civil liberties have been ERODED?

Hugh

 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by Zaphod Beeblebro » Sat, 13 Apr 2013 04:05:30


Quote:


>> If I were to take the strictly superficial view, I would agree with you 100=
>> %.  But since I know that the unemployment, the greater deficit, the increa=
>> sed welfare and food stamp rolls were up sharply at the very end of Bush's =
>> term, they're due to the Great Recession and not because of our Sekrit Keny=
>> an Muslim President.  I'm also not so superficial as to mistake Republican =
>> intransigence for standing on principle, so I'm quite aware that they've no=
>> t only denied our President the chance to actually govern in the manner tha=
>> t the American people elected him (twice) to do, but that they've also *act=
>> ively* hamstrung the economic recovery that could help lead to general pros=
>> perity.

> Where our view differs to some extent is that if the GoP had not held
> his feet to the fire the situation would have been much worse.

That's complete speculation on your part. I think this half-assed
approach we've been stuck with because of the Redumblican majority in
the House of Reps has not helped.

Quote:
> It seems to me he believes that, if you can tax them enough you can
> (just one example) throw all sorts of money at teachers and that will
> make them better teachers.

That sounds suspiciously like something you received in in one of those
e-mails that you enjoy forwarding.

Quote:

>> But then again, I was also more aware that under Bush (and BEFORE the Great=
>> Recession), there was more unemployment, a greater deficit, more people on=
>> welfare and more people on food stamps than under Clinton--and that that a=
>> ll occurred *with* the GOP having near-total control over the US government=

> Using that exact analogy you must agree that, if Bush was to blame for
> what followed Clinton, Obie is to blame for what followed Bush.

Not at all.  Bush squandered the surplus be inherited by getting us into
two wars - one of which was completely uncalled for, and another that
was protracted by years because he diverted resources from it to the
unnecessary one.  Not to mention the tax cuts and the financial
freewheeling even while the wars were running us dry.  I think history
will show that we never had a worse president than Bush.

"Obie" - as you call him - was elected by the people (twice as dre
emphasized) based on what he said he wanted to do. Yet he's been
repeatedly hamstrung in his efforts by a recalcitrant Congress that is
loaded with gerrymandered Redumblicans.

Quote:
> How 'bout SS? I believe that the increase in average life span, and
> quality of life, demands a change in the age one can draw SS but libs
> view SS as untouchable. How do you feel about that. I say that with
> two sons, 53 and 51, who will be directly affected by what I say so I
> do have a dog in the hunt.

I'm not dre, but I certainly don't object to this.  I don't intend to
retire when I'm 65 and I don't see why the age shouldn't be raised.  I
also don't see why the cap on the SS income can't be raised.

Quote:

>> That is without even getting into the two pointless wars and the mass erosi=
>> on of civil liberties.

> Pointless wars I agree. But what civil liberties have been ERODED?

I assume you've missed the entire drone meme?  And yes, "Obie" is just
as guilty in this regard.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> Hugh

 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by J. Hugh Sulliv » Sat, 13 Apr 2013 05:45:35

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:05:30 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox

Quote:




>>> If I were to take the strictly superficial view, I would agree with you 100=
>>> %.  But since I know that the unemployment, the greater deficit, the increa=
>>> sed welfare and food stamp rolls were up sharply at the very end of Bush's =
>>> term, they're due to the Great Recession and not because of our Sekrit Keny=
>>> an Muslim President.  I'm also not so superficial as to mistake Republican =
>>> intransigence for standing on principle, so I'm quite aware that they've no=
>>> t only denied our President the chance to actually govern in the manner tha=
>>> t the American people elected him (twice) to do, but that they've also *act=
>>> ively* hamstrung the economic recovery that could help lead to general pros=
>>> perity.

>> Where our view differs to some extent is that if the GoP had not held
>> his feet to the fire the situation would have been much worse.

>That's complete speculation on your part. I think this half-assed
>approach we've been stuck with because of the Redumblican majority in
>the House of Reps has not helped.

Speculation? Until this budget the Obie thrust has been to tax and
spend. Not one proposal before has indicated an attempt to stop the
money drain.

Quote:

>> It seems to me he believes that, if you can tax them enough you can
>> (just one example) throw all sorts of money at teachers and that will
>> make them better teachers.

>That sounds suspiciously like something you received in in one of those
>e-mails that you enjoy forwarding.

Not responding to what I posted would have been an even better
response. So, tell me, if doubling your pay would make you a better
teacher you must have been doing a lousy job so far - right?

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

>>> But then again, I was also more aware that under Bush (and BEFORE the Great=
>>> Recession), there was more unemployment, a greater deficit, more people on=
>>> welfare and more people on food stamps than under Clinton--and that that a=
>>> ll occurred *with* the GOP having near-total control over the US government=

>> Using that exact analogy you must agree that, if Bush was to blame for
>> what followed Clinton, Obie is to blame for what followed Bush.

>Not at all.  Bush squandered the surplus be inherited by getting us into
>two wars - one of which was completely uncalled for, and another that
>was protracted by years because he diverted resources from it to the
>unnecessary one.  Not to mention the tax cuts and the financial
>freewheeling even while the wars were running us dry.  I think history
>will show that we never had a worse president than Bush.

Other than LBJ you mean.

Quote:
>"Obie" - as you call him - was elected by the people (twice as dre
>emphasized) based on what he said he wanted to do. Yet he's been
>repeatedly hamstrung in his efforts by a recalcitrant Congress that is
>loaded with gerrymandered Redumblicans.

He has accomplished a lot of what he meant to do - at least as much as
his share of the vote.

And you must be saying that the increase in the deficit was his goal.
Do you really think the wealthy could be taxed enough to neutralize
that?

Quote:
>> How 'bout SS? I believe that the increase in average life span, and
>> quality of life, demands a change in the age one can draw SS but libs
>> view SS as untouchable. How do you feel about that. I say that with
>> two sons, 53 and 51, who will be directly affected by what I say so I
>> do have a dog in the hunt.

>I'm not dre, but I certainly don't object to this.  I don't intend to
>retire when I'm 65 and I don't see why the age shouldn't be raised.  I
>also don't see why the cap on the SS income can't be raised.

Well, the thought is too logical to appeal to libs in my opinion.

Quote:
>>> That is without even getting into the two pointless wars and the mass erosi=
>>> on of civil liberties.

>> Pointless wars I agree. But what civil liberties have been ERODED?

>I assume you've missed the entire drone meme?  And yes, "Obie" is just
>as guilty in this regard.

I see the possibility, not the fact as yet. I don't really believe
Obie can tax us emought to pay for a drone to peek into every bedroom
window. That right might require a warrant.

And I am different from most - watch me all you want. If you don't
count speeding you're wasting your time. And that is what blinds are
for - not just to keep the glare off my monitor.

Hugh

 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by dre » Sat, 13 Apr 2013 06:18:52

Quote:



> >If I were to take the strictly superficial view, I would agree with you 100=

> >%.  But since I know that the unemployment, the greater deficit, the increa=

> >sed welfare and food stamp rolls were up sharply at the very end of Bush's =

> >term, they're due to the Great Recession and not because of our Sekrit Keny=

> >an Muslim President.  I'm also not so superficial as to mistake Republican =

> >intransigence for standing on principle, so I'm quite aware that they've no=

> >t only denied our President the chance to actually govern in the manner tha=

> >t the American people elected him (twice) to do, but that they've also *act=

> >ively* hamstrung the economic recovery that could help lead to general pros=

> >perity.

> Where our view differs to some extent is that if the GoP had not held

> his feet to the fire the situation would have been much worse.

Where our view differs is that you think the GOP is somehow virtuous in this.  They weren't concerned about any such thing when a Republican was in the White House, and they're not really concerned about it *now*; they're just out for political gain.

Quote:
> It seems to me he believes that, if you can tax them enough you can

> (just one example) throw all sorts of money at teachers and that will

> make them better teachers.

I'm not going to argue with your bizarre misconceptions.

Quote:
> >But then again, I was also more aware that under Bush (and BEFORE the Great=

> > Recession), there was more unemployment, a greater deficit, more people on=

> > welfare and more people on food stamps than under Clinton--and that that a=

> >ll occurred *with* the GOP having near-total control over the US government=

> Using that exact analogy you must agree that, if Bush was to blame for

> what followed Clinton, Obie is to blame for what followed Bush.

Oh?  Clinton handed Bush a healthy economy.  Did Bush hand Obama a healthy economy?

Quote:
> How 'bout SS? I believe that the increase in average life span, and

> quality of life, demands a change in the age one can draw SS but libs

> view SS as untouchable. How do you feel about that. I say that with

> two sons, 53 and 51, who will be directly affected by what I say so I

> do have a dog in the hunt.

SS can be fixed by two things:  1) a booming economy  2) removing the regressive cap on earnings

Changing the retirement age is just a weaselly way for Congress to continue raiding SS funds without having to repay them.  Incidentally, it's pre***ly a generational transfer, but according to the Conservative Outrage Machine, those are only "bad" when it happens in the form of SS.

Quote:
> >That is without even getting into the two pointless wars and the mass erosi=

> >on of civil liberties.

> Pointless wars I agree. But what civil liberties have been ERODED?

Apparently, conservatives only pay attention to said erosion when Democrats do it.
 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by J. Hugh Sulliv » Sun, 14 Apr 2013 02:23:04



Quote:

>> Where our view differs to some extent is that if the GoP had not held
>> his feet to the fire the situation would have been much worse.

>Where our view differs is that you think the GOP is somehow virtuous in this.  

I don't know about virtuous. I know that we can't keep pretending that
a golden goose will last forever if we just keep increasing the taxes
and don't modify our unbelievably absurd spending habits.

Quote:
>They weren't concerned about any such thing when a Republican was in th=
>e White House, and they're not really concerned about it *now*; they're jus=
>t out for political gain.

I wasn't concerned because my IRA was increasing every month in spite
of my withdrawals. I became conserned when it started decreasing in
2008 and has never completely recovered. I blame that on the one where
the buck stopped starting in 2008.

Quote:

>> It seems to me he believes that, if you can tax them enough you can
>> (just one example) throw all sorts of money at teachers and that will
>> make them better teachers.=20

>I'm not going to argue with your bizarre misconceptions.
>> >But then again, I was also more aware that under Bush (and BEFORE the Gr=
>eat=3D
>> > Recession), there was more unemployment, a greater deficit, more people=
> on=3D
>> > welfare and more people on food stamps than under Clinton--and that tha=
>t a=3D
>> >ll occurred *with* the GOP having near-total control over the US governm=
>ent=3D
>> Using that exact analogy you must agree that, if Bush was to blame for
>> what followed Clinton, Obie is to blame for what followed Bush.=20

>Oh?  Clinton handed Bush a healthy economy.  Did Bush hand Obama a healthy =
>economy?

Your analogy was to blame Bush for a declining economy. I said you
must draw the same conclusion about the declining economy under Obie.
It is the only logical construct of your analogy.

Quote:
>> How 'bout SS? I believe that the increase in average life span, and
>> quality of life, demands a change in the age one can draw SS but libs
>> view SS as untouchable. How do you feel about that. I say that with
>> two sons, 53 and 51, who will be directly affected by what I say so I
>> do have a dog in the hunt.

>SS can be fixed by two things:  1) a booming economy  2) removing the regre=
>ssive cap on earnings

By your conclusion SS was fixed during Bill Clinton's term. That is
not the fact. Without fine tuning SS is a Ponzi Scheme.

Quote:
>> Pointless wars I agree. But what civil liberties have been ERODED?

>Apparently, conservatives only pay attention to said erosion when Democrats=
> do it.

By your not answering the question I must presume no civil liberties
have been eroded. I will have to change that opinion if you actually
answer the question.

Hugh

 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by Emperor Wonko the San » Sun, 14 Apr 2013 04:22:02

Quote:

> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:57:12 -0700 (PDT), Emperor Wonko the Sane


> >The President just proposed a $3.8T budget.  In FY 2007, the federal government spent $2.73T.  That's an increase of almost 40% in seven years during a time when inflation was near zero.  

> >Doug

> in 2007 the two wars were not part of the budget, so please try harder

> next time MMMKAY?

Apparently, you and Dre are trading notes.  The $2.73T figure is actual spending that includes all spending, not the budget figure.

Doug

 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by Emperor Wonko the San » Sun, 14 Apr 2013 04:29:07

Quote:









> > > > > > > > The President just proposed a $3.8T budget. ?In FY 2007, the federal government spent $2.73T. ?That's an increase of almost 40% in seven years during a time when inflation was near zero.

> > > > > > > Does that $3.8T count off the books war spending?

> > > > > > Yes, as did the $2.73T, except there was a lot more of it in 2007.

> > > > > The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were not included in the annual budget until FY2010.

> > > > The $2.73T number is total federal spending, both on and off budget.

> > > > http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals (Table 1.1)

> > > That is incorrect, and nothing at the above website corroborates your claim.

> > It's the first link, cell B114, in the column that is headed Total Outlays. To the right is Budget and to the right of that is Off Budget.

> You're right; my apologies.  I knew you were pulling a bait-and-switch (and you were), but I completely whiffed on the fact that the White House link is actual outlays, not proposed budgets.

> Now go back and look at the link I provided, where George W Bush proposed a $3.1T budget back in 2008.  Then kindly explain how a $3.8T budget--which INCLUDES Iraq and Afghanistan--five years and one giant recession later is outrageous.

> I can admit when I was wrong.  Can you?

The only thing I need to admit was that the Guardian was wrong.  The actual budget for 2008 was $2.5T according to OMB.

Doug

 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by Dennis » Sun, 14 Apr 2013 04:53:59

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:22:02 -0700 (PDT), Emperor Wonko the Sane

Quote:


>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:57:12 -0700 (PDT), Emperor Wonko the Sane


>> >The President just proposed a $3.8T budget.  In FY 2007, the federal government spent $2.73T.  That's an increase of almost 40% in seven years during a time when inflation was near zero.  

>> >Doug

>> in 2007 the two wars were not part of the budget, so please try harder

>> next time MMMKAY?

>Apparently, you and Dre are trading notes.  The $2.73T figure is actual spending that includes all spending, not the budget figure.

>Doug

even so, what about TARP? that was also Bush's baby.
--

"Beware of the Military-Industrial Complex!!" D.D.E
"iPOD -- I Prefer Other Devices"
"Education is the progressive discovery of our own Ignorance" Will Durant
"One can't have a sense of perspective without a sense of Humor" -- Wayne Thiboux
"the Glass is not only half full, it has been delicious so far!!" -- ME
To reply, SCRAPE off the end bits.

 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by Emperor Wonko the San » Sun, 14 Apr 2013 06:09:00

Quote:

> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:22:02 -0700 (PDT), Emperor Wonko the Sane



> >> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:57:12 -0700 (PDT), Emperor Wonko the Sane


> >> >The President just proposed a $3.8T budget.  In FY 2007, the federal government spent $2.73T.  That's an increase of almost 40% in seven years during a time when inflation was near zero.  

> >> >Doug

> >> in 2007 the two wars were not part of the budget, so please try harder

> >> next time MMMKAY?

> >Apparently, you and Dre are trading notes.  The $2.73T figure is actual spending that includes all spending, not the budget figure.

> >Doug

> even so, what about TARP? that was also Bush's baby.

True enough.  What does that have to do with todays $3.8T proposed budget?

Doug

 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by Dennis » Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:06:31

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:09:00 -0700 (PDT), Emperor Wonko the Sane

Quote:


>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:22:02 -0700 (PDT), Emperor Wonko the Sane



>> >> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:57:12 -0700 (PDT), Emperor Wonko the Sane


>> >> >The President just proposed a $3.8T budget.  In FY 2007, the federal government spent $2.73T.  That's an increase of almost 40% in seven years during a time when inflation was near zero.  

>> >> >Doug

>> >> in 2007 the two wars were not part of the budget, so please try harder

>> >> next time MMMKAY?

>> >Apparently, you and Dre are trading notes.  The $2.73T figure is actual spending that includes all spending, not the budget figure.

>> >Doug

>> even so, what about TARP? that was also Bush's baby.

>True enough.  What does that have to do with todays $3.8T proposed budget?

>Doug

oodles, after all Compounding interest on that debt along with the
other give-aways Congress has been dishing out = Shit ton of outlays.

then to maintain the status quo = more money... Money money money...
we can't keep doing this Bob!
--

"Beware of the Military-Industrial Complex!!" D.D.E
"iPOD -- I Prefer Other Devices"
"Education is the progressive discovery of our own Ignorance" Will Durant
"One can't have a sense of perspective without a sense of Humor" -- Wayne Thiboux
"the Glass is not only half full, it has been delicious so far!!" -- ME
To reply, SCRAPE off the end bits.

 
 
 

It's the spending, stupid.

Post by J. Hugh Sulliv » Sun, 14 Apr 2013 22:34:24



Quote:

>Even with the modest tax increase put into place, tax rates are still at or near their lowest points in 60 years.  It's why I can't take you guys seriously when you complain about "sky-high" taxes.

>> and don't modify our unbelievably absurd spending habits.

>http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/11/21/deficit_is_shrinking_a...

>http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/27/the-best-kept-secret...

>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/12/jed-graham...

I looked at the last two. What they, and you, are saying is... In 2011
you earned $100,000 and spent $150,000. In 2012 You earned $100,000
and spent $125,000. Good for you - but you still owe me $75,000. In
2013 I want you to make $100,000 and spend $25,000 so you can pay me
what you owe.

Quote:
>> I wasn't concerned because my IRA was increasing every month in spite

>> of my withdrawals. I became conserned when it started decreasing in

>> 2008 and has never completely recovered. I blame that on the one where

>> the buck stopped starting in 2008.

>Interesting.  Barack Obama became president in January 2009.

And from 2008 when he was elected, within 5 months it had dropped
$100,000 - it's only down $99,000 as I type - whoopdedo.

Quote:
>> Your analogy was to blame Bush for a declining economy. I said you
>> must draw the same conclusion about the declining economy under Obie.
>> It is the only logical construct of your analogy.
>Pssst.  The economy has been in (sluggish) recovery for some time now.  

As I mentioned earlier I have recovered $1,000 of my $100,000 loss. I
understand sluggish.

Quote:
>And there's this factoid:
>http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamas-job-creation-record-glance-20571...

Yes, he has replaced almost 90% of the jobs lost in his term. I
believe that is still a loss.

Quote:
>> By your conclusion SS was fixed during Bill Clinton's term.

>It certainly wasn't broken at that time.  It's actually not broken today, either; all of the problems are still in the future.

Is it your philosophy that you will died before that happens so you
won't do anything about it now? SUppose you don't die before that
time?

Quote:
>> That is not the fact. Without fine tuning SS is a Ponzi Scheme.

>A Ponzi Scheme is illegal.  Your argument is invalid before it even gets started.

Being illegal does not change the fact. With your stated approval SS
depends on payout by future generations - that's a Ponzi scheme.

Quote:
>> By your not answering the question I must presume no civil liberties
>> have been eroded. I will have to change that opinion if you actually
>> answer the question.

>The PATRIOT Act for but one glaring example.

From Wikipedia...

The USA PATRIOT Act (commonly known as the Patriot Act) is an Act of
the U.S. Congress that was signed into law by President George W. Bush
on October 26, 2001. The title of the act is a ten letter backronym
(USA PATRIOT) that stands for Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by)
Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct
Terrorism Act of 2001.[1]
The act, as a response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th,
significantly reduced restrictions in law enforcement agencies'
gathering of intelligence within the United States; expanded the
Secretary of the Treasury???s authority to regulate financial
transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and
entities; and broadened the discretion of law enforcement and
immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants
suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expanded the
definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging
the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act???s expanded law
enforcement powers can be applied.

So, are you saying that the act infringed on your rights to become a
terrorist? Or that your rights to employ illegals were infringed? Just
how did that act affect your personal civil liberties?

Hugh