Reply from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver concerning OrphanWorksActof 2008

[Jon Pruente]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Jeffrey Watts
<jeffrey.w.watts at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I'm sure they work some minimum wage jobs.  I'm just pointing out that
> your comments are flimsy and smell of racism.  My mother-in-law's sister is
> an American citizen and speaks very little English.  So what?

When did I ever make a point of the racial origin of the people I
described?  I clearly recall never mentioning a race, but
nationalities.  I also never mentioned a specific language other than
English.  So, how am I a racist, or are you just troll baiting?

> You offered as part of your "proof" that they were working two jobs.  I
> pointed out that that isn't very unusual.

The fact that they are employed at all is a big enough issue, let
alone being employed at more than one job.  I was making a point about
illegals working in multiple jobs "that Americans won't do" not about
how the number of jobs defines a persons legal status.  You came up
with that on your own to deflect the issue.

> I'm arguing that the bulk of the jobs done by illegal aliens are jobs that
> are in violation of labor laws.

Wow.  We agree on something.  Illegals are working illegally.  Why has
it taken this long to come to that point?

> It's called "irony".  And yes, while you used paragraphs, you obviously
> don't know when to properly use them, as your writing was hard to read and
> poorly formed.  Making judgements about folks for poor English skills while
> writing poorly is ironic.

People who can't speak the local language while working amongst and
for groups of people that do.  Irony.  Dividing my post into groups of
topical sentences.  Irony.  I fail to see your point, though I see
what you were trying to do.  I am not writing for a professional basis
here, yet the people I was describing were working in jobs that
require interpersonal communication.  I write for free here, thus my
application of the formal rules of grammar and structure are not being
followed to the point that I would if I were being fiscally
compensated for it.  I still fail to see your irony.

> You obviously live in a different country than I do, sir.  In my country
> milk and other basic foods have doubled in price, gasoline is through the
> roof, my house lost value, my neighbors have been foreclosed on, the deficit
> and debt are at historical highs, and inflation is the highest in almost
> thirty years.

Fuel costs aren't tied to the tax rate, but rather the value of the
dollar (through equity adjustments) and market rates.  Food costs have
been historically low due to govt sponsored subsidies that prevented
the market from raising prices in reaction to economic conditions.
Now the prices go up and people scream bloody murder at the correction
in prices that were artificially low.  How is that related to the tax
cuts?

Current foreclosure rates were rising, yes.  In 2007 Missouri had a
foreclosure rate of .91%.  Now it's over 1%.  How is that related to
the tax cuts and and people working low income jobs?  I work in an
industry that involves real estate agents and home sales.  Houses are
still being bought and sold (just like they were back in the late 70's
when interest rates were nearly quadruple what they are now), but it's
mostly the people who took out loans that they shouldn't have
qualified for that are having trouble.  Loan interest rates are
extremely low.  How is that related to the previous discussion?

You still haven't answered what I asked: How did the tax cuts (that
have brought more revenue to the treasury) ruined the economy and done
anything to the war?

> I guess in your country everything is peachy, all due to the excellent work
> of George Bush and co.

And how is that a part of the tax cuts? I'm not arguing good vs bad on
Bush as a whole, but the tax cuts.  Govt spending is the real bad
issue right now.  That's where the debt and deficit come from, read
the facts.

Jon.