Congressman Phil Gingrey's Town Hall meeting

[LPPT]

On the fastread page the may 3rd edition of the Paulding.com news.

 

I know that this will turn political as the subject was the budget.

More than that I was curious about the low attendance.

I posted the day and time of the meeting last week, I am curious as to why the attendance was not better.

Was it not enough notice? not enough interest? or just the feeling that your input would not count?

 

I am not political by nature, but I like knowing what is going on and I like knowing something firsthand about those that control my future.

So why would you not attend one of these town hall meetings?

 

Some did and there were some passionate remarks and opinions!!!!!

 

 

If you would like to see what was said go to the top of the page click on the fastread tab and then the news story dated May 3rd, the meeting is the first video.

[Sugail]

My husband was going to go but we had a family emergency.

[LPPT]

My husband was going to go but we had a family emergency.

 

People were definitely speaking up and he bluntly ask them what they wanted.

I found it refreshing to see him ask instead of tell people, he explained why he was supporting the bill.

Then ask if they supported his decision, the discussion was pretty frank and open, even if I did not agree with everything I respected that.

[NewsJunky]

People were definitely speaking up and he bluntly ask them what they wanted.

I found it refreshing to see him ask instead of tell people, he explained why he was supporting the bill.

Then ask if they supported his decision, the discussion was pretty frank and open, even if I did not agree with everything I respected that.

Every one I have been to has had low turn out with the exception of one. It was right after the jobs really started to go away and the Health Care Bill was being debated. It was in Cedar Town. I enjoyed the one the other night and thought more folks should have come out and asked questions.

[eym_sirius]

Did anybody get a single take-away from Gingrey?

[eym_sirius]

People were definitely speaking up and he bluntly ask them what they wanted.

I found it refreshing to see him ask instead of tell people, he explained why he was supporting the bill.

Then ask if they supported his decision, the discussion was pretty frank and open, even if I did not agree with everything I respected that.

 

 

I'm glad that you were able to report this town hall meeting for those who weren't able to attend!

[NewsJunky]

Did anybody get a single take-away from Gingrey?

 

 

Except for what seemed to be an arbitrarily arrived-at schematic for lowering spending, he appeared to talk in generalities, as opposed to specifics and dismissed alternative ideas for revenue enhancement.

 

I didn't hear -- Here's how this is going to affect you, the senior citizen, you the college student and you, the middle-aged person.

 

I also didn't hear him say -- I hear what you're saying, or, "What I hear you saying....."

 

That would seem to indicate that he's not listening. A town hall meeting should be an exchange of ideas that would have him listening and responding directly.

 

I was there and I thought he did do that. I heard Congressman Tom Price speak the next day and he talked about the Caucus they are both in. I think Congressman Gingrey said there were some things they were working on but he could not talk about them yet. Pretty much the same thing Tom Price said. I have to say there were some very informed people at that meeting and they asked him some tough questions. I thought he answered them with candor.

[LPPT]

Did anybody get a single take-away from Gingrey?

 

 

Except for what seemed to be an arbitrarily arrived-at schematic for lowering spending, he appeared to talk in generalities, as opposed to specifics and dismissed alternative ideas for revenue enhancement.

 

I didn't hear -- Here's how this is going to affect you, the senior citizen, you the college student and you, the middle-aged person.

 

I also didn't hear him say -- I hear what you're saying, or, "What I hear you saying....."

 

That would seem to indicate that he's not listening. A town hall meeting should be an exchange of ideas that would have him listening and responding directly.

 

We did not offer the entire tape in the news.

You can find the bill on line.

I also had a challenging question after the meeting, I wanted to know about all the money on the table nobody wanted.

You know the millions of Americans that are not impoverished, pay taxes but don't make enough to pay insurance premiums and don't qualify for medicare or medicaid. These people go without health care until they are in crisis, then we pay the 100,000 to save them, the gov pays the bill to keep the hospital solvent.

 

Geeze will someone take that money some way somehow to offset the taxpayers portion.

 

What could he say that would equate to gov. health care or gasp non profit health care.

[eym_sirius]

I was there and I thought he did do that. I heard Congressman Tom Price speak the next day and he talked about the Caucus they are both in. I think Congressman Gingrey said there were some things they were working on but he could not talk about them yet. Pretty much the same thing Tom Price said. I have to say there were some very informed people at that meeting and they asked him some tough questions. I thought he answered them with candor.

Mr. Gingrey just seemed to dismiss the gentleman who was (it seemed) advocating the liquidation of certain assets by the government as a way of generating revenue. Mr. Gingrey's response had to do with the fact that cash flow hadn't stopped, so (he seemed to be saying) revenue isn't the problem (of course I'm paraphrasing here) but that the spending needed to be cut in relation to the GDP.

 

Did anyone grill him on the fact that the ledger has two sides to it - revenue AND expeditures?

[LPPT]

Mr. Gingrey just seemed to dismiss the gentleman who was (it seemed) advocating the liquidation of certain assets by the government as a way of generating revenue. Mr. Gingrey's response had to do with the fact that cash flow hadn't stopped, so (he seemed to be saying) revenue isn't the problem (of course I'm paraphrasing here) but that the spending needed to be cut in relation to the GDP.

 

Did anyone grill him on the fact that the ledger has two sides to it - revenue AND expeditures?

 

He actually got a big dose of regurgitated rhetoric he handled a lot better than I would have. He was really trying to stay on the subject at hand. You are right on with what he was saying, that no matter the income, the government outspends. Basically if we were paying out 50% of our income in taxes without a cap on the spending out gov would spend us into even more debt.

Just like with children you have to spank the hand in the cookie jar.

[eym_sirius]

We did not offer the entire tape in the news.

You can find the bill on line.

I also had a challenging question after the meeting, I wanted to know about all the money on the table nobody wanted.

You know the millions of Americans that are not impoverished, pay taxes but don't make enough to pay insurance premiums and don't qualify for medicare or medicaid. These people go without health care until they are in crisis, then we pay the 100,000 to save them, the gov pays the bill to keep the hospital solvent.

 

Geeze will someone take that money some way somehow to offset the taxpayers portion.

 

What could he say that would equate to gov. health care or gasp non profit health care.

 

I'd love to know what's going to be done about "undocumented workers" aka illegal aliens, since approximately 20 million illegal visitors are not paying ANY taxes. Registering those workers into the IRS system would be a revenue-enhacer! I'd also like to know if the Congressmen would be in favor of raising taxes, even one percent, on people personally bringing in wages of over a million dollars a year?

 

If neither of those are viable options for the Congressmen, then what do they plan to do to affect the ledger on BOTH SIDES?

[LPPT]

I'd love to know what's going to be done about "undocumented workers" aka illegal aliens, since approximately 20 million illegal visitors are not paying ANY taxes. Registering those workers into the IRS system would be a revenue-enhacer! I'd also like to know if the Congressmen would be in favor of raising taxes, even one percent, on people personally bringing in wages of over a million dollars a year?

 

If neither of those are viable options for the Congressmen, then what do they plan to do to affect the ledger on BOTH SIDES?

 

I have to admit that I am just to practical to answer that in a political manner, the answers are easy for the everyday working folks that have tightened our belts when we were down, The bottom line is the us government has broken faith with every last person on the planet not just in this country.

They live in a micro community exclusive to themselves known as inside the beltway with their own self serving set of rules and laugh at us all as we push against each other and see out neighbor as our enemy.

[eym_sirius]

He actually got a big dose of regurgitated rhetoric he handled a lot better than I would have. He was really trying to stay on the subject at hand. You are right on with what he was saying, that no matter the income, the government outspends. Basically if we were paying out 50% of our income in taxes without a cap on the spending out gov would spend us into even more debt.

Just like with children you have to spank the hand in the cookie jar.

 

I have the opinion that as long as politicians are able to accept monetary gifts in exchange for their votes, we're screwed. All of the TALK in the world won't matter a bit if the Congressmen are accepting payoffs and trading pork-project votes with each other.

 

I think that the poorly attended meetings speak volumes regarding the "what's the point" attitude of the voting public. The fox is guarding the henhouse, so it really doesn't matter if you replace one fox with another!

 

Regarding - regurgitated rhetoric - that makes me wanna throw up! I mean that people simply parrot what they hear on talk radio or from other such "pundits". There are not enough people who think for themselves!

 

I'd say this:

 

Make hiring an illegal alien a crime. Any company hiring an illegal alien on the first occasion pays a fine of a million bucks. Two strikes and you're out. On the second occasion the business is forfeited to the Federal Government who sells the business at auction - no matter how big the business is. And the hiring manager does jail time. If this means making citizenship available to whoever wants it and who'll pay taxes, then that may have to be an option. But we can't continue to have 20 million people not paying taxes and using the resources.

 

Make loans to small businesses. It's not being done. Even if they are no-interest loans, the money will come back to the government in income taxes for workers who now have jobs.

 

Decrease the size of the military overall. There are some parts of the military that should be increased, but the foot-soldiers should come home after a job well done. Technology, information-gathering, espionage, covert ops - those should be enhanced. The foot-soldiers can secure the borders and the streets of our cities.

 

There's one way to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. The way that oil is marketed would have to be changed. (the fact that big oil owns the Congressmen means that this will never happen).

[eym_sirius]

I have to admit that I am just to practical to answer that in a political manner, the answers are easy for the everyday working folks that have tightened our belts when we were down, The bottom line is the us government has broken faith with every last person on the planet not just in this country.

They live in a micro community exclusive to themselves known as inside the beltway with their own self serving set of rules and laugh at us all as we push against each other and see out neighbor as our enemy.

 

I'm really fine with enforcement according to the existing law or changing the law to streamline the process for citizenship. We've about gotten to the point where enforcement is no longer an option! We have to detain an individual, upon arrest (at taxpayer expense) and then send him back to his homeland (at taxpayer expense) only for him to come back to the USA to repeat the process (at taxpayer expense).

 

It is simply unbelievable, the number of individuals who are presently in our jails an are awaiting deportation. "Hold for ICE" or "Hold for other agency", the tag will show on the individual's arrest report.

 

If you go to the inmate population report in any of the large counties, the number of illegal aliens awaiting deportation (at taxpayer expense) is mind-blowing!

 

I'm hoping that the Congressmen have an answer to this issue - Probably not......

[LPPT]

I have the opinion that as long as politicians are able to accept monetary gifts in exchange for their votes, we're screwed. All of the TALK in the world won't matter a bit if the Congressmen are accepting payoffs and trading pork-project votes with each other.

 

I think that the poorly attended meetings speak volumes regarding the "what's the point" attitude of the voting public. The fox is guarding the henhouse, so it really doesn't matter if you replace one fox with another!

 

Regarding - regurgitated rhetoric - that makes me wanna throw up! I mean that people simply parrot what they hear on talk radio or from other such "pundits". There are not enough people who think for themselves!

 

I'd say this:

 

Make hiring an illegal alien a crime. Any company hiring an illegal alien on the first occasion pays a fine of a million bucks. Two strikes and you're out. On the second occasion the business is forfeited to the Federal Government who sells the business at auction - no matter how big the business is. And the hiring manager does jail time. If this means making citizenship available to whoever wants it and who'll pay taxes, then that may have to be an option. But we can't continue to have 20 million people not paying taxes and using the resources.

 

Make loans to small businesses. It's not being done. Even if they are no-interest loans, the money will come back to the government in income taxes for workers who now have jobs.

 

Decrease the size of the military overall. There are some parts of the military that should be increased, but the foot-soldiers should come home after a job well done. Technology, information-gathering, espionage, covert ops - those should be enhanced. The foot-soldiers can secure the borders and the streets of our cities.

 

There's one way to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. The way that oil is marketed would have to be changed. (the fact that big oil owns the Congressmen means that this will never happen).

 

This is one of my pet peeves, for the most part our military protects the interest of oil companies and supposedly our God given right to exist off it.

How about we take that money put it behind alternative energy and have the world throwing money at us for the technology and the heathens in control of the oil go back to living in mud huts.

 

Did you happen to see Chaveze's (sp) towards the killing of Osama? Let him eat that oil.

[LPPT]

I'm really fine with enforcement according to the existing law or changing the law to streamline the process for citizenship. We've about gotten to the point where enforcement is no longer an option! We have to detain an individual, upon arrest (at taxpayer expense) and then send him back to his homeland (at taxpayer expense) only for him to come back to the USA to repeat the process (at taxpayer expense).

 

It is simply unbelievable, the number of individuals who are presently in our jails an are awaiting deportation. "Hold for ICE" or "Hold for other agency", the tag will show on the individual's arrest report.

 

If you go to the inmate population report in any of the large counties, the number of illegal aliens awaiting deportation (at taxpayer expense) is mind-blowing!

 

you are nicer than me, I would legalize them on the spot and tax them 30% on all earnings until they became citizens, if they don't like it go back.

I am greedy like that!! I don't care how funny you speak or how dark your tan, money is still green in my book! Hey the IRs is still collecting over time why put any more funds into immigration?

[eym_sirius]

you are nicer than me, I would legalize them on the spot and tax them 30% on all earnings until they became citizens, if they don't like it go back.

I am greedy like that!! I don't care how funny you speak or how dark your tan, money is still green in my book! Hey the IRs is still collecting over time why put any more funds into immigration?

 

 

That won't work. They will just go invisible and continue to work for cash. They won't go back, just stay undocumented. How is that any different from the status quo? You'd never get anyone to register unless in the registration it says, "This makes you an American Citizen". Maybe on the back it could say, "Just Kidding"???

 

My way says that if an employer pays cash to an employee, off the books, the business is closed down and sold at auction.

 

The only way to handle this is through the IRS, not the INS.

[eym_sirius]

It should be handled through IRS because let's face it - Anyone who hires a worker and pays him off the books is breaking the law. The worker is supposed to pay income taxes for the income that he receives.

My suggestion is that if the company is made responsible and they will lose all of their assets and the hiring manager will go to jail if a single worker is being paid under the table, then undocumented workers will not be able to find work.

 

 

I really don't care if the above is the solution or if they are all allowed citizenship! The present status quo is clearly unacceptable and I can't imagine why we keep reelecting the same bozos who won't do anything about it, one way or the other!

[LPPT]

That won't work. They will just go invisible and continue to work for cash. They won't go back, just stay undocumented. How is that any different from the status quo? You'd never get anyone to register unless in the registration it says, "This makes you an American Citizen". Maybe on the back it could say, "Just Kidding"???

 

My way says that if an employer pays cash to an employee, off the books, the business is closed down and sold at auction.

 

The only way to handle this is through the IRS, not the INS.

 

Oh I could solve that also, I pay local law enforcement, they would be given a kit to legalize on the spot.

We have to follow the money on this issue, they are not here because they love the country, they are here for the money.

We need to deal with it on that level and forget the rest.

 

Register or get in the squad car, honestly they understand that, it is how it works where they are from.

I can be stopped anytime anywhere in this country and be ask to produce ID and arrested if I do not, it is the law.

[angiecochran]

i agree, it has to be enforced on the employers end of things. anyone could work "under the table", not just illegals. as long as there arent any consequences for those hiring they will continue to do so. and by forcing the employers to only employ people who are legally here, then the illegals will be forced into becoming legal, or going back. hope that made sense.

[eym_sirius]

Oh I could solve that also, I pay local law enforcement, they would be given a kit to legalize on the spot.

We have to follow the money on this issue, they are not here because they love the country, they are here for the money.

We need to deal with it on that level and forget the rest.

 

Register or get in the squad car, honestly they understand that, it is how it works where they are from.

I can be stopped anytime anywhere in this country and be ask to produce ID and arrested if I do not, it is the law.

 

 

I respectfully disagree with that last statement. A person cannot be compelled to testify against himself and a policeman must have probable cause to think that a crime has been commited before he can arrest someone. There's no such law as "not having ID" and there's no legal requirement to have your ID with you at all times. So if you travel across the country with your hubby and you forget your purse, you can't be arrested just because you don't have your ID with you. The policeman would have to arrest you on some other charge (I won't speculate) and hold you until your identity could be verified.

 

I'm also not too sure about the "they don't love the country" thing. I think that "love of country" is so personal that it's difficult to paint the emotion with so broad of a brush. I think that some illegal aliens really do love it here for more than just being able to work for money. I really think that they would not be opposed to paying taxes, except that they'd be deported if they registered themselves.

 

There's a procedure that Constitutionally must be followed, regarding illegal activity. It's called "due process". You can't arrest (detain) an individual for the purpose of making him account for himself/herself.

 

That's what freedom is - the abiilty to come and go as you please without a government person arresting you just to find out if you've done anything illegal. A policeman can pull you over if you have a tail light out or if you break another traffic law. But he can't pull you over and search you and try to find something to use against you. He "CAN" do that, but any evidence he finds would be dismissed because he didn't allow you your due process rights. It's the same with any person.

[eym_sirius]

i agree, it has to be enforced on the employers end of things. anyone could work "under the table", not just illegals. as long as there arent any consequences for those hiring they will continue to do so. and by forcing the employers to only employ people who are legally here, then the illegals will be forced into becoming legal, or going back. hope that made sense.

 

 

Yes, perfect sense. The onus gets put on the employer, not on ICE or INS, to comply with the laws. No job - the worker has to go back home or become legal - but here's the caveat to this solution: or to the streets to a life of crime.

The bad part of this equation is that there would be some who, unable to work, would try to live on the streets. It might be a really bad scene that no one wants to really talk about.

 

 

 

Y'know what, though --- you don't hear politicians having these discussions and bringing these ideas to the table -- Wonder why????

[eym_sirius]

you are nicer than me.....

 

Uh-uh! You take that back!

 

No way I'm nicer than you. Even regarding immigration reform!

 

Edited to add: LPPT, you're one of the nicest people I know!

[angiecochran]

Yes, perfect sense. The onus gets put on the employer, not on ICE or INS, to comply with the laws. No job - the worker has to go back home or become legal - but here's the caveat to this solution: or to the streets to a life of crime.

The bad part of this equation is that there would be some who, unable to work, would try to live on the streets. It might be a really bad scene that no one wants to really talk about.

 

 

 

Y'know what, though --- you don't hear politicians having these discussions and bringing these ideas to the table -- Wonder why????

 

i think in the beginning we would have some take to the streets, however, would you knowingly and willingly move sneak in to a country where you know that you will have to live in the streets and be a criminal because you dont want to become legal and you know nobody will hire you illegally? naturally, there will be some that think they can and will find someone to hire them, and you know some might slip through, however, it will be a number nowhere near what it is now. like all good things, it will take time and effort, and most of all enforcement.

[eym_sirius]

i think in the beginning we would have some take to the streets, however, would you knowingly and willingly move sneak in to a country where you know that you will have to live in the streets and be a criminal because you dont want to become legal and you know nobody will hire you illegally? naturally, there will be some that think they can and will find someone to hire them, and you know some might slip through, however, it will be a number nowhere near what it is now. like all good things, it will take time and effort, and most of all enforcement.

 

 

Maybe, in addition to requiring a verifiable ID and Social Security number for hiring someone, a similar constraint could be placed on those renting apartments or other housing and for any cash transaction for real property, making the landlord of other person personally accountable if they do not verify ID's with a Government database (kinda like gun purchasers have to do now).

 

With no place to work and no place to live, where else is there to go, but home?

 

But again, I don't really care as long as the status quo doesn't remain --- the status quo. I'm fine with EVERYONE being a citizen! The "work for cash, off the books" thing needs to be closed, anyway, I think.

[angiecochran]

i read an article a while back about a current program used to verify the legal status of a worker, basically my understanding was that it took so long to get results that an employer would already have the employee working and trained then have to turn around and fire them when the status came back that they were not legal, i can not find the link to save my life, but it was interesting, i might keep looking and see if i can post it for you. it needs to be a free program paid for by our tax dollars, we would be coming out pretty well on it, with all the extra revenue from having legal workers. and it needs to work, no 2 week turn around, no errors.

 

this isnt the exact article, but its pretty similar to the one i read originally My link

[eym_sirius]

i read an article a while back about a current program used to verify the legal status of a worker, basically my understanding was that it took so long to get results that an employer would already have the employee working and trained then have to turn around and fire them when the status came back that they were not legal, i can not find the link to save my life, but it was interesting, i might keep looking and see if i can post it for you. it needs to be a free program paid for by our tax dollars, we would be coming out pretty well on it, with all the extra revenue from having legal workers. and it needs to work, no 2 week turn around, no errors.

 

this isnt the exact article, but its pretty similar to the one i read originally My link

 

 

Right. If they can do background checks for firearms with a quick turn-around time, why not for verification of citizenship/social security registration? There are tens of billions of dollars in tax revenue out there!

 

 

No single source of income, on one side of the ledger, or reduction in spending, on the other side, will alone right the ship. But a strategy that incorporates both sides will add ballast and help mend the sails for the future. THAT's what we need - a STRATEGY, as opposed to a gimmick.

[LPPT]

I respectfully disagree with that last statement. A person cannot be compelled to testify against himself and a policeman must have probable cause to think that a crime has been commited before he can arrest someone. There's no such law as "not having ID" and there's no legal requirement to have your ID with you at all times. So if you travel across the country with your hubby and you forget your purse, you can't be arrested just because you don't have your ID with you. The policeman would have to arrest you on some other charge (I won't speculate) and hold you until your identity could be verified.

 

I'm also not too sure about the "they don't love the country" thing. I think that "love of country" is so personal that it's difficult to paint the emotion with so broad of a brush. I think that some illegal aliens really do love it here for more than just being able to work for money. I really think that they would not be opposed to paying taxes, except that they'd be deported if they registered themselves.

 

There's a procedure that Constitutionally must be followed, regarding illegal activity. It's called "due process". You can't arrest (detain) an individual for the purpose of making him account for himself/herself.

 

That's what freedom is - the abiilty to come and go as you please without a government person arresting you just to find out if you've done anything illegal. A policeman can pull you over if you have a tail light out or if you break another traffic law. But he can't pull you over and search you and try to find something to use against you. He "CAN" do that, but any evidence he finds would be dismissed because he didn't allow you your due process rights. It's the same with any person.

 

I guess where I differ from the majority is want them legalized immediately if they are here, which means if they apply for services and are not documented they are documented on the spot. I zero problem with them being here, I want them documented and carded, they would simply show it like our SS card when we are employed. I want to encourage them to cross over the border in an area where they can be documented and legalized, not contingent on anything but filling out documents and being assigned an ID.

 

We have spent a ton of money trying to keep them out that is never going to work, lets recoup our loses.

 

PS I really did believe that it was the law for people over 18 to carry identification.

 

The law makes it a bit difficult for us to deal with the problem of illegal immigration, which to me is only a problem because many are not paying taxes and yet can legally use services that taxpayers fund.

[gpatt0n]

The only thing that really bothered me about Congressman Gingrey's talk we put on is that he was saying if he votes NO and armegheddon doesn't happen with the full collapse of the financial markets ... and they're playing with cash flow and saying SS gets paid but medicaid doesn't and especially those on the executive staff of the Dept. of Education doesn't get paid, and the contract to the corporation for public broadcasting .etc.

 

What I want to know is how that is different from me welching on the debt to the meat market while I pay my power bill. Contracts are contracts and either you meet your obligations or you are a deadbeat.

 

The idea that we'll pay for Republican ideas and programs and cut off Democratic ones ... is well ... how a cheapskate deadbeat would justify not paying for his wife's car payment.

 

We're a country folks. There is no divorce. There is no judge that says that is your debt and this is my debt. If you're going to be a deadbeat, it is time for you to quit and go home and let an adult stand in your place and all the right wing rhetoric in the world is not going to change that.

 

pubby