More immigration, or increased social spending?

Debates: 1

Posts: 205

1

2

5

01.29.2020 01:41PM

1

2

5

01.29.2020 01:41PM

-->

@ethang5

An equality of outcomes is a logical impossibility in the real world, and an equality of opportunity is the only fair way to run a society.

How is it logically possible for everyone to have identical opportunities in the real world, when better outcomes also grant people more opportunities?

People with more money and influence have more opportunities than people with less.

#62

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

3

6

01.29.2020 03:52PM

3

6

01.29.2020 03:52PM

How is it logically possible for everyone to have identical opportunities in the real world...

It isn't. Equality of opportunity is what was said, and it is a goal, the closer we can get to it, the better.

Equality of outcomes is tautology. It isn't possible. It cannot be a goal. That is a real distinction.

Topic's author

#63

Debates: 1

Posts: 205

1

2

5

01.29.2020 04:05PM

1

2

5

01.29.2020 04:05PM

-->

@ethang5

How is that a distinction? Neither one is totally possible, but we can move closer or further away from equality. If there is less of a gap in wealth, influence, etc, between various groups, then don't they have more equal outcomes?

#64

Debates: 17

Posts: 578

2

7

11

01.29.2020 04:10PM

2

7

11

01.29.2020 04:10PM

-->

@bmdrocks21

Would've been a lot smarter to cut spending THAN cut taxes

#65

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,968

3

4

10

01.29.2020 04:34PM

3

4

10

01.29.2020 04:34PM

-->

@Pinkfreud08

Look no further than Trump's immigration rules

Did Trump allow whites from shithole countries? Ban browns and blacks from stable countries?

I'd like to see that documentation.

#66

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,968

3

4

10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I_glE1X10w

01.29.2020 04:45PM

3

4

10

01.29.2020 04:45PM

-->

@bmdrocks21

According to this video, Trump is still relatively fiscally conservative.

#67

Debates: 17

Posts: 578

2

7

11

01.29.2020 05:15PM

2

7

11

01.29.2020 05:15PM

-->

@Greyparrot

Did Trump allow whites from shithole countries? Ban browns and blacks from stable countries?

Do you believe that unless Trump is banning whites from awful countries or minorities from stable countries that his immigration policies aren't racist?

Believe it or not, you can ban people from shithole countries due to racism

#68

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,968

3

4

10

01.29.2020 05:21PM

3

4

10

01.29.2020 05:21PM

-->

@Pinkfreud08

I'm pretty sure your "scientific" theory that skin color dictates the ability to run a nation properly is thoroughly debunked considering all the melanin blessed people in the USA and other places across the globe that don't believe in socialism.

If this were truly a racial issue, Trump would have color charts as an immigration policy, not an economic chart.

If Trump is a racist, he is the most ineffectual racist in the history of racists.

#69

Debates: 17

Posts: 578

2

7

11

01.29.2020 05:41PM

2

7

11

01.29.2020 05:41PM

-->

@Greyparrot

I'm pretty sure your "scientific" theory that skin color dictates the ability to run a nation properly

When did I ever make a claim such as this? lol

Trump would have color charts as an immigration policy, not an economic chart.

Trump proposing a ban on Nigeria, one of the top tech innovators in Africa and 2nd largest Africa trading partner.

Not to mention we'd also lose out on the new African Continental Free Trade Area

Which will be the 5th largest market in the world

" encompassing over 1.2 billion people and a GDP of more than $3 trillion "

Elaborate on how this is an economic decision by Trump?

#70

Debates: 17

Posts: 578

2

7

11

01.29.2020 05:42PM

2

7

11

01.29.2020 05:42PM

-->

@Greyparrot

Also as a side note, socialism is irrelevant to this issue

Obvious red herring

#71

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,968

3

4

10

01.29.2020 05:59PM

3

4

10

01.29.2020 05:59PM

-->

@Pinkfreud08

Trump proposing a ban on Nigeria, one of the top tech innovators in Africa and 2nd largest Africa trading partner.

So what? If France had Boko Haram operating there with no way of verifying them, I would support a travel ban on France too, even if half of France has melanin.

If Trump is a racist, he is the worst racist in the history of racists.

#72

Debates: 6

Posts: 2,798

4

6

11

01.29.2020 08:19PM

4

6

11

01.29.2020 08:19PM

-->

@Pinkfreud08

Would've been a lot smarter to cut spending THAN cut taxes

I agree. I don't think that you should ever cut taxes unless you have already cut spending (unless there are government surpluses with little to no debt to pay off). Otherwise, that is just irresponsible.

However, it appears that the Democrats will raise spending more than they will raise taxes on the 1%, so we are screwed regardless of who we vote for.

#73

Debates: 6

Posts: 2,798

4

6

11

01.29.2020 08:21PM

4

6

11

01.29.2020 08:21PM

-->

@Greyparrot

Lol, watched that video this morning. He is more fiscally conservative that the Democrats, yes. Not sure that is anything to laud, though. As a wise man once said, "that is like saying you are the tallest midget".

#74

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,968

3

4

10

01.29.2020 09:02PM

3

4

10

01.29.2020 09:02PM

-->

@bmdrocks21

The success of capitalism globally is mostly at fault for the current debt. If other nations were not so wealthy to afford giving out loans with insanely low-interest rates, America would have no incentive to go into debt.

#75

Debates: 6

Posts: 2,798

4

6

11

01.29.2020 10:26PM

4

6

11

01.29.2020 10:26PM

-->

@Greyparrot

Meh, our interest payments on loans are becoming a larger percentage of our spending every year(until Bernie raises it a few trillion :P), so it will bite us soon enough. But yes, low interest rates are giving politicians an out for their reckless spending for now.

#76

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,968

3

4

10

01.29.2020 10:35PM

3

4

10

01.29.2020 10:35PM

-->

@bmdrocks21

debt will NEVER be a problem until the Moody's rating drops.

#77

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

3

6

01.30.2020 02:00AM

3

6

01.30.2020 02:00AM

-->

@rbelivb

How is that a distinction?

They are starkly different?

Neither one is totally possible,...

No. Equality of outcomes isn't possible AT ALL. We can't even deliberately move closer to it.

..but we can move closer or further away from equality.

Equality in what? Equality in outcomes is totally unpredictable and unstable.

If there is less of a gap in wealth, influence, etc, between various groups, then don't they have more equal outcomes?

No. Because outcomes are determined by more than wealth, influence, etc. Outcomes cannot be controlled, but opportunity can. This one of those illogical things liberals seem not to be able to comprehend are illogical.

Your intent is benevolent, but your method will only increase poverty and disillusion because it is based on an untruth.

Topic's author

#78

Debates: 1

Posts: 205

1

2

5

01.30.2020 03:47AM

1

2

5

01.30.2020 03:47AM

No. Because outcomes are determined by more than wealth, influence, etc. Outcomes cannot be controlled, but opportunity can. This one of those illogical things liberals seem not to be able to comprehend are illogical.

So, are you saying that someone advocating for closing the wealth gap isn't actually advocating equality of outcomes? I'm confused as to what your definition is of outcomes.

#79

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

3

6

01.30.2020 05:15AM

3

6

01.30.2020 05:15AM

-->

@rbelivb

So, are you saying that someone advocating for closing the wealth gap isn't actually advocating equality of outcomes?

Yes. He may think he's advocating equality of outcomes, but he is either confused, stupid, or dishonest.

And what is redistribution of wealth? Who "distributes" wealth? Wealth is generated by working people, it is not doled out by governments.

Taking wealth from wealth generators and giving it to deadbeats does not move us closer to an equality of outcomes, it does not reduce the wealth gap, for lazy deadbeats soon become destitute again, and it insults the idea of equality of opportunity.

I'm confused as to what your definition is of outcomes.

You must think "outcomes" is, here Pedro, take this $1,000. There, you have a free thousand so your "outcome" has been improved.

That is ludicrous. "Outcomes" is what Pedro does with the thousand. Does it increase his wellbeing and the wellbeing of society?

If history is any indication, Pedro buys drugs with 250, buys alcohol with 250, gambles away 250, and pays a people smuggler 250 to illegally sneak in his nephews, Julio, Fernando, and Octavio.

Outcomes are much worse.

With people, outcomes cannot be guaranteed. Its a liberal illusion.

#80

Debates: 17

Posts: 578

2

7

11