Total posts: 2,799
-->
@Pinkfreud08
Take your time, bro. Get better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Well, we have a system of checks and balances. We don't want one branch of the government to have too much power, which is why Congress should be in charge of military intervention. You need a majority consensus from over 500 different people to go to war vs just one man.
Military isn't everything with foreign policy. There is also diplomacy, which they aren't reliant on us to conduct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
1. Yes
2. No
3. Somewhat
I believe we are probably average on racism. Decent amount of anti-white/anti-minority racism here, but I feel like it is inflated by the media, in addition to fake hate crimes and justified police shootings that are lied about. That kind of alters the perception beyond reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
It may deter allies from helping us in future projects. Also, the president should really need the approval of Congress to do something like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
As you will see, 15 of the top 16 highest cost of living states/District of Columbia almost always vote democrat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well the issue is that a lot of the idiots leaving California go to Utah and Texas and then vote for the same garbage programs that made them leave in the first place.
But yes, I have found that generally, Democrats create the problems "they need to solve". Not enough jobs? Create government jobs! As you mentioned, rent control and terrible zoning (I think buildings can't be over 3 stories in some areas) creates huge shortages of housing. Help the homeless by giving them money and others with subsidized housing. Discriminate against minorities for hundreds of years, now give them affirmative action. Honestly, it pisses me off a bit.
Homeless Crisis Stossel vid: https://youtu.be/yiXjiJ5GSoM
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
are you in favor of letting women and children die by refusing to give them basic medical care?
And men, if they are illegal. How would you feel if I broke into your home and demanded you feed me, clothe me, and give me medicine? Would that be acceptable?
I see America as my home, and I believe you do as well. So why do you allow this behavior? I can see the argument for giving healthcare to our citizens. I'm not entirely against single-payer or whatever you want to call it, but when you start demanding that I take care of people who have shown utter disregard for our laws and wish to free load off of American taxpayers, then we have a problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
Now you propose that we immigrants are taking jobs we don't want. But that is because Americans, in a sense, are spoiled. They want more money for the same job. People say Americans don't want to work in those plants with chickens, farms, etc. But one chicken processing plant was raided and they lost 75% of their workforce. Then they advertised higher wages and Americans filled the jobs. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216
Furthermore, we have a pretty dreadful labor force participation rate compared to other first-world nations. https://data.oecd.org/emp/labour-force-participation-rate.htm
Perhaps that is because immigrant workers reduce our wages, especially when they arrive in large amounts. An interesting study about a large influx of Cuban immigrants called the "Mariel Boat Lift" describes how the Cuban immigrants, many of them high-school-educated or lower, decreased the wages of native workers with similar education levels by 10-30%. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0019793917692945 If we had less immigration, perhaps native disaffected workers would start taking many of those job openings for which you believe immigrants need to fill.
While yes, employers are paying taxes on their employees, these payroll taxes are taken as a percentage of income, so they are paying much less in that respect by hiring non-native workers. People need to eat regardless of where they are, so had they stayed in their home country, they could have consumed our exports and medicine.
There are many immigrants, as you say, that provide new job opportunities. But, although your source doesn't mention it, I'd wager that they are college-educated immigrants. That is because they mentioned high-skilled workers, which generally wouldn't include many of the non-college-educated immigrants that we are accepting today. I'm fine with accepting educated immigrants, as they are unlikely to be public charges and do provide many jobs.
I thought this was an interesting line that you quoted: "more salutary effect on budgets because they are disqualified from some benefit programs"
Yet you seem to think it is a bad idea to exclude them from welfare programs. I believed you described it as "draconian". Like I said, I would be fine with just extending the length and breadth of the disqualifications. I think that would be a decent deterrent to "public charges" even wanting to come here.
I agree that the 1965 Hart Celler Act was terrible. Now we get most of our immigration from third-world countries with terrible educational and economic institutions who cost us billions of dollars in welfare expenditures. Although, we had much stricter quotas on Mexican immigrants, but we have seen a lot of increases in Mexican illegal immigration since then, so I'm not sure that this was entirely the cause.
It would be nice to get rid of bloated bureaucracy sure, but at the cost of having much less information about who you are letting into your country. I don't think it should be entirely complicated as to proving if they are a public charge. Learning about their education, work skills, previous work experience, etc is all you really need to know. If they are unskilled and uneducated, they are likely to be a public charge. End of story.
I am sorry to hear about your disruptive family member. That must have been unpleasant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
as opposed to just letting people die? Does anyone think it's a good idea to refuse people care and let them die?
You're in favor of giving illegal immigrants access to government-funded healthcare?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DynamicSquid
There are some cities that do that, like Seattle and a couple Californian cities. A couple states also have higher minimum wage. However, Democrats are pushing for $15/hour national minimum wage. I don’t want that. I wouldn’t want to have one in my city, or if I did, it would be very low. Some cities should be allowed to pass them if they want them, but don’t force unemployment on my state.
My point is that, if you have a minimum wage, it should be as localized as possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
Dang, you're using two biased sources to discredit my biased source. That isn't allowed!
While CIS is likely biased, they got their data that I was referencing from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, which is conducted by the Census Bureau. That is a 2007 article that he didn't link, and the data from my CIS article appears to be from 2009 and 2012.
And about that point on them being inspired by Nazi eugenics, I'd happily point you towards Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. ;)
But anyway, just by looking at the data from the Census, not their likely biased interpretation, it tells the same story that I have.
Table A10 shows how many households use welfare based on number of children. (This will be in order of children 1-4+ and is if the family uses any form of welfare at all).
Native: 51.1%, 47.8%, 60.3%, 69.4%
Immigrant: 70.6%, 71.3%, 87.8%, 93.7%
I don't know the specific terminology for what qualifies as "well" vs "very well". I'm going to guess "well" means you can function but with some difficulties. Regardless, it said that immigrants make up 82% of Americans that don't speak English very well vs 18% native. I wished it said what percent of those were second-generation immigrants who are children of those with LEP. I thought 5 years old and up was a little weird, but I will assume they have different qualifications based on age lol.
Also, about the "the non-immigrant would have had kids with someone else".... is there a specific statistic that shows how many of the families are half-immigrant half-native parents? I will also have to check out the claim of the parents being the biggest recipient of the welfare programs, because dependents are added to the calculation of if you are below the poverty line and all of that. Some programs, like school lunches, are also specifically for kids.
I will get to the second message when I get some more time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DynamicSquid
It just ends up raising the cost of living and preventing people with little experience (such as poor people and teenagers) from getting a job. Hours may need cut as well.
I think that a national minimum wage is an incredibly stupid idea. If you want to have a minimum wage because of "cost of living or whatever" then it should be based on your city. Just because it may take $15 an hour to live in Sacramento doesn't mean it takes that much in Indiana's towns, where the CoL is much lower. It unnecessarily destroys jobs, especially those in restaurants where the profit margins are already paper thin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Then why say "along ideological lines"?Do you have a better link as in past supreme court decisions?<br>
I said "ideological lines" because the more controversial and divisive decisions are generally the close votes. Those are based more on either a traditional or revisionist interpretation.
This shows what percent of decisions are unanimous: https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/02/empirical-scotus-amid-record-breaking-consensus-the-justices-divisions-still-run-deep/
Generally, it is over 50%, but it can go downwards to 10% in a year. Recently, it has reached 90% and this doesn't even include close decisions like 8-1 or 7-2 decisions, so it appears that it is rare to be very split.
What are you basing someone's contribution on?
Tax contribution. Or, in rare cases, they could have spill-over effects, but that is incredibly difficult to track.
Why use the words cost money instead of why waste money on something not useful?
I could have. I view this particular "cost" as a wasteful one, which I tried to explain through the context of my overall message.
"other people's money" is a mis-characterization. People who pay taxes will be the ones benefiting from the services.Do you consider veterans getting medical care charity from the government?
Sure, some may pay sales taxes and other such things, but they likely won't pay income taxes for being super poor. Since they take more than they pay, and we also have the ability to prevent them from entering the country, I think we should do so.
Well, veterans have sacrificed a lot for our country. I guess this could be another manner of "contribution" that you mentioned earlier. We also pay them very little compared to the amount of risk and the importance of their work. So, I am fine with providing them with some benefits other than just money.
Then why appeal on the debt side?
I am appealing to individuals on this website on that viewpoint. There are lots of people who are both liberals and conservatives who have very serious concerns about the debt here. It will likely become a bigger issue in the future if we don't get it under control soon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
Yeah, I have been getting walls of text lol, but I'll get around to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Their only potential tactic to tank Bernie would be a Hillary endorsement lmao
Created:
Posted in:
And all he had to do was say that women can't be president. Then everyone realized "Yeah, they can't. Let's vote for a man instead". And now he is surging and she is dropping. Clear causation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Isn't always based on ideological lines?
9-0 decisions are fairly common. Sometimes it is just a matter of law and "liberal" or "conservative" ideas don't really apply.
Can you explain the second sentence in a different way?
It will allow those in charge of giving out "green cards" some more discretion. If they believe that someone, after they become a citizen, will use welfare, they now have the ability to not grant them citizenship. A "public charge" is someone who costs the country (in tax dollars) more than they contribute.
I am sure you are pro-government instead of against-government since you do accept stuff that costs people money like taxes that go into the military. Do you agree?
I think that we are currently spending too much on the military. Without a military, you can't have a country, so I guess I am "pro-government" in the sense that I am not an anarchist....
A country can be charitable to its citizens right?
I don't really think so. I think a person can be charitable to another person. However, with taxes, the "country" is spending other people's money and therefore I don't consider it charitable.
Do you understand no one politically effective cares about the debt?
Yeah.... There are people that care about it, just not enough to actually do something about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
And Israel wants us to go to war with Iran, just like they did with Iraq. We have been in Iraq and Afghanistan for almost two decades. We are illegally in Syria. I agree, our foreign policy sucks
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
Few contentions:
(Cato institute is libertarian and very pro-open borders). That isn't necessarily discrediting them, but I couldn't find a very important distinction that they may have used to manipulate their findings: whether the statistic is for immigrant-led households or just immigrants. Because children of immigrants here would be considered "native-born", but they wouldn't be here without the initial immigrant. So, I find that 'immigrant-led households' is a more accurate statistic.
This says that 51% of immigrant-led households receive welfare benefits, while 30% of native households receive them.
Also, I would have been fine if he just increased wait times for immigrants to ALL welfare programs to 10 years to be enough for me, personally. That would aid with the backlogging issue and prevent further costs. Although, taking in less immigrants in general could achieve similar results, I'm sure. Not too against that considering they aren't assimilating very well, with English proficiency- just over 50% are English proficient.
26,000,000(half) speak English less than "very well". https://cis.org/Report/Almost-Half-Speak-Foreign-Language-Americas-Largest-Cities
They also have less economic assimilation as a result.
Surely we should encourage immigrants who are willing to work to emigrate to the US.
Maybe we should or maybe we shouldn't. If they get a job that makes so little that they don't pay income taxes and they use multiple forms of welfare, then they shouldn't be let in. Just because they want to work doesn't necessarily make it a good idea to allow them in.
Also, by deterring immigrants to enter through legal pathways into the US, we increase the chance that they use coyotes, (human smugglers with unmatched knowledge of our border policies) to enter the US illegally. Many of these coyotes are on the payroll of Mexican cartels, and supply millions of dollars in revenue to their perfidious employers
Well, that is a concern no matter what your immigration restrictions are. Unless you have open borders and remain a place where people want to be, coyotes will be a problem. Perhaps we should let all of the immigrants in, bankrupt us, and then they won't want to come here anymore.....? :^)
But for real, we could use some more border security. It could help with the flow of drugs as well as any increased illegal immigration. Two birds with one stone.
Perhaps the benefits of such a program will manifest in the coming years, but a healthy dose of skepticism is never bad per se.
Yeah, I definitely appreciate the input! Having more workers does help an economy expand, but at the same time, saving money that would be spent on hundreds of thousands of more immigrants would be better spent on increasing our current human capital in my opinion. More infrastructure investment and perhaps more grants would be best?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Woah there. We all know that if you are against giant spending proposals, it must be because you hate the poor.
If you are against public charge immigrants, it must be because you hate people who don't look like you. Fiscal responsibility is just a dog whistle for anti-poor anti-white policies
XD
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Department of Education? Unconstitutional.lol no. The constitution doesn't say the government doesn't have the power to do that.
Allow me to introduce the Constitution to you, my good sir. Amendment X is often ignored by your party:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Education was not a power given to the federal government, nor denied to the states. Therefore, the federal government has no place in education.
So, I don't know why you add statements like this:
It isn't explicitly included one way or the other. If you want to say that any power not granted by the constitution shouldn't be had by the government
^_^
It should be "had by the government", just not the federal government.
Created:
-->
@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".
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
that run contrary to the founding principles of america.
I'll get to your other stuff later, but you honestly want to go down this road? The founding principles of America are violated by almost every law you propose. Most matters are meant to be handled by states. Department of Education? Unconstitutional. Universal Healthcare? Well, that duty wasn't given to the federal government, so... unconstitutional. The list goes on......
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
Dude, the similarities don’t stop there. They both BREATHED OXYGEN!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Xenophobes don't have to be facist or nazis. But they are afraid of "others" and make up reasons to vilify and target them. which is exactly what you are doing.
I'm not afraid of them. I want immigrants, just not 30-year-old men with 8th grade educations. I want people who have skills that will contribute vastly for our economy. I'm not really in favor of uneducated manual laborers, as they end up costing a lot more than they provide.
If this would be a worker program in which they didn't receive welfare, I could potentially see the appeal of that.
And how many 2nd generation immigrant families are on welfare? How much value to do those immigrants add to society?
It depends on the second-generation immigrant's country of origin more or less. Countries with bad education systems and other programs that help them develop skills generally send immigrants that cost us. In the instance of 2nd generation Mexican immigrants (and over half of all immigration comes from Mexico currently), they still receive welfare at higher rates than natives and many other immigrant groups. I want the Mexicans that won't be public charges, Asians that won't be public charges, and Europeans who won't be public charges. IDGAF where you are from, I just don't want you costing me money, so your jibberish about xenophobia is ridiculous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
- They must know English: Why? If it's necessary for a job, what if they can get a job without knowing English?
Well, generally this is made under the assumption of operating in the real world and knowing that welfare won't be abolished. Immigrants with low English proficiency earn a lot less and are therefore more welfare-dependent.
Also, it could be argued that it hurts national unity if you don't learn the native language. If you can't understand people because they are speaking Portuguese, Spanish, German, Russia, etc, how can you get along with them? Am I expected to learn every language on earth, or should they be expected to learn our language when they come to our country?
- They must not consume welfare: I understand this, but if we ban welfare for immigrants, we should ban it for everybody to keep it consistent. If welfare is banned, any immigrant here for welfare would leave.
Why? This is a bad idea for two reasons. First, we use that to try to deter public charges. Second, presumably Americans have been paying into welfare for 10-20 years, whereas immigrants have not. So, banning them from using it for a certain amount of years makes sense.
-They must have a job: What if they are retired and don't collect our social security since they didn't pay into it? I'd be fine with immigrants only getting a proportional amount of social security that is proportional to the amount of time they were in the country (ex: If you need 50 years of work to collect social security, and your here for 25 years, you get half a normal social security payment per month)
Retirement and unemployment are completely different. Generally, retirement is when you have saved up a lot of money and no longer need to work. Unemployment wouldn't matter without welfare, but considering we can't just get rid of welfare, it is a problem because they will then use it without a job.
Any other concerns with open borders?
Doubt we will ever agree on this subject. The combination of wage destruction, non-assimilation, cultural destruction, and many other factors prevent me from accepting it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So no, I reject your flawed xenophobia.
Oh no! I'm shaking in my boots! Please don't call me a fascist or a Nazi now!
Also, I already explained that the idea that immigrants cost america money is stupid.
Considering that over 50% of immigrant-led households are on welfare, I have yet to see that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
the left can do whatever the fuck they want and abuse power and still be on the right side of history.
Buh buh buh but.... muh Andrew Jackson
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Want to talk about how far the left has sunk? Letting in people who will cost us billions just for votes is sinking kind of low.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Just showing how far the right has sunk. America used to about liberty and the american dream for anyone who would come and fight for it. Now the right just wants to attack and keep everyone out unless they can profit from them. The right wants to destroy the foundation of america.
Lol, where have you been? Ever heard of the Chinese Exclusion Act? We haven't historically let in unending waves of immigration. That started with the Hart Celler Act. Just shows how lefties have really shifted the narrative.
And most of those immigrants will go on and get jobs and pay back the investment. And then their children and grand children will get jobs and pay it all back many, many times over. The idea that immigrants are a drain on society is stupid and extremely short sighted.
That depends. I don't know that tomato farmers will ever make enough to get off of welfare. Especially when they refuse to learn English and live in their little enclaves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Yeah, it was given to us to celebrate 100 years of independence lol. Somehow that has something to do with immigration? Pretty sure it was written about Jewish pogroms in Russia, too, not immigration in general.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
"Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"
Yes, a POEM from 1883 is where we should get our immigration advice from. It is on the Statue of LIBERTY- not the statue of immigration.
Second of all, we didn't have a bloated welfare state back then, so that wasn't even a consideration when taking in new immigrants. So, nice try.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
That is a really good point. Promising jobs to people is one of the biggest promises of any candidate. Hard to do so without a bunch of unemployment. Easy to offer free healthcare as the solution when medicare and medicaid price fixing have driven up private sector prices so much people can't afford that. They also aren't poor enough to qualify for government aid and get screwed in the center. Then they go for that middle majority. Interesting how this works.....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Yeah, they just take the homeless and poor votes for granted. They just say that those dastardly Republicans will take away everything.
Created:
Posted in:
The SCOTUS just voted 5-4, along ideological lines, to allow new changes to legal immigration. It will allow immigration officials to take into consideration whether or not a legal immigrant will become a public charge and rely on public assistance.
This seems rather pragmatic to me: why would you let someone in the country who will end up costing you money? We are a country, not a charity, and being a charity is precisely why we are racking up trillions in debt.
So, anyone feel free to post your thoughts on this new development. I have heard this may be a good way to stop chain migration.
If any lefties would like to explain why we shouldn't be allowed to engage in financial responsibility, I am all ears.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I’ve seen a lot of people saying they would want president Pence. What do you think he would do differently?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
American Presidents have very little control concerning overall spending. Congress does. And Democratic congresses make sure to paint Republican Presidents as "cutting social welfare for the poor" so as to pork up the budget as much as possible.The funny thing is, If Trump cuts the budget, they accuse him of not caring for the poor, and if he increases the budget, they accuse him of not being republican.
Sure, now, but how about when Republicans had majorities in Congress and had a Republican president for two years? You would think that they would have cut spending. You know, the conservative thing to do. But they didn't. They cut taxes and did nothing about spending, so the debt continued to rise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Also ignore the fact that his daughter is now Jewish (and he would date her if she wasn’t his daughter!)
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Should I take anyone who calls themselves fiscally conservative serious? If no why?
Most people, no. There are lots of people in congress like Rand Paul and Jim Banks who are actually fiscal conservatives. Anyone elected president isn't likely to be one because it is unpopular to propose decreases in spending.
If they will both balance the budget and decrease spending, then they can be taken serious.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Well, the issue is that not many presidents have been super fiscally conservative, except a few like Coolidge. Many lower taxes, but then refuse to lower spending. That is half conservative but completely irresponsible.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Ronald Reagan wasn't very fiscally conservative. He cut taxes, but also increased a lot of spending.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I don’t see abolishing the minimum wage helping our manufacturing sector for two reasons: very few people actually work for minimum wage in the US already and not a lot of people would be willing to do a factory job for minimum wage. I don’t see how these people would find better jobs because you get rid of minimum wage. Wouldn’t they have applied for these jobs already?
Created:
-->
@rbelivb
And you believe that this “community of the free” cannot refer to all American citizens?
You are saying that a country couldn’t survive on a platform of individual freedom without taking ethnicity into account. But why? What exactly would happen if we respected the personal liberties of every American citizen, as in: we respect their right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Yeah, learning what actually happened and then explaining it is far too difficult. I would just rather slander people I don’t like, thank you very much
Created:
-->
@rbelivb
Could you decode that a bit? What types of ethnic communities are you saying can live with limited government and personal freedom?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Who says we have to blame current problems on the last POTUS? We can just blame slavery on Orange Man Bad. It is easier because then we don't have to remember so many presidents.
Created: