The Political Discussion Thread

[aretood2]

That is my point on this whole immigration debate, legal and illegal. The U.S. should be looking out for the welfare of its own citizens, first, last and always, not the welfare of citizens of other nations.

The problem is that these things aren't bad for American citizens. Was Einstein bad for American Citizens? Had we not accepted any Jewish refugees because we ought to only look after 'Muricans, we would have lacked those great minds like ophenhiemer. Even the poor can add a lot to the nation like Andrew Carnegie. Immigrants have given birth to great Americans who have improved the US.

What ever happened to American optimism? That's really what has made this a great country, and it continues to be a great country despite what some angry people might think. I see nothing but opportunities, there is certainly more space for a new fresh batch of Americans.

There is a lot to be said for isolationism, and I think I would prefer it if we were more isolationist. But many of the situations where we do stick our nose in are at the request of some nation that wants our help.

Do the words "A day we shall live in infamy" mean anything to you?

I know. And we are quite often hated and despised for it. That's why I think it might be a good idea to ignore the next few requests that come down the pike. Tell 'em we are playing tiddlywinks or something. Maybe afterwards, the response when we do step in might be more favorable.

Not true. Afghanis don't mind. Neither do certain individuals in the Balkans. Many Somalis enjoyed the presence of American troops. The French certainly didn't mind. Nor do the South Koreans, heck even the Japanese love seeing our boots on their islands. The folks in Rwanda sure wish they were paid a visit from G.I. Joe. The initial lack of response in the 90's left some Europeans angry that there were no Americans to bail them out.

The key is actually listening to the concerns of other Americans. Vietnam, very unpopular and it ended becoming Communist anyway. Iraq? Unpopular and we got ISIS out of it however Desert Shield and Desert Storm were very popular. Even far back in history the Mexican American war was extremely unpopular and as a result many Americans blamed it for the Civil War (Many historians draw the same conclusion). Maybe we should only go to war if there isn't a large number of Americans against it? When the US has gone to war.

[aretood2]

They are. However, we're not on friendly terms with Putin at the moment.

As if the US isn't arming anyone? (now that you mention it)



So, did Iraq ask to be left in disarray? Or Afghanistan?

Really?

[Coco Pops]

I America should tell the next few nations that ask for help to go jump in a creek. Seriously the world asks too much of you guys.

[Womble]

Or it might not.

It already does.

Russian troops join combat in Syria

This is a reminder that if the USA doesn't meddle, others will. Politics, like nature, abhor void.

Isolationism just means that instead of handling threats and crises, you choose to let them handle you.

[Womble]

I America should tell the next few nations that ask for help to go jump in a creek. Seriously the world asks too much of you guys.

If you're not American, this may be rather an unwise wish to voice.

[Gatefan1976]

If you're not American, this may be rather an unwise wish to voice.

Co-Co is Australian.
What nations do you think would suffer without American involvement Womble?

[Womble]

Co-Co is Australian.
What nations do you think would suffer without American involvement Womble?

Most of them.

It's all good and well complaining about the sheriff being corrupt and unfair - when you can replace him with a better sheriff.

As the USA influence declines, wars will proliferate as other states fill the void. Syria is an example of what happens when the USA takes hands-off approach. No American war has caused as massive an exodus of population as the one war that the Americans chose to not fight.

Remove the American meddling, and the result will be the same as removing the apex predator from any ecosystem - collapse of stability. The Korean peninsula will explode. China will annex Taiwan and encroach on the islands belonging to Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines. Australia would feel all of that through both refugee waves from the warring areas and through more direct military confrontation as the clashes extend south. Pakistan would fall and its nukes will find their way into the hands of people who won't hesitate to use them. The Persian Gulf states - easily the most stable area of the world after Western Europe and North America - would become at best Iranian protectorates and dependents, at worst would be consumed by it. The EU would have to shrink its economies by half to provide for its own defense against increasingly aggressive Russia. Et cetera.

[Gatefan1976]

Most.

helpful............

[Annoyed]

Remove the American meddling, and the result will be the same as removing the apex predator from any ecosystem - collapse of stability. The Korean peninsula will explode. China will annex Taiwan and encroach on the islands belonging to Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines. Australia would feel all of that through both refugee waves from the warring areas and through more direct military confrontation as the clashes extend south. Pakistan would fall and its nukes will find their way into the hands of people who won't hesitate to use them. The Persian Gulf states - easily the most stable area of the world after Western Europe and North America - would become at best Iranian protectorates and dependents, at worst would be consumed by it. The EU would have to shrink its economies by half to provide for its own defense against increasingly aggressive Russia. Et cetera.

And what do you think will happen in a decade or two when the U.S. collapses due to our own internal stupidity? I've been thinking along the same lines for years. When we do fall, there's going to be a massive power struggle, and all it will take is one nutjob to pull either the biological or nuclear triggers in that struggle... If the human race is lucky, we'll only get knocked back down the long ladder a few thousand years. If we're not so lucky....

PS: While I agree with your assessment that the U.S. is the strongest nation on Earth, I disagree that we are a predator. If we were predatory, the U.S. flag would be flying over most of the Earth by now.

[Annoyed]

Originally Posted by Annoyed
That is my point on this whole immigration debate, legal and illegal. The U.S. should be looking out for the welfare of its own citizens, first, last and always, not the welfare of citizens of other nations.

The problem is that these things aren't bad for American citizens. Was Einstein bad for American Citizens? Had we not accepted any Jewish refugees because we ought to only look after 'Muricans, we would have lacked those great minds like ophenhiemer. Even the poor can add a lot to the nation like Andrew Carnegie. Immigrants have given birth to great Americans who have improved the US.

At this point in time, I have to disagree. Look at the economy. Our society, as it is today, is not able to provide jobs for a big percentage of our population. The unemployment figures our government parrots are a work of fiction. If you count the the people whose unemployment has run out, the underemployed, the people working two jobs because wage rates are so low they can't support themselves on one job, the "true" unemployment rate is at least double what the official figure is, some estimates I've seen run as high as 20%. Why do you think there are such strident cries for government help such as free health care, welfare and all the other handouts? Because a large number of people can't earn these things on their own, as they could in previous periods of our history. And I'm not even talking about the lazy arse freeloaders. I'm talking about people who are putting forth their best efforts to take care of themselves.

Until such time as our economy recovers to the point where the true unemployment rate is 2-3 %, and companies have to competitively outbid each other to get employees, we have no business whatsoever bringing in citizens of other countries, legally or illegally to take jobs that U.S. workers could be doing.

As far as the "US workers won't do that kind of work" argument goes, I consider that to be nonsense. They may not take it at minimum wage, but if a fruit grower offers $25/Hr + benefits, he's going to find himself inundated with applicants. If he can't pay that much and stay in business, perhaps that particular product is not worth producing at all. Using immigrant labor at discount is merely subsidizing the production of that product on the backs of that labor.

What ever happened to American optimism? That's really what has made this a great country, and it continues to be a great country despite what some angry people might think. I see nothing but opportunities, there is certainly more space for a new fresh batch of Americans.

See above.

Do the words "A day we shall live in infamy" mean anything to you?

Of course they do, as they would anyone of my age group. (we actually learned history when we went to school, not the revisionist crap they're passing off these days) FDR's speech asking Congress to declare war on Japan after the 12/7/41 attack on Pearl Harbor

The U.S. had the proper attitude at the time; we didn't want to get involved beyond our lend / lease programs and other non-military assistance to Great Britain and the allies.

Events simply didn't give us that choice. Japan's attack or not, eventually we would have had to get involved anyway, when Germany vanquished all opposition in Europe and turned it's attention to the U.S. The failure wasn't the attitude, but rather that most people didn't realize that we wouldn't have a choice in the matter.

[jelgate]

I America should tell the next few nations that ask for help to go jump in a creek. Seriously the world asks too much of you guys.

We did that once. I believe you would know it as WWII

[aretood2]

At this point in time, I have to disagree. Look at the economy. Our society, as it is today,

Looks pretty good to me, we are in the middle of recovery.

is not able to provide jobs for a big percentage of our population.

I see job vacancies all over the place, don't what you're talking about.

The unemployment figures our government parrots are a work of fiction. If you count the the people whose unemployment has run out, the underemployed, the people working two jobs because wage rates are so low they can't support themselves on one job, the "true" unemployment rate is at least double what the official figure is, some estimates I've seen run as high as 20%.

The U-6 unemployment rate has been declining and currently sits at around 10%, it peaked at 16.6% in 2010. Those who are in the workforce but not looking for a job also include High School and college students, retired workers, and homemakers. That makes the bulk of the population not looking for work. Those who just gave up are well under 10 million. So the highest you could go would be about the peak of the U-6 rate in 2010.

Why do you think there are such strident cries for government help such as free health care, welfare and all the other handouts?

Because many young people are disgusted that the US is the only civilized and developed nation that can't provide adequate healthcare to all of its citizens, and that even many nearly developed nations can provide adequate and affordable healthcare to all of their citizens and the US can't or doesn't. That sort of things make young people stop and ask what is going on. Not all of those nations go for the single provider model. Some have interesting set ups that act like the free market, I particularly like the Israeli model.

Because a large number of people can't earn these things on their own, as they could in previous periods of our history.

Healthcare, yes. Welfare? No. In the sixties entire communities were without electricity in Appalachia. You had millions of American families living in substandard conditions almost reminiscent of third world countries even in the 40's and 50's which are the "good old days" that many Americans draw back on. Before those decades you had the depression. Before that you had the same conditions and before that you had slavery and large swaths of poor people living all over the country. There's never been a golden era in the past, not in the US not anywhere, where every citizen of any nation could afford the standard of living that most Americans can today.

And I'm not even talking about the lazy arse freeloaders. I'm talking about people who are putting forth their best efforts to take care of themselves.

The working poor outnumbers those "freeloaders" and that's just a function of simple capitalist economics which is why people are talking about things like welfare.

Until such time as our economy recovers to the point where the true unemployment rate is 2-3 %, and companies have to competitively outbid each other to get employees,

That low of a rate would trigger hyperinflation. That's Economics 101 there.

we have no business whatsoever bringing in citizens of other countries, legally or illegally to take jobs that U.S. workers could be doing.

As far as the "US workers won't do that kind of work" argument goes, I consider that to be nonsense. They may not take it at minimum wage, but if a fruit grower offers $25/Hr + benefits, he's going to find himself inundated with applicants. If he can't pay that much and stay in business, perhaps that particular product is not worth producing at all. Using immigrant labor at discount is merely subsidizing the production of that product on the backs of that labor.

Farmers don't pay horrible wages, the wages they pay got me through college. The wages they pay got me 3 warm meals a day and a roof over my head. The wages they pay got a lot of toys and a computer to do school work with. It got my family enough cars to move around in and even enough to fund trips back to the "old country" to visit family annually. If you know how to budget and stay away from certain vices, those jobs in the fields and processing factories can pay a decent wage. There won't any fancy cruises or European trips or brand new cars or large houses out of it. But certainly enough to live by.

$25/hr. is a horrible rate because it would defund the vast majority of farmers forcing either the price of food to skyrocket where an apple would cost as much as a pound currently does (maybe not that high, but you get the point), never mind the staple foods. You'd either have to print more money thus cause inflation, or import cheap food from other countries thus cause outsourcing. The lack of immigration would also mean an aging population with less and less workers to support retirees who will already have to pay butt loads of more money just to eat. That also means the food service industry would be hit hard. Restaurants would have to charge prices that common Americans won't be able to afford at the same rates anymore. Staff would need to be cut, there would be less capital to invest, less growth.

Industries that provide services and products to the restaurant industry would also take a hit. Employees of these industries and restaurants would also take heavy hits causing them to tighten their belts and buy less stuff which then has a spill over effect on other industries.

It is foolish to treat the economy like if it isn't interconnected. Change on thing in one area out of a nee jerk reaction because it seems like a good idea leads to drastic changes in other areas. The Republican party leadership knows this, the DNC knows this, Ronald Reagan (despite his "voodoo economics" which worked for my family btw) knew this, every economist ever ignored by politicians and radio talk show hosts know this, libertarians know this. It seems the only people who don't know this are xenophobic conservatives and union crazed liberals.

Of course they do, as they would anyone of my age group. (we actually learned history when we went to school, not the revisionist crap they're passing off these days) FDR's speech asking Congress to declare war on Japan after the 12/7/41 attack on Pearl Harbor

You learned revisionist history where black people did nothing of any worth, Mexicans were just someone to take land from, women were stupid, only Europe had civilizations of any worth and the Civil War was about tariffs and a philosophical disagreement ONLY and racism was harmless. Just to name a few things.

The U.S. had the proper attitude at the time; we didn't want to get involved beyond our lend / lease programs and other non-military assistance to Great Britain and the allies.

Events simply didn't give us that choice. Japan's attack or not, eventually we would have had to get involved anyway, when Germany vanquished all opposition in Europe and turned it's attention to the U.S. The failure wasn't the attitude, but rather that most people didn't realize that we wouldn't have a choice in the matter.

Really? Wasn't it the US that forced Japan out of isolation? Wasn't Manifest Destiny the reason the US was in the Pacific to begin with? Wasn't the lend/lease program what made US ships targeted by U-boats in WWI and WWII? Didn't economic sanctions on Japan lead to Pearl Harbor?

The attitude is exactly what made people not realize that the US didn't have a choice to intervene. They were foolish enough to believe that they could ignore what was going on in the world and still pursue a policy of Manifest Destiny at the same time. In the late 1800's and early 1900's the US didn't shy away in meddling in the affairs of Latin America nor did it shy away from getting peripherally involved in East Asian affairs as it stretched into the Pacific. Thinking that it could do that and not get involved is the greatest blunder of that generation and Pearl Harbor paid the price.

It's a credit to them that they learned their lesson and changed their ways thus bringing an end to isolationism.

[Annoyed]

Looks pretty good to me, we are in the middle of recovery.

I see job vacancies all over the place, don't what you're talking about.

Ever hear the phrase "jobless recovery"? The vast majority of those who are doing well in this so called recovery are those who are well to do already.

What sort of vacancies are these? Minimum wage level jobs, or are they quality jobs, with benefits and wage levels that allow a middle class living?

[aretood2]

Ever hear the phrase "jobless recovery"? The vast majority of those who are doing well in this so called recovery are those who are well to do already.

What sort of vacancies are these? Minimum wage level jobs, or are they quality jobs, with benefits and wage levels that allow a middle class living?

I've seen a few office jobs. Several for truck drivers with advertised benefits of some sort. Vacancies in schools and a police department or two. Construction jobs. And yes, plenty of food service and grocery jobs, but some of those do pay above the minimum wage. It's not a staggering butt load where thousands and thousands of vacancies are available...mainly because economics doesn't work that way. But what I have seen is in my county and a neighboring county....of which I haven't even seen most of. That's when I'm not even looking for work. And yes, the job market if very competitive in the favor of employers right now. But that is how recoveries work.

[Annoyed]

And yes, the job market if very competitive in the favor of employers right now. But that is how recoveries work.

Or at least how they used to work. As the recovery progresses, eventually the market flips, and it becomes a job seekers' market, where companies have to offer more than the other company in order to attract & keep workers.
It hasn't worked that way for several cycles now, due to boneheaded trade agreements and artificial downward pressure on wages from immigrants, both legal and illegal. During downturns, it keeps getting harder for the job seekers, but the corporate interests have jiggered the playing field so that it never puts them at the disadvantage.