The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

from where I'm sitting....most free republics like the Roman Republic/Empire and the US Republic (modeled somewhat similarly to the Roman one) tend to corrupt themselves and fail due to one glaring loophole....the ability to vote oneself largesse from the federal treasury...once people discover that that can be done....it gets done rather frequently and thus said once free republic becomes an authoritarian regime

if we were to close that one glaring loophole I bet that would take care of much of the corruption

The logical solution is easy. Require "skin in the game" before one is allowed to vote. Amend the Constitution so that a person must be supporting himself in order to be eligible to vote.
But I don't see that happening. The leeches and other "takers" now outnumber the makers.

[Britta]

Outside view here.

Did you know that in some jurisdictions, border patrols/agents are not even allowed to carry firearms? That's how soft in the head our immigration policy is these days.

Border Patrol is a federal agency, there are no jurisdictional concerns regarding the carrying of firearms on official business. Careful where you get your facts.

Then, round up every single person in this country illegally and immediately deport them, no excuses, no BS, no nonsense of any sort. If they have family members here, they can leave with them, or remain here if they themselves are legally in the country. None of this "anchor baby" stuff or any other dodges people use to get around our immigration laws. These people can then reapply for admittance/citizenship via existing legal process. But of course, their initial illegal entry into the country would be one of the factors considered. I don't see why we should do any favors for people whose respect for our laws is shown by their willingness to break them.

Imagine you're a poor desperate person looking to make an honest living, and you can't in your country. Take a look at the prospects of legal immigration (flowchart). Don't vilify people for their desperation. As for "anchor babies", they are US citizens with a right to stay. Their parents have a right to choose what's best for their child, which as the case may be is staying in the US. It's also in the child's interest to stay with their parents.

Also, be careful of the trap that is blaming immigrants for your country's problems. The problem is almost always at home. Many of those "illegals" are good for the economy, and would be able to be there legally if the immigration system underwent decent reform. Did you know it's difficult to get a visa from countries like Mexico, because the government assumes that you'll probably overstay. They treat you like an illegal and you end up having to become one.

The logical solution is easy. Require "skin in the game" before one is allowed to vote. Amend the Constitution so that a person must be supporting himself in order to be eligible to vote.
But I don't see that happening. The leeches and other "takers" now outnumber the makers.

Everybody has skin in the game. They're all people, who live in the country. Poor people are citizens too. Who decides what counts are "supporting yourself". Are you seriously suggesting that a group of people you don't approve of shouldn't be allowed to vote? Don't you see where that leads?

Besides, do you think our only value is as labour for corporations? As humans we have no right to live besides our economic value? Have some compassion.

[Coco Pops]

In Texas is there really a push to teach creation as science over evolution? Education comes under politics so just curious if this is in any way true?

[Annoyed]

Outside view here.

Border Patrol is a federal agency, there are no jurisdictional concerns regarding the carrying of firearms on official business. Careful where you get your facts.

Ok, it's just that they weren't being allowed to use them.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/03...ags-609544203/

The U.S. Border Patrol is under fire for allegedly ordering its elite, SWAT-style units to use non-lethal bean bag ammunition before responding with deadly force – even against suspects armed with high-powered semi-automatic and automatic weapons like AK-47s.

Imagine you're a poor desperate person looking to make an honest living, and you can't in your country. Take a look at the prospects of legal immigration (flowchart). Don't vilify people for their desperation. As for "anchor babies", they are US citizens with a right to stay. Their parents have a right to choose what's best for their child, which as the case may be is staying in the US. It's also in the child's interest to stay with their parents.

So, because a person's native country can't provide for a person, it becomes the U.S.'s responsibility to provide for him?
The U.S. economy cannot provide sufficient employment for our own citizens. Our real unemployment rate is somewhere around 20%. The official figures are doctored; they only count someone who is actively collecting unemployment benefits; it doesn't matter if you get a job, once those benefits run out, you are no longer counted, job or not. And then there are the underemployed, people seeking full time work but can only find part time work.
Our economy cannot provide for our own citizens, yet we are supposed to provide work for anyone who wishes to enter the country as well? No, I'm sorry. As I said above, we should be looking out for our own best interests, first, last and always for the simple reason that if we don't, who will?
I understand the idea that the parents should make choices that are in the best interests of their child. But I can't extend that to breaking our laws to do it by sneaking into the country and dropping a kid on this side of the border to establish an anchor to bring herself and the rest of her family in. Deliberately circumventing our laws is a great way to state your intentions, I think.

Also, be careful of the trap that is blaming immigrants for your country's problems. The problem is almost always at home. Many of those "illegals" are good for the economy, and would be able to be there legally if the immigration system underwent decent reform. Did you know it's difficult to get a visa from countries like Mexico, because the government assumes that you'll probably overstay. They treat you like an illegal and you end up having to become one.

Just because somebody doesn't like a law, that does not give them the right to disregard it. There are many laws here that I do not like, but I still have to abide by them.

Everybody has skin in the game. They're all people, who live in the country. Poor people are citizens too. Who decides what counts are "supporting yourself". Are you seriously suggesting that a group of people you don't approve of shouldn't be allowed to vote? Don't you see where that leads?

Besides, do you think our only value is as labour for corporations? As humans we have no right to live besides our economic value? Have some compassion.

Of course people have value outside of their labor. But if you are not pulling the cart, but are simply riding in it, with other people pulling your dead weight along, I'm sorry, but you don't get to have a say regarding which direction the cart goes. By the same token, people who do not work or otherwise support themselves; who live via money forcibly taken from other people as taxes and paid out as social services benefits should not get a voice in how that system is run because they will simply vote for whomever promises to give them the most stuff. This is one of the larger problems faced by our country today. Mad_gaters' comment above has been attributed to everyone from Plato to Ben Franklin, but it is the raw truth.

A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.

Regarding compassion, I am showing compassion. For millions of US citizens who cannot find full employment in our society to day. The last thing those poor people need is millions more people coming into the country trying to get the same limited number of jobs.

[Womble]

btw is healthcare in Israel more similar to that in the US or the EU??

Probably more similar to the EU, although we have our own model.

In Israel, healthcare is a right AND the participation is compulsory, everyone has to be a member of one of the Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO). There is a progressive healthcare tax (the more you earn, the more you pay), and there are four HMOs that compete, full on capitalism-style, for their share of taxpayer money by trying to get people to switch with offers of lower prices and better services. There's a complex formula for fund allocation that motivates the HMOs to accept the "problematic" patients - elderly, disabled, people with chronic diseases etc.

We0 officially have the fourth most efficient healthcare system in the world (top 3 are all Asian - Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan), so the system works I guess.

[Womble]

Regarding point 3: It depends upon what way you want to sort it. My idea of "immigration reform" is as follows:
Rebuild our border defenses to stop the flood of illegals entering this country. Did you know that in some jurisdictions, border patrols/agents are not even allowed to carry firearms? That's how soft in the head our immigration policy is these days.
Then, round up every single person in this country illegally and immediately deport them, no excuses, no BS, no nonsense of any sort. If they have family members here, they can leave with them, or remain here if they themselves are legally in the country. None of this "anchor baby" stuff or any other dodges people use to get around our immigration laws. These people can then reapply for admittance/citizenship via existing legal process. But of course, their initial illegal entry into the country would be one of the factors considered. I don't see why we should do any favors for people whose respect for our laws is shown by their willingness to break them.

Legal immigration levels need to be adjusted as well, based upon our economic needs. If we get to the point that the legitimate unemployment rates are hovering about 1 - 2 % instead of damned near 20% we have now, and companies have to competitively bid against each other to get workers and still can't get enough people, then we can raise legal immigration levels. Of course, this would also require scrapping of the various trade policies that companies use to outsource as much labor as they possibly can. We need to look after our own best interests first, last and always, because the simple fact is that if we don't, no one will. And we have been doing the exact opposite for decades now.

Notice that everything you're saying boils down to keeping people out as opposed to bringing people in.

USA rose to prominence as an immigrant country though. Everything that's being said today about Mexicans etc. has once been said about the immigrations of the Italians, the Irish, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans, the Eastern Europeans, the Jews etc.

It was said that they took away American jobs. It was said that immigration had to be limited to protect the economy and to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity. It was said that Eastern Europeans and Jews arrived sick and starving and were a burden on the economy, and that the Chinese were so culturally different they could never become true Americans. It was said that the Japanese laborers were a serious economic threat to white businessmen and farmers. There were laws that restricted immigration by national origin. Looking back today, at the third, fourth, fifth generation of descendants from those immigration waves, can you truthfully say that those demanding immigration restrictions in 1924 were right? If not, how is your current situation with Mexican immigrants different?

[SoulReaver]

Probably more similar to the EU, although we have our own model.

In Israel, healthcare is a right AND the participation is compulsory, everyone has to be a member of one of the Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO). There is a progressive healthcare tax (the more you earn, the more you pay), and there are four HMOs that compete, full on capitalism-style, for their share of taxpayer money by trying to get people to switch with offers of lower prices and better services. There's a complex formula for fund allocation that motivates the HMOs to accept the "problematic" patients - elderly, disabled, people with chronic diseases etc.

We0 officially have the fourth most efficient healthcare system in the world (top 3 are all Asian - Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan), so the system works I guess.

if it's compulsory then what about those with low incomes? (or below an income threshold if there's one)

[Annoyed]

Notice that everything you're saying boils down to keeping people out as opposed to bringing people in.

USA rose to prominence as an immigrant country though. Everything that's being said today about Mexicans etc. has once been said about the immigrations of the Italians, the Irish, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans, the Eastern Europeans, the Jews etc.

It was said that they took away American jobs. It was said that immigration had to be limited to protect the economy and to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity. It was said that Eastern Europeans and Jews arrived sick and starving and were a burden on the economy, and that the Chinese were so culturally different they could never become true Americans. It was said that the Japanese laborers were a serious economic threat to white businessmen and farmers. There were laws that restricted immigration by national origin. Looking back today, at the third, fourth, fifth generation of descendants from those immigration waves, can you truthfully say that those demanding immigration restrictions in 1924 were right? If not, how is your current situation with Mexican immigrants different?

The economic climate is far different today. There is near 0 real job growth these days. Even now, when the government economists claim we are in an economic recovery, it is a jobless recovery, as have been several prior recoveries. Jobs are not being created. And as I've said over and over again, the employment picture is the primary reason we can't afford to bring more people in, legally or otherwise. In what is essentially a 20+ year recessionary period in the employment arena, we simply can't afford to bring more people in legally or otherwise. The added number of job seekers simply applies downward pressure on wages for US citizens, and in addition, many of those that come here end up feeding at the teat of public assistance because they can't find work. We can't afford that either.

And yes, there is the whole "illegal" aspect. Someone who has broken our laws by the very fact of their being here should not be rewarded for doing so with amnesty or anything else besides a free trip back to their point of entry.

One other difference between past waves of immigrants and the current one. Prior waves, the Germans, Italians, whatever, did their level best to assimilate themselves into the society they moved into. The current wave does not. They want us to accommodate them; many of them demand that we offer services in their native language, for example, rather than them learning our language and customs. There have been instances where U.S. schools and businesses have been forced to stop displaying the U.S. flag because immigrants found it offensive. That is absurd. Whenever you call just about any business today that is large enough to have a call center or automated phone system, you have to choose English or Spanish. That too is absurd.
If I ever migrate to a country that does not speak English as its language, it is on me to learn their language, customs and such. It would be the height of arrogance for me to expect them to learn my language. This doesn't seem to cause the current wave of immigrants any concern whatsoever.

[aretood2]

The economic climate is far different today. There is near 0 real job growth these days. Even now, when the government economists claim we are in an economic recovery, it is a jobless recovery, as have been several prior recoveries. Jobs are not being created. And as I've said over and over again, the employment picture is the primary reason we can't afford to bring more people in, legally or otherwise. In what is essentially a 20+ year recessionary period in the employment arena, we simply can't afford to bring more people in legally or otherwise. The added number of job seekers simply applies downward pressure on wages for US citizens, and in addition, many of those that come here end up feeding at the teat of public assistance because they can't find work. We can't afford that either.

Economists don't tend to agree with you and neither would historians for that matter. I don't know where you are getting your metrics from, but there has been slow job growth in some sectors. Your idea of needing 1-2% unemployment is quite frankly economic suicide for a capitalist economy. It works perfectly under a communist one...until the communist system falls apart. A healthy economy requires 4-6% unemployment (that is the unemployment that the government measures, not people who gave up looking for a job). It has to do with inefficient production changing to efficient production in response to supply and demand cycles.

In other words, things aren't as simple as they appear. A healthy capitalist economy with a growing population and upward mobility requires a steady stream of a low wage workforce and a high tech workforce as well. Otherwise, with no migration, even at a high unemployment rate wages would still rise. A near full employment rate would spark hyper inflation.

One other difference between past waves of immigrants and the current one. Prior waves, the Germans, Italians, whatever, did their level best to assimilate themselves into the society they moved into. The current wave does not. They want us to accommodate them; many of them demand that we offer services in their native language, for example, rather than them learning our language and customs. There have been instances where U.S. schools and businesses have been forced to stop displaying the U.S. flag because immigrants found it offensive. That is absurd. Whenever you call just about any business today that is large enough to have a call center or automated phone system, you have to choose English or Spanish. That too is absurd.

There is little to no evidence to back up the claim that immigrants aren't assimilating or learning English. In fact, in the early 1900's you could make a very good living by being a translator. There's a reason why there's a rumor/myth that Pennsylvania was about to declare German as the official language, in reality it was the desire to make schools publish information in German in addition to English that didn't really go far. By nature, Immigrants learn limited English and always fall back on 1st Generation Americans (their children) to translate. 2nd Generation Americans begin to forget their heritage language and by the time you get to the 3rd Generation, very few understand their heritage language. That has been the case since the first Dutch immigrants.

If I ever migrate to a country that does not speak English as its language, it is on me to learn their language, customs and such. It would be the height of arrogance for me to expect them to learn my language. This doesn't seem to cause the current wave of immigrants any concern whatsoever.

There's a reason why the most popular language to learn in nations that produce the most immigrants to the US is English. Because the majority agrees with you. No one is advocating any differently. Don't confuse private companies' desire to pander to None-Fluent English speaking costumers for some sort of push to not learn English.

As for the current wave of immigrants, I take great umbrage of what you said. My parents came here with nothing but the clothes on their back and learned as much English as they could (to the point that their Spanish has been changed with the introduction of English verbs, expressions, nouns, and grammar) to squeeze an honest living so that I could have a better life. And that is they are the rule, not the exception.

[Annoyed]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/16...-by-misguided/

Excerpt:

The blistering drought that has Californians timing their showers, driving dirty cars and staring at brown lawns and empty swimming pools is a “man-made disaster,” according to critics, who say the Golden State’s misguided environmental policies allow much-needed freshwater to flow straight into the Pacific.

In an average year, California gets enough snow and rain to put 200 million acres under a foot of water, but environmental opposition to dams over the last several decades has allowed the majority of the freshwater to flow into the ocean, even as the state’s population exploded to nearly 40 million people. The current drought has left farms parched and residents under strict water consumption orders, but some say it didn't have to be that way.

And yet, how much do you want to bet that they re-elect the same liberals that caused their current water problems next chance they get?

[Kali]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/16...-by-misguided/

Excerpt:


And yet, how much do you want to bet that they re-elect the same liberals that caused their current water problems next chance they get?

m'uh-huh.. those dang liberals! lol The water problems in California are just the beginning. People are simply unwilling or unable to acknowledge that our life styles are ultimately unsustainable. Using billions of gallons of fresh water to support Industrial Farming is one of the worst environmental atrocities of all time- using 10 calories to produce 1. Terrible. The mere inconvenience of taking shorter showers will look like a stroll through the park when compared to a world where water is like gold. Imagine the conflict.

Aquifers provide us freshwater that makes up for surface water lost from drought-depleted lakes, rivers, and reservoirs. We are drawing down these hidden, mostly nonrenewable groundwater supplies at unsustainable rates in the western United States and in several dry regions globally, threatening our future.

I'll miss my 20 minute hot showers. . .

[mad_gater]

could also be from those squiggly "Obama bulbs" we're being forced to use...CFL's full of mercury....could also be from the fact that mining for the rare earth material to make things like LED bulbs and direct drive motors (another thing liberal environmental policies are trying to foist on us) is causing more environmental problems than they solve...I believe there's a giant toxin lake in the middle of China from mining for these rare earth materials

[Womble]

m'uh-huh.. those dang liberals! lol The water problems in California are just the beginning. People are simply unwilling or unable to acknowledge that our life styles are ultimately unsustainable. Using billions of gallons of fresh water to support Industrial Farming is one of the worst environmental atrocities of all time- using 10 calories to produce 1. Terrible. The mere inconvenience of taking shorter showers will look like a stroll through the park when compared to a world where water is like gold. Imagine the conflict.

The thing is, sustainability is not and has never been realistic. Industrial farming is the only way to feed a large population, especially if you want to provide for more than just basic needs. Using 10 calories to produce 1 that is consumable is not that terrible in an arid environment.

The answer to the California draught is water use efficiency. Israel and Syria are both arid areas with few natural water sources, and both suffered from a long and terrible drought. Now Syria is still stuck in a terrible drought while Israel went from contemplating a drastic cutback in agricultural production to reaching the point when the production has increased yet we are actually returning water to nature.

This was achieved through widespread use of water-saving technologies (drip irrigation etc,) recycling 80% of "gray" water (purified sewage and other used water), learning to exploit non-drinkable water for industrial, agricultural and household use (you don't need potable water to flush your toilet) and desalination of seawater.

USA national average of gray water recycling is 3%. Just 3% to Israel's 80%. That's where the problem is.

[Annoyed]

Thing is, California isn't an arid environment; they have all the water they need available to them, but they refuse to use it due to actions of the environmentalists.

I'm not advocating trashing the planet, but I am highly distrustful of the true motive of the environmental lobbies. If their true goals are really saving the environment, their actions aren't all that bright. For example, 20-30 years ago, they pushed for and eventually mostly achieved conversion from paper shopping bags to plastic shopping bags.

Paper bags biodegrade in 6 months or so, as opposed to plastic bags which can last thousands of years, and have been shown to be hazardous to wildlife. So just why would people who are genuinely concerned with the environment want us to use plastic bags?

[Coco Pops]

Australia is going to the dogs...

We have a PM that sees nothing at all wrong with trashing marine parks and sanctuaries and has granted them permits to have mining exploration done. INSIDE THEM.

This is disgraceful and I'd like the international community to make Australia look bad.