Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Falcon Horus]

And just as with a person, a country, a tribe, a community must look after its own interests and those of its members first, last and always.

Of course, the problem with that is that your country doesn't do that either.

[Womble]

So, one example is worth supporting how many thousands of freeloaders who come here to lie about on the govt. couch?

I used Brin for illustrative purposes, obviously. But let us indeed look at trends.

Unemployment among immigrants in the USA is generally equal or lower than among the native-born Americans (if there is such a thing). Feel free to verify; I have. So the actual balance is not "thousands of freeloaders" per one productive worker but one "freeloader" per 4-5 productive workers.

Moreover, name me an immigration wave in American history which did not eagerly join the labor market as soon as restrictions were removed, and which did not pay off economically in the long term. The Germans? Asians? Jews? Irish? Where do you get that idea that whole masses of people will prefer sitting on their couch collecting meager benefits to working for a living?

Fair argument. And how many times have I said that neither myself nor any other Republican/Conservative I know objects to providing a temporary helping hand to a member of our society who has been a contributor to our society. That's why we have unemployment insurance, disability insurance and so forth. Do you see either myself or any other rightie on this board advocating dismantling those systems? No.

I do, as a matter of fact. Every single time healthcare or unemployment benefits come up, you claim that those people are not your responsibility and should not be paid for with your taxes.

But you are not talking about citizens who have experienced a fall on the walk of life. You are talking about people who are trying to migrate here so that U.S. taxpayers can pay their way. Where is the responsibility of their native country to take care of them when they fall?

You might have noticed that I am talking about legal immigrants. When you choose to let someone into your country, you have obligations towards them. Why does it surprise you?

Here's a nice little article by famed economist Milton Friedman on immigration and the welfare state.

He's got it just about right, the only issue I take with this article is that it is not only the upper middle class who pays the bill, it is just as much paid by the lower middle classes who do not have (and never will have) the means to shelter their income from taxation as the more well-off do.

Look to Milton: Open borders and the welfare state

He is talking about open borders in the sense of unlimited uncontrolled immigration, as advocated by libertarians. That would obviously be unsustainable, like pretty much every other libertarian idea. The whole thing is a piece of intra-libertarian polemic. But neither me nor anyone here is arguing for doing away with immigration control altogether.

[Womble]

The Russian guy's parents you mention very likely did so LEGALLY.....and that's the whole crux of the matter....LEGAL vs ILLEGAL immigration

and unfortunately our government here in the USA seems all too happy to let proverbial fence-hoppers remain a drain on taxpayer resources without putting forth one ounce of effort to better themselves as Sergey's parents did

there's a right way and a wrong way to go about moving to another country and simply disregarding your intended destination nation's immigration laws, cutting the line, and hopping the proverbial fence, is NOT the right way to do so

just so we're clear on what the crux of the problem is

OF COURSE I was talking about legal immigration.

Illegal immigration is a different problem altogether, much harder to untangle. But Annoyed's problem is with immigration as such. His complaint is not only about illegal foreign workers but also about people who get hired legally from other countries to come work in the USA. His position is that his country is full, and probably got filled up to capacity as soon as his own forefathers disembarked from whatever vessel brought them to American shores.

[Gatefan1976]

So, one example is worth supporting how many thousands of freeloaders who come here to lie about on the govt. couch?

Womble gave you -ONE- example, one example of a company that BTW -employs- many thousands of people, I'd say the US government has been paid in spades in that exchange. So much of "US technological advancement" is built on the backs of immigrants or their children and you would throw that away for what, the indignation of a cent of your taxes going towards those who abuse the system? Hell, the "golden post WW2 era" of the USA is all but a direct result of immigration.
But sure, get offended snowflake.

Fair argument. And how many times have I said that neither myself nor any other Republican/Conservative I know objects to providing a temporary helping hand to a member of our society who has been a contributor to our society. That's why we have unemployment insurance, disability insurance and so forth. Do you see either myself or any other rightie on this board advocating dismantling those systems? No.

No, you just vote for the people who DO.

But you are not talking about citizens who have experienced a fall on the walk of life. You are talking about people who are trying to migrate here so that U.S. taxpayers can pay their way. Where is the responsibility of their native country to take care of them when they fall?

No, YOU are talking about them because you seem only to see the downside of immigration, and utterly ignore the overwhelming positives.

Or do you view the U.S. taxpayer as just some idiot who should shoulder the financial burden of caring citizens of other countries? Your basic rube?

Who did you vote for again?

Here's a nice little article by famed economist Milton Friedman on immigration and the welfare state.

He's got it just about right, the only issue I take with this article is that it is not only the upper middle class who pays the bill, it is just as much paid by the lower middle classes who do not have (and never will have) the means to shelter their income from taxation as the more well-off do.

Here is a thought, stop voting for the people who's only interest is making sure that those tax loopholes exist.

As for the Argument from The heritage foundation, I find it somewhat contradictory when you read it. I am sure Milton had a much better grasp of the economic impact of open immigration and welfare than they do. This one is particularly egregious:

The transfer state redistributes funds from those with high-skill and high-income levels to those with lower skill levels. Low-skill immigrants become natural recipients in this process. On average, low-skill immigrant families receive $30,160 per year in government benefits and services while paying $10,573 in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of $19,587 that has to be paid by higher-income taxpayers.

Note the "low skill immigrant families" section, This is BS, not because their figures may be wrong, but because it holds true for ANY low skill (or more accurately, low paid) person in the workforce. Billy Joe Bob who bleeds red, white and blue is just as much of a drain on the middle class as Juan the immigrant fruit picker.
Also, By reading this, it seems Friedman is more of a libertarian, rather than a conservative, and those two political ideologies are not the same. Using a libertarian view where "property rights", which begin with ones own body by an institute that wants to limit those rights is a bit of a farce if you ask me.

[mad_gater]

OF COURSE I was talking about legal immigration.

Illegal immigration is a different problem altogether, much harder to untangle. But Annoyed's problem is with immigration as such. His complaint is not only about illegal foreign workers but also about people who get hired legally from other countries to come work in the USA. His position is that his country is full, and probably got filled up to capacity as soon as his own forefathers disembarked from whatever vessel brought them to American shores.

off-shore hiring (what I'll call hiring a worker residing in a foreign country)...just like off-shore outsourcing.....is NOT something that should be done when there are plenty of people residing HERE (whether they be natural born or naturalized immigrants) who are currently unemployed

and remember.....the US Government usually tends to fudge the unemployment numbers so that the situation doesn't appear to be as bad as it actually is

If there weren't so many people who are here already who are currently unemployed I wouldn't have as much of a problem with hiring people in other countries to work here

[Annoyed]

He is talking about open borders in the sense of unlimited uncontrolled immigration, as advocated by libertarians. That would obviously be unsustainable, like pretty much every other libertarian idea. The whole thing is a piece of intra-libertarian polemic. But neither me nor anyone here is arguing for doing away with immigration control altogether.

Could have fooled me. What else do you call opposing mandatory, automatic deportation of someone found to be here illegally? What else do you call opposing securing the borders to prevent unlawful entry? What else would you call deliberately choosing NOT to enforce the immigration statutes that are already on the books?
You either want to control immigration or you don't. Most folks here, and the entire country for the past several decades has been firmly in the "don't" camp.

[The Flyattractor]

Could have fooled me. What else do you call opposing mandatory, automatic deportation of someone found to be here illegally? What else do you call opposing securing the borders to prevent unlawful entry? What else would you call deliberately choosing NOT to enforce the immigration statutes that are already on the books?
You either want to control immigration or you don't. Most folks here, and the entire country for the past several decades has been firmly in the "don't" camp.

The DNC's "SOP"?

[Womble]

US state accidentally passes bill allowing pregnant women to legally murder anyone they want

Women in New Hampshire were almost allowed to commit murder with impunity, when Republican legislators failed to read the fine print in their own bill.

New Hampshire Senate Bill 66 is one of dozens of “foetal homicide” laws across the country that allow foetuses to be considered people in cases of homicide or manslaughter.

The New Hampshire bill defines a foetus as a person in such cases after 20 weeks. Supporters say this allows those who might kill a foetus – in a car crash, or assault, for example – to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Women’s rights advocates, however, say the laws can also be interpreted to ban abortion. To assuage these fears, New Hampshire legislators added an exemption for women seeking abortions and the doctors providing them.

As originally written, the act exempted “any act” committed by the pregnant woman or her doctor from cases of second-degree murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, or causing or aiding suicide.

“The bill as drafted allows for physician-assisted suicide and allows a pregnant woman to commit homicide without consequences,” Republican Representative JR Hoell told the Concord Monitor.

Legislators, however, only caught the error after it had passed both chambers of Congress and was headed to Governor Chris Sununu’s desk.

Members of Congress quickly voted to change the language through a process normally used to correct spelling and grammar.

“No one in this chamber voted to allow anyone to be able to murder anyone,” Republican House Majority Leader Dick Hinch said. “That was not the intent.”

[The Flyattractor]

Eh, It is New Hampshire. I doubt it was an "Accident". Those Hampys are NUTS!

[Coco Pops]

US state accidentally passes bill allowing pregnant women to legally murder anyone they want

Oops.........

[garhkal]

Indeed. On the other hand, why doesn't USA just prohibit all forms of immigration altogether? Because it is in YOUR interest that people from the outside keep coming.

Most immigrants come to another country for their children, not for themselves. They know they'll be the lost generation; it's their children who will reap the benefits.

And if they can do so while abiding by our laws, more power to them. JUST DO it legally. That means if we go back TO Enforcing the "you must have a sponsor or prove you can support yourself" method, then GO BY IT..

Indeed, where is people's responsibility to not get cancer? Not get incapacitated in accidents? Not get fired due to outsourcing, company bankruptcy or general economic downturn? Doesn't each of us fully control the world around him?

Isn't that why a lot of people stopped smoking, to lessen their chance of getting cancer? On the 'getting into accidents. Easy. STOP TEXTING AND DRIVING!

As for the others, those are things usually out of one's control..

Who said anything about global?
I spoke of a society -- or better yet, if you do not understand the concept of a society, let's start with something smaller, a community, a tribe, a country.

Yes i do know what a community is. BUT what does that have to do with people taking financial responsibility for themselves, and NOT leeching of everyone else?

You might have noticed that I am talking about legal immigrants. When you choose to let someone into your country, you have obligations towards them. Why does it surprise you?

Yes we do have some obligations to them. BUT not to completely provide for everything for them.. THEY have an obligation to provide for themselves too.. Or is it only the state that has any obligation?

Here is a thought, stop voting for the people who's only interest is making sure that those tax loopholes exist.

Gatefan, THIS Is why i would MUCH prefer to go to a flat tax. NO deductions, NO rebates, NO loop holes. EVERYONE pays the same say 10%.. Period.

[Gatefan1976]

off-shore hiring (what I'll call hiring a worker residing in a foreign country)...just like off-shore outsourcing.....is NOT something that should be done when there are plenty of people residing HERE (whether they be natural born or naturalized immigrants) who are currently unemployed

Do the unemployed citizens have the requisite skills to get the job? Being a citizen is not enough to get hired for the job, no matter what the job is. As for outsourcing jobs, that's your free market. As an individual you might be of the opinion that the US should be protectionist, you can even push that stuff through congress and the senate and make it law, but business is globalized now, weather you like it or not. Live in the past and you get left behind.

and remember.....the US Government usually tends to fudge the unemployment numbers so that the situation doesn't appear to be as bad as it actually is

How so?

If there weren't so many people who are here already who are currently unemployed I wouldn't have as much of a problem with hiring people in other countries to work here

Then why make it difficult for people to get the skills to be employable? Take the miners, those "oh so important coal jobs". Mining jobs, by and large are not coming back, no matter what the government does. They could open all the coal mines in the country and all they would need is a -fraction- of the jobs that would have been created even 50 years ago, and most of them would require some form of specialized education or training. Trumps plan however strips funding and support for the FEW groups who are actively trying to retrain the low skilled miners into jobs where they have some future proofing.

[Gatefan1976]

And if they can do so while abiding by our laws, more power to them. JUST DO it legally. That means if we go back TO Enforcing the "you must have a sponsor or prove you can support yourself" method, then GO BY IT..

You are still shadow boxing with a position womble has never put forward.

Isn't that why a lot of people stopped smoking, to lessen their chance of getting cancer? On the 'getting into accidents. Easy. STOP TEXTING AND DRIVING!


As for the others, those are things usually out of one's control..

ALL of them are out of your control. Smoking increases the risks, as does using your phone, but no one intends to get cancer, or smash into a tree or another car.

Yes i do know what a community is. BUT what does that have to do with people taking financial responsibility for themselves, and NOT leeching of everyone else?

It says little about the "moocher", it speaks to the rest of the community.

Yes we do have some obligations to them. BUT not to completely provide for everything for them.. THEY have an obligation to provide for themselves too.. Or is it only the state that has any obligation?

No.

Gatefan, THIS Is why i would MUCH prefer to go to a flat tax. NO deductions, NO rebates, NO loop holes. EVERYONE pays the same say 10%.. Period.

That's nice and all, but not the point. The point is, why keep voting for people who will do -exactly- what you are railing against. Take trumpcare. With very few (if any) changes it will pass and become the law of the land, you will be stuck with it, and none of our vocal repub posters actually support it, but that does not matter, It's what the people you vote into office want. The only interesting thing I find about trumpcare is the -timing- of when things come into effect, at the tail end of trumps first term, or second if he gets a second. He gets to push through house plan (because you can bet he wont read the damn thing, and is incapable of crafting his own), get the voters to go "yay, go trump look him move forward" and IF his plan is unpopular, or screws you over, he's on the way out the door and the next poor schmuck in the WH gets to deal with his colossal screw up, and if it's a democrat? Well, you can bet the farm that they will be blamed for the results.

[Annoyed]

Yes we do have some obligations to them. BUT not to completely provide for everything for them.. THEY have an obligation to provide for themselves too.. Or is it only the state that has any obligation?

Correction on that point. It seems that only the United States has an obligation to tend to their needs. Their native countries apparently are under no such obligation.

I've got an idea. Why don't we round up every single illegal immigrant in the country, as well as any legal immigrant who is drawing public assistance of any flavor and ship them to Womble's country. And we can begin a serious effort to apprehend anyone sneaking into the country and send them over too.
Let's see how Womble feels about himself and the other taxpayers in his country picking up the tab for them.

How's that sound, Womble?

Gatefan, THIS Is why i would MUCH prefer to go to a flat tax. NO deductions, NO rebates, NO loop holes. EVERYONE pays the same say 10%.. Period.

Unfortunately, the number people bandy about is closer to 15% or 20% This will have a huge impact on the lower and middle classes. 20% of a 12.00/Hour worker's wages is dropping him from 25K to 20K, that's a hell of a bite.

I do believe that a progressive tax structure is more fair; maybe a 5/10/15/20/X percent scale based on income level, with no BS might be a better idea. The problem isn't the tax rates, it's the complexity of the system and that that complexity allows who knows how many ways for the well-off to dodge paying. Sure, make the system simple, but a plain old flat rate basically hands the rich a free ride while killing the lower middle classes and poor.

[Annoyed]

Do the unemployed citizens have the requisite skills to get the job? Being a citizen is not enough to get hired for the job, no matter what the job is. As for outsourcing jobs, that's your free market. As an individual you might be of the opinion that the US should be protectionist, you can even push that stuff through congress and the senate and make it law, but business is globalized now, weather you like it or not. Live in the past and you get left behind.

Instead of importing workers, why doesn't Microsoft or Disney train unemployed/underemployed US citizens? Oh, wait.. In Disney's case, they HAD US workers who were told to train their imported replacements.

and remember.....the US Government usually tends to fudge the unemployment numbers so that the situation doesn't appear to be as bad as it actually is

How so?

One method is they only count people who are actively claiming unemployment, which runs out after 26 weeks or whatever. Once they drop off the unemployment rolls, they are no longer counted, regardless of whether or not they find a job. Typically, the "real" unemployment rate is twice the official number.

The govt. started this practice, along with jiggering the consumer price index, inflation rates and other statistics back in the days of President Peanut Farmer (a period of both high unemployment and high inflation) in order to both make the situation look better than it is and to allow the govt. to skip raising various benefits such social security which are tied to the inflation index, for example.