So why do (especially AT P&N) socialists think it's ok to take from those who rightfully earned?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
bamacre, can we farm out our charity tax dollars to private groups based on tracking their competitive efficiencies in delivering actual help. Could such a thing even be measured on any meaningful way?

I know that people do not value what they do not earn and all real gifts are given, therefore, without any knowledge on the part of the recipient that they are a gift but as something that one has somehow earned. But such a notion is why beyond where we are at as a society, it seems to me. I saw a thing on some Sacramento non-profit, damned if I can remember the name, though it's on the tip of my tongue, that hires the disabled and still breaks even. Started up in a church and very impressive, in my opinion.


Nah, I don't think that is something one can measure really. I mean, if someone spends their life helping animals, does one respond by asking them why not spend their time helping humans instead? Who chooses who they love, right? But our diversity comes into play here, wealthy asthmatics give to poorer asthmatics, wealthy blacks give to poorer blacks. Alumni give to those who need an education.

And when the money comes from the heart, there is more oversight. Governments less so, and governments are corruptable by nature, that is why our founding fathers created a government in the manner in which they did. Checks and balances, little power. They went into creating a government with the belief that government wasn't good, albeit necessary.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
I wonder if these same people who argue that illegals take up everyone's social services even realize that at worst they comprise 4-5% of the US population, meaning everything else equal they literally couldn't physically have much of an impact on social service uses (which I agree, is unfair). And that, additionally, they commit crimes at a lower rate than legal American citizens.

But I guess if you're that far gone from reality, statistics don't really matter.

Link?

http://www.azstarnet.com/news/171109
http://www.ocregister.com/ocre...al/article_1592092.php
http://www.topix.com/forum/state/ca/TEQQK34APT5OULCUD

I don't see how they could have a lower rate when every single one of them broke the law. 100% rate for illegals is less than legals? Hmm....

That's silly. How many people have broken the law by speeding in their cars?

If you cant see the difference between speeding and entering a sovereign country illegally you have issues. I guess you might as well throw child rape in there too. Why not...violating the law is violating the law right?

So you have no argument, right? Actually, you sort of do...just for the wrong side. Obviously violating the law ISN'T violating the law, so that 100% law breaking rate for illegals isn't really relevant any more than the 100% law breaking rate for legal citizens should be part of the argument. The real issue is the IMPACT of breaking the law...which I don't believe you've made even the slightest attempt to argue. I'll submit that entering a country illegally is "worse" than speeding (although I've never almost been killed by an illegal alien), but there are also a lot of crimes much worse than illegal entry.

Well, we all have our opinions I guess. Me personally? if we actually enfore immigration our prisons qwould be less crowded (significantly? Maybe not, but every bit counts). Many illegals who commit crimes are shown to repeat their crimes. There have been several cases recently of illegals commiting multiple felonies, including rape and murder, and if we had deported them the first time they were arrested under Immigration and Nationality Act, then those families would still have their loved ones.

How about SS fraud? Not an issue for you? I guess youre entitled to your opinion.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
11
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
I wonder if these same people who argue that illegals take up everyone's social services even realize that at worst they comprise 4-5% of the US population, meaning everything else equal they literally couldn't physically have much of an impact on social service uses (which I agree, is unfair). And that, additionally, they commit crimes at a lower rate than legal American citizens.

But I guess if you're that far gone from reality, statistics don't really matter.

Link?

http://www.azstarnet.com/news/171109
http://www.ocregister.com/ocre...al/article_1592092.php
http://www.topix.com/forum/state/ca/TEQQK34APT5OULCUD

I don't see how they could have a lower rate when every single one of them broke the law. 100% rate for illegals is less than legals? Hmm....

That's silly. How many people have broken the law by speeding in their cars?

If you cant see the difference between speeding and entering a sovereign country illegally you have issues. I guess you might as well throw child rape in there too. Why not...violating the law is violating the law right?

Why is it valid to compare entering the country illegally with rape, robbery and murder but not speeding?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
I wonder if these same people who argue that illegals take up everyone's social services even realize that at worst they comprise 4-5% of the US population, meaning everything else equal they literally couldn't physically have much of an impact on social service uses (which I agree, is unfair). And that, additionally, they commit crimes at a lower rate than legal American citizens.

But I guess if you're that far gone from reality, statistics don't really matter.

Link?

http://www.azstarnet.com/news/171109
http://www.ocregister.com/ocre...al/article_1592092.php
http://www.topix.com/forum/state/ca/TEQQK34APT5OULCUD

I don't see how they could have a lower rate when every single one of them broke the law. 100% rate for illegals is less than legals? Hmm....

That's silly. How many people have broken the law by speeding in their cars?

If you cant see the difference between speeding and entering a sovereign country illegally you have issues. I guess you might as well throw child rape in there too. Why not...violating the law is violating the law right?

Why is it valid to compare entering the country illegally with rape, robbery and murder but not speeding?

huh? I made that comparison. Well I didnt, you did.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Balt
Originally posted by: hellokeith
This has been bothering me for a while, and I still can't figure out the thought process.

1. Person works hard, plays by the rules, and makes money.
2. Person does not work hard and makes excuses, blames others, waits for handouts.
3. Socialist takes money from #1 and gives to #2, in exchange for continued political/economic power.

How is this not agreed upon by a concensus as ethically wrong? Even illegal?

I am not at all a socialist, but your argument is fallacious.

You can't assume that the amount of money made has much to do with how hard someone works. How do you determine how much someone works? Calories burned? Physical exertion? If that were the case, then some of the poorest people in the country are the ones who have worked the hardest.

We all know Paris Hilton earned her money through hard work. I mean she wasn't a trust fund baby who was lucky to be born out of the right vagina in life.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,699
6,195
126
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Assuming that you are correct why is that a problem? Unanswered questions here, to my mind are, what is a mob and what are the problems with mobs, are there limit to mobs that limit whatever problems they may cause to an effective degree, say in comparison to other forms of government? If not, what alternative(s) do you suggest that you can express in ordinary everyday words?

Eliminate political authority. In other words, people should do whatever they want to do without worrying about what anyone else 'votes' for or thinks. And if someone has a problem with what someone else is doing, they need to take direct action with that person, instead of living in fear of these 'bogeymen' that the polticians have conjured up (i.e. 'terrorists' from 3rd world countries or 'robber barons' here at home).

So in a nutshell I promote direct individual and private action. No more taxes, no more regulations.

Well it seems to me that individual private action was all the authority there ever used to be for millions of years of human evolution. The good point about that is that we may be very well genetically suited for such a situation, but on the other side of the coin our development out of a past primitive condition seems to be a result of forced organization of one kind or another. Then too there is the matter of warfare between groups and the most successful of those seems to have landed us right where we are, no?

I would say that humans are just too smart not to organize around political aims and it seems that democratic societies do this in a way that attempts to mitigate negative effects.

Anyway, it would be nice, in my opinion, to see how your system would develop in a real world trial. It might be interesting also, as a game if it could be modeled as one.

As I am not deeply schooled in your way of thinking I may have misdiagnosed what appear to me as faults.

Edit: Also, since we are already far from the reality of what you suggest, how are we going to get there? How are we going to eliminate political authority. The politically authoritative, I should think, might not be so willing to resign, no? It would seem that some other political authority would be required to overthrow those in power and then they would be in power. How do you eliminate the drive to power when everybody seems to want it. Seems like most of your time would go to direct action against other people and very little time being left alone, no?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,699
6,195
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
bamacre, can we farm out our charity tax dollars to private groups based on tracking their competitive efficiencies in delivering actual help. Could such a thing even be measured on any meaningful way?

I know that people do not value what they do not earn and all real gifts are given, therefore, without any knowledge on the part of the recipient that they are a gift but as something that one has somehow earned. But such a notion is why beyond where we are at as a society, it seems to me. I saw a thing on some Sacramento non-profit, damned if I can remember the name, though it's on the tip of my tongue, that hires the disabled and still breaks even. Started up in a church and very impressive, in my opinion.


Nah, I don't think that is something one can measure really. I mean, if someone spends their life helping animals, does one respond by asking them why not spend their time helping humans instead? Who chooses who they love, right? But our diversity comes into play here, wealthy asthmatics give to poorer asthmatics, wealthy blacks give to poorer blacks. Alumni give to those who need an education.

And when the money comes from the heart, there is more oversight. Governments less so, and governments are corruptable by nature, that is why our founding fathers created a government in the manner in which they did. Checks and balances, little power. They went into creating a government with the belief that government wasn't good, albeit necessary.

I guess my problem is with what I assume is the fact, that need far outstrips voluntary giving. I can imagine people giving more if the government weren't also reaching into their wallet and relieving them of money and guilt, but I am not sure voluntary giving could ever cover need. But I think it did for our ancient ancestors who took care of the 'east' their members because everybody had a vital role to play in survival.

The same thing applies here as my questions regarding Dissipate's argument, that organization by some sort of artificial force, religious belief, government funding, etc, is required to scale up to high level organization just as it is with high level military capacity.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: Balt
Originally posted by: hellokeith
This has been bothering me for a while, and I still can't figure out the thought process.

1. Person works hard, plays by the rules, and makes money.
2. Person does not work hard and makes excuses, blames others, waits for handouts.
3. Socialist takes money from #1 and gives to #2, in exchange for continued political/economic power.

How is this not agreed upon by a concensus as ethically wrong? Even illegal?

I am not at all a socialist, but your argument is fallacious.

You can't assume that the amount of money made has much to do with how hard someone works. How do you determine how much someone works? Calories burned? Physical exertion? If that were the case, then some of the poorest people in the country are the ones who have worked the hardest.

We all know Paris Hilton earned her money through hard work. I mean she wasn't a trust fund baby who was lucky to be born out of the right vagina in life.

you realize that is an empty argument because trust fund babies in the top eschelon are few. For example, in the Forbes 20, only two-the Mars family-didnt create their wealth themselves. They participate in the business, but didnt create it. I guess one other exception would be the (I believe) youngest Walton who is not in the bisness. The other Waltons worked side by side with their father.

Hard work and some luck creates wealth.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
11
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
I wonder if these same people who argue that illegals take up everyone's social services even realize that at worst they comprise 4-5% of the US population, meaning everything else equal they literally couldn't physically have much of an impact on social service uses (which I agree, is unfair). And that, additionally, they commit crimes at a lower rate than legal American citizens.

But I guess if you're that far gone from reality, statistics don't really matter.

Link?

http://www.azstarnet.com/news/171109
http://www.ocregister.com/ocre...al/article_1592092.php
http://www.topix.com/forum/state/ca/TEQQK34APT5OULCUD

I don't see how they could have a lower rate when every single one of them broke the law. 100% rate for illegals is less than legals? Hmm....

That's silly. How many people have broken the law by speeding in their cars?

If you cant see the difference between speeding and entering a sovereign country illegally you have issues. I guess you might as well throw child rape in there too. Why not...violating the law is violating the law right?

Why is it valid to compare entering the country illegally with rape, robbery and murder but not speeding?

huh? I made that comparison. Well I didnt, you did.

You didn't contest the original comparison of the "crime" rates of illegals (being 100% due to illegal entry into the US) versus legal citizens. Let me flip your original question and ask you if believe there is a difference between entering the country illegally and murder, rape, and robbery?
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Assuming that you are correct why is that a problem? Unanswered questions here, to my mind are, what is a mob and what are the problems with mobs, are there limit to mobs that limit whatever problems they may cause to an effective degree, say in comparison to other forms of government? If not, what alternative(s) do you suggest that you can express in ordinary everyday words?

Eliminate political authority. In other words, people should do whatever they want to do without worrying about what anyone else 'votes' for or thinks. And if someone has a problem with what someone else is doing, they need to take direct action with that person, instead of living in fear of these 'bogeymen' that the polticians have conjured up (i.e. 'terrorists' from 3rd world countries or 'robber barons' here at home).

So in a nutshell I promote direct individual and private action. No more taxes, no more regulations.

Then all we would have is a system where only the strongest (measured a number of different ways) survive. Call me a pessimist, but I don't think such a society would turn out very well...if only because there are too many people who are just generally assholes for that to work. Everyone for himself only works in Heinlein books.

So outside of government where are all of these so-called roving bandits? The vast majority of people are simply good people who want to live their lives, and of course they would band together, just as they have now under a state. The only difference is that they would no long arbitrarily send money off to anonymous bureaucrats, supporting things they would never otherwise support.

Read my lips: society won't collapse just because people are no longer forced or coerced into supporting things they wouldn't otherwise support.

What exactly do you think government IS? It's people banding together to form something greater than themselves. The appearance of a faceless state and anonymous bureaucrats comes from the sheer size and complexity of this "banding together" because of the large number of people involved. "Government" is simply people banding together writ large. Society has tried doing in on a small scale for thousands of years before the modern day form of government, and it generally did not work very well, and gave rise to exactly the sort of "roving bandits" I'd be concerned about in your anarchist paradise.

Everyone likes to treat the government as something separate from society, but it's not...it is simply how a large, cohesive society works. You simply can't have a stable society on a large scale without a way to settle disputes and provide for common needs. Do you think its a coincidence that the advancement of society in terms of art, science and technology coincided very closely with large, stable nations? Your fantasy of everyone for himself was tried for thousands of years, during which time we advanced hardly at all...sometimes going backwards for centuries at a time. People may generally be decent, but history has shown that human attitudes do not scale well to a society at large.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Snipped for space

You didn't contest the original comparison of the "crime" rates of illegals (being 100% due to illegal entry into the US) versus legal citizens. Let me flip your original question and ask you if believe there is a difference between entering the country illegally and murder, rape, and robbery?

Look. you are the one who said "How many people have broken the law by speeding in their cars?" in response to the 100% law breaking rate of illegals, implying everyone breaks the law. Or did you not mean that? Unless you think think speeding is just as serious as entering a soverign nation illegally?
 

rpanic

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2006
1,896
7
81
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
I wonder if these same people who argue that illegals take up everyone's social services even realize that at worst they comprise 4-5% of the US population, meaning everything else equal they literally couldn't physically have much of an impact on social service uses (which I agree, is unfair). And that, additionally, they commit crimes at a lower rate than legal American citizens.

But I guess if you're that far gone from reality, statistics don't really matter.

Link?

http://www.azstarnet.com/news/171109
http://www.ocregister.com/ocre...al/article_1592092.php
http://www.topix.com/forum/state/ca/TEQQK34APT5OULCUD

I don't see how they could have a lower rate when every single one of them broke the law. 100% rate for illegals is less than legals? Hmm....

That's silly. How many people have broken the law by speeding in their cars?

If you cant see the difference between speeding and entering a sovereign country illegally you have issues. I guess you might as well throw child rape in there too. Why not...violating the law is violating the law right?

Why is it valid to compare entering the country illegally with rape, robbery and murder but not speeding?

huh? I made that comparison. Well I didnt, you did.

You didn't contest the original comparison of the "crime" rates of illegals (being 100% due to illegal entry into the US) versus legal citizens. Let me flip your original question and ask you if believe there is a difference between entering the country illegally and murder, rape, and robbery?

What about the crime rate of their offspring, when Jose and Lupe have six kids on a household income of 12-18k and neither has much of an education or speaks English how are they suppose to help their kids get a education or even know how to point their kids in the right direction? What happens to their kids, they are going to want all the things that everyone else has, but will utterly lack any tools for success?

Now repeat the above by millions and you have a serious problem, that?s compounded by them forming and expanding there own communities, and the problem gets bigger and bigger feeding on itself with no end in sight. They will be a permanently impoverished class, no matter what the US does. The burden will never stop increasing until something breaks.

There is a reason why they have to come illegally, because our country doesn?t want them. Other countries need to take care of their own problems and stop shipping them here. The county shouldn?t have to be a giant welfare program for every screwed up country that can?t control their birth rates.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: blackangst1

you realize that is an empty argument because trust fund babies in the top eschelon are few. For example, in the Forbes 20, only two-the Mars family-didnt create their wealth themselves. They participate in the business, but didnt create it. I guess one other exception would be the (I believe) youngest Walton who is not in the bisness.

The other Waltons worked side by side with their father.

Hard work and some luck creates wealth.

Bull crap

Yes, when he was alive but as soon as he kicked the bucket they sold the business out to China. Something Sam would've never done.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
11
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Snipped for space

You didn't contest the original comparison of the "crime" rates of illegals (being 100% due to illegal entry into the US) versus legal citizens. Let me flip your original question and ask you if believe there is a difference between entering the country illegally and murder, rape, and robbery?

Look. you are the one who said "How many people have broken the law by speeding in their cars?" in response to the 100% law breaking rate of illegals, implying everyone breaks the law. Or did you not mean that? Unless you think think speeding is just as serious as entering a soverign nation illegally?

Yes, it was meant to imply that everyone breaks the law and show the silliness of the comparison with illegally entering the country, i.e. breaking the law, and someone murdering, raping, or robbing someone, also breaking the law.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: blackangst1

you realize that is an empty argument because trust fund babies in the top eschelon are few. For example, in the Forbes 20, only two-the Mars family-didnt create their wealth themselves. They participate in the business, but didnt create it. I guess one other exception would be the (I believe) youngest Walton who is not in the bisness.

The other Waltons worked side by side with their father.

Hard work and some luck creates wealth.

Bull crap

Yes, when he was alive but as soon as he kicked the bucket they sold the business out to China. Something Sam would've never done.

I was going to say proof or retract, but I decided to prove you wrong and call you a bullshit liar again.

From the beginning, Sam Walton and Wal-Mart focused on buying goods as cheaply as possible, which often meant buying imports

(A few snips to save space)

Early in his company's spectacular expansion, "Mr. Sam," as everyone called him, decided to reach across the Pacific and make imports a pillar of Wal-Mart's business model. Forcing his American suppliers to cut costs, stressing sales volume over high margins, and wowing customers by showcasing one super low-priced item in each category -- all hinged on importing to find the cheapest prices.

"Sam was an advocate of importing. It was his vision," said a retired senior executive, who was a buyer in Wal-Mart's Hong Kong office in the 1980s, and who asked to keep his identity private. "Our first office was in Hong Kong, then Taiwan. Korea soon after. We'd visit factories, see how they store goods. You would look at every step of the process very carefully."

"From the beginning, Walton had bought goods wherever he could get them cheapest, with any other considerations secondary," writes Bob Ortega, author of the Wal-Mart history, In Sam We Trust. By the early 1980s, Ortega reports, Walton "increasingly looked to imports, which were usually cheaper because factory workers were paid so much less in China and the other Asian countries."

According to Ortega, Walton himself estimated that imports accounted for nearly 6 percent of Wal-Mart's total sales in 1984. But another observer of that period, Frank Yuan, a former Taiwan-based apparel middleman, who dealt with Wal-Mart in the 1980s, puts the number, including indirect imports, at around 40 percent from "day one." Either way, Walton's vision was a harbinger of far vaster global sourcing today.

And so it is equally true -- and far less well known -- that Sam Walton was the architect of Wal-Mart's unpublicized "Buy Asia" program.

So by the time Wal-Mart opened its first buying office in Hong Kong in 1981, "manufacturers were already very competent in Taiwan," said Gary Hamilton, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington. "There was already a high level of confidence and responsiveness that allowed Wal-Mart to rapidly expand."

===================================================

And on and on. Youre full of shit. As usual.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Snipped for space

You didn't contest the original comparison of the "crime" rates of illegals (being 100% due to illegal entry into the US) versus legal citizens. Let me flip your original question and ask you if believe there is a difference between entering the country illegally and murder, rape, and robbery?

Look. you are the one who said "How many people have broken the law by speeding in their cars?" in response to the 100% law breaking rate of illegals, implying everyone breaks the law. Or did you not mean that? Unless you think think speeding is just as serious as entering a soverign nation illegally?

Yes, it was meant to imply that everyone breaks the law and show the silliness of the comparison with illegally entering the country, i.e. breaking the law, and someone murdering, raping, or robbing someone, also breaking the law.

Fine. We misunderstood each other.

Doesnt change the fact the 100% of illegal aliens are breaking the law.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
11
0
Originally posted by: rpanic
What about the crime rate of their offspring, when Jose and Lupe have six kids on a household income of 12-18k and neither has much of an education or speaks English how are they suppose to help their kids get a education or even know how to point their kids in the right direction? What happens to their kids, they are going to want all the things that everyone else has, but will utterly lack any tools for success?

Now repeat the above by millions and you have a serious problem, that?s compounded by them forming and expanding there own communities, and the problem gets bigger and bigger feeding on itself with no end in sight. They will be a permanently impoverished class, no matter what the US does. The burden will never stop increasing until something breaks.

There is a reason why they have to come illegally, because our country doesn?t want them. Other countries need to take care of their own problems and stop shipping them here. The county shouldn?t have to be a giant welfare program for every screwed up country that can?t control their birth rates.

If I had the answer, I'd be President. And btw, this "problem" isn't just limited to illegal immigrants. What do you do about people here legally?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: rpanic
What about the crime rate of their offspring, when Jose and Lupe have six kids on a household income of 12-18k and neither has much of an education or speaks English how are they suppose to help their kids get a education or even know how to point their kids in the right direction? What happens to their kids, they are going to want all the things that everyone else has, but will utterly lack any tools for success?

Now repeat the above by millions and you have a serious problem, that?s compounded by them forming and expanding there own communities, and the problem gets bigger and bigger feeding on itself with no end in sight. They will be a permanently impoverished class, no matter what the US does. The burden will never stop increasing until something breaks.

There is a reason why they have to come illegally, because our country doesn?t want them. Other countries need to take care of their own problems and stop shipping them here. The county shouldn?t have to be a giant welfare program for every screwed up country that can?t control their birth rates.

If I had the answer, I'd be President. And btw, this "problem" isn't just limited to illegal immigrants. What do you do about people here legally?

Do you know what legal immigrants have to do to get here? I do. I immigrated my wife. Among other things, they need proof of a clean record of every city that lived in in their home country, as well as an FBI background check. Of course there are exceptions, but for the most part legal aliens arent criminals.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
11
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: rpanic
What about the crime rate of their offspring, when Jose and Lupe have six kids on a household income of 12-18k and neither has much of an education or speaks English how are they suppose to help their kids get a education or even know how to point their kids in the right direction? What happens to their kids, they are going to want all the things that everyone else has, but will utterly lack any tools for success?

Now repeat the above by millions and you have a serious problem, that?s compounded by them forming and expanding there own communities, and the problem gets bigger and bigger feeding on itself with no end in sight. They will be a permanently impoverished class, no matter what the US does. The burden will never stop increasing until something breaks.

There is a reason why they have to come illegally, because our country doesn?t want them. Other countries need to take care of their own problems and stop shipping them here. The county shouldn?t have to be a giant welfare program for every screwed up country that can?t control their birth rates.

If I had the answer, I'd be President. And btw, this "problem" isn't just limited to illegal immigrants. What do you do about people here legally?

Do you know what legal immigrants have to do to get here? I do. I immigrated my wife. Among other things, they need proof of a clean record of every city that lived in in their home country, as well as an FBI background check. Of course there are exceptions, but for the most part legal aliens arent criminals.

What are you talking about? rpanic was talking about the children.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Originally posted by: hellokeith
This has been bothering me for a while, and I still can't figure out the thought process.

1. Person works hard, plays by the rules, and makes money.
2. Person does not work hard and makes excuses, blames others, waits for handouts.
3. Socialist takes money from #1 and gives to #2, in exchange for continued political/economic power.

How is this not agreed upon by a concensus as ethically wrong? Even illegal?

First of all, it's the capitalist in this government that's been stealing money from the people. How much money have people connected to Bush and Cheney made from this war in Iraq? And you are ignorant to think only people who don't work hard needs help from government. There are elderly, there are people with disabilities, there are people who didn't have the proper education, training, and no guidance on where to get those educations, and there are people who are just down on their luck, all those people deserves assistance from the government, the society.

You probably never read any foreign history and see how communism developed in Russia, China, Cuba and bunch other countries. If you had, you'd realize that what helped communism is not people you labeled socialist, but those capitalist/upper class people who stole too much from the people, and as a result poor people revolt and made those countries communist.
 

rpanic

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2006
1,896
7
81
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: rpanic
What about the crime rate of their offspring, when Jose and Lupe have six kids on a household income of 12-18k and neither has much of an education or speaks English how are they suppose to help their kids get a education or even know how to point their kids in the right direction? What happens to their kids, they are going to want all the things that everyone else has, but will utterly lack any tools for success?

Now repeat the above by millions and you have a serious problem, that?s compounded by them forming and expanding there own communities, and the problem gets bigger and bigger feeding on itself with no end in sight. They will be a permanently impoverished class, no matter what the US does. The burden will never stop increasing until something breaks.

There is a reason why they have to come illegally, because our country doesn?t want them. Other countries need to take care of their own problems and stop shipping them here. The county shouldn?t have to be a giant welfare program for every screwed up country that can?t control their birth rates.

If I had the answer, I'd be President. And btw, this "problem" isn't just limited to illegal immigrants. What do you do about people here legally?

blackangst1 I also wasn?t talking about legal immigrants. blackangst1


Indeed its not, I know that is not just illegals, but there is no reason to add to the problems that this country already has to deal with.

I think people should be talking more about populations as a whole more than immigration. We are already seeing the signs of basic resources being pushed to their limits. Technology is only going to help so far our environment isn?t going to keep working for us forever.

At some point the world and all of its countries including the US are going to have to come together and work something out and a lot of people are not going to like it. People always freak out whenever you talk about reproductive rights but it has to be addressed. Most of the first world countries have populations that have stabilized, and the same needs to happen everywhere else.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: senseamp
It's the price you pay for living in a democratic society. Freedom isn't free.

No, it is the price we will pay if Hillary and the Communists get their way.

Until then, this is a Democracy.

And all the taxes and social programs have been passed and signed by people's elected representatives. Get over it.

What if the people's elected representatives decided that every 10th person should be put to death? Should we just get over that too? Or would you suddenly change your mind if it turned out you were one of the 10th?

I've been noticing an odd trend of highly conservative and authoritarian statements from you. I used to think it's because you are a troll, but now I'm just convinced that you're an idiot. Here's a tip: defending the status quo of the authority power structure isn't a liberal or progressive trait.

Wait, you are against the democratic system, yet you call me an idiot. Good one.
We have representative democracy which passed these laws, and we have an independent judiciary that upheld them. If representatives decided every 10th person should be killed, the USSC would overturn it as unconstitutional. So it's a completely idiotic red herring, as expected from your ilk.

Maybe you should start going after everyone that is complaining about the Iraq war, our representative democracy sent us over there. So there should be no complaining right?

Sure, you can complain, I am not stopping you. If you convince enough people to change the system to some anarchic tax free nirvana you envision, you are just going to have to live with the fact that the current tax system is an outcome of our representative democratic political system, just like I have to live with the fact that we are stuck in Iraq until we elect some representative (president) to take us out of that sh!thole.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: rpanic
What about the crime rate of their offspring, when Jose and Lupe have six kids on a household income of 12-18k and neither has much of an education or speaks English how are they suppose to help their kids get a education or even know how to point their kids in the right direction? What happens to their kids, they are going to want all the things that everyone else has, but will utterly lack any tools for success?

Now repeat the above by millions and you have a serious problem, that?s compounded by them forming and expanding there own communities, and the problem gets bigger and bigger feeding on itself with no end in sight. They will be a permanently impoverished class, no matter what the US does. The burden will never stop increasing until something breaks.

There is a reason why they have to come illegally, because our country doesn?t want them. Other countries need to take care of their own problems and stop shipping them here. The county shouldn?t have to be a giant welfare program for every screwed up country that can?t control their birth rates.

If I had the answer, I'd be President. And btw, this "problem" isn't just limited to illegal immigrants. What do you do about people here legally?

Do you know what legal immigrants have to do to get here? I do. I immigrated my wife. Among other things, they need proof of a clean record of every city that lived in in their home country, as well as an FBI background check. Of course there are exceptions, but for the most part legal aliens arent criminals.

What are you talking about? rpanic was talking about the children.

If someone is here legally, and they have a child, why should the child NOT be a citizen? If everything is legal I dont have a problem with it.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: rpanic
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: rpanic
What about the crime rate of their offspring, when Jose and Lupe have six kids on a household income of 12-18k and neither has much of an education or speaks English how are they suppose to help their kids get a education or even know how to point their kids in the right direction? What happens to their kids, they are going to want all the things that everyone else has, but will utterly lack any tools for success?

Now repeat the above by millions and you have a serious problem, that?s compounded by them forming and expanding there own communities, and the problem gets bigger and bigger feeding on itself with no end in sight. They will be a permanently impoverished class, no matter what the US does. The burden will never stop increasing until something breaks.

There is a reason why they have to come illegally, because our country doesn?t want them. Other countries need to take care of their own problems and stop shipping them here. The county shouldn?t have to be a giant welfare program for every screwed up country that can?t control their birth rates.

If I had the answer, I'd be President. And btw, this "problem" isn't just limited to illegal immigrants. What do you do about people here legally?

blackangst1 I also wasn?t talking about legal immigrants. blackangst1


Indeed its not, I know that is not just illegals, but there is no reason to add to the problems that this country already has to deal with.

I think people should be talking more about populations as a whole more than immigration. We are already seeing the signs of basic resources being pushed to their limits. Technology is only going to help so far our environment isn?t going to keep working for us forever.

At some point the world and all of its countries including the US are going to have to come together and work something out and a lot of people are not going to like it. People always freak out whenever you talk about reproductive rights but it has to be addressed. Most of the first world countries have populations that have stabilized, and the same needs to happen everywhere else.

I also wasn?t talking about legal immigrants

Acknowledged and understood
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: ebaycj
70% is too much. But I would say that 45-48% is not.

:shocked:

So the guy working at Burger King making $6.50/hr should be happy about only taking home $3.75/hr, because illegals' anchor babies need public schooling, free lunches, free transportation, free (universal) health care, and unfettered emergency room access? Heck, he might as well kick in another 5% so the illegals can stay..

NO, if you look at the post I quoted, they were talking about the TOP TAX BRACKET.

Also known as the "I AM MAKING OVER $349,000 PER YEAR" Tax bracket.


So, no. People making $6.50 an hour (however pitiful that is) should NOT be happy about taking home $3.75 an hour. Because IN REALITY (under the current system) they would probably be taking home around $5.75 - $6.00 an hour, due to their low income..

Nice troll post..
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |