Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,476
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 2, 2016 20:33:39 GMT -5
"But he isn't wearing anything at all!"
|
|
marvholly
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 6,540
|
Post by marvholly on Feb 3, 2016 6:39:15 GMT -5
I too am thinking about moving but probably will not since kids & grands are here.
I am SOOO tired of disfunctional government both nationally & in my state (IL).
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Feb 3, 2016 7:02:16 GMT -5
Your new Governor has started the transformation of Illinois. Give it two years.
As Rahmn and Rauner rebuild Chicago into a liveable community things will turn around. Dismantling a broken school system and the teacher Union is only the beginning.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,385
|
Post by movingforward on Feb 3, 2016 9:15:10 GMT -5
The GOP got their undies in a twist the moment Obama took office. They decided the minute he won that they weren't going to work with him on anything period! As much as Republicans claim to dislike Bernie Sanders' policies my guess is they will work with him better than they did Obama. I still to this day haven't quite figured it out... I know, right? Because the Democrats fell in behind George W. Bush lock step. I could be wrong (it certainly wouldn't be the first time) but I don't recall any members of congress blantantly refusing to refer to George Bush as President Bush, standing up in the middle of a session and calling him a liar (though they certainly could have), or throwing 3 year old temper tantrums when they didn't get their way. For me personally, it is the matter of blatant disrespect that has been shown toward him by the GOP. It is unprofessional and unwarranted. It is not the way adult leaders of the free world should act.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 3, 2016 11:02:35 GMT -5
I know, right? Because the Democrats fell in behind George W. Bush lock step. I could be wrong (it certainly wouldn't be the first time) but I don't recall any members of congress blantantly refusing to refer to George Bush as President Bush, standing up in the middle of a session and calling him a liar (though they certainly could have), or throwing 3 year old temper tantrums when they didn't get their way. For me personally, it is the matter of blatant disrespect that has been shown toward him by the GOP. It is unprofessional and unwarranted. It is not the way adult leaders of the free world should act. It's your memory. There were plenty of slights, barbs, insults, disrespectful gestures, and tantrums by prominent Democrats directed as Pres. Bush, especially nearing the end of his term. The WSJ even wrote a scathing article about it in 2008. I'm not saying that the Democrats' treatment of Pres. Bush justifies ill treatment of Pres. Obama, nor does Pres. Obama's widely reputed disrespectful treatment of his political opponents justify it. I agree with you that it's unprofessional and unwarranted. But like most vices in American politics, no one party has a monopoly on it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 10:27:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2016 11:13:23 GMT -5
I could be wrong (it certainly wouldn't be the first time) but I don't recall any members of congress blantantly refusing to refer to George Bush as President Bush, standing up in the middle of a session and calling him a liar (though they certainly could have), or throwing 3 year old temper tantrums when they didn't get their way. For me personally, it is the matter of blatant disrespect that has been shown toward him by the GOP. It is unprofessional and unwarranted. It is not the way adult leaders of the free world should act. It's your memory. There were plenty of slights, barbs, insults, disrespectful gestures, and tantrums by prominent Democrats directed as Pres. Bush, especially nearing the end of his term. The WSJ even wrote a scathing article about it in 2008. I'm not saying that the Democrats' treatment of Pres. Bush justifies ill treatment of Pres. Obama, nor does Pres. Obama's widely reputed disrespectful treatment of his political opponents justify it. I agree with you that it's unprofessional and unwarranted. But like most vices in American politics, no one party has a monopoly on it.The Republocrats are kind of a super-party.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 3, 2016 11:20:09 GMT -5
It's your memory. There were plenty of slights, barbs, insults, disrespectful gestures, and tantrums by prominent Democrats directed as Pres. Bush, especially nearing the end of his term. The WSJ even wrote a scathing article about it in 2008. I'm not saying that the Democrats' treatment of Pres. Bush justifies ill treatment of Pres. Obama, nor does Pres. Obama's widely reputed disrespectful treatment of his political opponents justify it. I agree with you that it's unprofessional and unwarranted. But like most vices in American politics, no one party has a monopoly on it.The Republocrats are kind of a super-party. The good news is that more and more Americans are figuring that out. The bad news is that they don't seem to be doing anything about it except turning to anti-establishment candidates like Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders, who have their own spate of flaws and harmful ideas.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 10:27:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2016 11:25:21 GMT -5
The Republocrats are kind of a super-party. The good news is that more and more Americans are figuring that out. The bad news is that they don't seem to be doing anything about it except turning to anti-establishment candidates like Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders, who have their own spate of flaws and harmful ideas. You often say you are for small government, but also often say you are for government deciding who can live where. People have conflicting ideas.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 3, 2016 11:38:50 GMT -5
The good news is that more and more Americans are figuring that out. The bad news is that they don't seem to be doing anything about it except turning to anti-establishment candidates like Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders, who have their own spate of flaws and harmful ideas. You often say you are for small government, but also often say you are for government deciding who can live where. People have conflicting ideas. "You" referring to me specifically, or the universal 'you'? I doubt I've ever said I'm for "small government", mainly because the term "small government" is too general to mean anything to me. Nor do I recall commenting on "government deciding who can live where". Do I support national borders? Yes. That's an example of government deciding who can live where. Do I support every instance where an area is "protected" and closed off to development? No. But that's also an example of government deciding who can live where. More importantly, what do small government and government deciding who can live where have to do with people turning to anti-establishment candidates?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 10:27:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2016 11:49:22 GMT -5
Maybe I misinterpreted what you were saying. I see Trump as an example of people wanting something and see supporting Trump,as being against that same something. I thought you being for limited government (is that a fair?) and being for limits on immigration was an example of the same kind of thinking. I am not sure I am being clear. If not sorry
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 10:27:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2016 12:00:37 GMT -5
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 3, 2016 12:36:32 GMT -5
He was wrong on several issues, even though all in all, he stands head and shoulders above any other president in my lifetime.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,222
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 3, 2016 12:53:33 GMT -5
He was wrong on several issues, even though all in all, he stands head and shoulders above any other president in my lifetime. Heck, here is one where he stands above all other presidents in history: The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any US president. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration_scandals
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 3, 2016 12:58:37 GMT -5
He was wrong on several issues, even though all in all, he stands head and shoulders above any other president in my lifetime. Heck, here is one where he stands above all other presidents in history: The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any US president. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration_scandals ...like I said, despite not being perfect, he's STILL the greatest president of my 42 years on this spinning ball of joy.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 3, 2016 13:32:50 GMT -5
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,222
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 3, 2016 13:34:56 GMT -5
Heck, here is one where he stands above all other presidents in history: The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any US president. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration_scandals ...like I said, despite not being perfect, he's STILL the greatest president of my 42 years on this spinning ball of joy. He was president when you were between about 6 and 14, correct? Was it his invasion of Grenada that gives him that distinction as the greatest?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,469
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 3, 2016 13:41:13 GMT -5
That's not narcissism. I call that governing. He told Congress to work it out or he would. Congress became a failed branch of our government. Obama took office fully expecting to get things done. The GOP made it clear they wouldn't let him get anything passed. He thinks he's king. That isn't how our government works. he has the fewest EO's of any modern president. that doesn't seem very "kingly".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,469
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 3, 2016 13:44:32 GMT -5
He was wrong on several issues, even though all in all, he stands head and shoulders above any other president in my lifetime. are you aware that he presided over the largest tax hike in history? that he had the worst deficits of any president since FDR? that his administration was the most indicted in history? i think Reagan was a very effective president. perhaps the most effective in your lifetime. but in many respects, he is perhaps the most contemptible as well.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 3, 2016 17:29:19 GMT -5
Maybe I misinterpreted what you were saying. I see Trump as an example of people wanting something and see supporting Trump,as being against that same something. I thought you being for limited government (is that a fair?) and being for limits on immigration was an example of the same kind of thinking. I am not sure I am being clear. If not sorry I believe governments spend too bloody much. It's fair to say that. I support controls on immigration for the same reason: fiscal responsibility. A nation beats a hasty path to ruin by bringing in many people whose needs exceed their productive capacity. What would you say is something positive Trump can give American voters that people mistakenly believe he'd be a bane to?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 10:27:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2016 19:13:05 GMT -5
Maybe I misinterpreted what you were saying. I see Trump as an example of people wanting something and see supporting Trump,as being against that same something. I thought you being for limited government (is that a fair?) and being for limits on immigration was an example of the same kind of thinking. I am not sure I am being clear. If not sorry I believe governments spend too bloody much. It's fair to say that. I support controls on immigration for the same reason: fiscal responsibility. A nation beats a hasty path to ruin by bringing in many people whose needs exceed their productive capacity. What would you say is something positive Trump can give American voters that people mistakenly believe he'd be a bane to? I think most countries have a need for or at least can use more productive people. The woman from Mexico that cut my hair did not take someone else's job, she took her job. The Mexican construction workers who have a job locally while I do not did not take my job, they took their job. They were willing to do it for less, they were willing to put up with what I think are 'asshole' bosses. They are being productive. One of the guys I worked with, first picked apples when he came to the US. Then he got a job doing construction. He was a nice guy. I was his foreman. He did a good job, didnt speak a lot of english, but enough that I could tell him what to do and we could joke back and forth some. Last I heard he has started a restaurant. Maybe a nation beats a hasty path to destruction by denying people like him opportunities to make our country better. I don't think it is really a 'maybe', I think it is more of an 'assuredly'. I have purposefully tried not to learn anything about Trump. My first impressions of his campaign was it was embarrassing for media to be paying attention to such a clown. I thought he was the equivalent of Pat Paulson running. From what little I know I cannot think of anything positive to say about him. I have never watched his Apprentice show. I haven't ever watched him on talk shows. Whenever I have seen him on tv in passing, I thought he was a clown and a blowhard.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 10:27:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2016 19:15:36 GMT -5
You mean the Reagan who lost over 200 Marines in Lebanon, and then cut and ran?
It is not always better to stay and fight. Just look at the last 15 years for proof.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 3, 2016 19:33:12 GMT -5
The Butcher of Beirut didn't quite 'cut and run' per se, after the Marines were exploded. It was 3 1/2 months later. Not like they hadn't had reasons earlier.
There was this one:
Six months earlier, militants had bombed the U.S. embassy in Beirut, too, killing sixty-three more people, including seventeen Americans. Among the dead were seven C.I.A. officers, including the agency’s top analyst in the Middle East, an immensely valuable intelligence asset, and the Beirut station chief.
And this one:
In March of 1984, three months after Congress issued its report, militants struck American officials in Beirut again, this time kidnapping the C.I.A.’s station chief, Bill Buckley. Buckley was tortured and, eventually, murdered. Reagan, who was tormented by a tape of Buckley being tortured, blamed himself. Congress held no public hearings, and pointed fingers at the perpetrators, not at political rivals.
Oops!:
The story in Beirut wasn’t over. In September of 1984, for the third time in eighteen months, jihadists bombed a U.S. government outpost in Beirut yet again.
Of course 10 of our embassies were assaulted under Repo prez. This often overlooked truth is buried under 13 Benghazi investigations and 25,000 pages of Repo diarrhea. if you are going to blow smoke go top of the line and obscure everything you can.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 3, 2016 21:23:34 GMT -5
Heck, here is one where he stands above all other presidents in history: The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any US president. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration_scandals ...like I said, despite not being perfect, he's STILL the greatest president of my 42 years on this spinning ball of joy. Reagan is certainly the most overrated president we have ever had. His best qualities were that he looked presidential, he sounded presidential, and he made people feel good. Some people think that is enough. I don't.
My line during and just after the 2000 election was that, "The Reagan presidency is second only to the Viet Nam war as the greatest American disaster of the last half-century. This idiot (Bush) promises to be worse."
I don't even take into account all of the other problems that other posters have mentioned here. I base it on economic policy alone. It was the Reagan administration that created the idea that deficits and debt were "no big deal." It was the Reagan administration that championed the supply-side, tax-cuts-are-a-panacea-for-everything bull**** that his acolytes still try to push. Reagan didn't even govern that way. He continually raised taxes to try to make up for the initial way-too-large cuts that he started with, and the GOP STILL thinks tax cuts are a panacea.
Yes, he was out-of-touch with way too much, and didn't take enough things seriously. Yes, there was A LOT of criminal behavior in his administration. Yes, he was wrong on an awful lot of things, and even what some call his successes (such as the fall of the Soviet Union) would have happened without him. I still contend that the deficit and debt impacts of his administration are what led to where we are now, and will be what ultimately destroys this country.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 3, 2016 22:02:55 GMT -5
Look at all the rightwing paranoic furor over the treaty with Iran that involved the 5+ 1 countries....that's a lot of allies Obama worked with.
With Reagan we got trading a variety of arms to those Iranian Islamo-Fascists without a frickin' peep from that side of the aisle. then profits were skimmed so they could arm terrorists in an attempt to overthrow a democratically elected President because, you know, they just preferred the rightwing totalitarians 'down there'. Then, who can believe the cocaine 'lookaway' fueling the crack epidemic. Anybody paying attention.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,469
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 3, 2016 23:04:17 GMT -5
You mean the Reagan who lost over 200 Marines in Lebanon, and then cut and ran?
It is not always better to stay and fight. Just look at the last 15 years for proof. yeah, i will give him that. he sure taught Grenada a thing or two.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,469
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2016 0:06:08 GMT -5
Trump's claim about votes moving from Carson to Cruz is absolutely bogus. Carson was polling at 7.7% and he ended up at 9.3%. he lost NO votes as far as i can tell. this is Trump doing what he does. he is not taking responsibility for voters going sour on him. but he has not seen anything yet, if i am guessing right. here are the final numbers: Trump: 24.3 Cruz: 27.6 Rubio: 23.1 Carson: 9.3 here were the polling averages coming in: Trump: 28.6 Cruz: 23.9 Rubio: 16.9 Carson 7.7 here is the net change between the two: Trump: -4.5 Cruz: +3.7 Rubio: +6.2 Carson: +1.6 so, yes. Trump lost. and yes. Cruz gained. but so did Rubio, and, significantly, Carson. does Trump really think that Carson's OWN SUPPORTERS would not check to see if he had dropped out? is he INSANE? i am thinking he is maybe insane. PS- i just saw on FB that the PPP national poll has Trump up by only 4%. if that is the "new reality", he may be in serious trouble in NH. stay tuned, sports fans! PPS- if you look at the nomination thread, you will see that i pointed out that the last two elections in Iowa had an 8% swing over polling averages. this one was PRECISELY THE SAME. Trump went in leading by 4.7%, and he lost by 3.3%
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 4, 2016 6:03:41 GMT -5
I believe governments spend too bloody much. It's fair to say that. I support controls on immigration for the same reason: fiscal responsibility. A nation beats a hasty path to ruin by bringing in many people whose needs exceed their productive capacity. What would you say is something positive Trump can give American voters that people mistakenly believe he'd be a bane to? I think most countries have a need for or at least can use more productive people. The woman from Mexico that cut my hair did not take someone else's job, she took her job. The Mexican construction workers who have a job locally while I do not did not take my job, they took their job. They were willing to do it for less, they were willing to put up with what I think are 'asshole' bosses. They are being productive. One of the guys I worked with, first picked apples when he came to the US. Then he got a job doing construction. He was a nice guy. I was his foreman. He did a good job, didnt speak a lot of english, but enough that I could tell him what to do and we could joke back and forth some. Last I heard he has started a restaurant. Maybe a nation beats a hasty path to destruction by denying people like him opportunities to make our country better. I don't think it is really a 'maybe', I think it is more of an 'assuredly'. I have purposefully tried not to learn anything about Trump. My first impressions of his campaign was it was embarrassing for media to be paying attention to such a clown. I thought he was the equivalent of Pat Paulson running. From what little I know I cannot think of anything positive to say about him. I have never watched his Apprentice show. I haven't ever watched him on talk shows. Whenever I have seen him on tv in passing, I thought he was a clown and a blowhard. I think of productivity in terms of net resources and services consumed versus produced. Displacement of existing workers is only one factor in that equation. Without a doubt many immigrants are a net boon to the economy. Going back far enough, all of us are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. Unfortunately, there are also many immigrants who aren't net producers. Sensible, forward-looking immigration policy must consider classes of immigrants in aggregate. If, for example, for every three Mexicans admitted to the US, one proves to be a diligent worker and net boon of $25K per year to the US GDP, but two prove to be unproductive and a net draw of $15K per year each on American resources (via social welfare, medical care, need for policing, etc., combined with possibly displacing workers already here), then with no reliable way of distinguishing between the profitable individual and the two unprofitable ones, it remains in the US's best interests to deny entry to all three. I realize this isn't "fair" to the profitable individual, but life isn't fair, and the economic reality is what it is. The issue of illegal immigration is contentious because we lack any reliable means of gauging whether the individuals coming in over the US-Mexico border, considered in aggregate, are a net boon or a net bane to the US economy. Even if we could track their net production and consumption, we'd also have to consider how much money is spent on dealing with some of the unique problems they create and how they affect the net production v. consumption of American citizens (principally, the degree to which they displace legal citizens onto the unemployment rolls). We have no proven methods for tracking any of these things. As for your comments about Mr. Trump, if you claim not to know anything about him, I don't know what to make of your statement "I see Trump as an example of people wanting something and see supporting Trump,as being against that same something."
|
|
marvholly
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 6,540
|
Post by marvholly on Feb 4, 2016 6:44:25 GMT -5
Your new Governor has started the transformation of Illinois. Give it two years. As Rahmn and Rauner rebuild Chicago into a liveable community things will turn around. Dismantling a broken school system and the teacher Union is only the beginning.
I have live in/near Chicago ALL my 69 years. It just is NOT going to happen while Madigan is speaker and/or Karen Lewis CTU president. Also, I do NOT believe Rahmm & Rauner can get along well enough to turn things around. If the minority community has its way Rahmm is a lame duck. They have had it with him & his appointees (Police & CPS).
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Feb 4, 2016 7:54:32 GMT -5
I thought Karen Lewis resigned from leading the Union due to Cancer. She still in charge?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 10:27:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 8:52:31 GMT -5
I think most countries have a need for or at least can use more productive people. The woman from Mexico that cut my hair did not take someone else's job, she took her job. The Mexican construction workers who have a job locally while I do not did not take my job, they took their job. They were willing to do it for less, they were willing to put up with what I think are 'asshole' bosses. They are being productive. One of the guys I worked with, first picked apples when he came to the US. Then he got a job doing construction. He was a nice guy. I was his foreman. He did a good job, didnt speak a lot of english, but enough that I could tell him what to do and we could joke back and forth some. Last I heard he has started a restaurant. Maybe a nation beats a hasty path to destruction by denying people like him opportunities to make our country better. I don't think it is really a 'maybe', I think it is more of an 'assuredly'. I have purposefully tried not to learn anything about Trump. My first impressions of his campaign was it was embarrassing for media to be paying attention to such a clown. I thought he was the equivalent of Pat Paulson running. From what little I know I cannot think of anything positive to say about him. I have never watched his Apprentice show. I haven't ever watched him on talk shows. Whenever I have seen him on tv in passing, I thought he was a clown and a blowhard. I think of productivity in terms of net resources and services consumed versus produced. Displacement of existing workers is only one factor in that equation. Without a doubt many immigrants are a net boon to the economy. Going back far enough, all of us are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. Unfortunately, there are also many immigrants who aren't net producers. Sensible, forward-looking immigration policy must consider classes of immigrants in aggregate. If, for example, for every three Mexicans admitted to the US, one proves to be a diligent worker and net boon of $25K per year to the US GDP, but two prove to be unproductive and a net draw of $15K per year each on American resources (via social welfare, medical care, need for policing, etc., combined with possibly displacing workers already here), then with no reliable way of distinguishing between the profitable individual and the two unprofitable ones, it remains in the US's best interests to deny entry to all three. I realize this isn't "fair" to the profitable individual, but life isn't fair, and the economic reality is what it is. The issue of illegal immigration is contentious because we lack any reliable means of gauging whether the individuals coming in over the US-Mexico border, considered in aggregate, are a net boon or a net bane to the US economy. Even if we could track their net production and consumption, we'd also have to consider how much money is spent on dealing with some of the unique problems they create and how they affect the net production v. consumption of American citizens (principally, the degree to which they displace legal citizens onto the unemployment rolls). We have no proven methods for tracking any of these things. As for your comments about Mr. Trump, if you claim not to know anything about him, I don't know what to make of your statement "I see Trump as an example of people wanting something and see supporting Trump,as being against that same something." I have never understood the welfare argument. If some are taking advantage of welfare and others are not, it seems more sensible to limit welfare then to limit immigration. As for jobs, are you taking someone else's job where you work? If yes, you should quit, I think you understand stealing is wrong. Of course, it is not stealing or displacing,though, it is how a capitalism and the economics of freedom work. If we need more policing, per capita, because of immigration, (I do not think this is true) so be it. Freedom is worth paying a lit bit more for. My core belief is that our rights are God given and just protected (or not) by government. If I have a right, it is wrong of me to want to deny that right to someone else. I think I have a right to go where I need to and to do what I need to to get a job. Within the non aggression rule I hold as basis of my beliefs. You may be right on Trump, maybe I do not know enough about him to think he is a clown and a fraud. It is my continuing impression of him though. eta: Someone might quibble that, technically, it is 'displacing'. I can see that argument. I kind of see that argument, but mostly dont think enough of it to care. It just means our economy is fluid and workers move around.
|
|