Jump to content

The Trump Shutdown


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I was wondering about contrbutions in addition to the alternatives.  Reading your earlier post, you implied the shutdown impacts you personally, but indicated "fortunately". Was that a typo, or is it a good time to be furloughed? 

 

Ha, typo.  Immigration is something I do basic-level charity on, but I don't think I would be up for supporting a formal contribution process.  My rankings go: (1) me and my family; (2) people; and then (3) Americans.  So unless I made it to a place financially where me funding something wouldn't effect my or my family, I wouldn't be in support of that.  Good question though!

Edited by Crayola64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

27 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Actually, since immigrants are more likely to be of working age, there's likely to be a net benefit to Social Security and Medicare if you increase legal immigration.

 

However, Medicaid's a different problem altogether.

 

Yes, short term there would be a bump in revenues if more working people paid into SS and Medicare, but at current rates the average income earner pays in less than they draw in benefits plus there are additional draws of funds for disability folks.  All in all the programs aren't self funding at current rates of taxation.  Long term adding more people makes the programs more upside down. 

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/

 

 

27 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Haha, well aren't you then asking for my views on taxes, health care, and government benefits?  But yea, I would like all of those things to be used to help everyone who needs it.

 

I don't want to go down that route, but to my original point, the thought of a wall being a significant-enough aid to spend 6 billion dollars on or shutdown the government over makes me chuckle.  Fortunately, neither the shutdown nor immigration effect me personally.  

 

It would be better if there wasn't a case for much greater security and if our leadership could go to the leadership of neighboring nations and get their help in solving the problem.  Managing visa overstays and greater drug enforcement wouldn't be terribly costly on their own with a little help from our friends. 

Edited by keepthefaith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Ha, typo.  Immigration is something I do basic-level charity on, but I don't think I would be up for supporting a formal contribution process.  My rankings go: (1) me and my family; (2) people; and then (3) Americans.  So unless I made it to a place financially where me funding something wouldn't effect my or my family, I wouldn't be in support of that.  Good question though!

Even the most altruistic among of us has a price point, I just wanted to get a gauge on yours.  The open borders crowd is one extreme, I suppose on the right would be the close it all down crowd.  The problem is that those of us in the middle carry the weight of both extremes.  Personally, I'd be willing to pay a percentage of my income to help solve the problem, over and above the overly burdensome rate that I pay.  The only caveat would be that there was a reasonable likelihood that the problem would be solved.  I say that because in my world, my priorities are 1. My family 2. Everyone else (with a whole subset of folks in that group).  

 

Obviously, that is not going to happen, and the establishment types are perfectly winning to keep the status quo. The cool part for them is they already collect the tribute on a state, local and federal level.  The way I see it, this is as good a line in the sand as any. 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, keepthefaith said:

 

On any given day, do you bring value to anything? 

 

Peameal?

 

Seriously. How does a Canadian manage to screw up bacon?

 

Oh, wait. Let me guess. Step one...hire a cross dresser as your PM. Step two...try to explain that the reason Canada sucks at hockey has nothing to do with the fact that even Canadians know they need to go to the US to have a chance at winning.

 

Or something like that.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote


 

 

DAVOS, Switzerland — Fears are rising about the state of the world’s biggest economies, with China posting its worst annual growth in decades and the United States injecting more uncertainty with tariffs and a lengthy government shutdown. 

China reported Monday that its economy expanded by 6.6 percent last year — a figure that would be good for many countries but represents the slowest growth for China in 28 years. Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund downgraded its expectations for the global economy, highlighting sharp declines in Europe and warning that the risks of a major slowdown have increased.

The pair of announcements came as top executives and world leaders gathered in this ritzy ski resort town for the annual World Economic Forum. In contrast to a year ago — when President Trump and other world leaders talked about global prosperity — this year attendees expressed worry that the United States was undermining its own economy, and the rest of the world’s, via a trade war and the longest partial government shutdown in U.S. history.

 

 

Dude inherits a golden economy and undermines its confidence. 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/concerns-about-global-economy-grow/2019/01/21/43d514a2-1dc8-11e9-9145-3f74070bbdb9_story.html?utm_term=.c48844eb1999

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Peameal?

 

Seriously. How does a Canadian manage to screw up bacon?

 

Oh, wait. Let me guess. Step one...hire a cross dresser as your PM. Step two...try to explain that the reason Canada sucks at hockey has nothing to do with the fact that even Canadians know they need to go to the US to have a chance at winning.

 

Or something like that.

 

 

You seem fixated on Canada. ***** off, we are full! Well, we don’t want Merican garbage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, keepthefaith said:

 

So if the U.S. granted citizenship to illegal immigrants here (20+ million) and then hung the vacancy sign on the front door, what do you think would be the impact to the cost of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid as a result of these new citizens and their offspring over the next 75 years or 1 lifetime? 

 

Right now, as a country we are going to have to severely cut benefits for existing Americans or crank up taxes bigly in order to fund these programs for the current population of citizens. 

 

13 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Actually, since immigrants are more likely to be of working age, there's likely to be a net benefit to Social Security and Medicare if you increase legal immigration.

 

However, Medicaid's a different problem altogether.

i agree Tom. Also, economies need more people to drive bigger growth. Our birth rate is declining..immigrants, I think, tend to be Catholic and have bigger families? I am just supposing there...but that could be a benefit no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

 

i agree Tom. Also, economies need more people to drive bigger growth. Our birth rate is declining..immigrants, I think, tend to be Catholic and have bigger families? I am just supposing there...but that could be a benefit no?

More kids to send to Catholic schools!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

 

i agree Tom. Also, economies need more people to drive bigger growth. Our birth rate is declining..immigrants, I think, tend to be Catholic and have bigger families? I am just supposing there...but that could be a benefit no?

 

As the economy becomes more automated it is putting unskilled, uneducated workers out of work, and on to the federal and state dole.  There is no benefit to importing individuals, men of fighting age no less, who are not going to be able to earn a living.  Conversely, there are many compelling reasons not to do this.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

C'mon...he's Canadian.  :rolleyes:

 

That explains him, but what's your excuse?

9 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

As the economy becomes more automated it is putting unskilled, uneducated workers out of work, and on to the federal and state dole.  There is no benefit to importing individuals, men of fighting age no less, who are not going to be able to earn a living.  Conversely, there are many compelling reasons not to do this.

 

Ok, but hear me out -- I'm havin' a helluva time findin decent drywallers these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Crayola64 said:

A wall, in my opinion, is the equivalent of a bandaid to any immigration problem.  It is 2019, people will enter into the country in other ways (ignoring the fact that they will likely find a way to get across a wall-guarded border).  The vast majority of illegal immigrants I have come across came over in a plane.  Again, I would rather direct the money in other ways to address the border.  

 

The problem on the southern border isn't simply "illegal immigration", and the wall isn't intended to address that portion of the problem.  The wall is, very specifically, intended to address human slavery and child sex trafficking.

 

Human beings being covertly smuggled into the country happens overwhelmingly on unprotected and remote stretches of our border which are difficult to patrol for logistical reasons.  This is different than regular illegal passage, as those simply seeking to immigrate here can try again and again as often as they like if apprehended.  Slavers make use of these unpatrolled regions almost exclusively.  The walls are being placed there in order to forcibly reroute the slavers away from these corridors, and into areas more easily patrolled.

 

I was just listing off random things to explain what I meant by opposite stance than trump on immigration (because of your immature comment about what opposite meant as if you didn't know what I was referring to...).

 

No, what's immature is putting you fingers in your ears, and pretending as if the policies the President is pursuing are somehow unrelated to the list I ticked off.  The President supports the policies he does because they address the issues in question, the wall, as I mention above, specifically implemented to curb slavery.

 

I am not relating these to the shutdown.  And I believe in those things because I believe it is a human right to be able to be safe and live in a different country

 

You believe in a human right to safety?  That's an absurd rejection of reality.  Life is not safe, because it is so fragile. 

 

And "the right to live in another country"?  Another absurdity.  You have the natural right to travel, but not into places which will not have you, and only as you meet their criteria for traveling into areas they own.  You have the right to travel (as relates to you and your own confinement), but only the privilege to traverse that which belongs to someone else, and that privilege must be earned, and can be revoked.

 

regardless of whether or not it benefits Americans (immigration is perhaps my most leftist view).

 

This is absurd.  The entire purpose of the nation state is to protect property and culture by cordoning off territory and establishing law representative of the values and culture of the people therein.

 

It is the peak of dictatorial immorality to insist a people live under law which disservices them and their culture.

 

And I do think that those things benefit Americans by introducing new cultures and diversity.

 

Explain, in detail, how new cultures, often incompatible with American culture, and diversity of immutable characteristics which don't matter, are a benefit to Americans.

 

But again, I value people more than americans.

 

This is a non-sequitur, and also an absurdity. 

 

First, the views you are espousing do not equate with better outcomes for "people".  Conversely, immigration from third world countries to America does immense harm to those individual's countries or origin, creating worse outcomes for those who remain there.

 

Second, it implies that Americans are not people.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Dreamers are not a threat to anyone 

 

Nobody really knows what Trump wants, he is a liberal real estate magnate, a centrist on most issues.

 

Nobody is going to shut up for 3 seconds to even catch their breath, or pay attention to the actual meeting agenda or what is being proposed...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dreamers are here illegally and are temporarily being protected by an illegal Executive Order that at some point in time will actually be judged illegal by the courts. Trump's efforts are to make them legal and not at the mercy of the whims of anyone who might follow him. We are a nation of laws and if our laws are not followed or flaunted by the very government that serves us then we have lost our country.

 

The "wall" is an integral part of border security intended to funnel illegal immigrants to areas that can be patrolled. We already have nearly 700 miles of wall or fences appropriated by Congress in 2006 and basically built during the Obama administration. We need more border barriers so that we can have whoever enters our country properly vetted. The extended security is not just to prevent illegal aliens but if we don't intercept those coming across the border we are complicit in smuggling children into our country for the express purpose of turning them into sex slaves. We also need to block MS-13 gang members and possible terrorists coming in to our country. A wall isn't a panacea but it is part of an overall security solution at our southern border. Anyone against a wall and improved security is basically acting in a purely partisan and political manner.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

Nobody really knows what Trump wants, he is a liberal real estate magnate, a centrist on most issues.

 

Nobody is going to shut up for 3 seconds to even catch their breath, or pay attention to the actual meeting agenda or what is being proposed...

 

 

Sure, his SCOTUS nominees, economic policies and military support make him a flaming liberal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...