|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 04 2014 09:56 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2014 09:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) raised eyebrows this weekend when he endorsed one of the most hawkish positions toward the Islamic State militants currently wreaking havoc in Iraq and Syria.
"If I were president, I would call a joint session of Congress," Paul told the AP. "I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily."
That put the self-professed non-interventionist to the right of many of his fellow presidential hopefuls, who sounded more tentative notes when asked about the proper U.S. response. Seeking to "destroy ISIS militarily" would require some sort of ground presence in the region, and involve far greater American involvement in another Middle East conflict.
But during an interview on Sean Hannity's radio show on Wednesday, Paul sought to clarify that position. The libertarian-leaning senator said that Iran, Syria, and Turkey could be “enjoined” in fighting Islamic State militants because of their proximity and interest in the region.
“Right now, the two allies that have the same goal would be Iran and Syria, to wipe out ISIS. They also have the means and the ability and they also have the incentive to do so because Assad’s clinging for power and clinging for life there,” Paul said, as quoted by BuzzFeed.
The possible presidential contender also said that while the U.S. can provide air support, other nations should ultimately take the lead in rooting out Islamic State militants on the ground. Source Lolwut? Isn't his draw that he isn't some hawkish interventionist? GG politics, GG.
It seems to me that he's been against neocon treatment of the Middle East, in particular toppling regimes and trying to foster free-market secular democracies. It isn't just simple noninterventionism, although he contrasts with Republicans clamoring for aggressive action on most current crises. He's contrasting with Obama by claiming he would work closer with congress, although I think Obama is dealing with a lot of political variables, such as by writing an unprecedented number of War Powers Act letters to Congress on recent actions.
But he's reflecting a longstanding problem with criticizing an ugly brand of foreign policy and the War on Terror in general, which is that people are very unhappy with it and think America should do many things differently, but they can't name substantially different policies and why they wouldn't make the Rubik's cube of problems worse. Polls show a similarly schizophrenic attitude, where a majority are unhappy with Obama's cautious and reluctant handling of ISIS but they definitely don't want a bigger commitment and certainly not actions that would result in American casualties.
You can't draw many traditional anti-war lines around this one and especially can't recycle criticisms of the Bush wars.
|
On the second day of the George Washington Bridge lane closures last year, a Port Authority police officer stationed at a gridlocked intersection picked up the two-way radio in his patrol car. The closures were creating “hazardous conditions” on Fort Lee’s streets, he told fellow officers according to his own account, and the lanes needed to be reopened.
“Shut up,” a Port Authority police supervisor at the bridge allegedly replied, instructing the officer not to discuss the apparently secret operation over an open radio channel.
That exchange, as described by officer Steve Pisciotta and involving the highest-ranking officer at the bridge, Deputy Inspector Darcy Licorish, is included in a summary of the recollections of nearly a dozen rank-and-file police officers that was provided to lawmakers investigating the lane closures, according documents obtained by The Record.
The accounts of 11 officers at the bridge during the week of the closures share common threads and provide vivid new details about how the operation was put into effect on a Monday morning nearly a year ago.
The instructions about the new lane configuration, many of them said, were delivered at roll call before the morning rush hour on the first day by Police Lt. Thomas “Chip” Michaels, who grew up with Governor Christie in the town of Livingston. He told the officers not to touch the traffic cones choking the number of access lanes out of Fort Lee from three down to one, according to the officers.
Later that morning, officers said they saw Michaels driving David Wildstein — the Port Authority executive who ordered the closures and also grew up with Christie — around Fort Lee’s gridlocked streets.
Source
|
On September 04 2014 11:35 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2014 09:56 aksfjh wrote:On September 04 2014 09:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) raised eyebrows this weekend when he endorsed one of the most hawkish positions toward the Islamic State militants currently wreaking havoc in Iraq and Syria.
"If I were president, I would call a joint session of Congress," Paul told the AP. "I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily."
That put the self-professed non-interventionist to the right of many of his fellow presidential hopefuls, who sounded more tentative notes when asked about the proper U.S. response. Seeking to "destroy ISIS militarily" would require some sort of ground presence in the region, and involve far greater American involvement in another Middle East conflict.
But during an interview on Sean Hannity's radio show on Wednesday, Paul sought to clarify that position. The libertarian-leaning senator said that Iran, Syria, and Turkey could be “enjoined” in fighting Islamic State militants because of their proximity and interest in the region.
“Right now, the two allies that have the same goal would be Iran and Syria, to wipe out ISIS. They also have the means and the ability and they also have the incentive to do so because Assad’s clinging for power and clinging for life there,” Paul said, as quoted by BuzzFeed.
The possible presidential contender also said that while the U.S. can provide air support, other nations should ultimately take the lead in rooting out Islamic State militants on the ground. Source Lolwut? Isn't his draw that he isn't some hawkish interventionist? GG politics, GG. It seems to me that he's been against neocon treatment of the Middle East, in particular toppling regimes and trying to foster free-market secular democracies. It isn't just simple noninterventionism, although he contrasts with Republicans clamoring for aggressive action on most current crises. He's contrasting with Obama by claiming he would work closer with congress, although I think Obama is dealing with a lot of political variables, such as by writing an unprecedented number of War Powers Act letters to Congress on recent actions. But he's reflecting a longstanding problem with criticizing an ugly brand of foreign policy and the War on Terror in general, which is that people are very unhappy with it and think America should do many things differently, but they can't name substantially different policies and why they wouldn't make the Rubik's cube of problems worse. Polls show a similarly schizophrenic attitude, where a majority are unhappy with Obama's cautious and reluctant handling of ISIS but they definitely don't want a bigger commitment and certainly not actions that would result in American casualties. You can't draw many traditional anti-war lines around this one and especially can't recycle criticisms of the Bush wars.
Candidates like to say all sorts of things on foreign policy while they're running for office but its all bullshit. Nobody knows what their foreign policy is going to be like until after they actually become president. Its easy to score political points by being critical of whoever is in office now, but it all means nothing once the reality of being commander in chief hits. Remember how dovish candidate Obama was?
|
On September 04 2014 12:48 sc2isnotdying wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2014 11:35 coverpunch wrote:On September 04 2014 09:56 aksfjh wrote:On September 04 2014 09:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) raised eyebrows this weekend when he endorsed one of the most hawkish positions toward the Islamic State militants currently wreaking havoc in Iraq and Syria.
"If I were president, I would call a joint session of Congress," Paul told the AP. "I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily."
That put the self-professed non-interventionist to the right of many of his fellow presidential hopefuls, who sounded more tentative notes when asked about the proper U.S. response. Seeking to "destroy ISIS militarily" would require some sort of ground presence in the region, and involve far greater American involvement in another Middle East conflict.
But during an interview on Sean Hannity's radio show on Wednesday, Paul sought to clarify that position. The libertarian-leaning senator said that Iran, Syria, and Turkey could be “enjoined” in fighting Islamic State militants because of their proximity and interest in the region.
“Right now, the two allies that have the same goal would be Iran and Syria, to wipe out ISIS. They also have the means and the ability and they also have the incentive to do so because Assad’s clinging for power and clinging for life there,” Paul said, as quoted by BuzzFeed.
The possible presidential contender also said that while the U.S. can provide air support, other nations should ultimately take the lead in rooting out Islamic State militants on the ground. Source Lolwut? Isn't his draw that he isn't some hawkish interventionist? GG politics, GG. It seems to me that he's been against neocon treatment of the Middle East, in particular toppling regimes and trying to foster free-market secular democracies. It isn't just simple noninterventionism, although he contrasts with Republicans clamoring for aggressive action on most current crises. He's contrasting with Obama by claiming he would work closer with congress, although I think Obama is dealing with a lot of political variables, such as by writing an unprecedented number of War Powers Act letters to Congress on recent actions. But he's reflecting a longstanding problem with criticizing an ugly brand of foreign policy and the War on Terror in general, which is that people are very unhappy with it and think America should do many things differently, but they can't name substantially different policies and why they wouldn't make the Rubik's cube of problems worse. Polls show a similarly schizophrenic attitude, where a majority are unhappy with Obama's cautious and reluctant handling of ISIS but they definitely don't want a bigger commitment and certainly not actions that would result in American casualties. You can't draw many traditional anti-war lines around this one and especially can't recycle criticisms of the Bush wars. Candidates like to say all sorts of things on foreign policy while they're running for office but its all bullshit. Nobody knows what their foreign policy is going to be like until after they actually become president. Its easy to score political points by being critical of whoever is in office now, but it all means nothing once the reality of being commander in chief hits. Remember how dovish candidate Obama was?
He's still, arguably, dovish. Everybody is trying to show how much more of a hawk they are compared to him and how he's been too soft on Syria, Iran, ISIL, and Putin, without supporting Israel enough.
|
On September 04 2014 11:26 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2014 16:26 IgnE wrote:On September 03 2014 15:52 Danglars wrote:On September 03 2014 03:34 IgnE wrote:On September 02 2014 18:16 Danglars wrote:On September 02 2014 17:23 IgnE wrote:On September 02 2014 16:53 Introvert wrote:On September 02 2014 16:18 IgnE wrote:
My assertion is in line with normal understanding of what a conservative impulse is. It's kind of bewildering that you are challenging the prima facie case actually. As if it were unusual for self-described conservatives (e.g. Alex Jones) to sometimes strongly value something like civil rights. Do you not think a preference for hierarchy and support for police is essentially a conservative impulse? That vengeance and security are more highly valued than abstract rights like freedom of movement and speech? I mean what are you even arguing about here? My original comment was directed to Danglars's and jonny's ridiculous assignation of a 9pm curfew to the encroachment of a "liberal" Nanny State that "knows best." As if it weren't motivated from a desire for order, but instead out of some tyrannically benevolent state prescription for good living.
And can we just give up the pretense that anyone who isn't a conservative can't truly have any insight into what conservatism is? It's tiresome. Oh, it's possible to have insight. I've written out a couple ways to address this, but I don't find any of them satisfactory or clear, ugh. I'll just say that the language you use in that paragraph displays that you do not, in fact really know a whole lot about conservatism outside of that narrow framework you're so often using. From the comment on civil rights to using the word "vengeance," it's abundantly clear that you view it from a distinct perspective, though not an uncommon one. Hence your confusion on "normal understanding." Actually, I think picking Alex Jones as your example is demonstrative of what I'm saying. (Note: this isn't a denial of his "conservatism." The kind laced with the sweet conspiracy frosting!) Oh please. Now you take issue with my language because you don't actually have a sensical point to make. You can restate what I said if it makes you feel better, and I might even agree. Would you prefer that I had picked Charles Krauthammer or David Brooks or Ron Paul or Rothbard or someone else? I picked Alex Jones because he was an extreme example of someone who has anarchist tendencies that conflict with basic conservative impulses. It has nothing to do with his conspiracy nuttery. You know it's possible that the sense in which I have been using "conservative" in the last two pages isn't the same one that you might use for different purposes. Is that the problem here? Are you just being overzealous in defending true "conservatism" from alternate usages in overlapping domains? All that is clear to me is that you think unless someone speaks in reverential tones of the beliefs you hold dear he couldn't possibly understand them. You seem to have a problem only thinking of extreme examples, which all the more reason why we bristle at others' mischaracterizations ( especially done naively thinking there was no argument). Brooks is anathema to what conservatism represents, you might even differentiate what conservatives believe by drawing contrast with what Brooks believes. We also didn't forget his comments on a certain pants leg crease, nor the rest of his identity.If you want libertarians first, and conservative only when the two views happen to agree, definitely point out Ron Paul or Murray Rothbard. With the left steaming further leftward, there will be widespread agreement between libertarians and conservatives. Krauthammer's the only one on your list pretty solidly in the conservative camp. He'll weedle back and forth supporting RINO policy and supporting conservative policy, but commonly sides with the conservatives in the following weeks and months. Not a guy you'd ride into policy battles with, but that you'll read and think about. You might also bristle if we talked about all democrats or European socialists as guys like Al Gore and Jesse Jackson ... even Harry Reid (you keep railin against those Koch brothers on the Senate floor! In my personal conversations with Democrat friends, they're quick to distance themselves from Reid nowadays). Or maybe refer to the face of the modern feminist movement as Cathy Brennan. On September 02 2014 13:08 Millitron wrote:
Cant we all agree that given the chance, both conservatives and liberals will pull authoritarian bullshit? Not in the least. Then again, I don't know how wide your umbrella of authoritarian bullshit extends. You too have missed the point. I wasn't trying to choose the most conservative person (whatever that fucking means anyway). I was trying to choose one who has clear instances of non-conservative tendencies. So it sounds like you are agreeing with me, even if you didn't know it. It's like you are reacting to self-fabricated offenses either because you can't read or because your conservative defense systems are so overwrought that you react to even non-threats. An obsession with purity perhaps. On September 02 2014 06:22 IgnE wrote:On September 02 2014 05:21 Danglars wrote:On September 01 2014 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:For Their Own Good? New Curfew Sends Baltimore Kids Home Early
Young people in Baltimore are adjusting to life under a tougher curfew law. For 20 years, the city has required kids to be inside at night during the summer — but now, children younger than 14 must be in by 9 p.m. every night of the year. ... LinkSeems excessive, but the nanny state knows best... Those poor high school kids and parents trying to do sports teams and extracurriculars. Nanny state does know best, and don't you dare question it. What an excellent use of police time as well. It's funny to me that you associate this conservative effort at population control (let's try and keep young black and impoverished kids off the streets so they don't associate with gangs and ruffians) with the monolithic mythical leftist project of the Nanny State. Sounds more like echoes of Ferguson than some socialist Nanny State plot. A curfew in place also prevents parents who are protesting from being out late since they can't bring their kids with them and probably can't afford a sitter to protest. You certainly pick the strangest efforts to call conservative, which prompted all my efforts (should've quoted this one though to illuminate). I find it quizzical and humorous your take on the liberal basket cases of the modern urban areas and what you impute to be conservative policies. Now if you meant nothing by it, or just use the word conservative to describe anything and all you disagree with, then I have no quarrel. You do rob the term of meaning in your use. I meant what I said. Imposing a curfew is driven by an essentially conservative impulse. The meaning is quite intact. Regardless of who is imposing the curfew, the character of the action is essentially one of imposing order by expressing it through a hierarchical social structure and executing it through the police force. Does a more liberal parent or a more conservative parent institute a curfew for his or her children? It's the same impulse. This is basic stuff, but you seem to think that the essence of an action is dictated by the actor's political party, rather than by the action itself, rooted in context. That's absurd. Just to throw out there, I don't know why you mentioned Ron Paul or Rothbard, because the libertarian impulse on curfew's (and parenting) is to have none. You're talking degree of action, because both liberal and conservatives aren't anti-curfew, they just disagree on where to put the limit. This is why it's my affirmation that there's no real substantive difference between each other - merely arguments over degree. Both agree on foreign interventionism, both agree on monetary policies, both agree on Executive fiat power, both agree on 'law and order', both agree with Government schools, etc. You have the libertarian who proposes unschooling and homeschooling, meanwhile liberals want more of the same Government schooling, and conservatives want Government schools, but sometimes funded with a voucher system, sometimes not (e.g. more local control than federal). There's no real substantive disagreement there for instance, just like with curfew's. In other words, having a curfew is a Statist impulse to control others, and conservatives and liberals are especially no enemies of each other on that front. I pretty much agree with this. Conservatives want government schools, locally controlled, and are generally supportive of a voucher system, just as I personally support it. If more people could just abandon the pretense that "imposing order through a hierarchical social structure" is somehow conservative. Same with "[execution] through the police force." Where on earth are you getting this, IgnE, it's almost absurd enough to convince me you're parodying some ivory tower intellectual that enjoys using hierarchical in sentences.
|
A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA Times
This drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law.
|
I honestly don't really feel like talking about it anymore. You are too dense to even carry on the conversation. I haven't been referring to "conservatives," meaning the population of Americans who self-identify as such, while you prattle on about it endlessly as if that is what I were talking about, and if that much isn't clear by now I don't think there's any hope.
|
On September 04 2014 13:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2014 11:26 Wegandi wrote:On September 03 2014 16:26 IgnE wrote:On September 03 2014 15:52 Danglars wrote:On September 03 2014 03:34 IgnE wrote:On September 02 2014 18:16 Danglars wrote:On September 02 2014 17:23 IgnE wrote:On September 02 2014 16:53 Introvert wrote:On September 02 2014 16:18 IgnE wrote:
My assertion is in line with normal understanding of what a conservative impulse is. It's kind of bewildering that you are challenging the prima facie case actually. As if it were unusual for self-described conservatives (e.g. Alex Jones) to sometimes strongly value something like civil rights. Do you not think a preference for hierarchy and support for police is essentially a conservative impulse? That vengeance and security are more highly valued than abstract rights like freedom of movement and speech? I mean what are you even arguing about here? My original comment was directed to Danglars's and jonny's ridiculous assignation of a 9pm curfew to the encroachment of a "liberal" Nanny State that "knows best." As if it weren't motivated from a desire for order, but instead out of some tyrannically benevolent state prescription for good living.
And can we just give up the pretense that anyone who isn't a conservative can't truly have any insight into what conservatism is? It's tiresome. Oh, it's possible to have insight. I've written out a couple ways to address this, but I don't find any of them satisfactory or clear, ugh. I'll just say that the language you use in that paragraph displays that you do not, in fact really know a whole lot about conservatism outside of that narrow framework you're so often using. From the comment on civil rights to using the word "vengeance," it's abundantly clear that you view it from a distinct perspective, though not an uncommon one. Hence your confusion on "normal understanding." Actually, I think picking Alex Jones as your example is demonstrative of what I'm saying. (Note: this isn't a denial of his "conservatism." The kind laced with the sweet conspiracy frosting!) Oh please. Now you take issue with my language because you don't actually have a sensical point to make. You can restate what I said if it makes you feel better, and I might even agree. Would you prefer that I had picked Charles Krauthammer or David Brooks or Ron Paul or Rothbard or someone else? I picked Alex Jones because he was an extreme example of someone who has anarchist tendencies that conflict with basic conservative impulses. It has nothing to do with his conspiracy nuttery. You know it's possible that the sense in which I have been using "conservative" in the last two pages isn't the same one that you might use for different purposes. Is that the problem here? Are you just being overzealous in defending true "conservatism" from alternate usages in overlapping domains? All that is clear to me is that you think unless someone speaks in reverential tones of the beliefs you hold dear he couldn't possibly understand them. You seem to have a problem only thinking of extreme examples, which all the more reason why we bristle at others' mischaracterizations ( especially done naively thinking there was no argument). Brooks is anathema to what conservatism represents, you might even differentiate what conservatives believe by drawing contrast with what Brooks believes. We also didn't forget his comments on a certain pants leg crease, nor the rest of his identity.If you want libertarians first, and conservative only when the two views happen to agree, definitely point out Ron Paul or Murray Rothbard. With the left steaming further leftward, there will be widespread agreement between libertarians and conservatives. Krauthammer's the only one on your list pretty solidly in the conservative camp. He'll weedle back and forth supporting RINO policy and supporting conservative policy, but commonly sides with the conservatives in the following weeks and months. Not a guy you'd ride into policy battles with, but that you'll read and think about. You might also bristle if we talked about all democrats or European socialists as guys like Al Gore and Jesse Jackson ... even Harry Reid (you keep railin against those Koch brothers on the Senate floor! In my personal conversations with Democrat friends, they're quick to distance themselves from Reid nowadays). Or maybe refer to the face of the modern feminist movement as Cathy Brennan. On September 02 2014 13:08 Millitron wrote:
Cant we all agree that given the chance, both conservatives and liberals will pull authoritarian bullshit? Not in the least. Then again, I don't know how wide your umbrella of authoritarian bullshit extends. You too have missed the point. I wasn't trying to choose the most conservative person (whatever that fucking means anyway). I was trying to choose one who has clear instances of non-conservative tendencies. So it sounds like you are agreeing with me, even if you didn't know it. It's like you are reacting to self-fabricated offenses either because you can't read or because your conservative defense systems are so overwrought that you react to even non-threats. An obsession with purity perhaps. On September 02 2014 06:22 IgnE wrote:On September 02 2014 05:21 Danglars wrote:On September 01 2014 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:For Their Own Good? New Curfew Sends Baltimore Kids Home Early
Young people in Baltimore are adjusting to life under a tougher curfew law. For 20 years, the city has required kids to be inside at night during the summer — but now, children younger than 14 must be in by 9 p.m. every night of the year. ... LinkSeems excessive, but the nanny state knows best... Those poor high school kids and parents trying to do sports teams and extracurriculars. Nanny state does know best, and don't you dare question it. What an excellent use of police time as well. It's funny to me that you associate this conservative effort at population control (let's try and keep young black and impoverished kids off the streets so they don't associate with gangs and ruffians) with the monolithic mythical leftist project of the Nanny State. Sounds more like echoes of Ferguson than some socialist Nanny State plot. A curfew in place also prevents parents who are protesting from being out late since they can't bring their kids with them and probably can't afford a sitter to protest. You certainly pick the strangest efforts to call conservative, which prompted all my efforts (should've quoted this one though to illuminate). I find it quizzical and humorous your take on the liberal basket cases of the modern urban areas and what you impute to be conservative policies. Now if you meant nothing by it, or just use the word conservative to describe anything and all you disagree with, then I have no quarrel. You do rob the term of meaning in your use. I meant what I said. Imposing a curfew is driven by an essentially conservative impulse. The meaning is quite intact. Regardless of who is imposing the curfew, the character of the action is essentially one of imposing order by expressing it through a hierarchical social structure and executing it through the police force. Does a more liberal parent or a more conservative parent institute a curfew for his or her children? It's the same impulse. This is basic stuff, but you seem to think that the essence of an action is dictated by the actor's political party, rather than by the action itself, rooted in context. That's absurd. Just to throw out there, I don't know why you mentioned Ron Paul or Rothbard, because the libertarian impulse on curfew's (and parenting) is to have none. You're talking degree of action, because both liberal and conservatives aren't anti-curfew, they just disagree on where to put the limit. This is why it's my affirmation that there's no real substantive difference between each other - merely arguments over degree. Both agree on foreign interventionism, both agree on monetary policies, both agree on Executive fiat power, both agree on 'law and order', both agree with Government schools, etc. You have the libertarian who proposes unschooling and homeschooling, meanwhile liberals want more of the same Government schooling, and conservatives want Government schools, but sometimes funded with a voucher system, sometimes not (e.g. more local control than federal). There's no real substantive disagreement there for instance, just like with curfew's. In other words, having a curfew is a Statist impulse to control others, and conservatives and liberals are especially no enemies of each other on that front. I pretty much agree with this. Conservatives want government schools, locally controlled, and are generally supportive of a voucher system, just as I personally support it. If more people could just abandon the pretense that "imposing order through a hierarchical social structure" is somehow conservative. Same with "[execution] through the police force." Where on earth are you getting this, IgnE, it's almost absurd enough to convince me you're parodying some ivory tower intellectual that enjoys using hierarchical in sentences.
It's almost as absurd as saying that the idealized notion of Conservatism naturally agrees with ones' self. You're making a reflexive political identification gesture rather than a substantive claim; "Conservatives, whom I agree with, want this, and you should abandon your definition of conservatism." is not a very compelling argument. Conservatism, like its natural partner in liberalism, cannot trace its roots to some easily quantified and qualified point on a spectrum of political tendencies; due to the nature of political interaction and its influence on the semantic value of related jargon, the definitions for conservatism and liberalism are naturally in a state of fluidity, with the participation of the individual and their implementation of said jargon in the course of political communication playing a fundamental and recurring role in the process.
At issue in recent years, consensus among those who would have their voice heard as to the definition and nature of conservatism has proven fleeting and, in a sense, untenable given the divergent tendencies of the libertarian movement as opposed to the religious right. Though the Republicans are sure to give Democrats trouble in the mid-term, the gains are likely to prove short lived, and one needn't look any further than Rand Paul's recent capitulation in terms of his supposed libertarian "principle" on war and foreign involvement. For Obama or for worse, the Democrats have proven themselves recently amenable to the idea of favoring the power of consensus as it pertains to actionable political influence, and though an argument can most certainly be made in favor of Obama having effectively "poisoned the well" through his exercises in executive authority, I find it highly unlikely that the consensus problems among Republicans, problems that more or less focus on a battle over the meaning of conservatism, will be overcome with enough exuberance to overcome Democratic challengers in the coming few election cycles.
|
On September 04 2014 14:02 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2014 13:41 Danglars wrote:On September 04 2014 11:26 Wegandi wrote:On September 03 2014 16:26 IgnE wrote:On September 03 2014 15:52 Danglars wrote:On September 03 2014 03:34 IgnE wrote:On September 02 2014 18:16 Danglars wrote:On September 02 2014 17:23 IgnE wrote:On September 02 2014 16:53 Introvert wrote:On September 02 2014 16:18 IgnE wrote:
My assertion is in line with normal understanding of what a conservative impulse is. It's kind of bewildering that you are challenging the prima facie case actually. As if it were unusual for self-described conservatives (e.g. Alex Jones) to sometimes strongly value something like civil rights. Do you not think a preference for hierarchy and support for police is essentially a conservative impulse? That vengeance and security are more highly valued than abstract rights like freedom of movement and speech? I mean what are you even arguing about here? My original comment was directed to Danglars's and jonny's ridiculous assignation of a 9pm curfew to the encroachment of a "liberal" Nanny State that "knows best." As if it weren't motivated from a desire for order, but instead out of some tyrannically benevolent state prescription for good living.
And can we just give up the pretense that anyone who isn't a conservative can't truly have any insight into what conservatism is? It's tiresome. Oh, it's possible to have insight. I've written out a couple ways to address this, but I don't find any of them satisfactory or clear, ugh. I'll just say that the language you use in that paragraph displays that you do not, in fact really know a whole lot about conservatism outside of that narrow framework you're so often using. From the comment on civil rights to using the word "vengeance," it's abundantly clear that you view it from a distinct perspective, though not an uncommon one. Hence your confusion on "normal understanding." Actually, I think picking Alex Jones as your example is demonstrative of what I'm saying. (Note: this isn't a denial of his "conservatism." The kind laced with the sweet conspiracy frosting!) Oh please. Now you take issue with my language because you don't actually have a sensical point to make. You can restate what I said if it makes you feel better, and I might even agree. Would you prefer that I had picked Charles Krauthammer or David Brooks or Ron Paul or Rothbard or someone else? I picked Alex Jones because he was an extreme example of someone who has anarchist tendencies that conflict with basic conservative impulses. It has nothing to do with his conspiracy nuttery. You know it's possible that the sense in which I have been using "conservative" in the last two pages isn't the same one that you might use for different purposes. Is that the problem here? Are you just being overzealous in defending true "conservatism" from alternate usages in overlapping domains? All that is clear to me is that you think unless someone speaks in reverential tones of the beliefs you hold dear he couldn't possibly understand them. You seem to have a problem only thinking of extreme examples, which all the more reason why we bristle at others' mischaracterizations ( especially done naively thinking there was no argument). Brooks is anathema to what conservatism represents, you might even differentiate what conservatives believe by drawing contrast with what Brooks believes. We also didn't forget his comments on a certain pants leg crease, nor the rest of his identity.If you want libertarians first, and conservative only when the two views happen to agree, definitely point out Ron Paul or Murray Rothbard. With the left steaming further leftward, there will be widespread agreement between libertarians and conservatives. Krauthammer's the only one on your list pretty solidly in the conservative camp. He'll weedle back and forth supporting RINO policy and supporting conservative policy, but commonly sides with the conservatives in the following weeks and months. Not a guy you'd ride into policy battles with, but that you'll read and think about. You might also bristle if we talked about all democrats or European socialists as guys like Al Gore and Jesse Jackson ... even Harry Reid (you keep railin against those Koch brothers on the Senate floor! In my personal conversations with Democrat friends, they're quick to distance themselves from Reid nowadays). Or maybe refer to the face of the modern feminist movement as Cathy Brennan. On September 02 2014 13:08 Millitron wrote:
Cant we all agree that given the chance, both conservatives and liberals will pull authoritarian bullshit? Not in the least. Then again, I don't know how wide your umbrella of authoritarian bullshit extends. You too have missed the point. I wasn't trying to choose the most conservative person (whatever that fucking means anyway). I was trying to choose one who has clear instances of non-conservative tendencies. So it sounds like you are agreeing with me, even if you didn't know it. It's like you are reacting to self-fabricated offenses either because you can't read or because your conservative defense systems are so overwrought that you react to even non-threats. An obsession with purity perhaps. On September 02 2014 06:22 IgnE wrote:On September 02 2014 05:21 Danglars wrote:On September 01 2014 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:For Their Own Good? New Curfew Sends Baltimore Kids Home Early
Young people in Baltimore are adjusting to life under a tougher curfew law. For 20 years, the city has required kids to be inside at night during the summer — but now, children younger than 14 must be in by 9 p.m. every night of the year. ... LinkSeems excessive, but the nanny state knows best... Those poor high school kids and parents trying to do sports teams and extracurriculars. Nanny state does know best, and don't you dare question it. What an excellent use of police time as well. It's funny to me that you associate this conservative effort at population control (let's try and keep young black and impoverished kids off the streets so they don't associate with gangs and ruffians) with the monolithic mythical leftist project of the Nanny State. Sounds more like echoes of Ferguson than some socialist Nanny State plot. A curfew in place also prevents parents who are protesting from being out late since they can't bring their kids with them and probably can't afford a sitter to protest. You certainly pick the strangest efforts to call conservative, which prompted all my efforts (should've quoted this one though to illuminate). I find it quizzical and humorous your take on the liberal basket cases of the modern urban areas and what you impute to be conservative policies. Now if you meant nothing by it, or just use the word conservative to describe anything and all you disagree with, then I have no quarrel. You do rob the term of meaning in your use. I meant what I said. Imposing a curfew is driven by an essentially conservative impulse. The meaning is quite intact. Regardless of who is imposing the curfew, the character of the action is essentially one of imposing order by expressing it through a hierarchical social structure and executing it through the police force. Does a more liberal parent or a more conservative parent institute a curfew for his or her children? It's the same impulse. This is basic stuff, but you seem to think that the essence of an action is dictated by the actor's political party, rather than by the action itself, rooted in context. That's absurd. Just to throw out there, I don't know why you mentioned Ron Paul or Rothbard, because the libertarian impulse on curfew's (and parenting) is to have none. You're talking degree of action, because both liberal and conservatives aren't anti-curfew, they just disagree on where to put the limit. This is why it's my affirmation that there's no real substantive difference between each other - merely arguments over degree. Both agree on foreign interventionism, both agree on monetary policies, both agree on Executive fiat power, both agree on 'law and order', both agree with Government schools, etc. You have the libertarian who proposes unschooling and homeschooling, meanwhile liberals want more of the same Government schooling, and conservatives want Government schools, but sometimes funded with a voucher system, sometimes not (e.g. more local control than federal). There's no real substantive disagreement there for instance, just like with curfew's. In other words, having a curfew is a Statist impulse to control others, and conservatives and liberals are especially no enemies of each other on that front. I pretty much agree with this. Conservatives want government schools, locally controlled, and are generally supportive of a voucher system, just as I personally support it. If more people could just abandon the pretense that "imposing order through a hierarchical social structure" is somehow conservative. Same with "[execution] through the police force." Where on earth are you getting this, IgnE, it's almost absurd enough to convince me you're parodying some ivory tower intellectual that enjoys using hierarchical in sentences. It's almost as absurd as saying that the idealized notion of Conservatism naturally agrees with ones' self. You're making a reflexive political identification gesture rather than a substantive claim; "Conservatives, whom I agree with, want this, and you should abandon your definition of conservatism." is not a very compelling argument. Conservatism, like its natural partner in liberalism, cannot trace its roots to some easily quantified and qualified point on a spectrum of political tendencies; due to the nature of political interaction and its influence on the semantic value of related jargon, the definitions for conservatism and liberalism are naturally in a state of fluidity, with the participation of the individual and their implementation of said jargon in the course of political communication playing a fundamental and recurring role in the process. At issue in recent years, consensus among those who would have their voice heard as to the definition and nature of conservatism has proven fleeting and, in a sense, untenable given the divergent tendencies of the libertarian movement as opposed to the religious right. Though the Republicans are sure to give Democrats trouble in the mid-term, the gains are likely to prove short lived, and one needn't look any further than Rand Paul's recent capitulation in terms of his supposed libertarian "principle" on war and foreign involvement. For Obama or for worse, the Democrats have proven themselves recently amenable to the idea of favoring the power of consensus as it pertains to actionable political influence, and though an argument can most certainly be made in favor of Obama having effectively "poisoned the well" through his exercises in executive authority, I find it highly unlikely that the consensus problems among Republicans, problems that more or less focus on a battle over the meaning of conservatism, will be overcome with enough exuberance to overcome Democratic challengers in the coming few election cycles.
To take the nuance out of it, it seems that IgnE's point is somewhat different. He is saying that regardless of what some call themselves, that certain things are conservative. Supporting a curfew is a conservative thing. Being in favor of some sort of hierarchy is conservative, regardless of how the person self identifies (if that's even true.)
That's the part I was trying to address- things he thinks just are conservative, are not, in fact, conservative.
While definitions and boundaries are fluid you an still separate them just as easily as you can separate an typical organic liquid from a typical polar, non-organic one. I dare say that the Enthalpy of Vaporization between liberalism and conservatism is significantly wide enough that the only way one could mistake significant properties of the two is if they just decided to forgo the distillation entirely.
Libertarianism is like the annoying excess reactant that you have to constantly scrub out of the flask because it got burned onto the glass in the course of the experiment. It's so stuck on that it doesn't affect the distillation as it progresses (most of the time). Nonetheless, it's there.
Sure you can't get 100% yield, but you can get close.
Guess I let them chemistry part of me come out. Whoops.
|
On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law.
I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!"
If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave.
|
On September 04 2014 13:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2014 11:26 Wegandi wrote:On September 03 2014 16:26 IgnE wrote:On September 03 2014 15:52 Danglars wrote:On September 03 2014 03:34 IgnE wrote:On September 02 2014 18:16 Danglars wrote:On September 02 2014 17:23 IgnE wrote:On September 02 2014 16:53 Introvert wrote:On September 02 2014 16:18 IgnE wrote:
My assertion is in line with normal understanding of what a conservative impulse is. It's kind of bewildering that you are challenging the prima facie case actually. As if it were unusual for self-described conservatives (e.g. Alex Jones) to sometimes strongly value something like civil rights. Do you not think a preference for hierarchy and support for police is essentially a conservative impulse? That vengeance and security are more highly valued than abstract rights like freedom of movement and speech? I mean what are you even arguing about here? My original comment was directed to Danglars's and jonny's ridiculous assignation of a 9pm curfew to the encroachment of a "liberal" Nanny State that "knows best." As if it weren't motivated from a desire for order, but instead out of some tyrannically benevolent state prescription for good living.
And can we just give up the pretense that anyone who isn't a conservative can't truly have any insight into what conservatism is? It's tiresome. Oh, it's possible to have insight. I've written out a couple ways to address this, but I don't find any of them satisfactory or clear, ugh. I'll just say that the language you use in that paragraph displays that you do not, in fact really know a whole lot about conservatism outside of that narrow framework you're so often using. From the comment on civil rights to using the word "vengeance," it's abundantly clear that you view it from a distinct perspective, though not an uncommon one. Hence your confusion on "normal understanding." Actually, I think picking Alex Jones as your example is demonstrative of what I'm saying. (Note: this isn't a denial of his "conservatism." The kind laced with the sweet conspiracy frosting!) Oh please. Now you take issue with my language because you don't actually have a sensical point to make. You can restate what I said if it makes you feel better, and I might even agree. Would you prefer that I had picked Charles Krauthammer or David Brooks or Ron Paul or Rothbard or someone else? I picked Alex Jones because he was an extreme example of someone who has anarchist tendencies that conflict with basic conservative impulses. It has nothing to do with his conspiracy nuttery. You know it's possible that the sense in which I have been using "conservative" in the last two pages isn't the same one that you might use for different purposes. Is that the problem here? Are you just being overzealous in defending true "conservatism" from alternate usages in overlapping domains? All that is clear to me is that you think unless someone speaks in reverential tones of the beliefs you hold dear he couldn't possibly understand them. You seem to have a problem only thinking of extreme examples, which all the more reason why we bristle at others' mischaracterizations ( especially done naively thinking there was no argument). Brooks is anathema to what conservatism represents, you might even differentiate what conservatives believe by drawing contrast with what Brooks believes. We also didn't forget his comments on a certain pants leg crease, nor the rest of his identity.If you want libertarians first, and conservative only when the two views happen to agree, definitely point out Ron Paul or Murray Rothbard. With the left steaming further leftward, there will be widespread agreement between libertarians and conservatives. Krauthammer's the only one on your list pretty solidly in the conservative camp. He'll weedle back and forth supporting RINO policy and supporting conservative policy, but commonly sides with the conservatives in the following weeks and months. Not a guy you'd ride into policy battles with, but that you'll read and think about. You might also bristle if we talked about all democrats or European socialists as guys like Al Gore and Jesse Jackson ... even Harry Reid (you keep railin against those Koch brothers on the Senate floor! In my personal conversations with Democrat friends, they're quick to distance themselves from Reid nowadays). Or maybe refer to the face of the modern feminist movement as Cathy Brennan. On September 02 2014 13:08 Millitron wrote:
Cant we all agree that given the chance, both conservatives and liberals will pull authoritarian bullshit? Not in the least. Then again, I don't know how wide your umbrella of authoritarian bullshit extends. You too have missed the point. I wasn't trying to choose the most conservative person (whatever that fucking means anyway). I was trying to choose one who has clear instances of non-conservative tendencies. So it sounds like you are agreeing with me, even if you didn't know it. It's like you are reacting to self-fabricated offenses either because you can't read or because your conservative defense systems are so overwrought that you react to even non-threats. An obsession with purity perhaps. On September 02 2014 06:22 IgnE wrote:On September 02 2014 05:21 Danglars wrote:On September 01 2014 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:For Their Own Good? New Curfew Sends Baltimore Kids Home Early
Young people in Baltimore are adjusting to life under a tougher curfew law. For 20 years, the city has required kids to be inside at night during the summer — but now, children younger than 14 must be in by 9 p.m. every night of the year. ... LinkSeems excessive, but the nanny state knows best... Those poor high school kids and parents trying to do sports teams and extracurriculars. Nanny state does know best, and don't you dare question it. What an excellent use of police time as well. It's funny to me that you associate this conservative effort at population control (let's try and keep young black and impoverished kids off the streets so they don't associate with gangs and ruffians) with the monolithic mythical leftist project of the Nanny State. Sounds more like echoes of Ferguson than some socialist Nanny State plot. A curfew in place also prevents parents who are protesting from being out late since they can't bring their kids with them and probably can't afford a sitter to protest. You certainly pick the strangest efforts to call conservative, which prompted all my efforts (should've quoted this one though to illuminate). I find it quizzical and humorous your take on the liberal basket cases of the modern urban areas and what you impute to be conservative policies. Now if you meant nothing by it, or just use the word conservative to describe anything and all you disagree with, then I have no quarrel. You do rob the term of meaning in your use. I meant what I said. Imposing a curfew is driven by an essentially conservative impulse. The meaning is quite intact. Regardless of who is imposing the curfew, the character of the action is essentially one of imposing order by expressing it through a hierarchical social structure and executing it through the police force. Does a more liberal parent or a more conservative parent institute a curfew for his or her children? It's the same impulse. This is basic stuff, but you seem to think that the essence of an action is dictated by the actor's political party, rather than by the action itself, rooted in context. That's absurd. Just to throw out there, I don't know why you mentioned Ron Paul or Rothbard, because the libertarian impulse on curfew's (and parenting) is to have none. You're talking degree of action, because both liberal and conservatives aren't anti-curfew, they just disagree on where to put the limit. This is why it's my affirmation that there's no real substantive difference between each other - merely arguments over degree. Both agree on foreign interventionism, both agree on monetary policies, both agree on Executive fiat power, both agree on 'law and order', both agree with Government schools, etc. You have the libertarian who proposes unschooling and homeschooling, meanwhile liberals want more of the same Government schooling, and conservatives want Government schools, but sometimes funded with a voucher system, sometimes not (e.g. more local control than federal). There's no real substantive disagreement there for instance, just like with curfew's. In other words, having a curfew is a Statist impulse to control others, and conservatives and liberals are especially no enemies of each other on that front. I pretty much agree with this. Conservatives want government schools, locally controlled, and are generally supportive of a voucher system, just as I personally support it. If more people could just abandon the pretense that "imposing order through a hierarchical social structure" is somehow conservative. Same with "[execution] through the police force." Where on earth are you getting this, IgnE, it's almost absurd enough to convince me you're parodying some ivory tower intellectual that enjoys using hierarchical in sentences.
Oh, no, don't get me wrong, conservatives are those things only liberals are too. My argument was essentially - liberals and conservatives bitch at each other a lot, but they're really brother and sister, two peas in the same pod. Also, it must be said, while libertarians do have some overlap with conservatives on economic issues it is vastly overblown. Most conservatives are 'pro-business', while we're pro-market. We'd just as soon cut all the Corporate Welfare, subsidies, Government writs of monopoly, just as fast as we would non-Corporate Welfare, SCHIP, FCC, taxation of all kinds, etc.
This is why I get a chuckle out of those who say I'm for the 'big business', because I'd cut all the taxation (let me put it this way - Corporations get way more money in Welfare and indirectly via regulatory burdens than they pay in taxation), while at same time cutting all the welfare, regulatory schemes, etc. I mean, those liberals are really anti-business, that's why they gave a bunch of our money to GM, Citi-group, and Bank of America. Yeah...two peas in the pod.
|
On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave.
What exactly did the immigrants ruin in California?
|
On September 04 2014 15:48 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave. What exactly did the immigrants ruin in California?
Should have been more clear- I was speaking generally. This story displays what must be a symptom of insanity. That and supporting a failed high speed rail project with billions from taxpayers and magical outside investors who don't appear.
Second, the post was about illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants- I know in the liberal mind they are all the same. Brown certainly think so- he's such a panderer. There's pretty much no major Democrat constituency that he will confront, though he tires to make that impression. Hence the president of Mexico, who I hear isn't even so nice about immigration laws in his own country, comes here and praises us for our "immigrant friendly" laws. Like letting illegal immigrants get driver's licenses.
Arizona can't enforce federal immigration law when it wants to, but politicians in California get away with ignoring the law over here. We should get some federal agency on that! We need a lawsuit!
It's all just so silly. I'm sure Caesar Chavez would be proud...
You'll have to excuse me. Seeing this insanity so close up causes me a large amount of annoyance.
|
I really hope that you are also against NAFTA as well.
|
On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave.
I call bullshit on those numbers. 2.6 million people provide $130 billion in GDP, where the majority do unskilled labor or agriculture? That's $50k per person. Bullshit.
This is how they describe their methodology:
Information on contributions to the Bay Area regional GDP was determined using averaged industry-specific GDP information from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. We used 2010 through 2012 GDP data to combine multiple Metropolitan areas to match our custom definition of the Bay Area region. We then applied it to our pooled American Community Survey data set. These figures were applied to the percentages of immigrant workforce in each industry as found using ACS data combining each of the counties in the Metro. After the immigrant contributions per sector were found, the figures were aggregated to the regional level. Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2014).
It reads the same for every other region. This sounds like they just got California's entire GDP then divided it by the number of estimated illegal immigrants. But such an assumption is huge, because California has among the worst inequality in the United States, carrying large numbers of the richest and poorest people in the United States.
Without gathering primary data about the incomes and productivity of illegal immigrants, assuming they're a net benefit to the economy and pretending to have data to support that is at best a disingenuous guess. At worst you just fabricate evidence like this.
To be honest, I think immigrants do provide net benefit to the economy, but exaggerating it like this is very unhelpful. If you extended out the assumption, what California should really do is kick open the door and beg China and India to send hundreds of MILLIONS of people to enter. At $50k of extra GDP per head, California and America's economic problems would be solved completely.
|
what California should really do is kick open the door and beg China and India to send hundreds of MILLIONS of people to enter. At $50k of extra GDP per head, California and America's economic problems would be solved completely.
Oh I imagine there are people who have contemplated what it would look like if one were to alienate Americans and replace them with a new generation of immigrants....
At first glance it looks like the only people getting hosed are those who would get replaced.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
lol why are people surprised at those numbers? immigration provides a lot of economic activity not merely just in terms of lower labor cost but also in small business enterprise etc. immigrants are usually hard working and do stuff
|
On September 04 2014 17:22 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2014 14:54 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:A report released Wednesday by researchers at USC found that immigrants who are in California illegally make up nearly 10% of the state's workforce and contribute $130 billion annually to its gross domestic product.
The study, which was conducted in conjunction with the California Immigrant Policy Center, was based on census data and other statistics, including data from the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at a variety of ways the estimated 2.6 million immigrants living in California without permission participate in state life.[...]
Among the study's findings:
Immigrants who are in California illegally make up 38% of the agriculture industry and 14% of the construction industry statewide.
Half of the immigrants in the state illegally have been here for at least 10 years.
Roughly 58% do not have health insurance.
Nearly three in four live in households that include U.S. citizens. LA TimesThis drink's to immigration laws! I'm just blown away my state's governor will tell Mexicans they are "Welcome in California", but of course he'd be tarred and feathered if he ever came out in favor of enforcing current federal immigration law. I don't understand this place. I can only hope that our craziness can serve as a warning to other states- "see, this is how you ruin a once great state!" If it weren't for the higher education and natural beauty.... I'd try to leave. I call bullshit on those numbers. 2.6 million people provide $130 billion in GDP, where the majority do unskilled labor or agriculture? That's $50k per person. Bullshit. This is how they describe their methodology: Show nested quote + Information on contributions to the Bay Area regional GDP was determined using averaged industry-specific GDP information from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. We used 2010 through 2012 GDP data to combine multiple Metropolitan areas to match our custom definition of the Bay Area region. We then applied it to our pooled American Community Survey data set. These figures were applied to the percentages of immigrant workforce in each industry as found using ACS data combining each of the counties in the Metro. After the immigrant contributions per sector were found, the figures were aggregated to the regional level. Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2014). It reads the same for every other region. This sounds like they just got California's entire GDP then divided it by the number of estimated illegal immigrants. But such an assumption is huge, because California has among the worst inequality in the United States, carrying large numbers of the richest and poorest people in the United States. Without gathering primary data about the incomes and productivity of illegal immigrants, assuming they're a net benefit to the economy and pretending to have data to support that is at best a disingenuous guess. At worst you just fabricate evidence like this. To be honest, I think immigrants do provide net benefit to the economy, but exaggerating it like this is very unhelpful. If you extended out the assumption, what California should really do is kick open the door and beg China and India to send hundreds of MILLIONS of people to enter. At $50k of extra GDP per head, California and America's economic problems would be solved completely.
It's called economic multipliers. Those immigrants increase consumption and reduce prices, which has a echoing effect. They may make $20-40k per person, but they then add to economic activity beyond that income. 20 more people showing up to McDonalds throughout the day is enough to hire one more person, adding another $20-25k to the economy.
|
I think the point is that 50k$/year is a pretty high income, and it makes sense to assume that on average, illegal immigrants will have a lower income then residents even when working exactly as hard or harder, simply because they can not really access a lot of high-paying jobs.
Thus, when California has a GDP/Capita of ~51k, it seems dishonest to say that each illegal immigrant also adds ~50k considering they are probably on the lower end of the wage spectrum.
Generally speaking, a situation where you have lots of illegal immigrants is bad. A first world country should not have a lower class of second rate citizens for menial labour that can not vote, have no access to public services and who really have no way of changing that situation.
|
It's called economic multipliers . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
