US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1268
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11755 Posts
On September 05 2014 01:21 IgnE wrote: It's called economic multipliers . . . That statement doesn't make sense. The GDP per capita in California is 51k. Thus, the average person in California adds ~50k to the GDP total. Unless you want to assume that every person adds the same amount to GDP no matter how much they work, we must assume that there is some difference in how much they add. Thus, some people must add less that 50k. I think it is a reasonable assumption to think that the amount someone adds to the GDP is roughly correlated to their income. Thus, lower income people add less to the GDP. Which sounds fair considering they also get less reward out of the GDP. No amount of "economic multiplying" whatever that is even supposed to mean is going to change that. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18855 Posts
| ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
![]() | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On September 04 2014 16:10 Introvert wrote: But other than describing the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in California and not that many in Mexico you havent explained exactly what the illegal immigrants have done to 'ruin 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. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23669 Posts
On September 05 2014 02:04 Sub40APM wrote: But other than describing the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in California and not that many in Mexico you havent explained exactly what the illegal immigrants have done to 'ruin california' Well 'they' didn't and even Californians know that...They do make a great scapegoat though... I find it especially ironic that every once in a while the 'illegal immigrants' sometimes have family ties to the land that go back long before any white people were here to forcibly take it. The US sometimes reminds me of the kid from Big Daddy... Once we gain the advantage, change the rules to prevent anyone from obtaining a similar advantage in a similar way (domestic and foreign). Like families still on the Forbes list today who sold heroin and cocaine to help build that fortune. Or the people who use the historical ties to Israel to justify Jewish occupation but then turn around and say Mexicans historic claims mean nothing... | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
(Reuters) - The United States is preparing a new round of economic sanctions against Russia for its incursion into Ukraine, a senior White House official said on Thursday on the fringes of a NATO summit in Wales. Deputy White House national security adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters that the new penalties were being finalized. He gave no details of the sectors that would be targeted. "The key point is that Russia must continue to face costs for its own escalation," he said. "If Russia escalates we can escalate our pressure." Source | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
A jury found Virginia ex-Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) guilty of eleven corruption charges on Thursday, according to the Washington Post. McDonnell and his wife were charged in a 14-count indictment with accepting more than $165,000 in gifts and loans from a wealthy Virginia businessman, Jonnie Williams, in exchange for promoting his dietary supplements company. The jury also found Maureen McDonnell guilty of eight corruption counts against her, in addition to an obstruction of justice charge. The couple was acquitted of charges of falsifying loan documents, however. Source The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday overturned same-sex marriage bans in Wisconsin and Indiana. "The discrimination against same-sex couples is irrational, and therefore unconstitutional even if the discrimination is not subjected to heightened scrutiny, which is why we can largely elide the more complex analysis found in more closely balanced equal-protection cases," Judge Richard Posner wrote for the Court. The ruling makes it the third federal appeals court to conclude that state prohibitions on gay marriage violate the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. Advocates for marriage equality have enjoyed many victories since the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the federal government may not deny equal benefits to legally married gay couples. Posner, a Reagan appointee, said the case was formally about "discrimination against the small homosexual minority" but "at a deeper level, as we shall see, they are about the welfare of American children." Source | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23669 Posts
If he would of gotten away with such blatant corruption there would be no reason to have the laws at all. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
Don't snitch on your chef. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Conservationists studying bats in Arizona were recently confronted by a group of armed militia members who confused them for border crossers or smugglers, a local sheriff told television station KOLD. The TV station reported on Tuesday that Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada said the militia members were wearing camouflage and were heavily armed when they arrived on ATVs and confronted the scientists on the night of Aug. 23. "Obviously they mistook them for smugglers or illegal entrants," said Estrada. "They were armed. They put a spotlight on them." The scientists reported the incident to the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's office and were unreceptive to the militia's apology. Estrada said the confrontation luckily didn't turn violent but noted that the volunteer militia isn't welcome in Santa Cruz County. Source | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23669 Posts
99.999% certainty humans are driving global warming: new study There is less than 1 chance in 100,000 that global average temperature over the past 60 years would have been as high without human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, our new research shows. We identified periods of declining temperature by using a moving 10-year window (1950 to 1959, 1951 to 1960, 1952 to 1961, etc.) through the entire 60-year record. We identified 11 such short time periods where global temperatures declined. Our analysis showed that in the absence of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, there would have been more than twice as many periods of short-term cooling than are found in the observed data. There was less than 1 chance in 100,000 of observing 11 or fewer such events without the effects of human greenhouse gas emissions. Source | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Adult obesity rates increased in six U.S. states and fell in none last year, and in 20 states — more than ever before — at least 30 percent of adults are obese, according to an analysis released Thursday. The conclusions were reported by the Trust for America's Health (TFAH) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and were based on federal government data. They suggest that the problem may be worsening despite numerous programs to address it, and despite widespread publicity from first lady Michelle Obama and many others. “Obesity in America is at a critical juncture,” said TFAH director Jeffrey Levi. “We need to intensify prevention efforts starting in early childhood, and do a better job of implementing effective policies and programs in all communities – so every American has the greatest opportunity to have a healthy weight and live a healthy life.” From 2011 to 2012, the rate of obesity increased in only one state. But last year it rose in six – Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, New Jersey, Tennessee and Wyoming – and the 2013 adult obesity rate exceeded 20 percent in every state, while 42 had rates above 25 percent. For the first time the rate in two states, Mississippi and West Virginia, rose above 35 percent. The year before, 13 states were above 30 percent and 41 had rates of at least 25 percent. Obesity is defined as a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or more, where BMI is calculated by dividing weight (in kilograms) by height (in meters) squared. Overweight is defined as a BMI of 25 to 29.9. Nationally, obesity rates remained at about one-third of the adult population, according to the report, titled “The State of Obesity: Better Policies for a Healthier America.” It said just over two-thirds are overweight or more. However, childhood obesity rates have leveled off, with about one in three 2- to 19-year-olds overweight or obese in 2012, comparable to rates over the past decade. Source | ||
|
Introvert
United States4908 Posts
On September 05 2014 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote: Well 'they' didn't and even Californians know that...They do make a great scapegoat though... I find it especially ironic that every once in a while the 'illegal immigrants' sometimes have family ties to the land that go back long before any white people were here to forcibly take it. The US sometimes reminds me of the kid from Big Daddy... Once we gain the advantage, change the rules to prevent anyone from obtaining a similar advantage in a similar way (domestic and foreign). http://youtu.be/8HUvTp8ZcJs?t=7s Like families still on the Forbes list today who sold heroin and cocaine to help build that fortune. Or the people who use the historical ties to Israel to justify Jewish occupation but then turn around and say Mexicans historic claims mean nothing... On September 05 2014 02:04 Sub40APM wrote: But other than describing the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in California and not that many in Mexico you havent explained exactly what the illegal immigrants have done to 'ruin california' Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It's easy to google. Granted, I don't know if it amounts to 130 billion. I could just make the Caesar Chavez argument that importing lower wage illegal immigrants harms the citizen/legal immigrant workers by driving wages down (and in Chavez's day, they were used as strike breakers). But I'm no economist. I do, however, value the citizen/legal worker more than the illegal one. But I was making a general point that actually tied into what GH said about scapegoats. You do realize that in California they are used as political pawns, right? You think Republicans are the only ones who use illegal immigration as an issue? What do you think these laws giving them driver's licenses are? It's not the illegals who can vote for or against that! Nevermind the fact that it gives the perverse incentive for more to come and break the law. So... I saw you agree with xDaunt's simple "close the backdoor, open the front door." This is not what states like CA do. By the way, if your family has roots here, and has stayed here, then you were made a citizen... CA became a state in 1850. Not exactly yesterday. There's more to it than that, but it needn't be said. It wasn't really the point. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On September 05 2014 01:49 Simberto wrote: That statement doesn't make sense. The GDP per capita in California is 51k. Thus, the average person in California adds ~50k to the GDP total. Unless you want to assume that every person adds the same amount to GDP no matter how much they work, we must assume that there is some difference in how much they add. Thus, some people must add less that 50k. I think it is a reasonable assumption to think that the amount someone adds to the GDP is roughly correlated to their income. Thus, lower income people add less to the GDP. Which sounds fair considering they also get less reward out of the GDP. No amount of "economic multiplying" whatever that is even supposed to mean is going to change that. Let's put it this way. Assume some person in SF makes $1,000,000 a year and has a gigantic yard and they need to maintain it, so they hire some guy for $20k a year to maintain it for them. That rich persons income adds $1,000,000 to the measured economy of California, AND the hiring of the yard worker adds $20k to the measured economy of California as well. From that initial $1,000,000, the total measured GDP of this property is measured at $1,020,000. That is a multiplier. Believe it or not, but economic multipliers are higher for a low-income individual's income than high-income. As they spend roughly their entire paycheck, they provide demand for more products and services, which increases employment and wages, which then does the same thing all over again. As each job is added, as each paycheck is raised, more is added to the economy. At some point, saturation is reached as wages refuse to rise and no more people are hired, because some money always goes to repay capital investment, which is higher income and has a smaller multiplier. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23669 Posts
On September 05 2014 09:31 Introvert wrote: Well, there are the costs of public services for illegals, who don't pay taxes for those services. Things such as education (which the state is required to provide), hospitals (same), etc... but I won't post the data because it wasn't really my point. It's easy to google. Granted, I don't know if it amounts to 130 billion. I could just make the Caesar Chavez argument that importing lower wage illegal immigrants harms the citizen/legal immigrant workers by driving wages down (and in Chavez's day, they were used as strike breakers). But I'm no economist. I do, however, value the citizen/legal worker more than the illegal one. But I was making a general point that actually tied into what GH said about scapegoats. You do realize that in California they are used as political pawns, right? You think Republicans are the only ones who use illegal immigration as an issue? What do you think these laws giving them driver's licenses are? It's not the illegals who can vote for or against that! Nevermind the fact that it gives the perverse incentive for more to come and break the law. So... I saw you agree with xDaunt's simple "close the backdoor, open the front door." This is not what states like CA do. By the way, if your family has roots here, and has stayed here, then you were made a citizen... CA became a state in 1850. Not exactly yesterday. There's more to it than that, but it needn't be said. It wasn't really the point. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made? How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist. I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such. Finally I was talking about most border states(not California exclusively) and as I'm sure you know it wasn't exactly the most hospitable place for people of Mexican heritage at various times. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4908 Posts
On September 05 2014 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote: So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made? How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist. I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such. Finally I was talking about most border states(not California exclusively) and as I'm sure you know it wasn't exactly the most hospitable place for people of Mexican heritage at various times. So are you still (or were you in the first place?) suggesting illegal immigrants ruined California because I didn't really see that argument made? How the hell do you come to the distorted idea that they don't pay taxes towards those services? I just actually have no idea how you could come to that conclusion...? That wasn't the argument I was making, no. More is going wrong in this state than illegal immigration. We could devote an entire thread to the dysfunction and perhaps even criminality of the state government (4 of 40 state senators are currently suspended, pending criminal charges.) The Democrats in California take affirmative steps to open the "backdoor." The Republicans occasionally try to stop it. It's not like they are re-introducing school segregation. It's a reaction. If the democrats didn't try all this crap there wouldn't be a counter-push. It seems logical to believe that outside of overall GDP growth, that using cheaper laborers that work below the minimum wage probably reinforces the cycle. More Americans won't do those jobs for those wages. This hurts legal workers who need those jobs. I could be wrong here though, as I said. Why reduce their wages or opportunities (the "American life") for the sake of someone who crept over the border? What makes that immigrant more deserving of it than the one who spent the time and toil to follow the rules? Certain sectors are profiting from flat out breaking the law. That's not something I can support, and that's where a lot of my objection to this comes from. Well making the distinction between the two based purely on their legal status implies that we have a practical/functional way for them to legally immigrate/work in the first place, which I think everyone on all sides of the spectrum agrees doesn't exist. I would agree that immigrants are used as political pawns on both sides, it just so happens one side happens to be arguing to give them a better more American life and the other is just arguing why/how to deny them such. Illegal immigrants don't pay the same taxes that go to things like medical, local taxes that pay for schools, etc. At least not in the same way. To do somethings you have to do paperwork that requires it, as do the employers. Of course they don't avoid ALL taxes, e.g. sales taxes. If this has to be explained to you yet again then there is no point. Let's just say that a broken system isn't an excuse to break the law. If they want to have the "American life" then come in the front. Seriously, if you actually agreed with the closed back door open front then you wouldn't support doing things that open the backdoor wider. On September 05 2014 10:55 IgnE wrote: A lot of illegal immigrants pay taxes: sales tax, property tax, even income tax. Indeed, many do. I've not seen any conclusive evidence that's it's to the same level as if they were citizens reporting fully. Obviously with taxes being taken automatically out of paychecks, it can't be avoided, in the instances where illegals file tax forms. Edit again: As obnoxious as I find taxes to be, and the left's obsession with them, they should be paid according to the law. I may not like a law, but I will still follow it. The only way to avoid such a bad law is to change it. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
| ||
