EPTreaders of wf buckley would know
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1653
| 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. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
readers of wf buckley would know | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
This is excellent news. I think every democrat I know is cheering for Rand Paul as the nominee. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On February 19 2015 01:14 Maenander wrote: One does not need to study history to know that most of us here on tl.net are privileged, one does only need to take a look at the world and and the people living in it. One does not need to know the sins of our forefathers or feel guilty about history to recognize that with our privilege comes responsibility. And here, Maenander has put the whole issue before us, and exposed the argument for the joke it is. As he says, "One does not need to study history" to know what we ought to be learning from it. The argument about history is done by people whose entire mental architecture is fundamentally ahistorical. History is short-term civic propaganda; it is not study, not research, not opening the mind to new insights and new horizons. We already know the conclusion. The pretense of "learning" is only pro forma. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18004 Posts
On February 18 2015 23:01 coverpunch wrote: Yeah, Common Core is trying to address this exact problem, which is too many subjects get to a point where you tell the students "Everything you've learned until now is wrong and worthless, but you've learned it well and proven you're worthy of instruction. So let's learn the real discipline." BUT, I think it goes a little too far to the conceptual theoretical side and strays away from the fundamentals. It's true that college-level history deals very little and very indirectly with the hard dates and places of milestones, but it's one of those things that if you don't know those things, there's no possibility of productive discussion. I would use the debate about intelligent design as a parallel. It's fine to want to poke holes in the theory of evolution and put God in the gaps, but if you don't understand the concepts of evolution, then you don't understand modern biology and how or why we categorize organisms. The whole idea of homologous structures might not even make sense if you're going to strictly believe God created each organism separately, which means everything we think about genetics doesn't make any sense either. You just end up in a very strange place discussing nonsense because you don't know the fundamentals. I have very mixed feelings about it but I'm willing to give it time and see if it works. The thing that alarms me most is that the best schools in the country, like the ones Obama and Bill Gates (who endorsed and pushed it) sends their kids to, don't use Common Core and aren't planning to switch. I think it speaks volumes that the elites aren't eating their own dog food. Common Core can still be better than 99% of the education without it being better than the elite 1%. So stating that Bill Gates and Obama send their kids to schools that don't use Common Core is a non-argument, because the school they send their kids to probably costs about 100k $ tuition a year and (presumably) gives their students a vastly better education than Common Core embodies. Nevertheless, if you send your kids to a public school (or even a cheap private school), then Common Core is probably a vast improvement over their current education. EDIT: that said, if Common Core is adopted as a legal standard, then all private schools will obviously also have to teach it, also the one the Obamas send their kids to. However, they will probably still teach the common core material in like half a day of the class and use the other half for further depth and broader subjects. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
| ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On February 18 2015 08:28 hannahbelle wrote: Are you high? Legalizing illegal aliens will not bring tax revenue. There is no way that more than 1% of these people will pay income taxes even in the foreseeable future. They will represent a net drain on society in every shape and meaning of the word. I mean, maybe on the income tax thing. But participation in the economy is still the more important thing, and honestly if we just made it broadly easier for people to immigrate we would improve the economy in all sorts of ways, both low wage/low skill and high wage/high skill. It's the US's loss if we throw out all the hardworking people who legitimately want to join us and help us. Also, really on the "forseeable future?" Hispanic immigrants are just as poor as Irish/German/Whatever immigrants used to be, and they seem to acculturate about as fast, despite similar levels of bias. On February 18 2015 09:42 Introvert wrote: For the millionth time, no one opposing immigtation... Hannahbelle is, and opposing immigration outright is VERY popular in Europe, but point taken that most US folks would be happy if we just switched to legal immigration with border security. I joke about putting up Ellis Island style checkpoints at the border to make is easy and flying "shoot anything that moves" predator drones up and down the rest to stop the smuggling, but there's more than a little validity. You wouldn't actually use drones of simple checkpoints, but if we just got rid of our insane quotas we'd be well on our way. Most illegal immigration isn't because the people couldn't get in with a fair process; it's that the backlog to get in is years and years long. On February 18 2015 09:25 Nyxisto wrote: I feel like despite all the anti-vaccination stuff and bible madness the one great redeeming quality that even the staunchest conservative Americans had was this great attitude towards immigration that Europe could need a big chunk off. If you throw that out of the window too I feel like you've chosen the worst out of both worlds This is generally very true. Small caveat: I'd like to remind everyone that the vaccine thing is madness from both far lefties and righties. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
Also, just because they don't pay income tax doesn't mean they can't, or don't contribute to society. They pay sales tax for goods, and contribute to the economy by spending the money they are barely making. I also find it hard to believe that hannahbelle wouldn't do the same exact thing if he were in their shoes...if you lived in Mexico and had a shot at a better life for you and your children, but had to cross an imaginary border illegally to do it, would you break the law or risk being killed by the drug cartels? Hrm.... | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 18 2015 08:28 hannahbelle wrote: Are you high? Legalizing illegal aliens will not bring tax revenue. There is no way that more than 1% of these people will pay income taxes even in the foreseeable future. They will represent a net drain on society in every shape and meaning of the word. ? • Undocumented immigrants currently contribute significantly to state and local taxes, collectively paying an estimated $10.6 billion in 2010 with contributions ranging from less than $2 million in Montana to more than $2.2 billion in California. This means these families are likely paying about 6.4 percent on average of their income in state and local taxes. • Allowing undocumented immigrants to work in the United States legally would increase their state and local tax contributions by an estimated $2 billion a year. Their effective state and local tax rate would also increase to 7 percent on average, which would put their tax contributions more in line with documented taxpayers with similar incomes. http://www.itep.org/pdf/undocumentedtaxes.pdf | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 19 2015 03:17 oneofthem wrote: ? • Undocumented immigrants currently contribute significantly to state and local taxes, collectively paying an estimated $10.6 billion in 2010 with contributions ranging from less than $2 million in Montana to more than $2.2 billion in California. This means these families are likely paying about 6.4 percent on average of their income in state and local taxes. • Allowing undocumented immigrants to work in the United States legally would increase their state and local tax contributions by an estimated $2 billion a year. Their effective state and local tax rate would also increase to 7 percent on average, which would put their tax contributions more in line with documented taxpayers with similar incomes. http://www.itep.org/pdf/undocumentedtaxes.pdf Go find their drain on public benefits and other public services, and then let's talk. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
Is this a nationwide thing or only a few specific states? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21699 Posts
On February 19 2015 03:24 WolfintheSheep wrote: Wait, you're telling me that the US curriculum currently skips over subjects that paint your country in a negative light? Is this a nationwide thing or only a few specific states? To be fair its something every nation does in some way. The slavery that served as the foundation of the Dutch Golden Age was down played in my history class as well. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 19 2015 03:22 xDaunt wrote: Go find their drain on public benefits and other public services, and then let's talk. in that discussion you'd need overall economic impact which is much more than simple tax revenue. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On February 19 2015 03:24 WolfintheSheep wrote: Wait, you're telling me that the US curriculum currently skips over subjects that paint your country in a negative light? Is this a nationwide thing or only a few specific states? No, the current AP test portrays the US in a very negative light in many ways. Some nationalists want to change that. Also, generally, almost nothing controversial in the US is nationwide unless it's established by the courts. State-by-state is the usual way of things. AP tests are something of an exception, since they're run by a monopoly. Hardly a conservative one, most would agree. | ||
|
Sandvich
United States57 Posts
On February 19 2015 03:24 WolfintheSheep wrote: Wait, you're telling me that the US curriculum currently skips over subjects that paint your country in a negative light? Is this a nationwide thing or only a few specific states? Massachusetts covers the trail of tears, Japanese internment camps and the Civil Rights movement (and reactions from the KKK). Definitely a state by state process of inclusion or exclusion of awkward events in US history. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 19 2015 03:30 oneofthem wrote: in that discussion you'd need overall economic impact which is much more than simple tax revenue. That's fine, let's put it all on the table. I just find it a very hard sell that a population that both depresses wages and is a net-detriment to the public benefits system (not to mention an absolute rapist of hospitals and the healthcare system overall) is economically beneficial to the country. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Buried amid the extensive legal wrangling over same-sex marriage this week came an interesting side question raised by an Alabama Supreme Court justice: Does last month's federal ruling threaten the constitutionality of all marriages? Justice Glenn Murdock raised the possibility in a concurring opinion when the full court declined to issue a "clarification" of Chief Justice Roy Moore's order instructing probate judges to ignore U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. "Ginny" Granade's ruling striking down the state's same-sex marriage ban. Murdock agreed with his colleagues that the request by Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis to review Moore's administrative order was improper because only the governor or Legislature can do so. But he wrote separately, in part, to discuss the possibility that "considering the meaning of the term 'marriage' intended by the Legislature in those statutes, they may be deemed to survive, or must be stricken as wholly void, if they are not to be applied solely to a union between a man and a woman." Murdock cited a 1945 case, A. Bertolla & Sons v. State, which the court held that a law is unconstitutional in its entirety if "the invalid potion is so important to the general plan and operation of the law in its entirety as reasonably to lead to the conclusion that it would not have been adopted if the legislature had perceived the invalid part so held to be unconstitutional." The court at the time described the circumstances under which a law could be saved if part of it were declared unconstitutional. "The test is ... whether the legislature would have passed the statute without" the unconstitutional part. So the potential question in the gay marriage case would be whether the Legislature would have codified marriage as a legal institution if it had been available more broadly than one man and one woman. Murdock's musings have no immediate bearing on the issue. "These questions, however, are not before us in an adversary proceeding or in the context of a request for an advisory opinion by the Governor or the Legislature," he wrote. "Nor has here been a showing that these questions are properly before us on some other basis." Legal experts agreed that in order to strike down all Alabama marriage law, it would take a separate lawsuit challenging it. A pair of experts said it would be difficult for someone to demonstrate that he suffered harm from marriage law that would allow him to sue in the first place. Source | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 19 2015 03:40 oneofthem wrote: can't take your post seriously when you use such rhetoric that i know isn't accurate in the data. i'll post some stuff later And which part do you think is inaccurate? Sure as hell isn't the part about the hospitals or the net drain on public benefits. I've seen studies on both sides of the fence on the wage depression issue, but it simply doesn't make sense for there to be an insignificant impact on the earning of low skill workers, with whom illegal immigrants directly compete. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18004 Posts
On February 19 2015 03:49 xDaunt wrote: And which part do you think is inaccurate? Sure as hell isn't the part about the hospitals or the net drain on public benefits. I've seen studies on both sides of the fence on the wage depression issue, but it simply doesn't make sense for there to be an insignificant impact on the earning of low skill workers, with whom illegal immigrants directly compete. Well, it's not that simple, and you know enough economics given what you post here and in other threads. 1. Not enough of the legal laborers actually want to do the work on offer, so while unemployment may be high among college graduates, they apparently aren't desperate enough to take a job as janitor or farm hand. This leads to the requirement of finding people who will do horrid jobs for very little money. 2. If you were to raise the wages on the jobs, which you would, in your scenario, have to do in the absense of illegal workers, a lot of those jobs would simply cease to exist. A company can't afford to spend more than X money on cleaning. That means they can have the toilet cleaned 3 times a day by a minimum wage worker, or 2 times a day by college student. The same goes for farmhands: what happened in Georgie when they clamped down on immigrant workers? The crops simply rotted in the field, because there wasn't anybody doing the jobs that the immigrants did, and it was actually less of a loss to let them rot than contract people to do the work at a higher wage. Source The market will adjust, and who knows, maybe higher prices will be accepted. Or maybe those jobs will simply disappear. I don't know about the US, but there are a million jobs here in Brazil that nobody would even think of doing, and nobody misses, in Europe. You go to a gas station, and there are multiple attendants that will fill up your gas, but also check your oil and water levels, wash your windscreen, check your tyre pressure, etc. When I was still in NL, there were gas stations with 0 employees. You swipe your credit card and fill up your own tank. The former can happen and employs about 20 people per gas station, because labor is really cheap in Brazil, whereas in NL it is really expensive (we can debate whether the former is a good or a bad thing, but fact is that without cheap labor, a LOT more Brazilians would be unemployed). And it's not just gas stations. At road works there are at least 2 guys who just stand there all day waving a flag around. Government buildings have elevator operators (for real, and it's not just a security thing), etc. etc. etc. To me (as a European), a lot of it looks like employing people for the sake of employing people. However, labor really is cheap and that simply allows more jobs to be created. | ||
| ||
