|
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 May 31 2013 05:55 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 05:45 koreasilver wrote:
I haven't been paying attention to US politics for a while but can someone explain to me what happened and why/how the libertarians left the Republicans? What in the world are they doing then? They are doing what they have always done. (1) insist on forums they are different than Republicans (2) vote straight Republican in every election
They don't vote republican in presidential election anymore. They have their own candidate that will never win that they can waste their votes on.
Basically they're social liberal and economically conservative. So utterly unelectable.
|
United States42607 Posts
On May 31 2013 07:35 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 05:55 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On May 31 2013 05:45 koreasilver wrote:
I haven't been paying attention to US politics for a while but can someone explain to me what happened and why/how the libertarians left the Republicans? What in the world are they doing then? They are doing what they have always done. (1) insist on forums they are different than Republicans (2) vote straight Republican in every election They don't vote republican in presidential election anymore. They have their own candidate that will never win that they can waste their votes on. Basically they're social liberal and economically conservative. So utterly unelectable.
On the contrary I think socially liberal and economically conservative, and its counterpart would both be viable alliances. The current alliances of social and economic policy in the Republican and Democratic party aren't uniquely good bedfellows. For example the Hispanic bloc are generally pretty hardcore Catholics who fall into the socially conservative group but due to their reliance on state support they vote Democrat against their social principles. Likewise a lot of groups who are socially liberal, such as those who care about gay rights, women's issues and so forth but are economically conservative are turned off by the Republican party.
You could reverse it and make a small government libertarian party and a "family values" big government party without changing much, both parties are uneasy alliances of two very separate ideological groups.
|
On May 31 2013 07:35 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 05:55 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On May 31 2013 05:45 koreasilver wrote:
I haven't been paying attention to US politics for a while but can someone explain to me what happened and why/how the libertarians left the Republicans? What in the world are they doing then? They are doing what they have always done. (1) insist on forums they are different than Republicans (2) vote straight Republican in every election They don't vote republican in presidential election anymore. They have their own candidate that will never win that they can waste their votes on. Basically they're social liberal and economically conservative. So utterly unelectable.
Well, if you're all about just 'winning' elections, then may I add you're in the wrong party, and the wrong demographic shift. Maybe you should cheer on Hillary Clinton, too. You're just a sad pitiful GOP'er who is still angry your progressive choices for President have all lost because us principled folk stayed home or voted for 3rd party candidates. I am sure you're going to laud how much better Bush was than Harry Browne would have been *laugh*.
Anyways, the fact remains that we're electable, as seen with folks like Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, and Ron Paul, or in the case of NH where libertarians nearly make up a majority of their legislature. Anyways, your demographic theocratic/progressive 'wing' is dying off. I say good riddance to thee. Won't miss ya. The youth in this country are divided between progressivism and libertarianism (hardcore Jeffersonianism). Either the GOP will embrace its libertarian wing, or die, or they could try to out-do the Democrats which they certainly have been trying for a long time. In any event, if you like Government, intrusive, invasive, and rights-stomping then you're in luck - you have two parties to choose from! Congratulations.
|
On May 31 2013 07:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 07:35 Sermokala wrote:On May 31 2013 05:55 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On May 31 2013 05:45 koreasilver wrote:
I haven't been paying attention to US politics for a while but can someone explain to me what happened and why/how the libertarians left the Republicans? What in the world are they doing then? They are doing what they have always done. (1) insist on forums they are different than Republicans (2) vote straight Republican in every election They don't vote republican in presidential election anymore. They have their own candidate that will never win that they can waste their votes on. Basically they're social liberal and economically conservative. So utterly unelectable. On the contrary I think socially liberal and economically conservative, and its counterpart would both be viable alliances. The current alliances of social and economic policy in the Republican and Democratic party aren't uniquely good bedfellows. For example the Hispanic bloc are generally pretty hardcore Catholics who fall into the socially conservative group but due to their reliance on state support they vote Democrat against their social principles. Likewise a lot of groups who are socially liberal, such as those who care about gay rights, women's issues and so forth but are economically conservative are turned off by the Republican party. You could reverse it and make a small government libertarian party and a "family values" big government party without changing much, both parties are uneasy alliances of two very separate ideological groups.
There really isn't much of a difference between Nancy Pelosi, John McCain, Joe Liebermann, and Lindsay Graham. For all the whoo-whoo'ing the two parties are 98% similar, and they are very good at playing wedge issues to keep the bases fighting amongst each other, maintaining their base of power, and keeping the treasury flowing to themselves and the special interests. Meanwhile, the common folk have more of their rights eroded, and less of their property to keep of themselves.
Aren't we lucky to have had George Bush and Barack Obama, two diametrically opposed philosophically *laugh laugh all the way to the bank*.
|
On May 31 2013 07:24 BioNova wrote:
snipped
I was asking if there was any substantial change over the past few months. That site reads like propagandist nonsense and the "libertarian" propensity for this kind of language is incredibly tiresome and makes it very hard to take seriously.
|
On May 31 2013 08:29 koreasilver wrote:I was asking if there was any substantial change over the past few months. That site reads like propagandist nonsense and the "libertarian" propensity for this kind of language is incredibly tiresome and makes it very hard to take seriously.
You never mentioned a time frame and since you come into this with no knowledge, it would only make sense to listen to the people who actually made up the movement, were involved, and have intimate knowledge of what happened. It's not some secret, almost all libertarians know the story of the 40s, 50s, and 60s because it was the purge from the GOP. 'We' libertarians walked out of YAF in 1970 and formed the LP. Of course, since the Progressive Era election laws have all, but made sure that the two major parties have virtually no competition. Draconian doesn't really capture the full picture of the stranglehold these laws have captured.
It also doesn't help that people actually buy into that 'lesser of two evil' non-sense. Nothing is going to change with that mentality. They'll keep throwing out the same clowns and you'll keep voting for them 'because the other guy'. It's funny really. Between that and the election laws, well you have as about much choice as the folks living in North Korea.
Buckley and the New Right was the worst thing that could happen to the country and the GOP. Purging the Buffett's, Taft's, and mid-west libertarian bastion was a travesty. Now, you have the ridiculous theocratic wing that is thankfully growing older and dying off who were Carter-loving Government-loving sycophants. The remnant will always be here. We come out from time to time.
|
On May 31 2013 08:39 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 08:29 koreasilver wrote:On May 31 2013 07:24 BioNova wrote:
snipped I was asking if there was any substantial change over the past few months. That site reads like propagandist nonsense and the "libertarian" propensity for this kind of language is incredibly tiresome and makes it very hard to take seriously. Between that and the election laws, well you have as about much choice as the folks living in North Korea.
These kinds of statements are why nobody takes libertarians seriously. You are not being oppressed to nearly the extent that people in NK are, and it's incredibly insulting/condescending/self-absorbed to even suggest as much. I can't even begin to express how different the USA's governmental system is from fucking NK's.
|
On May 31 2013 08:42 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 08:39 Wegandi wrote:On May 31 2013 08:29 koreasilver wrote:On May 31 2013 07:24 BioNova wrote:
snipped I was asking if there was any substantial change over the past few months. That site reads like propagandist nonsense and the "libertarian" propensity for this kind of language is incredibly tiresome and makes it very hard to take seriously. Between that and the election laws, well you have as about much choice as the folks living in North Korea. These kinds of statements are why nobody takes libertarians seriously. You are not being oppressed to nearly the extent that people in NK are, and it's incredibly insulting/condescending/self-absorbed to even suggest as much. I can't even begin to express how different the USA's governmental system is from fucking NK's.
When was the last time there was a significant difference between Presidential options? 1964, maybe? In America, there is the illusion of choice, but it is the same charlatans over and over. At least in NK you know you're being screwed.
I think Carrol Quigley made the case pretty well in Tragedy and Hope.
|
I see that this thread never has the lack of people you can't take seriously at all. Makes me remember why I stopped visiting. Hilarious but a pure waste of my time.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On May 31 2013 08:45 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 08:42 Shiori wrote:On May 31 2013 08:39 Wegandi wrote:On May 31 2013 08:29 koreasilver wrote:On May 31 2013 07:24 BioNova wrote:
snipped I was asking if there was any substantial change over the past few months. That site reads like propagandist nonsense and the "libertarian" propensity for this kind of language is incredibly tiresome and makes it very hard to take seriously. Between that and the election laws, well you have as about much choice as the folks living in North Korea. These kinds of statements are why nobody takes libertarians seriously. You are not being oppressed to nearly the extent that people in NK are, and it's incredibly insulting/condescending/self-absorbed to even suggest as much. I can't even begin to express how different the USA's governmental system is from fucking NK's. When was the last time there was a significant difference between Presidential options? 1964, maybe? In America, there is the illusion of choice, but it is the same charlatans over and over. At least in NK you know you're being screwed. I think Carrol Quigley made the case pretty well in Tragedy and Hope.
Translation: the candidate I want to win is a fringe candidate whereas everyone else in the country finds my concerns irrelevant; therefore, the Presidential options are completely identical because the only issues that matter concern my libertarian economic theory, which both of them reject utterly. Clearly, we should merge with North Korea.
A is not X
B is not X
does not imply A = B. You qualify your argument with "significant difference" but fail to explain what that even means. Which differences are significant? Which ones aren't?
|
On May 31 2013 08:49 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 08:45 Wegandi wrote:On May 31 2013 08:42 Shiori wrote:On May 31 2013 08:39 Wegandi wrote:On May 31 2013 08:29 koreasilver wrote:On May 31 2013 07:24 BioNova wrote:
snipped I was asking if there was any substantial change over the past few months. That site reads like propagandist nonsense and the "libertarian" propensity for this kind of language is incredibly tiresome and makes it very hard to take seriously. Between that and the election laws, well you have as about much choice as the folks living in North Korea. These kinds of statements are why nobody takes libertarians seriously. You are not being oppressed to nearly the extent that people in NK are, and it's incredibly insulting/condescending/self-absorbed to even suggest as much. I can't even begin to express how different the USA's governmental system is from fucking NK's. When was the last time there was a significant difference between Presidential options? 1964, maybe? In America, there is the illusion of choice, but it is the same charlatans over and over. At least in NK you know you're being screwed. I think Carrol Quigley made the case pretty well in Tragedy and Hope. Translation: the candidate I want to win is a fringe candidate whereas everyone else in the country finds my concerns irrelevant; therefore, the Presidential options are completely identical because the only issues that matter concern my libertarian economic theory, which both of them reject utterly. Clearly, we should merge with North Korea. A is not X B is not X does not imply A = B. You qualify your argument with "significant difference" but fail to explain what that even means. Which differences are significant? Which ones aren't?
Let's see...War on Drugs continued - check, War on Terror/Expansion of US Hegemony and Foreign Intervention - check, expansion of the Welfare State - check, continual erosion of civil liberties - check, increase in # of regulations, laws, and other interferences - check, same Governing philosophy - expansion of State power and influence - check. I mean I could go on and on.
Oh sure, some minor wedge issues they'll differ on to play up their bases, but on all the major issues they're in agreement. Russ Feingold was the only person to vote against the Patriot Act for instance. How many voted against the Iraq War? How many vote for full drug decriminalization, an end to the War on Drugs and police militarization? How many want to close foreign bases and end our overseas interventions? Right..right...
Again, if you understood the game, then you'd be on to them, but most people still think there is a difference between the two parties, but there isn't. Every president does the same shit. Nothing changes. It's meant to be that way through the operations of the media, the election laws, and the political 'games'. Compromise and bi-partisanship! How lovely. Difference of opinion - you're evil and shunned. Everyone knows in America good-government is agreeing to increase the politico's power and influence.
Quigley makes this point when he states:
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers.
Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so the the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.”
Nothing will ever change in this rigged system, until people realize what is going on and try and fix it.
This is why I have a lot of respect for the Greens and people like Glenn Greenwald even though we're for the most part coming from different angles.
I mean, can you tell the difference between Dennis Hastert/Tom DeLay and Eric Holder and Loerner? They get in power and all do the same things. More of the same, and apparently the American people are just fine with it since you keep voting in the same charlatans.
|
On May 31 2013 00:35 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 23:31 coverpunch wrote:On May 30 2013 21:55 Melliflue wrote:On May 30 2013 21:13 coverpunch wrote:On May 30 2013 18:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 30 2013 16:55 Melliflue wrote:On May 30 2013 16:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Edit: On May 30 2013 13:38 KwarK wrote:
The cost of education compared to other countries with more socialised systems and higher tax rates will leave a huge number of people with extraordinary economic potential simply unable to fulfil it due to losing the birth lottery. Again, sure, only making 210k on the 700k between 300k and a million if taxed at 70% is going to be discouraging. But it probably won't be the factor that stops him starting a business, that'll be because he dropped out of school. And yet higher education in the US remains the best deal in the OECD. I'd like to see some evidence to back up that assertion. On May 30 2013 17:09 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2013 16:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 30 2013 12:52 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2013 08:21 Wegandi wrote:
Ak, why would anyone continue to invest in a venture where the more money you make, the more tax is levied upon you. It simply is not worth their labor and time for such a modest gain I'd much rather be a millionaire than not, even if I paid a higher proportion of my income than I do now. If you proposed a plan that would make me one and I thought it'd work I'd absolutely think it was worth my labour and time. I think 99.99999% of people would rather be obscenely wealthy before tax and just extraordinarily wealthy after tax than pay no tax at all on an average income. You'd have to be an anti-tax ideologue not to. That's not really the issue. The issue is either: Getting already high earners (via labor income) to earn more by working more. Them working more means more economic activity, but it's more work - a tough sell if taxes are very high. Or, getting wealthy investors (or an entrepreneur) to part with their capital. The higher the taxes the worse the DCF will look, which holds back investment. Edit: On May 30 2013 13:38 KwarK wrote:
The cost of education compared to other countries with more socialised systems and higher tax rates will leave a huge number of people with extraordinary economic potential simply unable to fulfil it due to losing the birth lottery. Again, sure, only making 210k on the 700k between 300k and a million if taxed at 70% is going to be discouraging. But it probably won't be the factor that stops him starting a business, that'll be because he dropped out of school. And yet higher education in the US remains the best deal in the OECD. I was talking about access to education, something which US higher education with its insane cost is arguably the worst deal in the OECD. Saying "but the education is good" misses the point of everything I've said. Going off of the OECD report on education. (See page 33) The cost of higher education in the US is high, but the benefits are very, very high. On net it's a fantastic deal. I would add to this point that subsidizing higher education is a direct transfer of wealth to the future rich. The irony is that living in a high-tax system where we all agree higher education is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for future wealth means that you are entrenching wealth even further by allowing the rich to transfer wealth to future generations of wealthy individuals, who the current rich and powerful are likely to ensure are their own children. EDIT: I will conclude that education is a symptom but not a cause for why the United States is so much more unequal than the rest of the OECD. I'm not sure I understand your argument, but what I think you're saying is that if university is subsidised by the government then the children of wealthy individuals are more likely to be wealthy when they grow up. However, I think the exact opposite is true; if there were no government subsidising at all then only the children of wealthy individuals could afford to go to university and become the 'future rich'. Having subsidised education benefits the children of poor individuals. I'm saying that a high-tax system with a premium on degrees leads to a system where access to elite degrees gets limited to the people who are currently paying most of the taxes. IMO this has less to do with de facto education. The simple fact is that technology has enabled access to elite educations for anyone who is motivated enough to look. Schools like MIT and Stanford present all the lectures in podcast form with homeworks and tests that actual students do. If you want it, it's out there. But we live in a society that increasingly cares less about education and more about degrees. Everyone who works in an office has stories of knowing someone who has tremendous academic pedigree who is, in reality, a blithering idiot. But we still operate mostly under the assumption that a person who graduated from Harvard is smarter and more capable than a person who graduated from Arizona State (sorry). Hell, we're having this entire discussion because we operate under the assumption that a college educated person has more skills and knowledge than a person who did not. In conclusion, I'm not implying at all that government should not subsidize anyone's education. But it needs to be subsidized only to support people who have an appropriate need to go to university but may not have the means. I think to blindly support a blanket subsidy for anyone to go to college whether they plan to study or spend four years drinking is ridiculous. Ah ok, but then your argument seems to be more along the line of - we do not actually need 100% (or even 70%) of the population going to universities and getting degrees. That is quite reasonable. EDIT:typo
You made three separate posts but I will try to thread the needle on this.
I think the missing piece is that society shouldn't close off access to motivated and capable people to higher education if they want it. But in terms of the United States, I don't think financing education is a big hurdle. Rather, the disadvantage that poorer children face is a poorer quality of lower education and lack of preparedness for academic rigor at the college level. The hard part, of course, is sorting through who actually wants it and who is worthy of getting an elite education.
But like I said, I think education is a symptom of inequality, not the cause. The US is an open society that all but begs people to learn. All the tools of an elite education are out there for free.
|
On May 31 2013 08:47 koreasilver wrote:
I see that this thread never has the lack of people you can't take seriously at all. Makes me remember why I stopped visiting. Hilarious but a pure waste of my time.
Thank you for your contribution.
|
On May 31 2013 09:10 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 00:35 mcc wrote:On May 30 2013 23:31 coverpunch wrote:On May 30 2013 21:55 Melliflue wrote:On May 30 2013 21:13 coverpunch wrote:On May 30 2013 18:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 30 2013 16:55 Melliflue wrote:On May 30 2013 16:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Edit: On May 30 2013 13:38 KwarK wrote:
The cost of education compared to other countries with more socialised systems and higher tax rates will leave a huge number of people with extraordinary economic potential simply unable to fulfil it due to losing the birth lottery. Again, sure, only making 210k on the 700k between 300k and a million if taxed at 70% is going to be discouraging. But it probably won't be the factor that stops him starting a business, that'll be because he dropped out of school. And yet higher education in the US remains the best deal in the OECD. I'd like to see some evidence to back up that assertion. On May 30 2013 17:09 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2013 16:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 30 2013 12:52 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2013 08:21 Wegandi wrote:
Ak, why would anyone continue to invest in a venture where the more money you make, the more tax is levied upon you. It simply is not worth their labor and time for such a modest gain I'd much rather be a millionaire than not, even if I paid a higher proportion of my income than I do now. If you proposed a plan that would make me one and I thought it'd work I'd absolutely think it was worth my labour and time. I think 99.99999% of people would rather be obscenely wealthy before tax and just extraordinarily wealthy after tax than pay no tax at all on an average income. You'd have to be an anti-tax ideologue not to. That's not really the issue. The issue is either: Getting already high earners (via labor income) to earn more by working more. Them working more means more economic activity, but it's more work - a tough sell if taxes are very high. Or, getting wealthy investors (or an entrepreneur) to part with their capital. The higher the taxes the worse the DCF will look, which holds back investment. Edit: On May 30 2013 13:38 KwarK wrote:
The cost of education compared to other countries with more socialised systems and higher tax rates will leave a huge number of people with extraordinary economic potential simply unable to fulfil it due to losing the birth lottery. Again, sure, only making 210k on the 700k between 300k and a million if taxed at 70% is going to be discouraging. But it probably won't be the factor that stops him starting a business, that'll be because he dropped out of school. And yet higher education in the US remains the best deal in the OECD. I was talking about access to education, something which US higher education with its insane cost is arguably the worst deal in the OECD. Saying "but the education is good" misses the point of everything I've said. Going off of the OECD report on education. (See page 33) The cost of higher education in the US is high, but the benefits are very, very high. On net it's a fantastic deal. I would add to this point that subsidizing higher education is a direct transfer of wealth to the future rich. The irony is that living in a high-tax system where we all agree higher education is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for future wealth means that you are entrenching wealth even further by allowing the rich to transfer wealth to future generations of wealthy individuals, who the current rich and powerful are likely to ensure are their own children. EDIT: I will conclude that education is a symptom but not a cause for why the United States is so much more unequal than the rest of the OECD. I'm not sure I understand your argument, but what I think you're saying is that if university is subsidised by the government then the children of wealthy individuals are more likely to be wealthy when they grow up. However, I think the exact opposite is true; if there were no government subsidising at all then only the children of wealthy individuals could afford to go to university and become the 'future rich'. Having subsidised education benefits the children of poor individuals. I'm saying that a high-tax system with a premium on degrees leads to a system where access to elite degrees gets limited to the people who are currently paying most of the taxes. IMO this has less to do with de facto education. The simple fact is that technology has enabled access to elite educations for anyone who is motivated enough to look. Schools like MIT and Stanford present all the lectures in podcast form with homeworks and tests that actual students do. If you want it, it's out there. But we live in a society that increasingly cares less about education and more about degrees. Everyone who works in an office has stories of knowing someone who has tremendous academic pedigree who is, in reality, a blithering idiot. But we still operate mostly under the assumption that a person who graduated from Harvard is smarter and more capable than a person who graduated from Arizona State (sorry). Hell, we're having this entire discussion because we operate under the assumption that a college educated person has more skills and knowledge than a person who did not. In conclusion, I'm not implying at all that government should not subsidize anyone's education. But it needs to be subsidized only to support people who have an appropriate need to go to university but may not have the means. I think to blindly support a blanket subsidy for anyone to go to college whether they plan to study or spend four years drinking is ridiculous. Ah ok, but then your argument seems to be more along the line of - we do not actually need 100% (or even 70%) of the population going to universities and getting degrees. That is quite reasonable. EDIT:typo All the tools of an elite education are out there for free.
Very interested in this, because apparently I've been doing it wrong.
|
On May 31 2013 05:55 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 05:45 koreasilver wrote:
I haven't been paying attention to US politics for a while but can someone explain to me what happened and why/how the libertarians left the Republicans? What in the world are they doing then? They are doing what they have always done. (1) insist on forums they are different than Republicans (2) vote straight Republican in every election
I didn't vote for anyone in either this or the past election. I wanted to like Romney and I wanted to vote for him but I couldn't. I agreed with him on some issues, but definitely not enough to vote for him. McCain and Palin appealed to me even less than Romney did.
|
As Congress mulls changing America's border and naturalization rules, a study finds that immigrant workers are helping buttress Medicare's finances.
Immigrants contribute tens of billions of dollars a year more than immigrant retirees use in medical services.
"Immigrants, particularly noncitizens, heavily subsidize Medicare," the researchers wrote in the journal Health Affairs. "Policies that reduce immigration would almost certainly weaken Medicare's financial health, while an increasing flow of immigrants might bolster its sustainability."
The Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, which pays for Medicare's Part A inpatient hospital care, skilled nursing facilities, home health and hospice for the aged and disabled, had assets of $244 billion at the start of 2012, but is projected to run out of money in 2024 as the population ages, according to estimates of the Medicare trustees. It is financed by payroll and self-employment taxes.
Researchers look at the effect of 29 million immigrants counted in the Census on the financing of the Medicare program. It included those who had become U.S. citizens as well as those who hadn't, but, the authors noted, probably excludes many illegal immigrants who avoided the survey.
The study found that in 2009, immigrants contributed $33 billion to the trust fund, nearly 15 percent of total contributions. They received $19 billion of expenditures, about 8 percent, giving the trust fund a surplus of $14 billion.
People born in the United States, on the other hand, contributed $192 billion and received $223 billion, decreasing the trust fund by $31 billion, according to the paper's lead author, Dr. Leah Zallman, a researcher at Cambridge Health Alliance in Massachusetts.
Between 2002 and 2009, immigrants generated a cumulative surplus of $115 billion for the trust fund, the study found. Most of the surplus contribution came from noncitizens. The immigrants created a net gain primarily because of demographics: There are 6.5 immigrants of working age for every one elderly immigrant, but only 4.7 working-age native citizens for every one retiree.
Source
|
This article is the ultimate bait and switch on immigration reform. We have no problem as a society with legal immigrants. It is the people crossing the border illegally that we need to study in terms of social benefits.
|
On May 31 2013 11:57 coverpunch wrote:
This article is the ultimate bait and switch on immigration reform. We have no problem as a society with legal immigrants. It is the people crossing the border illegally that we need to study in terms of social benefits.
I think it's pretty silly to get permission to cross 'borders'. It should be up to individual property owners to decide 'immigration' matters. Anyone should be free to come and go as they please. This has nothing to do with jurisdiction, since every person within the 'borders' of the US falls under US jurisdiction. This comes part and parcel with free-trade. Open-borders, free movement of goods, services, labor, and people. Doesn't mean you have to give them a vote, or citizenship, or whatever other privilege. Equating the two is a non-sequitur.
|
On May 31 2013 12:13 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 11:57 coverpunch wrote:
This article is the ultimate bait and switch on immigration reform. We have no problem as a society with legal immigrants. It is the people crossing the border illegally that we need to study in terms of social benefits. I think it's pretty silly to get permission to cross 'borders'. It should be up to individual property owners to decide 'immigration' matters. Anyone should be free to come and go as they please. This has nothing to do with jurisdiction, since every person within the 'borders' of the US falls under US jurisdiction. This comes part and parcel with free-trade. Open-borders, free movement of goods, services, labor, and people. Doesn't mean you have to give them a vote, or citizenship, or whatever other privilege. Equating the two is a non-sequitur.
I hear that communism is the ideal form of government on paper.
![[image loading]](http://images.wikia.com/althistory/images/0/06/Russian_army_mobilizing_for_war.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hZUivZJ.jpg)
[AHNALD}We ah heeya to cross tha border
EPT
