|
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 July 24 2013 06:42 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 02:54 cLutZ wrote:On July 24 2013 00:28 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2013 15:43 Danglars wrote:In General From fiscal year 2003 (FY 2003) through FY 2012, Federal agencies published 37,786 final rules in the Federal Register. OMB reviewed 3,203 of these final rules under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. Of these OMB-reviewed rules, 536 are considered major rules, primarily as a result of their anticipated impact on the economy (i.e., an impact of $100 million in at least one year). It is important to emphasize that many major rules are budgetary transfer rules, and may not impose significant regulatory costs on the private sector. So absurd on its face. In a free democracy, why do you have to implement 37,786 rules in a year from agencies appointed by the executive? Operating as the fourth branch of government for how many years now? Unless I'm reading this sentence wrong, it says the 37,768 rules were published from 2003 through 2012, no in one year. And the agencies in question are part of the executive branch, which is the third branch of government, so I'm not sure what your second question is all about. On July 23 2013 15:43 Danglars wrote:
In the case of the EPA rules reported here, however, a substantial portion of the uncertainty is similar across several rules, including (1) the uncertainty in the reduction of premature deaths associated with reduction in particulate matter and (2) the uncertainty in the monetary value of reducing mortality risk.
Yep. Let's just make assumptions that agree with our ends. They are, after all, working for the man that may hire or fire people in this positions. Wonder if the CBO will be commissioned to do a cost analysis of EPA/Fed Agency rules implementations for the last fiscal year. Did you search for "uncertainty" in the document just to make a point? The report addresses this uncertainty notably by providing ranges of estimates, and the bottom estimate for the benefits still far outweighs the top estimate for the costs. With regards to your objection, it's a bit too easy to declare the study can't be trusted simply because it comes from executive - it's true that it's important to know who wrote it, but if you're going to discard it your position should at least be founded on objections you have with regards to the content itself (errors in measurement, poor methodology, etc.). The link I provided you with also mentions other studies, not done by the executive branch, which corroborate the findings. On July 23 2013 16:00 cLutZ wrote:On July 23 2013 14:20 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2013 09:57 kmillz wrote:On July 23 2013 09:17 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2013 08:52 Danglars wrote:On July 23 2013 06:18 Klondikebar wrote:
“In addition,” Rogers said, defending the enormous cuts to the EPA, “by holding back overly zealous and unnecessary environmental regulations, this bill can have a positive effect on our economy and will help encourage job growth.”
I love the underpants gnome theory at work here.
1. Slash budgets for departments that we don't like.
2. ?????
3. JOBS YALL!
And I'm also tired of the assumption that jobs are this end all be all of economics. They aren't. Improved standard of living is. If we just wanted everyone to be employed we could easily have full employment paying everyone to dig ditches. But we wouldn't cheer for a great economy then.
I guess I don't so much care about the cuts themselves. I am just getting really sick of every bit of legislation being rubber stamped cause somehow it magically creates jobs. The overly zealous and unnecessary regulations are exactly how it works to kill jobs. They seem to believe that the federal government is simply better than individuals at keeping their energy costs low, implementing energy standards and picking for them where to improve efficiency. People on the right have been documenting these things for ages. You don't need to go far to find specific areas that the EPA limits growth and adds costs unnecessarily for little or no gain. Heck, improving the standard of living is hardly the goal here. Lately, you have to question whether the preservation of this or that environmental sector is done for the sake of the environment itself and not people. Health and safety be damned for people, we see this regulation doing this and that for the "environment." Not to mention myriad environmental activist groups sue the EPA (e.g. under CAA and CWA) to then settle the lawsuit for the regulations, taxpayers getting billed for the legal fees and regulation implementation fees, and then companies given unreasonable compliance time-frames. I'm all for vastly cutting their budget to limit the harm. I'll just leave this here... New Study: The Economic Benefits of EPA Regulations Massively Outweigh The Costs
[A] new study from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget [...] found that the benefits EPA regulations bring to the economy far outweigh the costs.
The way this works is pretty straight-forward. Environmental regulations do impose compliance costs on businesses, and can raise prices, which hurt economic growth. But they also create jobs by requiring pollution clean-up and prevention efforts. And perhaps even more importantly, they save the economy billions by avoiding pollution’s deleterious health effects. Particles from smoke stacks, for example, are implicated in respiratory diseases, heart attacks, infections and a host of other ailments, all of which require billions in health care costs per year to treat. Preventing those particles from going into the air means healthier and more productive citizens, who can go spend that money on something other than making themselves well again. [...]
The OMB found that a decade’s worth of major federal rules had produced annual benefits to the U.S. economy of between $193 billion and $800 billion and impose aggregate costs of $57 billion to $84 billion. “These ranges are reported in 2001 dollars and reflect the uncertain benefits and costs of each rule,” the report noted. Source $193-800 billion added to the economy through creating pollution clean-up/prevention jobs and avoiding diseases through regulation? Is there a source for how they got these figures? Yes, the study itself. On July 23 2013 10:24 Danglars wrote:
I love that they include the make-work jobs they create in there. Take money from some people, give jobs to government workers and contractors, net jobs! I'd like to see next their proposals to pay a group of workers to dig a ditch and another to fill it in, because that's creating jobs and should be added to net benefits. Of course they can label their pollution and prescribe how it is cleaned up and when it's cleaned up enough. They mention job creation in the private sector as well as in the public sector. Also, from the original article: t’s worth pointing out that similar findings have been regularly dug up by other researchers. In 2011, an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) found that job loss due to increased energy prices from MATS would be swamped by new jobs in pollution abatement and control. It also found that for each major EPA rule finalized by the Obama Administration at the time, annual benefits exceeded costs by $10 to $95 billion a piece. EPI even returned to the question in 2012, and found net job gains from MATS would reach 117,000 to 135,000 in 2015. [...]
Surveys of small businesses routinely fail to find compelling evidence that firms view taxes and regulations as a major impediment to hiring, an EPA-mandated clean-up of the Chesapeake BAY is anticipated to create 35 times as many jobs as the proposed construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, and jobs in the coal industry actually increased by 10 percent after the EPA cracked down on mountaintop-removal mining in 2009. On July 23 2013 10:24 Danglars wrote:
Save the country billions in health care costs through regulation? You can cut their budget in half and still gain the best health care benefits. Citation needed. On July 23 2013 10:24 Danglars wrote:
It's the difference between light handed regulation and heavy handed regulation that I'm talking about. Strip down the unnecessary stuff on top of basic environmental regulations, cut the cozy relationship between environmental activists, their lawyers, and the EPA, and let individuals be more responsible for their own energy costs rather than imposing federal will on companies. Letting individuals be more responsible for their own energy costs is the baseline. The study clearly shows the economy benefits from doing more than that - in addition to the environment obviously benefiting from it. OMB doesn't use dynamic scoring... From their own report... Jorgenson and Wilcoxen modeled dynamic simulations with and without environmental regulation on long-term growth in the U.S. to assess the effects and reported that the long-term cost of regulation is a 2.59% reduction in Gross National Product. Did you read that paper? Here's the relevant paragraph they put in their introduction: We have not attempted to assess the benefits resulting from a cleaner environment. We have not accounted for consumption benefits resulting from environmental cleanup or production benefits associated with pollution abatement. The conclusions of this study cannot be taken to imply that pollution control is too burdensome or, for that matter, insufficiently restrictive. Your other quote is another cherry-pick among several studies in the literature review that show differing results and do not focus on the overall impact at the US level. I could give you another such example in Berman, Eli and Linda T.M. Bui. “Environmental Regulation and Labor Demand: Evidence from the South Coast Air Basin.”, Journal of Public Economics, 2001, 79: pp. 265-295, which state: Our estimates of zero employment effects contradict the conventional wisdom of employers (mostly outside of refining) that environmental regulation ‘costs jobs’ (Goodstein, 1996) so a comment is in order. Beyond posturing in public debate, employers may honestly overestimate the job loss induced by a pervasive regulation by confusing the firm’s product demand curve with that of the industry. The former is more price elastic due to competition from other firms. If all firms in the industry are faced with the same cost-increasing regulatory change and product demand is inelastic, the output of individual firms may be only slightly reduced. In that case, the negative effect on employment through the output elasticity of labor demand may well be dominated by a positive effect through the marginal rate of technical substitution between PACE and labor, leading to a net increases in employment as a result of regulation
[...]
Though the public debate has centered around employment effects, a full accounting of the costs of regulation should properly focus on the effects of regulation on productivity and the benefits in health and other outcomes. Related research on South Coast refineries (Berman and Bui, 1998) has found productivity gains between 1987–92, in contrast to declining productivity in comparison regions. A symmetric analysis of the benefits of the South Coast regulations in improved air quality and health outcomes of residents would form the basis for a much more complete economic evaluation of this important and unprecedented episode in air quality regulation. On July 23 2013 16:00 cLutZ wrote:Even the "positive" citations are tepid I.E.: Kahn examines census and state data and finds that better educated, wealthier populations experienced cleaner air, but that poorer, less educated populations experienced a greater overall improvement in air quality between 1980 and 1998 in California. During this time period, the exposure of the Hispanic population to pollution also fell sharply along with exposure differentials between richer and poorer people. The author concludes that, “[g]iven the overall trend in improvements for certain demographic groups, it appears that regulation under the Clean Air Act has helped, and not economically harmed, the ‘have nots.’" Translated: We cannot be sure that regulation has helped people, instead of just the overall trend towards improved living standards over the years, but if it has, its only helped one segment of the populace (without taking into account costs for other segments). That's not what it says at all. Are you being dishonest on purpose or are you simply incapable of reading the paragraph you quoted yourself? On July 23 2013 16:00 cLutZ wrote:
In other words, your own study fails to support the conclusions that you assert from it. In other words, it doesn't. On July 23 2013 16:00 cLutZ wrote:Plus, even if accepted, the benefits are probably no more of a correlation, much like the correlation between OSHA and the reduction in workplace accidents SEE: + Show Spoiler + I'll be waiting for you to show us that they are. The main quote you cited to rebut my argument: We have not attempted to assess the benefits resulting from a cleaner environment. We have not accounted for consumption benefits resulting from environmental cleanup or production benefits associated with pollution abatement. The conclusions of this study cannot be taken to imply that pollution control is too burdensome or, for that matter, insufficiently restrictive. Goes against the conclusions you presented. No, that quote was from the study you referenced in your first quote, namely the Jorgenson and Wilcoxen paper. And in the introduction of that paper which you referenced to argue that the costs were 2.6 pc of GDP, the authors say they're looking at the costs and not the benefits. The report I initially linked to, meanwhile, looks at both the costs and the benefits. Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 02:54 cLutZ wrote:
The report, by its own design does not stand for the propositions you say it does. My proposition is that the benefits outweigh the costs. The entire report is a demonstration for this. They use ranges of estimates to account for uncertainty. If you have any comments/concerns with regards to specific numbers, go ahead.
I'm saying that the numbers accepted by the report you cited come from a flawed EPA/other agency analysis that uses "Willingness to Pay" polling to determine a large number of its economic benefits. Its all a bunch of bollox, on top of the complete failure of any of the agencies to demonstrate causation.
|
Now that makes no sense because you contradict yourself.
It was deliberate, because you're really missing the point here.
First sentence, he's trying to say that basically everyone coming across the border is a drug smuggler.
Correct. If this bit about valedictorians wasn't in his speech, it would be unambiguously clear that he sees drug smugglers as being a large number of illegals coming across the border.
Next sentence, he didn't mean those who were brought here as children.
Ah, you bought into his rhetoric of "being brought over" vs "coming over." That's literally the plausible deniability this guy is banking on. No shit the children aren't drug smugglers, but they also aren't who everyone is talking about when they say illegals "coming across the border." Notice how we don't usually talk about people being "brought" over, but of people crossing over deliberately. That's the point. He's trying to make himself look good by referring to a group that is largely irrelevant to the question at hand: what should happen with people who actually come across the border of their own free will. We wouldn't be able to do much with people who were brought over anyway, since it's not like they had any choice in the matter.
That means "basically everyone" cannot be a drug smuggler in his mind.
Basically everyone != everyone. It really is "basically everyone" in the sense that it's like "well, aside from this one specific tiny group of people I'm going to point out, I'm only going to talk about drug-smuggling illegals."
Well, which is it? You've got King saying three different things that contradict each other to varying degrees, which of them do you believe he actually said, or is it more of a "fake, but accurate" argument going on?
That's because King's words are so ambiguous that he could technically defend any three of those things depending on how people react to what he said. I mean, if you seriously don't know how to read between the lines on what this guy said (which, IMO, isn't really a race issue, so I'm not accusing him of being a racist, just so you're aware) then it's not possible to convince you. I'm kinda surprised that you're eating up his little comment about "valedictorians" in the most charitable sense, since you're usually pretty unforgiving of when politicians say things that are obviously smartly worded ways of saying rather extreme things. I mean, we all know what King is advocating (more or less). It doesn't take a genius to figure out why he mentioned some little sympathy group.
|
On July 24 2013 05:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:
For every valedictorian says he there are 100 drug smugglers, so maybe allowing whoever wants to come in come in with little to no oversight is a bad idea.
So he's saying that one minuscule and unrepresentative example of Mexican immigrants that it is desirable to give citizenship to is outnumbered 100 to 1 by another tiny unrepresentative example of Mexican immigrants that it is undesirable to give citizenship to. And that these examples form an argument for why Mexican immigrants shouldn't be given citizenship.
I thought using tiny unrepresentative examples of a group of people in order to draw conclusions about the group as a whole should be treated was pretty much the text book definition of racism.
What am I missing?
|
On July 23 2013 21:51 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 21:29 Danglars wrote:On July 23 2013 20:46 DoubleReed wrote:On July 23 2013 16:22 Danglars wrote:On July 23 2013 15:51 SnipedSoul wrote:
Can't you guys save a boat load of money by ending oil subsidies? It's not the 90's where $15 oil is putting them on the verge of bankruptcy. The biggest oil subsidy is for government (DOE) oil subsidies in the form of R&D (Oil, Gas, Coal). Obama's FY 2012 budget could cut 400$mil if allowances are made to not reduce his figures for maintaining the strategic oil reserve. Other than that, it's a drop in the bucket compared to existing Agricultural subsidies and Green Energy subsidies. Oil companies already suffer a 41% marginal tax rate compared to the average S&P's 26% figure, so the tax credits are hardly subsidies (Excepting to EOR and MWP. Obvious subsidies that should be cut from tax code, not figuring in the hundreds of millions though). So no, ending oil subsidies that are actually oil subsidies does not save a boat load. It saves a slow trickle, and mostly for federal expenditures on federal agencies and not private companies. Yawn, that's the marginal tax rate. Which should be high, because it's a marginal tax rate. Their effective tax rate is more like 13%. If you read that sentence again, I think you'll find that I don't compare the marginal tax rate to an absolute one, but rather two things that are relative. If there's any interest in continuing to discuss tax laws on oil companies, it matters what you consider subsidies. Perhaps you have a view on the guy I was responding to. Can't we save a boat load of money by ending oil subsidies? It's not the 1990s when it might be thought they were in danger of bankruptcy. You take oil companies and compare their tax I don't know what "average S&P 26% figure" refers to, so no, reading the sentence again does not help. Provide a link or something. It sounds like you're comparing average tax rates to marginal tax rates.
Apologies, I dug up the source of the source (site had moved) and it was an effective tax rate. The background was research done as Obama's 2012 budget proposal; it labeled certain things oil subsidies. It was useful to compare the tax structure on what oil companies can do to recover costs (Just like corporations, reducing their tax burdens by considering net income. In policy it's called tax expenditures) and what are direct government outlays (subsidies). The economist I drew from called it a comparison between marginal tax rates, now I must consider that an error (and have fired off an email).
Income Tax Expenses as Share of Net Income Before Income Taxes
(2011)
40.6% Oil and Natural Gas Companies
25.1% S&P Industrials Excluding Oil and Natural Gas Companies
Source: Compustat North American Database (April 2012 Update)
Oil and Natural Gas Companies GICS Industry Group Code 1010,
S&P Industrials are extracted from the S&P 500 by excluding companies in the Financials(GICS Sector = 40),Utilities (GICS Sector = 55), and Transportation (GICS Industry Group = 2030).
It's comparing apples to apples but not in the way I first understood it. If you think, like the original poster, that we can save a boatload on ending oil subsidies in particular, I'd like to know. I already stated in the sentence you pointed out the false label how I think they're relatively few, which should be cut, but don't amount to a current huge subsidy compared to other government subsidies.
I think it's already been addressed how lunatic it is to come up with a 13% figure. Money earned and taxed overseas is subjected to foreign tax rates and they have little choice to where you can drill it up; it has to be there. Double taxing when they bring it home is likewise an odd policy. I do see a lot of comparing the company's worldwide net income with only the taxes they pay in the US.
|
According to the EIA nat gas and petroleum received in 2010 $2.8B in subsidies out of a total $37.1B in energy subsidies (source).
I'd be happy to see them all go and a carbon tax put in place in exchange for lower tax rates and reduced regulatory burdens.
I'm well aware that this is a pipe dream 
|
On July 24 2013 09:24 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 05:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:
For every valedictorian says he there are 100 drug smugglers, so maybe allowing whoever wants to come in come in with little to no oversight is a bad idea. So he's saying that one minuscule and unrepresentative example of Mexican immigrants that it is desirable to give citizenship to is outnumbered 100 to 1 by another tiny unrepresentative example of Mexican immigrants that it is undesirable to give citizenship to. And that these examples form an argument for why Mexican immigrants shouldn't be given citizenship. I thought using tiny unrepresentative examples of a group of people in order to draw conclusions about the group as a whole should be treated was pretty much the text book definition of racism. What am I missing?
I think the point is that a deal of "100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian" is not a trade anyone wants. I don't see any racism here. Are you are being sarcastic? He's drawing on what he says is the LARGER part of the group, not the smaller one, anyway.
|
On July 24 2013 10:36 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 09:24 Dapper_Cad wrote:On July 24 2013 05:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:
For every valedictorian says he there are 100 drug smugglers, so maybe allowing whoever wants to come in come in with little to no oversight is a bad idea. So he's saying that one minuscule and unrepresentative example of Mexican immigrants that it is desirable to give citizenship to is outnumbered 100 to 1 by another tiny unrepresentative example of Mexican immigrants that it is undesirable to give citizenship to. And that these examples form an argument for why Mexican immigrants shouldn't be given citizenship. I thought using tiny unrepresentative examples of a group of people in order to draw conclusions about the group as a whole should be treated was pretty much the text book definition of racism. What am I missing? I think the point is that a deal of "100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian" is not a trade anyone wants. I don't see any racism here. Are you are being sarcastic? He's drawing on what he says is the LARGER part of the group, not the smaller one, anyway.
Multiple things here:
1) First - you shouldn't be trading 100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian. The DREAM act is a bit stricter than that, from what I read on Wiki.
2) Second - saying 100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian ignores the remaining population - who may not be valedictorian, would also be decent people and could easily outnumber the 100 smugglers. Say we trade 1,000,000 decent mexican immigrants who are hard working and good for the community vs the 100 smugglers. Would put things in a slightly different light.
3) Third - saying 100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian while leaving out the rest of the possible people brings up the imagery that 99% of Mexicans are smugglers (thus stereotyping/being racist). While this is argued away by saying "he said valedictorians, not common people", I certainly can imagine people jumping to that bandwagon first.
As JohnnyBNHo said, it's par for course on Capitol Hill - but par for course doesn't absolve it.
|
On July 24 2013 10:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:According to the EIA nat gas and petroleum received in 2010 $2.8B in subsidies out of a total $37.1B in energy subsidies ( source). I'd be happy to see them all go and a carbon tax put in place in exchange for lower tax rates and reduced regulatory burdens. I'm well aware that this is a pipe dream
I'd like that too. Of course, with today's legislative climate, I'd expect any such plan like that to be later changed to keep the carbon taxes and put back in place higher tax rates and more regulation. Kinda like how EITC or negative income tax was conceived as a replacement welfare system and then was transformed into an additional welfare system. It prompted the original supporters of it to have to argue against it as it later appeared. The joys of politics!
Can you wait until the OMB releases a report saying all those regulatory burdens actually save the companies and consumer billions of dollars?
|
On July 24 2013 10:45 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 10:36 Introvert wrote:On July 24 2013 09:24 Dapper_Cad wrote:On July 24 2013 05:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:
For every valedictorian says he there are 100 drug smugglers, so maybe allowing whoever wants to come in come in with little to no oversight is a bad idea. So he's saying that one minuscule and unrepresentative example of Mexican immigrants that it is desirable to give citizenship to is outnumbered 100 to 1 by another tiny unrepresentative example of Mexican immigrants that it is undesirable to give citizenship to. And that these examples form an argument for why Mexican immigrants shouldn't be given citizenship. I thought using tiny unrepresentative examples of a group of people in order to draw conclusions about the group as a whole should be treated was pretty much the text book definition of racism. What am I missing? I think the point is that a deal of "100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian" is not a trade anyone wants. I don't see any racism here. Are you are being sarcastic? He's drawing on what he says is the LARGER part of the group, not the smaller one, anyway. Multiple things here: 1) First - you shouldn't be trading 100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian. The DREAM act is a bit stricter than that, from what I read on Wiki. 2) Second - saying 100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian ignores the remaining population - who may not be valedictorian, would also be decent people and could easily outnumber the 100 smugglers. Say we trade 1,000,000 decent mexican immigrants who are hard working and good for the community vs the 100 smugglers. Would put things in a slightly different light. 3) Third - saying 100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian while leaving out the rest of the possible people brings up the imagery that 99% of Mexicans are smugglers (thus stereotyping/being racist). While this is argued away by saying "he said valedictorians, not common people", I certainly can imagine people jumping to that bandwagon first. As JohnnyBNHo said, it's par for course on Capitol Hill - but par for course doesn't absolve it.
I was responding very specifically to Dapper. The option of "100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian" is unacceptable, be the immigrants White, Black, Hispanic, purple dinosaurs, etc. The idea of racism has to be injected into it, it's not racist when you read it in a straight-forward manner. But, it is Steve King, he uses some "fun" language, so I could see how one could draw that idea. But's not what I got from it. It ignores the point.
As to the Dream Act itself, well, I'm sure others in the thread have already gone over it, but from what I know, the language is so vague there isn't even an actual age limit on who's eligible, it just has to do with the age they WERE when they were brought here (what age they SAY they were). For all anyone know a 50 year old could be eligible. But the politicians don't come out and say it, they make you think it's only about "the children."
I don't mean to get into a discussion, but I glanced at the thread and say a short, odd question that seemed easy to answer. I'm sure the non-liberals in the thread have already made for lively debate on the topic.
But to your second point: No. A lawbreaking border-crosser is just that. I have very little, if any, respect for people who cut in line. No give-aways. And CERTAINLY none before we can ensure that the border is secure from future law breakers.
|
On July 24 2013 11:02 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 10:45 JinDesu wrote:On July 24 2013 10:36 Introvert wrote:On July 24 2013 09:24 Dapper_Cad wrote:On July 24 2013 05:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:
For every valedictorian says he there are 100 drug smugglers, so maybe allowing whoever wants to come in come in with little to no oversight is a bad idea. So he's saying that one minuscule and unrepresentative example of Mexican immigrants that it is desirable to give citizenship to is outnumbered 100 to 1 by another tiny unrepresentative example of Mexican immigrants that it is undesirable to give citizenship to. And that these examples form an argument for why Mexican immigrants shouldn't be given citizenship. I thought using tiny unrepresentative examples of a group of people in order to draw conclusions about the group as a whole should be treated was pretty much the text book definition of racism. What am I missing? I think the point is that a deal of "100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian" is not a trade anyone wants. I don't see any racism here. Are you are being sarcastic? He's drawing on what he says is the LARGER part of the group, not the smaller one, anyway. Multiple things here: 1) First - you shouldn't be trading 100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian. The DREAM act is a bit stricter than that, from what I read on Wiki. 2) Second - saying 100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian ignores the remaining population - who may not be valedictorian, would also be decent people and could easily outnumber the 100 smugglers. Say we trade 1,000,000 decent mexican immigrants who are hard working and good for the community vs the 100 smugglers. Would put things in a slightly different light. 3) Third - saying 100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian while leaving out the rest of the possible people brings up the imagery that 99% of Mexicans are smugglers (thus stereotyping/being racist). While this is argued away by saying "he said valedictorians, not common people", I certainly can imagine people jumping to that bandwagon first. As JohnnyBNHo said, it's par for course on Capitol Hill - but par for course doesn't absolve it. I was responding very specifically to Dapper. The option of "100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian" is unacceptable, be the immigrants White, Black, Hispanic, purple dinosaurs, etc. The idea of racism has to be injected into it, it's not racist when you read it in a straight-forward manner. But, it is Steve King, he uses some "fun" language, so I could see how one could draw that idea. But's not what I got from it. It ignores the point. As to the Dream Act itself, well, I'm sure others in the thread have already gone over it, but from what I know, the language is so vague there isn't even an actual age limit on who's eligible, it just has to do with the age they WERE when they were brought here (what age they SAY they were). For all anyone know a 50 year old could be eligible. But the politicians don't come out and say it, they make you think it's only about "the children." I don't mean to get into a discussion, but I glanced at the thread and say a short, odd question that seemed easy to answer. I'm sure the non-liberals in the thread have already made for lively debate on the topic. But to your second point: No. A lawbreaking border-crosser is just that. I have very little, if any, respect for people who cut in line. No give-aways. And CERTAINLY none before we can ensure that the border is secure from future law breakers.
Understood. As for the DREAM act, it has some requirements that would certainly make it difficult for 100 smugglers per valedictorian to get naturalized. I would certainly assume that if it goes through, there will be language put in by the GOP to ensure extra scrutiny for all those who qualify.
As to the second point, I get your view - but realistically I doubt we can absolutely secure the borders. Not to say we shouldn't try, however.
|
On July 24 2013 11:10 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 11:02 Introvert wrote:On July 24 2013 10:45 JinDesu wrote:On July 24 2013 10:36 Introvert wrote:On July 24 2013 09:24 Dapper_Cad wrote:On July 24 2013 05:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:
For every valedictorian says he there are 100 drug smugglers, so maybe allowing whoever wants to come in come in with little to no oversight is a bad idea. So he's saying that one minuscule and unrepresentative example of Mexican immigrants that it is desirable to give citizenship to is outnumbered 100 to 1 by another tiny unrepresentative example of Mexican immigrants that it is undesirable to give citizenship to. And that these examples form an argument for why Mexican immigrants shouldn't be given citizenship. I thought using tiny unrepresentative examples of a group of people in order to draw conclusions about the group as a whole should be treated was pretty much the text book definition of racism. What am I missing? I think the point is that a deal of "100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian" is not a trade anyone wants. I don't see any racism here. Are you are being sarcastic? He's drawing on what he says is the LARGER part of the group, not the smaller one, anyway. Multiple things here: 1) First - you shouldn't be trading 100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian. The DREAM act is a bit stricter than that, from what I read on Wiki. 2) Second - saying 100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian ignores the remaining population - who may not be valedictorian, would also be decent people and could easily outnumber the 100 smugglers. Say we trade 1,000,000 decent mexican immigrants who are hard working and good for the community vs the 100 smugglers. Would put things in a slightly different light. 3) Third - saying 100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian while leaving out the rest of the possible people brings up the imagery that 99% of Mexicans are smugglers (thus stereotyping/being racist). While this is argued away by saying "he said valedictorians, not common people", I certainly can imagine people jumping to that bandwagon first. As JohnnyBNHo said, it's par for course on Capitol Hill - but par for course doesn't absolve it. I was responding very specifically to Dapper. The option of "100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian" is unacceptable, be the immigrants White, Black, Hispanic, purple dinosaurs, etc. The idea of racism has to be injected into it, it's not racist when you read it in a straight-forward manner. But, it is Steve King, he uses some "fun" language, so I could see how one could draw that idea. But's not what I got from it. It ignores the point. As to the Dream Act itself, well, I'm sure others in the thread have already gone over it, but from what I know, the language is so vague there isn't even an actual age limit on who's eligible, it just has to do with the age they WERE when they were brought here (what age they SAY they were). For all anyone know a 50 year old could be eligible. But the politicians don't come out and say it, they make you think it's only about "the children." I don't mean to get into a discussion, but I glanced at the thread and say a short, odd question that seemed easy to answer. I'm sure the non-liberals in the thread have already made for lively debate on the topic. But to your second point: No. A lawbreaking border-crosser is just that. I have very little, if any, respect for people who cut in line. No give-aways. And CERTAINLY none before we can ensure that the border is secure from future law breakers. Understood. As for the DREAM act, it has some requirements that would certainly make it difficult for 100 smugglers per valedictorian to get naturalized. I would certainly assume that if it goes through, there will be language put in by the GOP to ensure extra scrutiny for all those who qualify. As to the second point, I get your view - but realistically I doubt we can absolutely secure the borders. Not to say we shouldn't try, however.
Oh, I'm sure the ratio is off, the 100 to 1 is to make the point that, whatever it would be exactly, it would be unacceptable. Especially without a secure border.
No, the border will never be entirely secure, but they could at least make an EFFORT before pushing through this legislation. No one forced these illegals (who are also parents) here, THEY came here, knowing it was against the law. So I really don't feel bad for them. They can leave, be shipped off, or wait. Up to them. For the kids, especially the older ones who have more friends, it sucks, but it also sucks when a parent is sent of to prison, but that doesn't mean the crime can't be punished. Those kids, like ALL children, have to live with their parents choices as long as they are under their parents' care.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
King is a known racist, something less scandalous than an affair obviously
|
My concern with this immigration push, is that Hispanics and African Americans (whom I think it is fair to treat similarly to 1st generation immigrants until after the passage and full implementation of the Civil Rights Act) have failed to assimilate in 1, 2, or even 3 generations and have failed to climb in any appreciable ways.
Of course there are success stories, and of course the Hispanic population is more of a moving average because more are constantly coming in, but the Post-1970s immigrants have not followed the traditional American model of being "Average Americans" after 2-3 generations. I think the implementation of welfare programs has a lot to do with that. Sadly, these things are impossible to tease out.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if you invite every first generation immigrant to a country club social circle, give them free english lessons, legit jobs and nice housing in a friendly neighborhood, i'd bet they can get intergrated quickly.
ghetto formation is also a move of self preservation. it's not as if they hate whiteys and that's the only reason they form ghettos etc.
|
So it's the mean old rich guys in their country clubs stopping what should be quick integration. That's quite an indictment of the Ellis Island days, where foreigners coming with just their suitcases were earning profits and integrated in a generation. It wasn't an era of free English lessons and nice housing. That had to be worked for.
Those welfare programs, the housing projects, and the rest have been a hindrance. I mean the free English lessons are available in a generation, known as public schools (though much can be done to free those from mediocrity and worse). Open borders and the principal of giving immigrants legit jobs and nice housing? Who's doing the giving and how? Heck, with unemployment being what it is, you can't even give American citizens legit jobs and nice housing, let alone open up the border to give others it too.
|
On July 24 2013 11:02 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 10:45 JinDesu wrote:On July 24 2013 10:36 Introvert wrote:On July 24 2013 09:24 Dapper_Cad wrote:On July 24 2013 05:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:
For every valedictorian says he there are 100 drug smugglers, so maybe allowing whoever wants to come in come in with little to no oversight is a bad idea. So he's saying that one minuscule and unrepresentative example of Mexican immigrants that it is desirable to give citizenship to is outnumbered 100 to 1 by another tiny unrepresentative example of Mexican immigrants that it is undesirable to give citizenship to. And that these examples form an argument for why Mexican immigrants shouldn't be given citizenship. I thought using tiny unrepresentative examples of a group of people in order to draw conclusions about the group as a whole should be treated was pretty much the text book definition of racism. What am I missing? I think the point is that a deal of "100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian" is not a trade anyone wants. I don't see any racism here. Are you are being sarcastic? He's drawing on what he says is the LARGER part of the group, not the smaller one, anyway. Multiple things here: 1) First - you shouldn't be trading 100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian. The DREAM act is a bit stricter than that, from what I read on Wiki. 2) Second - saying 100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian ignores the remaining population - who may not be valedictorian, would also be decent people and could easily outnumber the 100 smugglers. Say we trade 1,000,000 decent mexican immigrants who are hard working and good for the community vs the 100 smugglers. Would put things in a slightly different light. 3) Third - saying 100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian while leaving out the rest of the possible people brings up the imagery that 99% of Mexicans are smugglers (thus stereotyping/being racist). While this is argued away by saying "he said valedictorians, not common people", I certainly can imagine people jumping to that bandwagon first. As JohnnyBNHo said, it's par for course on Capitol Hill - but par for course doesn't absolve it. I was responding very specifically to Dapper. The option of "100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian" is unacceptable, be the immigrants White, Black, Hispanic, purple dinosaurs, etc. The idea of racism has to be injected into it, it's not racist when you read it in a straight-forward manner. But, it is Steve King, he uses some "fun" language, so I could see how one could draw that idea. But's not what I got from it. It ignores the point. As to the Dream Act itself, well, I'm sure others in the thread have already gone over it, but from what I know, the language is so vague there isn't even an actual age limit on who's eligible, it just has to do with the age they WERE when they were brought here (what age they SAY they were). For all anyone know a 50 year old could be eligible. But the politicians don't come out and say it, they make you think it's only about "the children." I don't mean to get into a discussion, but I glanced at the thread and say a short, odd question that seemed easy to answer. I'm sure the non-liberals in the thread have already made for lively debate on the topic. But to your second point: No. A lawbreaking border-crosser is just that. I have very little, if any, respect for people who cut in line. No give-aways. And CERTAINLY none before we can ensure that the border is secure from future law breakers.
The "line" analogy falls apart because most human beings live less than 100 years, and certainly all live less than, if not 150 years, then say 200 years. I'm pretty confident nobody trying to cross the border today is going to live to be 200, much less the tens of thousands of years old they would have to wait to get their chance "in line" without any other qualifications for immigration.
|
On July 24 2013 13:57 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 11:02 Introvert wrote:On July 24 2013 10:45 JinDesu wrote:On July 24 2013 10:36 Introvert wrote:On July 24 2013 09:24 Dapper_Cad wrote:On July 24 2013 05:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:
For every valedictorian says he there are 100 drug smugglers, so maybe allowing whoever wants to come in come in with little to no oversight is a bad idea. So he's saying that one minuscule and unrepresentative example of Mexican immigrants that it is desirable to give citizenship to is outnumbered 100 to 1 by another tiny unrepresentative example of Mexican immigrants that it is undesirable to give citizenship to. And that these examples form an argument for why Mexican immigrants shouldn't be given citizenship. I thought using tiny unrepresentative examples of a group of people in order to draw conclusions about the group as a whole should be treated was pretty much the text book definition of racism. What am I missing? I think the point is that a deal of "100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian" is not a trade anyone wants. I don't see any racism here. Are you are being sarcastic? He's drawing on what he says is the LARGER part of the group, not the smaller one, anyway. Multiple things here: 1) First - you shouldn't be trading 100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian. The DREAM act is a bit stricter than that, from what I read on Wiki. 2) Second - saying 100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian ignores the remaining population - who may not be valedictorian, would also be decent people and could easily outnumber the 100 smugglers. Say we trade 1,000,000 decent mexican immigrants who are hard working and good for the community vs the 100 smugglers. Would put things in a slightly different light. 3) Third - saying 100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian while leaving out the rest of the possible people brings up the imagery that 99% of Mexicans are smugglers (thus stereotyping/being racist). While this is argued away by saying "he said valedictorians, not common people", I certainly can imagine people jumping to that bandwagon first. As JohnnyBNHo said, it's par for course on Capitol Hill - but par for course doesn't absolve it. I was responding very specifically to Dapper. The option of "100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian" is unacceptable, be the immigrants White, Black, Hispanic, purple dinosaurs, etc. The idea of racism has to be injected into it, it's not racist when you read it in a straight-forward manner. But, it is Steve King, he uses some "fun" language, so I could see how one could draw that idea. But's not what I got from it. It ignores the point. As to the Dream Act itself, well, I'm sure others in the thread have already gone over it, but from what I know, the language is so vague there isn't even an actual age limit on who's eligible, it just has to do with the age they WERE when they were brought here (what age they SAY they were). For all anyone know a 50 year old could be eligible. But the politicians don't come out and say it, they make you think it's only about "the children." I don't mean to get into a discussion, but I glanced at the thread and say a short, odd question that seemed easy to answer. I'm sure the non-liberals in the thread have already made for lively debate on the topic. But to your second point: No. A lawbreaking border-crosser is just that. I have very little, if any, respect for people who cut in line. No give-aways. And CERTAINLY none before we can ensure that the border is secure from future law breakers. The "line" analogy falls apart because most human beings live less than 100 years, and certainly all live less than, if not 150 years, then say 200 years. I'm pretty confident nobody trying to cross the border today is going to live to be 200, much less the tens of thousands of years old they would have to wait to get their chance "in line" without any other qualifications for immigration.
Maybe I missed something, but I don't recall a line "analogy." I am saying, if you break the law, the very best I would offer (were it up to me) would be that you get put at the back of the line. I don't care how long it would take, they broke the law, so they can wait for a slim chance or get out. I know this seems harsh, but as I said, I have almost no sympathy whatsoever for people crossing illegally when this country already lets in and has let in MILLIONS the right and legal way.
|
WASHINGTON, July 22 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama will move forward with a plan for the United States to arm the struggling Syrian rebels after some congressional concerns were eased, officials said on Monday.
"We believe we are in a position that the administration can move forward," House of Representatives Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers told Reuters.
The White House announced in June that it would offer military aid to vetted groups of Syrian rebels after two years of balking at directly sending arms to the opposition.
"We have been working with Congress to overcome some of the concerns that they initially had, and we believe that those concerns have been addressed and that we will now be able to proceed," a source familiar with the administration's thinking told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
But both Republicans and Democrats on the House and Senate intelligence committees had expressed worries that the arms could end up in the hands of Islamist militants in Syria like the Nusra Front, and would not be enough to tip the balance of the civil war against President Bashar al-Assad anyway.
Part of the logjam was broken on July 12 when members of the Senate Intelligence Committee who had questioned the wisdom of arming the insurgents decided behind closed doors to tentatively agree that the administration could go ahead with its plans, but sought updates as the covert effort proceeded.
Now, the House committee has also given at least a cautious go-ahead.
Source
|
On July 24 2013 15:34 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 13:57 HunterX11 wrote:On July 24 2013 11:02 Introvert wrote:On July 24 2013 10:45 JinDesu wrote:On July 24 2013 10:36 Introvert wrote:On July 24 2013 09:24 Dapper_Cad wrote:On July 24 2013 05:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:
For every valedictorian says he there are 100 drug smugglers, so maybe allowing whoever wants to come in come in with little to no oversight is a bad idea. So he's saying that one minuscule and unrepresentative example of Mexican immigrants that it is desirable to give citizenship to is outnumbered 100 to 1 by another tiny unrepresentative example of Mexican immigrants that it is undesirable to give citizenship to. And that these examples form an argument for why Mexican immigrants shouldn't be given citizenship. I thought using tiny unrepresentative examples of a group of people in order to draw conclusions about the group as a whole should be treated was pretty much the text book definition of racism. What am I missing? I think the point is that a deal of "100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian" is not a trade anyone wants. I don't see any racism here. Are you are being sarcastic? He's drawing on what he says is the LARGER part of the group, not the smaller one, anyway. Multiple things here: 1) First - you shouldn't be trading 100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian. The DREAM act is a bit stricter than that, from what I read on Wiki. 2) Second - saying 100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian ignores the remaining population - who may not be valedictorian, would also be decent people and could easily outnumber the 100 smugglers. Say we trade 1,000,000 decent mexican immigrants who are hard working and good for the community vs the 100 smugglers. Would put things in a slightly different light. 3) Third - saying 100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian while leaving out the rest of the possible people brings up the imagery that 99% of Mexicans are smugglers (thus stereotyping/being racist). While this is argued away by saying "he said valedictorians, not common people", I certainly can imagine people jumping to that bandwagon first. As JohnnyBNHo said, it's par for course on Capitol Hill - but par for course doesn't absolve it. I was responding very specifically to Dapper. The option of "100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian" is unacceptable, be the immigrants White, Black, Hispanic, purple dinosaurs, etc. The idea of racism has to be injected into it, it's not racist when you read it in a straight-forward manner. But, it is Steve King, he uses some "fun" language, so I could see how one could draw that idea. But's not what I got from it. It ignores the point. As to the Dream Act itself, well, I'm sure others in the thread have already gone over it, but from what I know, the language is so vague there isn't even an actual age limit on who's eligible, it just has to do with the age they WERE when they were brought here (what age they SAY they were). For all anyone know a 50 year old could be eligible. But the politicians don't come out and say it, they make you think it's only about "the children." I don't mean to get into a discussion, but I glanced at the thread and say a short, odd question that seemed easy to answer. I'm sure the non-liberals in the thread have already made for lively debate on the topic. But to your second point: No. A lawbreaking border-crosser is just that. I have very little, if any, respect for people who cut in line. No give-aways. And CERTAINLY none before we can ensure that the border is secure from future law breakers. The "line" analogy falls apart because most human beings live less than 100 years, and certainly all live less than, if not 150 years, then say 200 years. I'm pretty confident nobody trying to cross the border today is going to live to be 200, much less the tens of thousands of years old they would have to wait to get their chance "in line" without any other qualifications for immigration. Maybe I missed something, but I don't recall a line "analogy." I am saying, if you break the law, the very best I would offer (were it up to me) would be that you get put at the back of the line. I don't care how long it would take, they broke the law, so they can wait for a slim chance or get out. I know this seems harsh, but as I said, I have almost no sympathy whatsoever for people crossing illegally when this country already lets in and has let in MILLIONS the right and legal way.
My point is that if you don't already have some kind of in, the wait time for a chance to legally immigrate from Mexico is essentially infinite.
|
On July 24 2013 15:45 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 15:34 Introvert wrote:On July 24 2013 13:57 HunterX11 wrote:On July 24 2013 11:02 Introvert wrote:On July 24 2013 10:45 JinDesu wrote:On July 24 2013 10:36 Introvert wrote:On July 24 2013 09:24 Dapper_Cad wrote:On July 24 2013 05:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:
For every valedictorian says he there are 100 drug smugglers, so maybe allowing whoever wants to come in come in with little to no oversight is a bad idea. So he's saying that one minuscule and unrepresentative example of Mexican immigrants that it is desirable to give citizenship to is outnumbered 100 to 1 by another tiny unrepresentative example of Mexican immigrants that it is undesirable to give citizenship to. And that these examples form an argument for why Mexican immigrants shouldn't be given citizenship. I thought using tiny unrepresentative examples of a group of people in order to draw conclusions about the group as a whole should be treated was pretty much the text book definition of racism. What am I missing? I think the point is that a deal of "100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian" is not a trade anyone wants. I don't see any racism here. Are you are being sarcastic? He's drawing on what he says is the LARGER part of the group, not the smaller one, anyway. Multiple things here: 1) First - you shouldn't be trading 100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian. The DREAM act is a bit stricter than that, from what I read on Wiki. 2) Second - saying 100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian ignores the remaining population - who may not be valedictorian, would also be decent people and could easily outnumber the 100 smugglers. Say we trade 1,000,000 decent mexican immigrants who are hard working and good for the community vs the 100 smugglers. Would put things in a slightly different light. 3) Third - saying 100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian while leaving out the rest of the possible people brings up the imagery that 99% of Mexicans are smugglers (thus stereotyping/being racist). While this is argued away by saying "he said valedictorians, not common people", I certainly can imagine people jumping to that bandwagon first. As JohnnyBNHo said, it's par for course on Capitol Hill - but par for course doesn't absolve it. I was responding very specifically to Dapper. The option of "100 smugglers for 1 valedictorian" is unacceptable, be the immigrants White, Black, Hispanic, purple dinosaurs, etc. The idea of racism has to be injected into it, it's not racist when you read it in a straight-forward manner. But, it is Steve King, he uses some "fun" language, so I could see how one could draw that idea. But's not what I got from it. It ignores the point. As to the Dream Act itself, well, I'm sure others in the thread have already gone over it, but from what I know, the language is so vague there isn't even an actual age limit on who's eligible, it just has to do with the age they WERE when they were brought here (what age they SAY they were). For all anyone know a 50 year old could be eligible. But the politicians don't come out and say it, they make you think it's only about "the children." I don't mean to get into a discussion, but I glanced at the thread and say a short, odd question that seemed easy to answer. I'm sure the non-liberals in the thread have already made for lively debate on the topic. But to your second point: No. A lawbreaking border-crosser is just that. I have very little, if any, respect for people who cut in line. No give-aways. And CERTAINLY none before we can ensure that the border is secure from future law breakers. The "line" analogy falls apart because most human beings live less than 100 years, and certainly all live less than, if not 150 years, then say 200 years. I'm pretty confident nobody trying to cross the border today is going to live to be 200, much less the tens of thousands of years old they would have to wait to get their chance "in line" without any other qualifications for immigration. Maybe I missed something, but I don't recall a line "analogy." I am saying, if you break the law, the very best I would offer (were it up to me) would be that you get put at the back of the line. I don't care how long it would take, they broke the law, so they can wait for a slim chance or get out. I know this seems harsh, but as I said, I have almost no sympathy whatsoever for people crossing illegally when this country already lets in and has let in MILLIONS the right and legal way. My point is that if you don't already have some kind of in, the wait time for a chance to legally immigrate from Mexico is essentially infinite.
and that is unfortunate. Unfortunate that everyone who wants to come can't, and unfortunate that their own country can't improve enough to make them stay. but why on Earth those who sneak in here, violating our country's own laws as their very first act on American soil should be rewarded.... I'm not seeing it. But again, if we want to do massive amnesty again, then don't screw it up like last time: secure the border (something that shouldn't even be up for debate...how infuriating), then talk about what to do with all the illegals. Who pulls up moldy carpet and puts down new carpet before fixing the leak?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://s11.postimg.org/genyoqcab/osha.png)
