On August 27 2012 16:42 Roe wrote: By that standard what would you call the republicans from pre Reagan tax level days? Communists?
The term was Rockefeller Republicans. Nixon, Dole, and the first Bush would be counted among them. The second Bush, McCain, and Romney would probably count if the term were still alive today. Kemp was a Reagan contemporary. Palin could be called the first heir to Reagan and Ryan the second.
On August 27 2012 23:59 BluePanther wrote: We were talking about today, not when he was elected. The question is "why is he still relevant/revered?"
Because he was the first major, successful American (and arguably world) politician to articulate why the government so often does more harm than good. Socialism in various forms took over everywhere during the 19th and 20th centuries and Reagan's philosophy is the historical counterpoint.
On August 27 2012 23:59 BluePanther wrote: We were talking about today, not when he was elected. The question is "why is he still relevant/revered?"
Because he was the first major, successful American (and arguably world) politician to articulate why the government so often does more harm than good. Socialism in various forms took over everywhere during the 19th and 20th centuries and Reagan's philosophy is the historical counterpoint.
You actually have no idea what you're talking about. 'Socialism' took over nowhere during the 19th and 20th centuries, what you're talking about is the welfare state, which republicans still continue to defend tooth and nail. The philosophical counterpoint to 'socialism' existed long before Reagan too, laissez-faire, deregulated markets have had proponents since halfway the 18th century.
On August 27 2012 11:19 Fredbearr wrote: I don't understand my own country. Am I the only one who feels bragging about getting revenge is worthless? I don't care if Osama is dead or not. It doesn't change the fact that once Clinton repealed the Glass–Steagall Act the whole U.S. economy has turned to shit after 60 years of prosperity. If the people would focus on who has better ideas rather than who is a republican or who is a christian, we might get a decent politician once and a while who is actually capable of changing for the better.
I agree I am so fucking sick and tired of campaign ads that focus on the negatives of their opponents instead of the positives of their own candidates.
America is fucked.
Haven't ads been doing this for decades upon decades, possibly centuries???
On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote: I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Bush: "Iraq has WOMD" Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol. He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever. Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product. Scary times.
Shame one of them will win. America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain.
Herman Cain? lol
So much for this thread being closly moderated, when people can troll your posts and not add anything to the conversation. *Golf clap*
Hermain Cain would of been a great leader. 1) He isn't a real politican. 2) He had great ideas. 999, lower taxes for EVERYONE, less government red tape, Working with the EPA to get them to help business find alternative solutions to help him them into complicance and protect our water and air. 3) He has expereince being a 'Leader'. 4) Unlike Obama,Romney,Clinton,Bush He never said a falsehood. (refering to his political works, obv everyone has lied at some point)
Are you fucking nuts? Herman Cain would have had less experience or knowledge of policy than Palin. He was a joke candidate, like Trump. The only reason he was in the primary was to market himself and get a bump in speaking fees.
Sheesh. Even Herman Cain knew he wasn't qualified to be president.
Well what experience do you need to be president. Obama proved you don't need much. The standards for the presidency have been on decline- just like the rest of my country. Probably not a good idea to point out the lack of experience of one Candidate when the current seated president isn't any better (argueably worse as he never held a real job).
SayGen, please -- elaborate on this alternate reality you live in.
I would, but when you insult me i'm not so inclined. Thanks for adding to the count of positive TL community members.
you must NEVER vote..... name one person who has never lied to get elected
To my most current knowledge Reagan
The smartest thing that Obama did this term was "lie" about closing Guantanamo Bay.
Lie number 3 and counting.
Obama did want to close Gitmo, and tried to, but for political reasons was unable. You can certainley say he failed, but he didn't lie.
Sort of. Some of his biggest opponents on Gitmo were to the left of him, and they objected to his plan because Obama basically just wanted to move the human rights abuses of Gitmo to a new location rather than end what is actually wrong with Gitmo.
On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote: I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Bush: "Iraq has WOMD" Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol. He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever. Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product. Scary times.
Shame one of them will win. America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain.
Herman Cain? lol
So much for this thread being closly moderated, when people can troll your posts and not add anything to the conversation. *Golf clap*
Hermain Cain would of been a great leader. 1) He isn't a real politican. 2) He had great ideas. 999, lower taxes for EVERYONE, less government red tape, Working with the EPA to get them to help business find alternative solutions to help him them into complicance and protect our water and air. 3) He has expereince being a 'Leader'. 4) Unlike Obama,Romney,Clinton,Bush He never said a falsehood. (refering to his political works, obv everyone has lied at some point)
Are you fucking nuts? Herman Cain would have had less experience or knowledge of policy than Palin. He was a joke candidate, like Trump. The only reason he was in the primary was to market himself and get a bump in speaking fees.
Sheesh. Even Herman Cain knew he wasn't qualified to be president.
Well what experience do you need to be president. Obama proved you don't need much. The standards for the presidency have been on decline- just like the rest of my country. Probably not a good idea to point out the lack of experience of one Candidate when the current seated president isn't any better (argueably worse as he never held a real job).
SayGen, please -- elaborate on this alternate reality you live in.
I would, but when you insult me i'm not so inclined. Thanks for adding to the count of positive TL community members.
you must NEVER vote..... name one person who has never lied to get elected
To my most current knowledge Reagan
The smartest thing that Obama did this term was "lie" about closing Guantanamo Bay.
Lie number 3 and counting.
Obama did want to close Gitmo, and tried to, but for political reasons was unable. You can certainley say he failed, but he didn't lie.
Sort of. Some of his biggest opponents on Gitmo were to the left of him, and they objected to his plan because Obama basically just wanted to move the human rights abuses of Gitmo to a new location rather than end what is actually wrong with Gitmo.
Yeah, good job pointing out the bait and switch. Gitmo was a symbol of the national disgrace in America's treatment of suspected terrorists but Obama switched the goal posts to just close Gitmo but not end the practices. Then he didn't even close Gitmo.
On August 27 2012 11:19 Fredbearr wrote: I don't understand my own country. Am I the only one who feels bragging about getting revenge is worthless? I don't care if Osama is dead or not. It doesn't change the fact that once Clinton repealed the Glass–Steagall Act the whole U.S. economy has turned to shit after 60 years of prosperity. If the people would focus on who has better ideas rather than who is a republican or who is a christian, we might get a decent politician once and a while who is actually capable of changing for the better.
I agree I am so fucking sick and tired of campaign ads that focus on the negatives of their opponents instead of the positives of their own candidates.
America is fucked.
Haven't ads been doing this for decades upon decades, possibly centuries???
LBJ was a fucking scoundrel but at least he got things done. He's a terrible president because of Vietnam, but on domestic issues he was one of the best between the Great Society and the Civil Rights Act. "There goes the South for a decade" he is alleged to have said for the Democratic Party. Almost 50 years later and it's still Republican...
Forgive me if this has been said already but I was just thinking about illegal immigration and how it should be treated like an invasion. Like anyone caught trying to cross the border should be shot on sight.
On August 28 2012 07:16 Darknat wrote: Forgive me if this has been said already but I was just thinking about illegal immigration and how it should be treated like an invasion. Like anyone caught trying to cross the border should be shot on sight.
On August 28 2012 07:16 Darknat wrote: Forgive me if this has been said already but I was just thinking about illegal immigration and how it should be treated like an invasion. Like anyone caught trying to cross the border should be shot on sight.
Wow, this is absurd. Is this a troll, or someone actually being serious? Again, my mind is blown by the absurdities some people have spouted on these last few pages....
On August 28 2012 07:16 Darknat wrote: Forgive me if this has been said already but I was just thinking about illegal immigration and how it should be treated like an invasion. Like anyone caught trying to cross the border should be shot on sight.
Wow, this is absurd. Is this a troll, or someone actually being serious? Again, my mind is blown by the absurdities some people have spouted on these last few pages....
Whether or not that comment was a troll, these opinions are actually held by quite a few people in real life.
On August 28 2012 07:16 Darknat wrote: Forgive me if this has been said already but I was just thinking about illegal immigration and how it should be treated like an invasion. Like anyone caught trying to cross the border should be shot on sight.
Wow, this is absurd. Is this a troll, or someone actually being serious? Again, my mind is blown by the absurdities some people have spouted on these last few pages....
Whether or not that comment was a troll, these opinions are actually held by quite a few people in real life.
People forget it is illegal to do in the first place. At my work people try to make up social securities # or steal them to be able to work. This fucks over the people whose SSN has been stolen.
People act like illegal immigration is a victimless crime, and we are actually victimizing the immigrants. Not the case.
On August 28 2012 07:16 Darknat wrote: Forgive me if this has been said already but I was just thinking about illegal immigration and how it should be treated like an invasion. Like anyone caught trying to cross the border should be shot on sight.
Welcome to North Korea.
I would think North Korea loves defectors. They just shoot the people trying to leave.
On August 28 2012 08:08 Saryph wrote: Well what is the solution of illegal immigration then? You obviously can't just deport them all, look at the economic impact.
what economic impact? Illegal immigrant don't work in a field where they cannot be easily replaced. Engineering firms, Health Care firms, law offices, etc. double check work eligibility and require a high degree of specialization. Your losing workers in fields that can be easily replaced.
On August 28 2012 08:08 Saryph wrote: Well what is the solution of illegal immigration then? You obviously can't just deport them all, look at the economic impact.
what economic impact? Illegal immigrant don't work in a field where they cannot be easily replaced. Engineering firms, Health Care firms, law offices, etc. double check work eligibility and require a high degree of specialization. Your losing workers in fields that can be easily replaced.
"What economic impact?", you ask? Here's an example.
Overall, as Professor Samuel Addy of the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Alabama’s Culverhouse College of Commerce andBusiness Administration has illustrated, because of H.B. 56, Alabama could lose up to $10.8 billion (or 6.2 percent of its gross domestic product), up to 140,000 jobs in the state, $264.5 million in state tax revenue, and $93 million in local tax revenue.
Here's another example which directly debunks your "they can easily be replaced" argument. Reports have shown that, since the passage of tougher immigration laws, Georgia farmers are having a very hard time finding replacements for illegal immigrants that used to work in their fields. Even Fox news reported on this...!
A study by the Georgia Agriculture Department of the state farm workforce shows that finding legal employees with the skill and desire to do labor-intensive harvesting is extremely difficult. [...] Farmers participating in the study said they have suffered roughly $10 million in crop losses because of the law, which many say has driven away workers. [...]
“Non-resident immigrant laborers, those of legal and illegal status, harvest crops, milk cows, gin cotton and maintain landscapes.”
“Georgia farmers and agribusiness employers," Black wrote, "widely attribute the need for these workers due to the fact that local citizens do not generally possess or care to develop the specialized skills associated with agriculture and, further do not regularly demonstrate the work ethic necessary to meet the productivity requirements of the farm business.”
Other studies conducted in the state last year also indicated that the law appeared to be having an adverse impact on agricultural business.
On August 28 2012 08:08 Saryph wrote: Well what is the solution of illegal immigration then? You obviously can't just deport them all, look at the economic impact.
what economic impact? Illegal immigrant don't work in a field where they cannot be easily replaced. Engineering firms, Health Care firms, law offices, etc. double check work eligibility and require a high degree of specialization. Your losing workers in fields that can be easily replaced.
"What economic impact?", you ask? Here's an example.
Overall, as Professor Samuel Addy of the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Alabama’s Culverhouse College of Commerce andBusiness Administration has illustrated, because of H.B. 56, Alabama could lose up to $10.8 billion (or 6.2 percent of its gross domestic product), up to 140,000 jobs in the state, $264.5 million in state tax revenue, and $93 million in local tax revenue.
This. Illegal immigration is an example of a public policy failure, or put more bluntly, bad laws. Immigration law in the United States makes absolutely zero sense in that it tries to over-regulate a fundamentally economic problem. Capital flows in and out of the United States are free. Labor flows are not. This is why shit like outsourcing happens, where American capital flows out of the country to find cheap labor abroad. This is fundamentally because there is a long-term labor shortage in North America, which illegal immigration hardliners refuse to solve. I have yet to see one person who advocates strict immigration enforcement come up with a solution to this problem. Not one. Quite sad given that they claim to come from the pro-business wing of US politics.
On August 28 2012 08:08 Saryph wrote: Well what is the solution of illegal immigration then? You obviously can't just deport them all, look at the economic impact.
what economic impact? Illegal immigrant don't work in a field where they cannot be easily replaced. Engineering firms, Health Care firms, law offices, etc. double check work eligibility and require a high degree of specialization. Your losing workers in fields that can be easily replaced.
"What economic impact?", you ask? Here's an example.
Overall, as Professor Samuel Addy of the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Alabama’s Culverhouse College of Commerce andBusiness Administration has illustrated, because of H.B. 56, Alabama could lose up to $10.8 billion (or 6.2 percent of its gross domestic product), up to 140,000 jobs in the state, $264.5 million in state tax revenue, and $93 million in local tax revenue.
This. Illegal immigration is an example of a public policy failure, or put more bluntly, bad laws. Immigration law in the United States makes absolutely zero sense in that it tries to over-regulate a fundamentally economic problem. Capital flows in and out of the United States are free. Labor flows are not. This is why shit like outsourcing happens, where American capital flows out of the country to find cheap labor abroad. This is fundamentally because there is a long-term labor shortage in North America, which illegal immigration hardliners refuse to solve. I have yet to see one person who advocates strict immigration enforcement come up with a solution to this problem. Not one. Quite sad given that they claim to come from the pro-business wing of US politics.
The variable you're missing is social policy. So long as the United States has social entitlements, it can't afford for unauthorized people to take advantage of it. Illegal immigrants, like it or not, do that in many cases. Even if they don't intend to, they drive social costs up in ways that the government and society cannot easily predict. So the solution is to either create more enforcement or reduce the benefits. Either way, society loses.
This isn't just a illegal immigration problem. Lots of people try to cheat the system, whether it's not reporting something on your taxes or spending some student loan money on non-school goods. But illegal immigrants are problematic because by definition nobody knows who they are or how many there are, so our social policy costs may be very different from what we expect.
EPT
