• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

LIBERALS...a number....PLEASE!

A completely false equivalency. Immigration adds to a workforce that pays down the debt.
A strong hard working man comes across the border with his wife and 3 kids. He goes to work in a field making minimum wage. The US TAXPAYER pays for everything his family needs, food, housing, utilities, medical care, education, etc, etc.
The 28 trillion dollars in debt should disappear before the end of this year because a person who makes minimum wage pays way more in taxes than what the government gives him to support a family of five.
You do realize all that stuff you propose in post #8 costs money don't you?
 
Last edited:
Desperate flailing gibberish.
What else can be expected from dupes that support an Authoritarian white single party America gained by criminality and trashing the Constitution.
Having trouble answering the question are we?
 
If you are using a picture of an indigenous American to show that immigration is bad, it worked. But you are a liberal. You are pro immigration. Woops.
Also, indigenous people migrated too. And like slave owner Chief Seattle they killed lots of people too. Woops again.
Why the people of Seattle have a genocidal slave owner statue in their city, I'll never know.
SO, I gather only genocide committed by white people is acceptable?
face-with-one-eyebrow-raised_1f928.webp
 
But my guess is we are currently on the lower end of it somewhere, because many jobs are just not getting done. No Americans want to do them- and so our economy is suffering because of it.

So the plan is to enable lazy Americans to continue staying home and live off the taxpayers AND bring in people with families who need a lot of taxpayer funded social services? Sounds a bit expensive considering the 28 trillion. It will get businesses to reopen again though.
 
Nope, just pointing out your Rick Perry moment. Woops.
That's okay. We all make mistakes. Stand up, dust yourself off and try again.
No need to, when you make sense, maybe then, but sure, go ahead and make it about me, not the topic, that is ALWAYS a winning argument.

0c49bdda0131a9338163f6022c0a647f12602e8a8242d0914d66fb013d51149e.gif
 
One group that cheered the loudest for the creation of Social Security was young people because it helped relieve them of the burden of taking care of their aging parents.

Great. If that's true, then you should have no problem letting young people opt out entirely if they choose to, because you know so few will do so, correct?
 
The U.S. Border Patrol reported nearly 200,000 encounters with migrants along the U.S.-Mexico border in July
Cool. Likewise I encountered perhaps 500 different pieces of cheese just yesterday evening while shopping for groceries. Only one crossed the border into my shopping cart, however.
 
Is it time for the US to consider limiting migrants who cross into our borders to a specific number?
What do you think the number is?
 
A strong hard working man comes across the border with his wife and 3 kids. He goes to work in a field making minimum wage.
I live in a city where a strong hard working man comes across the border with his wife, works in one of the non-union construction industries for $25+/hr, files under a false SS# which withholds income tax money, he never files for any tax returns because he can't, and he never files for SS benefits because he can't. The federal government gets to keep all of his withholding money, and never has to pay a penny back.
The US TAXPAYER pays for everything his family needs, food, housing, utilities, medical care, education, etc, etc.
He pays for almost everything his family needs, food, clothing, housing, utilities, medical care. He and his wife raise 3 kids who go to public school for free, and they pay for their 3 kids secondary education with his wife's work selling sliced mangos and homemade churros on the street and subway, and the money saved from his second job in the restaurant industry at night - below minimum wage + tips.
 
Great. If that's true, then you should have no problem letting young people opt out entirely if they choose to, because you know so few will do so, correct?
No I want everybody to have social safety nets.
 
No I want everybody to have social safety nets.

Shouldn't each each person decide that for themselves?

Or do you know what's best for millions of other people who are complete strangers to you?
 
If the US doubled its population with immigrants, Europe would still be many times the population density. Japan has 10 times the population density of the US. To match theirs, the US would need a population of 3 billion people.

There's plenty of space. Let's cap at like 1.5 billion. So we have space for 1.2 billion more people.
 
Shouldn't each each person decide that for themselves?
No. This isn't how government in general works. You don't get to personally pick and choose which pieces of the government you fund and which ones you don't.
Or do you know what's best for millions of other people who are complete strangers to you?
Irrelevant. Government is a collective decision-making process. There's literally not one single thing it does that every last person is going to agree with.

Don't want government to exist? Go claim an island somewhere. Best of luck. I'm sure the UN will send relief when it falls apart.
 
Having trouble answering the question are we?
I disagree with your setup. Why don't you mention the huge income gap as a reason for some of the ills of society? You wouldn't be one of the dupes republicans rely on would you?
 
No. This isn't how government in general works. You don't get to personally pick and choose which pieces of the government you fund and which ones you don't.

I know, that's one reason (of many) why it sucks.

Irrelevant.

You wrote:

No I want everybody to have social safety nets.

You literally want to impose your beliefs on hundreds of millions of other people.

statism.webp

Government is a collective decision-making process.

No, it isn't.

First of all, most people don't vote. Out of the minority that does vote, about half of them voted for the turd sandwich and against the giant douche. Basically you support everyone being ruled by a state which was chosen by a small minority.
 
I know, that's one reason (of many) why it sucks.



You wrote:



You literally want to impose your beliefs on hundreds of millions of other people.

View attachment 67355507
No, these are not "my beliefs." These are "our beliefs." This is a collective decision-making process.

You want only your beliefs to be represented. What's that about mandatory, again?

"Statism" is such a hilarious term to use. Anarchists are absurd. The idea that rampaging warlords is somehow better than the United States of America.

No, it isn't.

First of all, most people don't vote. Out of the minority that does vote, about half of them voted for the turd sandwich and against the giant douche. Basically you support everyone being ruled by a state which was chosen by a small minority.
Choosing not to vote is still a choice. You want to deny that choice entirely, authoritarian.

A collective decision-making process doesn't require that literally every single person participates. Or do you think babies should vote?
 
Choosing not to vote is still a choice.

Sure, according to you and Geddy Lee, but I say that choice is an outright rejection of the system entirely.

You want to deny that choice entirely, authoritarian.

A collective decision-making process doesn't require that literally every single person participates. Or do you think babies should vote?

No, I don't think anyone should be allowed to vote. H.L. Menchen got it right:

The state—or, to make the matter more concrete, the government—consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get, and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.
 
So the plan is to enable lazy Americans to continue staying home and live off the taxpayers AND bring in people with families who need a lot of taxpayer funded social services? Sounds a bit expensive considering the 28 trillion. It will get businesses to reopen again though.

This is false.

There is not a single modern developed economy in the world that leaves its citizens who hit hard times without any safety nets. It’s not only inhumane and barbaric, you cannot run a modern economy without such safeguards. It’s like having a race car without seat belts, because you think seat belts are only for sissies and make you weak.
 
Liberals, Imagine a big liberal convention of 1,000 visitors was coming into your town for a week and they were looking for private homes to house them those 7 days and you had extra space. You wouldn't accept all 1,000. You wouldn't even accept 100. You would ponder several things. You might even call the organizers with some questions. And after some consideration you would pick a number. It would be a solid number, not something vague.
I'm not sure how many more people the United States can hold in our ongoing campaign to save the world. I do know this: We have a lot of Americans who go without necessities because social services are struggling for funds and resources. And housing is in short supply. Even people with jobs are sleeping on the street in some places. Rent is going through the roof and part of that is the domino effect of the dramatic rise in home prices. Good luck if you are looking to buy. And we are 28 trillion dollars in debt. When all your credit cards are maxed out you probably should reevaluate your ability to be charitable.
In a previous thread I asked liberals for a number. How many more migrants can the US take? I got vague answers but NOT ONE SINGLE NUMBER. So, let me soften the question up with the hope that liberals will be a little braver and not simply respond by calling me a racist and xenophobe.
I won't hold you to an actual number like the thread title implies.
I will make it a simple question with a yes or no answer.
Is it time for the US to consider limiting migrants who cross into our borders to a specific number?
A con literally confessing that all of societies ills have to be fixed by liberals alone.
 
This is false.

There is not a single modern developed economy in the world that leaves its citizens who hit hard times without any safety nets. It’s not only inhumane and barbaric, you cannot run a modern economy without such safeguards. It’s like having a race car without seat belts, because you think seat belts are only for sissies and make you weak.

The US government does not run the economy. I realize people like you and Bernie fantasize about the USSR and other socialist hellholes where the government does run the economy, but you have a long way to go before you make that dream a reality for the US.

And by the way, living standards in the US rose fastest during the period prior to the welfare state.
 
If the US doubled its population with immigrants, Europe would still be many times the population density. Japan has 10 times the population density of the US. To match theirs, the US would need a population of 3 billion people.

There's plenty of space. Let's cap at like 1.5 billion. So we have space for 1.2 billion more people.
All well and good and it answers a geography problem that I never even suggested existed.. Now, deal with the real issues.
 
I disagree with your setup. Why don't you mention the huge income gap as a reason for some of the ills of society? You wouldn't be one of the dupes republicans rely on would you?
How do you plan on solving the income gap, have billionaires like Warren Buffet and Oprah Winfrey stand at the border handing every illegal a big wad of cash when they cross?
 
Back
Top Bottom