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

[Buckeyes85]

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.

Can you folks ever make an argument about what the government should or shouldn't provide without going full retard with the USSR/Socialism/Communism argument?

 

[Roger Duke]

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.

So, you are calling the 13 million illegals our "citizens"? My grandson cut his hand and the emergency room told my daughter he had to go to a different hospital because of the insurance. An illegal child would not have been refused. Why does a "citizen" have more rights over another citizen? Why can a person walk illegally into America and immediately be treated better than an American who's family has been here many generations?
You do know we are 28 trillion dollars in debt don't you?

 

[Roger Duke]

Can you folks ever make an argument about what the government should or shouldn't provide without going full retard with the USSR/Socialism/Communism argument?

Don't kill the messenger. If liberals weren't pulling us toward that, we wouldn't have to talk about it.
Do you always make a habit of blaming the victim?

 

[ataraxia]

And by the way, living standards in the US rose fastest during the period prior to the welfare state.

All developing economies undergo a period of rapid growth during early industrialization, then tend to plateau out. It has nothing to do with regulations which are put in place to control the problems which invariably and uniformly arise, like exploitation of child labor, monopolies and the need for antitrust laws, destabilizing extremes of wealth and poverty, etc…

The freedom of the jungle does not work in civil societies or modern developed nations. The people who still think pure free markets work are as naive as those who still think communism works. There’s a reason why there have never been any pure free markets in history anywhere in the world.

 

[ataraxia]

So, you are calling the 13 million illegals our "citizens"? My grandson cut his hand and the emergency room told my daughter he had to go to a different hospital because of the insurance. An illegal child would not have been refused. Why does a "citizen" have more rights over another citizen? Why can a person walk illegally into America and immediately be treated better than an American who's family has been here many generations?

If this story is true (which I can see happening), that means we need to improve the healthcare system for our own citizens, not gut it for everyone, don’t you think?

 

[ataraxia]

You do know we are 28 trillion dollars in debt don't you?

Which party adds more to deficits?

Hint: it’s the Republicans

towardsdatascience.com

So why are you still trying to defend Republicans?

 

[aociswundumho]

Can you folks ever make an argument about what the government should or shouldn't provide without going full retard with the USSR/Socialism/Communism argument?

Stop acting like a communist and I'll stop calling you one.

 

[Roger Duke]

Which party adds more to deficits?

Hint: it’s the Republicans

towardsdatascience.com

So why are you still trying to defend Republicans?

Not defending Republicans at all. There have been many places on DP where I have blamed the debt on the last 4 presidents, starting with Bush's policies after the twin towers were destroyed. This isn't about who's fault it is. It is about a system that is unsustainable and how we can at least try to stop what seems unavoidable, a catastrophic economic collapse.

 

[Roger Duke]

Stop acting like a communist and I'll stop calling you one.

That's logic. He won't get it. Maybe you could rephrase it somehow so it doesn't make as much sense.

 

[Deuce]

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



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

Right. You think we should go with the warlords instead.

 

[mrjurrs]

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?

We have more than enough for all of them. It is a matter of allocation of resources.

I am not saying the world should come to America. I am saying that if you are bold enough to leave where you are and come here, there's room. Meet them with a handshake and a path to citizenship. Especially those kids that come to America to go to college from another nation. Hand them citizenship along with their diploma.

 

[element94]

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?

For those companies that can, pay people more money, give back instead of taking more and more profits and paying upper management 400 times what the workers get. Try knocking it down to 200 times worker's pay. There's never enough for some people.

 

[Roger Duke]

We have more than enough for all of them.

More than enough what? Debt? Yep, you are right.
Energy? Not really. We are back to importing under Biden.
Hospital beds? Not in some places.
Houses? Nope, Americans can't even afford them anymore.
Food, Can't afford that either....not that migrants have to buy it....or housing.
Water? Not in some areas.
Jobs? Only because Biden pays lazy Americans to not work.
It's good to hear you think we should hold migrant numbers to under a billion. It might make your liberal friends hate you but at least you are a little practical.

 

[Roger Duke]

For those companies that can, pay people more money, give back instead of taking more and more profits and paying upper management 400 times what the workers get. Try knocking it down to 200 times worker's pay. There's never enough for some people.

So, this plan will fix all the problems of the 13 million illegals and allow us to bring how many more in?

 

[Buckeyes85]

Don't kill the messenger. If liberals weren't pulling us toward that, we wouldn't have to talk about it.
Do you always make a habit of blaming the victim?

As weak deflections go, that one was solid.

But in reality, I guess you actually answered the question and it is: No, we conservatives can't discuss the role of the government with liberals without going full retard claiming communism or socialism in every response.

 

[Roger Duke]

As weak deflections go, that one was solid.

But in reality, I guess you actually answered the question and it is: No, we conservatives can't discuss the role of the government with liberals without going full retard claiming communism or socialism in every response.

And you made no defense that you aren't on a slow moving path towards those things. I wonder why? Oh, I know!
IT'S BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO DEFENSE!
Study a little political history. Of course Republicans aren't completely innocent but liberals are just salivating over socialism.
It's no secret that Bernie is pulling all of the strings tied to Puppet Joe.

 

[Deuce]

Stop acting like a communist and I'll stop calling you one.

Stop acting like a nazi and I'll stop calling you one.

 

[lurchadams]

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?

tl:dr

Also, try more paragraph breaks.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

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?

No. Shrinking population with an increasing median age poses the US more problems, than overpopulation.

"Our ongoing campaign to save the world" is quite ridiculous. The US resettles about 100 K refugees a year, at a cost of $1.8 billion. You can compare that to how much the US spends creating refugees by destroying bad-actor but at least half-competent governments elsewhere. Or ... you don't need to. The idea that the US has any interest in making the world a better place is bullshit entire.

Bring the two together. How many Afghans has the US taken on a moral duty to protect? Do they come ON TOP of usual refugee intake, or INSTEAD of?

 

[The Stars Tremble]

It's no secret that Bernie is pulling all of the strings tied to Puppet Joe.

Bernie is the ONLY Senator in his faction, the Progressive Caucus. If you think he pulls ANYONE's strings, you have a higher opinion of him than anyone who didn't actually vote for him.

You DID vote for him, didn't you? You may as well admit it!

 

[Juks]

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?

You have a point since you are talking about illegal immigrants. No illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay, then again: to ask for asylum is another thing everyone should be allowed to do that. The problem is that most of the south americans don't have any legal reasons for asylum (like war or prosecution from a regim).

One problem is that in many cases it is the US that has created the poverty, the instability and the greater unrest in countries in middle america through financing gerillas and installing sanctions for more than a century, if the people of the countries voted for a socialistic goverment.

The US weapon industry also has an invested interrest in that the unrest continues.

 

[Hamish Howl]

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?

This sounds like a capitalism problem.

 

[Roger Duke]

No. Shrinking population with an increasing median age poses the US more problems, than overpopulation.

Wow, are you in trouble. So, you are saying that we should take a couple hundred million people out of poor countries that produce a minimum amount of pollution and put them into an industrialized country and give them cars, electricity, factory jobs, unlimited energy dependant entertainment and more meat?. It seems like you are more concerned that there won't be enough workers to pay into your Social Security checks than you are worried about climate change. You'd better hope environmentalists don't notice your post.

 

[Roger Duke]

Bernie is the ONLY Senator in his faction, the Progressive Caucus. If you think he pulls ANYONE's strings, you have a higher opinion of him than anyone who didn't actually vote for him.

Hmm, who is it then that has turned Joe from a moderate (I use the term loosely) to a far left nut job? You might be right. Maybe it's not Bernie.
Joe is scared to death that the Squad will call him a racist, sexist and xenophobe so they might be the string pullers. There are 4 of them and he has two wrists and two ankles so the math adds up. Name calling is a powerful weapon and the Squad is not ashamed to use it.

 

[Juks]

Hmm, who is it then that has turned Joe from a moderate (I use the term loosely) to a far left nut job? You might be right. Maybe it's not Bernie.
Joe is scared to death that the Squad will call him a racist, sexist and xenophobe so they might be the string pullers. There are 4 of them and he has two wrists and two ankles so the math adds up. Name calling is a powerful weapon and the Squad is not ashamed to use it.

Well he does have some theoretically power. If he would vote with the conservative, the conservatives would hold the majority in Congress. Now the politics off the conservatives is crazy at the moment so he doesn't have that option right now. But if they were more on the "normal" side it could have been a scenario where the conservatives for example opposed the vaccinepassports or policies for getting fired if you are not vaccinated and where Bernie could agree with them. Unfortunatly this is nothing he can do at the moment since the conservatives are trying to dismantle democracy and that overrides any and al cooperation.