PDA

View Full Version : Why we gotta let them sit at the table like decent folk?



MEGA JESUS-SAMA
25th May 10, 06:43 PM
Rand Paul just pulled an "I'm not racist, but...." and then followed it up with a "but I totally have some black friends."


WASHINGTON — Rand Paul, the Tea Party candidate who challenged the Republican establishment to win the party’s Senate nomination in Kentucky two days ago, criticized a landmark civil rights law on Thursday, landing himself in a potentially damaging dispute over civil rights and race.

In doing so, he provided Democrats an opportunity to portray him as extreme and renewed concern among Republicans that his views made him vulnerable in a general election.

Mr. Paul, in a series of television and radio interviews, suggested that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was too broad and should not apply to private businesses, such as luncheonettes. As his statements drew a swarm of attacks from his opponents, Mr. Paul issued a statement declaring that he would not support repealing the landmark 1964 statute and blaming political opponents for trying to distort his views by saying he favored repeal.

“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws,” he said. Later, in an interview on CNN, he said that if he had been in the Senate in 1964, he would have supported the act.

Still, it was not clear that he had quelled rising concerns among Republicans about his ability to win in the general election, especially given his libertarian views in favor of limiting the role of government. “I hope he can separate the theoretical and the interesting and the hypothetical questions that college students debate until 2 a.m. from the actual votes we have to cast based on real legislation here,” said Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican.

Democrats quickly mobilized to draw attention to what they cast as out-of-the-mainstream positions espoused by Mr. Paul — from raising the Social Security retirement age to 70 to questioning the legality of the Americans with Disabilities Act — as they sought to discredit what Jack Conway, the Democratic Senate candidate in Kentucky, described in an interview as Mr. Paul’s “narrow and rigid philosophy.”

The Tea Party phenomenon has provided a bolt of energy for the Republican Party. But the case of Mr. Paul also shows the risks that have emerged as new figures move to the forefront of conservative politics, as candidates with little experience and sometimes unorthodox policy positions face the kind of scrutiny and pressure that could trip up even the most experienced politicians.

Mr. Paul said in an interview with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC on Wednesday night that he supported the sections of the Civil Rights Act that applied to public accommodations but had concerns when it came to its applicability to private business; he raised similar concerns earlier in the day about the Americans with Disabilities Act in an interview on National Public Radio.

Asked by Ms. Maddow if a private business had the right to refuse to serve black people, Mr. Paul replied, “Yes.”

“I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form,” Mr. Paul continued. “I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. But I think what’s important about this debate is not written into any specific ‘gotcha’ on this, but asking the question: what about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking?”

“I don’t want to be associated with those people,” he said, “but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it.”

While those views reflect the libertarian philosophy that Mr. Paul and many Tea Party members have embraced, they are politically treacherous for someone making an appeal to the electorate at large, as Mr. Paul learned as he struggled with questions about whether he thought the government had a role in regulating food safety and working conditions.

Congressional Republicans were peppered with questions about Mr. Paul’s position on civil rights. “I just want to be on the record that I believe the Interstate Commerce Clause was properly used by the courts and the Congress to make sure that when you travel in this country you can’t be denied food and lodging based on your race,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said. “That is not a big heavy lift for me.”

Mr. Paul’s father, Representative Ron Paul, a Texas Republican who ran for president in 2008, angrily defended his son, saying he was being treated unfairly. “I think there’s a lot of resentment because he became a star,” said Mr. Paul, who ran for president in 2008.

Democratic leaders have long said that they viewed Mr. Paul as the weaker of the two major candidates in the Republican primary — the other was Trey Grayson, the secretary of state — because, they said, his views would not be embraced by the general electorate as they were by primary voters. That view was shared by many establishment Republicans, as reflected by the fact that Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, did not support him in the primary.

Mr. Paul also found himself on the defensive on Thursday when he sought to justify his decision to hold his election night celebration at a country club in Bowling Green, arguing that was not in any way at variance with the grass-roots movement he has come to epitomize.

“I think at one time, people used to think of golf and golf clubs and golf courses as being exclusive,” Mr. Paul said in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America,” adding, “Tiger Woods has helped to broaden that, in the sense that he’s brought golf to a lot of the cities and to city youth.”

Representative James E. Clyburn, the Democratic majority whip, who was active in the civil rights movement during the 1960s, described Mr. Paul as “extreme” in an interview. Mr. Clyburn said Mr. Paul’s decision to hold his victory rally at a country club was a slap at his own supporters. “Who would have a victory party in a place where the minions who just voted for you ain’t welcome?” he said.

More broadly, Mr. Clyburn said that he viewed Mr. Paul, should he get elected, as a threat to gains made by the civil rights movement over the past 50 years, given his views on the Civil Rights Act. “If we see someone like this get elected to the United States Senate, that will be the first step in my opinion to turning back the gains that we started making way back in the 1860s,” he said.

Representative Al Green, a Texas Democrat, demanded on the House floor on Thursday afternoon that Mr. Paul explain his views, which Mr. Green said were painful to those who experienced segregation. Mr. McConnell said through a spokesman that he was a fervent backer of the civil rights law and welcomed Mr. Paul’s statement that he would not seek to repeal it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/us/politics/21paul.html?ref=politics

UpaLumpa
25th May 10, 07:39 PM
I don't agree with Paul's position (or Freidman's which this is just a rehash of). In fact there are lots of examples about why the position isn't supported in execution. Nonetheless, it isn't a racist sentiment (just incorrect).

Ajamil
25th May 10, 07:39 PM
Grrr...

I hate the view, but I'd have a hard time voting against it. It's classic libertarian to say places should be allowed to discriminate and add that you're against it and wouldn't frequent such places. I'm hesitantly in agreement with it. I don't think this country is in a place yet where we could drop racist counter-measures, though.

Also, let's pick up on this quote.

Mr. Clyburn said Mr. Paul’s decision to hold his victory rally at a country club was a slap at his own supporters. “Who would have a victory party in a place where the minions who just voted for you ain’t welcome?” he said.
Minions? Lol.

SFGOON
25th May 10, 07:46 PM
About every forty years, the reactionary assholes in this country get so pissed off (usually black people are parenthetically involved,) that they spontaneously overcome entropy and organize.

As with all open systems, the outside conditions change over time, and the law of entropy re-asserts itself, dissipating the reactionaries like ions in a solvent.

Yup. It all comes back to chemistry, folks. I think I'll start a whack-ass political party based off that. The Master Alchemist Party.

resolve
25th May 10, 09:24 PM
Will you send all your inter-deparmental memos and the like all written in vague symbology that needs its own manual and a half to figure out the meanings because they are all organized to look like you are some crazy, philosopher's stone wielding, new cult?

Phrost
25th May 10, 09:27 PM
Rand Paul is guilty of being a political dumbass.

Stick
25th May 10, 10:39 PM
It's very complicated, but allowing private businesses and organizations to remain segregated effectively would have set integration in a tar pit. Yes, public sector stuff would have to integrate, but on so very many levels of society people back in '64 would've stayed just as biggoted, ignorant, seperate and hateful. That private sector bastion of "seperate but equal" would have helped to ensure that Mr. Paul's ever so enlightened stance on racism and bigotry would remain in the minority- the sort of minority that can't drive a bigoted restaurant that Mr. Paul would not dine in out of business- far longer than it did.

This is really just an extension of other libertarian crap; yeah, sure, big government is bad, let's have less of it- oh, wait, what do you mean no more meat inspectors?!

If the government can't prevent a private business owner from being bigoted with regards to who he let's in his door, then how can that same government prevent him from selling snake oil he knows to be harmful or charging Jews more or adding fictitious tax or surcharges to the bill or any number of currently illegal things short of outright theft, murder, rape and assault?

The government has to do some things, and one of those things is make the country better; this is not a better country if black people can't eat at an ihop and I can't get served at a chicken and waffle shack.

WarPhalange
25th May 10, 11:31 PM
If the government can't prevent a private business owner from being bigoted with regards to who he let's in his door, then how can that same government prevent him from selling snake oil he knows to be harmful or charging Jews more or adding fictitious tax or surcharges to the bill or any number of currently illegal things short of outright theft, murder, rape and assault?

Silly Stick! People will just stop going there! The Free Market (TM) wins again!

SFGOON
26th May 10, 01:03 AM
Will you send all your inter-deparmental memos and the like all written in vague symbology that needs its own manual and a half to figure out the meanings because they are all organized to look like you are some crazy, philosopher's stone wielding, new cult?

It wouldn't be alchemy without a codex.

Stick
26th May 10, 01:54 AM
Silly Stick! People will just stop going there! The Free Market (TM) wins again!


Between the two of us, I freely admit you are the greater free market libertarian.

UpaLumpa
26th May 10, 07:36 PM
Amusingly the perspective of Paul (and Friedman) that integration will just happen can easily be demonstrated to be false today based on school choice initiatives conservatives are pushing that are (and likely intended to) increasing de facto segregation.

Zendetta
26th May 10, 07:54 PM
How much satisfaction can I get from a court order for somebody to associate with me who does not wish me near them?

Oblique Point: Should Hooters (etc) have to hire Fat Chix?

Kein Haar
26th May 10, 10:57 PM
I kept asking where Hedgehogey at in other freads.

There he at!

Cullion
27th May 10, 02:16 AM
How many white students is Morehouse admitting this year ?

I don't know why everybody's so terrified about the idea of some backwoods diner that doesn't serve black people.

Ajamil
27th May 10, 06:44 AM
I'm still trying to get that college grant from the NAACP.

Lebell
27th May 10, 07:32 AM
knock the p.c. off.
if a hardworking taxpaying white restaurant/diner owner doesnt want black people in his place it should be his right to refuse them.
thats not racism thats freedom and the persuit of happyness.
the white restaurantowner could be unhapy with black dudes in his place, or just bored with making fried chicken over and over again, let him persue his hapyness by refusing them.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
27th May 10, 07:40 AM
How many white students is Morehouse admitting this year ?

I don't know why everybody's so terrified about the idea of some backwoods diner that doesn't serve black people.

Because they are scared of endorsing racism duhhhh!

Cullion
27th May 10, 08:03 AM
Why don't you think you should be allowed to study at Morehouse ?

Where's Arjuna's NAACP grant?

Lebell
27th May 10, 08:06 AM
racism is natures way of saying: carefull! black peepul steal!

Yiktin Voxbane
27th May 10, 08:16 AM
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/4/7/getyourfilthy128520510264687500.jpg

Ajamil
27th May 10, 08:26 AM
I'm poor! I'm smart! "The Man" (Dad) won't give me money and is keeping me down!

No seriously, I can understand such orgs. I wish the world could just lump them all into one called Equality Now! (TM) but I acknowledge different needs and agendas for blacks/asians/women/homosexuals/disabled/anyone considered marginalized by mainstream society.

Though I often worry that their pushes for equality would be a lot more honest in saying they're pushing for more power - even if that means they gain the upper hand. I doubt Womyn's Libbers would stop once there was objective evidence of true equality amongst the sexes.

Lebell
27th May 10, 08:42 AM
yeah the funny thing is, society is in the end made up out of all minorities.
there is no such thing as a mainstream.
white males 30-45 also have shit like funny uncles that touched them , or cancer or what fucking ever.

mainstream is the mechanism, and the mechanism is dangerous.
the mechanism consists out of big companies, nameless, they influence our lives the most, well at least our daily lives.
how many times did it happen to you when you phone to a company to complain about something, perhaps an unfair bill, or a ridiculous raise in your healthcare premium etc. and the voice on the other end says: 'im sorry sir i dont make up the rules.'

the invisible mechanism is the true enemy, it has no face and no concious and it lives on human incompetense.

Spade: The Real Snake
27th May 10, 12:39 PM
I'm poor! I'm smart! "The Man" (Dad) won't give me money and is keeping me down!

No seriously, I can understand such orgs. I wish the world could just lump them all into one called Equality Now! (TM) but I acknowledge different needs and agendas for blacks/asians/women/homosexuals/disabled/anyone considered marginalized by mainstream society.

Though I often worry that their pushes for equality would be a lot more honest in saying they're pushing for more power - even if that means they gain the upper hand. I doubt Womyn's Libbers would stop once there was objective evidence of true equality amongst the sexes.

Didn't ever watch Soul Man.

Duh.

jvjim
27th May 10, 01:16 PM
TRUE FACT: The applied doctorine that gave enforced an individuals personal rights from around the 1920's till today is called "substantitive due process" and it is an idea read into the 14th Amendment. Guess what doctorine used to protect "economic rights?"

jvjim
27th May 10, 01:22 PM
TRUE FACT: The portion of the Civil Rigths Act in question is enforced through the Commerce Clause and the ancient common law tradition of allowing extra governmental scrutiny of "common carriers" like parcel companies, carriages, or inns.

jvjim
27th May 10, 01:30 PM
TRUE FACT: The Act as written supports racism in "private" clubs without giving any guidance whatsoever as to what "private" means.

Boy, to the guys and girls on the bench pull that one frequently?

WarPhalange
27th May 10, 01:42 PM
My penis is a private club.

jvjim
27th May 10, 01:49 PM
Club's are stiff and longer than 2 inches.

Kein Haar
27th May 10, 02:40 PM
OOooooo!

Spade: The Real Snake
27th May 10, 02:45 PM
THAT'S WHAT SHE SAI....oh, wait.

Poops has never known a woman's touch......























nevermind

Lebell
27th May 10, 02:56 PM
but seriously, a lotta white pple dont like black pple, and a lot of asian pple dont like black pple, and alotta arab pple dont like white pple, so instead of trying to force everyone into the meltingpot it should be allowed to create certain zones where one can live with their own kin in peace.
thats freedom.

Ajamil
27th May 10, 03:34 PM
And that's what happens, actually. It's when someone decides to go visit the other culture and is forced away that the uproar happens.

America doesn't melt your pot, it tosses your salad. (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_tossed_salad_theory_on_immigrant%27s_role_ in_American_society)

partyboy
27th May 10, 04:14 PM
bring on the goobacks!

uORAyORWRAA


BACK TO THE PILE!!!

Grenadier
31st May 10, 08:04 PM
but seriously, a lotta white pple dont like black pple, and a lot of asian pple dont like black pple, and alotta arab pple dont like white pple, so instead of trying to force everyone into the meltingpot it should be allowed to create certain zones where one can live with their own kin in peace.
thats freedom.


Agreed.
Like it or not "melting pots" typically descend into third world status rather quickly.
No commmon ancestry=no common goal.

EuropIan
31st May 10, 09:53 PM
Define "rather quickly" and what precedence you have for that.

Just curious.

Lebell
1st June 10, 08:14 AM
Define "rather quickly" and what precedence you have for that.

Just curious.

any western european country will do.
lookat every major european city with large minority groups.
London, Berlin,Amsterdam, Brussels,Paris.

EuropIan
1st June 10, 08:16 AM
Are they third world countries?

Lebell
1st June 10, 08:18 AM
Are they third world countries?
third world cities.

the decay is delayed because the infestation isnt natonally spread, but when you take a look atthe cities you'll see a huge increase in robberies, in panhandlers, shopkeepers that try to trick you, pickpockets etc.
they'll make it into third world zones rather quickly.

berlin:kreuzberg
paris: big banlieus with riots setting hundreds of cars alight and then attack the firefighters
london: enormous increase in knifing attacks
and so on and so on.

but please keep insisting this was ofcourse the case before imigrants came.
right?
its all one big coincedance

EuropIan
1st June 10, 08:23 AM
No that's not what I am inferring.

I'm inferring it's hyperbole and you are playing loosely with definitions

Cullion
1st June 10, 08:31 AM
'infestation' ?

<shakes head>

That's racist.

Lebell
1st June 10, 08:33 AM
im not interested in what you're inferring mr p.c. leftwing fagg0t.
you know what im saying ere is true, bt by all means keep paying semantic games.




No that's not what I am inferring.

I'm inferring it's hyperbole and you are playing loosely with definitions

Cullion
1st June 10, 08:38 AM
what you just said was illegal in the UK. you might get sociocide access shut down for the whole country!

EuropIan
1st June 10, 08:46 AM
Cities with the highest GDP in Western Europe are third world cities. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP#Europe.2C_Western)

Black is white, up is down, Lebell is genius.

Cullion
1st June 10, 08:58 AM
Is that GDP per capita, and does it include government funding sucked from the rest of the country's actually productive economy ?

EuropIan
1st June 10, 09:07 AM
Yeah because we know major economic centres are a drain on the rest of the country.

Cullion
1st June 10, 09:34 AM
Ian, economics is about numbers.

What do you think the per-capita tax spend in London is compared to, say, Birmingham ?

And what proportion of London's third world population are employed in tax revenue generating enterprises?

Now, these questions could have all kinds of answers, for that we need to look at the numbers, but the correlation you just drew between 'third world' and 'rich' isn't as clear as the article you just quoted implies.

Perhaps you could do the same comparison for US cities like Washingon DC, and, oh, Seattle.

EuropIan
1st June 10, 09:49 AM
Well that's certainly a fair question.


Quick qustion though:

The wikipedia article cites London as responsible for 20% of the UK's GDP which quite a lot per capita. (they cite this (http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2CAE66FB-2DD5-41A5-B916-8FFC37276059/0/BC_RS_lpuk_0511_FR.pdf) report) is it disingenuous?

It should be noted that even despite tax-thaumaturgy, comparisons to third world standards is still completely incongruous hyperbole.

Kein Haar
1st June 10, 10:51 AM
Third world comparisons apply to significant swaths of some U.S. cities.

Well, maybe not 3rd.

Maybe more like com-bloc shit holes like the Ukraine.

I saw some show on feral babies and they showed some apartments in Ukraine...pretty comparable to U.S. housing projects.

When the shit hit the fan in Paris (suburbs?), that was really telling. I didn't realize how pervasive their own shit-holes were. And that's Western Yrup!

Lebell
1st June 10, 10:53 AM
Cities with the highest GDP in Western Europe are third world cities. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP#Europe.2C_Western)

Black is white, up is down, Lebell is genius.

yes ian, because in capitol cities such as london only londeners work there right?
its not like people from outside the city commute there each day?

fucking hell you're stupid..

Kein Haar
1st June 10, 10:54 AM
That's true. Trains to Chicago are packed to the gills during the rush hours.

Lebell
1st June 10, 10:55 AM
It's like saying the mental hospital is being run by the patients and the doctors and nurses are co-operating with them.

Kein Haar
1st June 10, 10:56 AM
Oh, and the pan-handlers don't commute so much.

Grenadier
1st June 10, 11:39 AM
Define "rather quickly" and what precedence you have for that.

Just curious.

Of course sir.

By "rather quickly" I merely mean in comparison to more culturally and racially exclusive societies. (Japan for instance)

I cannot think of one great civilization that was built by a melting pot. (please, correct me if I'm wrong)

However we can look at history and see that once nations(Rome, India, the modern west) become open to the idea of the "melting pot" they begin to decay from within.

Lebell
1st June 10, 11:54 AM
Actually Rome pretty much ended itself when Honorius 'decided' to allow the Goths to cross the Danube river and to grant them 'asylum'.

See any paralels to this time?

Cullion
1st June 10, 11:58 AM
Well that's certainly a fair question.


Quick qustion though:

The wikipedia article cites London as responsible for 20% of the UK's GDP which quite a lot per capita. (they cite this (http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2CAE66FB-2DD5-41A5-B916-8FFC37276059/0/BC_RS_lpuk_0511_FR.pdf) report) is it disingenuous?

It should be noted that even despite tax-thaumaturgy, comparisons to third world standards is still completely incongruous hyperbole.

How much time have you spent in London?

Look at the size of the UK's investment banking sector as a proportion of the UK's GDP.

Then visit Tower Hamlets and ask yourself how many of those people work in investment banking. Then, ask yourself how many of those people generate more in taxation than they cost in public funds to maintain.

Then think 'which way around is the causal relationship, is London wealthy because those people are here, or are those people here because London is wealthy?'.

You're confusing correlation with causation in a fairly straightforward way.

Kiko
1st June 10, 11:59 AM
And that's what happens, actually. It's when someone decides to go visit the other culture and is forced away that the uproar happens.

America doesn't melt your pot, it tosses your salad. (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_tossed_salad_theory_on_immigrant%27s_role_ in_American_society)

I think it does both. Over time our kids are going to be more and more willing to aid the melting.

Salad or stew, it's all nummy.

Adouglasmhor
1st June 10, 12:50 PM
How much time have you spent in London?

Look at the size of the UK's investment banking sector as a proportion of the UK's GDP.

Then visit Tower Hamlets and ask yourself how many of those people work in investment banking. Then, ask yourself how many of those people generate more in taxation than they cost in public funds to maintain.

Then think 'which way around is the causal relationship, is London wealthy because those people are here, or are those people here because London is wealthy?'.

You're confusing correlation with causation in a fairly straightforward way.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Cullion again.

Lebell
1st June 10, 01:06 PM
the sheer stupidity of some posters is just shocking.
i chose to believe ian is trolling.

Ajamil
1st June 10, 03:12 PM
What are the stats on large cities that have relatively little racial diversity? Are we sure it isn't just the "lots of people crammed in together" factor? The fact that the incoming people are immigrants might be only changing the flavor of the degradation.

What's a city that has a massive influx of people that aren't immigrants? Calcutta? Mexico City? Rio de Janeiro?

UpaLumpa
1st June 10, 03:36 PM
Perhaps you could do the same comparison for US cities like Washingon DC, and, oh, Seattle.

At least prior to the last 2-3 years much more tax money was spent in states that also produced... less.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/mapstatestaxes.gif

Those states paying more than they're getting back also tend to be more diverse.

Cullion
1st June 10, 04:41 PM
What are the stats on large cities that have relatively little racial diversity? Are we sure it isn't just the "lots of people crammed in together" factor? The fact that the incoming people are immigrants might be only changing the flavor of the degradation.

Most Chinese or Japanese cities would fit into this category.



What's a city that has a massive influx of people that aren't immigrants? Calcutta? Mexico City? Rio de Janeiro?

Shanghai.

Cullion
1st June 10, 04:45 PM
At least prior to the last 2-3 years much more tax money was spent in states that also produced... less.

We're comparing populations within cities, specifically looking at the tax revenue being generated by immigrants from the 'third world' relative to the taxes spent on those immigrants, to examine the hypothesis 'importing lots of people from the third world makes a city rich'.

Lebell
1st June 10, 05:11 PM
What are the stats on large cities that have relatively little racial diversity? Are we sure it isn't just the "lots of people crammed in together" factor? The fact that the incoming people are immigrants might be only changing the flavor of the degradation.

What's a city that has a massive influx of people that aren't immigrants? Calcutta? Mexico City? Rio de Janeiro?

What you dont seem to get is this: i just post about what i SEE.
not what should be p.c.
over here about 40% of non whites dont work.
make little to no effort to learning the language.
it doesnt say anything about how i FEEL about black people, personally if you must know i say: 'what the hell do i care, humanity as a whole can drop dead, dont care what colour you got over that stupid monkeyskull.'

BUT i passionately HATE people who keep denying the truth when its right in front of their eyes.
most immigrants are NOT an enrichment, they come from medeval culturesd at best and drag the whole of society down a couple of ages back in time.

i like to live in a society where me and my offspring can live in freedom and some safety, so we either make some work in getting these people get with the program or genocide em or whatevers in between, im not moral, im practical.

immigrants must be adressed.

take the usa for example: white immigrants came: good stuff happened.
then from the 70ies (?) mexican immigrants came: rise in crime.
so instead of doing fuckall and yelling racism you better help these pple get a life so they wont resort to crime.
or shoot em.
whatever makes them stop fucking up the country.

Ajamil
1st June 10, 06:41 PM
What you dont seem to get is this: i just post about what i SEE.Which is why you often sound convincing, and the numbers often show you are wrong.

UpaLumpa
1st June 10, 06:42 PM
We're comparing populations within cities, specifically looking at the tax revenue being generated by immigrants from the 'third world' relative to the taxes spent on those immigrants, to examine the hypothesis 'importing lots of people from the third world makes a city rich'.

I don't think that hypothesis was ever raised, seems a bit on the strawman side of things. What I recall being suggested was instead that the immigration led to those cities becoming third-world in living standards etc.

Regardless, state information seems to be the item most easily collected for the US. In the US though, those immigrants certainly do contribute mightily to the tax revenue as cheap labor and are primarily in the states where less tax monies are spent.

Lebell
1st June 10, 06:43 PM
Which is why you often sound convincing, and the numbers often show you are wrong.

no the numbers either show im correct or the numbers are messed with.
you know those leftist tricks?
how manipulate numbers and such?

UpaLumpa
1st June 10, 06:46 PM
take the usa for example: white immigrants came: good stuff happened.
then from the 70ies (?) mexican immigrants came: rise in crime.
so instead of doing fuckall and yelling racism you better help these pple get a life so they wont resort to crime.
or shoot em.
whatever makes them stop fucking up the country.


Actually, mexican immigrants do work a lot (and pay sales taxes which are what are largely responsible for the services they use). Frankly our standard of living is largely contingent on the cheap labor they provide. Between illegal labor and subsidies food is about one-fifth what it out to be.

There are very real problems caused by immigration in the US but it isn't a black and white issue. Immigrants are vital in certain economic areas but also problematic in others (the lack of available health care has crippled emergency care).

Crime committed by illegals is also largely directed toward other illegals.

Ajamil
1st June 10, 06:57 PM
no the numbers either show im correct or the numbers are messed with.
you know those leftist tricks?
how manipulate numbers and such?We'll do this the science-y way. Can you give me a scenario in which you are wrong?

EuropIan
1st June 10, 07:40 PM
We're comparing populations within cities, specifically looking at the tax revenue being generated by immigrants from the 'third world' relative to the taxes spent on those immigrants, to examine the hypothesis 'importing lots of people from the third world makes a city rich'.
No
the hypothesis was foreign immigrants turns large cities into third world shit holes.
You are being a shitcunt.


How much time have you spent in London?

Brief tourist trip.



Look at the size of the UK's investment banking sector as a proportion of the UK's GDP.

Then visit Tower Hamlets and ask yourself how many of those people work in investment banking. Then, ask yourself how many of those people generate more in taxation than they cost in public funds to maintain.

yes, up until their imaginary house of cards fell they were an asset, but now they are multiplied by *-1

Note those numbers were from before the moneygeddon.


Then think 'which way around is the causal relationship, is London wealthy because those people are here, or are those people here because London is wealthy?'.

there is money in London, therefore they are there.



You're confusing correlation with causation in a fairly straightforward way.
____
And London is still paying for unemployment in Hull, despite all those pakis that infest London.

Stick
1st June 10, 07:52 PM
Lebell, kill yourself. And do it slowly.

I don't have to post numbers to do this, especially not considering you're just posting what you "SEE".

NYC, immigrant city for centuries, absurdly productive on the world stage, not a shit hole.

Pointing to the productin of London and writing it off because the people who work in the city may live in suburbs 30 minutes outside the official city limits is bullshit; you want to go that way then you have to accept that those "productive" suburbs are a part of the city, or they do absolutly nothing at all.

Washington DC has some shit hole areas, but it's essentially sprawled out through Southern MD and more importantly NOVA. This region is rife with immigrants and is by no means a third world hole.

As much as it pains you, no you can't just write off the red/blue production/consumption map- the awful liberal dens of foreign infestation are vastly more productive and suck less of the government tit than the nativist, xenophobic heartland.


no the numbers either show im correct or the numbers are messed with.
you know those leftist tricks?
how manipulate numbers and such?

Bravo, fuck of a troll job, sir. I salute your valiant efforts!

Lebell
2nd June 10, 02:55 AM
christ allmighty...isnt there anyone with half a brain then?

okay i'll try to break it down how its done in the grown up world:
we live in a democracy.
politicians who rule us get elected.
when they do bad job they do not get elected again.
so they use numbers to prove the audience they did well.
most numbers come from agencies with a political agenda of their own, often funded.
numbers are usually suspicious.
immigrants who do illegal work do not contribute as much as legally working people.
immigrants are way more jobless then indigenous people (im leaving various reasons for that out of it)
do you weant proof?
go to your local 'diversity area' and look for yourself.
go watch the excellent bbc series ' yes minister' and learn a thing or two about how politicans sleaze their way through the media.

Cullion
2nd June 10, 03:06 AM
I don't think that hypothesis was ever raised, seems a bit on the strawman side of things.

It's what Ian was implying.



Regardless, state information seems to be the item most easily collected for the US.

It's not what's being debated.



In the US though, those immigrants certainly do contribute mightily to the tax revenue as cheap labor

Quantify it.



and are primarily in the states where less tax monies are spent.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/287.html

Alaska's the most expensive state per head. After that, much of the southern interior is near the bottom of the table. New York and New Mexico are in the top 10. California is number 12.

Cullion
2nd June 10, 03:09 AM
I don't have to post numbers to do this

Yes you do.



As much as it pains you, no you can't just write off the red/blue production/consumption map-

I just did. It's another bit of silly liberal propaganda.

Stick
2nd June 10, 09:57 AM
Yes, liberals are contructs of smoke and mirrors and not an ounce of truth goes into their making.

Your numbers are unasailable, I get it.

Look, I live in a multicultural urban hive rife with immigrants. I hear a dozen languages on the street every day. I don't livein a shit hole. The immigrants here, legal and otherwise work all sorts of jobs, and my interractions with them have been good.

The Eastern US metro centers all have strong traditions of immigration and not a one of them is a "third world shit hole".

Except Baltimore, fuck that place.

Cullion
2nd June 10, 10:02 AM
I too have met many delightful, productive immigrants. That isn't the question being asked, and it doesn't really bring anything to the debate.

Stick
2nd June 10, 10:20 AM
Yes it does, especially when you consider statistics- save yours are verboten and Lebell's talking about what he "sees".

I suppose as I don't see all that well, what I've seen is suspect.

I've lived cities and small towns: rural, suburban and urban. I've lived in the US, Germany and Japan.

Immigrant melting pot/salad bowl cities are not doomed to fail nor are ethnically monolithic cities like those in Japan guaranteed to succeed. History shows both models failing and succeeding.

Immigrant populations, even the illegal ones are no more or less industrious than "working class" natives; both can be incredibly industrious and peaceful, both have shown an aptitude for sucking up welfare and ruining neighborhoods.

This isn't PC on my part, this is "Fuck you, I don't live in a third world shit hole" and if you're going to argue on what you "see", throw around hyperbole without support and shit on the opposing view point's evidence then where the fuck do you get off saying the otherside isn't bringing something to the debate- you've made it clear this is not a debate.

Lebell
2nd June 10, 10:25 AM
christ allmighty what a dumbass...

Stick
2nd June 10, 10:27 AM
look who's fucking talking.

Lebell
2nd June 10, 10:32 AM
'no U!'

lolol!
point proven!

Cullion
2nd June 10, 10:42 AM
Yes it does, especially when you consider statistics- save yours are verboten

What do you mean 'verboten'?



and Lebell's talking about what he "sees".

I'm not debating Lebell.



I suppose as I don't see all that well, what I've seen is suspect.

No, you're using anecdotes. Your vision has nothing to do with it.

Stick
2nd June 10, 10:47 AM
Ugh, fine!


I cannot think of one great civilization that was built by a melting pot. (please, correct me if I'm wrong)

However we can look at history and see that once nations(Rome, India, the modern west) become open to the idea of the "melting pot" they begin to decay from within.

America was built by immigrants and would not be what it is without the melting pot. Whether it survives or not remains to be seen, but it won't be "multiculturalism" and immigration that stops this country.

Cullion
2nd June 10, 10:48 AM
The subject under discussion is 'third world immigrants', not all immigrants.

Stick
2nd June 10, 11:01 AM
Seriosuly?

How did we get to this from whether ornot the 64 Civil Rights Act went to far in forcing racial intigration in private businesses?

Illegal immigrants will not destroy this country, they are simply an easy scape goat for politicians and a frightened/angry electorate.

But, if you wanted to make matters worse for everyone- more insular xenophobic immigrant and natives enclaves ripe for racial/ethnic violence and rioting- then yes, stripping that portion of the civil rights act in the name of individual liberties is an awesome idea.

Stick
2nd June 10, 11:02 AM
Wait, third world or illegal?

There are plenty of legal, productive immigrants who come from third world countries.

Cullion
2nd June 10, 11:30 AM
Read back over the thread.

Lebell
2nd June 10, 11:53 AM
Ugh, fine!



America was built by immigrants and would not be what it is without the melting pot. Whether it survives or not remains to be seen, but it won't be "multiculturalism" and immigration that stops this country.

No you brainwashed faggot, america was not build by immigrants in a way that supports your p.c. faggotry.
Your history:

White people came to the eastcoast, built cities, spread out to the West, in time dominated coast to coast.
White Europeans had the dominant culture by far, sure the railroads werebuilt by chinese dudes, but the owner of the railroad companies, the logistics that made the making of railways and telephonepoles possible were all from White americans of european descend.

If you would translate your idiocy into this time t would be saying that the Mexicans who clean at private hospitals made significant contributions to brain surgery in 21st century america.


do you understand?

probably not.
all the waves of immigrants were predominantly by europeans: 16th,17th 18th and 19th centry, up til the late 30ies.
that were your immigrants that build your goddamn country.

dont even think bout bringing up slavery as it has nothing to do with immigrants the way we're discussing it.

now, after ww2 waves of non european immigrants started to migrate to the usa creating the meltingpot it is today.

two entirely different types of immigrants.

do you understand why i laugh ' this country was build by immigrants' away as p.c. propaganda?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
2nd June 10, 12:03 PM
If you would translate your idiocy into this time t would be saying that the Mexicans who clean at private hospitals made significant contributions to brain surgery in 21st century america.


An Illegal Immigrant Turned Brain Surgeon -- With His Own Two Hands (http://www.rd.com/illegal-immigrant-turned-brain-surgeon/article51808.html)

Lebell
2nd June 10, 12:15 PM
An Illegal Immigrant Turned Brain Surgeon -- With His Own Two Hands (http://www.rd.com/illegal-immigrant-turned-brain-surgeon/article51808.html)

uhuh...if i felt like having a googlemarathon i can give you 50 ilegal immigrants turned criminal to one successtory.
does not prove a point.
the fact that media take these kinda desperate steps to portray them as useful is telling.

Stick
2nd June 10, 12:34 PM
What you refer to in hind sight as a monolith of white european culture did not consider itself as such. The colonial natives had the same opinion of Irish, Germans, Italians, Ukranians, Checks, Greeks and the rest of the immigrants of their day as you do of all the invading foreigners today.

PC nothing, context.

Lebell
2nd June 10, 12:57 PM
What you refer to in hind sight as a monolith of white european culture did not consider itself as such. The colonial natives had the same opinion of Irish, Germans, Italians, Ukranians, Checks, Greeks and the rest of the immigrants of their day as you do of all the invading foreigners today.

PC nothing, context.

Nope they did not.
ofcourse there is always tension between newcomers and the people who already have been there.
The huge difference however is: it was about Europeans setteling in a new country which was based on europe, many parts of northern america had european communities where they spoke french german dutch etc.

the kind of immigrants im talking about right now is people coming from entirely different cultures, and i do mean ENTIRELY different cultures such as africa, north africa, arab world, etc.

so yes i agree its about context and i urge you to educate yourself so you can interprete the right context as such.

Stick
2nd June 10, 01:10 PM
You miss the point; yes, now looking back on it all and in comparison to the modern clash of cultures, those Western and even some Eastern Europeans seem more or less the same. At the time, however, the divisions between the different groups were seen as just as bad as we do our divisions and in some ways worse- these days it's pretty easy to learn about different cultures without putting yourself out, back then it got you beaten to death and left in an alley.

Hell, earlier you implied that the recent immigrant population in London is responsible for a rise in violent crime; do you understand just how much more likely you were to die a violent death on the streets of 19th century London as opposed to today?

Just because that soceity was more homogenous didn't make it any safer. The only thing now is it is easier to paint that violent crime as an "us vs them" seeing as the urban poor responsible for the majority of an high crime rate are now a different color.

Lebell
2nd June 10, 01:23 PM
the urban poor are made up from minorities, in fact its the only segment in society were they are the majority.
(lol!)

and now we have come to my original point and you just agreed to me.


don't feel dumb though.
the main point should be: don't whine as soon as race comes into play, because it hinders an effective approach towards a solution.

Lebell
2nd June 10, 01:25 PM
stupid version of the above: it does not matter what colour poor people have, but it is not a good idea to import more poor people and then pretend they are enriching our societies.

a single mom is NOT a thing we should strife for.

Stick
2nd June 10, 01:33 PM
Without the urban poor- also known as the working class- the UK and the USA would not have accomplished what they did.

In the 19th century in America that urban working class was made up of minorities. They may be assimilated into White European today, but when they arrived the Irish were paddies, the Italians were guidos and the Dutch were square heads.

There were an ass load of single moms in NYC after the Civil War and somehow that city managed to rise even with them trying to suck them down so hard under a tide of impoverished unproductivity.

Lebell
2nd June 10, 01:36 PM
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!

cos poor people ALL work instead of living of welfare?
would you reckon more single moms work then that there are on welfare?
prostitution will not be seen as legal work.

Stick
2nd June 10, 01:55 PM
Almost all statistics in the US show single mothers on the whole are employed (80%<), and while 2/3s of those on welfare are women only about 20% of single mothers in the US receive welfare.

Just because most of group A is made up of group B does not mean most of B is made up of A.

I can't speak for the UK without more Google-fu. You do it, I'm sure it's all horrible and proves your point brilliantly.

Stick
2nd June 10, 02:06 PM
Blegh, doing this from my phone >.<

I need to look more into them, but the US Department of Labor has over 70% of single mother employed full time. Depending upon where I look, as little as 5% are on welfare specifically while as much as 25% are on food stamps are other sort of assistance.

Ajamil
2nd June 10, 03:35 PM
Let's please all remember that Lebell is simply telling us what he sees. So we can conclude from this that anything within eyesight of Lebell turns into a shithole.

The US is a lot more socialist now than when the nation was "built." I would say there are more "wokring" poor on welfare now than in the 19th century - if there even was govt. welfare back then.

Also:

Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation…and as few of the English understand the German Language, and so cannot address them either from the Press or Pulpit, ’tis almost impossible to remove any prejudices they once entertain…Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it…I remember when they modestly declined intermeddling in our Elections, but now they come in droves, and carry all before them, except in one or two Counties...In short unless the stream of their importation could be turned from this to other colonies, as you very judiciously propose, they will soon so out number us, that all the advantages we have will not in My Opinion be able to preserve our language, and even our Government will become precarious.

Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.

Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

Damn swarthy Germanic peoples ruined our fair country.

Stick
2nd June 10, 04:13 PM
Wait a second, did he just say he liked the reds?!

Ajamil
2nd June 10, 04:14 PM
I can only assume he meant the ruddy color in the cheeks of a drunkard.

UpaLumpa
2nd June 10, 05:16 PM
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/287.html

Alaska's the most expensive state per head. After that, much of the southern interior is near the bottom of the table. New York and New Mexico are in the top 10. California is number 12.

Wow, divorcing those numbers from how much is being paid in taxes doesn't seem the least bit disingenuous to you? Less total money may be spent in some of those states but they're paying far less. You're smarter than that.

Your own site demonstrates you're being disingenuous.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf
Figure 1, again but you can also get the raw numbers.
Fuck it, I'll say it: You're effectively a liar.




Also, to Lebell, it is nice you think you know so much about American history but the reality is that everything you're saying about current immigrants was said about those historical immigrants as well. You may consider an "eye-talian" equivalent to a WASP but the country didn't at that time, they certainly weren't "white". Eye-talians, germans, polish etc. were all hated for polluting the country and their lack of integration (hell, there are still italian districts of cities let alone china towns).

UpaLumpa
2nd June 10, 05:24 PM
Blegh, doing this from my phone >.<

I need to look more into them, but the US Department of Labor has over 70% of single mother employed full time. Depending upon where I look, as little as 5% are on welfare specifically while as much as 25% are on food stamps are other sort of assistance.

There are lots of programs that help working single mothers.
Any help = welfare sluggard whore.

Cullion
2nd June 10, 05:35 PM
Wow, divorcing those numbers from how much is being paid in taxes doesn't seem the least bit disingenuous to you? Less total money may be spent in some of those states but they're paying far less.

Uhuh. That would indicate that people in there are less reliant on the state.



Fuck it, I'll say it: You're effectively a liar.

And you're an innumerate fool without the vaguest grasp of economic reasoning.

You just started by arguing that the population of the 'flyover' states with fewer immigrants have more self-reliant populations, and then confused total tax spend and contribution with federal tax spend and contribution. Well done!

Seriously, if your next assertion about the subject of the thread is going to be 'Wall Street, Hollywood and Silicon Valley are there because of the third world immigration to New York and California' my next question is going to be 'where did you get your Ph.D?'

If you want to stick to federal spending in pursuit of this, I suggest you next look at Federal welfare spending per capita by state.

DC, New York and California are the top 3.

UpaLumpa
2nd June 10, 06:53 PM
Uhuh. That would indicate that people in there are less reliant on the state.


And you're an innumerate fool without the vaguest grasp of economic reasoning.

You just started by arguing that the population of the 'flyover' states with fewer immigrants have more self-reliant populations, and then confused total tax spend and contribution with federal tax spend and contribution. Well done!

Incorrect. What I posted, from the site you introduced, showed federal tax spend and contribution, hell it says so in the caption to figure 1. California is tied for third or fourth for lowest return of federal monies, 0.79 return per dollar. California has also seen a considerable decrease in per capita spending.

As for self-reliance, I don't know how that would really be quantified (afterall I lack the vaguest grasp of economic reasoning, I must also not be a rational actor) but expenditure per tax dollar does seem like a reasonable first cut. Simply expenditures seems inappropriate and disingenuous. Most basically if you're paying less to begin with you have more of that to spend on yourself. Lets compare New Jersey to Arizona on that. Since New Jersey has higher federal expenditures than Arizona, according to you that means they're less self-reliant. Let's just ignore that they pay 70% more in taxes too. Let's ignore that the return on a dollar of taxes in NJ is 55 cents versus 133 for Arizona, that makes it seem like Arizonans are less self reliant afterall.

If you can actually make a rational argument defending your dismissal of expenditures per dollar paid in favor of just expenditures per capita I'd appreciate it because I don't see it. I do know that far less of my tax dollars come back to where I live than it does for those living in many other states. At least informally this seems like I have to be more efficient with what I have left than those that get a greater return on their dollar. (I don't currently live in California but it is still true where I now live)

The connection between these things and immigrants is far more complex of course. Most of the economic literature I've read suggests that the presence of illegal immigrants drives down wages for citizens who don't graduate high school but tends to increase the standard of living and wages of those who do or at least with some college. Agriculture, tourism and other industries also benefit from the decreased wages received by illegal immigrants.



If you want to stick to federal spending in pursuit of this, I suggest you next look at Federal welfare spending per capita by state.

DC, New York and California are the top 3.

Yes they are, though what I've found suggests that this also includes a lot of programs that aren't representative of the stereotypical "welfare mom". It would also be interesting, to me, to weight that by the proportion of tax dollars paid by a state.

Of course this also ignores aspects of how the poor are concentrated in urban areas generally anyway nowadays.

UpaLumpa
2nd June 10, 06:57 PM
You just started by arguing that the population of the 'flyover' states with fewer immigrants have more self-reliant populations, and then confused total tax spend and contribution with federal tax spend and contribution. Well done!

As far as I can tell you are incorrect with this entire statement.

Cullion
2nd June 10, 07:12 PM
Incorrect. What I posted, from the site you introduced, showed federal tax spend and contribution, hell it says so in the caption to figure 1. California is tied for third or fourth for lowest return of federal monies, 0.79 return per dollar. California has also seen a considerable decrease in per capita spending.

Yes, I know what it says in that figure, I'm just pointing out that it doesn't prove your point. California's spending has been forced down because the state is bankrupting itself.



As for self-reliance, I don't know how that would really be quantified (afterall I lack the vaguest grasp of economic reasoning, I must also not be a rational actor)

Just sit back and let me explain it to you.



but expenditure per tax dollar does seem like a reasonable first cut.

Well, then it's time you looked at fedeal welfare expenditure per capita.



Simply expenditures seems inappropriate and disingenuous. Most basically if you're paying less to begin with you have more of that to spend on yourself. Lets compare New Jersey to Arizona on that. Since New Jersey has higher federal expenditures than Arizona, according to you that means they're less self-reliant. Let's just ignore that they pay 70% more in taxes too. Let's ignore that the return on a dollar of taxes in NJ is 55 cents versus 133 for Arizona, that makes it seem like Arizonans are less self reliant afterall.

Um.. I think you've forgotten the point. Does Arizona have a lot of illegal mexicans compared to New Jersey? Anyway, we'll come back to this a few steps later.



If you can actually make a rational argument defending your dismissal of expenditures per dollar paid in favor of just expenditures per capita I'd appreciate it because I don't see it.

I already have. I'll guess that you missed the welfare spend point.



I do know that far less of my tax dollars come back to where I live than it does for those living in many other states. At least informally this seems like I have to be more efficient with what I have left than those that get a greater return on their dollar.

It's all a moot point for you because you're employed by a public body, at least you were the last time I checked. You likely don't spend tax dollars rather than consume them, although it's possible that your wife contributes them, although I don't know what the net would be for your household.



The connection between these things and immigrants is far more complex of course. Most of the economic literature I've read suggests that the presence of illegal immigrants drives down wages for citizens who don't graduate high school

In the US it's for anybody holding a job that doesn't require a passable 'literate' standard of English, which considering what a stupidly high proportion of your population you insist on sending to 'college' to run up debts learning what they should've learned in an on-the-job apprenticeship probably accounts for some college graduates and certainly a lot of highschool grads.



but tends to increase the standard of living and wages of those who do or at least with some college. Agriculture, tourism and other industries also benefit from the decreased wages received by illegal immigrants.

So, you socialise the cost of illegal immigration so that a tiny proportion of the population can privatise the profits ?

Wow, that's stupid. Americans used to be so much tougher and more intellectually honest. You really fucked the BEIC's shit up last time this was pulled.



Yes they are, though what I've found suggests that this also includes a lot of programs that aren't representative of the stereotypical "welfare mom". It would also be interesting, to me, to weight that by the proportion of tax dollars paid by a state.

How did I know that the only flub to right-wing 'economic self-sufficiency' you'd make would be towards non-racial eugenics?!!??

We'll leave this one for another time.



Of course this also ignores aspects of how the poor are concentrated in urban areas generally anyway nowadays.

You're ignoring a very simple fact about how poor people watching movies in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Africa tend to head for the places they've seen in those movies. It's not their fault, they're normal human beings wanting better things for their children. However, it's unjust to ask people to support the import of their own competition. And you're an idiot if you fall for the propaganda that's enabling this.

Cullion
2nd June 10, 07:13 PM
As far as I can tell you are incorrect with this entire statement.

That's because you aren't very good with numbers. Go back to the 'Federal welfare spending per capita' figures.

Cullion
2nd June 10, 07:14 PM
If you want to get into 'welfare moms' I'm you're go-to guy, trust me.

UpaLumpa
2nd June 10, 07:25 PM
Yes, I know what it says in that figure, I'm just pointing out that it doesn't prove your point. California's spending has been forced down because the state is bankrupting itself.

You're conflating state versus federal. Those numbers hold true for federal numbers in 2008. The fact that the state government is pretty much bankrupt doesn't come into play.



Just sit back and let me explain it to you.

Still waiting.



Well, then it's time you looked at fedeal welfare expenditure per capita.

Agreed, though like I said it would be interesting to see how well that relationship holds if adjusted for how much is paid.



Um.. I think you've forgotten the point. Does Arizona have a lot of illegal mexicans compared to New Jersey? Anyway, we'll come back to this a few steps later.

Arizona does but California has more than either. That's a different issue though, I'm responding to your flawed argument about expenditures to payments.



I already have. I'll guess that you missed the welfare spend point.

So no then. The expenditure per dollar includes welfare to my reading.


It's all a moot point for you because you're employed by a public body, at least you were the last time I checked. You likely don't spend tax dollars rather than consume them, although it's possible that your wife contributes them, although I don't know what the net would be for your household.

I still pay federal taxes and more of that leaves the state than comes back in.



In the US it's for anybody holding a job that doesn't require a passable 'literate' standard of English, which considering what a stupidly high proportion of your population you insist on sending to 'college' to run up debts learning what they should've learned in an on-the-job apprenticeship probably accounts for some college graduates and certainly a lot of highschool grads.

Actually the studies I've read restrict it solely to high school drop outs.



So, you socialise the cost of illegal immigration so that a tiny proportion of the population can privatise the profits ?

Wow, that's stupid. Americans used to be so much tougher and more intellectually honest. You really fucked the BEIC's shit up last time this was pulled.

There are a lot of aspects to US immigration policy that are truly fucked up, largely to increase the profits of the wealthy. However, as I said, there are analyses that demonstrate the standard of living is increased for those Americans with at least a high school diploma.



That's because you aren't very good with numbers. Go back to the 'Federal welfare spending per capita' figures.

Untrue and having to back pedal to welfare spending demonstrates that, the numbers were what I reported them to be.

Cullion
2nd June 10, 07:40 PM
You're conflating state versus federal. Those numbers hold true for federal numbers in 2008. The fact that the state government is pretty much bankrupt doesn't come into play.

Yes it does, because they're using federal funds to repay debt rather than spend on the populace.



Agreed, though like I said it would be interesting to see how well that relationship holds if adjusted for how much is paid.

The key point is 'how much is paid by the recipients of said aid'.



Arizona does but California has more than either.

California's near the top of the welfare expenditure per-capita pile/



So no then. The expenditure per dollar includes welfare to my reading.

That's idiotic. You're ignoring federal spending due to military and other strategic facilities. Welfare spending per capita is the best measure of 'which states have the most members of the populace that require federal assistance in order to live'.



I still pay federal taxes and more of that leaves the state than comes back in.

All of your income is tax based. You're a net tax drain. You're not a net tax contributor. The people who are burdened by that net drain are not you. They are the net contributors. They are probably people you would find illiberal and douchey. Your wife might know some of them from work. She might know some of them really well.



Actually the studies I've read restrict it solely to high school drop outs.

Yes, I'm sure they do. I'm just explaining what the studies will say soon, because I'm ahead of the social curve and I'm well aware of the quasi-commercial pressure on mediocre residential schools not to produce research that says 'actually, you people are just fucking wasting your time getting into debt for this bullshit, you're all going to end up doing shit that people didn't need a degree for 30 years ago unless you're either good looking or connected through family'.



There are a lot of aspects to US immigration policy that are truly fucked up, largely to increase the profits of the wealthy.

You've massively underestimated this aspect because you've been subjected to a prolonged, omnipresent propaganda campaign against noticing it for fear of appearing racist or illiberal.


However, as I said, there are analyses that demonstrate the standard of living is increased for those Americans with at least a high school diploma.

Of course there are. Failing to get a highschool diploma at US public school standards is a sign of severe problems, way worse than simple 'appears to be uneducated'.



Untrue and having to back pedal to welfare spending demonstrates that, the numbers were what I reported them to be.

You reported numbers you didn't understand in an attempt to rebut a discussion you came too late to.

HappyOldGuy
2nd June 10, 11:16 PM
Cullion, you need to STFU about California. You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. We have very specific problems with the way our state collects taxes and spends money and they have nothing to do with libruls taxin 'n spending, and until you understand them you need to keep your trap shut.

If you want to understand californias problems you need to understand prop 13 and initiative driven lock ins.

Zendetta
2nd June 10, 11:50 PM
prop 13

That only covers the "taxing" part. The "spending" part is still valid.

For all you non-californians:
We have a broad swath of the middle class who can only imagine social solutions coming from big government, broad swaths of the lower classes that are thoroughly dependant, and a shit-ton of illegal immigrants driving down the cost of labor.

Meanwhile, Prop 13 allowed the oh-so-taxable rich to opt out of a goodly chunk of state taxes, most notably property tax, as well as making it pretty much politically impossible for the state legislature to raise taxes.

The result of all this is that state government is broke as all hell.

California is the kind of place where you can hear about the evils of capitalism from someone with a six figure income who can keep a straight face while proclaiming to be pro-union and pro-living wage while at the same time calling for Open Borders. :viking:

HappyOldGuy
3rd June 10, 12:17 AM
We're rich enough to afford the spending part. And the states who are richer than we are almost all spend more than we do. But the way we collect taxes is inefficient and incentivizies the wrong things, and too much of the money is locked in by initiatives and unfunded federal mandates.

Cullion
3rd June 10, 02:34 AM
Until you start reading my posts properly, you need to pipe down you wizened old liberal. Prop 13 has nothing to do with Federal welfare spending.