|
The Difficult Topics
|
| Levi4life |
Posted on 19-02-2013 23:23
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4882
Joined: 16-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
I remember hearing a radio report about how the argument that immigrants are leeches just doesn't pan out like you'd expect it to. The case study was about Napa County, and Mexican immigrants doing day labor work accounted for about a billion of the 8 billion dollars of annual activity that goes on in Napa. Remove those workers and Napa goes from pretty well of to complete shit in no-time. Not only do immigrants compose a rather large portion of the consumer base for every day goods like food and gasoline, they also pay taxes on those consumer goods, in addition to providing the low cost source of labor that a county like Napa needs to produce it's primary export, which is wine. I remember that the one area where immigrant families used more resources than non-immigrant families was in education, which I'm pretty sure is paid for with property taxes, property that immigrants are unlikely to own when making poverty wages.
baseballlover312 wrote:
That's why I put 6. 
One of your links tried to give me a virus baseball Beforeitsnews isn't even a source, just reposts crap from twitter. The Heritage Foundation came up with the idea for Obamacare, supported it for 2 decades, then opposed it when Obama tried to use it, the Forbes article is all about covering Forbes' ass in the wake of the Supreme Court decision that went against them (the epitome of grasping at straws), the Examiner Article cites Rush Limbaugh (need I say more), Policymic can't tell the difference between the expiration of a tax cut that was intended to be temporary in the first place and tax hike, and on top of it all, what does it have to do with the discussion at hand?
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 19-02-2013 23:27
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
what does it have to do with the discussion at hand?
I imagine f**k all to do with immigration
I imagine it was supposed to be the start of a new discussion
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 22-11-2024 20:27
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 19-02-2013 23:46
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
Well it wasn't on immigration.
But Obama says he will tax the rich and the middle class get taxed too. The poor get aid. The rich don't care. It's always the middle class that is screwed.
And are you denying that these taxes actually exist?
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 19-02-2013 23:51
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
I wouldn't say they are getting screwed. They clearly can afford it otherwise they wouldn't be taxed (even America isn't that dumb).
The rich an afford not to care. The poor need the aid. The middle classes don't need the aid and generally just don't care.
Fortunately America has a low cost of living.
And its more that those sources are hardly the most reliable...
|
| |
|
|
| Levi4life |
Posted on 20-02-2013 00:00
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4882
Joined: 16-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
My understanding is that the tax penalty for not buying healthcare under the Affordable Care Act is $95 or up to 1% above the filing minimum, which for most intents and purposes (people who would otherwise pay the 1% alternative already have healthcare) means a maximum of $95 increase for the vast majority of those 3 million middle class Americans. This seems like a fair trade off, seeing as those people still get emergency room service on the dime of others with or without the penalty.
For the 2% increase on payroll taxes, the tax was cut in the wake of the financial crisis as a stimulus, and that cut was always going to expire unless it was re-upped by Congress. I believe the difference is about 20$ per pay check, on average. I remind you that the House is held by Republicans, and taxation is the House's purview. Perhaps your ire is best directed at someone not named Obama.
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 20-02-2013 00:09
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
If taxation is purely a house respobnsibility, then why was taxation such and important part in the election, and why did Obama use his tax plan so much if it doesn't affect anything? Does that make sense to you?
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| Levi4life |
Posted on 20-02-2013 00:19
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4882
Joined: 16-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Because Obama can have a tax plan. He passes it off to a surrogate in congress. If the House doesn't pass his tax plan it's hardly Obama's fault.
Politicians say and do questionable things all the time. Reagan sold weapons to Iran and used the money to fund the right wing extremists in Central America, who used the money to commit crimes against humanity, Bush 1 said "Read my lips, no new taxes," then raised taxes, Clinton said he did not have sexual relations with that woman, Bush part deux said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
If your panties are bunching over $95 then just imagine what being cognizant of the events of the last 30 years would feel like.
|
| |
|
|
| Levi4life |
Posted on 20-02-2013 00:29
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4882
Joined: 16-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Interestingly, Democrats won 1.4 million more votes nationally in congress than Republicans. If the House accurately reflected the voting public, it would be held by Democrats with a margin of about 7 seats.
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 20-02-2013 00:32
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
Levi4life wrote:
Because Obama can have a tax plan. He passes it off to a surrogate in congress. If the House doesn't pass his tax plan it's hardly Obama's fault.
Politicians say and do questionable things all the time. Reagan sold weapons to Iran and used the money to fund the right wing extremists in Central America, who used the money to commit crimes against humanity, Bush 1 said "Read my lips, no new taxes," then raised taxes, Clinton said he did not have sexual relations with that woman, Bush part deux said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
If your panties are bunching over $95 then just imagine what being cognizant of the events of the last 30 years would feel like.
Funny how you mention that with Bush 1. How is that any different from this situation. It's not. Yet you defend Obama.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| Levi4life |
Posted on 20-02-2013 00:37
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4882
Joined: 16-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
I don't think I'm condemning Bush 1, therefore there is no inconsistency. I'm also not vehemently anti-taxes.
Bush 1 was perhaps the most qualified Presidents we've ever had.
|
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 20-02-2013 06:01
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Daggen wrote:
Before someone starts yelling about that immigrants take all our jobs.
TRY TO BE A FUCKING CLEANING LADY!!!!!!!!
Immigrants does jobs that Americans, Dutchmen, swedes, Belgians don't want to do. A nation can only get better with immigrants who can support themselves.
Actually this idea was in my first post which started this parody on discussion. I asked if the non-muslim or lets say non-immigrants british families are lazy to do the "lowest jobs" like cleaning ladies or non-stop shop keeper. Because i think this is the case. They dont wanna do this job for 5 pounds per hour and still some which i spoke wiith were angry about immigrants stealing their jobs. Unfortunately this main part of my initial post got lost in flaming about source and laughing about how well i can know GB...
Also as i read some of the posts here, that use the beardy truth that immigrants are creating economical growth, i can ask myself "How does this will continue in next decades?" I mean, you are right with this, i think this is also one of the reasons why goverments like british and american are even allowing some immigration. They dont care shit about giving them better life, they want their cheap work hands and ability to boost economical growth.
But what then? After all the possible immigrants are in the country, hefty percentage of the original inhabitants loose the job because of their laziness or unwillingness to work for few dollars per hour? The economical growth created by rapid burst is gone and what now, we will start looking for Eskimos who want to work?
Edit: What i hate the most in this sick world is economical prosperity built on neverending growth. This system is nonsense and it will collapse in few decades at max. And we will all be done.
Edited by Avin Wargunnson on 20-02-2013 06:12
|
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 20-02-2013 08:09
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Here is something for some of local guys.
|
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 20-02-2013 08:42
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
This ain't the funny thread |
| |
|
|
| Levi4life |
Posted on 21-02-2013 20:04
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4882
Joined: 16-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Yes, this is a serious thread.
On a serious note; recently the state of Mississippi officially ratified the 13th Amendment.
If you haven't seen the film Lincoln or aren't familiar with the American Constitution or the American Civil War, the 13th Amendment officially made slavery unconstitutional in the United States.
Great Success!
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 21-02-2013 22:19
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Daggen wrote:
Before someone starts yelling about that immigrants take all our jobs.
TRY TO BE A FUCKING CLEANING LADY!!!!!!!!
Immigrants does jobs that Americans, Dutchmen, swedes, Belgians don't want to do. A nation can only get better with immigrants who can support themselves.
Actually this idea was in my first post which started this parody on discussion. I asked if the non-muslim or lets say non-immigrants british families are lazy to do the "lowest jobs" like cleaning ladies or non-stop shop keeper. Because i think this is the case. They dont wanna do this job for 5 pounds per hour and still some which i spoke wiith were angry about immigrants stealing their jobs. Unfortunately this main part of my initial post got lost in flaming about source and laughing about how well i can know GB...
Also as i read some of the posts here, that use the beardy truth that immigrants are creating economical growth, i can ask myself "How does this will continue in next decades?" I mean, you are right with this, i think this is also one of the reasons why goverments like british and american are even allowing some immigration. They dont care shit about giving them better life, they want their cheap work hands and ability to boost economical growth.
But what then? After all the possible immigrants are in the country, hefty percentage of the original inhabitants loose the job because of their laziness or unwillingness to work for few dollars per hour? The economical growth created by rapid burst is gone and what now, we will start looking for Eskimos who want to work?
Edit: What i hate the most in this sick world is economical prosperity built on neverending growth. This system is nonsense and it will collapse in few decades at max. And we will all be done.
I fully agree with the last part, I reckon the figure of financial money vs real economy is something like the first one is fifty times bigger than the second one. Un-friggin-believable, and that might hurt a few billion people some day.
As for the rest, I disagree with your nationalistic vision. Original inhabitants ? How would you define that/them ?
There's no valuable definition for that, unless you'd go into clichés such as Caucasian Christian or something like that, but I'm not buying it (and I wouldn't want to make you führerious or something ).
Immigrants get assimilated, at least theoretically, so they become "original inhabitants" for the next immigrants, and so on.
Of course France and GB have miserably failed to properly assimilate immigrants during since they've stopped being colonial empires (in the first two decades after WW2), but most developed countries have had waves of immigrations through the times.
To take France's examples, we've had zillions of Italians immigrating here (and in Belgium) to work in mines, we've had the Portugese to work into construction, etc. and that's just for the 20th century. |
| |
|
|
| acac |
Posted on 22-02-2013 19:05
|
Domestique
Posts: 654
Joined: 20-09-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Today i thought about something regerding syria.
the rebel started the uprising because they had hard lifes before(dictatorship, bad economey and so on), but with all the damage this war caused(lost of tourists, damage and loss of buildings and so on), are the syrian rebels fighting their bad life only to get a diffrent bad life(economey speaking)?
what do you think? |
| |
|
|
| cactus-jack |
Posted on 22-02-2013 19:18
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3936
Joined: 31-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
I remember thinking somewhat along the same lines when I, a few months back, saw a news report from a city newly captured by the rebels. They were cheering and shouting that the city waws theirs, however, there wasn't a building standing. The whole town had been turned into a heap of rubble.
I wasn't too enthusiastic about the "Arab Spring" because no one knows what's going to take the place of the previous system. People seem to forget that a huge number of dictators have come to power following a revolution where they help take down the former dictator.
There's a fine line between "psychotherapist" and "psycho the rapist"
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 24-02-2013 12:18
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
acac wrote:
Today i thought about something regerding syria.
the rebel started the uprising because they had hard lifes before(dictatorship, bad economey and so on), but with all the damage this war caused(lost of tourists, damage and loss of buildings and so on), are the syrian rebels fighting their bad life only to get a diffrent bad life(economey speaking)?
what do you think?
How I see things in Syria :
Assad and the forces allied to him are going to lose it at some point. Whether it takes two more weeks or two more years remains to be seen, as it remains to be seen if the Alawites (Assad's minority) will have their own state or district.
As he knows he's going to lose and he's mad (in the sense of insane), he'd rather destroy Syria as much as he can rather than letting it in anyone else's hands.
Then who's going to win ? The rebels of course. But who're they ? They're of two kinds. The ones who were the majority at the beginning of the uprising because they wanted a better life, etc. and the religious ones (Sunni muslims), who're more armed than the other ones, are financed by Gulf's monarchies and are more numerous in Syria every day the uprising lasts. And what do those people want ? Kicking Shia's asses in the region, and anything related to the Western world (Israel is on this list). They don't really mind about economy or such things, as they'll be getting oil's money from the Gulf.
The more the conflict lasts, the more important the (extremist) religious guys among the rebels will be. Which in the end serves Assad's purposes, as he qualifies the whole rebellion of terrorists.
What the Western countries should do is probably to give more weapons to the secular groups (the original rebels) to have a better balance among rebels, and not let the religious ones take (too much) power after Assad's fall.
I also hope the UN's way of working will be questioned, and ultimately modified, once this is over. Russia and China's attitudes can hardly be accepted. |
| |
|
|
| Lachi |
Posted on 01-03-2013 14:13
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8516
Joined: 29-06-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
About 40 years ago, CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) was signed. Sadly not much has changed since.
The killing of some endangered animals like Elephants, Rhinos, Tigers and Sharks are even raising because of the ivory traffic and "medicinal production".
I really wonder why people are so stupid. Replica of watches, drugs, cloths and phones are being produced and bought. Meat is faked and mixed without a problem. But when it comes to medically useless stuff like Keratin (the horns of Rhinos), then it has to be real.
Wouldn't it be easier to just fake it, for example by grinding finger nails? |
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 01-03-2013 14:16
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
Totally agree with you here. What's wrong with fakes if it looks the same? I mean, Jeez, it's just something to look at. I don't want anything standing on my dresser that an animal suffered from.
Well, that's actually not true, because when we use computers, wear clothes with a label and consume things from Coca-Cola etc, we condone the suffering of other people and animals and the environment that comes with it... |
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
