toad

Ocasio

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, phillysailor said:

ICE seems like a national police force with a mandate to behave aggressively in full battle rattle and on FOX News reassuring the faithful. I don’t think they are adding to our security as much as is assumed; scared illegal immigrants are easier prey since they don’t dare call a LEO on their abusing husband, their neighbor who deals drugs, or the murderer of their friend. 

This shock force has been rapidly hired and quickly trained and have been given messages from their CIC to not protect the head when guiding suspect into cars, and that Mexican heritage makes even judges untrustworthy.

Our immigration laws need updating, and we need to be leery of a nationalized police force that is willing to jail kids seeking asylum and roust the owners of businesses who have been here for decades and have families living here peacefully and productively. There does not seem to be a moral core to this group, and I do not trust them with our national heritage and tradition of being a nation of immigrants. 

Give their mandate and funding to the local or state police facing crimes committed by illegal aliens. They are responsible to their citizens and better suited to decide what they need to keep the peace. At the national level their is little accountability for methods and ample failures to legislate. The money they’ve taxed us for ICE is money poorly spent on racism and a long-standing failure of leadership. But it looks good on FOX I suppose.

Philly - I can agree completely with the intent of this post.  The issue for me is that local enforcement in many places has refused to enforce immigration laws.   I agree that a family who's been here years, contributing to the community, deserves much more consideration than does a gang member who just got picked up for shooting someone.  What we need FIRST is a fix to the current mess that is our immigration policy, and for people on both sides of the discussion to recognize that adjustments are needed, and that they won't like some of those adjustments.   I've already said what I think is necessary, so I won't repeat it, but, enforcement follows statute, and if we want better enforcement?  IMHO, we need to fix the statutes first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, Chessie. The local authorities are responsible to their citizens, and kicking out your well respected and liked boss who has lived a life of civic engagement isn’t something they would do. It’s bad for business, bad for one’s Reputation and, arguably, bad for our country.

But it is currently the mission of ICE which has been transformed into Trumps nationalist army. 

Our immigration laws and procedures suck. Let’s fix that, then worry about documentating illegals in our country living peaceable, productive lives. 

Criminal illegals can be deported according to Federal statutes, and I don’t think the local governments will put up a fuss other than having a say in what sort of illegal activity merits that type of enforcement: speeding tickets or possessing weed shouldn’t be treated the same as MS13 types, for instance.

But I refuse to consider illegal entry a crime that automatically merits expulsion: our system created this system and we must deal with its implications humanely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Philly - I can agree completely with the intent of this post.  The issue for me is that local enforcement in many places has refused to enforce immigration laws.   I agree that a family who's been here years, contributing to the community, deserves much more consideration than does a gang member who just got picked up for shooting someone.  What we need FIRST is a fix to the current mess that is our immigration policy, and for people on both sides of the discussion to recognize that adjustments are needed, and that they won't like some of those adjustments.   I've already said what I think is necessary, so I won't repeat it, but, enforcement follows statute, and if we want better enforcement?  IMHO, we need to fix the statutes first. 

Local police do not enforce federal laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Why should they?

Philly suggested that ICE should be disbanded, and immigration enforcement passed to local authorities. I agree with his premise that local cops should have a better understanding of what's happening in the communities they police than would federal agents.  

You're right, that it's not within local purview to enforce federal law, but, it still happens.  A local cop pops someone for speeding, and finds 10 grams of coke in the car.  Does he let the guy go, call the Feds, or arrest him?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You're right, that it's not within local purview to enforce federal law, but, it still happens.  A local cop pops someone for speeding, and finds 10 grams of coke in the car.  Does he let the guy go, call the Feds, or arrest him?  

drug possession for personal use charges are state, often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

drug possession for personal use charges are state, often.

Nice dodge, but, possession of a Class 1 controlled substance is still a federal charge.  The point is that the precedent exists, though I'm not defending that local cops SHOULD do immigration enforcement, Philly's got a point that if they WERE charged with it, it might result in a more effective, less heavy handed approach. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Philly suggested that ICE should be disbanded, and immigration enforcement passed to local authorities. I agree with his premise that local cops should have a better understanding of what's happening in the communities they police than would federal agents.  

You're right, that it's not within local purview to enforce federal law, but, it still happens.  A local cop pops someone for speeding, and finds 10 grams of coke in the car.  Does he let the guy go, call the Feds, or arrest him?  

 

3 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

drug possession for personal use charges are state, often.

my brother, who's a cop told me they don;t call  ICE for possession of weed...or  violations.  They will if he was caught dealing or if they're in possession of  meth/heroin/coke or felony DUI........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Local police do not enforce federal laws.

But joint task forces do participate in equitable sharing of loot. They don't have to prove any federal crimes or anything to seize property, of course, but they do sometimes allege them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

IMHO, we need to fix the statutes first. 

But nobody wants to talk about that because they would have to do a lot of thinking and convince their congressman to propose and/or support changes to legislation.  As usual, there appears to be a binary clear divide.

To start with, how about coming up with a screening criteria for entry at legitimate border crossings.  One step would be to look at the entry qualifications for each of our existing Visa classes and determine what is actually wrong with them and correct it.

Frankly, the "asylum" thing sucks.  There are teams of people coaching entrants on exactly what to say to meet the criteria that Amnesty International has proposed (they of course deny coaching).  As Europe and Australia show this is not adequate.  It's having all the answers to the test and gaming the system.  Since they are given work permits it is absolutely unfair to those trying to enter legally.

My country isn't nice isn't sufficient. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

But nobody wants to talk about that because they would have to do a lot of thinking and convince their congressman to propose and/or support changes to legislation.  As usual, there appears to be a binary clear divide.

To start with, how about coming up with a screening criteria for entry at legitimate border crossings.  One step would be to look at the entry qualifications for each of our existing Visa classes and determine what is actually wrong with them and correct it.

Frankly, the "asylum" thing sucks.  There are teams of people coaching entrants on exactly what to say to meet the criteria that Amnesty International has proposed (they of course deny coaching).  As Europe and Australia show this is not adequate.  It's having all the answers to the test and gaming the system.  Since they are given work permits it is absolutely unfair to those trying to enter legally.

My country isn't nice isn't sufficient. 

Why not? We apparently need streams of immigrants for our economy to flourish, and immigrants, on average, are more law abiding and harder working than the average American. Entering via "asylum" IS legal, so that's a canard that you can't pass off here. 

I agree we need to fix the statutes, but someone willing to walk hundreds of miles through various countries with their children is doing it for a pretty good reason. These folks are desperate, and that's who America has taken for centuries. If we are changing the fundamentals of our country, lets at least not do it for racist reasons. Otherwise we have learned nothing from our own history.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Why not? We apparently need streams of immigrants for our economy to flourish, and immigrants, on average, are more law abiding and harder working than the average American. Entering via "asylum" IS legal, so that's a canard that you can't pass off here. 

I agree we need to fix the statutes, but someone willing to walk hundreds of miles through various countries with their children is doing it for a pretty good reason. These folks are desperate, and that's who America has taken for centuries. If we are changing the fundamentals of our country, lets at least not do it for racist reasons. Otherwise we have learned nothing from our own history.

Really, we only want blond, large breasted women with lots of money, or sharp dressed men with lots of money to immigrate to our country. Hard working dark skinned people with children, are just so....... Dirty looking!

 Better to have people who look like Ivanka, and..... Well.... Not Jared, but..... Maybe..... Donald Jr......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Why not? We apparently need streams of immigrants for our economy to flourish, and immigrants, on average, are more law abiding and harder working than the average American. Entering via "asylum" IS legal, so that's a canard that you can't pass off here. 

I agree we need to fix the statutes, but someone willing to walk hundreds of miles through various countries with their children is doing it for a pretty good reason. These folks are desperate, and that's who America has taken for centuries. If we are changing the fundamentals of our country, lets at least not do it for racist reasons. Otherwise we have learned nothing from our own history.

They didn't walk 1000 miles in two weeks.

Would you try, just as an experiment, to forget about calling it racism and deal with the specific issue of what you think needs to be fixed in our immigration system.  It might make you less racist yourself.

I am not in favor of Canadians or Europeans staying here by overstaying a tourist or student visa   Are you?

I think they should also go home and come back legally if they meet the criteria set by the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, phillysailor said:

.... but someone willing to walk hundreds of miles through various countries with their children is doing it for a pretty good reason. 

It depends.  Are they coming here to work hard and create a better life?  If so, welcome.  Or, are they coming for a free ride?  Then, not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Why not? We apparently need streams of immigrants for our economy to flourish, and immigrants, on average, are more law abiding and harder working than the average American. Entering via "asylum" IS legal, so that's a canard that you can't pass off here. 

I agree we need to fix the statutes, but someone willing to walk hundreds of miles through various countries with their children is doing it for a pretty good reason. These folks are desperate, and that's who America has taken for centuries. If we are changing the fundamentals of our country, lets at least not do it for racist reasons. Otherwise we have learned nothing from our own history.

With the US resident birthrate at 1.8 children per couple and a requirement for 2.1 children per couple to maintain population, we will require immigrants to maintain the economy.  We can accept a lesser economy by not allowing immigration or just enough to maintain population.  The issue is that much of the US population, baby boomers, are about to leave the population along with their skills, which will further degrade the economy.  This means a) accepting only the educated (elements of a planned economy) b) allowing lots of people and spending lots on education, c) not allowing present US residents to operate at less than optimal skills or d) throw open the gates.  Throw open the gates is what worked for the US economy when there was lots of unsettled land and the economic growth was intense.  Even then the depressions of the late 19th century caused problems with that policy.  

Unfortunately, to Make America Great Again, the throw the gates open policy may be required and accept the social upheaval. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jzk said:

It depends.  Are they coming here to work hard and create a better life?  If so, welcome.  Or, are they coming for a free ride?  Then, not so much.

You have a problem with "free ride" and its definition anyway.  Why would they not work hard to the opportunities presented when they just left an area where work hard got them nothing.  In many ways this caravan is a result of US foreign policy in the form of Manifest Destiny since the time of Madison.  It is just that it is now coming to roost and the US does not know what to do with the results of its actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Laker said:

You have a problem with "free ride" and its definition anyway.  Why would they not work hard to the opportunities presented when they just left an area where work hard got them nothing.  In many ways this caravan is a result of US foreign policy in the form of Manifest Destiny since the time of Madison.  It is just that it is now coming to roost and the US does not know what to do with the results of its actions.

I support letting all of the non-criminals in.  No welfare.  Long path to citizenship.  If they come to work, it is win for them, win for our businesses, and win for our consumers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

I support letting all of the non-criminals in.  No welfare.  Long path to citizenship.  If they come to work, it is win for them, win for our businesses, and win for our consumers.  

In other words, you are for the creation of an underclass in the same way that immigration peopled the sweatshops of the 1890s.  We all turned out all right after that, so why shouldn't they.  Or am I putting words in your mouth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Laker said:

In other words, you are for the creation of an underclass in the same way that immigration peopled the sweatshops of the 1890s.  We all turned out all right after that, so why shouldn't they.  Or am I putting words in your mouth.

In other words, you are a lying sack of shit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Laker said:

In other words, you are for the creation of an underclass in the same way that immigration peopled the sweatshops of the 1890s.  We all turned out all right after that, so why shouldn't they.  Or am I putting words in your mouth.

Do you know what win-win is?  They win because their life is improved immensely.  And they have an opportunity to grow into whatever class they want, making their lives better and giving their kids a much better chance at a much better life.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jzk said:

In other words, you are a lying sack of shit.  

So you are willing to put up money so that there is not the creation of an underclass.  This underclass can, of course, be almost slaves to capital in the same way as the 1890s. You are also ready to educate the immigrants in the same way that education in the 1890s was the immigrants way out of poverty.  At the moment we are certainly spending less on education on an adjusted per capita basis than the 1890s.  And how did I lie?  I was merely interpreting the words you said.  You seem high on mother and apple pie,  but low on the mechanisms to bring about the "chances of a better life".   Remember that the economy is not growing at the rate of the 1890s.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Laker said:

So you are willing to put up money so that there is not the creation of an underclass.  This underclass can, of course, be almost slaves to capital in the same way as the 1890s. You are also ready to educate the immigrants in the same way that education in the 1890s was the immigrants way out of poverty.  At the moment we are certainly spending less on education on an adjusted per capita basis than the 1890s.  And how did I lie?  I was merely interpreting the words you said.  You seem high on mother and apple pie,  but low on the mechanisms to bring about the "chances of a better life".   Remember that the economy is not growing at the rate of the 1890s.
 

No money need be put up.  Do you know the difference between slavery and voluntary transactions?  Any time they don't like it, they can leave.  I bet they stay and make something of themselves.  Just like people did in 1890.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2018 at 7:24 AM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Philly suggested that ICE should be disbanded, and immigration enforcement passed to local authorities. I agree with his premise that local cops should have a better understanding of what's happening in the communities they police than would federal agents.  

You're right, that it's not within local purview to enforce federal law, but, it still happens.  A local cop pops someone for speeding, and finds 10 grams of coke in the car.  Does he let the guy go, call the Feds, or arrest him?  

Most drug laws are state laws. He’d get busted by locals for local law issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2018 at 7:31 AM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Nice dodge, but, possession of a Class 1 controlled substance is still a federal charge.  The point is that the precedent exists, though I'm not defending that local cops SHOULD do immigration enforcement, Philly's got a point that if they WERE charged with it, it might result in a more effective, less heavy handed approach. 

It’s not a dodge. All those folks in the local county pen for drugs are there because the local prosecutor hit them for state infractions. Otherwise the few fed prosecutors would be overwhelmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who are here illegally don't get welfare and don't vote. They do everything possible to remain invisible and not draw attention to themselves. Facts don't matter when outrage is on the line.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

People who are here illegally don't get welfare and don't vote. They do everything possible to remain invisible and not draw attention to themselves. Facts don't matter when outrage is on the line.

Who said they got welfare and voted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Laker said:

With the US resident birthrate at 1.8 children per couple and a requirement for 2.1 children per couple to maintain population, we will require immigrants to maintain the economy.  We can accept a lesser economy by not allowing immigration or just enough to maintain population.  The issue is that much of the US population, baby boomers, are about to leave the population along with their skills, which will further degrade the economy.  This means a) accepting only the educated (elements of a planned economy) b) allowing lots of people and spending lots on education, c) not allowing present US residents to operate at less than optimal skills or d) throw open the gates.  Throw open the gates is what worked for the US economy when there was lots of unsettled land and the economic growth was intense.  Even then the depressions of the late 19th century caused problems with that policy.  

Unfortunately, to Make America Great Again, the throw the gates open policy may be required and accept the social upheaval. 

True conservatives totally understand the seismic demographic shifts. Trumptards, not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jzk said:

No money need be put up.  Do you know the difference between slavery and voluntary transactions?  Any time they don't like it, they can leave.  I bet they stay and make something of themselves.  Just like people did in 1890.  

So we have you in favor of creating an underclass with all its issues.  That's fine.  Just don't think that you wont end up paying in other ways.  But that is your option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Laker said:

So we have you in favor of creating an underclass with all its issues.  That's fine.  Just don't think that you wont end up paying in other ways.  But that is your option.

Lying some more?  I am in favor of people improving their lives through voluntary interactions. 

Why are you opposed to people improving their lives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

Lying some more?  I am in favor of people improving their lives through voluntary interactions. 

Why are you opposed to people improving their lives?

You sound like a neoliberal Friedmanist where the free market takes care of everything.  There are free market failures and this whole thread is full of them.  That is what Ocasio is on about.  No, the free market does not solve everything.  To think so is intellectual laziness.  Stop making motherhood and apple pie statements without at least some acknowledgement that it ain't that simple.  By coming here people de facto increase their personal safety, but in many ways their economic situation may not be better.   This creates an underclass that many (I am sure not you) would take advantage of.  A true neoliberal such as yourself would say that the force of the US economy alone will elevate them.  Tell that to the third and fourth generation grape pickers in the California central valley.  Just like a heroin addict, the economy has gotten used to a price for grapes based on the creation of that underclass and as the Okies got replaced by the Mexicans, I am sure the Mexicans will get replaced by the Hondurans.  How did the Okies get elevated out of picking grapes in the Central Valley?  It took a war and a lot of veterans support.  The same is not happening to the Mexicans to the same degree.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Laker said:

You sound like a neoliberal Friedmanist where the free market takes care of everything.  There are free market failures and this whole thread is full of them.  That is what Ocasio is on about.  No, the free market does not solve everything.  To think so is intellectual laziness.  Stop making motherhood and apple pie statements without at least some acknowledgement that it ain't that simple.  By coming here people de facto increase their personal safety, but in many ways their economic situation may not be better.   This creates an underclass that many (I am sure not you) would take advantage of.  A true neoliberal such as yourself would say that the force of the US economy alone will elevate them.  Tell that to the third and fourth generation grape pickers in the California central valley.  Just like a heroin addict, the economy has gotten used to a price for grapes based on the creation of that underclass and as the Okies got replaced by the Mexicans, I am sure the Mexicans will get replaced by the Hondurans.  How did the Okies get elevated out of picking grapes in the Central Valley?  It took a war and a lot of veterans support.  The same is not happening to the Mexicans to the same degree.

These people are living in squalor in other countries.  If they come here, they can greatly improve their lives.  And they can be more productive.  If grape pickers think they have better opportunity doing something else somewhere else, they should do that.  The economy can't force them to stay picking grapes.  They have choices.  

So they better their lives.  And we better our lives.  And they have the opportunity to start businesses, be successful, educate their children and give them a life better than they had.

That is win-win.  They are better, and we are better.  Meanwhile, if they want to educate themselves they have all sorts of opportunities unavailable to them previously.  

There are not many market externalities beyond the environment.  And the reason that the environment is an externality is the same reason that socialism can't work.  When people share something, they take shit care of it.  

If people don't think they can have a better life here, then they won't come here.  And that is ok also.  But they do want to come here.  And even in the 1890s they really wanted to come here.  And when they did, they improved their lives and sent for their families.  And more people came.  People didn't say "you don't want to come here, as you will just be exploited under the boot of some capitalist robber baron.  Instead, they just kept coming.  And they improved their lives in every measurable way all throughout the 1800s and early 1900s.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The maga’s are going to be confused when Ocasio keeps tweeting details of the massive trough their congressmen have their snouts in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jzk said:

These people are living in squalor in other countries.  If they come here, they can greatly improve their lives.  And they can be more productive.  If grape pickers think they have better opportunity doing something else somewhere else, they should do that.  The economy can't force them to stay picking grapes.  They have choices.  

So they better their lives.  And we better our lives.  And they have the opportunity to start businesses, be successful, educate their children and give them a life better than they had.

That is win-win.  They are better, and we are better.  Meanwhile, if they want to educate themselves they have all sorts of opportunities unavailable to them previously.  

There are not many market externalities beyond the environment.  And the reason that the environment is an externality is the same reason that socialism can't work.  When people share something, they take shit care of it.  

If people don't think they can have a better life here, then they won't come here.  And that is ok also.  But they do want to come here.  And even in the 1890s they really wanted to come here.  And when they did, they improved their lives and sent for their families.  And more people came.  People didn't say "you don't want to come here, as you will just be exploited under the boot of some capitalist robber baron.  Instead, they just kept coming.  And they improved their lives in every measurable way all throughout the 1800s and early 1900s.  

You really have drunk the Kool-aid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Laker said:

You really have drunk the Kool-aid.

No, there's a short circuit in the compassion board. Looks like a lot of that model don't function well because of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jzk said:

Lying some more?  I am in favor of people improving their lives through voluntary interactions. 

Why are you opposed to people improving their lives?

There you go...clearest statement supporting the Caravan seeking economic asylum* yet.  Nice work.  

*Just like Trump’s dear old mom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Laker said:

You really have drunk the Kool-aid.

That is not an argument, and what does that have to do with immigration?  There are millions and millions of miserable unproductive people that would love to come here.  And if they came here, they could have the opportunity to be much more productive, lead much better lives, and help people here improve their lives as well as a result of their coming

Win-win-win.  What is the specific problem with that?  You would prevent them from coming because they wouldn't improve their lives "enough?"  Is not some better than none?

And what makes you think that these people are not able to succeed and prosper on their own?  You think they can't make it in the world without your "help?"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly leaving their squalid homes, in dangerous countries and coming to the USA to live in a safe(r) place with better living conditions would be voluntarily improving their lives.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jzk said:

It depends.  Are they coming here to work hard and create a better life?  If so, welcome.  Or, are they coming for a free ride?  Then, not so much.

You could compare the difference in treatment between asylum and immigration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, toad said:

The maga’s are going to be confused when Ocasio keeps tweeting details of the massive trough their congressmen have their snouts in

The trough is bi-partisan.  Apparently there will now be fewer R snouts and more D snouts (including Ocasio-Cortez) in the trough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

You could compare the difference in treatment between asylum and immigration.

I don't really care.  It is win-win-win to let them in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saorsa said:

The trough is bi-partisan.  Apparently there will now be fewer R snouts and more D snouts (including Ocasio-Cortez) in the trough.

The trough is certainly bipartisan.  She is likely to piss off the entrenched Democrats as much as the entrenched Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

The trough is certainly bipartisan.  She is likely to piss off the entrenched Democrats as much as the entrenched Republicans.

That would depend on whether she wants to be re-elected.

She'll be as interesting to watch as the TEA party first termers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Saorsa said:

The trough is bi-partisan.  Apparently there will now be fewer R snouts and more D snouts (including Ocasio-Cortez) in the trough.

Amusing, Mister Minister. In your lengthy stellar career, when were you ever not in the trough? From what I've read of what you've wrote, you were always in the trough and now you are getting trough retirement benefits. My dad spent almost all of his entire career in the trough but then he had enough self-awareness to refer to it as welfare for engineers. I'll grant you that trough is shorter.

Nothing says small govmint quite like a monthly check from said same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

How we gonna mock her for this?

C7F63C95-4DCC-4522-B658-E049B63B0DD9.jpeg

It seems that Congress is a job where members get 72% of the cost of their insurance paid.  We can debate what ought to be proper compensation of a member of congress, but why would we expect every job to have the same benefits?  Why would we expect a waitress job to have the same benefits as a member of congress?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jzk said:

It seems that Congress is a job where members get 72% of the cost of their insurance paid.  We can debate what ought to be proper compensation of a member of congress, but why would we expect every job to have the same benefits?  Why would we expect a waitress job to have the same benefits as a member of congress?  

Let's first start with the stone cold fact that waitresses pay for Members of Congress and not the other way around. Being a Critter is a govmint job and someone has to pay for that. There's about 2.6M waitresses and waiters in the US of Fucking A. Critters make $174,000, starting.

Start with that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Olsonist said:

Let's first start with the stone cold fact that waitresses pay for Members of Congress and not the other way around. Being a Critter is a govmint job and someone has to pay for that. There's about 2.6M waitresses and waiters in the US of Fucking A. Critters make $174,000, starting.

Start with that.

And don't forget the pension. 

So some jobs pay more than others.  So what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jzk said:

And don't forget the pension. 

So some jobs pay more than others.  So what?

Some jobs pay for others. That's what.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Olsonist said:

Some jobs pay for others. That's what.

You think we should make government smaller?  Great idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jzk said:

You think we should make government smaller?  Great idea!

Cancel the F35! Well, too late for that and it's too late for the Iraq War (it will pay for itself!). Nah, but let's chisel some waitresses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Olsonist said:

Cancel the F35! Well, too late for that and it's too late for the Iraq War (it will pay for itself!). Nah, but let's chisel some waitresses.

Who is chiseling waitresses?  You mean to say that by not paying for their healthcare we are "chiseling" them?  I think they should buy whatever healthcare they choose.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're chiseling waitresses. You're OK with Critters getting the benefits that waitresses pay for, your version of trickle up. Perhaps you meant to say that waitresses can keep the health insurance that they don't have because they can't afford it.

Nothing says small govmint quite like trickle up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Olsonist said:

You're chiseling waitresses. You're OK with Critters getting the benefits that waitresses pay for, your version of trickle up. Perhaps you meant to say that waitresses can keep the health insurance that they don't have because they can't afford it.

Nothing says small govmint quite like trickle up.

 
  •  

Even i think that we should have government jobs.  And pay should be appropriate.  The idea that everyone else in the land deserves equal benefits is preposterous.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

You're chiseling waitresses. You're OK with Critters getting the benefits that waitresses pay for, your version of trickle up. Perhaps you meant to say that waitresses can keep the health insurance that they don't have because they can't afford it.

Nothing says small govmint quite like trickle up.

 
  •  

In this great economy there are plenty of opportunities for waitresses to get a better job with better pay and benefits. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, J28 said:

In this great economy there are plenty of opportunities for waitresses to get a better job with better pay and benefits. 

Ocasio-Cortez did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Saorsa said:

The trough is bi-partisan.  Apparently there will now be fewer R snouts and more D snouts (including Ocasio-Cortez) in the trough.

spot on, takes a person with strong character to resist the perks of the job. Hard to go back to waitressing when your insurance doubles and your wages drop to 20k a year plus tips for taking a lot of crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, J28 said:

In this great economy there are plenty of opportunities for waitresses to get a better job with better pay and benefits. 

 

Really?? I live in a town described by many who create such lists as the best place in the USA for business or jobs opportunities. 150 new people come here EVERY DAY!!

Waitstaff in popular upscale restaurants  do pretty well. 

Many of the new unfilled jobs do offer better pay and benefits FOR THOSE WITH THE RIGHT RESUMES. 

What jobs are open for those whose resume says:

washed dishes, promoted to cleaning tables, promoted to day shift waiter, promoted to dinner shift waiter?? 

note: Congressman is NOT an available answer as the Texas Legislature  gerrymandered the districts such that Austin does not have its own congressman 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jzk said:

It seems that Congress is a job where members get 72% of the cost of their insurance paid.  We can debate what ought to be proper compensation of a member of congress, but why would we expect every job to have the same benefits?  Why would we expect a waitress job to have the same benefits as a member of congress?  

Why would we expect health care to be job-dependent or employer-based?

Why shouldn't every citizen have the same benefits and access to health care and education?

Just asking for a Danish friend of mine.

Is the answer "American Exceptionalism"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Why would we expect health care to be job-dependent or employer-based?

Why shouldn't every citizen have the same benefits and access to health care and education?

Just asking for a Danish friend of mine.

Is the answer "American Exceptionalism"?

Because health care is a service that has actual costs.  Forcing others to provide a service for you is slavery.  But having a variety of choices available in health care is ideal.

You are free, however, to have it your friend's way.  Just band together in a co-op with all the people that want the same benefits, pool your resources, and provide them for each other.

See how great freedom is?  Something for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

Because health care is a service that has actual costs.  Forcing others to provide a service for you is slavery.  But having a variety of choices available in health care is ideal.

You are free, however, to have it your friend's way.  Just band together in a co-op with all the people that want the same benefits, pool your resources, and provide them for each other.

See how great freedom is?  Something for everyone.

Open borders...larger pools across state and even international borders 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SailBlueH2O said:

Open borders...larger pools across state and even international borders 

Pool up with whatever group you choose. All kinds of choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

Open borders...larger pools across state and even international borders 

WOW, how is that job in Mexico you're shooting for?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jzk said:

Because health care is a service that has actual costs.  Forcing others to provide a service for you is slavery.  But having a variety of choices available in health care is ideal.

You are free, however, to have it your friend's way.  Just band together in a co-op with all the people that want the same benefits, pool your resources, and provide them for each other.

See how great freedom is?  Something for everyone.

You shouldn't keep on proving just how knee-jerk your "thought" processes are.

Health care and education, just like the military, highways, emergency response, policing, etc. are all appropriate government functions with public benefits that have actual costs and benefits to the entire population.  

And we, you and I, did "band together" in a co-op with people that want the same benefits, I joined at birth, many join by passing the initiation tests...It's called being a citizen of the US.  What do you think is more intrinsically covered in the phrase "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" than health care?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

You shouldn't keep on proving just how knee-jerk your "thought" processes are.

Health care and education, just like the military, highways, emergency response, policing, etc. are all appropriate government functions with public benefits that have actual costs and benefits to the entire population.  

And we, you and I, did "band together" in a co-op with people that want the same benefits, I joined at birth, many join by passing the initiation tests...It's called being a citizen of the US.  What do you think is more intrinsically covered in the phrase "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" than health care?

 

No provisions for providing healthcare to everyone were made at the founding of this country.  You are just making shit up now.  

Why must you force your views on others?  If your view is sustainable, pool a group of voluntary members and give free shit to each other.  Don't forget free college.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gouvernail said:

Really?? I live in a town described by many who create such lists as the best place in the USA for business or jobs opportunities. 150 new people come here EVERY DAY!!

Waitstaff in popular upscale restaurants  do pretty well. 

Many of the new unfilled jobs do offer better pay and benefits FOR THOSE WITH THE RIGHT RESUMES. 

What jobs are open for those whose resume says:

washed dishes, promoted to cleaning tables, promoted to day shift waiter, promoted to dinner shift waiter?? 

note: Congressman is NOT an available answer as the Texas Legislature  gerrymandered the districts such that Austin does not have its own congressman 

Sounds like there are plenty of opportunities up and down the job spectrum!  Thanks Trump!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Just asking for a Danish friend of mine.

Just wondering about the % of your "Danish friend's" income that goes towards funding all the free stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jzk said:

No provisions for providing healthcare to everyone were made at the founding of this country.

You sure that is the bar you want to set?

Lots of things weren’t provided for st the founding of this country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

You sure that is the bar you want to set?

Lots of things weren’t provided for st the founding of this country. 

If you don't like it, feel free to get an amendment that guarantees free healthcare for life.

Might want to work on that plan to implement Swedish taxation levels before pushing the amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

You sure that is the bar you want to set?

Lots of things weren’t provided for st the founding of this country. 

So what?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Just wondering about the % of your "Danish friend's" income that goes towards funding all the free stuff.

They know its not "free", just value for money.

And it is quite apparent that they, and the rest of the country, see that it is worth it.  And for Denmark to regularly show up on lists of the "happiest" country in the world.  A list that the US never shows up on. 

(All of you and your socks...would you please stop honking that bleating horn that people who want universal health care think it's "free stuff")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

If you don't like it, feel free to get an amendment that guarantees free healthcare for life.

Might want to work on that plan to implement Swedish taxation levels before pushing the amendment.

Another of the happiest countries in the world.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

They know its not "free", just value for money.

And it is quite apparent that they, and the rest of the country, see that it is worth it.  And for Denmark to regularly show up on lists of the "happiest" country in the world.  A list that the US never shows up on. 

(All of you and your socks...would you please stop honking that bleating horn that people who want universal health care think it's "free stuff")

It it is a happy system, then all the people that band together in the US to provide free shit to each other will be super happy.   Why do you need to impose it on those that do not wish to be part of your group?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jzk said:

It it is a happy system, then all the people that band together in the US to provide free shit to each other will be super happy.   Why do you need to impose it on those that do not wish to be part of your group?

 

Who paid for the roads you drive on, again?

-DSK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Just wondering about the % of your "Danish friend's" income that goes towards funding all the free stuff.

Does money make you happy?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

 

Who paid for the roads you drive on, again?

-DSK

 

Muh Roads!  Bwhaaaahhaahaha.  If your health care pool is so great, why is no one doing it voluntarily?  Why must you FORCE it upon other people for it to work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Does money make you happy?

-DSK

It makes me very happy.  Rather than doing everything for myself like growing my own food, building my own car, drilling for my own natural gas, etc., I have been able to specialize in one thing and then through the use of "money" I can exchange the benefits of that specialization and have all sorts of things in my life that I would never be have been able to have before.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, jzk said:

Because health care is a service that has actual costs.  Forcing others to provide a service for you is slavery.  But having a variety of choices available in health care is ideal.

You are free, however, to have it your friend's way.  Just band together in a co-op with all the people that want the same benefits, pool your resources, and provide them for each other.

See how great freedom is?  Something for everyone.

That is exactly how it is done. Except that in this country, we tend to call it "health insurance" and because it is a three-way adversarial system between the customer, the bill payer, and the service provider, it is very inefficent and expensive. Villas on the Med for the insurance company CEO, of course.

 

1 minute ago, jzk said:

Muh Roads!  Bwhaaaahhaahaha.  If your health care pool is so great, why is no one doing it voluntarily?  Why must you FORCE it upon other people for it to work?

Because the companies who SELL a spot in the pool (and are funding that villa on the Med) will not voluntarily extend membership to those who are poor and/or sick. And personally, I'm tired of seeing hospitals close emergency rooms because of all the poor people using it for free health care.

And nobody's forcing anything. By your own standard, if you don't like the health care system in the USA, move. I believe a scion of your ideological elk once made a big noise about that same thing, but didn't have the balls for follow thru.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jzk said:

It makes me very happy.  Rather than doing everything for myself like growing my own food, building my own car, drilling for my own natural gas, etc., I have been able to specialize in one thing and then through the use of "money" I can exchange the benefits of that specialization and have all sorts of things in my life that I would never be have been able to have before.  

And you use a government as an economic underpinning for all the above.

Yet it seems to make you very angry to pay for it. Why don't you move to a country where there isn't one, or far less of one anyway? No balls?

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jzk said:

It makes me very happy.  Rather than doing everything for myself like growing my own food, building my own car, drilling for my own natural gas, etc., I have been able to specialize in one thing and then through the use of "money" I can exchange the benefits of that specialization and have all sorts of things in my life that I would never be have been able to have before.  

In other words, you enjoy being part of a common society in which each member provides value for others.  Now, extend that thought to healthcare and see how your money can be wisely spent a pro rata share of a common need.  Just like that natural gas or those Interstate highways.  Got it?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Left Shift said:

In other words, you enjoy being part of a common society in which each member provides value for others.  Now, extend that thought to healthcare and see how your money can be wisely spent a pro rata share of a common need.  Just like that natural gas or those Interstate highways.  Got it?  

 

Not quite.  

 

2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

And you use a government as an economic underpinning for all the above.

Yet it seems to make you very angry to pay for it. Why don't you move to a country where there isn't one, or far less of one anyway? No balls?

-DSK

Why don't you move to Venezuela?  We don't have nationalized health care now.  Your position is that if I don't want your idea imposed on me, I should leave?  What kind of shit argument is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

In other words, you enjoy being part of a common society in which each member provides value for others.  Now, extend that thought to healthcare and see how your money can be wisely spent a pro rata share of a common need.  Just like that natural gas or those Interstate highways.  Got it?  

 

Yes, let's extend that to healthcare.  We should have a 100% free healthcare market.  Then, insurance would cost as much as a cell phone plan and health care providers would battle each other with quality and low price to earn my business.

That is exactly what we should do.  Thank you for suggesting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bpm57 said:
5 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

And nobody's forcing anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Can't read too good?

There's these places all along the border of the US where they let you out.

1 minute ago, jzk said:

...    ...    ...

Why don't you move to Venezuela?  We don't have nationalized health care now.  Your position is that if I don't want your idea imposed on me, I should leave?  What kind of shit argument is that?

Why should you benefit from a system you hate and do not want to participate in? If almost everybody else does, then you  don't have much choice. Life sucks like that, some times.

Of course there's the alternative that you stay and participate in all the FREE STUFF that you get now, and hate paying for. Later you can go to a doctor when you're sick with full confidence that they can't turn you out to die in the street.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jzk said:

Muh Roads!  Bwhaaaahhaahaha.  If your health care pool is so great, why is no one doing it voluntarily?  Why must you FORCE it upon other people for it to work?

Pay attention!  10s of millions of people are doing it voluntarily.  Others have to be nudged, regrettably, because, like you, they have drunk the Flavor Aid* lies that somehow health care is different.  That we have the "best' system now. That "health insurance" is an efficient delivery mechanism.  And all those pesky personal bankruptcies are just folks who didn't manage their money properly.  

At this point, of course, your pool of socks may actually be able to get a pretty good discount rate from GEICO.  Which ironically stands for "Government Employees Insurance Company".

* The actual cheap shit used at Jonestown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Can't read too good?

There's these places all along the border of the US where they let you out.

Why should you benefit from a system you hate and do not want to participate in? If almost everybody else does, then you  don't have much choice. Life sucks like that, some times.

Of course there's the alternative that you stay and participate in all the FREE STUFF that you get now, and hate paying for. Later you can go to a doctor when you're sick with full confidence that they can't turn you out to die in the street.

-DSK

We don't have nationalized healthcare now.  All those that oppose such should leave?  That is your argument?  Why do you feel the need to force your positions on other people?  I would never force mine on you.  Can't your way hold up in a voluntary system?  What are you afraid of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jzk said:

Yes, let's extend that to healthcare.  We should have a 100% free healthcare market.  Then, insurance would cost as much as a cell phone plan and health care providers would battle each other with quality and low price to earn my business.

That is exactly what we should do.  Thank you for suggesting it.

If that's how you think it works, I see your problem, and the hopelessness of this thread.  Until you do understand how universal health care works, you really should not post any of your drivel anymore.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Left Shift said:

If that's how you think it works, I see your problem, and the hopelessness of this thread.  Until you do understand how universal health care works, you really should not post any of your drivel anymore.  

This is not an argument.  It is really just a wasted post.  If you want universal health care, band up with all of the other people that want it and leave us out of it.  Why the need to force your position on other people?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

We don't have nationalized healthcare now.  All those that oppose such should leave?  That is your argument?  Why do you feel the need to force your positions on other people?  I would never force mine on you.  Can't your way hold up in a voluntary system?  What are you afraid of?

Actually, we do have nationalized health care now.

And I'm not interested in forcing you to leave, you are the one who is constantly bitching about how you can't stand paying for things you use but somehow don't believe costs anything. I'm suggesting that you'd be a lot happier elsewhere, without this awful socialistic tyranny constantly raiding your wallet and taking away the money that makes you so happy

4 minutes ago, jzk said:

This is not an argument.  It is really just a wasted post.  If you want universal health care, band up with all of the other people that want it and leave us out of it.  Why the need to force your position on other people?

 

Ever go a to the doctor? You paid cash, right?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Actually, we do have nationalized health care now.

And I'm not interested in forcing you to leave, you are the one who is constantly bitching about how you can't stand paying for things you use but somehow don't believe costs anything. I'm suggesting that you'd be a lot happier elsewhere, without this awful socialistic tyranny constantly raiding your wallet and taking away the money that makes you so happy

Ever go a to the doctor? You paid cash, right?

-DSK

Your point is that a private insurance program is appropriate?  Sounds good to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

...    ...    ... Ever go a to the doctor? You paid cash, right?



Your point is that a private insurance program is appropriate?  Sounds good to me.

No my point is that you got FREE health care, according to your standards.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites