Someone pls explain why Democrats don't want ICE contacted if illegal aliens attempt to buy guns

osaka35 · Feb 26, 2019

Foxi4 said:
That was quite funny, Jobs was always a good speaker. As for Cortez, she's anything but a left-wing Donald Trump - she's a bartender with the IQ of a kumquat. Whenever she, like, tries to say something, I, like, can't help but get, like, an aneurism. It baffles me that, like, she got elected. Like, what is even going on? Is this reality? Did I mention that she says "like" a lot? This woman unironically wrote that she wants to level and rebuild every single building in America, get rid of air travel completely and build railroads across the ocean, and it doesn't matter how much it will cost, all what matters are "the future benefits we will reap". What's even funnier is that people actually took the time to calculate the cost of her Green New Deal, going into multiple trillion dollar estimates, in an effort to argue against a proposal that's automatically ridiculous and untenable just on the face of it. It's like trying to argue that we shouldn't send a manned expedition into the Sun - yeah, no kidding, we know. I sincerely hope that the media give her all the attention, I really do want her to be the new young face of the Democratic party, it makes the alternatives look much more appealing.

That's what trump SAID she said, but she said no such thing. The green new deal you describe is not the one being proposed. Trump thinks "net zero emissions" means "zero emissions", which to him means no airplanes. "net zero emissions" actually means working on ways to reclaim excess carbon, for example, through technology or what have you. If you want to figure out what her deal actually is, rather than the strawman created by fox news/donald trump, research it yourself. Al-jazeera and associated press are excellent non-biased sources of information.

SG854 said:
The problem is you can’t force a business however you want it to run, just like I can’t force you to buy things you don’t want to. Business buy labor. Forcing a business to essentially buy someone they don’t want to keep is bad, it’s holding a gun to their head if you get government involved.

The market is changing, technology exits that can replace workers. You can’t just raise wages without paying attention to the current state of the market and it’s consequences of high wages.

Are you going to complain the Ford and the assembly line is evil because it replaced human workers with machines that are more faster and efficient. The assembly line is why anything is mass produced nowadays and why our standard of living is so high.

Indeed, we are approaching the singularity and automation will replace many skilled and blue-collard jobs at...some point. the best approach to save our way of life is to implementing the UBI, because that'll preserve the positives of capitalism, mitigate some of the bad of capitalism, and allow for automation to take over. Glad you're seeing the writing on the wall as well

. Though I would like to add that at current wages, many people have to hold down 3 jobs to make ends meet. If they got paid properly, they could be fired from 2 of their jobs and be far happier because of it. It'll probably be important to look less at how many firings there are and count people who don't have any job.

tatripp · Feb 26, 2019

osaka35 said:
Al-jazeera and associated press are excellent non-biased sources of information.

I don't know how you can say Al-jazeera is a non-biased source. It's funded by the Qatari government which is a pretty evil group that is extremely anti-Semitic and extremely biased. Maybe they don't fit well on the American political spectrum, but they are extremely biased. AP is usually pretty good.

SG854 · Feb 26, 2019

Xzi said:
I'm not suggesting they should be forced to hire employees they don't like, not sure where you got that idea. Paying more than the competition is a great way to attract more qualified and competent individuals, though.

Now we're veering off to another topic again, automation. Ultimately we're going to have to instate a universal basic income as a solution to this, there doesn't seem to be any way around that. Automation threatens up to 80% of jobs in the US, and thus it threatens collapse of the entire economy if consumers no longer have any spending power. Jobs for humans will be mostly relegated to the arts and entertainment industries, and people will just have to find ways to occupy their time otherwise.

Well you said greed is good as a criticism, because they don’t want workers and choose to fire them because machines can do the work at a much cheaper price when you raise wages.

They run on skeleton crews but still able to afford to fire workers. It’s not greed if the want to save money any more then it’s greed when a normal person wants to pay the cheapest they can and look for discounts at a store. We all want to save and keep more money for ourselves.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

osaka35 said:
That's what trump SAID she said, but she said no such thing. The green new deal you describe is not the one being proposed. Trump thinks "net zero emissions" means "zero emissions", which to him means no airplanes. "net zero emissions" actually means working on ways to reclaim excess carbon, for example, through technology or what have you. If you want to figure out what her deal actually is, rather than the strawman created by fox news/donald trump, research it yourself. Al-jazeera and associated press are excellent non-biased sources of information.

Indeed, we are approaching the singularity and automation will replace many skilled and blue-collard jobs at...some point. the best approach to save our way of life is to implementing the UBI, because that'll preserve the positives of capitalism, mitigate some of the bad of capitalism, and allow for automation to take over. Glad you're seeing the writing on the wall as well . Though I would like to add that at current wages, many people have to hold down 3 jobs to make ends meet. If they got paid properly, they could be fired from 2 of their jobs and be far happier because of it. It'll probably be important to look less at how many firings there are and count people who don't have any job.

The 3 jobs is simply not true. Ocasio Cortez made a claim that most people are working 2 jobs to makes ends meet and can’t afford food. Which politifact rated her pants on fire. The vast majority works one job.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...dria-ocasio-cortez-wrong-several-counts-abou/

The Green New deal literally says they want to get rid of farting cows.

osaka35 · Feb 26, 2019

tatripp said:
I don't know how you can say Al-jazeera is a non-biased source. It's funded by the Qatari government which is a pretty evil group that is extremely anti-Semitic and extremely biased. Maybe they don't fit well on the American political spectrum, but they are extremely biased. AP is usually pretty good.

I know fox has painted them that way, but the worst of it seems to be anti-israel rather than anti-semitic (those aren't the same thing). But they're far better than anything except AP, usually. I did find a few things on wikipedia about instances of anti-semitism, but they seem extremely rare instances of individuals, rather than mentality, like with fox.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/

SG854 said:
Well you said greed is good as a criticism, because they don’t want workers and choose to fire them because machines can do the work at a much cheaper price when you raise wages.

They run on skeleton crews but still able to afford to fire workers. It’s not greed if the want to save money any more then it’s greed when a normal person wants to pay the cheapest they can and look for discounts at a store. We all want to save and keep more money for ourselves.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

The 3 jobs is simply not true. Ocasio Cortez made a claim that most people are working 2 jobs to makes ends meet and can’t afford food. Which politifact rated her pants on fire. The vast majority works one job.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...dria-ocasio-cortez-wrong-several-counts-abou/

The Green New deal literally says they want to get rid of farting cows.

I was more basing that on all my college friends holding down several part time jobs than what she said. Most hold 2, a few hold 3. the third is usually a gig job though, meaning it comes and goes and they get paid under the table. I suppose it might be more interesting to see the brackets of who holds the multiple jobs. If it's evenly spread out or if it's generally one grouping of people who have the multiple jobs. she should have said "even those who do work 2 jobs find it difficult to feed their family" or something along those lines. Rather than making a positive statement of a situation, she should have used how even multiple minimum wage jobs doesn't meet basic needs in many places around the country.

And yes, farting cows is a huge problem. Did you not know this? Doesn't matter how silly it sounds, only thing that matters is real-world impact. Simply changing their diets helps a lot, and things like that could be considered "getting rid of farting cows".

SG854 · Feb 26, 2019

osaka35 said:
I know fox has painted them that way, but the worst of it seems to be anti-israel rather than anti-semitic (those aren't the same thing). But they're far better than anything except AP, usually. I did find a few things on wikipedia about instances of anti-semitism, but they seem extremely rare instances of individuals, rather than mentality, like with fox.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/

I was more basing that on all my college friends holding down several part time jobs than what she said. Most hold 2, a few hold 3. the third is usually a gig job though, meaning it comes and goes and they get paid under the table. I suppose it might be more interesting to see the brackets of who holds the multiple jobs. If it's evenly spread out or if it's generally one grouping of people who have the multiple jobs.

And yes, farting cows is a huge problem. Did you not know this? Doesn't matter how silly it sounds, only thing that matters is real-world impact. Simply changing their diets helps a lot, and things like that could be considered "getting rid of farting cows".

It’s a very tiny fraction.

And when you compare over the years, multiple job workers have decreased from 94 and continue to decrease. A small spike up during the recession but continue to decrease to numbers lower then before the recession. So more Americans aren’t working multiple jobs to make ends meet. And a very tiny fraction of a fraction work 70 to 80 hours a week.

Here’s a quote from the article I linked.
Most aren’t working more then before to make ends meet.

It’s also worth noting that on average, Americans aren’t working more today than they have been in the recent past. The average number of hours worked in the private sector has hugged tightly to about 34.5 hours a week since 2006, except for a dip during the Great Recession.

If you want demographics who are working more maybe college students? I don’t know because they won’t have time for college if they work so much.

Longshot56 · Feb 26, 2019

Hanafuda said:
No, it's not complicated. They're committing a felony. So deport them. If they're legal residents/citizens, prosecute them.

Unfortunately, this particular crime is committed over 100,000 times a year with few consequences.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-during-background-checks-charged/1213216002/

Attempting to purchase a gun when you're a 'prohibited person' by providing false info is a crime. Legal residents can purchase firearms, but illegal/undocumented cannot.

Dude, i agree. However, we don't have to go 1984 on people. Also, listen to people when they suggest things that conflict with your opinion. If you don't, you look like a dick

tatripp · Feb 26, 2019

osaka35 said:
I know fox has painted them that way, but the worst of it seems to be anti-israel rather than anti-semitic (those aren't the same thing). But they're far better than anything except AP, usually. I did find a few things on wikipedia about instances of anti-semitism, but they seem extremely rare instances of individuals, rather than mentality, like with fox.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/

Al-Jareera is less biased than many other outlets most of the time and so is AP, but the AP articles I read about the Green New Deal were completely biased and give credibility to the plan when it is clearly absurd. If you read the actual text of the resolution, you will want to bash your brains out. It seriously feels like a student wrote this for Environmental Science 101 on his way to class using the voice to text feature of his phone. It is the dumbest thing that I have ever read. It almost feels like a conservative satirical piece, but it's actually serious.
This is actually a quote from the proposal about a complaint between wages: "(C) a gender earnings gap that results in women earning approximately 80 percent as much as men, at the median"
This is an outright lie and it has been proven that this gap is mostly caused by choice.

The vast majority of the document is making very unrealistic promises that, even if the plan was adopted, would never actually workout. In ten years, the Green New Deal plans on "meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including..."
This is completely stupid. There are countless problems with this such as cost, technology not being available, potential governmental overreach issues, it's not realistic, would require a complete overhaul of the economy, the government inefficiency of putting all of the pieces together, etc.

Nancy Pelosi hates it so much that she basically told a bunch of children who supported it that they didn't know what they were talking about. What is this world coming to when I actually agree with Nancy Pelosi on something?

Xzi · Feb 26, 2019

SG854 said:
They run on skeleton crews but still able to afford to fire workers.

I don't think you understand what a skeleton crew is, it's the bare minimum necessary to keep operations running smoothly. If they fire someone from a skeleton crew, they have to immediately hire someone else or risk losing profit to inefficiency. I know for a fact that a lot of corporations have been running on skeleton crews in most locations since the 2007-08 crash and recession. The only problem with this, from the corporation's perspective, is that their threats of firing people if wages go up become meaningless. They'll occasionally fire people regardless, or people will quit when they realize there's no upward mobility, so it becomes a revolving-door job.

osaka35 · Feb 26, 2019

tatripp said:
Al-Jareera is less biased than many other outlets most of the time and so is AP, but the AP articles I read about the Green New Deal were completely biased and give credibility to the plan when it is clearly absurd. If you read the actual text of the resolution, you will want to bash your brains out. It seriously feels like a student wrote this for Environmental Science 101 on his way to class using the voice to text feature of his phone. It is the dumbest thing that I have ever read. It almost feels like a conservative satirical piece, but it's actually serious.
This is actually a quote from the proposal about a complaint between wages: "(C) a gender earnings gap that results in women earning approximately 80 percent as much as men, at the median"
This is an outright lie and it has been proven that this gap is mostly caused by choice.

The vast majority of the document is making very unrealistic promises that, even if the plan was adopted, would never actually workout. In ten years, the Green New Deal plans on "meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including..."
This is completely stupid. There are countless problems with this such as cost, technology not being available, potential governmental overreach issues, it's not realistic, would require a complete overhaul of the economy, the government inefficiency of putting all of the pieces together, etc.

Nancy Pelosi hates it so much that she basically told a bunch of children who supported it that they didn't know what they were talking about. What is this world coming to when I actually agree with Nancy Pelosi on something?

Right, choice. But what are leading to those choices, and what gaps still exist when choice is taken into account? It still exist, just varies from field to field. I wouldn't say outright lie as a generalization that should be specified, especially if there's a resolution to be had. Point is to have a mechanism in place in order to address any gaps based on gender discrimination when it does occur, rather than just the blanket dismissal you get now. Quibble about the numbers, sure, but the lack of mechanism to address the problem is..well, problematic.

And the goals are aimed at turning the tide against climate change, or more specifically in our current situation, global warming. This has many other benefits, such as not relying on foreign countries for our energy needs and making it easier to transition to electric vehicles, among other things. Having the goal of going completely renewal is about about an attitude and a direction. There are many many things we could be doing today, that we just aren't doing. And I agree, it is impossible to meet 100% right now. We need better batteries, we need higher efficiency solar cells, wind, water, geothermal, we need better infrastructure, we need better support from the populace and from lawmakers. But that's the point of the deal. To address these issues so even if we don't meet the 10 year goal, we've created the paradigm shift needed to get our butts in gear. Even if it could be written better, I certainly agree with the sentiment and the goal.

The easy parallel is we're trying to convince folks we need to go to the moon in a few years.

SG854 · Feb 26, 2019

osaka35 said:
I know fox has painted them that way, but the worst of it seems to be anti-israel rather than anti-semitic (those aren't the same thing). But they're far better than anything except AP, usually. I did find a few things on wikipedia about instances of anti-semitism, but they seem extremely rare instances of individuals, rather than mentality, like with fox.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/

I was more basing that on all my college friends holding down several part time jobs than what she said. Most hold 2, a few hold 3. the third is usually a gig job though, meaning it comes and goes and they get paid under the table. I suppose it might be more interesting to see the brackets of who holds the multiple jobs. If it's evenly spread out or if it's generally one grouping of people who have the multiple jobs. she should have said "even those who do work 2 jobs find it difficult to feed their family" or something along those lines. Rather than making a positive statement of a situation, she should have used how even multiple minimum wage jobs doesn't meet basic needs in many places around the country.

And yes, farting cows is a huge problem. Did you not know this? Doesn't matter how silly it sounds, only thing that matters is real-world impact. Simply changing their diets helps a lot, and things like that could be considered "getting rid of farting cows".

Not just farting cows but also airplanes. Wanna swim to Japan or Mexico? You can’t take a boat either because it’s runs on fuel, which will be bad for environment.

And they won’t invest in creating new nuclear plants in the new deal. Why? I don’t know because Neclear Plants are zero energy emissions.

Are we going to stop having heat? Or electricity? Give up Smart Phones? Stop using stove tops? No one is going to give up these things. They preach we need to stop farting cows but won’t give up things they use in their everyday life.

They give a plan without much on how to execute said plan. The Green New deal is wacky and Cortez is using climate change as an excuse to push for socialism. It has less to do with environmentalism which is what the New Deal was suppose to be about.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Xzi said:
I don't think you understand what a skeleton crew is, it's the bare minimum necessary to keep operations running smoothly. If they fire someone from a skeleton crew, they have to immediately hire someone else or risk losing profit to inefficiency. I know for a fact that a lot of corporations have been running on skeleton crews in most locations since the 2007-08 crash and recession. The only problem with this, from the corporation's perspective, is that their threats of firing people if wages go up become meaningless. They'll occasionally fire people regardless, or people will quit when they realize there's no upward mobility, so it becomes a revolving-door job.

I thought Skeleton Crew was small amount of workers.

Are you talking bare minimum in pay to keep operations running?

osaka35 · Feb 26, 2019

SG854 said:
Not just farting cows but also airplanes. Wanna swim to Japan or Mexico? You can’t take a boat either because it’s runs on fuel, which will be bad for environment.

And they won’t invest in creating new nuclear plants in the new deal. Why? I don’t know because Neclear Plants are zero energy emissions.

Are we going to stop having heat? Or electricity? Give up Smart Phones? Stop using stove tops? No one is going to give up these things. They preach we need to stop farting cows but won’t give up things they use in their everyday life.

They give a plan without much on how to execute said plan. The Green New deal is wacky and Cortez is using climate change as an excuse to push for socialism. It has less to do with environmentalism which is what the New Deal was suppose to be about.

net zero emissions is not the same as zero emissions. we can have emissions, but we need someway to offset it. Think of it as limiting our emission "spending" to be more conservative

thinking of it in this way, the green deal is about generating more "money" and limiting "spending".

I agree, new nuclear is far far safer than anything we currently have. It should be heavily invested in.

Why would you give up those things? we're talking about obvious changes. Change the diet of cows is an easy first step. How is that the equivalent of giving up technology? I don't understand your parallel.

You can't even get people to agree that a plan is needed, much less how to agree to a plan. I mean, farting cows is a huge deal, but folks treat it like a punchline. I don't get it.

SG854 · Feb 26, 2019

osaka35 said:
net zero emissions is not the same as zero emissions. we can have emissions, but we need someway to offset it. Think of it as limiting our emission "spending" to be more conservative thinking of it in this way, the green deal is about generating more "money" and limiting "spending".

I agree, new nuclear is far far safer than anything we currently have. It should be heavily invested in.

Why would you give up those things? we're talking about obvious changes. Change the diet of cows is an easy first step. How is that the equivalent of giving up technology? I don't understand your parallel.

You can't even get people to agree that a plan is needed, much less how to agree to a plan. I mean, farting cows is a huge deal, but folks treat it like a punchline. I don't get it.

I know about the net zero emissions is not the same as zero emmision because it’s literally on the same sentence as the farting cows and airplanes in the new deal.

From the Green New Deal.

We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather then zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast,

In other words we want to get rid of farting cows but not in 10 years because we can’t, but later down the line though.

Airplanes? Phones? Electricity? They contribute to climate change also. Cutting down on meat or changing cow diet won’t solve problems if we aren’t cutting other things we use in everyday life. You won’t decrease video game playing time to save the planet, or internet using.

osaka35 · Feb 26, 2019

SG854 said:
I know about the net zero emissions is not the same as zero emmision because it’s literally on the same sentence as the farting cows and airplanes in the new deal.

From the Green New Deal.

In other words we want to get rid of farting cows but not in 10 years because we can’t, but later down the line though.

Airplanes? Phones? Electricity? They contribute to climate change also. Cutting down on meat or changing cow diet won’t solve problems if we aren’t cutting other things we use in everyday life. You won’t decrease video game playing time to save the planet, or internet using.

Not everything is equivalent. Cows produce an insane amount of methane. Change their diet and you put a large dent in our carbon footprint. Simple and easy, no need to give up your stuff. It's not the final step, but a good first step.

And yes, airplanes produce a lot of the heat trapping stuff. 'tis true. Do you know how much compared to cows? It is a funny comparison. But point is, if you want to keep stuff that produces, like airplanes, then you need to offset it by investing in tech that captures more of the heat trappin' stuff. Certain algae, for example, captures way way way more carbon than trees do. So rather than plant trees to capture carbon, perhaps figure out how many algae plants are needed to offset airplane travel or non-nuclear energy. Try and minimize how much carbon planes produce by investing in new tech, and try and figure out how to maximize carbon capture through biology or other tech.

There is a way forward that allows us to grow our energy use, and keep our tech, while reducing our carbon footprint. We just have to adjust how we approach the problem. Or, at least, admit there is a problem to be resolved.

Xzi · Feb 26, 2019

SG854 said:
Airplanes? Phones? Electricity? They contribute to climate change also.

Uhh...yeah. The idea is to convert the means of production for all our electricity to renewable sources. Not only would that make us energy independent from the rest of the world, but it's also cheaper than fossil fuels now and would save us money. The only reason we haven't completely converted already is the fossil fuel industry and the insane amount of lobbying they do.

SG854 · Feb 26, 2019

osaka35 said:
Not everything is equivalent. Cows produce an insane amount of methane. Change their diet and you put a large dent in our carbon footprint. Simple and easy, no need to give up your stuff.

And yes, airplanes produce a lot of the heat trapping stuff. 'tis true. Do you know how much compared to cows? It is a funny comparison. But point is, if you want to keep stuff that produces, like airplanes, then you need to offset it by investing in tech that captures more tech. Algae, for example, captures way way way more carbon than trees do. So rather than plant trees to capture carbon, perhaps figure out how many algae plants are needed to offset airplane travel or non-nuclear energy. Try and minimize how much carbon planes produce by investing in new tech, and try and figure out how to maximize carbon capture through biology or other tech.

There is a way forward that allows us to grow our energy use, and keep our tech, while reducing our carbon footprint. We just have to adjust how we approach the problem. Or, at least, admit there is a problem to be resolved.

Yes exactly tech is the answer because people won’t change their behaviors for things we use in everyday life.

But the Green New Deal is insane. First page talks about environmentalism, which is good. 2nd page talks about racial inequality, gender pay gap, and a bunch of things which has nothing to do with saving the climate. It talks more about universal health care and education then actual environmental solutions.

Then she sends out a tweet to people that criticize the Green New Deal saying “we’re in charge.”

Cortez Tweet

No, you’re not in charge. We’re in charge. You were elected to represent the people, not the other way around. That’s what our country was founded on.

You’re New Deal has little to do with environmentalism and solutions and more about things that has nothing to do with it. That’s why we criticize it. Come up with an actual environmental plan

osaka35 · Feb 26, 2019

SG854 said:
Yes exactly tech is the answer because people won’t change their behaviors for things we use in everyday life.

But the Green New Deal is insane. First page talks about environmentalism, which is good. 2nd page talks about racial inequality, gender pay gap, and a bunch of things which has nothing to do with saving the climate. It talks more about universal health care and education then actual environmental solutions.

Then she sends out a tweet to people that criticize the Green New Deal saying “we’re in charge.”

Cortez Tweet

No, you’re not in charge. We’re in charge. You were elected to represent the people, not the other way around. That’s what our country was founded on.

You’re New Deal has little to do with environmentalism and solutions and more about things that has nothing to do with it. That’s why we criticize it. Come up with an actual environmental plan

It's a roadmap. Where we should be environmentally, socially, economically, and ethically. Not sure its perfect, but can't say I disagree with any of the sentiments or the goal. How likely it is we're going to be able to achieve these best results is a different conversation, but it seems we're still talking about the validity of goals at all. It's a platform of equity and sustainability, of justice and preserving american ideals.

And the "we're in charge" bit is her saying, 'here, this is how we're going to fix things. You haven't even admitted there is a problem. So until you admit there's a problem, and provide your own way of solving it, we'll be the only game in town.' Meaning, we're in charge, because we're the only ones trying to fix things.

PrettyFly · Feb 26, 2019

Foxi4 said:
I don't have an issue with that, I'm against the idea of a minimum wage. Market forces should decide what the value of someone's labour is - if we're talking about systemic issues that motivate employers to hire illegal immigrants, that's one of them. A minimum wage for labour that simply doesn't justify it directly incentives hiring illegal immigrants who do not have to be paid said minimum wage - they can be given half of it under the table. This directly undercuts the ability of low skilled citizens to compete on the job market.

We’re probably mostly on the same page except I believe in small government across the board.

And I still believe what you propose is not only open to abuse but ideal for abuse.

Foxi4 · Feb 26, 2019

osaka35 said:
That's what trump SAID she said, but she said no such thing. The green new deal you describe is not the one being proposed. Trump thinks "net zero emissions" means "zero emissions", which to him means no airplanes. "net zero emissions" actually means working on ways to reclaim excess carbon, for example, through technology or what have you. If you want to figure out what her deal actually is, rather than the strawman created by fox news/donald trump, research it yourself. Al-jazeera and associated press are excellent non-biased sources of information.

Did you or did you not read the original text? I have. And I'm talking about the *original* text, not the amended proposal that mysteriously replaced it once everyone started to make fun of her. It only took hours before it was taken down amids ridicule, damn those cows and their methane-rich farts!

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-case-of-aocs-scrubbed-green-new-deal-details

Now, I would absolutely love to spend more time making fun of AOC, but I don't see how this is relevant in a discussion about illegal immigration - I would return to the subject at hand. That being said, if the Green New Deal was introduced in earnest and truly aimed to reach its goals within 10 years, the economy would be impacted so severely that chances are nobody would even want to illegally cross the border - why move from a third-world country to a stone age country?

Xzi said:
This is assuming employees are already getting paid an amount consistent with the amount of value their labor is producing. Which is almost never the case, or McDonald's workers would be getting paid ~$20 an hour. There's a lot of wiggle room below that ceiling in which the company can still turn a very reasonable profit.

This is the case 100% of the time. If it wasn't, another corporation would immediately pay the same employees 5 cents more per hour to undercut the competition. You're referring to the idea of surplus value which is a socialist red herring - your labour is only worth as much as people are willing to pay you for it.

25 billion*, 5 billion is just to get the fucking thing approved and started. Temporary jobs don't mean shit when those same laborers could be working on infrastructure or a million other projects which would provide a direct benefit to American citizens. And again, I see no big decline in the amount of illegal immigration happening until the people who employ illegals are targeted for punishment. Overstaying a work visa is a lot easier than trekking through the desert.

It could cost 50, it's still a drop in the bucket of the overall budget. Walls work. The evidence is overwhelming. When Hungary erected its border wall, illegal crossings have decreased by *99%* over the course of two years, from 391,000 in 2015 to 1, 184 in 2017. The same results can be seen in many other countries that have chosen to erect physical barriers on their borders.

Image source: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016...out-border-wall-one-stunning-chart-has-answer

Official announcement by Hungarian Chief Security Advisor: http://www.kormany.hu/en/government...rotecting-the-border-continue-to-be-necessary

Naturally where there's a will, there's always a way, but a physical barrier of this nature is not only a physical, but also a mental obstacle which does reduce unwanted illegal migration.

PrettyFly said:
We’re probably mostly on the same page except I believe in small government across the board.

And I still believe what you propose is not only open to abuse but ideal for abuse.

We do seem to have more in common than was initially apparent. I assume you're a libertarian yourself, nice to see a fellow freedom lover.

Xzi · Feb 26, 2019

Foxi4 said:
This is the case 100% of the time. If it wasn't, another corporation would immediately pay the same employees 5 cents more per hour to undercut the competition.

What are you talking about? Different corporations do pay different rates for the same position. That doesn't mean people are going to go job shopping for an extra $0.05 an hour, there are other considerations to make as well.

Foxi4 said:
You're referring to the idea of surplus value which is a socialist red herring - your labour is only worth as much as people are willing to pay you for it.

It has nothing to do with Socialism, your labor is worth whatever profit the company is making from it on a daily basis. It's not nearly as obscure or intangible as you'd like to make it seem.

Foxi4 said:
It could cost 50, it's still a drop in the bucket of the overall budget. Walls work. The evidence is overwhelming. When Hungary erected its border wall, illegal crossings have decreased by *99%* over the course of two years, from 391,000 in 2015 to 1, 184 in 2017. The same results can be seen in many other countries that have chosen to erect physical barriers on their borders.

Hungary is a small country bordered by six other countries, it's not exactly relevant to the US' situation. Especially considering that our Southern border crossings are already at a thirty-year low. Not a single American would see tangible benefits from a wall in the desert, and if you're happy to blow $50 billion on a vanity project, you have zero right to complain when that kind of money gets spent on real issues like climate change or infrastructure.

Kind of a moot point anyway, since the majority of citizens are against the wall and Trump wasn't able to get it through Congress as a result. His emergency declaration also seems extremely unlikely to hold up to legal scrutiny.

Foxi4 · Feb 26, 2019

Xzi said:
What are you talking about? Different corporations do pay different rates for the same position. That doesn't mean people are going to go job shopping for an extra $0.05 an hour, there are other considerations to make as well.

It has nothing to do with Socialism, your labor is worth whatever profit the company is making from it on a daily basis. It's not nearly as obscure or intangible as you'd like to make it seem.

Hungary is a small country bordered by six other countries, it's not exactly relevant to the US' situation. Especially considering that our Southern border crossings are already at a thirty-year low. Not a single American would see tangible benefits from a wall in the desert, and if you're happy to blow $50 billion on a vanity project, you have zero right to complain when that kind of money gets spent on real issues like climate change or infrastructure.

Kind of a moot point anyway, since the majority of citizens are against the wall and Trump wasn't able to get it through Congress as a result. His emergency declaration also seems extremely unlikely to hold up to legal scrutiny.

We'll have to agree to disagree on all three points, especially the first - you and I both know that you're smart enough to understand a hyperbolic statement when you see one. Obviously I didn't mean precisely 5 cents, the point was that wages in particular industries generally hover around a similar point. It's also absolutely untrue that "your labour is worth as much as the profit your company generates from it" - you flipping burgers at home is worth zero dollars. The only reason why the task is at all valuable to McDonald's is because they've invested capital into creating an environment in which you flicking your wrist to make a burger flip can be a part of a multi-step process which collectively generates money, and they're the ones running and maintaining the process, which has additional costs besides wages. Your statement is obviously false and subject to a simple test - if you think the task is worth more than you are offered, go do it somewhere else for the value you think it's worth. If you can't find anyone offering that value, newsflash, it isn't worth as much as you think it is. The same applies to literally anything else - if you think you have a painting that's worth $1000 and fail to sell it, but keep getting offers of $600, you have a $600 painting, and that's that. Anything and everything is *only* worth as much as people are willing to pay for it, that's the definition of value. You can *think* it's worth more, but you can't go out there and buy a $1000 worth of anything else with it, so *it's not worth a $1000 dollars*, simple as.

Someone pls explain why Democrats don't want ICE contacted if illegal aliens attempt to buy guns

Instructional Designer

Well-Known Member

Hail Mary

Instructional Designer

Hail Mary

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Instructional Designer

Hail Mary

Instructional Designer

Hail Mary

Instructional Designer

Time to fly, 621

Hail Mary

Instructional Designer

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Time to fly, 621

Endless Trash

Popular threads in this forum