What motivates you to vote Democrat?

[danielpalos]

Yeah, why don't they, instead of making shit up and twisting statements? The only way Democrats get ANYBODY to vote for them is to offer them something for nothing. Just look at their base. It's a patchwork of special interest, single issue voters, ALL of them with a hand out.

The Dems are using them, just so they can stay in power.
It sick.
How well has anyone done under their policies?
The war on poverty has caused more to be on government assistance rather than getting them out of it.

The Dems are using them, just so they can stay in power.

The economic exigencies appertaining to immigration have nothing to do with either party's aims to retain political power. They have everything to do with U.S. birth rates being too low to support the demand U.S. employers have for labor. It's really that basic. Can one evaluate the empirical impacts of greater and lesser quantities of immigrants becoming residents/citizens of the U.S. and show further that U.S. GDP is greater with immigration (or more of it than we currently have) than without it? Yes. Numerous economists have done so and done so soundly/cogently.

• Economic Impacts of Immigration: A Survey
  
• The Fiscal and Economic Impact of Immigration on the United States
  
• Effects of Immigration on the U.S. Economy
• Does Immigration Help or Hurt Local Economies? Historically, where immigrants cluster in the U.S., prosperity follows.(Observations and analysis pertaining to the 20th century.)

They have everything to do with U.S. birth rates being too low to support the demand U.S. employers have for labor.

Another crock of shit, for if the Liberals didn't kill 300,000 unborn and born future Democrat voters a year, the birth rate would be fine. But thanks, because with the migration of illegals back across the border, soon the Democrat Party wont exist anymore.

Another crock of shit

By all means, "Milton," I'd love to see your sound positive (empirical) economics refutation of the content presented in any of the papers to which I linked in post 175. Here -- Measuring the Economic Impact of Immigration: A Scoping Paper -- I'll even give you a "head start" for developing the positive argument that gives soundness to your normative conclusion(s).

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
-- Murray N. Rothbard​

Measuring the Economic Impact of Immigration: A Scoping Paper

Only 1 thing that you left out "ILLEGAL". Doesn't fit into your narrative, when those crossing the border pay no taxes and their ANCHORS suck the rest of our Taxes through FREE STUFF...Trying to teach you is like teaching a rat to go through a maze. Rats are smarter because they actually learn...

legal is a social construct not a capital construct.

only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[Issa]

I moved to the US mainly for education/starting a new life....I was told freedom of religion is sacred, freedom of choice and expression. But honestly I didn't think, that the right would be this hostile to anything that's foreign from them....I found refuge in California, I consider myself super lucky living here and not in ared state where some of my friends chose to live and regret.

Did you come here legally or did you sneak in?

Legally.

 

[Issa]

What a crock of shit. That makes absolutely no sense. One would have to be a total idiot to buy that bullshit. Try again.

It seems you have never been around Hispanics much because most do have Conservative values.

I live in So. California, stupid. It's like living in Mexico, and no, they don't have conservative values. You're talking out your ass.

I went to a high school where the majority were Hispanic, I have many Hispanic friends and yes the majority are catholic and conservative in values .
You are living with illegals who don't have any. Most of them are criminals.

I agree, most Hispanics are by their very nature religious and socially conservative

They should fit right in to the Republican Party

But two thirds of Hispanics vote Democratic. Think of how much Republicans have to piss off Hispanics to lose a vote that should be theirs

The answer seems to be the Republicans embracing of the alt-right. The element Hillary called the deplorables. The element that hates all immigration, denigrates Hispanics, pushes vindictive legislation
That was the choice Republicans made

Haha...Democrats have sold their asses for constituency...like you, they’ve shit all over the U.S. Constitution, they’re willing to give our nation to Mexico so long as they’re assured control of D.C.
They’re literally committing treason and genocide daily...many should hang in public for their corrupt bullshit.
We are a constitutional nation of law, order and precedent and Democrats can’t fucking stand that...their only pathway to control is through compromising law and the constitution and by displacing Americans with ignorant thirdworlders. You know this...but you can’t dare admit it to yourself.

Ignorant third workers ? Lol
So you missed the class of racism and bigotry eill get you no where? You also skipped Sunday class about humblness?
Mr not ignorant.

 

[BrokeLoser]

It seems you have never been around Hispanics much because most do have Conservative values.

I live in So. California, stupid. It's like living in Mexico, and no, they don't have conservative values. You're talking out your ass.

I went to a high school where the majority were Hispanic, I have many Hispanic friends and yes the majority are catholic and conservative in values .
You are living with illegals who don't have any. Most of them are criminals.

I agree, most Hispanics are by their very nature religious and socially conservative

They should fit right in to the Republican Party

But two thirds of Hispanics vote Democratic. Think of how much Republicans have to piss off Hispanics to lose a vote that should be theirs

The answer seems to be the Republicans embracing of the alt-right. The element Hillary called the deplorables. The element that hates all immigration, denigrates Hispanics, pushes vindictive legislation
That was the choice Republicans made

Haha...Democrats have sold their asses for constituency...like you, they’ve shit all over the U.S. Constitution, they’re willing to give our nation to Mexico so long as they’re assured control of D.C.
They’re literally committing treason and genocide daily...many should hang in public for their corrupt bullshit.
We are a constitutional nation of law, order and precedent and Democrats can’t fucking stand that...their only pathway to control is through compromising law and the constitution and by displacing Americans with ignorant thirdworlders. You know this...but you can’t dare admit it to yourself.

Ignorant third workers ? Lol
So you missed the class of racism and bigotry eill get you no where? You also skipped Sunday class about humblness?
Mr not ignorant.

Haha...we’re just fed the fuck up....you have preyed upon people’s good intentions long enough...we call you out on your bullshit now...you hate it and crying RACIST won’t save you...Your filth has been exposed.

 

[danielpalos]

Applied capitalism rings no bells with the right wing; just socialism on a national basis.

 

[rightwinger]

Really?

Why don't they just play back all the shit Republicans say about them?

Yeah, why don't they, instead of making shit up and twisting statements? The only way Democrats get ANYBODY to vote for them is to offer them something for nothing. Just look at their base. It's a patchwork of special interest, single issue voters, ALL of them with a hand out.

No twisting required.....

Goes something like this........

Donald Trump kicked off his presidential bid more than a year ago with harsh words for Mexico. “They are not our friend, believe me,” he said, before disparaging Mexican immigrants: “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Donald J. Trump

✔ @realDonaldTrump


When will the U.S. stop sending $'s to our enemies, i.e. Mexico and others.

Donald J. Trump

✔ @realDonaldTrump


Mexico's court system corrupt.I want nothing to do with Mexico other than to build an impenetrable WALL and stop them from ripping off U.S.

Yeah that's so awful ,wanting our citizens secured in a world that's so volatile.

Fear mongering

Fear Mexicans
Fear Muslims
Fear minorities

Fear mongering? You mean like telling black people that Republicans want to put them all back in chains?

Why do conservatives take everything literally?

 

[peach174]

Yeah, why don't they, instead of making shit up and twisting statements? The only way Democrats get ANYBODY to vote for them is to offer them something for nothing. Just look at their base. It's a patchwork of special interest, single issue voters, ALL of them with a hand out.

No twisting required.....

Goes something like this........

Donald Trump kicked off his presidential bid more than a year ago with harsh words for Mexico. “They are not our friend, believe me,” he said, before disparaging Mexican immigrants: “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Donald J. Trump

✔ @realDonaldTrump


When will the U.S. stop sending $'s to our enemies, i.e. Mexico and others.

Donald J. Trump

✔ @realDonaldTrump


Mexico's court system corrupt.I want nothing to do with Mexico other than to build an impenetrable WALL and stop them from ripping off U.S.

Yeah that's so awful ,wanting our citizens secured in a world that's so volatile.

Fear mongering

Fear Mexicans
Fear Muslims
Fear minorities

Fear mongering? You mean like telling black people that Republicans want to put them all back in chains?

Why do conservatives take everything literally?

It's called rebuttal, not taking it literally.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yeah, why don't they, instead of making shit up and twisting statements? The only way Democrats get ANYBODY to vote for them is to offer them something for nothing. Just look at their base. It's a patchwork of special interest, single issue voters, ALL of them with a hand out.

The Dems are using them, just so they can stay in power.
It sick.
How well has anyone done under their policies?
The war on poverty has caused more to be on government assistance rather than getting them out of it.

The Dems are using them, just so they can stay in power.

The economic exigencies appertaining to immigration have nothing to do with either party's aims to retain political power. They have everything to do with U.S. birth rates being too low to support the demand U.S. employers have for labor. It's really that basic. Can one evaluate the empirical impacts of greater and lesser quantities of immigrants becoming residents/citizens of the U.S. and show further that U.S. GDP is greater with immigration (or more of it than we currently have) than without it? Yes. Numerous economists have done so and done so soundly/cogently.

• Economic Impacts of Immigration: A Survey
  
• The Fiscal and Economic Impact of Immigration on the United States
  
• Effects of Immigration on the U.S. Economy
• Does Immigration Help or Hurt Local Economies? Historically, where immigrants cluster in the U.S., prosperity follows.(Observations and analysis pertaining to the 20th century.)

They have everything to do with U.S. birth rates being too low to support the demand U.S. employers have for labor.

Another crock of shit, for if the Liberals didn't kill 300,000 unborn and born future Democrat voters a year, the birth rate would be fine. But thanks, because with the migration of illegals back across the border, soon the Democrat Party wont exist anymore.

Another crock of shit

By all means, "Milton," I'd love to see your sound positive (empirical) economics refutation of the content presented in any of the papers to which I linked in post 175. Here -- Measuring the Economic Impact of Immigration: A Scoping Paper -- I'll even give you a "head start" for developing the positive argument that gives soundness to your normative conclusion(s).

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
-- Murray N. Rothbard​

Measuring the Economic Impact of Immigration: A Scoping Paper

Only 1 thing that you left out "ILLEGAL". Doesn't fit into your narrative, when those crossing the border pay no taxes and their ANCHORS suck the rest of our Taxes through FREE STUFF...Trying to teach you is like teaching a rat to go through a maze. Rats are smarter because they actually learn...

Only 1 thing that you left out

Only thing you left out: an argument.

Doesn't fit into your narrative, when those crossing the border pay no taxes and their ANCHORS suck the rest of our Taxes through FREE STUFF...

My stance on immigration is the same regardless of whether the focus of the conversation is the net legal immigration, net impact illegal immigration or the combined net impact of both. It is because I'm well aware that:

• From the anti-immigration conservative think-tank: "Illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion" to the US economy. (George Borjas, described by both Business Week and the Wall Street Journal as “America’s leading immigration economist")
  
• From the pro-immigration liberal think tank: "The net gain to US workers and employers exclusive of any labor income paid to the unauthorized immigrants themselves, is approximately 0.03 percent of US GDP." (Hanson) If one read the footnote associated with that statement, one finds that the empirics for it come from.....wait for it.....Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy. (Click the link to see why I wrote "wait for it.")

Both think tanks openly state that a cost element of the net economic impact equation -- (net impact = economic gains - economic costs) -- pertaining to illegal immigration is that "low-skilled workers native and foreign born, see their wages fall."

My stance is the same regardless of which aspect of immigration's I find myself discussing because:

• In terms of federal policy, what I care about is the/a policy's net impact on the United States economy, not any specific element in the net economic impact equation, and not any set of specific costs or set of specific gains. Insofar as the net impact of illegal immigration is a positive number and the net impact of legal immigration is also a positive number, the "math" is clear: both have a positive impact on U.S. GDP (productivity, and the income and wealth increases resulting from increased productivity).
• It does not bother me in the least that most low-skilled U.S. citizens must compete with illegal immigrants. It doesn't because:
  • There is simply no excuse for native-born U.S. citizens (other than those who suffer from intellectual disabilities) aged 65 or younger being low-skilled. The "writing was on the wall" presaging the need for Americans to obtain IT (if not other so-called advanced skills) appeared at least as far back as the mid-1970s, and American high schools have since the late 1970s been teaching the computer science skills American students would need to thrive in the Information Economy. That our society's gits chose not to avail themselves of such training is nobody's fault but their own.
  • It would be something with which I'd concern myself were the U.S. and other nations nearing the realization that the oncoming wave of automation might likely lead to Earth becoming a one-nation world rather than the ~200-nation world it is today. Speculatively, I think it will because at some point the world will be at a point were all but the most senior level jobs, which are the jobs that are the most inefficient to automate, will be automated. At that point, the problem won't be who has (or gets) a job and who does not, but rather population containment and reduction.
• Highly-skilled workers such as those whom I hire have long been competing with immigrants and temporary workers from abroad and they've been doing so quite favorably if the payrolls of firms that employ highly-skilled are any indication. Indeed, highly-skilled workers (immigrant or not) need, these days, to focus on developing skills that minimize their exposure to the employment risk of in the near-term (i.e., between now and when they'd like to retire) being replaced by automation, not at risk of losing a job to an immigrant. (That's so for all workers, without regard to skill level, citizenship status or nationality.)

Trying to teach you is like teaching a rat to go through a maze. Rats are smarter because they actually learn...

Altruistic didacticism features not in my motivations for anything I've posted in direct response to your remarks because insofar as you are posting here, the onus is on you to come with portfolio to table of any given discussion in which you participate. Why have I no such aims? Because I don't waste my time trying to teach the unteachable or those who, because they opted to engage on a topic (in this case economic topic) are expected to have already mastered the concepts, techniques and practices pertinent to that topic.

As noted at the outset of this post, we have yet to see your sound empirical analysis that refutes any that is found in the documents I presented in post 175. Neither have you presented any sound empirical analysis that preemptively refuted the illegal immigration findings in Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy, yet you had the temerity baldly claim that I and/or the authors of the documents I earlier referenced forgot or ignored illegal immigration. News flash: the topic of immigration includes both legal and illegal immigration, which is why Borjas addressed both in Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy.

 

[Pogo]

There's the black voter who has been brainwashed into thinking Whitey is the source of all his problems. Democrats set him up for failure by convincing him the deck is stacked against him and the only way he will survive is for government to intervene at every turn. He doesn't realize he's still in chains to the same party that owned his ancestors, created the KKK, and passed the Jim Crow laws to keep him poor and uneducated.

No political party ever created the KKK. We've done this.

But since you mention it you know what the Klan did own?

The city council of Anaheim. As Republicans. Do what you want with that but it's your back yard.
Reply
And slavery goes back thousands of years, literally, while the Democratic Party goes back to 1834. Those who owned slaves would have been Federalists, Whigs, Know Nothings, Democratic-Republicans, and that group that outnumbers all of them --- no party at all. You didn't need a political party to own a slave.


And apparently you don't need to own a history book to post here.

No political party ever created the KKK.

And you never finished 3rd grade either? Now watch little kid, and learn...Pull your head out of Uranus.


History Of The Democrats And The KKK.....(Why the Democrats started the KKK)

he original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.

An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.

Stop right there. Second line of your link -- the one that looks like it was generated in 1993 on Windows 3.1 by some clod in his mother's basement..

For the first thirty-three years of that period (1882 to 1915) the Klan didn't even EXIST.
ALREADY you're full of shit. Second line.

Nice source, Jockomo.

 

[S.J.]

There's the black voter who has been brainwashed into thinking Whitey is the source of all his problems. Democrats set him up for failure by convincing him the deck is stacked against him and the only way he will survive is for government to intervene at every turn. He doesn't realize he's still in chains to the same party that owned his ancestors, created the KKK, and passed the Jim Crow laws to keep him poor and uneducated.

No political party ever created the KKK. We've done this.

But since you mention it you know what the Klan did own?

The city council of Anaheim. As Republicans. Do what you want with that but it's your back yard.
Reply
And slavery goes back thousands of years, literally, while the Democratic Party goes back to 1834. Those who owned slaves would have been Federalists, Whigs, Know Nothings, Democratic-Republicans, and that group that outnumbers all of them --- no party at all. You didn't need a political party to own a slave.


And apparently you don't need to own a history book to post here.

No political party ever created the KKK.

And you never finished 3rd grade either? Now watch little kid, and learn...Pull your head out of Uranus.


History Of The Democrats And The KKK.....(Why the Democrats started the KKK)

he original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.

An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.

Stop right there. Second line of your link -- the one that looks like it was generated in 1993 on Windows 3.1 by some clod in his mother's basement..

For the first thirty-three years of that period (1882 to 1915) the Klan didn't even EXIST.
ALREADY you're full of shit. Second line.

Nice source, Jockomo.

Some people have trouble accepting the truth.
http://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan

 

[Pogo]

There's the black voter who has been brainwashed into thinking Whitey is the source of all his problems. Democrats set him up for failure by convincing him the deck is stacked against him and the only way he will survive is for government to intervene at every turn. He doesn't realize he's still in chains to the same party that owned his ancestors, created the KKK, and passed the Jim Crow laws to keep him poor and uneducated.

No political party ever created the KKK. We've done this.

But since you mention it you know what the Klan did own?

The city council of Anaheim. As Republicans. Do what you want with that but it's your back yard.
Reply
And slavery goes back thousands of years, literally, while the Democratic Party goes back to 1834. Those who owned slaves would have been Federalists, Whigs, Know Nothings, Democratic-Republicans, and that group that outnumbers all of them --- no party at all. You didn't need a political party to own a slave.


And apparently you don't need to own a history book to post here.

No political party ever created the KKK.

And you never finished 3rd grade either? Now watch little kid, and learn...Pull your head out of Uranus.


History Of The Democrats And The KKK.....(Why the Democrats started the KKK)

he original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.

An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.

Stop right there. Second line of your link -- the one that looks like it was generated in 1993 on Windows 3.1 by some clod in his mother's basement..

For the first thirty-three years of that period (1882 to 1915) the Klan didn't even EXIST.
ALREADY you're full of shit. Second line.

Nice source, Jockomo.

Some people have trouble accepting the truth.
http://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan

You sure do. That's why I have to keep posting it.
It's also why I keep previous spankings bookmarked ---- some of which have your name on them. And yet here you are again, expecting different results.

Get back on the short bus, Shorty. You ain't anywhere near ready for this.

 

[S.J.]

There's the black voter who has been brainwashed into thinking Whitey is the source of all his problems. Democrats set him up for failure by convincing him the deck is stacked against him and the only way he will survive is for government to intervene at every turn. He doesn't realize he's still in chains to the same party that owned his ancestors, created the KKK, and passed the Jim Crow laws to keep him poor and uneducated.

No political party ever created the KKK. We've done this.

But since you mention it you know what the Klan did own?

The city council of Anaheim. As Republicans. Do what you want with that but it's your back yard.
Reply
And slavery goes back thousands of years, literally, while the Democratic Party goes back to 1834. Those who owned slaves would have been Federalists, Whigs, Know Nothings, Democratic-Republicans, and that group that outnumbers all of them --- no party at all. You didn't need a political party to own a slave.


And apparently you don't need to own a history book to post here.

No political party ever created the KKK.

And you never finished 3rd grade either? Now watch little kid, and learn...Pull your head out of Uranus.


History Of The Democrats And The KKK.....(Why the Democrats started the KKK)

he original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.

An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.

Stop right there. Second line of your link -- the one that looks like it was generated in 1993 on Windows 3.1 by some clod in his mother's basement..

For the first thirty-three years of that period (1882 to 1915) the Klan didn't even EXIST.
ALREADY you're full of shit. Second line.

Nice source, Jockomo.

Some people have trouble accepting the truth.
Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

You sure do. That's why I have to keep posting it.
It's also why I keep previous spankings bookmarked ---- some of which have your name on them. And yet here you are again, expecting different results.

Get back on the short bus, Shorty. You ain't anywhere near ready for this.

Yeah, the History Channel is lying. You're not entitled to your own facts, Jack. You lose (again).

 

[Pogo]

No political party ever created the KKK. We've done this.

But since you mention it you know what the Klan did own?

The city council of Anaheim. As Republicans. Do what you want with that but it's your back yard.
Reply
And slavery goes back thousands of years, literally, while the Democratic Party goes back to 1834. Those who owned slaves would have been Federalists, Whigs, Know Nothings, Democratic-Republicans, and that group that outnumbers all of them --- no party at all. You didn't need a political party to own a slave.


And apparently you don't need to own a history book to post here.

No political party ever created the KKK.

And you never finished 3rd grade either? Now watch little kid, and learn...Pull your head out of Uranus.


History Of The Democrats And The KKK.....(Why the Democrats started the KKK)

he original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.

An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.

Stop right there. Second line of your link -- the one that looks like it was generated in 1993 on Windows 3.1 by some clod in his mother's basement..

For the first thirty-three years of that period (1882 to 1915) the Klan didn't even EXIST.
ALREADY you're full of shit. Second line.

Nice source, Jockomo.

Some people have trouble accepting the truth.
Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

You sure do. That's why I have to keep posting it.
It's also why I keep previous spankings bookmarked ---- some of which have your name on them. And yet here you are again, expecting different results.

Get back on the short bus, Shorty. You ain't anywhere near ready for this.

Yeah, the History Channel is lying. You're not entitled to your own facts, Jack. You lose (again).

The History Channel link is inaccurate ---- 1866 instead of 1865 for example --- and sloppily written, but other than those details it confirms what I already wrote, both in this thread and in the past.

And I quote:

>> A group including many former Confederate veterans founded the first branch of the Ku Klux Klan as a social club in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1866. The first two words of the organization’s name supposedly derived from the Greek word “kyklos,” meaning circle. <<​

It's actually 1865, and it's actually kuklos, and it was derived from the then-popular college fraternity Kuklos Adelphon, which was an obvious model, and I gave the names of all six, and the date, and the address. And I already noted they were ex-soldiers in their 20s who had no political affiliations, and I posted the sign with their names on it, which also has the 1865 date. DUH.

And then I gave the name, date and place of the re-founding in 1915. Which your page doesn't even mention. Because my sources are way more complete.

Prove any of that wrong. It's an open book test.

You can't do it.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The Dems are using them, just so they can stay in power.
It sick.
How well has anyone done under their policies?
The war on poverty has caused more to be on government assistance rather than getting them out of it.

The Dems are using them, just so they can stay in power.

The economic exigencies appertaining to immigration have nothing to do with either party's aims to retain political power. They have everything to do with U.S. birth rates being too low to support the demand U.S. employers have for labor. It's really that basic. Can one evaluate the empirical impacts of greater and lesser quantities of immigrants becoming residents/citizens of the U.S. and show further that U.S. GDP is greater with immigration (or more of it than we currently have) than without it? Yes. Numerous economists have done so and done so soundly/cogently.

• Economic Impacts of Immigration: A Survey
  
• The Fiscal and Economic Impact of Immigration on the United States
  
• Effects of Immigration on the U.S. Economy
• Does Immigration Help or Hurt Local Economies? Historically, where immigrants cluster in the U.S., prosperity follows.(Observations and analysis pertaining to the 20th century.)

They have everything to do with U.S. birth rates being too low to support the demand U.S. employers have for labor.

Another crock of shit, for if the Liberals didn't kill 300,000 unborn and born future Democrat voters a year, the birth rate would be fine. But thanks, because with the migration of illegals back across the border, soon the Democrat Party wont exist anymore.

Another crock of shit

By all means, "Milton," I'd love to see your sound positive (empirical) economics refutation of the content presented in any of the papers to which I linked in post 175. Here -- Measuring the Economic Impact of Immigration: A Scoping Paper -- I'll even give you a "head start" for developing the positive argument that gives soundness to your normative conclusion(s).

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
-- Murray N. Rothbard​

Measuring the Economic Impact of Immigration: A Scoping Paper

Only 1 thing that you left out "ILLEGAL". Doesn't fit into your narrative, when those crossing the border pay no taxes and their ANCHORS suck the rest of our Taxes through FREE STUFF...Trying to teach you is like teaching a rat to go through a maze. Rats are smarter because they actually learn...

Only 1 thing that you left out

Only thing you left out: an argument.

Doesn't fit into your narrative, when those crossing the border pay no taxes and their ANCHORS suck the rest of our Taxes through FREE STUFF...

My stance on immigration is the same regardless of whether the focus of the conversation is the net legal immigration, net impact illegal immigration or the combined net impact of both. It is because I'm well aware that:

• From the anti-immigration conservative think-tank: "Illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion" to the US economy. (George Borjas, described by both Business Week and the Wall Street Journal as “America’s leading immigration economist")
  
• From the pro-immigration liberal think tank: "The net gain to US workers and employers exclusive of any labor income paid to the unauthorized immigrants themselves, is approximately 0.03 percent of US GDP." (Hanson) If one read the footnote associated with that statement, one finds that the empirics for it come from.....wait for it.....Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy. (Click the link to see why I wrote "wait for it.")

Both think tanks openly state that a cost element of the net economic impact equation -- (net impact = economic gains - economic costs) -- pertaining to illegal immigration is that "low-skilled workers native and foreign born, see their wages fall."

My stance is the same regardless of which aspect of immigration's I find myself discussing because:

• In terms of federal policy, what I care about is the/a policy's net impact on the United States economy, not any specific element in the net economic impact equation, and not any set of specific costs or set of specific gains. Insofar as the net impact of illegal immigration is a positive number and the net impact of legal immigration is also a positive number, the "math" is clear: both have a positive impact on U.S. GDP (productivity, and the income and wealth increases resulting from increased productivity).
• It does not bother me in the least that most low-skilled U.S. citizens must compete with illegal immigrants. It doesn't because:
  • There is simply no excuse for native-born U.S. citizens (other than those who suffer from intellectual disabilities) aged 65 or younger being low-skilled. The "writing was on the wall" presaging the need for Americans to obtain IT (if not other so-called advanced skills) appeared at least as far back as the mid-1970s, and American high schools have since the late 1970s been teaching the computer science skills American students would need to thrive in the Information Economy. That our society's gits chose not to avail themselves of such training is nobody's fault but their own.
  • It would be something with which I'd concern myself were the U.S. and other nations nearing the realization that the oncoming wave of automation might likely lead to Earth becoming a one-nation world rather than the ~200-nation world it is today. Speculatively, I think it will because at some point the world will be at a point were all but the most senior level jobs, which are the jobs that are the most inefficient to automate, will be automated. At that point, the problem won't be who has (or gets) a job and who does not, but rather population containment and reduction.
• Highly-skilled workers such as those whom I hire have long been competing with immigrants and temporary workers from abroad and they've been doing so quite favorably if the payrolls of firms that employ highly-skilled are any indication. Indeed, highly-skilled workers (immigrant or not) need, these days, to focus on developing skills that minimize their exposure to the employment risk of in the near-term (i.e., between now and when they'd like to retire) being replaced by automation, not at risk of losing a job to an immigrant. (That's so for all workers, without regard to skill level, citizenship status or nationality.)

Trying to teach you is like teaching a rat to go through a maze. Rats are smarter because they actually learn...

Altruistic didacticism features not in my motivations for anything I've posted in direct response to your remarks because insofar as you are posting here, the onus is on you to come with portfolio to table of any given discussion in which you participate. Why have I no such aims? Because I don't waste my time trying to teach the unteachable or those who, because they opted to engage on a topic (in this case economic topic) are expected to have already mastered the concepts, techniques and practices pertinent to that topic.

As noted at the outset of this post, we have yet to see your sound empirical analysis that refutes any that is found in the documents I presented in post 175. Neither have you presented any sound empirical analysis that preemptively refuted the illegal immigration findings in Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy, yet you had the temerity baldly claim that I and/or the authors of the documents I earlier referenced forgot or ignored illegal immigration. News flash: the topic of immigration includes both legal and illegal immigration, which is why Borjas addressed both in Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy.

There is simply no excuse for native-born U.S. citizens (other than those who suffer from intellectual disabilities) aged 65 or younger being low-skilled.

I know the reason why there are so many stupid liberals in the United States as it was the wish of the liberal elites to keep the people stupid enough and they would want Uncle Sugar to take care of them. That is the Marxist way. The only excuse for you is that you are lucky enough not to be aborted by your mom.. You are a product of said dumbing down of America because you too want the government to take care of you cradle to grave.
The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America

Charlotte Iserbyt is to be greatly commended for having put together the most formidable and practical compilation of documentation describing the “deliberate dumbing down” of American children by their education system. Anyone interested in the truth will be shocked by the way American social engineers have systematically gone about destroying the intellect of millions of American children for the purpose of leading the American people into a socialist world government controlled by behavioral and social scientists.

Typical Liberal Voter of the 47% that don't pay taxes...

 

[rightwinger]

No political party ever created the KKK. We've done this.

But since you mention it you know what the Klan did own?

The city council of Anaheim. As Republicans. Do what you want with that but it's your back yard.
Reply
And slavery goes back thousands of years, literally, while the Democratic Party goes back to 1834. Those who owned slaves would have been Federalists, Whigs, Know Nothings, Democratic-Republicans, and that group that outnumbers all of them --- no party at all. You didn't need a political party to own a slave.


And apparently you don't need to own a history book to post here.

No political party ever created the KKK.

And you never finished 3rd grade either? Now watch little kid, and learn...Pull your head out of Uranus.


History Of The Democrats And The KKK.....(Why the Democrats started the KKK)

he original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.

An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.

Stop right there. Second line of your link -- the one that looks like it was generated in 1993 on Windows 3.1 by some clod in his mother's basement..

For the first thirty-three years of that period (1882 to 1915) the Klan didn't even EXIST.
ALREADY you're full of shit. Second line.

Nice source, Jockomo.

Some people have trouble accepting the truth.
Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

You sure do. That's why I have to keep posting it.
It's also why I keep previous spankings bookmarked ---- some of which have your name on them. And yet here you are again, expecting different results.

Get back on the short bus, Shorty. You ain't anywhere near ready for this.

Yeah, the History Channel is lying. You're not entitled to your own facts, Jack. You lose (again).

History Channel also believes in ancient aliens
They are no longer credible

 

[Indeependent]

Both parties allow open borders, business visas and off-shoring.
Democrats throw the poor a crumb.
Don’t judge Republicans by Trump.

 

[rightwinger]

Both parties allow open borders, business visas and off-shoring.
Democrats throw the poor a crumb.
Don’t judge Republicans by Trump.

Most Republicans despise Trump...he was forced on them

But they view him as a necessary evil

 

[EverCurious]

hmmm this is one of those rare trollish thread turned interesting discussions that draws more than my cursory involvement. Bravo folks, they are becoming quite rare on this forum.

I register as Independent. I am a capitalist / "classical" social liberal/democrat. I have a group of basic beliefs that have ousted me from both parties for my entire life. I find I must constantly choose between one or many of my "core beliefs" when I vote - which is rather frustrating.

My core beliefs are as follows:

1. I believe that capitalism is the /only/ sustainable way to successfully combat poverty and indeed the misery of human existence. While I do believe in a safety net, for both individuals/families and businesses, I do not believe that such a net should be a cradle to grave system that continues to "assist" for eternity. For to live in welfare, dependent upon others until you die, is not life at all, it is merely "existence" and a shitty one at that. I believe that all are both capable, and worthy, of a better life than the misery of that. I believe 100% that the Democratic party has been "forced" to buy votes via handouts rather by necessity; after all life in America is so many worlds above life in other nations, one must necessarily "invent" problems to be solved and the tripe of "inequality" and so forth was a rather wise, though in my opinion detrimental to actual American's, choice. Thus I find myself somewhere between understanding and despising the tack of the D's political decisions. I cannot hate them even while they prey on the emotions of the downtrodden because it is little different "morally" than the right-wing's "predatory" activities. I suppose I "accept" that, just as I "accept" the flaws of the R's, as simply the harnessing of the "nature of man" to ones benefit. Survival of the fittest in an ironic way.

2. As I touched on in belief one, I am a strong believer in individualism. I believe that every man has the ability within them to be "more" than they are and to be "successful" in their life, but I also believe that different people have different "levels" and "goals" that they consider "successful." This is a general theorem that I call "Wolves and Men" - a psychological reality of leaders and followers and the benefits of both mentalities. It is because of this that I do not believe in "equality" per say, I believe that all men are capable of "better" than they have, but I know that they do not all have the fortitude necessary to lead. There is nothing wrong with following, the world will always have proportionally more followers after all, but I come down harshly upon those leaders to mistreat their flocks. Which leads me to despise quite a few "establishment" groups and indeed established religious groups as a whole.

3. Which traverses into my third core belief in the psychological "good" that arrives from the peoples belief in "things" - be that religious or "group" ideals like political parties and social movement groups of progressives, SJWs, and modern liberals. Such things are needed by social humans, they are needed by society at large, they are needed by a strong nation and they should be supported through freedom of religion, belief, speech, and thought. The caveat is that the fundamental underpins (the religious beliefs, the teachings, the desired outcomes) must be inherently "good" for all. I cannot, will not, support freedom of ideals that are fundamentally flawed at their core; such as forcing ones religion upon others or forcing ones mere "beliefs" on others in the scope of LGBT issues and abortion.

4. The caveat of 3 leads me into my fourth belief; nationalism. It is not so much that I dislike other nations, but rather that I see America as the beacon and leader of the world. It is my opinion that we American's have a duty and a responsibility to show the rest of the nations how to overcome the ills that inflict their people. To bring their bad leaders to heel upon the world stage, and hold them accountable for their mistakes and errors in judgement as an example of what not to do. While I do believe that America is the best nation, it is not arrogance as many might presume. I know we have made many mistakes, we have allowed bad "wolves" to bend to social pressures and lead us into poor decisions that have done massive injustices, but we have always done the right thing in the end. We must show these nations that it's okay to make mistakes, it is okay to be wrong, and that they can recover and be better nations. I look to the “lesser” nations with hope for a better future for them; rather than dwelling on their mistakes of their past - nations should treat each other with compassion, forgiving mistakes so long as the lessons are learned [Germany, Japan, etc,] and letting go of hateful or vengeful grudges when appropriate [Russia, the ME, etc.]

5. Which leads to my fifth belief; so too individuals should be given the chance to amend themselves to more "noble" purposes. We all make mistakes, we all miscalculations of judgement, we all occasionally “do the wrong thing,” but the true worth of an individual is their ability to admit their mistakes, learn from them, and become better people. After all, without such a belief then one might as well forgo leading, be that individually, nationally, or globally, because to not believe so means that others are not worth your time and effort.

6. Finally, while I am a believer in individual freedom, “free will,” and letting others live as they see fit, all of it must be within the scope of the “law.” Law is rather subjective, of course, but in general my belief is that laws are designed to protect the weak without abridging the freedom of others. I may object to laws that are flawed and want them changed, but I do expect that laws are followed, and if not, punished appropriately. I’m not exactly a “law and order” type, but I’m not “anarchist” either.


I used to vote D fairly regularly and my simple answer to the OP would have been, because they support X which is fundamentally more important than Y this time around. Honestly though, with the direction the D's have taken recently, I find myself less and less "patient" with their antics and bullshit "poor" leadership; I have zero reason to vote D at this time, in fact, I strongly oppose everything the D's seem to support these days. I do not consider myself right-wing, but I can easily understand why many might. ~shrug~

 

[S.J.]

And you never finished 3rd grade either? Now watch little kid, and learn...Pull your head out of Uranus.


History Of The Democrats And The KKK.....(Why the Democrats started the KKK)

Stop right there. Second line of your link -- the one that looks like it was generated in 1993 on Windows 3.1 by some clod in his mother's basement..

For the first thirty-three years of that period (1882 to 1915) the Klan didn't even EXIST.
ALREADY you're full of shit. Second line.

Nice source, Jockomo.

Some people have trouble accepting the truth.
Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

You sure do. That's why I have to keep posting it.
It's also why I keep previous spankings bookmarked ---- some of which have your name on them. And yet here you are again, expecting different results.

Get back on the short bus, Shorty. You ain't anywhere near ready for this.

Yeah, the History Channel is lying. You're not entitled to your own facts, Jack. You lose (again).

The History Channel link is inaccurate ---- 1866 instead of 1865 for example --- and sloppily written, but other than those details it confirms what I already wrote, both in this thread and in the past.

And I quote:

>> A group including many former Confederate veterans founded the first branch of the Ku Klux Klan as a social club in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1866. The first two words of the organization’s name supposedly derived from the Greek word “kyklos,” meaning circle. <<​

It's actually 1865, and it's actually kuklos, and it was derived from the then-popular college fraternity Kuklos Adelphon, which was an obvious model, and I gave the names of all six, and the date, and the address. And I already noted they were ex-soldiers in their 20s who had no political affiliations, and I posted the sign with their names on it, which also has the 1865 date. DUH.

And then I gave the name, date and place of the re-founding in 1915. Which your page doesn't even mention. Because my sources are way more complete.

Prove any of that wrong. It's an open book test.

You can't do it.

Sure, buddy. You're the expert. You know more than the historians, that's why you have your own tv show. No wait, you're just an anonymous douchebag on a discussion forum trying to peddle bullshit. Off you go.

 

[bendog]

Be totally transparent and honest....remember you are protected by total anonymity here?

I'm not a democrat but if I could make the day worse for RW white supremacists like you, I'd jump at the chance.