>> ^blankfist:

The fear is that immigrants come over and are allowed access to certain entitlements. For instance, hospitals cannot turn anyone away, so some US citizens and immigrants use this loophole to receive free health care. When they don't pay their bills, the rest of us subsidize them.

I guess I'm still not sure why this would be a problem. Are you assuming all immigrants will be poor? That all immigrants will refuse to pay taxes?

I don't really see why population growth through immigration would be substantively different than population growth through birth. I can see why politically it would be viewed differently, but I don't think shrinking the social safety net would reduce anti-immigrant sentiment.

>> ^NetRunner:
I'm just curious, but what's the supposed connection between immigration and the viability of a social safety net?


The fear is that immigrants come over and are allowed access to certain entitlements. For instance, hospitals cannot turn anyone away, so some US citizens and immigrants use this loophole to receive free health care. When they don't pay their bills, the rest of us subsidize them.

So the response to this fear is a political push to close the borders. I think this is a horrible mistake, but I also agree that people shouldn't be forced to pay for other people. So, it's impossible to have a viable social safety net when you allow potentially anyone from the world to use it, but only a small number of citizens to pay for it.

It's a catch-22. I want open borders. Immigration only helps the economy. But welfare programs cannot be sustainable when the number of users outweighs the number of payers. In places like Denmark they keep their population exclusive, therefore they can afford certain entitlements nationally we could never enjoy in the States. At least not sustainably.

You disagree obviously?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^gwiz665:
All Viking, all awesome. The restrictions on immigration to Denmark are pretty high from outside of EU. We have some diversity, but far less than say the UK or US.
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^gwiz665:
I pay a 37 % income tax, not to mention Moms which is a 25 % Value Added Tax to everything you buy, and I feel pretty good about it.

What's the citizenry diversity like where you're at? Is there a huge influx of immigrants from all continents coming over to become citizens?

And that's the point. It's impossible to create a sustainable welfare system, which is a high tax for services system, and have open borders or even relaxed immigration. A big talking point in favor of high taxation from the left in America is that it works so well in places like Denmark, but they're culturally closed off.
Wouldn't it be a step back to have a world where all countries are open to tourism only with none open to immigration? That sounds horrible. I like that the US is open, albeit not open enough, to those seeking a better life. I just don't want to have to pay for them.


I'm just curious, but what's the supposed connection between immigration and the viability of a social safety net?

Such a nice sound- the paper shuffle at the end of the clip. they must set that mic up strategically. :]

Dont borrow sugar from the neighbors, we have foodstamps...
Dont help the family business, we mustn't disqualify our unemployment..
Dont do yardwork for the oldlady down the street, she can afford lawnservice w/ her gov checks

Increasing this "social safety net" seems to be a tad counter-productive towards the reconstruction of this lack of community Keith talks of. How can we learn and really understand how to share unconditionally, when we are obligated to share through our money. Without so many checks from the gov., this disconnection between ourselves will be forced to mend together.

how can I learn to connect with the "extras" in my life, when they are just being indirectly fed by me.

Kieth says we don't care about each other. But I believe we are setting ourselves up for it. Why not take some physical step to fixing this instead of throwing money at it. Baby steps. -Ofcourse there our some bigger things the social safety net should catch. But overspending can widdle away the little things which make us who we are as a whole. He's right, we grew up sharing and caring in our childhoods. How can we set ourselves to share and care about eachother in our adulthood?

>> ^RedSky:

Raising the retirement age is not an attack on the social safety net.


No, just the people who depend on it.

Raising the retirement age is not an attack on the social safety net.

I amuses me that everyone thinks that they know what is right and that their opinion is the correct one.

I wish we had a public option. I think it is the best and most fair course -- spread the costs over the whole population and pay for it with a tax, instead of insurance premiums on the ones who can afford it. This just makes sense.

But who said that Americans are rational? I have so many conservative relatives who pop a vein over paying taxes and creating a social safety net. They are quick to sup at the public trough, but god forbid somebody get food stamps. "Those people don't work hard, I work hard, I deserve it, they don't."

I don't agree with their point of view, but believe you me, they hold it strongly. They believe that they are correct.

The lobbyists play into that. Fox News twists the story to play up that aspect. But it is landing on fertile soil, those manipulations.




>> ^ghark:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/MaxWilder" title="member since November 7th, 2007" class="profilelink">MaxWilder
You seem to be falling for the 'well if it's the lesser of two evils i'll take it' mentality. Firstly, the people did not want this - they voted in Obama under the premise he would provide real reform, this is not real reform because it does not deal with the core issue of huge overall expenditure on healthcare by Americans for very little result. Instead it forces most people to take it or face large fines, and as far as the pre-existing legislation issue goes, there are loopholes, who do you think wrote the bill?
It's a no brainer, do we want everyone to have access to healthcare or not? If no, then consider yourself partially liable for the 20,000 odd deaths that will result from the passing of this legislation per year (as opposed to to a public plan) - congratulations I hope that feels good sitting there on your shoulder. If yes, then this legislation fails, because millions still wont have access to healthcare under these changes.
The lobbyists spent huge sums of money to get what they wanted, and they were successful.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I don't recall anything about pacifism in his speeches, only non-interventionism and anti-colorization.

Right, that's basically my point. He doesn't seem to think war is bad because it kills people, he thinks it's bad because it conflicts with his ideology about the proper role of government.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
And he has frequently said that to just abolish the safety net is also a bad idea, so hardly an extremist. That is more of a straw-man representation of his views on transitioning to a more free market based society and less regulated.

All I hear in there is "he doesn't want to abruptly end them, he just wants to slowly phase them out", which if you were objective about it means that he's more worried about a popular backlash stopping the destruction of the social safety net, and not actually in favor of preserving them.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think it is important to note the difference in being anti-war being legal and not moral. Morally, we can't all agree anyway. Was our intervention in WW2 moral? Is killing ever good? A president can't answer those questions, and shouldn't, and nor should congress. What they should preside over is if a majority of people want war, we war, regardless of its moral good or badness. Morality is the charge of the citizens, not the congress. It is also their job, the citizens, to not let their congress take that charge from them. Good and bad shouldn't be a matter of law, that is the most dangerous of all ideas.

This is potentially the beginning of a really long conversation, but to be short about it, what is law for if not an attempt to create justice in a society? What is justice if not applied morality? Yes, no single person or institution should get the exclusive right to decide what is and isn't moral, but single people and institutions get to make important decisions that impact lots of people, and I think it's safe to say that we want them to make those decisions in a way that's compatible with the morals of the people who entrusted them with the power to make those decisions.

In other words, if Paul wants the codes to the nuclear weapons, Paul's personal code of ethics matters a great fucking deal if he wants me to achieve that power.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Being skeptical is always good, but look as his company.

I do, and that's the thing that bothers me. Take John Tate, who runs C4L. Not a day goes by that I don't get e-mail from him that a) refers to the left as statists, socialists, or tyrants, b) lies about legislation that Democrats are or have proposed, and c) promotes a wide array of pro-corporate Republican policies.

Take Peter Schiff, who's lost his clients' a truckload of money betting on hyperinflation, and who goes on TV constantly to try to sell people on the idea that hyperinflation is around the corner, will destroy America as we know it forever, and that you can protect yourself by buying gold from his website.

Those are just the ones I recall clearly, but I remember there being quite a list of shady characters he'd brought into his campaign in 2008.

Yes, he sometimes "stands with" Kucinich or Nader on an issue, but it's never some positive proposal they want to try to work on passing together. Instead, it's always a case of Kucinich or Nader objecting to something the Democratic party is doing, and Ron Paul "stands with them" in an attempt to try to win some converts amongst liberals frustrated with Democrats.

IMO, he's very, very untrustworthy. I've had plenty of experience with sociopaths, and I quite seriously get that vibe from Ron Paul.

I don't recall anything about pacifism in his speeches, only non-interventionism and anti-colorization. And he has frequently said that to just abolish the safety net is also a bad idea, so hardly an extremist. That is more of a straw-man representation of his views on transitioning to a more free market based society and less regulated.

I think it is important to note the difference in being anti-war being legal and not moral. Morally, we can't all agree anyway. Was our intervention in WW2 moral? Is killing ever good? A president can't answer those questions, and shouldn't, and nor should congress. What they should preside over is if a majority of people want war, we war, regardless of its moral good or badness. Morality is the charge of the citizens, not the congress. It is also their job, the citizens, to not let their congress take that charge from them. Good and bad shouldn't be a matter of law, that is the most dangerous of all ideas.


Being skeptical is always good, but look as his company. He takes strides with people like Kucinich, whom I also respect for his integrity to what he believes. There is no doubt, though, that the president, even when his powers were considerably less, is still the "leader" of the country. Being that congress has defaulted most of their power to the executive, a good place to go to pass that power away is the executive. One could ask why any of the founding fathers, with their ideals on the congress, ran for president and I think you will find your answer there...duty. Dr. Paul has frequently said he really don't have an interest in the office, but like old hickory after the death of his wife, feels it is is obligation to the people.

Just my 2 cents, perhaps he is a greedy Napoleon under the facade, I don't know...nor do I really care. He cares about what I care about, that is about all I require for a vote.


>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Like the campaign for liberty that tours the nation? But your right, things start from the bottom down. It is always nice, though, to have hands from above as well. You can already see things slowing changing in the republican party, but it is still marginal in terms of majority. Like Dr. Paul says though, he won't consider it a success unless BOTH parties are chop full of his base ideals.
Yes, but most of those base ideals are about things that have nothing to do with pacifism, and he's not pushing to transform the rest of the Republican party into pacifists. Instead he's pushing them to become extremists who want to abolish every ounce of regulation and social safety net that exists.
I've also noticed that he makes his anti-war case primarily on budgetary/legal authority grounds, and not "killing people is wrong" grounds. That concerns me quite a bit, because if your main issue with war is that it costs too much money, or didn't get the right rubber stamp first, then you're really missing the point.
In any case, I personally see no reason why we should believe Ron Paul's campaign promises any more than any other politician. I find it a bit strange on the topic of war in particular, because according to him, the Constitution grants Congress the sole right to declare war, and certainly Congress has authority over spending money, so why does he need to be President to do anything about wars?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Like the campaign for liberty that tours the nation? But your right, things start from the bottom down. It is always nice, though, to have hands from above as well. You can already see things slowing changing in the republican party, but it is still marginal in terms of majority. Like Dr. Paul says though, he won't consider it a success unless BOTH parties are chop full of his base ideals.

Yes, but most of those base ideals are about things that have nothing to do with pacifism, and he's not pushing to transform the rest of the Republican party into pacifists. Instead he's pushing them to become extremists who want to abolish every ounce of regulation and social safety net that exists.

I've also noticed that he makes his anti-war case primarily on budgetary/legal authority grounds, and not "killing people is wrong" grounds. That concerns me quite a bit, because if your main issue with war is that it costs too much money, or didn't get the right rubber stamp first, then you're really missing the point.

In any case, I personally see no reason why we should believe Ron Paul's campaign promises any more than any other politician. I find it a bit strange on the topic of war in particular, because according to him, the Constitution grants Congress the sole right to declare war, and certainly Congress has authority over spending money, so why does he need to be President to do anything about wars?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Who is crazier:
Those who suspect a man refusing to release a document that would easily end all speculation MIGHT have something to hide,
or
those who still believe a nation can tax and spend itself into stability and prosperity, with the top producers paying the heaviest federal taxes and the "bottom" 50% paying nothing, but slurping up plenty of entitlements.


Those who suspect Obama isn't a naturally born citizen by a mile. There's overwhelming evidence that he was born in Hawaii. Providing a birth certificate won't easily end all speculation. If birthers won't accept the overwhelming facts that prove he was already out there, another piece of paper won't make one ounce of difference. Bill freakin' O'Reilly even dismisses birthers' claims. If this one simple fact can't be accepted by someone, how could you ever have a meaningful debate with them about anything?!

Look, we can debate economic theory all day, but the fact that Trump and other birthers get traction with this crap is absolute idiocy, and points to the acidic partisanship in this country. I used to joke that I bet that if a person from either the left or right said 1+1=2, the other would swear it didn't. I thought I was being humorously hyperbolic. It's not a joke anymore. That's what exactly is happening here. It's pathetic.

And your platitudes about tax policy don't help either. You're indicting progressive taxation and a basic social safety net. Both have been in place at a basic level since the New Deal, and you're claiming that can't work?! It most certainly can if done right. The US has been the most economically successful nation on earth for the majority of that time. It's basic historical fact you're arguing against to make an ideological point.

>> ^gwiz665:

There is nothing in libertarianism about inflicting suffering, dominating or the like. It is an unintended consequence of a free market. You therefore don't have to pick and choose in that. ... Which explicit bad things exist in libertarianism?

Suffering isn't an unintended consequence. Suffering results because libertarianism explicitly says it's immoral to try to prevent it from happening. People must be allowed to suffer the consequences of their decisions, no matter how harsh the consequence, nor how defensible the decision. Suffering is key to the functioning of a free market -- it's part of the incentives that drive the whole system. If you take away those consequences, or lessen them in any way, it's not a free market anymore, it's a socialist fascistscape, or whatever made up name they've come up for our extant regulated markets and social safety nets this week.

Trying to lessen suffering...that's what they always say creates "unintended consequences."

>> ^gwiz665:
In Christianity you have to actively pick and choose for it to make sense, as a whole it's a mess in so many ways. There are intended and explicit bad things(tm) in the bible.


On this I agree. But on both counts, it's no different from libertarianism. Intended and explicit bad things are above. For just a single contradiction, try this on:

People must always own the products of their own labor.
People always own themselves.

Except...you didn't make yourself. Your parents made you. Why don't they own you? Why should the government redistribute wealth (ownership of the child) from the people whose labor created the wealth, to those who haven't done anything to rightfully earn it (the child itself)?

Blankie's upset because his idol was actually a giant liar.

The situation is simple. Rand railed against SS and other social safety-nets her entire life, but secretly used them herself. That's called hypocrisy. Couldn't be a finer example of it.

She knew she was lying. Just the same way that L Ron Hubbard didn't actually believe any of the crap he wrote. He was just banking on the millions of retards to buy his bullshit.

meh, close.. but you're missing the symbolism. >> ^blankfist:

So the point is NOT that Ayn Rand rejected social safety nets and in her dying years she used the services she paid for. The point is that she lied about it and tried to cover it up? Fair enough. I don't know enough about her later years to speak one way or another about that.

So the point is NOT that Ayn Rand rejected social safety nets and in her dying years she used the services she paid for. The point is that she lied about it and tried to cover it up? Fair enough. I don't know enough about her later years to speak one way or another about that.