Build Wall or Shut Down the Border

[LumRaiderFan]

2 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

But you do agree that the fed gov is more capable of deciding how to spend someone's hard earned money than the one that made it, right?

And who gets to decide how much one "needs"?

 

UT alum, can you give me an answer on these two questions?

[LumRaiderFan]

4 hours ago, UT alum said:

Raising the minimum wage to at least 12.50 is a start. Making union formation easier is another. The free market would adjust to those constraints and move on, like it always has. 

How did you come up with that number?

You are right, the free market would adjust, but the adjustment may mean laying off employees or not being able to hire young folks just starting out OR it may adjust by causing a business to close the doors.

That’s what happens when folks throw out baseless minimum wages that were never intended for anyone to live off of.

[Hagar]

On 1/12/2019 at 6:27 AM, UT alum said:

Definitions of words matter to the courts. What is happening does not meet that definition in my estimation. We need secure borders. The debate should be over what that looks like and how we fund it. Look, you and I are both Americans, we both want what’s best for the country. That debate has been going on since Jefferson and Madison went at it over states rights versus federalism. If the congress had any cojones, and I’m talking both parties here, they’d get the government back open then openly debate, negotiate, compromise, and come up with a plan that realistically addresses the problem. We may need more wall, but I don’t believe it should be the centerpiece. I’d be interested in your sources documenting the tsunami of immigrants you believe is coming at us.  

I’m late to this party.  You may be a leftie, but not a complete loon.  The fact that you realize both parties are at fault, is proof enough.  Anyone who thinks their party, whichever that may be, is always right, is not someone who’ll add anything of value to this Forum.

I hope we’ll occasionally find common ground, but agree to disagree without becoming antagonist.  That said, I don’t necessarily advocate a wall from Brownsville to San Diego.  Only in the most important areas, say Brownsville to El Paso  

[Hagar]

6 hours ago, stevenash said:

Do you believe that the government is capable of "correcting this inequity" that you believe exists?  Who will make the decision on how much is enough and how much is not enough?

Why Ocasio-Cortez of course.  Silly stevenash.

[stevenash]

41 minutes ago, Hagar said:

Why Ocasio-Cortez of course.  Silly stevenash.

I shouldnt have said that.  Venezuela has done a great job of making things equal.  Everyone has nothing.

[Hagar]

21 minutes ago, stevenash said:

I shouldnt have said that.  Venezuela has done a great job of making things equal.  Everyone has nothing.

Rotflmbo.

[UT alum]

16 hours ago, Hagar said:

I’m late to this party.  You may be a leftie, but not a complete loon.  The fact that you realize both parties are at fault, is proof enough.  Anyone who thinks their party, whichever that may be, is always right, is not someone who’ll add anything of value to this Forum.

I hope we’ll occasionally find common ground, but agree to disagree without becoming antagonist.  That said, I don’t necessarily advocate a wall from Brownsville to San Diego.  Only in the most important areas, say Brownsville to El Paso  

Hagar, I’m taking “not a complete loon” as a high compliment. The common ground is, we’re both Americans and love our country. We been arguing politics since before the Revolution. The great nation we have was born from argument and debate. You’ll never get antagonism out of me for having a different point of view. I’d smile back at ya, but I got this thing about imogees...

[Hagar]

8 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Hagar, I’m taking “not a complete loon” as a high compliment. The common ground is, we’re both Americans and love our country. We been arguing politics since before the Revolution. The great nation we have was born from argument and debate. You’ll never get antagonism out of me for having a different point of view. I’d smile back at ya, but I got this thing about imogees...

Lol, yes, it was meant as a compliment.  The only other leftie I can discuss politics with is TxHoops.  He’s a fairly good man but still thinks a weather ballon crashed at Roswell.  

[UT alum]

19 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

UT alum, can you give me an answer on these two questions?

When it comes to public works (i.e. infrastructure), defense, environment, social programs, and other work for the public good, I say yes. 

What defines “enough” varies from individual to individual, but the key word in that post was “selfish”.

[UT alum]

16 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

How did you come up with that number?

You are right, the free market would adjust, but the adjustment may mean laying off employees or not being able to hire young folks just starting out OR it may adjust by causing a business to close the doors.

That’s what happens when folks throw out baseless minimum wages that were never intended for anyone to live off of.

I just used it as an example. Could have been 15.00. It would have to be incremental, of course, not all at once. Most research I’ve seen indicate that minimum wage increases in the past do not cause the economic upheaval in the labor market you imply. Don’t have time to get into the weeds about it, but the research is out there.

[LumRaiderFan]

13 minutes ago, UT alum said:

I just used it as an example. Could have been 15.00. It would have to be incremental, of course, not all at once. Most research I’ve seen indicate that minimum wage increases in the past do not cause the economic upheaval in the labor market you imply. Don’t have time to get into the weeds about it, but the research is out there.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

From the article:

On the whole, the study estimates, the average low-wage worker in the city lost $125 a month because of the hike in the minimum.

[LumRaiderFan]

30 minutes ago, UT alum said:

When it comes to public works (i.e. infrastructure), defense, environment, social programs, and other work for the public good, I say yes. 

What defines “enough” varies from individual to individual, but the key word in that post was “selfish”.

So you do trust the fed gov to decide what is best for the public good and you also trust them to define what is "selfish" as far as what one needs?

 

[UT alum]

22 hours ago, stevenash said:

Do you believe that the government is capable of "correcting this inequity" that you believe exists?  Who will make the decision on how much is enough and how much is not enough?

Government policy is an important piece of the correction. How about some rules easing access to private capital for small business startups and expansion? I’m old enough to remember when you could walk into Silsbee State or First National bank and with a good idea and good reputation borrow $15k, 25k, something like that, on a handshake and signature, with the decision made by people who lived here and knew the community. Now those decisions are made by people you won’t even see. They’re in Alabama or Dallas or somewhere that only knows Silsbee because there’s a branch there. Those consolidations have screwed small business growth in small communities. Both parties passed the regs allowing it, but big banking interests wrote the legislation, and as a country we could, if united, get some rewrites done on some of those type laws. I’m telling you, Citizens United decision hurt the power of the vote a lot more than gerrymandering or voter I’d laws.

[UT alum]

7 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

So you do trust the fed gov to decide what is best for the public good and you also trust them to define what is "selfish" as far as what one needs?

 

That’s what it’s there for. To address the public good through representatives elected by an informed electorate. I don’t need the fed to define selfish. You know it when you see it.

What’s the alternative? You think multinational corporations care more for the public good or quarter to quarter reports to shareholders? They are more about self interest than public interest, as should be. Government has its role in any civilized society. Active participation by informed voters is the key to effective government.

[UT alum]

18 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

From the article:

On the whole, the study estimates, the average low-wage worker in the city lost $125 a month because of the hike in the minimum.

It needs to be done nationally to keep the playing field level. State by state increases are more problematic.

[LumRaiderFan]

40 minutes ago, UT alum said:

It needs to be done nationally to keep the playing field level. State by state increases are more problematic.

So you think a hamburger joint that employs 50 folks can just somehow absorb that increase without (1) laying folks off, (2) raising prices or (3) somehow magically selling more burgers? 

[LumRaiderFan]

46 minutes ago, UT alum said:

That’s what it’s there for. To address the public good through representatives elected by an informed electorate. I don’t need the fed to define selfish. You know it when you see it.

What’s the alternative? You think multinational corporations care more for the public good or quarter to quarter reports to shareholders? They are more about self interest than public interest, as should be. Government has its role in any civilized society. Active participation by informed voters is the key to effective government.

The alternative is the fed gov sticking to the Constitution on the limited powers it has and the states handling the rest.

I don’t want my fed taxes paying for healthcare, planned parenthood, education, the list goes on and on.

The fed gov was given limited powers on purpose in the Constitution.  Libs like Obama disagree and call it a “Charter of negative liberties”.

That flawed mindset has us trillions of dollars in debt due to spending on bloated ineffective programs that are too large to manage and keep out corruption.

[UT alum]

10 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

So you think a hamburger joint that employs 50 folks can just somehow absorb that increase without (1) laying folks off, (2) raising prices or (3) somehow magically selling more burgers? 

If everyone making hamburgers has to, yeah. Prices may rise some, but I’d rather pay more for a burger when the money’s going to wages than I would pay more for a car because of a tariff (euphemism for tax).

[stevenash]

8 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

The alternative is the fed gov sticking to the Constitution on the limited powers it has and the states handling the rest.

I don’t want my fed taxes paying for healthcare, planned parenthood, education, the list goes on and on.

The fed gov was given limited powers on purpose in the Constitution.  Libs like Obama disagree and call it a “Charter of negative liberties”.

That flawed mindset has us trillions of dollars in debt due to spending on bloated ineffective programs that are too large to manage and keep out corruption.

An oversized and overly intrusive government has us trillions of dollars in debt due to bloated ineffective programs that are too large to manage and keep out corruption.

[UT alum]

6 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

The alternative is the fed gov sticking to the Constitution on the limited powers it has and the states handling the rest.

I don’t want my fed taxes paying for healthcare, planned parenthood, education, the list goes on and on.

The fed gov was given limited powers on purpose in the Constitution.  Libs like Obama disagree and call it a “Charter of negative liberties”.

That flawed mindset has us trillions of dollars in debt due to spending on bloated ineffective programs that are too large to manage and keep out corruption.

I’ll leave it to the Supreme Court to interpret the scope of powers enumerated in the Constitution.

The largest percentage increase in debt occurred during Reagan’s tenure-the tax cuts didn’t pay for themselves, we did. The OMB estimates the last round of cuts will add a trillion to the debt in 10 years. Don’t blame it all on “bloated ineffective programs”. 

As for healthcare, why do all other industrialized countries spend about 10% of GDP on healthcare while we spend north of 15% with overall outcomes not any better?

[stevenash]

Hmmm    overall outcomes not any better?  And yet so many people come here for medical care.  M.D. Anderson has as many international customers as they do domestic ones.  I am really amazed that we  so often refer to "the other countries" ( as thought they "know" something that we don't) as though we should emulate them and this country is the top economic and medical destination on earth.

 

 

[stevenash]

UT alum- Let me pose a hypothetical to you and then please convince me I am wrong

If we, for illustrative purposes, establish a new country with 100 residents and give each of them 1 million dollars to get started.  I submit to you that, after 10 years, some of them will preserve the million dollars, some will increase it, and some will lose it all for one reason or another.  At the beginning, the wealth was divided equally amongst all of the residents. After those first ten years, someone  ( who claims to be very caring and compassionate) can step up and claim the system is unfair because perhaps 20% or 30% don't share in the wealth of their great country.  I am  going to further submit that, at that point, a "fairness/equality tax "is instituted to give those who no longer have their million, another chance.  I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that, 10 years later, the same circumstance will exist with virtually all  of the people in the same situation that they were in after the first 10 years.  I firmly believe that government should have a very limited role in those issues and that there will ALWAYS be a segment of the population that are the have nots.  The federal government cannot alter that as Venezuela and Greece have so obviously proved.  The result in both of those cases is that nobody has much of anything because the government, essentially said that they could distribute wealth more effectively than the markets can.

[Reagan]

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

I’ll leave it to the Supreme Court to interpret the scope of powers enumerated in the Constitution.

The largest percentage increase in debt occurred during Reagan’s tenure-the tax cuts didn’t pay for themselves, we did. The OMB estimates the last round of cuts will add a trillion to the debt in 10 years. Don’t blame it all on “bloated ineffective programs”. 

As for healthcare, why do all other industrialized countries spend about 10% of GDP on healthcare while we spend north of 15% with overall outcomes not any better?

Unless facts tend to bore some, during this period you stated, revenues almost doubled to treasury.  Dims made deals with Reagan to cut the size of Government but never followed through with their promises.  Imagine that!  They saw that extra money coming and couldn't stand it.  they had to keep spending.  Tax cuts and Capitalism works every time it's tried.  Look to Valenzuela to see the outcome of your philosophy!

[UT alum]

26 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Unless facts tend to bore some, during this period you stated, revenues almost doubled to treasury.  Dims made deals with Reagan to cut the size of Government but never followed through with their promises.  Imagine that!  They saw that extra money coming and couldn't stand it.  they had to keep spending.  Tax cuts and Capitalism works every time it's tried.  Look to Valenzuela to see the outcome of your philosophy!

Got a source to cite on that? I’m going to do a little research of my own. If you’re going to use Venezuela as your socialist model all the time, don’t forget to mentionthe corruption, and dictatorial leadership leading to ineffective governance.

Why don’t you check out Norway for a much better example of a functioning social democracy. I mean, even Trump wondered why we couldn’t get more people from Norway to immigrate than from third world countries. Duh. They don’t want to leave.

[baddog]

Like I said, it was a tongue in cheek comment. 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up