Defender of My Waterpark wrote:BillHahn
Quote:
I want jobs to stay in America. That some of them go to illegal aliens is not my preferred choice, but I see it as a neccesary evil.
Why is it neccesary that American jobs go to illegal imigrants? I don't want an answer to any other question but this one. Why is it neccesary that jobs, for which American citizens are qualified and eligible, go to an migrant who's mere presence on our soil is a crime?
.
It's only neccessary in cases where the existing business model will not allow a higher wage. Your conservative principles (if you are indeed loyal to your chosen cause) inherently support this, as the affordable labor pool benefits the business owner, and creates commerce. Why, there may even be a strong inheritance or two that was created by such use of cheap illegal labor!
As I've noted, take this cheap labor resource away, and many of the business enterprises would not even exist...and thus, Americans would not even have a shot at jobs that simply
do not exist.
This is most basic logic, unclouded by rhetoric or agenda. And, it is indeed moderate, so some folks will have a hard time getting their heads around it.
bk3k wrote: That being said Bill - the reason I intentionally did not underline your use of "Whitey" etc is that you probably should substitute the term "legal citizen" to me more accurate. It has nothing to do with race, but that problem aside, you are right on. Some people don't get it, and here is the disconnect - as I mentioned above.
In re-reading my post, I agree. I have been trying to repress my "inner political debate demon" as of late, but I failed to keep him in the box here! Of course, I pressed the issue of race hard in my post, due to its inherent relevance to the issue at hand. Nevertheless, you are correct...the term "legal citizen" is much more accurate, even if using it would take away a prime button-pushing opportunity for me! For sure, there are much more than just white people at the lower end of the employment spectrum.
bk3k, they chose not to because they are seeing economic policies of the current administration and Congress as an uninviting climate for expansion. They have realized these profits by tightening their belts to account for decreased revenues. That's how business operates. When your income drops, you find ways to cut costs, and quite simply, labor is the biggest cost. I've gone over this before, in discussions of tax burdens placed on employers. The end result is that it's the employed which get hurt, not the business. The business will do what it has to in order to survive, and thrive, in whatever climate it's got.
bk3k wrote:It just doesn't work that way in the real world. Sure, you believe it. Most economists do not. Even life-time Conservative economic guru Alan Greenspan(which I linked above) is calling for the expiration of the very tax cuts he himself helped usher in. He has publicly said that he regrets ever pushing for them in the first place. But you think YOU know better?
Greenspan may be an economic guru, but I don't trust him. Quite frankly, I believe he's part of the elitist political sphere.
As for not working that way in the real world? It doesn't matter what "most economists" believe. The data supports it.
For example, the most recent tax cuts, in 2003, resulted in increased tax revenues for each of the following years, after declining for the previous years (from it's peak in 2000) (trillions of dollars):
2000--2.025
2001--1.991
2002--1.853
2003--1.782
2004--1.880
2005--2.153
2006--2.407
2007--2.568
2008--2.524
Note that while rates were lowered, the result was an increase in revenue, when the revenue had begun to decline. This same type of turn around can be shown under the Regan tax cuts in the 80's, the Kennedy tax cuts in the 60s, and the Harding-Coolidge cuts of the 20's. Each tax cut noted was followed by an increase in revenue. This isn't my opinion, it's historical data. You can verify the numbers on IRS.gov
I have posted more data like this directly from the IRS data bases in older threads. I can't recall the titles at the moment, but it's there. Probably going back over 18 months at this point. I'll try to dig them up later and post links, rather than filling this thread with them.
Also worthy of noting that during these tax cuts, the percentage of the tax burden which was footed by the poor declined, and the percentage paid by the rich increased. This pulls the rug out from under anyone claiming the Bush tax cuts were hand-outs to the wealthy. They helped everyone, but mostly, the country as a whole.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Wednesday, July 28, 2010 10:18 AM
racist.
.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Defender of My Waterpark wrote:Quote:
I want jobs to stay in America. That some of them go to illegal aliens is not my preferred choice, but I see it as a neccesary evil.
Why is it neccesary that American jobs go to illegal imigrants? I don't want an answer to any other question but this one. Why is it neccesary that jobs, for which American citizens are qualified and eligible, go to an migrant who's mere presence on our soil is a crime?
Because no American will be hunched mid waist, in 90*+ weather, in the rain, working from sunrise to sundown, working 6-7 days a week, at less than $3 per hr. If not, these employers would be hiring Americans, no?
Why do you think the early Europeans brought over the blacks from Africa to the Americas... hey, someone had to produce in those fields.
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
Why limit them to the tomato fields? Why not let them build houses, wire electrical, set up plumbing etc. They'd probably do it for $3 per hour right? Other than the trade unions, who'd complain?
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
I don't feel they fill "that need". Had illegals been a serious threat to such positions, they'd already be riddled with same. They've been here for centuries nad have not penetrated skilled positions, and there's a plethora of reasons why.
I really doubt they are near the threat to American employment or tax-payin' that you fear. Among other things, they are an incentive to Americans to better themselves via education and job experience, lest same American be forced to compete with the illegals for sh!t positions. I can understand that motivation.
No. I wouldn't. I'd do it by the pound or bushel or whatever. This is the USA, and Americans don't work for $3 per hour doing anything.
If you think its ok to allow illegals to work for less than the minimum wage, then by that same mindset, you'd support corporations shipping jobs overseas where people will work for $3.00 per day. Same thing. Side note: where are the liberal feelgooders defending these underpaid darlings that work in such deplorable conditions?
I'd feel the same way if the 'cans were harvesting tomatoes for $20 lb. It isn't what kind of work they are doing, whether they are good people, etc. The fact is, they broke the law the minute they crawled through the drainpipe and stood up on US soil.
.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Defender of My Waterpark wrote:Why limit them to the tomato fields? Why not let them build houses, wire electrical, set up plumbing etc. They'd probably do it for $3 per hour right? Other than the trade unions, who'd complain?
Would you do your job for $3 per hr?
so then everyone should be okay because what used to be paying jobs are now going to illegals for half the money? construction, landscaping never used to pay 3 bucks an hour when i was working them. so because they are illegal we should be okay with corporations and companies taking advantage of there illegal status and screwing them over? the whole americans won't do those jobs is a crock, i worked for a landscaping company for about 5 years, i loved it. came to the point where i came close to buying the company but i opted out. most of our employees were american. white, black there was no issue ever finding guys to do the job. now all the sudden people are trying to claim that no one would do those jobs. thats a complete cop out.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
These companies pay them three per hour, because what are the 'cans gonna do? Contact the government and report them?
.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Defender of My Waterpark wrote:No. I wouldn't. I'd do it by the pound or bushel or whatever. This is the USA, and Americans don't work for $3 per hour doing anything.
If you think its ok to allow illegals to work for less than the minimum wage, then by that same mindset, you'd support corporations shipping jobs overseas where people will work for $3.00 per day. Same thing. Side note: where are the liberal feelgooders defending these underpaid darlings that work in such deplorable conditions?
I'd feel the same way if the 'cans were harvesting tomatoes for $20 lb. It isn't what kind of work they are doing, whether they are good people, etc. The fact is, they broke the law the minute they crawled through the drainpipe and stood up on US soil.
.
But, doing so creates more jobs Scotty. I mean your employer could hire more because he/she does not have to pay you that generous salary, right? Minimum wage and raising it? That systems just kills employers and corporations just like a "living wage" right? C'mon sacrifice for the greater good of the company Scotty.
Whats-a-matter Scotty, suddenly you don't like being in the position that millions in this nations have to deal everyday?
for me it all comes back to the fact that they are here ILLEGALLY. kinda like saying, well. i broke into your house, but its cool because my new job is only paying me 3 bucks an hour. id almost bet you'd still want me arrrested for breaking into your house.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
I don't care if they are being paid a dollar per day, or $500 per hour. The fact that they are here at all illegally, is the issue.
If they were to get work visas, legal resident status etc, they could voluntarily work all day for a bowl of gruel and a lollipop....and I wouldn't care. I don't believe in a mandatory minimum wage, safe working conditions yes, but not mandating that employer pay an employee a certain amount.
You sound frustrated goodwrench. You will always be about this issue.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Defender of My Waterpark wrote:I don't care if they are being paid a dollar per day, or $500 per hour. The fact that they are here at all illegally, is the issue.
If they were to get work visas, legal resident status etc, they could voluntarily work all day for a bowl of gruel and a lollipop....and I wouldn't care. I don't believe in a mandatory minimum wage, safe working conditions yes, but not mandating that employer pay an employee a certain amount.
You sound frustrated goodwrench. You will always be about this issue.
Oh,I dunno...seems to me the frustrated ones are those who do nothing but insist over and over that it's just inherently "wrong", but fail to understand that their government's been looking the other way on this for...well, centuries now.
In other words, you! That's gotta be frustrating as all hell
Defender of My Waterpark wrote:I don't care if they are being paid a dollar per day, or $500 per hour. The fact that they are here at all illegally, is the issue.
If they were to get work visas, legal resident status etc, they could voluntarily work all day for a bowl of gruel and a lollipop....and I wouldn't care. I don't believe in a mandatory minimum wage, safe working conditions yes, but not mandating that employer pay an employee a certain amount.
You sound frustrated goodwrench. You will always be about this issue.
Sure they are illegal, just like so many other races, religions and cultures. Problem here is, enforcement will just look for one particular type of person. What's more, it is the one that these employers welcome with open arms. Yet, I have not heard the Arizona governor resolving the root of the problem... business. Why again? This is all a feel good scam to achieve absolutely nothing. This is an issue so the retrograde folks can feel superior to the ones that "don't look like or talk the same language as me." If I was wrong... law enforcement would not be getting one specific guideline on who to profile, which is ONLY Central Americans.
If you are after "illegals" then go for it, but if you are just targeting one specific group, just call it: "We are after Central Americans." Why hide under the illegals blanket, when you're really just after one type.
Tell me, are you one of those people that when something leaks, you only just clean up the mess and think I just fixed the problem?
Also a little law and constitutional knowledge. Read the Preamble of the our Constitution and how it starts off with: "We The People," not "We the Citizens," not "We the ones with a Green Card," not "We The Whites," not "We the English speaking only," much how the original settlers were immigrants and stayed on this land, the constitution protects everyone that resides on the land as well, whether illegal or not. Sure, you one may not like it, but that is how it was written and we ALL have to eat it now. We are not going to change it, just so to adapt it into the times. So fuss all you want, as there was illegal migration from Europe, Asia, Americas, Africa, Middle East, for the past 200+ years of the US and nothing changed, so don't expect to much different today. If I'm lying, we would all be British descendants today. Heh, there's just to much "National Interest" involved to ever make a change.
As for the frustration... how many racial deride threads like these are you going on now? And I'm the frustrated one? Right on Scotty.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:LOL. I laugh at your arguments that it's somehow foolish to argue something just because "well, it's just always been that way". There are things going on about it right now, and debate about it has to do with current events, not how long things have been that way.
With that exactly being said and being that it is long standing, suddenly it is an issue? Why not bring this up 4, 7,10 years ago. People bring up issues today as if the problem just started. Case-in-point, the Tea-party and their BS rant that government today is spending to much money. Yes, and where were you when your party was doing just the same? You can't complain on one and ignore the other, right? Two way street here.
This is just that; ALWAYS was an issue... and guess what.... it will ALWAYS not get resolved.
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:LOL. I laugh at your arguments that it's somehow foolish to argue something just because "well, it's just always been that way". There are things going on about it right now, and debate about it has to do with current events, not how long things have been that way.
Nah, he's just talking about "frustration". It's obvious who's frustrated, lol.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:But, doing so creates more jobs Scotty. I mean your employer could hire more because he/she does not have to pay you that generous salary, right?
LOL. I'd love to hear how the company that employs illegal workers would hire more legal workers with the money they saved, rather than just hire more illegals at the sub-par wages. You contradict yourself like crazy. In one thread you'll claim that companies won't hire because they're greedy, yet in this thread you're claiming that a company saving money by hiring illegal workers would spend the money on legal workers. Priceless.
Reading and understand a sarcastic conversation that you're not involved in > You.
Can't expect to much from you any how.
R.W.E of the J.B.O wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:With that exactly being said and being that it is long standing, suddenly it is an issue? Why not bring this up 4, 7,10 years ago. People bring up issues today as if the problem just started. Case-in-point, the Tea-party and their BS rant that government today is spending to much money. Yes, and where were you when your party was doing just the same? You can't complain on one and ignore the other, right? Two way street here.
This is just that; ALWAYS was an issue... and guess what.... it will ALWAYS not get resolved.
It has been brought up multiple times over the years, and it's always the same debate. However, right now a state has decided in light of the Fed's lack of progress in taking care of the problem, they would do something. This has escalated the debate. FYI, there have been immigration reform bills proposed repeatedly. It just never gets passed.
And with that being said...
when one
"argue something just because 'well, it's just always been that way'."
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
Reading is a real cesspool bunch of worthless hispanic that steal hondas, seriously 9/10 cars that are stolen around here end up there especially hondas, glad I dont drive those pieces of @!#$, to top it off why would you steal such a worthless and cheap car? Why not steal something nice like say a caddy
1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85
