Soxbadger

So you would penalize an innocent child for the crime of their parents? You would create a class of people that potentially would have no country to call home. I refuse to penalize an innocent child just because their parents walked across a fictitious border that was created to try and preserve entitlement for others. In my opinion we should accept all who seek a better life in our country. I feel that the least I can do is try and provide the same opportunity to others that was provided to me.

Oh I thought the joke was: "TSA not going far enough"

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 04:57 PM) I should have said the illegal incentives. The system works best when immigrants fill jobs not able to be filled by Americans. The problem is we have 10% unemployment now, and jobs are being underpriced by people who don't have to compete on a legal basis. All this does is artificially hold down the people's wages who actually financially support this country. Err negative. Jobs are being overpriced due to artificial interference by the US govt. If there was no minimum wage and the labor supply was unregulated, you would see an absolute decrease in wages. If anyone could work for any price, you shouldnt have 10% unemployment, because undoubtedly employers would hire workers cheaper which would allow them to hire more workers. The two things that are artificial are: 1) Minimum wage 2) Creating a class of people who cant legally work (illegal immigrants) American wages are artificially high, this is why you see factories going to Vietnam, China and India, because the labor is far cheaper there. Why would any business pay $8 an hour to some one to stuff cotton in a toy, when they can pay some one $.25 an hour?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 04:54 PM) The incentive to come here is to live in a better country and have a job to feed your family. And if we destroy our country enough, eventually we wont have an immigration problem!

I should have been more clear, I wasnt accusing you of being a libertarian, more accusing those "tea-party" members or "Republicans" who like to say they are libertarian because they like to throw around small govt ideas. Which is why I said it went to the heart of this thread.

You mean create a bigger govt to further control the supply of labor? That is fine if you are into big govt and expanding the govt's role in US economic policy. But thats not libertarian. If you are a libertarian you want the least possible govt interference in business. It just goes to the heart of this thread, to be a real libertarian you have to believe in the principles, not just say "Down with big govt", you actually have to take steps to reduce the govt interference in business. That would mean taking out artificial restrictions on labor.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 04:23 PM) You want to add millions of people to the roles, most of whom won't contribute anything of merit to the system, and don't think total debt will change? I don't blame you for not wanting to defend that thesis. Because that is not my position at all. I want to add people based on the amount that they have paid into the system. The amount most illegal immigrants will have paid into the system is $0. Therefore if they were to become citizens their benefit would start at "$0". I would allow for expedited payment into the system where immigrants could "opt in" and have to pay vastly higher social security and taxes to receive the same benefits as some one who had been paying into the system for longer. I have made this very clear time and time again, people just tend to ignore the idea that just because you grant them citizenship, does not mean it equals a free check. I would think most immigrants would understand that becoming a US citizen means that there are responsibilities and one of them is paying into the SS system if you want its benefit. Right now you get different benefits based on how much you pay in, why in the world would it be any different for legalized immigrants? Furthermore, what is "anything of merit" to the system? Illegal immigrants come from all economic classes (well except the super rich, because if you are super rich you can buy a path to citizenship by creating enough jobs), to believe that no illegal immigrant will ever become a millionaire is absurd. That is nothing more than American elitism, because I believe that anyone given the opportunity can make something of themselves.

I dont believe that I am here defending my thesis, if you want to make an argument why debt service would matter in this case, Ill gladly read it, but on a free message Im not doing the research for another person's argument. I dont see why the debt service should change.

Well weve already had a 16 page debate on it (depending on how many posts you view). Im not going to rehash the same things, but here is the nuts and bolts math: http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...8952&st=200 /end Scene

You believe its an acceptable idea to deny those born in the US of US citizenship?

But there is no correlation between anchor babies, illegal immigrants and the US spending more money. If anything you would likely have people who are paying into a system that never get benefits. More specifically, SS# etc are like pyramid scams where the present tax payer is actually paying for some one elses benefit, in hopes that when they get old some one will be there to pay for their benefit. For a pyramid scam to work, you need a constant influx of people at the bottom of the pyramid. Legalizing immigrants would create a huge influx at the bottom of the pyramid, while creating almost no new liabilities (no one is arguing that immigrants should get benefits they did not pay for). Not to mention there are hundreds of other arguments to support immigration (Ive posted numerous graphs on this website so Im not going to rehash). The only thing preventing immigration does is artificially decrease the supply of labor, which artificially creates demand in labor, which results in the price of labor artificially increasing. Because businesses are forced to hire artificially expensive labor, they are unable to be as efficient as they could be if we allowed the labor market to be free as suggested in capitalist theory. The argument that the US govt should restrict the supply of labor is ultimately arguing for an increase in govt power and govt economic control, which should be opposed by any libertarian.

I disagree, while I think its ultimately unlikely to succeed, I definitely think that immigration issues are going to become major focal points of certain campaigns. Furthermore, the fact that people even are willing to consider something that I believe is so fundamentally un-American makes me believe that certain perspectives have already been warped. I hope that it dies quickly, but I think that there are people out there that genuinely believe that this is an acceptable idea.

Everyone who wants to be a US citizen should be free to become one. Everyone who is born in the US is a citizen. This will be a battle for the soul of America.

Allegedly Wisconsin will play NIU at Soldier Field at some point.

Unfortunately 40 people is just a drop in the bucket. Youre talking about $700 billion over 10 years, or $70bil per year. Even the richest American cant afford to give the US govt 1-10bil a year.

Most of them were presumably jewish so I expect that they own at least several news outlets as well as minority interests in production studios. I mean we are talking about the great liberal media, dont they own it all? (Hope you can catch the sarcasm)

I think times are changing, it just depends on how many news cycles run this repeatedly like tea party stuff.

http://www.fiscalstrength.com/ I guess there is a new anti-tea party and its a bunch of rich people who want to pay more taxes. Their position should be common sense, but unfortunately not everyone can agree on what should be the simplest solution to help balance the budget, let the tax cuts expire.

Whats behind that padding? A brick wall, with no give. A few inches of padding wont protect some one who goes head first into a brick wall. 3/4 of the endzone has less than 5 feet behind the goal. There are plenty of times where a wr or db runs out of the back of the end zone. I had wanted Wisconsin to play in Wrigley, but after seeing the field set up Im glad it will never happen. I dont see why anyone would want players to take that type of risk.

Its not that rare that a wr or cb runs through the back of the endzone. The goal post is inches, this is feet of brick wall. When I saw it I couldnt imagine how they could play in that end zone without significant risk, Im glad they made the change because a college kid shouldnt have to risk injury over design stupidity.

I know some in the Northern Suburbs, check places like Friday's, etc. Also Chinese restaurants, Greek restaurants. Thats what has worked for us in the past.

Nice to hear Fringe delivered again last night, I dvred it to watch the Bears game. Outside of the old standards, Fringe and The Event are probably the 2 shows I look forward to the most each week. Also Human Target's season debut was solid and they added a hot new character which only should increase my viewing pleasure. With regard to HIMYM, I thought that Chase's lady from House (the architecture girl) was going to maybe be something more. But she is married to the Captain so she cant fit the description of Ted's wife (she had to be roommates with Summer from OC), so Im not sure if shes just a temporary character who is going to get Ted to reevaluate his choice to design GNB's headquarters.

Cover 2 isnt the ideal scheme to play against the Eagles (imo).

Haha yah Illinois some how always does well in Wisconsin.

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Nov 18, 2010 -> 03:24 PM) In the past 9 years, Wisconsin has been in the top 25 to start the season 6 times. Interesting I would have thought it was slightly less than 50%. I just consider a team to be overrated if they were constantly rated top 15 or so, and then generally didnt even make the tournament or were out in the first round. I dont see a team that is ranked in the 20s who makes it to the second round as overrated. The second round game they would likely be an underdog if they were worse than a 5 seed.