Soxbadger

Northside, Sorry Im not seeing it. I never specifically mentioned you, nor did I even comment on your reasoning or rationale. There is a reason I used "them" and "they", instead of "you". I was speaking in general, not specific. Not to mention I was aiming my commentary against people in power, not against individuals on a message board. So I really dont see how I called you a racist. Jenks, Want me to play the victim card too? Jenks thinks Im retarded. Not to mention, you specifically attack a person, where as I merely make a historical correlation. No Im not saying that all. Im saying that WE (this includes myself) need to be careful when we give govt power this type of power. In fact if you read my posts I never mention the term Nazi, because I was trying to show that these people ARENT NAZIS. How you are interpreting it any other way is beyond imagination. No I was saying that the rationale was used by GERMAN CITIZENS. Not every German in 1935 was a Nazi. Not every German wanted to kill Jews. Most of them just wanted a better life for their family. They didnt realize what Hitler was going to use his power for. The point I keep stressing is that when you give govt this type of power, it can be used for evil. That we must not let govt have this type of power because govt have used it for evil before. I dont use the term Nazi as a synonym for German Citizens. So no, I wasnt making any of the statements that you and Northside keep trying to force upon me. If you actually cared about the argument that should be enough. My clarification should have been enough. But you dont care about the actual immigration argument, you just want to try and beat my argument down by attacking me. Thats fine, Im a big boy Ive handled far worse than this. The only reason you make the point, is because you know that isnt what I meant. If it was what I meant, id have said: "youre a racist" or "youre a Nazi" I wouldnt waste my breathe defending the fact I didnt make those statements, if that was really what I meant to imply. Why the hell would I do that? I stand by my statements, if I thought you were a Nazi, youd know. If I thought Northside was a racist, hed know. I actually went out of my way to try and make sure the posts were written in the most non-offensive way as possible, because I didnt want anyone to turn this into some stupid argument about being offended. Unfortunately that is the nature of internet debate. Attack the person, not the message. How is "You called me a Nazi" at all productive? Especially when Ive multiple times said that is not what I meant. If you really cared, youd get over it. You wont see me bring up the retarded attack ever again. Why? Because I know Im not retarded. Retardation is a medical condition that has certain requirements. I do not fit these requirements. So if you want to call me retarded, thats fine, but it erodes your argument. At least I dont make personal insults. I call it like I see it.

So because its not reality, we shouldnt strive to make it reality? Why not start the process of moving towards a goal of eliminating illegal immigration? You dont end illegal immigration by having bigger fences, or making it a felony, or whatever punishment you want to give it. You end illegal immigration by making legal immigration so easy that it would be stupid to immigrate illegally. Sure some people would still do it, but the vast majority would legally immigrate, which would be the first step to solving the problem.

My argument is to get rid of illegal immigration (allow for legal immigration). So that number supports my argument. By not allowing legal immigration, you have 100 billion a year of costs. If we were to get rid of illegal immigration, youd have 100 billion a year of savings. I wont even look to prove your numbers, because your numbers just supported my argument. Thanks!

The point of the correlation, which I thought I made clear, was to show that the road to hell can be paved with good intentions. That the people of Germany thought that it may be a good idea, but looking back historically, it was not such a good idea. In fact if you look at my post, I never even use the term Nazi, I instead use the term "German". After balta talked about goodwins law I made it crystal clear the point: How do you rectify your argument in this thread with the fact that I never once say anything that closely resembles, you are a Nazi? You cant, because it just isnt there. The point of the statement was to show that people with good intentions can often give the govt to much power. And that we should be distrustful of the govt being given so much power, because govt in the pasts have used that power for evil. /shrugs If you think thats suggesting anyone is a Nazi, then Im just dumbfounded. IE When I make a good argument you attack the person (me) not the argument (the fact that in 1935 prior to the holocaust the people of Germany allowed the Germany govt to dictate who was a citizen.) Thats a fact, you cant argue that it didnt happen, because it did. If you want to some how argue that taking away citizenship rights in 1930's Germany is some how different than 2010 US, that would be one thing. But to act as if it didnt happen, is mind blowing. So yeah, I deal with this all the time. You dont have the bullets to beat my argument, so you try and disrupt the argument by making ridiculous claims that Im calling some one a Nazi. Therefore making me defend myself instead of focusing on the true facts. Its a common tactic, not my first rodeo.

Really? Please provide the specific quote of where I say "if you think X, you are Y", please find anything even remotely similar to that. My statement was: Youll notice an important part of the post states "If you let THEM". Notice how I did not specifically state anyone in the thread nor anyone in the debate, as I was not making specific reference to anyone in the thread. But keep playing the victim like Jenksismyb****. I made a very apt comparison to how the in 1935 Germany they restricted citizenship. I have no clue how that suggests I am calling anyone a Nazi. I dont believe I even said anything like "These people are Nazis". I just merely pointed out a historical correlation. If you feel that any of these statements offended or were directed at you, that was your own conclusion. There is nothing in any of my statements that remotely suggests I am calling anyone a racist or a Nazi. But if you guys want to play the victim card, feel free, not like it is going to persuade me to take it easy on your argument.

I always thought the market was dictated by supply and demand, not govt interference. There should be no such thing as undermarket prices, because the market dictates what the prices are. If I as an employer can only pay $5 an hour, losing illegal immigrants wont make more jobs, it will just mean 1 less person is employed. I cant just pay a guy $8+ if I dont have the money. The problem is that you have a govt interfering with the most fundamental ideas of capitalism, supply and demand. As long as you allow the govt to mess with the economy this way, you are going to have problems. The best solution is to take govt controls (as best as we can) out of the equation, and let the market truly be free. This is called small govt. What you want is big govt. I dont really like big govt.

Id like to see some numbers to support this. For the sake of argument Im willing to concede that many immigrants may be in the lower levels of income. I disagree that it will have the results you claim unless provided with proof. Furthermore, I do not believe that economic wealth should be a factor in deciding whether or not some one is deserving of freedom. If my family is rich, should I get to make rules that force poor people to leave? According to you they are a negative to me, so why cant we just change the law to remove anyone who isnt in the top 10% of earners? Wouldnt that make my life easier? Not to mention Ive consistently stated that immigrants should not get benefits unless they pay in. This would solve all of the problems you suggest are going to be created. If none of the 20million immigrants are eligible for social security, how will they collect it? I have yet to see one argument made about how it will cost the US more money to legalize immigrants, when compared to how much it costs to enforce immigration. If the legal immigrant is getting no benefits, having to pay taxes and the US govt is spending less money, that should create more revenue for the US. Lowering expenses while increasing revenue is simple finances. I guess I just dont fear poor people and how much of a drain they will be on me or my family. But if we are getting to make rules because people are poor, Id like to make them against US citizens as well. Maybe we should weigh votes based on your income level. The higher the income, the more weight your vote has. That way we can really show all those poor people. It would be nice to finally get rid of all those people who earn less then me. (I hope you can sense the sarcasm.)

Yeah I cant imagine that Ill enjoy offensive coordinator.

Going to be breaking Madden in this weekend. Always interesting to play those first few games.

Well depends on how you define suffer. Helping 1 person even for 1 cent is suffering, thats money I could have used. There is always a breaking point, but I wont just sit here without factual evidence and argue that we are close to that point. Maybe one day in the future there would be a legitimate scarcity crisis and we would have to evaluate our decisions. But right now the US is one of the least densely populated countries. I actually dont think that at all. I think that you need more people to join the system so that they can pay for the current people who are being paid out. The first rule to a pyramid scheme is that you never want to be on the bottom of the pyramid. How do you prevent yourself from being on the bottom? Make sure that people join after you. If you truly believe that this is nothing but a pyramid scam (Ponzi originally wasnt a scam artist, he actually found a legitimate way to make money off of stamps, eventually he just got lazy) then youd want more people to join at the bottom. I dont think there should be any restriction except for you cant be a wanted criminal and maybe rules with regard to convicted felons of certain crimes. So most restrictions I would consider unnecessary, but would be open to ideas on what may be some necessary restrictions.

Why is that funny? The amnesty act was passed in 1986. The deficit didnt occur because of the amnesty act. Im not sure if these numbers are right but im to lazy to use FRASER (Federal archive for economic research). http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-debt-o...ited-states.htm 1980 $711.9 1981 $789.4 1982 $924.6 1983 $1,137.3 1984 $1,307.0 1985 $1,507.3 1986 $1,740.6 1987 $1,889.8 1988 $2,051.6 1989 $2,190.7 Strange that after the amnesty act, the debt actually grows at a slower pace. Almost as if the amnesty had no impact on the US debt... Seems to support the idea that allowing more legal immigrants wont all of a sudden bankrupt America because: " immigrants are jobs, immigrants are consumers. There is no reason to believe that immigrants will be nothing but a net loss, almost all economic capitalist theory would suggest the opposite, immigrants should be a net gain."

Im not about to get into a deficit spending debate because I think it has nothing to do with the argument. But if youd like a concise argument on the deficit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png Deficit spikes during World War II, which makes sense with the govt spending more in war time production. Deficit then decreases until 1980. What happens in the early 1980's that could possible cause the deficit to increase. (See previous post, It wasnt until 1964 that taxes are dropped to 70%. 81 drop to 50%) When population remains constant and taxes decrease, the only logical outcome is revenues decreasing. If govt spending increases while revenue decreases, you have debt. I understand the theory behind supply side economics, but it just hasnt seem to work in practice. Here is a 1982 article from Cato:http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=879 Now of course as its a CATO article they argue that tax increases have negative impact, and I agree that a certain point they do, I just think we have yet to determine that threshold. But there is no evidence to suggest any correlation between the deficit and immigration. Immigration increased from 1950-1980 while the deficit decreased. It wasnt until Reagan took office that the deficit became out of control. A stark reminder that just because you say your small govt doesnt mean that you are.

Northsidesox72. And I should have corrected myself, its not libelous, its just a misstatement of fact.

Huh? In World War II the tax rate was in the 90s's. In 1950 the tax rate was in the 90's. In 1964 the tax rate was in the 90's. In 2010 the tax rate is far lower than the 90's. My first post clearly explains this: The web page you linked shows the exact same trend as I pointed out. Here are the immigration numbers: 1931-40 528,431 1941-50 1,035,039 1951-60 2,515,479 1961-70 3,321,677 1971-80 4,493,314 1981-90 7,338,062 As immigration increased from 1950 to 1990, taxes either remained constant, or decreased. Which is exactly what I said in my previous post: So the website you posted, has the exact same facts and trends as I suggested. Tax rates went down after WWII (I never said instantly, I said from 1940 to 1990) and during that time period immigration increased. This just doesnt make sense. Social security, medicare and medicaid are supported by citizens. If we were to increase the amount of citizens you would 1) increase the amount of benefits given and 2) increase the amount of revenue raised. It doesnt take a genius to create a system where immigrants will be legalized and get benefits respective to what they put into the system. Not everyone gets the same social security benefits, you can pay more money in, you can take money quicker, etc. I dont think any rationale person would suggest that an immigrant who is 65 and comes to the US and is then given citizenship is deserving of the same social security benefits as some one who paid into the system for 45 years. I do think its reasonable to allow immigrants to buy into the system at a higher percentage rate dependent on their age. Youd need some actuaries to figure out the math end of it, but it would not be to hard to figure out how much more money some one who is 35 entering the US would need to pay compared to some one who is 18 and compared to some one who is 65. Illegal immigrants arent eligible for these programs. My guess is that most illegal immigrants would be willing to sacrifice entry into these programs if it meant they would become legal citizens and have all of the freedom America provides. There are plenty of solutions to the monetary issues.

Then why does post WWII taxes go down as immigration goes up? Just because the govt is bigger doesnt mean that immigrants cost more comparatively, as they would be paying into the system just like any other citizen. The costs for an individual immigrant should be the same cost as an individual US citizen. The only difference may be that the costs for each citizen have increased today, but that is why taxes are not capped at 25%.

Thats what you believe, I respectfully disagree. I believe that if the govt stopped wasting money on the war on drugs, stopped wasting money on trying to enforce an imaginary border to keep out people seeking freedom, the US economy would rebound rapidly. The United States already pays for millions of illegal immigrants, at least if they were legal they would have to pay taxes. I dont believe every immigrant will be a starving man, I think that many immigrants are hard workers who will become invaluable members of American society. I think historically there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that immigration hurts an economy. In fact if you look at the numbers, the worst economic disaster in US history occurred when there were the most restrictive immigration measures. http://www.npg.org/facts/us_imm_decade.htm Conversely in 1901-1920, when there was the most legal immigrations by percentage (obviously today 9mil is a smaller percent of the total population as compared to 1901) the US economy was thriving. I wont just assume that there is going to be some unproven correlation between immigration and the US failing. In fact I think that restricting immigration undermines capitalist society. Capitalism works when you have a supply/demand curve that the govt doesnt interfere with. Labor is no different than any other commodity, it is based on supply and demand. When the US govt restricts immigration, it is artificially restricting supply. What happens when you restrict supply even though demand stays the same? The cost of the good increases artificially. What are the impacts of this? The US loses jobs to overseas markets where there is less restriction on the labor commodity. By allowing for more supply of labor, you will be able to lower costs for US employers, companies etc, which would allow them to compete more world wide. Many immigrants were the backbone of US labor in the late 19th and early 20th century. The US economy boomed because you could pay immigrant workers far less than some one from the US. So until proven otherwise, I wont just blindly believe that immigrants are going to bankrupt the US economy. In fact I would guess that having more legal immigrants would increase the tax pool and end up making the US money. Points up. I really disagree. Any country who bases their economy on the economic theory of capitalism, should never want to restrict supply on labor. Restricting labor as well as anartificial floor on wages is the best way to make your country uncompetitive on the world market. I would be really interested to see an economist write on this subject. Im completely blanking on my economic theory and cant think of the one who said that everything adds to the pie (including crime). Here is one of the few articles I can find, it uses data to state what should be the obvious, restricting immigration will hurt the economy. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1653345 "Specifically, we find that these laws had a 1 to 2 percent negative effect on employment; for the average U.S. county, this translates to about 337 to 675 jobs (40 to 80 jobs for the median county). Consistent with the effect on employment, payroll was also negatively affected. This drop in employment includes both authorized and unauthorized workers" Id love to see some articles the other way, I just know that all of my "conservative" economics professors were against any sort of govt regulation of the supply of labor. I will never support a program that wants to punish current illegal immigrants in the United States. I am not the keeper of freedom, it belongs to everyone who wishes to enjoy it. I am fine with making them properly apply and pay taxes like any other citizen and be required to have the same responsibilities as any citizen. Im not sure why that would happen. As pointed on in my previous statements, I believe that economic theory suggests that by not restricting the supply of labor the economy should improve. Furthermore if you look at historical data, the US tax rates were the lowest during the highest rates of immigration. http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_ind...ry-june2010.pdf Even stranger in 1932, one of the years immigration is the lowest during the great depression, taxes jump to a cap at 63%. 1936 the top is 79%. In 1944 the highest tax bracket was 90%. 12 years earlier when immigration was at one of its all time highs, taxes were capped at 25%. It wasnt until 1964 that taxes are dropped to 70%. 81 drop to 50%. And so on and so forth. Im not going to argue whether high taxes are good or bad, but what I think should be clear is that tax rates and immigration do not have any correlation, unless you consider a negative one. When immigration rates were increasing, taxes were either staying the same or decreasing. The only time immigration was drastically restricted, taxes increased to ridiculous levels as well as the US suffering the worst economic depression in its history. Now were some of these actions a result of the great depression? Of course, people in the US during the 1930's were saying the exact same thing as this thread. "We are in bad economic times, we cant let immigrants in, theyll take our jobs and ruin our economy." The problem is, immigrants are jobs, immigrants are consumers. There is no reason to believe that immigrants will be nothing but a net loss, almost all economic capitalist theory would suggest the opposite, immigrants should be a net gain. But thats just my belief based on my knowledge of economic theory and US history. Id love to see some economists write on the subject, because Im just not convinced by talking heads. I dont really like to argue about the economic impact because im willing to give the other side the benefit of the doubt and say that there might be some negative impact (even though I dont agree). I just think that giving people the chance to have freedom and to live in a free place is worth the risk that I may have to pay more taxes.

If you remove the rule, they cant break it anymore. So not only am I against changing the 14th amendment, Im for making it so that everyone can become an American citizen who wants to. Remove all quotas, remove all unnecessary restrictions, let freedom ring. When you open up the Immigration debate, you have to remember that there are people in the United States who strongly oppose the idea of restricting who can enter into our country. It would be amazing if the people of the United States could turn this on its head, and make it so that we allow everyone in the world a chance to have the freedom that so many of us take for granted. Freedom for all, not just for those of us who got here first.

If youre going to use my name, can we please try and refrain from making things up? I sincerely doubt you can find any post of mine that states "XYZ is a racist" let alone stating that you personally are one.

If you make it easier to become a legal citizen, I believe most reasonable people would also agree that you can more strictly enforce illegal immigration. I assume that there are other people like me who do not want to enforce illegal immigration laws, because we really do not believe in them. I do not believe that freedom should be "First come first serve", but instead that the path to freedom should be available to all that seek it. So if everyone could come to the US legally, I would have no problem being a hard ass on those who still came here illegally. I would have no crisis of conscience because I would know that the people who came here illegally had the opportunity to come here legally, but just chose not to. Conversely, today I feel bad for illegal immigrants because I feel the majority would have come here legally if there were not so many unreasonable barriers to their entry. I do not feel that unjust laws should be enforced, so I do not believe illegals should be deported.

I disagree on Allen. I think he will be at best an average 1b, but most likely below average. You just are not going to get a lot of value for a 1b who doesnt project to be an impact bat. Its just to easy to take players from other positions and put them there. That is probably why Kenny couldnt do better with Allen.

Grass is always greener. Id rather have Jackson as our 4th starter the rest of the way. He gives us the best chance to make the playoffs.

I would have no problem having some sort of exception that they would not get equal SSI/Medicaid benefits. But there would also be a provision that they can opt into the programs and began paying as soon as they are allowed. They would be given benefits at a rate that they earn them. Becoming a citizen would not be hitting the lottery, it would come with equal responsibility as any other citizen of the US.

You dont have to read it all, only some of it was a direct response to your post. Im not used to short arguments. Sorry about that

The US should not compare itself to other countries, if we compared ourselves to them we wouldnt be who we are. The United States is unique, in 1776 there were no other Republics. If we defined ourselves by other countries we would have taken a less radical approach and been a constitutional monarchy with George Washington as our first King. We would have had a had a govt based on a class structure, where the haves had the house of lords and the have nots had the house of commons. But we broke away from what other countries had traditionally done. This is why the United States will most likely never be a truly "conservative" (and by that I mean Michael Oakeshott conservative theory) because at the end of the day our country is proof that you do not have to follow tradition to be a successful nation. That you can be truly unique and not only succeed, but thrive. The argument for citizenship for all who seek it (and that goes beyond just those who are born here, but instead to all those truly want to come here) is that freedom is the gift of America (at least in my opinion). When I think of the United States, I think of a place where anyone who has a dream and who has desire can become some one. A place where the govt will not destroy you because of your religion or your personal belief. A place where people of all races and religions can live, where they can live together and show the world that it can work. I have been extremely lucky in my life to be born in America. Probably no where but this country would my parents have even met, let alone the idea that if there was no America many of my family would have most likely died due to political or religious reasons. The only reason I exist today is that because some one else who was in America before my great great grandparents made sure that immigrants and undesirables could come to America for a chance at a better life. They let my family in even though my family one day might take their job, or may have used their services or any of the other practical reasons that you hear. They let my family in, even though there was no good reason to. Why would any country let poor immigrants who are unwanted by their own country? The only practical answer is cheap labor. Immigrants would take the jobs that no one else would, for the chance at a better life for their family. This past weighs on me. It makes me feel that I have a responsibility to those who seek the same opportunity that my family did. To protect their rights, to be their voice if necessary. I cant tell you that letting more immigrants in the United States will mean a better life for you. I cant say that youll make more money, or that you may have to pay higher taxes. I feel that it would be good, but the economic side is really the least of my concerns. So why do I want to let more immigrants in the United States when it will most likely cost me money and will unlikely ever benefit me? Because there are very few chances we have in our lives that we can actually make some one elses life better. In this case it will be a strangers, but we have the opportunity to truly give people a chance. Most immigrants do not want to leave their country because of how great things are. They leave their country because of how bad things are. They leave their country because even as an illegal immigrant, a "criminal", in our country, its still exponentially better than the current situation that they are in. I let them in because I would hope that if I was not as lucky as I am, that some one would have given me the chance. I could not live with myself if I supported a plan that would force people to live in worse conditions, just to give me a better edge. If an immigrant cane come and take my job, they earned it. I had all the advantages and they beat me. Tip my hat and move on. I know that everyone doesnt feel the same way. But that is what America is about to me. I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. And no argument can change my heart. Not everyone will understand, I dont expect them to. I just want everyone to have a chance at freedom and I recognize not everyone can in their own country. So I let them in. Just like I let my friend sleep on my couch when times are tough. For me its just a matter of streamlining the process of legal immigration. Once people can become legal US residents quickly, they will become part of society with the same responsibilities as me. Im tragically undereducated on our tax code. But I was under the belief that your pay out on social security was connected to how much you pay into the system? Furthermore since social security, medicaid, etc are also nothing more than ponzi schemes were the future participants pay for the current participants, wouldnt we actually want more young people being added (new borns) while their parents dont get any benefits (illegal immigrants dont receive social security etc, at least I dont believe). The only way to pay off our current debts is by making sure that we have more people in the future who can do it. I just am not sure how if we create a class of people that doesnt have any rights and therefore dont have any responsibilities (ie not paying taxes) how that will ever solve the situation. All I keep arguing for is making legal immigration easier and allowing more people into the country. I wont really get into the redistribution of wealth argument. Not really sure how giving more people an opportunity to compete means that the US govt is going to have to take care of them. Not every immigrant is a charity case, not every citizen is a hard worker. About big govt, why is that to me Republican's want bigger govt than Democrat's. And this is a serious question because I generally lean towards anti-govt in almost every situation. To me big govt is when the govt dictates who can marry or even tells me that marriage means something. Who is the govt to get involved in marriage? The next question I have is, what right does govt have to limit what I consume as an adult? Why can the govt tell me what drugs I can take? I hear Democrats being referred to as a nanny state, but why is it that Republican's want to extend govt when they like it? Have no problem creating more criminal laws, have no problem with expanding military? Yet because Democrats want to expand govt to give people more money, thats when govt is bad? Im not a Democrat or a Republican, neither of them want to invite me to the party. But the idea that Republican's are actually for "limited govt" died before I was born. When they say limited, they really only mean in certain areas. Republicans generally have no problem with govt getting involved in social areas. Morality is a creation to control people. I believe in freedom and equality. Not just for Americans, but for all humans who want it. If you disagree, I dont think your morally repugnant, I think that youre normal. What I believe is not easy. Coming here doesnt seem morally repugnant. If you thought your life was in danger or that your family would not survive unless they came to the US, would that discourage you? I empathize with the plight of people in other countries, and realize that not everyone is as lucky as me to have been born in perhaps the greatest country that has ever existed in the history of humanity. I think that hundreds of thousands of immigrants died in a variety of US wars, so that future immigrants would have a place to call home. In almost every war in American history, immigrants fought with citizens. I think that the American's who died in foreign wars, died to protect the idea that America is a place of freedom and opportunity.A place where anyone who has a dream can make it. I dont think that they died so that the people who survived could create fictitious borders to deny people freedom, based on the idea that "We were here first so we can arbitrarily decide who gets to enjoy freedom with us." I think they fought so that everyone could have freedom and opportunity. Not just those who had the opportunity first, not just those who were entitled. A land were we judge people by their merit and work, not by their last name or title. Ive never met a wealthy person who truly felt punished. In fact the majority of wealthy people I have met have been predominantly Democratic. That doesnt really mean much, but its just odd to suggest that all wealthy people feel punished. Im not sure what you mean by punishing rich people. If you mean the progressive tax scale, that was theorized by Adam Smith.

Sox dont generally beat people in the open market for big name players. Im thinking Albert Belle, but not many other times did the Sox outbid people. Dunn will be going where the money is.