A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

[Bob Gray]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

So who owns the debt Bob, the govt or us. Or do you want to live in a bizarro world where its the people's money but the govt's debt? And we can pay it down by selling unicorns to the Zorbodians on a planet far way.

The debt is increasingly owned by China.

 

[Priceless]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

So who owns the debt Bob, the govt or us. Or do you want to live in a bizarro world where its the people's money but the govt's debt? And we can pay it down by selling unicorns to the Zorbodians on a planet far way.

Socialize risk; privatize profit.

 

[Kepler]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

To get back to immigration -- Republican Congressman makes inevitable ignorant asshole comment because... of course.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Socialize risk; privatize profit.

Correct. And based on what I've seen this past year it's never been more true.

 

[Critical Thinker]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Tax cuts cut revenue, so you counter them with revenue increases elsewhere. For example, part of Reagan's 1980 tax changes was taxing federal education loans as income. He used that revenue to (very slightly) defray the cost in revenue of giving his cronies a big tax cut.

The way Republicans typically pay for their tax cuts is increasing the debt burden, because this has the feature of shifting the money from the direct recipient of the tax cut, the wealthy, to the people hurt by diminished services driven by debt, the middle class and poor. It's all part of the shell game where the GOP gradually moves money from earners to investors. That's what their donors pay them to do -- it's their whole point.

Funding is giving money to someone. Taking a smaller percentage of their paycheck is not giving them anything.

 

[Kepler]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Funding is giving money to someone. Taking a smaller percentage of their paycheck is not giving them anything.

I take it you've never run a business.

Funding is not "giving money to someone," it's budgeting a credit against a debit.

 

[Critical Thinker]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

The debt is increasingly owned by China.

But in a small percentage. The majority of US debt is owed to US citizens through bonds.

Our debt to China comes from the trade deficit. The Chinese wind up with leftover dollars from American purchases that they don't use to buy more American products. Since they can't buy sh*t with dollars in China, they invest their dollars in US markets, and since Treasury bonds are at a stable rating (for now...), that's where they go. Create a trade surplus, and our debt to China will essentially cease. The debt will keep going up, it'll just be owed to different people.

 

[Slap Shot]

I can't wait for 2054 when you're still whining about Bush and the budget and how it's all his fault for any and all presidents who spend out of their minds

About as long as it will take FOX NEWS lemmings to admit Junior was a freaking abomination. Who do you think will blink first?

 

[joecct]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Kepler

Is the government REALLY us? Has it ever been? IMO we the people have abdicated our responsibility to exercise oversight over our political masters.

Without that oversight our masters do whatever they want, enable a bureaucracy to do whatever it wants and shower the plebians with bread and circuses to keep them controlled.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

But in a small percentage. The majority of US debt is owed to US citizens through bonds.

Our debt to China comes from the trade deficit. The Chinese wind up with leftover dollars from American purchases that they don't use to buy more American products. Since they can't buy sh*t with dollars in China, they invest their dollars in US markets, and since Treasury bonds are at a stable rating (for now...), that's where they go. Create a trade surplus, and our debt to China will essentially cease. The debt will keep going up, it'll just be owed to different people.

China owns 8.1 percent of U.S. debt, as of 2012, a number I'd expect is modestly higher today. Here's a handy chart. Overall, foreign nations own 34.2 percent of our national debt if you add them all up. That's a pretty substantial number, and a lot higher than it used to be, when one could really say that the debt isn't as important because we owe it to ourselves. The trade deficit is another, not directly related, topic.

Forgot the link:
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2013/01/21/who-really-owns-the-us-national-debt-n1493555/page/full

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

About as long as it will take FOX NEWS lemmings to admit Junior was a freaking abomination. Who do you think will blink first?

Oh, this is hilarious. You don't even deny you'll still be hung up on this in 2054. But, hey, complaining about someone else, even those who left office quite awhile ago, is one of the easiest, if least productive, things around to do.

 

[Rover]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

China owns 8.1 percent of U.S. debt, as of 2012, a number I'd expect is modestly higher today. Here's a handy chart. Overall, foreign nations own 34.2 percent of our national debt if you add them all up. That's a pretty substantial number, and a lot higher than it used to be, when one could really say that the debt isn't as important because we owe it to ourselves. The trade deficit is another, not directly related, topic.

Forgot the link:
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2013/01/21/who-really-owns-the-us-national-debt-n1493555/page/full

I'd expect the Fed to be a lot higher now actually. But back to the point, are we really worried about Japan, the UK, or Germany calling in the debt and taking us over? Plus, how much of their debt does the US own?

 

[Kepler]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Kepler

Is the government REALLY us? Has it ever been? IMO we the people have abdicated our responsibility to exercise oversight over our political masters.

Without that oversight our masters do whatever they want, enable a bureaucracy to do whatever it wants and shower the plebians with bread and circuses to keep them controlled.

Hey, you know me -- if you call the revolution I'll bring the matches.

The nice thing about popular sovereignty is we have at any moment the ability to reassert our will as the people -- the government is as much us as we make an effort for it to be. All the money in politics wouldn't make a difference if people took the time to inform themselves of the issues and vote regularly and effectively. Even the voter intimidation tactics being used to steal elections are driven by processes that can be reversed by popular sovereignty. We haven't quite gotten to the point where the GOP can dictate racial, religious, gender or wealth requirements for the franchise.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

I'd expect the Fed to be a lot higher now actually. But back to the point, are we really worried about Japan, the UK, or Germany calling in the debt and taking us over? Plus, how much of their debt does the US own?

Agreed on the fed. Japan is a big holder, Germany (assuming they are small enough to not be listed separately in the pie chart) and the U.K. a lot smaller. Certainly there's more chance of China playing games with us somehow than these countries.

Then you have something like Social Security, where you'd think that the money would eventually need to be paid back to some extent as the Boomers put further strain on the Social Security system in the coming years.

Interesting that Brazil owns a nice little chunk, given that they aren't a country that comes to mind as having a lot of money to put elsewhere.

 

[Kepler]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

China owns 8.1 percent of U.S. debt

"If you owe $100,000 the bank owns you. If you owe $100,000,000, you own the bank."

 

[Priceless]

Oh, this is hilarious. You don't even deny you'll still be hung up on this in 2054. But, hey, complaining about someone else, even those who left office quite awhile ago, is one of the easiest, if least productive, things around to do.

It's Clinton's fault.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

"If you owe $100,000 the bank owns you. If you owe $100,000,000, you own the bank."

"The borrower is the slave of the lender." Proverbs 22:7

I'd feel better if it was in relation to a bank down the street, rather than a bank owned by a nation which isn't always friendly toward the nation I live in.

 

[joecct]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Hey, you know me -- if you call the revolution I'll bring the matches.

The nice thing about popular sovereignty is we have at any moment the ability to reassert our will as the people -- the government is as much us as we make an effort for it to be. All the money in politics wouldn't make a difference if people took the time to inform themselves of the issues and vote regularly and effectively. Even the voter intimidation tactics being used to steal elections are driven by processes that can be reversed by popular sovereignty. We haven't quite gotten to the point where the GOP can dictate racial, religious, gender or wealth requirements for the franchise.

GOP? I thought the Democrats were the party of quotas?

I would make people EARN the franchise. Maybe (to mirror Starship Troopers) you have to serve your country in some way for a period of X years in order to get the vote.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

What are people's thoughts about the absence of any coherent organized policy regarding travelers arriving in this country directly from West Africa?

For public safety, do we direct all those flights (and ships?) only to certain sites which are then prepared to screen the arriving passengers effectively?
(I mean something more than taking their temperature and asking them if they are okay )

Do we implement a temporary two-week moratorium to give us time to set up the facilities properly?

is there anyone who seriously believes that the "plans" that we have in place now (such as they are) will be adequate to address the potential seriousness of the situation?

 

[unofan]

What are people's thoughts about the absence of any coherent organized policy regarding travelers arriving in this country directly from West Africa?

For public safety, do we direct all those flights (and ships?) only to certain sites which are then prepared to screen the arriving passengers effectively?
(I mean something more than taking their temperature and asking them if they are okay )

Do we implement a temporary two-week moratorium to give us time to set up the facilities properly?

is there anyone who seriously believes that the "plans" that we have in place now (such as they are) will be adequate to address the potential seriousness of the situation?

Funny how you don't trust government to do anything, but now you want it to put in place draconian measures like forced quarantines, medical inspections, travel bans, etc. God forbid poor people get food stamps and might possibly use them to get a cheap steak to celebrate a birthday or anniversary, but now you're wanting the big evil gubmint to shut down everything.

Do you realize how full of crap that sounds?

Shouldn't you be advocating for some free market solution? Wouldn't airlines voluntarily stop people from flying from west Africa because of market pressures?