so we should bring back whipping, chains and hanging eh?
Did I say that? All I said was that people don't fear the American justice system because we're a very nice nation comparatively. Your point seemed be nothing other than saying how mean and terrible theUnited States is.
You're free to go whenever you'd like.
As it sits right now the current laws and regulations are sentencing many people to death, and yet still they come
RAZD, no one has been sentenced to death for illegally crossing the border. You don't honestly believe that, do you?
The problem is social iniquity. You can solve that by improving the economies of other countries or by depressing the US economy ... which seems to be the current trend endorsed by the administration.
America is trying to get as many nations as stable as possible in a roundabout way, because, yes, what happens overseas will indirectly affect us. The problem is, this is what the US is doing now in Iraq. This is what they tried to do in Vietnam. The problem is that every time it starts to stabilize, radical extremists blow up the schools, police stations, factories that we built.
I suggest such a program be resurrected, that it be combined with welfare reform and immigration, and also include education to a high school level for those who need it (including English composition and speaking), with these conditions:
that it be optional for any US citizen,
that it specifically be open to those US citizens who have run out of unemployment and welfare options,
that it be mandatory for all new immigrants,
that any immigrants convicted of a crime (more than a misdemeanor) be deported,
that it include some form of "national service" similar to the CCC
such "national service" could include what is currently called the "Guest Worker Program"
that graduation from the system would mean passing the civic, language, etcetera tests required for Citizenship
that citizenship for new immigrants would be dependent on graduation
the length of stay in the system for immigrants would depend on ability to pass tests at grade levels leading up to high school equivalence (GED)
length of stay for US citizens would be voluntary on an annual basis (either re-up or leave)
payment would be fixed ($15 per day? for "luxuries") plus room and board, child care and basic medical services
This would provide a safety-net for US citizens as well as a work-to-citizenship program for immigrants.
What you've outlined is almost verbatim the criteria of entering here legally. Here's the problem, RAZD. The people that come here
illegally, don't give a whit about all of that. Why are they going to go through this program if they can avoid it altogether like many of them have been doing en mass since the 1960's?
Think about it. We're talking about illegal immigrants, not legal ones.
So, you want to deport the one's who've committed felonies, which is a fantastic idea that I'm all for, however, you still run in to the problem that you yourself just said we'd face-- that they are still going to come no matter what, and that we are just treating the symptoms and not the actual problem.
Do you see how that makes no sense?
Therefore, until the lion lays down with the lamb, enforcement is the only thing that will ameliorate this situation.
Cuba is not a real communist country -- it is a totalitarian oligarchy pretending to be a communist country. The disparity smuggled in is the reactionary equation of this type of dictatorship with communism over the last 50 plus years (McCarthyism).
I can assure you that Cuba is a REAL Communist state. You only want to think differently because you believe in the utopian ideal that it has long promised-- a heaven on earth of sorts. The reality is that communism fails because it overlooks one profound element-- the human condition.
Communism's greatest challenge is that it is incompatible with human behavior-- namely, our predilection for sin.
There has been no real communist nation. Not one.
And there never will be, RAZD. That's the whole point!
You seem to forget in your equation the social cost of not treating the poor and the young and the elderly that cannot afford your personal premium. Some of this is already covered by current programs
RAZD, I've worked in two hospitals where the homeless came in on a daily basis. They will always be treated, regardless of their monetary situation, because it is inhumane to throw somebody out on the street and left to rot. Even when they, literally, came in every single night after binge drinking. That was their lifestyle.
They go out and have a gay old time boozing up with their friends. When they got smashed, they would call an ambulance and feign diabetic shock because diabetes and intoxication look the same.
What you are advocating would enable them to do this with that money that you worked for. Well, guess what? That's theft. These are thieves. So send these repeat offenders to prison where they can benefit socialist healthcare at the expense of the taxpayer. They will pay what they owe in time served. With any hope, they will clean up there act and live a productive life, instead of a lecherous one.
If there are no consequences, they will live this life indefinitely. If they are placed in a situation where they are forced to change, there is a good chance that they will. Sometimes we need to get spanked by life in order to learn valuable lessons.
So you are comparing your individual cost for only only your health care premium (while excluding tax for medicare, medicaid etc programs) to the total tax in socialist countries?
No, I'm comparing what I pay as a premium for my healthcare, as opposed to what the average Socialist pays for theirs in taxes. Mine is way less, and I don't have to wait extraordinary amounts of time to get properly treated. There is a waiting list in many of these nations for critical surgeries. Well, screw that. If I have a life-threatening emergency, I want to be treated immediately.
I am no advocate for the medicare system. That system is broken, without question. But Medicare is not the only option.
Note that only 1.5% is the health tax. And I also don't count 31% as "over half of their paycheck" for all those earning under $173,065, which I would consider outside normal "middle class" income.
"For much of the 20th century, Sweden had a single-payer system of health care in which the government paid almost all health care costs. Like other nations with a single-payer system, Sweden has had to deal with the problem of ever-growing health care expenses causing a strain on government budgets. It has dealt with this problem by rationing health care - instituting waiting lists for medical appointments and surgery...
Sweden spent about 9.1 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care, which is slightly above the average for nations that belong to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.4 The largest share of funding for the Swedish health care system comes from taxes. Both county and municipal governments have broad authority to levy income taxes. Since 90 percent of county revenues are expended on health care, a breakdown of the sources of county revenue give a roughly accurate picture of the revenue sources for health care provided by county councils.5 In 2003, 72 percent of the revenues for county councils came from taxes, while 18 percent came from grants from the national government, three percent came from user-fees, and the remaining seven percent came from other sources.6 Municipal government generated about 69 percent of their revenues from local taxes in 2003, and 20 percent of their revenues are spent on health care.7
Patients in Sweden pay user fees (similar to co-payments in the United States) that are set by county councils. The fee for seeing a primary care physician varies from 11 to 17 kronas (the Swedish unit of currency; $1 U.S. equals about 6.90 kronas), while the fee for seeing a specialist ranges from 22 to 33 kronas. While county councils have discretion in setting user fees, the national government limits the amount of total user fees paid per patient at 100 kronas annually for physician and specialist visits. The maximum user fee for hospital care is nine kronas per day...
Conclusion
While Sweden is a first world country, its health care system - at least in regards to access - is closer to the third world... When the United States chooses to reform its health care system, reform should lead to improvement. Reforming along the lines of Sweden would only make our system worse." -
David Hogberg
Meanwhile the poverty rate in the US is on of the highest in the developed countries -- perhaps there is a connection between poverty and social problems rather than between immigration and social problems eh?
The term "poverty" is often ambiguous because it usually means
people that have less money than well off people, rather than what it is supposed to mean, which is people who do not have enough monetary support for basic amenities. For the sake of clarity and continuity, could you define poverty so that we are operating under the same definition.
Oh, wait, your Wiki article addresses the very problem I was thinking:
quote:
:Currently roughly 13% of the US population fall below the federal poverty threshold. There is however some controversy regarding the federal poverty line, arguing that it either understates or overstates the problem of poverty. The poverty rate in the United States is one of the highest among the post-industrialized developed world.
The social cost of poverty is also born by those of us earning incomes -- not least of which is the cost of criminal behavior
RAZD, crime has nothing to do with poverty itself, and everything to do with sociology. The sociology of the underclass is not underscored because they are poor. Rather, they are often poor
because of their social disposition.
People don't generally steal loaves of bread to feed their kids. Rather, they steal cars to feed their drug addictions, rather than feeding their kids. Stealing a loaf of bread would at least be understandable.
Now I happen to think that a lot of crime in the US is due to the high numbers of people living near and below the poverty level, so that eliminating this problem would mean also taking care of much of the crime problem.
You don't just hand people money and all of a sudden their morals change. Or, were you not aware that the mafia is loaded?
You fix the problem at the root, which is their sin, and out of it will come prosperity.
Getting back to the topic ...
Yeah, good idea. In fact, feel free to write a response. I will certainly read it. But after backtracking our conversation, I see us drifting way OT. If you do decide to respond to me about anything other than the title, I'm not going to respond. I trust that you understand. And I apologize for my part in drifting OT.
The question is how can we really morally draw a line between people who happen to be born outside the US from those that happen to be born in the US? What makes them less valuable than someone living below the poverty line in slums of Chicago and New York and the like?
In my line of work, there are a lot people who come to the US to escape from tyranny and oppression. Much of their stories are heartrending. Of course I can sympathize with them. Cripes, my own brother-in-law's family came from Cuba to escape Castro's dictatorship. Under those conditions, we should try and accommodate them as best we can. But, there is a line that needs to be drawn.
There are only so many jobs available, right? You say you want to get rid of poverty-- obviously a very admirable trait. However, its like a boat that has a certain capacity. If you just allow every one to come onboard, we all will sink.
Extrapolate the metaphor to the US economy. The economy can't sustain large migrations without suffering huge consequences. If the US economy goes under, largely due to the influx of illegal immigrants, then their travel here was in vain, right? Because now they're poor, we're poor, and the world will be poorer too. Because what affects US economy will effect global economy.
So, where then should the line be drawn? We need real reform. We both want real reform, judging by your post. I think we just see two different policies in achieving that.
Hopefully we can continue to brain storm in order to come up with a viable solution.
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt
™ Version 4.2
