Kids In Cages...

[Sparko]

You assumed incorrectly, on both fronts.

I don't believe you (regarding you not helping them first)

Can you point to where I have advocated letting more people into the country - beyond the statements that immigration should be pegged to employment needs/opportunities, and people with a credible claim to asylum should be granted asylum? You and Teal have continually returned to this theme - which has never been part of my argument. If you cant show where I have said it, I'm going to let you continue to argue with this straw man you have created. I'm sure you will defeat it handily. Unfortunately, you won't have said anything to address the points I've actually made.

[carpedm9587]

I don't believe you (regarding you not helping them first)

That is a matter of some indifference to me. My boys know that my assistance (going forward) is based on need - for anyone.

I didn't think you'd be able to find one, and the "can't pin you down" dismount was somewhat predictable. You and Teal have been arguing against self-manufactured positions for pages now. I'll defend positions I hold - not those put in my mouth by others.

[Sparko]

That is a matter of some indifference to me. My boys know that my assistance (going forward) is based on need - for anyone.



I didn't think you'd be able to find one, and the "can't pin you down" dismount was somewhat predictable. You and Teal have been arguing against self-manufactured positions for pages now. I'll defend positions I hold - not those put in my mouth by others.

Your position of some utopian USA that has limitless resources and can help everyone live in some paradise?

Go on, pull the other one.


US_National_Debt_public_intergovernmental.jpg

[Teallaura]

Out of curiosity, how do you get billions of dollars in taxpayer funded initiatives about homelessness in California, a state that is dominated by Democrats, with a supermajority in the legislature, if Democrats are not talking about homelessness?

Ever try pulling something OUT of the Federal budget?

And I believe you just reiterated my point: we lack the political will to solve the problem, not the means/resources.

I will let Sparky handle the resource end - although I agree we have resources to help with - just not the way that we're being asked to.

So long as we do not address problems abroad, we will not do anything to narrow the gap between the wealth/opportunity of Americans and the wealth opportunity of other countries. So long as that gap remains huge, America will remain a magnet for illegal immigration, complicating the problems at home. It's a fairly simple reality: people tend to want to go where the opportunity and wealth are greatest. Narrow that gap and you reduce the incentive to migrate. I have no desire to reduce the quality of life of Americans, so the choice is fairly obvious.

Actually, I concur - and the first step to changing things abroad is to not let other countries use the US as an escape valve for internal political pressure.

As I recall, amnesty was a Reagan program. The problem with amnesty was not the idea - it was the execution. There was simply no follow through in that administration, the Bush administration that followed, and the Clinton administration that followed that. Immigration laws stayed badly flawed, enforcement spotty at best, and the result is the mess we have today. I have outlined, several times, what I thin should happen on this front. It does not amount to "let more in" (beyond those that truly qualify for asylum).

Yeah - no. It was 'bi-partisan' - minus the part where the Democrats kept up their end of the bargain.

Then we disagree. When it comes to healthcare for all immigrants, documented and undocumented, we are already paying that bill, as I previously outlined. And we are doing so in a sloppy, ad hoc, disproportionate manner. Universal healthcare coverage for all people in the U.S. eliminates all of that. And yes, we have the resources. Anyone who can look at American wealth and say we do not is simply ignoring the obvious. The U.S. is home to over 30% of the world's wealth and houses less than 5% of the world's population. Those numbers alone demonstrate the vastness of our resources - if they are appropriately tapped and used.

Er, no. But that's another debate and I have enough to play with now, thanks.

Still reading that danged Mueller report...

[carpedm9587]

Your position of some utopian USA that has limitless resources and can help everyone live in some paradise?

Go on, pull the other one.


[ATTACH=CONFIG]38814[/ATTACH]

Since I never said "limitless" or "paradise," I'll leave any further response to someone who actually made those claims.

I will note, however, that you have a gift for hyperbole and taking simple positions to extremes so you can ridicule them.

[carpedm9587]

Ever try pulling something OUT of the Federal budget?

I'm missing something. Are you suggesting that all of the resources expended on the homeless situation in California came from the Federal budget and had nothing to do with Democrats?

I will let Sparky handle the resource end - although I agree we have resources to help with - just not the way that we're being asked to.

Sparko isn't doing such a good job in that department. You might want to take your own shot at it. Meanwhile, I'm not sure what the last part of your sentence means.

Actually, I concur - and the first step to changing things abroad is to not let other countries use the US as an escape valve for internal political pressure.

Despite the best efforts of you and Sparko, I have never actually suggested we should make the U.S. an escape valve - though I never said anything specifically about political pressure. The discussion, previously, was economic pressure.

Yeah - no. It was 'bi-partisan' - minus the part where the Democrats kept up their end of the bargain.

So this is interesting. Yes - the plan came out of Congress as a bi-partisan plan. But it was signed into effect by Reagan, who could have vetoed it and there were not enough votes to override a veto. Now I am VERY curious how you see the failure on follow through as a Democrat problem. Perhaps I am unfamiliar with some of the history? What, exactly, do you think they reneged on?

Er, no. But that's another debate and I have enough to play with now, thanks.

Still reading that danged Mueller report...

Unfortunately, Teal, the numbers are the numbers. We ARE already paying for the healthcare of immigrants (and anyone else who lacks insurance and a means of payment). Covering them using a universal policy simply coordinates that in a way that spreads the cost equally to all who pay taxes (which many/most undocumented aliens already pay) rather than concentrating the cost on those who are ill and use healthcare, and on insurance companies who then spike their premiums for all of us.

And we ARE the repository of over 30% of the world's wealth and less than 5% of the world's population, so suggesting we lack the means to solve a problem is wrong on the face of it. Countries with fewer resources than we have have solved such problems.

[Teallaura]

I'm missing something. Are you suggesting that all of the resources expended on the homeless situation in California came from the Federal budget and had nothing to do with Democrats?

No, I'm saying it probably wasn't all them - nor did it need to be.

Sparko isn't doing such a good job in that department. You might want to take your own shot at it. Meanwhile, I'm not sure what the last part of your sentence means.

he's doing fine - you are just pretending that your own argument doesn't rely on a LOT more in resources than we have to do the totality of what's being asked. We're not debating your own proposals, remember.

Despite the best efforts of you and Sparko, I have never actually suggested we should make the U.S. an escape valve - though I never said anything specifically about political pressure. The discussion, previously, was economic pressure.

I made my own argument, thank you very much - and this is not an answer to it.

So this is interesting. Yes - the plan came out of Congress as a bi-partisan plan. But it was signed into effect by Reagan, who could have vetoed it and there were not enough votes to override a veto. Now I am VERY curious how you see the failure on follow through as a Democrat problem. Perhaps I am unfamiliar with some of the history? What, exactly, do you think they reneged on?

You missed both the 'bi-partisan' and 'reneged' parts, huh? Amnesty was supposed to precede some other, significant changes that the Democrats (then the majority) promised, but didn't deliver.

Unfortunately, Teal, the numbers are the numbers. We ARE already paying for the healthcare of immigrants (and anyone else who lacks insurance and a means of payment). Covering them using a universal policy simply coordinates that in a way that spreads the cost equally to all who pay taxes (which many/most undocumented aliens already pay) rather than concentrating the cost on those who are ill and use healthcare, and on insurance companies who then spike their premiums for all of us.

Yeah - and numbers get a LOT bigger when you jack up from 'life or limb' to 'all medical care'.

And we ARE the repository of over 30% of the world's wealth and less than 5% of the world's population, so suggesting we lack the means to solve a problem is wrong on the face of it. Countries with fewer resources than we have have solved such problems.

Name one that opened their borders, gave full health coverage and survived? Heck, just name one that even tried it!

[Sparko]

No, I'm saying it probably wasn't all them - nor did it need to be.



he's doing fine - you are just pretending that your own argument doesn't rely on a LOT more in resources than we have to do the totality of what's being asked. We're not debating your own proposals, remember.



I made my own argument, thank you very much - and this is not an answer to it.



You missed both the 'bi-partisan' and 'reneged' parts, huh? Amnesty was supposed to precede some other, significant changes that the Democrats (then the majority) promised, but didn't deliver.


Yeah - and numbers get a LOT bigger when you jack up from 'life or limb' to 'all medical care'.

Name one that opened their borders, gave full health coverage and survived? Heck, just name one that even tried it!

I believe Denmark tried it with the refugees from Syria. Now they are regretting it and trying to ship them off to a refugee island.

--
Denmark's government has struck a deal to move "unwanted" migrants to a remote uninhabited island once used for contagious animals.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/05/europ...ntl/index.html

[KingsGambit]

I believe Denmark tried it with the refugees from Syria. Now they are regretting it and trying to ship them off to a refugee island.

That sounds like the premise for a truly twisted reality show.

[Charles]

I believe Denmark tried it with the refugees from Syria. Now they are regretting it and trying to ship them off to a refugee island.

--
Denmark's government has struck a deal to move "unwanted" migrants to a remote uninhabited island once used for contagious animals.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/05/europ...ntl/index.html

Nope. Denmark does not have open borders and there are currently no plans to move unwanted migrants to a remote uninhabited island. It was a populist idea that wiser people in the new government chose not to follow.

[Teallaura]

I believe Denmark tried it with the refugees from Syria. Now they are regretting it and trying to ship them off to a refugee island.

--
Denmark's government has struck a deal to move "unwanted" migrants to a remote uninhabited island once used for contagious animals.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/05/europ...ntl/index.html

[Teallaura]

Nope. Denmark does not have open borders and there are currently no plans to move unwanted migrants to a remote uninabited island. It was a populist idea that wiser people in the new government chose not to follow.

Um, CNN seems to think otherwise? Got something to substantiate this? (Mind, I just wanna know - not making a demand of proof here.)

[carpedm9587]

No, I'm saying it probably wasn't all them - nor did it need to be.

My response was to this statement you made:

Yet the problem of the homeless and the destitute in California only gets brought up by conservatives -

Based on the funds expended, some coming from the California legislature (which is a Democratic supermajority), it would seem that conservatives are not the only ones concerned with or talking about the issue. It's hard to pass appropriations without talking about them.

he's doing fine - you are just pretending that your own argument doesn't rely on a LOT more in resources than we have to do the totality of what's being asked. We're not debating your own proposals, remember.

You're correct: for the most part you and Sparko are not addressing what I actually said. Meanwhile, we are talking about problems that would require a fraction of the national budget to deal with (immigration and homelessness) in a nation that has 30% of the world's wealth and 5% of its population. The resources exist to solve these problems. The political will does not.

I made my own argument, thank you very much - and this is not an answer to it.

An argument that had essentially nothing to do with what I had said or been arguing for, so I am not surprised that my answer didn't help you - I choose not to try to answer arguments against positions I didn't take - so I actually made no real response to you. If/when you respond to my actual positions, I'll be happy to engage.

You missed both the 'bi-partisan' and 'reneged' parts, huh? Amnesty was supposed to precede some other, significant changes that the Democrats (then the majority) promised, but didn't deliver.

And those changes were...?

Yeah - and numbers get a LOT bigger when you jack up from 'life or limb' to 'all medical care'.

The average cost for healthcare in the U.S. is just under $11K per person, that is the most sick to the least sick. People who have no access to preventative care almost always end up with higher healthcare costs - of the "life or limb" type. They tend to be sick more often, which is a drain on resources in schools, places of business, etc. And when those sicknesses come, they tend to end up at emergency rooms - even for things that are not "life or limb." The emergency room is the most expensive way to deal with common, everyday illnesses. And we all end up paying for those visits in higher premiums and higher costs for medical procedures. Sorry, Teal, but this argument you are making simply does not hold water. It is in all of our best interests to unify all healthcare costs and gain the corresponding economies of scale.

Name one that opened their borders, gave full health coverage and survived? Heck, just name one that even tried it!

Why would I do that? I've never advocated opening our borders - so this (again) has nothing to do with what I am saying.

[carpedm9587]

Nope. Denmark does not have open borders and there are currently no plans to move unwanted migrants to a remote uninhabited island. It was a populist idea that wiser people in the new government chose not to follow.

Teal and Sparko are somehow locked into the misconception that I am advocating for "open borders" and "no immigration controls." Until they get past that misconception, their responses aren't going to make much sense and aren't going to address the points I've been attempting to make.

[Teallaura]

Teal and Sparko are somehow locked into the misconception that I am advocating for "open borders" and "no immigration controls." Until they get past that misconception, their responses aren't going to make much sense and aren't going to address the points I've been attempting to make.

No, we're arguing the original premise, not your personal proposals. You wanted to defend it.




[start humor]
Also, I hate you. That stupid multi-quote feature is driving me batty and since I used it replying to you, I'm now irrationally blaming you!
[/end humor]