Poll: Health coverage not federal government's job

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Poll: Health coverage not federal government's job

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    I'd call it action orientated thinking.

    On SS I have more faith in my ability to take care of myself then the govt. The model I've paid into since I started working at 14 won't be what I paid for by the time I get there.  Yes,  I'd take the self determination path if I could.

    On education; I'm a voucher and charter school supporter and this position is for my grand kids.  I think that parents should be able to get a voucher credit for public education and apply it to any licensed private school.  Point of fact Mass's much vaulted education system doesn't make the top 10.

    Privatized highways under public private partnerships are the future, they're a better value, support private sector hiring and limit government bloat.  Let the government develop policy and standards and then let innovation of the private sector implement.  You my friend are behind the times on this issue as the train has left the station.




     

    Privatization is hardly the way to go in all respects. Privatized correctional institutions, are often the worst. The reason should be obvious: Want to make more money? Withhold medical care. Withhold edible food. Etc.

    And in that instance, it is the government doing the punishing.

    In fact, privatized correctional institutions are a big lobby behind fighting any and all efforts at decriminalization and treatment for drug offenses. The reasons should be obvious: The more people they convince legislatures to lock up, and for the longer, the more money they make.

    Bad idea.



     

    There are plenty of industries where the incentives are dangerously wrong for a corporation to handle.

     




    I think your understanding of the relative benefits of government vs. the private sector is just about 100% upside down.

    Example: Ever hear about a private secondary school that is known for producing illetierate welfare recipients?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Poll: Health coverage not federal government's job

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    I

     

    I'd call it action orientated thinking.

    On SS I have more faith in my ability to take care of myself then the govt. The model I've paid into since I started working at 14 won't be what I paid for by the time I get there.  Yes,  I'd take the self determination path if I could.

    On education; I'm a voucher and charter school supporter and this position is for my grand kids.  I think that parents should be able to get a voucher credit for public education and apply it to any licensed private school.  Point of fact Mass's much vaulted education system doesn't make the top 10.

    Privatized highways under public private partnerships are the future, they're a better value, support private sector hiring and limit government bloat.  Let the government develop policy and standards and then let innovation of the private sector implement.  You my friend are behind the times on this issue as the train has left the station.



    Your proposals benefit only a minority of wealthy individuals and not the majority.  Hardly a moderate view.  The wealthy are doing just fine right now.  But we have to insure that everyone has a shot at a better life.  




Not true.  A free market benefits everyone, everyone willing to work, that is.

Government dis-benefits everyone equally.  I'll give you that.

The wealthy are doing well.  They earned it. 

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Poll: Health coverage not federal government's job

    In response to kelldog1's comment:

     

    IMHO, HEALTHCARE, IN A MATURE WESTERN  ECONOMY SHOULD BE "FREE". GOVERNMENT AS I SEE IT IS FOR THE PROTECTION AND GREATER GOOD OF ITS PEOPLE.

    OTHER WESTERN GOVERNMENTS COMPLY WITH THIS EDICT....THE UNITED STATES IS WOEFULLY LAGGING AND HAS NO EXCUSE.

    IF THE US CAN FUND FOREIGN WARS AT ITS CURRENT RATE, THEN SURELY WE CAN PROVIDE OUR CITIZENS WITH HEALTH-CARE COVERAGE.

    AFTERALL IT IS THE "WORKER" WHO MADE THIS ECONOMY GREAT!!! NOT THE WEALTHY INDUSTRIALIST!




    FREE!

    The money to pay for it just materializes.

    Wait until all the taxes to pay for this monstrosity kick in.

    But that isn't a problem if you don't work.

    Oh I forgot the 30 million who will get free health insurance vote democrat won't have to pay those taxes.

     

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Poll: Health coverage not federal government's job

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    Privatization of social security?  Let me decide with my money.  I'll take my money now and let the feds keep my employeers portion if I could.  

    Private schools do not serve the needs of all children so it is no real answer.  Public schools are failing to meet the needs of too many children; Mass doesn't even make hte top 10 states for graduation.

    And do you really want the roads and bridges owned and operated by private companies?  Yes, that would be better then what we have now and where it has been implemented; maintenance has been vastly improved and the quality of hte facilities are superior.



    Pretty limited thinking.  

    You want control of your retirement and can handle the result?  Maybe.  But unexpected things happen (like illness or markey crahes) and certainly not all people are in the same financial boat as you.

    Public schools at least have a goal to attend to the needs of all children. Private schools cannot and will not.  And Massachsetts has high standards of learning which explains why graduation rates are sometimes lower.  Try Mississippi with low standards and worse graduation rates.

    And you want to be charged by a private entity every time you use their road or bridge?  You don't see a problem with that?

    Point is we tried a privatized version of all these things and we changed to a government based system because ... the profit model did not serve the needs of all the people adequately.  Get with this century please.



    I'd call it action orientated thinking.

    On SS I have more faith in my ability to take care of myself then the govt. The model I've paid into since I started working at 14 won't be what I paid for by the time I get there.  Yes,  I'd take the self determination path if I could.

    On education; I'm a voucher and charter school supporter and this position is for my grand kids.  I think that parents should be able to get a voucher credit for public education and apply it to any licensed private school.  Point of fact Mass's much vaulted education system doesn't make the top 10.

    Privatized highways under public private partnerships are the future, they're a better value, support private sector hiring and limit government bloat.  Let the government develop policy and standards and then let innovation of the private sector implement.  You my friend are behind the times on this issue as the train has left the station.



    Whatever you call them...

    ...those aren't really moderate positions.

    And just as with health care, gross privatization of basic govt functions is not a panacea that will cure all ills...whether it's infrastructure/legacy spending, SS, or education.

     



  • and what makes them not moderate?

    I'd like options; not to do away with something.

     

    I'd like options for SS,

     

    I'd like options for elementary Ed

     

    I'd like funding options and efficiencies for large infrastructure projects

     

    Options seems pretty moderate to me; unless you are entrenched in it has to be by the government.

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Poll: Health coverage not federal government's job

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    I'd call it action orientated thinking.

    On SS I have more faith in my ability to take care of myself then the govt. The model I've paid into since I started working at 14 won't be what I paid for by the time I get there.  Yes,  I'd take the self determination path if I could.

    On education; I'm a voucher and charter school supporter and this position is for my grand kids.  I think that parents should be able to get a voucher credit for public education and apply it to any licensed private school.  Point of fact Mass's much vaulted education system doesn't make the top 10.

    Privatized highways under public private partnerships are the future, they're a better value, support private sector hiring and limit government bloat.  Let the government develop policy and standards and then let innovation of the private sector implement.  You my friend are behind the times on this issue as the train has left the station.




     

    Privatization is hardly the way to go in all respects. Privatized correctional institutions, are often the worst. The reason should be obvious: Want to make more money? Withhold medical care. Withhold edible food. Etc.

    And in that instance, it is the government doing the punishing.

    In fact, privatized correctional institutions are a big lobby behind fighting any and all efforts at decriminalization and treatment for drug offenses. The reasons should be obvious: The more people they convince legislatures to lock up, and for the longer, the more money they make.

    Bad idea.



     

    There are plenty of industries where the incentives are dangerously wrong for a corporation to handle.

     



    If you set up a contract to privatise prisons it would include perfromance standards and penalties if standards weren't followed.

    If public prisons become overcrowded or fall below standards; thier is just hand wringing.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Poll: Health coverage not federal government's job

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    Privatized highways under public private partnerships are the future, they're a better value, support private sector hiring and limit government bloat.  Let the government develop policy and standards and then let innovation of the private sector implement.  You my friend are behind the times on this issue as the train has left the station.




    Private companies already build the highways and they get paid well for their work. They shouldn't have an open-ended contract to profit indefinitely from a a project they are already paid to complete.

     

    Major contracts put out for competitive bids allow all the innovation of the private sector to be applied. If they build it better, faster and cheaper than their competitors they are rewarded with a higher profit margin.

    Allowing private companies to own public infrastructure causes all sorts of problems.

    What recourse does the taxpayer have if the roads fall into disrepair?

    Who is responsible for patrolling these roads? Do the private companies pay for the police patrols or for the costs of emergency services?



    I'd suggest you do a little research on public private partnerships (P's).  In transportation the government entity provides the scope of a problem and solicits for proposals to meet such scope.  In Virginia they are working on a $1B highway HOT lane project, where HOV's ride free and others can pay a toll based on capacity availability.  The P3 entities known as concessionaires are responisible for everything over a stated period.  This includes final permitting, design, build, operate, maintain and financing of the project over typically a 25 to 50 year lease agreement.  They get paid on a number of criteria from facility condition to what is called lane availability or hours that the lanes are in operation accounting for maintenance.

    Having a P3 entitiy provides the government with single point responsibility.

    Citizen/taxpayer roadway complaints utilize the same reporting mechanism that the state's public roads have; but the P3 roadway problems get resolved quicker because their are stated response times with penalties in the contracts.

    The facilities are patrolled as called for in the contract but generally the P3 does it inline with the contracts perfromance criteria for patrol frequency.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Poll: Health coverage not federal government's job

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    Private companies already build the highways and they get paid well for their work.



    And there's the rub. Government contracts with the private sector already. So I'm not sure what this notion of further privatization is supposed to even look like.

     

    Companies can just build highways wherever they please?



    The concept of P3's is for total turnkey services.  Permitting, design, build, operate, maintain, and finance under a stated lease duration with a pay back mechanism that provide the desired ROI for the P3 Concessionaire.

    P3's are more efficient then what the government can do.  So users and taxpayers get more for their money.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Poll: Health coverage not federal government's job

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Private companies already build the highways and they get paid well for their work. And there's the rub. Government contracts with the private sector already. So I'm not sure what this notion of further privatization is supposed to even look like. Companies can just build highways wherever they please?




    The 3P idea is to cede even more control to the private sector without all of those pesky reponsibilities of a democratically elected gov't to it's constituency.

     

    There would be no recourse, other than a protracted legal fight with a company who wrote the contract in the first place. Which is ironic because isn't the wingnuts the ones who hate 'judicial activism' and ambulance chasers?

    And then there's the 'eminent domain' problem?

    Most new highways are built under that legal theory so now it would be the gov't turning private land over to a corporation in order for them to make a profit.

    Again, weren't the wingnuts in a tizzy over the New London, CT 'eminent domain' flap a few years ago?  

     



    P3's perform all the statuatory required services that the government entity would provide, under a private sector business efficiency model, and there wouldn't be any politicians placing their brotherinlaws in no show jobs.

    The contracts are written by the government entity, and are full of recourse clauses tied to specific services adn penalties.

    Remember these are just projects that the private sector can get done better/quicker so the public gets the benefit sooner; eminent domain would still be performed under the state laws and for highway projects by the state DOT, as needed for the project.  P3's still have to go through the same level of permitting as a current project.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Poll: Health coverage not federal government's job

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    I

     

    I'd call it action orientated thinking.

    On SS I have more faith in my ability to take care of myself then the govt. The model I've paid into since I started working at 14 won't be what I paid for by the time I get there.  Yes,  I'd take the self determination path if I could.

    On education; I'm a voucher and charter school supporter and this position is for my grand kids.  I think that parents should be able to get a voucher credit for public education and apply it to any licensed private school.  Point of fact Mass's much vaulted education system doesn't make the top 10.

    Privatized highways under public private partnerships are the future, they're a better value, support private sector hiring and limit government bloat.  Let the government develop policy and standards and then let innovation of the private sector implement.  You my friend are behind the times on this issue as the train has left the station.



    Your proposals benefit only a minority of wealthy individuals and not the majority.  Hardly a moderate view.  The wealthy are doing just fine right now.  But we have to insure that everyone has a shot at a better life.  



  • I'm looking out for the middle class as the wealthy don't need SS or school vouchers.

    The middle class will need its SS money to retire and they would benefit from a voucher to supplement the cost of putting their child in a private school.  I to want everyone to have a shot at a better life and to not be held back by a policy of mediocrity.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Poll: Health coverage not federal government's job

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:


    Actually, thinking about both points, the best way to reduce cost is to put the bad lifestyle types into their own pool and pay based on the risk inccured.  

    Hey, wait a minute...  that's how the private sector worked BEFORE government got involved.

     



    Huh? Could you explain further how insurers put the "bad lifestyle types" into their own pool? What "bad lifestyles" are you referring to?

     




    Take smoking.  you smoke, you pay WAY higher for health insurance, if anyone will cover you.  that would be a private sector approach.

    A government approach is that the smoker pays the same, has the same coverage, as a health nut.

    That's the government approach to healthcare in a nut shell. Unsustainable and just flat out wrong.

    First, private insurance already imposes surcharges for smokers (subject to state law and employer discretion).

    Second, under the ACA, the states can still allow these surcharges.

    So, you're wrong twice.  And the ACA, in part, helped make rules like this possible and further incentivizes good healthcare decisions...like quitting smoking.

     

    You don't know what you're talking about.

     

     

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Poll: Health coverage not federal government's job

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

    Awww Rubie... hit a nerve?

    You still think we can and should let anyone in OUR country and we support them for life and generations to come?

    Yup.. that's what you advocate but are afraid to say the words. Your decision to ignore the reality and acknowledge that what you falsely call compassion is nothing more than a guise to achieve political gain in power however false the perceptions are painted.

    Again you fall back on your typical glib by attacking te poster. It would be so nice (and refreshing) if you would address the ISSUE (which neither you nor I are).

    You advocate tens of millions of criminals invading the country and that hard working Americans (does that word hurt?) are forced to give them a very comfortable life by their own standards all the while lowering their own standards of living in doing so.

    Where's the equity in that?

    They are trash.. people who steal are trash. People who contribute nothing to society are trash. People who intentionally live off of others are trash.

    You call the above "victems". I call them criminals which is what they are.. even using your beloved law definitions but... you turn a selective eye on those laws. How very convenient for you.

    Your definition of morality includes rewarding criminals? .. or sodomy?

    I think your parents failed you miserably. Put away your untuned violin.

     

    Have a nice day comrade Rubie.

    I'll continue to pray for anyone you have taught. They must be twisted.

     




    You sound a lot like many hypocrites - ignoring your own faults, while misrepresenting those of others as though you are some sort of arbiter of society.

    Newsflash: you aren't, and as a result you have next to no credibility.

    The reason I know this is that you make no attempts to better understand the nature of problems and instead just jump to false conclusions and petty insults, because they're easier than trying to learn...much less admit what you don't know.

    It seems clear to me that you've never given a thought to empathize with people who have less than you or think differently from you.  That requires honesty and a little courage of your convictions.  In other words, you can never be right if you were never wrong.

    Even worse, you're a bigot...needlessly insulting and denigrating a whole swath of people who consist of far more than you realize...merely to score a point in an argument which was a fallacy to begin with.

     




    Empathy should destroy the country? Is that what you advocate.

    I'm not the issue.. what should be at issue is whether this country (whether for humanitarian or purely POLITICAL reasons) can afford to carry 21 (key word) MILLION people and generations to follow with a free ride.

    You hold the option to discuss the issue or could swithch back to name calling and character attacks.

    Why should only working Americans make 'financial sacrifices' in these difficult times yet nobody advocates the freeloaders to sacrifice... anything ?  

    Equitable? Only if you are here and on the dole.. OR.. find political benefit/advantage in thinking that way.

     



    You missed the point, which is that there are more important things than money; that having MORE money does not give a person MORE moral authority to dictate who stays and who goes.

    And again, you fail to realize the many. many sacrifices that immigrants endure just to get here in the first place...only to be scorned, ridiculed and dogged at every turn by people like yourself because of the color of their skin or country of origin.

    Note the inverse of this is NOT inviting them all over for tea and cookies, but there is a continuum, and the best solutions are somewhere in the middle...

    ...such as granting the children of illegals amnesty but not the illegals themselves, i.e. versions of the dream act.

    See how that works?  You still get to play bad cop and punish the "criminals" (for what amounts to a civil offense) while not adversely affecting kids who, by ALL accounts, are just as american as you or me.

    You must understand that I grew up in a city filled with immigrants from everywhere - from kindergarten through high school - and we all managed to get along with (mostly) little real strife.  In fact, one of my oldest friends is the daughter of an illegal cuban immigrant; she now lives in Miami and is a die-hard republican...just like another old friend whose dad was american and mom was born in france.

    We are - and always will be - a nation of immigrants, legal and otherwise.

     




    We are - and always will be - a nation of immigrants, legal and otherwise.

     

    We won't be solventnation if this continues.. or expands.

    It is simply unsustainable. It will break us economically, politically and possibly socially.

    The working American citizens become slaves to support the illegals.

    What do you think Obamas politically motivated override of federal law means to immigrants everywhere.. It tells them to steal in here and get ready for the freebies.

    We pay the price for his greed.

    Is there any other country in the world (or history) that encourages and REWARDS criminals to invade our country?   



    Again, you miss the point.  Those immigrants are part of the U.S. and both dems and repubs are falling over themselves to get them signed up.

    Some of the illegal immigrants are criminals and should be deported. But most are honest, hard-working and forthright in their desire to contribute...they are basically committing a civil violation.  And the children of illegals certainly are NOT criminals.

    Americans should not be afraid of a little competition - if they have any pride at all in their work ethic.  You have no right to block others from citizenship just so you can remain a  over-entitled snob.

    More rank hyperbole of the worst kind.  The only "slaves" in America are the undocumented workers (and true wage slaves) being employed under the table by unscrupulous business owners and pampered elitists...under constant threat of deportation, violence, and worse.

     

     

     

     

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Poll: Health coverage not federal government's job

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

    Awww Rubie... hit a nerve?

    You still think we can and should let anyone in OUR country and we support them for life and generations to come?

    Yup.. that's what you advocate but are afraid to say the words. Your decision to ignore the reality and acknowledge that what you falsely call compassion is nothing more than a guise to achieve political gain in power however false the perceptions are painted.

    Again you fall back on your typical glib by attacking te poster. It would be so nice (and refreshing) if you would address the ISSUE (which neither you nor I are).

    You advocate tens of millions of criminals invading the country and that hard working Americans (does that word hurt?) are forced to give them a very comfortable life by their own standards all the while lowering their own standards of living in doing so.

    Where's the equity in that?

    They are trash.. people who steal are trash. People who contribute nothing to society are trash. People who intentionally live off of others are trash.

    You call the above "victems". I call them criminals which is what they are.. even using your beloved law definitions but... you turn a selective eye on those laws. How very convenient for you.

    Your definition of morality includes rewarding criminals? .. or sodomy?

    I think your parents failed you miserably. Put away your untuned violin.

     

    Have a nice day comrade Rubie.

    I'll continue to pray for anyone you have taught. They must be twisted.

     




    You sound a lot like many hypocrites - ignoring your own faults, while misrepresenting those of others as though you are some sort of arbiter of society.

    Newsflash: you aren't, and as a result you have next to no credibility.

    The reason I know this is that you make no attempts to better understand the nature of problems and instead just jump to false conclusions and petty insults, because they're easier than trying to learn...much less admit what you don't know.

    It seems clear to me that you've never given a thought to empathize with people who have less than you or think differently from you.  That requires honesty and a little courage of your convictions.  In other words, you can never be right if you were never wrong.

    Even worse, you're a bigot...needlessly insulting and denigrating a whole swath of people who consist of far more than you realize...merely to score a point in an argument which was a fallacy to begin with.

     




    Empathy should destroy the country? Is that what you advocate.

    I'm not the issue.. what should be at issue is whether this country (whether for humanitarian or purely POLITICAL reasons) can afford to carry 21 (key word) MILLION people and generations to follow with a free ride.

    You hold the option to discuss the issue or could swithch back to name calling and character attacks.

    Why should only working Americans make 'financial sacrifices' in these difficult times yet nobody advocates the freeloaders to sacrifice... anything ?  

    Equitable? Only if you are here and on the dole.. OR.. find political benefit/advantage in thinking that way.

     



    You missed the point, which is that there are more important things than money; that having MORE money does not give a person MORE moral authority to dictate who stays and who goes.

    And again, you fail to realize the many. many sacrifices that immigrants endure just to get here in the first place...only to be scorned, ridiculed and dogged at every turn by people like yourself because of the color of their skin or country of origin.

    Note the inverse of this is NOT inviting them all over for tea and cookies, but there is a continuum, and the best solutions are somewhere in the middle...

    ...such as granting the children of illegals amnesty but not the illegals themselves, i.e. versions of the dream act.

    See how that works?  You still get to play bad cop and punish the "criminals" (for what amounts to a civil offense) while not adversely affecting kids who, by ALL accounts, are just as american as you or me.

    You must understand that I grew up in a city filled with immigrants from everywhere - from kindergarten through high school - and we all managed to get along with (mostly) little real strife.  In fact, one of my oldest friends is the daughter of an illegal cuban immigrant; she now lives in Miami and is a die-hard republican...just like another old friend whose dad was american and mom was born in france.

    We are - and always will be - a nation of immigrants, legal and otherwise.

     




    We are - and always will be - a nation of immigrants, legal and otherwise.

     

    We won't be solventnation if this continues.. or expands.

    It is simply unsustainable. It will break us economically, politically and possibly socially.

    The working American citizens become slaves to support the illegals.

    What do you think Obamas politically motivated override of federal law means to immigrants everywhere.. It tells them to steal in here and get ready for the freebies.

    We pay the price for his greed.

    Is there any other country in the world (or history) that encourages and REWARDS criminals to invade our country?   



    Again, you miss the point.  Those immigrants are part of the U.S. and both dems and repubs are falling over themselves to get them signed up.

    Some of the illegal immigrants are criminals and should be deported. But most are honest, hard-working and forthright in their desire to contribute...they are basically committing a civil violation.  And the children of illegals certainly are NOT criminals.

    Americans should not be afraid of a little competition - if they have any pride at all in their work ethic.  You have no right to block others from citizenship just so you can remain a  over-entitled snob.

    More rank hyperbole of the worst kind.  The only "slaves" in America are the undocumented workers (and true wage slaves) being employed under the table by unscrupulous business owners and pampered elitists...under constant threat of deportation, violence, and worse.

     

     

     

     

    I read and understood everything you said...


    You're telling me that current federal immigration laws are going to be ignored.

    We will not recind the laws.. we will just pretend they are not there and won't enforce them

    What is the value of laws that can be conveniently bypassed? .. Zero my friend.

    and we will continue to do this no matter what it costs and no matter how many Americans are hurt by this.

    We will continue to reward illegal aliens for invading the country on the backs of Americans who work hard.  

    Housing, money, food, education, court systems, health care.....

    Of the few that do work, they take jobs away from Americans in our own country.

    I got it. I just submit that this is harmful to the country.   



    Maybe those Americans who lose their jobs to diligent immigrants deserve to lose them.  They should have to work for their spots like everyone else.  Immigration is not predicated upon willingness to work.

    Again, MOST immigrants - legal or not - are simply hard-working folks trying to make a go of it in the U.S.  Citizenship is not a guarantee of work, or so the supposed "conservative" proponents of "individual responsibility" have been telling us.

    Immigration laws need to be changed - to let the honest, productive people in and dissuade the true lawbreakers.  But you cannot argue that, because a person skirted the system by entering into a sham marriage just to stay in the country, they are automatically preferable to someone who spent a month and their life savings getting here just to pick fruit in California.

     

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share