RE: Immigration law: something's got to give.

RE: Immigration law: something's got to give. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

popeye1250 -> RE: Immigration law: something's got to give. (6/5/2008 10:02:00 AM)
Stella, that's just more of the "same ol, same ol." You're just trying to get us involved in the problems of other countries and their people. Again, they need to stop looking to "The West" to solve their problems for them. Sorry but that's just not our job. It'd be "The West" still giving to them. And all your "solutions" still involve immigration or refugees or asylum seekers going to "The West" don't they? You're just re-hashing things. "Who looks outside dreams, who looks inside awakens." -Jung- That's what those countries and their people's need to do, look inside themselves and stop sucking off of, "The West." It's like welfare, it never ends until you end it! Stella, I want simplified immigration laws too! "If you're in this country illegally GTFO!!!" And Enforce it!

stella41b -> RE: Immigration law: something's got to give. (6/5/2008 11:27:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Stella, that's just more of the "same ol, same ol." Okay. Please allow me to explain this - it's just my theory mind, but it's also something I've done successfully. You take say a small American theater, perhaps a musical theater, and you send them into say an African or an Asian country, let's say for example Bangladesh. You send them to Bangladesh to teach musical theater to the Bangladeshis with the specific aim of creating a Bangladeshi musical theater. Now you can do this two ways, you can have a bilingual English-Bangladeshi theater, or simply translate it all over into Bangladeshi, you use Bangladeshi music, Bangladeshi culture, and so on. You put out shows, which brings together an audience of Bangladeshis coming to see this Bangladeshi musical theater. This creates a need for people to come together and interact. They need resources, but through creativity they find such resources, somehow, somewhere, and so such a project develops. It need not be a musical theater, it could be a choir, a band, a sports team, anything which brings people together. But you also send in advisors, business advisors, anyone who can develop a local community and you create opportunities for people to find some sort of occupation, to trade, to share, all on a very prmitive, basic scale, but something which builds, develops and grows. A community, two communities, six communities, a town, a region, and so on. Do you see what I'm getting at now? Has this been done before? quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 You're just trying to get us involved in the problems of other countries and their people. Popeye, we're already involved in these problems through the amount of foreign aid we're giving them, right? There's an African proverb which says 'the person being carried doesn't appreciate how far it is to the next town'. How much longer are we going to be giving money to people because they are poor? You can apply the same argument to welfare. If you're giving money to people without expecting any sort of return these people become dependent on the money you're giving them. This doesn't solve any poverty, but simply maintains it. Correct? quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Again, they need to stop looking to "The West" to solve their problems for them. Sorry but that's just not our job. This is precisely my point Popeye, and why I'm suggesting culture and cultural exchanges as the way forward. or sport. This replaces the dreams the kids have of a sporting or acting career in the States with dreams of an acting or sporting career in their own country and their own language. Our job would simply be to enable this. quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 It'd be "The West" still giving to them. Yes this is true, but under different circumstances. This time round there's got to be a return, a result. quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 And all your "solutions" still involve immigration or refugees or asylum seekers going to "The West" don't they? You're just re-hashing things. Okay, so Popeye, are you really trying to tell me you'd prefer a solution where nobody comes to 'the West'? This is unrealistic, it isn't going to ever happen. You're still mixing up immigration by choice and by necessity. BTW these aren't so much solutions but developing theories (see below). If you develop lots of local projects to work with people to reduce poverty you take away the need for people to come to the West out of poverty. I don't propose any change to the way we deal with asylum seekers or refugees fleeing from terror, imminent danger, civil war or a natural disaster as I feel these people should be over and above any sort of immgration requirement purely for humanitarian reasons. Back to immigration by choice, which for me is a completely separate issue. You separate the right to remain from the visa and work permit, and together with the visa and work permit you add an additional requirement for a residency permit, either temporary or permanent which you can apply for by giving a visa, work permit, medical insurance and proof of address. You still get your first visas and work permits from the US Consulate, but you apply for your residency permit once inside the US, perhaps from the same office where you extend or renew your visas. You replace the green card with permanent residence. quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 "Who looks outside dreams, who looks inside awakens." -Jung- That's what those countries and their people's need to do, look inside themselves and stop sucking off of, "The West." It's like welfare, it never ends until you end it! I did say it was a developing theory - to fight poverty. The theory develops through fighting your own poverty. By the time you have solved your own poverty, you should know how to solve poverty in other Third World countries. Consider that a key stage in the development of my theory is tackling welfare dependency and local poverty. Now you can blame the people who are on welfare for being on welfare and repeat the 'get a job' mantra all you like, but from what I can see it's not that easy to find a job so you go for the next best thing - an occupation - self-employment is an occupation, as is setting up a project or enterprise which is based on culture, community entertainment and sport. It's the same principle, rebuilding a community or society from the bottom up. It's the people at the bottom of society who need this help, not the people at the top. Perhaps you or someone else can explain to me then why the Government is doing all it can to help corporations and big business, but disregards the people at the bottom of society.

popeye1250 -> RE: Immigration law: something's got to give. (6/5/2008 11:32:17 AM)
Stella, you're just proposing the same things again! In your scenario "The West" is always the banker and always the place to run to! Without the "rule of law" those countries are fucked.

stella41b -> RE: Immigration law: something's got to give. (6/5/2008 11:38:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Stella, you're just proposing the same things again! In your scenario "The West" is always the banker and always the place to run to! Without the "rule of law" those countries are fucked. Popeye, I said business advisors, not banks. If you go back and reread what I wrote about resources when talking about Bangladeshi musical theater it's quite clear that I was talking about local resources. You just fund the setting up of the project, but the project ultimately should be paying for itself and self-financing from local resources. This is the whole idea, to generate local resources.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Immigration law: something's got to give. (6/5/2008 11:40:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Yes, I know about your isolationist standpoint and your wish to live in a cave away from the rest of the world. That ain't gonna happen, popeye - get over it [:D] . The global network encompasses all countries, and America is a major player (it's always acted that way). Hmmmmmmmm...and every time America steps in, countries such as yours are one of the first to cry out against us. So let's be honest, kittin...The U. S. is damned if we do and damned if we don't. Or would we be O.K. if we did it ONLY in the way the U.N. or other countries...more enlightened than the U.S., of course...told us how to use our money and our guns and our soldiers? This thread is so far off the original post that we are in an entirely new realm now...

kittinSol -> RE: Immigration law: something's got to give. (6/5/2008 11:42:24 AM)
Which country such as mine?

CreativeDominant -> RE: Immigration law: something's got to give. (6/5/2008 12:29:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Which country such as mine? Sorry...meant to say "voices" rather than country.

popeye1250 -> RE: Immigration law: something's got to give. (6/5/2008 1:04:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stella41b quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Stella, you're just proposing the same things again! In your scenario "The West" is always the banker and always the place to run to! Without the "rule of law" those countries are fucked. Popeye, I said business advisors, not banks. If you go back and reread what I wrote about resources when talking about Bangladeshi musical theater it's quite clear that I was talking about local resources. You just fund the setting up of the project, but the project ultimately should be paying for itself and self-financing from local resources. This is the whole idea, to generate local resources. Stella, that's a great idea, why don't you go to Bangladesh!

rulemylife -> RE: Immigration law: something's got to give. (6/5/2008 3:09:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: "After World War II, the nation's tax bill was roughly split between corporations and individuals. But after years of changes in the federal tax code and international economy, the corporate share of taxes has declined to a fourth the amount individuals pay, according to the US Office of Management and Budget." I would not call that a bad thing. Corporations are not people. They don't vote and cannot be represented in Congress. Corporate income tax generally represents double taxation. Profits in a corporation are taxed at the corporate level, then taxed again when distributed to the owners as dividends. Curiously enough, if one eliminated corporate taxes, so that corporate owners could minimize their tax burdens by keeping more money tied up in the corporate structure (meaning in a bank account or investment account), that would greatly expand the investment base in this country, which would make the economy considerably more robust and resilient. Tax revenues overall would increase, and unemployment would remain low. Of course, class warfare rhetoric makes such pragmatic concepts unthinkable. They can't be represented in Congress? Come on!!! Corporate lobbyists have far more representation in Congress (unofficially, of course) than you or I do. Yes, you can make the argument of double taxation, but the corporate entity exists in itself. The advantage of the corporation is the owners/shareholders cannot be held legally accountable for the actions of the corporation. So there is a trade-off. The corporation exists as its own entity, shielding the individual holdings of the shareholders but also requiring them to be taxed seperately. I'm not even going to get into the "trickle-down economic theory". It's been been tried repeatedly. All it's done is create the greatest gap in net worth between the least and most wealthy since the Depression. Which we may have the second version of real soon.

MzMia -> RE: Immigration law: something's got to give. (6/5/2008 3:13:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Did you know that developing countries hosted the vast majority of refugees worldwide? In comparison, the numbers of refugees and asylum seekers in the USA and Europe is paltry. http://www.refugees.org/uploadedFiles/Investigate/Publications_&_Archives/WRS_Archives/2007/Table2.pdf There's the "thanks" we get! "More, more, more!" "Gimme, gimme, gimme!" You know, there comes a time when you need to stop running from strife and imjustice like the Jews did in the ghettos of Warsaw Poland. The most important things they needed even before food and medicine was weapons and ammo! And they took a terrible toll on the Germans with what small amounts of weapons they did have! Buying weapons and ammo and dropping them into places like Armenia is infinately more cheaper than doing all the other things that don't work. That's why tyrants don't want their "subjects" to have any weapons at all. Popeye! I knew this topic would get you excited![:D] Calm down, have a drink, and for gosh sakes hide the guns and the ammo. Put them back in the bunker for a while. Sit back and enjoy the Obama rally and think of a better future.

rulemylife -> RE: Immigration law: something's got to give. (6/5/2008 3:20:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: "After World War II, the nation's tax bill was roughly split between corporations and individuals. But after years of changes in the federal tax code and international economy, the corporate share of taxes has declined to a fourth the amount individuals pay, according to the US Office of Management and Budget." I would not call that a bad thing. Corporations are not people. They don't vote and cannot be represented in Congress. Corporate income tax generally represents double taxation. Profits in a corporation are taxed at the corporate level, then taxed again when distributed to the owners as dividends. Curiously enough, if one eliminated corporate taxes, so that corporate owners could minimize their tax burdens by keeping more money tied up in the corporate structure (meaning in a bank account or investment account), that would greatly expand the investment base in this country, which would make the economy considerably more robust and resilient. Tax revenues overall would increase, and unemployment would remain low. Of course, class warfare rhetoric makes such pragmatic concepts unthinkable. And don't forget one other thing, Celtic...the top 10% of earners in this country pay well over 70% of all the tax base that the government operates from. You can't just throw that out and not support it. It contradicts everything I've ever seen.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Immigration law: something's got to give. (6/5/2008 3:54:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: "After World War II, the nation's tax bill was roughly split between corporations and individuals. But after years of changes in the federal tax code and international economy, the corporate share of taxes has declined to a fourth the amount individuals pay, according to the US Office of Management and Budget." I would not call that a bad thing. Corporations are not people. They don't vote and cannot be represented in Congress. Corporate income tax generally represents double taxation. Profits in a corporation are taxed at the corporate level, then taxed again when distributed to the owners as dividends. Curiously enough, if one eliminated corporate taxes, so that corporate owners could minimize their tax burdens by keeping more money tied up in the corporate structure (meaning in a bank account or investment account), that would greatly expand the investment base in this country, which would make the economy considerably more robust and resilient. Tax revenues overall would increase, and unemployment would remain low. Of course, class warfare rhetoric makes such pragmatic concepts unthinkable. And don't forget one other thing, Celtic...the top 10% of earners in this country pay well over 70% of all the tax base that the government operates from. You can't just throw that out and not support it. It contradicts everything I've ever seen. Why can't I, rule? Everything you have thrown out has come from a liberal source when you have bothered to supply a source. You've yet to back one thing up with anything from a source that could be considered semi-balanced, let alone completely objective. But for you... From a news report on the ABC affiliate in N. Carolina: according to the IRS and based upon CY 2005 tax year, the top 10% of earners pay 70.3% of all *personal* income taxes? Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of earners pay only 3% of personal income taxes. From various sources (if you care to look up the various sources, go to the main article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States ) There are about 117 million taxpayers in the United States.[8] The Treasury Department in 2006 reported, based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data, the share of federal income taxes paid by taxpayers of various income levels. The data shows the progressive tax structure of the U.S. federal income tax system on individuals that reduces the tax incidence of people with smaller incomes, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with higher incomes - the top 0.1% of taxpayers by income pay 17.4% of federal income taxes (earning 9.1% of the income), the top 1% with gross income of $328,049 or more pay 36.9% (earning 19%), the top 5% with gross income of $137,056 or more pay 57.1% (earning 33.4%), and the bottom 50% with gross income of $30,122 or less pay 3.3% (earning 13.4%).[9][10] If the federal taxation rate is compared with the wealth distribution rate, the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (wealth 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).[11]

rulemylife -> RE: Immigration law: something's got to give. (6/5/2008 3:55:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ...i may be wrong, but aren't corporations treated as individuals under law in the US following some court decision or other? Try this: "Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad This case opened the door to claims that juristic persons have the rights of natural persons - I'd say with the obvious result of expanding the legal playing field for corporations. This great article goes into further details: How Corporations Became 'Persons' http://www.uuworld.org/2003/03/feature1a.html Why doesn't it surprise me to find that you would use a magazine rated as one of the most liberal religious magazines, socialistic in its viewpoint, to decry corporations? Show me one theory within the glorious construct of socialism that recognizes a corporation as anything BUT evil. Seriously, if you are going to prove your point in a way that comes across as not serving your own liberal agenda, then come up with something that is a fair and balanced article. Surely, with the whole web at your fingertips, it is possible to come up with fair and balanced articles? I can't speak for everyone but you're trying to make this into an argument of consevatism vs. liberalism and capitalism vs. socialism. You yourself admitted in a previous post that there were many corporate abuses yet you continue to defend those corporations. I don't think anyone is saying corporations are inherently evil or that capitalism is wrong. The point is that we've become seriously off-track here. Remember "Wallstreet" with Michael Douglas and the infamous phrase "greed is good". Well, no, it's not, but it seems too many of our corporate executives have taken that phrase to heart.

rulemylife -> RE: Immigration law: something's got to give. (6/5/2008 4:05:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Yes, I know about your isolationist standpoint and your wish to live in a cave away from the rest of the world. That ain't gonna happen, popeye - get over it [:D] . The global network encompasses all countries, and America is a major player (it's always acted that way). My wish to live in a "cave?" Isolationism is a thousand times better than interventionism isn't it? Just look at Iraq! Just out of curiosity, were you saying the same thing back in '02 when Dubya and his crew were beating the war drums?

CreativeDominant -> RE: Immigration law: something's got to give. (6/5/2008 4:06:26 PM)
Interesting tactic, rule...toss out a challenge to me to back up something I have said and then, when I do, you haul out something I posted EARLIER and jump on me for turning this into "something it is not". I am sorry...perhaps I am a bit dense but could you show me where the arguments/proof/sources offered up that came down on the U.S. policies, corporations, etc. came from if not from socialist and/or liberal and/or progressive sources?

popeye1250 -> RE: Immigration law: something's got to give. (6/5/2008 4:11:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Yes, I know about your isolationist standpoint and your wish to live in a cave away from the rest of the world. That ain't gonna happen, popeye - get over it [:D] . The global network encompasses all countries, and America is a major player (it's always acted that way). My wish to live in a "cave?" Isolationism is a thousand times better than interventionism isn't it? Just look at Iraq! Just out of curiosity, were you saying the same thing back in '02 when Dubya and his crew were beating the war drums? Rule, I was beating the war drums to go after al qeada. Who gives a shit about Iraq? And, I never voted for Bush either time. I voted for the Constitution Party.

rulemylife -> RE: Immigration law: something's got to give. (6/5/2008 4:33:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Interesting tactic, rule...toss out a challenge to me to back up something I have said and then, when I do, you haul out something I posted EARLIER and jump on me for turning this into "something it is not". I am sorry...perhaps I am a bit dense but could you show me where the arguments/proof/sources offered up that came down on the U.S. policies, corporations, etc. came from if not from socialist and/or liberal and/or progressive sources? Well, actually, I just reply to things as I see them. Not sure how they might have been out of order. Not trying any tactics. Just trying for a friendly discussion, even if we disagree. Excuse me now though, I'm late for my meeting of the NE Ohio Liberal Socialists Intent on the Destruction of Capitalism and the American Way of Life meeting (you might have heard of us as the NEOLSIDCAWL).

rulemylife -> RE: Immigration law: something's got to give. (6/5/2008 4:39:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Yes, I know about your isolationist standpoint and your wish to live in a cave away from the rest of the world. That ain't gonna happen, popeye - get over it [:D] . The global network encompasses all countries, and America is a major player (it's always acted that way). My wish to live in a "cave?" Isolationism is a thousand times better than interventionism isn't it? Just look at Iraq! Just out of curiosity, were you saying the same thing back in '02 when Dubya and his crew were beating the war drums? Rule, I was beating the war drums to go after al qeada. Who gives a shit about Iraq? And, I never voted for Bush either time. I voted for the Constitution Party. [sm=agree.gif][sm=applause.gif]

rulemylife -> RE: Immigration law: something's got to give. (6/5/2008 4:54:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Interesting tactic, rule...toss out a challenge to me to back up something I have said and then, when I do, you haul out something I posted EARLIER and jump on me for turning this into "something it is not". I am sorry...perhaps I am a bit dense but could you show me where the arguments/proof/sources offered up that came down on the U.S. policies, corporations, etc. came from if not from socialist and/or liberal and/or progressive sources? Well, not really sure what you're asking me here. If it's about corporate criminality here's one link: •[image]http://my.eimg.net/x.gif[/image]Top 100 Corporate Criminals of the 1990's The 100 corporate criminals fell into 14 categories of crime: Environmental ... Six corporations that made the list of the Top 100 Corporate Criminals were ... http://www.corporatepredators.org/top100.html - 116k - Similar Pages sbm("rn_1"); That's only the '90's. We can go back to the '80's, '70's, or forward into the '00's. I'm not sure what you consider liberal/socialist/progressive but these are documented legal cases even Rush and O'Reilly can't dispute.

Alumbrado -> RE: Immigration law: something's got to give. (6/5/2008 5:15:11 PM)
quote: It need not be a musical theater, it could be a choir, a band, a sports team, anything which brings people together. LOL!!! Tell that to Naum Panovski...[sm=biggrin.gif]

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875