To The Bush Haters

[Nimue1995 1]

My bad. I thought this was the political forum.

We occasionally discuss other stuff besides politics brvheart.

[Loismustdie 0]

We spent about $100 billion to defend Japan in accordance with the agreements after WW2.this amount does not apply to 'percent of GDP'We spend who knows how much in South Korea, in Germany, in Cuba. None of that money goes towards our 'percent of gdp'So no, I don't think it is a good basis to compare countries charitable contributions

Once again I would like to throw in the amount spent on illegal immigrants. This amount alone dwarfs any other countries charitable numbers alone.

[KramitDaToad 0]

We spent about $100 billion to defend Japan in accordance with the agreements after WW2.this amount does not apply to 'percent of GDP'We spend who knows how much in South Korea, in Germany, in Cuba. None of that money goes towards our 'percent of gdp'

And so it shouldn't. Governments have many things they can spend money on. Putting it up as 'defence' vs charity and no other choice is disingenous

So no, I don't think it is a good basis to compare countries charitable contributions

This is what we call "Results Orientated Thinking". You are using arbitrary definitions to support your argument and only applying it to one side of the equation. Let use mine and compare the US to the rest of the world. The rest of the world gives a lot more aid in total $ than the US so obviously US is not pulling its weight.Tell me what's wrong with the above.

[KramitDaToad 0]

It is irrelevant when mentioned alone. The whole argument is getting silly.(actually it has been for a while and I take my part of the blame). I was simply challenging a post that implied that US citizens especially Christians don't value human life of others.

Way to miss the point. We are talking about governments not citizens. FFS Bob even went to the trouble of spelling it out

Yes, and I agree with the sentiment. Wouldn't you agree that risking your life for others would be worth more than money donated. I think you would consider blood a higher cost to pay than percentage of GDP. The US pays for the security of a lot of other countries with our blood and treasure. Some of the money they save by not having to have a real military probably frees up some of the money they donate.

I am finding it quite disgusting that you are invoking the deaths of others to try and score points in a discussion on fiscal spending. Please stop

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Once again I would like to throw in the amount spent on illegal immigrants. This amount alone dwarfs any other countries charitable numbers alone.

Nobody is mentioning it because it's not relevant to this discussion since the reality is that the US economy as a whole benefits from immigration both legal and illegal.

[CaneBrain 95]

WHY ARE YOU GUYS EVEN TALKING ABOUT GDP? WHO CARES WHAT PERCENTAGE WE GIVE!?!

because it is an accurate way to measure the subject of this conversation.basically, the argument I am hearing from conservatives on this forum is akin to saying that Houston, Texas is a richer area than Palm Beach, FL. The citizens of Houston have more total wealth than the citizens of Palm Beach. Therefore, Houston is a richer area than Palm Beach. Of course, that is ridiculous. Palm Beach is a richer area than Houston. We all know that. The way to see how rich an area is is to calculate how much the average citizen has (a per capita measurement.)This is a basic concept. FCP Bob was making an easy point. America gives a smaller percentage of its wealth away than many other "first-world" countries. That was his point. It is also true that we still give more away in total. And thats a fair point too. But, lets stop pretending like Bob and Kramit are taking crazy pills. Which town is more dangerous: City A: Population: 1,500,000, 97 murders per year OR City B: Population : 100,000, 59 murders per year. Not a hard question.Also, I dont see anyone challenging the more eye-raising point. Nobody attaches more strings to their foreign aid than we do. Hey, it's the government's right to want something back for aid but it casts America in a less altruistic light.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

because it is an accurate way to measure the subject of this conversation.basically, the argument I am hearing from conservatives on this forum is akin to saying that Houston, Texas is a richer area than Palm Beach, FL. The citizens of Houston have more total wealth than the citizens of Palm Beach. Therefore, Houston is a richer area than Palm Beach. Of course, that is ridiculous. Palm Beach is a richer area than Houston. We all know that. The way to see how rich an area is is to calculate how much the average citizen has (a per capita measurement.)This is a basic concept. FCP Bob was making an easy point. America gives a smaller percentage of its wealth away than many other "first-world" countries. That was his point. It is also true that we still give more away in total. And thats a fair point too. But, lets stop pretending like Bob and Kramit are taking crazy pills. Which town is more dangerous: City A: Population: 1,500,000, 97 murders per year OR City B: Population : 100,000, 59 murders per year. Not a hard question.Also, I dont see anyone challenging the more eye-raising point. Nobody attaches more strings to their foreign aid than we do. Hey, it's the government's right to want something back for aid but it casts America in a less altruistic light.

My main point isn't that the US isn't generous, it is. It's just that when the USA USA Woo Hoo We're Number 1 people start in on their stuff that it's important and appropriate to point out when this isn't the case.

[Balloon guy 158]

This is what we call "Results Orientated Thinking". You are using arbitrary definitions to support your argument and only applying it to one side of the equation. Let use mine and compare the US to the rest of the world. The rest of the world gives a lot more aid in total $ than the US so obviously US is not pulling its weight.Tell me what's wrong with the above.

Uhhh DUH....If it's the US vs the ALL the rest of the world, we win hands down, by a facotr of a billion in fact.The rest of the world gives no aid to the US, we give all our aid to the rest of the world.Therefore the US > the rest of the worldYou might want to sit this one out.

[Balloon guy 158]

Well BG even atheists can't help but agree with some of Jesus' teachings don't they?

You are right about this one Nim.

[Balloon guy 158]

Nobody is mentioning it because it's not relevant to this discussion since the reality is that the US economy as a whole benefits from immigration both legal and illegal.

Very debateableBut no matter what let's not let Henry in on this one, he believes in open borders...

[Balloon guy 158]

because it is an accurate way to measure the subject of this conversation.basically, the argument I am hearing from conservatives on this forum is akin to saying that Houston, Texas is a richer area than Palm Beach, FL. The citizens of Houston have more total wealth than the citizens of Palm Beach. Therefore, Houston is a richer area than Palm Beach. Of course, that is ridiculous. Palm Beach is a richer area than Houston. We all know that. The way to see how rich an area is is to calculate how much the average citizen has (a per capita measurement.)This is a basic concept. FCP Bob was making an easy point. America gives a smaller percentage of its wealth away than many other "first-world" countries. That was his point. It is also true that we still give more away in total. And thats a fair point too. But, lets stop pretending like Bob and Kramit are taking crazy pills. Which town is more dangerous: City A: Population: 1,500,000, 97 murders per year OR City B: Population : 100,000, 59 murders per year. Not a hard question.Also, I dont see anyone challenging the more eye-raising point. Nobody attaches more strings to their foreign aid than we do. Hey, it's the government's right to want something back for aid but it casts America in a less altruistic light.

I am going to have to relent and give you that the current democrat controlled congress and white house are not very good examples of civility and compassion.Besides, I don't think I can string Kramit along anymore. It was fun though

[hblask 1]

But no matter what let's not let Henry in on this one, he believes in open borders...

Fine, I'll just start my own thread.... I don't need you guys.

[CaneBrain 95]

I am going to have to relent and give you that the current democrat controlled congress and white house are not very good examples of civility and compassion.Besides, I don't think I can string Kramit along anymore. It was fun though

all those stats are from the Bush Admin but hey there are lots of people who are either pretending Bush never existed OR pretending that they did not like him all along. (CPAC this year----Bush and Obama are the same. Bush was not a real republican.)(CPAC last year----Bush walks in----crowd: "Four more year, four more years")You can almost see the tire marks on Bush's face from that bus the GOP just threw him under.

[Balloon guy 158]

all those stats are from the Bush Admin but hey there are lots of people who are either pretending Bush never existed OR pretending that they did not like him all along. (CPAC this year----Bush and Obama are the same. Bush was not a real republican.)(CPAC last year----Bush walks in----crowd: "Four more year, four more years")You can almost see the tire marks on Bush's face from that bus the GOP just threw him under.

All those 'stats' are going to be standard for any admin, but if it makes you feel better you can pretended Bush wasn't the most generous president when it comes to foriegn aid to Africa for aids etc.Bono might disagree with you though

[Loismustdie 0]

Nobody is mentioning it because it's not relevant to this discussion since the reality is that the US economy as a whole benefits from immigration both legal and illegal.

You're of the mind that healthcare cost, welfare cost, cost of schooling, etc., is NOT a charitable institution? This is as wrong as can be, and like BG said debatable as can be but the fact is your wrong. The only thing that illegal immigrants did was drive down labor cost, which doesn't help anybody except businesses. Go to a ER in Arizona, walk into a school, check out the thousands around the state waiting for "work" at various strategic points around the city/state. Illegal immigration is a net negative everytime, it's a drain and nothing more than charity at the end of the day.

[CaneBrain 95]

All those 'stats' are going to be standard for any admin, but if it makes you feel better you can pretended Bush wasn't the most generous president when it comes to foriegn aid to Africa for aids etc.Bono might disagree with you though

yeah, well, Bono is just a giant #2.

[hblask 1]

You're of the mind that healthcare cost, welfare cost, cost of schooling, etc., is NOT a charitable institution?This is as wrong as can be, and like BG said debatable as can be but the fact is your wrong. The only thing that illegal immigrants did was drive down labor cost, which doesn't help anybody except businesses. Go to a ER in Arizona, walk into a school, check out the thousands around the state waiting for 'work' at various strategic points around the city/state. Illegal immigration is a net negative everytime, it's a drain and nothing more than charity at the end of the day.

Most economic studies disagree with your conclusion. Illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than they collect in services. Lowering prices helps more than businesses, it helps consumers whose prices are lower and can afford a better variety of goods. Walking around looking at groups of people with a certain skin color is not really a solid basis for economic conclusions.Simple fact: if you believe that immigrants are bad for this country, you must believe that native births are bad for this country. Each adds one person to our population. The difference is the immigrants want to work, while native births are non-productive deadbeats for at least 18 years. Unless you have a theory about why someone who is dependent for 18 years is better for the economy than someone who wants to add productive labor, you should be more worried about enforcing birth control on people than who is crossing the border.

[Loismustdie 0]

Most economic studies disagree with your conclusion. Illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than they collect in services. Lowering prices helps more than businesses, it helps consumers whose prices are lower and can afford a better variety of goods. Walking around looking at groups of people with a certain skin color is not really a solid basis for economic conclusions.Simple fact: if you believe that immigrants are bad for this country, you must believe that native births are bad for this country. Each adds one person to our population. The difference is the immigrants want to work, while native births are non-productive deadbeats for at least 18 years. Unless you have a theory about why someone who is dependent for 18 years is better for the economy than someone who wants to add productive labor, you should be more worried about enforcing birth control on people than who is crossing the border.

Immigrants you are correct on. Illegal immigrants in large part do not. Look at California, Arizona, etc. If you got rid of every illegal immigrant in those States how much would we save in the cost of housing, feeding, healthcare, education, etc? Billions, easily, over the course of the past couple of years. As far as lowering prices, there is a definite push and pull in that area, businesses and consumers would have to budge a bit, that being said those higher prices are taxed, and so is 100% of your workforce. That is the issue. I've never seen any estimates that say illegal immigration is currently a net positive on the governments bottom line. If you have links to any I would appreciate it.

[hblask 1]

I've never seen any estimates that say illegal immigration is currently a net positive on the governments bottom line. If you have links to any I would appreciate it.

http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/at...rationCSR26.pdfAgain, I'll ask the question: why does adding a person to the US economy via a native birth help the country, but adding a person born outside the country harm the economy?This is a fundamental economic principal: each person desires more than they can make -- in other words, demand is always greater than supply for goods. So when a new person comes to the economy, whether via birth or immigration, net *demand* for products goes up faster than net *supply* of labor to produce those products. This spurs economic growth as companies scramble to try to meet demand. It increases wages overall because companies are competing to make more stuff per person. It spurs innovation as companies try to find ways to cut costs to make stuff cheaper.Don't get me wrong, there are definite problems, but none that can't be solved by providing a viable means of coming to this country legally. The current system doesn't work, it's just another failed federal program. I'm always amazed that so-called conservatives understand that the government cannot override the law of supply and demand when it comes to minimum wage, or corporate taxes, or production, or just about any area of the economy, but tend to have this HUGE blind spot about whether the government can override the law of supply and demand when it comes to labor. Central planning doesn't work; never has, never will. I suspect that the reason for this blind spot is because conservatives are doing on this issue what they always accuse liberals of doing with other issues: responding emotionally based on personal anecdotes instead of thinking rationally in terms of real economics.

[Loismustdie 0]

http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/at...rationCSR26.pdfAgain, I'll ask the question: why does adding a person to the US economy via a native birth help the country, but adding a person born outside the country harm the economy?This is a fundamental economic principal: each person desires more than they can make -- in other words, demand is always greater than supply for goods. So when a new person comes to the economy, whether via birth or immigration, net *demand* for products goes up faster than net *supply* of labor to produce those products. This spurs economic growth as companies scramble to try to meet demand. It increases wages overall because companies are competing to make more stuff per person. It spurs innovation as companies try to find ways to cut costs to make stuff cheaper.Don't get me wrong, there are definite problems, but none that can't be solved by providing a viable means of coming to this country legally. The current system doesn't work, it's just another failed federal program. I'm always amazed that so-called conservatives understand that the government cannot override the law of supply and demand when it comes to minimum wage, or corporate taxes, or production, or just about any area of the economy, but tend to have this HUGE blind spot about whether the government can override the law of supply and demand when it comes to labor. Central planning doesn't work; never has, never will. I suspect that the reason for this blind spot is because conservatives are doing on this issue what they always accuse liberals of doing with other issues: responding emotionally based on personal anecdotes instead of thinking rationally in terms of real economics.

If the additions of people were only illegals who worked than you win hands down. That's not the case and it never has been. They have families, who are a tax on the system. Yes, we have families who are a tax on the system as well, no one is arguing we do not. You don't win the argument based on that, that's incredibly off base. Your argument is, "Well, people here currently are a drain, why not bring more?" That may be the dumbest argument I have ever heard you propose, and it actually proves my point that the US is easily the most charitable organization ever invented, without question.

[hblask 1]

If the additions of people were only illegals who worked than you win hands down. That's not the case and it never has been. They have families, who are a tax on the system. Yes, we have families who are a tax on the system as well, no one is arguing we do not. You don't win the argument based on that, that's incredibly off base. Your argument is, "Well, people here currently are a drain, why not bring more?" That may be the dumbest argument I have ever heard you propose, and it actually proves my point that the US is easily the most charitable organization ever invented, without question.

I don't think you read my points very carefully -- I said just the opposite. People are net gains on society, whether they were born here or come from elsewhere. It's the anti-immigrant types who seem to be saying that adding resources detracts from an economy -- an interesting position without factual precedent.There are problems with illegal immigration, but the problems are caused by misguided policy that does not allow people to enter the mainstream. You cannot just put a blockade in the link between supply and demand and NOT expect to get unintended consequences. Again, I just don't understand why conservatives have such a blind spot in this area. I know the problems in border towns and border states are real, but those are problems due to a messed up system, and are NOT any problem inherent to people crossing imaginary lines to help reach economic equilibrium. When central planning fails, building a wall is not the answer. (Hint: this has been tried before, in other countries, and normally conservatives use that example as something to avoid.)The correct answer is for failed central planning is to eliminate central planning.

[CaneBrain 95]

I don't think you read my points very carefully -- I said just the opposite. People are net gains on society, whether they were born here or come from elsewhere. It's the anti-immigrant types who seem to be saying that adding resources detracts from an economy -- an interesting position without factual precedent.There are problems with illegal immigration, but the problems are caused by misguided policy that does not allow people to enter the mainstream. You cannot just put a blockade in the link between supply and demand and NOT expect to get unintended consequences. Again, I just don't understand why conservatives have such a blind spot in this area. I know the problems in border towns and border states are real, but those are problems due to a messed up system, and are NOT any problem inherent to people crossing imaginary lines to help reach economic equilibrium. When central planning fails, building a wall is not the answer. (Hint: this has been tried before, in other countries, and normally conservatives use that example as something to avoid.)The correct answer is for failed central planning is to eliminate central planning.

I think this editoral sums up the anti-immgration feelings in America. I dont agree with everything below but I want to put it out there for consumption. I think (and I cant believe I am doing this) it makes Lois' point in a more coherent way.Let's say I break into your houseA lady wrote the best letter in the Editorials in ages!!! It explains things better than all the baloney you hear on TV.Her point:Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.Certain people are angry that the US might protect its ownborders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave.But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don'tlike to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).According to the protesters:You are Required to let me stay in your houseYou are Required to add me to your family's insurance planYou are Required to Educate my kidsYou are Required to Provide other benefits to me & to my family(my husband will do all of your yard work becausehe is also hard-working and honest, except for thatbreaking in part).If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there. It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house. And oh yeah, I get a free education, where you have to pay your own way through college.(TEEHEE)And what a deal it is for me!!!I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold,uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE!!! so you can communicate with me. And don't forget to make sure your forms are in MYlanguage - I need to understand them...Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?! Only in Americaif you agree, pass it on ( in English ).Share it if you see the value of it.If not blow it off.........along with your future Social Security funds, and a lot of other things!

[Loismustdie 0]

I think this editoral sums up the anti-immgration feelings in America. I dont agree with everything below but I want to put it out there for consumption. I think (and I cant believe I am doing this) it makes Lois' point in a more coherent way.Let's say I break into your houseA lady wrote the best letter in the Editorials in ages!!! It explains things better than all the baloney you hear on TV.Her point:Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.Certain people are angry that the US might protect its ownborders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave.But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don'tlike to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).According to the protesters:You are Required to let me stay in your houseYou are Required to add me to your family's insurance planYou are Required to Educate my kidsYou are Required to Provide other benefits to me & to my family(my husband will do all of your yard work becausehe is also hard-working and honest, except for thatbreaking in part).If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there. It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house. And oh yeah, I get a free education, where you have to pay your own way through college.(TEEHEE)And what a deal it is for me!!!I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold,uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE!!! so you can communicate with me. And don't forget to make sure your forms are in MYlanguage - I need to understand them...Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?! Only in Americaif you agree, pass it on ( in English ).Share it if you see the value of it.If not blow it off.........along with your future Social Security funds, and a lot of other things!

I'm not really arguing the immigration thing as much as I am trying to establish reason that monies spent on illegals could be added to charitable donations.

[Loismustdie 0]

I don't think you read my points very carefully -- I said just the opposite. People are net gains on society, whether they were born here or come from elsewhere. It's the anti-immigrant types who seem to be saying that adding resources detracts from an economy -- an interesting position without factual precedent.There are problems with illegal immigration, but the problems are caused by misguided policy that does not allow people to enter the mainstream. You cannot just put a blockade in the link between supply and demand and NOT expect to get unintended consequences. Again, I just don't understand why conservatives have such a blind spot in this area. I know the problems in border towns and border states are real, but those are problems due to a messed up system, and are NOT any problem inherent to people crossing imaginary lines to help reach economic equilibrium. When central planning fails, building a wall is not the answer. (Hint: this has been tried before, in other countries, and normally conservatives use that example as something to avoid.)The correct answer is for failed central planning is to eliminate central planning.

This is entirely false. Not all people are net gains, the question is, how many detractors do we want. Hell, Katrina unveiled a whole mess of people who have been drains for years, you think that's a positive? Some are citizens and we are stuck- we don't have to allow bodies just because they can breathe, that's preposterous, and to pretend that we, as a nation, have no right to make rules as far as who can and who cannot enter is more than dangerous, it's suicidal.

[hblask 1]

Let's say I break into your house

Stop. The analogy breaks down already, as there is no demand for "people coming and breaking into my (your) home". Breaking into a home is not a peaceful, voluntarily consensual behavior. Coming to work is voluntary, and there is demand for it. Creating an immoral law and then saying "look, these people are breaking the law" is a tactic of totalitarian states.As to the ongoing argument on charity, it's totally retarded.Yes, per capita numbers matter more than actual numbers. This should be obvious.The part that is retarded is using government aid, in any form (charity, foreign aid, caring for immigrants) as a measure of how charitable a nation is. Politics has nothing to do with generosity, even when the program is disguised as a charitable cause.There is probably no way to compare charitable giving across countries in a meaningful way, because the structure of society and it's institutions matter.But yeah, go with per capita.