A Question For American Voters

onelongsong

SilverSeed wrote:

Of course we have enough jobs, as pointed out earlier they come over and take low wage jobs most Americans won't do. And where do you get that we don't have enough money to support our poor? If we can wage this war and spend billions certainly we can feed our own. It's a question of priorities and they're screwed up here. Finally, though they certainly send a portion of their wages home, they generate vast sums of revenue dollars (if you live here you consume here...).

there are not jobs that americans won't do. ever watch "dirty jobs"?
here's the problem. if those employers are willing to pay americans cash; like they do the illegals; that "low wage" isn't so bad anymore. they can still get welfare and food stamps just like the illegals do in most states. but those employers will pay americans legally; which means taxes and social security taken from that check and disqualifying them from social services.

if we have enough money to feed our poor; why are american children still starving? why were children still starving prior to the war under the clinton administration?

Kel Varnsen

mammasan wrote:

The federal government has intervened in state's rights many times before. In fact state's rights have all but disappeared. Just look at seatbelt laws and No Child Left Behind, I know I'm going to catch heat on this one but Roe v. Wade as well. All the feredal government has to do is tie this to federal money for roads, like they did with the seatbelt laws, and the states will have no choice but to adopt it.

I am not trying to sound repetitive, but another question from a Canadian perspective, but why is it such a big deal in the US if the federal government is the one passing the laws you have to abide by. Why does it make a difference to people if it is the state legislature or the federal congress passing laws for things like seatbelts? You have representation in both so why is one so much worse than the other?

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I am not trying to sound repetitive, but another question from a Canadian perspective, but why is it such a big deal in the US if the federal government is the one passing the laws you have to abide by. Why does it make a difference to people if it is the state legislature or the federal congress passing laws for things like seatbelts? You have representation in both so why is one so much worse than the other?

Because America is a big place with lots of different people, and what works for one group might not work so well for another and generally a smaller group (ie State) is more efficient at helping its people than a larger one. I'm kind of a states rights over federal guy, but there are positives and negatives with both. Sometimes the federal government needs to step in.

mammasan

onelongsong wrote:

there are not jobs that americans won't do. ever watch "dirty jobs"?
here's the problem. if those employers are willing to pay americans cash; like they do the illegals; that "low wage" isn't so bad anymore. they can still get welfare and food stamps just like the illegals do in most states. but those employers will pay americans legally; which means taxes and social security taken from that check and disqualifying them from social services.

if we have enough money to feed our poor; why are american children still starving? why were children still starving prior to the war under the clinton administration?

I have to agree. If employers paid a decent wage I'm sure that there are plenty of US citizens who would do the same job that illegals do. Of course no citizen is going to take a job picking fruit for what amounts to $2-3 an hour. They would be out of their fucking mind considering they can get a job flipping burgers for 3 times as much.

On a side note people have to be very carefull what they wish for. I'm sure that the majority of the anti-illegal immigrant crowd is not fully aware of the economic implications of just booting them all out. Never mind the cost of paying law enforcement to round them up and the cost of detaining and deporting all those millions of people. All of those jobs would have to be filled with legal workers who would demand higher wages than their illegal predessors. The cost of many items we buy would increase dramatically. I believe that before a final decision is made on how best to deal with this issue we need to weigh ever option's pros and cons.

mammasan

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I am not trying to sound repetitive, but another question from a Canadian perspective, but why is it such a big deal in the US if the federal government is the one passing the laws you have to abide by. Why does it make a difference to people if it is the state legislature or the federal congress passing laws for things like seatbelts? You have representation in both so why is one so much worse than the other?

It depends on the issue. I believe that with certain issues you need the federal government to come in and regulate everything. For the most part though I believe that each state should be allowed to govern itself with limited federal oversight. The problem is that the federal government is too large for the people to control while state government is small enough that the public has more say in how it is managed. Also as someone pointed out the US is a large country that is extremely diverse. No one state or region should have sway over another state or region and with more federal power usuroing state power that becomes more likely.

onelongsong

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I saw an interesting news show on CBC a few years ago that this post made me think of. This company in Canada built like the worlds biggest slaughterhouse somewhere in northern Alberta. The people who ran it were getting their workers, legally, from some of the worst places in the world (as far as living conditions, places like Sudan and Bosnia when it was a war zone). People were coming like crazy to work in this slaughter house, even though it was extremely back breaking and dangerous labour (due to the nature of the work not because of how the place was being run). But new people were still being brought in all the time. The crazy thing was even though a lot of the people from the town didn't want to work those jobs; they were still pissed off about all the new immigrants coming to their town.

that's interesting. i'd like to know if the slaughterhouse was paying fair wages; ie: the same wage a local canadian would be paid.
i'm willing to bet that it's not that canadians are lazy and wouldn't do the work; but they wanted a fair wage for the work. that's where americans stand. we've fought for a minimum wage so we can live a decent lifestyle; then someone comes in and undermines it. when i hire people i pay a fair wage. usually $25/hour to $30/hour. being in arizona and nevada; i'd have no problem finding illegals who would work for $5/hour. i won't do it because i want to stimulate the economy in my community. i feel that's my responsability as a business owner.

blackredyellow

MrSmith wrote:

Voting in most places is ridiculously low security. In a lot of places you can walk into a precinct, give the name of a registered voter and vote. The registered voter doesnt even have to be alive. A license will make it easier.

Then that is a problem with the election rules/enforcement in those precincts. I've lived in 2 different states and a handful of voting districts, and it has never been so easy as to give them a name and vote. I had to show my license, and that info had to match their record of registered voters for me to vote.

If Joe Schmoe illegal gets a drivers license (by showing another nations passport), even if he goes to vote, he won't be on the registry of voters in that district and will get turned away... unless the person at the precinct sucks at their job and lets him vote, but then it wouldn't matter if he had a license or not.

Kel Varnsen

onelongsong wrote:

that's interesting. i'd like to know if the slaughterhouse was paying fair wages; ie: the same wage a local canadian would be paid.
i'm willing to bet that it's not that canadians are lazy and wouldn't do the work; but they wanted a fair wage for the work. that's where americans stand. we've fought for a minimum wage so we can live a decent lifestyle; then someone comes in and undermines it. when i hire people i pay a fair wage. usually $25/hour to $30/hour. being in arizona and nevada; i'd have no problem finding illegals who would work for $5/hour. i won't do it because i want to stimulate the economy in my community. i feel that's my responsability as a business owner.

I can't remember exactly what they were paid as it was a few years ago (although minimum wage in Alberta is $8 an hour). I did get a sense that a lot of the reasons that the locals people did not want these jobs was because they were really dangerous. The main guy in the story was I think from Sudan and he was talking about how incredibly sore his hands and back were everyday from basically hauling cow carcasses around with hooks.

I do remember that in order to get by some of the people working there weren't living up to the standards that the locals were accustom to, nothing bad, just more people in a house than a Canadian family might be used to. I think a lot of the resentment from the locals in this case came from the fact that they didn't really like outsiders. There was one guy who actually referred to the immigrants from Africa, as "african-americans". Between the danger of it and the low pay it is definitely not the type of job I want to have, but it is one of the jobs where it sucks but someone has to do it, and it was cool to see people who would be willing to take that type of job just for the opportunity to live in Canada.

onelongsong

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I am not trying to sound repetitive, but another question from a Canadian perspective, but why is it such a big deal in the US if the federal government is the one passing the laws you have to abide by. Why does it make a difference to people if it is the state legislature or the federal congress passing laws for things like seatbelts? You have representation in both so why is one so much worse than the other?

because living conditions are different in different parts of the country. 23 states allow citizens to carry conceald weapons but this would not work in say new york city and other places. some states allow the use of medicinal marajuana. even though the federal government does not allow it. nevada doesn't tax its residents or businesses.
things like seatbelts is petty. most states had seatbelt laws before the federal law was enacted. most autos had seatbelts before it was a law to have them.
the bottom line is that one federal law cannot be enacted (concerning many issues) that would apply fairly to all states.

onelongsong

blackredyellow wrote:

Then that is a problem with the election rules/enforcement in those precincts. I've lived in 2 different states and a handful of voting districts, and it has never been so easy as to give them a name and vote. I had to show my license, and that info had to match their record of registered voters for me to vote.

If Joe Schmoe illegal gets a drivers license (by showing another nations passport), even if he goes to vote, he won't be on the registry of voters in that district and will get turned away... unless the person at the precinct sucks at their job and lets him vote, but then it wouldn't matter if he had a license or not.

in arizona you need a government issued picture ID and 2 other forms of ID to vote.

onelongsong

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I can't remember exactly what they were paid as it was a few years ago (although minimum wage in Alberta is $8 an hour). I did get a sense that a lot of the reasons that the locals people did not want these jobs was because they were really dangerous. The main guy in the story was I think from Sudan and he was talking about how incredibly sore his hands and back were everyday from basically hauling cow carcasses around with hooks.

I do remember that in order to get by some of the people working there weren't living up to the standards that the locals were accustom to, nothing bad, just more people in a house than a Canadian family might be used to. I think a lot of the resentment from the locals in this case came from the fact that they didn't really like outsiders. There was one guy who actually referred to the immigrants from Africa, as "african-americans". Between the danger of it and the low pay it is definitely not the type of job I want to have, but it is one of the jobs where it sucks but someone has to do it, and it was cool to see people who would be willing to take that type of job just for the opportunity to live in Canada.

i can understand that. and i can understand why you wouldn't do that type of work because i wouldn't either.
but i worked in a slaughterhouse in wisconsin. packerland packing in chipewa falls i believe. nobody had to haul cow carcasses anywhere. there was an overhead track that moved the carcasses to each area or "station". i wheeled the "guts" to the inspector and delivered the liver; heart; lungs; etc; to the respective stations according to the inspectors decision.
i'd go outside on breaks and throw up but working was better than starving.

flywallyfly

onelongsong wrote:

chances are that i've paid more in taxes prior to my surgery than you'll make in your entire life. i deserve what i receive.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But I'm not being hypocritical.

onelongsong

flywallyfly wrote:

Perhaps, perhaps not. But I'm not being hypocritical.

i don't see where i am. i've paid for the services i've received/receiving. i've been paying in since 1963.

binauralonthecape

onelongsong wrote:

i recently read about the democratic debates in las vegas and couldn't believe what i read. first; the issue of illegals obtaining drivers licenses. drivers licenses are a state matter and the federal government cannot interfere with state matters so the issue is moot. next; is universal healthcare. "Clinton charged that Obama's health care plan isn't truly universal because it doesn't require people to buy insurance."
so if everyone is required to buy insurance; how is it universal healthcare?
now; if we're going to have universal healthcare for americans; won't non-americans, ie: those who don't qualify; have to be rooted out. this again will bring crys of discrimination and as always; the government will buckle and offer healthcare for those here illegally. not one candidate mentioned where this money will come from. it won't come from the rich. we have too many loopholes and profits can be reinvested via trusts.

so; here's my question: does anybody believe these clowns?

good point, we have "universal" health care in massachusetts and its a joke, i make too much money to get on the state health plan so i will have to buy a plan that i will probably have to pay over one hundred dollars a month, i feel this law is very flawed and driven by our illegal immigrant crisis we have, we cant uphold our laws so now the taxpayer gets hit with these laws requiring health insurance, and if you dont have health insurance by the end of this year, the state will fine you 200 dollars and then more fees for every month you are uninsured!! its insane....

onelongsong

binauralonthecape wrote:

good point, we have "universal" health care in massachusetts and its a joke, i make too much money to get on the state health plan so i will have to buy a plan that i will probably have to pay over one hundred dollars a month, i feel this law is very flawed and driven by our illegal immigrant crisis we have, we cant uphold our laws so now the taxpayer gets hit with these laws requiring health insurance, and if you dont have health insurance by the end of this year, the state will fine you 200 dollars and then more fees for every month you are uninsured!! its insane....

prior to medicare; my health insurance payments were right around $750/month. that was PPO so i could pick my own doctors. if you could find insurance for $100/month; that would be great. if you have to pay say $750/month; that may put your disposable income at the poverty level. or; taking that $750/month out of your income; may make it impossable to pay your mortgage or feed your family. (btw; the $750 was for family coverage; not for just myself.)
good luck.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

i recently read about the democratic debates in las vegas and couldn't believe what i read. first; the issue of illegals obtaining drivers licenses. drivers licenses are a state matter and the federal government cannot interfere with state matters so the issue is moot. next; is universal healthcare. "Clinton charged that Obama's health care plan isn't truly universal because it doesn't require people to buy insurance."
so if everyone is required to buy insurance; how is it universal healthcare?
now; if we're going to have universal healthcare for americans; won't non-americans, ie: those who don't qualify; have to be rooted out. this again will bring crys of discrimination and as always; the government will buckle and offer healthcare for those here illegally. not one candidate mentioned where this money will come from. it won't come from the rich. we have too many loopholes and profits can be reinvested via trusts.

so; here's my question: does anybody believe these clowns?

no, i don't believe any of these clowns. nor do i believe any of the republican clowns. ok, i kinda believe kucinish and ron paul, but they're both a little nutty for my tastes.

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

no, i don't believe any of these clowns. nor do i believe any of the republican clowns. ok, i kinda believe kucinish and ron paul, but they're both a little nutty for my tastes.

i haven't hear any republicans promise things that were ILLEGAL for them to do; but then maybe they have and i wasn't paying attention.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

i haven't hear any republicans promise things that were ILLEGAL for them to do; but then maybe they have and i wasn't paying attention.

illegal? what's illegal about their nonsense?

Cosmo

onelongsong wrote:

that sounds wonderful. most people with full time jobs have the insurance coverage already available to them through their employer. instead of paying double or triple their tax obligation; as they would with government healthcare; they pay a portion of the premium or in many cases; the employer pays the entire premium.
you touched on the one point here. THOSE PAYING TAXES. universal means those paying taxes will pay for those who don't.

...
You were recently bragging about how you use the loopholes in our tax system to avoid paying any taxes... that was the one where i said, 'Gee... thanx for nothing".
...
So... according to your own words... I (a tax paying American) would be paying for you. In fact, if you are currently on Medicare... I AM already paying for you.
Gee... thanx... for nothing.

onelongsong

Cosmo wrote:

...
You were recently bragging about how you use the loopholes in our tax system to avoid paying any taxes... that was the one where i said, 'Gee... thanx for nothing".
...
So... according to your own words... I (a tax paying American) would be paying for you. In fact, if you are currently on Medicare... I AM already paying for you.
Gee... thanx... for nothing.

since you obviously don't look at the previous posts; i copied this from post #18.

if you had brain surgery with complications which resulted in a seizure disorder that cannot be managed because it was due to a brain bleed; you'd receive medicare too whether you paid taxes or not. at the time; i was making approximately $1600/week so i'm getting a nice monthly check. the money put into trusts is/was AFTER TAX MONEY. the organization i own now is a "non-profit" organization which means profits are moved around. since it's a ranch i have to live here to "watch over" things so all my expenses are paid by the organization and tax deductable. thus; i show no income. along with all the agricultural deductions ranches are allowed.
chances are that i've paid more in taxes prior to my surgery than you'll make in your entire life. i deserve what i receive.

this applies here too. so thanks for the monthly checks. oh; and the medical insurance.