$8 hr new Breadwinner Benchmark for U.S. & No Insurance

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
No, that is also wrong and not what I said.

You people are jumping to conclusions - just like Corn said. Corn thinks I fell into some "trap" or was "tricked" - but in reality I was neither. My reply was intentionally vague - so DM could continue to show everyone how silly his arguement is. He is using one extreme to try to position one extreme against the other. Neither of those options will work as they both bring their own set of problems with them. Open borders would be a security nightmare, and to put troops along it would also present big problems.

So my answer of yes- I have a problem with that , because unlimited legal immigration will cause big problems too.
CkG

Cad, the only trap you "fell into" is the trap of maintaining the status quo. If the current system is broken, and I think we all agree that it is, then something else needs to be done. Otherwise, you're just railing against illegal immigrants with no real solution to back you up.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Now, rjain - I defended you(for the most part) against DaveMcOwen when he called you anti-American, yet now you are attempting to paint me as someone who is basically "racist"? Lets get one thing straight - I don't give a flying rats ass who you are, if you are not entering this country legally your ass should be hauled out. I don't have a problem with immigration when it is done within the law.

In fact, I never made the claim that you were racist, nor did I intend to imply that. I have no idea what your criteria would be for "blessing" certain people with the privilige to have the freedom of opportunity.

I'm not responding to whether it is legal for some person or another to come into the country for some reason or another. I'm talking about the idea that we get to dole out freedoms to some people and not others. Just because someone doesn't live in this country right now or just because they don't want or can't afford to live in this country doesn't make them any less deserving of the freedoms we enjoy.

I don't see anything saying that "all men who are approved by the US Government are created equal" in any of the founding documents of this country.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
No, that is also wrong and not what I said.

You people are jumping to conclusions - just like Corn said. Corn thinks I fell into some "trap" or was "tricked" - but in reality I was neither. My reply was intentionally vague - so DM could continue to show everyone how silly his arguement is. He is using one extreme to try to position one extreme against the other. Neither of those options will work as they both bring their own set of problems with them. Open borders would be a security nightmare, and to put troops along it would also present big problems.

So my answer of yes- I have a problem with that , because unlimited legal immigration will cause big problems too.
CkG

Cad, the only trap you "fell into" is the trap of maintaining the status quo. If the current system is broken, and I think we all agree that it is, then something else needs to be done. Otherwise, you're just railing against illegal immigrants with no real solution to back you up.

No, I'm not for "status quo"

I'm for active enforcement of our current laws. This doesn't however mean that we need troops or a wall. If we actually enforced our current laws then we'd be in a position to see if they worked or not But since we currently do not enforce them - doesn't mean they won't work. If our current laws(once actively enforced) don't stop people from breaking the law then we need to take a look and how to change them. It'd be quite helpful if (in this case) Mexican gov't would take a stand against corruption so that that country could flourish. It has great people but they need to be allowed to help make their country great - not be forced to come here for freedom or opportunity

CkG

 

[rjain]

CAD: The next question is whether the current laws are not being enforced because they're not practical to enforce or because no one cares about the rationale behind laws enough to enforce them.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Now, rjain - I defended you(for the most part) against DaveMcOwen when he called you anti-American, yet now you are attempting to paint me as someone who is basically "racist"? Lets get one thing straight - I don't give a flying rats ass who you are, if you are not entering this country legally your ass should be hauled out. I don't have a problem with immigration when it is done within the law.

In fact, I never made the claim that you were racist, nor did I intend to imply that. I have no idea what your criteria would be for "blessing" certain people with the privilige to have the freedom of opportunity.

I'm not responding to whether it is legal for some person or another to come into the country for some reason or another. I'm talking about the idea that we get to dole out freedoms to some people and not others. Just because someone doesn't live in this country right now or just because they don't want or can't afford to live in this country doesn't make them any less deserving of the freedoms we enjoy.

I don't see anything saying that "all men who are approved by the US Government are created equal" in any of the founding documents of this country.

Nobody is saying that anyone is a "lesser person". I just want anyone who wishes to become a citizen of the US, to do it through the proper channels.

CkG

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Nobody is saying that anyone is a "lesser person". I just want anyone who wishes to become a citizen of the US, to do it through the proper channels.

I didn't think this was about citizenship. It was about being able to immigrate in the first place. I have no objection to the US having requirements to determine becomes a citizen or not. However, I don't believe that the freedoms we have are intrinsic to our citizenship and should be denied to citizens of other countries, whether they are living in this country or another.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: rjain
CAD: The next question is whether the current laws are not being enforced because they're not practical to enforce or because no one cares about the rationale behind laws enough to enforce them.

True, but you see it's more of a political question. California and Texas are big voting blocks and quite sprinkled with those who have come from the south of the border. There is also problems with funding and who bears the brunt of the costs.

Yes, there is rationale behind the laws. We are a sovereign nation and are more than entitled to regulate immigration to our country. We welcome anyone, it's just that we can't welcome everyone all at once - they need to go through the correct process.

I'd rather see us spend billions on helping Mexico(in this case) revamp it's gov't and economic infrastructure than our open our borders to unlimited immigration, because once Mexico starts solving their economic and political problems there will be less need for these people to "seek freedom and opportunity" and risk their lives trying to get here because it'll be right there at home.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Nobody is saying that anyone is a "lesser person". I just want anyone who wishes to become a citizen of the US, to do it through the proper channels.

I didn't think this was about citizenship. It was about being able to immigrate in the first place. I have no objection to the US having requirements to determine becomes a citizen or not. However, I don't believe that the freedoms we have are intrinsic to our citizenship and should be denied to citizens of other countries, whether they are living in this country or another.

So what do you want us to do? You say we have the right to have requirements but yet then you say we shouldn't make our freedoms intrinsic to our citizenship. Why not? Our gov't was set up to protect and give freedom to American citizens. What do you expect us to do? We have work visas, student visas - there are plenty of ways to gain our "freedoms" - you just have to go through the right channels.

CkG

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

True, but you see it's more of a political question. [...]

Yes, there is rationale behind the laws. We are a sovereign nation [...]

I'd rather see us spend billions on helping Mexico(in this case)[...]

Well, I can't disagree with anything you said there.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

So what do you want us to do? You say we have the right to have requirements but yet then you say we shouldn't make our freedoms intrinsic to our citizenship.

I said we have the right to have requirements on who becomes a citizen or not. I don't think it's right for us to deny others the freedoms that we have as American citizens.

Those freedoms are freedoms that we ascribe to all men in the Declaration of Independence. I believe that statement applies to all the freedoms that we value. If we value them, why shouldn't we allow others to have them, too? Indians and Iraqis are just as entitled to the freedom of opportunity as we are. Sure, our laws don't apply there, but we shouldn't advocate the curtailment or specifically curtail the freedom of opportunity of those people. We weren't born any better than them and we shouldn't act like it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

So what do you want us to do? You say we have the right to have requirements but yet then you say we shouldn't make our freedoms intrinsic to our citizenship.

I said we have the right to have requirements on who becomes a citizen or not. I don't think it's right for us to deny others the freedoms that we have as American citizens.

Those freedoms are freedoms that we ascribe to all men in the Declaration of Independence. I believe that statement applies to all the freedoms that we value. If we value them, why shouldn't we allow others to have them, too? Indians and Iraqis are just as entitled to the freedom of opportunity as we are. Sure, our laws don't apply there, but we shouldn't advocate the curtailment or specifically curtail the freedom of opportunity of those people. We weren't born any better than them and we shouldn't act like it.

Exactly, so what are you advocating. You have my support on this - I'm not fighting you. I'm just trying to see what you think it is that we aren't doing or should be doing.

CkG

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: ZaneNBK
Hmm.. This article seems HEAVILY biased and it's facts seem questionable.

-- Wal-Mart likes to call its sales clerks "associates," but "serfs" would be more like it. The company paid its salespeople an average $8.23 an hour in 2001. At that wage, a full-time worker made only $13,861 a year. The poverty level for a family of three was $14,630. Only 38 percent of Wal-Mart's workers have health coverage. It should surprise no one that nearly half of Wal-Mart's employees quit every year. (Before the recession, the annual turnover rate was 70 percent.)

Ok, $8.23/hour * 40 hours (Full-time is 40 hours last I checked) = $329.20/week. $13,861/$329.20 = 42 weeks of work in a year. Last time I checked most people don't take 10 weeks of unpaid vacation and/or sick-time in a year. $8.23/hour FT is not below the poverty level as defined by them. It's still sucky pay but just points out that their facts are questionable.

I'm not saying that Wal-Mart isn't the Devil, I'm saying this article sucks.

Obviously you've never had a job.
Lemme read off my last paystub...

Federal W/H
FICA
Medicare
State W/H
State Emple SUI
Local W/H

fvckin 35% right off the top

Thats why the math doesent add up. >SMACK<

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Exactly, so what are you advocating. You have my support on this - I'm not fighting you. I'm just trying to see what you think it is that we aren't doing or should be doing.

I think Walmart and especially the contractor shuold be fined for their use of illegal immigrant labor and be forced to pay whatever tax revenues the government lost. I don't blame Walmart 100%, but it seems that they knew there were illegal workers working for them, so they deserve to be beaten up at least a bit for this. As the country's largest business, they need to be held in check that much more.

However, I think that some people need to get over their xenophobia and accept the fact that if America wants to really be the land of opportunity, it can't deny opportunities to those who want them. We keep hoarding the world economy within our borders, no wonder everyone wants to get in. We're the "land of opportunity" because we oppose anyone else having any opportunities. Can you imagine how poor the South would be if the rest of the country colluded to keep manufacturing out of that part of the country and anyone who was born there? Not to mention how much more we would have suffered economically due to less freedom of choice as far as workers willing to work for the best rates. Also, our ideas of who deserves free money and who doesn't need to be revisited.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Exactly, so what are you advocating. You have my support on this - I'm not fighting you. I'm just trying to see what you think it is that we aren't doing or should be doing.

I think Walmart and especially the contractor shuold be fined for their use of illegal immigrant labor and be forced to pay whatever tax revenues the government lost. I don't blame Walmart 100%, but it seems that they knew there were illegal workers working for them, so they deserve to be beaten up at least a bit for this. As the country's largest business, they need to be held in check that much more.

However, I think that some people need to get over their xenophobia and accept the fact that if America wants to really be the land of opportunity, it can't deny opportunities to those who want them. We keep hoarding the world economy within our borders, no wonder everyone wants to get in. We're the "land of opportunity" because we oppose anyone else having any opportunities. Can you imagine how poor the South would be if the rest of the country colluded to keep manufacturing out of that part of the country and anyone who was born there? Not to mention how much more we would have suffered economically due to less freedom of choice as far as workers willing to work for the best rates. Also, our ideas of who deserves free money and who doesn't need to be revisited.

Yes, Walmart and etc, should be fined/whatever - I stated that already.

You still haven't stated what you want us to do. You say we hoard "opportunity"...but what I think people fail to realize is that America is a land of opportunity because our gov't allows it and our citizens still demand it. Other countries shoule do the same. So what is your plan to "even the tables"? It sounds like you are blaming the US for the woes of other countries.
But yes our nations entitlement policies need to be redone.

CkG

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
You still haven't stated what you want us to do. You say we hoard "opportunity"...but what I think people fail to realize is that America is a land of opportunity because our gov't allows it and our citizens still demand it. Other countries shoule do the same. So what is your plan to "even the tables"? It sounds like you are blaming the US for the woes of other countries.

If another country denies its citizens some opportunities, it's not our job to enforce equality of treatment there, of course. What I'm opposing is the attitude that people in India or China or whatever should be denied opportunities to compete for jobs that benefit Americans. Not only is it against the principle that all men are created equal, it is self-destructive, as we try to squeeze more economic power out of the same economy, without allowing new talent to innovate new technologies.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
You still haven't stated what you want us to do. You say we hoard "opportunity"...but what I think people fail to realize is that America is a land of opportunity because our gov't allows it and our citizens still demand it. Other countries shoule do the same. So what is your plan to "even the tables"? It sounds like you are blaming the US for the woes of other countries.

If another country denies its citizens some opportunities, it's not our job to enforce equality of treatment there, of course. What I'm opposing is the attitude that people in India or China or whatever should be denied opportunities to compete for jobs that benefit Americans. Not only is it against the principle that all men are created equal, it is self-destructive, as we try to squeeze more economic power out of the same economy, without allowing new talent to innovate new technologies.

If there is a shortage of skilled workers American Companies should be able to import those with the skills from other countries. Exporting jobs just to increase profits even though there is enough workers here with the skill is counter productive to our economy as it means more Americans out of work. Should Workers in these third wolrd nations be given jobs Americans now hold because they are willing to work for peniies on the dollar? Why don't the Governments and Business Executives of their Countries create their own Tech Industry, with the cheap labor they would certainly be profitable in a matter of years if their products were of quality. It worked for Japan, Korea and Taiwan.

 

[rjain]

Should workers in Georgia be given jobs New Yorkers now hold because they are willing to work for pennies on the dollar?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: rjain
Should workers in Georgia be given jobs New Yorkers now hold because they are willing to work for pennies on the dollar?

Apples and Oranges rjain. When a Company relocates to another state it usually give the employee the option of relocating and keeping their job. I don't have a problem creating employment in places like India or China as long as it isn't at the expense of American Workers. If their is a Shortage of Skill workers here in the US let these Conpanies import those with the skills and pay them what their American Counterparts make instead of paying them next to nothing.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Jail illegals and hard labor at the tax payer's expense? Yeah! 3 hots, a cot, and a hard labor job is about what they manage anyways, with the exception that the prison term doesn't let them send money home Working illegally benefits someone, jailed at our expense is costly and hurts the tax payer. They wouldn't even be discouraged from trying as jail here is still better than life where many were at before

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: rjain
Should workers in Georgia be given jobs New Yorkers now hold because they are willing to work for pennies on the dollar?

Gee, why not.. they're both Americans.
I don't mind the illegals working either and paying into the system.. tax and all that. They spend money too.. as long as it is in the US. If they spend it in Mexico then I'm against it..
But, having said that.. we should enforce the law.. across the board.
I think if enough angry Americans force the issue we may get some protective legislation enacted.. and that is good. IMO!

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: tk149

Originally posted by: djNickb
I work for a medium sized company ~250 people and have every year watched senior management increase the costs of benefit coverage while simultaneously decreasing the level of coverage and service - Friday we have another meeting to see just how low our 'new' plan will go. Makes me sick, and I may optionally choose to go without coverage since the increase in cost and decrease in service don't really justify keeping the coverage - IMO

When you (and all others similarly situated) give up your toys, your home broadband, cable/satellite TV, eating out, and expensive car payments, then you can complain. Until then, it's just a lifestyle choice. You could also look for a new job/career if you're really unhappy.

So far I have givin everything up on your list but broadband...... Ya gotta draw the line somewhere

I have to pay for my own insurance, sucks but I have been without when I needed it and I never want to go through that again.

 

[Topher]

This is one of the reasons I moved to Canada.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Topher
This is one of the reasons I moved to Canada.

/me waves to the Canuck.

It's good to see some kept their promise of leaving after the 2000 election :Q

J/K

CkG

 

[Topher]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Topher
This is one of the reasons I moved to Canada.

/me waves to the Canuck.

It's good to see some kept their promise of leaving after the 2000 election :Q

J/K

CkG

Left in Jan '99. Didn't vote in 2000.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Topher

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Topher
This is one of the reasons I moved to Canada.

/me waves to the Canuck.

It's good to see some kept their promise of leaving after the 2000 election :Q

J/K

CkG

Left in Jan '99. Didn't vote in 2000.

:beer:

CkG