Who will Kamala pick as VP?

[MrSquished]

White women for Harris organized online and.............

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/more-than-160000-people-join-white-women-kamala-harris-zoom-call-2024-07-26/

and a ton o' lootcakes!

I did not hear about that White men against MAGA zoom call or I would have joined.

 

[Indus]

Most immigrants are working to support themselves and their families. Unless you're suggesting some sort of lazy immigrant trope. Maybe that's just what your racist rightwing neighbors think.

Our immigration system does vet people.

This might sound shocking to liberals like us but the migrants are working to send money back home which benefits them overseas and not us Americans over here. (realistic take not a right wing one - just ask a foreign cab driver next time)

No matter how liberal I am.. that is a net loss. I mean FFS we get mad over our jobs getting outsourced overseas.

While I don't mind immigrants (as long as it doesn't cost us elections) but we do have to invent more ways where immigrants have to spend their money here and not keep sending it overseas.

And regarding the vetting people.. sure it vets the legal 1 million a year migrants. But how do you stop right wingers from using it as a cudgel against us? Need a better strategy.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

If they're sending money back home to help make their family's life better, I don't have an issue. Making life better back home is one way to help them stay home, or return home.

If they're sending it back for bad reasons, well ....

 

[iRONic]

This might sound shocking to liberals like us but the migrants are working to send money back home which benefits them overseas and not us Americans over here. (realistic take not a right wing one - just ask a foreign cab driver next time)

No matter how liberal I am.. that is a net loss. I mean FFS we get mad over our jobs getting outsourced overseas.

While I don't mind immigrants (as long as it doesn't cost us elections) but we do have to invent more ways where immigrants have to spend their money here and not keep sending it overseas.

And regarding the vetting people.. sure it vets the legal 1 million a year migrants. But how do you stop right wingers from using it as a cudgel against us? Need a better strategy.

Sending it back so brothers & sisters aren’t trafficked, murdered or kidnapped is valid.Same as helping them emigrate too.

The vetting system was primed for a senate bipartisan infusion. Ceremoniously stomped out by the tangerine terrorist’s minions. There’s the cudgel.

 

[MrSquished]

Sending it back so brothers & sisters aren’t trafficked, murdered or kidnapped is valid.Same as helping them emigrate too.

The vetting system was primed for a senate bipartisan infusion. Ceremoniously stomped out by the tangerine terrorist’s minions. There’s the cudgel.

Seriously. They still have to spend to live here - rent, food, transportation, and to have fun as well. I don't have an issue with it at all. I mean does Indus know how much rich people spend overseas? But yet the poor people gotta be better?

 

[sdifox]

This might sound shocking to liberals like us but the migrants are working to send money back home which benefits them overseas and not us Americans over here. (realistic take not a right wing one - just ask a foreign cab driver next time)

No matter how liberal I am.. that is a net loss. I mean FFS we get mad over our jobs getting outsourced overseas.

While I don't mind immigrants (as long as it doesn't cost us elections) but we do have to invent more ways where immigrants have to spend their money here and not keep sending it overseas.

And regarding the vetting people.. sure it vets the legal 1 million a year migrants. But how do you stop right wingers from using it as a cudgel against us? Need a better strategy.

So you are free to spend your money how you want but they can't?

 

[pmv]

This might sound shocking to liberals like us but the migrants are working to send money back home which benefits them overseas and not us Americans over here. (realistic take not a right wing one - just ask a foreign cab driver next time)

Well that's true, but they still pay taxes and still contribute to their employers profits and to keeping the country running. (And as you don't have much of a welfare state they don't take a lot out of the system in return for what they put in in their labour, either).

My take on it is that it's a bigger problem if there's a large 'churn' effect, where migrants don't stay and build a new life, long-term, in the destination country, but constantly come-and-go, spending very little of their earnings in the host country (e.g. living in minimal accommodations) and taking almost all the money they earn back home with them, where it will go much further in buying property, paying for pensions, paying childcare costs, etc.

It's the flaw in the argument that "migration doesn't take jobs because it also creates demand in the receiving country, as the incomers also need services etc". That doesn't apply when the 'migrants' are more like 'long-term commuters' who take most of their earnings out of the country with them.

That's pretty much what EU 'freedom of movement' is/was all about, which is why it created a particularly high level of resentment.

But the US doesn't have that - you don't have 'free movement of labour'' within NAFTA, you don't formally treat the entire population of Mexico, say, as if they were US citizens and allow them to come and go entirely as they please. (You certainly don't for example, pay child-benefit payments to migrant workers for their children that they left in their country of origin, as the UK used to do pre-Brexit).

So I don't see that there's much to complain about for the US in that respect - there isn't a constant 'churn' and form of trans-national commuting going on. Most migrants to the US tend to stay there, and have to take account of US living costs when competing for work.

Which is why it irks me when American liberals condemn Brexit voters for not being happy with that situation, while never even considering for a moment trying to propose such an idea (free movement for South Americans, allowing them to come-and-go and compete on an equal basis with US resident workers) to the US electorate.

 

[VRAMdemon]

If you’d vote for Harris/Whitmer, Harris/Buttigieg or Harris/Shapiro, you were already going to vote for Harris/Kelly.

But Harris/Kelly also creates a permission structure for older, more moderate might-even-lean-a-little-to-the-right-but-can’t-stomach-MAGA to vote for Harris. There are a lot of independents who think like this. They wouldn’t pull the lever for Harris and another woman, Harris and a gay man or Harris and a Jew, but they can get behind Harris and the white military guy/astronaut. It’s sad, it sucks, I’m sorry that it is this way, but this is probably the best ticket under the current circumstances and world events. Most of these voters are "Never Trumpers’ but, many of them are possible stay homers or 3rd party voters. Play it safe. Don't do anything to ruin any momentum.

 

[pmv]

The other thing that annoys me about it is that at one point there was a right-wing-American 'talking point' that counted those remitances (cash sent home by migrant workers to their families) as "US aid" for foreign countries, in order to inflate the figure for how 'generous' the US was in that respect.

 

[Indus]

So you are free to spend your money how you want but they can't?

As much as I love being an liberal and I don't mind endless spending on healthcare domestically.. I do think it's reasonable to think you can't print endless money or you get inflation.

And I bet you Trump sends more money overseas spent on European whores via H1B's working at his resorts. Kardashians buying Lamborghini's. Vivek firing 900 US workers and hiring 1000 overseas workers.. more money going overseas.

Clearly we aren't going to solve it with a right wing talking point but there is a problem there. And I'm not blaming the migrants but we need to find a solution here or we might end up being bankrupt like Sri Lanka (one of my favorite vacation spots).

 

[Indus]

Well that's true, but they still pay taxes and still contribute to their employers profits and to keeping the country running. (And as you don't have much of a welfare state they don't take a lot out of the system in return for what they put in in their labour, either).

My take on it is that it's a bigger problem if there's a large 'churn' effect, where migrants don't stay and build a new life, long-term, in the destination country, but constantly come-and-go, spending very little of their earnings in the host country (e.g. living in minimal accommodations) and taking almost all the money they earn back home with them, where it will go much further in buying property, paying for pensions, paying childcare costs, etc.

It's the flaw in the argument that "migration doesn't take jobs because it also creates demand in the receiving country, as the incomers also need services etc". That doesn't apply when the 'migrants' are more like 'long-term commuters' who take most of their earnings out of the country with them.

That's pretty much what EU 'freedom of movement' is/was all about, which is why it created a particularly high level of resentment.

But the US doesn't have that - you don't have 'free movement of labour'' within NAFTA, you don't formally treat the entire population of Mexico, say, as if they were US citizens and allow them to come and go entirely as they please. (You certainly don't for example, pay child-benefit payments to migrant workers for their children that they left in their country of origin, as the UK used to do pre-Brexit).

So I don't see that there's much to complain about for the US in that respect - there isn't a constant 'churn' and form of trans-national commuting going on. Most migrants to the US tend to stay there, and have to take account of US living costs when competing for work.

Which is why it irks me when American liberals condemn Brexit voters for not being happy with that situation, while never even considering for a moment trying to propose such an idea (free movement for South Americans, allowing them to come-and-go and compete on an equal basis with US resident workers) to the US electorate.

Yeah you get the problem is a problem.

The other thing that annoys me about it is that at one point there was a right-wing-American 'talking point' that counted those remitances (cash sent home by migrant workers to their families) as "US aid" for foreign countries, in order to inflate the figure for how 'generous' the US was in that respect.

They're more guilty of it than the left but they are a lot more vocal at "assigning blame" on the other side! Right wing hypocrisy.. keep repeating bullshit till people believe.

 

[Jaskalas]

If you’d vote for Harris/Whitmer, Harris/Buttigieg or Harris/Shapiro, you were already going to vote for Harris/Kelly.

But Harris/Kelly also creates a permission structure for older, more moderate might-even-lean-a-little-to-the-right-but-can’t-stomach-MAGA to vote for Harris. There are a lot of independents who think like this. They wouldn’t pull the lever for Harris and another woman, Harris and a gay man or Harris and a Jew, but they can get behind Harris and the white military guy/astronaut. It’s sad, it sucks, I’m sorry that it is this way, but this is probably the best ticket under the current circumstances and world events. Most of these voters are "Never Trumpers’ but, many of them are possible stay homers or 3rd party voters. Play it safe. Don't do anything to ruin any momentum.

Only thing that really sucks about Kelly is the loss of a Senate seat. Which was a VERY big deal for Biden.

 

[Indus]

Only thing that really sucks about Kelly is the loss of a Senate seat. Which was a VERY big deal for Biden.

Al Franken perhaps?

 

[pmv]

So you are free to spend your money how you want but they can't?

It's not a question of whether they are "free" or not, it's not a matter of morality or rights, it's simply a technical issue about the economics of it - which can potentially have political consequences (cf Brexit).

It is a fact that if you have a large (and ongoing, i.e. a constant coming-and-going) influx of migrant workers, sending their earnings home, or taking them home with them, it will have a negative effect on your economy, by taking wealth out of it.

I don't know what one does about that. Solely having liberal migration rules isn't enough, though, there needs to be some sort of transnational arrangement to ameliorate the problem. Brings me back to my reservations about the EU - it seems to be stuck in a problematic kind of half-way-house, neither one thing nor the other.

 

[Indus]

Anyways to get thread back on track from my tangent:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1816934897413452219

Sounds like it’s Beshear, Cooper, or Shapiro.

 

[kage69]

I think my $0.02 is on Beshear. He's popular. Kamala's going to win regardless of who she goes with IMO, but I think choosing a popular male GenX governor might yield the most decisive beat down possible.

They all seem like good choices though, no couch fucking sellouts here.

 

[gothuevos]

Maybe her VP pick will help but this is a legit concern

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4795392-democratic-concerns-vice-president-harris/

 

[sdifox]

As much as I love being an liberal and I don't mind endless spending on healthcare domestically.. I do think it's reasonable to think you can't print endless money or you get inflation.

And I bet you Trump sends more money overseas spent on European whores via H1B's working at his resorts. Kardashians buying Lamborghini's. Vivek firing 900 US workers and hiring 1000 overseas workers.. more money going overseas.

Clearly we aren't going to solve it with a right wing talking point but there is a problem there. And I'm not blaming the migrants but we need to find a solution here or we might end up being bankrupt like Sri Lanka (one of my favorite vacation spots).

LoL you should be angry about American healthcare cost as opposed to the pittance the migrants send home. No Americans will take those jobs at those slave wages. That is why migrants are hired.

Like it or not the basis of capitalism is consumption, and we are in a globally integrated economy.

This UN report says 85% of what they make get spent or saved in the country they work in.

Remittances matter: 8 facts you don’t know about the money migrants send back home | Umoja wa Mataifa

www.un.org

Also, Vishal is not Vivek.

 

[sdifox]

It's not a question of whether they are "free" or not, it's not a matter of morality or rights, it's simply a technical issue about the economics of it - which can potentially have political consequences (cf Brexit).

It is a fact that if you have a large (and ongoing, i.e. a constant coming-and-going) influx of migrant workers, sending their earnings home, or taking them home with them, it will have a negative effect on your economy, by taking wealth out of it.

I don't know what one does about that. Solely having liberal migration rules isn't enough, though, there needs to be some sort of transnational arrangement to ameliorate the problem. Brings me back to my reservations about the EU - it seems to be stuck in a problematic kind of half-way-house, neither one thing nor the other.

Did you ever find the £350M UK sent to EU every week? How is importing goods different than importing labour?

1/3 of UK food price increase is attributed to Brexit.

Brexit to blame for a third of Britain's food bill rise, researchers say

Britain's departure from the European Union has accounted for about a third of the increase in food bills for households since 2019, equivalent to about 250 pounds ($316), researchers from the London School of Economics and other universities said.

www.reuters.com

 

[pmv]

Did you ever find the £350M UK sent to EU every week? How is importing goods different than importing labour?

On the former - I don't know, don't much care, that was Johnson's misleading claim (the UK was a net contributor to the EU budget, but of course any gain in that respect was probably more than cancelled out by both the losses from the loss of free trade, and the general incompetence and self-serving greed of that Tory government).

On the latter - there is a difference, because there's a limit to what can be imported. Manufactured goods can be imported, but many jobs (construction, tradespeople, agriculture, medical and care work...) require local labour. Free movement meant the same competition could be applied to the latter as already applied to the former, thus making problems worse.

As I say, it's not a problem with traditional 'migration', that we've always had, because such migrants necessarily adapt to the local conditions in terms of what constitutes an acceptable wage. Cross-border commuting is a different thing, though.

 

[sdifox]

On the former - I don't know, don't much care, that was Johnson's misleading claim (the UK was a net contributor to the EU budget, but of course any gain in that respect was probably more than cancelled out by both the losses from the loss of free trade, and the general incompetence and self-serving greed of that Tory government).

On the latter - there is a difference, because there's a limit to what can be imported. Manufactured goods can be imported, but many jobs require local labour. Free movement meant the same competition could be applied to the latter as already applied to the former, thus making problems worse.

As I say, it's not be a problem with traditional 'migration', that we've always had, because such migrants necessarily adapt to the local conditions in terms of what constitutes an acceptable wage. Cross-border commuting is a different thing, though.

It's very simple, are you better off in EU or out of it? It looks to me like you have forsaken a good deal.

3.5 years later you are still 50k HGV lorry drivers short, that tells me you cannot supply it locally even if you wanted to.

When you buy foreign goods, it includes the cost of foreign labour as well.

 

[pmv]

It's very simple, are you better off in EU or out of it? It looks to me like you have forsaken a good deal.

I don't disagree - hence I voted to remain. Too many people found the EU didn't deliver the advertised benefits for them, though, hence they voted to leave.

And, as I say, I find it hypocritical when US liberals are quick to condemn them for doing that, while not for an instant considering ever trying to persuade the US electorate to accept a similar arrangement.

 

[sdifox]

I don't disagree - hence I voted to remain. Too many people found the EU didn't deliver the advertised benefits for them, though, hence they voted to leave.

And, as I say, I find it hypocritical when US liberals are quick to condemn them for doing that, while not for an instant considering ever trying to persuade the US electorate to accept a similar arrangement.

Err American system is far more insidious. It's all for the capitalists.

UK is a net importer so EU was a great deal.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

This might sound shocking to liberals like us but the migrants are working to send money back home which benefits them overseas and not us Americans over here. (realistic take not a right wing one - just ask a foreign cab driver next time)

No matter how liberal I am.. that is a net loss. I mean FFS we get mad over our jobs getting outsourced overseas.

While I don't mind immigrants (as long as it doesn't cost us elections) but we do have to invent more ways where immigrants have to spend their money here and not keep sending it overseas.

And regarding the vetting people.. sure it vets the legal 1 million a year migrants. But how do you stop right wingers from using it as a cudgel against us? Need a better strategy.

We gain more work from immigrant labor than we lose through the cost that leaves the country.

 

[Stokely]

Lots of good points being made.

People working here spend money here; they have to live. They pay taxes, on goods and services at least.

There is low unemployment. The types of jobs many immigrants are doing are not the type most Americans would, or even could, do--field work, roofing, etc. If anything I see evidence that restaurants and other places can't find enough help. It's not a hell of a lot of money, but the immigrants I have known take these jobs because its what they can get, then they work pretty much every damn day trying to get ahead and save.

The whole issue is complex because we all benefit from businesses taking advantage of this ultra cheap labor where often they have zero benefits. That's why I say, be careful what you wish for when you say "round 'em up"--costs on a lot of goods and services will start going up immediately, that's if some businesses can even stay running. You think you are going to find a ton of out-of-work Americans to go pick fruit if the regular workers were gone? There's a reason Georgia backed down on their intention to gather up and expel all undocumented workers a few years back....business owners went into a panic and lobbied against it, and they dropped it.