DiscussMormonism.com

and lazy white trash

meaning liberals, right? Because the vast majority of people who don't want to work are liberals, right?

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 03, 2023 12:55 am

and lazy white trash

meaning liberals, right? Because the vast majority of people who don't want to work are liberals, right?

Expenditure on the welfare state will contract because even if immigrants vote for welfare spending, existing residents will vote for less generous benefits when they believe these accrue to recent immigrants.

Let me ask you then. Do you agree with the Heritage foundation that open borders will result in existing residents voting for less generous benefits when they believe these accrue to recent immigrants? Unless you agree with President Trump's view that the election was stolen, I don't see how you can say that the open borders that we've effectively had for the past 40 years have ever resulted in less people voting less generous welfare handouts.

Well let me ask you this then, my right-wing friend refers to his children as "liberals" because they don't want to work; one adult child has persistent employment problems, the other is stable except at a low salary because of a personal connection with the work done there; but has credentials to do better. He has to step in all the time to solve financial problems for them. According to him, they are by definition liberals because they don't want to work. I've pointed out to him that both are born again Christians very active in church and voted for Trump, and so they are conservative, but he balks at that. Would you agree with him that they are liberals, or with me, that they are conservatives?

As for the Heritage study, I don't see a link in this thread, but a couple from Cam from Cato. I'll look over the Heritage information if you link it, and it doesn't take me too long to read.

The words liberal and conservative have devolved into epithets. They are essentially without useful substance.

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 03, 2023 1:46 am

Well let me ask you this then, my right-wing friend refers to his children as "liberals" because they don't want to work; one adult child has persistent employment problems, the other is stable except at a low salary because of a personal connection with the work done there; but has credentials to do better. He has to step in all the time to solve financial problems for them. According to him, they are by definition liberals because they don't want to work. I've pointed out to him that both are born again Christians very active in church and voted for Trump, and so they are conservative, but he balks at that. Would you agree with him that they are liberals, or with me, that they are conservatives?

As for the Heritage study, I don't see a link in this thread, but a couple from Cam from Cato. I'll look over the Heritage information if you link it, and it doesn't take me too long to read.

He didn’t read the article. He just skimmed it, picked out a sentence that tickled his brain dick, and went for it. That’s why he can’t even remember who the “F” put it together.

Xanax. Read the entire article. “F”.

- Doc

ajax18 wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 03, 2023 1:16 am

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 03, 2023 12:55 am

meaning liberals, right? Because the vast majority of people who don't want to work are liberals, right?

Expenditure on the welfare state will contract because even if immigrants vote for welfare spending, existing residents will vote for less generous benefits when they believe these accrue to recent immigrants.

Let me ask you then. Do you agree with the Heritage foundation that open borders will result in existing residents voting for less generous benefits when they believe these accrue to recent immigrants? Unless you agree with President Trump's view that the election was stolen, I don't see how you can say that the open borders that we've effectively had for the past 40 years have ever resulted in less people voting less generous welfare handouts.

Moron thinks "open borders" exists, and that it started with Reagan.

He probably thinks the Founding Fathers had people guarding the coastlines to prevent immigration. Ellis Island registration didn't start until 1892, and all you needed to gain entry was a pulse. Today millions are being deported. Obama deported more than Bush and Biden has deported more than Trump. But Democrats are for open borders.

According to him, they are by definition liberals because they don't want to work.

Well you're a liberal and you do work. You seem to enjoy paying taxes and continue to vote for tax increases. Maybe democratic socialism has more to do with implementing equality of result as opposed to equality of opportunity. So if you enjoy working at a lower paying job, you should still get paid the same as doing a job that you don't particularly enjoy. Being a Democrat is more about weaponizing institutions like the IRS, FBI, DoJ, etc. against their political opponents who don't share the same zeal for advancing communism .

As for the Heritage study, I don't see a link in this thread, but a couple from Cam from Cato. I'll look over the Heritage information if you link it, and it doesn't take me too long to read.

It was CATO.

Expenditure on the welfare state will contract because even if immigrants vote for welfare spending, existing residents will vote for less generous benefits when they believe these accrue to recent immigrants.

https://www.cato.org/publications/comme ... en-borders.

So what do you think Gadianton? Will opening the border legally and completely result in US citizens voting against welfare spending?

I personally don't think so given that the border has effectively been open for the last forty years and people continue to vote for more social welfare spending.

Gunnar wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 02, 2023 9:12 pm

It often appears that ajax18 either is somehow oblivious to how frequently he reveals himself to be a hateful, racial bigot, or he actually thinks there is nothing inherently wrong with such bigotry.

Oh, I'd say it's much more likely he thinks there's nothing wrong with it. He isn't that bright, after all.

ajax18 wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 03, 2023 1:16 am

Do you agree with the [libertarian economist, Jeffrey Miron, writing for the Koch-co-founded CATO Institute] that open borders will result in existing residents voting for less generous benefits when they believe these accrue to recent immigrants?

If union votes for contract agreements are any indicator of human/American nature, it's certainly probable.

Overall though, Americans' have proven themselves again and again to have an insatiable "crabs in a bucket" mentality (see, for example, minimum wage debates, student loan forgiveness, etc.), and a knee-jerk fairness limbic drive that rivals other primates. I think it's all but guaranteed that if recent immigrants were to be seen as being primary beneficiaries of a particular type of public funding, less-recent immigrants and native born individuals would predominantly vote against it.

As an aside, Miron has a PhD in Economics from M.I.T., and it's moderately safe to assume based on his CV that he's got a decent amount of study/knowledge under his belt in the realms of psychology and sociology.

I think full-on open borders/immigration at this point would potentially be disastrous to America, but I'm also not fancy-pants smart. There's a lot of ground between reasonable and effective policies and no policies at all (and the trainwreck we currently pretend works).

No one here is arguing for open borders. It was CATO, a Libertarian outfit that made that argument.