Where's Ross Perot when we need him?

[Brother None]

This is a topic we've alighted 'pon before, I'm afraid. It did not occur to me during the earlier debate with CCR to account for the baby-boom. After all, in European Union <strike>propaganda</strike> news our baby-boom is shown as the biggest death-threat ever that demands immediate and disproportionately painful action* (which is also true for Japan, apparently), whereas both in the US and in the EU the US baby-boom problem is soon discarded as a problem that'll slide by quietly, since their wellfare state is some small**

* This argument has been the main weapon of the heavily impopular central-right Dutch government, which is nonsense since the Dutch system, if it were more independant from the EU, could easily carry us through the Graying, and we won't get hit that hard now 'nyway. At least not relatively
** And yet still manages to be the most expensive healthcare in the world. Ooopsie? Talk about your low efficency.

I'll dispense with the cutting up the article for comments. I know that kind of diatribe has become le mode, but I think it just distracts from the main story and makes it harder to read.

A 'fiscal hurricane' on the horizon
by Richard Wolf, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The comptroller general of the United States is explaining how the nation's finances are going to hell. "We face a demographic tsunami" that "will never recede," David Walker tells reporters. He runs through a long list of fiscal challenges, led by the imminent retirement of the baby boomers, whose promised Medicare and Social Security benefits will swamp the federal budget in coming decades.

The breakfast conversation remains somber for most of an hour. Then one reporter smiles and asks, "Aren't you depressed in the morning?"

Sadly, it's no laughing matter. To hear Walker, the nation's top auditor, tell it, the United States can be likened to Rome before the fall of the empire. Its financial condition is "worse than advertised," he says. It has a "broken business model." It faces deficits in its budget, its balance of payments, its savings — and its leadership.

Walker's not the only one saying it. As Congress and the White House struggle to trim up to $50 billion from the federal budget over five years — just 3% of the $1.6 trillion in deficits projected for that period — budget experts say the nation soon could face its worst fiscal crisis since at least 1983, when Social Security bordered on bankruptcy.

Without major spending cuts, tax increases or both, the national debt will grow more than $3 trillion through 2010, to $11.2 trillion — nearly $38,000 for every man, woman and child. The interest alone would cost $561 billion in 2010, the same as the Pentagon.

From the political left and right, budget watchdogs are warning of fiscal trouble:

•Douglas Holtz-Eakin, director of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, dispassionately arms 535 members of Congress with his agency's stark projections. Barring action, he admits to being "terrified" about the budget deficit in coming decades. That's when an aging population, health care inflation and advanced medical technology will create a perfect storm of spiraling costs.

•Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, sees a future of unfunded promises, trade imbalances, too few workers and too many retirees. She envisions a stock market dive, lost assets and a lower standard of living.

•Kent Conrad, a Democratic senator from North Dakota, points to the nation's $7.9 trillion debt, rising by about $600 billion a year. That, he notes, is before the baby boom retires. "We're not preparing for what we all know is to come," he says. "We're all sleepwalking through this period."

•Stuart Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation projects a period from now until 2050 in which tax revenue stays stable as a share of the economy but Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security spending soars. To avoid big tax increases, he says the government has to "renegotiate" the social contracts it made with its citizens.

•Alice Rivlin and Isabel Sawhill of the centrist Brookings Institution put their pessimism into a book titled Restoring Fiscal Sanity. Rivlin, who became the first director of the Congressional Budget Office in 1974, says it will take an "economic scare" such as the 1987 stock market crash to spur action. Sawhill likens the growing gulf between what the government spends and takes in to a "Category 6 fiscal hurricane."

'The Fiscal Wake-Up Tour'

They are the preachers of doom and gloom. Liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, they are trying to be heard above the ka-ching of the cash register as it tallies the cost of government benefits and tax cuts, Iraq and Hurricane Katrina. To raise their profile in recent months, several have traveled together to places such as Richmond, Va., and Minneapolis for what they call a "Fiscal Wake-Up Tour."

Leon Panetta, former White House budget director and chief of staff to President Clinton, calls them "disciples of balanced budgets. ... And at some point, they'll be proven right."

The White House and Congress are trying to address the nation's short-term budget deficits, but their response pales against the size of the long-term problem. President Bush proposed nearly $90 billion in savings over five years in his 2006 budget. He also tried to trim future Social Security benefits for wealthier recipients. The Senate this month approved $35 billion in savings over five years. House Republicans tried to save more than $50 billion last week, but objections from moderates stalled action. Either way, the savings could be wiped out by $70 billion in proposed tax cuts.

The budget-cutting effort is being led by conservatives, who recoiled when Congress quickly voted to spend $62 billion after Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. "Katrina served as a wake-up call," Walker says.

In prior years, facing a less imminent demographic explosion, Congress cut in politically agonizing increments of $500 billion over five years. Bush's father gave up his "no new taxes" campaign pledge in 1990. After Ross Perot focused attention on the deficit in his 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton and the Democratic-run Congress raised taxes even more in 1993. Clinton and the Republican-run Congress forced two government shutdowns before agreeing on a deficit-reduction package in 1997.

In each case, cutting the deficit backfired at the polls. The elder Bush lost re-election, the Democrats lost Congress, and Republicans' obstinacy helped Clinton win a second term. "The choices you have to make are almost exactly the opposite of what wins political elections," Panetta says.

The problem is also easy for Congress to postpone because the day of reckoning is years away. This year's deficit was $319 billion, down $94 billion from the year before. That's 2.6% of the nation's economy, an amount easily borrowed from foreign investors.

From 'Grenada' to 'Vietnam'

But there is every reason to act — and soon. Budget watchdogs cite these looming problems:

•Prescription-drug coverage under Medicare takes effect Jan. 1. Its projected cost, advertised at $400 billion over 10 years when it passed in 2003, has risen to at least $720 billion. "We couldn't afford" it, Walker says of the new law.

•The leading edge of the baby boom hits age 62 in 2008 and can take early retirement. The number of people covered by Social Security is expected to grow from 47 million today to 69 million in 2020. By 2030, the Congressional Budget Office projects, Social Security spending as a share of the U.S. economy will rise by 40%.

•The bulk of Bush's 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax-cut program is set to expire at the end of 2010. But Congress is moving to make the reductions permanent. That would keep tax revenue at roughly 18% of the economy, where it's been for the past half-century — too low to support even current spending levels. "We can't afford to make all the tax cuts permanent," Walker says.

•Baby boomers begin to reach age 65 in 2011 and go on Medicare. Of all the nation's fiscal problems, this is by far the biggest. If it grows 1% faster than the economy — a conservative estimate — Medicare would cost $2.6 trillion in 2050, after adjusting for inflation. That's the size of the entire federal budget today.

"Social Security is Grenada," Holtz-Eakin says. "Medicare is Vietnam."

Inaction could have these consequences, experts say: Higher interest rates. Lower wages. Shrinking pensions. Slower economic growth. A lesser standard of living. Higher taxes in the future for today's younger generation. Less savings. More consumption. Plunging stock and bond prices. Recession.

Some veterans of the deficit-cutting wars are pessimistic about avoiding disaster. "In the end, CBO and others are no more than speed bumps on the highway of fiscal irresponsibility," says Robert Reischauer, former Congressional Budget Office director and now president of the non-partisan Urban Institute.

The gloom-and-doom crowd hopes to avoid that fate. Increasingly in recent months, they are traveling the country, writing and speaking out about the need to cut spending, raise taxes — or both.

The most outspoken is Walker, an impeccably dressed CPA whose 15-year term as head of the GAO runs through 2013. He was a conservative Democrat, then a moderate Republican, and is now an independent. He's also a student of history, a Son of the American Revolution who lives on Virginia property once owned by George Washington.

Walker's agency churns out reports with titles such as "Human Capital: Selected Agencies Have Opportunities to Enhance Existing Succession Planning and Management Efforts." But he knows he must try to humanize the numbers, and his rhetoric on the nation's fiscal course has become more acerbic. "Anybody who says you're going to grow your way out of this problem," Walker says, "would probably not pass math."

Holtz-Eakin, a soft-spoken economist who said Monday he will leave CBO at the end of the year, takes a different approach. Less prone to giving speeches, he sees his role as a consultant and truth-sayer to Congress. "Numbers are the currency of the realm in Washington," he says, and most agree his agency has the best in town. But he concedes, "Sometimes it falls to the consultant to tell the client the bad news."

Holtz-Eakin's father was in steel, a cyclical business rocked by strikes and shutdowns. "I thought, 'This is nuts. No one should live like this,' " he says. That explains why he wants the government to prepare for new demands on its New Deal and Great Society benefit programs. "The baby boom has been getting older one year at a time with a striking regularity," he says.

MacGuineas is the outside agitator. An independent, she worked for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign in 2000. She respects politicians who deliver bad news, as presidential candidate Walter Mondale did in 1984 when he said tax increases were inevitable — and then was defeated in 49 states.

"I want to see a presidential election where the candidates are talking about what taxes they'll raise and what spending they'll cut," she says. "It's not always a winning campaign slogan."

Conrad ran for the Senate in 1986 promising to reduce the budget deficit or quit after six years. By 1992, the deficit had hit an all-time high, and he said he would not seek re-election. Only the death of North Dakota's other senator kept him in Congress.

The former state tax commissioner has been doing this longer than other congressional budget officials — and he has the most charts. He's so numbers-oriented that at baseball games, he can instantly compute a hitter's average after each at-bat. "Numbers speak to me in a way that they don't speak to others," he says. "I guess it's the way my brain is wired."

Sawhill and Butler, from opposite ends of the political spectrum, lead a group of about 15 budget experts at Washington think tanks who gather periodically to discuss their dour crusade. Aided by Walker and the non-partisan Concord Coalition, a fiscal watchdog group, they have taken their show on the road.

Butler, a native of Britain, witnessed there in the 1960s and '70s the effects of slow growth and high unemployment, driven partly by generous government benefits. "We have a responsibility" to start the debate, he says, "because we don't have to get re-elected." But Sawhill says it's "an indictment of our political leadership that it is being left to outside groups such as ours to put these issues on the agenda."

After three decades in the business, Rivlin is frustrated by lawmakers' inaction and blames balanced-budget advocates for not better articulating the problem. "There may be better ways to talk about it," she says. "I think, 'Where's Ross Perot when we need him?' "

Thoughts?

Hell, considering the above, one could argue that America's current growing economy is floating on the back of enormous tax-cuts, which is a fake way of inflating the economy when the government can't afford it on its own. The moment the Graying hits and borrowing from foreign countries becomes more difficult as they refuse to pay as long as you refuse to pay your interest (especially EU countries that will face their own problems by this points), will this temporary uplift be enough to keep the American economy growing? normally, such a fiscal cut temporary boost can get one out of a slum, but can it now, with the problems you're facing?

 

[Murdoch]

Thoughts?

This is why I plan on leaving the country. I figure that if I'm getting paid in a foreign currency, especially one from a country with a balanced budget, I can come and retire back in the states as a king after the dollar is devalued three-fold or more.

I hear Australia is nice. Although they do have Kilus.

 

[quietfanatic]

I don't know about economics, but wouldn't the flow on effects of America's woes stuff up the other people's economies as they scramble to get on top of things.

Instead of raising taxes and balancing the budget, maybe we could swap Murdoch for Kilus. Murdoch could come and see how crap and conservative the scientific funding is in Australia and Kilus could go on a murderous rampage through retirement villages in the US at regular intervals, and then sell his pensioner-on-a-stick treat.

 

[Retlaw83]

Of course, the things Kharn is forgetting are that:

1) Unlike most European countries, the U.S. has a respectably-sized population. More money is spent on welfare not because our programs are extensive, but because they have to for pay more people.

2) Unlike several European countries, America has a birthrate that is higher than our deathrate. In a couple generations Americans and Americanized immigrants will still be handling the economy, while European economies will be controlled by young, first through third-generation immigrants because there won't be enough Europeans. The Muslim immigrants have a very real goal to breed Europeans out of power, because of resent bred from the fact many European cultures do poorly when it comes to assimilating immigrants.

3) There are probably four or five major news stories that are harbingers of America's imminent downfall every year, and those problems are always resolved. This one will be no different.

 

[Brother None]

Unlike most European countries, the U.S. has a respectably-sized population. More money is spent on welfare not because our programs are extensive, but because they have to for pay more people.

The population of the USA is 297,200,000, the population of the EU is 457,030,418. Note how I compared those two bodies, not individual countries. Also note how I'm not idiotic enough to compare welfare on gross spending of the country rather than per capita spending.

In 1998, the US spent 4,178 per capita on healthcare, compared to 2,425 for Norway, 2,424 for Germany, 2,077 for France, 1,502 for Finland and 1,461 for the UK.

It has become no better since. "In 2005, Americans spent 53 percent per capita more than the next highest country, Switzerland, and 140 percent above the median industrialized country, according to new research from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health." and "U.S. citizens spent $5,267 per capita on health care. The country with the next highest per capita expenditure, Switzerland, spent $3,446 per capita. The median OECD country spent $2,193 per capita."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050712140821.htm

Unlike several European countries, America has a birthrate that is higher than our deathrate. In a couple generations Americans and Americanized immigrants will still be handling the economy, while European economies will be controlled by young, first through third-generation immigrants because there won't be enough Europeans. The Muslim immigrants have a very real goal to breed Europeans out of power, because of resent bred from the fact many European cultures do poorly when it comes to assimilating immigrants.

The median for the European Union is birthrate of 10.00 and a deahrate of 10.10, for the curious.

But you're kind of missing the point, Retlaw. I've discussed and acknowledged the problems Europe is facing many times, but we always seem to skip about the problems the US is facing.

Your birthrate is higher than your deathrate. That does not remove the problems. Even the EU is still growing positively at a rate of .15% (compare to the .92% of the US, or the percentage of the other infamous babyboomer Japan, .05%).

We're not sticking our heads in the sand, though. We know the Greying shock is coming and we don't really have the means to support our current welfare model when it hits. We've acknowledged this and many countries have spent decades on it already, though some have been paying less attention to it (Germany, noticeably).

The US, in the meantime, is doing very little to reform the welfare model, spending ludicrous amounts on other matters and round-about sitting on its waiting for the shockwave to hit. You can dismiss the problem on platitudes like "they always predict our doom" or "we still have a lot of people being born", but that doesn't take away the solid problem, a problem that anyone can see, that your welfare state is about to get a lot more expensive and you don't have the money to pay for it.

There are probably four or five major news stories that are harbingers of America's imminent downfall every year, and those problems are always resolved. This one will be no different.

Prove it. Numerically.

 

[Retlaw83]

Well, first off, per capita spending on healthcare (welfare and healthcare are two different programs here) is because drug companies and doctors rape the populace with crushing costs for their services. The problem lies with the healthcare providers, not the government in and of itself. Those are two separate entities in the U.S. Also, social security is vastly different from healthcare and welfare - social security is a system you're required to put money into, and are promised to get the money back from once you reach a certain age.

Every year, you have the major story about how social security is going to collapse and our government is going to go down the tubes with it. That story has been reported since the mid-70s. Also, we have plenty of domestic media stories that are needlessly skewed, claiming we have epidemic problems that aren't actually epidemic. Social security will always be around, just because that's the way it is - the government will find some way to pay for it, because the reality is they're obligated to. Just like they're obligated to hold presidential elections every four years and maintain a defense department.

Now prove, numerically, that this conversation has merit, considering you don't know the subtleties of the U.S. and I don't know the subtleties of Europe, because neither of us have the practical experience of living in the other's area. Also, prove numerically that a discussion like this won't devolve into meaningless semantics because the majority of the people on this board with English as a second language like to get in arguments over the meaning of words whose collaquial meanings are not evident to them. That isn't quite as harsh as it sounds - I'm sure I would have very little idea of what was going on if I, for instance, knew Arabic as a second language and tried to debate something as a topic in that language.

 

[Brother None]

Well, first off, per capita spending on healthcare (welfare and healthcare are two different programs here) is because drug companies and doctors rape the populace with crushing costs for their services. The problem lies with the healthcare providers, not the government in and of itself.

That does not change the fact that healthcare has a whole other balance of problems to deal with when the Graying hits. Whether or not this is the government's problem is not the issue here.

Also, I cited your *healthcare* to be the most expensive in the world in my first post (and I quote "And yet still manages to be the most expensive healthcare in the world."). I did cite in when related to "the welfare state", as it is related to the welfare state, which is a political idea, if not to welfare, which is something else entirely.

Those are two separate entities in the U.S. Also, social security is vastly different from healthcare and welfare - social security is a system you're required to put money into, and are promised to get the money back from once you reach a certain age.

What exactly are you trying to argue here? I know what social security is and the problems it is facing are larger than that of your askant healthcare system. It has been cited as such in the article. So what're you trying to argue?

Every year, you have the major story about how social security is going to collapse and our government is going to go down the tubes with it. That story has been reported since the mid-70s. Also, we have plenty of domestic media stories that are needlessly skewed, claiming we have epidemic problems that aren't actually epidemic. Social security will always be around, just because that's the way it is - the government will find some way to pay for it, because the reality is they're obligated to. Just like they're obligated to hold presidential elections every four years and maintain a defense department.

Yes, and these predictions have been wrong in the past, hence they must be wrong in the future?

What perfection of logic.

Did you see me argue anywhere that the collapse of the US as an institution is imminent? Did you even read the article or what I said surrounding it? I doubt you did, by your remarks.

Now prove, numerically, that this conversation has merit, considering you don't know the subtleties of the U.S. and I don't know the subtleties of Europe, because neither of us have the practical experience of living in the other's area. Also, prove numerically that a discussion like this won't devolve into meaningless semantics because the majority of the people on this board with English as a second language like to get in arguments over the meaning of words whose collaquial meanings are not evident to them. That isn't quite as harsh as it sounds - I'm sure I would have very little idea of what was going on if I, for instance, knew Arabic as a second language and tried to debate something as a topic in that language.

First of, understand that in a political debate colloquial (a word you apparently can't even spell) meanings are irrelevant. These are political issues, that means English is used as English is, not how it's fun to use. I don't know where you're getting this from as I can't remember speaking to you before, but so far you are the one who has been "failing" by missing the main crux of the debate and completely missing what I'm talking about. I suggest you read my posts with more care, starting with the first one, and then bring in some broader arguments, rather than these irrelevant ones.

Also, you seem to lack understanding of the word numerically, from the ridiculous way in which you're using it.

Anyway; ok.

•Prescription-drug coverage under Medicare takes effect Jan. 1. Its projected cost, advertised at $400 billion over 10 years when it passed in 2003, has risen to at least $720 billion. "We couldn't afford" it, Walker says of the new law.

•The leading edge of the baby boom hits age 62 in 2008 and can take early retirement. The number of people covered by Social Security is expected to grow from 47 million today to 69 million in 2020. By 2030, the Congressional Budget Office projects, Social Security spending as a share of the U.S. economy will rise by 40%.

•The bulk of Bush's 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax-cut program is set to expire at the end of 2010. But Congress is moving to make the reductions permanent. That would keep tax revenue at roughly 18% of the economy, where it's been for the past half-century — too low to support even current spending levels. "We can't afford to make all the tax cuts permanent," Walker says.

•Baby boomers begin to reach age 65 in 2011 and go on Medicare. Of all the nation's fiscal problems, this is by far the biggest. If it grows 1% faster than the economy — a conservative estimate — Medicare would cost $2.6 trillion in 2050, after adjusting for inflation. That's the size of the entire federal budget today.

These numbers are cited in the article. If you want to prove the article wrong, dispense with the demagogic speeches and prove these numbers wrong. That's what I meant with numerically.

 

[Roshambo]

Unlike most European countries, the U.S. has a respectably-sized population. More money is spent on welfare not because our programs are extensive, but because they have to for pay more people.

The population of the USA is 297,200,000, the population of the EU is 457,030,418. Note how I compared those two bodies, not individual countries. Also note how I'm not idiotic enough to compare welfare on gross spending of the country rather than per capita spending.

In 1998, the US spent 4,178 per capita on healthcare, compared to 2,425 for Norway, 2,424 for Germany, 2,077 for France, 1,502 for Finland and 1,461 for the UK.

It has become no better since. "In 2005, Americans spent 53 percent per capita more than the next highest country, Switzerland, and 140 percent above the median industrialized country, according to new research from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health." and "U.S. citizens spent $5,267 per capita on health care. The country with the next highest per capita expenditure, Switzerland, spent $3,446 per capita. The median OECD country spent $2,193 per capita."

I have the one-word answer to one source of this problem, since it costs more to float over the holes created by people who do not return anything to the systems nor are counted into any per capita figures.

Wetbacks.

At Senator Jon Kyle's request, his organization calculated the cost to Arizona hospitals for treating illegal immigrants at 31 million dollars in just one year.

 

[Retlaw83]

Why I explained the difference between healthcare, welfare and social security is in your first post you seem to argue that they're all the same thing, which they aren't.

Yes, and these predictions have been wrong in the past, hence they must be wrong in the future?

Absolutely that's what it means. If the problem has been brought up using the same argument OVER and OVER again, and each time the argument has proven false, why would it be right this time? Economic collapse from retirees in any Western industrialized country is as much of threat as SARs and the Asian bird flu. That is to say, it's a small bump in the road any modern government is more than equipped to handle.

Did you see me argue anywhere that the collapse of the US as an institution is imminent? Did you even read the article or what I said surrounding it? I doubt you did, by your remarks.

I saw your article argue that. Which means, by default, you're arguing that.

First of, understand that in a political debate colloquial (a word you apparently can't even spell) meanings are irrelevant. These are political issues, that means English is used as English is, not how it's fun to use.

Has nothing to do with fun with words. Colloquial meanings are the practical application of English. And communicating technically instead of practically isn't very effective. And - oh no - I misspelled a word! I'll be crying myself to sleep tonight!

I don't know where you're getting this from as I can't remember speaking to you before, but so far you are the one who has been "failing" by missing the main crux of the debate and completely missing what I'm talking about. I suggest you read my posts with more care, starting with the first one, and then bring in some broader arguments, rather than these irrelevant ones.

I did read it with care. Then responded to what it said. Perhaps the confusion, on both our parts, is coming from the fact I responded more to the article than to your words?

Also, you seem to lack understanding of the word numerically, from the ridiculous way in which you're using it.

I used it just as ridiculously as you used it - to ask for numerical proof of anything is asking for mathematical proof, which is something that isn't a factor in what you asked me to, or a factor in what I asked you to do. It further illustrated my point about colloquial use of English.

Wetbacks

Indeed. The main problems in this are California, and to a lesser extent Arizona. The argument espoused by their liberal politicians is that, for some reason, illegal immigrants should get the full benefits of citizenship as well as being allowed to keep their language and culture without taking any of ours on. That's really fucking stupid - if I decided to move to France for the rest of my life, I'd be sure I was somewhat fluent in French and had the legal right to be there before I got to packing.

 

[Brother None]

I have the one-word answer to one source of this problem, since it costs more to float over the holes created by people who do not return anything to the systems nor are counted into any per capita figures.

Wetbacks.

While I'm sure this is a part of the problem, I sincerely doubt it covers the 140% deficency between you and the OECD median. In fact, the costs cited in that article sound unimpressive even to me, and I'm used to state budgets of a tiny country like the Netherlands.

I'm sure it's a part of the problem. And I'm not sure how many, ahm, unpaying wetbacks you have out there, but to say that accounts for the entire deficiency seems a bit ludicrous

Retlaw, skipping beyond fun philological debates on the meaning of colloquial and numerical (both of which you wildly fail to grasp, apparently, to say numerical is the same as mathematical in an economic context must be the funniest thing I heard this year), I asked you one post back to actually post some kind of counter-argument to any of the points made in the article beyond your "it's been predicted before"-story (which has some validity, but is not exactly a solid argument, now is it). If you're not going to bother, why should I bother replying to you?

 

[John Uskglass]

That's really fucking stupid - if I decided to move to France for the rest of my life, I'd be sure I was somewhat fluent in French and had the legal right to be there before I got to packing.

No, if you immigrated to France you would spend 40 years trying to get past your darker skin and unFrench name while the government covers it's own eyes to your situation, ending with your children screaming "America is Great! God Wills It!" and throwing molotov cocktails at 40,000 Euro Renaults.

I don't see how getting rid of 'wetbakcs' would solve anything, considering that because of declinig birthrates and the expanding economy in Mexico the tide of immigrants will over the next 20 years will decline by itself.

My solution to the problem? Firebomb local branches of the AARP.

Seriously though, it's a massive problem, and I think the only way to get rid of it is basically overturning completley the Great Society and the New Deal. But that was inevitable.

 

[Brother None]

French rioters shouted "America is great"?

Unlikely. Are you confusing America with Allah again?

 

[Ratty Sr.]

French rioters shouted "America is great"?

Unlikely. Are you confusing America with Allah again?

Maybe he meant Satan.

 

[Retlaw83]

Kharn, you asked me to cite "numerical proof" that there are four or five doomsday stories in the news every year. What you seem to "wildly fail" to grasp is an understanding of the phrase "numerical proof." We can argue back and forth forever, but because of different understandings of English we're going to keep misunderstanding each other and accomplish nothing.

I gave you your counter argument. Just because you can't effectively argue against it because you "wildly fail" to grasp it is no need to result to insult.

No, if you immigrated to France you would spend 40 years trying to get past your darker skin and unFrench name while the government covers it's own eyes to your situation, ending with your children screaming "America is Great! God Wills It!" and throwing molotov cocktails at 40,000 Euro Renaults.

Wouldn't surprise me if that happened, although my skin is the same color as theirs. However, I don't think I can spin how ridiculously British/German my name is.

 

[Sander]

Kharn, you asked me to cite "numerical proof" that there are four or five doomsday stories in the news every year. What you seem to "wildly fail" to grasp is an understanding of the phrase "numerical proof." We can argue back and forth forever, but because of different understandings of English we're going to keep misunderstanding each other and accomplish nothing.

I gave you your counter argument. Just because you can't effectively argue against it because you "wildly fail" to grasp it is no need to result to insult.

Yet somehow you fail to look up the word numerical in a dictionary. Note '3. Expressed in or counted by numbers: numerical strength.'
Kharn was referring to that meaning. In other words, he wanted to see numerical ('expressed in numbers') proof that there are four to five of these doomsday scenarios each year, and that they are all wrong. What you have provided is a numerical statement ('There are...'), not a numerical proof. Very different.
One that you, by the way, still haven't provided. Nor have you provided any real counterarguments in this discussion, even though you like to claim you did. Your only argument, 'It's been said before and it wasn't true then' is a very weak one. The only other thing you've brought to this discussion is a huge derailment in regards to the use of the English language.

Look, Retlaw, what you still fail to grasp is that in any real debate, people use English as it is defined to avoid being misinterpreted. Colloquial meanings of any language often differ per country, region and upbringing, and hence depending on colloquial meanings when talking to people you don't know is very inefficient and can easily lead to misunderstandings. Which is why dictionaries exist, so that people can refer to it to look up the actual meaning of the word, instead of how they usually use it.

 

[Jebus]

French rioters shouted "America is great"?

Unlikely. Are you confusing America with Allah again?

The French riots are not based on religious grounds.






This must be the 50th time or so I said that in the last two weeks. Amazing.

 

[Ashmo]

You mean those rioters aren't affiliated with Al'Qaida? Can't be.

 

[Brother None]

You mean those rioters aren't affiliated with Al'Qaida? Can't be.

Heh.

"Usama Bin Laden spotted in Paris, setting a Renault ablaze and shouting 'America is great!'"

Seriously though, it's a massive problem, and I think the only way to get rid of it is basically overturning completley the Great Society and the New Deal. But that was inevitable.

Ok. But the problem remains that no preparations are being made now, which means that such an overturning would have to be quite drastic. Do you think it's possible to do that and still keep the standard of living of the average pensioner on a normal level?

 

[Roshambo]

Really, when was the last time anyone really took a look at the facts about this since 2004, known as the Wetback Wave amongst many.

I like this fact sheet a bit better, because it takes off the rose-tinted glasses.

2. Mexico is NOT a poor country. It has the fifth richest economy in the world, and by sending its teeming masses to our country, that status keeps on rising. Mexico has more resources per square mile than the U.S. and plenty of money to take care of its own people. Why should the taxpayers of this country subsidize Mexico's corruption?

3. Illegal aliens are NOT necessarily coming here to work. Lou Dobbs recently reported that 33 percent of our prison population is now comprised of non-citizens. Plus, 36 to 42 percent of illegal aliens are on welfare. So, for a good proportion of these people, the American dream is crime and welfare, not coming here to work.

Some other important points about how the hole in the welfare system is just like I stated, like putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound.

>3 Million illegal immigrants enter the US annually, a number that is growing
~300,000 anchor babies are born per year into US citizenship
Then the Mexican government actively makes a trade in having their citizens illegally come over to the US and send money back home. Then the US lawmakers get in on the deal, through a blatant conflict of interest in offices such as senator, and who should be in turn thrown in prison for violating USC T8 §1324). Some more here.

Illegal alien is not racist, nor is it any less offensive than it should sound. Wetback, however, is similarly not racist, but it is derogratory to illegal aliens of a certain region. There is the salty wetback (Cuban), the frosty wetback (the Columbian coke mule), ricebacks (Chinese), the caffeinated wetback (S. American coffee farmer), and a few others. Too bad I couldn't be even more derogratory. I don't like illegals of any kind, but the Mexicans, including the Mexican government, have turned it into a legal art form in getting US states and businesses to accept the Matrica Consular as some form of legitimate ID for illegals in the US. Aiding illegal aliens, may I remind people, is a felony according to Federal Law, and shouldn't be allowed, condoned, or excused.


Then look at who abuses the American public for profit by using their position in government? Elected Federal Government Officials and Representatives (well, other than the president and vice-president). How fucking gauche, and there's a state that could use a 7.62mm impeachment of their senator, but I know Georgia just can't resist going back to slavery in some form. Yeah, I said it.

Employment
Home loans (You want sued for decrimination, esse? - These are also govt insured, which means US citizens again pay for them. Now illegals also get legal status under several US laws as "homeowners", because of the sketchy use of wording and nobody currently having the balls to enforce the spirits of the laws, only go through the letter of the law and allow illegals to squeak through with collecting free aid at the cost of US citizens that puts their livelihood at far better than many US citizens.)
Welfare
TAXES
Grade-school education and tuition (Which they also often get in under minority clauses and programs, or sometimes under the threat of being sued for discrimination.)
WORKMAN'S COMP! (DEC 2005 Edition: "The Court rejected Farmers Brothers' contention that Ruiz's use of a fraudulent Social Security card and a fraudulent green card to obtain employment disqualified him from obtaining benefits since Ruiz has never been CONVICTED of violating the law with those fraudulent documents." - Uh...he just DID, you moronic Cali benchwarmer...and now the company who the illegal defrauded in the first place for employment now has to pay the shitstain's worker's compensation, which many legal workers are having problems in getting what they are entitled to. To top this off, the worker probably forged their job qualifications as well, so why should they be compensated like a real worker? To prevent the employer from hiring illegals to avoid having to pay real workman's comp, they should be fined for any illegals hurt on their site, yet the illegal should not be given a benefit for illegally working - NEITHER SHOULD BENEFIT. Again, a thank you to the Cali judges for setting up even more retarded precedents that will be used and abused in courts all over the country, and this can also mean unemployment benefits depending upon each state's wording in their articles. These are all counted under welfare programs, and are being QUITE abused. This includes Ohio as well. So in effect, these judges are committing felony violations of US Code T8 §1324 under aiding and encouraging illegals to remain in the US with these rulings. But don't tell them that, they are judges and know the law, versus playing retarded semantic games like this..."Examining the Ohio workers'-comp statute, the court noted its definition of an "employee" eligible to participate in the Workers' Compensation Fund specifically included "aliens" and made no distinction between legal and illegal aliens." Discounting the fact that "alien" means foreigner, and implies one who has a work visa as illegal aliens aren't supposed to be hired in the first place, when do they get full US citizen rights by being "illegal citizens"?)

I also fail to see how it's such a bad situation there in Mexico, with their economy doing quite well. Their second highest industry is having their lazy go across the border to send back over whatever they can get, to the point of their government trying to come up with a US state-approved ID for illegals to get services and aid in the US. (That is now going quite well, sending over many dozens of billions of dollars down into Mexico per year, to compete alongside their tourism industry.) Stuff that is normally a felony and still is for anyone who ISN'T a welfare-exploiting wetback illegal, who doesn't have a government that catered to their illegal trespass into another country. So the wetbacks make it worse for those just as illegal as them, but aren't actively leeching the system, either. Instead of supporting your freedoms, folks, your lawmakers have sold you out for a fuck...err, a buck, again. Bush and a few others are now looking to make NAFTA look like a two-lane highway, and instead make it so that illegals get a WIDE OPEN FREEWAY of being able to walk into the US and receieve rights like any other citizen. (Guess what that means? GOODBYE ALL SOCIAL PROGRAMS.) As could...well, pretty much anyone looking to get US citizenship, despite previous citizenship, just by walking over the Mexican-US border. Want to sneak into the US despite your current citizenship? Get a Mexican accent and sneak over the border. See if you can get a Matrica Secular and your life is set.

Kharn, folks, the problem is a bit bigger than a lot of people realize (non-existent border security), and the biggest holes in the US welfare system, already stretched due to the baby boomer generation currently in retirement, is the number of illegals coming over to have babies and otherwise be a problem to our social system. It's gone from "okay, there's a few pathetic people who might need to exploit the system and get out of the gutter" to "this is becoming an insane way of life at my expense, so it can fill industry CEO pockets". Fuck them.

So, the bottom line? If 36-42% of illegals are here to use US programs, and the average one costs US taxpayers $55,000 each (though I must assume that figure is for their whole stay here), then that is a substantial drain those welfare-suckers have created. In addition, with just a flat 3 mil figure of new illegals per year, look at how much of a potential drain increase that creates?

$165,000,000,000

This is, of course, on top of the $1,480,585,315,000 (1.5 trillion) cost assessment of supporting the current illegals in the country.

So in light of those figures, I can see where the health care spending in the United States in 2003 reached $1.7 trillion, and was projected to increase at a .1 trillion dollars more, but it went way above that. Well, if you take a look at the most logical source of that increase, it does boil down to, essentially, wetbacks. Hospital and insurance premiums have gone up, but that is in response to the legitimate health care patients having to pick up the tab for those who didn't feel like working for the care.

http://www.californiahealthline.org/index.cfm?action=dspItem&itemID=110531&changedID=109010

This is a little disturbing, so let me break down the figures for you.

In addition, researchers estimated that "waste, excessive prices and fraud" account for about half of health care spending, the Chronicle reports. Sager estimates that health care costs could be reduced by more than $300 billion in 2005 if "even a third of waste" was eliminated (San Francisco Chronicle, 2/9).

A lot can be cut from the US health care system due to waste. If the system is at 1.9 tril, and half of that is spent through waste, excessive prices (essentially the same thing), and fraud (which illegals are also counted under), then subtract 300 from 850 billion. That leaves a bit more than half a billion dollars to account for, and 300,000 anchor babies a year starts to add up.

And who else makes a better ambulance-chaser than someone who only can point at something and speak broken Mexican for the court? That is another game they play, too. So the system is being both screwed on civil and social welfare accounts.

And people are wondering why the American quality of life isn't really what it is cracked up to be anymore.

</Ross Perot>

 

[Sander]

Really, when was the last time anyone really took a look at the facts about this since 2004, known as the Wetback Wave amongst many.

I like this fact sheet a bit better, because it takes off the rose-tinted glasses.

2. Mexico is NOT a poor country. It has the fifth richest economy in the world, and by sending its teeming masses to our country, that status keeps on rising. Mexico has more resources per square mile than the U.S. and plenty of money to take care of its own people. Why should the taxpayers of this country subsidize Mexico's corruption?

3. Illegal aliens are NOT necessarily coming here to work. Lou Dobbs recently reported that 33 percent of our prison population is now comprised of non-citizens. Plus, 36 to 42 percent of illegal aliens are on welfare. So, for a good proportion of these people, the American dream is crime and welfare, not coming here to work.

Some other important points about how the hole in the welfare system is just like I stated, like putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound.

Bah. What a sucky article. It focuses on 'illegal aliens are costing us money', which is a rather obvious point of view, but doesn't anywhere give any sources for its facts. So if you check the facts you'll notice that Mexico's GDP per capita is actually the 85th in the world, that's not anywhere near the 5th place.

Regarding the Lou Dobbs' citing, here's an interesting article regarding that. Although it is obviously not a neutral article either, it does point out that, for instance, that Lou Dobbs' 33% of people in prison are illegal immigrants was more or less made up.

That said, illegal aliens are assholes, simply because they can do it legally. I just can't stand bad facts.