Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ft. Worth, TX
    Posts
    1,942

    Immigrants got 2/3rds of the new jobs the past 4 years

    This is something neither Obama or Romney have the guts to talk about. Is this not insanity though? We have 23 million people out of work, but employers hired more Mexicans and Asians than native born Americans the past 4 years? Crazy. That's burning the candle on one end. The other end is the elites have shipped millions of middle class manufacturing jobs (and other jobs) overseas! That's the other end of the candle burning.

    If you take Christianity (or at the very least morality) out of capitalism, capitalism becomes a self-serving absorbing system that enriches the 1% at the expense of the other 99%. We are seeing this happen before our very eyes, and nobody seems too concerned about it. The role of the federal government has always been to put a stop to this greed. But the government seems to be on the side of the employers now and not the employees. Is that because the employers provide a lot more federal tax revenue to the government than individual employees? I don't know, but there is something very very wrong with this picture.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...grants/?page=1

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California/Nevada
    Posts
    3,607
    pretty soon, the ones who don't wanna work will have free health care too

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    17,840
    I believe that the proper role of the state is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and that always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If the state can give us everything we want, it also must be powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of the state is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens, nothing more. That state is best which governs least.
    "Politicians are the lowest form of life on Earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politician"

    - General George S. Patton

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ft. Worth, TX
    Posts
    1,942
    Quote Originally Posted by coolwhip View Post
    I believe that the proper role of the state is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and that always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If the state can give us everything we want, it also must be powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of the state is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens, nothing more. That state is best which governs least.
    I guess governing the least also includes no border fence and allowing 4,000 Mexicans/day to invade our country?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    17,840
    No exreo, this would be considered an invasion of our sovereignty, and troops would/should be mobilized to secure our borders.
    "Politicians are the lowest form of life on Earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politician"

    - General George S. Patton

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by coolwhip View Post
    I believe that the proper role of the state is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and that always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If the state can give us everything we want, it also must be powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of the state is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens, nothing more. That state is best which governs least.
    Yeah but what about something like health issues? Say there is sexual transmitted diseases running around the younger folk (and we know they are going to be doing it). Would it not be prudent for the government to mitigate the negative effects of an epidemic even if it means using resources taken from others? There are a lot of places government gets its fingers stuck in to limit further harm.

    Our local government is shelling out $15k a year distributing crack pipes to addicts as a way to reduce the spread of disease. They figure if they stop one person from getting sick they are in the black as far as the program goes. They also figure the bridges they create with the addicts make it easier for the ones that want to get off the drugs. One of our local papers do not see it that way and thinks the program should be shut down on principal, no tax dollars should go to crack pipes even if it costs more down the road.
    Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. —Mark Twain

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    17,840
    If if's and and's were pots and pans, you would have a cupboard full.
    "Politicians are the lowest form of life on Earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politician"

    - General George S. Patton

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Gainesville, FL
    Posts
    325
    I've read the US Constitution, and nowhere in there does it say the federal government's job is to prevent greed. Not one of the enumerated powers even mentions greed or any of the words that appear next to it in the thesaurus.

    If you want to discover why immigrant laborers get jobs and factory labor gets off-shored, look no further than government policies that make it insanely expensive to play by their rules and employ people here. We have the highest corporate tax rates and most expensive regulatory burdens in the known universe. If you want to put native born Americans back to work and on-shore manufacturing we have to be competitive, and we won't be if we are competing with Mexican (or Taiwanese, Chinese, etc.) labor that doesn't have to pay 30% work comp, employment tax, unemployment contributions, mandatory health benefits, comply with OSHA, EPA, USDA,, etc.

    If you want to build a factory in China you bribe an official and roll the bulldozers in. If you want to build a factory in the USA you get sued by the NLRB, EPA, and the Sierra Foundation, and by the time legal smoke clears and the plans are complete the building codes have changed and its no longer cost feasible to build at all.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    4,252
    Quote Originally Posted by exreo View Post
    I guess governing the least also includes no border fence and allowing 4,000 Mexicans/day to invade our country?
    No. It is within the Federal Governments purview and responsibility to protect it's citizens from foreign invaders, guns in hand or not.
    If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what will never be. (Thomas Jefferson 1816)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete838 View Post
    I've read the US Constitution, and nowhere in there does it say the federal government's job is to prevent greed. Not one of the enumerated powers even mentions greed or any of the words that appear next to it in the thesaurus.

    If you want to discover why immigrant laborers get jobs and factory labor gets off-shored, look no further than government policies that make it insanely expensive to play by their rules and employ people here. We have the highest corporate tax rates and most expensive regulatory burdens in the known universe. If you want to put native born Americans back to work and on-shore manufacturing we have to be competitive, and we won't be if we are competing with Mexican (or Taiwanese, Chinese, etc.) labor that doesn't have to pay 30% work comp, employment tax, unemployment contributions, mandatory health benefits, comply with OSHA, EPA, USDA,, etc.

    If you want to build a factory in China you bribe an official and roll the bulldozers in. If you want to build a factory in the USA you get sued by the NLRB, EPA, and the Sierra Foundation, and by the time legal smoke clears and the plans are complete the building codes have changed and its no longer cost feasible to build at all.
    You remind me of a customer I had a few days ago who got upset because I didn't fill his propane cylinder to 100 percent capacity.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by coolwhip View Post
    If if's and and's were pots and pans, you would have a cupboard full.
    Shame, I really wanted to know how you thought.
    Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. —Mark Twain

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event