Trump ends 'Dreamer' immigration programme, places onus on Congress

[daboyz1]

 
Excellent rebuttal.  Why don't you explain to us why he's wrong?

I didn't bother reading it. No point. I already know where he stands on economics. Somewhere left of Stalin.

Conversely, I don't bother reading or listening to Hannity, O'Reilly et al.

People like Krugman are the reason Trump is in the white house.

[ilostmypassword]

21 minutes ago, daboyz1 said:

I didn't bother reading it. No point. I already know where he stands on economics. Somewhere left of Stalin.

Conversely, I don't bother reading or listening to Hannity, O'Reilly et al.

People like Krugman are the reason Trump is in the white house.

People often cite Krugman for his Nobel Prize which he got for economics. Actually, his biggest achievement was the revival of depression economics. He was the first of the major economists to point out that contrary to popular economic belief, inflation was not a threat to the Western economy. Also you clearly don't recall when all the conservative economists were warning that QE was going to lead to high inflation and even hyperinflation. Krugman dismissed it as nonsense. Who turned out to be correct?

He also pointed out that the economic program that Obama and Summers proposed was not adequate to the threat posed by the massive shortfall in demand. Summers subsequently agreed that he had asked for too little.

And what's best about Krugman is that when he makes a mistake he openly admits it. Unlike virtually all of the right wing economists who have never taken responsiblity for their claims about hyperinflation.

So tell me, what do you believe about Krugman that justifies your claim that he is to the left of Stalin?

And why do you compare Krugman to Hannity, O'Reilly et al? Do you believe that they are economists, too?

 

I should also point out that when virtually every "serious person" was touting the Rogoff paper that alleged to show that if a country had a debt of 90 percent or more of its GDP, then it was heading for serious trouble, Krugman scoffed at it. Subsequent events proved him right.

And again, when he attacked the notion of "expansionary austerity", the believe that governments should cut spending in the face of a financial recession/depression.  That was also a very popular idea in right wing economic circles.This was the policy the EU followed in the wake of the financial crisis and it took longer for the EU to begin recovering than Western Europe did from the Great Depression. In fact, much of Western Europe still hasn't recovered.

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[Thakkar]

25 minutes ago, daboyz1 said:

I didn't bother reading it. No point. I already know where he stands on economics. Somewhere left of Stalin.

Conversely, I don't bother reading or listening to Hannity, O'Reilly et al.

People like Krugman are the reason Trump is in the white house.

Krugman is a respected economist who supports his assertions with data, facts, studies and reasoned arguments. When he is wrong, he admits it, as he did some years ago when he admitted that actual economic outcomes had shown that his earlier support of unfettered globalization was a big mistake.

 

Hannity and O'Reilly are performers who have little understanding of anything except how to manipulate their dumb audience. They seldom employ facts or reasoned arguments and do not apologize for sh!tload of falsehoods they have spouted over the years.

 

One is a serious academic, the other two are highly paid performance monkeys.

 

Saying "I don't read Krugman, just like I don't Read Hannity" is like saying "I don't like ham sandwiches, just like don't like sh!t sandwiches"

 

One is legitimate food that you are entitled to not like. The other, you'd have to be a dung beetle to even consider as edible.

 

This kind of absurd, completely improper equivalency is why Trump is in the WH. And also, Russians, allegedly.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Thakkar said:

Krugman is a respected economist who supports his assertions with data, facts, studies and reasoned arguments. When he is wrong, he admits it, as he did some years ago when he admitted that actual economic outcomes had shown that his earlier support of unfettered globalization was a big mistake.

 

Hannity and O'Reilly are performers who have little understanding of anything except how to manipulate their dumb audience. They seldom employ facts or reasoned arguments and do not apologize for sh!tload of falsehoods they have spouted over the years.

 

One is a serious academic, the other two are highly paid performance monkeys.

 

Saying "I don't read Krugman, just like I don't Read Hannity" is like saying "I don't like ham sandwiches, just like don't like sh!t sandwiches"

 

One is legitimate food that you are entitled to not like. The other, you'd have to be a dung beetle to even consider as edible.

 

This kind of absurd, completely improper equivalency is why Trump is in the WH. And also, Russians, allegedly.

Basically, it's a justification of ignorance. Clearly, this person doesn't have a clue about economics. Not so long ago I had a run-in with someone who claimed that all politicians were corrupt and only in it to enrich themselves and their patrons. He was justifying Trump's programs. I pointed to the example of Elizabeth Warren. He just responded with unreasoning contempt.  Same kind of pig ignorance.

[Thakkar]

21 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Basically, it's a justification of ignorance. Clearly, this person doesn't have a clue about economics. Not so long ago I had a run-in with someone who claimed that all politicians were corrupt and only in it to enrich themselves and their patrons. He was justifying Trump's programs. I pointed to the example of Elizabeth Warren. He just responded with unreasoning contempt.  Same kind of pig ignorance.

This whole schtick about "all politicians lie" is a huge bugbear of mine. It's an excuse to justify unthinking dogma: settle on one way of thinking about the world, ignore contravening facts, new discoveries, better arguments, novel approaches, etc and just sit back comfortably in one's ignorance and tell everybody to stay off your lawn.

 

The fact is NOT all politicians lie. Many are dedicated Civil servants who try hard to keep the promises they've made. Some promises are kept, some aren't, some partly, some differently. Actual governing always proves more complicated than politicking. For us to understand and appreciate what's happening requires regular engagement, effort, and pushing our elected officials to pay attention to our needs and explain their actions.

 

But that means we have to pay attention to the news, think about issues, read up on things we don't know about, get involved in campaigns, keep up the pressure on officials —BE ACTUAL CITIZENS. 

 

But that's too much work for some. So much easier to just say, "screw them all, let's have a demagogue"

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Thakkar said:

This whole schtick about "all politicians lie" is a huge bugbear of mine. It's an excuse to justify unthinking dogma: settle on one way of thinking about the world, ignore contravening facts, new discoveries, better arguments, novel approaches, etc and just sit back comfortably in one's ignorance and tell everybody to stay off your lawn.

 

The fact is NOT all politicians lie. Many are dedicated Civil servants who try hard to keep the promises they've made. Some promises are kept, some aren't, some partly, some differently. Actual governing always proves more complicated than politicking. For us to understand and appreciate what's happening requires regular engagement, effort, and pushing our elected officials to pay attention to our needs and explain their actions.

 

But that means we have to pay attention to the news, think about issues, read up on things we don't know about, get involved in campaigns, keep up the pressure on officials —BE ACTUAL CITIZENS. 

 

But that's too much work for some. So much easier to just say, "screw them all, let's have a demagogue"

Or as is increasingly the case, just say they're all corrupt and so exempt yourself from any need to actually investigate. And on a minor point you might want to substitute "civic" for "civil".

[daboyz1]

I get it. Krugman is a respected academic because his views align with yours. People who have differing viewpoints are simply discarded as not credible. That works both ways.

[WaywardWind]

1 hour ago, daboyz1 said:

I get it. Krugman is a respected academic because his views align with yours. People who have differing viewpoints are simply discarded as not credible. That works both ways.

The question on credibility is not whether someone has a differing viewpoint; the question is whether the individual has a reasoned viewpoint which is supported by data and facts,  or is simply regurgitating unsupported and usually false assertions obtained from a Fox News talking head.

[ELVIS123456]

23 hours ago, daboyz1 said:

Like I said, more than half the states sued the federal government over this and they would've won. Obama exceeded his authority. Simple as that.

Personally I think this dream act will just encourage more illegal immigration and this has already been proven. When it was announced a few years back, thousands of people showed up at the US border and dumped their kids, because they (wrongly) thought they would be eligible for DACA.

Exactly correct - look at the situation in Europe.  Because of stupid political appeasement and liberal lunancy, millions of illegals have stormed into the EU - and they cant reject them nor get rid of them.

 

The same thing as happened in USA with Trump being elected, will happen to the Governments in EU. The People have had enough of the bullshit liberal socialistic utopian crap - they want Law and Order and Jobs. They want their Government to do what Trump said he would do and is doing - put the People of the Country first - not the people or businesses of another Country.

[zydeco]

16 hours ago, mikebike said:

So maybe deport the parents if you can prove criminal intent of putting helpless children in harms way. Do NOT take out your bellicose attitude on the innocents.

So, if some parent steals the bicycle of some kid and then gives it to his own kids, it would be bellicose and unfair to arrest him and make him return the bike.  Because that would be taking something away from the thief's children.

[daboyz1]

People often cite Krugman for his Nobel Prize which he got for economics. Actually, his biggest achievement was the revival of depression economics. He was the first of the major economists to point out that contrary to popular economic belief, inflation was not a threat to the Western economy. Also you clearly don't recall when all the conservative economists were warning that QE was going to lead to high inflation and even hyperinflation. Krugman dismissed it as nonsense. Who turned out to be correct?
He also pointed out that the economic program that Obama and Summers proposed was not adequate to the threat posed by the massive shortfall in demand. Summers subsequently agreed that he had asked for too little.
And what's best about Krugman is that when he makes a mistake he openly admits it. Unlike virtually all of the right wing economists who have never taken responsiblity for their claims about hyperinflation.
So tell me, what do you believe about Krugman that justifies your claim that he is to the left of Stalin?
And why do you compare Krugman to Hannity, O'Reilly et al? Do you believe that they are economists, too?
 
I should also point out that when virtually every "serious person" was touting the Rogoff paper that alleged to show that if a country had a debt of 90 percent or more of its GDP, then it was heading for serious trouble, Krugman scoffed at it. Subsequent events proved him right.
And again, when he attacked the notion of "expansionary austerity", the believe that governments should cut spending in the face of a financial recession/depression.  That was also a very popular idea in right wing economic circles.This was the policy the EU followed in the wake of the financial crisis and it took longer for the EU to begin recovering than Western Europe did from the Great Depression. In fact, much of Western Europe still hasn't recovered.
 

Nobel prizes don't mean anything. They gave one to Obama for winning an election.

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, zydeco said:

So, if some parent steals the bicycle of some kid and then gives it to his own kids, it would be bellicose and unfair to arrest him and make him return the bike.  Because that would be taking something away from the thief's children.

No that would be the right thing to do. The wrong thing would be to punish the child.

[zydeco]

50 minutes ago, mikebike said:

No that would be the right thing to do. The wrong thing would be to punish the child.

Nobody is punishing the child. He just can't keep the loot (US residency) his parents stole for him.

[attrayant]

 

14 minutes ago, zydeco said:

Nobody is punishing the child. He just can't keep the loot (US residency) his parents stole for him.

Major analogy fail.

 

Thus the child reverts back to being bikeless; situation he has known for a long time and is well-accustomed to.

 

That's a far cry from deporting a child who has never known any country other than America, and may not even speak any language other than English, to some foreign country.  These kids are, practically speaking, Americans aside from the technicality of not having been born here.

 

Suddenly acquiring a bike and then having it taken away is not even close to living your entire life in a country and then when you're in your teens or twenties, being deported to some unknown country where you can't speak the language and the people will see you as a foreigner.

Edited September 7, 2017 by attrayant

[mikebike]

8 minutes ago, zydeco said:

Nobody is punishing the child. He just can't keep the loot (US residency) his parents stole for him.

Ah so your astute analogy equates an inanimate object to a whole life experience of shared community and productive life skills. Got it.

[zydeco]

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

These kids are, practically speaking, Americans aside from the technicality of not having been born here.

That "technicality" is called citizenship. Most countries do not pass it out for free like some cheap prize in a box of crackerjacks. And going back to Mexico (which is where most of them say they are from) is not such a bad deal. It's one of the wealthiest countries in the world. With the US education that they have already been given gratis, they should do especially well. And I expect that most of them retain some ability with Spanish, as they are frequently translators for their parents when seeking medical care.

[attrayant]

Your beliefs and expectations notwithstanding, the children themselves are not responsible and shouldn't be punished like this.  

 

And citizenship isn't being granted "for free".  Where did you get that idea?  These kids are NOT getting citizenship, but still grow up to become productive members of society.  I'd say they are getting the short end of the stick, not US citizens.  

 

DREAMer Dies Saving Harvey Flood Victims

 

We need more people like this, not fewer.  And frankly I don't care where they come from.

[daboyz1]

The message sent by allowing this is "Bring your kids here illegally and they'll be able to stay."

Should the Government condone and even encourage this illegal behavior?

[mikebike]

18 minutes ago, daboyz1 said:

The message sent by allowing this is "Bring your kids here illegally and they'll be able to stay."

Should the Government condone and even encourage this illegal behavior?

No. Should any government punish children for the sins of their parents?

[daboyz1]

No. Should any government punish children for the sins of their parents?

Happens all the time. Kids always suffer when their parents break the law.

Here's a thought. Go ahead and give the kids the benefits and prosecute the parents for bringing them here. That may act as a deterrent for future "dreamers"

[attrayant]

15 minutes ago, daboyz1 said:

Happens all the time.

 

I notice you didn't answer the question, which was should it happen, not does it happen.  You're bring asked an ethical question.

[daboyz1]

 
I notice you didn't answer the question, which was should it happen, not does it happen.  You're bring asked an ethical question.

No of course it shouldn't happen, but that's not reality. These kids aren't being thrown in jail so the word "punish" is a bit subjective. Kids are "punished" for the mistakes of their parents all the time.

If someone wants to change that, then go to Congress and get them to pass a law saying it's perfectly fine to bring children to the US without following the process. Until then it's illegal.

[mikebike]

38 minutes ago, daboyz1 said:

Happens all the time. Kids always suffer when their parents break the law.

Here's a thought. Go ahead and give the kids the benefits and prosecute the parents for bringing them here. That may act as a deterrent for future "dreamers"

You finally got there!!

[mikebike]

12 minutes ago, daboyz1 said:

No of course it shouldn't happen, but that's not reality. These kids aren't being thrown in jail so the word "punish" is a bit subjective. Kids are "punished" for the mistakes of their parents all the time.

If someone wants to change that, then go to Congress and get them to pass a law saying it's perfectly fine to bring children to the US without following the process. Until then it's illegal.

Deportation may, in this circumstance, be considered a worse "punish"ment than jail... somewhat cruel and unusual I would posit.

Edited September 7, 2017 by mikebike
spelling

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, daboyz1 said:

No of course it shouldn't happen, but that's not reality. These kids aren't being thrown in jail so the word "punish" is a bit subjective. Kids are "punished" for the mistakes of their parents all the time.

If someone wants to change that, then go to Congress and get them to pass a law saying it's perfectly fine to bring children to the US without following the process. Until then it's illegal.

So it shouldn't happen but still you're advocating it to happen.

[daboyz1]

So it shouldn't happen but still you're advocating it to happen.

How am I advocating it?

[TonyClifton]

On 9/6/2017 at 8:21 AM, darksidedog said:

I have absolutely no interest in the blame game. That is half of what is wrong in America, that people are too quick to point the finger and too slow to do what is morally right. How this came about is of far less importance than the correct, fair and decent solution being found.

Of course you don't want to blame anyone when the blame falls squarely on our recent turncoat President Barack HUSSAIN Obama. Tony thinks HUSSAIN should have been impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors.  

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

So it shouldn't happen but still you're advocating it to happen.

I think you are conflating posters. Daboyz1's point is that it is Obama's fault. Zydeco has been all in for punishing dreamers.

[ilostmypassword]

4 hours ago, zydeco said:

That "technicality" is called citizenship. Most countries do not pass it out for free like some cheap prize in a box of crackerjacks. And going back to Mexico (which is where most of them say they are from) is not such a bad deal. It's one of the wealthiest countries in the world. With the US education that they have already been given gratis, they should do especially well. And I expect that most of them retain some ability with Spanish, as they are frequently translators for their parents when seeking medical care.On a per capita basis,

Where did you ever come up with the notion that Mexico is one of the wealthiest countries in the world? On a per capita basis, Mexico is #64, #61, or #68 in GDP per capita depending whose figures you use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

[zydeco]

42 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Where did you ever come up with the notion that Mexico is one of the wealthiest countries in the world? On a per capita basis, Mexico is #64, #61, or #68 in GDP per capita depending whose figures you use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Mexico #16 http://statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-projected-gdp.php