Vertigo
-
Posts
1,416 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
31
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Vertigo
-
-
I'm wondering what everyone's thoughts are on Christie's detainment of a nurse who had no symptoms and tested negative for Ebola, in which she was only released after she sued.
Is it ok for the state to willy nilly quarantine asymptomatic people against their will in the interest of "public safety" (i.e. manufactured fear)?
-
The demand for a product creates an incentive for a business to profit off that demand...the creation of the jobs in that specific business is just a byproduct, but a healthy byproduct at that, which is necessary piece of a free market (which we don't truly have). However, the demand alone doesn't create the job. If the business model sucks, no job (or at least one that lasts any considerable amount of time) will be created. Also, businesses also innovate and start the process of creating a demand for their product/service. I never knew I wanted an iphone until I saw one, but after I did, I wanted one and bought one...and someone had to be there to sell it to me, to make it (in China), to market it to let me know it was available, etc.
I get that progressives are upset that successful businesses create a lot of wealth for their investors, but again, that's because there is a demand for their products and services. But riddle me this one--if progressives don't believe that cooporations and businesses create jobs, then why are they so upset that 'corporations and businesses move jobs overseas'? If the demand is what creates the job then those with the demand should be able to keep said jobs here.
Oh don't get me wrong. I totally agree. I think her word choice was wrong, but I think her subject was about the trickle down theory and not really about who or what creates jobs.
-
So, WTF makes jobs then?
Demand for your product.
I think her point was tax cuts don't create jobs, demand for a product or service does.
-
1
-
-
Wow- I can't believe I'm going to say this, but imo the moderation here has gotten BETTER than in years past. At least from my perspective. I think the mods know they weren't correct when they changed people's posts, etc. If someone feels they were chased off then that's on them for not sticking up. Hell I've had multiple attempts of someone(s) try to chase me out of here, but guess what... I'm still here making people roll their eyes. Because I believe when a mod crosses a line, the other mods hold that person accountable.
That said I do have warnings that are over 5 years old now, but whatever.
Has the content been a bit stale lately? Sure. But maybe that's because that's what these "new Air Force" users are bringing to the table. Don't like the content? Then post the shit you do like, or don't and keep bitching about it.
I can agree that you should need to be a registered user here to view the info, but requiring a .mil address:? GTFO.
-
4
-
-
Butter face?
Not in my opinion....
-
Ah, so "buttoning a suit jacket" is now an indisposed hand. Next time I see the wing commander on base, my hands will promptly be zipping my flight suit instead of saluting.
Or just carry your dog around with you everywhere you go, since that seems to be an accepted practice.
-
2
-
6
-
-
To be fair and within context...Bush was holding the dog with both hands and clumsily attempted to salute....well-intentioned, but incorrect form.
Obama's left hand was free, and could have transferred the coffee to the other hand, but made a limp salute, coffee-in-hand.
You mean the free left hand that was buttoning his suit jacket, that free hand?
Funny how biases can make a person defend one action while simultaneously slamming a similar action.
-
1
-
-
I had a problem with the link--I couldn't find the order form....
Save your money for this instead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfFMAtmWb5s
-
Congrats to Scotland on their Declaration of Dependence.
-
4
-
1
-
-
no the states do not have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to simply chose to leave when they dont like the systems they swore allegiance too.
FIFY. You're right, it is well established states do not have a Constitutional right to secede. But do they have a natural and inalienable right to secede?
A free state isn't really free if it can't leave of its own will, is it?
-
I just seen the 117th ARS is holding a board on the 4th and 5th of October for FY16.
Applications may be submitted in person, by mail, or email to:
117ARS: SUPT APPLICATION
5920 SE COYOTE DRIVE
FORBES FIELD (ANG) TOPEKA, KS 66619-5370
Contact information:
190 ARW Recruiting: (785) 861-4292/4293
117 ARS: (785)861-4670/4641
-
I'm sure these guys are lying since the word "conservative" is listed in the description.
In 2013, the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation released a study concluding that at the current time (before amnesty), the average unlawful immigrant household has a net deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $14,387 per household. During the interim phase immediately after amnesty, tax payments would increase more than government benefits, and the average fiscal deficit for former unlawful immigrant households would fall to $11,455. At the end of the interim period, unlawful immigrants would become eligible for means-tested welfare and medical subsidies under Obamacare. Average benefits would rise to $43,900 per household; tax payments would remain around $16,000; the average fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) would be about $28,000 per household. Amnesty would also raise retirement costs by making unlawful immigrants eligible for Social Security and Medicare, resulting in a net fiscal deficit of around $22,700 per retired amnesty recipient per year.
That's an issue of social welfare programs, not immigration.
I prefer this by the CATO Institute:
Based on the few studies that have tried to systematically examine the impact on government budgets, taking into account immigration’s impact on the size of the economy and pace of economic growth, as well as the impact of immigration on government budgets, the longitudinal and static studies reveal a very small net fiscal impact clustered around zero (OECD 2013: 125).
The economic benefits of immigration are unambiguous and large, but the fiscal effects are dependent upon the specifics of government policy over a long time period, which means that the net fiscal impact of immigration could be negative while the economic benefit is simultaneously positive. Looking at the results of all of these studies, the fiscal impacts of immigration are mostly positive, but they are all relatively small. They are rarely more than 1 percent of GDP in dynamic models (Rowthorn 2008: 568). Even dramatic changes in the level of immigration have small effects on government budgets and deficits (Auerbach and Oreopoulos 2000: 151). Besides the net present value of the individual immigrant or group fiscal contribution, immigrant-caused deficits or surpluses could also be represented as a percentage of future economic growth or projected budget deficits. Regardless of those details and nuances, there is no strong fiscal case for or against sustained large-scale immigration.
The enormous economic gains from immigration described in Chapter 1 indicate that an open borders policy of the type proposed in Chapter 7 is not likely to lead to large government deficits or surpluses.
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-21.pdf
I particularly like this point:
This chapter leaves aside the wisdom of judging the benefits of immigration based on the immigrant’s fiscal impact largely because the fiscal impact is so small. A worldview that seeks to judge whether immigrants are beneficial based on their fiscal impact, where the chief value of an additional American is determined by the size of their net-tax contribution, is fundamentally flawed and a testament to how dehumanizing a large welfare state can be. The fiscal impact of immigration is neither a proper evaluating metric nor is it a particularly meaningful one upon which to base support for or opposition to immigration.
-
Please define "substantially."
Lets say for simplicity it costs us $100 per illegal alien and in any given year we have 100 illegal aliens coming in.
Now let's say the law is changed that now 90 of those illegals can now easily and cheaply enter the country legally. And they do.
We just decreased our costs by 90%. That's substantially.
Also - do you think a low skilled worker will stay in that same job for life or are they like most all other humans in the workforce and tend to work their way up the ladder?
-
Just a quick Google and I get a cost for illegal immigration was $113 Billion in 2010. How much was that fence going to cost? $4 Billion? Hell, let's get a fence with all the bells and whistles and pay $10 Billion. I think we still come out ahead. Total that year to year and I think it is one hell of a return on investment.
You honestly think that low skilled illegals coming across the border will pay anywhere near the taxes to offset the benefits they receive?
Oh a fence is all we need for a secure border? Shit that is cheap then. I thought maybe you'd want surveillance on that fence, and a more robust border patrol force with all the associated tools, etc. But if it's only a one time cost of $4B for a totally secure border for now and forever then count me on board!
FYI that $113 B for illegal immigration goes down substantially when those illegals are now coming in legally.
-
So, you are saying if they legally crossed the border that their children should be able to speak English and meet grade level education requirements? I thought you didn't want any limits? Hey, I'm on board with your desired English speaking and educational minimums requirement. And I thought we would never agree on anything.
I'm saying they could help in paying the tab to get their children to that desired level if there was a system in place that allowed them to easily and cheaply enter the nation legally.
But instead we would rather throw money at obstacles that aren't effective, and then when they enter illegally their children get that same level of education without their contribution to the associated costs.
Our current policy for legal immigration is costing us more money in the long run. Doubling down on that policy won't decrease our tax burden, it'll only increase it.
-
Here's a national estimate. $761 million dollars just for educating the new illegal immigrant children. And this does not include housing, medical, nutrition, and who knows what else benefits they will be entitled to. I would like those who welcome all across our borders to show us how much they really care and voluntarily pony up cash until it hurts to help pay for the wave of humanity coming into our country.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/immigration-group-surge-will-cost-schools-761-million/article/2552749
Wow, imagine if our immigration system was set up to encourage LEGAL immigration rather than what we have. Then those immigrants WOULD be ponying up that burden through their tax dollars.
-
I guess I have to vote for her, what are my alternatives?
Self immolation
-
4
-
-
So your assertion is that these radical Islamists have just as much right to come into our society and chop off heads as we do to vote on tax codes and welfare benefits? Because I'm not sure I agree with you that society is obligated to let people with radically opposed ideas, and the willingness to use any means necessary to bend society to those ideas, join the rest of us.
Last I heard, chopping off heads was illegal in this country. And if/until this country has a large enough of a population that shared the view that it shouldn't be then we shouldn't be race/religion/sexual orientation screening and deciding whether or not these individuals will or will not live exactly as how you see fit.
Your lifestyle may not be the same as mine... but I'm not clamoring to have you expelled because you don't fit into what I think our society is our should be.
-
One would think you'd never seen how this works in the military. Military contracts a weapon system, weapon system has unworkable flaws, contractor offers to fix flaws for an additional fee...lather-rinse-repeat over the life of the system.
I highly doubt road lane striping is a unworkable flaw.
-
Yep - the West has a problem mainly caused by liberal left wing political / cultural activists that eschew and discourage assimilation. Nor do they let the simple question of "Are these people compatible with our society ?" be asked.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Who gets to define what "our society" is, exactly? Is "our society" the same as it was in 1865? The same as it was in 1920? 1945? 1965? 1980?
No? Hmm... so society changes over time as technology and population changes occur. Correct? Who are you to decide what that future society will be?
-
1
-
3
-
-
Definitely helps the argument as the people who pay for/oversee the work fall under control of the government. When government is in charge there is less incentive to ensure things are done correctly vs when financed privately. Business owners and shareholders are much more careful with their money than the government is with theirs (or should I say, with ours).
If the government was picking up the tab for the re-work I would agree. However I would think it is safe to assume the private company will have to pay out of pocket to fix their mistake- so they weren't more careful with their money or the taxpayers money.
-
But if not for a big government, who will build the roads?
Not helping the argument since these lines were put down by a private contractor...
-
PYB is back!
Welcome to last month. Glad you could join the rest of us.
-
Liberty, Rights, and the Constitution 2
in Squadron Bar
Posted
So detention with no proof is ok with you. 40,000 people die in the U. S. every year. Should we now detain everyone who gets sick?
She tested negative for Ebola and had no symptoms.