California Fights Inflation by Sending People Free Money
Plus: A New Hampshire distiller fights invasive species by turning them into whiskey, a New York City law letting non-citizens vote is overturned, and more...

California political leaders' latest plan to combat inflation involves flooding the state with free money. Late Sunday evening, Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, announced that he and the leaders of the state legislature had agreed to a budget deal that would send "inflation relief" checks of up to $1,050 to 23 million state residents.
"California's budget addresses the state's most pressing needs, and prioritizes getting dollars back into the pockets of millions of Californians who are grappling with global inflation and rising prices of everything from gas to groceries," said Newsom, Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins (D–San Diego) and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D–Lakewood) in a joint statement.
Every taxpayer earning less than $75,000, or joint-filers earning less than $150,000, will receive a $350 check, plus another $350 if they have children, reports CBS. A married couple with children would qualify for the maximum of $1,050. Higher-income people would receive smaller refunds.
The checks are the most advertised portion of a budget deal totaling some $300 billion. They help dispense with a $97 billion budget surplus buoyed by unexpectedly high tax returns from the highest-income Californians.
It should almost go without saying that giving out individual stimulus checks is more likely to exacerbate inflation than cure it. The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, passed in March 2021, which included $1,400 stimulus checks, is estimated by one Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco analysis to have raised inflation by 3 percentage points.
The rising prices that the checks are intended to address also mean that most of this stimulus money will be spent, increasing demand and therefore prices. That's particularly true given that lower-income households, which are more apt to spend any additional dollars they receive, will receive the largest payouts.
Meanwhile, these checks do nothing to address the loose monetary policies, supply chain issues, and limited global oil supply that are alternatively fingered as the causes of our nearly 9 percent inflation rate.
One reason the state is sending "inflation relief" checks to people is that it sort of has to. A provision of California's state constitution known as the Gann Limit, caps per capita spending growth at particular levels and requires government surpluses that exceed those limits be returned to taxpayers, spent on education, or redirected to exempt spending items like infrastructure.
The budget deal worked out by state leaders spends money on all of the above, with the checks being the headline item.
One possible libertarian defense of "inflation relief" checks is that, while they are a terrible solution to inflation, they at least are putting money in the hands of individuals to spend. The alternative is politicians will decide where the money goes, so surely, it's better to return people's unjustly confiscated earnings.
The trouble with that line of thinking, though, is that California is flush with cash because of higher-than-expected tax receipts from high-income earners. Those high-income earners will receive little or none of the benefits from these inflation relief checks.
Instead, it's largely a redistributive program for low- and middle-income people. While they receive the larger share of the benefits from the checks, they'll also be most proportionally harmed by any additional inflation the new spending causes.
One lesson politicians learned from the pandemic is that free money is popular. They're having a hard time letting go of it, despite its obvious consequences.
FREE MOVEMENT
The discovery of a truck full of dead migrants in Texas is a horrific reminder of the deadly toll of immigration restrictions. On Monday afternoon, officials in San Antonio, Texas reported that 46 people had been found dead in an 18-wheeler near Lackland Air Force Base. Another 16, including 12 adults and four children, were hospitalized from heat exhaustion.
The Texas Tribune captured some of the horror:
According to a law enforcement official, it appears people were trying to jump out of the tractor-trailer because some of the deceased were found along several blocks. The tractor-trailer had a refrigeration system, the official said, but it did not appear to be working. Many of the people found inside the vehicle appeared to have been sprinkled with steak seasoning, the official said, in perhaps an attempt to cover up the smell of people as the smugglers were transporting them.
Authorities said the truck's doors were partly open when they arrived; a body was outside the vehicle and the rest could be seen inside. The city's fire chief, Charles Hood, said the survivors did not appear to have access to water and were too weak to exit the truck on their own.
"We're not supposed to open up a truck and see stacks of bodies in there," Hood said. "None of us come to work imagining that."
Twelve adults and four children were taken to hospitals. They were hot to the touch and were suffering from heat exhaustion and heat stroke, but Hood said he was "very hopeful" that they would survive.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, was quick to blame the deaths on President Joe Biden's alleged "open borders" policies.
At Least 42 People Found Dead Inside Truck Carrying Migrants In Texas.
These deaths are on Biden.
They are a result of his deadly open border policies.
They show the deadly consequences of his refusal to enforce the law. https://t.co/8KG3iAwlEk
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) June 28, 2022
The governor didn't explain why people would be traveling in the back of a deadly hot truck to the U.S. if the country did, in fact, have open borders.
FREE MARKETS
If you can't beat them, drink them. A New Hampshire distiller is combating an invasive green crab species by turning the little guys into a whiskey.
Reports the Associated Press:
Searching for a fresh flavor, Tamworth Distilling cast its eye to the sea. Distiller Matt Power said the company heard about the problems caused by the invasive green crabs from the University of New Hampshire Extension's Gabriela Bradt.
The crabs, which came over on ships from Europe in the mid-1800s and landed on Cape Cod, have taken the region by storm. These saucer-size crustaceans with a murky green color have decimated the area's marine ecosystem, outcompeting native species for food and shelter.
The crabs are caught off the coast of New Hampshire, boiled down into a broth, mixed with alcohol, and put through the distilling process. It takes about one pound of crabs to make a bottle of this whiskey.
QUICK HITS
- The Great Stagnation is back. Federal regulators ordered the recall of solar-powered umbrellas (?) exclusively sold at Costco after 5 of them caught fire.
- An Amtrak train derailed after colliding with a truck at a public crossing in Missouri, leaving three people dead and 50 injured. Federal Railroad Administration data show that there have been 40 accidents at highway-rail crossings so far this year, and another 15 on-track collisions.
- A Russian strike on a Ukrainian mall has killed at least 20 people and injured another 59, according to Ukrainian officials. Another 40 are still missing.
- A state judge overturned a New York City law that gave some 800,000 non-citizens in the city the right to vote in municipal elections, saying that the state constitution limits the franchise to U.S. citizens and that a referendum would be required to change that.
- A ballot initiative enshrining the right to an abortion in California's constitution will go before voters in 2024. Those rights are already secured by statute. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom also signed an executive order restricting the sharing of patients' medical information with officials in states with stricter abortion laws.
- Scottish officials push for a second independence vote.
- Federal agents seized the phone of John Eastman, the lawyer who masterminded former President Donald Trump's effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
- Speaking of inventive spirits, a D.C. distillery has released a Ruth Bader Ginsburg–inspired, pastrami-flavored Dissent gin. The proceeds from sales of the gin (should there be any) will go to supporting abortion access, reports Washingtonian.
As a nod to RBG's Brooklyn roots, the gin is inspired by the flavors of pastrami https://t.co/s6fiK5PvAv
— Jessica Sidman (@jsidman) June 27, 2022
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
California political leaders' latest plan to combat inflation involves flooding the state with free money.
There's no problem free money can't solve.
Putin will never see it coming.
I saw the paycheck which was of $9282, I didn’t believe that my mom in-law was like truly earning money part time from their computer.. (res-18) there neighbor started doing this 4 only months and recently paid for the on their home and got Maserati.
.
More info here:>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
Eh, that blurb is dumb. The state of California isn’t printing money to give away, it is just returning it to people.
They could instead choose not to give it to the people and not to spend it themselves, which would keep it from adding to the inflation problem.
It appears that legally they may not be able to. Though from the language it was unclear how much of a surplus must be returned to the population.
Well they are taking it from some people and giving it to other people. See the caps.
Yeah, I take more issue with that. Though, ultimately, I still think that it's more reasonable than a lot of other choices the state could make. Even if the refund is almost certainly just an attempt to buy votes.
“…. it is just returning it to the people.”
Well yeah, but when you put it like that it doesn’t sound like they’re doing everyone a huge favor.
No, its not. The tax is collected from higher income people and the checks are given to low income people, many who don't pay tax. Its redistribution of wealth, not returning it to the hands of those who earned it.
^YEP THIS............ It's the beginnings of communism.
Now tell us why you think you are entitled to other people's money.
I don't... Never did...
The USA isn't communist..
THE FVCKING POINT is it is NOT inflationary.
Also, it is not purely redistributive, because, unlike Federal Taxes, everyone pays oodles and oodles of state taxes. Gas tax, sales tax, MV registration, property tax, etc,etc,etc.
I live in a state with 0 Income Tax. This is not an income tax issue.
Some of you chimps need to think beyond the conditioned response.
What you don't think higher income people pay more in state tax, gas tax, sales tax, property tax??? It most certainly is redistribution.
But yeah; it kind-of went of original point of inflation... Ya know like how Federal Money kind of went of original point into State hands.
Returning is not the correct word.
They're giving it to the people who pay less or no taxes, but those of us who paid out the ass last year. In my case I was hoping to buy a home -- a dream that has been squashed -- so I sold some stock for liquidity. CA calls capital gains regular income, so it put me well over the minimums. Even though I paid a LOT of goddamned taxes for the privilege of cashing in the tiniest bit on nearly a decade of saving, the state calls me rich based on last year's tax returns. I won't even get the smallest portion of this largess.
Work a restaurant job with low income, or have a spouse who works part time and two kids, or don't work at all, and you can reap a thousand bucks. Make not even enough money to afford a median priced home in my county, and you get nothing.
Don't kid yourself, this isn't giving back. It's redistribution, pure and simple.
Everybody pays state taxes. Everybody. Jeezus
So what?
I paid way more, and I've been paying taxes in this state for close to 40 years. I don't get anything. How is that "returning" tax dollars?
Also, taxation here is highly progressive. Someone getting the full value of this "refund" of taxes paid on their income at maybe half the rate I paid on those shares I sold. My tax bill was egregious, yet I will get zero dollars.
That's not "returning" it. That is my whole point.
If they were returning it, the folks who paid significantly more money in state taxes would get their pound of salt, too. So gimme gimme gimme.
And if you still don't get the sarcasm, I'll be clear. It's a stupid fucking political stunt meant to buy votes and has literally nothing to do with inflation, relief, returning a windfall, or anything else. It should not be done. Hell, it shouldn't be legal at all.
Most people trying to live with 2 kids on under $75k/year in CA is probably already receiving far more value in public assistance benefits than the sum total of all the taxes they're paying (including the share of business taxes that are passed down to them in the form of higher prices).
The good news for them is that if they're careful with it, a $1050 lump sum payment might actually be enough for them to relocate to a place where it's possible to support 2 kids on that kind of income, if they're smart enough to know all that subsidy money actually makes their effective marginal income tax rate close to or over 100%.
Well said. Newsom, being the consummate political hack, is just “buying votes” for big “blue machine”, that is the Democratic Party in California. Thinking that none of us have Econ 101, they are just throwing gasoline on the inflationary “fire”. I’m stuck in the dysfunctional capital that is Sacramento for the job. This one-party state had long since, decimated the middle class, which makes this exceptional country unique & viable. Thank goodness for Nevada, next door, as well as Texas, Florida, NH, Wyoming, South Dakota & Tennessee (for the most part).
Especially elections.
I’m not as worried when a state does this type of thing. They don’t have a “printing press” for money like the Federal government does.
Unless Congress passes multi-trillion dollar spending bills to bankroll it.
Until congress passes multi-trillion dollar spending bills to bankroll it.
After congress passes multi-trillion dollar spending bills to bankroll it.
It’s still going to increase demand for stuff without any change in supply. So on its own it’s inflationary.
Not clear that is so. California didn't increase the money supply in this case.
They did tax Peter to hand out to Paul.
I didn't really complete that thought. At least one other state I'm familiar with has a policy of refunding state tax if their revenues exceed a certain threshold. California kind of did the same thing, although they didn't return the money to the same taxpayers who paid it.
The article does state that the money will go to those who are most likely to spend it immediately because of the inflationary pressure they are under today. That would indeed put the money back into the market chasing the same goods.
So, it may not relieve inflationary pressure as much as giving it to wealthier people more likely to invest it or put it in savings. But it’s not clear it will be a major source of inflation.
Major, hard to tell. But as monetary policy it is still dumb. Vote buying too.
See Covid funding dummy.
Libertarians for money redistribution and buying votes!
Do California political leaders plan to fight fires by pouring gasoline on them?
No, but only because they haven't thought of it yet.
California had a surplus of capital gains tax revenue. They're largely required by state law to refund it.
I like that they are taking credit for it as an inflation strategy.
Next year when the billionaire tax revenue evaporates, they'll be singing a different tune.
They're largely required by state law to refund it.
The law requires them to refund it proportionally to all the people that paid it. They created this scheme to avoid the law.
See Colorado and TABOR. Fucking Democrats.
nice i get to buy more guns with that money just like the last time Newsom paid off voters for votes. He reminded everyone last time that it was his money that he gave away.
"D.C. distillery has released a Ruth Bader Ginsburg–inspired, pastrami-flavored Dissent gin."
Can you believe some people are suggesting RBG made a mistake by not retiring when Obama could have picked her replacement? Such lazy analysis. Anybody making that argument must be a sexist. And an anti-Semite.
#LibertariansForRBG
I guess the senile ego flavor did not test well.
Crab vodka and pastrami gin; wtf
There are actually people out to destroy this country.
But make it uninhabitable first.
I'd give it a try before dismissing it completely. Sometimes weirdo things like that just work somehow.
...the state legislature had agreed to a budget deal that would send "inflation relief" checks of up to $1,050 to 23 million state residents.
Also known as Economic Illiteracy Irony checks.
#BidenBoom update!
In 2022 Democrats have raised the minimum wage by: $0.00 / hour
In 2022 Reason.com benefactor Charles Koch's net worth has increased by: $7.94 billion
#VoteDemocratToHelpCharlesKoch
In 2022 Reason.com benefactor Charles Koch's net worth has increased by: $7.94 billion
Does that account for inflation?
Mr. Buttplug says inflation is a wingnut.com myth. (Except for spittin' tobaccy, which I doubt Mr. Koch uses.)
#BestEconomyEver
Koch is most certainly a dry snuff man.
A New Hampshire distiller is combating an invasive green crab species by turning the little guys into a whiskey.
STOP TRYING TO GET ME TO EAT BU-
...whisky, you say?
Stick with Kentucky and the hills of Virginia
It is probably rot gut = green crab infused whisky
Four out of five pirates approve.
Sufficiently distilled, all alcohol is virtually indistinguishable. It's how you store and age it that gives it flavor.
Better than Mountain Dew, at least.
eeeeeeeew! Crab Juice.
It must be a record to discuss two different alcoholic beverage products that aren’t going to sell in one morning roundup. And it didn’t even come from Suderman.
Federal regulators ordered the recall of solar-powered umbrellas (?) exclusively sold at Costco after 5 of them caught fire.
The umbrellas also killed spawning salmon and disrupted bird migratory patterns.
Wouldn't the rain put the fire out?
But did they tweet anything mean?
Are they pulling the coal-powered umbrellas out of storage?
Solar powered umbrellas? Do they still work when it's raining?
Good morning Peanuts! This is your daily reminder Hunter Biden is a savvy liberal capitalist like me. Every job he's ever had, every dollar he's ever made, it was all because of how smart and talented he is. And had nothing to do with the fact that his father is Joe Biden.
#TemporarilyFillingInForButtplug
"Speaking of inventive spirits, a D.C. distillery has released a Ruth Bader Ginsburg–inspired, pastrami-flavored Dissent gin."
Maybe they should have called it "Hubris Gin". Her legacy will be Roe overturned and Pastrami gin. good for her
Obama tried to get Ginsburg to retire in 2013. She told him thanks but no things. We will never know her reasons but my guess is that Obama trashing the court after Citizens United didn't help his cause much. The Justices on both sides of the isle really take the "dignity of the court" stuff seriously and don't like either party trashing it. Also, Obama being Obama likely didn't offer her anything in return for retiring like picking her successor. Maybe he did, but I think it more likely that an egotist like Obama would have never dreamed of giving his power to someone else.
In contrast, Trump, knowing the Washington establishment and members of the Court didn't like him, sent his daughter Ivanka to strike up a friendship with Justice Kennedy. The rumor is that Ivanka made a deal with Kennedy where Kennedy got to choose not only his successor but Scalia's as well. The Scalia part was to get Kennedy over his mistrust of Trump. It would be a show of good faith on Trump's part and ensure Kennedy effectively choose his successor even if Trump went back on his word after Kennedy retired. Trump followed through and chose Goresuch at Kennedy's suggestion and sure Kennedy later retired and Trump chose Kavanaugh at Kennedy's suggestion.
Obama is supposed to be a genius and Trump an idiot. Yet, Trump totally out maneuvered Obama on the Supreme Court and ended up choosing three justices in four years. Had Obama been able to convince Ginsburg to retire, Trump only gets two justices and Roe isn't overturned. Had Trump not been smart enough to know how to deal with Kennedy, he likely only gets one justice. As it was, he got three and hear we are.
The rumor is that Ivanka made a deal with Kennedy where Kennedy got to choose not only his successor but Scalia's as well.
Got a source for that? That would be interesting if true.
Sadly not a printed source just a friend who is close to the court. I don't know that it is true. But the fact is Kennedy retired for some reason. I doubt it was out of the goodness of his heart. Those guys almost always end up leaving the court in a box. So, I would surprised if there wasn't some kind of deal struck to get him to retire.
So no cite.
/sarc
I'm almost certain it's the case with Kavanaugh, but hadn't heard that about gorsuch too
Gorsuch clerked for Judge David B. Sentelle of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1991 to 1992 and U.S. Supreme Court justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy from 1993 to 1994. *He is the first Supreme Court justice to serve alongside a justice for whom he once clerked (Kennedy). *
Total coincidence, surely.
I don't know one way or the other about the Ivanka/Kennedy rumors, but I completely agree that Trump was crafty and out-maneuvered Barry on the Courts. It was clear from his candidacy that part of his base valued this very highly and to get them on board and then keep them, he had to deliver. Making a deal with Kennedy wouldn't be inconsistent with that, as I'm sure Kennedy's short-list of preferred successors were all on the Federalist Society list that Trump released during his campaign.
I don't think Ginsberg was as self centered as they are making her out. I bet Obama thought he could just tell her to retire and that would be enough. And Ginsberg told him to fuck off.
Ginsburg was like 78 years old, her husband had just died, and she had stomach cancer. I think she was motivated, at least in part, in keeping herself active, occupied, and around people she liked during what I imagine was a very difficult period of her life.
That's what the jazzercise class at the senior center is for.
^this. Lots of people go through shit and have to deal with the difficulties of retirement. Very few people have controversial legislation potentially hanging in the balance that they roll the dice on because they need to stay occupied. She rolled the dice on it and lost big
Yeah, I'm not saying it was the right thing to do, just touching on what I think was a partial motivation. Personally, I'm glad she did what she did, so her final legacy is, as you said, pastrami gin and Roe overturned.
Probably. I don't really fault her for it. I'll keep repeating that if you were some RBG fanboy before, but are changing your mind now, that you're kind of a thankless jackass. One could easily wish she had made a better strategic move, but that's not a moral decision even if it ended up being a consequential one. One must have some grace. It's just so thankless in a way that I find to be generally offputting. I see so much thanklessness in our society.
Though, perhaps I can stomach her decision to not retire more because I like the outcome we got.
It wasn’t just SCOTUS either.
Federal courts nationwide were ignored for years. There were dozens of vacancies (if not more) in Federal District and Circuit courts, and Trump made it a priority to fill as many of them as possible with Constitution-friendly judges. This was every bit as important as picking 3 SCOTUS seats. The vast majority of cases never see SCOTUS, and it’s those federal courts that decide most cases. This was a huge win for most people.
Barry probably offered her a CD of his greatest speeches.
And a coupon for a 25% discount on his next book.
I think I saw his last book for sale at Dollar Tree.
Trump is a lot of things, bit despite the fever dreams of lefties like Dee, he’s no idiot.
Trump had the advantage of not giving a shit who was on SCOTUS so long as he got to be the one nominating them.
Remember during the pandemic a whole lot of Democrats in both politics and the media thought that the country could stay locked down indefinitely because the government could send people unemployment to make up for their lost wages. They honestly believed we could ban most of the productive work in this country and everything would be okay as long as the government kept writing checks.
Democrats and leftists in general don't have much of a grasp on reality and how economies work. The entirety of socialist economics can be boiled down to one long quest to get around the fact that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Given that, it should surprise no one that California Democrats' solution to high gas prices is just to give people more money to pay for it.
What I remember most if how little the LP seemed to give a damn about it. Nor did Reason, at least not as compared to the "evil of Trump".
They banned most of the country from being productive and then flooded the country with money for almost two years. And they, sadly including the reason staff, were actually surprised that resulted in inflation. They really are dumbfounded that we have inflation right now. It boggles the mind to think how stupid someone has to be to not understand choking off the supply of goods and services while pumping up the money supply is going to cause inflation.
Do you mean the checks that The Donald insisted carry his name?
Go back and look at some of those threads from 2020. Not many in the commentariat questioned Trump's grasp on reality, or economics savvy. Nobody demanded he veto the spending bill. Most just defended his right to have his signature on the free money paper.
For extra fun, pull up those comment threads and command+f for "inflation". See how few demonstrated the understanding that you find lacking in Dems and leftists.
The lockdowns were a state level thing. Trump had nothing to do with them one way or another. So, you need to probably evict Trump from your head and start seeing reality as it is not what the Trump living under your bed says it is.
Be nice. Chin, like many people, might be irrevocably broken, and is doomed to spending the rest of his life fighting Trump.
can you imagine? After getting completely routed by Trump to have to bring him up at all times letting everyone know he lives rent free in your head.
Being nice to leftist cancer like chin is how we got here
Sad.
Thank you for pointing this out.
Pointing out that the bills passed with veto proof majorities?
There’s like a gnat or somethingbiting at my ankles.
Except everyone who doesn’t have Jesse muted will still see his comment and know that you and chin are lying.
Of course you don’t remember anyone saying this was bad. Like shrike, you’ll forget what you argued yesterday and argue the opposite tomorrow.
Sorry people had to spend so much time refuting TDS sufferers that they weren’t able to point out every time how spending originates in the House that Nancy runs. Oh wait, every time one of you morons opened your pie sucker to bleat about how awful Trump was, someone would point out that the retarded spending was coming from the Democrats in the House.
Oh, and that the lockdowns were mostly Democrats fault too.
And I guarantee that Ken pointed out that most of that ridiculous spending was going to go to blue states to bail out their pension funds. But you’re such a partisan fuck that instead of realizing the truth that the spending was horrible you had to fight against him because he dared to paint the Democrats as the bad guys.
"What I remember most if how little the LP seemed to give a damn about it. "
And contrary to the Race Baiting hucksters in the LP, and their enablers writing for this site, this was one of THE main draws of the Mises Caucus during the pandemic. They weren't arguing race. They weren't arguing abortion or immigration. They were almost completely focused on the Pandemic state. Because, despite the hand wringing about local zoning laws, the pandemic state was the most egregious and pressing threat to freedom since the patriot act.
^
Well said.
"The entirety of socialist economics can be boiled down to one long quest to get around the fact that there is no such thing as a free lunch"
That's pretty much it. Unfortunately their childlike magical thinking still has them on "the rich will just pay for it" despite having no clue that we already have one of the most progressive tax systems in the world.
They are finding out the hard way that there are consequences to their economic ignorance.
They always think the rich will pay for it. It never occurs to them that at some point the rich will run out of money. They think the rich are rich by magic and will always be rich no matter how much of their money the government takes. Thus, the problem with socialists always running out of other people's money.
And you also need the rich to continue doing the things to make themselves rich. If you shut down "non-essential" economic activity, you lose a vast majority of the production that allows rich people to continue being productive.
And interestingly, rich people don't choose to just lose all their money. What they do is lay off people, cut benefits, shut down prospective opportunities because that's what you have to do. Going bankrupt actually doesn't help anyone.
I had an interesting thought when I woke up the other day. Dems are always talking about getting the Rich to pay more and taxing the Rich. I think, sadly, WE are the Rich they are talking about.
Think about it. Those in the middle class, upper middle class and upper class work hard, pay their way, don't ask for a lot from the Gov and continue to grow their skillsets to slowly arrive at a place they can retire comfortably and take care of their families. We also live in this country that, compared to the world, is one of the Richest.
We are the Rich they are after. We are the Rich they want to tax more and more.
THEY are the wealthy. The elite class. The club. The rulers. The Rich will foot the bill while they grow more wealthy at our expense. I'm talking the government parasites here but also the oligarchs that fund our leaders for their own benefit. THEY don't suffer through inflation, they usually accumulate more. They are the ones approving of the job Biden is doing. They are OBL incarnate.
We are the Rich folks. The club is for members only.
I agree with the end result, but not on how we get there.
They use "the rich" as a magical scapegoat. Despite the fact that we already heavily tax the rich, they need to pretend we could actually have everything we wanted if the rich just paid their fair share! This is how they bait them in: the promise of everything we DESERVE with of course, no expense to them.
That's when the switch will occur. If they can ever convince enough rubes to vote for something like UBI, GND, universal healthcare etc. It will quickly go from "the rich" paying their fair share, to "we all need to chip in!". Guarantee. How do I know? Look no further than all the countries that spend all their money on socialist giveaway goodies. The common theme being they all have much more regressive tax systems with a much heavier burden on the middle class.
So they'll lure in the socialist wannabees with the same rhetoric of envy they have always loved. But if they ever actually get the political power to institute these things, itll very quickly switch to "you peasants need to pay YOUR fair share". Because of course there really is no other way to pay for it
We are absolutely who they are talking about. The real money is in taxing the middle and upper middle class. The rich don't have as much money in total as the Democrats pretend and they can hide it from the government anyway. The real money is in the middle and upper middle class who not only have more money in total than the rich, they don't have nearly the ability to hide it.
Step one: define rich as 400K per year, so your supporters making 250K don't sweat.
Step two: jump start hyperinflation so everyone makes 400K
Most progressive "logic" does mirror how children think, from expecting that others will provide for their needs and safety, especially if they beg hard enough or throw tantrums, to things like magic unicorns, cargo cults, and cooties.
Unfortunately so is everyone else.
Remember during the planting season of 1958 a whole lot of Communists in both politics and the media thought that the country could boost its agricultural output by killing all the sparrows?
Look at China right now. They continue to lock down their country and kill their economy in hopes of achieving zero COVID. For a while I thought that they were just using COVID as an excuse to keep a lid on other dissent and were worried about a real revolution. Now I don't think that is the case. A communist government, and the Chinese government is most definitely still communist, can never admit that a policy has failed. To do so is to call into question everything it does. So, when a policy does fail, it just has to do it harder because it can't admit failure. This is what happened during the Great Leap Forward. Mao continued the destructive policies long after it was clear it was not working and in fact starving millions of people to death. He couldn't admit the policy was a failure. Same thing with zero COVID. Once the party decides "this is the way" that is it. It just keeps doing it no matter how bad the failure.
If I remember correctly, there was a disastrous fad in the USSR about planting hands-full of seeds in one hole since it mirrored their delusions about collective efforts, and defied those western individualists who plants seeds spread out.
(somebody can google-check that, I feel lazy)
Lysenkoism. It got a Scientific Consensus among all the Experts, there's no way it could have failed.
coming to a gender ideology near you
Already infiltrated medicine
Lysenko's genetic theory was that events experienced during the life of an organism affected its germ plasm, i.e. if you could get a crop to grow in the cold one year, its seeds would remember and grow in other cold years. He was an idiot, but Stalin loved his theory. Their experiments in breeding hardier crops were abysmal failures.
...be returned to taxpayers, spent on education, or redirected to exempt spending items like infrastructure.
The budget deal worked out by state leaders spends money on all of the above, with the checks being the headline item.
Oops. No edit. My comment on the above is a little to the masses makes it easier to shuttle the rest to the unions and 'infrastructure' projects for my pals and yours. - State Leaders
Most Democrats can't do math. Some think it is racist.
Socialists are the flat-earthers of economics.
A state judge overturned a New York City law that gave some 800,000 non-citizens in the city the right to vote in municipal elections, saying that the state constitution limits the franchise to U.S. citizens...
Taxation without representation? Time to dress as Indians and toss some tea into the drink.
Just be sure to file an environmental impact statement first, and get all the necessary permits to discharge waste into tidal waters.
But of course, nobody is trying to manipulate election results.
I prefer "no representation without taxation!"
"Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, was quick to blame the deaths on President Joe Biden's alleged "open borders" policies"
Ya no shit. Just like lax policy is to blame for the Haitians drowning on boats trying to get in. If your lax policy gives them false hope, you lured them here with incentive. Make sure they know they will 100% not be allowed in and they are less likely to do risky shit to get here
Yeah, that's more of a nit with him using "Open Borders" in a way Reason thinks is inappropriate. We understand what he means.
I think Abbott is kind of making wild moves during all of this, but I think he gets too much shit. We have to remember, he does not have control over immigration across his border. If he wanted to make it an open border he could not.
Biden and Congress do, and so putting the blame upon them is entirely reasonable.
"The governor didn't explain why people would be traveling in the back of a deadly hot truck to the U.S. if the country did, in fact, have open borders."
If you tell people "Come in", which Biden has done, and then have nothing in place to deal with the crowd, deaths are on you for doing it.
After all, progressivetarians like you bitch incessantly whenever a state is involved in any way with immigration policy.
It’s called a “Moral Hazard”, Brirches, you dumb cvnt
Britschgi didn't explain why people would be traveling in the back of a deadly hot truck to the U.S. if the country did, in fact, have clear rules restricting immigration, including rapid expulsion policies.
A ballot initiative enshrining the right to an abortion in California's constitution will go before voters in 2024. Those rights are already secured by statute.
Is there any bluer shade of blue than blue?
commie pink
Thing is, California isn’t blue. It is purple. There are a lot of conservatives in California, and they may be surprised when the constitutional amendment fails to pass.
LOL.
The gaslighting is at a whole mother level now
Gonna need more laws and amendments ASAP! The back alleys are already littered with bloody coat hangers.
Scottish officials push for a second independence vote.
Brexit 2.0
Scexit?
No.
The Scottish Goodbye.
Federal agents seized the phone of John Eastman, the lawyer who masterminded former President Donald Trump's effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
He must have had the names of abortion providers on it.
...a D.C. distillery has released a Ruth Bader Ginsburg–inspired, pastrami-flavored Dissent gin.
I suppose it's better than the other way around.
Underrated joke.
I feel like no matter which way you spin it, it's past its shelf life
Dried up fish scales and lint?
A gin-inspired Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
ENB's hit parade of dumbass takes continues unabated.
I caught that too. ENB lives in some kind of bizarro world, where up is down, right is left; no reason or logic whatsoever. Not even a pretense of libertarian thought (apologies to whores, who ENB defends vociferously).
she seems to give us at least 1 stupid take per day that screams "I am a low watt leftist".
Ever since the Roe leak she has been incensed. I can only assume she is too hysterical to think straight anymore
It's Britches today.
Thus proving that Reason Editors are indistinguishable from each other.
But some are just too devastated by SCOTUS to get out of bed.
I could tell it wasn't ENB basically from the topline article. Their interests actually do vary quite a bit and you can tell Soave from Brown from Britschgi.
Apologies to ENB. Suck it Britches.
Today's links are from Christian Britschi
ENB didn't write this. It's a Christian joint.
Our Democratic allies continue to offer brilliant solutions to the reversal of our favorite SUPER-PRECEDENT.
I just spoke with @ewarren, who suggested the Biden administration establish Planned Parenthood outposts on the edges of national parks. "They could put up tents, have trained personnel -- and be there to help people who need it."
#AbortionAboveAll
Rev Arthur Kirkland Hardest Hit = Dobbs, and still no SCOTUS expansion. Ask him what happened.
I have expressed disappointment with the spectacular failure of his "13 Supreme Court justices by mid-2021" prediction. What a humiliating whiff. 🙁
We have ten percent inflation, are going into a recession that is likely going to be a bad one, crime has exploded, and World War III could break out any day in Ukraine. So, the Democrats' response to all of that is to put Planned Parenthood clinics in national parks. They better hope they really can fix elections or there may not be a Democrat elected in this country after November outside of Berkley and Cambridge.
Polling is not looking great for them. A generational change has just occurred involving one of their pet issues and Americans still have it far below the economy, inflation, crime etc (all of which can be pinned directly on democrat policies).
And the hot takes coming out of these pro-aborts are getting disturbingly eugenic-ey. A lot of what they say does not come out how they think it sounds in their twisted minds
If we had a booming economy and there wasn't much going on in the world, the Democrats might be able to get the public riled up about abortion. The public likes to have something to be riled up about and in good times it will look to things like abortion. In the current environment, however, I don't think many people who are not already die hard Democrats give a damn about a bunch of spoiled white women and their abortions. It is just not on the list of things they care much about and will not motivate them to vote at all much less vote Democrat.
But Reason is doing it’s part!
I don't think it's going to be as bad for them as you think. A bunch of House Republicans from Democrat-run states are getting gerrymandered out of their seats this year, and several "blue wall" states where Republicans should be set to make big gains are still under the iron fist of Democrats bent on Fortifying this election harder than the last one. In the Senate, most of the seats up are already held by Republicans, and they only have pick-up opportunities in Georgia, Arizona, and (in a longshot) Nevada, vs. a pretty decent chance of losing Pennsylvania.
I think it is going to be bad. It should be a decent election for Democrats by the numbers. Instead it is going to be a disaster. The Republicans have never been up in the generic polls this much this far out. Yeah, the generics are not the election but they are a pretty good indicator of how the elections will go. Also, there has been a massive switch in party loyalty. I think you are going to see Democrats lose in places you never thought Democrats could lose.
Has anyone polled the Dominion machines?
Like I said, they better hope they can fix elections and a lot of them.
you think Nov elections will be fair, above board and trustworthy? You foolish man.
They already stole a couple seats with the census bullshit
"They better hope they really can fix elections or there may not be a Democrat elected in this country after November outside of Berkley and Cambridge."
I hope you meant to say "secure" instead of "fix" or you're just a dirty insurrectionist.
It does not surprise me. There are things people truly go to ground for, their core beliefs. For Democrats, that is abortion. They have been consistent on this for decades and it is clear that it is a true and deeply held belief of the party.
I just spoke with @ewarren, who suggested Biden administration established Planned Parenthood outposts on the edges of national parks…
White Squaw, America’s go-to problem solver.
Twitter pulled that shit off lickity-split, must not have polled too well. What silly asses the Democrats are.
https://wrno.iheart.com/featured/michael-berry/content/2022-06-28-elizabeth-warren-wants-abortion-clinics-set-up-at-national-parks/
Yes, please put up abortion tents at national parks. Make regular Americans drive by abortion tents when they want to go camping, and expose them to the reality of abortion.
Also, what a disgusting idea to perform abortions in a fucking tent.
I thought the same thing. It would be harder to get sentiment to change faster than plopping abortion tents at the entrance to a park you are taking the family on vacation to. Most normies are in the legal/safe/rare camp, and this would put all the ickyness of abortion right in your whole families face
“Mommy, why are all those ladies crying outside that big tent?”
"Uh, uh... they were raped by a clown! That's it!" - The Best Mother Ever
People who come up with this shit have list their fucking marbles.
Tell us you want to have Americans abandon NPs without telling us you want Americans to abandon NPs.
It's much easier to use the fetal corpses for fertilizer after harvesting them for the profitable bits from there. Green abortion FTW. Now if only we could get the irresponsible children in th he test of that supply chain to join them.
That is incredibly dumb. National parks are hard to get to. It didn’t occur to her that maybe it would be better to suggest clinics near, say, airports.
My guess is post offices are federal jurisdiction too. Military bases adjacent, maybe? It's all ridiculous and stupid idea, but she sure went with a weird version of that idea.
It does betray a lack of neural circuits in her brain that work to suppress her from thinking or saying stupid things.
I'm all for abortion tents in the most highly trafficked federal jurisdictions possible. I think this is a big win. Just not for the pro-aborts.
Liz Warren, another victim of progressive brain aneurysm.
Which law allows for federal funding or actions?
Remember everyone,
It is the US fault when coyotes leave illegals to die
Beepbeep!
Did the logo on the truck say "ACME"?
"The discovery of a truck full of dead migrants in Texas is a horrific reminder of the deadly toll of immigration restrictions."
No, it's a horrific reminder of the deadly toll of human smuggling.
This is not Greg Abbott's fault. This is the fault of the coyotes who left a truckload of people to die.
Yes, it is the fault of those who are proximally responsible. Not Greg Abbott's fault, not Joe Biden's fault.
The only question is on policies that incentivize such behavior. Making it difficult to come to the country legally means more people will attempt to do so illegally via very unsafe means.
"Making it difficult to come to the country legally means more people will attempt to do so illegally via very unsafe means."
Whats more dangerous, making it possible for someone to hope to slip through the cracks and come illegally (which is often through dangerous means), or letting them no there is zero chance of coming if they dont do it legally.
letting them no there is zero chance of coming if they dont do it legally.
But that is a lie, and they know that's a lie.
Stop to consider a moment that people who attempt to come here illegally do so because they rationally believe it has a greater chance of success than trying to do so legally. That walking through the desert and paying shady coyotes thousands and thousands of dollars is *better* than the legal immigration system that we currently have. Shouldn't that be changed?
Incidentally, that was going to be one of the tasks of the Disinformation Governance Board - to counter 'disinformation' that promised migrants that they would be welcomed in if they made the dangerous journey. Sounds like you want government to undertake this task after all.
They choose the worst of the three choices.
1. Go through the legal process - too long, too complicated.
2. Arrive at the border and ask for asylum - might get released, might get sent back, might be stranded in limbo.
3. Pay to be smuggled illegally. Expensive, instant arrival if successful. Potential for arrest, deportation and death if not.
Fix number 1, establish a worker program as an option and shut down the border hard, as Trump did, and it will have a very strong impact on 2 and 3.
Establish a work program and you don't need to go through the great expense and bother of shutting down the border hard.
Yes you do. Because there is still a faction of illegal migrants that come for the services only. That behavior has been encouraged for the past two decades. Families need services, medical, educational, social, that come at a cost to the taxpayer.
Worker programs that encourage the work and allow the worker to return to his/her family in their own country would raise the boats there instead of adding more cargo to the ships here.
“Because there is still a faction of illegal migrants that come for the services only.”
In my book, that is a right-wing myth, used to justify quite a bit of inhumanity.
I lived in Arizona. It is not a myth.
I've linked the now decades old article from a very liberal paper in The Tucson Weekly discussing the shut down of trauma care centers in Southern Arizona due to costs of immigrants crossing borders and immediately calling 911 to be taken to hospitals.
Mike is just ignorant.
There is ignorant. And then there is deliberately, earnestly stupid.
And I’ve lived in California most of my life, and have known many, many immigrants, legal and illegal. None coming here merely to secure free social services.
Cite? I want to read this book of yours.
Hey, bleeding heart, how about the incentive that promises illegals a reasonable chance of open undocumented residency and the political tease of citizenship?
I have no problem with migrants wanting to come here to live and work.
I don't either. I have as big problem with being forced to fund them and their children when they get here. If their work visa expressly denies any and all social benefits (including no publicly-funded schools for their non-citizen children) and they sign up for it, I'd be okay with it. I feel no compulsion to import poverty that I will ultimately be forced to pay for.
Why should they be deprived ALL social benefits if they are paying sales taxes, property taxes indirectly through their landlords, and also (if they were legal) having taxes withheld from their paychecks?
Taxes go to other things aside from social welfare programs dumbass.
Most taxes, especially at the state level used to go to things like infrastructure and education, especially higher ed. Now the majority of state taxes go for social programs.
Perhaps Mike would be happy under the old system.
Surely you can agree that telling people “we aren’t going to enforce this law” encourages more of that behavior.
Neither do I, if they get paid on the books at the same prevailing wage scale, if we abandon birth-right citizenship, and we greatly shrink the welfare state.
Don’t forget the free healthcare Biden promised.
Collectivistjeff is one of the most disgusting personalities I've ever encountered
Agreed.
I for one am amazed. Especially with the recent Roe ruling. I was told the country was already irredeemably racist and sexist (moreso to black/brown people, of course), and a terrible place that caring SJW's want to leave.
It makes no sense that brown people would risk life and limb for the privilege to live on American soil. Someone must have lied to them big. Maybe the progressives didn't get their message out to them how much of a racist shithole it is here?
Speaker Pelosi couldn't even stand to have a brown child stand next to her for 10 seconds. Pushed her away like she smelled bad.
Cite?
Troot.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1541233440212733952
OMG, that’s so awful!
New Texas Congresswoman Mayra Flores' kid. Makes it even worse.
The response from her office was even worse.
Her spox and deputy chief of stafftried to claim that she was just trying to make sure that the child got into the picture.
https://twitter.com/Drew_Hammill/status/1541436448674562049?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1541436448674562049%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Frepublicandaily.com%2F2022%2F06%2Fpelosis-response-about-pushing-mayra-flores-daughter-makes-it-worse%2F
Who ya gonna believe? Speaker Pelosi or your own lying eyes?
Cite provided for Mike
Oh, and thanks for the cite.
Where's the one I asked from you above, dumbass?
Dee is an ignorant hypocrite.
The proper response to Mike is provided by Jeff.
chemjeff radical individualist
June.23.2022 at 12:54 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
Fuck you and your demand for citations.
This one was easy to find and worth watching again. haha
Abbott should send that trailer to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Or at least put the bodies on a bus.
How often do we have to say that progressives don't do economics, at least not in any rational sense. For them, money is just an abstraction, and has nothing to do with a thing called a "budget". Like a stoned-out 8th year college junior, spending is based on desires and has nothing to do with income (which has nothing to do with that oppressive concept "earning").
On the macro scale, progressive economics denies any relation between wages, prices, taxes, business earnings, government spending, and pensions. These and other concepts are isolated factors to be determined by brute political leverage.
Years ago, I took an Economics midterm and scored something like 92%. I wanted to make sure I could do at least as well on the final, so I made an appointment to visit with the prof and go over what I missed. When I got there, he was completely hostile until he finally realized that I wasn't just there to bitch about my grade. Hard to explain how strange it is to have to convince a college professor that I actually wanted to learn his subject.
Academia just keeps getting more and more difficult for anyone who doesn't toe the Proggie line.
"California Fights Inflation by Sending People Free Money"
Like the majority of government scum, Newsom has never worked where he coupled be fired for gross incompetence, so I get what they voted for.
See, inflation has caused prices to go up, which means you need more money to buy things. So let's just send people more money so they can buy things!
He'd be just the guy to hitch the horses to the back end of the wagon.
More like a horse at each end, facing opposite directions.
"A New Hampshire distiller is combating an invasive green crab species by turning the little guys into a whiskey."
A fine pairing with cricket stew and mealworm bread.
Top Chef 2030
I'm seeing this whiskey and the RBG spirit showing up on an episode of Chopped in the future.
"VP Kamala Harris emerges as top abortion voice, warns of more fallout"
[...]
"Becoming a leading voice on abortion access could be a better fit for Harris after President Joe Biden tasked her with overseeing other thorny issues."
https://thegrio.com/2022/06/28/vp-kamala-harris-emerges-as-top-abortion-voice-warns-of-more-fallout/
Given that her sole qualification for being VP is possession of a twat, perhaps they've finally found something she won't fuck up.
She already fucked it up. She's already made a statement asking the parents of boys to consider what abortion restrictions would mean for their sons' lives.
You know, consider what would happen if your son had to take responsibility for knocking up his high school girlfriend.
It's not like men have any choice in the matter at all. If the woman doesn't want to get an abortion in order to force you to pay child support, you're stuck. If she wants an abortion and you want to take care of the kid, you're stuck.
You're so stuck that even if the woman intentionally gets pregnant off of a used condom, you still have no say. Or if she lies to you and says she's on the pill, or intentionally stops taking the pill. Men's reproductive rights are very limited.
“You're so stuck that even if the woman intentionally gets pregnant off of a used condom”
Well that’s pretty fucking gross.
Gross ... ly profitable in some cases.
It’s both gross and a real thing that women have attempted.
You know, consider what would happen if your son had to take responsibility for knocking up his high school girlfriend.
Most likely, it would mean that both the man and the woman would face diminished life prospects. Less likely to go to college, less likely to pursue a career that young unattached people are more able to pursue.
chemtard discovers that choices have consequences.
Someone has to work at ShopRite! before embarking on a lucrative career making money on the internet.
Less likely to go to college =/= diminished life prospects.
However, saddling yourself with $100k+ unsecured debt for a
womansuterus owners degree will.Less likely to go to college =/= diminished life prospects.
There is a strong correlation between having a college degree and one's lifetime earnings.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2021/10/11/new-study-college-degree-carries-big-earnings-premium-but-other-factors-matter-too/?sh=68d32b4b35cd
So, statistically speaking, yes, if the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy mean that the parents can no longer go to college, they stand a much higher chance of having lower income.
they have some chance of having a shitty life, the kid has a 100% chance as ending up medical waste
There is a strong correlation between having a college degree and one's lifetime earnings.
Well, there was. The push to have a debt jubilee for student loans is a tacit admission that a degree isn't worth the return on investment that it used to be.
Zoomers would probably do just as well getting a welder's or machinist certification.
The debt jubilee is even worse, because the numbers actually DON'T work out for them. That is, College students do have increased lifetime earnings. Though, depending on the degree that might not be greater than the cost of going to college, it's kind of complicated but the data is pretty rich on this.
But what it does mean, is that college debt forgiveness is maybe the least morally justified type of redistributionist action: it takes from people without college educations to pay for those who do. It's a handout to many of the most privileged members of our society. It is shit.
At the same time, I definitely think more folks should look at skilled trades. We need more people who can do it, it's good work, I think many people would be happier doing skilled labor than paper work stuff. It's really a win/win.
To be fair, it takes from everyone, not just those without a college degree.
But what it does mean, is that college debt forgiveness is maybe the least morally justified type of redistributionist action: it takes from people without college educations to pay for those who do.
I've seen this mentioned before, and while I emphasize that I do not support a student loan debt jubilee any more than I supported TARP (i.e., not at all), the former is different from the latter. The bailout in the former's case is simply a writing off of debts where the money has already been spent; it's already gone and the money already allocated on the front end. Student loans are actually one of the few government programs that makes money, because of the interest when the loans get paid back. In a debt jubilee, the government would simply say that it was no longer going to collect money on the back end.
Ultimately, the issue with student loans is that they've long fed in to the illusion that a college degree is required to have a decent life and join "the elite." The problem is that by democratizing college education, we have too much student loan debt and too many "elites," and not enough "elite" jobs for all these graduates, particularly for the last 1.5-to-2 generations who unironically believe they should be paid $80K a year right out of the gate for a job that isn't more demanding than elementary school recess, for a company whose operations resemble religious cults more than they do businesses--because these idiots think a business should "reflect their values" and "inspire them" and other ass-patting nonsense.
In hindsight, the internet revolution was one of the worst things that ever happened to American civilization, because it led a lot of people to believe the good life could be achieved without any effort or hard work whatsoever.
Parenting is expensive, film at 11.
That's the price of the ride. If it's too high, don't take the ride.
Yes. All those studies showing responsible 2 parent households having more success for their children are just lies.
That is extremely white of her.
She's also half asian, thankyouverymuch.
Though, I will add, I still don't think of Indian/Pakistani as asian. I really think I'd give them their own category of ethnicity/race/whatever if we're still using these fucking designations.
They have their own sub-continent after all.
Scott Adams may have left the res:
https://dilbert.com/
CANCEL HIM!
He's been going all over the place the last 5-6 years.
How has he left the reservation? That is pretty funny stuff.
"A state judge overturned a New York City law that gave some 800,000 non-citizens in the city the right to vote in municipal elections, saying that the state constitution limits the franchise to U.S. citizens and that a referendum would be required to change that."
Do the aliens get to vote in that?
Also, how do they screen out Russians?
Most punchable face? Newsom? Fauci? Warren? Others?
Newsom, by several lengths. He's the one you want to drop to the sidewalk.
Fauci's is most pushable, however: "you nut, get the fuck outta here."
And Warren's is most assaultable with food: squirt with some standard condiment, such as ketchup or mustard; banana cream pie in the face-- anything a decent clown act would go with.
All of the above are very punchable. But my vote for MOST punchable is Justin Trudeau. His face is just BEGGING to be punched.
He just had Tamara Lich, the organizer of the Trucker Convoy, arrested again yesterday. Apparently for violating an order not to “support anything related to the Freedom Convoy.”
Of course political dissidents being arrested in Canada for supporting legitimate protest don't rate a Roundup mention.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/freedom-convoy-organizer-tamara-lich-arrested-in-medicine-hat
Gotta fortify democracy.
It's good to be reminded how important our First Amendment is, and how surprisingly often other advanced nations abrogate speech rights.
Canada has constitutionally enshrined speech protections, just like the US. Trudeau and Liberal Party-appointed judges are flouting them and treating the Canadian constitution like used toilet paper.
What's happening with Lich is a deliberate constitutional violation and they know it. They just don't care.
Americans shouldn't for a second believe that the Democrats give a shit about the First Amendment. The second they believe that they have the political clout to disregard it, they will.
No wonder his boxing career didn't go anywhere.
How much of that money California is 'giving' away is federal taxpayer bail out money from the Communist Chinese Virus?
Can we sue to impound it until a court can allow us to reclaim it?
Can we sue to impound it until a court can allow us to reclaim it?
Of course not. Otherwise, what was the point of the blue state bailout?
Fuck Joe Biden.
133 days.
Fuck Joe Biden
Fuck Joe Biden
So they're just going to ignore the fact that that's exactly how we got here in the first place and double down?
"Bold strategy Cotton, let's see if it pays off for 'em."
The alternative is politicians will decide where the money goes, so surely, it's better to return people's unjustly compensated earnings.
No wonder Reasoners are having trouble identifying as libertarians when their primary concern is unjust earnings.
I thought the alternative was to not take that money in the first place.
That's just silly, how would you ensure it gets to the people you're trying to buy votes from?
"The libertarian case for redistributionism."
"One reason the state is sending "inflation relief" checks to people is that it sort of has to. A provision of California's state constitution known as the Gann Limit, caps per capita spending growth at particular levels and requires government surpluses that exceed those limits be returned to taxpayers, spent on education, or redirected to exempt spending items like infrastructure."
But Democrats can figure out how to turn tax refunds into welfare. In Colorado, TABOR caps annual state tax revenue, and requires excess to be returned. In past years, Democratic pols fought this and schemed to avoid refunds and deflect cash into special exempt categories. This year, for obvious reasons, they switched tunes and trumpeted how they will return the overage to help people. But instead of actual refunds, based on individual tax paid, they deviously concocted a universal check distribution, recently pegged at $750.
Imagine if you returned a TV at Walmart, and the cheerful clerk announced that everyone in the store would get an equal share of your refund.
Yeah, I don't like the redistributionist aspect. I don't really know how you would handle the fact that tax rates are set ahead of time and that revenue is determined later. It's hard to predict a windfall year and so the question of just changing tax rates so as not to produce a surplus seems difficult. Maybe someone has a good answer to that, I haven't thought much about it.
I also don't know how you identify where the money came from to return it to each person. Though I guess you could maybe actually do a post-hoc analysis and just see what would happen if you lowered the various tax rates until your reached the level of money returned you needed. Though, with a modern tax code that's got to be so incredibly complicated. I have no idea.
I still feel like, as far as the grand category of "Things The California Government Does" goes, this is much less offensive than usual.
It's hard to predict a windfall year and so the question of just changing tax rates so as not to produce a surplus seems difficult. Maybe someone has a good answer to that, I haven't thought much about it.
My first thought is if CA can collect the tax it can refund the tax. They have everyone's tax information. Once the cap amount is reached the surplus is refunded back to the taxpayer as a percentage of the cap. If the tax surplus is 1% of the capped amount that 1% multiplier is used and applied to next year's tax liability as a prepaid amount. If my tax liability is $10K I start with $100 in my tax coffer, $100K - $1000.
The next year I either have a larger refund or pay 1% less. If CA comes up short they cry to the Ds, get another bail out and the cycle starts again.
The discovery of a truck full of dead migrants in Texas is a horrific reminder of the deadly toll of immigration restrictions.
No. It's a reminder that if you're doing something illegal don't do it with idiots. If your partner accidentally shoots you during a bank robbery it's not be an argument for legalizing them.
Stop trying to gaslight ENB, you're not good at it.
Illegal immigration is, for all intents and purposes, a victimless crime.
The only possible victim would be a property owner, if a migrant trespassed on private property.
But if a migrant uses public roads, and does not commit any crimes of aggression, then there are no victims.
Except the taxpayers.
No shit. Illegal immigrants are sticking it to the taxpayers when they pay sales tax, gas tax, alcohol tax, tobacco tax, property tax, excise tax, income tax, payroll tax... Fucking assholes.
From each to each is it? Doesn't matter they are a net drain on reasources?
That's up for debate.
People with no skills and no education. People who are incapable of reading and writing in their own language, let alone one they do not speak. They come with no reasources or means of supporting themselves (except their Joe Biden Let Me In tshirt). Yeah, it is clearly dubious if they are going to be a drain on reasources.
People have been making the same arguments for as long as history has existed.
I know, those stupid xenophobic native americans and indigenious people all over the world sure are bigots.
Such as?
According to FAIR, $118 billion in 2017
https://www.fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers
Maybe as much as $250 billion by 2018
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/cost-of-illegal-immigration-by-state
There are also billions in remittances leaving the US economy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remittances_from_the_United_States
Lying Jeffy ignores all this so he can deny it’s existence the next time this topic comes up.
"Herpderp victimless crime"
Oh fuck off.
It's a crime against every single American.
Entering the country without government papers is a crime against every single American?
Oh! They simply forgot their paperwork?
Well nothing to see there then. Thanks for clearing everything up, sarcasmic.
When my brother and sister emigrated to the states to live with their respective spouses, it took each of them at least two years, reems of the paperwork and thousands of dollars.
I'm sure that they must have forgotten a document or two like your fine folk.
When libertarians say "The process shouldn't be so hard" or "Why all these licensing requirements" or "tax avoidance is cool" the predictable response from leftists isn't "Let's have less government so it isn't such a pain in the ass." No, the response is "It was difficult for me and my friends, so it should be difficult for everyone else too! Can't start making it easy when it sucked for us! That's not fair! Not fair!" You know how leftists are with fairness.
Yeah, it drives me nuts. There's so many dimensions of problems with immigration. Like, let's keep the total amount of visas fixed for arguments sake: there is still so much that could be done to make the process itself anywhere near reasonable. This could and should be done without actually changing how many people are allowed here!
I fear that butts up against the simple fact that the bureaucracy responsible for handling immigration is now its own interest group and thus fights against reforms in that dimension.
Though, I'm often confused on the other side with the Reason style "Open Border" policy which I think is often underspecified. Is it anyone who comes here is a citizen? Is it open-borders so people can work here but that is distinct from becoming a citizen? Is there willingness to discuss birthright citizenship in different cases if those might differ? Do you believe in any border checks at all? I'm never quite clear.
I think it's based upon a more generalized argument, and observation from history, that immigration enriches rather than impoverishes. This country was once a proud melting pot. Now people only want government-approved ingredients.
I take the least popular view of immigration I'm aware of, which is we should ban immigration of Canadians and Europeans and allow unlimited immigration with all of Latin America.
Because I believe in the Taftian proposition that involving ourselves further with Europe only works to bring us down into their muck. Leave the old world to die. New world rules.
I also included Filipino people though, but that's just that I like 'em. Nice folks.
“Leave the old world to die.”
Yeah dude, we already milked them for all they’re worth. Electricity, planes, cars, computers, capitalism, western civilization, fucking indoor plumbing!
What we need now is landscapers! It’s fucking 2022! Haha.
And here sarc compares a pre welfare state to a modern welfare state.
And here JesseAz argues that two wrongs make a right.
Cite?
Maybe it should not have been so difficult for your siblings to emigrate.
That wouldn't be fair. They paid their dues. Why should these other people just skip to the front of the line? Not fair, man. It's not fair. Gotta keep things fair.
So you support a two tiered system? One based on the principle of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs?
Nope. Never said that. I'm just pointing out how conservatives and progressives use the same arguments to justify government force. They don't argue over if government should be authoritarian or not, they only argue about over what and against whom.
"Maybe it should not have been so difficult for your siblings to emigrate."
No shit.
But you know what they didn't do in their pursuit of becoming American citizens?
Cheat and break the law.
Of course sarcasmic thinks they're chumps.
Tell me more about what I think, oh wise Canadian.
https://reason.com/2022/06/28/california-fights-inflation-by-sending-people-free-money/?comments=true#comment-9569549
The White racists from Northern states always ignore the costs of border states based on ignorance.
What is the crime?
Illegal entry.
Which is a victimless crime, analogous to "smoking pot".
How is either one of those a crime against "every single American"?
Spiritus Mundi answered your question with numerous cites above: https://reason.com/2022/06/28/california-fights-inflation-by-sending-people-free-money/?comments=true#comment-9569684
Are you still refusing to read citations that contradict you?
He said right wing websites that offer documented evidence dont count as citations on Saturday.
I suppose FAIR, Wikipedia and WPR count as right wing when your personal Overton window is to the left of Pol Pot.
Damn, ignored it twice.
Illegal entry into the apartment they're renting?
Illegal entry into the business where they are paid to work?
Illegal entry into the grocery store where they buy stuff?
No. The entire country, you disingenuous fuck.
Just because they do the same shit for themselves as everyone else, doesn't excuse the illegal bit.
OBTW, you might not know this, but paying your rent doesn't make you virtuous. It just doesn't make you an even bigger piece of shit.
WOP was a slur that meant without papers.
What the fuck are you gibbering about? You brought up papers in the first place, you drunken sot. I answered you.
"Entering the country without government papers is a crime against every single American?"
https://reason.com/2022/06/28/california-fights-inflation-by-sending-people-free-money/?comments=true#comment-9569327
Your alcohol and drug use has reached a point where you're too brain damaged to remember your own shitposts from a just couple hours earlier.
Seems you got a thing about wops.
See above, you brain damaged alky.
Where did the man without papers touch you, and how did you know he didn't have papers?
See above, you brain damaged alky.
Sarc. Instead of arguing from ignorance again, try reading some studies on border cities, ranches, costs of garbage and destruction of property from illegal immigrants, excess costs to schools, excess medical costs uncompensated from the federal government. Etc.
We get it. Being in shit hole Maine you don't deal with the costs. It doesn't mean the costs don't exist.
What argument did I make? I only asked a few questions.
Maine is a shit hole? That's news. Says "Vacationland" on the license plate. You should straighten those people out, along with hickock45.
I only asked a few questions.
You were trolling.
Yes.
That's one reason I'm pretty open-border inclined. Though, I feel the argument I have the hardest time arguing against is this idea that preventing people from coming over to work removes my right to hire them to do work. If I had private property on the border, that went right up against it, it seems consistent that I should be able to have people come over and work for me.
That's all very theoretical though. I also think that if we do have laws, it's really important to enforce them. I think this is how we've gotten to the 3 Felonies a day state, where there are a million laws applied with high amounts of discretion. That's actually very close to tyranny in my mind. The hallmark of tyranny is caprice.
BUCS. Did you ever read the story on Ajo and how the surges destroyed their social services both private and public?
Nope. If you wish to link to it, I would be happy to read it. This shit has been awful, and I'm also frustrated that there's an element of it mostly happening in low population areas much of the country doesn't really think about much or care about.
I'll post it next time it comes up.
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/15/987618530/why-the-u-s-government-is-dropping-off-migrants-in-rural-arizona-towns
Dude, illegals get jobs and pay rent. They also buy stuff.
Think about it.
THEY'RE WORKING AND LIVING WITHOUT ASKING PERMISSION! THAT'S THE SAME AS MURDER!
They don't have a right to live in the United States. They're not citizens and they're not attempting to become citizens.
If your bitch is that the immigration process is too difficult, fine. Reform the process. But absolutely NOBODY crying about truckloads of dead immigrants is talking about reforming the process, just opening the borders wide for anyone.
The US has a right to protect its own borders and sovereignty however it sees fit, and the US doesn't want open borders.
There's got to be something in between the shitshow we have now and no rules at all.
There is. There are tons of other options. But exercising any of those options robs democrats specifically of an issue they canbfundraise about. So, as usual, the adopt the most absurdly extreme position which they know has zero chance of passing, and then make that their favored outcome. AOC crying outside a detention center and calling republicans racist? Where's her passable reform bill? It doesn't exist.
Enforce the existing rules and make it easier to come here to work and/or live?
I'd like to bring Justin Trudeau into this conversation and ask him what the crime was that was being committed when people crossed his closed his borders in 2020-2022?
Prison.
Unless you present an opportunity for virtue signaling, Justin Trudeau doesn't fuck around.
And while it's "true" that you can't identify an individual "victim" if a migrant crosses a border, this completely fails to understand the meta-concepts of why countries have borders, and why if they don't enforce them, they're meaningless. And if you don't have meaningful borders, then you don't have a country, and if you don't have a country, then you don't have a first amendment, or a second amendment, or a 9th amendment, or a 14th Amendment that somewhere therein contains some reproductive rights.
And if I wanted to get REALLY nitpicky, yes there is an identifiable GROUP of victims: that being the taxpayer.
How so, you ask? Allow me to explain.
If you have a system which provides taxpayer-funded healthcare to anyone who walks through the door, there is a minimal expectation that that free healthcare would be limited to the taxpayers who live and pay taxes within the defined borders of that political district. If anyone can walk in to that political district and get free healthcare, then the taxpayers of that political district are suffering. That is why, when I required healthcare in Canada lo some years ago, they handed me a bill. For all of Canada's post-national country bullshit, they sure had a momentary surge of national pride and clear understanding of borders once it came down to figure out who was supposed to pay for my procedure.
this completely fails to understand the meta-concepts of why countries have borders
Countries have borders because we live in a Westphalian system of nation-states where borders delineate the maximum extent of a particular government's jurisdiction. Governments implicitly agree not to try to enforce its authority beyond its borders, and when a particular government violates this agreement (Russia vs. Ukraine), we consider it an unjust act.
Borders restrain governments from attempting to extend their reach. Why should borders also restrain individuals from attempting to migrate?
why if they don't enforce them, they're meaningless.
Under the approach that I described above, "enforcing a border", properly understood, means being prepared to defend against an invasion from another sovereign government wishing to violate the Wesphalian agreement and extend its reach and sovereign authority into an area where it does not have just authority to do so. I would like to think that the US government is at least well prepared enough to defend borders against invasion from other sovereign powers.
And if you don't have meaningful borders, then you don't have a country, and if you don't have a country, then you don't have a first amendment, or a second amendment, or a 9th amendment, or a 14th Amendment that somewhere therein contains some reproductive rights.
Only if the lack of border enforcement leads to a successful invasion by another sovereign power which then asserts a different model of governance on the newly conquered territory.
Countries have borders because we live in a Westphalian system of nation-states where borders delineate the maximum extent of a particular government's jurisdiction.
Yeah, no concept of borders existed at all before 1648.
Fuck off with this ahistorical nonsense.
Borders restrain governments from attempting to extend their reach. Why should borders also restrain individuals from attempting to migrate?
That you don't see the inherent contradiction here is why open borders fanatics are such stupid people.
Under the approach that I described above, "enforcing a border", properly understood, means being prepared to defend against an invasion from another sovereign government wishing to violate the Wesphalian agreement and extend its reach and sovereign authority into an area where it does not have just authority to do so.
Well, sure, when you create such a limited, non-falsifiable thesis like that, I can see why you'd believe such nonsense.
Borders restrain governments from attempting to extend their reach. Why should borders also restrain individuals from attempting to migrate?
If you ignore the rest of my comment, then sure, it's a valid question.
But I could also demand you define an "individual"? I've debated commenters here who, when finding themselves trapped by their own illogical arguments about borders, decided that individuals should be able to enter your country in any number, across any span of time as long as they're not in a mechanical contraption. The argument being that individuals may cross into our country unimpeded and unchecked, but GROUPS of individuals shouldn't be allowed to... if they're crossing at one time and in some kind of vehicle... that may or may not have military capabilities such as guns or missiles on them. Or something.
Under the approach that I described above, "enforcing a border", properly understood, means being prepared to defend against an invasion from another sovereign government wishing to violate the Wesphalian agreement and extend its reach and sovereign authority into an area where it does not have just authority to do so. I would like to think that the US government is at least well prepared enough to defend borders against invasion from other sovereign powers.
Sir... there are a large number of... individuals crossing our *checks notes* social construct...
His entire argument is based on question-begging. No wonder it fell apart like tissue paper in a thunderstorm.
Can I stop paying taxes to my social construct? Because if borders are fake, then governments are fake andI don't owe them any money.
Borders restrain governments from attempting to extend their reach. Why should borders also restrain individuals from attempting to migrate?
They don't. Governments, countries, states, cities, counties all have rules around attempting to migrate to a place within their borders. Establishing the rules is step one, enforcing them is step two. Tribes of old had the same rules. We can either establish borders, rules to enter and punishments for bypassing the rules or we can devolve to a everyone come on in every man, woman, child for themselves anarchy.
Then we'll see how the left really feels about that old 2nd amendment.
The alternative is politicians will decide where the money goes, so surely, it's better to return people's unjustly compensated earnings.
Umm...no. They aren't giving it to the same people they took it from or in the same amounts. This is just wealth redistribution.
They also learned that fear porn is a good way to control people and that most people will meekly surrender their rights in exchange for a promise of security (and end up getting neither, but hey, at least they "feel" safer). They're having a hard time letting go of that too.
^ this was the main lesson they learned. How quickly the majority of the population will absolutely bend over when you psy-op them
Or you can do both. Scare them into line, while promising them free stuff. If we win, you get more free stuff, and if lose, you’ll see unimaginable death.
It works unless you have strongly invested, motivated, and informed people to push back, which is why freedom of the press is important. Unfortunately, the level of discourse is so low these days. There’s so little discussion about the economic effects or costs of policies, it’s all culture war about how they’re trying to kill the gays or groom your kids.
Libertarians need to get back to the basics of economics and market forces. REE-ing about open borders or social justice is getting lost in the woods instead of just being the real adults in the room. We don’t even need all this abortion discussion. It’s certainly a big issue, but the issue involves competing rights so it’s not something with a clear answer from a libertarian perspective.
So the mises cacus?
Me too. It is absolutely terrifying how easily people were manipulated. I have never seen anything like it.
The worst part is that most of those people want to be manipulated. It's hypnosis, it only works on you if you want it to work on you.
"meekly surrender their rights in exchange for a promise of security "
The surrender in PA came when Gauleiter Wolf was elected, long before the pandemic. When the GOP House tried to push back on mandates, Wolf vetoed the bill. Every election has consequences.
California giving people their money back is a good idea. It is libertarian on its face, and needs no additional justifications. Even better would be to cut tax rates permanently so we don't send so much to Sacramento every year.
But the windfall tax revenues were due to huge stock market and real estate and cryptocurrency gains in 2020 and 2021. Almost everyone will be taking capital losses in 2022.
Of course, the refunds should not be income tested and scaled down for higher income taxpayers. They should be proportional to the taxes people paid in.
>>Federal agents seized the phone of John Eastman
attorney-client privilege is dead.
>>Ruth Bader Ginsburg–inspired, pastrami-flavored Dissent gin.
somebody spilled the tea on what kissing RBG was like.
It was probably some fugly chick in a sweater.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, was quick to blame the deaths on President Joe Biden's alleged "open borders" policies.
The governor didn't explain why people would be traveling in the back of a deadly hot truck to the U.S. if the country did, in fact, have open borders.
Abbot is being minorly hyperbolic here. Biden has an open-ish border policy. As do the Democrats. Biden's border policy is like the drug legalization policy in Seattle. It's still "illegal" on the books, but enforcement is either minimal or non-existent.
So yes, the piles of dead bodies on the street from overdoses are due to Seattle's "drug legalization policy".
Yeah, it's a lame gotcha. I will also continue to repeat that while Abbott is kind of flailing, and there is some aspect of playing politics here, he literally cannot do almost anything about this either way because international borders are firmly within the powers of the federal government.
Many of the people found inside the vehicle appeared to have been sprinkled with steak seasoning, the official said, in perhaps an attempt to cover up the smell of people as the smugglers were transporting them.
Wonder if people driving by had a sudden urge to stop at the nearest BBQ joint.
carne asada! and no, it's never too soon.
Carne seca
Wonder if people driving by had a sudden urge to stop at the nearest BBQ joint.
More likely the nearest Tex-mex joint...
I'll see myself out.
"Gov. Gavin Newsom also signed an executive order restricting the sharing of patients' medical information "
I thought all medical info was private all ready no need for further laws also Newsom could just declare the state an abortion sanctuary and not respond to any warrants like he does with illegal immigrants
Yeah, but this helps set up his inevitable Presidential run.
The people of California rose up and in unison demanded that he DO SOMETHING. So he DID SOMETHING. Sounds like good government to me.
Unless it’s vaccination status. For Covid only.
"One possible libertarian defense of "inflation relief" checks is"
if they were simply a return of surplus taxes collected.
But they are not that, not *simply* that, because they are giving tax moneys collected from wealthier people and redistributing it to other people--people who probably paid a lot less in taxes anyway.
Not to mention, that many billions of that money was actually collected from people in other states and handed to California during the various sham stimulus packages.
You just restated what Britschgi says in the very next paragraph after the one you quoted.
Yep. I missed that due to that paragraph being disconnected from the preceding text with the inline photo/video ad; the next bold headline got me to skip ahead. My bad.
"The discovery of a truck full of dead migrants in Texas is a horrific reminder of the deadly toll of immigration restrictions."
None of that would have happened if the people involved had stayed at home and applied for a visa instead of trying to violate US law as *literally* their first act of coming into the country.
Right, the speedy, efficient, plenty-of-room visa process.
Hey, it works for about 1M people every year who become citizens.
Cool! Let’s scale it up as well an improved work visa route. It’s working quite poorly for many people who want to come here, and for people already here who want to employ them.
Yet they decided the risk was worth it.
Sometimes when you gamble, you lose.
Maybe we should call rent "housing restriction" and get rid of that and make housing free. That way no homeless people ever die the streets.
And if 5000 people were ransacking grocery stores for food every day, our SOLE focus should be on blaming the government for food prices and not on restoring any sense of order.
Guys - open borders is going to be bonanza for human traffickers. Now they can expand beyond south america, and the downtrodden will require food, lodging, and travel services, or even connection to illegal operations inside the country. The effect on inflation is going to be disastrous.
If you want to see Reason writers become instant leftists (ignoring unintended consequences, penchant for Utopia), just watch them discuss immigration. SF recalled Boudin only few weeks ago, because the voters did not consider breakdown of society as worthy tradeoff of saving the lives of future victims of police. A nation with raging inflation cannot afford to let in thousands of unchecked outsider every week.
Let's just have the government print money and send a million dollars to everyone. Then everyone is rich, a millionaire from the free money and inflation is solved! (sarc)
The only thing worth a shit re. governor "Mengele" is his hair. Nice mop guv. Too bad there is a distorted mind underneath it.
Would that be the same California whose economy would be what, the fifth largest economy in the entire world if it were a country, California?
Usually, unless one is a psycho, you are supposed "to emulate success", not whine like a jealous little Biotch.
These deaths are on Biden???
Ya, umm, if the border were open like the psychopaths/sociopathic liars like Abbott are trying to ASSert - Then these migrants who died would not have been hiding in the back of a truck.
But these Conservative psychopaths/sociopathic liars already know that.
Engaging in voter fraud by lying to voters, much.
"California Fights Inflation by..." creating more inflation?
It's a dumb statement. It just assumes that people from Honduras could just uber on up to the border and cross. Even if the borders were open, people still have to get there and they're coming from countries that are run by criminal enterprises. Why would ENB be dumb enough to think that the transporters wouldn't still be criminals?
Well, we already know what your version of "border security" is.
https://reason.com/2022/06/23/greg-abbott-spent-1400-a-head-to-bus-migrants-to-d-c-for-a-political-stunt/?comments=true#comment-9559128
Geiger Goldstaedt
June.23.2022 at 6:15 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
Cheaper to set up a few machine gun nests at the border. You do not even have to shoot all of them, just some of them. The rest will get the message.
It really is incredible how the writers at Reason operate. Even if the facts of the story change, even if the facts run contrary to their beliefs, they write as though everything confirms their worldview even when there are literal deaths because of it. Reason acts with the same pie in the sky, utopian, everything will be great with no drawbacks mindset you see in progressives.
And unless we abolish social security, medicare, medicaid, and a boatload of other entitlements, we still need them processed. Do you want to work? You're going to need a visa or a social security number so you pay taxes, the same as everyone else.
This country HAS food banks, it IS not a food bank.
"Effective action is always unjust" - Maya Angelou
More humane than your policy
Not only cheaper, but you could get the real loonies to *pay* for the right to shoot some.
"Reality is racist" - every progressive purple hair type
How does this counter Britschgi's views on open borders? If these workers could come here under, say, a guest worker program, as Outlaw Josey Wales suggests above, they wouldn't be hiring coyotes to sneak them in in the back of semi trucks.
A guest worker program is nothing new. It worked in the past.
Politically, the problem of illegal immigrants is similar to abortion, a lynchpin for votes come election time. It was very telling that every potential democratic presidential nominee, except Tulsi IIRC, raised their hands to promise free health care to illegal migrants. That is Democratic policy. They don't want it fixed. To them, it's not broken.
The businesses who exploit the workers are culpable too.
If we could scrap the politics, define the immigration needs of the country effectively and let the market dictate the seasonal or surge employment needs we'd have the beginnings of a workable policy. I believe we would have clearer cooperation on the borders too because we are clarifying what we will and will not accept.
I thought Trump's immigration push was effective. Mexico changed, we changed, the flow of migrants thinking it was easy action time changed. Didn't stop, changed. Obviously implemented policy affects the flow of migrants, legal and illegal. Saying no sounds cruel to some, but if we are planning a long change there is no other way. Like a cargo ship in the ocean, the wheel needs to turn way ahead of the mark in order to move in another direction.
I’m not so old that I’ve forgotten that Bush the Lesser tried to expand the work visa program stuff and Democrats took to the streets flying Mexican flags and Viva La Raza posters.
Biden's immediate reset to the previous model following Trump set the policy back 200% in the other direction.
See which side rejected the guest worker programs under Bush. It was mikes and Jeff's crew.
Wants then. A country can develop an effective immigration policy that is mutually beneficial to all involved. Or do you suggest that the door is closed, locked and the all full sign go up and no one comes in or leaves?
There are definitely times when an influx of workers from elsewhere can help. Going back to the early nineties I was in the NorthEast and working in the restaurant biz. Shortage of workers. They were bringing them in on the I9 program from Haiti, Jamaica and Brazil. It was an effective way to add workers to a workforce that surges and then wanes depending on the season. I9 is similar to a guest worker program.
As the population shrinks in areas, importing new people is a way to keep the community vibrant. Also, innovation can come from outside our bubble too in exchange for a chance to stay if one chooses.
Define means that. Define it according to the needs, wants, circumstances etc. If one wants to live in Whitey McWhite town and have no immigrants and no guest workers I am okay with that too. Define it. Then it is clear.
I lived in a few border states. 'No human is Illegal' signs on the lawn of gated neighborhoods is not working
Yup. They (D)s don't want it fixed. Just the sympathy and the tax dollars to pay for more if they need it.
Effective for the companies that needed workers. Effective for the temporary workers that needed a job. Effective because it did not place an unnecessary burden on the community, it provided service, labor when needed, the influx of income being spent, renters for seasonal housing etc. etc. etc. Effective as a short term policy that worked for the circumstance.
Then the season ended and the workers went home with the money they had saved.
Vibrant means not dying out altogether. Why are the populations shrinking? Why do populations shrink? They do. People die, they leave, they don't have as many kids, the kids leave as they reach working age, etc. etc. etc. Exchange vitalize for vibrant.
As I stated in the previous comment - per community, needs, wants,circumstance, etc. The Fed still has to have an overall policy that allows people in and out.
You're trying to poke holes at micro points while I am suggesting ways to improve the current, obviously working really, really great!!, fucked up way they are doing things today.
If you don't want to consider other solutions you are part of the problem.