California Taxpayer Protection Act of 2012

[Coito ergo sum]

You actually think that immigration is keeping such good track that they control immigration by the numbers of immigrants who enter and leave? Maybe in the hundreds at best.

Hasn't everyone here confirmed that it's so easy and such a straightforward process to get a green card and get naturalized?

Why it's so difficult to enter legally is simply because of the onerous, time consuming application process...the reason why you wait, is because you are waiting for a bunch of legal applicants in line in front of you. If anything, the illegals that slip in are just one less immigrant who needs to be processed which should make it easier, not harder for the legal ones to get in.

Mai, please tell me you're being facetious.

One, it's not complicated to get a green card when you're outside the US. There are various categories - you have to fit one - and if you do, you can come in. If you can't, you can't. You file the papers, give fingerprints and biometrics, they do a criminal investigation and background check, and then you get on the waiting list. What should the process be, Mai?

Why should we have an open border with another country, when their border is not open to us?

[laklak]

Arizona is enacting a law which exists in every other industrialized country, including Canada, UK, France, Germany -- all the big "enlightened" countries -- cops can verify citizenship of people they arrest. That's it. Every other country in the world, just about, does that. Arizona - racist.

California wants to deny public benefits to the flood of illegals, which is what the UK has always done, apparently - heck - you were LEGAL and they were denying you benefits. No peeps about the UK, but California is doing something wrong.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

[Coito ergo sum]

Arizona is enacting a law which exists in every other industrialized country, including Canada, UK, France, Germany -- all the big "enlightened" countries -- cops can verify citizenship of people they arrest. That's it. Every other country in the world, just about, does that. Arizona - racist.

California wants to deny public benefits to the flood of illegals, which is what the UK has always done, apparently - heck - you were LEGAL and they were denying you benefits. No peeps about the UK, but California is doing something wrong.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

I prefer to beholdest the mote in god's eye.

[Trinity]

In the short term, I don't think there is any easy answer and I know that there are many many people out there busting a gut to try and find a balance but also many who are working against that. It is a global shift of awareness that's needed and like I said, that's not coming any time soon. I'm not copping out, but I get frustrated when I think that all of the energy and output that each country individually musters could be incredibly effective if it was pooled and a more world-wide inclusive solution or plan of action devised

Is your assumption that you wouldn't take a monumental reduction in your standard of living if that sort of "pooling" were done? If so, if you think that that could be done without you and everyone like you living in conditions that would be considered unthinkable to us, I think you are not examining the world situation clearly.

As I said before, unless there is a drastic change in society's (and obviously individuals') perception regarding accumulating and possessing material acquisitions (including money and land), the "I'm alright Jack, fuck you" attitude, then nothing fundamental will change with any reforms, no matter how radical, pioneering or philanthropic. You assume that there would be a deficit and a "monumental reduction" of living standards if resources were globally pooled but you do not substantiate this with any reasonable examples. I am talking about sharing physical earthly resources as well as monetary ones (which tbh are mostly virtual; a bizarre game of invisible money transactions flying around the planet to give an appearance of stability, control and affluence) and a complete overhaul of how we approach and manage our agriculture, industry, political relations, human rights (list goes on...). What gets me is that as parents of our children, one of the basic lessons we teach is how important it is to share yet we do not practice what we preach.
Personally, I am not wealthy financially and I never have been. I have lived on the borderline of poverty as a child and young adult, and have never accumulated any money or expensive possessions. My recently ex- partner was slightly more affluent than me, so I have had a few years of enjoying shared incomes but nevertheless have been unable to save or invest. So today, I have the little money I earn from what work I do, I have a rented home, a second hand car and a computer (which is actually my ex's). I have experienced poverty in various degrees and have learned to adapt and adjust but I'm savvy and well educated so I have been able to be resourceful. I am incredibly appreciative of what I have in this world, compared to the millions who are not able to have what I have and if I had more money I would sure as hell be giving it to those who need it more than me. My heart aches every time I see a person, animal, community or country suffering and I know that it shouldn't be like that in the world today. It is senseless and inexcusable. I know that what I have is enough and I am also fortunate to know that if I was in dire need due to some unexpected crisis, then I could call upon friends and family who would help.

[laklak]

I prefer to beholdest the mote in god's eye.

Motie.

[PsychoSerenity]

As I said before, unless there is a drastic change in society's (and obviously individuals') perception regarding accumulating and possessing material acquisitions (including money and land), the "I'm alright Jack, fuck you" attitude, then nothing fundamental will change with any reforms, no matter how radical, pioneering or philanthropic. You assume that there would be a deficit and a "monumental reduction" of living standards if resources were globally pooled but you do not substantiate this with any reasonable examples. I am talking about sharing physical earthly resources as well as monetary ones (which tbh are mostly virtual; a bizarre game of invisible money transactions flying around the planet to give an appearance of stability, control and affluence) and a complete overhaul of how we approach and manage our agriculture, industry, political relations, human rights (list goes on...). What gets me is that as parents of our children, one of the basic lessons we teach is how important it is to share yet we do not practice what we preach.
Personally, I am not wealthy financially and I never have been. I have lived on the borderline of poverty as a child and young adult, and have never accumulated any money or expensive possessions. My recently ex- partner was slightly more affluent than me, so I have had a few years of enjoying shared incomes but nevertheless have been unable to save or invest. So today, I have the little money I earn from what work I do, I have a rented home, a second hand car and a computer (which is actually my ex's). I have experienced poverty in various degrees and have learned to adapt and adjust but I'm savvy and well educated so I have been able to be resourceful. I am incredibly appreciative of what I have in this world, compared to the millions who are not able to have what I have and if I had more money I would sure as hell be giving it to those who need it more than me. My heart aches every time I see a person, animal, community or country suffering and I know that it shouldn't be like that in the world today. It is senseless and inexcusable. I know that what I have is enough and I am also fortunate to know that if I was in dire need due to some unexpected crisis, then I could call upon friends and family who would help.

[Coito ergo sum]

In the short term, I don't think there is any easy answer and I know that there are many many people out there busting a gut to try and find a balance but also many who are working against that. It is a global shift of awareness that's needed and like I said, that's not coming any time soon. I'm not copping out, but I get frustrated when I think that all of the energy and output that each country individually musters could be incredibly effective if it was pooled and a more world-wide inclusive solution or plan of action devised

Is your assumption that you wouldn't take a monumental reduction in your standard of living if that sort of "pooling" were done? If so, if you think that that could be done without you and everyone like you living in conditions that would be considered unthinkable to us, I think you are not examining the world situation clearly.

As I said before, unless there is a drastic change in society's (and obviously individuals') perception regarding accumulating and possessing material acquisitions (including money and land), the "I'm alright Jack, fuck you" attitude, then nothing fundamental will change with any reforms, no matter how radical, pioneering or philanthropic. You assume that there would be a deficit and a "monumental reduction" of living standards if resources were globally pooled but you do not substantiate this with any reasonable examples.

So, you think that Americans and Europeans would not take a huge hit in living standards, if the 2 billion people in Asia, the billion in Africa and the billion in South and Central America and Mexico were brought to equality with the US?

I'll provide further proof, but I just want to get this straight. You think that all can remain the same with your lifestyle, but that 4-5 billion people who currently live in relative squalor can be brought up to our level by shifting some of our resources to them?

I am talking about sharing physical earthly resources as well as monetary ones (which tbh are mostly virtual; a bizarre game of invisible money transactions flying around the planet to give an appearance of stability, control and affluence) and a complete overhaul of how we approach and manage our agriculture, industry, political relations, human rights (list goes on...).

O.k., I'll bite: what will the system look like once it is overhauled?

What gets me is that as parents of our children, one of the basic lessons we teach is how important it is to share yet we do not practice what we preach.

Note: talking about giving away other people's stuff is not "sharing."

Personally, I am not wealthy financially and I never have been.

You are compared to the 95% of the Brazilian population, to name one country where 45% of the population makes less than $800 a month, and many 10s of millions of people live in favelas and other places that look like this:








You don't think you are wealthy, but globally -- you are.

I have lived on the borderline of poverty as a child and young adult,

Me too. American poverty is what 2/3 of the world dream about.

and have never accumulated any money or expensive possessions.

This is typically the thought process. People think of themselves as the reasonable basis - the starting point. No reason everyone shouldn't live like me - I'm not really wealthy or anything. But, when you look at most of the rest of the world, the non-European, non-British-colony rest of the world, you are.

And, even if the US donated its entire annual GDP to the rest of the world, it wouldn't bring the rest of the world up to our level. Even if the US and the western industrialized countries, combined, donated everything to the rest of the world, it wouldn't bring them all up to your level.

My recently ex- partner was slightly more affluent than me, so I have had a few years of enjoying shared incomes but nevertheless have been unable to save or invest. So today, I have the little money I earn from what work I do, I have a rented home, a second hand car and a computer (which is actually my ex's). I have experienced poverty in various degrees

No you haven't. You've experienced the American version of poverty. I've been to Brazil -- Sao Paulo and Rio - for example, and I've been through the favelas. You would think it was child abuse to raise a kid where most people in the world grow up. Nigeria? Almost all of Africa? Most of southeast and central asia -- billions of people live in squalor you couldn't even imagine.

and have learned to adapt and adjust but I'm savvy and well educated so I have been able to be resourceful. I am incredibly appreciative of what I have in this world, compared to the millions

billions. not "millions..." billions --

who are not able to have what I have and if I had more money I would sure as hell be giving it to those who need it more than me.

You'd give what you felt comfortable giving when your needs are met. There are plenty of people in the world, billions, who are far worse off than you. Why don't you give them money now? I'm not being flippant about this. This all about perspective. From your perspective, you don't have anything to give right now, yet billions live in shacks without running water or flush toilets.

My heart aches every time I see a person, animal, community or country suffering and I know that it shouldn't be like that in the world today. It is senseless and inexcusable. I know that what I have is enough and I am also fortunate to know that if I was in dire need due to some unexpected crisis, then I could call upon friends and family who would help.

Inexcusable? That depends on whose responsibility it is. You can't hang this all on the US and western Europe. This is not just a situation of countries crying out for help, and the western European and Americans refusing to help. Look what happens when we do help? The money never gets to who needs it. Dictators and despots steal it. Etc.

What you have is enough? It's nice that you grant yourself the authority to make that determination. I think I have enough, too. But, I recognize that what I have, despite not being "wealthy" by any stretch, is far more than most of the world has by far.

In the end - we're not that far apart on this - you live at a level that you think you can't afford to give much if anything to other people. Well, I think so too. So do some people who are better off than you. They don't think they're rich, and they think they are living reasonably. You think they are rich, and you think they should give more and "share" with those who aren't as rich, but you aren't imposing that obligation on yourself, because you don't think you're rich enough to be able to do it. Yet, look at the favelas in Brazil -- you certainly do have enough to give some to them, and you could live poor like they do, which is what would happen to a significant portion of the US, if we just decided to hand over a huge chunk of our resources to even out wealth in the world.

Just do the math Western Europe, Canada, US, Australia -- Maybe 750 million people. Rest of the world -- 6 billion people. Let's say 2 billion of that 6 billion are rich enough already..... so, that would mean that we 750 million need to give enough resources, money and stuff to the 4,000 million that live below our standard of living , most of them in what we would call "squalor." How do those numbers work out with you and I not taking huge hits?

[Clinton Huxley]

There isn't enough Earth to bring everyone up to US/European standards of living. On the other hand, standards of living in the developing world are kept artificially low because of Western protectionism.

[Coito ergo sum]

There isn't enough Earth to bring everyone up to US/European standards of living. On the other hand, standards of living in the developing world are kept artificially low because of Western protectionism.

Rather a broad statement...

But, let's do a test, shall we. Blighty can reduce his protectionism, and we'll see which countries uptick because of it.... if it works, we'll get on board.

[Clinton Huxley]

Agricultural subsidies directly impact the income of developed world farmers and developing nations are usually more dependent upon the agriculture sector as a proportion of their economies.

Capitalism, you can't beat it. Especially when you subsidise it with taxpayers money.

[Coito ergo sum]

Agricultural subsidies directly impact the income of developed world farmers and developing nations are usually more dependent upon the agriculture sector as a proportion of their economies.

Capitalism, you can't beat it. Especially when you subsidise it with taxpayers money.

Well, if you want to keep a nation in a position to feed itself, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

And, as with the other issue, if you want to test out what eliminating subsidies would do.....you blokes first....

[Clinton Huxley]

Agricultural subsidies directly impact the income of developed world farmers and developing nations are usually more dependent upon the agriculture sector as a proportion of their economies.

Capitalism, you can't beat it. Especially when you subsidise it with taxpayers money.

Well, if you want to keep a nation in a position to feed itself, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

And, as with the other issue, if you want to test out what eliminating subsidies would do.....you blokes first....

Aye, you got to stuff money down the throats of voracious agribusiness whilst the third world starves. Gotta keep the pop-tarts coming off the production line.

[Coito ergo sum]

Agricultural subsidies directly impact the income of developed world farmers and developing nations are usually more dependent upon the agriculture sector as a proportion of their economies.

Capitalism, you can't beat it. Especially when you subsidise it with taxpayers money.

Well, if you want to keep a nation in a position to feed itself, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

And, as with the other issue, if you want to test out what eliminating subsidies would do.....you blokes first....

Aye, you got to stuff money down the throats of voracious agribusiness whilst the third world starves. Gotta keep the pop-tarts coming off the production line.

They grow enough food in South America to feed all the South Americans, and the food is cheaper there. Same in Africa and Asia.

Where is it that they haven't got the capacity to grow enough food?

I know England can't, but you blokes also have the shekels to pay a good price...

[Clinton Huxley]

CES, sometimes you are such an idiot. I can't tell if it's an act or not.

[Coito ergo sum]

CES, sometimes you are such an idiot. I can't tell if it's an act or not.

Well, the part about England was me busting your balls.

But, if you think they're "starving" in South America because the United States has agriculture subsidies, then I'd say you ought not call anyone else an idiot.