MOTHER of all CARAVANS - Poor & Uneducated WHITES ... mass to invade U.S.A.
- Thread starter Bigdog
- Start date
It's true that our potential adversaries waste far, far less money interfering in the business of other nations than we do. China and Russia are far more focused on actually defending their country, rather than using their military to push the business interests of their ruling class. But we don't need those "military commitments." They're a choice -- and, ultimately, a self-destructive one.
Take the unbelievably imbecilic decision to conquer Iraq, as an example. If we hadn't had our massively redundant military spending, we would have spared ourselves that catastrophic error. If we hadn't had so many people eager to use that huge arsenal of hyper-expensive military toys, we would have realized that kicking over the Hussein regime in the hopes it would somehow influence the middle east in a positive way was dunderheaded nonsense. But when you spend that kind of money on your military, eventually you are going to want to play with it. We'd be better off if we focused on actual defense, with enough additional spending that we could afford foreign interventions only with substantial and deep support from other leading nations. That would serve as a check on our bloodlust. If you need to talk some reluctant warriors, like the Germans, into coming along for the ride, before you can start some shit, then you'll only be starting shit where the wisdom of doing so is convincing for those who aren't as addicted to war as Americans.
That's why we don't want expanded use of visas for highly educated workers. Bring in a bunch of young low-level engineers, and you stagnate the careers of Americans trying to start in that field. But bring in a lot of uneducated workers, what you get is higher quality of life for people who are already here, because they drive down the cost of work that would otherwise be filled in a worse way by outsourcing or automation, as well as work that wouldn't even be done if it weren't cheap enough (for example, housekeeping and other low-level services). That pressure from the bottom up can also help to accelerate the career path for those here. For example, if you have more people getting housekeeping or landscaping services, you have more career opportunities for people with higher-level people skills and business skills to manage crews and small businesses that do that work.
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
The above shows how little you know about the security interests of the United States. I don't have the time nor space to educate a idealistic young adult who has no knowledge of world economics nor how the security of the U. S. Is dependent of the security of our allies.
Have you talked to your parents about your naive view of the world? I find it amazing that anyone that has lived on this planet for 20+ years are as ignorant of Civis as you appear.
Do you have any idea why the ME is so important to us?
I'll give you time to google your rear off trying to find out what I am talking about.
I won't try to explain Iraq or Afghanistan to you as you are so liberalized you wouldn't understand oe believe the facts.
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
You think a Trump promise means something?
It's obvious that you've taken more than one course in demographics and/or sociology.
Japan is having a difficult time as well, struggling with an increasingly aging population, falling birth rate, not enough younger people, and strict anti-immigration laws. They are now following your suggestions by opening the doors to lower-skilled immigration to do manual labor type jobs:
"To make up for the tightening domestic manpower shortage in the aging and declining population, the government passed an amendment to the immigration control law through the Diet last year, opening the door for foreign workers to engage in manual labor, which it had banned earlier, at least officially. The government expects to accept up to 345,000 workers in five years under the program that begins in April. However, government figures show that the nation’s population is declining at a much faster pace, and that rate is expected to accelerate."
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinio...nges-shrinking-aging-population/#.XKZ9-th7mUk
You might want to read Oneuli's first posts here, when she introduced herself, before dismissing what she has to say due to her age. After all, we old codgers don't like it when the youth dismiss US for being "dinosaurs."
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
Oh I don't dismiss her views due to her age. I dismiss them simply because she parrots the liberal play book without thinking of the possible ramifications of her ideas. I really take exception to her unwarranted slur of red state citizens. Some people don't seem to understand the civil war is over. Lol
Mason Michaels
Verified User
Hmm. I understand what she is saying and that it is backed up by solid data. She isn't parroting anything; she is an extremely intelligent and well-educated person who, despite her youth, has had more real world experience than I have. Please read the link that I posted about Japan's situation. Our own is beginning to mirror theirs. Oneuli -- and demographic and economic experts as well -- is correct. We are reaching a critical point in our economic evolution where soon the retirees, disabled, and other nonworkers (which includes children) will vastly outnumber those employed. I think you'll agree that we have hundreds of thousands of jobs that can be filled by unskilled/low-skilled workers. Traditionally our teenagers took up some of those types of jobs. But now kids are going to college/trade schools. Plus there are more jobs than there are kids to fill them. If we allow unskilled immigrants to fill them, that pushes employment up the ladder.
Her point about bringing in lower-paid engineers (an example) on H1B visas is a very good one. My husband, an IT systems architect/software engineer, lost his job of 31 years to a low-paid, lower-educated worker imported from India. That guy was paid a third of what Mr. Owl was making. A win for the corporation, totally legal, totally unethical but there you go.
Contrary to popular belief the vast majority of immigrants from over the southern border are coming here to escape poverty and WANT to work. They aren't going to take someone's engineering career away. They are going to take care of your lawn and your kids, do the grunt work on construction sites, pick the crops so you don't pay $6/lb for grapes, and so on.
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
I understand her idea of unskilled workers being needed for the "grunt" jobs. But the problem with that is they will bring their family with them and try to live on minimum wage. Being here legally they are then eligible for all the social safety nets increasing the cost to the tax payer. That in turn will cause the left to call for higher and higher minimum wages which costs will be passed on to the consumer. I agree we need to allow people to come here to work but only as long as they are needed. Next we now run into these unskilled workers overstaying their visas which is about half of the illegals in this country. They are already enrolled in the social networks and I am sure the networks don't constantly look for fraud. So basically her ideas while nice would most likely exacerbate an already serious problem.
So while her ideas have merit they are much more complicated to manage than she believes. If it were easy we would already be doing it.
Oh one other thing. She seems to be anti-military spending and doesn't believe we should help our allies. I just remembered that she said she is of Korean ancestry. If the US hadn't supported South Korea in the 50's her family would be living under the thumb of that despot Kim. And most likely she wouldn't exist. Something else for her to muse over.
Last edited:
I understand her idea of unskilled workers being needed for the "grunt" jobs. But the problem with that is they will bring their family with them and try to live on minimum wage. Being here legally they are then eligible for all the social safety nets increasing the cost to the tax payer. That in turn will cause the left to call for higher and higher minimum wages which costs will be passed on to the consumer. I agree we need to allow people to come here to work but only as long as they are needed. Next we now run into these unskilled workers overstaying their visas which is about half of the illegals in this country. They are already enrolled in the social networks and I am sure the networks don't constantly look for fraud. So basically her ideas while nice would most likely exacerbate an already serious problem.
So while her ideas have merit they are much more complicated to manage than she believes. If it were easy we would already be doing it.
You make good points about the workers trying to support entire families on low wages. The problem is we lack the political will to do anything about it. Why is that? I believe it's because employers like things the way they are. They don't have to pay into the workers comp system for their illegally-hired workers. They don't have to provide them with benefits, and in many cases they don't even withhold the required taxes from their paychecks. Screaming about illegals and whipping up xenophobia among the base, meanwhile, is a great ploy for politicians of a certain political party to fire up their voters. To be perfectly fair, the (D)s seem to also prefer paying lip service to fixing the system because pointing to the xenophobics on the other side fires up *their* voting base.
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
I tend to agree with you but again it isn't a matter of business not giving benefits to their low wage employees out of greed but a simple matter of economics. Businesses are out to make a profit so if you cut into that profit margin they must either cut expenses or increase prices. Also remember that most minimum wage employers are small businesses and survive on a razor thin profit margin, so gutting that margin could put them out of business. As with most of our problems there are a myriad of obstacles that must be overcome to fix them.
No. It shows how much I understand about those interests. Sadly, there are lots of wingnuts (generally ones who sucked long and deeply at the teat of our military-industrial complex, and bristle at the idea that their leeching of our tax dollars wasn't well-deserved) who think these constant interventions make us safer. No matter how many times the interventions backfire, they'll never learn.
My parents are anti-militaristic, too. But, what you need to keep in mind is that none of us have ever been wards of the military-welfare state, so the world looks a lot clearer from our perspective.
I know why control of the Middle East's fossil fuels is so important to the business interests of those who own our politicians. But that's not as important to "us."
I find it particularly funny that those who are most insistent that they're the ones who understand the facts about places like Iraq are pretty much inevitably the always-wrong imbeciles who thought that invasion would be a cakewalk, where we'd be greeted as liberators, and that it would set off a chain of positive improvements in the region's geopolitics. Their multi-trillion-dollar error didn't teach them a thing, because they're ineducable.
The US is actually in an unusually good position, relative to most wealthy nations, in that our higher rates of immigration over the years have meant we aren't as demographically imbalanced as others. We have a much younger median age than places like Japan. So, we're well positioned to address this gradually, and in a way that minimizes disruption. For example, if we bring in a bunch of 20-something and 30-something immigrants now, we'll have an echo generation of new American citizens coming along in 20 years to fill out our demographic mix. Our demographic imbalance is already a crisis, but it's a manageable one, if we simply boost immigration as needed. We can take the growing pains in stride easily then. We'd be fools to push that off and have a couple "lost decades" like the Japanese, before finally reacting.
You know that this is not going to happen, don't you?
My plan would probably boost the need for spending on social support for the young, since the size of the population of children would grow. But the point is those kids would then grow up to be adults, and assuming we didn't skimp on the support they needed to become healthy and productive, they'd then pay back that support many times over in the course of their productive careers.
No, and no. I don't know anyone who is anti-military spending. The question is simply one of levels. Should we spend three or four times as much as the next-closest country? I'd say no. And pretty much every other country in the history of the world has likewise said no. Hell, even the US said no through most of our history. For example, even at the height of the Reagan era's military over-spend, we didn't spend anywhere close to three or four times as much as the next-closest country. Yet, these days, we're supposed to pretend that anyone who advocates for a merely Reaganesque multiple of the next-closest country's spending must be anti-military spending. That's silly.
Also, this isn't about helping our allies. Again, no country before us in history thought you had to spend three or four times as much as the second-highest-spending country in the world in order to help the allies. This current spending level isn't about doing our part to work with other NATO nations to defend our common interests against foreign aggression. It's about having enough excess that we can kick over multiple regimes at once, on a whim, with little or no significant help from allies. That's an absurd level of spending, and ultimately a self-destructive one, in that it lures us into conflicts that are actually counter-productive to our security interests (such as the idiotic Iraq conquest that destabilized the Middle East and undercut America's political capital and credibility around the world).
As you probably know, back in the 1950s, the US wasn't spending anywhere close to three or four times as much on its military as the next-closest country. It was more like 40% more than the next-closest country, rather than 200-300% more.
https://nintil.com/2016/05/31/the-soviet-union-military-spending/
We can continue to support key allies, with the assistance of other allies, as we did in the past, with vastly less than we currently spend.
Last edited:
Perhaps not immediately. Trump has successfully stirred up an orgy of xenophobia among the more cowardly part of the American population. So, in the short term, it's more of a holding action -- how good a job can we do in preventing the nation from being led in the wrong direction. That will minimize the damage we have to undo when the nation comes to its senses and we start heading in the right direction.