Funny (political, religious) pictures

figmentPez

Staff member
Reactions
1,769 243 3
I give up. I am completely baffled at how getting rid of people that the economy relies on somehow puts more money into the system.
 
Reactions
1,821 530 14
I give up. I am completely baffled at how getting rid of people that the economy relies on somehow puts more money into the system.
Why, it's because of the perception that these so-called "people" supposedly drain more out of the system than they put in. When you add up the total cost of finding them, incarcerating them, lawyering them, deporting them, welfaring up all their anchor babies and relatives, plus all the wages they divert from actual Americans and the costs related to all the drug dealin' and murderin' that they sneak in here to do...why, it's a wonder there's any money left over to fill the potholes after it rains! Think of the money we would save if we didn't have to deal with all that mess!

Plus they're brown.

and because I apparently have to just in case... [/s]

--Patrick
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
5,159 1,123 23
Is it a sin to be unproductive? Unethical? Is it illegal? What is the crime these people have committed that they should be cursed so? Because I know a shit load of unproductive folks in flyover states who have resisted every attempt to actual give them work and no one seems to think it's okay to get rid of them.
Depends on if you want america's hypothetical nordic style socialism to not immediately collapse under its own weight or not. That *is* the context of this discussion after all.

So is there some reason why we would increase the amount of people we allow in? Cause America already has one of the most exhaustive immigration systems in the world.

That's of course not to ignore the fact that immigrants start businesses at the highest rates of any group in America. So your belief that immigrants are takers is pretty much without merit.
I give up. I am completely baffled at how getting rid of people that the economy relies on somehow puts more money into the system.
Again, like Ash, you both are trying to apply the current state under *capitalism* to how things run under a centrally planned socialist economy. Norway's leaders literally, out loud, on public record, justify their closed-door immigration policies by saying "we won't have jobs for unskilled labor."
 
Reactions
50 3 3
Depends on if you want america's hypothetical nordic style socialism to not immediately collapse under its own weight or not. That *is* the context of this discussion after all.




Again, like Ash, you both are trying to apply the current state under *capitalism* to how things run under a centrally planned socialist economy. Norway's leaders literally, out loud, on public record, justify their closed-door immigration policies by saying "we won't have jobs for unskilled labor."
So literally no reason why the US would suddenly change the system that we have right now and allow more people in than we are currently doing.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
5,159 1,123 23
So literally no reason why the US would suddenly change the system that we have right now and allow more people in than we are currently doing.
Not sure where you're going with this. I was saying all along it'd be less. Perhaps even requiring emigration as opposed to immigration.
 
Reactions
375 167 0
Because we've already got too many people, especially non-productive people, for it to work. As if often noted, even if we had a 100% income tax rate for our top bracket, that wouldn't fund our current government expenditures for more than a handful of days. So, somebody's gonna have to go if the USS Socialism isn't going to sink with all hands on board.

So, we'd have to reduce that number. I'll leave it up to you guys to decide whether we figure out an australia-style solution to deport our non-productive trouble makers, or if we just make everything worse than jaywalking a capital offense.
I still don't follow why we're jumping from relative to absolute numbers there. You could want a reduction in immigration, but I'm sure you could make better arguments (maybe relating to the cost to society per immigrant/dependent?) and, in any case, none of it justifies switching from talking about 0.0..X% of the population to X-thousand "because Norway".

Would legal immigrants to the U.S. become charges, on average, if their demographic didn't change from what it is now but safety nets increased? I don't have hard numbers in front of me, but I don't see why that'd be. Why not keep all the existing regulations already in place? I'm not allowed practically any public benefit (I think unemployment insurance excepted) until I have 40 quarters in Social Security (i.e. 10 years of paid work), else I risk being labelled a public charge, not to mention my ex-wife is legally bound to repay the state for any benefits I draw. I'm not sure what the other ways out of this are, but if this is how most/all family reunification immigration works in the U.S., it seems guaranteed that they're net contributors (either individually or as an aggregate family unit). I'd apply a similar argument to all employment-based visas, not to mention all the non-resident ones (tourist, business, education, ...).

It's worth mentioning here (as an example) that Norway's socialized healthcare scheme seems to be aimed at residents (who pay deductibles). Non-residents are expected to either get private health insurance or sign up for the healthcare scheme, with acceptance depending on existing treaties between their origin country and Norway.
Canada is special, eh?
So's Catalonia, I guess, both my preferred parties fit the bill ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm not familiar with Canada's parties and their policies, I'm mostly talking about pro-labor/pro-nanny politicians being more skeptic of allowing increases in the labor pool (e.g. increasing job visa allotments) in a market economy. Not universal, hence the usually, but enough to have perceived it.
 
Reactions
593 199 4
I'm not familiar with Canada's parties and their policies, I'm mostly talking about pro-labor/pro-nanny politicians being more skeptic of allowing increases in the labor pool (e.g. increasing job visa allotments) in a market economy. Not universal, hence the usually, but enough to have perceived it.
The pro nanny parties are definitely our leftist politicians. Well, if by pro-nanny you mean the ones wanting the more socialist policies. The universal healthcare, subsidized education, etc. And these are the parties that have been encouraging increased immigration and liberally accepting refugees (including the greater influx from the Syria crisis)

Our right wing politicians exercise their nanny-tendencies by legislating morals.
 
Reactions
375 167 0
I dunno. Generally, the left is pro-immigration, the right is against. See: nationalists and fascists everywhere.
Impression I've gotten is that the left is for humanitarian immigration, while the right is split between capital wanting more exploitable workers and the masses wanting a scapegoat, but it's sounding like I may have been looking at outdated or hyper-local examples and gotten lost.
The pro nanny parties are definitely our leftist politicians. Well, if by pro-nanny you mean the ones wanting the more socialist policies. The universal healthcare, subsidized education, etc. And these are the parties that have been encouraging increased immigration and liberally accepting refugees (including the greater influx from the Syria crisis)

Our right wing politicians exercise their nanny-tendencies by legislating morals.
The nanny urge definitely transcends left and right :p
 
Reactions
50 3 3
Not sure where you're going with this. I was saying all along it'd be less. Perhaps even requiring emigration as opposed to immigration.
Your argument was that if we were to put in the kind of system Norway has we would also have a huge spike in immigration. Which makes no sense because the amount of immigrants allowed in has nothing to do with the amount of people that apply since the maximum amount of visas is decided based on certain criteria.

When I pointed that out you said that's the way it works now but under a centrally planned socialist economy (which Norway isn't) with no real attempt to justify why even a centralized economy would seek to bring in an overwhelming surge of immigrants.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
5,159 1,123 23
Your argument was that if we were to put in the kind of system Norway has we would also have a huge spike in immigration.
No, it was that we would have to curtail existing immigration. Perhaps stop it. Even go the other way.

Which makes no sense because the amount of immigrants allowed in has nothing to do with the amount of people that apply since the maximum amount of visas is decided based on certain criteria.

When I pointed that out you said that's the way it works now but under a centrally planned socialist economy (which Norway isn't) with no real attempt to justify why even a centralized economy would seek to bring in an overwhelming surge of immigrants.
You're conflating points now. The centralized socialist economy point was for the claim that "immigrants start all the businesses." If immigrants magically made jobs, Norway wouldn't be so aggressive in barring immigration.
Look, you can just keep on being (deliberately?) obtuse, but I'm done ruining the "funny pictures" thread for everybody, and I hope you are too.
 
Reactions
50 3 3
You're conflating points now. The centralized socialist economy point was for the claim that "immigrants start all the businesses." If immigrants magically made jobs, Norway wouldn't be so aggressive in barring immigration.
Look, you can just keep on being (deliberately?) obtuse, but I'm done ruining the "funny pictures" thread for everybody, and I hope you are too.
Yes it's "magic" that immigrants form 25% of new businesses. If you want to drop it don't lie about who is being deliberately obtuse. Maybe look up some facts?
 
Reactions
1,821 530 14
Maybe not shut down the government while we’re trying to figure out how we’re going to be regulating/divvying up the 5G spectrum, hmm?

—Patrick
 
Reactions
1,821 530 14
pandemic.png

According to WHO figures, there have been more than 68,000 cases of the disease, in which 553 deaths were confirmed and 373 suspected from measles since the outbreak began in September.
...Man, I really wish this coincidence ended up being funnier instead of tragic.

--Patrick
 
Reactions
331 66 0
Tomi, working through the night, staring at her computer screen:

"I call him 'Bernie make like a tree' because he needs to get outta here! No, no, already been done. Wait a minute, I got it!"
*types furiously on Twitter*
"Fucken got'em"
 
Top