This posting is a response to a bunch of people commenting on a Deseret News post, calling undocumented immigrants "not dignified," among other things:
You people are sick! I could care less if you guys were racist or not, but I'm sure most if not all of you don't have any close minority friends. In order to fix the immigration problem, we need trade reform. Yes I know it was Clinton that signed NAFTA into law, but that was because he was quite conservative economically. It's your culture of spending that encourages our corporations to go across the border to exploit those people, yet you barely see a fraction of the lowered cost that those greedy corporations, who stole jobs from this country, are hording.
Our nation could have a tremendous impact on the economic well being of these people by refusing to trade with their nations if they fail to reform their wage and labor laws. This is also the only way to achieve any real, cost effective immigration reform. All our increasing security at the border has done, besides cost the tax payer a ton, is force the immigrants to cross in more dangerous areas and stay permanently, exacerbating the increased social burden you people worry so much about. Maybe you should have compassion on these HUMAN BEINGS!
Friday, April 9, 2010
Friday, April 2, 2010
Why I want overhauled health care
When I point out the inefficiencies of our current health system and advocate adopting a system similar to or a mixture of the more efficient ones that are already employed by other nations, I do so BECAUSE I see the benefit for EVERYONE, not just the "have-nots". When it comes to improved welfare systems, I see it as a loan that will be repaid when the people get back on their feet. It's not about charity, it's about strengthening our economy for the benefit of all, INCLUDING the "haves". The more people can be free from the crushing debt of illness imposed by insurance companies, and are gainfully employed, the more our nation prospers as a whole.
If all that was necessary to help our economy was to ease the wealthy's tax burdens, then why is it that after NAFTA was enacted, they shipped jobs overseas where their costs where next to nothing, compared to what they were here, yet the costs of their products only dipped slightly? Or, why is it that when the government bailed out financial institutions, they only used the money to pay off their debts and compensate their employees handsomely for a job poorly done? I'm not implying that you or anyone else on here were advocates for the bailouts, but they were a perfect example of how greed prevents the trickle down theory from being all that effective. The point is, we can have lower taxes for the businesses that will eventually employ our unemployed, but to have a system that is better equipped at helping people get the point where they are working, makes sound economic sense.
If all that was necessary to help our economy was to ease the wealthy's tax burdens, then why is it that after NAFTA was enacted, they shipped jobs overseas where their costs where next to nothing, compared to what they were here, yet the costs of their products only dipped slightly? Or, why is it that when the government bailed out financial institutions, they only used the money to pay off their debts and compensate their employees handsomely for a job poorly done? I'm not implying that you or anyone else on here were advocates for the bailouts, but they were a perfect example of how greed prevents the trickle down theory from being all that effective. The point is, we can have lower taxes for the businesses that will eventually employ our unemployed, but to have a system that is better equipped at helping people get the point where they are working, makes sound economic sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)