followed by, " Until Further Notice"
Posted on 10/16/2015 9:13:04 AM PDT by Rockitz
I am really at the point of despair on the issue of legal immigration.
Politically, I don’t see how Conservatives survive this.
We are naturalizing 700,000 to 1 million new citizens each year, and 80% of them vote Democrat.
In addition to that, there are 8.8 million more legal permanent residents in the USA who are currently eligible for citizenship - but they have not yet applied!
Lesson learned - great countries never die.
They commit suicide!
Despite her warts, she is right on this, and the list surely begins with Obama, HRC, who knows next, Chelsea or Julian Castro?
So Fort Worth is the most Republican large city in the country?
And goes on to include every Republican president since mass legal immigration began under LBJ, none of whom acted to stop it. This is not Pub versus Dum - this is the Uniparty versus Americans.
The real problem is that any party who believes that it has a lock on any group of this size 15 years from now is living in a dreamworld. Issues change, people change, parties change. These population groups are all up for grabs in 2030. Every political party has to continually learn how to compete. And, they either do learn how to compete or another party that will is created.
Likely we will see a third party based in urban areas. The Dem’s old white folks and old black folks won’t voluntarily give up power, but will be tossed out by Muslims and Hispanics.
followed by, " Until Further Notice"
You might very well be right. There will be changes.
I provided a chart on the attitudes of Hispanics towards big government. Their attitudes have not changed that much over several generations. CA is the example of what this country will look like demographically and electorally.
Here is a good article with lots of data: REPORT: Limitless Immigration Creating Permanent Democrat Majority -
These population groups are all up for grabs in 2030. Every political party has to continually learn how to compete. And, they either do learn how to compete or another party that will is created.
What will happen is that we will move further to the left as a country as the country is transformed by immigration from the Third World.
I understand your argument. However, I’ve lived too long to believe that things will actually continue on the paths that seem so obvious. I remember how recently it was that it seemed obvious to many that the US economy was doomed because of the obvious trajectory of oil prices. And, that’s just a very small example.
I am just a youngster of 72, but even during my limited time on this planet, I see a transformation of this country that is irreversible. We are no longer the same country. And I say that as a pejorative. Immigration has changed this country for the worst.
I remember how recently it was that it seemed obvious to many that the US economy was doomed because of the obvious trajectory of oil prices. And, that’s just a very small example.
Two issues there. Our economy is doomed if we stay on the same trajectory. With a national debt that has almost doubled in the last 7 years to $19 trillion and an unfunded liability of $100 trillion in the form of our entitlement programs, there is no way our economy is not doomed.
There were plenty of people saying that oil prices could be reduced if we stopped making it difficult to exploit our own oil resources. Palin was laughed at by the left when she said we could see $2 a gallon gas. I just bought gas at !.99 a gallon. Our economy is still in deep trouble with the lowest labor participation rates in 38 years and 47 million people on food stamps.
You are right that we are doomed (for many different reasons) "if we stay on the same trajectory." You and I are alive and our lives have a trajectory. If our lives"stay on the same trajectory," we'll live forever. LOL ;-) (I know that's unfair, but I couldn't resist.)
I don't think you and I disagree as much one might think. We both know that things will change. I understand you to be saying that current trends cannot be expected to change enough to save us. You may be right. That is a possibility. And, unfortunately, you and I may never know. ;-) .
In terms of the welfare state, we have been on the same trajectory for the last 90 years. The prescription drug program and Obamacare are just the latest expansions of unsustainable programs that will bankrupt us. There is very little that can change the trajectory other than economic collapse. Americans want all the benefits a European-style welfare state can offer, but do no want to pay for it. We are in decline no matter what metric you want to use.
I don't think you and I disagree as much one might think. We both know that things will change. I understand you to be saying that current trends cannot be expected to change enough to save us. You may be right. That is a possibility. And, unfortunately, you and I may never know. ;-).
Things will change for the worse. Unlike climate change, which is beyond our control, there are hard data re our economic condition that are as predictive as the laws of gravity. The longer we wait to take action, the more painful the solutions will be. The interests of the political and corporate elites are far different than those of the people. We are on a collision course that will lead to social chaos and economic disaster. IMO we are nearer to that result than you may believe. We may indeed live to see it.
Thanks for posting this!
I can't disagree with that.
The prescription drug program and Obamacare are just the latest expansions of unsustainable programs that will bankrupt us. There is very little that can change the trajectory other than economic collapse. Americans want all the benefits a European-style welfare state can offer, but do no want to pay for it. We are in decline no matter what metric you want to use.
There is clearly a problem in this area, isn't there? I absolutely agree with you that Americans are very human in that they like governmental goodies and they don't want to pay for them.
I think that many people have learned how to rationalize their own participation. Typically, they consider themselves "entitled" to the type of benefits that they receive and believe that our budgetary problems are being caused by the types of benefits that they don't receive. In other words, their benefits are legitimate, but the benefits that they don't receive are an abuse of the system. They tend to feel the same way about taxes. They often support the types of taxes that they don't pay and oppose the types of taxes that they perceive are being imposed upon them (directly or indirectly). These are vey human reactions.
However, I think we need to be careful about projections in this area. If a system cannot work, then that reality will force a change. And, I'm not sure that that change necessarily requires a total "economic collapse." I see a lot of other alternatives. One obvious alternative is that a huge debt can be reduced by a reduction in the value of the money used to pay it. Another alternative involves reductions in real benefits relative to the size of the economic system, and still another alternative involves increases in taxes used to pay for goodies. All of these alternatives are difficult, but all of them might be less difficult than a total economic collapse.
And, that leads us to your statement that "[t]hings will change for the worse." That is a possible outcome. If you and I disagree, it is probably on this point. I'm not at all sure that a negative outcome is inevitable. I think that there are just too many unknowns to allow us to be certain that the future will be worse than the present.
But, then,I tend to be an optimist. Optimism has nearly always worked for me so I don't want to discard it and I'm probably too old to change much anyway. ;-)
By and large, the Europeans are paying for them thru higher taxation. Europeans are "very human" as well. Their politicians treat them as adults.
However, I think we need to be careful about projections in this area. If a system cannot work, then that reality will force a change. And, I'm not sure that that change necessarily requires a total "economic collapse."
It will require an existential crisis similar to what happened to SS in 1983. SS has been running in the red since 2010 and Medicare since 2008. The collapse of these programs is predictable. The annual Trustees Reports for SS and Medicare provide all the needed data. The dates that these programs will have to reduce payments by law are currently 2024 for Medicare and 2033 for SS. The SSDI Trust Fund goes belly up in 2016, next year. Congress will have to fix it next year. 40% of all Medicare expenditures come from the General Fund. Our population of those over 65 will double in the next 20 years to 78 million. In 1950 there were 16 workers to every retiree; today there are about 3; and by 2030 there will be just two.
You can provide all the "happy talk" you want, but the reality is much different.
One obvious alternative is that a huge debt can be reduced by a reduction in the value of the money used to pay it.
Are you talking about a government directed devaluation? What impact will this have globally where things like oil are valued in dollars? What does this do to our imports? Is a weak dollar in our interests? How does it impact the dollar as the world's default currency? How does if affect our foreign creditors?
Another alternative involves reductions in real benefits relative to the size of the economic system, and still another alternative involves increases in taxes used to pay for goodies. All of these alternatives are difficult, but all of them might be less difficult than a total economic collapse.
Therein lies the pain. Why haven't these alternatives been implemented? You need political leaders who will tell the American people the truth.
And, that leads us to your statement that "[t]hings will change for the worse." That is a possible outcome. If you and I disagree, it is probably on this point. I'm not at all sure that a negative outcome is inevitable. I think that there are just too many unknowns to allow us to be certain that the future will be worse than the present.
I have the benefit of some hindsight. This country is in worse shape economically than it was when I was growing up in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. Our national debt has grown from $5 trillion when Bush took office in 2001 to $18.5 trillion now. If interest rates ever return to their historical norms, out debt servicing costs will increase exponentially.
But, then,I tend to be an optimist. Optimism has nearly always worked for me so I don't want to discard it and I'm probably too old to change much anyway. ;-)
Even optimists must deal with reality. Otherwise, they would be called delusional.
And, changes can be painful. Changes by definition are disruptive. Lower governmental benefits (in real terms) will be painful to those who receive them. Higher taxes (in real terms) will be painful to those who pay them. Any dramatic reduction in the real value of the dollar (relative to other currencies or goods) will be painful for those who invest in the dollar. We may be in for some changes in all of these areas. Clearly, something will have to change.
You ask why these changes haven't yet been implemented? Well, the obvious answer is that they are all painful for somebody. For example, right now, I cannot tell you the name of any current federal elected official who advocates a current reduction in senior benefits. Not one. Most do not advocate increasing anybody's taxes. From what I can see, it's not a question of electing more people from one party or the other. None of them are advocating a solution to these problems.
But, these problems will be solved, even if it's not in our lifetime. The solutions will probably involve some rule changes and some deceptive bookkeeping, but a solution will be found.
Possibly. I notice you don't refute her assertions.
You are creating a false strawman. Of course an unworkable system will have to be changed. The questions are what will cause the change, when, and what will be the change? No one is pretending there will be no change. Certainly not me. If there is civil disorder and an economy in shambles, it could lead to more government control and a loss of civil liberties.
And, changes can be painful. Changes by definition are disruptive. Lower governmental benefits (in real terms) will be painful to those who receive them. Higher taxes (in real terms) will be painful to those who pay them. Any dramatic reduction in the real value of the dollar (relative to other currencies or goods) will be painful for those who invest in the dollar. We may be in for some changes in all of these areas. Clearly, something will have to change.
It will be painful. We have long gone past the point where it will be pain free. The only issue now is how painful and where most of the pain will reside.
You ask why these changes haven't yet been implemented? Well, the obvious answer is that they are all painful for somebody.
The longer we wait the more painful it will be. It will take leadership and an informed public to do what is necessary. I don't see any of the political leadership willing to make the necessary changes. There are some very difficult choices including a decrease in US global power and influence. Other great powers have experienced such choices as they decline.
From what I can see, it's not a question of electing more people from one party or the other. None of them are advocating a solution to these problems.
We have had many attempts, the latest being from the Simpson-Bowles commission. They always come a cropper when special interests are affected.
But, these problems will be solved, even if it's not in our lifetime. The solutions will probably involve some rule changes and some deceptive bookkeeping, but a solution will be found.
LOL. This is the attitude that has gotten us to this point. It is like waiting to treat a disease until the patient is terminal. I am very concerned about a "final solution" to these problems. We don't have the luxury of time.
See, we agree.
The questions are what will cause the change, when, and what will be the change? No one is pretending there will be no change. Certainly not me. If there is civil disorder and an economy in shambles, it could lead to more government control and a loss of civil liberties.
Well, I've tried to suggest what changes will be necessary - a reduction in real governmental benefits, an increase in real taxes and a reduction in the real value of the currency (dollar) in which the debt is denominated. We may even benefit from some dramatic technological improvement which will make us all more wealthy in real terms, but those kind of things are not very predictable. Sure, some of these changes may also involve more (or less) governmental controls and more (or less) civil liberties, but these too are less predictable.
The longer we wait the more painful it will be. It will take leadership and an informed public to do what is necessary. I don't see any of the political leadership willing to make the necessary changes. There are some very difficult choices including a decrease in US global power and influence. Other great powers have experienced such choices as they decline.
Many other countries face similar problems, At various times, people may want more or less government depending on circumstances. I can't tell you who will be the dominant global power in 50 years, but I can tell you that we begin that race with a headstart.
We don't have the luxury of time.
You and I do. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.