Is Slavery making a comeback ?...

[rayg]

That would be a lot landscaping and roofing companies, and meatpacking plants, right?

As a tangible symbol of discontent regarding the current state of our immigration laws, the wall is an unquestioned success. As cost-effective means of bringing our immigration situation to a sustainable state, it's a bad business proposition. All of the action right now is at Ports of Entry. Those Ports of Entry will still exist even with a wall. The irony is remarkable, but not altogether surprising, that the segment of the electorate that regularly decries Federal boondoggles has their heart set on one of the biggest boondoggles to be proposed in decades.

As mentioned above," all of the action right now is at Ports of Entry".

I wonder just how many illegals actually do come in through our ports as opposed to the thousands that come in over the border? Is it that easy for an illegal to come through our ports? Ray .

[Allen]

As mentioned above," all of the action right now is at Ports of Entry".

I wonder just how many illegals actually do come in through our ports as opposed to the thousands that come in over the border? Is it that easy for an illegal to come through our ports? Ray .

I've always heard that most of the Chinese that came here illegally did so by entering Canada first. There's no way to build a fence and patrol the Northern border. Cuba is only 90 miles away so think of how many come here unnoticed from there. Nearby where I live there are bayous where people could enter undetected and states like Louisiana are full of them. Then there is Puerto Rica where anybody can migrate to illegally then move to the U.S. as "citizens".

If we continue trade relations with Mexico they are going to have to do more on inspections. We shouldn't have to use physical manpower to check and x-ray cargo coming in. This should be done in their country way before making it to the border gates. When illegal activity is found there should be a reduction or elimination of that type cargo till Mexico can assure they are doing their part. The best thing to do long term is probably sever all trade with them especially since their chief export is Mexicans.

While the wall will help with a lot of the smuggling of drugs and people the best thing to do is cut off the head of the snake and that would be welfare. Welfare should be a temporary only program just for tax paying citizens and not determined on a state level since it is federal money.

As long as the government gives our country away they will come to take it.

[Clark Howard]

The same dems who abhor slavery in any form still think that sharia law, which permits slavery, is just fine.

[Vern Humphrey]

The same dems who abhor slavery in any form still think that sharia law, which permits slavery, is just fine.

They are Democrats and consistency is not in them.

Basically, the National Socialists want POWER. They use the term "slavery" to attract people opposed to slavery, so they can enslave them.

[Allen]

Basically, the National Socialists want POWER. They use the term "slavery" to attract people opposed to slavery, so they can enslave them.

In short: "socialism IS slavery"

[Vern Humphrey]

It certainly is. And here's a telling clue; When slavery was legal, there were slaves who worked independently -- often as skilled craftsmen. When such a slave made money, the money belonged to his master. So for the master to allow the slave to keep some of the money literally "cost the master money."

Now listen to the National Socialists talk about tax cuts and how they'll "cost the government money."

Tell me they don't regard us as their slaves!

[S.A. Boggs]

We could do as the IDF does on their borders now.
Sam

[togor]

It certainly is. And here's a telling clue; When slavery was legal, there were slaves who worked independently -- often as skilled craftsmen. When such a slave made money, the money belonged to his master. So for the master to allow the slave to keep some of the money literally "cost the master money."

Now listen to the National Socialists talk about tax cuts and how they'll "cost the government money."

Tell me they don't regard us as their slaves!

Trolling?

Sure, it's our money. But by extension they're also our roads, schools, military, hospitals, etc. A guy buys a house, moves in, and then refuses to put even a nickel into upkeep. Is that smart? Look at the Federal pie and tell me what you want to cut, and how much. The way it is done now, which is to start putting payments on the credit card, on the expectation that running up a large debt will someday cause us to stop spending, someday, is not working.

[S.A. Boggs]

It certainly is. And here's a telling clue; When slavery was legal, there were slaves who worked independently -- often as skilled craftsmen. When such a slave made money, the money belonged to his master. So for the master to allow the slave to keep some of the money literally "cost the master money."

Now listen to the National Socialists talk about tax cuts and how they'll "cost the government money."

Tell me they don't regard us as their slaves!

The issue is to CUT THE EXPANSION of benefits, not increase due to the Treasury taking in more money. Socialists need people on the dole to increase their good will and buy votes, Conservatives want people off the dole onto jobs and paying taxes. More people working, paying taxes, less need for social programs and the ability to decrease the federal budget. The same side of the coin is when budgets are cut the "but" syndrome comes into play "But" if you cut the welfare budget "innocent children will starve!" is usually their rational. Children are in need now due to the inactions of their parent[s] and that is reality. People continue to do drugs in public housing knowing full well of expulsion when caught, yet they continue to do it. When caught the socialist scream "what about the children!" when the eviction comes. I full expect for "our" three National Socialists to utilize the "but" syndrome or "how come" syndrome. If one wants to see Socialist failure look at any large socialist led city and see the results. My fear is what is going to happen in the future when the money stops or is drastically curtailed due to lack of funding. The government is burning the candle fast and one day no one will want to buy our debt then what happens to all? Remember the song, "Eve of Destruction" will once again come into vogue.
Sam

[Roadkingtrax]

Boggs, wage stagnation and supply side economics lead to loss of revenue and cuts to the same programs you no doubt benefit from. In fact, I believe it was just reported that this administration is spending in excess of any previous administration...adjusted for inflation.

I'm sure by now you've benefited enough.

[Vern Humphrey]

The issue is to CUT THE EXPANSION of benefits, not increase due to the Treasury taking in more money. Socialists need people on the dole to increase their good will and buy votes, Conservatives want people off the dole onto jobs and paying taxes. More people working, paying taxes, less need for social programs and the ability to decrease the federal budget. The same side of the coin is when budgets are cut the "but" syndrome comes into play "But" if you cut the welfare budget "innocent children will starve!" is usually their rational. Children are in need now due to the inactions of their parent[s] and that is reality. People continue to do drugs in public housing knowing full well of expulsion when caught, yet they continue to do it. When caught the socialist scream "what about the children!" when the eviction comes. I full expect for "our" three National Socialists to utilize the "but" syndrome or "how come" syndrome. If one wants to see Socialist failure look at any large socialist led city and see the results. My fear is what is going to happen in the future when the money stops or is drastically curtailed due to lack of funding. The government is burning the candle fast and one day no one will want to buy our debt then what happens to all? Remember the song, "Eve of Destruction" will once again come into vogue.
Sam

And it's amazing how they don't understand it.

They say things like, "You can't raise a family on minimum wage." Here's a hot flash, a family is a RESPONSIBILITY. If you can't discharge that responsibility, don't START a family. Work harder, get promoted and THEN you can think about starting a family.

But personal responsibility isn't politically correct, is it?

[Roadkingtrax]

And it's amazing how they don't understand it.

They say things like, "You can't raise a family on minimum wage." Here's a hot flash, a family is a RESPONSIBILITY. If you can't discharge that responsibility, don't START a family. Work harder, get promoted and THEN you can think about starting a family.

But personal responsibility isn't politically correct, is it?

So, cut all Medicare and Social Security, retroactively from oldest to youngest?

[S.A. Boggs]

And it's amazing how they don't understand it.

They say things like, "You can't raise a family on minimum wage." Here's a hot flash, a family is a RESPONSIBILITY. If you can't discharge that responsibility, don't START a family. Work harder, get promoted and THEN you can think about starting a family.

But personal responsibility isn't politically correct, is it?

You are right Vern, "they" don't understand it. Welfare is free money plain and simple to the socialists use to buy votes. Let's say that 20% of the welfare budget was cut who would scream the loudest? How many would find a job to support self and family? In my experience not many, riots, picketing and plain old drug dealing will take up the slack. Having seen much first hand I have become a cynic in this regard. Every time I mentioned finding them a job the reply was, "But, I will lose my benefits!" was the usual reply. When I told them that was the idea I got the reply of no! "Our" three are overseers in their scope of things that is evident, unable to see what is paid into as opposed as to taxes being used to garner votes.
Sam

[Vern Humphrey]

You are right Vern, "they" don't understand it. Welfare is free money plain and simple to the socialists use to buy votes. Let's say that 20% of the welfare budget was cut who would scream the loudest? How many would find a job to support self and family? In my experience not many, riots, picketing and plain old drug dealing will take up the slack. Having seen much first hand I have become a cynic in this regard. Every time I mentioned finding them a job the reply was, "But, I will lose my benefits!" was the usual reply. When I told them that was the idea I got the reply of no! "Our" three are overseers in their scope of things that is evident, unable to see what is paid into as opposed as to taxes being used to garner votes.
Sam

You're right. Bob Bechtel (remember him, the liberal on FOX) once said, "You don't understand. Poverty programs are not meant to REDUCE poverty, they are meant to make people in poverty more comfortable." And he could have gone on to say, "The more people in poverty, the better it is for the Left."

[togor]

You're right. Bob Bechtel (remember him, the liberal on FOX) once said, "You don't understand. Poverty programs are not meant to REDUCE poverty, they are meant to make people in poverty more comfortable." And he could have gone on to say, "The more people in poverty, the better it is for the Left."

https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/

The statistics are sobering. Basically we have an old man, Vernon, wondering why young people don't do it the way he did when he was young, over 50 years ago. The answer is that it's a different economy, much less forgiving at the bottom. That older economy was also much kinder to blue collar workers than this one. The graphic on worker productivity versus stagnating pay really tells the story. People produce more but get the same pay, and the excess profits flow elsewhere.

In a system like this, the advantage to the wealthy of giving people just enough free stuff is obvious--it keeps them from being angry and hungry and taking to the streets to demand change to a system that is allowing those with wealth to accrue more at ever faster rates. I dare anyone...go through the graphs at the site, compare 2019 to how it was when you were a kid, and explain to us all how you would have made it on half of what you made then, because for too many today, that's the deal.

Meanwhile, some young people say "hey we need to look at this" while old people enjoying multiple subsidies go on about Socialism.