Welcome To Trump World

[Shelby_]

^^^Unfortunately there isn’t any room left on the hook. I’m still wiping through your earlier posts.

Just for you I'll make my posts even longer. Winter is coming and you'll need something to warm your Waltucky trailer.

[oladub]

bust, Nothing ventured, nothing gained. The Danish Prime Minister could have been more diplomat than to characterize her upcoming guest's idea as 'absurd'. If I had an important visitor coming to my home or business, the tax accessor or my wife's relative, I wouldn't make public reference to them with terms like absurd. A 'no' would have sufficed. The PM knows that now. Maybe the Danish PM was so used to being in an environment where being anti-Trump is de regueur and she forgot herself not considering consequences.

The rest of your post comes off like you are having a bad day with your TDS. I can list Trump foibles and messes too but, in the end, Democrats also oppose borders, show contempt for American workers, and patronize global interests. You forgot the Russia/Mueller/coup thing. I suspect that Biden, or if need be Warren, will pick up where W. Bush and Obama left off pleasing international corporate interests.

Not very related to Trump: Glancing at Greenland's history, I learned this: Norway and Denmark were united until being on the losing side of the Napoleonic wars. To punish Denmark, Norway was given to Sweden. After Sweden relinquished Norway in 1907, Norway made claim to Greenland which it had a better historical claim to than Denmark. An international commission sided with Denmark. I was unclear about the present relationship between Denmark and Greenland. One of Greenland's provinces having the U.S. Thule air base is administered by the U.S.. As Greenland gets more home rule, it could kick out the U.S. and cut deals with other countries. Wikipedia says this:

In 1979, Denmark granted home rule to Greenland, and in 2008, Greenlanders voted in favor of the Self-Government Act, which transferred more power from the Danish government to the local Greenlandic government. Under the new structure, in effect since 21 June 2009, Greenland can gradually assume responsibility for policing, judicial system, company law, accounting, and auditing; mineral resource activities; aviation; law of legal capacity, family law and succession law; aliens and border controls; the working environment; and financial regulation and supervision, while the Danish government retains control of foreign affairs and defense. It also retains control of monetary policy, providing an initial annual subsidy of DKK 3.4 billion, which is planned to diminish gradually over time. Greenland expects to grow its economy based on increased income from the extraction of natural resources. At 70%, Greenland has one of the highest shares of renewable energy in the world, mostly coming from hydropower

[Richard]

I am not troubled or concerned about immigrants coming to America, even a little bit. I'm much more concerned with what is happening to them when they get here. Taking into account the possibility that I'm completely wrong, I researched some immigration info.

These facts are courtesy of those bleeding heart liberals over at the Koch funded CATO Institute:


On the Numbers:Immigrants make up approximately 13.5% of the total U.S. population.

More than sixty percent of immigrants in the United States today have lived here for at least 15 years, and the large majority [[76%) of immigrants have lawful status.


More than sixty percent of immigrants in the United States today have lived here for at least 15 years, and the large majority [[76%) of immigrants have lawful status. Of the approximately 43.7 million immigrants in the U.S. in 2016, 20.2 million [[approximately 44.7 percent) were naturalized citizens. Together, lawful permanent residents [[sometimes referred to as green card holders), people in the United States on temporary visas including student and work visas, refugees and people seeking asylum, and undocumented immigrants made up the remaining 55.3 percent of immigrants.
In 2016, there were 10.7 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., or less than 3.5 percent of the nation's population. This represents a significant decrease [[13%) from the 12.2 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. in 2007, and is the lowest total since 2004.


Taxes


Immigrants collectively pay between $90 and $140 billion each year in taxes, and a recent study found that undocumented immigrants alone pay approximately $11.64 billion in taxes each year. Moreover, undocumented immigrants nationwide pay an estimated 8 percent of their income in state and local taxes [[their effective state and local tax rate), which is higher than the effective tax rate of the top 1 percent of all taxpayers in the U.S.


Everyone pays sales taxes on goods they purchase and property taxes on the homes they buy or rent, and more than half of all undocumented immigrant households file income tax returns using Individual Tax Identification Numbers.

Crime

Studies have consistently found that immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans and that there is a negative correlation between levels of immigration and crime rates. Other studies have in fact found that crime rates are lowest in states with the highest immigration growth rates, and that states with larger shares of undocumented immigrants tend to have lower crime rates than states with smaller shares.


On Draining the System


On average immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits, meaning the taxes they pay more than cover the cost of things like public education and healthcare.


With very few exceptions [[such as access to medical care for victims of human trafficking), undocumented immigrants are not eligible for federal public benefits such as Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and food stamps.

In addition, most immigrants with lawful status are not entitled to these benefits until they have been in the country for five years or longer. This means that Social Security is often being deducted from immigrantsÂ’ paychecks but they cannot access those benefits. Eligible immigrants use 27% fewer benefits relative to U.S. natives of similar incomes and ages.



--------------------------------------------------------
It is my opinion the Trump Administration wants to curtail both illegal and legal immigration:

The administration has all but shut AmericaÂ’s doors to refugees fleeing war, disaster and oppression. TheyÂ’ve tried to make it impossible to seek asylum if youÂ’re coming from the south. TheyÂ’ve allowed officials to reject green card applications for trivial paperwork reasons such as a missing blank page, without allowing applicants to fix the errors. TheyÂ’ve proposed raising immigration filing fees, just to make things more difficult.


And now, they’re following through on a proposal they first suggested not long after President Trump took office and officially unveiled last year, to use a 19th-century “public charge” principle to deny green cards and citizenship to legal immigrants who have ever used a public benefit such as Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program or food stamps. The policy goes even further:

Factors that can count against a green card applicant include having “a medical condition” that will interfere with work or school; not having enough money to cover “any reasonably foreseeable medical costs” related to such a medical condition; having “financial liabilities;” having been approved to receive a public benefit, even if the individual has not actually received the benefit; having a low credit score; the absence of private health insurance; the absence of a college degree; not having the English language skills “sufficient to enter the job market;” or having a sponsor who is “unlikely” to provide financial support.

Ask yourself, would you be excluded?

If illegals are so self sufficient why is the US government paying out over $116 billion?

In Florida alone the taxpayers cost for illegal immigration is 6 billion.

Can we send em up there?

Can the state of Michigan afford another 6 billion dollars liability?

Think your pot holes are not getting fixed now try picking up that tab.

Everybody that does not bear the cost of illegal immigration always says,they do not bother me,sure as long as it is not coming out of thier pocket.

But it is on the federal side.

So cut us a refund check for 6 billion and we can load you up,people talk about our poor not having free healthcare how do you think illegals get health care?

It does not matter who you are,an emergency room has to except you,the hospital by me was 4 stories tall,they mothballed two floors so they could regulate intake to those who pay,sorry no beds advailable,you have to go to the next hospital.

We have clinics in fla for illegals,they do not except citizens,they do not need Medicare or Medicare,they have it free,so it is easy to say they do not have it.

[Zacha341]

^^^ Are we talking about undocumented [[illegal) individuals or immigrants otherwise?

If immigrants and undocumented are blended the figures will always be askew. SO too the politics!

If we're tossing about abundant free healthcare and other services FOR everyone, we can and NEED to do that HERE first!

Last I checked services are NOT in abundance. If they are, then why is Detroit's infant mortality rates so high; so many impoverished, sick and dying right here! Why that seeing we have such excess for illegals too?

Where's the access to health and social service care for Detroiter's including our aging populations? That we have such EXTRA? Who'd have known??

What's the hold up? Is the line for those in need to get shorter or longer by not having immigration policy or rule of law?

Health and mental health care is very hard to obtain and afford. Where is the interest and protection for our Michigan children and families?

That should be priority!

[oladub]

Shelby post 3323, I was addressing illegal non-citizens, You switched the topic pretty much to the vaguer Orwellian term "immigrants" with your cut and paste tome. The Kochs you mentioned support illegal immigration and shipping jobs abroad. Bad example. My father and maternal grandparents were "immigrants" so I think I know what immigrants are. You mentioned "public charge". When my father immigrated, his father in law had to sign papers saying he would be liable for the financial support my father if necessary. They came here legally. Of course, maybe you were referring to three of the 9/11 crew who overstayed their visas although I would not dignify why they came here as coming under the umbrella of being "immigrants".

By my rough calculations the grade 1-12 children of illegal non-citizens consume about $53B of taxpayer money yearly.The Department of Justice says that 26% of federal prisoners are aliens. All this costs money. The low wage jobs illegal non-citizens take away from American students and workers drives down wages. Their wages don't begin to pay for taxes to offset their costs. Trump put low income people into lower income brackets. If, on the other hand, you meant legal IT workers from India and Pakistan, their higher salaries do contribute higher taxes and they probably commit less than their share of crimes.

Good for Trump if he cut the number of people claiming to be 'refugees' from dysfunctional societies. We already have quotas, as set by Congress from each country. I know a lot of Chamber of Commerce Republicans would love to flood the country with cheap labor. It's very profitable. Democrats hope to turn open borders into votes so they have their failed socialist utopia. Put Chamber of Commerce Republicans and Democrats together and we'll get a globalist corporatist state. Meanwhile there are at least 8,000 MS-13 members in the U.S.. Over 900 were caught crossing the border illegally since 2017. Recently, 19 were arrested for chopping up some up some people in California into parts. You include them as "immigrants" right?

I didn't mention that my maternal grandfather was denied entrance to the U. S. when he tried to come in legally from Canada. He was denied entry because he couldn't speak English. So he found a job building railroads in northern Ontario and learned English from other workers. Having learned English, he was allowed into the U.S. a year later.

A thoughtful article from the Atlantic,
"If Liberals won't enforce Borders, Fascists will"
You'll have to click the link to my tome but only if interested.

[bust]

Immigration is an incredibly complex issue and the complexities are far too many for an average person to understand. Who has the time?

Especially not when the news devoted to it is heavily driven by sensationalism, amped by outrageous claims by the president and his supporters, some on the other side are reciprocating in reverse, and anyone who doesn't craft their ideas into a sound bite gets no time on air. And not when debate moderators offer candidates only 30 seconds to respond to a question about it, or instruct them simply to indicate their opinion by raising their hand without any opportunity to explain.

I regret that this has become such a big issue during this election cycle. Immigration reform is a worthy goal but practical realities make it a losing issue for Democrats. It deserves a lot more thoughtful consideration than results from the verbal fistfight format our mainstream news media favors for its political coverage, and the horse race it favors for elections.

In this kind of an environment it is easy to mislead. Easy to mischaracterize your ideological opponents. Easy to manipulate by playing on fears and other emotions. Simple positions win the day, no matter how empty they may be. It is the perfect wedge issue that can break off a sizeable set of voters from a party with whom they in almost every other way they agree.

This is not a topic Democrats are wise to pursue during an election. No wonder Republicans keep shouting about it.

It's a trap even those rare times when Republicans seem willing to discuss the topic rationally. And it is almost always better not even to respond when, as is more often the case, they make ridiculous claims.

Have we still not learned how Trump and his cadre control the news cycle?

[Richard]

^^^ Are we talking about undocumented [[illegal) individuals or immigrants otherwise?

If immigrants and undocumented are blended the figures will always be askew. SO too the politics!

If we're tossing about abundant free healthcare and other services FOR everyone, we can and NEED to do that HERE first!

Last I checked services are NOT in abundance, if so, then why is Detroit's infant mortality rates so high; so many sick and dying right here, seeing we have such excess?

Where's the access to health and social service care for Detroiter's including our aging populations? That we have such EXTRA? Who'd have known??

What's the hold up? Is the line for those in need to get shorter or longer?

Health and mental health care is very hard to obtain and afford. Where is the interest and protection for our Michigan children and families?

That should be priority!

Different clinics,refugees have one,which is okay because the children get updated shots etc.

The clinic for the illegals is a Medicaid/Medicare clinic also but no need to show any ID.

They are full blown clinics with pharmacy,if they need hospitalization all the paperwork is handled by the clinic.

The federal government does reimbursement to the hospitals for what is called indigent care,so in an emergency they will except anybody.

The Florida number is 6 billion just to cover the costs for illegals,no they cannot apply for food stamps or emergency assistance but they can go to a service center and receive those benefits.

That way they are not counted on the food stamp or emergency assistance state rolls,technically no they do not receive those services according to the state records of food stamp recipients.

They just call it something else and receive it that way.

We do not spend 6 billion on illegals out of thin air,it is spent.

[Richard]

Immigration is an incredibly complex issue and the complexities are far too many for an average person to understand. Who has the time?

Especially not when the news devoted to it is heavily driven by sensationalism, amped by outrageous claims by the president and his supporters, some on the other side are reciprocating in reverse, and anyone who doesn't craft their ideas into a sound bite gets no time on air. And not when debate moderators offer candidates only 30 seconds to respond to a question about it, or instruct them simply to indicate their opinion by raising their hand without any opportunity to explain.

I regret that this has become such a big issue during this election cycle. Immigration reform is a worthy goal but practical realities make it a losing issue for Democrats. It deserves a lot more thoughtful consideration than results from the verbal fistfight format our mainstream news media favors for its political coverage, and the horse race it favors for elections.

In this kind of an environment it is easy to mislead. Easy to mischaracterize your ideological opponents. Easy to manipulate by playing on fears and other emotions. Simple positions win the day, no matter how empty they may be. It is the perfect wedge issue that can break off a sizeable set of voters from a party with whom they in almost every other way they agree.

This is not a topic Democrats are wise to pursue during an election. No wonder Republicans keep shouting about it.

It's a trap even those rare times when Republicans seem willing to discuss the topic rationally. And it is almost always better not even to respond when, as is more often the case, they make ridiculous claims.

Have we still not learned how Trump and his cadre control the news cycle?

Well said.

Trump is not controlling the news cycle,the news cycle obsesses with every little thing that pops up,relevant or not.

He plays them like the devil that went down to Texas,and they lap it up.

One really has to wonder why they allow themselves to be played so much,every day every hour.

It does not matter anyways,according to AOC if we do not come up with 92 trillion immediately,we are all dead,that is $600,000 per family,do you have your checkbook ready?

You know she just discovered the garbage disposal and has decided that it is not climate appropriate,and you guys find her normal and Trump whacked out???

Political immigration debate has been going on before the 1920s,What is clear is we can no longer kick the can down the road with it anymore,I have as much compassion as the next guy but I believe as an American citizen it is my duty to be compassionate to my fellow Americans first.

When the day comes where I can walk through any inner city and ask if everybody has what they need,and when the do have that then we can look at helping others.

To many Americans are suffering to just cast them aside,that is a fact,not posturing or taking a side or being a trump supporter,that is caring for your fellow Americans first,I do not know anybody that would become homeless in order to provide somebody else a home.

[bust]

bust, Nothing ventured, nothing gained....

I'm still not sure you understand: I don't have any issue with the idea of proposing to purchase Greenland. Even if now during this period of exploding deficits seems like a bad time to do it. And no matter how unlikely the idea was to succeed.

My issue is the same one just about everyone has with the situation: The way Trump went about it. It began incompetently, then quickly got worse.

What fool would stand in front of news cameras to discuss his intention before even speaking to Denmark's leaders first? And then claim Greenland "hurts Denmark very badly," as if we'd be doing them a favor to take a liability off their hands. As if with that argument he could negotiate a better price. It was a ridiculously disrespectful insult to the intelligence of the leaders and people of Denmark and Greenland.

No wonder the idea was characterized as "absurd." Even if they may not have thought so had he inquired respectfully, after so bungling the approach, it certainly was.

But even worse was Trump's childish insolence when his harebrained public proposition was, unsurprisingly, publicly rejected. I said it before:

Like an insolent child unable to accept that his flirtations were rejected, he had a tantrum and stormed off, kicking the dirt along the way. Hardly a way to treat a Queen, especially one that is a proven ally. His ego was hurt, and that's all that matters to him, so he put everything else at risk.

He even had the nerve to pout how the Danish prime minister is "nasty" and didn't treat him nicely. That comes from a man who can't go a day without gleefully hurling personal insults on Twitter, before the cameras, and in person. He has no self-awareness.

How did he cancel his state visit with the Queen? On Twitter.

It was his behavior that is idiotic.

What a shame if, as you say "Maybe the Danish PM was so used to being in an environment where being anti-Trump is de regueur..." Not only has Denmark been one of our most reliable NATO allies, it is among the US' "9-Eyes" countries who share intelligence against common enemies, and it already permits our large US military base on Greenland.

You are right to worry that "as Greenland gets more home rule, it could kick out the U.S. and cut deals with other countries." Trump may covet Greenland, but he certainly has not increased the likelihood he'll get it. On the contrary, it stands to reason his incompetent, childish, and insulting behavior encourages the possibility we'll lose the privileges we've already been granted there instead.

[Richard]

^ he planted the seed in thier head,it is totally irrelevant if they want to do it or not,as much as people dislike Trump,or feel he should not be there or whatever,no matter what anybody says,he would not be where he is without the ability to be steps ahead of everybody else.

We know he offered to buy Greenland.

He just did not pull that out of the air for no reason,there is something else going on that we are not being told,yet.

Wacked out or not,he has probably got a plan up his sleeve,weather or not he was serious,it shure got people talking.

All of these reporters,how many do you know by name,as of now there is not a man woman or child in this country that does not hear the name Trump in a daily basis,tomorrow they will not remember what they were talking about today,but Trump will still be planted in thier mind.

[bust]

Pretty sure Trump didn't plant a seed with this last episode, he reaffirmed a longstanding belief he formed by providing plenty of evidence to precede it...

That Trump is a malign inept insulting juvenile fool.

Does this Danish PM seem like she has any respect for him?



https://twitter.com/IdaAuken/status/1163873544658403329

[Canadian Visitor]

FFS

No matter one's politics, you have to have know........

Trump never seriously offered to buy Greenland.

He offered to distract the media while he was up to something else.

Not a new game, not unique to Republicans or the political right, though they seem to have done it in more extreme fashions as of late.

But this was pure play trolling.

Trump may not be as bright as he thinks or says. [[near certainty) but he's not so dumb as to make a serious proposal of this scale, this way.

This was entirely for the edification of media to devote space too, instead of something more substantial.

That's the extent of the nefarious plot and thought process.

All one needs to understand is "Look at the shiny object in my left hand....pay no attention to what the right hand is doing"

[bust]

You're right: there was no nefarious plot here. No one said there was. Oh wait, Richard did.

But do you really think insulting our close ally, badmouthing the PM, and his cancellation of his meeting with the Queen at the 11th hour after extensive preparations had already been made were all calculated pieces of a con game?

First, I think you give the man far too much credit. There's no doubt he's skilled at the art of media misdirection, but this time it seems he stumbled into it. Wouldn't he rather he do it in a way that doesn't make him look like a fool?

Second, even if you're right this was an example of masterful media manipulation, at what expense did it come? Putting at jeopardy our close political and strategic relationship? Our favored status and extensive privileges in Greenland? Our international reputation, again?

Would you characterize that as "dumb"?

I'm hope you'll elaborate your opinion.

[Richard]

Link for the 11th hour cancellation with the queen?

Greenland base only reason for existence was for early warning radar that satellites replaced,Cold War is over,the base is obsolete.

Base agreement in 1941 was in exchange for protection,has Greenland ever been invaded?

We paid for our extensive privileges in Greenland and still do by pumping millions into thier economy.They can keep it,we do not need it.

We have fuel tankers flying every day out of Tampa fueling planes in flight in the Middle East,we have satellites that can watch somebody sitting naked in thier living room in Russia while sitting in an easy chair in Kansas,we control drones in Tampa that are 5000 miles away,we do not need a Cold War relic that is sitting on an icecap costing hundreds of millions,that money could be spent elsewhere.

If I was an international leader I would be pissed at the United States also,no more plane loads of cash,no more dumping products on America,no more free military protection,no more charge the United States for tariffs but expect them not to charge you,no more EU trying to control sovereign nations,the list goes on.

Funny how most of the newcomers in power across the world are referred to as being Trumpish,but yet winning.

Everybody hates the US but if tanks start rolling across thier borders,who are they going to call?

Should we be upset because rocket man,China,Venezuela,Iran,Cuba etc hates Trump? Who cares.

Germany,England,France,Itialy,Spain and many other countries are doing the exact same thing as Trump is,because people across the world are tired and have had enough of the BS of thier citizens being put in last place in thier own country,if they were not they would not be electing the leaders that they have been.

Poland offered to build us a billion dollar base to be there,but we have bases in Germany that cover the entire European theatre including Russia,so it was not necessary.

Outside of what the media is telling you who are these leaders that say our reputation is tarnished,and even more who cares?

[oladub]

Bust post 847, I didn't suggest that you ever had a problem with purchasing Greenland wherever you got that idea. I don't think the idea was 'absurd' because much of the United States was purchased and Truman made an offer for Greenland that was turned down. No one is calling Truman's offer "absurd". Trump didn't even make an offer. If you review my recent posts here, you will find that I referred to both the President and PM as falling short of being diplomatic. "Absurd" was a poor and costly choice of words even if the PM didn't like the idea.

This isn't a reference to what you know but livestock and grain used to be raised in Greenland. That was a thousand years ago and over that time we've had some global cooling. Assuming global warming is now happening, Greenland will improve as an investment being along a new northern trade route. China just ordered 6 new ice breakers. I wonder why some Greenlanders are considering getting rid of the U.S. Thule base. Maybe they are bargaining for higher rent knowing Russian and China might be interested.

Not politics - Wedding at Hvasey, Greenland. The captain marries crew members sailing on his ship between Norway and Chicago at a church that hadn't been used for 600 years. I made a pilgrimage to see the Harald Harfagre along its route. That red and white flag is Greenland's flag. Barren countryside in background. On the 26th day of May. the grass is not yet green in Greenland.

[Canadian Visitor]

You're right: there was no nefarious plot here. No one said there was. Oh wait, Richard did.

But do you really think insulting our close ally, badmouthing the PM, and his cancellation of his meeting with the Queen at the 11th hour after extensive preparations had already been made were all calculated pieces of a con game?

First, I think you give the man far too much credit. There's no doubt he's skilled at the art of media misdirection, but this time it seems he stumbled into it. Wouldn't he rather he do it in a way that doesn't make him look like a fool?

Second, even if you're right this was an example of masterful media manipulation, at what expense did it come? Putting at jeopardy our close political and strategic relationship? Our favored status and extensive privileges in Greenland? Our international reputation, again?

Would you characterize that as "dumb"?

I'm hope you'll elaborate your opinion.

Superficially dumb, sure. One can't commend such actions as anything else.

But, I honestly don't think Trump has all that big a say in how his government operates.

At the macro level its a gargantuan machine at the scale of the U.S. Federal government that goes about its business, mostly unchanged from one administration to the next.

At the micro level, a host of people and institutions insert their own ideas and interests and limit those of others.

For instance, indications are that Trump doesn't do his own Tweeting. Most, if not all of it come from this fellow:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/m...f-offense.html

Dan Scavino.

Notwithstanding this very public story, the media happily goes on with the narrative "President Trump tweeted.... blah today" when there is virtually zero chance he did any such thing.

I'm sure, as the occupant of the White House some things are in fact run by this President; and when they aren't, he's at least told about them after the fact.

To be clear, I don't like his entire administration in substance or in tone.

I just think he has a lot less to do with it than people think. He strikes me as a useful figurehead for other interests.

I'm sure some international leaders/governments are given heads up on some of the sillier antics; if not before, then right after.

I don't think this latest round of silliness has materially changed the perceptions of the United States as held by the Queen or the PM of Denmark.

The personal relationship w/Trump, to the extent their is/was one might be a bit dinged; but I can't imagine that will change any real facts on the ground.

It would surprise no one that in much of the world the United States is not seen in a fond light; that was true in some measure even under Obama; but the rhetorical flourish of Mr. Trump is certainly knocking the US down a few points in global opinion.

Will that really change all that much though? I'm not so sure.

Take a look at where US military bases were around the world 15 years ago, then 10, then 5, then now. I think you'd see surprisingly little change.

The machine keeps on moving, whoever the spokesperson is on Pennsylvania Avenue.

[Richard]

^ after reading that this comes to mind

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=stdi-1tIUhM

[Zacha341]

Yep, good for ANY president that continues with reasonable push-back to those attempting to gang and flout our immigration system. Part of the current problem and perception of immigration in general to some extent, and illegals specifically is the connection to Trump as president.

The disgust, disagreement, push-back against Trump and immigration law [[even with it flaws) has become very conflated. Affecting at many levels our understanding of core immigration policy: Donald Trump says no, so of course it must be the goal of some to go against that. Consequences be darned!

The system is complex and broken but cannot be discarded. Recall former president Obama's stand on immigration:

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...on-immigration

Remarks by the President [Obama] in Address to the Nation on Immigration

For more than 200 years, our tradition of welcoming immigrants from around the world has given us a tremendous advantage over other nations. It’s kept us youthful, dynamic, and entrepreneurial. It has shaped our character as a people with limitless possibilities –- people not trapped by our past, but able to remake ourselves as we choose.

But today, our immigration system is broken -- and everybody knows it. Families who enter our country the right way and play by the rules watch others flout the rules. Business owners who offer their workers good wages and benefits see the competition exploit undocumented immigrants by paying them far less. All of us take offense to anyone who reaps the rewards of living in America without taking on the responsibilities of living in America. And undocumented immigrants who desperately want to embrace those responsibilities see little option but to remain in the shadows, or risk their families being torn apart.

It’s been this way for decades. And for decades, we haven’t done much about it....

...Good for Trump if he cut the number of people claiming to be 'refugees' from dysfunctional societies. We already have quotas, as set by Congress from each country. I know a lot of Chamber of Commerce Republicans would love to flood the country with cheap labor. It's very profitable. Democrats hope to turn open borders into votes so they have their failed socialist utopia. Put Chamber of Commerce Republicans and Democrats together and we'll get a globalist corporatist state. Meanwhile there are at least 8,000 MS-13 members in the U.S.. Over 900 were caught crossing the border illegally since 2017. Recently, 19 were arrested for chopping up some up some people in California into parts. You include them as "immigrants" right?

[Pam]

Some of you here may be familiar with TVOntario; the educational broadcaster owned by the province of Ontario.

On my FB feed this morning, the host of their lead public policy analysis show "The Agenda" with Steve Paikan decided to share a story from his vacation this summer.

One in which he met 3 Americans from Michigan [[Husband, Wife, Daughter) who voted Trump in the last election, and he engaged them in a chat. Here is the link:

https://www.tvo.org/article/talking-...KMbaVdFcnNv6NU

“It means look at all the Democrats running for president. Most of ’em want to eliminate private health care and have the government run everything. That’s crazy! That’s socialism!”

Private health _care_ would not be eliminated. Health insurance is not healthcare. Care would be paid through the govt. but Bernie isn't advocating govt. run hospitals etc. The reporter missed an opportunity to talk about the Canadian health system.

[Zacha341]

^^^ I don't trust the promises. The option for preferred private health care will decrease. Especially as in terms of how medically insured American's are used to receiving health care.

Indeed health insurance is a vehicle towards receiving health care. More related for that than for use in purchasing a car. I do not see how care paid only thru the government would not lead to govt. run hospitals, which as per other comments is what you have if no other pay source. Withstanding what good ole' Bern says.

Who pays ultimately controls! Such as like the VA hospital! The new controlling elite [[just like the CURRENT elite) will never live under the health care nirvana they espouse.

[Richard]

It looks like they found a leaker in the White House,it pretty sad that she was given an opportunity and she chose to use it for her personal agenda,I hope they can find federal charges to place on her,like treason.

Westerhout reportedly shared information with the reporters about the Trump family and other affairs in the White House.

Some questioned her loyalty to the president after a recent book about the White House reported that she cried in anguish in 2016 when the election results rolled in.

https://conservativefighters.org/new...the-president/

[Canadian Visitor]

I do not see how care paid only thru the government would not lead to govt. run hospitals, which as per other comments is what you have if no other pay source. Withstanding what good ole' Bern says.

With great respect, I've explained how things work up here a whole bunch of times; and you're welcome to look at websites or cross the border and look in person.

Government doesn't run hospitals up here nor does it decide what procedure you can or can't have.

They aren't even talked to.

Of course they have an effect on care at the highest level, because they are the principle funder.

But that doesn't include any day to day management.

I can't say what you would get in the US, in precise detail with any given candidate, as I haven't read everyone's policy paper on healthcare end to end, nor do things usually come out of Congress looking like they did on the way in to Congress.

But in so far as a candidate, roughly, wishes to copy the Canadian model, doctors are independent contractors and hospitals have their own CEOs and report to their own Boards.

If you have any questions about how that works in the real world, for better or worse, I'm happy to afford an honest answer; one probably to detailed for Coracle, but at least he'll have TP until 2029

[Richard]

Private health _care_ would not be eliminated. Health insurance is not healthcare. Care would be paid through the govt. but Bernie isn't advocating govt. run hospitals etc. The reporter missed an opportunity to talk about the Canadian health system.

Or the reporter did a search on how many Canadians come to the United States for healthcare and figured if it was such a good system there would be no reason for them to do that.

There is no perfect system of healthcare in any country that could be molded after or used as a reference,because every system has its good points and bad.

No matter where one goes the common dominator is the struggle to pay for it.

Every system also leaves a group behind one way or another.

Onama care punished those who could not afford his plan by placing a fine on them.

How are you going to provide healthcare for everybody while punishing those who the system was designed to help?

Care is already provided to the poor through Medicare and Medicaid,so we have the poor covered,the ones with insurance are covered.

Do not have a problem with healthcare for all vote for me,the devil is in the details and cloudy because they spend more time shouting free healthcare instead of explaining in detail how they plan on paying for it.

[Zacha341]

Thank you for the details - good to hear that it's working out. My comments is not so much about health care in Canada but in regards to US health care delivery under socialistic models [[ala per Bernie Sanders et al) relative to US populations and health care delivery systems as they are now. As you mention you cannot say 'what you get in the US'.

I'm worried, that there's some 'over-promising' afoot re. we're we are heading.

Yet, there has to be some reform and change. No doubt there.

With great respect, I've explained how things work up here a whole bunch of times; and you're welcome to look at websites or cross the border and look in person.

Government doesn't run hospitals up here nor does it decide what procedure you can or can't have.

They aren't even talked to.

Of course they have an effect on care at the highest level, because they are the principle funder.

But that doesn't include any day to day management.

I can't say what you would get in the US, in precise detail with any given candidate, as I haven't read everyone's policy paper on healthcare end to end, nor do things usually come out of Congress looking like they did on the way in to Congress.

But in so far as a candidate, roughly, wishes to copy the Canadian model, doctors are independent contractors and hospitals have their own CEOs and report to their own Boards.

If you have any questions about how that works in the real world, for better or worse, I'm happy to afford an honest answer; one probably to detailed for Coracle, but at least he'll have TP until 2029

[Canadian Visitor]

Thank you for the details - good to hear that it's working out.

Mostly working out. No system is perfect. The main failing here is waits for elective procedures. If you NEED something right now, you tend, by and large to get it. But if you can wait, there's a good chance you will. It varies by hospital, by area, by province etc.

But as an example, a referral to a specialist for something that doesn't appear to urgent, might be a 3-week wait. If you needed non-urgent surgery, let's say knee replacement [[you're still able to walk, but there's some pain, you sometimes use a cane....) Waits might be up to 5 months for that.

On the other hand.....you won't be told no, there won't be a deductible or a co-pay, you are free to get a second opinion or choose your own surgeon etc.

My comments is not so much about health care in Canada but in regards to US health care delivery under socialistic models [[ala per Bernie Sanders et al) relative to US populations and health care delivery systems as they are now. As you mention you cannot say 'what you get in the US'.

If the promise is the Canadian model, then what you should expect would look something like what we have up here [[it would never be an exact duplicate). Wait times are largely a product of global funding available. That could mean, if you wanted short to no wait times, spending more than we do up here and having to tax more to pay for it. But it could also mean taking other actions to combat systemic costs.

As an example, the things we chose not cover in our system [[drugs, outside of hospital, dental, physio, homecare etc.) have sometimes resulted in people seeking care in an ER that is much more expensive to deliver than the other items noted above. Of course funding everything to a gold standard level would be hideously expensive and so you can look at different combinations of services varying by circumstance.

I'm worried, that there's some 'over-promising' afoot re. we're we are heading.

I don't know that overpromising is what I would worry about, I would suspect the missing key is how will it be paid for?

That's what makes a hash of everything. Assuming it was done entirely through taxes. It would likely mean between 2.5 Trillion and 3.5 Trillion per year.

So for argument's sake, a 5% national sales [[VAT) tax would generate about 12-15% of that number.

Increasing the US Corporate Tax rate by 5 points would only generate about 80B year. Cut out a few loopholes and you get maybe 200B.

Give or take, you now have medicare 20% paid off.

The rest, presumably, would be a payroll deduction, probably similar in size to what many Americans now see come off their cheque for private benefits.

But those who have complete coverage at no cost; and/or who pay for their own plan would likely face a new deduction.

Probably something in the range of 5% of income.

Obviously there are lots of other options, you can play with the numbers.

The key is that it will be a big number. I would argue its worthwhile.

But many Americans will differ and I expect Congress, no matter is composition will have a tough time passing an enormous tax hike.

What would then happen is a choice of what to phase-in over what time, and what to leave out, to pay for another day.

*******

On a purely pragmatic level, I think the most do-able promise would likely be, Universal Medicare for all children under 18. They are a comparatively cheap group to serve, fairly healthy on the whole, and it appeals to Americans of all political persuasions not to deny a child care regardless of their parents circumstance. Because they are a cheap to serve group, its possible to offer fairly delux care.

If Congress were in an agreeable mood, I'd probably look at lowering the existing medicare age to 60 across the board. That not only covers a chunk of Americans, but it also lowers the cost of private insurance for everyone else, as these will be the most expensive patients to cover by age group.

Nothing wrong with a more ambitious plan, but are Americans ready for that scale of change? Not sure.