The immigration law discussion Part 2 - The law of unintended consequences

[Ayiekie]

This hits a girl pretty hard because this is what they instinctively desire - it's a rare girl that does not want this at some point in their life or another.  

Ummm... that is a statement that would offend many women, I hope you realise? By the by, the rate of women in the US who reach their 40s while remaining childless is almost 20% - that's not exactly "rare".

 What does that mean? It means your argument is invalid. This is not about how much of your tax money goes to what budget. This is about fixing a broken economy. Like it or not, the US, as a culture, has a very unique mentality - one that generates problems that are unique from any other country in the world. We need to come up with unique solutions. We can take inspiration from what one country does, but like the melting pot the USA has become, we must do something that takes a bit from everyone else, and put our own spin on it.

There is no significant difference between the US and the rest of the world. Your mentality is not unique - you seriously think you're the only melting pot culture on Earth? Your economy is not unique aside from its size (and Americans certainly have no trouble believing that what works there will work in any other economy no matter the size), and it is increasingly less unique on that front anyway.What you are doing is making excuses to explain why the same pattern that holds everywhere else in the first world will not hold in the US, backed by nothing other than "we're different". You're no more different than anyone else is. And something that works everywhere else has no reason not to work in America.

That said... in America's 'glory days' the natural resources found here were not the only bountiful resource. What really empowered the nation was the workforce. It was this workforce that put more supply ships into the Atlantic than the German U-Boats could sink. It was this workforce that bridged two halves of a country whose size was rivaled only by Russia with iron and steel, making it possible to go from the east coast to the west in days instead of months.

Sure, you had a large well-educated population (you still do!) and a resource and industrial base that was basically immune to attack (you still do!), but what does that have to do with anything? By the by, Canada is bigger than the U.S., and China is about the same size, so saying "only rivaled by Russia" is wrong on those grounds.  In other rivals, Brazil is about 90% of the size of the U.S., and Australia a bit below that. And Russia is almost twice as big as the U.S. now and was over twice as big as it when it was the USSR, so the US does not exactly "rival" it in size. 

For America to recover, we need to resurrect this workforce. Part of that can be done by giving the welfare riders the choice: work the job we assign you or go without welfare.

So you want the government to assign jobs to people, and those who refuse will lose payments? That's, uh... not very free-market capitalist. It's, in fact, way more communist than anything the Chinese are doing. Are you certain you've thought this through? Who exactly is going to decide who works where? Who's paying for the bureaucracy to oversee this? Where are the jobs going to come from, exactly, given that the U.S. simply does not have a limitless supply of them?

We do need to continue to build bridges by providing humanitarian aid where it is desired. We also need to maintain our military presence in the world as it was prior to 9/11. The heart of Al Qaeda has been crushed and we have more to worry about with the corruption in Pakistan's government than anything else. And you don't want us to make drastic cuts. That means pulling out of Japan, and then Australia will have to help pick up the slack there. Kim Jong Il has already recently proven that he'll be more than happy to let his dogs off the leash if he thinks no one's paying enough attention.
There are so many things wrong with my country - so many that they cannot all be addressed in just one thread.

Yes, I really, really do want you to make drastic cuts. Although you're changing the subject again. Heh, "unintended consequences" indeed!
Kim Jong-Il? Are you serious? Who exactly is he going to make a first strike against? The answer is "Nobody, and if he does, his regime is destroyed and overthrown, and this is 100% true whether the U.S. is there or not". Do you honestly think that if the US doesn't have bases in Japan (a country that ranks sixth in the world in military expenditures, "self-defence"-related or not), he's free to attack them (to get what, exactly? invade with what logistics, exactly?) and will get away with it? A tiny, poverty-stricken country with a backwards military armed mostly with decades-old equipment? Meanwhile, the US being there didn't exactly stop the DPRK from shelling that island, did it?
You are not vital to the region on either end of the equation. You do not constrain the DPRK's actions more then they would be restrained without a permanent massive US military presence in the region, and the thought of them attacking Japan would be ludicrous whether you were there or not. Even South Korea doesn't want you there, and they are literally the only country on earth who would rationally have anything to fear from the DPRK (of course, if they attacked South Korea, most of the damage would be done in the first day and there's nothing the US could do to stop it, so here we are again).