Visit USA Act

#52
#52
KiffinKiller said:
it's not like this is something new. we've been sitting in rut of complacency for a loooong time.
Click to expand...

oh I know. I'm not shocked - this is the kind of retarded stuff Congress does on a daily basis in the name of solving our country's problems
 
#53
#53
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Country we live in=capitalist economy

Making a killing selling your home= success in business

Neighbors + Real Estate Agents + Government Officals + Foreign buyers= business people and government officials.

Granting expedited Visas b/c you have $500K= favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, and so forth.

If you can see this then you a clueless. If you dont think government policies regarding housing are hurting the middle class then you are even more clueless than I originally thought
Click to expand...

You are king of the Straw Man.

As I've already stated, government subsidized mortgages are meddling with the natural state of the market. This bill has nothing to do with that.

If you can explain how THIS BILL hurts the middle class, then I'm interested. If you are going to bash harmful policies that already exist there's no point. I'm in agreement with you on those.
 
#54
#54
This bill has everything to do with Govt subsidized mortgages. Million Dollar home owners have forced government officals to have tax payers back their jumbo mortgages to keep mortgages cheap and artifically inflate their homes value. Obviously cheap mortgages have propped up these markets and they want more govt intervention to keep increasing their home value and this is what they came up with.


It hurts the middle class because they cant afford any type of home in these areas and are forced to either rent or buy a home in a suburb far away. Its crazy but yes people who make under $50K live in the DC/NYC area. They do everything from teach the local schools, to working in local restaurants, to mowing lawns. Guess what? They cant afford homes in these areas and are forced to either lower their standard of living by living in an apartment or buying a home in a far off community subjecting them to long commutes all because of artificially propped up home values by government policies
 
#55
#55
VolsNSkinsFan said:
This bill has everything to do with Govt subsidized mortgages. Million Dollar home owners have forced government officals to have tax payers back their jumbo mortgages to keep mortgages cheap and artifically inflate their homes value. Obviously cheap mortgages have propped up these markets and they want more govt intervention to keep increasing their home value and this is what they came up with.

It hurts the middle class because they cant afford any type of home in these areas and are forced to either rent or buy a home in a suburb far away. Its crazy but yes people who make under $50K live in the DC/NYC area. They do everything from teach the local schools, to working in local restaurants, to mowing lawns. Guess what? They cant afford homes in these areas and are forced to either lower their standard of living by living in an apartment or buying a home in a far off community subjecting them to long commutes all because of artificially propped up home values by government policies
Click to expand...

So housing is already unaffordable to them? I'm not sure I understand how this bill changes anything. Again they are $500K+ mortgages. The price of a Ferarri does not impact the price of a Camry.

I actually lived in Arlington, VA. My Dad worked in the district. We were pretty poor at the time. We rented. I survived.
 
#56
#56
nbakerld said:
I wouldn't allow felons in. But if you support the free market, then you support a free market for labor. If you don't support a free market for labor, you don't support the free market.
Click to expand...

Huh? How can you say it supporting a free market to let anyone in they say who you wouldn't let in. I guess you are for free markets :) Felons can work.
 
#57
#57
maybe if the home you rented wasnt propped up by government policies, your dad could have bought that house. Try going back to DC and seeing the prices. They have more than doubled since 2000. Pretty sure my house in ATL hasnt doubled since 2000. Wonder why the DC housing market has doubled while my house value in a similar size city has been stagnant?

Yea those poor bastards, we should subject them to awful commutes and long train rides because I have access to govt officals and I demand the tax payer to back my jumbo mortage along with allowing foreigners with cash easy Visas
 
#58
#58
volinbham said:
Huh? How can you say it supporting a free market to let anyone in they say who you wouldn't let in. I guess you are for free markets :) Felons can work.
Click to expand...

Former felons can and should work in a free market. I'm not certain allowing felons into our country is a good idea. And my stance on that has nothing to do with economics. Most people oppose immigration on economic grounds, which is flawed, which is my underlying point.
 
#59
#59
VolsNSkinsFan said:
maybe if the home you rented wasnt propped up by government policies, your dad could have bought that house. Try going back to DC and seeing the prices. They have more than doubled since 2000. Pretty sure my house in ATL hasnt doubled since 2000. Wonder why the DC housing market has doubled while my house value in a similar size city has been stagnant?

Yea those poor bastards, we should subject them to awful commutes and long train rides because I have access to govt officals and I demand the tax payer to back my jumbo mortage along with allowing foreigners with cash easy Visas
Click to expand...

Again, we are in agreement. I'm still wondering how the price of a Ferrari impacts the price of a Camry?
 
#60
#60
nbakerld said:
Former felons can and should work in a free market. I'm not certain allowing felons into our country is a good idea. And my stance on that has nothing to do with economics. Most people oppose immigration on economic grounds, which is flawed, which is my underlying point.
Click to expand...

But you made a blanket proclamation that if you are against open borders (open immigration) you are against free markets. To then start to put restrictions on immigration must mean 1) that said restrictions are compatible with free markets or 2) you acknowledge that completely free markets need some "unfreeing".
 
#61
#61
volinbham said:
But you made a blanket proclamation that if you are against open borders (open immigration) you are against free markets. To then start to put restrictions on immigration must mean 1) that said restrictions are compatible with free markets or 2) you acknowledge that completely free markets need some "unfreeing".
Click to expand...

Hmmmm? I don't think penalizing felons has anything to do with whether or not you have a free market. Especially if they violated property rights. If you don't have property rights, you don't have a market place. Note: government isn't the only way to protect property rights.

My blanket statement didn't exactly reflect what I was trying to say, which is why I reiterated my point. If you oppose the free exchange of labor, you're either 1) doing it to protect your job. 2) economically ignorant. Opposing immigrants because of a criminal past would be a point reserved for another argument.
 
#62
#62
I would not prohibit immigrants with criminal pasts from coming to America; plenty of immigrants with criminal pasts came before.
 
#63
#63
therealUT said:
I would not prohibit immigrants with criminal pasts from coming to America; plenty of immigrants with criminal pasts came before.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can agree with that. Rapists and murderers can STFO, but in a lot of cases, I'd be OK with felons.
 
#64
#64
nbakerld said:
Hmmmm? I don't think penalizing felons has anything to do with whether or not you have a free market. Especially if they violated property rights. If you don't have property rights, you don't have a market place. Note: government isn't the only way to protect property rights.

My blanket statement didn't exactly reflect what I was trying to say, which is why I reiterated my point. If you oppose the free exchange of labor, you're either 1) doing it to protect your job. 2) economically ignorant. Opposing immigrants because of a criminal past would be a point reserved for another argument.
Click to expand...

But opposing immigrants of any type in and of itself disrupts the free flow of labor - that is the point you made. If you are in favor of disrupting that flow (in the case of felons) then you have to acknowledge there are cases where you advocate actions that will be anti-free market.
 
#65
#65
therealUT said:
I would not prohibit immigrants with criminal pasts from coming to America; plenty of immigrants with criminal pasts came before.
Click to expand...

nbakerld said:
Yeah, I can agree with that. Rapists and murderers can STFO, but in a lot of cases, I'd be OK with felons.
Click to expand...

See? At least TRUT is being internally consistent. You are setting up classes of potential labor that cannot flow freely across borders because of other considerations. That opposition will disrupt the true free flow of labor and thus not be consistent with totally free markets
 
#67
#67
volinbham said:
But opposing immigrants of any type in and of itself disrupts the free flow of labor - that is the point you made. If you are in favor of disrupting that flow (in the case of felons) then you have to acknowledge there are cases where you advocate actions that will be anti-free market.
Click to expand...

Sure. Imprisoning rapists is anti-free market, because they are potential players in the market place. It might be a true statement, but there's nothing practical about making that distinction.
 
#68
#68
volinbham said:
See? At least TRUT is being internally consistent. You are setting up classes of potential labor that cannot flow freely across borders because of other considerations. That opposition will disrupt the true free flow of labor and thus not be consistent with totally free markets
Click to expand...

We are definitely talking past each other here. I don't oppose them entering the country on economic grounds. It's not an economic argument. So it may be anti-free market by the most strict and useless definition, but the reasoning has nothing to do with economics.
 
#69
#69
nbakerld said:
We are definitely talking past each other here. I don't oppose them entering the country on economic grounds. It's not an economic argument. So it may be anti-free market by the most strict and useless definition, but the reasoning has nothing to do with economics.
Click to expand...

The reasoning doesn't matter (economics or other). If free-flow of labor is a prerequisite for truly free markets then restricting that flow restricts the free market regardless of the reason for the restriction on labor flows. I get what you are saying that you don't let economic reasons impact your decision but in the end, the impact on the free market is the same. If you were a free market absolutist then you would not support immigration restrictions.

There are any number of reasons to restrict the free market. We do it all the time and you are advocating it by restricting felons. Nothing wrong with that. Just recognize that you fail the free market purity test by finding reasons (non-economic) to restrict it.
 
#70
#70
VolsNSkinsFan said:
b/c that $500K came from either selling drugs or pillaging small African countries
Click to expand...

Because that's where everyone with $500k gets their money? Guess you should be against the exploitation of the African oil fields by Shell and other companies who continually destroy surrounding areas and profit from it.
 
#71
#71
VOLatile said:
Because that's where everyone with $500k gets their money? Guess you should be against the exploitation of the African oil fields by Shell and other companies who continually destroy surrounding areas and profit from it.
Click to expand...

This program if passed would have some shady people taking advantage of it. I don't invest in large cap multinational oil corps b/c they are too big to care. I only own small caps in the bakken which is about to be announced sometime next week that it's the largest oil field find since Saudi Arabia. 25+ Billion barrels in North Dakota
 
#72
#72
VolsNSkinsFan said:
This program if passed would have some shady people taking advantage of it.
Click to expand...

This distinguishes this piece of legislation from all other pieces of legislation in which way?

As I see it, based upon your very first post and your weak evidence to defend your argument, you simply want America for Americans.

If that is your stance, just come out and say it so that I can go ahead and dismiss you for the jingoistic, exclusionary, culturally arrogant person that you are and be done with it.
 
#73
#73
volinbham said:
The reasoning doesn't matter (economics or other). If free-flow of labor is a prerequisite for truly free markets then restricting that flow restricts the free market regardless of the reason for the restriction on labor flows. I get what you are saying that you don't let economic reasons impact your decision but in the end, the impact on the free market is the same. If you were a free market absolutist then you would not support immigration restrictions.

There are any number of reasons to restrict the free market. We do it all the time and you are advocating it by restricting felons. Nothing wrong with that. Just recognize that you fail the free market purity test by finding reasons (non-economic) to restrict it.
Click to expand...

But according to your logic, I'd fail the free market test by imprisoning murderers. You're taking it to a ridiculous extreme and you think you have your "gotcha" moment. Good for you.

If you really want to get down to it, I don't want government in the first place, so I don't want borders. I guess I do support an entirely free market.
 
Last edited:
#74
#74
therealUT said:
This distinguishes this piece of legislation from all other pieces of legislation in which way?

As I see it, based upon your very first post and your weak evidence to defend your argument, you simply want America for Americans.

If that is your stance, just come out and say it so that I can go ahead and dismiss you for the jingoistic, exclusionary, culturally arrogant person that you are and be done with it.
Click to expand...

You have mental issues.
 
#75
#75
nbakerld said:
But according to your logic, I'd fail the free market test by imprisoning murderers. You're taking it to a ridiculous extreme and you think you have your "gotcha" moment. Good for you.

If you really want to get down to it, I don't want government in the first place, so I don't want borders. I guess I do support an entirely free market.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't allow felons in. But if you support the free market, then you support a free market for labor. If you don't support a free market for labor, you don't support the free market.
Click to expand...

You are the one who laid out the original premise that a free market requires free labor flows. It was your "free market test" that I was using.

Now it's another question entirely to suggest as you have now that for a market to be truly free there can be no borders and no government.

I would contend that some government is necessary to maintain a free market. (probably a discussion better suited to its own thread)
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top