Rewarding Illegal Immigration?

[member2686]

Hit 'em where it hurts. Impose ridiculously high tariffs on Mexican-made goods or consumers can boycott Mexican-made products altogether. Hit 'em in the wallet and their hyper-corrupt government will take notice and get off their lazy asses and assist us in the enforcement of border control.

:thefinger :2 cents:

 

[Member2019]

Wealth and racism ...

The wealthy black man doesn't speak for the average black man any more than the wealthy white man does for myself. People love to start relating wealth to race and they only end up ignoring many people who live in poverty -- including White, Hispanic and African American, among others. Everyone has been indirectly and directly discriminated against -- including Irish, German and other Americans. Making race an issue is just sickening -- especially when there are a lot of White, Hispanic and other Americans living below or not much above the poverty line.

The only race that has been directly discriminated against by our governments is the African American. Beyond just slavery, they were systemmatically denied fair access to education -- which is the best way to not only screw them over, but screw their children over for generations to come. It's the overwhelming primary reason why the average African American is closer to the poverty line than any other race. So that's the only time race should be a consideration, and I do not think it's very applicable when it comes to Hispanic Americans.

Because God knows that today's Hispanic Americans get far more assistance and protection -- not just legal immigrants but illegal immigrants -- than my Irish, German and Polish American ancestors did in the 20th Century. I think people forget that -- people came to this country and made do with what they could and didn't have the government putting out a safety net. And most importantly, the absolute worst institution for "redistribution of wealth" is the federal government.

I have been professional discriminated against by Hispanic Americans myself. But do I hold any ill will against Hispanic Americans? No. Why? Because the reason I was discriminated against was because they were hiring their friends, instead of qualified candidates. And those friends merely happened to be other Hispanic Americans. In fact, that happens with all races -- people hire their friends too much and too often, often at the expense of the company in the process.

And it's even far worse in government where there are not the "fiscal balances" that competition and market create.

 

[qweretyuiopas@]

Re: Wealth and racism ...

The wealthy black man doesn't speak for the average black man any more than the wealthy white man does for myself. People love to start relating wealth to race and they only end up ignoring many people who live in poverty -- including White, Hispanic and African American, among others. Everyone has been indirectly and directly discriminated against -- including Irish, German and other Americans. Making race an issue is just sickening -- especially when there are a lot of White, Hispanic and other Americans living below or not much above the poverty line.

The only race that has been directly discriminated against by our governments is the African American. Beyond just slavery, they were systemmatically denied fair access to education -- which is the best way to not only screw them over, but screw their children over for generations to come. It's the overwhelming primary reason why the average African American is closer to the poverty line than any other race. So that's the only time race should be a consideration, and I do not think it's very applicable when it comes to Hispanic Americans.

Because God knows that today's Hispanic Americans get far more assistance and protection -- not just legal immigrants but illegal immigrants -- than my Irish, German and Polish American ancestors did in the 20th Century. I think people forget that -- people came to this country and made do with what they could and didn't have the government putting out a safety net. And most importantly, the absolute worst institution for "redistribution of wealth" is the federal government..

Agreed. :hatsoff:

 

[Member2019]

Re: Wealth and racism ...

All that may be true to an extent, but pretending race is not THE issue is just as sickening, and blind.

First off, I did say African Americans are one race where it does make a difference! And I quote myself ...

The only race that has been directly discriminated against by our governments is the African American. Beyond just slavery, they were systemmatically denied fair access to education -- which is the best way to not only screw them over, but screw their children over for generations to come. It's the overwhelming primary reason why the average African American is closer to the poverty line than any other race. So that's the only time race should be a consideration,

But this thread is about illegal immigration, and in the context of this thread, I added ...

I do not think it's very applicable when it comes to Hispanic Americans.

What more do you need to know to know that if you're born black in America, you're probably going to struggle, if you're born white, you're not.

Here's a hint: If you just focus on poverty, everyone is helped! I've said my solution time and time again. You can't do anything about the past, but you can give free college education and use the 10% rule to ensure African Americans who are excelling but normally wouldn't qualify for college or be able to afford it can actually go!

To focus solely on race is the current problem -- you only only help those African Americans who are already more affluent! Poverty is the key. Recognizing the reasons why African Americans were screwed by American bigots for generations is the key. Addressing that "root cause" is the key. I've seen too many poor African Americans passed over and too many affluent African Americans receive beenfits that should have gone to the former -- because of "race."

Until that changes, how can you say race is not an issue when it comes to poverty?

Again, you really can't read, can you?

I'll quote myself again ...

The only race that has been directly discriminated against by our governments is the African American. Beyond just slavery, they were systemmatically denied fair access to education -- which is the best way to not only screw them over, but screw their children over for generations to come. It's the overwhelming primary reason why the average African American is closer to the poverty line than any other race. So that's the only time race should be a consideration,

Everything you said about systematic discimination by the government is dead on and it still goes on. I wish others could see what you see.

Really? So African Americans are distriminated in colleges over Whites? Poor African Americans receive less assistance than poor White, Hispanic and other Americans? I'd really like to hear about that!

No, the only "discrimination" going on today is that too many people focus on race, and affluent African Americans with higher grades and better lifestyles receive more assistance than poorer African Americans who were more of a victim of their childhood situation. Again, the root cause of that was the denial of education for generations. And the solution is to just give free college education to African Americans, while using a precent rule that guarantees the top 10% or so of any high school graduating class has access to an university.

Which catches most African Americans who were a victim of their school's poor value, but they were still excelling despite that fact.

I'm waiting to see 1 real solution from you other than "redistribution of wealth" or other, way left socialist solution that has never worked and will never work. Education pays real dividens. Hand outs never do, they just tax people -- largely for things they never were responsible for.

 

[member2686]

Let's see, African Americans comprise roughly what, 18% of the USA's population, and let's just assume that 50% live at or below the poverty line (which is probably inaccurate). That means that 9% of the USA's population who live at or below the poverty line are African-American. Caucasians in the USA comprise something like 65% of the population, and approximately what, 25% of them live at or below the poverty line? I think that was the last stat I read about it. That means that roughly 16% of the USA's population is Caucasian people who live at or below the poverty line.

9% is less than 16%. There are more poor whites than poor blacks, but comparing the populations/races, the ratio for poverty is double for blacks than it is for whites. Discrimination plays a role in that, to be sure, and that's unfortunate.

But all the same, race, poverty, and discrimination aren't the topics of this thread. Illegal immigration is.

 

[member2686]

News:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/15/immigration/index.html

You know it's out of control when the roads near the border have signs like this:

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/123/immigrantcrossingsign0np.jpg :eek:

We need to see more of this:

http://img302.imageshack.us/img302/9539/borderarrest7jo.jpg :ban:

 

[qweretyuiopas@]

Now that we are back on topic (I hope), did anyone watch the Presidents address tonight? I did, what are your thoughts on it for those who saw it, seeing as how it was about illegal immigration?

 

[Baal]

I think its los blancos locos who dont like immigrants because they secretly are against upsetting the demographic balance which will eventually force a representative power structure. White and a token few established minority elites will fight to keep the little guy down.

Tiiiiiiiiiime is on our side...

Yes it is....:hatsoff:

:2 cents:

 

[member2686]

Great idea, President Bush. Tax Mexican illegals on their illegal incomes rather than send them home. Yeah THAT'S enforcing the laws of the land - could this idiot be any more inept?! Ship them via UPS back to Mexico in padded crates, preferably C.O.D. Hell, it's better and more humane than how 95% of them came here, cramped up in hidden stowage in the trunks of cars or in tinderbox metal tractor trailers...

Fuck, this issue makes me bonkers. I'm as big a Democrat as can be, but on a couple certain issues I'm harshly right-wing, and this is one of those issues. The problem is that the right wing is acting like they have "vaginitis" and is merely paying lip service on this issue. It's shameful.

If you came here illegally, you get shipped home. You're a criminal, a burden on the legal citizenry/taxpayers of this country, and you've cheated, and that's why LEGITIMATE applications for immigration into this country by desired foreign workers and talented professionals take so long -- you're stuffing the system. We don't need more apple pickers. We need more medical professionals, scientists, IT professionals, and entrepreneurs. There are plenty of unskilled citizens here already who can pick the apples. The problem is that BECAUSE of illegal immigration, they (the unskilled citizen workers) see themselves fit to earn $10 an hour when they should be making less for their unskilled labor. But along comes an illegal immigrant willing to pick apples all day for $4.50 an hour, untaxed cash, and there ya go...

That's my opinion. :2 cents: :thefinger

 

[Baal]

But along comes an illegal immigrant willing to pick apples all day for $4.50 an hour, untaxed cash, and there ya go...

That's my opinion. :2 cents: :thefinger

How about corporate ethics and fining those that hire them - how bout penalizing MNC's for their predetory tactics in 3rd world countries so that nobody would need or want to come here in the first place.

Taste the soup...where's the spoon....A'ha! - Eddie Murphy

 

[D-rock]

The problem is that BECAUSE of illegal immigration, they (the unskilled citizen workers) see themselves fit to earn $10 an hour when they should be making less for their unskilled labor.

Why should any worker make less than a living wage for their work? It's suppose to be an honest day's pay for an honest day's work, not work you ass off and get paid as low as they can get away with because they know you have no other choice. Some of those people don't even get paid a surviving wage let along a "living wage". I could see maybe a temporary job that is meant for teenagers to work after school to make that low of a wage for a little extra spending money, and even then that is when they are young and if the job isn't too difficult...and no adults need the job more than they do. It would seem to be counter to human dignity to pay people otherwise. Contrary to some people’s opinion a great many of those "low skilled" jobs aren’t nearly as easy as people think. I have seen and worked some that would break most of the people that work the soft cushy office jobs. In fact I think some of those people should be paid a premium for their work and what they have to go through. Now if somebody with more qualifications wants to make even more than that, that isn't necessarily unreasonable, but there should be a limit to what we will let somebody fall to and that is a lot higher than were we place it now. The only way I could see it different is if the person is so absolutely lazy that they don't take decent work that is reasonably available, then if you want to let them starve it the streets that's fine by me.

What I find insulting is when some executive’s brother in law or such gets a job answering a couple of phone calls a day, sits in a office, gets paid 100,000 dollars a year, has a diploma on the wall that means nothing because he has already forgotten 90% of what he learned three weeks after he graduated like a lot of people do, and does the job worse than somebody you could pull off the street and have a knowledgeable person show him what to do for two weeks. All because he has a piece of paper and knew the right people. Or somebody that doesn't know how to run things and doesn't know what goes on gets paid five times more than the regular employees for barking out mindless orders from somebody that also has no idea what really happens or how things work when everybody in the plant could run things better than they could because those people had a piece of paper saying they should know something and they knew the right people. Yet some normal worker might ask for just enough to stop living from paycheck to paycheck, afford a car that runs, a decent house to live in, to have only one parent work so the other one can raise their children instead of letting TV or somebody else do it for them, and the ability to save for later in life where they don't have to choose between medicine and food, and perhaps a little extra to spend on some hard earned minor luxuries throughout there life, and yet there will be people that will bitch about it like they are asking to be billionaires.

How about corporate ethics and fining those that hire them - how bout penalizing MNC's for their predetory tactics in 3rd world countries so that nobody would need or want to come here in the first place.

If it were up to me I would not only do that but disallow trade from any country that didn't have a decent standard of human rights it gave to it's people. That includes the workers over there making a respectable wage also. There isn't any decent reason we should try to collaborate with tyrants or selfish oligarchies for our own gain.

Now all this isn't to say I support immigration any more than I did in my previous statement. Like I said I truly don't think our country can handle the continual influx of people into it before we reach a critical breaking point in the near future. There will only be so much room and resources to go around for an increasing population. I also feel bad for people that are subjugated in their own country, but at some point you have to stand up and fight for yourself instead of fleeing. That's what I would do before I would run away form America to somewhere else. Of course I could very well end up dead like they might, but their is a price for freedom, and if nobody was willing to do that then we wouldn't even have the freedom we have now.

 

[lordvader1]

You welcome illegal immigration because they have no choice huh! Sorry but they do.
1. Stay where they are
2. Try LEGALLY to become an American citizen.

There's two right there. Or they can break the law and go for door #3 which is hopping a fence. I've said it once and will keep saying it. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS AND HAVE NO RIGHTS IN THIS COUNTRY AT ALL. Just because they're human beings and they come from a poorer country doesn't give them the right to break the law.

 

[KungFuDude]

Maybe we should adopt a more harsh form of punishment for these illegals. Say something along the lines of what Singapore uses as a determent. Thats right, caning! We'll still 'catch and release' them, but with an added penalty, 10 lashes. To keep it interesting, for every successive time they are caught, we add 10 lashes. Lets see 'em hop that fence now.

 

[member2686]

There are loads of things/issues/companies that need work in Mexico, but they're not willing to work there because CRIMINALS here will hire these illegal immigrants and pay them MORE here for THEIR (the employer's) benefit at the EXPENSE of legal taxpayers/citizens.

Tough shit. Apply to come work here or to immigrate here legally or move elsewhere where the standards of entry are less stringent. By entering the country and committing a crime in doing so, what does that say about your likelihood of observing the other laws here and your respect for the laws of the nation you've INVADED?

A nation's border must be respected and enforced.

"Jesus Christ, Paco, they're starting to arrest and deport people who cross the border without permission! How dare they?! This is THEIR country, but we should be allowed to break the laws because we're from a shitty country and are too lazy to improve it! We'll just move here, work illegally, burden the healthcare and welfare system, pay no taxes, Western Union our money back to Pablo at home, and try not to get caught. Even so, we can still dash across the river in the night again. Maybe we better go back to [insert city name] and try to better OUR economy rather than burden those evil devil rich Americans. No. Fuck that. It's easier to take than it is to earn."

:2 cents:

 

[lordvader1]

They often don't come because they want to, they come because they or their families need them working here, making more money, to survive. So sometimes "staying where they are" is not a good option.

Also, legally becoming a citizen here is virtually impossible unless you have money, and even then it's very difficult. So anyone who wants to come here when they're starving and broke and their families need money is out of luck unless they come illegally, or unless they can prove they are refugees, which does not apply to immigrants from most nations, regardless of the conditions there.

Really? I know a few immigrants who came here legally and they had no problems. Most of them make what I make which is less then 40k/yr, shit one make double if not more then what I make. They came here with less then that. So how can you say it's next to impossible to come here unless you have money? I agree with Nightfly 100%, if Mexico or wherever is damn bad then why not make the effort to make your country better. Seems to me that these people jumping over are just a bunch of quitters who opted to take the easy way out.

 

[Member2019]

Monroe Doctrine still at work ...

I agree with Nightfly 100%, if Mexico or wherever is damn bad then why not make the effort to make your country better. Seems to me that these people jumping over are just a bunch of quitters who opted to take the easy way out.

Being an American and self-questioning devils advocate, one might actually blame the United States for much of Mexico's economy. After all, if you think about it, the Monroe Doctrine (and subsequent policy) is at the root of several of the reasons. So in a twist of logic, one might almost say "we are reaping what we sow."

 

[Member2019]

Supply and demand ...

Contrary to some people’s opinion a great many of those "low skilled" jobs aren’t nearly as easy as people think.

It has nothing to do with fair.
It has nothing to do with "easy" v. "hard."
It has to do with supply and demand.

If people with skills you need are scarce, you pay highly for them.
If people with skills you need are commonplace, they are a dime-a-dozen.

What I find insulting is when some executive’s brother in law or such gets a job answering a couple of phone calls a day, sits in a office, gets paid 100,000 dollars a year, has a diploma on the wall that means nothing because he has already forgotten 90% of what he learned three weeks after he graduated like a lot of people do, and does the job worse than somebody you could pull off the street and have a knowledgeable person show him what to do for two weeks.

And that's a classic liberal demonization!
You take the worst example and present it as "common."

What about the lower middle class kid who grew up in a family business? He started working when he was 9, and worked for his father throughout school. He didn't go out and party or enjoy being a teenager, he worked his weekends. Once he was 18, he worked full-time to pay himself through college. And once he got out, he still never stopped learning, to keep himself atop.

That is me. I make only $25,000 some years and I make over $100,000 other years. I've been screwed over pretty hard by unprincipled people and virtually never rewarded for my honesty. And I've had to come up with $25,000 to pay taxes for income on invoices I haven't even been paid for yet.

All because he has a piece of paper and knew the right people.

That's right! All of us college graduates do! We are lazy and we don't work, and we have everything handed to us! Yeah! (sigh)

At what point do you try to "enforce" a so-called notion of "fair"?

Companies that aren't "fair" will not generate revenue and eventually go bankrupt. Everyday good companies go from hiring and ethically using good workers to hiring their friends and "passing the buck" to a few employees. And then those employees leave and, guess what, they go out of business in 5 years! 80% do! Because the consumer does not buy their products/services, because they are sub-quality, because they are created/serviced by a company that is disfunctional.

The ultimate accountability is to the consumer. That's the balance of capitalism. It's not perfect, but there are balances.

In socialism, you rely on a single entity, typically government. It works extremely well when you have a small group of people who individually willingly participate in what they believe in and -- most importantly -- hold each other accountable on an individual basis! But when it gets too big, such as government, you lose the personal accountability. Unlike a corporation, which is still ultimately accountable to consumers (not stock holders), there is no accountability. Furthermore, in a business, stockholders have control over a company proportional to their funding, whereas governments have control over spending equally across all people.

There is no balance in socialism because there is no accountability.

Again, the accountability shifts from consumer to no one in socialism. In fact, a chronic problem that continues to plague Democracy is that most people will vote with the attitude that JFK warned against. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!" People tend to vote for their own, selfish interests -- especially when it's "other people's money."

It's the same damn reason the Democracy of the Greeks self-destructed.

 

[Togath]

You know, I have read from page one to page five. I thought D-rock's view's were a bit harsh and firm but for the most part he was right on. Just not so umm rough.
I noticed one thing through out, it got off of illegal immigrants and onto race related.
I am going to throw out some information that is going to be a bit off track but will tie in so bear with me.
The big problem is'nt illegal immigrant's, or even race. It is the loss of union's. Our country has lost it's union's. This has been helped with N.A.F.T.A. and our country not taxing China's import's as heavy as they should be.
You might be asking how my two points could be the reason why this is a big issue.
Welll let's start by the loss of union's.
Union's were started to put owner's of companies in check after makeing truck driver's work rediculous hour's for cheap labor. The truck drive's banded together and created the teamster's. This inturn encouraged other's to join together to get a fivew day work week, a minimum wage set and standard pay. Unfourtunately the Unions became too powerful over time and demanded more money then company C.E.O.'s were willing to pay. those same C.E.O.'s had money to help politicians win election's. Those said politician's then said hay" I have money tied up in so and so company (Hine's), or I owe so and so C.E.O. of so and so company a favor. Let's create N.A.F.T.A. so our companies can down south and avoid union's. There goes the Union's.

Another problem was in the 70's when Nixon opened relations with china. This fucked us. How you might ask. Ok we'll lets see here. A communist country own's all of the comapnies, since there is no privately owned business's. So if I am a ruler of a country where I own all the business, I can pay everyone straight across the board and not worry about meeting a certain quota for my stockholders.All I have to worry about is making sure I get enough money coming in so I can spend it on my communistic political regime. I dont have to worry about makeing x amount of profit to pay for benefits for my worker's. This had led to much of our manufacturing companies going to china. Our steel is all bought from china. Our product's are manufactured in south america.

What need's to be done is to get union's back. The union's would manage the illegal immigrant, they would be on the look out for those who arent paying union due's. The Union's would look for equality among the work force. Said worker woul dmake x amount of dollar's and y of that would go for union due's. Regardless of color or creed.

So people rise up. Demand stiffer taxes on import's of all material wether full manufactured item's or supplies to be assembled here in the U.S. Call your congressman demanding that a draft be made to disban the N.A.F.T.A. Who ever you work with no matter your job, create a union so you will quit being hosed by the company.

 

[Member2019]

I am going to throw out some information that is going to be a bit off track but will tie in so bear with me. The big problem is'nt illegal immigrant's, or even race. It is the loss of union's. Our country has lost it's union's. This has been helped with N.A.F.T.A. and our country not taxing China's import's as heavy as they should be.

Despite what others may say or think, this is relevant to the greater issue of illegal immigration. I agree that unions are an important part of the US economy, but not how they always operate (but I've discussed that in other threads). And I also agree that not only is the US hurting itself with China's preferred status, but its failure to enforce IP and other rights.

Now the reason the US is so friendly to China is because China is helping keep the US dollar artificially high and its own currency lower. But in reality, this is really hurting us long-term, inflation is a balance that shouldn't be a political decision. But too is another story.

In all cases, American consumers need to "wake up" and stop realizing what they are doing to their own country.

 

[D-rock]

Re: Supply and demand ...

It has nothing to do with fair.
It has nothing to do with "easy" v. "hard."
It has to do with supply and demand.

If people with skills you need are scarce, you pay highly for them.
If people with skills you need are commonplace, they are a dime-a-dozen.

I am quite aware of how reality works. That is part of the reason I think capitalism as we know it is as flawed as it is. Hard vs. easy and fair vs. unfair should matter.

And that's a classic liberal demonization!
You take the worst example and present it as "common."

What about the lower middle class kid who grew up in a family business? He started working when he was 9, and worked for his father throughout school. He didn't go out and party or enjoy being a teenager, he worked his weekends. Once he was 18, he worked full-time to pay himself through college. And once he got out, he still never stopped learning, to keep himself atop.

That is me. I make only $25,000 some years and I make over $100,000 other years. I've been screwed over pretty hard by unprincipled people and virtually never rewarded for my honesty. And I've had to come up with $25,000 to pay taxes for income on invoices I haven't even been paid for yet.

That's right! All of us college graduates do! We are lazy and we don't work, and we have everything handed to us! Yeah! (sigh)

I don't think I was generalizing. I didn't mean for what I said to be all-inclusive and I don't think I said that. Sure, there are people who work hard, know what they are doing, and deserve what they get. You can't go and train somebody to be a nuclear scientist in two weeks for example. You might have had a point in me picking out the worst scenarios if it was an extremely rare occurrence, but from my observations things like that happen all the time, even more if you count instances that are even milder than that. Besides very technical jobs where it is impossible to do them without knowing what you are doing, in my experience who you know is a lot more important than what you know or how well and dedicated somebody is to a job and even then if you know the right people you have the advantage. Even me in the measly jobs I have had got all but one of them because I had some minor connections inside the place that spoke up for me getting hired. It worked out for them because I was a good worker, but that wasn't the reason they hired me.

At what point do you try to "enforce" a so-called notion of "fair"?

Companies that aren't "fair" will not generate revenue and eventually go bankrupt. Everyday good companies go from hiring and ethically using good workers to hiring their friends and "passing the buck" to a few employees. And then those employees leave and, guess what, they go out of business in 5 years! 80% do! Because the consumer does not buy their products/services, because they are sub-quality, because they are created/serviced by a company that is disfunctional.

Every company in the modern day makes everything as cheaply and as "good enough" as they can get away with. They don't have to be fair. In fact I would say going above and beyond would be unthinkable because that would put them at a disadvantage to some corporation that is cutting corners and producing cheaper products. The rich and corporations have sort of created a culture that has enabled that. As long as everybody is doing just enough to peddle their crap on the consumer they will be forced to buy their products to keep them in business. It is even worse now that the middle class is starting to slowly evaporate and people are being forced to buy cheaper products. If they really cared about making products that are sub-quality I wouldn't have to replace my coffee pot, taster, and boots ect…every year and a half because they are broken down already. Of course the executives at the top always make their money no matter what. If anything they will try to sell their products in some marketing campaign, not by making what the produce better.

Of course companies that are ethical and fair will go out of business. THEY designed the rules that way. They can't wash their hand of it and say they have no control over those conditions when they (the rich politically elite) created them in the first place to benefit themselves. Through our politicians who they have great access to unlike normal people, they have set up a system where anybody that tries to do things right way will be blackballed out of the system, or will have to compete on a playing field so incredibly unbalanced that they can't hope to win (sort of like politics itself). That is why things like illegal immigrants and outsourcing happen, it gives them a chance to undercut the competition, thus forcing the competition to do like wise, thus forcing us to lose even more good paying jobs, thus forcing people to buy crapier and cheaper products, and the vicious cycle repeats itself.

The ultimate accountability is to the consumer. That's the balance of capitalism. It's not perfect, but there are balances.

In socialism, you rely on a single entity, typically government. It works extremely well when you have a small group of people who individually willingly participate in what they believe in and -- most importantly -- hold each other accountable on an individual basis! But when it gets too big, such as government, you lose the personal accountability. Unlike a corporation, which is still ultimately accountable to consumers (not stock holders), there is no accountability. Furthermore, in a business, stockholders have control over a company proportional to their funding, whereas governments have control over spending equally across all people.

There is no balance in socialism because there is no accountability.

Again, the accountability shifts from consumer to no one in socialism. In fact, a chronic problem that continues to plague Democracy is that most people will vote with the attitude that JFK warned against. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!" People tend to vote for their own, selfish interests -- especially when it's "other people's money."

It's the same damn reason the Democracy of the Greeks self-destructed.

I have yet to see a corporation that was accountable to it's customers. A corporation point of view is that it is accountable to maximizing it's bottom line in any way it can get a way with, then it's shareholders who benefit form the maximizing of the bottom line. As long as it can do that it doesn't give a damn about its costumers or the products it produces. They are necessary evils to the corporation that allow it to keep racking in the dough. In an ideal ideological aspect of capitalism they would have to care about the customers, but reality is far from ideal because the corporations have to care less about the consumer than the ideological standpoint would dictate. We lost accountability because like all things with people in power we have been set up in a system that no longer allows us any real option,...well unless it gets bad enough were we have a revolution and start killing people which WILL someday happen again. Other than that we have no real power as citizens to change either the corporations or the government. We are forced to buy their crappy products or go without because either more people can't afford to do otherwise or in a growing number of cases there just isn't even an alternative that they make the right way to buy anymore. In government we are given the pleasure of choosing the lesser of two evils because of yet again of a system they set up to do exactly that, I could sort of see the same thing in the corporate world. I see little difference in our current government and corporations, both are too corrupt to run us right anymore. The only difference is that at least with government we get a lousy vote for now and some people run more off an ideological standpoint than one based purely on greed.

However, I don't think America is anywhere near "critical breaking point" or ever will be. It's the richest country in the world. Places like India are growing at far higher rates than any Western country, and even there, in a teeming mass of impoverished people, they get by. America, comparatively speaking, has all the resources, jobs, food and space in the world compared to many countries which either have huge immigration rates or massive birth rates.

The problem I have with that is I go by the philosophy that just because something is better doesn't mean it is good enough. The whole world is heading towards a breaking point, with its population, with global worming, with recourses available, with a lot of things. We, for now, are in a position that can handle it a little bit better than most of the world. However just because we are in a better position doesn't mean we should lower everybody here to the hardships of everybody else in the world in some strange concept of equality, a lot of their hardships are created by themselves. Nobody in India or Africa is forcing people by gunpoint to have their population explode. When you have huge families in regions that have been arid since the last Ice Age what should they expect, it seems like common sense. Why should we have to pay for their lack of foresight? If by getting by you mean barely surviving then yes places like India "gets by". That is exactly the type of place I don't want America to turn into, and if we just let everybody in it would bring the standard of living in this country down.