If you don't think this guy rode the "look how the gringos treat our compatriots" narrative for all its worth, you're out of your mind.
Border Patrol arrests drop sharply in June
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
If you don't think this guy rode the "look how the gringos treat our compatriots" narrative for all its worth, you're out of your mind.
Actually all the candidates for President in Mexico rode the "hate Trump" bandwagon. Others had even stronger statements than the winner.
The key determinant in the election was Obrador's populist and anti-corruption campaign promises. He billed himself as the candidate who would end corruption in Mexico.
On one level perhaps.
On a more fundamental level, they- including President to be Lefty- fell all over themselves trying to be like Trump with the Make Mexico Great Again, drain the swamp, stop letting other countries rip us off routine.
President Lefty saw how a populist wanting to drain the swamp in the capital could harness the energy of the people. I wonder where that idea came from? Oh, I see. From the guy that they hate but would desperately like to imitate/emulate.
"Mexico will not be used as America's pinata." Heh, how Trumpian can you get?
Yes, they all rode that bandwagon. Had Hillary been elected, the nationalistic rhetoric would not have had as much an effect however.
To be fair, there was no chance for the other candidates, Zavala was the only one that could've done it but they pulled a Bernie on her and was pushed out as being the candidate of choice for the other party. The 2nd place was too much of a meek nerd that had no chance in hell in "macho" Mexico.
So you're right, the "anti-corruption" platform is a popular one, but it's nothing more than lip service. This guy's been trying to grab power for 2 decades and his 1st order of business will be to re-nationalize the oil industry's exploration/transportation reforms from Pena Nieto. The immigration/refugee problem is about to become very real.
For you maybe.
Otherwise, there are/were many things to be seen coming long ago by those who are not in a trance state.
this is what I despise about leftists.
They support policies which destroy the standard of living of a country (or a city) and then they blame the country... sometimes piezoe an lefties even blame Reagan.
If we did not have 60 million immigrants and anchor babies plus probably 20 million more illegals in the last 40 years... many of whom chose to come here from mexico... what do you think our poverty levels would be? How much more money would our public schools have. We could easily have universal free care and the opportunity would be massive.
you hypocritical leftist don't seem to possess the brainpower to think in systems.
Its one thing to support immigration... it quite another to turn around and blame the recipient country for the issues it causes.
morons... every single unthinking leftist SOB who supports massive immigration and then blames america because we are not richer.
by the way... the way... the poverty level in america is far higher than the median standard of living in most countries.
again...you all can't think in systems. you see the word poverty but you have no idea it is a relative term.
They support policies which destroy the standard of living of a country (or a city) and then they blame the country... sometimes piezoe an lefties even blame Reagan.
If we did not have 60 million immigrants and anchor babies plus probably 20 million more illegals in the last 40 years... many of whom chose to come here from mexico... what do you think our poverty levels would be? How much more money would our public schools have. We could easily have universal free care and the opportunity would be massive.
you hypocritical leftist don't seem to possess the brainpower to think in systems.
Its one thing to support immigration... it quite another to turn around and blame the recipient country for the issues it causes.
morons... every single unthinking leftist SOB who supports massive immigration and then blames america because we are not richer.
by the way... the way... the poverty level in america is far higher than the median standard of living in most countries.
again...you all can't think in systems. you see the word poverty but you have no idea it is a relative term.
Last edited:
jemmy, if you'll permit me to comment: I don't think you meant to compare the U.S. with Haiti, Bangladesh or Myanmar did you? Have you checked out the Western democracies lately? I.e. the fifteen other industrialized nations we generally compare ourselves too. (Here is a hint: we are near, or at, the bottom in a lot of standard measures -- poverty, violence, healthcare, opportunity, education etc. -- but compared to Burundi we look pretty good.
Last edited:
you keep manifesting your inner faggot when you attempt condescension.
1. your argument was non responsive to the main point of my argument.
2. but even your non responsive argument was silly...
a. poverty studies among western countries are are conflicting and very subjective.
b. the poverty levels in the US are highly impacted by massive immigration.
We are hitting 125 years in the percentage of Americans not born here. Its at 14%.
Then you add in 20 million or so illegal immigrants. 60 to 80 million... many millions of them added to the poverty roles.
1. your argument was non responsive to the main point of my argument.
2. but even your non responsive argument was silly...
a. poverty studies among western countries are are conflicting and very subjective.
b. the poverty levels in the US are highly impacted by massive immigration.
We are hitting 125 years in the percentage of Americans not born here. Its at 14%.
Then you add in 20 million or so illegal immigrants. 60 to 80 million... many millions of them added to the poverty roles.
jemmy, if you'll permit me to comment: I don't think you meant to compare the U.S. with Haiti, Bangladesh or Myanmar did you? Have you checked out the Western democracies lately? I.e. the fifteen other industrialized nations we generally compare ourselves too. (Here is a hint: we are near, or at, the bottom in a lot of standard measures -- poverty, violence, healthcare, opportunity, education etc. -- but compared to Burundi we look pretty good.
Last edited:
Inequality
Poverty in the U.S. — We Spend Much More Per Person on Social Welfare than Europe Does
https://www.heritage.org/poverty-an...-spend-much-more-person-social-welfare-europe
Tomorrow, the U.S. Census Bureau will release its annual poverty report. Conventional wisdom holds that the U.S. has a small social-welfare system and far more poverty, compared with other affluent nations. But noted liberal scholars Irwin Garfinkel, Lee Rainwater, and Timothy Smeeding challenge such simplistic ideas in their book Wealth and Welfare States: Is America a Laggard or Leader?Garfinkel and his colleagues examine social-welfare spending and poverty in rich nations.
They define social welfare as having five components: health-care spending; education spending; cash retirement benefits; other government cash transfers such as unemployment insurance and the earned-income tax credit (EITC); and non-cash aid such as food stamps and public housing. The authors find that in the U.S., social-welfare spending differs from that in other affluent countries because it draws heavily on both public and private resources. By contrast, in Europe, government controls most of the resources and benefits.
For example, in the U.S., government health-care spending is targeted to elderly and low-income persons; the American middle and working classes rely primarily on employer-provided health insurance. The U.S. government health-care system is, therefore, more redistributive than the systems of most other developed nations. Elderly middle-class Americans are also more likely to have private pensions than are Europeans. Middle-class parents in the U.S. pay for much of the cost of their children’s post-secondary education; in Europe, the government pays. Overall, in Europe, the upper middle class is heavily dependent on government benefits; in the U.S., it relies much more on its own resources. But even setting aside the private sector, the U.S. still has a very large social-welfare system. In fact, among affluent nations, the U.S. has the third-highest level of per capita government social-welfare spending.
This is striking given that government spending in the U.S. is more tightly targeted to benefit the poor and elderly. When private-sector contributions to retirement, health care, and education are added to the count, social-welfare spending in the U.S. dwarfs that of other nations. In fact, social-welfare spending per capita in the U.S. rises to nearly twice the European average. As Garfinkel et al., conclude:
For those who believe the absolute size of the US welfare state is small, the data presented . . . [in the book] are shocking and constitute a wake up call. Once health and education benefits are counted, real per capita social welfare in the United States is larger than in almost all other countries!
Only one nation (Norway) spends more per person than the U.S. spends.
more at link...
Poverty in the U.S. — We Spend Much More Per Person on Social Welfare than Europe Does
https://www.heritage.org/poverty-an...-spend-much-more-person-social-welfare-europe
Tomorrow, the U.S. Census Bureau will release its annual poverty report. Conventional wisdom holds that the U.S. has a small social-welfare system and far more poverty, compared with other affluent nations. But noted liberal scholars Irwin Garfinkel, Lee Rainwater, and Timothy Smeeding challenge such simplistic ideas in their book Wealth and Welfare States: Is America a Laggard or Leader?Garfinkel and his colleagues examine social-welfare spending and poverty in rich nations.
They define social welfare as having five components: health-care spending; education spending; cash retirement benefits; other government cash transfers such as unemployment insurance and the earned-income tax credit (EITC); and non-cash aid such as food stamps and public housing. The authors find that in the U.S., social-welfare spending differs from that in other affluent countries because it draws heavily on both public and private resources. By contrast, in Europe, government controls most of the resources and benefits.
For example, in the U.S., government health-care spending is targeted to elderly and low-income persons; the American middle and working classes rely primarily on employer-provided health insurance. The U.S. government health-care system is, therefore, more redistributive than the systems of most other developed nations. Elderly middle-class Americans are also more likely to have private pensions than are Europeans. Middle-class parents in the U.S. pay for much of the cost of their children’s post-secondary education; in Europe, the government pays. Overall, in Europe, the upper middle class is heavily dependent on government benefits; in the U.S., it relies much more on its own resources. But even setting aside the private sector, the U.S. still has a very large social-welfare system. In fact, among affluent nations, the U.S. has the third-highest level of per capita government social-welfare spending.
This is striking given that government spending in the U.S. is more tightly targeted to benefit the poor and elderly. When private-sector contributions to retirement, health care, and education are added to the count, social-welfare spending in the U.S. dwarfs that of other nations. In fact, social-welfare spending per capita in the U.S. rises to nearly twice the European average. As Garfinkel et al., conclude:
For those who believe the absolute size of the US welfare state is small, the data presented . . . [in the book] are shocking and constitute a wake up call. Once health and education benefits are counted, real per capita social welfare in the United States is larger than in almost all other countries!
Only one nation (Norway) spends more per person than the U.S. spends.
more at link...
that's true, but no matter how "conflicting and subjective," somehow Finland always comes out above Haiti, and the U.S. always comes out below Finland. Go figure!
That's a different discussion, and another of your true statements. The impact of immigration on aggregate poverty levels among first and second generation immigrants has been dramatic, as you imply. For example the the following immigrants dramatically reduced the poverty level among immigrants just by existing: Einstein, Levi Strauss, Sergai Brin (google, he did a lot to impact the aggregate poverty level!), Dikembe Mutombo (NBA), Joseph Pullitzer, Elizabeth Claiborne (think cosmetics), Madeleine Albright (Secretary of State; her dad, Jospeh Korbel, another immigrant, founded the Korbel School of International Relations at my Alma Mater and produced another U.S. Sec. Of State, Condoleezza Rice) Edward Teller, Jan Koum (WhatsApp), Isabel Allende (Presidential medal of Freedom winner), Freddy Adu (U.S. soccer star; here because his mom won the green card lottery), Oscar de la Renta, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim (YouTube) , Arianna Huffington, Mariano Rivera (Yankees pitcher), Arnold Schwarzenegger (California Governor). And I could go on for not a hundred more pages but a few thousand more pages. You get the idea though. WE need immigrants! This would be a horribly dull place without them. Just a bunch of indians chasing after buffalo.
Oh, did I forget to mention Enrico Fermi.
Which Indian tribe do you trace your own non-immigrant, non-rapist, non-murderer background to?
Last edited: