Border Patrol arrests drop sharply in June

[jem]

for more of Piezoe's refined social media skills
Joseph Goebbels - Wikipedia

http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html
GOEBBELS' PRINCIPLES OF PROPAGANDA

Based upon Goebbels' Principles of Propaganda by Leonard W. Doob, published in Public Opinion and Propaganda; A Book of Readings edited for The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues.
...
12. Propaganda may be facilitated by leaders with prestige.
13. Propaganda must be carefully timed.
a. The communication must reach the audience ahead of competing propaganda.

b. A propaganda campaign must begin at the optimum moment

c. A propaganda theme must be repeated, but not beyond some point of diminishing effectiveness

14. Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans.
a. They must evoke desired responses which the audience previously possesses

b. They must be capable of being easily learned

c. They must be utilized again and again, but only in appropriate situations

d. They must be boomerang-proof

15. Propaganda to the home front must prevent the raising of false hopes which can be blasted by future events.
16. Propaganda to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level.
a. Propaganda must reinforce anxiety concerning the consequences of defeat

b. Propaganda must diminish anxiety (other than concerning the consequences of defeat) which is too high and which cannot be reduced by people themselves

17. Propaganda to the home front must diminish the impact of frustration.
a. Inevitable frustrations must be anticipated

b. Inevitable frustrations must be placed in perspective

18. Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.
19. Propaganda cannot immediately affect strong counter-tendencies; instead it must offer some form of action or diversion, or both.

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 immigrants has been dramatic, as you say. For example the the following immigrants dramatically reduced the aggregate poverty level among immigrants: 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.

 

[piezoe]

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...

jem. either you are serious with this nonsense and therefore incredibly dense, or you are assuming the rest of us are incredibly stupid. We all know that U.S. healthcare is 100% higher than in the next highest cost nation. So what is your point here? I mean, why wouldn't the U.S. spend more per person on social welfare then practically all other industrialized nations and still have more poverty than ALL the others. Have you been an outpatient in an emergency room lately! ??

jem. I can't keep responding to these absurd posts of yours. You're wearing me down.

Jesus Christ!

 

[jem]

What is your issue? we don't spend enough? I just showed you we spend plenty. You want to spend more on social programs. CA spends as much as European countries.

CA spends billions on people in poverty yet our levels hold steady.

Millions and Millions of people in Poverty are subjected to Rule by Jerry Brown and our nutty legislators.
https://www.kqed.org/news/11616520/1-in-5-californians-live-in-poverty

About 20 percent of Californians lived below the Census' "supplemental" poverty measure from 2014 to 2016, according to data released by the Bureau on Tuesday. That was exceeded only by the District of Columbia where about 21 percent of people live in poverty.Sep 13, 2017

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.

Not if they are capable of learning by example they won't. There are far better models for them to emulate. And if they are going to work on their problems (all countries have them) why not pick a country with far less poverty and crime, excellent public schools, universal access to medical care, opportunity for all, and a high overall living standard as a model to work toward. Naturally, that model would NOT be the U.S.A.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

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.

Out of that long list of immigrants, list the ones who came here illegally. Not saying there are not any. Just asking you to lay that out for us since you are so deep in the details already.

I have reserved space below for you to do that:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[piezoe]

I just showed you we spend plenty.

You didn't show me that at all. You didn't show me anything. What I showed you is we spend 100% more on medical care than any other country. So naturally, that is enough by itself to make the amount spent per capita on welfare in a country like the U.S. ,with a huge impoverished population, spend more per capita on welfare than almost all other nations. Look, if you are paying people 10 bucks an hour when it costs 16 to just barely get by, and you have a welfare system , you are going to pay a lot per capita on welfare . Then, if you pile on top of that 100% higher medical costs, and you treat poverty patients through the emergency room, the highest of all costs in the world per services rendered, you are easily going to come up with the highest per capita welfare costs We haven't seen the end of this. These outrageous costs are going higher still!

 

[piezoe]

Aieeee, someone help me. I am being sucked into a jem black hole. AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

 

[DTB2]

You didn't show me that at all. You didn't show me anything. What I showed you is we spend 100% more on medical care than any other country. So naturally, that is enough by itself to make the amount spent per capita on welfare in a country like the U.S. ,with a huge impoverished population, spend more per capita on welfare than almost all other nations. Look, if you are paying people 10 bucks an hour when it costs 16 to just barely get by, and you have a welfare system , you are going to pay a lot per capita on welfare . Then, if you pile on top of that 100% higher medical costs, and you treat poverty patients through the emergency room, the highest of all costs in the world per services rendered, you are easily going to come up with the highest per capita welfare costs We haven't seen the end of this. These outrageous costs are going higher still!

If one is only capable of EARNING $10/hr, they need to make lifestyle adjustments. 2 or 3 people pooling resources, working extra hours or a 2nd job. Funny how that worked in the past but somehow doesn't for some people now.

Why is that? Expectations too high perhaps? Impatience?

 

[piezoe]

Out of that long list of immigrants, list the ones who came here illegally. Not saying there are not any. Just asking you to lay that out for us since you are so deep in the details already.

I have reserved space below for you to do that:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I have no way of knowing that, so lets just assume they all came here illegally. There is one thing we all know is true. All the people who came here and slaughtered American Indians with their muzzle loaders, and took their land, came here "legally".

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

I have no way of knowing that, so lets just assume they all came here illegally. .

So. You are not able to identify a single immigrant in that long list who came here illegally, yet you have no reluctance in using them as examples as to why we need more immigrants without regard to whether they are legal or not because apparently there is no difference.


Piezo wants to assume they all came here illegally.

I am going to go ahead and assume that they all- or maybe one exception could pop up- came here legally.

Let the viewers go ahead and decide for themselves. Hint: One of those assumptions is Kool-Aid based.

 

[piezoe]

If one is only capable of EARNING $10/hr, they need to make lifestyle adjustments. 2 or 3 people pooling resources, working extra hours or a 2nd job. Funny how that worked in the past but somehow doesn't for some people now.

Why is that? Expectations too high perhaps? Impatience?

There is a reason why it worked in the past but doesn't now. Think about it. What kind of education did those folks in the past have and what kind do they have now. How many were on farms then versus how many now..What kind of economy did they enter then versus what kind are they entering now. What was the importance of physical labor then compared to what it is now. Have there been any significant technological changes in the past 80 years?

People are naturally impatient, especially when they are young. People naturally have high expectations, especially when they are young. Are peoples' patience and expectations now any different then they were 80 years ago?