American idiot

Something something immigration. The daily show came up with quite a good recap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YILZgK2pgAA

In a quick paragraph: He was trying to say that America has become a dumping ground. An over whelping amounts of immigrants that don't care for the country are coming and sucking the country's resources (in fewer words). This has long term effects because most of them are poor therefore increasing the poverty rate in the u.s by an overwhelming amount. Their non patriotic mentality causes that they elect presidents that will hand feed them. Presidents that will increase welfare (our tax money) and create things like Obamacare. These things benefit the poor and not those who are trying to grow wealth. It is easier to be poor in this country than to try to succeed and that is not right with the country. Although this does not apply to all immigrants but to an overwhelming large group (statistics show). Btw I'm an immigrant but this country adopted me at a young age. I will do my best to protect it. We need to restore america to a thriving country again.

That's the best I can do in one paragraph. The subject is touchy and people will still get butt hurt but it is what's best for the country. Trust me. I'm not just some old joe. I'm in this website because biochemistry and business major pushes you to surf funsubstance ALOT. I've thought of this analized it from every angle. With a higher poverty rate our country will try to even out the wealth like Obama is doing at the moment with Healthcare. Welfare was ment to help not sustain. Socialism is slowly turning to communism. This is not opinion calculate it yourselves and see. Sorry for the long posts but that's the route trump should have taken.

Well said. Whats best for a country's citizens is not always what the majority of citizens' desire. Its very difficult for people to look that far into the future.

I don't know, I'm not from the United States, but in my experience immigrants usually do the work we don't want to do, with a lower salary and worse treatment at that.
In my country the working immigrants are mostly Polish, and are abused by farmers with horrible hours and little pay. They usually don't speak the language either, so they cannot protest. The thing that needs to be fixed, is that they will recieve minimun wage, so that the farmers don't profit from the fact that they're forgein. From that perspective, the farmer might as well hire a person native to the country. In general, the closer the salaries are, the happier people tend to be. I think the US would greatly profit if the gap between poor and rich is reduced.

If guest is right about what Trump meant, I'm in complete agreement.
.
Keepsake, my issue is with ILLEGAL immigrants. The ones who ignore the legal route, who may be accompanied by illegal contraband, and the ones who expect to live without working.
If someone uses the legal channels, and manages to become a garbage man, CEO, or anything else, I'll be happy for them.
I'm not too sure our nation's issues can be compared...

Of course I'm downvoted when people disagree with my opinion, but I'm a little hurt funsubbers don't respect my opinion TT-TT
Here is an article about illegal immigrants working in agriculture: http://www.voanews.com/content/us-farmers-depend-on-illegal-immigrants-100541644/162082.html
That's what they often come to the United States to work, not to leech. When they're illegal, they don't recieve any benefits anyway. The problem with this phenomenon is that it's not properly regulated. If laws were to be made and they would recieve minimun wage, people born in the US would apply too. If there are no illegal jobs in the US, the appeal will go away and they will stop comming. Some people see this as a very black and white situation, but the truth is that there just needs to be more laws & regulation.

More laws and regulation is the opposite of the solution. Forcing employers to pay employees more in an attempt to minimize the income gap will only deter people from working hard to become employers. It will suck the determination and work ethic right out of the citizens. Plus regulation and enforcement cost more tax $. Bad bad bad!

I can tell you as a fact that people will in fact work harder if they earn minimum wage, because there is more money to make. The bigger the reward; the harder people work. Where I live, it's been like that for years. Letting rich people pay more taxes and trying to lower the income gap is a step to a better and improved United States. It has been proven by studies that it works like this, and it will have an effect on other things as well. Because of not having enough money to pay the bills, people often turn to crime. But if they could earn enough in the first place, why would they? I'm not just making this up, there have been studies around for years to prove my point. Great Gatsby Curve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve

With all due respect, everything you said in your post is a fallicy. I know first hand that simply paying someone more money for the same job does not return an equal increase in performance. If that were the case, any and all employers would be handing out raises like candy. In reality it has the opposite effect. There Gatsby curve is much more a correlation than a causation. If you work hard your whole life so that your kids can have better opportunities than you, the entire concept of the Gatsby curve becomes BS.

Imagine two 25 year old people of equal upbringing and equal low income jobs and they both have one newborn child. Person A decides to work twice as hard as they used to, leared about business, saved money, risked it all to start a business, mortgaged the house 6 times to keep it afloat and was eventually able to hire 10 employees and turn a good profit. Person B continued doing what they always did. They both die at age 80. Person B saved some fore retirement but used it all up. Person A was able to gift his child $500,000 and a profitable company. Does child B deserve any of Child A's inheritance?

I don't mean to put you down, but no, my arguments are NOT fallacies. An argument is never a fallacy if you can back it up with evidence. The Great Gatsby Curve is a generalisation of how society works, and this is what goverments use to make decisions. You can't just look at individual cases and argue what's the best for society, because you have to pick the decision that is the best for EVERYONE. Actually, your arguements come closer to fallacies because you have shown me zero evidence to back anything up and use ''emotional judgement'' instead of rational thinking. This is called an anecdotal fallacy or ''misleading vividness''.
Wikipedia source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Formal_fallacies

Second of all, like I said before, you should do what is the best for everyone instead of expectin g people to work their buts of and letting them suffer. Not having proper laws and regulations for problems where other first-world countries (Canada, Australia, Japan and practically all of Europe) do have can be a source of solving most the US' problems. Gun control, Immigration Laws, minimun wage, etc. The countries that do best on the Prosperity Index (even though the US is pretty high up I must admit) are the countries that tax the living shit out of their citizens to make sure a lot of things are available for everyone. And while the US is indeed bigger, a lot of money is being spent in places where it should instead be spent on its citizens. And to get back to your question in the second paragraph you wrote, let me just pull an example for the Bible. I'll let Jesus argue this one for me: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+15%3A11-32

No.

You poked several holes in your own argument, and the points you've made that could hold water, only do so if people agree that certain things are problems to begin with.

Please elaborate.

If you think that adding a link to an obviously spun article makes it lagit i present to you: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2015/05/20-opposition-great-gatsby-curve-winship
If you want to assume that the views of your professors are 100% truths, fine. If you want to regurgitate biased articles thats fine too.
But once you step into the real world, get challanged, and succeed youll begin to understand why human nature will not allow what you are saying to work.
US is the land of opportunity. Europe, Japan, Australia are not and never will be.

Strangly enough your bible verse would agree with my view. The father in that story should havenevery right to decide who gets his welth, not the fathers government!

I took it from Wikipedia, which is the most unbiased source you could come up with. And yes, scholars sometimes have different opinions, but that's only to be expected. The Great Gatsby curve is very widely regonized, and is by very many scholars considered to be close to reality. Let me ask you this question before you insult 80% of the first world country, have you ever set foot in ANY of them? Did you read the article's I presented to you? I'm not sure whatever argument I could come up with to debunk your ''land of opportunity'' theory, but let me just show you the prosperity index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legatum_Prosperity_Index
Surprise surprise, the US is not number one.

In fact no, I know the verse by heart and the father chooses to forgive his son and give both of his sons their rightful inheritance. The story is not about decisions, it is about forgiveness. Regardless of what someone has done, they deserve a fair share. That is what we would want for ourselves.

I couldnt agree more about forgiveness. My point is that it should be my option to forgive whomever i want. People are inherently good and will generally help others if given the option. If you start paving the way with more legislation, you're moving the opposite direction of freedome. People who feel their freedoms are being taken will fight back. People like you who want to take more of the things that people like I have worked extremely hard for. If you intended to distribute it to people in need, i would be on board. But handing out my hard work to people who are capable but to lazy to do it themselves is pathetic.

You cannot look at every individual case, it's unsustainable. My opinion remains that everyone deserves the same amount, because that is what I would want if I would fall on hard times. Let's just agree to disagree. Shout to all the people that didn't downvote me! (That doesn't appear to be a lot TT-TT)

Believe what you want, but forcing equal lifestyles on everyone doesnt leave much reason for ordinary people to pursue greatness.

And BTW, the great performers in this country are the ones carrying the vast majority of taxt burdon. Not sure who you plan to have carry the tax load in the future when everyone is the same.

Actually it leaves more space for them because for once they have enough money saved up instead of taking mortages on a house. They might carry the taxes in volume, but they definitly don't in percentages: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102341748
There would be a much greater revenue if they switched this up.

Ill bet you didnt read that actual study?? If you are objectively looking for truth, the word "unfair" in the report should have set off a huge red flag. Opinion and emotion should have no part in a tax study if it is written in an unbiased manner. You can make numbers tell any story you want. Many things were left out of that report including tax credits that are very often larger than the amount of taxes lower income people pay in the first place. I know first hand and can assure you higher income people are carrying the tax load in volume AND percentage.

Well it says unfair because the numbers don't add up, and I don't see you comming up with any counter examples. Income taxes are just one place of improvement, and I know rich people get taxed in other ways as well, but that was not the point of the article. The article was about Income taxes. If you look at it from a purely scientific standpoint, then yes, I guess I'm biased. However, it is a goverments duty to rule and regulate based on a certian moral ground. So you could argue that every politician ever pulling up a study from God knows where is biased.