What chance has the U.S. to survive, if we don't fix our money system and stop legal, and illegal immigration?

> There might be less pollution if they fermented into ethanol as they
> are now doing with Los Angeles lawn clippings.

Denver has plenty of pollution and they need to do something about it

> Just make sure it's not only the right size, but is fuel line, otherwise
> it will crack or turn into goo.

Yes oh gee hope they send me the right one for sure and i have given them all the info on my car that they need

This survey is really biased. The US has plenty chances to survive, but I'm not sure that those are the top 3 issues.

My wife says line up the military along the entire Mexican border and shoot any wetbacks trying to come over. California is going under due in part to spending $5 BILLION dollars a year on illegals - welfare, medical, etc. Illegal immigration is killing this country. Ending it IS a very high priority for this country to survive.
e

I'm willing to bet that California employers have also saved more than $5B by hiring them instead. I also expect they have bought at least $5B in consumer goods.

Essentially it comes down to outsourcing cheap foreign labor, and trading with foreign nations, without any of the shipping costs. The foreign nation is embedded within our own. Most every successful culture in world history had much the same aristocracy and worker class system. The only thing unique about our system is that there is a bit of upward/downward mobility allowed, such that the worker class imagines their status is their own fault and doesn't rebel. The welfare is just part of the maintenance cost, not unlike feeding and housing slaves. If you find the system so unjust to you, then try trading places with an immigrant worker. For a class of people to be relatively rich, another class has to be relatively poor. If that wasn't immigrants, it would be someone else. Even the relatively poor in our country are doing rather well, having at least food, heat, TV, and bus fares, so I don't see a problem.

The only reason our survival would require limiting or jettisoning some of our worker class would be if we lacked sufficient food or energy resources. So far that isn't a problem.

You are guilty of racism at the same time as you are beneficiary of this racism. Your engineering income comes from other companies which exploit the worker class and from those living at commodity consumer level. If you wish to continue living at your relative level, your only other option is to indirectly exploit Caucasians instead, so you won't have to flip through Hispanic/Asian cable channels. Is it that big a deal?

I don't like socialism/communism. I don't like the one world order. I believe this nation, can be a nation unto itself. We could support ourselves. I don't believe in pluralism. This nation could take care of itself, but the enemy within wants to destroy us. It's the have nots, want what the haves, have.

Americans are not stupid, nor are they lazy. That is what the socialist/communists want impressionable people to think, to use as an excuse to flood this country with workers.

Ultimately, I feel there is something lacking in their lives.

We need to keep jobs here. We don't need other countries.

You have a worldly view of things. I definitely believe at one time, there were distinct races. But through migration, and intermarriage, new names for people came about....confusion, confusion.

It doesn't

Wow, this survey has made me actually want to migrate to the US. Some achievement

Your ideology works in a society of local self-sustaining agriculture. It's too late for that to work on most of the planet now. Returning to it would be like expecting an ant farm to work with each ant having it's own tunnels.

How many people make anything they could buy? Who wants to work when you can make more as a supervisor of many others willing to work for less? What company builds a product when they can just manipulate money numbers? Americans think they can sit in their chair and have the world come to them.

Socialists/communists believe everyone should work, and work equally. Capitalists have this funny idea that individuals can transcend having to work, get rich, and retire early.

Except that a few of our key resources are found elsewhere on the planet, we, the country, could be self-sustaining, and I believe that would be in our better interest. We, individuals, can not. It's terribly inefficient to try to make and grow your own everything. Mao made that mistake and destroyed China. He had every neighborhood in the nation mining and smelting steel from their backyards, and stripping the last of their firewood to do so.

Culturally we could be the utmost in isolationism, every neighborhood having it's own religion, every city having it's own constitution, but technically we still need to work together with just one Detroit, one Silicon Valley, Arizona solar farms, Idaho potatoes, California grapes, and our whole national collective still needs minerals found elsewhere. China for instance has a monopoly on the best magnet materials which every motor from hard-drive to locomotive requires. Our electronics require lots of gold. Fortunately copper is cheap here. Heck, it's actually cheaper than plastic which relies on foreign oil.

I just explained to Cereal Killer how importing workers is how we manage to be self-sustaining. We have an aristocracy and a worker/consumer class. Our model half a century ago was to export goods to 3rd world countries, a quarter century ago we outsourced labor to 3rd world countries. Now in this age of costlier shipping, it's more efficient to embed your own 3rd world country within your own country. That's how most every successful civilization in world history operated.

You are a bit of a self contradiction. You blame things on the haves and have nots, on the greedy or needy. Socialism/communism is about have equally, but you favor capitalism, which is about have mores & have lesses, and the way the America way works, everyone's motivation and the reason for the poor not simply rebelling is the idea that everyone should strive to be one of the have mores.

I can't imagine what you actually do want. You don't want economic equality, but you don't want the poor after the stature of the wealthy. Are you hoping certain races will volunteer to work for less and decline opportunities for profit so that the rich can live more comfortably? Come to think of it, you don't want that either. I don't know what that possibly leaves.

As I put it to CK, I suggested the only thing left implied in his position against immigration, is that he wants Caucasians to also be our embedded 3rd world nation, so he can live his relative white-collar wealth without having to surf past Asian/Hispanic cable channels.

For years you have been complaining about what you don't want without much suggestion of what you do want. I have doubts you either know what you want, or suspect that what you do want is something which would drastically reduce our standard of living down to the dust bowl days, with no infrastructure to get back on our feet.

Maybe you just want what we have now, but with a Caucasian underclass instead of an immigrant one. Our Caucasians won't go for that. They count on almost automatically starting off as the hotel desk clerks and accountants while immigrants start off as the janitors and dishwashers. The racist superiority here requires that we have immigrants.

For our economy to not require immigrants, we would have to stop being racists.

It's a moot point now in one respect anyhow. Even if we closed our borders off, we will still eventually become a Hispanic nation. Hispanics will have kids even if they haven't hit the $120k/yr benchmark. They accept the notion that their family will be working class.

I agree, but capitalists do not.

As communist/socialist as I am, when I started thinking about how to make a harmonica company, I was immediately flooded with temptations to do it all with factory robotic and subcontracting things like embroidering cases and etching circuit boards to Asia myself. It's either that or pay 20-40 times as much for these services, which drastically reduces my own profits and sustainability. I'm in no different position than any other business person in this respect, and it's business and industry which write this nations laws. No one will vote for isolationism and multiplying business costs 10-100 times - not unless labor unions take over the nation. They're your only hope for what you want, and yet my recollection is that you don't care for them either, equating them with socialism, which is of course what they are, and as far as I can make out, what you actually want, even though you call it the enemy. Industry has pretty much dismantled union power anyhow.

You call me worldly (I take it you mean material), but what I am telling you that there is nothing in the material world we can latch on to. It is a shifting tide of particles at every level, never the same.

Possibly man-kind arose spontaneously as separate tribes scattered around the planet, but even that would have been a brief prehistorical snapshot in the overall scheme of things. By the time of biblical writings, the people were no less muttly and recategorized as people are today in reference to them.

Your whole concept of confusion is based on an imaginary ego abstraction. You want things to remain solid and identifiable forever. Not one proton, one person, one continent, or one galaxy does that even for a second. Everything is in flux. You want to hold on to a billion things which time will evolve or erode without exception. 'Things' only exist in our heads. If you have a picture of what things exist in your head today, tomorrow it will be obsolete.

I am surprised that in your studies of medicine you have not encountered the core belief of buddhism and taoism. That belief, held by billions of people, is that the only thing which is constant is constant change. These people are not confused though, they are in harmony with the nature of reality. They let go and surrender, and are comfortable flowing along with the river. You are confused because you are a materialist. You cling to physical things which only existed a brief moment and now exist only in your head. You are unable to live and participate in the world because every time you open your eyes what you see is at odds with what is in your mind. You are too stubborn to drink in the ever-changing cup of life and stir it up some yourself. Your entire belief system is based on imagination, not reality. The bible says a thousand times over that there is no rock to be found in the material world, and yet there are fundamentalist OT cults (including your own, apparently) seeking exactly that.

The odd thing is that OT people themselves were even more founded in the pantheistic flux of nature than we are ourselves today. Their culture at that time was just a young collective ego formulating notions of identity and permanence, concepts they had not had before. The landmarks of the period were writing and permanent architecture. They were enthralled by these new concepts of identity and permanence, and extended them to things like lands and tribes. The OT was not so much a spiritual innovation. The world was already perceived as being driven by the flux of nature spirits at that time. What was new, what they recorded to pass down along the generations was their new ideology of permanent materialism. They even went so far as to turn God into a singular entity rather than a universal force. Jesus then came along and said "Hey, you got it all wrong. You've turned spirit-matter into 'things', and now you'll have to find spirit elsewhere, away from things."

OT adherance is the most material, least spiritual, of any of the worlds faiths. For most Westerners it was superceded by Christianity which was a return to deeper spiritualism. The huge difference between Christianity and pre-OT spirituality is that Christianity had to reformulate to overcome a world which now had ego and materialism as it's base concept. The important part to consider here in this evolution is that none of this is fact of God or nature, but an evolution of understanding God and nature through the evolving deluded human ego. If we as a people evolve to have new forms of egos and embody new worldly concepts, we will require even newer tools for discerning the nature of spirit amongst it.

As I said so elaborately, all reality is in flux, but it always has been and always will be founded on spirit. No matter how we evolve, we will always return to seeking and finding the spirit of God within existence.

Ahhhhhrrrr!!

Give it up already. You're arguing with a Birch Society member. Its very unlikely you'll get a consistent philosophy out of her, much less convince her to agree with yours. Someone I doubt you can reason with someone so blatantly out of touch with reality, and quite frankly, you're not much better.

I know the scattering of what she believes, now I'm going to the root of those beliefs. Reconciling what exists with her now, I realize to be impossible.

I actually benefit from this by coming across new insights myself. Tonight I came to realize that the Old Testament actually substantiates the then relatively novel notions of permanent ego and materialism.

Well, first off, it was CK's wife who wants to shoot Mexicans (or more accurately, she wants someone else to do it for her) not CK. Not that he likes them too much either. Secondly, CK doesn't seem to mind the hot Latina chicks.

Thirdly, your conveniently forgetting to mention that many of these workers have kids, who wind up going through the same school system everyone else goes through, and some of who become successful. Nevermind job training programs that exist for everyone. There are plenty of middle class and wealthy Hispanics in the US. So that pretty much kills your "underclass" argument. Obviously some Mexicans make it.

The ones that don't, they CHOOSE to live in isolated ghettos and don't put much effort into assimilating. His complaint has more to do with tax payer money paying for their welfare and medical, which is very expensive. And since its the state of California paying most of it, not the Feds, I kinda see his point.

I did mention our system has the lure of some upward mobility built into it.

I'm saying his tax money is indirectly serving employers of immigrants, not just the immigrants themselves.
However expensive it is, the proof of how it works out is evident in his comparative lifestyle. Even with his world coming to a catastrophic end a year ago, he's still much better off while working no harder than the average immigrant.

I live on a primarily Hispanic street. A decade ago the tree houses looked as good as the other homes here, but the owners gradually did their own construction, and have now worked their way up to beveled glass doors and chandaliers. The framing was unconventionally, but solidly scrapped together, and certain phases took awhile for them to fund, but I'm quite impressed.

I'm still convinced that when it comes down to it, that most people against immigration are against it for racist reasons, and not because of it's effect on the economy, or at least not if they were to understand it better.

The ones I can see with most cause to stop immigration are the most recent immigrants, who, from what I hear, usually are in fact against further immigration. Further scarcity of housing, non-scarcity of untrained low-wage labor, and greater distribution demands for welfare funding are not to their advantage.

Statistically, as far as upward mobility goes, Hispanics do reasonably well. It's the blacks who don't get too far ahead in education or wages. They speak English already, so unless racism is worse for them, or their family support networks are less effective, they must have convinced themselves they don't have much chance. The blacks I meet who rapidly shoot ahead are directly from Africa, and aren't operating with some residual notion of slave class and So. Baptist surrender.

You should be congratulating yourself. A good deal of my current material perspective is insight I picked up from you a couple years ago.

I'm with you Cerealkiller. We have been invaded, and the problem needs to be addressed.

> However expensive it is, the proof of how it works out is evident
> in his comparative lifestyle. Even with his world coming to a catastrophic
> end a year ago, he's still much better off while working no harder
> than the average immigrant.
>

But the whole point is, he doesn't want his standard of living to go down even if he's better off than others. I mean I am better off than a homeless person, but would I want to pay $200 more in taxes every month and give him free housing-- even though I still wouldn't want to trade places with him. Most people aren't as selfless as you. Its not a very difficult concept to grasp.


> I'm still convinced that when it comes down to it, that most people
> against immigration are against it for racist reasons, and not because
> of it's effect on the economy, or at least not if they were to understand
> it better.
>

That's where you are wrong. Most people who are against it are so because of selfish reasons (ie: paying more in taxes). Its kinda hard to argue that poor people aren't going to be using more of your social services than someone wealthier. And not everyone believes in communism and that everyone should be economically equal (I would say pretty much 99% don't). People simply don't want to pay money to other people if they won't get anything out of it.


> Statistically, as far as upward mobility goes, Hispanics do reasonably
> well.

Yes, but that's not always the perception. Its enough that people think that Hispanics don't do well. Also, the ones that don't are much more visible.

[> However expensive it is, the proof of how it works out is evident
> in his comparative lifestyle. Even with his world coming to a catastrophic
> end a year ago, he's still much better off while working no harder
> than the average immigrant.
But the whole point is, he doesn't want his standard of living to go down even if he's better off than others. I mean I am better off than a homeless person, but would I want to pay $200 more in taxes every month and give him free housing-- even though I still wouldn't want to trade places with him. Most people aren't as selfless as you. Its not a very difficult concept to grasp.]


It's not just that he's better off, like two folks with separate cabins in the woods, the better off one sending charity to the poor, it's rather that he's better off because he get's more of society's money, while the other guy does more of society's work. That may happen in even less direct means than tax redisribution, but it is happening. Tax redistribution (vertical) hardly compensates for salary differences between classes, which spread horizontally.

That's all.