>> On Jun 2, 5:04 pm, Fred wrote
>
>> Why should it be illegal for people to come here and work?
>
> Essentially because most of the voters dont want the dregs of the world to do
> that.
You characterize people who subsidize essential jobs with cheap labor as
dregs? Then our corporations must be in collusion with them because we
are out sourcing American jobs to them. So it is OK to send a job to
India or Malaysia for cheap work but it isn't OK for cheap labor to come
here? Explain that to me please. (For the sake of arguement we will over
look that people from what is now called Mexico have migrated back and
forth for centuries between the region that was half of Mexico before
1848.)
>
>> Should it not be illegal for citizens here, who don't want to work,
>> have government force working people to pay the bills for them?
>
> The govt doesnt force anyone to work.
No, you are right, if you "have" money, you don't need to work. If you
make your money with your money, you only have to pay 15%% in income
taxes, while those of us who work for a living have to pay 32%% in order
to subsidize you.
>
>>> Mexico's problems are corrupt government, lack of contraception,
>>> crime, and a backwards, entrenched peasantry.
Ah, sounds like home.
>>> These conditions
>>> predated the existence of the USA. Clueless rubes like you are
>>> part of the problem, not the solution.
Here we leave lofty intellectual arguments for foul and base ad homenim
attacks.
>
>> Subsidized agriculture in the developed world is one of the
>> greatest obstacles to economic growth in the developing world.
>
> Nope, the way they keep pumping out hordes more brats than their economy
> can possibly support cripples their economic growth much more than that does.
It is called subsistence agriculture which requires much labor and many
children, especially when many of them die in childhood from something
trivial like unclean water that if they didn't have to compete with
subsidized crops they could afford to avoid. This is a situation that
a third of humanity finds itself in while you rejoice in your unearned
entitlement of being born white and American.
>
>> In 2002, industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic
>> Cooperation and Development (OECD) spent a total of $300 billion
>> on crop price supports, production payments and other farm programs.
>
> And that has dropped considerably since then.
>
>> These subsidies encourage overproduction.
>
> Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont.
Can you gve a citation to back up your big mouth?
>
>> Markets are flooded with surplus crops that are sold
>> below the cost of production, depressing world prices.
>
> The current reality with world food prices is the exact opposite.
God, you are so freaking dense. Local farmers, who could have fed local
populations, have been driven out of business by subsidized crops.
>
>> Countries with unsubsidized goods are essentially shut out of world
>> markets,
>
> No they arent.
Citation asshole.
>
>> devastating their local economies.
>
> Wrong again. Look at Australia for example which doesnt
> have any price crop price supports and whose economy
> leaves that of much of the rest of the first world for dead.
Australia isn't shipping wheat this year because of a drought. They are
cannibalizing their forests for foreign currency and they are
overpopulated for the amount of food that they can produce. The
Australians are a wonderful people but they aren't an example of earth
stewardship.
>
>
> Just another mindlessly superficial rant.
Well, who better than you to know about that. Piss-off until you have
citations.
