permafrost wrote:
Very good post.. we agree more than I expected..
Yes a wall would be partly effective.. it is a cost VS benefit idea..
boots on the ground info needs to be included with the big picture view and both considered.
Stop birth citizenship for illegals only.. That is a new twist for me.. I need to give it some thought.. I do not know if any of the other countries which have the birthright citizenship law uses that twist. Or even how the other countries law differs for the US law.
cracking down on those who hire illegals has long been an issue that is not enforced.. needs to get done..
Visa overstays should be a hot topic, but it is very difficult to make it happen.. no one has a sign on their head proclaiming the visa and the date it expires.
problem with stay in mexico... it has to be allowed by both counties.. Reciprocity.... Just imagine the US having to deal with all those trying to slip into Mexico from the US.. LOL.. should we simply force the policy via blackmail or something? And it was not a solution, only a delay, part of the problem we currently are dealing with..
Welfare,, your concern is understandable, but I think it means we need to raise the minimum wage.. We need people who can afford to spend money, keep our economy strong.
Teen jobs... this is a good one.. we had "work study" programs as well as jobs galoor that fit in well with teens time... newspaper boys, stocking shelves, Yard work, simple maintenance around the home.. even worked in a veg canning plant once.. I think it would help the teen problems, including gangs etc if some of these were once more in use.
The immigration laws have needed reworking for decades if not generations..
We do have a program for valued immigration.. not sure how it works or the Quota..
One of the current drivers of 3rd world immigration is the current world conditions.. back in the day Europeans were seeking freedom and a better life, these days it is the desolate and oppressed 3rd world people.. and also consider Climate Change it will become more and more of a driver..
Dept of Education.. now that is a touchy subject.. few, on both sides of the table are happy with the situation.. but the remedy is very hard to find.. Let each state muddle to its own solution.. with the sorry conditions in some states compared to others now common ground will be easy to find.. we truly should have minimum standards on a national level..
many attempts tried and failed.. recall "no student left behind" also another dismal attempt forget the name also Minnesota was one of only two states to refuse one of those attempts, forget which one.. my kids were all out of school of had not started at that time, so had no direct contact with them.. in one case kids did start but to private church based school who did not use the current effort at change.
The problems and reasons for the decline in our education system would fill a book.. but I agree that it is very much in need of fixing.. the devil is in the details.. getting people to agree on the solutions near impossible..
good to have a real interesting post rather that just name calling.. on my part also.. thanks have a great day..
Very good post.. we agree more than I expected.. ... (
show quote)
You know there are two solutions, but both solutions require work to be done.
To implement either solution we as mankind must quit suffering evils that are sufferable and right ourselves by abolishing to forms which we accustomed to.
The two solutions are represented in the two parties. The Democrats lean toward the solution of Marxism, and its benefit of the mob. This is not an insult to the party, but an observation, that no matter the issue or action, the party sticks together, right or wrong, as one. The problem with this way of thinking is that the party as a whole becomes the tyrant, and the identity of the members is lost with in the party. And thus the result does not build wealth or prosperity, because that is given willfully to the small group within the party called the elite or thier leaders. Thus this mob can get away with hiring a clown or incompetent fool to lead them. Under this sense of gnostic Marxism, the sheep will follow the shepherd straight to hell with no recourse. The final recourse would follow that the Indians will kill the chief after many abuses. The gnostic Marxism is best described by the nephilim rule in ancient Babylon, under Nimrod, or in other ancient Greek civilizations such as Athenian or spartan cultures, wh 1ere the democracy was overthrown by tyrants.
Jealousy of this collectivism, tempted ancient Israel, and ancient Rome. That jealousy coupled with greed and laziness brought forth the idea of utopia which is unachievable, when the members of the collective disagree. Only when they agree do they steal from the prosperity of the powers of the earth, which are assumed through necessity. Which fails again without a common agreement on the greater good.
This is the failure of both socialism, Marxism, or the collective theory of utopianism. Simply put, as long as the collective agrees with each other, then the collective is strong, the minute they disagree the collective falls apart. The more people seduced by the collective, the stronger the collective but the more damage the collective causes. Thus the Babylonia exile had similar implications on the Israelite as the fall of Rome did on the Christians during the midevial period.
Experience of the human condition therefore, after the destruction of both ancient Judah and Sameria, parallels that of the destruction of Rome in the fact that the only way out of it, was through the solution of a republic based on democratic principles that don't enter the jealousy that leads to a monarch or dictatorship.
The second solution, is individualism which is shown therein the republican party. Just like the collective theory, the individual is vulnerable, but when in common agreement is the most powerful. The reason for this is unlike Marxism, the individual is self governing therefore according to experience and theory, is not rules by a single entity but rather by the good conscience developed by the wisdom shared by individual successes and failures through example. Each individual is responsible for thier own failures and successes where in time advances the human condition, and creates out of nothing, using the powers of the earth, and aligning with the laws of Nature, and that of Nature's God, the station in which they live. Under this philosophy was born capitalism which is a blessing and a curse. A blessing due to the wealth it produces, a curse due to how harsh the fall from grace becomes when it fails.
One who is respected as an individual has more power than one who is part of the collective however the one who is part of the collective is more secure within the group. Simply put, the individual lacks protection from the group, however reaps a higher profit, and is not held back, as a person without favor in a collective.
By adding more people to the collective, makes the collective implode then explode, like that of a bubble or balloon. As independent bubbles, the individual is more powerful, for to conquer one is easy but to conquer all is impossible. In a single collective, the collective has a strong wall, but once the wall is breached the collective falls apart like a house of cards.
In wisdom through experience, the founders of this nation found a compromise that even the emperor of Japan recognized in World War II. That generation was considered the greatest generation because the balance between individualism and collectivism, government and selfgovernment were ruled through love. But when that love was replaced by jealousy and laziness, it started to fall apart.
Which brings us to the 60s, and 70s. Where the seduction of tribal mentality seduced the solution towards Marxism rather than capitalism. Marxism steals the legitimate profit and squander it amongst the collective thus perpetually consuming all until nothing is left. Where capitalism creates wealth and prosperity, Marxism consumes it.
One group rule, or monarchies, or communism, all consume. Thus, the American experiment in respecting self government and the individual, expanded on the old idea, let the people decide for themselves and be self governing.
Three groups are then born out of this, progressives, liberals and conservatives. A young man with a heart is a liberal....John Kennedy for example. An old man with intelligence and wisdom is a conservative, Ronald Reagan is an example of that. Where as r he progressivism is different. To have wisdom one must first have a heart. But progressives use the heart as an excuse, then explain a heart is thus weak. So when a liberal believes in progressive ideals they follow Joseph Stalin. Where as a conservative progressive becomes an Adolf Hitler.
So there you have it, we the people must choose to end the laziness of sufferavle evils we are accustomed to, by choosing which example we are to move forward with, a liberal like John Kennedy or a conservative like Ronald Reagan, where incidently they can peaceably team up together. Or do we go to the route of conservative progressivism and become like Hitler. Or do we swing to the liberal progressivism like that of Joseph Stalin?
Like Reagan said, "Democracy is one generation away from extinction"