Aging population = import people

Interesting article from zerohedge:


http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed...y-ponzi-scheme

I never really thought about it like this before, but the us government may actually think theyre tricking Mexico into giving us their people, so that we may continue our way of life. If it is a ponzi scheme, it relies on more and more people, and it doesn't matter where they come from.

In our case it cant work, because the people coming here are bleeding us dry at the same time, so it can't be effective. But if we didn't have any social programs, I think I would be completely in favor of bringing in as many immigrants as possible, and making citizens of the ones already here.

Mexico thinks we're suckers, but with a single change the shoe would be on the other foot. Just say immigrants aren't eligible for social programs for 20 years or something.

We shouldn't be saying "secure the border, then we'll talk." We should probably be saying "kill all social programs for immigrants, and they can all come here. As many as you can send." And we'd probably have the last laugh when we're still living the high life, and all other countries are failing.

i do believe our economy is a ponzi scheme, and this article makes me realize that a ponzi scheme relies on more and more suckers.

Nobody interested in this topic? I bet it will be the news of the day tomorrow.

after reading a transcript of a Rubio interview, I think this is basically what he is proposing. Except he's saying 10 years, and his plan has a snowballs chance in hell of working because even if libs agree to it, they're going to do everything possible to let illegals rape us indefinitely.

but consider when your knee jerk reaction is to hate Marco Rubio, that he may know that we're living a Ponzi scheme, and therefore his intentions are good in that he knows we need lots more suckers brought into the scheme for it to continue. And he also knows that those suckers can't just come in and bleed us dry via social programs.

I just don't trust the libs will allow us to enforce any measures that would prevent them from bleeding us dry. And so in that sense, I think Marco Rubio is being dumb/corrupt for trusting them. But the plan itself may theoretically ok.

I read that article. This is all a bubble propped up by trust in paper currency backed by assets that will cover the first loan but none of the subsequent loans. There are not enough assets currently to cover the debts of the governments or the people and monetizing debt will eventually fail.

As to the question about transferring a good percentage of Mexico's population here, I think that is just vote buying. What will these elites do when they run out of our money to pay for votes and the voters starts kicking down the mansion doors demanding their fair share? How do the elites plan to stay in power once they run out of gifts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roberth

I read that article. This is all a bubble propped up by trust in paper currency backed by assets that will cover the first loan but none of the subsequent loans. There are not enough assets currently to cover the debts of the governments or the people and monetizing debt will eventually fail.

As to the question about transferring a good percentage of Mexico's population here, I think that is just vote buying. What will these elites do when they run out of our money to pay for votes and the voters starts kicking down the mansion doors demanding their fair share? How do the elites plan to stay in power once they run out of gifts?

---

I think you're right that it's effectively vote buying the way they've been doing it, and they're going to continue to do it. I'm just saying if they really couldn't vote, and really couldn't get government services for a really long time, we would probably be well served to get as many people from Mexico and the rest of the world as possible to keep the Ponzi scheme alive as long as possible. And that very well may be why the government is so insistent upon leaving illegal immigrants alone. But they're leaving out the important part. *

One side of me says "screw that, just collapse the sucker now and let's deal with it". The other side says "why not just continue to get free money as long as we can print it? It's not going to hurt any more in the future than it would right now if we pulled the plug." We're already past the point of no return, why don't we just keep enjoying it as long as the creditors will let us? We're not going to pay back $16 trillion any easier than $100 trillion.

*Edit - or is it really so hard to believe that the government has done the math and determined it is less expensive to let illegals come in and rape the system than to not have them be here at all? In other words, they contribute slightly more to the economy than they take out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generalmeow

I think you're right that it's effectively vote buying the way they've been doing it, and they're going to continue to do it. I'm just saying if they really couldn't vote, and really couldn't get government services for a really long time, we would probably be well served to get as many people from Mexico and the rest of the world as possible to keep the Ponzi scheme alive as long as possible. And that very well may be why the government is so insistent upon leaving illegal immigrants alone. But they're leaving out the important part. *

One side of me says "screw that, just collapse the sucker now and let's deal with it". The other side says "why not just continue to get free money as long as we can print it? It's not going to hurt any more in the future than it would right now if we pulled the plug." We're already past the point of no return, why don't we just keep enjoying it as long as the creditors will let us? We're not going to pay back $16 trillion any easier than $100 trillion.

*Edit - or is it really so hard to believe that the government has done the math and determined it is less expensive to let illegals come in and rape the system than to not have them be here at all? In other words, they contribute slightly more to the economy than they take out?

---

Use CA as the example and all your questions regarding Illegal's, health & entitlement systems will be answered. Bankrupt health system, more hospitals closed due to no income, etc etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jim

Use CA as the example and all your questions regarding Illegal's, health & entitlement systems will be answered. Bankrupt health system, more hospitals closed due to no income, etc etc.

---

I don't have any questions about illegals. I said if we could guarantee that they couldn't vote or take advantage of the system, then I believe that we should bring in as many as possible, as Ponzi schemes depend on more and more suckers. Therefore the more suckers we can bring in, the longer it can last.

This is a good thing, if you believe that we might as well keep the charade going at this point.

My only question is if this is already the plan of the government, and instead of guaranteeing that they can't vote or take advantage of the system, both sides of the aisle have done the math and determined that we shouldn't care. Their motto might be "just get them here". But I'm certain that liberals like the part where they get to vote.

I guess the bottom line is that I'm trying to come up with a catch-all theory that explains why both sides of the aisle behave the way they do towards illegals. It doesn't make any sense, unless you look deeper. On the surface we should be rounding them up and sending them home, and shooting anyone who tries to come back across the border uninvited. There must be a meaningful reason to want them to come here illegally and stay, as both R's and D's don't seem to be doing anything about it.

Wouldn't work... They are getting paid to do the work but a lot of times they aren't putting that money back into the economy, they're sending it back to family south of the border (I didn't say Mexico because many are from further south than that). What you do is secure the border so the economy doesn't suffer from illegals burdening the system by taking and not using here. Taking voting and healthcare out of the equation, they still are bad for our country. So no, ponzi scheme or not, illegals in America is bad, no amnesty. Send them packing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

Wouldn't work... They are getting paid to do the work but a lot of times they aren't putting that money back into the economy, they're sending it back to family south of the border (I didn't say Mexico because many are from further south than that). What you do is secure the border so the economy doesn't suffer from illegals burdening the system by taking and not using here. Taking voting and healthcare out of the equation, they still are bad for our country. So no, ponzi scheme or not, illegals in America is bad, no amnesty. Send them packing!

---

But they don't have to send it back to the family, when the family lives north of the border. Which they would, if we allowed them to.

Look, I'm not in favor of illegal immigration in any way. This whole post is about how if our whole system really is a Ponzi scheme, then we truly do need them to keep it going. And the government might realize that, but they're not going to come out and say it. The fucking US government is advertising in Mexico that people can come here and get on food stamps! Why would they do that?

I'll bet you have a very good reason(s) why you think D's want them here, but nobody has a reason the R's want them here. And tomorrow a prominent R is going to come out in favor of some sort of amnesty, and most of the R's are probably going to go along with it. I'm trying to figure out why.