SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Associated Press reports:
While 41 percent of Republicans of all ages believe immigrants face a lot of discrimination in the United States, the percentage increases to 60 percent among Republicans between 18 and 29 years old, the survey found. That's a stark contrast to GOP voters 65 and older — only a third of that group says immigrants experience discrimination.
Researchers also found that 74 percent of young whites believe that immigrants are targeted for discrimination a lot, compared to 57 percent of white Americans of all ages. However, among Republicans, only for the youngest group, between 18 and 29, is that view in the majority. Even 30-to-39-year-old Republicans are evenly split, 48 percent to 48 percent, on whether immigrants undergo a lot of discrimination.
[...] "Closed-minded Republicans need to expand their perspective to see how immigrants are helping us all create a better America. I believe that this will change with the younger generation of Republicans," Kromsky said.
[...] According to the PRRI poll, 64 percent of all Americans, regardless of political affiliation and age, believe that immigrants in the U.S. illegally should have a path to citizenship if certain conditions are met; only 16 percent say they should be deported. Among Republicans of all ages, support for a path to citizenship is lower, at 55 percent. But when only Republicans between the ages of 18 to 29 are accounted for, that number rises to 62 percent.
[...] The age gap among Republicans also surfaces on gay rights: 54 percent of Republicans between 18 and 29 believe that gay and lesbian couples should marry, while half as many Republicans older than 65 agree. Younger GOP supporters are more closely aligned with the majority of Americans than their older counterparts: Overall, 58 percent of Americans support gay marriage. However, they are far from the average among young people of all political leanings: 74 percent of them support gay marriage.
From the same source, comes news on a class-action suit challenging a once-secret government program that delayed immigration and citizenship applications by Muslims; a suit that was okayed by a judge in Seattle:
U.S. District Judge Richard Jones in Seattle on Wednesday denied the Justice Department's request to dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed in February by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project.
The lawsuit claims the government since 2008 has used the Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program to blacklist thousands of applications for asylum, legal permanent residency or citizenship as national security concerns.
The program imposes criteria on the applications that go far beyond what Congress has authorized, including holding up some applications if the applicants donated to Muslim charities or traveled [sic] to Muslim-majority countries, the complaint alleges.
The program was not publicly discovered until 2012, when an immigration officer discussed it during testimony in a different lawsuit. Immigrant rights advocates then filed Freedom of Information Act lawsuits to force U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to turn over more information about it, the lawsuit said.
In addition to challenging the program, the lawsuit seeks to block any other "extreme vetting" that President Donald Trump's administration might impose as an updated version of it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 30 2017, @12:14AM
JD Rockefeller never paid those rates prior to his death in 1937. His wealth was in trusts which wouldn't have seen those marginal tax rates no matter how high the income was. And similarly, any other high income person could use similar instruments to avoid the 90% marginal tax rate. One of the things that the Reagan era did was greatly reduce the tax loophole industry. It is still out there, but there's not the same obsession to avoid taxes (and the same corresponding degree of inefficiencies introduced in the US economy merely to dodge taxes) as there used to be.
The military-industrial complex didn't reach its current level of oligopoly formation until the consolidation of the military industries around the end of the Cold War in the mid to late 1980s. So even though it was a serious problem as early as 1961, when Eisenhower made his speech about the twin threats of the military-industrial complex and the domination of research by government, it didn't reach the current level of unhealthiness for decades.
The follies of the military-industrial complex also seems to me to be a demonstration that such things hold back economies which supports my earlier argument.
Well, we can look at what people actually "chase". Of the three, b. seems most pursued with a large number of people working hard to increase their wealth and prosperity (also economic immigration is either the largest or second largest reason for immigration, competing with fleeing really bad situations like war zones). a. doesn't really happen until people are reaching the end of their lives when suddenly death doesn't look so good and the common struggle against the inevitable begins. Before that, you see people smoking and boozing, eating hearty rather than allegedly healthy, and so on. They could make changes decades earlier to improve their odds, but apparently those changes aren't worth the modest effort and cost. And as to scientific/technological progress, that's the arena of experts - who typically care about such progress far more than the layperson. My point here is that we've pretty much decided economic aspects are the most important.
You can of course change the weightings however you'd like. I'll note relevant to my comment above, that increasing life span from 85 years to 145 years would double the life expectancy index (1.00 to 2.00). To double the GDP index (from 1.00 to 2.00 again), starting at $40,000 per capita would require a GDP of $16 million per capita (no take backs for inflation). That's way in post-scarcity territory. Sorry, living 60 more years isn't equivalent to a society 400 times as wealthy. The education index is linear as well, but capped by 100% participation. You can't double that index, unless you have really low adult literacy rates to start with (for example, 0% college educated and 75% adult literacy shifting to 100% college educated and literate would double that index from 0.5 to the absolute maximum of 1.00). It should be a warning to us that the index, which is in the real world most heavily valued by people making their own decisions, is extremely nerfed compared to the others.