Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A rural ski slope caught up in an international scam

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 62 posts

Re: A rural ski slope caught up in an international scam

#41

Post by gruez »

Analemma_ wrote: post #13
hobs wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's worse than poor people not being able to eat how? It's the same excuse trotted out time and again, but the only beneficiaries that actually exist are people anyway, so it makes no sense (unless you think rich people are more deserving than poor people.)

When pressed, most of the people who support strict means testing for welfare will eventually admit that it's not about saving the government money, and that they support it even if it ends up costing taxpayers on net (which it almost always does). They're pretty clear that this is about punishing indigence.

>They're pretty clear that this is about punishing indigence.

But why? Are they doing so so they want to oppress poor people? Or are they doing so to make the welfare experience shitty so people are incentivized to seek normal employment?

Re: A rural ski slope caught up in an international scam

#42

Post by speed_spread »

mp05 wrote: post #30
atourgates wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the things I have trouble understanding is why "rural mountain towns near large population centers" are exploding in the West, but not the East. I understand some of the issues. The mountains are smaller and the snow isn't nearly as consistent. But still. It seems like a ski resort 3.5 hours from Boston should be absolutely brimming with customers every long weekend. On the other hand, I sat in a hot tub with…

> One of the things I have trouble understanding is why "rural mountain towns near large population centers" are exploding in the West, but not the East. The skiing sucks? Never skied out east, but I understand it's basically ice skating. But that's hearsay.

There's a reason it's called the /r/icecoast. These mountains are all terrible, all the time, especially after a snowstorm and especially Jay Peak. Never go there and tell your friends to stay away.

Re: A rural ski slope caught up in an international scam

#43

Post by gruez »

Scoundreller wrote: post #35
renewiltord wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't do it. If you try to change it people will say "The US is up for sale to the highest bidder" and you'll get run out of office. It's fortunate it even exists. Best not to mess with this stuff.

Has anyone tried and had that response?

From the article:

>Doug Bereuter, then a Republican congressman, framed the [EB-5] law as a violation of American values, noting that he was saddened to learn that American citizenship was “for sale to the highest bidder.”

And this is with a veneer of legitimacy by framing it as an "investment". Outright selling is sure to attract more ire.

Re: A rural ski slope caught up in an international scam

#44

Post by crbaker3 »

pnw wrote: post #10

There's been so many of these EB-5 investor visa fraud scams that the government shut the entire program down for years.

It wasn't explicitly shut down, the regional center program failed to be reauthorized by Congress. Investors always could make a direct EB-5 investment, but there are fewer of those around.

Re: A rural ski slope caught up in an international scam

#45

Post by Scoundreller »

gruez wrote: post #37
Scoundreller wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the EB-5 real-estate investment program, the government doesn't hand out money here The government is handing out value here. What's the difference?

What does "handing out value" in this context mean? Are you talking about the visas? The investment dollars?

Invest in me and I can get you something of value that normally only the government can give you. Surely you'd pay more for the same investment when it opens up an immigration pathway.

But if you don't have anything to offer an investment in, you're excluded from this program.

Re: A rural ski slope caught up in an international scam

#46

Post by gruez »

Scoundreller wrote: post #45
gruez wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "handing out value" in this context mean? Are you talking about the visas? The investment dollars?

Invest in me and I can get you something of value that normally only the government can give you. Surely you'd pay more for the same investment when it opens up an immigration pathway. But if you don't have anything to offer an investment in, you're excluded from this program.

But all of this exists in a competitive market. The person soliciting investment in your example isn't the only person that can help people get visas. Anyone who has some sort of business that falls under the applicable criteria is eligible. The immigrant can even start their own business. Therefore, blaming the government doesn't really make sense. Caveat emptor.

Re: A rural ski slope caught up in an international scam

#47

Post by resters »

atourgates wrote: post #16
iamthepieman wrote: post #5

I live and ski in this area[0]. Have season's passes to Burke Mountain and even met Stenger and Quiros back when they were running the ski areas. On the slopes, at my coworking space, and around the campfire in the Summer, the topic of how to make this little pocket of Northeast Vermont more economically viable is a topic that comes up often. I'm starting to form an opinion that we shouldn't try to compete, at any le…

One of the things I have trouble understanding is why "rural mountain towns near large population centers" are exploding in the West, but not the East. I understand some of the issues. The mountains are smaller and the snow isn't nearly as consistent. But still. It seems like a ski resort 3.5 hours from Boston should be absolutely brimming with customers every long weekend. On the other hand, I sat in a hot tub with…

Vermont skiing is better than nothing, but it's absolutely not comparable to what is available in the western US.

Re: A rural ski slope caught up in an international scam

#48

Post by notatoad »

mp05 wrote: post #30
atourgates wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the things I have trouble understanding is why "rural mountain towns near large population centers" are exploding in the West, but not the East. I understand some of the issues. The mountains are smaller and the snow isn't nearly as consistent. But still. It seems like a ski resort 3.5 hours from Boston should be absolutely brimming with customers every long weekend. On the other hand, I sat in a hot tub with…

> One of the things I have trouble understanding is why "rural mountain towns near large population centers" are exploding in the West, but not the East. The skiing sucks? Never skied out east, but I understand it's basically ice skating. But that's hearsay.

the skiing is fine.

not great, but most of the people going out to utah for a ski weekend are on manmade snow on blue groomers, and the blue groomers out east are just as good as the blue groomers in the west.

Re: A rural ski slope caught up in an international scam

#49

Post by ryandrake »

gruez wrote: post #41
Analemma_ wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When pressed, most of the people who support strict means testing for welfare will eventually admit that it's not about saving the government money, and that they support it even if it ends up costing taxpayers on net (which it almost always does). They're pretty clear that this is about punishing indigence.

>They're pretty clear that this is about punishing indigence. But why? Are they doing so so they want to oppress poor people? Or are they doing so to make the welfare experience shitty so people are incentivized to seek normal employment?

For many politicians and voters, mere cruelty is the entire point[1] of lawmaking. The government's purpose is to hurt one's opponents, which is more important than helping... anyone.

1: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelt...

Re: A rural ski slope caught up in an international scam

#50

Post by nerdponx »

lmm wrote: post #14
hobs wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's worse than poor people not being able to eat how? It's the same excuse trotted out time and again, but the only beneficiaries that actually exist are people anyway, so it makes no sense (unless you think rich people are more deserving than poor people.)

> And that's worse than poor people not being able to eat how? Food programs are pretty widely supported. People don't want poor people not being able to eat, they want poor people not being able to drink alcohol/do drugs/play videogames/watch movies/..., the things they see as a fun indulgence.

That is, people are willing to make food assistance programs wildly cost-inefficient, based on the imaginary premise that poor people don't know how to prioritize, budget, or control their impulses.
Post reply on HN