goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 09, 2016, 08:55:40 AM
-
When you get invested in politics, losing elections sucks. Liberals, after suffering through Obama's cult of personality wins in 2008 and 2012, I feel your pain - or vice versa. Herewith I'd like to suggest a few silver linings to this morning's outcome:
1. Trump's mandate is smaller than his thumbs. It is essentially this: (1) Rid Washington of corruption; (2) pursue more aggressively pro-American trade deals; (3) stricter immigration enforcement; and (4) fix Obamacare. That's about it. I'm not saying he will succeed on any of these points, but even liberals should agree with some of them.
2. The corporate candidate lost. For all the liberal moaning about Citizens United, it was Hillary that was the corporate candidate. She had the overwhelming support of the Wall Street financiers, and she outspent Trump 2-1. She still lost. Proof that money alone can't buy the presidency.
3. The Clintons are the very definition of corruption, and it is healthy for America and the rule of law that they have not returned to the WH. As I said in the other thread, this is the woman who set up a private server in her basement and later a bathroom closet to handle all manner of classified information, just to illegally dodge FOIA requests. These are the people who set up the Clinton Foundation as a SuperPAC to accept illegal pay-to-play contributions from foreign entities in exchange for State Department access. This is the woman who conspired to rig the nominating process against Bernie Sanders. This is the woman who started the Kenya narrative against Obama in 2008. This is the woman who stood on the tarmac and told the family members of Benghazi victims that it was due to a YouTube video, while privately telling her daughter it was terrorism. This is the woman who took the hatchet to Bill's numerous sexual assault victims while claiming to be a champion for women's rights.
4. Hillary's loss is a win for the rule of law, and that is important. The rule of law - that laws mean what they say and they are applied impartially - is the cornerstone of our society. In the short term, unraveling the rule of law has been helpful to liberal objectives (see, e.g., Obamacare rulings and executive actions, amnesty by executive action), but in the long term the rule of law is good for everyone.
5. Obamacare is a disaster. It needs to be fixed, but it is going to be really hard to do so. The GOP now gets to take all the blame for the hard choices that have to be made.
6. The media went full tank for Hillary, much as they did for Obama. The COLUSION between the Clinton campaign and media exposed by Wikileaks is appalling. Unlike with Hillary, the media will serve as a check against Trump, and perhaps restore some credibility in the process.
7. Donald is not going to start WWIII, and I think you know it. (Hillary wouldn't have either, btw).
8. Think about it: Donald Trump is the next president. As horrific as that may be to you, it is also going to be pretty funny.
-
MODS!
-
Was the first Silver linings thread that was started by a lib not good enough for you? Can we m make this thread about Silver Linings Playbook? I hate Bradley Cooper but love the crap out of that movie.
-
Dang I had WW3 down as a silver lining
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jVtSSCzASR0
-
K-S-U, does it bother you that Trump's views on trade deals don't seem to support a free market?
-
So we're not going to talk about Silver Linings Playbook? :frown:
-
So we're not going to talk about Silver Linings Playbook? :frown:
this is the Jenny Lewis master thread
-
CNN just said the Muslim community's are scared,can't sleep,and don't know what to do in America.???????????????????????? I feel bad for them, well neither did we in our own country 15 years ago.All I can say is I hope you never find comfort again. As for you Hillary I hope you couldn't talk tonight cause you are packing your belongings and headed for Mexico. Hopefully you have hell coming your way and you pay for all you have lied,cheated, and got away with karma's a bitch.
-
Think about it: Donald Trump is the next president. As horrific as that may be to you, it is also going to be pretty funny.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagesmtv-a.akamaihd.net%2Furi%2Fmgid%3Afile%3Ahttp%3Ashared%3Amtv.com%2Fnews%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F07%2Ftumblr_mjt9lkGelI1s5difko1_500-1438111846.gif%3Fquality%3D.8%26amp%3Bheight%3D265%26amp%3Bwidth%3D500&hash=01ac3a9e0e755f0a0f19c0551ee599ec5bcaee37)
Dang I had WW3 down as a silver lining
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.tumblr.com%2F7nmrp3m%2F3tZm8hx2m%2Fbradleytojen.gif&hash=710e4a8577c95e39acdb0158021a69505b5c8c41)
So we're not going to talk about Silver Linings Playbook? :frown:
(https://media.giphy.com/media/qhibkU2r9bIZO/giphy.gif)
-
I was pretty meh on slp
-
K-S-U, does it bother you that Trump's views on trade deals don't seem to support a free market?
Define free market. Free global market? I'm an America-firster. I'm fine with trade agreements and restrictions as long as they provide a net benefit to Americans. So I'm perfectly fine with Trump wanting to negotiate "better" deals. I have no confidence he will, but it's a noble objective.
-
i have not seen slp.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffile-9gag-lol.9cache.com%2Ffile%2F28ekK318Q8%2Fezgif-3056121738.gif&hash=719f8ec2ff282781824efed0ed860549c37279ea)
-
K-S-U, does it bother you that Trump's views on trade deals don't seem to support a free market?
Define free market. Free global market? I'm an America-firster. I'm fine with trade agreements and restrictions as long as they provide a net benefit to Americans. So I'm perfectly fine with Trump wanting to negotiate "better" deals. I have no confidence he will, but it's a noble objective.
Do you think his proposals would be beneficial to Americans?
-
I honestly expected more integrity from ksuw, but him going all in on trump is pretty exciting for the bbs
-
I have listened to, and read, more than on interview with economists that think trumps trade policy will equate to a pretty bad recession.
-
I'm glad he's back
-
Think about it: Donald Trump is the next president. As horrific as that may be to you, it is also going to be pretty funny.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagesmtv-a.akamaihd.net%2Furi%2Fmgid%3Afile%3Ahttp%3Ashared%3Amtv.com%2Fnews%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F07%2Ftumblr_mjt9lkGelI1s5difko1_500-1438111846.gif%3Fquality%3D.8%26amp%3Bheight%3D265%26amp%3Bwidth%3D500&hash=01ac3a9e0e755f0a0f19c0551ee599ec5bcaee37)
Dang I had WW3 down as a silver lining
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.tumblr.com%2F7nmrp3m%2F3tZm8hx2m%2Fbradleytojen.gif&hash=710e4a8577c95e39acdb0158021a69505b5c8c41)
So we're not going to talk about Silver Linings Playbook? :frown:
(https://media.giphy.com/media/qhibkU2r9bIZO/giphy.gif)
:emawkid: you're the greatest
-
K-S-U, does it bother you that Trump's views on trade deals don't seem to support a free market?
Define free market. Free global market? I'm an America-firster. I'm fine with trade agreements and restrictions as long as they provide a net benefit to Americans. So I'm perfectly fine with Trump wanting to negotiate "better" deals. I have no confidence he will, but it's a noble objective.
Do you think his proposals would be beneficial to Americans?
His trade proposals? I don't know. And respectfully, I don't think you or anyone else can say for sure, either.
-
They'll spend the next 4 years arguing about how to fix obamacare.
Pubs won't touch trade as long as econ is good
Next cycle will blame illegals for anything going wrong.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
K-S-U, does it bother you that Trump's views on trade deals don't seem to support a free market?
Define free market. Free global market? I'm an America-firster. I'm fine with trade agreements and restrictions as long as they provide a net benefit to Americans. So I'm perfectly fine with Trump wanting to negotiate "better" deals. I have no confidence he will, but it's a noble objective.
Do you think his proposals would be beneficial to Americans?
His trade proposals? I don't know. And respectfully, I don't think you or anyone else can say for sure, either.
I'm very confident a 45% tariff on Chinese imports would be terrible for Americans.
-
Is he still building a wall?
-
If he doesn't ban Muslims and build a wall, much of those who put him in office will be super pissed off.
-
His supporters will be much more pissed off than Obama supporters were in '12th, won't do much to change the math though, enthusiasm will need to wane.
-
A bunch of his supporters who bought in to the MAGA component of the campaign are probably lower middle class ppl who lost jobs in certain industries that simply arent coming back. They vote for him because they want to have a secure, well paying job again, like what used to be more plentiful in various manufacturing. A bunch of those jobs are gone due to automation. We arent getting rid of automation.
As for the jobs that aren't, we aren't bringing auto manufacturing back, shoe manufacturing back, textiles manufacturing back, etc.
How will Don get these guys jobs?
This will hurt the enthusiasm.
If they don't get Muslims banned, don't get a wall, don't get high paying jobs back, all they are going to have left to hold tight to is that there isn't some lib in charge. Will that be enough? Nope. Don needs to do the wall and ban muslims otherwise no second term, imo.
-
None of that crap is happening. It's just stuff he said to win the bet.
-
It's the jobs. If the economy sucks in 4 he's gone.
-
The economy isn't horrible. He will have to do something other than jobs to show them he is working on it. If he does that, he can bullshit his way into another 4 yrs by saying jobs take time.
Either that, or he will have to spend a crap load on infrastructure, like Hill was running on, to create a fuckload of construction related jobs.
The other way would be to foster the creation of some new product/tech and the manufacturing of it here. 4yrs isn't enough time to do that.
He has to keep those enthused by his side by showing them something other than jobs or spend a bunch on govt building projects.
-
The economy isn't horrible. He will have to do something other than jobs to show them he is working on it. If he does that, he can bullshit his way into another 4 yrs by saying jobs take time.
Either that, or he will have to spend a crap load on infrastructure, like Hill was running on, to create a fuckload of construction related jobs.
The other way would be to foster the creation of some new product/tech and the manufacturing of it here. 4yrs isn't enough time to do that.
He has to keep those enthused by his side by showing them something other than jobs or spend a bunch on govt building projects.
The republicans have spent the last eight years telling us how shitty the economy is, they have raised the bar for him.
-
The economy is so fragile we've had near 0% interest rates for like 8 years, and a declining workforce, etc etc
-
He's gonna take her number and double it!
-
He's gonna take her number and double it!
:kstategrad:
-
I can't imagine why anyone would run for reelection at 74 years old. He probably will, though.
-
I can't imagine why anyone would run for reelection at 74 years old. He probably will, though.
An 81 year old Iowa senator won another 6 year term last night, Washington must be a drug. I don't think any of these people voluntarily walk away.
-
I can't imagine why anyone would run for reelection at 74 years old. He probably will, though.
An 81 year old Iowa senator won another 6 year term last night, Washington must be a drug. I don't think any of these people voluntarily walk away.
It actually creeps me out. Conspiracy theory Emo thinks they are indebted to whomever got them elected and they can't get out.
-
We should really have age limits. Anyone who is 70 or older should not be able to seek a 4 year term.
-
We should really have age limits. Anyone who is 70 or older should not be able to seek a 4 year term.
Should be tied to the avg life expectancy of their district.
-
We should really have age limits. Anyone who is 70 or older should not be able to seek a 4 year term.
Should be tied to the avg life expectancy of their district.
Maybe. I'm not worried about a candidate dying so much as losing his cognitive abilities, though. That seems to happen to just about everyone starting in their upper 60s.
-
Was the first Silver linings thread that was started by a lib not good enough for you? Can we m make this thread about Silver Linings Playbook? I hate Bradley Cooper but love the crap out of that movie.
How can you hate Bradley Cooper?
-
Was the first Silver linings thread that was started by a lib not good enough for you? Can we m make this thread about Silver Linings Playbook? I hate Bradley Cooper but love the crap out of that movie.
How can you hate Bradley Cooper?
Easy. That terrible movie Aloha alone warrants daily kicks to the sack for him.
-
Was the first Silver linings thread that was started by a lib not good enough for you? Can we m make this thread about Silver Linings Playbook? I hate Bradley Cooper but love the crap out of that movie.
How can you hate Bradley Cooper?
The expression he has on his face makes him look like a dickhead. What's the male version of RBF?
-
Bradley Cooper sucks, it is known
-
Was the first Silver linings thread that was started by a lib not good enough for you? Can we m make this thread about Silver Linings Playbook? I hate Bradley Cooper but love the crap out of that movie.
How can you hate Bradley Cooper?
The expression he has on his face makes him look like a dickhead. What's the male version of RBF?
oh his face is weird? get out of here
(https://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/content/sites/nbcutsjf/files/styles/bit_stacked_resized/public/images/2015/08/05/reba-mcentire.jpg?itok=Z9vA1ajd)
-
His talk of infrastructure had me wondering if he might be planning some sort of FRDesque government works program. I have no clue how he could pull that off.
-
Bradley Cooper sucks, it is known
:sdeek:
-
I love Bradley Cooper. At first I was intimidated by him but now wow just feels like we are buds.
-
None of that crap is happening. It's just stuff he said to win the bet.
I'm fully convinced he believes about one thing he said "policy" wise...that the trade deals aren't the best....all that other crap he said to get votes.
-
Was the first Silver linings thread that was started by a lib not good enough for you? Can we m make this thread about Silver Linings Playbook? I hate Bradley Cooper but love the crap out of that movie.
How can you hate Bradley Cooper?
The expression he has on his face makes him look like a dickhead. What's the male version of RBF?
oh his face is weird? get out of here
(https://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/content/sites/nbcutsjf/files/styles/bit_stacked_resized/public/images/2015/08/05/reba-mcentire.jpg?itok=Z9vA1ajd)
I didn't say his face is weird and that woman is like 70 years old.
-
We should really have age limits. Anyone who is 70 or older should not be able to seek a 4 year term.
Should be tied to the avg life expectancy of their district.
We need age limits for voters. If you are less than 4 years from your district average life expectancy, you can't vote on who will govern us survivors.
-
Welcome back KSUDub!
-
None of that crap is happening. It's just stuff he said to win the bet.
I'm fully convinced he believes about one thing he said "policy" wise...that the trade deals aren't the best....all that other crap he said to get votes.
I know you didn't state that you thought this was unique to Trump, so I'm not accusing you of that, but you just described every politician in every election that has ever been held since the beginning of the universe.
-
Appears to be a reason to riot. I missed KSUW TOO
-
None of that crap is happening. It's just stuff he said to win the bet.
I'm fully convinced he believes about one thing he said "policy" wise...that the trade deals aren't the best....all that other crap he said to get votes.
I know you didn't state that you thought this was unique to Trump, so I'm not accusing you of that, but you just described every politician in every election that has ever been held since the beginning of the universe.
True....only difference is Trump's stuff was left field stuff that his voters ate up (build that wall chants etc) and now he is going to hurt their feelings bad.
-
they're gonna be so mad when he doesn't lock up hilldawg :frown:
-
That will indeed sting some.
-
the wall will be the biggest disappointment
-
Nah. I'm with General Patton on this issue.
-
I think the wall will be built.
-
If he can figure out a way to tax the remittances, even like 10%, it would fully fund itself in 8 years (construction only).
-
If he can figure out a way to tax the remittances, even like 10%, it would fully fund itself in 8 years (construction only).
He won't be able to find a way to fund the wall. His plan for his first 100 days is to secure a budget for the wall under the presumption that we will be reimbursed by Mexico. We won't be reimbursed, but the wall will be there. We are going to spend more than we did under Obama, so hopefully the debt doesn't matter that much.
-
Instead of a physical wall, wouldn't it be a lot easier and cheaper to triple our border patrol, supplement with drone surveillance, add detention facilities and magistrates (no more catch and release), and get back to enforcing the current laws? I think that'd work better than a physical wall.
Trump should do this instead, and just tell the American people that "wall" was a metaphor for better border security. Jesus used metaphors all the time.
-
Instead of a physical wall, wouldn't it be a lot easier and cheaper to triple our border patrol, supplement with drone surveillance, add detention facilities and magistrates (no more catch and release), and get back to enforcing the current laws? I think that'd work better than a physical wall.
Trump should do this instead, and just tell the American people that "wall" was a metaphor for better border security. Jesus used metaphors all the time.
So, kind of like, okay, pretty much completely like what Senator Hillary Clinton supported in 2006?? (when she then assailed the Mexican government for their policies that sent people over the border)
-
Instead of a physical wall, wouldn't it be a lot easier and cheaper to triple our border patrol, supplement with drone surveillance, add detention facilities and magistrates (no more catch and release), and get back to enforcing the current laws? I think that'd work better than a physical wall.
Trump should do this instead, and just tell the American people that "wall" was a metaphor for better border security. Jesus used metaphors all the time.
He promised to build the BEST wall. Such a great wall, he promised to build. Trumpsters are not going to accept a bunch of people standing around a non-wall.
-
Yeah, the wall will be built and we will pay for it. No republican congressman will be able to deny funding and get reelected.
-
why can't we just spend all that money to make it easier to enter the country legally?
-
why can't we just spend all that money to make it easier to enter the country legally?
I don't think the people who voted for Trump want more Mexicans here.
-
It would be pretty cheap to just pass a bill opening the boarders to everyone no matter what. If we were dead set on spending money we could build highways or maybe a streetcar type thing.
-
well i mean if they enter legally and start working, they would be paying taxes :dunno:
-
I don't think the kind of people we'd want to come are walking their asses across the desert. We need engineers and doctors, educated and trained folks like that. The ditch diggers won't pay enough taxes to cover their share of the public services they'd consume.
-
I don't think the kind of people we'd want to come are walking their asses across the desert. We need engineers and doctors, educated and trained folks like that. The ditch diggers won't pay enough taxes to cover their share of the public services they'd consume.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Not only do I demand the wall, I want it to be the most beautiful wall and taller than the one in China as promised....we will not be outdone by a bunch of 14th century Chinese.....MAGA!
-
I don't think the kind of people we'd want to come are walking their asses across the desert. We need engineers and doctors, educated and trained folks like that. The ditch diggers won't pay enough taxes to cover their share of the public services they'd consume.
We need everyone who is coming here and finding work. That is how a market works. Also, the idea that we need every worker to pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits is laughable. Their employer is paying more than enough tax to cover any benefit received and would pay much less without a source of labor.
-
I don't think the kind of people we'd want to come are walking their asses across the desert. We need engineers and doctors, educated and trained folks like that. The ditch diggers won't pay enough taxes to cover their share of the public services they'd consume.
You're a coconut
-
my god emo, my god
-
If he can figure out a way to tax the remittances, even like 10%, it would fully fund itself in 8 years (construction only).
a 10% tax on remittances to mexico would immediately end the practice of people sending remittances to mexico.
-
There are so many barriers to a border wall that it will never be built. You may see small stretches constructed but nothing substantial
-
If he can figure out a way to tax the remittances, even like 10%, it would fully fund itself in 8 years (construction only).
a 10% tax on remittances to mexico would immediately end the practice of people sending remittances to mexico.
Like you think they'd invent a work around?
-
There are so many barriers to a border wall that it will never be built. You may see small stretches constructed but nothing substantial
A country w/o borders is not a country lib.
-
I'm not sure why anyone thinks we don't have borders
-
I don't think the kind of people we'd want to come are walking their asses across the desert. We need engineers and doctors, educated and trained folks like that. The ditch diggers won't pay enough taxes to cover their share of the public services they'd consume.
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US should be encouraging more immigration among highly skilled workers or having a pathway for immigration through student visas.
Believing that "ditch diggers" don't pay enough taxes to "cover their share of the public services they'd consumer" requires some pretty amazing calculations of how to calculate public service consumption.
-
I'm not sure why anyone thinks we don't have borders
They haven't ever been to or crossed one, why should they know what they are like?
-
those people should get pak'd and binge watch border security: america's front line (Canadian one is prolly better, Australian one is terrible fake crap)
-
I don't think the kind of people we'd want to come are walking their asses across the desert. We need engineers and doctors, educated and trained folks like that. The ditch diggers won't pay enough taxes to cover their share of the public services they'd consume.
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US should be encouraging more immigration among highly skilled workers or having a pathway for immigration through student visas.
Believing that "ditch diggers" don't pay enough taxes to "cover their share of the public services they'd consumer" requires some pretty amazing calculations of how to calculate public service consumption.
Ditch digger with 4 kids in public school won't pay enough taxes in his lifetime to cover that cost, let alone the food assistance, refundable tax credits, etc.
-
Ditches are overrated, anyway.
-
lets just bill everyone ala carte every year and kick the deadbeat buttholes out
-
I don't think the kind of people we'd want to come are walking their asses across the desert. We need engineers and doctors, educated and trained folks like that. The ditch diggers won't pay enough taxes to cover their share of the public services they'd consume.
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US should be encouraging more immigration among highly skilled workers or having a pathway for immigration through student visas.
Believing that "ditch diggers" don't pay enough taxes to "cover their share of the public services they'd consumer" requires some pretty amazing calculations of how to calculate public service consumption.
Ditch digger with 4 kids in public school won't pay enough taxes in his lifetime to cover that cost, let alone the food assistance, refundable tax credits, etc.
The kids pay it in the future.
-
The average salary for a ditch digger is more than $60,000, fwiw.
-
I don't think the kind of people we'd want to come are walking their asses across the desert. We need engineers and doctors, educated and trained folks like that. The ditch diggers won't pay enough taxes to cover their share of the public services they'd consume.
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US should be encouraging more immigration among highly skilled workers or having a pathway for immigration through student visas.
Believing that "ditch diggers" don't pay enough taxes to "cover their share of the public services they'd consumer" requires some pretty amazing calculations of how to calculate public service consumption.
Ditch digger with 4 kids in public school won't pay enough taxes in his lifetime to cover that cost, let alone the food assistance, refundable tax credits, etc.
undocumented immigrants are ineligible for SNAP, most don't file tax returns and work off the books, what are you talking about?
-
most don't file tax returns and work off the books.
do you have a reference for that? my impression was that it is not true.
-
The average salary for a ditch digger is more than $60,000, fwiw.
I thought we are creating robotic ditch diggers.
-
most don't file tax returns and work off the books.
do you have a reference for that? my impression was that it is not true.
They have phony identities, social security numbers and drivers licenses. There is a underground industry for illegals and businesses that want to hire them that helps facilitate that. Some do work off the books, but those are mainly the newbs.
-
I don't think the kind of people we'd want to come are walking their asses across the desert. We need engineers and doctors, educated and trained folks like that. The ditch diggers won't pay enough taxes to cover their share of the public services they'd consume.
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US should be encouraging more immigration among highly skilled workers or having a pathway for immigration through student visas.
Believing that "ditch diggers" don't pay enough taxes to "cover their share of the public services they'd consumer" requires some pretty amazing calculations of how to calculate public service consumption.
Ditch digger with 4 kids in public school won't pay enough taxes in his lifetime to cover that cost, let alone the food assistance, refundable tax credits, etc.
The kids pay it in the future.
You mean while their kids are using the services?
-
most don't file tax returns and work off the books.
do you have a reference for that? my impression was that it is not true.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/)
the "work off the books" part is perhaps dubious in the sense that if there were any employer e-verify system it would actually clear up a lot of it because of how almost all businesses run payroll. Unclear to me how much that would really move people completely under the table or not.
-
I know the calculation would be a got'damned nightmare, but I assume the people in the lowest tax bracket aren't paying their share, and the people in the highest tax bracket are paying more than their share. I think I saw something that the top 1% pay like 37% of the taxes?
"In 2013, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined."
I would even argue that the country in summation isn't paying their share if we are running a deficit.
Unemployment still seems to be an issue. I understand the stance that everyone who can find work is a net positive, but not if it means that someone who is already here legally loses out on that job. I'm also concerned about driving down wages. It's already impossible to support a family with income from unskilled work.
-
I know the calculation would be a got'damned nightmare, but I assume the people in the lowest tax bracket aren't paying their share, and the people in the highest tax bracket are paying more than their share. I think I saw something that the top 1% pay like 37% of the taxes?
"In 2013, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined."
I would even argue that the country in summation isn't paying their share if we are running a deficit.
Unemployment still seems to be an issue. I understand the stance that everyone who can find work is a net positive, but not if it means that someone who is already here legally loses out on that job. I'm also concerned about driving down wages. It's already impossible to support a family with income from unskilled work.
We have tax brackets and lots of data that can tell us this pretty definitively, but "fair share" is a value judgement that people have to evaluate for themselves so you will never have any way to evaluate that without prioritizing some outside value.
Also, unemployment is very low, underemployment/automation is a looming medium & long term concern.
Look at the recovery of the US compared to any European country that tried more extreme forms of austerity and see all the evidence you need that with interest rates still low and the recovery weak, now is precisely the worst time to be a deficit hawk. The same people screaming about deficit/debt told us that we would have double digit inflation by now (both people on this site and right wing intellectuals like Niall Ferguson, Arthur Laffer etc.)
-
I know the calculation would be a got'damned nightmare, but I assume the people in the lowest tax bracket aren't paying their share, and the people in the highest tax bracket are paying more than their share. I think I saw something that the top 1% pay like 37% of the taxes?
"In 2013, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined."
I would even argue that the country in summation isn't paying their share if we are running a deficit.
Unemployment still seems to be an issue. I understand the stance that everyone who can find work is a net positive, but not if it means that someone who is already here legally loses out on that job. I'm also concerned about driving down wages. It's already impossible to support a family with income from unskilled work.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmt%2Fassets%2Fbusiness%2FScreen%2520Shot%25202012-06-07%2520at%252012.16.34%2520PM.png&hash=46915281de62c70cb7daeb7a4b8c2be89ba7dcca)
-
I know the calculation would be a got'damned nightmare, but I assume the people in the lowest tax bracket aren't paying their share, and the people in the highest tax bracket are paying more than their share. I think I saw something that the top 1% pay like 37% of the taxes?
"In 2013, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined."
I would even argue that the country in summation isn't paying their share if we are running a deficit.
Unemployment still seems to be an issue. I understand the stance that everyone who can find work is a net positive, but not if it means that someone who is already here legally loses out on that job. I'm also concerned about driving down wages. It's already impossible to support a family with income from unskilled work.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmt%2Fassets%2Fbusiness%2FScreen%2520Shot%25202012-06-07%2520at%252012.16.34%2520PM.png&hash=46915281de62c70cb7daeb7a4b8c2be89ba7dcca)
How is that relevant?
-
Immigration isn't the only cause of depressed wages among workers, it might even be the result of the decline of union membership, lots of union members voted for Trump because they look around and see who the new competition is, it was capital that made those moves.
-
I don't think the kind of people we'd want to come are walking their asses across the desert. We need engineers and doctors, educated and trained folks like that. The ditch diggers won't pay enough taxes to cover their share of the public services they'd consume.
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US should be encouraging more immigration among highly skilled workers or having a pathway for immigration through student visas.
Believing that "ditch diggers" don't pay enough taxes to "cover their share of the public services they'd consumer" requires some pretty amazing calculations of how to calculate public service consumption.
Ditch digger with 4 kids in public school won't pay enough taxes in his lifetime to cover that cost, let alone the food assistance, refundable tax credits, etc.
undocumented immigrants are ineligible for SNAP, most don't file tax returns and work off the books, what are you talking about?
LOL, that's pretty naive. They get head start and srs funding, they defintely get food assistance. It doesn't matter if they're ineligible when the policy at virtually every social department is, "it's not our job to loom into these things".
In any event, I'm not saying we shouldn't help these kids or that I'm opposed to immigration. It's just totally bogus to pretend that adding a bunch of poor people to the rolls won't cause more strain on the social support apparatus than it helps. That's a fantasy under the existing tax code.
-
FWIW, I consider union to be skilled work. I'm not even talking about machinists or welders or pipe fitters or electricians or folks like that. I'm talking about like the roofers, landscape folks, back kitchen workers, agricultural, etc. Maybe I'm ignorant to the kids of jobs and wages the folks that walk across can get, but I just can't expect they're good jobs with good wages.
-
That graph is absurd, :lol:
Knock it off.
-
I know the calculation would be a got'damned nightmare, but I assume the people in the lowest tax bracket aren't paying their share, and the people in the highest tax bracket are paying more than their share. I think I saw something that the top 1% pay like 37% of the taxes?
"In 2013, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined."
The top 1% of Americans make approximately 20% of the income. You can still say 37% in taxes is more than their fair share but I just thought your initial statement was misleading.
-
I know the calculation would be a got'damned nightmare, but I assume the people in the lowest tax bracket aren't paying their share, and the people in the highest tax bracket are paying more than their share. I think I saw something that the top 1% pay like 37% of the taxes?
"In 2013, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined."
The top 1% of Americans make approximately 20% of the income. You can still say 37% in taxes is more than their fair share but I just thought your initial statement was misleading.
Fair enough, but I don't think it's fair to correlate income with govt services consumed.
-
I know the calculation would be a got'damned nightmare, but I assume the people in the lowest tax bracket aren't paying their share, and the people in the highest tax bracket are paying more than their share. I think I saw something that the top 1% pay like 37% of the taxes?
"In 2013, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined."
The top 1% of Americans make approximately 20% of the income. You can still say 37% in taxes is more than their fair share but I just thought your initial statement was misleading.
Fair enough, but I don't think it's fair to correlate income with govt services consumed.
Government services consumed is definitely higher for the very rich and the very poor. I don't think sending a larger tax bill to the very poor is going to accomplish much.
-
I know the calculation would be a got'damned nightmare, but I assume the people in the lowest tax bracket aren't paying their share, and the people in the highest tax bracket are paying more than their share. I think I saw something that the top 1% pay like 37% of the taxes?
"In 2013, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined."
The top 1% of Americans make approximately 20% of the income. You can still say 37% in taxes is more than their fair share but I just thought your initial statement was misleading.
Fair enough, but I don't think it's fair to correlate income with govt services consumed.
Government services consumed is definitely higher for the very rich and the very poor. I don't think sending a larger tax bill to the very poor is going to accomplish much.
Agreed. And that's why I'm concerned by a stream of (I assume) unskilled workers coming here and not making enough money to make a comfortable life, all the while depressing wages for people already here. I know none of you are advocating for open borders or anything like that. My point is that if we are going to spend money to reduce the flow of illegal immigration, and also spend money to increase the flow of legal immigration, we should prioritize people with skills to meet the higher paying jobs we have available and can't fill.
I honestly don't know how a household even making the median income can make ends meet.
-
What services do super rich people use more of?
-
Defense is the first that comes to mind.
-
What services do super rich people use more of?
Defense and general infrastructure benefits them more by making their products/services accessible to consumers. Was the intended point of Obama's "You didn't build that [the infrastructure]" speech that was taken wildly out of context.
-
What services do super rich people use more of?
Defense and general infrastructure benefits them more by making their products/services accessible to consumers. Was the intended point of Obama's "You didn't build that [the infrastructure]" speech that was taken wildly out of context.
OK. But aren't those businesses using those services (mostly)? Should there be a distinction between businesses paying their fair share and rich people? Should the CEO who just makes $10 million salary pay more than his "fair share" than someone who owns a business and therefore isn't paying his "fair share" because the business is getting a lower tax?
-
Mrs Gooch I think you're focused on the wrong end of the spectrum, at least as it's relevant to the discussion on immigration reform.
-
FWIW, I consider union to be skilled work. I'm not even talking about machinists or welders or pipe fitters or electricians or folks like that. I'm talking about like the roofers, landscape folks, back kitchen workers, agricultural, etc. Maybe I'm ignorant to the kids of jobs and wages the folks that walk across can get, but I just can't expect they're good jobs with good wages.
what in the hell are you talking about?
-
FWIW, I consider union to be skilled work. I'm not even talking about machinists or welders or pipe fitters or electricians or folks like that. I'm talking about like the roofers, landscape folks, back kitchen workers, agricultural, etc. Maybe I'm ignorant to the kids of jobs and wages the folks that walk across can get, but I just can't expect they're good jobs with good wages.
what in the hell are you talking about?
I said it's impossible to raise a family on wages from unskilled work. You posted a chart on unions, which to me represent skilled labor, and is therefore irrelevant to what I was saying.
-
What services do super rich people use more of?
Defense and general infrastructure benefits them more by making their products/services accessible to consumers. Was the intended point of Obama's "You didn't build that [the infrastructure]" speech that was taken wildly out of context.
OK. But aren't those businesses using those services (mostly)? Should there be a distinction between businesses paying their fair share and rich people? Should the CEO who just makes $10 million salary pay more than his "fair share" than someone who owns a business and therefore isn't paying his "fair share" because the business is getting a lower tax?
For starters, what a "fair share" equates to is entirely debatable and I doubt Emo and I would agree on that. I think how much a system benefits you can be used in calculating your fair share of paying back into that system. The CEO and small business owner benefit from the system at much different levels.
-
Mrs Gooch I think you're focused on the wrong end of the spectrum, at least as it's relevant to the discussion on immigration reform.
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just trying to understand the current dynamic.
-
If you think that kitchen workers, agricultural workers and construction workers have not been or even are not currently in unions then it makes it difficult to have a conversation about whatever you are trying to talk about.
Also, I am trying to understand how you meandered from poor people needing to "pay their fair share" to "I honestly don't know how a household even making the median income can make ends meet. " Are you really processing this stuff in real time?
-
don't make him cry, kk. play nice.
-
What services do super rich people use more of?
Defense and general infrastructure benefits them more by making their products/services accessible to consumers. Was the intended point of Obama's "You didn't build that [the infrastructure]" speech that was taken wildly out of context.
Claiming that speech was wildly taken out of context is pretty rough ridin' rich coming from one of the libtards claiming trump said "all mexicans are murderers and rapists"
-
What services do super rich people use more of?
Defense and general infrastructure benefits them more by making their products/services accessible to consumers. Was the intended point of Obama's "You didn't build that [the infrastructure]" speech that was taken wildly out of context.
Claiming that speech was wildly taken out of context is pretty rough ridin' rich coming from one of the libtards claiming trump said "all mexicans are murderers and rapists"
well this isn't true
-
Stop grabbing your pussy and own it, hypocrite
-
Stop grabbing your pussy and own it, hypocrite
Prove me wrong if you can, but I never claimed Trump said that.
-
If you think that kitchen workers, agricultural workers and construction workers have not been or even are not currently in unions then it makes it difficult to have a conversation about whatever you are trying to talk about.
Also, I am trying to understand how you meandered from poor people needing to "pay their fair share" to "I honestly don't know how a household even making the median income can make ends meet. " Are you really processing this stuff in real time?
I'm saying they're unskilled. I could give a crap if they're in a union or not.
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/)
the "work off the books" part is perhaps dubious in the sense that if there were any employer e-verify system it would actually clear up a lot of it because of how almost all businesses run payroll. Unclear to me how much that would really move people completely under the table or not.
there aren't good numbers given, for obvious reasons, but my impression of that article is that does not support your assertion that most work off the books and don't pay taxes.
-
FWIW, I consider union to be skilled work. I'm not even talking about machinists or welders or pipe fitters or electricians or folks like that. I'm talking about like the roofers, landscape folks, back kitchen workers, agricultural, etc. Maybe I'm ignorant to the kids of jobs and wages the folks that walk across can get, but I just can't expect they're good jobs with good wages.
most illegal immigrants that i've met work or worked in restaurants, construction or agriculture (but the ag part is overrepresented based on where i was meeting them). some of the construction dudes make really good money, most of the others don't.
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/)
the "work off the books" part is perhaps dubious in the sense that if there were any employer e-verify system it would actually clear up a lot of it because of how almost all businesses run payroll. Unclear to me how much that would really move people completely under the table or not.
there aren't good numbers given, for obvious reasons, but my impression of that article is that does not support your assertion that most work off the books and don't pay taxes.
that wasn't what I said.
-
my impression of that article is that does not support your assertion that most work off the books and don't pay taxes.
that wasn't what I said.
undocumented immigrants are ineligible for SNAP, most don't file tax returns and work off the books, what are you talking about?
you're right, you didn't say that most don't pay taxes. sorry for not reading more carefully. you did, however; say that most work off the books.
-
NC State had granola, hot cocoa, counselors and mental support staff, granola bars and other life affirming treats available in a "conversation area". I'm just sorry I wasn't in the area, sounds like fun.
-
my impression of that article is that does not support your assertion that most work off the books and don't pay taxes.
that wasn't what I said.
undocumented immigrants are ineligible for SNAP, most don't file tax returns and work off the books, what are you talking about?
you're right, you didn't say that most don't pay taxes. sorry for not reading more carefully. you did, however; say that most work off the books.
Right, and then I amended that to say that most didn't actually work for cash because of modern payroll systems, although a lot do still in some sectors.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I know the calculation would be a got'damned nightmare, but I assume the people in the lowest tax bracket aren't paying their share, and the people in the highest tax bracket are paying more than their share. I think I saw something that the top 1% pay like 37% of the taxes?
"In 2013, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined."
I would even argue that the country in summation isn't paying their share if we are running a deficit.
Unemployment still seems to be an issue. I understand the stance that everyone who can find work is a net positive, but not if it means that someone who is already here legally loses out on that job. I'm also concerned about driving down wages. It's already impossible to support a family with income from unskilled work.
I would bet most people who hire a lot of illegal immigrants are included in the 1% paying 37% of all of our taxes.
-
Not a rough ridin' chance.
-
Not a rough ridin' chance.
yeah, not likely
-
I'm remembering this very poorly, but I seem to remember something like, as an example, a hail storm comes through and tears up a lot of roofs. Roofing crews pop up everywhere, and if you drive around and look at them the vast majority look like hispanic/Mexican/whatever term you want me to use that isn't racist. The workers are technically employed by the foreman, who is contracted by a larger company (the one that cashes the check from insurance or home-owner). So it's not actually the roofing company illegally employing these people, but the foreman. Actually I'm just now remembering that's how my buddy's dad runs his crew. Pays them cash I believe.
-
I'm remembering this very poorly, but I seem to remember something like, as an example, a hail storm comes through and tears up a lot of roofs. Roofing crews pop up everywhere, and if you drive around and look at them the vast majority look like hispanic/Mexican/whatever term you want me to use that isn't racist. The workers are technically employed by the foreman, who is contracted by a larger company (the one that cashes the check from insurance or home-owner). So it's not actually the roofing company illegally employing these people, but the foreman. Actually I'm just now remembering that's how my buddy's dad runs his crew. Pays them cash I believe.
Yes, home construction/repair/agriculture/domestic services are the biggest cash industries.
-
That reminds me of a couple guys that I know that hire illegal German/Mexican Mennonites for ag work. They mostly pay them in gift cards.
-
Many years from now, the history books on this whole thing are going to be amazing.
https://twitter.com/sarahkendzior/status/798713690254143488
-
Many years from now, the history books on this whole thing are going to be amazing.
https://twitter.com/sarahkendzior/status/798713690254143488
Perfectly normal. (Cross post w FB thread)
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=26046.msg1643444#msg1643444
-
Many years from now, the history books on this whole thing are going to be amazing.
https://twitter.com/sarahkendzior/status/798713690254143488
st louis has such a beautiful skyline :lol:
-
Trumps banning some imports have a silver lining. No whinny burgers at McHoss.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/02/17/feds-seize-horse-genitals-mongolian-travelers/