Maybe he'll declare a national emergency (which should give everyone the heebie-jeebies) and take action. Maybe he'll just make a sales pitch. We don't know.
But we do know that he his talk will be chock full of lies, and his dotard base will lap it up.
Morning Joe offers a pretty good rundown on the blatant falsehoods. We've reviewed them all here before, though.
Link: There is no crisis
I'll pass.
If he calls for a national emergency, the time for a coup will have arrived.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has touted a plan that would tax multimillionaire Americans 60-70% to fund massive energy and infrastructure overhauls related to a plan that aims to reduce the country's carbon emissions to zero and eliminate fossil fuels in 10 years.
The New York's representative said in a "60 Minutes" interview Sunday that a new marginal tax rate would affect Americans making more than $10 million to help pay for the "Green New Deal."
"Once you get to the tippy-tops, on your $10 millionth dollar, sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 percent or 70 percent," Ocasio-Cortez said. "That doesn't mean all $10 million dollars are taxed at an extremely high rate. But it means that as you climb up this ladder, you should be contributing more."
Ocasio-Cortez pointed to past American policies that implemented similar rates under administrations of both parties.
Policies under former President Dwight Eisenhower reached 90% in the 1950s. Through the administrations of presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, the rate sat at 70%. President Ronald Reagan then sliced the top rate to 50% in the early 1980s before it eventually fell to 38% in 1986.
Analysis from The Washington Post found that if taxes on the approximately 16,000 Americans who earned more than $10 million in 2016 was raised from the 39.6% they paid that year to 70%, the federal government would earn an extra $72 billion each year.
For comparison, those additional gains are enough to tackle other moves touted by Ocasio-Cortez, including half of the $1.4 trillion of US student loan debt.
The plan's steep figure of 70% has been targeted by critics who express concern for Americans. Ocasio-Cortez tangled with House minority whip Steve Scalise on Twitter Saturday, who she questioned for not knowing "how marginal tax rates work."
Though she hasn't specified a cost for the plan, Ocasio-Cortez described the Green New deal as an "ambitious," all-encompassing movement towards cleaner energy across the country.
"The Green New Deal we are proposing will be similar in scale to the mobilization efforts seen in World War II or the Marshall Plan," she told the Huffington Post. "We must again invest in the development, manufacturing, deployment, and distribution of energy, but this time green energy."
Link: http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/taxes/how-much-would-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-tax-plan-cost-americans/ar-BBRSx2f?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=HPDHP17
(no message)
everybody watches Fox.
(no message)
And it’s amazing at this point that the Left does not understand that the majority of the country feels this way. It’s the biggest reason Trump was elected. He wouldn’t have been in the same zip code in vote tally of at least 5 of the GOP primary candidates of that weren’t the case, much less Hillary.
It’s not because of racism, or selfishness, or any other smear thrown on us by the Left. It is simply unsustainable, and it is bringing crime, creating a human trafficking industry in Mexico and Central America, and exposing us to tremendous national security risk in this age of terrorism. It will also buckle our healthcare in whatever form you choose to support.
Neither side is without merit on this discussion. But my belief is that there has reached a point that the human suffering is greater without actual borders.
(no message)
(no message)
Rewarding sanctuary states like California with more political power, effectively disenfranchising smaller states.
You obviously know your stuff.
And would be at the mercy of the "preferences" of the larger states
Suggesting that illegal immigrants are not corrupting the census and electoral college is beyond dumb.
Electoral votes based on illegal immigrants is a corruption worth addressing.
You wear Rockports. You are therefore disqualified from intelligent discourse.
Pour another umbrella drink and browbeat the underclassmen.
Best wishes to you and yours in 2019!
Cow country is grossly over represented.
Which is why we have Trump.
But go ahead and blame the Mexicans for whatever injustice you think is happening.
My niece is married to a hard working Mexican whose family came here legally. He’s USMC and busted his ass to get a Masters.
Shove that anti-Mexican crap up your nose.
(no message)
Denying the effects of illegal immigration on the census is idiotic.
And the census affects electoral votes.
Basic.
You presumed an anti-Mexican sentiment. You were dead wrong and aren’t man enough to apologize.
Shop the Rockport sales.
They are as vapid as you are.
You’d probably be an expert on gerrymandering too.
You are a narrow-minded pompous ass.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Still whiny, I see.
Even if you do, I think it is safe to say that the majority of the Left on capitol hill do not.
You know this already but do it anyway.
Trump is threatening to enforce immigration laws. Why would that worry the Left?
I just see the Democrats saying they don't want to waste $5B of the taxpayers money.
Why does a fiscal conservative like you want to waste $5B?
I didn't ask about the wall. I said the Left doesn't want a nation of laws. You said bull. I asked if you want to enforce the laws or not.
We can talk about the debt if you want, but can you answer the question?
(no message)
Do you think you are in the majority on the Left? Or, do you think that the ND521's of the world, who are talking out about concentration camps for kids, are in the majority on the Left?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
to enforce the laws of the United States of America” given during his inauguration.
And having the LBGTQ community make birthday cakes for your children when they're not converting them in public bathrooms.
Open borders until we all have to move to Mexico and the DR because no one lives there anymore - they're all here.
(no message)
Funny how you latch onto what you think is a Gotcha question.
(no message)
According to current estimates, there are almost that many illegals in the country. Less, actually, but around that many. And many are seasonal/temporary workers who go back when the work is scarce or out of season, which is why a wall would be likely to keep them in.
I have never seen anyone say that many come in per year. Not sure what sources you use here, but you may well be reading them very wrong.
address the points of this post.
Chris, I’d seriously like to have a good conversation on this topic, and I did not intend to misquote.
Additional to the points of the OP, your first response made me ask another question.......it seems from the tenor of your response that if the number of illegal immigrations were 11.3 million a year, you’d agree that this number would be a problem (correct me if I am wrong). So obviously youe threshold for “too many” illegal entries is at or below 11.3 million per year. So what number do you set your threshold at / yr?
Is there a rough number or do you want the number to simply stay static like it did this past year. Or do you want to allow it to grow, or would,you like it to shrink. All things are possible based on the policy you choose.
Toward the end.
The number is less than 11 million and falling. I don't think it would be a bad idea to implement Reagan's plan - a path toward citizenship and a temporary worker's program, along with drastically increased penalties on businesses that hire illegal aliens.
That would stop the underground economy, shrink the demand and protect immigrant workers in one fell swoop.
This is not a crisis. Drugs and terrorists are not pouring through gaps in our southern defenses.
enforcement. I remember.
Also are you proposing no component of measurement/ monitoring other than To punish the employers who are caught?
Further, if you entice people to come into the country for healthcare, etc., and then you don’t allow them access to even menial jobs, you guarantee a welfare population that only compounds the problem even more. Now they can’t even contribute in this way.
We also have working asylum laws, but not enough lawyers and judges to sift through all the cases quickly enough.
So more money makes sense.
And keep this in mind: All the political science data I have ever seen suggests that when politicians are talking about immigration the GOP ALWAYS benefits.
The president knows this. That's why this is happening.
on the fakers grabbing or buying children out of homes so that they can use them to,claim asylum when they are not actually related. We did this with some fairly backward countries who were,on the “no fly list, so why not here?
Also, there are a few places where monitoring is greatly helped by a wall. Not a Great Wall of China. I think all reasonable,people understand this.
Finally, we also need to understand that asylum is normally requested in an adjacent country.....which in this case is Mexico (these are mostly Central Americans passing through Mexico). In fact, Mexico is dicking with us big time. I liked Trump calling them on it, but like a dog who sees another squirrrel, he is off on other targets just days later. We need to address Central America more directly.
I'm sure it happens, but it is such a tiny percentage of the problem that it is not worth thinking about.
Unless you are trying to whip up the dotards.
As well as better Census Bureau expectations from these countries as able.
Also, something new that began under Obama but was NEVER present under Reagan was “catch and release”.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
I mean, some of them would take a 30 seconds to prove wrong, but most are instantaneously recognizably false. A running total super-imposed on the video feed would be perfect!
....but remember to bring Kleenex and a fresh pair of underwear.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
I won't watch, but if I did I would like to watch it at a bar sitting between ND1Irish and JimBasil.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
And designates Ivanka as his successor.
Let's stop delaying the inevitable and get this civil war started. I envision 3 sides, the loonies on the left and right can kill each other off and then we can start over.
This is city vs rural.
Otherwise, I doubt it happens.
I know,you weren’t being fully serious, but it is nonetheless what I think would be the spark.
How about if the Left somehow eliminates the judicial branch, or moves the capital to the Bahamas, or makes Swedish the official language?
Of course it has no shot of going anywhere, but unlike the things you mentioned it is being tried.
Link: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/04/politics/constitutional-amendments-steve-cohen-electoral-pardon/index.html
I feel it would have to be done with some form of chicanery like HCR was achieved with the “Reconciliation” loophole.(I don’t mean the same loophole for an unrelated issue for any literalists out there).
The fact is that there are those in congress on the extreme left actually proposing it.
I think,we can all,agree that this guy is an idiot.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)