At a time when we are running Trillion $ annual deficits in good times no less, the 20 or so dwarfs plus Biden are suggesting proposals as follows:
1) Reparations
2) Medical for all....2b...including illegals
3) Guaranteed annual income
4) Open Borders bringing about, Crime,Diseases (including many thought to have been eradicated), Huge Social Costs, disrespect to the Rule of Law and lost jobs for our own minority citizens etc, etc.
5) Assistance for Illegals trying to circumvent our Justice System and the Rule of Law
No Country can survive open borders and a welfare state. Sad to say that even if the additional trillions that would be required to pay for these crazy proposals are not made available, the Country and it's financial system are heading for collapse. It's just mathematics as the huge debt ( which is headed for 30 Trillion+ within 10 years) must eventually be either repudiated or inflated away with printed money.... but to suggest these huge potential costs can be added to our already profligate spending is truly insane and an indication of the complete lack of understanding or our financial situation and of history. We are truly a Ship of Fools.
Yer guy is the self proclaimed king of debt.
tax cut problem?
revenue increased over prior years. The article you linked said as much. It also had a bolded heading in the middle of it that stated "It will take a few years to get a complete read on the tax bills impact". Corporate taxes account for less than 10% of the over revenues to the gov't. Lower corporate rates are better for everyone; it allows them to either lower their prices or hire more workers with the additional funds. Remember, corporations are going to make their profit margins... they will either raise their prices to insure the profit margins are acceptable to the shareholders or they will reduce the costs (laying off workers). With the lower corporate rates in Trump's tax cuts, we found that they hired workers, which by default increased the income taxes paid in.
the labor market would likely have grown much less... generating less income tax..
They don’t generate the revenue to make them neutral. There has to be some spending reduction or at least not increases.
rates help more than they hurt in my opinion.
didn’t have.
They are much better stimulus than wasteful porkulous.
I loathe the idea that tax cuts need to be paid for. If the government is spending too much, fine. That’s a fair point and Trump can share in the blame. It has nothing to do with tax cuts though.
(no message)
IMO that’s an important distinction.
(no message)
Chi lax! You’ll live better and longer. Neither Biden nor any of the others desperately seeking power are ever going to deliver a fraction of these campaign wet dreams.
All bubbles seem great. This sugar daddy bidness tax cut bubble is only one of many.
P.S. we are literally doing QE again in the midst of a so called great economy. See any problems with that oh economic poobah?[
We would d have done so much quicker but for the interference of academics' schemes to exploit the downturns by trying to control human psychology. It is always the elites trying to interfere in natural processes who f*ck things up.
And by the time the academics are part of it, those “involved” in the natural process have already fucked things up beyond belief.
You really think it was the academics that caused the crashes in 1929 and 2008?
(no message)
Hoover also helped turn a massive financial hiccup into the Great Depression.
(no message)
being just laughed at for all those years he was living off his government job. The youth fell for him and heavily participated last time. The immature and irresponsible love free talk.
What about home mortgage debt relief? Credit card debt relief? Why do students who go to expensive schools and get moronic degrees that can't get them a job...why do they get the windfall?
Everyone else is trying to get their bite before the country dies. I might as well get mine. The country will die either way.
(no message)
Maybe we have taxes to trick the younger generations into thinking we aren't destroying the country.
Actually, I suppose we have to have just enough taxes to make interest payments. We can probably slash taxes a bit more and still do that, though.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Link: https://news.yahoo.com/democratic-debate-health-care-undocumented-immigrants-020812191.html
(no message)
(no message)
Medicare is for elderly and disabled. Illegals were to fall und exchanges instead.
Good OL Joe is still playing games.
He raised his hand, and your desperately trying to rationalize it. You’re buying more lies and you know it.
(no message)
should be able to provide health care and a basic quality of life for all if its citizens. Our system has created massive wealth for both corporations and individuals. The fact that we've done this while creating massive national debt is a failure of our government.
On Reparations, the time to do this was just after the civil war. I don't know how you figure out whose ancestors were slaves and whose ancestors were slave owners. If you were to look at this as a civil legal case, I think a court would find that the plaintiffs lack standing.
On the immigration/asylum deal, IMO we need to take care of our citizens first.
I struggle with the idea that we need to help citizens, who are already much better off than the asylum seekers, before we help the asylum seekers.
I'll admit, I don't know where the right balance is, though.
Is it something secular?...or are you trying to implement Christian teaching?
We have a long history of taking in the tired, the poor, the whatever...
(no message)
Off my case, toilet face.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Link: https://youtu.be/SroYBkesPCw
How much of the 7 biliion population would come to live here if they could come here free of charge and get the benefits the Dems are laying out in the campaign? 1 billion? 2 billion? 3 billion?
Would you provide for all of them because they need it more? If not all of them, where would you draw the line, and why would you draw it there?
--
A further question: Does past largesse justify future largesse given the huge debt we have?
I'd probably tighten up border security w/r/t straight up illegal immigration. I don't think illegal immigration is a "good". I don't know why Dems and Reps have tolerated illegal immigration for so long, although I have my suspicions. People honestly seeking asylum from inhumane conditions should be prioritized.
Why not figure out what we can tolerate, and then adjust to accept those most in need?
All while housing them, of course?...in conditions that will satisfy AOC?...unlike the concentration camps set up by Obama?
than on citizens who actually paid into the pool that is going to help the asylum seekers? You are bat shit crazy!
The government does not spend any money on me, and I've paid a shit-ton of money into the pool.
So no, that "getting the money to the people that paid it" is not even a remote consideration.
Social security is built to do that in a limited way.
(no message)
We are working hard to bring in people that will make the country better than it is.
I think we need to get that in order before we start trying to help the asylum seekers. We have $20T in debt, and there is astoundingly no plan to deal with it. On top of that, there are hundreds of trillions in unfunded liabilities that exceed the N.P.V. of the tax revenues that will be needed to cover them (by a whole lot), so this is a rapidly expanding balloon that should terrify everyone.
And this is before we go down the road of everything else these crazy politicians want: Single-Payer H.C. that covers citizens and non-citizens, Reparations, Total Student Loan Forgiveness, Open Borders.
~70% of immigrants are on some form of government assistance. We're wanting to just keep importing that with no controls in place?
I am against those proposals (except maybe medicare for all). I think we probably have a definitional problem with Open Borders. I don't want Open Borders (and I do not suspect many do), but that doesn't mean I want a wall or draconian measures to discourage asylum seekers. Still, that's getting into the weeds. I tend to agree with you, overall. Would like to cut defense, raise the retirement age a year or two, and figure out a way to rein in medicare costs.
Both of my parents were in the hospital last week. That had to cost a fortune. They needed to be there, though. I just don't know what the answer is.
I feel that our retirement entitlement programs need to be seriously reformed. I’m open to any
combination of changes, starting with means testing and removing the cap on annual contributions. I’m not for blanket raising the age of eligibilty but maybe there could be incentives for putting off benefits for a longer period
It can be fixed by removing the income limit for the payroll tax, I'd start there.
while I’m still earning more than at any other time in my life! I see nothing unfair in means testing. It should be applied across the board for ant government subsidy to any individual or entity.
broke his hand during training. There is something wrong with that, as well.
I begrudge no one who served what they get from the VA.
(no message)
There has to be a real, permanent disability.
Either that or your relative is a lying fraud. Either, or.
(no message)
Starting with (what I have first hand knowledge of) farm subsidies for millionaire farmers that they use to buyout and out-compete smaller farmers.
But I've never heard of means testing going beyond SS.
the most those in need of a good return on their money?
As a septuagenarian I have great empathy for the elderly and I can’t imagine how many of them would cope without SS and Medicare. I just feel that we should have a non partisan commission come up with some reasonable reforms. Unfortunately it look like the era of interparty cooperation is dead.
shed by private banks, Liz Warren would be apoplectic. My proposal is to means test now and gradually eliminate by the time those now 50 turn 70. In place of SS, I'd increase the limits on 401K contributions and employee matches with employer tax incentives based on the % of salary matched at the individual employee level. SS is nothing more than welfare disguised as a savings program. Offer two sets of payments. One for future retirees who have outlived their savings, one for future retirees that never saved anything in the first place.
It's to have a secure border with controlled entry to stop illegal entry, people with face tattoos (Chris's description), drug trafficking, human trafficking and such.
Whether a wall can be effective or worth the cost vs the intended purpose is another argument, but assuming that "asylum seekers" means legal immigration, a wall doesn't at all discourage that.
trying to deal with the homeless crisis.
It seems like the definition has been expanded recently to mean anyone who wishes to come here from a country that sucks. A part of that resonates with me, all of my ancestors came here because their home country sucked. I feel for these people, but at the same time if we can't provide a basic level of quality of life for our own citizens, importing more poverty won't help.
They came here to sink or swim.
That is not what the Left is proposing.
Can you imagine if, in 1820, or 1870, the United States opened its borders (which it did) and then also provided the level of social services the Dems are proposing we provide?
People would not have come here to sink or swim. They would have come here for a better life, to be sure, but not of their own making. The country would not exist as it does now. And, because of that, the world would be a radically different place.
We can't separate the immigration debate from the social services debate.
We banished the natives from their territory to give free land to homesteaders from Europe.
Surely, the immigration seekers would take free land suitable for farming over welfare. And they'd do a much better job and be better stewards of that land than most modern farmers.
I lean to the free immigration...and then let people sink or swim.
Just to give an extreme example... When one of those people you let in to "sink or swim" inadvertently kills your son or daughter in a robbery gone wrong when they are sinking rather than swimming, you may wish that "we" hadn't left it up to brutal capitalism.
My original point is that as we progress as a nation, regardless of immigration policy, the minimum standard of living should at least mirror in growth the upper ends of society, that hasn't happened recently (last 20 years?) It's obscene to have Billionaires while also having homeless people and malnourished children with shitty schools growing up in a ghetto of gangs, drugs and crime who are more likely to get shot than to graduate high school.
I am okay with an upper limit of prosperity if it means we raise the lower limit of squalor, and I think that it would be better for everyone whether directly or indirectly (like my example above).
Are you saying that my lean towards free immigration would inhibit our ability to help our own people?
Or, are you sliding the discussion away from immigration and back towards a new topic of wealth redistribution (which I had not commented upon)?
We need many more lawyers and judges at the southern border separating the deserving from the not.
The Clinton, Bush and Obama policy was to release asylum seekers while they awaited their hearings after the first 72 hours (during which time the obviously bad cases were dismissed - guys with the face tattoos and such).
You hear Trump admin people saying that such people would not show up for their hearings - this is a straight-up lie. NINETY-TWO PERCENT showed up, and ICE (or its forerunners) would go after the rest.
Or, as the article below says, 89-93%, depending on the year.
Some crisis.
Link: The Examiner is a right-wing paper
Whether or not 8% return for their hearing, or 92% return for their hearing, almost none of these people are, or should be labeled asylum seekers. They are people seeking a better life, of course, but that alone does not an asylum seeker make. If you think that is sufficient to be an asylum seeker, then cheek's point still stands. How can we support the millions (billions?) of asylum seekers.
can flow in and out as they please. The EU was near utopia for these people.
(no message)
shithole countries want to come here. 8% of 50MM = the 2nd largest city in the USA. But, heck, it's much easier to let in anyone than actually outline a new and much needed immigration policy.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Because now we will have faster/easier illegal immigration drawing them in.......
........now, once a wall is constructed and laws are enforced.....then more lawyers and judges will be beneficial.
(no message)
off for rich, but, hey, let's not let facts get in the way of pandering.
(no message)