How is that different from vastly increasing spending with no method for paying for it? You end up in a hole one way or the other.Quote:
Deficit tax cuts are legalized STEALING with no ROI in site.
|
How is that different from vastly increasing spending with no method for paying for it? You end up in a hole one way or the other.Quote:
Deficit tax cuts are legalized STEALING with no ROI in site.
It's such a hassle to treat desperate people with a modicum of dignity, and easier just to dismiss that desperation. The US processes millions of criminals a year, feeds clothes bathes and free tv, move them about the country, in an orderly fashion yet hollers at doing the same for men, women, and children. Such hypocrisy, that they can do for criminals and not refugees and immigrants.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Name the country that has accepted as many refugees and immigrants as the United States. Name the country that has accepted half as many, or a third as many.Quote:
, in an orderly fashion yet hollers at doing the same for men, women, and children. Such hypocrisy, that they can do for criminals and not refugees and immigrants.
And that's what you call hypocrisy??? This is the most generous nation on the face of the earth. Far from perfect, but our history has been of bending over backwards to help others, even to the shedding of much American blood.
A clue would be maybe to understand how Clinton balanced the budget during a relative peace time. Of course no one thinks of taxing people to pay for the military, and certainly not those international cheap labor driven corporations. I know of the taxes the rich pay, but if you have 90% of the wealth why is paying 90% of the tax burden so unthinkable?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Where the fight comes is what to cut to pay for whatever, or what to raises taxes on. Maybe a combination of both. Perhaps we could charge those poor states MORE and send them LESS.
That's not the issue! How you treat the criminal so well and the traveler so cruel is the issue. Forget what others do! If you cannot lead by a good example then you cannot lead!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Given the choice between being at one of those detention centers versus being in a federal prison, I'll take the detention center every day and twice on Sunday. It's not even a close choice.Quote:
and the traveler so cruel is the issue.
Why are those the only two choices?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
There is another choice; go back where you came from and yet another; don't break the lawQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Those are not the choices, they are YOUR examples. Do I need to repeat a very simple question? You can feed clothe and house millions of criminals a year, even build new prisons, for profit I may add, and not do the same for a weary traveler, for profit no less? You can refer to your own boble if you wish since you seem to always defer to it on other issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That's not a choice nor solution and under the law asylum is not illegal. Even if it was the process is for a judge to decide so I ask where are the judges? What's patently illegal in our current situation is the lack of due process afforded under our law established for this situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
So let's be clear who is really breaking the law and clearly that falls on the ones charged with administering it. No way around that LEGALLY.
You presented the choices between the travelers (detention centers) and criminals (prisons). You even restate it when you say, "Do I need to repeat a very simple question? You can feed clothe and house millions of criminals a year, even build new prisons, for profit I may add, and not do the same for a weary traveler, for profit no less?"Quote:
That's not the issue! How you treat the criminal so well and the traveler so cruel is the issue.
If you really believe those prisons are better places than the detention centers, then I think you are poorly informed.
If this was happening under Obama (and it did), then you would be completely quiet. This is just an opportunity for liberals to criticize Trump.
Stinkin politics.
Anytime you want to get serious about cutting welfare funding and thus payments to our state, then I'm all with you on that. Until then, you might as well not complain about it. You can't have it both ways.Quote:
Where the fight comes is what to cut to pay for whatever, or what to raises taxes on. Maybe a combination of both. Perhaps we could charge those poor states MORE and send them LESS.
Your doing it again, adding to my simple question with making a difference between a detention center where one is held for futher processing, requires no judge or court order, and a prison that is an end process that does require a judge. It's no wonder you cannot answer the simple question even with consultation of your bible.
Ask Jesus/God/ or whomever your conscious or beliefs guide you to, but stop avoiding a straight answer. Dude this ain't politics so stop making it about politics. Could you kind of hurry up, since of course I have more questions, more facts and revelations to discuss. You know CURRENT EVENTS.
Then we disagree again because cutting welfare benefits especially in your state will bring abject poverty to the already impoverished. I believe that is a very cruel path to embark on.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That's fine, but there's no use in you complaining about the taxing/spending differential in our state or any other. That's the reason it exists.Quote:
Then we disagree again because cutting welfare benefits especially in your state will bring abject poverty to the already impoverished. I believe that is a very cruel path to embark on.
With a trillion dollar deficit, which is an outrage and a blight on the Trump admin, spending has to be cut. There is no way at all to raise an additional trillion dollars in revenue.
The whole "tax fairness" nonsense being put forward by the dems has no relationship to the truth. The top 1% earn about 20% of the income but pay almost 40% of the taxes. And even if you DOUBLED what is collected in taxes from them, you would not even cut the deficit in half. And then when every democrat candidate for pres has endorsed the idea from Mars known as the Green New Deal, which is the spending plan from hell, there is no path to a balanced budget anywhere is sight.
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-la...a-2016-update/
My nephew was in a state prison system for six years. He had a roomy cell all to himself, a cot to sleep on, was allowed out of his cell to eat and socialize (with fellow pod inmates who were RPGers), he attended computer classes offered by the state university, and because of good behavior got a job in the prison kitchen. Sounds like prison beats the detention camps at our southern border.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I don't complain I merely interpret the data with my own twist of derision and sarcasm at YOUR interpretation. The logic does not compute at all if you insist on comparing rich to poor and calling it equitable. Much more accurate to take govt revenues which is calculate yearly against government spending which should also be yearly and ad the interest on the debt. That is the deficit for any given year. You cannot compare the total debt to total revenues because while the debt is constant or RISING, revenues are ESTIMATED going forward. Using this method clear to see that revenues will never overtake the debt without twice the growth we have shown so far which makes a lie of the supply side argument the tax cuts pay for themselves. In addition it also shows the foolishness of investment in the rich as a way to grow the economy which is also a supply side LIE!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I put forth that even Reagan realized this and used taxes as revenues to avoid deficit spending yet he delivered tax cuts at the same time. So I respectfully point out the obvious flaws in your interpretation of the factual data, that while new tax revenues are needed to address the current debts they cannot wipe out the debt, nor should they be expected to, but pay on it yearly as DESIGNED since debt calculus is on a TEN year table. So the trillion bucks of spending is actually and accurately one hundred billion yearly and the tax cuts 1.2 billion a year, which is 2.2 trillion YEARLY of new debt. That leaves you with the choices to raise revenues by cutting spending, or raise taxes or a sensible combination of both. That of course does NOT take account any other spending increases due to unforeseen stuff happening, be it weather, disaster or war. This is why I hinted at how Clinton balanced the budget for new spending as an insight of debt/deficit MANAGEMENT, and how impossible and foolish to balance a budget after deficit funded tax cuts and no GROWTH plan.
Damn repubs! Obvious mismanagement, and or intentional stealing.
The blight is giving his friends a lot of money like he said.Quote:
With a trillion dollar deficit, which is an outrage and a blight on the Trump admin, spending has to be cut. There is no way at all to raise an additional trillion dollars in revenue.
To be clear the deficit on need be cut by 10% or even less per year to be manageable. Have you ever in your adult life been debt free? You would be alone if you answer yes and no way if you have a mortgage or wealth in the fiscal lingo. Probably pop your head if you read the latest data from THIS year.Quote:
The whole "tax fairness" nonsense being put forward by the dems has no relationship to the truth. The top 1% earn about 20% of the income but pay almost 40% of the taxes. And even if you DOUBLED what is collected in taxes from them, you would not even cut the deficit in half. And then when every democrat candidate for pres has endorsed the idea from Mars known as the Green New Deal, which is the spending plan from hell, there is no path to a balanced budget anywhere is sight.
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-la...a-2016-update/
Let's simplify all of that. Spending minus tax revenues = budget deficit. Accumulated budget deficits, representing borrowed money, = national debt. With a deficit of a trillion dollars, it is not realistic to think you can raise tax revenue by that much. Spending must be cut.Quote:
Much more accurate to take govt revenues which is calculate yearly against government spending which should also be yearly and ad the interest on the debt. That is the deficit for any given year. You cannot compare the total debt to total revenues because while the debt is constant or RISING, revenues are ESTIMATED going forward. Using this method clear to see that revenues will never overtake the debt without twice the growth we have shown so far which makes a lie of the supply side argument the tax cuts pay for themselves. In addition it also shows the foolishness of investment in the rich as a way to grow the economy which is also a supply side LIE!
I put forth that even Reagan realized this and used taxes as revenues to avoid deficit spending yet he delivered tax cuts at the same time. So I respectfully point out the obvious flaws in your interpretation of the factual data, that while new tax revenues are needed to address the current debts they cannot wipe out the debt, nor should they be expected to, but pay on it yearly as DESIGNED since debt calculus is on a TEN year table. So the trillion bucks of spending is actually and accurately one hundred billion yearly and the tax cuts 1.2 billion a year, which is 2.2 trillion YEARLY of new debt. That leaves you with the choices to raise revenues by cutting spending, or raise taxes or a sensible combination of both. That of course does NOT take account any other spending increases due to unforeseen stuff happening, be it weather, disaster or war. This is why I hinted at how Clinton balanced the budget for new spending as an insight of debt/deficit MANAGEMENT, and how impossible and foolish to balance a budget after deficit funded tax cuts and no GROWTH plan.
Some spending is projected over ten years, but the current budget is for this year only. You are completely incorrect in what you are saying. The budget deficit for this year only is about a trillion dollars. It does not get spread over ten years. The underlined part makes no sense at all. How can a tax cut of 1.2 bil result in over 2 tril in new debt??Quote:
So I respectfully point out the obvious flaws in your interpretation of the factual data, that while new tax revenues are needed to address the current debts they cannot wipe out the debt, nor should they be expected to, but pay on it yearly as DESIGNED since debt calculus is on a TEN year table. So the trillion bucks of spending is actually and accurately one hundred billion yearly and the tax cuts 1.2 billion a year, which is 2.2 trillion YEARLY of new debt.
As for paying down the debt, in the last forty years, that has occurred in only 3 of those years. Good luck with that.
I'm not sure how you can make the comparison without having had a nephew in a border detention center. I'm just going on the idea that spending a few weeks in a detention center where things are not perfect but I'm safe and fed versus spending months or years in a federal prison where it is tough beyond description would just seem to be a no-brainer to me.Quote:
My nephew was in a state prison system for six years. He had a roomy cell all to himself, a cot to sleep on, was allowed out of his cell to eat and socialize (with fellow pod inmates who were RPGers), he attended computer classes offered by the state university, and because of good behavior got a job in the prison kitchen. Sounds like prison beats the detention camps at our southern border.
Fed prison is not a picnic. Try watching this. Twenty minutes long and full of bad language, but you'll think a little differently after watching it. I know I did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I4imzTOpQM
A FEW WEEKS in a detention center??? SAFE AND FED??? Nirvana for sure.... and now it's FEDERAL prison....Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Exactly! This needs to be repeated.Quote:
Tal -- That's not a choice nor solution and under the law. Asylum is not illegal. Even if it was the process is for a judge to decide so I ask where are the judges? What's patently illegal in our current situation is the lack of due process afforded under our law established for this situation.
If you have some reliable evidence to the contrary, other than AOC or someone who spoke to someone who spoke to someone, then bring it forward. I mean it. I know there have been some issues, but I haven't seen anything to contradict that the people in the detention centers, on the whole, are not safe and fed. Perhaps it is months rather than weeks, but they are still being fed and housed by the taxpayers of this country. Yesterday the rehab center I help at had Spaghetti-O's for lunch. Things are not wonderful everywhere.Quote:
A FEW WEEKS in a detention center??? SAFE AND FED??? Nirvana for sure....
It was from the beginning. My original statement: "Given the choice between being at one of those detention centers versus being in a federal prison, I'll take the detention center every day and twice on Sunday."Quote:
and now it's FEDERAL prison....
Politics. I'll say it again. If Obama was still pres, I think you guys would be just fine with the whole deal.
Obama as president again??? From your lips to God's ears!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I thought Trump has us swimming in wealth! Spaghetti-Os for lunch??? The insult! Even at our worst lunch at the rehab where I spent nine weeks total, we didn't have that.
I'm not sure what your point is. I've been going to this place for over ten years. The food is perfectly acceptable to me and is sometimes fantastic due to the many Christian groups that come out and cook for the forty or more guys. Still waiting on our first atheist support group to come help. Nonetheless, they eat what is set in front of them or do without. Makes it hard for me to feel sorry for anyone who is getting three meals a day free at the expense of the American taxpayer.Quote:
I thought Trump has us swimming in wealth! Spaghetti-Os for lunch??? The insult! Even at our worst lunch at the rehab where I spent nine weeks total, we didn't have that.
And yes, the economy is much better than it was with Obama. Thanks for pointing that out!
I had to pay for my healthcare rehab food. Would you choose Spaghetti-Os?Quote:
Makes it hard for me to feel sorry for anyone who is getting three meals a day free at the expense of the American taxpayer.
Guess you didn't notice this was in a sarcasm font, JL: "I thought Trump had us swimming in wealth!"
I'd sure choose them over going hungry. I ate with them so that was my lunch, too.Quote:
Would you choose Spaghetti-Os?
Maybe so, but it sure is true. Best unemployment figures in practically forever, and no signs of slowing down yet.Quote:
Guess you didn't notice this was in a sarcasm font, JL: "I thought Trump had us swimming in wealth!"
The dufus said he took the money we got from the tariffs and gave them to the farmers....WHA? Anybody else see the stupidity in that statement? Or believe the obvious LIE!
A sympathy lunch.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
All those farmers etc. who got screwed because of the tariffs have to look for work somewhere.Quote:
Maybe so, but it sure is true. Best unemployment figures in practically forever, and no signs of slowing down yet.
I was raised that way. Set food in front of you and eat it. Be glad to have it.Quote:
A sympathy lunch.
Yup, this PK grew up slurping Spaghetti-Os. The plain ones were the cheapest. Great for toothless old people in healthcare facilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
a traveller who enters another country illegally is a criminal
Under US law, a judge is the only one with standing to pass sentence. LOL, repubs rail against socialist, communists and holler about the unamericans, unpatriotics, whose illegal whose not, what's illegal, and what's not, like they are entitled to ignore the law. Whatever happened to proving your case in a court of law rather than dictate the outcome you want?
Maybe their case has holes in it, so the hollering is about all they can do hoping the noise will be loud enough to hide the holes. At least that's what the dufus thinks, and repubs follow the liar at their own peril, because if he is who they count on to deliver them from their worst fears, they are in for one huge nightmare. Unfortunately, if re elected, he will bring us all into the nightmare repubs are headed for.
If he is not, he probably goes to jail like the rest of his minions have.
What meanest thou by "traveler" and "illegally"?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Are you serious?Quote:
What meanest thou by "traveler" and "illegally"?
Obviously not
I guess not. Strange question.
comment #205 before all the spaghetti-o responses .
Nope. Asylum seekers are "travelers." When they set foot in our country, that's not illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
wrongIndividuals may apply for asylum at a port of entry without illegally entering the country.Once they cross the border without being granted asylum they are illegals
They have to set foot in our country in order to get to that port of entry.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Individuals can apply for asylum anywhere in or out of our country. Can't believe YOU haven't looked up the law Tom.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:44 AM. |