Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
P.S. Hillary for "block" Queen. I envision her in the orange jumpsuit swabbing the floors with one of those heavy rag mops. It makes me smile ...
Honestly I wish people wouldn't share their bizarre and ridiculous masturbation fantasies in this forum.
I well remember all the "Birthers" and all the other imbeciles who promised us we would be seeing Obama arrested and led out of the White House in handcuffs ... or kicked out of office in a huge landslide during the last election ...
Third, even if fraud and abuse could be eliminated -- something even private corporations can't do, because there is always some waste in any activity and it costs more to monitor abuse with extra supervision, the amount of fraud, waste and abuse doesn't come close to filling the hole in revenue that Trump's tax-plan creates -- not including that he wants to spend more money on the military, build a 1,000 mile wall and deport millions of people -- at a cost of $400-600 billion.
Over a 10 year period, $400 -600 billion is very affordable when our federal budget is $3.5 trillion a year.
Quote:
Charlatans that don't have a clue as to how to realistically cut spending always point to waste, fraud and abuse -- courageously taking on that powerful pro waste, fraud and abuse lobby.
I haven't noticed you complaining that Obama has more than doubled the national debt -- from $9 trillion to $19 trillion.
Which he's done after accusing Bush of being "unpatriotic" for increasing it from $5 trillion to $9 trillion -- and which he's done after promising to reduce it without raising taxes except on the very wealthy (both complete lies that anyone except liberals could see through right away).
You libs are such hypocrites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
As Oliver points out in the video, the vast majority of people who are in the U.S. did not come crossing the southern border. They enter via airports an normal ports, with visas that they overstay.
Wrong.
At most, 40% fly in and overstay their visas.
Quote:
Moreover, not many people are crossing the southern border these days anyway -- it was more of a problem years ago.
How do you know?
Do you stand at the border and count them?
Or does Obama do that for you?
Quote:
Moreover, since so much of the land this wall was built on would be on private lands, you're talking about a huge eminent domain issue or court tie-ups.
Wrong.
The federal government has complete legal control of our borders if it wants to exercise that control.
Lawsuits would go nowhere.
Quote:
So, if the wall could be built, the wall will cost at least $25 billion to build
Wrong.
And even if it did cost $25 billion, that's only two thirds of one percent of federal budget.
Quote:
and cost $25 billion every seven years to maintain.
Wrong.
Quote:
Worse, the wall could be evaded by a ladder and a rope.
Wrong.
The wall is only one of many things that will be done.
*** Sending the military to the border (instead of overseas to fight wars that we don't win on purpose),
*** mandatory e-verify
*** visa entry-exit tracking,
*** making illegal entry a felony with a 5 year mandatory minimum prison sentence (and the same for those who knowingly hire illegals)
Where there's a will, there's a way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTQ3000
True, but a wall would reduce the amount of brown illegals coming into the country. Visa overstays are generally people from First World countries, if you dig. That's important to Mr. Trump's supporters.
Mick
Oh, I know.
We MUSTN'T let too many law-abiding whites with money and skills into this country.
How horrible that would be!
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnp292
Sigh. I didn't say I didn't know how. I said I didn't want to bother. Feel better now?
Well, I guess it must have been a major decision for you.
I hope you didn't agonize over it too much....or suffer too deeply from your inability to post what you really wanted to post.
I mean, wow, dude....major drag-o-rama!
Quote:
Which means no one will be buying the goods from Mexico. Which means they will stop shipping them, hence no tariffs, hence no funds to pay for the wall. Oh, wait. I suppose you mean this would put pressure on Mexico to pay for the wall to get our business back?
Something like that.
Quote:
I think its more likely that they'd just wait for the moron's term to end or shift manufacturing somewhere else.
Dream on.
Not only will they NOT be able to trade with their number one trading partner, we'll tax all money being wired to Mexico from this country at 100%.
Where there's a will, there's a way.
Quote:
The first line was laughable. Yes, lets totally end all immigration from every country. While we're at it, maybe we could build a wall along the Canadian border and mine the ocean at the coasts. Don't forget Alaska and Hawaii while you're at it. I suspect you don't care about Puerto Rico.
You seem to be operating under the misconception that anyone cares what you believe.
You seem to be operating under the misconception that we need massive immigration when Americans don't have jobs.
Hate Americans much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
If they were confident that Trump was going to lose, they wouldn't be making 1000s of negative posts here and elsewhere in the Internet about him.
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14
If you were that confident Trump was going to win you wouldn't be making numerous threads about how innocent Trump is when it comes to instigating violence at his rallies.
It's not the Trump supporters who are creating most of the Trump threads.
Last edited by dechatelet; 03-22-2016 at 04:43 AM..
Please enlighten me how reduced taxes translates into increased national debt over seven years under the Obama administration.
It wasn't reduced taxes. It was reduced revenue during the great recession coupled with automatic spending that kicks in during economic downturns (e.g. unemployment benefits.) Obama was successful at getting the upper income portion of the Bush tax-cuts to expire. This led to increased revenue that dropped the deficit by 75%. The Bush tax-cuts were largely responsible for turning Clinton's surplus into deficits. These three charts should be illustrative regarding recent deficits, revenue and debt:
.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina Knight
Do you recall cash for clunkers, global warming, unhealthy meals in schools, uncommon core, etc.?
Global warming isn't a program. The cost of cash for clunkers was a one-time event and its cost was a rounding error on a rounding error in the federal budget -- as is "unhealthy meals" (whatever that is.) These are just not what your government does to a large degree. As I've previously stated, the federal government spends the vast amount of money on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense and interest on the debt. Those things that you mentioned don't account for any significant portion of the debt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina Knight
Obama's political party created three of those areas: social security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
So? Those are very successful programs and provide a great deal of good for Americans. Republicans opposed each of these programs, because they don't favor the elite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina Knight
Reduced taxes allows common people to spend more money, which benefits the economy. Increased debt leads to higher interest rates to recover funds quickly to keep up with the increases.
There is little to no evidence that cutting taxes increases economic activity. That is a right-wing zombie lie that has been repeated again and again and undercut by decades of history. Tax-cuts have been used to intentionally create deficits and then use the deficits as an excuse to cut social programs that help people.
But Trump's plan doesn't mainly cut taxes on common people who will spend it, it mainly cuts taxes on millionaires and billionaires.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina Knight
Do you find it concerning Mexicans are illegally crossing the border into the United States to utilize the federal government's resources for healthcare, welfare, and employment? What has Mexico's government done?
It wasn't reduced taxes. It was reduced revenue during the great recession coupled with automatic spending that kicks in during economic downturns (e.g. unemployment benefits.) Obama was successful at getting the upper income portion of the Bush tax-cuts to expire. This led to increased revenue that dropped the deficit by 75%. The Bush tax-cuts were largely responsible for turning Clinton's surplus into deficits. These three charts should be illustrative regarding recent deficits, revenue and debt:
.....
sigh... Clinton never, ever had a surplus. The best he did was an 18 billion dollar deficit in 2000.
Incorrect. You cannot have a surplus when the debt increases. That's common sense. To some
Your chart shows a 236 billion dollar surplus in 2000. So why did the debt increase by 18 billion in 2000 if there was a surplus? Rhetorical it can't.
Let me help you out a bit as you surely need it. Clinton paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intra governmental holdings. Mostly from Social Security.
Next time do some research please, and quit perpetuating the myth.
Incorrect. You cannot have a surplus when the debt increases. That's common sense. To some
Your chart shows a 236 billion dollar surplus in 2000. So why did the debt increase by 18 billion in 2000 if there was a surplus? Rhetorical it can't.
Let me help you out a bit as you surely need it. Clinton paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intra governmental holdings. Mostly from Social Security.
Next time do some research please, and quit perpetuating the myth.
Proof from a credible source to back up your claims?
I just decided in the past few weeks to vote for Trump - why - all the negative posts ledme to look more closely at him and the issues while weighing the pros and cons of continuing with the system as it is or hopefully going forward with needed changes. I'm not running scared at all - but more confident than ever that if it comes between Hillary and Trump - Trump is my best bet and the most transparent. Something we were promised with the current administration and never received.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
I'm not a Republican either. I'm a Democrat who supports Trump.
So please, tell us who to support.
I'm an ex democratic that voted for Hillary 08 and Obama 12. Now a TRUMP supporter because I want change - not four more years of the last eight years.....
Right now TRUMP has the upper hand.
He pledged he would support the Republican nominee if the GOP played fair.
He's probably saving all the negative advertising against him.
So if he doesn't get nominated, he leaves the reduplication party and becomes an independent. Taking with him all his supporters and the republicans lose...
By then Hillary is going to be to democratic nominee, and Sanders drops out.
Can anyone imagine a TRUMP - SANDERS ticket.... bye bye to both the democratic and republican party's......
How could we be running scared? We're the ones with senior citizen training camps to teach old guys how to strike fear by punching poor innocent young protestors who were just minding their business, got lost and wandered into a rally, right? We support a candidate who is an authoritarian/goon/fascist/racist/rich guy who wants to rule the world, dunk sweet cherubic Islamic terrorists, deport poor illegal lawless people, temporarily cruelly stop potential terrorists from finding a home here, make sweet Hillary Clinton bark when she's not going to the funerals of all the people who died around her and meanly prevent Saint Ted from being anointed. Trump even made the Pope fall off his high horse (most likely loaned to him by George Will). For all we know, Glenn Beck isn't really fasting. Trump more than likely stole Beck's food when Trump wasn't stopping poor conscientious hard-working effective and highly regarded US Republican Senators from being re-elected. And if all that wasn't bad enough, we support the guy sending shrieking Democrats house hunting in cold, cold third world Canada. We're emboldened.
Incorrect. You cannot have a surplus when the debt increases. That's common sense. To some
Your chart shows a 236 billion dollar surplus in 2000. So why did the debt increase by 18 billion in 2000 if there was a surplus? Rhetorical it can't.
Let me help you out a bit as you surely need it. Clinton paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intra governmental holdings. Mostly from Social Security.
Next time do some research please, and quit perpetuating the myth.
Yes you can. Deficit/surplus is revenue minus spending. If it is positive, it's a surplus. The debt can rise because of money borrowed from one government agency from another government agency.
Last edited by MTAtech; 03-23-2016 at 07:20 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.