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.
How can people like Hillary Clinton be working for the Ruling Elite when she wants to raise their tax rates and take 65% of their children's inheritance?
Most Europeans are not socialists in the traditional sense of the word, they believe in a mixed economy and Norway and Iceland both have mixed economies. Socialism is where there is state or collective control of the means of production in areas such as manufacturing, utilities and other services on behalf of the population.
Hell, we are just as much of a Socialist mix as they are with Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Food Stamps, Disability, and all the other Welfare programs. All governments have Socialism mixed in with them, it's just a matter of how much and how efficient are they.
How can people like Hillary Clinton be working for the Ruling Elite when she wants to raise their tax rates and take 65% of their children's inheritance?
Hell, we are just as much of a Socialist mix as they are with Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Food Stamps, Disability, and all the other Welfare programs. All governments have Socialism mixed in with them, it's just a matter of how much and how efficient are they.
Social Security and Medicare are not welfare programs. Retirees paid into those funds all their lives.
Fascism is actually the better term than socialism for the economic ideology of much of the West. Mussolini discovered government bureaucrats suck at producing anything but are pretty good at stealing.
One thing I have a concern about is that I have heard a LOT of DEMOCRATS say that automation will cancel out countless low-skill jobs in the near future.
So why should you keep bringing in a million legal immigrants every year that are mostly low skill, while increasing social programs - if you believe the jobs available to them are going to be automated out soon?
Because you bring in skilled workers. Canada is always accused of having an 'open door' immigration policy. No that's not the case. They actively encourage immigrants that are highly skilled.
Nobody ever said open the door all kinds of unskilled workers -- nobody.
That's the slant taken to argue against any kind of immigration.
Again -- you just can't make stuff up and then defend it as fact.
Come on now we are starting to sound like all those panel shows -- left, right, center, whatever.
The platform of Democrats is not to bring in "a million legal immigrants every year that are mostly low skill," just for starters....
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
Nice job of avoiding the argument.
The Democrats have been in favor of the immigration policy established by their hero, Teddy Kennedy, in 1965, which has given us almost 1 million legal immigrants a year -- almost all of them poor, illiterate, uneducated, unskilled, and from the Third World.
They are admitted on the basis of "family reunification," not cultural compatibility, skills, education, money, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Nice job of suggesting I am interested in your argument or that your argument is the most compelling or most reasonable or...
I was merely suggesting that anyone interested in this question of immigration need only consider the reasons to allow immigrants, yes historically, and also to consider all the numbers, not just those rather selectively focused upon. The majority are a result of family reunification. True again. What's the point?
All the numbers/statistics. For example, there are about 350 million Americans in this country now. How many are not immigrants or descendants of immigrants?
Of the 350 million Americans, what does the 1 million new immigrants represent in terms of the percent of total, the overall impact to our population, our economy, both positive and negative? Note immigration requirements in terms of sponsorship.
What are the TRUE demographics of immigrants -- all of them -- as compared to those you wish to argue, those less educated you wish to focus upon? What ages, from what countries?
Perhaps I am biased or maybe just less anti-immigrant since my parents are immigrants. I don't know, but they were more successful than most Americans I know. More successful in the most important ways; raising a family, making a living, contributing more than taking out, good citizens...
Most people I know are ultimately descendants of immigrants like I am. Just not that big a source of heartburn for me as compared to all these people who always want to blame all our woes on immigrants when really our problems are about something else!
Regarding those who perhaps are less educated and here doing the general labor type jobs, just walk around as I do daily and look at who is working the construction sites, pouring the cement, putting up the sheet rock, putting in the landscaping, working on the farms, fixing the roofs, laying the bricks...
I wonder what you and yours would think if all of a sudden those immigrants were not there doing all that work that just about anyone can do if they simply want to. Hell, I can't seem to call anyone to do that sort of work around my house that is white/caucasian, and not because white/caucasians want the work! Try and get that sort of work done and you realize there is too much demand for that sort of work! They're all too busy to see you anytime soon!
The good news is that the economy, housing, consumer spending is far better today than it was just not too long ago, and much of this work being done by immigrants is helping to allow that growth to continue. Put another way, immigration is not only a losing proposition for America as Trump supporters seem inclined to insist, not by a long shot.
Instead of typing all those irrelevant words, wouldn't it have been easier for you to admit that the Dems have favored massive unskilled immigration for the last 52 years?
I think it would have been easier just to admit you were wrong, and then move on.
How can people like Hillary Clinton be working for the Ruling Elite when she wants to raise their tax rates and take 65% of their children's inheritance?
In reality "democrats are trying to destroy the ruling elite and republicans are trying to give them trillions of dollars."
Facts meet reason, and what to conclude?
I'll leave that question be for a moment while pointing out one needed correction/clarification, since this sort of misrepresentation is a real problem when trying to make sense of who is doing what to whom...
The statement in bold above is not correct, not entirely, because the increase to 65% is not on all inheritance but on just the largest inheritance, as follows; three new tax brackets: a 50% rate for estates valued at more than $10 million per person, 55% for estates of more than $50 million, and 65% for estates exceeding $500 million.
Today, if you inherit between $750,000 and $1,000,000, you pay about 39% in taxes.
Right or wrong when it comes to money not earned but inherited, I don't know, but what I do know is that if I inherit over $500 million and pay 65% in taxes, you won't need to worry about me complaining any as I enjoy my remaining $175 million entitled to me for being a wealthy person's son...
Hell, we are just as much of a Socialist mix as they are with Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Food Stamps, Disability, and all the other Welfare programs. All governments have Socialism mixed in with them, it's just a matter of how much and how efficient are they.
Democrats really want a socialist level of taxation. They are also experimenting with it in the states like New Jersey, New York and California.
How on earth can they have their socialist agenda and nearly unlimited third-world immigration?
The nation's with socialism that works tend to be like Norway and Iceland, socialism can't work with unlimited third-world Democratic endorsed immigration as professional third-world welfare shoppers are looking for the best deal to start large families in.
In the northeast, the liberal Democrats are showering old ladies with $10,000 or more in tax bills on modest homes, so that they can't maintain their homes and they have to sell them and investors can buy and them and rent them out as section 8
In California, the liberal Democrats do what ever the unions want and the results? 9.5% sales tax coming to Los Angeles this summer, Astronomical tax bills and a 10.2% middle-class income tax/SDI rate.
Illinois is also intentionally taxing many middle-class homeowners into foreclosure because the unions gave the marching orders to Democrats.
The liberals also want unlimited amounts of third-world immigration. Many liberals say they are refugees and that it would be cruel and unusual not to let them live the American dream.
The Democrats say Mexicans are just coming to their homeland as centuries ago the southern tip of America was Mexico.
They say that the people from war-zones in central America and Syria should be able to come as refugees and let them start over with American tax dollars.
Name 1 far right ring country that is doing exceptionally well and has a prosperous economy.
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.
Hell, we are just as much of a Socialist mix as they are with Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Food Stamps, Disability, and all the other Welfare programs. All governments have Socialism mixed in with them, it's just a matter of how much and how efficient are they.
