The White Party vs. The Minority Party...is that where we’re headed?

[easyt65]

Nope our money is not gone. The SS Administration invested the excess is US Treasury Notes. Just like China, Japan, and a whole host of other nations. Why do they all invest in the USA? Because it's the safest bet in the world. The problem is the BB generation's retirement bubble is too large for the tax base to compensate for. Adjustments will be necessary.

So you seem to think the money from your Social Security taxes were put aside for you to pay you when you reach the age to collect SS..... Boy, do I have a bridge to sell you!


In 2011 Obama was asked if he could guarantee Social Security Checks would go out despite the govt shutdown. He answered by saying:

“I cannot guarantee that those checks [he included veterans and the disabled, in addition to Social Security] go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”

Why the hell NOT?


"And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner echoed the president on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday implying that if a budget deal isn’t reached by August 2, seniors might not get their Social Security checks.

Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other."


The article goes on to explain:


"The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next 26 years. Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund is a fiction. … In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains—nothing.”

Social Security status-quo defenders have assured us for the past 25 years that Social Security is fully funded—for the next 25 years, or 2036. So if there are real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund—$2.6 trillion allegedly—then how could failure to reach a debt-ceiling agreement possibly threaten seniors’ Social Security checks?

The answer is that the federal government has borrowed all of that trust fund money and spent it

the only way the trust fund can get some cash to pay Social Security benefits is if the federal government draws it from general revenues or borrows the money—which, of course, it can’t do because of the debt ceiling.

Thus, the answer to my initial question is that the president is telling the truth now in the sense that he is conceding there’s no money in the trust fund to pay benefits; but he and other Social Security status-quo defenders have been deceiving the public for decades.

Anytime someone has proposed personal Social Security retirement accounts as a way to ensure that people have real assets in their own account without bankrupting the government or future generations, defenders of the status quo would pounce, calling such a reform, in Al Gore’s words, a “risky scheme.” They have vociferously claimed that those trust fund assets are real and that only by having the government manage and control the accounts would seniors be guaranteed to get their retirement checks.

Well, we have the status quo and seniors may not get their checks. Had we shifted to a system of pre-funded, personal Social Security retirement accounts years ago, this wouldn’t even be an issue—because retirees would have their own money in their own accounts.

Yes, the accounts likely would have declined when the stock market went down, though not if the reform were structured like three Texas counties did 30 years ago (see here). But in case you haven’t noticed, Social Security revenues also declined during the economic downturn—because fewer people were working—so that the government is paying out more in benefits than it is taking in, and hence needing additional federal revenues, a fact admitted by Lew.

"If the budget crisis has done nothing else, it has exposed the decades-long lie about the solvency of the Social Security trust fund. The trust fund may be backed by the “full faith and credit of the federal government,” as defenders constantly remind us, but if it had real assets the president wouldn’t be talking about seniors missing their checks."


What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?


YOUR MONEY IS GONE. IT HAS BEEN SPENT!


.

 

[bendog]

Not really, we're beginning to retire in significant numbers however. I'm at the very end of that generation. Having paid into the system for a lifetime, I fully expect the next generation or two to try an fuck us over. The Rabid Right already fucked us over so why not? We're old and feeble and easy targets.....</sarcasm>

The new generation has not f*ed you over, and the 'Rabid Right' has not f*ed you over...but if you want to tell yourself that and itr makes you feel better, go for it.

Our own generation's politicians have f*ed us over. They stole OUR money entrusted to the govt (forcefully taken from us without our say so) 'for our own good' because we 'could not be entrusted to save and invest for our own future retirement. Our money is GONE. The Social Security checks being issued today are being backed by the money being taken out of people's pay, people who ignorantly think their money is being stored away for THEM.

(How the f*, for example, do Americans think the money taken out of our paychecks for decades can suddenly be stretched to cover 20+ million illegals entering the country who have NOT paid in for years, many of whom get paid with cash off the books or who are getting jobs illegally by using forged documents?)

It has become one big huge Ponzi scheme. The President who signed this nightmare into law declared the program MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE...because he saw what it would become...exactly what it has become.

Democrats and snowflakes who want to attack the 'Rabid Right' / GOP and blame them for the problems with the 'SSDD' Social Security Ponzi Scheme we have need to remember Bush came out with a plan to change SS to make it solvent, help it last...and Democrats ramped up the Fear-Mongering Machine and killed the plan without coming up with any answer themselves to fix it. Their plan was 'Do Nothing & Milk It Until The Cash Cow DIES'.

YES, Bush's plan would have been painful to execute and make the switch, but it was a better idea than knowing the 'end' / 'crash' is coming and riding it until the collapse, which is what the Democrats have and continue to advocate...except they have added a brand new source of strain on the system - millions of illegals crossing the border with immediate access to our rights - to include voting - and social programs.

So enough of the 'rabid right' and blaming the GOP bullshit!

Nope our money is not gone. The SS Administration invested the excess is US Treasury Notes. Just like China, Japan, and a whole host of other nations. Why do they all invest in the USA? Because it's the safest bet in the world. The problem is the BB generation's retirement bubble is too large for the tax base to compensate for. Adjustments will be necessary.

Increase the tax base. Companies who rely on undocumented workers (like Trump's businesses) don't pay the taxes they should be paying and the workers wages are not taxed either. They are the real leaches here. Not those seeking jobs.

Increase the retirement age. People are living longer and we need to adjust.

Evver wonder how come Trump doesn't support putting employers of illegal aliens in the pokey for 30days with a fine that'd make their dicks wither?

 

[BlindBoo]

Nope our money is not gone. The SS Administration invested the excess is US Treasury Notes. Just like China, Japan, and a whole host of other nations. Why do they all invest in the USA? Because it's the safest bet in the world. The problem is the BB generation's retirement bubble is too large for the tax base to compensate for. Adjustments will be necessary.

So you seem to think the money from your Social Security taxes were put aside for you to pay you when you reach the age to collect SS..... Boy, do I have a bridge to sell you!


In 2011 Obama was asked if he could guarantee Social Security Checks would go out despite the govt shutdown. He answered by saying:

“I cannot guarantee that those checks [he included veterans and the disabled, in addition to Social Security] go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”

Why the hell NOT?


"And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner echoed the president on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday implying that if a budget deal isn’t reached by August 2, seniors might not get their Social Security checks.

Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other."


The article goes on to explain:


"The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next 26 years. Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund is a fiction. … In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains—nothing.”

Social Security status-quo defenders have assured us for the past 25 years that Social Security is fully funded—for the next 25 years, or 2036. So if there are real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund—$2.6 trillion allegedly—then how could failure to reach a debt-ceiling agreement possibly threaten seniors’ Social Security checks?

The answer is that the federal government has borrowed all of that trust fund money and spent it

the only way the trust fund can get some cash to pay Social Security benefits is if the federal government draws it from general revenues or borrows the money—which, of course, it can’t do because of the debt ceiling.

Thus, the answer to my initial question is that the president is telling the truth now in the sense that he is conceding there’s no money in the trust fund to pay benefits; but he and other Social Security status-quo defenders have been deceiving the public for decades.

Anytime someone has proposed personal Social Security retirement accounts as a way to ensure that people have real assets in their own account without bankrupting the government or future generations, defenders of the status quo would pounce, calling such a reform, in Al Gore’s words, a “risky scheme.” They have vociferously claimed that those trust fund assets are real and that only by having the government manage and control the accounts would seniors be guaranteed to get their retirement checks.

Well, we have the status quo and seniors may not get their checks. Had we shifted to a system of pre-funded, personal Social Security retirement accounts years ago, this wouldn’t even be an issue—because retirees would have their own money in their own accounts.

Yes, the accounts likely would have declined when the stock market went down, though not if the reform were structured like three Texas counties did 30 years ago (see here). But in case you haven’t noticed, Social Security revenues also declined during the economic downturn—because fewer people were working—so that the government is paying out more in benefits than it is taking in, and hence needing additional federal revenues, a fact admitted by Lew.

"If the budget crisis has done nothing else, it has exposed the decades-long lie about the solvency of the Social Security trust fund. The trust fund may be backed by the “full faith and credit of the federal government,” as defenders constantly remind us, but if it had real assets the president wouldn’t be talking about seniors missing their checks."


What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?


YOUR MONEY IS GONE. IT HAS BEEN SPENT!


.

So you seem to think the money from your Social Security taxes were put aside

You've been reading to much propaganda from Pravda.

Do you think China's or Japan's investment in treasury notes is unsafe or that the notes that SS holds are treated differently?

Didn't the shutdown simply temporarily effect short term liquidity? Certainly there is no shortage of buyers of US Treasury notes is there? I mean since then has there be a liquidity problem?

Without any adjustments at all, when the bonds are all cashed in, SS will still be about to pay out about 70% of the said benefits. But we will fix it before then.

 

[bendog]

Nope our money is not gone. The SS Administration invested the excess is US Treasury Notes. Just like China, Japan, and a whole host of other nations. Why do they all invest in the USA? Because it's the safest bet in the world. The problem is the BB generation's retirement bubble is too large for the tax base to compensate for. Adjustments will be necessary.

So you seem to think the money from your Social Security taxes were put aside for you to pay you when you reach the age to collect SS..... Boy, do I have a bridge to sell you!


In 2011 Obama was asked if he could guarantee Social Security Checks would go out despite the govt shutdown. He answered by saying:

“I cannot guarantee that those checks [he included veterans and the disabled, in addition to Social Security] go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”

Why the hell NOT?


"And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner echoed the president on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday implying that if a budget deal isn’t reached by August 2, seniors might not get their Social Security checks.

Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other."


The article goes on to explain:


"The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next 26 years. Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund is a fiction. … In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains—nothing.”

Social Security status-quo defenders have assured us for the past 25 years that Social Security is fully funded—for the next 25 years, or 2036. So if there are real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund—$2.6 trillion allegedly—then how could failure to reach a debt-ceiling agreement possibly threaten seniors’ Social Security checks?

The answer is that the federal government has borrowed all of that trust fund money and spent it

the only way the trust fund can get some cash to pay Social Security benefits is if the federal government draws it from general revenues or borrows the money—which, of course, it can’t do because of the debt ceiling.

Thus, the answer to my initial question is that the president is telling the truth now in the sense that he is conceding there’s no money in the trust fund to pay benefits; but he and other Social Security status-quo defenders have been deceiving the public for decades.

Anytime someone has proposed personal Social Security retirement accounts as a way to ensure that people have real assets in their own account without bankrupting the government or future generations, defenders of the status quo would pounce, calling such a reform, in Al Gore’s words, a “risky scheme.” They have vociferously claimed that those trust fund assets are real and that only by having the government manage and control the accounts would seniors be guaranteed to get their retirement checks.

Well, we have the status quo and seniors may not get their checks. Had we shifted to a system of pre-funded, personal Social Security retirement accounts years ago, this wouldn’t even be an issue—because retirees would have their own money in their own accounts.

Yes, the accounts likely would have declined when the stock market went down, though not if the reform were structured like three Texas counties did 30 years ago (see here). But in case you haven’t noticed, Social Security revenues also declined during the economic downturn—because fewer people were working—so that the government is paying out more in benefits than it is taking in, and hence needing additional federal revenues, a fact admitted by Lew.

"If the budget crisis has done nothing else, it has exposed the decades-long lie about the solvency of the Social Security trust fund. The trust fund may be backed by the “full faith and credit of the federal government,” as defenders constantly remind us, but if it had real assets the president wouldn’t be talking about seniors missing their checks."


What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?


YOUR MONEY IS GONE. IT HAS BEEN SPENT!


.

So you seem to think the money from your Social Security taxes were put aside

You've been reading to much propaganda from Pravda.

Do you think China's or Japan's investment in treasury notes is unsafe or that the notes that SS holds are treated differently?

Didn't the shutdown simply temporarily effect short term liquidity? Certainly there is no shortage of buyers of US Treasury notes is there? I mean since then has there be a liquidity problem?

Without any adjustments at all, when the bonds are all cashed in, SS will still be about to pay out about 70% of the said benefits. But we will fix it before then.

Well the problem would be that if we were still running Trump level deficits AND reselling the govt held Treasuries from both the Fed and the Trust fund .... how much interest would we have to offer to get buyers for all of them

 

[easyt65]

Evver wonder how come Trump doesn't support putting employers of illegal aliens in the pokey for 30days with a fine that'd make their dicks wither?

Nope. I never wonder.

He is a businessman. He knows full well businesses have hired illegals. He knows if he made such a push all hell would break loose across the political and economic spectrum. Notice how no Democrats have called for this to be done? They don't want it either. Doing so would cause a political and economic impact no one wants to be responsible for, not even Trump.

 

[easyt65]

Nope our money is not gone. The SS Administration invested the excess is US Treasury Notes. Just like China, Japan, and a whole host of other nations. Why do they all invest in the USA? Because it's the safest bet in the world. The problem is the BB generation's retirement bubble is too large for the tax base to compensate for. Adjustments will be necessary.

So you seem to think the money from your Social Security taxes were put aside for you to pay you when you reach the age to collect SS..... Boy, do I have a bridge to sell you!


In 2011 Obama was asked if he could guarantee Social Security Checks would go out despite the govt shutdown. He answered by saying:

“I cannot guarantee that those checks [he included veterans and the disabled, in addition to Social Security] go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”

Why the hell NOT?


"And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner echoed the president on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday implying that if a budget deal isn’t reached by August 2, seniors might not get their Social Security checks.

Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other."


The article goes on to explain:


"The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next 26 years. Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund is a fiction. … In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains—nothing.”

Social Security status-quo defenders have assured us for the past 25 years that Social Security is fully funded—for the next 25 years, or 2036. So if there are real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund—$2.6 trillion allegedly—then how could failure to reach a debt-ceiling agreement possibly threaten seniors’ Social Security checks?

The answer is that the federal government has borrowed all of that trust fund money and spent it

the only way the trust fund can get some cash to pay Social Security benefits is if the federal government draws it from general revenues or borrows the money—which, of course, it can’t do because of the debt ceiling.

Thus, the answer to my initial question is that the president is telling the truth now in the sense that he is conceding there’s no money in the trust fund to pay benefits; but he and other Social Security status-quo defenders have been deceiving the public for decades.

Anytime someone has proposed personal Social Security retirement accounts as a way to ensure that people have real assets in their own account without bankrupting the government or future generations, defenders of the status quo would pounce, calling such a reform, in Al Gore’s words, a “risky scheme.” They have vociferously claimed that those trust fund assets are real and that only by having the government manage and control the accounts would seniors be guaranteed to get their retirement checks.

Well, we have the status quo and seniors may not get their checks. Had we shifted to a system of pre-funded, personal Social Security retirement accounts years ago, this wouldn’t even be an issue—because retirees would have their own money in their own accounts.

Yes, the accounts likely would have declined when the stock market went down, though not if the reform were structured like three Texas counties did 30 years ago (see here). But in case you haven’t noticed, Social Security revenues also declined during the economic downturn—because fewer people were working—so that the government is paying out more in benefits than it is taking in, and hence needing additional federal revenues, a fact admitted by Lew.

"If the budget crisis has done nothing else, it has exposed the decades-long lie about the solvency of the Social Security trust fund. The trust fund may be backed by the “full faith and credit of the federal government,” as defenders constantly remind us, but if it had real assets the president wouldn’t be talking about seniors missing their checks."


What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?


YOUR MONEY IS GONE. IT HAS BEEN SPENT!


.

So you seem to think the money from your Social Security taxes were put aside

You've been reading to much propaganda from Pravda.

Do you think China's or Japan's investment in treasury notes is unsafe or that the notes that SS holds are treated differently?

Didn't the shutdown simply temporarily effect short term liquidity? Certainly there is no shortage of buyers of US Treasury notes is there? I mean since then has there be a liquidity problem?

Without any adjustments at all, when the bonds are all cashed in, SS will still be about to pay out about 70% of the said benefits. But we will fix it before then.

Did you even bother to read the article I posted....what OBAMA said / revealed about Social Security?

I didn't think so....

Moving on....

 

[easyt65]

Well the problem would be that if we were still running Trump level deficits AND reselling the govt held Treasuries from both the Fed and the Trust fund .... how much interest would we have to offer to get buyers for all of them

Bwuhahahahaha.....

While whining about 'Trump-level Deficits' the Democrats are proposing FORCED 'Medicare-For-All' that carries a price tag of $32.6 TRILLION over 10 years and AOC' 'Green New Delusion' that would cost - if it were even possible to achieve, which she even admits it is not possible - a reported $96 TRILLION over 10 years as well.

Just the Medicare-For-All forced program would add MORE DEBT by itself than all of the debt accumulated in our nation's history so far. Both Programs together they are proposing would add almost 6 (SIX) times the amount of debt than we already have.

 

[Pilot1]

It is, and will be Americans (color, or race doesn't matter) versus WHITE GUILT SJW Progressives, and the people they think need their help.

 

[BlindBoo]

Nope our money is not gone. The SS Administration invested the excess is US Treasury Notes. Just like China, Japan, and a whole host of other nations. Why do they all invest in the USA? Because it's the safest bet in the world. The problem is the BB generation's retirement bubble is too large for the tax base to compensate for. Adjustments will be necessary.

So you seem to think the money from your Social Security taxes were put aside for you to pay you when you reach the age to collect SS..... Boy, do I have a bridge to sell you!


In 2011 Obama was asked if he could guarantee Social Security Checks would go out despite the govt shutdown. He answered by saying:

“I cannot guarantee that those checks [he included veterans and the disabled, in addition to Social Security] go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”

Why the hell NOT?


"And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner echoed the president on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday implying that if a budget deal isn’t reached by August 2, seniors might not get their Social Security checks.

Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other."


The article goes on to explain:


"The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next 26 years. Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund is a fiction. … In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains—nothing.”

Social Security status-quo defenders have assured us for the past 25 years that Social Security is fully funded—for the next 25 years, or 2036. So if there are real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund—$2.6 trillion allegedly—then how could failure to reach a debt-ceiling agreement possibly threaten seniors’ Social Security checks?

The answer is that the federal government has borrowed all of that trust fund money and spent it

the only way the trust fund can get some cash to pay Social Security benefits is if the federal government draws it from general revenues or borrows the money—which, of course, it can’t do because of the debt ceiling.

Thus, the answer to my initial question is that the president is telling the truth now in the sense that he is conceding there’s no money in the trust fund to pay benefits; but he and other Social Security status-quo defenders have been deceiving the public for decades.

Anytime someone has proposed personal Social Security retirement accounts as a way to ensure that people have real assets in their own account without bankrupting the government or future generations, defenders of the status quo would pounce, calling such a reform, in Al Gore’s words, a “risky scheme.” They have vociferously claimed that those trust fund assets are real and that only by having the government manage and control the accounts would seniors be guaranteed to get their retirement checks.

Well, we have the status quo and seniors may not get their checks. Had we shifted to a system of pre-funded, personal Social Security retirement accounts years ago, this wouldn’t even be an issue—because retirees would have their own money in their own accounts.

Yes, the accounts likely would have declined when the stock market went down, though not if the reform were structured like three Texas counties did 30 years ago (see here). But in case you haven’t noticed, Social Security revenues also declined during the economic downturn—because fewer people were working—so that the government is paying out more in benefits than it is taking in, and hence needing additional federal revenues, a fact admitted by Lew.

"If the budget crisis has done nothing else, it has exposed the decades-long lie about the solvency of the Social Security trust fund. The trust fund may be backed by the “full faith and credit of the federal government,” as defenders constantly remind us, but if it had real assets the president wouldn’t be talking about seniors missing their checks."


What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?


YOUR MONEY IS GONE. IT HAS BEEN SPENT!


.

So you seem to think the money from your Social Security taxes were put aside

You've been reading to much propaganda from Pravda.

Do you think China's or Japan's investment in treasury notes is unsafe or that the notes that SS holds are treated differently?

Didn't the shutdown simply temporarily effect short term liquidity? Certainly there is no shortage of buyers of US Treasury notes is there? I mean since then has there be a liquidity problem?

Without any adjustments at all, when the bonds are all cashed in, SS will still be about to pay out about 70% of the said benefits. But we will fix it before then.

Did you even bother to read the article I posted....what OBAMA said / revealed about Social Security?

I didn't think so....

Moving on....

What President Obama said was relevant to the specific circumstance that was occurring at the time. Not the issue of SS's long term problem.

But by all means, go on pretending.....

 

[BlindBoo]

Democrats are proposing FORCED 'Medicare-For-All'

Sorry el Red One, the Democrats have not decided anything.

“I think you could never afford that. You’re talking about trillions of dollars,” Mr. Bloomberg said during a political swing in New Hampshire, which holds the nation’s first primary in 2020.

“I think you can have ‘Medicare for all’ for people that are uncovered,” he added, “but to replace the entire private system where companies provide health care for their employees would bankrupt us for a very long time

The Democrats' 'Medicare for All' debate finally begins in earnest

and AOC' 'Green New Delusion'

AOC is the GOP's new Pin Up Girl. (ops, is that sexist?)

 

[bendog]

Evver wonder how come Trump doesn't support putting employers of illegal aliens in the pokey for 30days with a fine that'd make their dicks wither?

Nope. I never wonder.

He is a businessman. He knows full well businesses have hired illegals. He knows if he made such a push all hell would break loose across the political and economic spectrum. Notice how no Democrats have called for this to be done? They don't want it either. Doing so would cause a political and economic impact no one wants to be responsible for, not even Trump.

There'd be no impact if people didn't hire illegal aliens.

 

[easyt65]

Democrats are proposing FORCED 'Medicare-For-All'

Sorry el Red One, the Democrats have not decided anything.

Thank you for proving you have a serious reading / reading comprehension problem.

Tell me, lil' snowflake, what does the word 'PROPOSING' mean? Does It mean they have 'decided'?! Non, no it doesn't. Bwuhahahaha.

For even suggesting, however, that the US govt should OUTLAW Americans making their own decisions and choosing their own health coverage is seriously, oppressively, dictatorially F*ED UP! It shows EXACTLY how far they have slid to the let and how close they are to falling off the edge of their Socialist 'flat earth'.

 

[Mac1958]

Evver wonder how come Trump doesn't support putting employers of illegal aliens in the pokey for 30days with a fine that'd make their dicks wither?

Nope. I never wonder. He is a businessman. He knows full well businesses have hired illegals. He knows if he made such a push all hell would break loose across the political and economic spectrum. Notice how no Democrats have called for this to be done? They don't want it either. Doing so would cause a political and economic impact no one wants to be responsible for, not even Trump.

Bingo.

And, of course, the lure of illegal, under-the-table work is one of the primary reasons they're so desperate to get here.

Funny, ya never hear either party pointing this out to any significant degree.

It's tough to take people seriously when they're clearly not serious people.
.

 

[impuretrash]

Funny, ya never hear either party pointing this out to any significant degree.


.

Maybe because the two parties are fully owned subsidiaries of corporate interests?

 

[easyt65]

Funny, ya never hear either party pointing this out to any significant degree..

Maybe because the two parties are fully owned subsidiaries of corporate interests?

 

[bendog]

Evver wonder how come Trump doesn't support putting employers of illegal aliens in the pokey for 30days with a fine that'd make their dicks wither?

Nope. I never wonder. He is a businessman. He knows full well businesses have hired illegals. He knows if he made such a push all hell would break loose across the political and economic spectrum. Notice how no Democrats have called for this to be done? They don't want it either. Doing so would cause a political and economic impact no one wants to be responsible for, not even Trump.

Bingo.

And, of course, the lure of illegal, under-the-table work is one of the primary reasons they're so desperate to get here.

Funny, ya never hear either party pointing this out to any significant degree.

It's tough to take people seriously when they're clearly not serious people.
.

Trump know HE hires illegal aliens.

And JUST TO BE CLEAR to you and snowflake, the GOP RARELY WAS FOR FINING EMPLOERS. Obama started doing it but changed the practice to be part of a "reset" and amnesty. Whoopee.

Obama amnesty extends to businesses that hire illegals

but if we don't want illegal aliens, just don't hire them. They'll go away to find food.

 

[Mac1958]

Evver wonder how come Trump doesn't support putting employers of illegal aliens in the pokey for 30days with a fine that'd make their dicks wither?

Nope. I never wonder. He is a businessman. He knows full well businesses have hired illegals. He knows if he made such a push all hell would break loose across the political and economic spectrum. Notice how no Democrats have called for this to be done? They don't want it either. Doing so would cause a political and economic impact no one wants to be responsible for, not even Trump.

Bingo.

And, of course, the lure of illegal, under-the-table work is one of the primary reasons they're so desperate to get here.

Funny, ya never hear either party pointing this out to any significant degree.

It's tough to take people seriously when they're clearly not serious people.
.

Trump know HE hires illegal aliens.

And JUST TO BE CLEAR to you and snowflake, the GOP RARELY WAS FOR FINING EMPLOERS. Obama started doing it but changed the practice to be part of a "reset" and amnesty. Whoopee.

Obama amnesty extends to businesses that hire illegals

but if we don't want illegal aliens, just don't hire them. They'll go away to find food.

The fact remains, we don't see either party making much noise about this. Right now. Today.

If you want to just blame one, that's fine. I know that's the game.
.

 

[easyt65]

but if we don't want illegal aliens, just don't hire them. They'll go away to find food.

I have advocated this for some time now. Democrats who advocate open borders / Sanctuary Cities / free cheap labor, illegals voting, etc...always claim the cost of getting illegals out of our country would be way too expensive to do, would include transportation to move them out, etc...

BS! Enforce existing laws, use E-Verify, punish businesses that hire them, stop giving them driver's licenses, stop giving them tax payer-funded benefits, just STOP. They will leave on their own. This idea has already been proven to be true.

When Arizona announced they were going to begin enforcement of their new Illegal Immigration bill, before they even implemented it, illegals fled the state to surrounding states. The exodus was so overwhelming to the surrounding states who found the illegals moving and settling into them that these states filed law suits to stop Arizona from enforcing their own new law. IT WORKED...before the law was ever implemented.

The important words in your statement are 'if we don't want illegal aliens'...

If we didn't want them we would be doing these things.

If our political leaders did not want them here and doing specific things, like illegally voting, they would be taking serious steps to stop it. The Democrats are now officially on record as declaring they do not want national sovereignty, they want open borders, they want illegal immigration to continue, and they want illegals to vote.

These choices have NOTHING to do with the United States and everything to do with the DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

 

[BlindBoo]

Democrats are proposing FORCED 'Medicare-For-All'

Sorry el Red One, the Democrats have not decided anything.

Thank you for proving you have a serious reading / reading comprehension problem.

Tell me, lil' snowflake, what does the word 'PROPOSING' mean? Does It mean they have 'decided'?! Non, no it doesn't. Bwuhahahaha.

For even suggesting, however, that the US govt should OUTLAW Americans making their own decisions and choosing their own health coverage is seriously, oppressively, dictatorially F*ED UP! It shows EXACTLY how far they have slid to the let and how close they are to falling off the edge of their Socialist 'flat earth'.

In reality Democrats are proposing many different ideas, not just hers. AOC's idea is a radial shift in the entire Healthcare System. It is unworkable and has zero chance of passage in the House.

 

[impuretrash]

Evver wonder how come Trump doesn't support putting employers of illegal aliens in the pokey for 30days with a fine that'd make their dicks wither?

Nope. I never wonder. He is a businessman. He knows full well businesses have hired illegals. He knows if he made such a push all hell would break loose across the political and economic spectrum. Notice how no Democrats have called for this to be done? They don't want it either. Doing so would cause a political and economic impact no one wants to be responsible for, not even Trump.

Bingo.

And, of course, the lure of illegal, under-the-table work is one of the primary reasons they're so desperate to get here.

Funny, ya never hear either party pointing this out to any significant degree.

It's tough to take people seriously when they're clearly not serious people.
.

Trump know HE hires illegal aliens.

And JUST TO BE CLEAR to you and snowflake, the GOP RARELY WAS FOR FINING EMPLOERS. Obama started doing it but changed the practice to be part of a "reset" and amnesty. Whoopee.

Obama amnesty extends to businesses that hire illegals

but if we don't want illegal aliens, just don't hire them. They'll go away to find food.

The fact remains, we don't see either party making much noise about this. Right now. Today.

If you want to just blame one, that's fine. I know that's the game.
.

People have been talking about corporations hiring illegal aliens for slave wages for years and years. I suspect the only thing YOU would change about that situation is you'd rather them be paid more.