Obama bypasses Congress on DREAM Act, stops deporting young illegals

[The T]

Well, goodie, based on your very own statement, you can get the hell out of my country and go back to where you came from.

Well, actually, I'm 1/8th Native American, so I probably have stronger ties than you do.

But the point being, you guys who get all upset about the Mexicans flying their flag don't seem all that bothered when the Europeans fly their flags.

You wanna race.... You win. Everything's got to be some kind of "my dick's bigger than yours" competition. Frankly, I don't generally bring up certain personal information because it is not relevant.
Oh, and up here, our illegal population is not primarily Mexican. I do not agree with rewarding criminal behavior.

Roger this.

 

[JoeB131]

If you don't have investment capital on a five figure salary you're an idiot. AGAIN, the taxes always being discussed with regards to raising them are income taxes and investment income- Of which half of American's don't even pay.

So how much of every dollar you work for are you willing to give to the government? And why are you not giving it to them now? Lead the way dude- lead the way.

I am. I'm all for the rich paying their fair share and looking out for the good of the rest of us. I'm just not sure why you aren't. Somehow, I doubt you are rich. You probably never will be. But you seem awfully concerned that they might have to do without a polo pony.

Me. I want a police department that comes when I call it. I want bridges that aren't going to collapse when I'm trying to cross them. I want kids to be able to read and write when they get out of public school after 12 years so I don't have to support them into their 40's.

 

[EriktheRed]

If you don't have investment capital on a five figure salary you're an idiot. AGAIN, the taxes always being discussed with regards to raising them are income taxes and investment income- Of which half of American's don't even pay.

So how much of every dollar you work for are you willing to give to the government? And why are you not giving it to them now? Lead the way dude- lead the way.

I am. I'm all for the rich paying their fair share and looking out for the good of the rest of us. I'm just not sure why you aren't. Somehow, I doubt you are rich. You probably never will be. But you seem awfully concerned that they might have to do without a polo pony.

Me. I want a police department that comes when I call it. I want bridges that aren't going to collapse when I'm trying to cross them. I want kids to be able to read and write when they get out of public school after 12 years so I don't have to support them into their 40's.

I would add to that a fire department that puts out all house fires, not just the ones of people who paid some sort of "fee".

 

[clevergirl]

No, twisting the data to make your point is disingenuous. That's what his link actually shows, that your side has been twisting that data before they propagate to the sycophants. Clever doesn't mean literate, does it?

No, it specifically drags in all the taxes that are not in question when discussing raising taxes on the wealthy. Perhaps you need to re-read it s l o w l y~

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If you don't have investment capital on a five figure salary you're an idiot. AGAIN, the taxes always being discussed with regards to raising them are income taxes and investment income- Of which half of American's don't even pay.

So how much of every dollar you work for are you willing to give to the government? And why are you not giving it to them now? Lead the way dude- lead the way.

I am. I'm all for the rich paying their fair share and looking out for the good of the rest of us. I'm just not sure why you aren't. Somehow, I doubt you are rich. You probably never will be. But you seem awfully concerned that they might have to do without a polo pony.

Me. I want a police department that comes when I call it. I want bridges that aren't going to collapse when I'm trying to cross them. I want kids to be able to read and write when they get out of public school after 12 years so I don't have to support them into their 40's.

You have a thick misconception.
Bridges are built by private companies
The police are not legally obligated to protect you.
Public schools? Why send your children to be polluted with garbage?

 

[clevergirl]

If you don't have investment capital on a five figure salary you're an idiot. AGAIN, the taxes always being discussed with regards to raising them are income taxes and investment income- Of which half of American's don't even pay.

So how much of every dollar you work for are you willing to give to the government? And why are you not giving it to them now? Lead the way dude- lead the way.

I am. I'm all for the rich paying their fair share and looking out for the good of the rest of us. I'm just not sure why you aren't. Somehow, I doubt you are rich. You probably never will be. But you seem awfully concerned that they might have to do without a polo pony.

Me. I want a police department that comes when I call it. I want bridges that aren't going to collapse when I'm trying to cross them. I want kids to be able to read and write when they get out of public school after 12 years so I don't have to support them into their 40's.

So how much of every dollar you earn should you pay in taxes Joe- simple question.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you don't have investment capital on a five figure salary you're an idiot. AGAIN, the taxes always being discussed with regards to raising them are income taxes and investment income- Of which half of American's don't even pay.

So how much of every dollar you work for are you willing to give to the government? And why are you not giving it to them now? Lead the way dude- lead the way.

I am. I'm all for the rich paying their fair share and looking out for the good of the rest of us. I'm just not sure why you aren't. Somehow, I doubt you are rich. You probably never will be. But you seem awfully concerned that they might have to do without a polo pony.

Me. I want a police department that comes when I call it. I want bridges that aren't going to collapse when I'm trying to cross them. I want kids to be able to read and write when they get out of public school after 12 years so I don't have to support them into their 40's.

So how much additional should the rich pay so you can have what you want?

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average 29.1% of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15% of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5% of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7%. . . .


. . . .The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46% of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most, however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes. . . .
Fact check: The wealthy already pay more tax

By the time you add on state and local taxes, many of the rich--those earning a really comfortable income whether or not they are millionares--are easily paying close to 50% of their income or more in taxes. And that doesn't count the extra tax monies and fees required to conduct business as those rich folks are running the businesses that provide jobs and an income for everybody else.

At least those who will have jobs after 800,000 or more illegals get work permits.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

No, twisting the data to make your point is disingenuous. That's what his link actually shows, that your side has been twisting that data before they propagate to the sycophants. Clever doesn't mean literate, does it?

No, it specifically drags in all the taxes that are not in question when discussing raising taxes on the wealthy. Perhaps you need to re-read it s l o w l y~

Wait. Who says they're not in question? You? Taxes are taxes, fool. So I know when I discuss them, I mean EVERYTHING. And the fact is that there are millionaires who pay much less in taxes than people who make five figures. Much less. Even when you account for use taxes. That's wrong, and no matter how smugly or incorrectly try to move the discussion to income tax only, it'll still be wrong.

 

[clevergirl]

No, twisting the data to make your point is disingenuous. That's what his link actually shows, that your side has been twisting that data before they propagate to the sycophants. Clever doesn't mean literate, does it?

No, it specifically drags in all the taxes that are not in question when discussing raising taxes on the wealthy. Perhaps you need to re-read it s l o w l y~

Wait. Who says they're not in question? You? Taxes are taxes, fool. So I know when I discuss them, I mean EVERYTHING. And the fact is that there are millionaires who pay much less in taxes than people who make five figures. Much less. Even when you account for use taxes. That's wrong, and no matter how smugly or incorrectly try to move the discussion to income tax only, it'll still be wrong.

So you are discussing all taxes? The wealthy need to pay more on all taxes. Funny, because that has not been the contention of congressional democrats and the president.

When they talk about raising taxes on the wealthy they are being specific to federal income taxes and investment income... you know those taxes that only 50% of American's pay. Maybe you should write to congress and ask them to petition for all taxes to be raised?


idiot!

 

[P@triot]

[

My favorite thing about you liberals Joe B. is the helpless "woe is me" pitty-party you all have for yourselves every 5 minutes. Guess what, the rich pay the "working man" exactly what he is worth. You command your own salary by your skill sets and the value you bring to an organization.

If you're not making the money you want Joe B., it's your own damn fault, because you're not of any value to the organization. You know why Alex Rodriquez could command a quarter of a billion dollars in free agency? Because his skill sets bring tremendous value to an organization. You know Steve Jobs made billions of dollars in his life? Because his skill sets brought tremendous value to every organization.

Obviously, you're way of thinking/working has not worked out too well for you in life as you hate the salary you make and have been laid off no less than 3 times. How about you just give my way a try? Instead of buying the liberal bullshit that just because you were born, you are entitled to a job and a huge salary (not to mention healthcare, housing, and on and on) - why don't you invest in yourself, increase your skill sets, and work your ass of on the job? I'll bet you'll see your salary go way up and your layoffs go way down.

But of course, it's much easier to just ***** and vote liberal than to actually improve yourself and work hard, right?

Um, I got laid off twice, and one company I worked for went completely out of business because the rich ***** who ran it were too busy putting coke up their nose when their parents left it to them.

And frankly, I think it's obscene that we pay ANYONE 8 figures. Sports figures, CEO's or anyone else, really.

But I know you need to make it about me because you can't defend the system. (Actually, I do reasonably well, all things considered.)

But please don't go out there and tell me that because of luck or greed, that A-Rod or Steve Jobs have more virtue than average working people. Because it's laughable.

See - you just proved that you simply don't get it. Who said anything about "virtue"? The entire conversation was about skill set and work ethic. You simply can't bring yourself to acknowledge that you are where you're at, and A-Rod is where he is at, because of the VALUE each of you bring to an organization.

I can defend the system. If you don't want it to be about you, just pick any liberal idiot who brings no value to an organization but believes they are entitled to a job and a huge salary. To say you don't believe "anyone should be paid 8 figures" is simply asinine. The reason a CEO or athlete is paid that is because they bring in MORE than that amount. When the Yankees pay A-Rod a quarter of a billion, it's not because they lose money doing so. It's because fans will fill the seats both at home and on the road to watch him play, and that brings in revenue. The fans will buy more of his jersey than some average player, so that brings in revenue. It's skill set and work ethic, but if you acknowledge that, then you would have to take some personal responsibility for your own situation, and of course, we can't have that now - can we?

 

[JoeB131]

You have a thick misconception.
Bridges are built by private companies
The police are not legally obligated to protect you.
Public schools? Why send your children to be polluted with garbage?

Um, wow. Stupidity like this, I'm not sure what to say.

Yeah, bridges are built by private companies because THE GOVERNMENT pays them to build them.

They don't say, "Hey, this will be a nice place to build a bridge, let's do it!"

And this is the point, you guys were all for slashing the shit out of government spending in this recession, and then you wonder why unemployment hasn't improved all that much.

Because when the government doesn't pay money to fix that bridge, it's usually a private company that doesn't get the jobs.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What happen?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iGAgocmI54]Do You Promise Not To Use Signing Statements? Candidate Obama in '08: 'Yes' - YouTube[/ame]

 

[P@triot]

Hey Joe - I know you think running a business is so easy (even though you refuse to do it yourself), but allow me to let you in on a little secret. If you own a business, you are not going to "invest" in anything (people, assets, infrastructure, etc.) when the government is run by radical Marxists who demonize you 24x7 as "evil" and the cause of all problems, and who then implement anti-business policies like the Frank-Dodd Finance Reform bill and Obamacare. And let's not forget the endless threats to raise taxes on those "evil" business owners who create jobs.

If you want them to invest, then vote the idiot liberals the **** out of office and wake up to the realization that there isn't a poor person in America who has EVER hired one single person. Jobs come from the wealthy. Opportunity comes from the wealthy. No one on food stamps has ever hired anyone.

Actually, guy, here's the thing.

Consumer demand creates jobs, not investment and not businessmen. This is one of the fallacies you Conservatards believe, because they spend a lot of money getting you to believe it.

We have never gotten out of a recession without a huge burst of government spending.

Decent salaries for working people create jobs, NOT wealthy people having more wealth. Clinton raised the tax on the wealthy, and we had the best decade of growth in my lifetime. Let's try that again.

Yeah, and who provides the supply for the demand? Is it poor people Joe? I'm challenging you here and now to provide me with the name of a SINGLE person in poverty who has provided a job for someone? You can't do it, and you know it.

The supply for the demand is provided by wealthy people. They became wealthy because they were talented and had a high work ethic, and created the products to fill a need/demand. Bill Gates & Steve Jobs were both a lot smarter than both of us, and they each averaged 18 hour days. That's why they are bilionaires and we're not. But again, rather than accepting reality, it's so much easier for the liberal to blame the world and the system for their lot in life.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You have a thick misconception.
Bridges are built by private companies
The police are not legally obligated to protect you.
Public schools? Why send your children to be polluted with garbage?

Um, wow. Stupidity like this, I'm not sure what to say.

Yeah, bridges are built by private companies because THE GOVERNMENT pays them to build them.

They don't say, "Hey, this will be a nice place to build a bridge, let's do it!"

And this is the point, you guys were all for slashing the shit out of government spending in this recession, and then you wonder why unemployment hasn't improved all that much.

Because when the government doesn't pay money to fix that bridge, it's usually a private company that doesn't get the jobs.

Here's what you said you dumb son of a *****

If you don't have investment capital on a five figure salary you're an idiot. AGAIN, the taxes always being discussed with regards to raising them are income taxes and investment income- Of which half of American's don't even pay.

So how much of every dollar you work for are you willing to give to the government? And why are you not giving it to them now? Lead the way dude- lead the way.

I am. I'm all for the rich paying their fair share and looking out for the good of the rest of us. I'm just not sure why you aren't. Somehow, I doubt you are rich. You probably never will be. But you seem awfully concerned that they might have to do without a polo pony.

Me. I want a police department that comes when I call it. I want bridges that aren't going to collapse when I'm trying to cross them. I want kids to be able to read and write when they get out of public school after 12 years so I don't have to support them into their 40's.

Just because the government pays for bridges being built does not mean they will not collapse

 

[P@triot]

Hey Joe - I know you think running a business is so easy (even though you refuse to do it yourself), but allow me to let you in on a little secret. If you own a business, you are not going to "invest" in anything (people, assets, infrastructure, etc.) when the government is run by radical Marxists who demonize you 24x7 as "evil" and the cause of all problems, and who then implement anti-business policies like the Frank-Dodd Finance Reform bill and Obamacare. And let's not forget the endless threats to raise taxes on those "evil" business owners who create jobs.

If you want them to invest, then vote the idiot liberals the **** out of office and wake up to the realization that there isn't a poor person in America who has EVER hired one single person. Jobs come from the wealthy. Opportunity comes from the wealthy. No one on food stamps has ever hired anyone.

Actually, guy, here's the thing.

Consumer demand creates jobs, not investment and not businessmen. This is one of the fallacies you Conservatards believe, because they spend a lot of money getting you to believe it.

We have never gotten out of a recession without a huge burst of government spending.

Decent salaries for working people create jobs, NOT wealthy people having more wealth. Clinton raised the tax on the wealthy, and we had the best decade of growth in my lifetime. Let's try that again.

By the way, your facts could not be more wrong on Clinton. Clinton rode the economic tidal wave created by Ronald Reagan in the 80's and caused the economic melt down of the 2000's because of his bill which rewrote the "Community Reinvestment Act" and essentially forced banks to make loans to people who didn't previously qualify. Of course, over time, these people started to default on their loans and tried to make that up by running up huge credit cards. Now you have banks not getting repaid on their mortgage loans and not getting repaid on their credit cards. Now they have to start laying off people who in turn then could not make their house payments. The entire thing created a domino effect.

This is what happens when the federal government puts their ******* nose where it doesn't belong. They have no Constitutional authority to get involved in home loans. Like Obama, Clinton should be brought up on charges for breaking the law.

 

[JoeB131]

See - you just proved that you simply don't get it. Who said anything about "virtue"? The entire conversation was about skill set and work ethic. You simply can't bring yourself to acknowledge that you are where you're at, and A-Rod is where he is at, because of the VALUE each of you bring to an organization.

Uh, yeah. A-Rod is a punk who uses Roids...

Alex Rodriguez admits taking PEDs during 3-year period - ESPN

So you are going to say, "Hey, kids, you don't want to be like Joe who served his coutnry in the military, came back, took a series of jobs at companies and built his skill sets and is perfectly happy getting a fair middle class lifestyle. No, no, it's better to be like A-Rod, abuse your body with performance enhancing drugs and get a huge contract for playing a game that people are rapidly losing interest in."

Just want to see if I have your messaging straight here, guy.

I can defend the system. If you don't want it to be about you, just pick any liberal idiot who brings no value to an organization but believes they are entitled to a job and a huge salary. To say you don't believe "anyone should be paid 8 figures" is simply asinine. The reason a CEO or athlete is paid that is because they bring in MORE than that amount.

Your argument would have value if these CEO's were producing value. BUt often, they get the 8 figures whether they produce or not, and that's the problem. For instance, Wagoneer, the guy who so badly mismanaged GM got 12 million the year he had to go hat in hand to the Federal Government to get a bailout.

When the Yankees pay A-Rod a quarter of a billion, it's not because they lose money doing so. It's because fans will fill the seats both at home and on the road to watch him play, and that brings in revenue. The fans will buy more of his jersey than some average player, so that brings in revenue. It's skill set and work ethic, but if you acknowledge that, then you would have to take some personal responsibility for your own situation, and of course, we can't have that now - can we?

But let's look at that. Baseball was dying a miserable death in the 1990's. People got fed up after the last baseball strike and stopped going to games Then you had all these guys like Barry Bonds and Sosa and A-Rod taking 'roids because the game was so dull otherwise. The owners all turned a blind eye to it, some of the lesser creatures have no doubt fucked up their health beyond belief. Give it another decade and we are going to hear all sort of horror stories.

But someone was making a profit, and that makes them a hero.

 

[JoeB131]

By the way, your facts could not be more wrong on Clinton. Clinton rode the economic tidal wave created by Ronald Reagan in the 80's and caused the economic melt down of the 2000's because of his bill which rewrote the "Community Reinvestment Act" and essentially forced banks to make loans to people who didn't previously qualify. Of course, over time, these people started to default on their loans and tried to make that up by running up huge credit cards. Now you have banks not getting repaid on their mortgage loans and not getting repaid on their credit cards. Now they have to start laying off people who in turn then could not make their house payments. The entire thing created a domino effect.

This is what happens when the federal government puts their ******* nose where it doesn't belong. They have no Constitutional authority to get involved in home loans. Like Obama, Clinton should be brought up on charges for breaking the law.

Umm, gee, guy I seem to remember it differently. I remember that in 1992, things were so bad that they would offer 100 jobs and 10,000 people would show up to apply for them. It was about the time I got out of the military, and despite an exemplary military record and a college degree, the best job I could get in 1992 was working in a warehouse. Of course, I worked my way up in that company as I did every company I worked in subsequently.

Fact is, the banks got greedy and the government wasn't watching them. And you idiots want to do it all again.

 

[P@triot]

Just out of curiosity, Obama is pushing for a top marginal tax rate of 39.6%.

How do you square that with Marxism, or, actually, "radical" Marxism?

.

You mean other than the fact that he has flat out said on camera "the way you do that is SPREAD THE WEALTH"? *Do you even know what Marxism is? *In a nut shell, it can be summed up by Karl Marx's own statement "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". *So if you believe we should spread the wealth from those who do to those who do nothing, then you are a Marxist.

Furthermore, his entire life he has surrounded himself with NOTHING but Socialists/Marxists/Communists. *Consider these facts:

.

That works on the assumption that the majority of us are actually "doing nothing" or that the wealthy who have 50% of the wealth have actually earned it.

Are they doing 50% of the things that need to be done? Or are they just cheating the people who work for them out of their fair share by playing them off against each other?

And since the latter is obviously the truth, why on earth would you ever consider it a good thing.

Yes, Marxism is an awful idea, because eventually, people figure out that they can get by with doing nothing. This is largely the problem with the modern welfare state, truth to be told.

But the notion of a system where a few get rich and the rest work ourselves to death to make them that way is equally ridiculous- and dangerous to the well-being of the nation.

Wealth disparity never ends well. Just ask the Bourbons or the Romanovs.

You're right - any system where wealth is distributed is a bad idea. But thankfully, we don't have that in the US (except when liberals are in office). See, we have a FREE market system. If you're rich, it's because you earned it. If you're poor, it's because you earned it.

You've talked over and over about the idiots you worked for who ran the company into the ground. Yet strangely, you never started your own company and put them out of business by doing it better. Hmmm, I wonder why that is?

 

[Foxfyre]

You mean other than the fact that he has flat out said on camera "the way you do that is SPREAD THE WEALTH"? *Do you even know what Marxism is? *In a nut shell, it can be summed up by Karl Marx's own statement "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". *So if you believe we should spread the wealth from those who do to those who do nothing, then you are a Marxist.

Furthermore, his entire life he has surrounded himself with NOTHING but Socialists/Marxists/Communists. *Consider these facts:

.

That works on the assumption that the majority of us are actually "doing nothing" or that the wealthy who have 50% of the wealth have actually earned it.

Are they doing 50% of the things that need to be done? Or are they just cheating the people who work for them out of their fair share by playing them off against each other?

And since the latter is obviously the truth, why on earth would you ever consider it a good thing.

Yes, Marxism is an awful idea, because eventually, people figure out that they can get by with doing nothing. This is largely the problem with the modern welfare state, truth to be told.

But the notion of a system where a few get rich and the rest work ourselves to death to make them that way is equally ridiculous- and dangerous to the well-being of the nation.

Wealth disparity never ends well. Just ask the Bourbons or the Romanovs.

You're right - any system where wealth is distributed is a bad idea. But thankfully, we don't have that in the US (except when liberals are in office). See, we have a FREE market system. If you're rich, it's because you earned it. If you're poor, it's because you earned it.

You've talked over and over about the idiots you worked for who ran the company into the ground. Yet strangely, you never started your own company and put them out of business by doing it better. Hmmm, I wonder why that is?

Exactly. We went through three different companies that sold out to larger corporations so that we had MBA's who had never been out of their areas and who had absolutely no clue what we did, why we did it, under what conditions we were doing it, or the type clientele we were dealing with telling us how to do our jobs. And one by one those smaller companies failed and went belly up or were on the verge of doing so.

Finally we said to hell with it and started our own business and ran it like we wanted to run it and it was great.

 

[P@triot]

Um, you have to go back 90 years

Your assertion was foolish. Just because we now lavish gubmint debt spending on economic downturns does not mean it is necessary or wise.

Your education was free this time.

Uh, guy, you wouldn't want to live in 1920 America and neitehr would anyone else.

You do realize just how miserable people were in that time period, with families crammed into one-room apartments, right?

Let's talk about what really happened in that time period. Prior to WWI, the US was a debtor nation. We brought in more goods than we exported. Then WWI broke out, and we ramped up our factories to produce war goods to sell to the allies, (who brought them from us on Credit) and then eventually had to enter the war ourselves to make sure the allies didn't lose and default on their debt. Meanwhile, consumer goods were rationed. Even food, as we transfered much of our food production to the rest of the world.

World War I. Probably the most useless, pointless war the US ever engaged in.

You then had a huge plague known as the SPanish Flu that killed 20 million people world-wide in 1919.

Finally, you had the Russian Revolution, which isolated the USSR, which had previously been the world's largest exporter of wheat. The US then replaced Russia in this regard.

The point was, the entire economic system of the world was disrupted, and a minor recession resulted. What Harding did was actually kind of unimportant, and the most signifigant thing he did- setting up tariffs to protect our industries as the world economy sorted itself out - is something you Coporatist stooges would never go for today.

So the very fact that you seem to think the most important thing that happened was that Harding cut government spending by a very small amount after Wilson had ramped it up so high (it never got below pre-Wilson levels again). Those other things that happened were far more important.

Really, nobody would want to live in the "Roaring 20's" when we experienced incredilbe economic prosperity, despite the decade starting with a massive great depression which was halted immediatley by conservative policies implemented by Warren Harding? Yeah, sure would hate the "Roaring 20's". So much better to live under liberal policy which ends in mass poverty like Cuba.