Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[KissMy]

Adding another nail to the coffin of Reaganomics, a recent study published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has concluded that, contrary to the principles of “trickle-down” economics, an increase in the income share of the wealthiest people actually leads to a decrease in GDP growth.

“The benefits do not trickle down,”


But the IMF study’s five authors say we should instead focus on raising the income of the poor and the middle class. “Widening income inequality is the defining challenge of our time,” they write. “In advanced economies, the gap between the rich and poor is at its highest level in decades.”

Raising up the poor appears to have a dramatic effect: A 1% increase in the income share of the bottom quintile results in a 0.38% increase in GDP. Meanwhile, a 1% increase in the income share of the top 20% results in a 0.08% decrease in GDP growth.


Trickle down economics is wrong, says IMF

Yup! - It's a Proven Fact that Reaganomics lowered GDP growth. Clinton & Obamanomics has reversed that! Reagan, Bush 1 & 2 had multiple negative GDP recessions on their watch. Clinton & Obama had no Recessions on their watch.

 

[Boss]

..........So you won't answer my question?

How are we to draw up policies if we don't define these variables going in? If we are going to punish employers for not knowing someone is illegal, which I don't agree with by the way, we need to at least define what lengths they can go to in determining such a thing on the basis of their judgement and assumptions. Because, if we can't establish this beforehand, it leaves the employer subject to all sorts of lawsuits for violating rights to privacy or just plain racial discrimination.

From what you posted, it sounds like you're saying it would be okay to profile people on the basis of whether they speak English. Is THAT what you want to do?

actually except for certain exemptions like age or a mental issue keeping them from learning English, It is a requirement for citizenship.
anyone that is in the working age would know at least basic English in order to be legal. So, in short if Juan comes in looking for a job and he is between the ages of 18 and 54 and cant speak English, he is not a legal citizen.
I think that clears it up.

Well no, not really... Juan could have been raised in a home where everyone spoke Spanish his entire life and that was what he had learned to speak. Or maybe Juan is embarrassed by speaking in English? What if Juan is 50 or older and lived here 20 years? None of these possibilities can be dismissed because if you denied employment to a legal citizen on the basis you assumed they are illegal, you have to be able to back up your assumption in court if they sue you... which, they will.

So AGAIN I ask... Do you favor profiling an individual on the basis of their ability to speak English? And should we assume that all persons unable to speak English are illegal aliens? Because, if not... you can't expect employers to be responsible for unknowingly hiring illegal aliens.

 

[Boss]

..........So you won't answer my question?

How are we to draw up policies if we don't define these variables going in? If we are going to punish employers for not knowing someone is illegal, which I don't agree with by the way, we need to at least define what lengths they can go to in determining such a thing on the basis of their judgement and assumptions. Because, if we can't establish this beforehand, it leaves the employer subject to all sorts of lawsuits for violating rights to privacy or just plain racial discrimination.

From what you posted, it sounds like you're saying it would be okay to profile people on the basis of whether they speak English. Is THAT what you want to do?

I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol

As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!

You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?

AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!

Well I am not any kind of a -tarian but I do know what I support and what I don't.

Yep... asking for papers is totally unnecessary if we can simply apply the newly-PC liberal language test... those who can't speak English are illegals... right?

Hey... I am ALL FOR mandatory e-verify! Let's do it! ...Oh wait, California tried and their liberal Supreme Court ruled they couldn't make it mandatory! Ooops! ...We have a problem here!

 

[Claudette]

Since the rich already pay about 60% of the total taxes paid to the Govt. I'd say no.

 

[Dad2three]

..........So you won't answer my question?

How are we to draw up policies if we don't define these variables going in? If we are going to punish employers for not knowing someone is illegal, which I don't agree with by the way, we need to at least define what lengths they can go to in determining such a thing on the basis of their judgement and assumptions. Because, if we can't establish this beforehand, it leaves the employer subject to all sorts of lawsuits for violating rights to privacy or just plain racial discrimination.

From what you posted, it sounds like you're saying it would be okay to profile people on the basis of whether they speak English. Is THAT what you want to do?

I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol

As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!

You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?

AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!

Well I am not any kind of a -tarian but I do know what I support and what I don't.

Yep... asking for papers is totally unnecessary if we can simply apply the newly-PC liberal language test... those who can't speak English are illegals... right?

Hey... I am ALL FOR mandatory e-verify! Let's do it! ...Oh wait, California tried and their liberal Supreme Court ruled they couldn't make it mandatory! Ooops! ...We have a problem here!

ONCE MORE:


I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol

As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!

You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?

AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!

 

[Dad2three]

Since the rich already pay about 60% of the total taxes paid to the Govt. I'd say no.

The nation’s tax system is barely progressive. Those who argue that the wealthy are overtaxed focus solely on the federal personal income tax, while ignoring the other taxes that Americans pay. But, as the table to the right illustrates, the total share of taxes (federal, state, and local) that will be paid by Americans across the economic spectrum in 2014 is roughly equal to their total share of income.

Many taxes are regressive, meaning they take a larger share of income from poor and middle-income families than they do from the rich. To offset the regressive impact of payroll taxes, sales taxes and even some state and local income taxes, we need federal income tax policies that are more progressive.

Who Pays Taxes in America in 2014? | CTJReports

 

[bripat9643]

So you think we should punish people who unknowingly break the law?

Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?


Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?

So you think we should profile people based on their inability to speak fluent English?

FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs

This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!

Fine the employers, deport the illegals, build the wall.

I say put the elected officials in jail who refuse to enforce the law and even stop our law enforcement folk from fining the employers and deporting illegals.
As for the wall.. building a wall in the desert next to a river... makes no sense. What is needed is observation towers and law enforcement presence with the backing of our government to do their job. What we have is a piece of shit president who has re-tasked our law enforcement personnel into being bus drivers and enablers for illegal immigration. Instead of punishing illegals we give them money and a free ride into the country. Our laws are a ******* joke.

Why does building it in the desert make no sense? Should we build it in Colorado?

"Law enforcement present" can be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen. The wall also reduces the manpower needed at the border. Those who oppose the wall are either dumbasses or open-borders assholes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Watch: A Nobel Economist Debunks Trickle-Down Reaganomics In Four Minutes


Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz lays out a damning indictment of Ronald Reagan’s deregulation and sweeping tax cuts that have resulted in the worst income inequality in the developed world and have been holding America back for the past thirty years. He definitively debunks the delusional “trickle-down” theory of income transfer and bemoans the fact that social mobility in America has been crippled by the concentration of wealth in the top 1%, preventing hard-working Americans from moving upwards in society or improving their lots in life.


”The same market forces, the same forces of technological globalization are at work in the same way in advanced countries. It’s not the economic forces. It’s our policies.”

Watch: A Nobel Economist Debunks Trickle-Down Reaganomics In Four Minutes

Adding another nail to the coffin of Reaganomics, a recent study published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has concluded that, contrary to the principles of “trickle-down” economics, an increase in the income share of the wealthiest people actually leads to a decrease in GDP growth.

“The benefits do not trickle down,”


But the IMF study’s five authors say we should instead focus on raising the income of the poor and the middle class. “Widening income inequality is the defining challenge of our time,” they write. “In advanced economies, the gap between the rich and poor is at its highest level in decades.”

Raising up the poor appears to have a dramatic effect: A 1% increase in the income share of the bottom quintile results in a 0.38% increase in GDP. Meanwhile, a 1% increase in the income share of the top 20% results in a 0.08% decrease in GDP growth.


Trickle down economics is wrong, says IMF

contrary to the principles of “trickle-down” economics

What is this “trickle-down” economics I always hear liberals whining about?

Raising up the poor appears to have a dramatic effect:

Is that why liberals want millions of illegals to come to the US? To raise up the poor?
Of course it hurts our poor and middle class, but they never talk about that.

 

[Dad2three]

`

Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?


Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?

So you think we should profile people based on their inability to speak fluent English?

FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs

This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!

Fine the employers, deport the illegals, build the wall.

I say put the elected officials in jail who refuse to enforce the law and even stop our law enforcement folk from fining the employers and deporting illegals.
As for the wall.. building a wall in the desert next to a river... makes no sense. What is needed is observation towers and law enforcement presence with the backing of our government to do their job. What we have is a piece of shit president who has re-tasked our law enforcement personnel into being bus drivers and enablers for illegal immigration. Instead of punishing illegals we give them money and a free ride into the country. Our laws are a ******* joke.

Why does building it in the desert make no sense? Should we build it in Colorado?

"Law enforcement present" can be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen. The wall also reduces the manpower needed at the border. Those who oppose the wall are either dumbasses or open-borders assholes.

Yeah, because WALLS and guys with guns keep drugs and cell phones out of the prison system right?

Can we build one along the northern border too? lol

 

[bripat9643]

Adding another nail to the coffin of Reaganomics, a recent study published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has concluded that, contrary to the principles of “trickle-down” economics, an increase in the income share of the wealthiest people actually leads to a decrease in GDP growth.

“The benefits do not trickle down,”


But the IMF study’s five authors say we should instead focus on raising the income of the poor and the middle class. “Widening income inequality is the defining challenge of our time,” they write. “In advanced economies, the gap between the rich and poor is at its highest level in decades.”

Raising up the poor appears to have a dramatic effect: A 1% increase in the income share of the bottom quintile results in a 0.38% increase in GDP. Meanwhile, a 1% increase in the income share of the top 20% results in a 0.08% decrease in GDP growth.


Trickle down economics is wrong, says IMF

Yup! - It's a Proven Fact that Reaganomics lowered GDP growth. Clinton & Obamanomics has reversed that! Reagan, Bush 1 & 2 had multiple negative GDP recessions on their watch. Clinton & Obama had no Recessions on their watch.

You're being facetious, right?

 

[Boss]

..........So you won't answer my question?

How are we to draw up policies if we don't define these variables going in? If we are going to punish employers for not knowing someone is illegal, which I don't agree with by the way, we need to at least define what lengths they can go to in determining such a thing on the basis of their judgement and assumptions. Because, if we can't establish this beforehand, it leaves the employer subject to all sorts of lawsuits for violating rights to privacy or just plain racial discrimination.

From what you posted, it sounds like you're saying it would be okay to profile people on the basis of whether they speak English. Is THAT what you want to do?

I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol

As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!

You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?

AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!

Well I am not any kind of a -tarian but I do know what I support and what I don't.

Yep... asking for papers is totally unnecessary if we can simply apply the newly-PC liberal language test... those who can't speak English are illegals... right?

Hey... I am ALL FOR mandatory e-verify! Let's do it! ...Oh wait, California tried and their liberal Supreme Court ruled they couldn't make it mandatory! Ooops! ...We have a problem here!

ONCE MORE:


I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol

As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!

You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?

AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!

Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.

I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this knowing and unknowing thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.

If we are going to hold employers accountable for unknowingly hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use personal judgement in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?

Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?

 

[bripat9643]

`

So you think we should profile people based on their inability to speak fluent English?

FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs

This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!

Fine the employers, deport the illegals, build the wall.

I say put the elected officials in jail who refuse to enforce the law and even stop our law enforcement folk from fining the employers and deporting illegals.
As for the wall.. building a wall in the desert next to a river... makes no sense. What is needed is observation towers and law enforcement presence with the backing of our government to do their job. What we have is a piece of shit president who has re-tasked our law enforcement personnel into being bus drivers and enablers for illegal immigration. Instead of punishing illegals we give them money and a free ride into the country. Our laws are a ******* joke.

Why does building it in the desert make no sense? Should we build it in Colorado?

"Law enforcement present" can be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen. The wall also reduces the manpower needed at the border. Those who oppose the wall are either dumbasses or open-borders assholes.

Yeah, because WALLS and guys with guns keep drugs and cell phones out of the prison system right?

Can we build one along the northern border too? lol

Walls do a great job of keeping suicide bombers out of Israel.

 

[Taz]

The rich already pay way more taxes than the average citizen.

 

[Dad2three]

`

FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs

This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!

Fine the employers, deport the illegals, build the wall.

I say put the elected officials in jail who refuse to enforce the law and even stop our law enforcement folk from fining the employers and deporting illegals.
As for the wall.. building a wall in the desert next to a river... makes no sense. What is needed is observation towers and law enforcement presence with the backing of our government to do their job. What we have is a piece of shit president who has re-tasked our law enforcement personnel into being bus drivers and enablers for illegal immigration. Instead of punishing illegals we give them money and a free ride into the country. Our laws are a ******* joke.

Why does building it in the desert make no sense? Should we build it in Colorado?

"Law enforcement present" can be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen. The wall also reduces the manpower needed at the border. Those who oppose the wall are either dumbasses or open-borders assholes.

Yeah, because WALLS and guys with guns keep drugs and cell phones out of the prison system right?

Can we build one along the northern border too? lol

Walls do a great job of keeping suicide bombers out of Israel.

Yes, LET'S US LIVE LIKE ISRAEL, *shaking head*

Don't usually like this source, but even a clock is correct twice a day



The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists.


Newsflash to both Donald Trump and Ann Coulter: that wall you’re saying the U.S. needs to build along its border with Mexico…it mostly exists. There aren’t any lasers, a shark-filled moat, or auto-turrets, but it’s there. Don’t believe me? Here it is in Mexicali, California.



And Arizona.



And New Mexico.



The New Mexico part of the fence might seem a little haphazard, but it’s important to realize how the terrain is. The way the mountains are, it really doesn’t make sense to put a big fence up. No one is (or should) going to try to sneak into the country that way. It’s just too dangerous and probably a development nightmare for builders. There’s also this fence in the Sonoran Desert which marks the U.S.-Mexico border.




So why the smaller fence? A part of it has to do with how dangerous the desert is. It’s the climate. The Sonoran Desert is, well, a desert, with blistering heat, mountains, and very little water. When the wall was built in the mid-to-late 2000’s there was no point in building a massive structure because the desert is supposed to be a natural deterrent. It makes no sense to try to cross over through a desert which would probably lead to your death. The Arizona Republic talked to a Border Patrol spokesperson last year who confirmed how dangerous it was.

“It’s the harshest climate along the U.S.-Mexico border. When you’ve got over 30 days of 100-degree weather, that makes it deadly for anybody crossing out there.”

Which is pretty much why coyotes were using this desert to get into the U.S. There aren’t a ton of humans there, which is why the cartels probably use the route. They’d probably still use the route, even if the fence was a massive structure. Desperate people will go anywhere, just look at the Texas border crossings from last year. The Texas fence is done, but it’s not a wall across the state. A lot of that has to do with topography. There are plenty of forests along the border in West Texas, once you get past El Paso, and barely any roads. Lupe Dempsey told FOX News in 2013 why illegal immigrants tend to avoid West Texas.

“…it pushes the migrants into more remote areas where it is easy to get lost, it is very dangerous.”...



The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists. « Hot Air





.

 

[Dad2three]

..........So you won't answer my question?

How are we to draw up policies if we don't define these variables going in? If we are going to punish employers for not knowing someone is illegal, which I don't agree with by the way, we need to at least define what lengths they can go to in determining such a thing on the basis of their judgement and assumptions. Because, if we can't establish this beforehand, it leaves the employer subject to all sorts of lawsuits for violating rights to privacy or just plain racial discrimination.

From what you posted, it sounds like you're saying it would be okay to profile people on the basis of whether they speak English. Is THAT what you want to do?

I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol

As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!

You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?

AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!

Well I am not any kind of a -tarian but I do know what I support and what I don't.

Yep... asking for papers is totally unnecessary if we can simply apply the newly-PC liberal language test... those who can't speak English are illegals... right?

Hey... I am ALL FOR mandatory e-verify! Let's do it! ...Oh wait, California tried and their liberal Supreme Court ruled they couldn't make it mandatory! Ooops! ...We have a problem here!

ONCE MORE:


I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol

As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!

You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?

AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!

Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.

I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this knowing and unknowing thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.

If we are going to hold employers accountable for unknowingly hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use personal judgement in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?

Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?

I thought CONservatives ALREADY decided the "papers please" movement was OK Bubba

Since YOU are NEVER going to get honest, I'm done replying to your nonsense on this

ONCE MORE:

I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol

As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!

 

[Dad2three]

The rich already pay way more taxes than the average citizen.

But a MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes, ESPECIALLY the super rich fortunate 400 whose tax "burden" is about 20%

 

[bripat9643]

`

Fine the employers, deport the illegals, build the wall.

I say put the elected officials in jail who refuse to enforce the law and even stop our law enforcement folk from fining the employers and deporting illegals.
As for the wall.. building a wall in the desert next to a river... makes no sense. What is needed is observation towers and law enforcement presence with the backing of our government to do their job. What we have is a piece of shit president who has re-tasked our law enforcement personnel into being bus drivers and enablers for illegal immigration. Instead of punishing illegals we give them money and a free ride into the country. Our laws are a ******* joke.

Why does building it in the desert make no sense? Should we build it in Colorado?

"Law enforcement present" can be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen. The wall also reduces the manpower needed at the border. Those who oppose the wall are either dumbasses or open-borders assholes.

Yeah, because WALLS and guys with guns keep drugs and cell phones out of the prison system right?

Can we build one along the northern border too? lol

Walls do a great job of keeping suicide bombers out of Israel.

Yes, LET'S US LIVE LIKE ISRAEL, *shaking head*

Don't usually like this source, but even a clock is correct twice a day



The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists.


Newsflash to both Donald Trump and Ann Coulter: that wall you’re saying the U.S. needs to build along its border with Mexico…it mostly exists. There aren’t any lasers, a shark-filled moat, or auto-turrets, but it’s there. Don’t believe me? Here it is in Mexicali, California.



And Arizona.



And New Mexico.



The New Mexico part of the fence might seem a little haphazard, but it’s important to realize how the terrain is. The way the mountains are, it really doesn’t make sense to put a big fence up. No one is (or should) going to try to sneak into the country that way. It’s just too dangerous and probably a development nightmare for builders. There’s also this fence in the Sonoran Desert which marks the U.S.-Mexico border.




So why the smaller fence? A part of it has to do with how dangerous the desert is. It’s the climate. The Sonoran Desert is, well, a desert, with blistering heat, mountains, and very little water. When the wall was built in the mid-to-late 2000’s there was no point in building a massive structure because the desert is supposed to be a natural deterrent. It makes no sense to try to cross over through a desert which would probably lead to your death. The Arizona Republic talked to a Border Patrol spokesperson last year who confirmed how dangerous it was.

“It’s the harshest climate along the U.S.-Mexico border. When you’ve got over 30 days of 100-degree weather, that makes it deadly for anybody crossing out there.”

Which is pretty much why coyotes were using this desert to get into the U.S. There aren’t a ton of humans there, which is why the cartels probably use the route. They’d probably still use the route, even if the fence was a massive structure. Desperate people will go anywhere, just look at the Texas border crossings from last year. The Texas fence is done, but it’s not a wall across the state. A lot of that has to do with topography. There are plenty of forests along the border in West Texas, once you get past El Paso, and barely any roads. Lupe Dempsey told FOX News in 2013 why illegal immigrants tend to avoid West Texas.

“…it pushes the migrants into more remote areas where it is easy to get lost, it is very dangerous.”...



The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists. « Hot Air





.

You call that a wall? Those are pathetic. Here's a wall:

The wall wasn't build to standards because Democrats in Congress didn't want it built.

 

[bripat9643]

..........So you won't answer my question?

How are we to draw up policies if we don't define these variables going in? If we are going to punish employers for not knowing someone is illegal, which I don't agree with by the way, we need to at least define what lengths they can go to in determining such a thing on the basis of their judgement and assumptions. Because, if we can't establish this beforehand, it leaves the employer subject to all sorts of lawsuits for violating rights to privacy or just plain racial discrimination.

From what you posted, it sounds like you're saying it would be okay to profile people on the basis of whether they speak English. Is THAT what you want to do?

I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol

As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!

You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?

AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!

Well I am not any kind of a -tarian but I do know what I support and what I don't.

Yep... asking for papers is totally unnecessary if we can simply apply the newly-PC liberal language test... those who can't speak English are illegals... right?

Hey... I am ALL FOR mandatory e-verify! Let's do it! ...Oh wait, California tried and their liberal Supreme Court ruled they couldn't make it mandatory! Ooops! ...We have a problem here!

ONCE MORE:


I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol

As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!

You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?

AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!

Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.

I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this knowing and unknowing thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.

If we are going to hold employers accountable for unknowingly hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use personal judgement in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?

Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?

I thought CONservatives ALREADY decided the "papers please" movement was OK Bubba

Since YOU are NEVER going to get honest, I'm done replying to your nonsense on this

ONCE MORE:

I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol

As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!

What part of "mandatory" didn't you understand?

 

[Dad2three]

`

I say put the elected officials in jail who refuse to enforce the law and even stop our law enforcement folk from fining the employers and deporting illegals.
As for the wall.. building a wall in the desert next to a river... makes no sense. What is needed is observation towers and law enforcement presence with the backing of our government to do their job. What we have is a piece of shit president who has re-tasked our law enforcement personnel into being bus drivers and enablers for illegal immigration. Instead of punishing illegals we give them money and a free ride into the country. Our laws are a ******* joke.

Why does building it in the desert make no sense? Should we build it in Colorado?

"Law enforcement present" can be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen. The wall also reduces the manpower needed at the border. Those who oppose the wall are either dumbasses or open-borders assholes.

Yeah, because WALLS and guys with guns keep drugs and cell phones out of the prison system right?

Can we build one along the northern border too? lol

Walls do a great job of keeping suicide bombers out of Israel.

Yes, LET'S US LIVE LIKE ISRAEL, *shaking head*

Don't usually like this source, but even a clock is correct twice a day



The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists.


Newsflash to both Donald Trump and Ann Coulter: that wall you’re saying the U.S. needs to build along its border with Mexico…it mostly exists. There aren’t any lasers, a shark-filled moat, or auto-turrets, but it’s there. Don’t believe me? Here it is in Mexicali, California.



And Arizona.



And New Mexico.



The New Mexico part of the fence might seem a little haphazard, but it’s important to realize how the terrain is. The way the mountains are, it really doesn’t make sense to put a big fence up. No one is (or should) going to try to sneak into the country that way. It’s just too dangerous and probably a development nightmare for builders. There’s also this fence in the Sonoran Desert which marks the U.S.-Mexico border.




So why the smaller fence? A part of it has to do with how dangerous the desert is. It’s the climate. The Sonoran Desert is, well, a desert, with blistering heat, mountains, and very little water. When the wall was built in the mid-to-late 2000’s there was no point in building a massive structure because the desert is supposed to be a natural deterrent. It makes no sense to try to cross over through a desert which would probably lead to your death. The Arizona Republic talked to a Border Patrol spokesperson last year who confirmed how dangerous it was.

“It’s the harshest climate along the U.S.-Mexico border. When you’ve got over 30 days of 100-degree weather, that makes it deadly for anybody crossing out there.”

Which is pretty much why coyotes were using this desert to get into the U.S. There aren’t a ton of humans there, which is why the cartels probably use the route. They’d probably still use the route, even if the fence was a massive structure. Desperate people will go anywhere, just look at the Texas border crossings from last year. The Texas fence is done, but it’s not a wall across the state. A lot of that has to do with topography. There are plenty of forests along the border in West Texas, once you get past El Paso, and barely any roads. Lupe Dempsey told FOX News in 2013 why illegal immigrants tend to avoid West Texas.

“…it pushes the migrants into more remote areas where it is easy to get lost, it is very dangerous.”...



The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists. « Hot Air





.

You call that a wall? Those are pathetic. Here's a wall:

The wall wasn't build to standards because Democrats in Congress didn't want it built.

Right, I forgot, it WASN'T the GOP who mostly controlled Congress the past 20 years, lol


Yeah, ANOTHER CONservative who "thinks" bigger is always better *shaking head*


Yes, lets live like Israel *shaking head*

But the US is Israels sugar daddy, whose gonna be ours for the fence, CONservatives/GOP sure aren't going to up tax revenues to pay for it!!!

 

[Dad2three]

I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol

As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!

You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?

AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!

Well I am not any kind of a -tarian but I do know what I support and what I don't.

Yep... asking for papers is totally unnecessary if we can simply apply the newly-PC liberal language test... those who can't speak English are illegals... right?

Hey... I am ALL FOR mandatory e-verify! Let's do it! ...Oh wait, California tried and their liberal Supreme Court ruled they couldn't make it mandatory! Ooops! ...We have a problem here!

ONCE MORE:


I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol

As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!

You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?

AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!

Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.

I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this knowing and unknowing thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.

If we are going to hold employers accountable for unknowingly hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use personal judgement in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?

Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?

I thought CONservatives ALREADY decided the "papers please" movement was OK Bubba

Since YOU are NEVER going to get honest, I'm done replying to your nonsense on this

ONCE MORE:

I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol

As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!

What part of "mandatory" didn't you understand?

Better talk to the GOP Plutocrats Bubba, including the Chamber who say you are nuts!