What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[JoeB131]

Then you do things your way and we'll do things ours. My tax dollars do not go to the rich either. They may keep more of their own money, but they are not getting mine unless I personally give it to them. You leftists really believe that all money belongs to government instead of the individual. That's a very disturbing way of thinking.

Um, last time I checked, money was issued by the government.

Here's where you are not terribly bright, Ray. Every time the GOP cuts taxes for rich people, they usually find ways for you to pay more. For instance, most of that $18.00 you got in tax cuts will be eaten up by Trump's new tariffs...

 

[kaz]

With all the electronics, a border wall would be surveiled just like a fence around a nuclear power plant.

And no one wants to get into a nuclear power plant? You're just chugging the kool-aid now

Oh, I guess terrorists do... but here's the thing, as much as you guys have been whining about 'terrorists" for the last 20 years, not a single one got in through the Southern Border.

And that proves what, Joe?

 

[JoeB131]

And that proves what, Joe?

That you guys are great at hysterics... did you ever find the owners of those imaginary muslim prayer rugs you found on the Southern Border?

 

[kaz]

And that proves what, Joe?

That you guys are great at hysterics... did you ever find the owners of those imaginary muslim prayer rugs you found on the Southern Border?

I'm not one of the voices in your head. What is your point, Joe? I never said terrorists had crossed the southern border. Don't know. You're arguing a point not in contention.

Are you arguing that means there is no danger from that terrorists can walk across the border? What is your point?

 

[danielpalos]

Except these people aren't looking for welfare. They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.

Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.

So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants. Typical leftist thinking all the way. Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.

Let capitalism do the work. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

Another communist's great idea that's so good, it have to be forced on employers.

in this case, it is; higher paid labor creates more in demand and pays more in taxes. only the right wing, doesn't really care and never get's it.

You failed to explain what more of demand is created?

Second, unlike communist leach such as yourself, I believe minimum wage should be zero, and also... federal tax should be zero percent and feds should be financed by the states.

It should be a self-evident truth for anyone who knows anything about economics. The poor tend to spend most of their income. Higher paid labor creates more demand by spending more when they have more money to spend.

Crony capitalists don't care about anything but their profit. Government costs. Capitalist, "leaches" only care about profit, not cost. And, dear clueless capitalists, it is not Your money if we have any Problems in our Republic. Congress has the Power to Tax, for any problems the right wing whines about.

Any more Problems, right wingers.

 

[danielpalos]

The rich earned their wealth? Are you that stupid? The Walton’s earned nothing. Sam Walton earned their wealth. The Waltons sit on their asses and collect dividends off the work if others.

The rich have a tax code that keeps wealth flowing to the top. They have labour laws which allow them to deny health care or benefits to workers, and to pay them so little their workers need welfare to supplement their incomes.

They appoint a burger flipper as “manager” so they can work him/her 60 hours a week without paying overtime.

Other countries put their people first. America puts their corporations first, and the wealthy second. Working men and women, who make up the vast majority of your population are denigrated, abused and paid the least amount possible.

Envy is a bitch.

Stop whining about a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, right wingers.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, he's melting down because he knows it will work. He's trying to make the border wall sound like a chain link fence.

So Joe, you don't want fences around nuclear power plants either, right? I mean they don't work

NObody really wants to get into a nuclear power plant, but let's look at that.

The plant is a limited bit of real estate. you can't go two or three miles down the road to find another place to get at it. The whole permiter you are defending is only a few miles.

the Southern Border is over 2000 miles long. The Border Patrol only has 20,000 agents. That's 10 agents per mile, to guard it 24/7.

They'll find ways through, just like they do now.

Now, if you REALLY wanted to stop the flow, you do what we've already done, cracked down on workplace enforcement, which is why it's gone from flood to a trickle.

With all the electronics, a border wall would be surveiled just like a fence around a nuclear power plant.

And no one wants to get into a nuclear power plant? You're just chugging the kool-aid now

Just increasing costs, right wingers?

Why should the left, take the right wing seriously about our southern border, if they refuse to pay really really serious tax rates for it.

 

[danielpalos]

The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks. If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.

What a load of crap.

If that is the "real reason" and if Barry hasn't done anything wrong by doing it (with your silent approval), than Trump is doing nothing wrong neither.

Kids don't belong to jail. Their parents are lawbreakers, not them.

The Obama administration placed nearly 90,000 children with a sponsor, after they were detained at the border without a legal guardian. The only time children split from their family under Obama was if the adult was suspected of not being a guardian, had an outstanding warrant, or federal agents suspected the adult of another serious crime like trafficking or smuggling.

The Trump administration policy was to separate all children from their parents with no exceptions and if there had not been the outcry from the public and pressure from congress he would still be doing it. No law compelled him to do it. He did as deterrent and to speed up deportations. His actions were so deplorable that even his wife and daughter spoke out against it.

Not real news: The truth about volcanic gems, and immigrant kids placed into care under Obama

You're parroting Schumer's talking points that President can solve the problem with his pen. Sure he can, under the Section 212F of INA, President have full authority to shut down all immigration when he deems it of national interest. Just so you know and you don't complain about it later.

Now, let's talk about what you said: "No law compelled him to do it."

Back in 1997, there was law where they agree that we cannot detain unaccompanied children. Now, have you heard of Barry appointee district judge Dolly Gee? Not so long ago, in June 2016 she applied the 1997 agreement of not detaining unaccompanied children to all children, including when they cross the border illegally with their parents. You lefties are simply ignoring the law and going solely by the interpretation of the law from one leftist district judge.

The fact is, what president is doing is completely within a law. You lefties and your media are saying there is no such law and having meltdown over it. What you pretty much "forced" Trump to sign is gonna hit you in the ass. Yeah, you may celebrate the "victory", but it's not going to last. What's going to happen is, if Trump can't separate the families while they're being processed, he'll keep them together and deport them together before 20 days of legally being detained expire.

I know you lefties don't care about sovereignty of this country, but there are plenty of us who does including the president. He can stop all the immigration into the country, family based, employment based etc. He can reject every asylum at the border and redirect all asylum claims to be filed in US Embassies. You lefties surely don't want that, but you just might get it.

"The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty. The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power, but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation." - Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950)

should we start with, "misuse of process"? 10USC246 has precedent whenever the "security of our free States", is involved.

 

[blastoff]

And that proves what, Joe?

That you guys are great at hysterics... did you ever find the owners of those imaginary muslim prayer rugs you found on the Southern Border?

I'm not one of the voices in your head. What is your point, Joe? I never said terrorists had crossed the southern border. Don't know. You're arguing a point not in contention.

Are you arguing that means there is no danger from that terrorists can walk across the border? What is your point?

Be patient. He’ll make something up to fit his argument. It’s his M O.

 

[Kondor3]

Maybe. Maybe not. But the language was there long before the Imperial Cheeto showed up. A wave of 11-12,000,000 Invaders upon US soil will tend to do that.

again, only for the bigots... the Majority of Americans looked at the Orange Shitgibbon and said 'no'.

The sad thing is, it used to be that when a political party shit the bed and nominated someone who had no business being president (Goldwater, McGovern) enough people crossed party lines to decisively beat them, and the stupidity of the Electoral College didn't matter.

This time, there were a crapload of Republicans who knew damned well Trump had no business being president, but went along anyway.

Last I looked, the Mexicans and Guatamalens were not gassing Mestizos on an industrial scale. And even if they were... not our problem.

Yeah, they are only brown people. Here was the thing, in the 1930's the Nazis weren't gassing the Jews, and someone like you said, "Not our problem".

The thing is, what is going on IS our problem, because of the refugees, and more importantly, it's our fault, because we encouraged the drug trade that is causing all the violence.

The LEAST we could do is take these people in.

Nope.

 

[danielpalos]

And that proves what, Joe?

That you guys are great at hysterics... did you ever find the owners of those imaginary muslim prayer rugs you found on the Southern Border?

I'm not one of the voices in your head. What is your point, Joe? I never said terrorists had crossed the southern border. Don't know. You're arguing a point not in contention.

Are you arguing that means there is no danger from that terrorists can walk across the border? What is your point?

No. I am arguing that 10USC246, trumps Any federal immigration laws. We have an alleged, War on Terror, don'tcha know.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Your bad attitude is keeping you poor. That's why I fired you.

Guy, you couldn't afford me... I probably wouldn't have sent your chicken shit company a resume...

You're a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.

I watch little companies like yours go out of business because of their half-assery all the time.

You already told me your max salary was $80K. Now you make less than $25K. It's not the money I can't afford, that's for sure. I wouldn't do you to my staff though.

After I had bought and merged three companies, I had picked up a lot of good employees and of course a lot of dead wood. I was working with my management team on our plan to replace the bad staff. But we didn't know how many people we would need to replace them.

After a lot of discussion, I finally decided we fire all the bad ones immediately and the same day, no dragging it out. Let's rip off the bandaid. We'll identify the gaps and be ready to replace them at once.

So that Friday, we did it. We fired 30% of the company. All of them had either personally bad attitudes or just bad attitudes about doing any work. You were a marginal worker, it was your bad attitude that got you fired.

Here's what you didn't know because you were gone. You know how many of you we had to replace? Zero. It wasn't just you I didn't replace, I didn't need to replace any of you. The place seemed so much roomier and wow, it was so much more enjoyable being there without the lazy, useless and bad attitudes. Over time we replaced you as we grew, but that Friday you all left, your pay and benefits were all just savings

Turns out, your good employees were spending a bunch of their time corrected the errors of the bad apples, I'll bet. Without the lousy co-workers, they probably had more time to be effective at their own jobs.

Yes, that's exactly what was happening as I learned. They said their jobs were actually easier

I can understand that. When I was hired at my current job, there were three people doing more or less what I do, including myself. One of them was useless AND a pain in the ass. We got rid of her right after I was hired, and never missed her. A couple of months ago, the company got rid of the other guy, and I just absorbed his work. He was very nice, but I spent a good part of my day checking his work because he was careless and didn't have the best grasp of spelling and grammar. It's actually easier and faster for me to do all the work myself than to do my job and double-check his.

Now if that will just translate into a pay raise, since I'm basically doing single-handedly what originally had three people assigned to it . . .

 

[Cecilie1200]

And another one who thinks punishing children is a suitable response. Way to go dude.

If there are children who are dependent on you and you consciously endeavor to commit an offense which is punishable by confinement, who is responsible for harming the children? Should you be forgiven for your criminal offense and set free rather than cause discomfort to the children?

Too many border jumpers are confident that having children will insulate them from punishment if they are caught. So President Trump's aggressive action will substantially reduce illegal immigration. It is the parents who are punishing their children via their irresponsible conduct.

Simply stated, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

You're ultimately not benefiting children through policies which encourage people to put them in risky situations in order to use them as human shields. When there are no ideal choices, you have to go with the one which is least-bad for everyone involved.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You mean we are the only country where people take care of themselves? My Lord, what an awful place.

Also why we have the the worst inequality, poverty, upward Mobility and infrastructure and everything else in the modern world. Thanks GOP and silly dupes like you. We're number 23!!

The US produces close to a half-million new millionaires every year. How much more upward mobility do you want than that? The main reason we have poverty if because the Democrats have promoted irresponsibility. Single parent homes (which Democrats also promoted) is a leading reason for poverty.

"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't."
Rush Limbaugh

Did you read the whole article Ray, or did you stop after the part about 500,000 new millionaires ever year?

Did you read the part which said that these new millionaires are being created by a tax code which transfers wealth from the working class to the investment class? People aren’t getting rich from their own efforts, but rather by a tax code which transfers money from those who work to those who don’t.

Did you read that 75% of American families are struggling to make ends meet?

Or that 3/4 of all wealthy individuals say inheritance was a factor in their accumulation of wealth?

1,700 People in America Are Becoming Millionaires Every Day

Try reading the WHOLE article this time Ray.

There are 4 million babies born in the US each year. Even with a half a million millionaires being created each year, this means the other 3 million children who are being born this year are not going to be “thrivers”. 3/4 of these children will grow up poor because Donald Trump is accelerating that transfer of wealth with the new tax code.

Upthread someone whinged that 30% of all immigrants are on welfare. That’s substantially less than the 47% of American citizens who are currently receiving social assistance? The people Mitt Romney labelled as “takers”.

The ignorance of right wingers on matters of the economy makes it easy for Republicans to fool you into thinking they know what they’re doing.

I didn't read any article because I didn't post an article. However I did read yours by Nanny Bloomberg.

What it said in a Clintonizing way was that inheritance was a factor--not the direct reason people became wealthy.

Now I'm a working class guy. I don't remember any deduction out of my paycheck that went to the rich. I do transfer money to the rich just like you do, but it's an option and not a mandate by my employer. You and I both transfer our wealth to the top several times a week. Nobody is holding a gun to our heads to do it either.

And your article didn't say anything about the tax code. Even if the tax code played a part, it's not the reason people become wealthy. All Trump's tax code did was allow people to keep more of THEIR MONEY THAT THEY EARNED!

To your chagrin, all money does not belong to government, and what they allow us to keep is a gift from them to us. Money is property no different than your car or home. You earned it, you created it, and it's rightfully yours.

As a Canadian, my tax dollars do NOT go to the rich. They go to Canadian citizens - in child benefits to young families, for universal health care, and for old age income supplements. They go to roads, bridges and infrastructure.

What they don’t pay for is a massive bloated military protecting “Canadian interests” around the globe. They don’t pay for income supplements for underpaid corporate employees, nor do we have a bloated government paying out income supplements to working people. Corporations in Canada are required to pay a living wage to their employees.

While the US middle class is watching their wealth shrink to create those 500,000 millionaires each year, the Canadian middle class has the fastest growth in the world.

Fascinating.

You say, "My tax dollars do NOT go to the rich, they go to Canadian citizens" . . . as though you think "rich" and "citizen" are somehow mutually exclusive. Are you telling us there are no rich Canadian citizens, or just that rich Canadians are barred by law from gleaning any benefit or value from the government whatsoever?

Then you begin telling us all the "wonders" that your government doles out of your pocket, as though rich people HERE are getting all of those things free, but rich people THERE aren't . . . even though that's ridiculous on several levels.

One of the main reasons WE spend so much on our military is so that we can protect craven little hangers-on like Canada, and allow them to lounge around, touting their "moral superiority". Do not go there, Sparkles. Seriously. Your government is GLAD that the US is "barbaric" enough to spend on the military, even if YOU are too damned dumb to understand it.

I'm laughing at your "look at all these freebies we hand out, but NONE of it goes to corporate employees". Uh huh. "NO income supplements to working people." Well, except for child care, universal healthcare, all that other stuff you mentioned . . .

"Corporations in Canada pay a living wage to their employees." Could be one of many reasons why Canada ain't a major business hub of the world, hmmmm?

If you really think being middle-class in Canada is better than the US, you go with whatever makes living there tolerable. God knows, we have plenty of idiots here already, and have NO desire to add the likes of you. But there are a few things you're not considering in your simpleton's rush to believe any flattery you get:

The study cited by the NYTimes looks at Canada as a whole, rather than breaking it down by region. In actual fact, a handful of places with booming economies are boosting the averages for other places that aren't doing well.

The time period addressed in the study happens to have coincided with a recession in the United States, which included a housing crisis. Housing is, of course, one of the largest portions of wealth in the middle class.

Canada's middle class has one of the highest rates of personal debt.

While Canada's middle class saw gains during the study's time period, it continues to have the lowest growth rate of the nation's studied.

The study didn't factor in the impact of high taxes on the middle class at all.

 

[francoHFW]

Also why we have the the worst inequality, poverty, upward Mobility and infrastructure and everything else in the modern world. Thanks GOP and silly dupes like you. We're number 23!!

The US produces close to a half-million new millionaires every year. How much more upward mobility do you want than that? The main reason we have poverty if because the Democrats have promoted irresponsibility. Single parent homes (which Democrats also promoted) is a leading reason for poverty.

"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't."
Rush Limbaugh

Did you read the whole article Ray, or did you stop after the part about 500,000 new millionaires ever year?

Did you read the part which said that these new millionaires are being created by a tax code which transfers wealth from the working class to the investment class? People aren’t getting rich from their own efforts, but rather by a tax code which transfers money from those who work to those who don’t.

Did you read that 75% of American families are struggling to make ends meet?

Or that 3/4 of all wealthy individuals say inheritance was a factor in their accumulation of wealth?

1,700 People in America Are Becoming Millionaires Every Day

Try reading the WHOLE article this time Ray.

There are 4 million babies born in the US each year. Even with a half a million millionaires being created each year, this means the other 3 million children who are being born this year are not going to be “thrivers”. 3/4 of these children will grow up poor because Donald Trump is accelerating that transfer of wealth with the new tax code.

Upthread someone whinged that 30% of all immigrants are on welfare. That’s substantially less than the 47% of American citizens who are currently receiving social assistance? The people Mitt Romney labelled as “takers”.

The ignorance of right wingers on matters of the economy makes it easy for Republicans to fool you into thinking they know what they’re doing.

I didn't read any article because I didn't post an article. However I did read yours by Nanny Bloomberg.

What it said in a Clintonizing way was that inheritance was a factor--not the direct reason people became wealthy.

Now I'm a working class guy. I don't remember any deduction out of my paycheck that went to the rich. I do transfer money to the rich just like you do, but it's an option and not a mandate by my employer. You and I both transfer our wealth to the top several times a week. Nobody is holding a gun to our heads to do it either.

And your article didn't say anything about the tax code. Even if the tax code played a part, it's not the reason people become wealthy. All Trump's tax code did was allow people to keep more of THEIR MONEY THAT THEY EARNED!

To your chagrin, all money does not belong to government, and what they allow us to keep is a gift from them to us. Money is property no different than your car or home. You earned it, you created it, and it's rightfully yours.

As a Canadian, my tax dollars do NOT go to the rich. They go to Canadian citizens - in child benefits to young families, for universal health care, and for old age income supplements. They go to roads, bridges and infrastructure.

What they don’t pay for is a massive bloated military protecting “Canadian interests” around the globe. They don’t pay for income supplements for underpaid corporate employees, nor do we have a bloated government paying out income supplements to working people. Corporations in Canada are required to pay a living wage to their employees.

While the US middle class is watching their wealth shrink to create those 500,000 millionaires each year, the Canadian middle class has the fastest growth in the world.

Fascinating.

You say, "My tax dollars do NOT go to the rich, they go to Canadian citizens" . . . as though you think "rich" and "citizen" are somehow mutually exclusive. Are you telling us there are no rich Canadian citizens, or just that rich Canadians are barred by law from gleaning any benefit or value from the government whatsoever?

Then you begin telling us all the "wonders" that your government doles out of your pocket, as though rich people HERE are getting all of those things free, but rich people THERE aren't . . . even though that's ridiculous on several levels.

One of the main reasons WE spend so much on our military is so that we can protect craven little hangers-on like Canada, and allow them to lounge around, touting their "moral superiority". Do not go there, Sparkles. Seriously. Your government is GLAD that the US is "barbaric" enough to spend on the military, even if YOU are too damned dumb to understand it.

I'm laughing at your "look at all these freebies we hand out, but NONE of it goes to corporate employees". Uh huh. "NO income supplements to working people." Well, except for child care, universal healthcare, all that other stuff you mentioned . . .

"Corporations in Canada pay a living wage to their employees." Could be one of many reasons why Canada ain't a major business hub of the world, hmmmm?

If you really think being middle-class in Canada is better than the US, you go with whatever makes living there tolerable. God knows, we have plenty of idiots here already, and have NO desire to add the likes of you. But there are a few things you're not considering in your simpleton's rush to believe any flattery you get:

The study cited by the NYTimes looks at Canada as a whole, rather than breaking it down by region. In actual fact, a handful of places with booming economies are boosting the averages for other places that aren't doing well.

The time period addressed in the study happens to have coincided with a recession in the United States, which included a housing crisis. Housing is, of course, one of the largest portions of wealth in the middle class.

Canada's middle class has one of the highest rates of personal debt.

While Canada's middle class saw gains during the study's time period, it continues to have the lowest growth rate of the nation's studied.

The study didn't factor in the impact of high taxes on the middle class at all.

After 35 years of GOP GIVEAWAY 2 the rich, the United States is a Mess of inequality and ignorance. We are number 23!! Thanks scumbag disastrous GOP and silly Dupes.

 

[MikeK]

You're ultimately not benefiting children through policies which encourage people to put them in risky situations in order to use them as human shields. When there are no ideal choices, you have to go with the one which is least-bad for everyone involved.

I don't understand who it is you are criticizing here. What policies encourage people to put children in risky situations? Whose policies? are you referring to?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:

"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."

Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed.​

Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents

The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.

"There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.​

I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL. You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable. I hope they rot in hell for this. 700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system. I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.

When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, often without parents being told exactly where they are, immigration advocates said.

It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.

In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children.​

The statists gave the government this authority, and in response, they used it to establish a border with which to mark the boundaries of this state. They then decided that crossing the boarder illegally, thus violating the laws they created, would have consequences.

The illegals chose to cross the border illegally, thus showing that they have decided that the consequences were worth risking. They suffer the consequences through their own choices. If they couldn't stand being separated from their children, they wouldn't have taken the risk.

The left would complain whether Trump separated the families, deported both, or deported neither, even though the third option, not enforcing the law at all, is leftist policy.

Just further evidence that the left operates on emotion rather than logic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're ultimately not benefiting children through policies which encourage people to put them in risky situations in order to use them as human shields. When there are no ideal choices, you have to go with the one which is least-bad for everyone involved.

I don't understand who it is you are criticizing here. What policies encourage people to put children in risky situations? Whose policies? are you referring to?

US immigration policies which give adults a pass on incarceration and prosecution when they're caught if they have children with them only encourage more people to drag children along on their border-crossings. The leftists' short-term, emotion-driven concept of "Awwww, the poor little kiddies" SOUNDS good - to them, anyway - but ultimately encourages people to put more children at risk.

 

[danielpalos]

Also why we have the the worst inequality, poverty, upward Mobility and infrastructure and everything else in the modern world. Thanks GOP and silly dupes like you. We're number 23!!

The US produces close to a half-million new millionaires every year. How much more upward mobility do you want than that? The main reason we have poverty if because the Democrats have promoted irresponsibility. Single parent homes (which Democrats also promoted) is a leading reason for poverty.

"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't."
Rush Limbaugh

Did you read the whole article Ray, or did you stop after the part about 500,000 new millionaires ever year?

Did you read the part which said that these new millionaires are being created by a tax code which transfers wealth from the working class to the investment class? People aren’t getting rich from their own efforts, but rather by a tax code which transfers money from those who work to those who don’t.

Did you read that 75% of American families are struggling to make ends meet?

Or that 3/4 of all wealthy individuals say inheritance was a factor in their accumulation of wealth?

1,700 People in America Are Becoming Millionaires Every Day

Try reading the WHOLE article this time Ray.

There are 4 million babies born in the US each year. Even with a half a million millionaires being created each year, this means the other 3 million children who are being born this year are not going to be “thrivers”. 3/4 of these children will grow up poor because Donald Trump is accelerating that transfer of wealth with the new tax code.

Upthread someone whinged that 30% of all immigrants are on welfare. That’s substantially less than the 47% of American citizens who are currently receiving social assistance? The people Mitt Romney labelled as “takers”.

The ignorance of right wingers on matters of the economy makes it easy for Republicans to fool you into thinking they know what they’re doing.

I didn't read any article because I didn't post an article. However I did read yours by Nanny Bloomberg.

What it said in a Clintonizing way was that inheritance was a factor--not the direct reason people became wealthy.

Now I'm a working class guy. I don't remember any deduction out of my paycheck that went to the rich. I do transfer money to the rich just like you do, but it's an option and not a mandate by my employer. You and I both transfer our wealth to the top several times a week. Nobody is holding a gun to our heads to do it either.

And your article didn't say anything about the tax code. Even if the tax code played a part, it's not the reason people become wealthy. All Trump's tax code did was allow people to keep more of THEIR MONEY THAT THEY EARNED!

To your chagrin, all money does not belong to government, and what they allow us to keep is a gift from them to us. Money is property no different than your car or home. You earned it, you created it, and it's rightfully yours.

As a Canadian, my tax dollars do NOT go to the rich. They go to Canadian citizens - in child benefits to young families, for universal health care, and for old age income supplements. They go to roads, bridges and infrastructure.

What they don’t pay for is a massive bloated military protecting “Canadian interests” around the globe. They don’t pay for income supplements for underpaid corporate employees, nor do we have a bloated government paying out income supplements to working people. Corporations in Canada are required to pay a living wage to their employees.

While the US middle class is watching their wealth shrink to create those 500,000 millionaires each year, the Canadian middle class has the fastest growth in the world.

Fascinating.

You say, "My tax dollars do NOT go to the rich, they go to Canadian citizens" . . . as though you think "rich" and "citizen" are somehow mutually exclusive. Are you telling us there are no rich Canadian citizens, or just that rich Canadians are barred by law from gleaning any benefit or value from the government whatsoever?

Then you begin telling us all the "wonders" that your government doles out of your pocket, as though rich people HERE are getting all of those things free, but rich people THERE aren't . . . even though that's ridiculous on several levels.

One of the main reasons WE spend so much on our military is so that we can protect craven little hangers-on like Canada, and allow them to lounge around, touting their "moral superiority". Do not go there, Sparkles. Seriously. Your government is GLAD that the US is "barbaric" enough to spend on the military, even if YOU are too damned dumb to understand it.

I'm laughing at your "look at all these freebies we hand out, but NONE of it goes to corporate employees". Uh huh. "NO income supplements to working people." Well, except for child care, universal healthcare, all that other stuff you mentioned . . .

"Corporations in Canada pay a living wage to their employees." Could be one of many reasons why Canada ain't a major business hub of the world, hmmmm?

If you really think being middle-class in Canada is better than the US, you go with whatever makes living there tolerable. God knows, we have plenty of idiots here already, and have NO desire to add the likes of you. But there are a few things you're not considering in your simpleton's rush to believe any flattery you get:

The study cited by the NYTimes looks at Canada as a whole, rather than breaking it down by region. In actual fact, a handful of places with booming economies are boosting the averages for other places that aren't doing well.

The time period addressed in the study happens to have coincided with a recession in the United States, which included a housing crisis. Housing is, of course, one of the largest portions of wealth in the middle class.

Canada's middle class has one of the highest rates of personal debt.

While Canada's middle class saw gains during the study's time period, it continues to have the lowest growth rate of the nation's studied.

The study didn't factor in the impact of high taxes on the middle class at all.

Some on the left think we can simply raise our minimum wage to collect more in taxes and create more in demand; and have a good excuse to "solve our problem with the right whining the poor are not paying enough in personal income taxes."

 

[Flopper]

Maybe. Maybe not. But the language was there long before the Imperial Cheeto showed up. A wave of 11-12,000,000 Invaders upon US soil will tend to do that.

again, only for the bigots... the Majority of Americans looked at the Orange Shitgibbon and said 'no'.

The sad thing is, it used to be that when a political party shit the bed and nominated someone who had no business being president (Goldwater, McGovern) enough people crossed party lines to decisively beat them, and the stupidity of the Electoral College didn't matter.

This time, there were a crapload of Republicans who knew damned well Trump had no business being president, but went along anyway.

Last I looked, the Mexicans and Guatamalens were not gassing Mestizos on an industrial scale. And even if they were... not our problem.

Yeah, they are only brown people. Here was the thing, in the 1930's the Nazis weren't gassing the Jews, and someone like you said, "Not our problem".

The thing is, what is going on IS our problem, because of the refugees, and more importantly, it's our fault, because we encouraged the drug trade that is causing all the violence.

The LEAST we could do is take these people in.

One thing I have learned about politics is that there are plenty of people in both parties that will support the leader of their party, no matter how awful he or she might be. Trump or Obama could confess to child molestation and murder and they would still support him to the very end. It's the nature of the beast. Remember when Trump was leading in the primaries and only a handful of congressmen were endorsing him. Then it became clear he was going to be the nominee and they all went into lockstep in their support.