DaveIsKing WAS WRONG!!! Bush Sucks!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DaveIsKing
I am very disheartened with this Illegal Amnesty shit. I do not embrace liberal philosophy, I am more of a Randian libertarian. But, this bullshit pisses me off.

And he just named a Latino as ATTORNEY GENERAL...yay...W...you fucking cocksucker. And guess who are the majority of ILLEGALS... hmmmm....why don't he just name a PALESTINIAN or an AFGHAN to head up HOMELAND SECURITY.

Maybe W. knows that these workers benefit the U.S. economy by providing cheap labor (which for them is a living wage back in Mexico) for jobs that Americans don't want to do.

It also boosts Mexico's economy making our border more secure in the long run.

[Switch84]

Fuck all border jumpers!

Originally posted by aesop
Yea, the border's a problem. But at least us conservatives on this board can admit when we don't like our own partie's policies. I've yet to see that from the left.

:D I wonder if Dubya's 'open arms' approach to the illegal taco eaters is just because he has one in his family? Dumb idea, Dubya!

And it WON'T pass. Dubya wil get bitch-slapped on this one.

I'll volunteer for that, y'all!

[DaveIsKing]

Typical Myth, Nick...

Prior to 1965 when the disastrous Immigration Bill was passed, there was very little immigration. In fact, between 1925 and 1965, there was even a period of net emigration out of the United States. During this time, our grass was getting cut, our meat was being packed, our children were being watched and our houses were being cleaned. The idea that somehow we suddenly can't run a country without an unlimited supply of foreigners is absurd.

Those in favor of foreign labor are corporations who are addicted to cheap labor. They are the ones who are benefiting. But their benefit comes at the American tax payer's expense when you consider that the American tax payer is virtually subsidizing the labor costs of the greedy corporations by supplying the illegal foreign workers and their families with welfare, free education, free medical, WICs, housing assistance, etc. -- something the corporations won't do.

Americans won't allow themselves to be exploited like illegals do, but they WILL do the work that illegals do for fair compensation and benefits. If Americans did the work that illegals do at higher pay, would that benefit the consumer? You bet it would in the long run. But many Americans who do not care about America's future are consumers who favor the idea of exploiting illegal workers because it keeps commodity and service prices down in the short term.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DaveIsKing
Typical Myth, Nick...

Prior to 1965 when the disastrous Immigration Bill was passed, there was very little immigration. In fact, between 1925 and 1965, there was even a period of net emigration out of the United States. During this time, our grass was getting cut, our meat was being packed, our children were being watched and our houses were being cleaned. The idea that somehow we suddenly can't run a country without an unlimited supply of foreigners is absurd.

Those in favor of foreign labor are corporations who are addicted to cheap labor. They are the ones who are benefiting. But their benefit comes at the American tax payer's expense when you consider that the American tax payer is virtually subsidizing the labor costs of the greedy corporations by supplying the illegal foreign workers and their families with welfare, free education, free medical, WICs, housing assistance, etc. -- something the corporations won't do.

Americans won't allow themselves to be exploited like illegals do, but they WILL do the work that illegals do for fair compensation and benefits. If Americans did the work that illegals do at higher pay, would that benefit the consumer? You bet it would in the long run. But many Americans who do not care about America's future are consumers who favor the idea of exploiting illegal workers because it keeps commodity and service prices down in the short term.

Ohhhh...Now I see, so it is really not the "little illegal taco eaters" you have a problem with, maybe it's the American corporations that take advantage of loopholes in laws to maximize profits and that actually foster illegal behaviors. Maybe now we're getting to the real issue.

[DaveIsKing]

I didn't say anything about "illegal taco eaters". Big Business monopolies hire these illegals, no doubt. But, Bush and the Big Gov ain't helping matters any.

And it is unfair to legal immigrants who go by the laws to have illegals rewarded for their behavior. Those businesses ought to be given a tax incentive to hire legal folk or a HEAVY FINE for hiring illegals.

[Switch84]

I said that, Darling Nikki!

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Ohhhh...Now I see, so it is really not the "little illegal taco eaters" you have a problem with, maybe it's the American corporations that take advantage of loopholes in laws to maximize profits and that actually foster illegal behaviors. Maybe now we're getting to the real issue.

:D In my honest opinion, that indeed is the problem! Big business pimping the illegal criminal (let's call a spade a spade, ok? They're criminals, plain and simple. Not 'immigrants'.)

This will not pass. An uprising of ugly proportions will erupt. This is a slap in the face to honest folk that are going through the immigration process legally.

[conmee]

Aesop,

In case you might have been directing some of your vitriol my way, let me remind you that I simply referenced tax breaks to folks like me and my BCE brethren, and mentioned nothing about whether or not the 'rich' pay their fair share or that the middle class pay too much.

As for Econ 101, economists are notorious for being able to prove or disprove just about anything and everything, making so many ASSUMPTIONS about market conditions and variables, "ceteris paribus" (all things equal) after all, that you can pretty much make an argument for fascism or communism using an economist's logic... lmao Anyone who's gone to B-school or even a business undergrad can tell you this much (true, my finance leanings are shining through... lmao).

At any rate, the tax code is progressive at first blush, when you consider the various brackets, so to speak. But it is far from progressive from a SYSTEMIC standpoint, with all sorts of exceptions, deductions, the so-called "loopholes" that are so reviled by the liberals. I use quite a few of them all the time. Granted, you have to make enough money (or be married with children/own a small business) to qualify for alot of this stuff in the first place, but that in effect reduces the "progressive" influence of the tax code at higher rates of income.

And you do mix use, sales, and income taxes in your argument that the 'rich' pay their fair share. In general, the argument is around income taxes. And if there are inequalities in income taxes, higher taxes on luxury or big ticket items doesn't make it fair, necessarily.

Lastly, you are correct about folks in poverty or folks who pay very little, if any taxes, but they aren't the ones complaining or carrying the bulk of the taxes. The so-called middle class does that. From a purely numbers perspective, true the 'rich' pay the bulk. But one thing to consider is they also have the bulk of the money (the top 5% of wealthy represent more than 95% of the country's wealth...), so they should pay more in absolute terms. Of course, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.... and this entire discussion revolves around how we slice/dice the numbers, right? lol

Since you seem to enjoy economics, let's consider the "marginal utility of the dollar" or a dollar's worth, in the context of which tax bracket you find yourself in. As you know, there is the concept of DECREASING marginal utility of the dollar in economics. Essentially, it states that for every ADDITIONAL dollar you have, it is MARGINALLY of LESS value or worth to you than the previous. As an example: ONE additional dollar means a hell of a lot to a person making $10k per year. That one dollar on top of his $10k can mean the differnce between, oh, dog food and McDonalds. ONE additional dollar on top of $50 billion doesn't mean as much to a billionaire like Bill gates, where he probably earns a few thousand dollars per second on his various holdings. So who can more readily part with that one dollar if that dollar is assigned to paying some sort of tax? If we all had time, we can extrapolate this out to many other examples, and realize that when it comes to tax breaks, quite a few folks would argue that a tax break for a family of four making $50k per year would GO MUCH FURTHER in terms of benefitting the family than a break would go for someone like Bill Gates. If we use this concept as part of the basis for how we tax the wealth v. the middle class v. the poor, you can see how from a compassion standpoint, it makes more sense for the 'rich' to pay more in both absolute and percentage terms than folks who make much less. It's not so much that the rich are penalized, but that they can take the tax hit and still live their lives much easier than those folks who are just trying to get along in life.

Anyhoo, all this is academic, so to speak. I prefer a flat tax for income tax purposes, with absolutely no loopholes or deductions for anyone. Pay your 17% on EVERYTHING you earn, and move on. It would add clarity to the income tax discussion and eliminate the class warfare card/claims. The problem with a flat tax is that the government would then know exactly how much revenue they can expect year-in-year-out, and that would put a big dent in the pork-barrel tendencies of politicians who can mask alot of their agendas behind a convoluted tax code that requires armies of accountants, lawyers, and legislators to keep running smoothly.... lol

SIEG OIL!!!
SIEG TAXBREAKS!!!

Icon.

[Denny]

OIL AND TAX BREAKS ARE THE BEST!!!

[blueturk]

This move totally confuses me.I thought he was just courting the Hispanic vote when he tried to pull this shit before the election.Maybe some of his "base" need cheap maids.

[conmee]

Denny,

Keep attachments to no larger than 800x600 for the benefit of the majority of soldiers that still use Commodore 64's and TI-99/4a Home Computers (or the occasional Apple IIe and IBM PC XT) with lower resolution... lmao...

SIEG OIL!!!
SIEG ICON!!!
BCE UBER ALLES!!!

Icon.

[Denny]

Originally posted by conmee
Denny,

Keep attachments to no larger than 800x600 for the benefit of the majority of soldiers that still use Commodore 64's and TI-99/4a Home Computers (or the occasional Apple IIe and IBM PC XT) with lower resolution... lmao...

SIEG OIL!!!
SIEG ICON!!!
BCE UBER ALLES!!!

Icon.

Sorry about that, man. I am really fucking pissed off with FORD's bullshit of Editing/Deleting and Moving and CLosing threads.....

Please do something about his BULLSHIT.

[knuckleboner]

so wait a minute...you're surprised and upset that bush followed through on one of his proposals? um...dude, when he asked for your vote, he didn't say, "i promise to change my policies to exactly fit your personal beliefs."

disagree with the policy; but give the man credit for at least sticking to his guns.

[Nickdfresh]

I love trickle down economics...and cheap labor!

[conmee]

Originally posted by Denny
Sorry about that, man. I am really fucking pissed off with FORD's bullshit of Editing/Deleting and Moving and CLosing threads.....

Please do something about his BULLSHIT.

Denny, will do. Just for the record, I've only edited your pics in this and the Liberal Elite (or whatever it's called) threads, simple because of the viewability issue, not content. If you want to post a scaled down pic of your mothership, that's cool, as it does look cool, and my 1600x1200 screen has no problem with it. But as you know, most RothArmy soldiers are from low-income families and they can't afford the latest in computer technology... lmao

I've discussed this with FORD, and I'll keep an eye on the situation, but in general, FORD means well and does a good job. I've asked him to be move communicative and clear if it affects a thread or post (be it edit/delete, etc) and to explain his decision. If the webbies agree with his assessment, we'll back him 100%. If we think there is a grey area or that someone was even slightly unfairly edited/deleted, we'll correct the situation.

Not to start the whole argument/discussion up again about free speech and all that, but my thinking about this forum is that BOTH free speech AND a place for both liberal/conservatives/independents to argue, call each other names, have cogent discussions is TIE for FIRST on the list here. And we'll do our best to balance the needs of free speech with the needs of everyone to have their voices heard, and to enjoy themselves in this forum.

I'll get off the soapbox now. lol

SIEG OIL!!!
SIEG ICON!!!
BCE UBER ALLES!!!

Icon.

[Warham]

Why does this surprise anyone? He's been saying he's wanted to do this for years.