Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;1164512]We should have a rule. For every point you want to make, you have to pick a point where the other side is right, and acknowledge it.[/QUOTE]



Or you have to post in the boobs thread for every post here. Sounds fair to me.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1164537]Or you have to post in the boobs thread for every post here. Sounds fair to me.[/quote]

:biggthump

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Schneed10;1164536]I guess my concern would be how do you set a living wage at a level that ensures a minimum safety net, yet doesn't completely remove all incentive to perform jobs that barely clear the minimum wage?

Let's say you give your guaranteed living wage of $400 per week (equivalent to $10 per hour at 40 hours). Do you create a moral hazard where bus drivers and EMTs and countless other folks in similar positions say you know what I'd rather sit at home because the couple extra bucks aren't worth it?

And my second concern would be, damn, it would take a very highly graduated tax bracket structure to pay for this. The Netherlands used to have its highest tax bracket set at 72% prior to 1990, but since moved it down to 52%. Not sure how they pay for everything in their system, but I do know that if your top tax bracket is too high you have a way of squelching innovation.

How can we get stats on the number of new products, new life-saving medical advancements and drugs, come from the Netherlands? Because that to me is the crux of the whole thing. Investing in a new idea takes immense guts and risk, both personal and financial, and there needs to be immense reward on the other side of it. Without that reward it's quite obvious that fewer people would take the risk on new ideas.

So I'm not sure, but I'd have concerns about anything that raises the top tax bracket too high. The immense financial reward available in the US is the carrot dangling in front of a lot of scientific and medical advancements.[/quote]

I don't know, but maybe tax rates ought to be based on how many multiples of the living wage your gross individual income is. if living wage is 20,000 as an example, and you earn 20,000 apart from living wage, you have 1 multiple of living wage. 200,000 = 10 multiples, etc etc. So one scale would be something like:

100000+ you keep .1% or 2million as a minimum and up
10000-99999 you keep 1% or 2million as a minimum up to 20 million
1000-9999 you keep 10% or 2million as a minimum up to 20million
100-999 you keep 20% or 400k up to 3.98 million
50-99 you keep 30% or 300k up to 600,000
25-49 multiples you keep 70% so earn 500k, keep 350,000
10-24 multiples you keep 85% so earn 200k, keep 170,000
1-10 multiples you keep 95% so a minimum yearly life would be 39,000 (base 20000+19000).


In addition, you charge all company's regardless of size a 5% living wage tax.

Again, no idea whether any of these numbers work, which of course means I just wasted about 15-20 minutes making this crud up, because I must like to see myself type.

I do think something like this, along with getting rid of minimum wage, and alot of bureaucracy around thousands of different government welfare programs would have a tremendous effect on the economy. I think it would be positive. (oh and if you waste the 20,000 and look for more handouts we let Achmed handle it)

of course 20,000 is a number, I don't know what that really is, but it wouldn't take a cray supercomputer to figure it out.

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=MTK;1164537]Or you have to post in the boobs thread for every post here. Sounds fair to me.[/QUOTE]



Hopefully not a retro rule or me n Cred are going to spend the whole weekend posting boobs.
Actually maybe retro is a good idea? [emoji848]

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1164474]hears another example of the corrupt media: [url=http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/01/trump-to-mexico-take-care-of-bad-hombres-or-us-might.html]Trump to Mexico: Take care of 'bad hombres' or US might send troops[/url]

Take a look at the correction at the bottom: UPDATE: The AP updated its story with a spokesman for Mexico's president saying: "It is absolutely false that the president of the United States threatened to send troops to Mexico."

So you see whats going on? The AP put out a correction, but NBC chose to report the story as fact...before fact checking. interesting huh?

Fact checking in the ethics of journalism is a cornerstone. There is no argument there, it is a guiding principle.[/quote]

I agree. For a lot of media companies, when they retract a story they don't put it out there like the original. I ain't debating media ethics with you though, I am all too aware of how shady they are on both sides of the aisle.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1164530]I agree. This is a guy who admires Lenin and quite frankly is pattern his tactics after him.

[url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/22/steve-bannon-trump-s-top-guy-told-me-he-was-a-leninist.html]Steve Bannon, Trump’s Top Guy, Told Me He Was ‘a Leninist’ - The Daily Beast[/url]

When you hear comments like "the media should keep its mouth shut" is when you know the threat is real. People wanted to talk about how Obama was some secret agent muslim terrorist sent to tear down America, but here we actually have a guy on the national security trying to do just that.



I agree with free trade in principle, but the problem with that is it's going to just further expedite the manufacturing jobs to outside the country. We agree totally with the automation thing, and it's a huge reason why a basic income has being discussed in Congress.

[YT]OX06f3DPXt4[/YT]



I can easily talk about Trump and I will point out the good things he does when he does them. However, must Trump supporters have their heads buried in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the shitty moves or justify them with bullshit excuses. Take for instance some of his cabinet choices.

[U][B]James Mattis[/B][/U]- Great choice
[B][U]Betsy DeVos[/U][/B]- Insane choice
[B][U]Nikki Haley[/U][/B]- great choice
[B][U]Ben Carson[/U][/B]- good choice but wrong area. Should be health service or surgeon general, not an area he has no experience.
[U][B]Tillerson[/B][/U]- awful choice with too many ties to Russia affairs

This is being unbiased. If you can't see why some of the cabinet choices are bad (or decisions) then there isn't much help. It's why people continue to treat politics like their favorite sports team. No matter how dumb the decisions the team makes, you will continue waving that flag supporting them week after week.[/quote]

Good post NC, I agree with a lot of it, mostly your cabinet picks lineup. Seeing as how I know nothing about free trade and have no idea how to compensate for losing jobs to automation, I will stay out of that one. After being hesitant about his SC nominee I have warmed up to that one too, after all it is important to have a neutral judge to balance out the right and left on the bench. I was moreso mad about Congress' unwillingness to at least consider Obama's nominee.

And I totally agree on Bannon, I think people really aren't as upset about that as they should be. Removing the Joint Chiefs makes no sense and replacing it with one of your yes men makes even less sense. The power of the NSC should not be taken lightly.

Re: What would it take?
 

just adding this about LW.

9% of the population makes over $100K/yr [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#cite_note-CPS_2015-2"]according to this link[/URL]

Assuming that the LW was only given to US Citizens making under $100k per year, the yearly outlay for LW payments is roughly 4.4 trillion dollars.

Reducing it to only people making under $50k would still be 3.5 trillion dollars ($20K * 176Million people)

The US GDP for 2016 was $18trillion.
[URL="http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_2016USrt_18rs5n"]Federal Gross Spending[/URL] was $3.9 trillion dollars

Government Pensions $1.3 trillion
[B]Government Health Care + $1.5 trillion
Government Education + $1.0 trillion [/B]
National Defense + $0.8 trillion
[B]Government Welfare + $0.5 trillion [/B]
All Other Spending + $1.6 trillion
Total Government Spending $6.7 trillion

So theoretically if we got rid of the myriad of welfare/education/healthcare governmental entities, and rolled it one lump sum governmental LW block grant to the states, we would go from $3Trillion, to $3.5Trillion.

Could you imagine the shift of power that would create politically

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1164572]just adding this about LW.

9% of the population makes over $100K/yr [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#cite_note-CPS_2015-2"]according to this link[/URL]

Assuming that the LW was only given to US Citizens making under $100k per year, the yearly outlay for LW payments is roughly 4.4 trillion dollars.

Reducing it to only people making under $50k would still be 3.5 trillion dollars ($20K * 176Million people)

The US GDP for 2016 was $18trillion.
[URL="http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_2016USrt_18rs5n"]Federal Gross Spending[/URL] was $3.9 trillion dollars

Government Pensions $1.3 trillion
[B]Government Health Care + $1.5 trillion
Government Education + $1.0 trillion [/B]
National Defense + $0.8 trillion
[B]Government Welfare + $0.5 trillion [/B]
All Other Spending + $1.6 trillion
Total Government Spending $6.7 trillion

So theoretically if we got rid of the myriad of welfare/education/healthcare governmental entities, and rolled it one lump sum governmental LW block grant to the states, we would go from $3Trillion, to $3.5Trillion.

Could you imagine the shift of power that would create politically[/quote]

You'd still have to provide the healthcare on top of living wage. $20K per year gets you bare essentials like shelter and food, but not healthcare. Those folks would still need Medical Assistance.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Schneed10;1164574]You'd still have to provide the healthcare on top of living wage. $20K per year gets you bare essentials like shelter and food, but not healthcare. Those folks would still need Medical Assistance.[/quote]

There would have to be a way to create a real LW wage number. I used 20K for ease of numbers, but yes LW would need to include shelter, food, and very basic healthcare entitlement.

The point of the LW is that you have basic security needs met (the bottom of the pyramid), but you are still working. Currently nearly 50% of the US population makes under $25K(same link as before). If minimum wage were reset to $4/hour and still assuming a $20K LW then every person in the US working a 40hr job would make $27.5K (with the tax scheme i made up). And a person making $10/hour would make nearly $40K.

LW for 1 person $800/mo rent, $400/mo food, $400/mo basic healthcare =$1600/month or 19,200 per year,
so 2 adults together, would have 1600/mo rent, 800/month food 800/mo basic healthcare

again, theory is simple, and talking in a forum blog is even simpler. The deepest fact is that politicians would never give up all the power they have by controlling the purse strings.

One thing I would add is that as a back check, in order to be given your 2017 LW you must provide proof that you used some or all of your 2016 LW to provide you with stable residence, and healthcare. I would think rental receipts and insurance payment stubs would do that but of course the devil is always in the details.

Re: What would it take?
 

I think we should take this time for a moment of silence for all those lives lost at Bowling Green. A go fund has been started for all the families affected by this tragedy. #NeverForget

[url]https://www.bowlinggreenmassacrefund.com/[/url]

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=NC_Skins;1164593]I think we should take this time for a moment of silence for all those lives lost at Bowling Green. A go fund has been started for all the families affected by this tragedy. #NeverForget



[url]https://www.bowlinggreenmassacrefund.com/[/url][/QUOTE]



Best part is her excuse. I meant to say....stfu. You remembered something about bowling green something or the other and a terrorist attack, so you bring up the bowling green massacre. Wow. I thought the confusion about Frederick Douglass was bad but this takes the cake for this weeks show folks. Stay tuned for more amateur hour at the Apollo! As much as I enjoy the "entertainment", it's pretty God damned scary that these people are in charge of our country.
[IMG]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170203/7eccfdcea67fe42ccc502156d83c6855.jpg[/IMG]

Re: What would it take?
 

DAMN those" alternative facts"!!!:laughing-

Re: What would it take?
 

[URL="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/02/03/rel2a.-.trump.pdf"]CNN/ORC poll
[/URL]
How well are things going in the country today -- (very well, fairly well), (pretty badly or very badly)?

results from the poll the year after election
2017 Jan 31 - Feb 2, 46% 53% Obama --> Trump
2013 Jan 14-15, 49% 51% Obama --> Obama
2009 Feb 18-19 21% 79% Bush --> Obama
2005 Jan 7-9 58 41 Bush-->Bush
2001 Feb 7-8 71 28 Clinton -->Bush

I can't imagine the country being at 71% positive anymore.

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=CRedskinsRule;1164616][URL="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/02/03/rel2a.-.trump.pdf"]CNN/ORC poll

[/URL]

How well are things going in the country today -- (very well, fairly well), (pretty badly or very badly)?



results from the poll the year after election

2017 Jan 31 - Feb 2, 46% 53% Obama --> Trump

2013 Jan 14-15, 49% 51% Obama --> Obama

2009 Feb 18-19 21% 79% Bush --> Obama

2005 Jan 7-9 58 41 Bush-->Bush

2001 Feb 7-8 71 28 Clinton -->Bush



I can't imagine the country being at 71% positive anymore.[/QUOTE]



R u reading that as the incumbent has something to do with those numbers so quickly or a result of the past potus? It appears as if Trump has raised the spirits of the voters the way that is laid out.

Re: What would it take?
 

I can't argue with much of what Uncle Bernie says [URL="https://www.yahoo.com/news/at-gathering-on-politics-of-love-sanders-warns-trump-could-start-a-war-201026254.html"]here[/URL]:

[QUOTE]
...
And yet, he said, being in the majority is not enough. “Let me suggest to you, and some will disagree with me, that’s OK too. Let me suggest to you that what happened on November 8th, Trump’s victory, was not a victory for Trump or his ideology. It was a gross political failure of the Democratic Party.”

This won Sanders a partial standing ovation.

“Some people may disagree with me, but if you think that everybody who voted for Donald Trump is a racist or a sexist or a homophobe, you would be dead wrong,” Sanders said. Instead, he said, what happened is that “hardworking decent people” had a lot of questions about their lives, about long hours and poor wages and their declining standard of living and school debt and Wall Street destroying the economy.

“So Trump comes along, and Trump is, among many other qualities, a pathological liar. So bad that he practically has no ideology at all. Tomorrow he may come out for a single health care payer program, I don’t know. He doesn’t believe in anything. It’s just what sounds right at the moment,” Sanders said.

But what Trump did do, “if you listen carefully to what he said, he said, ‘I, Donald Trump, I’m going to take on the establishment,’” Sanders said.

He won because “there are people in this country who are hurting, and they are hurting terribly,” Sanders said. “And for years they looked to the Democratic Party, which at one time was the party of working people. And they looked and they looked and they looked and they got nothing in return, and out of desperation they turned to Mr. Trump.”

“All over this country there are people who are hurting, and our job is to communicate and talk to and stand up and fight with those people for a government that listens to them,” he said.

“It is always easy to come to beautiful conferences like this, where we look to our friends over here, friends over there, and we’re all in basic agreement,” he counseled. “It is a hell of a lot harder to start talking to people who have a worldview very different than yours. But that is exactly what we have to do.”

...

Sanders encouraged conference attendees to run for office, especially school boards, city councils and state legislatures. “To people who don’t have confidence to run for office … I’m a member of the Senate. You should see some of the Senate. If you have any doubt about your ability to run for office, turn on C-SPAN,” he joked.[/QUOTE]

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=punch it in;1164617]R u reading that as the incumbent has something to do with those numbers so quickly or a result of the past potus? It appears as if Trump has raised the spirits of the voters the way that is laid out.[/quote]

no, sorry I hate tables.

Thats the total positive and total negative in the country as close to the inauguration (but not before it) each time.
So in this year's case the country right now is at a 46 positive or very positive and 53 negative or very negative.

When Pres Obama took over from Pres Bush at the same time frame, the country was 21 positive, and 79 negative, and through his two terms he did bring it up and it has hovered around 50/50 through the last 8 years.

But after Clinton's 2 terms leading into Bush's first term, the country was 71% positive - those are days I miss, when not every story was a negative bashing the other side relentlessy.

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=CRedskinsRule;1164620]no, sorry I hate tables.



Thats the total positive and total negative in the country as close to the inauguration (but not before it) each time.

So in this year's case the country right now is at a 46 positive or very positive and 53 negative or very negative.



When Pres Obama took over from Pres Bush at the same time frame, the country was 21 positive, and 79 negative, and through his two terms he did bring it up and it has hovered around 50/50 through the last 8 years.



But after Clinton's 2 terms leading into Bush's first term, the country was 71% positive - those are days I miss, when not every story was a negative bashing the other side relentlessy.[/QUOTE]



Trump is a lightning rod, and he wants to be. For whatever reason. This time is different on every level. The bashing is no coincidence. His backers have his back at any cost, and his doubters look for every reason to doubt. Both sides need to take a deep breath and step back. However every time you think things are settling down he does something cra cra. Its like he craves the madness. I don't get it.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1164401]So you agree. The media should wait for the facts, that's all Im asking.

The media is so corrupt that dumb people believe this stuff.[/quote]


Just stop with the 'corrupt media BS",please you're smarter than that.
What facts exactly is it you want,tell me?Is it Kellyanne "alternative facts" or is the facts Donald Trump makes up in his head anytime something doesn't go his way.The media's job is to call out the politicians keep them honest ,Trumps screams fake news and you fall all over it ,Trump is a liar fact ,he's a thief ,fact and from what he has been doing the last two weeks he is a moron fact.
I asked before I will ask again....what media will you accept as factual,TV, print, radio....internet,what?
When it comes to us it is up to us to dissect what we are absorbing and use common sense ,now many Americans can't do that ...no argument but it doesn't make it "fake news".Tell me you honestly believed the story about Hillary and the kiddie porn in the pizza place?That was fake news and 95% of the public knew it.How many people are picking the Patriots and how many the Falcons,one will win.If I say the Patriots and the Falcons win is it fake news or was I wrong in my estimation?Chico I get it you like Trump and you know I don't but this fake news shit ,I really have more respect for you than that.No BS.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1164619]I can't argue with much of what Uncle Bernie says [URL="https://www.yahoo.com/news/at-gathering-on-politics-of-love-sanders-warns-trump-could-start-a-war-201026254.html"]here[/URL]:[/quote]

This is a good quote. Thanks for sharing.

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=CRedskinsRule;1164620]no, sorry I hate tables.



Thats the total positive and total negative in the country as close to the inauguration (but not before it) each time.

So in this year's case the country right now is at a 46 positive or very positive and 53 negative or very negative.



When Pres Obama took over from Pres Bush at the same time frame, the country was 21 positive, and 79 negative, and through his two terms he did bring it up and it has hovered around 50/50 through the last 8 years.



But after Clinton's 2 terms leading into Bush's first term, the country was 71% positive - those are days I miss, when not every story was a negative bashing the other side relentlessy.[/QUOTE]



Gotcha.
Yeah well Trump and unity are like oil and water. We can stir and stir until our arms fall off but,.....

Re: What would it take?
 

I just realized I never answered the original question. What would it take for me to trust Donald's vision and plan for America?

1. He would have to admit he isn't the smartest expert of them all, and that he is open to hearing the argument as to why global warming exists. He doesn't have to admit it, he just needs to say "hey I recognize there are better experts on the subject than myself" and at the same time be open to new ideas.

2. At the same time, that idea applies to mostly everything he does. If he came out and said he will lean on the judgement of his advisors and he is only as good as the people around him I would give him credit for that. Personally I hate his advisers (minus a couple) but that's a discussion for another day. This is more about Trump admitting his shortcomings and accepting that he can't be the savior all by himself.

3. Abandon the wall idea, and put that money to better use. More agents, more technology, I'm all in favor of supporting ICE and the Border Patrol. A wall is not a good use of that money.

4. Rather than (paraphrasing here) tell the public you are going to get rid of every Obama accomplishment you can, why not just say "everything will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis." He looks like an idiot that's willing to sign anything thrown on his desk without evaluating it first.

That would be it for starters. If I want to get all nitpicky I could write an even longer list but we all know none of this shit is happening anyways. That man loves stroking his own ego. He could be a total failure and still come out after leaving office talking about "I am the greatest President in American history." "He is a modern day George Washington, MLK, and Ghandi rolled into one - Donald J. Trump"

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=mooby;1164753]I just realized I never answered the original question. What would it take for me to trust Donald's vision and plan for America?

1. He would have to admit he isn't the smartest expert of them all, and that he is open to hearing the argument as to why global warming exists. He doesn't have to admit it, he just needs to say "hey I recognize there are better experts on the subject than myself" and at the same time be open to new ideas.

2. At the same time, that idea applies to mostly everything he does. If he came out and said he will lean on the judgement of his advisors and he is only as good as the people around him I would give him credit for that. Personally I hate his advisers (minus a couple) but that's a discussion for another day. This is more about Drumpf admitting his shortcomings and accepting that he can't be the savior all by himself.

3. Abandon the wall idea, and put that money to better use. More agents, more technology, I'm all in favor of supporting ICE and the Border Patrol. A wall is not a good use of that money.

4. Rather than (paraphrasing here) tell the public you are going to get rid of every Obama accomplishment you can, why not just say "everything will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis." He looks like an idiot that's willing to sign anything thrown on his desk without evaluating it first.

That would be it for starters. If I want to get all nitpicky I could write an even longer list but we all know none of this shit is happening anyways. That man loves stroking his own ego. He could be a total failure and still come out after leaving office talking about "I am the greatest President in American history." "He is a modern day George Washington, MLK, and Ghandi rolled into one - Donald J. Drumpf"[/quote]

This is 100% how I feel. 100%.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=mooby;1164753]I just realized I never answered the original question. What would it take for me to trust Donald's vision and plan for America?

1. He would have to admit he isn't the smartest expert of them all, and that he is open to hearing the argument as to why global warming exists. He doesn't have to admit it, he just needs to say "hey I recognize there are better experts on the subject than myself" and at the same time be open to new ideas.

2. At the same time, that idea applies to mostly everything he does. If he came out and said he will lean on the judgement of his advisors and he is only as good as the people around him I would give him credit for that. Personally I hate his advisers (minus a couple) but that's a discussion for another day. This is more about Trump admitting his shortcomings and accepting that he can't be the savior all by himself.

3. Abandon the wall idea, and put that money to better use. More agents, more technology, I'm all in favor of supporting ICE and the Border Patrol. A wall is not a good use of that money.

4. Rather than (paraphrasing here) tell the public you are going to get rid of every Obama accomplishment you can, why not just say "everything will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis." He looks like an idiot that's willing to sign anything thrown on his desk without evaluating it first.

That would be it for starters. If I want to get all nitpicky I could write an even longer list but we all know none of this shit is happening anyways. That man loves stroking his own ego. He could be a total failure and still come out after leaving office talking about "I am the greatest President in American history." "He is a modern day George Washington, MLK, and Ghandi rolled into one - Donald J. Trump"[/quote]

good post...I agree with most. I think the wall (which by the way is strategically already erected from 10 years ago in some places) should go up in other places it is not ie: places where people(farmers, land owners) that feel generally unsafe that proven unknowns (ie human trafficker, gun and drug runners) cross. Blanket policies and acts generally don't work...so a policy of build a complete wall is foolish.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1164760]good post...I agree with most. I think the wall (which by the way is strategically already erected from 10 years ago in some places) should go up in other places it is not ie: places where people(farmers, land owners) that feel generally unsafe that proven unknowns (ie human trafficker, gun and drug runners) cross. Blanket policies and acts generally don't work...so a policy of build a complete wall is foolish.[/quote]

I am sure there is already a wall/fence in place in well-populated areas, so I'm not sure if he plans to strengthen those or what, but if he is envisioning a great wall of china type ordeal that is just a waste. There's a million ways to get around it. They'll switch to boats. They'll make larger tunnels. They will keep flying into the US on visas then staying when the visa expires. They'll attack the wall when the border patrol isn't watching. A wall is just a feel-good concept to make people feel better.

Not just that but why not use that money to expand the fleet, put more boots on the ground, throw in more motion sensors, maybe develop or even expand technology that helps them detect tunnels (which are already a major source of contraband coming north).

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;1164759]This is 100% how I feel. 100%.[/quote]

Thanks. Nice edit btw, :laughing- . I gave up on the Drumpf name a while ago, it seems like nobody cares about that one. Glad to see somebody is still using it.

Re: What would it take?
 

What's the excuse to immigrate legally?

Re: What would it take?
 

Obama famously told Eric Cantor in a private meeting that "[B][U]elections have consequences[/U][/B]" after the Democrats won the White House and controlled Congress.Nov 5, 2014

yes they do

Re: What would it take?
 

The Senate Republicans are absolutely a stupid group, why cut off Warren's ramble in the middle of the night. Let them talkety talk talk talk, then once done. Vote and be done with it. Nope, instead, let's cut her off in the middle of a letter from MLK's wife. Idiots.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1164794]What's the excuse to immigrate legally?[/quote]

I think the reason so many don't wait to immigrate legally is because it is an already complicated and overwhelming process that often takes a long time. Imagine living in one of those border cities in Mexico where the death toll is insane thanks to the constant fighting, hell I'm sure there are families that have already seen too much death on a regular basis. Should they have to wait a year or two or however long it takes to process the application and go through the vetting? On top of that they might have already tried and gotten turned down. Then what? I guess they are just stuck living in whatever cartel dominated country they reside in, and they just have to live their lives hoping a stray bullet doesn't catch them on the way to the grocery store?

Point is, are we really going to sit here and act like our legal immigration system isn't overwhelmed with applications? Look at the state of the rest of the world. Why doesn't Trump fix that instead of building a wall?

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=mooby;1164840]I think the reason so many don't wait to immigrate legally is because it is an already complicated and overwhelming process that often takes a long time. Imagine living in one of those border cities in Mexico where the death toll is insane thanks to the constant fighting, hell I'm sure there are families that have already seen too much death on a regular basis. Should they have to wait a year or two or however long it takes to process the application and go through the vetting? On top of that they might have already tried and gotten turned down. Then what? I guess they are just stuck living in whatever cartel dominated country they reside in, and they just have to live their lives hoping a stray bullet doesn't catch them on the way to the grocery store?

Point is, are we really going to sit here and act like our legal immigration system isn't overwhelmed with applications? Look at the state of the rest of the world. Why doesn't Trump fix that instead of building a wall?[/quote]
Several points.
1) seriously - why doesn't Trump fix the state of the rest of the world?

2) I agree our legal immigration ought to be simplified and expanded - in other words the Statue of Liberty quote ought to be exemplified [B][U]by our immigration policies[/U][/B], not by immigrants breaking our laws to get into the country.

3) Even with a liberalized immigration policy you can't offer enough legal immigration to solve the problem by itself.

4) Walls work but it's not the end all be all solution. The fact of the matter is that even in this day and age, walls/fences/security structures work. [INDENT]We don't build prisons without walls and fences because the bad guys will just find another way. [/INDENT][INDENT]Most people put a fence around the property line, not because it's an end all solution, but because you define the line.[/INDENT][INDENT]You say people will find other ways, and while that's true, you still block off vast amounts of avenues simply with a wall that has basic security enhancements - motion sensor, ground radar, and cameras. [/INDENT]
bottomline, no one solution is going to solve the problems at our southern border, but an effective wall, better use of technology, and an appropriate immigration policy would go a long way to reducing the issue.

Re: What would it take?
 

One other point on immigration, from a [URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/12111108/Mapped-Which-country-has-the-most-immigrants.html"]Telegraph article[/URL],

In 2015, the US had 46million legal immigrants (11million illegal - estimated)
The next closest countries were Germany and Russia which had about 12million each.
Canada has 7.8 million.

We have nearly as many undocumented/illegal immigrants as the next closest countries have legal. I can't understand for the life of me, why trying to protect the borders with a physical demarcation is in anyway a bad thing. The closest I get to understanding is the cost argument, but how many people don't pay the cost to put up a fence. Out of all the tasks assigned to our government that they want to pay for, border security seems to me like it fits at the top of the constitutional list of Federal obligations. ( and yes I'd be ok with delaying a few nuclear subs/f-35 fighter jets to help defray the initial cost, and then use tariffs/fees and other methods to recoup the total expenses)

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=mooby;1164840]I think the reason so many don't wait to immigrate legally is because it is an already complicated and overwhelming process that often takes a long time. Imagine living in one of those border cities in Mexico where the death toll is insane thanks to the constant fighting, hell I'm sure there are families that have already seen too much death on a regular basis. Should they have to wait a year or two or however long it takes to process the application and go through the vetting? On top of that they might have already tried and gotten turned down. Then what? I guess they are just stuck living in whatever cartel dominated country they reside in, and they just have to live their lives hoping a stray bullet doesn't catch them on the way to the grocery store?

Point is, are we really going to sit here and act like our legal immigration system isn't overwhelmed with applications? Look at the state of the rest of the world. Why doesn't Trump fix that instead of building a wall?[/quote]

Mooby mooby mooby....our you saying our extremely generous immigration policy where we welcome so many per year is the problem? Ive never heard any complaints and really non from the Mexican Gov't..???

The main reason folks are crossing illegally is Cartel violence?

Mooby, buddy.....I gotta give you the "come on man!" for this post.

If there is any restrictions directly from Mexico or problems, its caused by the Mexican Government and there own problem with illegal immigration. Remember, a lot of folks are illegally crossing over from central and south America into Mexico to then travel to the US border only to be trafficked into the US illegally or crossing over themselves. If its any delay its trying to vet IDs, nationalities, etc.

Our legal immigration policy is fine...I don't think there is an issue. Sorry, but 9/11 changed a lot of things, but we still do a tremendous job in accepting a lot of people into this country...which IM 110% for.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1164860]Mooby mooby mooby....our you saying our extremely generous immigration policy where we welcome so many per year is the problem? Ive never heard any complaints and really non from the Mexican Gov't..???

The main reason folks are crossing illegally is Cartel violence?

Mooby, buddy.....I gotta give you the "come on man!" for this post.

If there is any restrictions directly from Mexico or problems, its caused by the Mexican Government and there own problem with illegal immigration. Remember, a lot of folks are illegally crossing over from central and south America into Mexico to then travel to the US border only to be trafficked into the US illegally or crossing over themselves. If its any delay its trying to vet IDs, nationalities, etc.

Our legal immigration policy is fine...I don't think there is an issue. Sorry, but 9/11 changed a lot of things, but we still do a tremendous job in accepting a lot of people into this country...which IM 110% for.[/quote]

I'm not gonna debate the numbers of legal immigrants we let in this country. I am saying the branch of gov't responsible for vetting applicants probably has so many applicants on their hands that people will be stuck waiting for years to get in. Put yourself in their hands. If you had to go the legal route and wait for who-knows how long and not even know for sure whether you will get in or not, or alternatively you could save up as much money as possible and catch a ride to the border, to potentially save your kids from growing up in whatever 3rd world country you live in, you wouldn't?

The worst that happens is you will get deported if you get caught, barring you having a criminal record of course. People's lives are at stake. The drug war in Mexico has claimed huge amounts of lives, some of which are certainly innocent people caught in the crossfire. South American countries have no jobs, no hope, rampant corruption, a weak economy, violence from various factions, and you think people should just suck it up and play the legal waiting game?

I get it Chico, you got your own problems and your own shit to deal with, who fucking cares about their problems until they come to your country and make it your problem? That's the burden of being the main country on Earth where everyone who doesn't live here thinks is the solution to their problems.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=mooby;1164863]I'm not gonna debate the numbers of legal immigrants we let in this country. I am saying the branch of gov't responsible for vetting applicants probably has so many applicants on their hands that people will be stuck waiting for years to get in. Put yourself in their hands. If you had to go the legal route and wait for who-knows how long and not even know for sure whether you will get in or not, or alternatively you could save up as much money as possible and catch a ride to the border, to potentially save your kids from growing up in whatever 3rd world country you live in, you wouldn't?

The worst that happens is you will get deported if you get caught, barring you having a criminal record of course. People's lives are at stake. The drug war in Mexico has claimed huge amounts of lives, some of which are certainly innocent people caught in the crossfire. South American countries have no jobs, no hope, rampant corruption, a weak economy, violence from various factions, and you think people should just suck it up and play the legal waiting game?

[B]I get it Chico, you got your own problems and your own shit to deal with, who fucking cares about their problems until they come to your country and make it your problem? That's the burden of being the main country on Earth where everyone who doesn't live here thinks is the solution to their problems[/B].[/quote]

Mooby, lets just demand people who [B]really[/B] want to be here do the right things to get legal status to be here. Is that too much to ask? Do you think a lot of these illegals give a flying fuck really about this country? Its a paycheck to them.

What about the tax money we spend to provide services to illegals? What about all the money made here to support the Mexican economy back home?

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1164865]Mooby, lets just demand people who [B]really[/B] want to be here do the right things to get legal status to be here. Is that too much to ask? Do you think a lot of these illegals give a flying fuck really about this country? Its a paycheck to them.

What about the tax money we spend to provide services to illegals? What about all the money made here to support the Mexican economy back home?[/quote]

I understand that some portion (the percentage is up for debate) of my tax dollars is going to supporting services that illegal immigrants use. Which sucks. But part of my tax dollars are also wasted by government abuse. I'd say let's make a big deal out of that, but I already know the answer is "well that's what Trump means by drain the swamp." If draining the swamp means all of his advisers are coming from the private sector they already got rich off of, so be it. If draining the swamp means deregulating every industry they can think of "so the economy will get a boost" whatever. I'm not banking on getting any improvement out of it anyways.

Back to the original point at hand, you are lying to yourself if you think families and people come to America from 3rd world countries thinking "who cares about this place, it's just a paycheck." It's not just a paycheck. It's a better life. It's knowing your kids can play in the street without being exposed to violence. It's still a hard life, but it's almost certainly better then the one they left behind. It's just a goddamn shame you lump them in with the illegal immigrants that come here solely on behalf of whatever gang/cartel they represent, and are basically looking for easy money selling drugs/human trafficking/etc. Those are the ones we should be focusing on getting rid of, not the hard working families trying to raise their kids on a decent paycheck. It's not as black and white as you want to make it out.

And don't even start on terrorist Muslims getting in, lord knows more mass murder incidents have happened in America since 9/11 by the hand of insane white people. Why doesn't he ban Saudi Arabia immigrants from coming here, since 19 of those fuckers were responsible for 9/11? What about Egyptian immigrants? What's the excuse for them?

I get it, you want immigrants to come here legally and pay taxes like the rest of us. I would fucking love it if that happened too. But here's my final question. If Trump truly makes America great again, what do you think is going to happen? Right now the idea that America is the greatest country on Earth is just an illusion, and they're still coming in. Imagine if we truly were the greatest country on Earth again, people from every 3rd world country out there would be pouring in by the boatload. We'd make the immigrant situation in Europe look like nothing in comparison.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=mooby;1164877]I understand that some portion (the percentage is up for debate) of my tax dollars is going to supporting services that illegal immigrants use. Which sucks. But part of my tax dollars are also wasted by government abuse. I'd say let's make a big deal out of that, but I already know the answer is "well that's what Trump means by drain the swamp." If draining the swamp means all of his advisers are coming from the private sector they already got rich off of, so be it. If draining the swamp means deregulating every industry they can think of "so the economy will get a boost" whatever. I'm not banking on getting any improvement out of it anyways.

Back to the original point at hand, you are lying to yourself if you think families and people come to America from 3rd world countries thinking "who cares about this place, it's just a paycheck." It's not just a paycheck. It's a better life. It's knowing your kids can play in the street without being exposed to violence. It's still a hard life, but it's almost certainly better then the one they left behind. It's just a goddamn shame you lump them in with the illegal immigrants that come here solely on behalf of whatever gang/cartel they represent, and are basically looking for easy money selling drugs/human trafficking/etc. Those are the ones we should be focusing on getting rid of, not the hard working families trying to raise their kids on a decent paycheck. It's not as black and white as you want to make it out.

And don't even start on terrorist Muslims getting in, lord knows more mass murder incidents have happened in America since 9/11 by the hand of insane white people. Why doesn't he ban Saudi Arabia immigrants from coming here, since 19 of those fuckers were responsible for 9/11? What about Egyptian immigrants? What's the excuse for them?

I get it, you want immigrants to come here legally and pay taxes like the rest of us. I would fucking love it if that happened too. But here's my final question. If Trump truly makes America great again, what do you think is going to happen? Right now the idea that America is the greatest country on Earth is just an illusion, and they're still coming in. Imagine if we truly were the greatest country on Earth again, people from every 3rd world country out there would be pouring in by the boatload. We'd make the immigrant situation in Europe look like nothing in comparison.[/quote]

we will just disagree.

And when you mention tax money wasted, of course it is. Look at the growth of government...We def need less government at every level...Federal, State, and local.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1164897]we will just disagree.

And when you mention tax money wasted, of course it is. Look at the growth of government...We def need less government at every level...Federal, State, and local.[/quote]

Fair enough.

Re: What would it take?
 

Just a random note/thought: I just really dislike him as a person. Every tweet, every appointment, it just blows my mind. He comes across like a child and for acting tough, he seems like a giant pussy who just can't let shit go. Maybe one day things will settle down and he'll actually do some things where I'm like, "Wow, good for him."

If he doesn't change personally, I'll still be truly embarrassed this "man" represents me and my country. It's appalling. I don't need a boy scout, but I need someone who at least inspires SOME kind of confidence and carries themselves with a touch of dignity. Nothing he has done in his past and has done so far inspire even a shred of it for me. Sigh.

EDIT: I do wonder if anyone who voted for him is OK with the Bannon appointment. He's had some TRUE head-scratchers, but this one is just bananas to me. There are a lot of unqualified people in his cabinet, but Bannon is a TRUE piece of shit. Human garbage.

ANOTHER EDIT: Forgot to add this. Sad!

:D

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;1164961]Just a random note/thought: I just really dislike him as a person. Every tweet, every appointment, it just blows my mind. He comes across like a child and for acting tough, he seems like a giant pussy who just can't let shit go. Maybe one day things will settle down and he'll actually do some things where I'm like, "Wow, good for him."

If he doesn't change personally, I'll still be truly embarrassed this "man" represents me and my country. It's appalling. I don't need a boy scout, but I need someone who at least inspires SOME kind of confidence and carries themselves with a touch of dignity. Nothing he has done in his past and has done so far inspire even a shred of it for me. Sigh.

EDIT: I do wonder if anyone who voted for him is OK with the Bannon appointment. He's had some TRUE head-scratchers, but this one is just bananas to me. There are a lot of unqualified people in his cabinet, but Bannon is a TRUE piece of shit. Human garbage.

ANOTHER EDIT: Forgot to add this. Sad!

:D[/quote]

I am in complete agreement. His hitlist changes every week. Right now it's Nordstrom, before it was the media. Next week it'll be that vet organization that called him out with the commercial during his favorite morning show. Imagine if Rosie O'Donnell plays Steve Bannon on SNL, he'll mount the most vicious Twitter campaign ever seen out of the presidential account.

Re: What would it take?
 

[url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/203891/gop-satisfaction-direction-soars-democrats-drops.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles]GOP Satisfaction With US Direction Soars, Democrats' Drops | Gallup[/url]

not really a shocking view, but I think the graph below is striking:
[IMG]http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ygriqtajw0sptgewyz-jrw.png[/IMG]

Overall the country is as satisfied with Trump as they were with Obama, but now the Democrats get to be the dissatisfied group.

[IMG]http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/uodwb_lzwk6vi_9ggxg_mg.png[/IMG]

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1164852]Several points.
1) seriously - why doesn't Trump fix the state of the rest of the world?

2) I agree our legal immigration ought to be simplified and expanded - in other words the Statue of Liberty quote ought to be exemplified [B][U]by our immigration policies[/U][/B], not by immigrants breaking our laws to get into the country.

3) Even with a liberalized immigration policy you can't offer enough legal immigration to solve the problem by itself.

4) Walls work but it's not the end all be all solution. The fact of the matter is that even in this day and age, walls/fences/security structures work.[INDENT]We don't build prisons without walls and fences because the bad guys will just find another way. [/INDENT][INDENT]Most people put a fence around the property line, not because it's an end all solution, but because you define the line.[/INDENT][INDENT]You say people will find other ways, and while that's true, you still block off vast amounts of avenues simply with a wall that has basic security enhancements - motion sensor, ground radar, and cameras. [/INDENT]bottomline, no one solution is going to solve the problems at our southern border, but an effective wall, better use of technology, and an appropriate immigration policy would go a long way to reducing the issue.[/quote]

Sorry for ignoring this. As for your points, I agree we should fix the US before we go about trying to save the rest of the world. I also agree there is no perfect solution to immigration, but I think we already do a good job of vetting the ones we allow in. Perhaps there should be a separate program for families that want to work hard, offer good skills, and make a fair living while paying taxes? Idk how you go about implementing that but I feel that the honest, hardworking illegal immigrants would much prefer to be legal rather than worry about being deported every time they go out in public. Obviously the criminal element doesn't care, and those are the ones that should be locked up before being deported.

As for your wall, I want to look at it from another perspective. I am at work atm and don't have access to a lot of sites, so I can't verify right now, but I would be happy to track down the source if necessary (I will admit I got it from FB). The article mentioned that after the legal battles that will result from eminent domain claims it might be another 3 1/2 years before construction would start, and construction is estimated at another 3 1/2 years after it does start. So you might be looking at a partially built wall by the time the next presidential election rolls around, and if Trump loses you are almost guaranteed the next President would either alter or eliminate the idea entirely depending on the financial state of the US. Do you really want to commit to it knowing there's a 50/50 chance it doesn't get finished? That would be a lot of taxpayer money waste if it did happen.