PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: President-Elect Bob Noel on November 15, 2016, 05:35:40 AM
-
There is a lot of drama going about deportation of illegal immigrants.
Has President-elect Trump called for the deportation of immigrants?
Isn't the truth that President-elect Trump called for the deporation of illegal immigrants? In fact, hasn't he called for the deportation of criminal illegal immigrants? I know that seems redundant, but I'm using the term "criminal illegal immigrants" to refer to those illegal immigrants who have committed crimes (especially violent crime).
Do people really want to have "sanctuary" places for illegal immigrants who have committed violent crimes?
(never mind that those illegal immigrants demanding a "path to citizenship" are being grossly unjust to those people that are trying legally immigrate to the USA... come to think about it, there is a path to citizenship, that is, follow the process just like everyone has to)
-
I believe you got it right Bob.
-
There is a lot of drama going about deportation of illegal immigrants.
Has President-elect Trump called for the deportation of immigrants?
Isn't the truth that President-elect Trump called for the deporation of illegal immigrants? In fact, hasn't he called for the deportation of criminal illegal immigrants? I know that seems redundant, but I'm using the term "criminal illegal immigrants" to refer to those illegal immigrants who have committed crimes (especially violent crime).
Do people really want to have "sanctuary" places for illegal immigrants who have committed violent crimes?
(never mind that those illegal immigrants demanding a "path to citizenship" are being grossly unjust to those people that are trying legally immigrate to the USA... come to think about it, there is a path to citizenship, that is, follow the process just like everyone has to)
Dems and truth are like water and oil.
-
Do people really want to have "sanctuary" places for illegal immigrants who have committed violent crimes?
Maybe. Here are some suggestions:
Mexico.
Prison.
Chicago (after we build a wall around it). See: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/15/mayor-says-chicago-will-always-be-sanctuary-city-in-face-deportation-threats.html
-
Like most things with Trump, it depends on which version of him you want to listen to and believe. Previously he said he'd deport up to 11M. Now it's 2-3M.
-
Like most things with Trump, it depends on which version of him you want to listen to and believe. Previously he said he'd deport up to 11M. Now it's 2-3M.
So nobody but the Dems/Progressives/Liberals are allowed to evolve, and transform? Hey, I get it. Stick to what got you elected.
-
So nobody but the Dems/Progressives/Liberals are allowed to evolve, and transform? Hey, I get it. Stick to what got you elected.
Those are your words, not mine.
-
Like most things with Trump, it depends on which version of him you want to listen to and believe. Previously he said he'd deport up to 11M. Now it's 2-3M.
But did candidate Trump ever say that he wanted to deport immigrants (legal immigrants included) rather than illegal immigrants or illegal criminal immigrants?
I think we can agree the specific number to be deported isn't salient.
-
The problem with any/every progressive is the tendency to want to pick and choose what t take literally and what to take figuratively. Just like when McCain ran against Barack Obama. I remember when he chose to suspend campaigning to work towards the failed bailout, progressives chose to attack McCain for ads that ran on TV at the time. The attacks were childish, stupid, incipient and blatantly partisan but the media dutifully ran with them because that's what progressives do.
Now progressive whiners want to pick and choose what to use to attack President Elect Trump about what number of illegals should be deported because intelligent reasoning and honesty is just too much.
-
But did candidate Trump ever say that he wanted to deport immigrants (legal immigrants included) rather than illegal immigrants or illegal criminal immigrants?
Oh. As far as I know he's never said he wants to deport legal immigrants.
-
Oh. As far as I know he's never said he wants to deport legal immigrants.
Good. Now tell all your friends.
-
There is a lot of drama going about deportation of illegal immigrants.
Has President-elect Trump called for the deportation of immigrants?
Isn't the truth that President-elect Trump called for the deporation of illegal immigrants? In fact, hasn't he called for the deportation of criminal illegal immigrants? I know that seems redundant, but I'm using the term "criminal illegal immigrants" to refer to those illegal immigrants who have committed crimes (especially violent crime).
Do people really want to have "sanctuary" places for illegal immigrants who have committed violent crimes?
(never mind that those illegal immigrants demanding a "path to citizenship" are being grossly unjust to those people that are trying legally immigrate to the USA... come to think about it, there is a path to citizenship, that is, follow the process just like everyone has to)
Bob, you are being rational and level headed. STOP IT!
The Left is freaking because they are in their "but, but, but we were supposed to win". Let them go through their grief process.
-
Oh. As far as I know he's never said he wants to deport legal immigrants.
That's correct. From my memory (dicey at my age) during the campaign he said he wanted to deport all the ILLEGAL immigrants. At the time I said to myself, "He isn't going to do that. Where does he think he will send them? It's not like they have a house back in Mexico to which to return. He's just speaking emotionally to connect with the rage a lot of Americans have about illegal immigration. If he's elected he will modify that drastically."
And now it looks like I was right. He's saying he's only going to deport the criminal ones. I could have sworn he admitted on 60 minutes that he exaggerated during the campaign for the exact purpose of getting people to listen to him and give him media attention, because otherwise, he wouldn't get it. If he used that rhetoric as a tool to gain popularity among the Republicans so as to win the nomination, it makes sense to me, there may not have been another path for him to use.
I suspected he would back down to a more reasonable position once elected and it looks like that's exactly what's happening. Same with Obamacare. During the campaign he was trashing the whole thing. Now he's going to keep a couple items.
Same with same sex marriage. He's supposedly against it, I don't remember specifically him saying so during the campaign but I'd guess he did, again, to win with Republicans. But on 60 minutes when asked about it he said, "Look, it's a done deal. I'm not messing with it." Which is exactly what he should do at this point; his priority needs to be ramping up the economy real fast so he's got a chance to win again in 2020. If he has any effect on gay marriage, it will be because of whomever he nominates for the Supreme Court. I guess theoretically they could reverse it? But that is not the hill he needs to try to die on right now. And I don't think he ever would. He is NOT a traditional religious conservative. I seriously doubt he cares a fig if gays marry each other.
They way he campaigned with a lot of extreme rhetoric is part of the reason the media and the left could portray him as a complete monster. I suspected he is not, and it looks like (thank God) I was probably right. But he had to do it that way just to get himself taken seriously.
I don't know who first said this but it hits the nail. The left took him literally but not seriously, and the right took him seriously but not literally. The latter was me (although technically I'm not right-wing; I am libertarian) I took him as a serious candidate but did not take his words literally.
I am seeing however that his extreme speech is already paying off. Mexico is coming to him now saying, let's get the wall built so we can be good with you and our trade relationship. They don't want to call his bluff, they're too scared of him. That's WONDERFUL. He's got them off balance. Same with the rest of the world. "I'm not gonna tell you my plan for ISIS." LOVE IT. Keep them all guessing. We've been stupid too long and it's obvious the world doesn't respect us. Looks like Trump might turn that around.
-
Hey, anyone remember "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" or how about "if you like your plan you can keep your plan" or maybe "the average family will save $2,500 on their healthcare"
-
By definition, ANY illegal alien is a criminal illegal alien, since the illegal status is conveyed for having broken immigration law.
The real number is unknown and unknowable in my opinion, but starting with the worst of the worst is a great place, and that number is knowable insofar as number of known illegal aliens curerntly in jail, prison or process as of a date certain. Start there.
Show you are serious, crack down on employers, and punish santcuary cities and orgnizations (removal of federal funds or tax exempt status, etc.) and I believe many will self-deport and try to come back legally, but if not kick them out and ending anchor babies will fix a lot of that.
'Gimp
-
To be fair, he didn't completely revise his plan for deporting illegals during the 60 Minutes interview. What he said was that he was going to start with the criminal illegals and then his administration would have to decide from there what to do with the rest. I won't poke at him too much for that because we don't know how deporting the criminals will affect the others. I would imagine that he is also likely to start enforcing employment checks, among other things, which will likely lead to others self-deporting.
-
Same with same sex marriage. He's supposedly against it, I don't remember specifically him saying so during the campaign but I'd guess he did, again, to win with Republicans. But on 60 minutes when asked about it he said, "Look, it's a done deal. I'm not messing with it." Which is exactly what he should do at this point; his priority needs to be ramping up the economy real fast so he's got a chance to win again in 2020. If he has any effect on gay marriage, it will be because of whomever he nominates for the Supreme Court. I guess theoretically they could reverse it? But that is not the hill he needs to try to die on right now. And I don't think he ever would. He is NOT a traditional religious conservative. I seriously doubt he cares a fig if gays marry each other.
Slightly off topic but I found it a bit ironic that he didn't want to meddle any further with the Obergefell decision since it was settled but he was fine with saying that Roe vs. Wade should be over turned.
-
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/nation-world/national/article116852873.html
WICHITA, KAN.
A Texas woman accused of killing a mother and taking her baby was in the U.S. illegally when she was released from a Kansas jail this summer before immigration officials had a chance to request she be held, law enforcement authorities said.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not receive the July 25 list of arrests from the Sedgwick County sheriff's office that included Yesenia Sesmas' name until the following day, and by that time she had been released, ICE spokesman Carl Rusnok said Wednesday. The agency would have asked that Sesmas, a Mexican national, be detained if she had still been in jail, Rusnok said.
Sesmas had been arrested — but was never charged — on suspicion of threatening a pregnant woman with a knife and trying to hold that woman's two daughters for ransom. She posted bond and was released less than 24 hours after her arrest, said Col. Brenda Dietzman, undersheriff for the Sedgwick County sheriff's office in Wichita, Kansas.
-
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/nation-world/national/article116852873.html
Obviously a future democrat voter.
-
Bush Sr. made the mistake of saying "no new taxes." Obama promised "change" and said we could keep our doctor. Bush Jr. got hammered for a sign"Mission Accomplished" and weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist. Trump has made many promises and already he's backtracked and "revised" his pledges before even taking office and yet his supporters continue to give him a pass for saying things it sure looks like he never intended to follow through on. "Draining the Swamp" indeed. I see absolutely nothing changing except the monogram on White House linen and the balance in billionaire checkbooks resulting from his tax proposals, the one promise I believe he will keep.
-
Bush Sr. made the mistake of saying "no new taxes." Obama promised "change" and said we could keep our doctor. Bush Jr. got hammered for a sign"Mission Accomplished" and weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist. Trump has made many promises and already he's backtracked and "revised" his pledges before even taking office and yet his supporters continue to give him a pass for saying things it sure looks like he never intended to follow through on. "Draining the Swamp" indeed. I see absolutely nothing changing except the monogram on White House linen and the balance in billionaire checkbooks resulting from his tax proposals, the one promise I believe he will keep.
His term doesn't begin until January 20th, 2017.
I'm willing to give the man a chance before bringing judgment. You? Not so much.
-
You can see Trump's intentions and priorities by his appointments. He will follow thru on a lot of them.
-
His term doesn't begin until January 20th, 2017.
I'm willing to give the man a chance before bringing judgment. You? Not so much.
I'm making an observation that he's reneging on things he said during the election before even taking office. Why should I wait to hold him accountable for election promises he's "revising" before even having the opportunity to try or making an attempt to fullfill them? Oh wait, I'm supposed to give him a chance to change his mind, or more probably, deny he ever made the promise to begin with. Silly me, I should have known that directing his AG to investigate HRC was a "figurative" pledge vs. a "literal" statement. "Lock her up" and "Criminal Hillary" are now "she's good people." Trump supporters seem to give Trump the benefit of the doubt when there is no doubt whatsoever that he feels no obligation to carry through with anything that was said during the campaign. The election is won and now he gets to do or not do whatever he chooses and the Trumpsters are happy with that? Let's all wait and see if he does anything and then declare victory against the socialist hoards who would have run rampant without the Donald to rein them in.
-
I'm making an observation that he's reneging on things he said during the election before even taking office. Why should I wait to hold him accountable for election promises he's "revising" before even having the opportunity to try or making an attempt to fullfill them? Oh wait, I'm supposed to give him a chance to change his mind, or more probably, deny he ever made the promise to begin with. Silly me, I should have known that directing his AG to investigate HRC was a "figurative" pledge vs. a "literal" statement. "Lock her up" and "Criminal Hillary" are now "she's good people." Trump supporters seem to give Trump the benefit of the doubt when there is no doubt whatsoever that he feels no obligation to carry through with anything that was said during the campaign. The election is won and now he gets to do or not do whatever he chooses and the Trumpsters are happy with that? Let's all wait and see if he does anything and then declare victory against the socialist hoards who would have run rampant without the Donald to rein them in.
Trump hasn't even taken the oath of office yet. He doesn't have any official powers of the Presidency, yet.
You, the liberals and the MSM simply can't wait. You're all bitter sore losers. None of you can accept it was the policies of BHO, and the DNC's nomination rigging that produced a tired sick old lady without voter appeal as their candidate, who in the end couldn't close the deal and LOST the election.
Yes, we are in for 4 years of the liberals and MSM in constant faux outrage over everything and anything Trump does, even if it is good and promotes the country. I have no doubt before Trump finishes his inauguration speech the liberals will be screaming for a special counsel and bantering around the word impeachment at every opportunity.
-
Yes, we are in for 4 years of the liberals and MSM in constant faux outrage over everything and anything Trump does, even if it is good and promotes the country. I have no doubt before Trump finishes his inauguration speech the liberals will be screaming for a special counsel and bantering around the word impeachment at every opportunity.
and we also are in for constant outrage over things that Trump isn't responsible for.
-
and we also are in for constant outrage over things that Trump isn't responsible for.
For sure.
-
Trump has also made it clear he does not broadcast the battle plan to the enemy. Foreign, or domestic.
-
Trump has also made it clear he does not broadcast the battle plan to the enemy. Foreign, or domestic.
Can't broadcast a plan he doesn't have or even ever planned to have. I'm not criticizing the things he's said he will do once in office. I'm holding him accountable for the things he said he would do once in office that he's already said he won't do even without trying. I respect people who make an attempt and fail more than someone who throws in the towel before even trying.
-
Can't broadcast a plan he doesn't have or even ever planned to have. I'm not criticizing the things he's said he will do once in office. I'm holding him accountable for the things he said he would do once in office that he's already said he won't do even without trying. I respect people who make an attempt and fail more than someone who throws in the towel before even trying.
So you are buying into the narrative of the MSM and liberals?
No matter what Trump says or does, or doesn't do, the sore losers will bemoan it and express "outrage".
-
So you are buying into the narrative of the MSM and liberals?
No matter what Trump says or does, or doesn't do, the sore losers will bemoan it and express "outrage".
Exactly.
I got in a heated discussion with my liberal in-laws the other day and they were griping about Trump backing off of some of the things he said during the election. My comment to them was that when he mentioned some of those things, the complained about it and said he was going to ruin the country. Then when he backs off, they complain because ... ? ? ?
I also said that I am glad that he backed off of some things, because I was never behind ALL of his statements. Most of the ones that he backed off of are the ones I was hoping he would back off of.
For instance: deporting all 11 million illegals immediately. It sounds good, even if it could be done, but it would disrupt this country and the economy in serious ways. His new plan to deport them if they commit crimes (in addition to sneaking in) is what I wanted all along. And to be fair, Obama's administration did a good amount of that, but it needs to be accelerated.
When he said he would put Hillary in jail, I wondered just how he would do that. First, that isn't (won't be) his job. And secondly, attempting it would cause more problems that you can imagine.
So I am not giving him a pass for backing off. I applaud him for (some of) it.
But liberals are complaining about him backing off of things they WANTED him to back off of.
-
I'm making an observation that he's reneging on things he said during the election before even taking office. Why should I wait to hold him accountable for election promises he's "revising" before even having the opportunity to try or making an attempt to fullfill them? Oh wait, I'm supposed to give him a chance to change his mind, or more probably, deny he ever made the promise to begin with. Silly me, I should have known that directing his AG to investigate HRC was a "figurative" pledge vs. a "literal" statement. "Lock her up" and "Criminal Hillary" are now "she's good people." Trump supporters seem to give Trump the benefit of the doubt when there is no doubt whatsoever that he feels no obligation to carry through with anything that was said during the campaign. The election is won and now he gets to do or not do whatever he chooses and the Trumpsters are happy with that? Let's all wait and see if he does anything and then declare victory against the socialist hoards who would have run rampant without the Donald to rein them in.
Of course you realize he can't lock her up. Fact is it would behoove to stay far away from anything that happens concerning Hillary. If his FBI director chooses to reopen the investigation and recommend charges and his AG decides to go for an indictment, it would be done and should be done without Trump doing or saying a thing.
-
Hard to believe Trump's positions moving towards a more liberal position is upsetting the liberals.
-
Of course you realize he can't lock her up. Fact is it would behoove to stay far away from anything that happens concerning Hillary. If his FBI director chooses to reopen the investigation and recommend charges and his AG decides to go for an indictment, it would be done and should be done without Trump doing or saying a thing.
Comey will still be there.
-
Hard to believe Trump's positions moving towards a more liberal position is upsetting the liberals.
I understand what your are saying, but it really isn't hard to believe. In fact, it was predictable.
-
Hard to believe Trump's positions moving towards a more liberal position is upsetting the liberals.
Everything upsets liberals. They are children in adult bodies.
-
Bush Sr. made the mistake of saying "no new taxes." Obama promised "change" and said we could keep our doctor. Bush Jr. got hammered for a sign"Mission Accomplished" and weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist. Trump has made many promises and already he's backtracked and "revised" his pledges before even taking office and yet his supporters continue to give him a pass for saying things it sure looks like he never intended to follow through on. "Draining the Swamp" indeed. I see absolutely nothing changing except the monogram on White House linen and the balance in billionaire checkbooks resulting from his tax proposals, the one promise I believe he will keep.
Wow. Leftists really do get unhinged when they lose. And the most pathetic statement above? Your envy and thirst for OPM.
-
Wow. Leftists really do get unhinged when they lose. And the most pathetic statement above? Your envy and thirst for OPM.
I guess he also forgot that the mission accomplished banner was something put up by the crew of the ship.
-
I guess he also forgot that the mission accomplished banner was something out up by the crew of the ship.
don't interrupt a rant with those things called, ya know, facts.
-
Wow. Leftists really do get unhinged when they lose. And the most pathetic statement above? Your envy and thirst for OPM.
You guys crack me up. The ad hominem is strong with you.
One guy on this forum isn't marching lock step in the ultra right mantra for Trump, and he's an unhinged crybaby. He called out the Trump flip flop. Big deal! I think Trump flip flopped as well. I think he did because even he himself never thought he'd win the election. Now he's realizing the reality that comes with the office of POTUS. He still needs his cell phone and Twitter access taken away, but that's my opinion.
Anyone who's checked Trump's tax proposal can see that the biggest beneficiaries will be the highest tax brackets. That's not envy, just fact. And before you go on with your ad hominem I'll wager most the users on this forum will benefit from the proposal.
After all, flying ain't cheap.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
Anyone who's checked Trump's tax proposal can see that the biggest beneficiaries will be the highest tax brackets. That's not envy, just fact. And before you go on with your ad hominem I'll wager most the users on this forum will benefit from the proposal.
First, any reduction in taxes paid will, by definition, directly impact the people who actually pay taxes. This is a first-order effect.
Second, an area that really challenges the liberal mind is that there are second-order effects. The simpliest way to demonstrate that is to look at when a number of years ago Congress decided to implement a luxury tax on new yachts, which of course mostly wiped out the sale of new yachts in the US, resulting in the loss of jobs for the lowly working building new yachts.
So, a challenge is determine the 2nd and 3rd order effects of the tax proposals.
ps - class envy is strong with you
-
First, any reduction in taxes paid will, by definition, directly impact the people who actually pay taxes. This is a first-order effect.
Second, an area that really challenges the liberal mind is that there are second-order effects. The simpliest way to demonstrate that is to look at when a number of years ago Congress decided to implement a luxury tax on new yachts, which of course mostly wiped out the sale of new yachts in the US, resulting in the loss of jobs for the lowly working building new yachts.
So, a challenge is determine the 2nd and 3rd order effects of the tax proposals.
ps - class envy is strong with you
Yeah, all our unemployment problems hinge on the number of yachts produced. It's been proven time and again that your second order effects are miniscule and do nothing to solve any income disparity, job deficit or deficit problems. Trickle down economics benefits to the economy are BS--they're a figment of your imagination.
-
First, any reduction in taxes paid will, by definition, directly impact the people who actually pay taxes. This is a first-order effect.
Second, an area that really challenges the liberal mind is that there are second-order effects.
Check out his tax plan. Then return.
The simpliest way to demonstrate that is to look at when a number of years ago Congress decided to implement a luxury tax on new yachts, which of course mostly wiped out the sale of new yachts in the US, resulting in the loss of jobs for the lowly working building new yachts.
So, a challenge is determine the 2nd and 3rd order effects of the tax proposals.
Do you have a source to back up your yacht sales claim? Seems an awfully specific example of taxes creating hardship.
ps - class envy is strong with you
Cool. I'm strong in something!
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
Yeah, all our unemployment problems hinge on the number of yachts produced.
apparently you have difficulty even with examples and simple concepts.
-
apparently you have difficulty even with examples and simple concepts.
Depends if the example is true. Also, if true, yacht sales account for approximately how many jobs...or how much of our country's economy?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
Depends if the example is true. Also, if true, yacht sales account for approximately how many jobs...or how much of our country's economy?
Rich people just don't buy yachts. They buy cars, they build homes, they donate to charity, they start businesses, they expand businesses, they create jobs, they buy corporate jets, that employ pilots, and maintenance. Nothing happens in our society until private individuals GENERATE WEALTH. Make it easier for them to generate wealth, and everyone benefits.
-
Depends if the example is true. Also, if true, yacht sales account for approximately how many jobs...or how much of our country's economy?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
You must be really young, and didn't live during the Carter Malaise. We just went trough the Obama Malaise, which was Carter less 18% home mortgages. Same class-warfare strategy. Thank God Trump won the election; things are already turning around.
-
Depends if the example is true. Also, if true, yacht sales account for approximately how many jobs...or how much of our country's economy?
Can you point to any claim I made that the yacht sales amounted to a significant % of the GDP?
It was provided as an example of secondary effects. Is that too difficult to understand?
-
Can you point to any claim I made that the yacht sales amounted to a significant % of the GDP?
It was provided as an example of secondary effects. Is that too difficult to understand?
Please provide a source that taxes led to the stagnation of yacht sales. This is your claim. I would like to see the empirical evidence to support it.
How many jobs were lost because of the loss of yacht sales?
Or, you could pick better examples of secondary effects.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
google 1990 luxury tax
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/07/business/falling-tax-would-lift-all-yachts.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax
the point was to pick a simple example.
-
google 1990 luxury tax
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/07/business/falling-tax-would-lift-all-yachts.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax
the point was to pick a simple example.
I see your point now. Assuming Trump's tax plan passes, it'll be a few years until we find out if you are right.
I don't believe trickle down economics work.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
I don't believe trickle down economics work.
The other alternative is trickle up poverty which is what we've had under Obama except for the few cronies at the top. I never saw a poor person create a job for someone else.
-
But liberals are complaining about him ...
The new left is so bereft of an economic, foreign policy, or domestic security plan that all they have is to whine and play with crayons and play-doh, while whining.
It is the new normal or liberals.
-
I see your point now. Assuming Trump's tax plan passes, it'll be a few years until we find out if you are right.
I don't believe trickle down economics work.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
It works better than the economics of penalizing the productive and rewarding the non-productive.
-
I don't believe trickle down economics work.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
The yacht tax is a perfect example of how it does work. And it works on a smaller scale on all facets of the economy.
-
Anyone who's checked Trump's tax proposal can see that the biggest beneficiaries will be the highest tax brackets. That's not envy, just fact. And before you go on with your ad hominem I'll wager most the users on this forum will benefit from the proposal.
Question for you.
You work for the government and you earn a salary in the 6 figures. Do you take deductions when you file your taxes? Which are the common deductions you are taking?
-
It works better than the economics of penalizing the productive and rewarding the non-productive.
What constitutes productive v nonproductive?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
The yacht tax is a perfect example of how it does work. And it works on a smaller scale on all facets of the economy.
Cool. It works if rich folks are buying those expensive toys. It doesn't if rich folks aren't buying things.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
What constitutes productive v nonproductive?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
At the most basic level, it is someone with a job vs someone living primarily off of public benefits.
It also includes entrepreneurs that risked their own personal assets to create a business and provide jobs to others. (Those others are also productive).
As for me personally, I neither have a job or am I living off of public benefits. I contributed the max to my IRA for 45 years and I sold the business that I built, to pad my nest egg.
I guess you could say I was "formerly productive". But even if I were drawing SS, I would not consider that either productive or non-productive.
Don't you ever get sick of people saying they won't get a job because they would lose their benefits?
-
Don't you ever get sick of people saying they won't get a job because they would lose their benefits?
I've never heard someone tell me that.
I have however heard it said via third party.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
I've never heard someone tell me that.
I have however heard it said via third party.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
I've heard it first hand, many times.
I gave a receptionist a raise and a promotion. She said she could accept the promotion, but not the raise; she didn't want to lose her section 8 housing.
I had another employee say her 20 yr old daughter was pregnant. Again. For the third time from a 3rd father. I asked how she planned to support 3 kids. She said "government assistance".
Over the years, I have hired many technicians. I had several people apply for these jobs that didn't seem qualified, but I felt sorry for a few of them so I offered them a trainee position. I was always surprised when they turned me down saying if they accepted they would lose their benefits and that they only applied because they were required to. ONE TIME, I increased the offer. She said "no" because she would lose even more benefits.
I was forced to fire several people over the years. It always amazed me that they could never find a job; until their unemployment benefits ran out. That wasn't so bad back when unemployment was for 13 weeks and they found a job on week 14, but when it went to 99 weeks they found they couldn't get any job. Nobody would hire them because they were unemployed for so long. That is the legacy of the Obama administration.
I strongly feel we should eliminate the minimum wage. And instead of giving people money for being unemployed, we should give that money to small businesses if they will hire these people.
-
I had an employee in Wisconsin who voluntarily downgraded from full time to part time. She then filed for unemployment and gave an incorrect employer address. By the time I got the notice, it was too late to contest the award.
These people are expert at working the system. And freeloading.
-
Are these freeloaders exposing a federal or local system? I was under the impression that systems like unemployment, SNAP, etc were all state or local systems with little federal intrusion.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
Are these freeloaders exposing a federal or local system? I was under the impression that systems like unemployment, SNAP, etc were all state or local systems with little federal intrusion.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
A lot of it is Federally funded with state administration.
-
Are these freeloaders exposing a federal or local system? I was under the impression that systems like unemployment, SNAP, etc were all state or local systems with little federal intrusion.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Unemployment is a State function, but is subsidized by the Feds. That is why I had to pay SUI and FUI (State and Federal Uninsurance). The Feds mandated the extended time and if I am not mistaken, the States had to later pay the Feds back for the subsidies.
-
I guess he also forgot that the mission accomplished banner was something put up by the crew of the ship.
Exactly - and to celebrate the end of a very long combat cruise.
But that never makes it to SNL or Colbert, so it obviously never happened that way.
-
Exactly - and to celebrate the end of a very long combat cruise.
But that never makes it to SNL or Colbert, so it obviously never happened that way.
If only GW had more balls and the power of twitter, the press never would have gotten away with it.
-
If only GW had more balls and the power of twitter, the press never would have gotten away with it.
If only the press had honesty so that no one would have to slap them down.
-
Exactly - and to celebrate the end of a very long combat cruise.
But that never makes it to SNL or Colbert, so it obviously never happened that way.
Y'all are absolutely right and I was wrong to imply the Mission Accomplished banner was something GWB was responsible for. The military did a great job and did accomplish the mission assigned to it. What I should have commented on was the absolutely piss poor planning for post Saddam Iraq that GWB IS responsible for. Paul Bremer was an absolute disaster and his (/GWB's) dismissing of every BAATH party member from dog catcher to minister and disbanding of the Iraqi armed forces is directly responsible for the Shiite/Iranian power structure that eventually led to ISIS and Al Quaida in Iraq. How many trillions has that fiasco cost us and will continue to cost us.
-
Y'all are absolutely right and I was wrong to imply the Mission Accomplished banner was something GWB was responsible for. The military did a great job and did accomplish the mission assigned to it. What I should have commented on was the absolutely piss poor planning for post Saddam Iraq that GWB IS responsible for. Paul Bremer was an absolute disaster and his (/GWB's) dismissing of every BAATH party member from dog catcher to minister and disbanding of the Iraqi armed forces is directly responsible for the Shiite/Iranian power structure that eventually led to ISIS and Al Quaida in Iraq. How many trillions has that fiasco cost us and will continue to cost us.
I will say that I agree with much of this.
But as to being responsible for ISIS, I believe that is mostly on Obama and Hillary's head. The Iraq invasion was a disaster, but Obama's withdrawal greatly compounded the mistake.
And Yeah, I know that you are going to say the withdrawal was Bush's idea, but it didn't happen on Bush's watch. And I doubt it would have based on the evolving scenario. But we will never know that for sure. What we do know is that Obama took a bad situation in the M.E. and made it immeasurably worse.
-
Y'all are absolutely right and I was wrong to imply the Mission Accomplished banner was something GWB was responsible for. The military did a great job and did accomplish the mission assigned to it. What I should have commented on was the absolutely piss poor planning for post Saddam Iraq that GWB IS responsible for. Paul Bremer was an absolute disaster and his (/GWB's) dismissing of every BAATH party member from dog catcher to minister and disbanding of the Iraqi armed forces is directly responsible for the Shiite/Iranian power structure that eventually led to ISIS and Al Quaida in Iraq. How many trillions has that fiasco cost us and will continue to cost us.
I absolutely believe that GWB should have stopped after Afghanistan. He was faced with the choice of trying to protect America with force and massive security installations, or going to the seat of the trouble and trying to democratize it. He chose to try and democratize, but as is painfully obvious, Iraq at least was not ready to step up to that particular plate, although they sent many of their intelligentsia to Washington DC to beg America to take out Saddam. It was painful to watch Iraq fail and fail and fail in trying to get their Parliament and democracy up and running. A cruel truth is that Islam and democracy are not compatible, no matter how much one may wish it so. Turkey managed for a time, but even that is crumbling.
-
The Iraq invasion was a disaster, but Obama's withdrawal greatly compounded the mistake.
...
What we do know is that Obama took a bad situation in the M.E. and made it immeasurably worse.
Agreed.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!