So you get defensive about me applying a generalization and then you turn around and do it.
How do you know what people who aren't working and are capable won't do? Seems like a pretty big blanket statement. I hear some former coal miners are looking for work.
Those citizens that don't pay taxes go to jail when they are caught. So because some citizens decide to illegally not pay taxes, they should allow a bunch of foreign people into the Country to work illegally and not pay taxes. Great logic.
well, because they aren't?
That's one of the reasons for many GOP voters being on board with kicking out illegals and buying into slogans like "they are stealing our jobs"...
if people were working, that kind of sloganeering doesn't work.
Trump's hardline stance is something that affects all illegal immigrants, even those that are hard working and law abiding... its not a position based on an understanding of the implications.
Obama proposed a path to citizenship at least, which provided the opportunity for amnesty and a way forward for those illegal immigrants to come forward.
Or kick out the illegals: just wait for prices of dairy and farming to go through the roof...
Really? How come you only call out one side of the aisle? I don't see you call out any of the posters that criticise Trump, his supporters or conservatives in general.
Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen; it has and it does. Sometimes mods post into the thread, sometimes warnings are given privately and directly.
And in general it's not a zero tolerance policy; threads about politics and religion sometimes get heated, are more difficult to moderate, and often get more slack than other threads.
Sometimes stuff is said in the context of an otherwise productive discussion so it might not get targeted, whereas sometimes things look more like they'll only serve to instigate a flame war rather so might be tried to cut it off before it starts. The goal is to try and keep a balance in the discussion; the mods aren't a legal system.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
What type of message is the USA trying to send with this, given it's just a limited attack? Trump didn't indicate much in his speech to define what the implications are. It was more of a retaliation out of outrage, which is understandable, but there are regional implications here too.
Exactly. There is nothing strategic about this attack. It is Trump doing what Trump does best - lashing out in the most destructive way possible. I'm not buying the "international support" of this attack. This does nothing to forward the military or geo-political agenda of any nation. Seriously, what is the end game here?
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
So you get defensive about me applying a generalization and then you turn around and do it.
How do you know what people who aren't working and are capable won't do? Seems like a pretty big blanket statement. I hear some former coal miners are looking for work.
Yeah, they're looking for work that would pay them the way their fathers were paid in the coal mines--comfortable for raising a family on a single income, with pensions and health coverage because they were union jobs. They're not looking for jobs making 7.25/hr. Those jobs exist. Those jobs are the ones often held by undocumented immigrants. Undocumented immigrants aren't taking 50k/year jobs, they're taking 15-18k/year jobs. You can't raise a family on 18k/year, and you sure as hell can't retire on it. Getting rid of undocumented immigrants isn't helping dying coal towns.
If you want to panic about immigrants, worry about the legal immigrants who get their affordable medical schooling in other countries and then are highly in demand in the US, willing to work in smaller communities because they don't have $250k in student loan debt like American students accrue. And then while you're thinking about, think of the fact that American students cannot afford to work in those small dying coal towns because they won't make enough money to pay their student loan payments every month, and wonder why it is that we as a country apparently don't care enough about those people in those small towns to simply ensure that they have access to a damn doctor.
Quote:
Those citizens that don't pay taxes go to jail when they are caught. So because some citizens decide to illegally not pay taxes, they should allow a bunch of foreign people into the Country to work illegally and not pay taxes. Great logic.
When undocumented immigrants live here, they often obtain social security numbers illegally in order to be employed. They're then taxed the same as citizens are, federal, state, local taxes taken from their paychecks. Those undocumented immigrants however cannot obtain any of the perks of citizenship, despite paying taxes into the system.
Immigration needs a massive overhaul, absolutely, but immigrants aren't the cause of the lion's share of problems in this country. Our excessive need to police the entire planet is most of the issue, and politicians' desire to cozy up to corporate interests is another huge part. In the grand scheme of things, undocumented immigration is a miniscule problem in this country, it's just a really easy bogeyman for guys like Trump to point at while he's stealing from blue collar workers to build his casinos and hotels that he then staffs with immigrant workers on temporary visas rather than hiring actual citizens because he'd have to pay them more and provide healthcare.
Last edited by wittynickname; 04-06-2017 at 09:37 PM.
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
Really? How come you only call out one side of the aisle? I don't see you call out any of the posters that criticise Trump, his supporters or conservatives in general.
Did you really miss the part where he said "all of you"
I hear some former coal miners are looking for work.
No coalminer from Pennsylvania is lining up to pick oranges for a minuscule wage in Florida. On the other hand, without the illegals, wages w]could go up and maybe that guy would want to do it. And then he can't buy an orange because goddamn they are expensive because wow it costs a lot to pay someone 15 bucks an hour (way less than he was paid in that long lost coal mine, mind you) so the prices are just too much for a guy who picks fruit for a living.
America was built and much of it lives on cheap labor. That's the way they've set it up. Can't really blame the guy at the bottom for the situation. It's like blaming the stick boy if there's a lockout in the NHL.
And what's this about tax dodgers going to jail? The president himself is a tax dodger. He's not in jail.
__________________
Last edited by RougeUnderoos; 04-06-2017 at 09:47 PM.
Exactly. There is nothing strategic about this attack. It is Trump doing what Trump does best - lashing out in the most destructive way possible. I'm not buying the "international support" of this attack. This does nothing to forward the military or geo-political agenda of any nation. Seriously, what is the end game here?
Yeah, that's a fair question. But even if it's a 'one-off' attack, is the statement not (I assume) that attacking innocent civilians in such a cruel and grotesque way is unacceptable from a US perspective and there will be consequences?
I'm not sure. I think I could buy the international support insofar as they made a couple calls to key allies and people were likely indifferent to it. It sure seems like an impulsive reactionary attack, you're right, but I'm not sure that's bad given who it was against and the things that person has done.
Trump paid 30 million in 2005 alone I believe. Rachel Maddow broke that herself.
He paid 30 million in taxes that year because that was the year his tax returns mattered, because for that year Melania was still holding a green card and was not yet a citizen. His tax returns had to be on the up-and-up that year for citizenship purposes.
Trump paid 30 million in 2005 alone I believe. Rachel Maddow broke that herself.
Which is well below the percentage I paid. Poor Donald. He also didn't pay a cent for 20 years prior, and we have can't prove what he has paid since 2005, because he's hiding his returns.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
He paid 30 million in taxes that year because that was the year his tax returns mattered, because for that year Melania was still holding a green card and was not yet a citizen. His tax returns had to be on the up-and-up that year for citizenship purposes.
So that's the only year the IRS would ever audit him? The guy obviously pays tax, there's so much to criticize him on without having to make stuff up.
Edit: So the only year he ever paid tax was 2005?? The only year that Rachel Maddow and the MSNBC crew could find a return for? Pretty big coincidence. I shouldn't have bit on this when there's bigger stuff happening but I just can't understand why you guys would pick something that false when critiquing someone that has no shortage of flaws.
Last edited by DiracSpike; 04-06-2017 at 09:56 PM.
Yeah, that's a fair question. But even if it's a 'one-off' attack, is the statement not (I assume) that attacking innocent civilians in such a cruel and grotesque way is unacceptable from a US perspective and there will be consequences?
I'm not sure. I think I could buy the international support insofar as they made a couple calls to key allies and people were likely indifferent to it. It sure seems like an impulsive reactionary attack, you're right, but I'm not sure that's bad given who it was against and the things that person has done.
This attack is all bull####. If it were about the gruesome attacks on innocent civilians Trump would be bombing half of Africa.
So that's the only year the IRS would ever audit him? The guy obviously pays tax, there's so much to criticize him on without having to make stuff up.
That's the main year that it mattered, and it's likely the reason that's the only year of tax returns that have leaked. It makes him look good. Also the copy leaked said "client copy," so likely someone on his team leaked it because he paid taxes and it makes him look responsible. It wasn't an accident that a single year leaked, and that single year was the one they would've been most scrutinized due to his marital status. Until we see the years before and since 2005 can we determine just what is involved in those returns.
This attack is all bull####. If it were about the gruesome attacks on innocent civilians Trump would be bombing half of Africa.
Not necessarily. It's sad, but pretty much the whole world ignores atrocities in Africa more / less. Your logic isn't wrong, but in practice that's not the reality of the geopolitical arena and you know it.
That's the main year that it mattered, and it's likely the reason that's the only year of tax returns that have leaked. It makes him look good. Also the copy leaked said "client copy," so likely someone on his team leaked it because he paid taxes and it makes him look responsible. It wasn't an accident that a single year leaked, and that single year was the one they would've been most scrutinized due to his marital status. Until we see the years before and since 2005 can we determine just what is involved in those returns.
I'm no tax attorney but I think you can safely assume you'd find that he paid tens of millions in tax. The CRA comes after me when I owe them $83.67 so I really don't think the IRS is gonna let a high profile billionaire pay nothing.
The Following User Says Thank You to DiracSpike For This Useful Post:
So that's the only year the IRS would ever audit him? The guy obviously pays tax, there's so much to criticize him on without having to make stuff up.
Does he? What credible things has Trump said or done that would lead you to believe him? The IRS has said no audit is taking place and that he is free to release his returns. As have tax lawyers. I believe he pays taxes (sometimes). He is afraid to release them because he knows he will get nailed on HOW MUCH he pays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiracSpike
Edit: So the only year he ever paid tax was 2005?? The only year that Rachel Maddow and the MSNBC crew could find a return for? Pretty big coincidence. I shouldn't have bit on this when there's bigger stuff happening but I just can't understand why you guys would pick something that false when critiquing someone that has no shortage of flaws.
You bit hard.
The 2005 tax return was a "strategic leak" by Trump. The White House issued a press release before the tax return information was even revealed on her show. They were able to get in front of the news story in a proactive manner. Ask yourself, when has this administration ever done anything in a pro-active manner? The coincidence is how the WH knew exactly what was going to be revealed on the return and line by line provided a description of Trump's dealings.
As a comparison, check out Warren Buffet. Public disclosure of his empire and personal tax returns. Nothing to hide.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to JackJack For This Useful Post:
I bit hard to people saying he pays no tax when he clearly does. Maybe the whitehouse released a statement before it broke because Maddow was crowing all day about having his tax return. You guys can speculate all you want if he payed 25% or 26% but he pays tax.
I bit hard to people saying he pays no tax when he clearly does. Maybe the whitehouse released a statement before it broke because Maddow was crowing all day about having his tax return. You guys can speculate all you want if he payed 25% or 26% but he pays tax.
Except that, outside of 2005, there is no proof that he has paid income tax any other year in the past quarter century. We do have proof that he wrote down almost a billion in losses which would preclude him from paying taxes for 20 of those years if his accountant was worth his salt.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
