patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,264,505 comments by 15,117 users - Baloo, FuckTheMainstreamMedia, GNL online now
Senate bill is looking pretty good for us now....
invite response
2017 Dec 2, 8:39am 21,886 views 113 comments
« First « Previous Comments 55 - 94 of 113 Next » Last » Search these comments
55
Goran_K
2017 Dec 4, 11:36am
Goran_K
2017 Dec 4, 11:36am
HappyGilmore says
You misused the uncivil button before so that's probably why you lost it.
I'm simply asking you to come up with a situation where the tax reform hurts someone. Give me a scenario.
If I had an uncivil button, I would have used it on this comment. I'd expect better from a moderator.
You misused the uncivil button before so that's probably why you lost it.
I'm simply asking you to come up with a situation where the tax reform hurts someone. Give me a scenario.
56
Goran_K
2017 Dec 4, 11:47am
Goran_K
2017 Dec 4, 11:47am
anon_faba8 says
Based on the proposed changes, the majority of those who are not in abnormally high debt, will experience a pretty good windfall.
Can you come up with a situation where the tax reform hurts someone who isn't in debt up to their necks with student loans and a jumbo mortgage? Give me a scenario.
So show us the math. How did you do the math when the bill isn't out of committee yet and there are two versions with some big differences?
Based on the proposed changes, the majority of those who are not in abnormally high debt, will experience a pretty good windfall.
Can you come up with a situation where the tax reform hurts someone who isn't in debt up to their necks with student loans and a jumbo mortgage? Give me a scenario.
57
socal2
2017 Dec 4, 11:54am
HappyGilmore says
Sure - but people shouldn't take out massive student loans to attend ridiculously expensive private or Ivy league schools just to get a humanities degree.
We need to increase competition in education and allow for the accreditation of more online education and commuter school options instead of shoveling more tax dollars at future students.
Yep--I agree with that. Education is similar to healthcare, however, in that it has a very inelastic demand curve. People need education.
Sure - but people shouldn't take out massive student loans to attend ridiculously expensive private or Ivy league schools just to get a humanities degree.
We need to increase competition in education and allow for the accreditation of more online education and commuter school options instead of shoveling more tax dollars at future students.
58
MrMagic
2017 Dec 4, 12:08pm
MrMagic
2017 Dec 4, 12:08pm
Goran_K says
I will be huge for the Millennial population, who is becoming the biggest age group, since very few own houses and rent and are staying away from having kids, but getting pets. That $24K will be like hitting the lottery for them. Just think how much avocado toast they can buy with that windfall.
Still, I've done the math and the 24k deduction is huge for people who aren't over borrowing.
I will be huge for the Millennial population, who is becoming the biggest age group, since very few own houses and rent and are staying away from having kids, but getting pets. That $24K will be like hitting the lottery for them. Just think how much avocado toast they can buy with that windfall.
59
FuckTheMainstreamMedia
2017 Dec 4, 12:14pm
FuckTheMainstreamMedia
2017 Dec 4, 12:14pm
Sniper says
I’ve posted frequently...in California, the state colleges...some of which are very good schools...are about $6-7k annually inclusive of books, parking, and student fees. Junior colleges are around $1100-1500 annually inclusive. So at 4 years you are looking at $20k...less than the price of an average new car and certainly an affordable loan to ANYONE who has a job.
College being affordable to only the rich is a lie and I’m not sure why “happy gillmore” continues to dish out blatantly false statements.
HappyGilmore saysAccess to education should not be only available to the wealthy.
It's not, if you have a pulse and are breathing, you can sign on the dotted line and get money for college, regardless if you can pay it back.
I’ve posted frequently...in California, the state colleges...some of which are very good schools...are about $6-7k annually inclusive of books, parking, and student fees. Junior colleges are around $1100-1500 annually inclusive. So at 4 years you are looking at $20k...less than the price of an average new car and certainly an affordable loan to ANYONE who has a job.
College being affordable to only the rich is a lie and I’m not sure why “happy gillmore” continues to dish out blatantly false statements.
60
RC2006
2017 Dec 4, 12:26pm
RC2006
2017 Dec 4, 12:26pm
Fucking White Male says
You forgot to include apartment, food, vacations, party money, and so on which at least triples the cost. How can one just be expect to go to school and study?
Sniper saysHappyGilmore saysAccess to education should not be only available to the wealthy.
It's not, if you have a pulse and are breathing, you can sign on the dotted line and get money for college, regardless if you can pay it back.
I’ve posted frequently...in California, the state colleges...some of which are very good schools...are about $6-7k annually inclusive of books, parking, and student fees. Junior colleges are around $1100-1500 annually inclusive. So at 4 years you are looking at $20k...less than the price of an average new car and certainly an affordable loan to ANYONE who has a job.
College being affordable to only the rich is a lie and I’m not sure why “happy gillmore” continues to dish out blatantly false statements.
You forgot to include apartment, food, vacations, party money, and so on which at least triples the cost. How can one just be expect to go to school and study?
61
HappyGilmore
2017 Dec 4, 12:27pm
Fucking White Male says
Not everyone lives in CA. I don't know if $7K annually is correct or not, but that is still cost prohibitive to someone working minimum wage.
And you can't even smell college for $7K/year in the vast majority of places.
College being affordable to only the rich is a lie and I’m not sure why “happy gillmore” continues to dish out blatantly false statements.
Not everyone lives in CA. I don't know if $7K annually is correct or not, but that is still cost prohibitive to someone working minimum wage.
And you can't even smell college for $7K/year in the vast majority of places.
62
FuckTheMainstreamMedia
2017 Dec 4, 1:12pm
FuckTheMainstreamMedia
2017 Dec 4, 1:12pm
HappyGilmore says
Again not true. Just about Every state has a state college system as well as a university system.
Min wage is irrelevant. Were talking loans here which everyone will qualify for. And if you are min wage after graduating...sucks to be you.
Here’s the costs to satisfy you:
https://www.collegetuitioncompare.com/compare/tables/?state=CA
2 years jc x 1500 = 3k
2 years Cal State x 8k = 16k
Total = 19k
Now will you stop posting blatantly false information?
Fucking White Male saysCollege being affordable to only the rich is a lie and I’m not sure why “happy gillmore” continues to dish out blatantly false statements.
Not everyone lives in CA. I don't know if $7K annually is correct or not, but that is still cost prohibitive to someone working minimum wage.
And you can't even smell college for $7K/year in the vast majority of places.
Again not true. Just about Every state has a state college system as well as a university system.
Min wage is irrelevant. Were talking loans here which everyone will qualify for. And if you are min wage after graduating...sucks to be you.
Here’s the costs to satisfy you:
https://www.collegetuitioncompare.com/compare/tables/?state=CA
2 years jc x 1500 = 3k
2 years Cal State x 8k = 16k
Total = 19k
Now will you stop posting blatantly false information?
63
Goran_K
2017 Dec 4, 1:13pm
Goran_K
2017 Dec 4, 1:13pm
HappyGilmore says
Uh no I didn't. Why are you lying?
I said I am in agreement eliminating any taxpayer subsidized incentives to borrow tons of money for college that will never get paid back, in fact here's my post verbatim.
Goran_K says
These loans put extreme inflationary pressure on college costs, there's a reason why those costs have skyrocketed under FAFSA.
You obviously aren't following the thread. Goran proposed eliminating college loans.
Uh no I didn't. Why are you lying?
I said I am in agreement eliminating any taxpayer subsidized incentives to borrow tons of money for college that will never get paid back, in fact here's my post verbatim.
Goran_K says
Those are good moves IMO. The Department of Education just released data that showed that the student loan default rate from October 2013 to October 2017 has increased to 11.5 percent (roughly 600,000 defaulters). This is unacceptable. Those losses are tax payer subsidized. No one is forcing those people to take loans and taking incentives AWAY from bad borrowers is a good thing IMO.
These loans put extreme inflationary pressure on college costs, there's a reason why those costs have skyrocketed under FAFSA.
64
Goran_K
2017 Dec 4, 1:22pm
Goran_K
2017 Dec 4, 1:22pm
Happy Gilmore, keep it on topic.
You were lying when you said "Goran proposed eliminating college loans." This isn't an opinion, it's a fact, you lied.
This whole "I would make your comments uncivil" or arguing about what is uncivil, is borderline trolling.If you want to understand what is uncivil, or not, ask yourself "Am I trolling or attempting to make this about a person rather than a point?" If you answer yes to that, then you're being "uncivil".
You were lying when you said "Goran proposed eliminating college loans." This isn't an opinion, it's a fact, you lied.
This whole "I would make your comments uncivil" or arguing about what is uncivil, is borderline trolling.If you want to understand what is uncivil, or not, ask yourself "Am I trolling or attempting to make this about a person rather than a point?" If you answer yes to that, then you're being "uncivil".
65
HappyGilmore
2017 Dec 4, 1:27pm
Fucking White Male says
Yes, it is true. They have systems, but they sure as hell don't cost $7K/year.
Again not true. Just about Every state has a state college system as well as a university system.
Yes, it is true. They have systems, but they sure as hell don't cost $7K/year.
66
HappyGilmore
2017 Dec 4, 1:28pm
Fucking White Male says
No we're not--that's the point. We're talking about if those loans weren't available to everyone.
Min wage is irrelevant. Were talking loans here which everyone will qualify for. And if you are min wage after graduating...sucks to be you.
No we're not--that's the point. We're talking about if those loans weren't available to everyone.
67
FuckTheMainstreamMedia
2017 Dec 4, 2:00pm
FuckTheMainstreamMedia
2017 Dec 4, 2:00pm
HappyGilmore says
Post link then. A few to make sure you’re not pointing out the rare exception.
Fucking White Male saysAgain not true. Just about Every state has a state college system as well as a university system.
Yes, it is true. They have systems, but they sure as hell don't cost $7K/year.
Post link then. A few to make sure you’re not pointing out the rare exception.
68
Goran_K
2017 Dec 4, 2:05pm
Goran_K
2017 Dec 4, 2:05pm
HappyGilmore says
Increasing college costs through inflationary pressure puts college out of the range of more people than simply allowing the market to adjust the price. Free loans do the exact opposite of what you're proposing.
Yes, allowing folks who couldn't afford higher education without loans does increase demand, but limiting access to education is a horrible way to control costs.
Increasing college costs through inflationary pressure puts college out of the range of more people than simply allowing the market to adjust the price. Free loans do the exact opposite of what you're proposing.
69
HappyGilmore
2017 Dec 4, 2:09pm
Fucking White Male says
Sure--here's the data on public school education costs:
https://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/2017-18-state-tuition-and-fees-public-four-year-institutions-state-and-five-year-percentage
Post link then. A few to make sure you’re not pointing out the rare exception.
Sure--here's the data on public school education costs:
https://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/2017-18-state-tuition-and-fees-public-four-year-institutions-state-and-five-year-percentage
70
Goran_K
2017 Dec 4, 2:15pm
Goran_K
2017 Dec 4, 2:15pm
HappyGilmore says
If people can't afford a certain college, they go to a cheaper college, if they can't afford a cheap college, then they go to community college and then transfer over after saving money. If that fails, then they can go to a trade school, and make money as a tradesmen. There are plenty of market alternatives.
Or if they do indeed take a loan, they think about it real hard, the consequences of taking the loan, and consider in their minds if they might be able to pay it back.
This is all far better than government subsidized loan money with a default rate of 11.5%.
And by inflationary pressure you mean--allowing people who couldn't otherwise afford higher education to obtain it.
Let's be clear in what you are saying.
If people can't afford a certain college, they go to a cheaper college, if they can't afford a cheap college, then they go to community college and then transfer over after saving money. If that fails, then they can go to a trade school, and make money as a tradesmen. There are plenty of market alternatives.
Or if they do indeed take a loan, they think about it real hard, the consequences of taking the loan, and consider in their minds if they might be able to pay it back.
This is all far better than government subsidized loan money with a default rate of 11.5%.
71
Goran_K
2017 Dec 4, 2:37pm
Goran_K
2017 Dec 4, 2:37pm
HappyGilmore says
Sure, some people are born to non-wealthy parents. Like Oprah, Michael Jordan, or Steve Jobs? The "best and brightest" have found ways. Schools often offer full rides to those with special talent.
America is a ladder of opportunity, and economic mobility is high as long as you work hard and make the right decisions.
Free loan money to anyone who can sign a FAFSA form is the exact opposite of a meritocracy.
Again, so we're clear. You advocate that ones' career opportunities are substantially based on the birth lottery. That is not unusual for Republicans.
I advocate for a merit based system where the best and brightest have the opportunity to get ahead even if they are born into a poor family.
Sure, some people are born to non-wealthy parents. Like Oprah, Michael Jordan, or Steve Jobs? The "best and brightest" have found ways. Schools often offer full rides to those with special talent.
America is a ladder of opportunity, and economic mobility is high as long as you work hard and make the right decisions.
Free loan money to anyone who can sign a FAFSA form is the exact opposite of a meritocracy.
72
socal2
2017 Dec 4, 2:52pm
HappyGilmore says
Sounds great. But the government doesn't have a great track record of making up for absent fathers and broken homes which is the biggest driver of poverty, crime and ignorance in our country.
The best thing the government could do is to try and reverse the skyrocketing rate of women having children out of wedlock. Abortion, contraception and sex education is more available now than in any time in the history of the human species. Yet more kids than ever are being born to single mothers and poverty. Could it be that our government has incentivized this behavior with well meaning welfare (including student loan) policies?
The cynic in me thinks the Democrats want more poor immigrants and poor kids from broken families for votes and power.
I advocate for a merit based system where the best and brightest have the opportunity to get ahead even if they are born into a poor family.
Sounds great. But the government doesn't have a great track record of making up for absent fathers and broken homes which is the biggest driver of poverty, crime and ignorance in our country.
The best thing the government could do is to try and reverse the skyrocketing rate of women having children out of wedlock. Abortion, contraception and sex education is more available now than in any time in the history of the human species. Yet more kids than ever are being born to single mothers and poverty. Could it be that our government has incentivized this behavior with well meaning welfare (including student loan) policies?
The cynic in me thinks the Democrats want more poor immigrants and poor kids from broken families for votes and power.
73
Goran_K
2017 Dec 4, 2:57pm
Goran_K
2017 Dec 4, 2:57pm
socal2 says
You're not being cynical. Those are just the facts. Lyndon B. Johnson said this himself when he proposed the Great Society initiative when he was supposedly heard saying "I'll Have Those N*****s Voting Democratic for 200 Years" by one of his top aides.
When Government takes the place of the nuclear family, what you get is welfare dependency and a reliable voting bloc.
Just take a look at the Democrat core voting block. Poor blacks and Hispanics are a key part of it.
The cynic in me thinks the Democrats want more poor immigrants and poor kids from broken families for votes and power.
You're not being cynical. Those are just the facts. Lyndon B. Johnson said this himself when he proposed the Great Society initiative when he was supposedly heard saying "I'll Have Those N*****s Voting Democratic for 200 Years" by one of his top aides.
When Government takes the place of the nuclear family, what you get is welfare dependency and a reliable voting bloc.
Just take a look at the Democrat core voting block. Poor blacks and Hispanics are a key part of it.
74
HappyGilmore
2017 Dec 4, 3:09pm
Sniper says
That's tuition only. Double that for room and board.
There you go, median cost in the US is like $9,900 a year. Where's all these big costs.
That's tuition only. Double that for room and board.
75
HappyGilmore
2017 Dec 4, 3:14pm
socal2 says
I agree. There is a VERY strong correlation between being poor and having out of wedlock children. Let's enact policies that reduce wealth inequality to reduce out of wedlock children.
socal2 says
You're not alone, but in reality Dems want fewer poor people. It's Reps who enact policy after policy that creates more poor. Reps want to drive down wages by killing unions. Reps want to enact regressive tax plans.
The best thing the government could do is to try and reverse the skyrocketing rate of women having children out of wedlock
I agree. There is a VERY strong correlation between being poor and having out of wedlock children. Let's enact policies that reduce wealth inequality to reduce out of wedlock children.
socal2 says
The cynic in me thinks the Democrats want more poor immigrants and poor kids from broken families for votes and power.
You're not alone, but in reality Dems want fewer poor people. It's Reps who enact policy after policy that creates more poor. Reps want to drive down wages by killing unions. Reps want to enact regressive tax plans.
76
Goran_K
2017 Dec 4, 3:20pm
Goran_K
2017 Dec 4, 3:20pm
HappyGilmore says
Exceptions?
The Brookings Institute, which is a left leaning research institute btw went over decades of demographic data and found you only have to do 3 things to not end up perpetually poor in the United States.
1. Graduate high school.
2. Get a job.
3. Get married before children.
Those 3 commonalities universally always lead to people not only NOT being poor, but being solidly middle class in America.
The exception doesn't prove the rule.
Exceptions?
The Brookings Institute, which is a left leaning research institute btw went over decades of demographic data and found you only have to do 3 things to not end up perpetually poor in the United States.
1. Graduate high school.
2. Get a job.
3. Get married before children.
Those 3 commonalities universally always lead to people not only NOT being poor, but being solidly middle class in America.
77
RWSGFY
2017 Dec 4, 4:02pm
RWSGFY
2017 Dec 4, 4:02pm
HappyGilmore says
If this was the case they would be strongly against mass immigration of poor people from 3rd world countries. But all we see from donkeys is constant clamouring for sanctuary and amnesty for illegals.
You're not alone, but in reality Dems want fewer poor people.
If this was the case they would be strongly against mass immigration of poor people from 3rd world countries. But all we see from donkeys is constant clamouring for sanctuary and amnesty for illegals.
78
Goran_K
2017 Dec 4, 4:13pm
Goran_K
2017 Dec 4, 4:13pm
KimJongUn says
Exactly. Sanctuary Cities actually promote keeping illegals poor, and destitute. They have zero economic mobility, depend on the sanctuary government for basic needs, and if the DNC has it's way, they'll be given the right to vote. DNC playbook 101.
If this was the case they would be strongly against mass immigration of poor people from 3rd world countries. But all we see from donkeys is constant clamouring for sanctuary and amnesty for illegals.
Exactly. Sanctuary Cities actually promote keeping illegals poor, and destitute. They have zero economic mobility, depend on the sanctuary government for basic needs, and if the DNC has it's way, they'll be given the right to vote. DNC playbook 101.
79
anonymous
2017 Dec 4, 5:24pm
KimJongUn says
It's telling that you have to misrepresent in order to make an argument. If you had a stronger position, you wouldn't have to.
Dems don't want mass immigration of poor people. Dems want illegals that are here and their children to be treated with respect.
If this was the case they would be strongly against mass immigration of poor people from 3rd world countries. But all we see from donkeys is constant clamouring for sanctuary and amnesty for illegals.
It's telling that you have to misrepresent in order to make an argument. If you had a stronger position, you wouldn't have to.
Dems don't want mass immigration of poor people. Dems want illegals that are here and their children to be treated with respect.
80
Heraclitusstudent
2017 Dec 4, 5:37pm
Heraclitusstudent
2017 Dec 4, 5:37pm
anon_3b28c says
If you don't deport illegal, and set up 'sanctuary' cities where they won't fear to be deported, then first you are obviously in favor of illegal immigration and you are also sending a huge signal for poor people to come there. So you are de facto in favor of mass immigration.
If you think deporting people is a lack of respect, then you are de facto in favor of mass immigration.
Dems don't want mass immigration of poor people. Dems want illegals that are here and their children to be treated with respect.
If you don't deport illegal, and set up 'sanctuary' cities where they won't fear to be deported, then first you are obviously in favor of illegal immigration and you are also sending a huge signal for poor people to come there. So you are de facto in favor of mass immigration.
If you think deporting people is a lack of respect, then you are de facto in favor of mass immigration.
81
Heraclitusstudent
2017 Dec 4, 5:41pm
Heraclitusstudent
2017 Dec 4, 5:41pm
anon_3b28c says
I think most dems tolerate illegal immigrants because they want cheap landscapers and nannies.
i.e. they want semi slave workers that are cheaper than citizens, and won't complain about how they are treated.
This is hardly a sign of respect.
Dems want illegals that are here and their children to be treated with respect.
I think most dems tolerate illegal immigrants because they want cheap landscapers and nannies.
i.e. they want semi slave workers that are cheaper than citizens, and won't complain about how they are treated.
This is hardly a sign of respect.
82
FortWayne
2017 Dec 4, 5:56pm
FortWayne
2017 Dec 4, 5:56pm
It didn’t fail, it saved America in the 80s.
It was known as a great recovery. You should know your history.
HappyGilmore says
It was known as a great recovery. You should know your history.
HappyGilmore says
BlueSardine saysLibbies take note. :
In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt called for “bold, persistent experimentation” and said: “It is common sense to take a method and try it; if it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”
Newsflash--trickle down has been tried already. And it failed.
83
RWSGFY
2017 Dec 4, 6:03pm
RWSGFY
2017 Dec 4, 6:03pm
anon_3b28c says
Bullshit: I didn't misrepresent anything. This is exactly how it is: donkeys are in favor in illegal immigration and against immigration enforcement, both on the border itself and inside the country. The first is evident from their opposition to "the wall", the second - from their insistance on sanctuary policies.
It's telling that you have to misrepresent in order to make an argument. If you had a stronger position, you wouldn't have to.
Bullshit: I didn't misrepresent anything. This is exactly how it is: donkeys are in favor in illegal immigration and against immigration enforcement, both on the border itself and inside the country. The first is evident from their opposition to "the wall", the second - from their insistance on sanctuary policies.
84
bob2356
2017 Dec 5, 5:45am
Heraclitusstudent says
What a crock of shit. Cities don't deport people, immigration is federal law. Sanctuary cities just don't do ICE's job for them.
If you don't stand up and demand people hiring illegals be put in jail then you are obviously in favor of illegal immigration. No jobs, no illegals Where are the raids on the big food processors like tyson and smithfeild since trump has taken office? Where are the raids on the big agri operations? Republican lawmakers fire up the base like you about illegals but constantly block any reform that would be meaningful. You are being played by people who are laughing all the way to the bank at how gullible you are.
Bread and circus. Works every time.
If you don't deport illegal, and set up 'sanctuary' cities where they won't fear to be deported, then first you are obviously in favor of illegal immigration
What a crock of shit. Cities don't deport people, immigration is federal law. Sanctuary cities just don't do ICE's job for them.
If you don't stand up and demand people hiring illegals be put in jail then you are obviously in favor of illegal immigration. No jobs, no illegals Where are the raids on the big food processors like tyson and smithfeild since trump has taken office? Where are the raids on the big agri operations? Republican lawmakers fire up the base like you about illegals but constantly block any reform that would be meaningful. You are being played by people who are laughing all the way to the bank at how gullible you are.
Bread and circus. Works every time.
85
bob2356
2017 Dec 5, 5:49am
FortWayne says
America was saved in the 80's by cheap oil prices, tripling the number of women in the work force, and 70 million baby boomers moving into the workplace while becoming consumers. You should know your history.
It didn’t fail, it saved America in the 80s.
It was known as a great recovery. You should know your history.
America was saved in the 80's by cheap oil prices, tripling the number of women in the work force, and 70 million baby boomers moving into the workplace while becoming consumers. You should know your history.
86
anonymous
2017 Dec 5, 7:09am
KimJongUn says
Dems are against boondoggle, huge wastes of money that will do nothing to curb illegal immigration.
Like Bob said--if you want to stop illegals, take away their jobs. Which means throwing a few CEOs in jail that are hiring them. It's very simple and costs almost nothing.
Bullshit: I didn't misrepresent anything. This is exactly how it is: donkeys are in favor in illegal immigration and against immigration enforcement, both on the border itself and inside the country. The first is evident from their opposition to "the wall", the second - from their insistance on sanctuary policies.
Dems are against boondoggle, huge wastes of money that will do nothing to curb illegal immigration.
Like Bob said--if you want to stop illegals, take away their jobs. Which means throwing a few CEOs in jail that are hiring them. It's very simple and costs almost nothing.
87
Patrick
2017 Dec 5, 7:27pm
Patrick
2017 Dec 5, 7:27pm
anon_8f378 says
I agree.
I don't blame illegals as much as I blame their employers. The employers of illegals are the ultimate source of the problem.
We need mandatory prison time for the employers of illegals.
Like Bob said--if you want to stop illegals, take away their jobs. Which means throwing a few CEOs in jail that are hiring them. It's very simple and costs almost nothing.
I agree.
I don't blame illegals as much as I blame their employers. The employers of illegals are the ultimate source of the problem.
We need mandatory prison time for the employers of illegals.
88
anonymous
2017 Dec 5, 7:36pm
Patrick says
Well with Republicans in absolute control of all levels of government, this should be very simple to implement, no?
anon_8f378 saysLike Bob said--if you want to stop illegals, take away their jobs. Which means throwing a few CEOs in jail that are hiring them. It's very simple and costs almost nothing.
I agree.
I don't blame illegals as much as I blame their employers. The employers of illegals are the ultimate source of the problem.
We need mandatory prison time for the employers of illegals.
Well with Republicans in absolute control of all levels of government, this should be very simple to implement, no?
89
RWSGFY
2017 Dec 5, 7:37pm
RWSGFY
2017 Dec 5, 7:37pm
anon_8f378 says
Rest assured, if this starts to happen, donkeys will pass sanctuary amendment for these fucks too. As in "refuse to enforce the law" (added for the thick in the head anon fucks who take everything literally).
Like Bob said--if you want to stop illegals, take away their jobs. Which means throwing a few CEOs in jail that are hiring them. It's very simple and costs almost nothing.
Rest assured, if this starts to happen, donkeys will pass sanctuary amendment for these fucks too. As in "refuse to enforce the law" (added for the thick in the head anon fucks who take everything literally).
90
zzyzzx
2017 Dec 6, 8:32am
zzyzzx
2017 Dec 6, 8:32am
HappyGilmore says
Trickle down worked just fine, it just trickled down to China, India, Mexico, etc. due to our free trade policies.
Newsflash--trickle down has been tried already. And it failed.
Trickle down worked just fine, it just trickled down to China, India, Mexico, etc. due to our free trade policies.
91
Goran_K
2017 Dec 6, 8:34am
Goran_K
2017 Dec 6, 8:34am
HappyGilmore says
There is no birth lottery. That's an excuse socialist use for trying to redistribute other people's wealth, it's what the Soviet Union used as an excuse to implement Communism and it lead to 100,000,000+ dead people in the 20th century. You're literally advocating for death, I advocate for life.
There is a giant capitalist market out there where anyone can make it just fine if they 1) Graduate high school, 2) Get a job, and 3) Don't have kids before marriage. The data proves that's all anyone has to do to make it in America. Just make good sound decisions.
Again, so we're clear. You advocate that ones' career opportunities are substantially based on the birth lottery. That is not unusual for Republicans.
I advocate for a merit based system where the best and brightest have the opportunity to get ahead even if they are born into a poor family.
There is no birth lottery. That's an excuse socialist use for trying to redistribute other people's wealth, it's what the Soviet Union used as an excuse to implement Communism and it lead to 100,000,000+ dead people in the 20th century. You're literally advocating for death, I advocate for life.
There is a giant capitalist market out there where anyone can make it just fine if they 1) Graduate high school, 2) Get a job, and 3) Don't have kids before marriage. The data proves that's all anyone has to do to make it in America. Just make good sound decisions.
92
anonymous
2017 Dec 6, 2:06pm
« First « Previous Comments 55 - 94 of 113 Next » Last » Search these comments
Hopefully the house passes this thing with minimal changes since the property tax deduction survived. The house bill was horrible for upper middle class earners in blue states. This softens the blow. There’s about a $3000 difference now between the senate and house bills for us.
It’s still stupid all these tax changes and it’s basically a wash for our family all said and done. Just glad we didn’t stretch and buy a really expensive house.... those people in our income level are getting screwed if they can’t combine those interest payments with SALT for a fat deduction.