51
   

May I see your papers, citizen?

 
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 09:18 am
@CoastalRat,
CoastalRat wrote:

I agree Failures. Nobody is stopping anyone from financing it, sending extra money to finance it, or whatever. But what does that have to do with Bill's statement that he for one is willing to pay more in taxes? Absolutely nothing.

Walk with me talk with me. They are related.

Let's sat a person wants a wall between the USA and Mexico. Later, they say the wall is important enough that for it to be built and receive the maintenance is worth a tax increase; they'd pay for it. There is nothing dishonest about the person's stance that they'd pay more because they find the value of it high. It doesn't matter that no proposal is in effect to raise the taxes. It doesn't matter that the wall is not built. The person is stating that they'd find the cost justified.

How is valuing any service or tax item real or theoretical a problem for Bill?

The price for a gallon of unleaded gas in my neighborhood is $2.79. I'm obviously willing to pay more for a gallon of fuel. I have. We all have. Now, just because I'm willing to acknowledge this, doesn't mean I need to pay more than the other consumers in my market because I recognize the value.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 09:23 am
@Ticomaya,
http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/5342/slap4.gif
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 09:33 am
@CoastalRat,
I don't know about Bill, but I give the government a large interest-free loan every year, by having more withheld from my paychecks than I should. It doesn't bother me.

I have donated money to help retire the debt before, though I don't do so on a regular basis - you can donate here:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

Over 2.5 million has been donated this year. So someone out there is putting their money where their mouth is. I know that many of the Liberal websites advertise this link regularly.

Cycloptichorn
engineer
 
  6  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 09:56 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The "job" of the Obama Administration and congressional Democrats is to significantly augment their base with tens of millions of voters who will become addicted to federal programs that insure that most of them remain in a reliably Democrat voting underclass.

Immigrants are not reliably Democratic. Mexican immigrants are on average very hardworking, conservative, religious and anti-abortion. The reason they end up as Democrats is that Republicans demonize them.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Hold border security hostage to amnesty.

Actually, what we are seeing is Republicans holding immigration reform hostage to fake border security. If you run into an emergency room with a knife sticking out of your arm and blood going everywhere, no one says "we have to stop the bleeding before doing anything about the knife!" You have to address immigration reform before you will have border security. Addressing the cause of a problem is common sense in every field except politics.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Sue an American state that is actually impacted by illegal immigration and is trying to enforce laws already on the books.

I've posted this several times before way back in this thread, but this law is not about illegal immigrants. They already have to show documentation when asked. It is about harrasing American citizens who have brown skin. This law not only allows but actually insists under penalty of lawsuit that police question a subset of the population who they suspect might be in the country illegally. In Arizona that is only going to be one subset. Demanding that one group of American citizens give up some of their rights while the rest don't is what I find offensive about this law. Many posts ago, I posted an article about a woman in Arizona who was arrested in a workplace raid even though she told them she was an American citizen. After several hours at the police station, she was released. The police said mistakes happen and it's all for the common good, but those mistakes only happen to people with brown skin.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Demonizing opponents of open borders as racists and xenophobes.

If you refuse to discuss immigration reform, then you aren't interested in border security because the current system provides amazing incentives for illegal immigration. If you aren't interested in border security, then what is the motivation for passing this law again?

0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 10:28 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Actually, it makes sense to have a little more deducted, just in case. My ex-husband always had the least deducted possible. As a single man, he claimed four dependents. Every year, he scrambled for money to pay his income tax. It made no sense. When we started doing joint income taxes, I started a campaign to stop his stubborn shooting himself in the foot. It took three years to get him to change his deductions.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 11:26 am
@Cycloptichorn,
I certainly don't disagree that some are putting up. It is great that some feel they are not paying enough and contribute more, Cy. I'm just betting that Bill is not one of them. If he is, then I will profusely apologize for even jumping in with my comment. And I'll happily offer to buy him a drink of his choice if he ever finds himself in Charleston, SC. It has simply been my experience that those who say something along the lines of what he wrote are normally talking out of the rear end. Kinda like some hollywood types who said they were leaving the country if Bush got elected, then after the fact they decided to stay. They made the statement to get attention but had no intention of following through.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 01:40 pm
@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

Quote:
I am more than willing to pay more taxes, and rest assured; I would be expected to.


I love it when someone makes this kind of comment. I'll respond now as I always do. So Bill, what is stopping you right now from paying more taxes? On you next tax return, why don't you send the government the amount of money you are willing to pay, regardless of what you owe? Give the government an extra thousand since you are so willing to pay more. No law says you cannot, right? So go ahead.

To everyone else, you wanna take bets on whether Bill sends the extra money that he says he is willing to pay?
That's a pretty foolish interpretation of what I wrote. After all, I was responding to a theoretical tax-obligation. That being said, however, you are still wrong. My charitable contributions towards these same ends easily exceed your proposed $1,000 and they wouldn't be necessary if my government followed my wishes as to expenditures. Until such time as they do; I see no good cause to pay the lion's share of my additional contribution towards wasteful bureaucracy; rather than funneling it through other entities that distribute the lion's share to the people who need the help.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 01:49 pm
@CoastalRat,
And if I'm ever in Charleston, SC, I'll hold you to that drink offer.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  3  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 01:54 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
That's a pretty foolish interpretation of what I wrote. After all, I was responding to a theoretical tax-obligation. That being said, however, you are still wrong. My charitable contributions towards these same ends easily exceed your proposed $1,000 and they wouldn't be necessary if my government followed my wishes as to expenditures. Until such time as they do; I see no good cause to pay the lion's share of my additional contribution towards wasteful bureaucracy; rather than funneling it through other entities that distribute the lion's share to the people who need the help.


First Bill, I am not, nor would I, call into question your contributions to entities that distribute the lion's share to the people who need help. Personally, I think if more of us did so there would be less need for the government to tax us to death to create the bureaucracies to distribute our money to those in need.

My point, however, simply addressed the statement that you are willing to pay more in taxes. I think our government already taxes us to the extreme, and I for one am not willing to pay any more than what I legally have to pay. But since you seem so willing to pay more, I was only suggesting that maybe you should do so. If everyone who thinks they are personally under-taxed would go to the web site that Cy posted and contribute what they think they should have been taxed, then maybe the government would stop trying to tax the rest of us who think we pay enough taxes as is.

Anyway, I'll accept that you think I was wrong and will gladly buy you that drink if you ever find yourself down this way.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 01:59 pm
@High Seas,
Oh, he didn't say he intended to pay more taxes. He expressed a willingness. We're all willing to pay more taxes, of course, when the alternatives include leaving the country or having our assets seized.
panzade
 
  0  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 02:05 pm
@roger,
bingo!
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 02:07 pm
@CoastalRat,
Surely then you'll be willing to stop addressing half of my sentence in order to take it out of context as well:
Quote:
I am more than willing to pay more taxes, and rest assured; I would be expected to.
The italicized portion should have clued you in that I was referencing a proposed obligation; not proposing a gift. Especially if you read what I was responding to; which was essentially Finn saying the people who say they'd be willing pay more tend to be in tax brackets that wouldn't be expected to. The FACT that I already do pay the additional monies for the proposed assistance is just rhetorical icing on the cake.

High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Sat 31 Jul, 2010 06:10 am
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Surely then you'll be willing to stop addressing half of my sentence in order to take it out of context as well:
Quote:
I am more than willing to pay more taxes, and rest assured; I would be expected to.
The italicized portion should have clued you in that I was referencing a proposed obligation; not proposing a gift.....

Precisely the point I was making - anonymous sockpuppetry notwithstanding - so now that's finally cleared up we can move on to the corollary of your point: the actuarial deficits of federal "welfare" programs (medicare, medicaid, food stamps and so on) are in excess of $40 trillion. There is no politically conceivable rise in taxation that can bring these into balance with the actuarial value of services promised by these programs. It follows that those legally entitled to them will see services cut back and that those not legally entitled will have to be dropped from the rolls altogether.

The latter applies to all - attempting to pretend it's specific to "brown skinned" persons only shows the crass racial prejudice of those objecting to elementary arithmetic. The infamous Utah 13,000 names had applied for benefits without supplying proper supporting documentation - that's how their names got on that list, not because they were hispanics and/or illegals, if they all were, which isn't publicly available information at this point.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jul, 2010 06:34 am
@Ticomaya,
Ticomaya wrote:

ebrown p wrote:
The Republican strategy is to keep brown skinned people from becoming voters.

Brown people scare Republicans, brown voters terrify them.

When you speak in such generalities, you only display your ignorance, EB. I happen to know many Republicans here in Arizona that are very opposed to SB 1070. And many of those Republicans also happen to have brown skin themselves.

Efforts to turn arithmetic into a racial or political issue collapse the moment anyone with economics skills is consulted on illegal immigration. Paul Krugman, easily the most fanatically Democratic of all Nobel prize in economics laureates, has endlessly repeated that:
Quote:
...modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety net has more holes in it than it should — and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net. [...] Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive.

Worse yet, immigration penalizes governments that act humanely. Immigrants are a much more serious fiscal problem in California than in Texas, which treats the poor and unlucky harshly, regardless of where they were born.
.

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=1&hp
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  3  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2011 09:00 pm
Quote:
Illegal immigrants would be barred from driving in the state, enrolling in school or receiving most public benefits. Their children would receive special birth certificates that would make clear that the state does not consider them Arizona citizens.

Some of the bills, like those restricting immigrants’ access to schooling and right to state citizenship, flout current federal law and are being put forward to draw legal challenges in hopes that the Supreme Court might rule in the state’s favor.

Arizona drew considerable scorn last year when it passed legislation compelling police officers to inquire about the immigration status of those they stopped whom they suspected were in the country illegally. Critics said the law would lead to racial profiling of Latinos, and a federal judge agreed that portions of the law, known as Senate Bill 1070, were unconstitutional.

Similar legal challenges are likely to come in response to the latest round of legislation, some of which cleared a key Senate committee early Wednesday after a long debate that drew hundreds of protesters, some for and some against the crackdown.

“This bill is miles beyond S.B. 1070 in terms of its potential to roll back the rights and fundamental freedoms of both citizens and noncitizens alike,” said Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the A.C.L.U. of Arizona. She said the measures would create “a ‘papers, please’ society” and that a new crime — “driving while undocumented” — would be added to the books.

Despite boycotts and accusations that the state has become a haven of intolerance, Arizona won plaudits last year from immigration hardliners across the country. On Tuesday night, the Indiana Senate voted to allow its police officers to question people stopped for infractions on their immigration status, one of numerous proposals inspired by Arizona’s law.

“If you are ever going to stop this invasion, and it is an invasion, you have to quit rewarding people for breaking those laws,” said State Senator Russell Pearce, the Senate president, who is leading Arizona’s effort to try to make life so difficult for illegal immigrants that they stop coming, or leave.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/us/24arizona.html?hp

So much for the claims from the Left that once Arizona citizens got educated they would drop their plans, that boycotts and demonstrations would teach them a lesson.

The left is continuing their nearly uninterrupted pattern of being wrong about everything of late...
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 07:46 am
@hawkeye10,
These latest bills have refueled the effort to recall Pearce.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 08:01 am
@hawkeye10,
It took decades to get Southern states to provide equal rights to all of its citizens. I don't think anyone thought this current strain of anti-immigrant hatred would disappear overnight.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 09:36 am
@hawkeye10,
I'd like to know where all of the bills are that would keep employers from hiring the illegal aliens, because that's the only thing that will stop the influx.

And get rid of the damned war on drugs... prohibition didn't work in the 20's and it's not working now.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 08:20 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
And get rid of the damned war on drugs... prohibition didn't work in the 20's and it's not working now.


This is a rather funny link to make. Why would you want to legalize drugs without legalizing immigrants? It seems to me that the tactics of the war on drugs are the same as the war on immigrants. And, the same rhetoric is behind both efforts.

Do you agree that making a human behavior illegal doesn't stop it from happening, or don't you.

I get you are suggesting that targeting the users of illegal immigrants might be a tactic to stop illegal immigrants from entering the country. But how is different than targeting the users of illegal drugs to stop illegal drugs from coming?

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 08:28 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Why would you want to legalize drugs without legalizing immigrants? It seems to me that the tactics of the war on drugs are the same as the war on immigrants
because we can and because it is good for us. Government through law and the police generally does a poor job of regulating proclivities, but it does a smashing good job regulating movement. We currently do a poor job regulating who is in America because we dont try very hard. This should change.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/14/2021 at 01:57:53