Someone pls explain why Democrats don't want ICE contacted if illegal aliens attempt to buy guns

[SG854]

FDR's New Deal was terrible and prolonged The Great Depression, he was far from a saviour, but that's neither here nor there. We're talking about the 1%, which is in fact capable of moving their assets rapidly when the circumstances call for it. The present administration is favourable to them, so there is no sudden exodus. Things are very different in Britain with BREXIT looming over future economic prospects or Venezuela which is in the middle of a financial crisis and is, slowly but surely, heading towards a possible coup d'etat:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/02/opinion/sunday/millionaires-fleeing-migration.html

It's almost as if millionaires were migrating whenever their fortunes are at risk, funny how that works.

Now, back to labour. In case it's not painfully obvious how the rich contribute to the economy, they generate jobs by opening/maintaining businesses, they stimulate industry growth via investing capital and, ultimately, they make the decisions in their own companies. I know that as a left-winger you don't consider anything short of shoveling coal to be beneficial to the economy or to be a form of labour, but that's not how it works. In order for the average Joe to work an average job, there has to be an exceptional Steve who is willing to stake his own money in the process of creating an environment that enables Joe to work. The Steves of this world take the risks, the Joes can jump from company to company. Let's not forget that the gross majority of businesses in general fail within the first few years - we're talking about a figure in the whereabouts of 90%, depending on where you look. The businesses that do work long term are clearly doing something right, primarily thanks to their management which, ultimately, chooses the path the company takes on the market. Think of it as a ship - it takes many sailors to run it, but the captain decides where it goes and his decisions make it sink or swim.

EDIT: Just as a side note, why is wealth inequality bad? I've never heard a good argument on that subject. It seems to me that all this nonsense about some people having more money than others is motivated by envy more than anything else.

Speaking of Ships

Rich people jokes



--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

The do just wont to control you. crazy Bernie and Cortez are socialists that want the government to have more control over you. They want you to rely on the government for income and higher level schooling. I for the life of me, dont know why people think more government is better. doe anyone here want a 70% tax rate?

Oh My God, Cortez is literal the lefts Donald Trump

 

[Foxi4]

Speaking of Ships

Rich people jokes

Oh My God, Cortez is literal the lefts Donald Trump

That was quite funny, Jobs was always a good speaker. As for Cortez, she's anything but a left-wing Donald Trump - she's a bartender with the IQ of a kumquat. Whenever she, like, tries to say something, I, like, can't help but get, like, an aneurism. It baffles me that, like, she got elected. Like, what is even going on? Is this reality? Did I mention that she says "like" a lot? This woman unironically wrote that she wants to level and rebuild every single building in America, get rid of air travel completely and build railroads across the ocean, and it doesn't matter how much it will cost, all what matters are "the future benefits we will reap". What's even funnier is that people actually took the time to calculate the cost of her Green New Deal, going into multiple trillion dollar estimates, in an effort to argue against a proposal that's automatically ridiculous and untenable just on the face of it. It's like trying to argue that we shouldn't send a manned expedition into the Sun - yeah, no kidding, we know. I sincerely hope that the media give her all the attention, I really do want her to be the new young face of the Democratic party, it makes the alternatives look much more appealing.

 

[SG854]

That was quite funny, Jobs was always a good speaker. As for Cortez, she's anything but a left-wing Donald Trump - she's a bartender with the IQ of a kumquat. Whenever she, like, tries to say something, I, like, can't help but get, like, an aneurism. It baffles me that, like, she got elected. Like, what is even going on? Is this reality? Did I mention that she says "like" a lot? This woman unironically wrote that she wants to level and rebuild every single building in America, get rid of air travel completely and build railroads across the ocean, and it doesn't matter how much it will cost, what matters is "the future benefits we will reap". What's even funnier is that people actually took the time to calculate the cost of her Green New Deal in an effort to argue against a proposal that's automatically ridiculous and untenable just on the face of it. I sincerely hope that the media give her all the attention, I really do want her to be the new young face of the Democratic party, it makes the alternatives look much more appealing.

The Green New Deal is less about environmentalism and more about Socialist Agenda.

And the Jobs and tax revenue lost in New York with the recent Amazon No deal. I was smacking my head so hard. She thought tax breaks was actual money the city had and was giving to Amazon.

She has a degree in Economics by the way. How she got it I have no idea. She’s going to be popular though. Become a millionaire and rise to power because media constantly covers her, just like they did Trump. It’s free screen time for her.

 

[Foxi4]

The Green New Deal is less about environmentalism and more about Socialist Agenda.

And the Jobs and tax revenue lost in New York with the recent Amazon No deal. I was smacking my head so hard. She thought tax breaks was actual money the city had and was giving to Amazon.

She has a degree in Economics by the way. How she got it I have no idea. She’s going to be popular though. Become a millionaire and rise to power because media constantly covers her, just like they did Trump. It’s free screen time for her.

I too can't help but wonder how qualified she is considering the fact that she keeps embarrassing herself on national television with her lack of knowledge on the most basic economic or political concepts. Her primary debate strategy seems to be dodging the question. Not that it matters, I think she'll fizzle out quite quickly, it's a fad. She's the left's sweetheart because of "young generation, girl power, yay!", but eventually they too will realise that this vessel is, unfortunately, empty.

 

[Xzi]

We're talking about the 1%, which is in fact capable of moving their assets rapidly when the circumstances call for it.

The 1% probably never need to move their money, it's already positioned so that they pay as little in taxes as possible. Save those those few billionaires who realize what a bad outcome this creates, anyway.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/02/opinion/sunday/millionaires-fleeing-migration.html

It's almost as if millionaires were migrating whenever their fortunes are at risk, funny how that works.

That's an opinion piece. I just told you that conservatives tend to be hypocritical on this issue. The Koch brothers will tell you that South Carolina is the best state for business, yet they mostly sleep in New York. So forgive me if I can't take this type of opinion seriously.

EDIT: Just as a side note, why is wealth inequality bad? I've never heard a good argument on that subject. It seems to me that all this nonsense about some people having more money than others is motivated by envy more than anything else.

Income inequality, not wealth inequality. I don't really care how much money someone inherits from their parents, unless they break the law to circumvent taxes on it or something like that. The issue is that Americans' buying power is in decline, and has been for some time. We're one of the richest countries on Earth, but you sure as shit wouldn't know it walking down any main street in the Midwest. The buildings, streets, and bridges haven't been updated since the 70s. Small businesses are extinct. It looks more like Eastern Europe.

Perhaps you don't have any issue with letting large swaths of the US rot into cultural and economic wastelands, but it doesn't quite sit right with me.

As for Cortez, she's anything but a left-wing Donald Trump

You're absolutely correct, there is no left-wing equivalent to Donald Trump. The left-wing has never run a vapid reality TV star for president, and probably never will.

I too can't help but wonder how qualified she is considering the fact that she keeps embarrassing herself on national television with her lack of knowledge on the most basic economic or political concepts. Her primary debate strategy seems to be dodging the question. Not that it matters, I think she'll fizzle out quite quickly, it's a fad. She's the left's sweetheart because of "young generation, girl power, yay!", but eventually they too will realise that this vessel is, unfortunately, empty.

She's a first-year congresswoman and you're holding her to a higher standard than you do for the president. It's also the right-wing that highlights everything she does, the left is just sitting back and laughing at their pathetic attempts to smear her.

 

[Foxi4]

The 1% probably never need to move their money, it's already positioned so that they pay as little in taxes as possible. Save those those few billionaires who realize what a bad outcome this creates, anyway.


That's an opinion piece. I just told you that conservatives tend to be hypocritical on this issue. The Koch brothers will tell you that South Carolina is the best state for business, yet they mostly sleep in New York. So forgive me if I can't take this type of opinion seriously.


Income inequality, not wealth inequality. I don't really care how much money someone inherits from their parents, unless they break the law to circumvent taxes on it or something like that. The issue is that Americans' buying power is in decline, and has been for some time. We're one of the richest countries on Earth, but you sure as shit wouldn't know it walking down any main street in the Midwest. The buildings, streets, and bridges haven't been updated since the 70s. Small businesses are extinct. It looks more like Eastern Europe.

Perhaps you don't have any issue with letting large swaths of the US rot into cultural and economic wastelands, but it doesn't quite sit right with me.

Connect the dots for me, how is an outdated infrastructure in any way connected to income inequality? We've already established that marginal tax rates have minimal effect, if any, on the total tax receipts. In fact, tax revenue hit a record high under Trump, and that's after a significant tax cut, which further disproves your theory that a tax hike would increase revenues, but that's of course besides the point.

I fail to see a direct correlation between *personal income* of U.S. citizens and *public* infrastructure spending. It would seem to me that if the states lack funding for their infrastructure, they're spending money frivolously elsewhere, and if it's as bad as you claim, they weren't spending it frivolously since yesterday, nor since 2016, it must've been a while. How outdated is the infrastructure? A decade, would you say? Barack Obama-level outdated, perhaps?

I jest, but what I'm basically saying is that this is a big government problem. You are funding an army of pencil pushers instead of efficiently spending money wherever it needs to go, it has nothing to do with taxation and everything to do with administration. What I will say is that the best way to revitalise a neighbourhood is to allow private business to prosper - this is tried and true.

 

[SG854]

I too can't help but wonder how qualified she is considering the fact that she keeps embarrassing herself on national television with her lack of knowledge on the most basic economic or political concepts. Her primary debate strategy seems to be dodging the question. Not that it matters, I think she'll fizzle out quite quickly, it's a fad. She's the left's sweetheart because of "young generation, girl power, yay!", but eventually they too will realise that this vessel is, unfortunately, empty.

The amount of jobs and tax revenue they could’ve brought to New York to pay for their crumbling infrastructure.

She then starts prancing around how it was a victory against greedy capitalism. I just faced palmed so hard. How can she be this dumb. 3 billion better then 27 billion in her world. I think she won’t go away and will get more popular.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...dria-ocasio-cortez-becomes-comic-book-heroine

 

[Foxi4]

The amount of jobs and tax revenue they could’ve brought to New York to pay for their crumbling infrastructure.

She then starts prancing around how it was a victory against greedy capitalism. I just faced palmed so hard. How can she be this dumb. 3 billion better then 27 billion in her world.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...dria-ocasio-cortez-becomes-comic-book-heroine

To some people equality in squalor is preferable. Don't ask me why, I don't know either.

 

[Xzi]

Connect the dots for me, how is an outdated infrastructure in any way connected to income inequality?

That's not a hard dot to connect: when the average wage goes up, local government receives more tax dollars to spend on infrastructure. It also attracts more businesses to the area.

I jest, but what I'm basically saying is that this is a big government problem. You are funding an army of pencil pushers instead of efficiently spending money wherever it needs to go, it has nothing to do with taxation and everything to do with administration. What I will say is that the best way to revitalise a neighbourhood is to allow private business to prosper - this is tried and true.

This is great on paper, but in practice the Republican party does the exact opposite: they promote anti-competitive practices and cutthroat corporate takeovers so that small businesses never stand a chance. That's why all these Midwest towns have one Wal-Mart and maybe a couple restaurants if you're lucky.

To some people equality in squalor is preferable. Don't ask me why, I don't know either.

Again you're just not getting the fact that America is one of the richest nations on Earth. We've got the resources to take care of every American citizen and still have billions of dollars left over, but that's rarely been the priority. Gotta start more endless wars and give out more corporate welfare instead.

 

[Foxi4]

That's not a hard dot to connect: when the average wage goes up, local government receives more tax dollars to spend on infrastructure. It also attracts more businesses to the area.

Again, tax revenue does not linearly increase with increased taxation. Increasing individual tax brackets does not necessarily increase tax revenues. In fact, the opposite can be true - lowering taxes can motivate people to increase spending, which in turn causes more money to change hands in the private sector, appreciate wages further, increase revenues from the local state-level sales tax and cause both private and public buildings to look better as a result. Sometimes $20 at the end of each month is the difference between painting and not painting your fence, surely you know this.

This is great on paper, but in practice the Republican party does the exact opposite: they promote anti-competitive practices and cutthroat corporate takeovers so that small businesses never stand a chance. That's why all these Midwest towns have one Wal-Mart and maybe a couple restaurants if you're lucky.

Whataboutism is not an argument, I'm not a republican, who are you arguing with?

 

[Xzi]

Again, tax revenue does not linearly increase with taxation. Increasing tax brackets does not necessarily increase tax revenues. In fact, the opposite can be true - lowering taxes can motivate people to increase spending, which in turn causes more money to change hands in the private sector, appreciate wages further, increase revenues from the local state-level sales tax and cause both private and public buildings to look better as a result. Sonetimes $20 at the end of each month is the difference between painting and not painting a fence, surely you know this.

It's not a linear connection, but it's still bound to increase taxes collected when you increase the lowest wage available in an area. Since these are not people at the top we're talking about, they don't have nearly as many options to dodge taxes.

Whataboutism is not an argument, I'm not a republican, who are you arguing with?

You said this was a "big government problem," I'm just pointing out the flaw in that reasoning. It's actually the party that claims to want small government which is stifling small business and wage growth all over the country.

 

[Foxi4]

Again you're just not getting the fact that America is one of the richest nations on Earth. We've got the resources to take care of every American citizen and still have billions of dollars left over, but that's rarely been the priority. Gotta start more endless wars and give out more corporate welfare instead.

That's a ridiculous, Saders-esque assessment with no basis in fact. You'll run out of millionaires to tax real quick. The country is already trillions of dollars in the hole, I don't know where you're getting your figures from. If you have a location of the dollar trees you speak of, send me the coordinates, I'll take some of that free money.

It's not a linear connection, but it's still bound to increase taxes collected when you increase the lowest wage available in an area. Since these are not people at the top we're talking about, they don't have nearly as many means to dodge taxes.


You said this was a "big government problem," I'm just pointing out the flaw in that reasoning. It's actually the party that claims to want small government which is stifling small business and wage growth all over the country.

You neglect to mention that increasing wages without increasing the productivity will lead to either price hikes or inflation, most likely both, which in turn depreciates the value of the dollar and you end up where you started. This is not how money works. The only way to make people more rich is to increase productivity, and increased productivity is primarily achieved by a favourable economic climate. The recent tax reductions produced record tax revenue and decreased unemployment to an all-time low, if that didn't increase the amount of money available to local governments then there's a money hole somewhere that you need to eliminate.

 

[Xzi]

That's a ridiculous, Saders-esque assessment with no basis in fact. You'll run out of millionaires to tax real quick. The country is already trillions of dollars in the hole, I don't know where you're getting your figures from. If you have a location of the dollar trees you speak of, send me the coordinates, I'll take some of that free money.

Yeah, and those trillions of dollars went somewhere, didn't they? To wars and re-building in the Middle East, to corporate handouts and subsidies, and now to a fucking wall in the middle of the desert. Imagine what the country would look like now if we had spent that money on infrastructure, jobs programs, and research in technology/medicine. Point is that the money is going to be spent in one way or another, yet somehow you seem to prefer it continue being wasted.

 

[SG854]

It's not a linear connection, but it's still bound to increase taxes collected when you increase the lowest wage available in an area. Since these are not people at the top we're talking about, they don't have nearly as many options to dodge taxes.


You said this was a "big government problem," I'm just pointing out the flaw in that reasoning. It's actually the party that claims to want small government which is stifling small business and wage growth all over the country.

Big Government use to be a Liberal problem. Liberate from government and still means that in many parts of the world. U.S. is a place that used the word differently. But It’s still like the original label in the U.S. under Classic Liberals. It’s not just Republicans.

 

[Foxi4]

Yeah, and those trillions of dollars went somewhere, didn't they? To wars and re-building in the Middle East, to corporate handouts and subsidies, and now to a fucking wall in the middle of the desert. Imagine what the country would look like now if we had spent that money on infrastructure, jobs programs, and innovations in technology/medicine. Point is that the money is going to be spent in one way or another, yet somehow you seem to prefer it continue being wasted.

I'm all for the wall, but I'm not an interventionist, you're arguing with a strawman again. The border wall funding is supposed to be in the whereabouts of 5 billion dollars and it's aimed specifically at defending the U.S. border, it would generate job opportunities in the U.S. and it *would* reduce illegal immigration and its negative impacts on low-skilled workers in America. The war in Iraq cost $1.1 trillion dollars directly and anywhere between $5 and $8 trillion dollars indirectly, and it was fought in the interest of... I'm not particularly sure who. I think you're crying over a drop in the bucket, the wall is most definitely not a frivolous spend, it would improve border security, just like other walls have improved border security in other countries, from Israel through Greece and Hungary. This isn't even debatable, but apparently the U.S. is the only country not allowed to build a barrier on the border for some reason.

 

[Xzi]

You neglect to mention that increasing wages without increasing the productivity will lead to either price hikes or inflation, most likely both, which in turn depreciates the value of the dollar and you end up where you started. This is not how money works. The only way to make people more rich is to increase productivity, and increased productivity is primarily achieved by a favourable economic climate. The recent tax reductions produced record tax revenue and decreased unemployment to an all-time low, if that didn't increase the amount of money available to local governments then there's a money hole somewhere that you need to eliminate.

This is assuming employees are already getting paid an amount consistent with the amount of value their labor is producing. Which is almost never the case, or McDonald's workers would be getting paid ~$20 an hour. There's a lot of wiggle room below that ceiling in which the company can still turn a very reasonable profit.

The border wall funding is supposed to be in the whereabouts of 5 billion dollars and it's aimed specifically at defending the U.S. border, it would generate job opportunities in the U.S. and it *would* reduce illegal immigration and its negative impacts on low-skilled workers in America.

25 billion*, 5 billion is just to get the fucking thing approved and started. Temporary jobs don't mean shit when those same laborers could be working on infrastructure or a million other projects which would provide a direct benefit to American citizens. And again, I see no big decline in the amount of illegal immigration happening until the people who employ illegals are targeted for punishment. Overstaying a work visa is a lot easier than trekking through the desert.

 

[SG854]

This is assuming employees are already getting paid an amount consistent with the amount of value their labor is producing. Which is almost never the case, or McDonald's workers would be getting paid ~$20 an hour. There's a lot of wiggle room below that ceiling in which the company can still turn a very reasonable profit.


25 billion*, 5 billion is just to get the fucking thing approved and started. Temporary jobs don't mean shit when those same laborers could be working on infrastructure or a million other projects which would provide a direct benefit to American citizens. And again, I see no big decline in the amount of illegal immigration happening until the people who employ illegals are targeted for punishment. Overstaying a work visa is a lot easier than trekking through the desert.

Here’s a recent article. Time and time again it has been said when you raise wages they fire workers because they can’t afford them. What is fair? If they are being replaced by Kiosks because it’s cheaper for a business. If $15 did this then a $20 wage will cause disaster.

After Winning a $15 Minimum Wage, Fast Food Workers Now Battle Unfair Firings

 

[Xzi]

Here’s a recent article. Time and time again it has been said when you raise wages they fire workers because they can’t afford them. What is fair? If they are being replaced by Kiosks because it’s cheaper for a business.

After Winning a $15 Minimum Wage, Fast Food Workers Now Battle Unfair Firings

They don't have to fire people, they're choosing to. Several businesses already run on skeleton crews to maximize profit, so they wouldn't be able to fire more people even if they wanted to. That's capitalism for ya, 'greed is good' and yada yada...

 

[SG854]

They don't have to fire people, they're choosing to. Several businesses already run on skeleton crews to maximize profit, so they wouldn't be able to fire more people even if they wanted to. That's capitalism for ya, greed is good and yada yada...

The problem is you can’t force a business however you want it to run, just like I can’t force you to buy things you don’t want to. Business buy labor. Forcing a business to essentially buy someone they don’t want to keep is bad, it’s holding a gun to their head if you get government involved.

The market is changing, technology exits that can replace workers. You can’t just raise wages without paying attention to the current state of the market and it’s consequences of high wages.

Are you going to complain the Ford and the assembly line is evil because it replaced human workers with machines that are more faster and efficient. The assembly line is why anything is mass produced nowadays and why our standard of living is so high.

 

[Xzi]

The problem is you can’t force a business however you want it to run, just like I can’t force you to buy things you don’t want to. Business buy labor. Forcing a business to essentially buy someone they don’t want to keep is bad, it’s holding a gun to their head if you get government involved.

I'm not suggesting they should be forced to hire employees they don't like, not sure where you got that idea. Paying more than the competition is a great way to attract more qualified and competent individuals, though.

The market is changing, technology exits that can replace workers. You can’t just raise wages without paying attention to the current state of the market.

Are you going to complain the Ford and the assembly line is evil because it replaced human workers with machines that are more faster and efficient. The assembly line is why anything is mass produced nowadays and why our standard of living is so high.

Now we're veering off to another topic again, automation. Ultimately we're going to have to instate a universal basic income as a solution to this, there doesn't seem to be any way around that. Automation threatens up to 80% of jobs in the US, and thus it threatens collapse of the entire economy if consumers no longer have any spending power. Jobs for humans will be mostly relegated to the arts and entertainment industries, and people will just have to find ways to occupy their time otherwise.