billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 6, 2016 9:08:57 GMT -5
... 6. Welfare will be consolidated into a single program which will pay the equivalent of the median wage directly to anyone who applies for it for any reason and will be available for a total of 60 months per person, period. When it's gone. It's gone. ... That will certainly be a nice supplement for me and the wife in our retirement years.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 6, 2016 11:13:03 GMT -5
1. All non-citizens who cannot document that they are in the United States illegally will be cut off from ALL public benefits. There will be no healthcare, no food subsidies, no schooling, no housing subsidies- nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada. 3. Effective immediately, illegal aliens will have 30 days to relocate to their country of origin. Minor children may remain as wards of the state until such time as their parents claim them, they become emancipated minors and opt to stay, or their parents have returned legally. 2. Effective immediately, children born in the United States to illegal aliens will be considered citizens of their birth parent's native country. 3. Day 31: anyone found to be in the United States illegally will serve not less than one year in prison followed by deportation at the expense of their country of origin. 4. Mexico and the rest of Latin America will begin proportionately paying reparations to the United States for ALL costs to the United States associated with illegal immigration dating back to the effective date of Simpson - Mazzoli, in addition of course- to the wall and future violations. 5. Welfare will henceforth be for natural citizens of the United States born to legal US Citizens. Immigrants will be ineligible for ALL state and federal benefits of any kind, including scholarships to public / state / taxpayer funded schools. 6. Welfare will be consolidated into a single program which will pay the equivalent of the median wage directly to anyone who applies for it for any reason and will be available for a total of 60 months per person, period. When it's gone. It's gone. 7. Current drug laws will apply to anyone receiving benefits. For the rest of us: no war on drugs. End. Fin. Done. Over. doesn't #2 require the repeal of the 14th Amendment?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 6, 2016 11:36:45 GMT -5
1. All non-citizens who cannot document that they are in the United States illegally will be cut off from ALL public benefits. There will be no healthcare, no food subsidies, no schooling, no housing subsidies- nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada. 3. Effective immediately, illegal aliens will have 30 days to relocate to their country of origin. Minor children may remain as wards of the state until such time as their parents claim them, they become emancipated minors and opt to stay, or their parents have returned legally. 2. Effective immediately, children born in the United States to illegal aliens will be considered citizens of their birth parent's native country. 3. Day 31: anyone found to be in the United States illegally will serve not less than one year in prison followed by deportation at the expense of their country of origin. ... The devil is clearly in the details of these. We won't support them but will imprison them for a year - seems like a housing subsidy plus wouldn't we have to feed them and deal with health issues? What exactly would all those illegal children be doing as wards of the state with no schooling?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 6, 2016 11:55:59 GMT -5
raise revenues 5%, cut spending 5%, and use the surplus to begin paying down debt. put special emphasis on military spending for the cuts, and closing loopholes for the revenue.
close down 100+ foreign bases.
end support for the IMF.
focus on infrastructure projects at home rather than in Iraq.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 6, 2016 12:15:26 GMT -5
raise revenues 5%, cut spending 5%, and use the surplus to begin paying down debt. put special emphasis on military spending for the cuts, and closing loopholes for the revenue. close down 100+ foreign bases. end support for the IMF. focus on infrastructure projects at home rather than in Iraq. Yep. I'm for that as well. How much do you think we'd have to cut taxes to raise revenues 5%?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 6, 2016 12:18:56 GMT -5
raise revenues 5%, cut spending 5%, and use the surplus to begin paying down debt. put special emphasis on military spending for the cuts, and closing loopholes for the revenue. close down 100+ foreign bases. end support for the IMF. focus on infrastructure projects at home rather than in Iraq. Yep. I'm for that as well. How much do you think we'd have to cut taxes to raise revenues 5%? you can cut them as much as you like. but the more you cut them, the longer you will have to wait to raise revenues 5%. we could simply freeze taxes, and let revenue rise over time, as long as we can keep the economy growing. but it is more aggressive to close loopholes. the fiscal conservative in me likes that.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 6, 2016 19:00:51 GMT -5
Yep. I'm for that as well. How much do you think we'd have to cut taxes to raise revenues 5%? you can cut them as much as you like. but the more you cut them, the longer you will have to wait to raise revenues 5%. we could simply freeze taxes, and let revenue rise over time, as long as we can keep the economy growing. but it is more aggressive to close loopholes. the fiscal conservative in me likes that. I'm just messing with you. I know you're a science denier. You think the Laffer Curve, no longer theory, is not true. The Laffer Curve is a fact. America has a spending problem, not a "doesn't tax enough" problem. Well, it is true that we barely tax roughly half the population, and I have stated before that it WILL probably take a MASSIVE TAX INCREASE to really get us on the right track, but nobody wants to hear whom we must tax. We need to flatten the income tax, bring many, many more tax payers on to the taxpayer rolls. Alternatively, as I would prefer, we repeal the income tax and enact the www.fairtax.org and get away from taxation of the production of income, savings, and investment and make America the best place in the world to open a business and hire people.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 6, 2016 19:06:57 GMT -5
We don't have to deny the Laffer Curve. We merely have to point out that we are not on the right side of it to make your desired effect true.
And you still don't want to fix the post above?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 6, 2016 19:34:02 GMT -5
you can cut them as much as you like. but the more you cut them, the longer you will have to wait to raise revenues 5%. we could simply freeze taxes, and let revenue rise over time, as long as we can keep the economy growing. but it is more aggressive to close loopholes. the fiscal conservative in me likes that. I'm just messing with you . I know you're a science denier. You think the Laffer Curve, no longer theory, is not true. The Laffer Curve is a fact. America has a spending problem, not a "doesn't tax enough" problem. Well, it is true that we barely tax roughly half the population, and I have stated before that it WILL probably take a MASSIVE TAX INCREASE to really get us on the right track, but nobody wants to hear whom we must tax. We need to flatten the income tax, bring many, many more tax payers on to the taxpayer rolls. Alternatively, as I would prefer, we repeal the income tax and enact the www.fairtax.org and get away from taxation of the production of income, savings, and investment and make America the best place in the world to open a business and hire people. Lol! Speaking of science deniers....what do you think of anthropogenic climate change, Paul? I'll wait while you check with Rush Limbaugh.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 6, 2016 21:02:32 GMT -5
you can cut them as much as you like. but the more you cut them, the longer you will have to wait to raise revenues 5%. we could simply freeze taxes, and let revenue rise over time, as long as we can keep the economy growing. but it is more aggressive to close loopholes. the fiscal conservative in me likes that. I'm just messing with you. I know you're a science denier. exactly the opposite. i am 100% by the books.You think the Laffer Curve, no longer theory, is not true. The Laffer Curve is a fact. the Laffer Curve is a joke.
www.factandmyth.com/taxes/tax-decreases-do-not-increase-revenue.America has a spending problem, not a "doesn't tax enough" problem. Well, it is true that we barely tax roughly half the population, and I have stated before that it WILL probably take a MASSIVE TAX INCREASE to really get us on the right track, but nobody wants to hear whom we must tax. that is actually a separate argument, and i have no particular objection to it. you might have noticed that i actually suggested that we cut spending, if you cared about what my position actually is.We need to flatten the income tax, bring many, many more tax payers on to the taxpayer rolls. Alternatively, as I would prefer, we repeal the income tax and enact the www.fairtax.org and get away from taxation of the production of income, savings, and investment and make America the best place in the world to open a business and hire people. income tax is quite flat above $100k in income. if you want to flatten it below $100k, i would suggest that you endorse the flat tax. i have no particular objection to it. but the fair tax that you have endorsed is actually quite regressive (aka "unfair"). i have explained that before, as well, and you have ignored it. i would ask whether we have to have this conversation over and over again, but i know that we do. as long as i am here, you can expect me to say precisely the same thing. i wouldn't want anyone to think you were right.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 6, 2016 21:10:21 GMT -5
We don't have to deny the Laffer Curve. We merely have to point out that we are not on the right side of it to make your desired effect true. even Laffer doesn't think so. he thinks T* is somewhere around 70%. there is a huge flaw in the curve, however, and it is ALWAYS overlooked. it assumes a single rate. that is not how progressive taxes work, and because of that, revenue will actually NEVER fall to 0, no matter how high the top rate is.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 6, 2016 21:22:33 GMT -5
Yeah, the LOWEST estimate I have ever seen is around 57%, with most somewhere in the 70+ range. The Curve may or may not be a joke in theory, but we will never know. We have NEVER been on the other side where it could be tested regardless of any inherent flaws.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 6, 2016 21:37:02 GMT -5
Yeah, the LOWEST estimate I have ever seen is around 57%, with most somewhere in the 70+ range. The Curve may or may not be a joke in theory, but we will never know. We have NEVER been on the other side where it could be tested regardless of any inherent flaws. i am not going to sit around making the case again. it is all contained here: www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/WP81-Table2013.pdfi have posted this link many times. it is a very thorough analysis which was conducted by a GOP congress under Bush- not a bunch of flaming liberals by any stretch. but rather than accepting the findings, the trickle down koolaid drinkers continue to push their fraud onto people that seem incapable of reading a fairly simple abstract: a far more common problem than i had ever imagined until recently. even Obama is as dumb as a stump about this stuff, implicitly endorsing the idea with the "payroll tax holiday"- though to be fair, it was a highly progressive cut (-vs- the Bush version which was highly regressive).
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 6, 2016 21:54:33 GMT -5
The ONLY real possibility of a tax cut benefitting economically is if it is highly progressive. Money has to be spent and circulated to grow the economy. Giving it back to the already wealthy does nothing to stimulate an increase.
|
|