Trump / FBI / Russians

Are you one dem dere Democratic Socialists?

 

Most smart people take a previous good idea and put their own personal twist on it. Not just blatantly steal it word for word and then sell hats by the truckload with the slogan.

Doesn't matter to me in the big picture, just find it funny a guy that is so obsessed with libel and copyright laws ran his whole campaign behind something he stole. That's irony!

 

Actually he dropped to the word "Let's" from the beginning of the slogan, there, it's different. HAHAHA

 

Again, registered Libertarian; but, I tow NO party line. Think for yourself on each issue, that's all.

 

Is that why you haven't posted about it yet? lol

 

Now we're splitting hairs lol

 

I was just gauging your view on the boarder since some of the left (many) tend to state that they want open boarders. Not a leap at all. I see people on the news stating such as they protest boarder security. I don't think it is the biggest issue but I firmly believe it poses a national security risk...the labor issue I am less concerned about although they should enter through the front door! So do you think we should have a secure boarder? not "A" boarder but one that disallows folks to just roll in (and strain our tax dollars) undocumented.

 

In theory, I would love a border that is impregnable by anyone except where we allow it. But in practice, the amount of tax dollars and manpower it would take to achieve this is unrealistic. Also, if you view it as a security risk more than a labor issue, then the Canadian border should be the same, no? With all of the refugees pouring into Europe, it is easy for them to get to Canada and across our non-existent border, right? To secure our North and South borders entirely would take be an enormous undertaking requiring a lot of resources. I just think we could get a better return on those resources spending them in other places.

I also believe the criminal will always stay one step ahead of the enforcers. So not matter how high the wall, the will find a way around it. I am more of an advocate for restricting all rights/benefits to those that have entered illegally. This sanctuary city crap will be the death of liberals.

I would cite energy, cyber crime, fraud and debt as way bigger threats to our national security than not having a wall.

No thoughts on corporate fraud and the resulting welfare we pay for it Jay?

 

plenty of thoughts...trying work too lol.

I agree that energy, cyber, and debt are big. Not sure on the fraud thing with respect to national security. Those 3 are pretty big threats for sure. The majority of the boarder problem is the southern boarder, by all measures. Canadian boarder is still a good point. It's a tough subject. So would you vote to secure the boarders? Tax and manpower could be saved by all the tax dollars we spend on illegal immigrants.

Most corporations (Publicly traded), raise capital and leverage themselves. Stock holder, debt holders, and yes employees get the shaft sometimes. Not sure I would define corporate fraud as a national security threat. What do you mean the resulting welfare we pay for corporate fraud? B/c of unemployment as a result of a business failure?

 

Again, I would argue taking away all benefits/rights would solve the problem AND save money at the same time. I would go that route instead of spending 20+billion on a wall that "might" work. I would vote for outlawing federal benefits to illegals and cut as much federal funding to states that don't follow suit. As far as spending billions on a wall, still not convinced that will be a smart use of our tax dollars, so I'd still be on the nay side.

By resulting welfare, I mean, the billions in bail outs, labor subsidies, and even sports arenas. A lot of the companies we have had to essentially "give" money to save are publicly traded. Being publicly traded has little to do with it anymore when white collar crimes that cost middle Americans billions in tax dollars aren't enforced like blue collar crimes. Most of the time the Fed provides an even lighter sentence than what is publicized (and always to the detriment on the tax payer). A good example is JP Morgan,which made a preliminary $13-billion settlement with the Feds in 2013 for lying about mortgage quality in the mid 2000's; however, they were allowed to write off a majority of the deal as tax deductible, saving the corporation $4 billion. Who has to make that up when tax revenue time comes? John Q. Public does...The things JP Morgan(and others, but they were the biggest) did hurt every home owner in the US, not just its share holders, debt holders and employees. Just look at property values in 2005 vs 2008. This is the worst form of corporate welfare.

 

Man, you are straying a bit out of the context but I hear you. The 2008 meltdown has a legacy that goes back to legislature and the lax lending criteria. "Then", the subprime mess (which is the fault of the banks I agree) created the shit storm. I was against them (financial industry) and GM and others getting bailed out. The settlement in JP morgan case should have been deductible though...it was an expense right?

Also, you should look at tax revenues by industry...I will try to find a good chart. The financial industry creates a ton of tax revenue. Not saying that white collar crimes should be given a pass at all. All fraud should be punishable. Still, the housing and credit crisis evolved over time and the prices pre collapse were in a bubble so the 05-08 comparison is not relevant to historical trends. Shoot, in 06' I made 40% on a home in 17 months and was very fortunate.

 

"By the time the wall gets completed we'll be the ones going over it."
Bill Burr

 

The wall is fine... They just have to find that dude Mexico that DJT talked about through his entire campaign. That dude is going to pay for the whole damn thing.

 

I'll probably get taken care of with the NAFTA renegotiation. Hopefully.

 

Straying? You asked what I consider corporate welfare and I gave the most recent, glaring example. As far as a security threat, it goes along with the threat posed by debt. If we keep going deeper into debt because we are bailing out poorly run companies or they are getting away with not paying their share, especially when caught doing something illegal, then we become more susceptible to outside intrusion. Less resources for the military means less secure, no?

For the sake of this conversation, I'm not concerned about what caused the meltdown. I am concerned about how we as taxpayers are going to collect on their debts to us. The historical trends aren't relevant here. JP Morgan fraudulently over valued mortgages they were selling to increase share price. That is a crime that resulted in millions of people losing equity in the homes they bust their asses for. Taxpayer dollars should never be used to save a private corporation, ever. When a regular citizen is lazy and doesn't run their life correctly, they get welfare. This is an issue for most guys on here as it should be. But why when a company runs their life poorly or deceitfully are we ok with giving them money (i.e. welfare). I don't care how much tax revenue the financial district brings in, it still pails in comparison to individual tax revenue.

JP Morgan should have been tax deductible? They were caught doing something illegal...last I checked, restitution is not tax deductible. At least not for John Q. Public. Yes, you were very fortunate; however, not everyone else was. Some people lost 40% of their home value or 401k in that same span of time.

 

Free thinker or

the system has been rigged to prevent that very thing. Do these things and it will change drastically: outright ban lobbiests and special interest monies, and enforce term limits and a balanced budget... it’s become a popularity contest run by idiots and big money and completely NOT “by the people, for the people”

A good strong third party would really shake these assholes up