Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[josh]

The latest from presidential- candidate wannabe Elizabth Warren, trying to keep up with AOC on “let’s keep soaking the rich”.

United States Sen­a­tor Eliz­a­beth War­ren (D-Mass.) to­day un­veiled the Ul­tra-Mil­lion­aire Tax, a bold pro­posal to tax the wealth of the rich­est 0.1% of Amer­i­cans. The leg­is­la­tion, which ap­plies only to house-holds with a net worth of $50 mil­lion or more, is es­ti­mated by lead­ing econ­o­mists to raise $2.75 tril­lion in tax rev­enue over a ten-year pe­riod.

Those “ leading “ economists come from the usual cast of leftist characters but that is irrelevant.
Warren’s proposal is clearly unconstitutional.
Which is irrelevant to her purpose.
Which is to further the democrat strategy of only taxing the rich.

How is it unconstitutional?

Read 16th Amend­ment (It fails as an in­come tax) and Ar­ti­cle I, Sec­tion 9, Clause 4 (It fails be­cause it is an un­ap­por­tioned di­rect tax).

The 16th was written precisely because of the gross impracticality of apportionment.  It chucked out apportionment for income tax.  Just because the very rich earn money in a different way doesn't mean that apportionment suddenly becomes sensible again.   Courts have generally rejected apportionment, and it clearly makes no sense when people earn money across multiple state borders.   Think about it.

You need to think about it.
The 16th Amendment allows “ income” from all sources to be taxed. But the government cannot reach into your pocket and tax money you already paid taxes on.

Yeah, like an inheritance tax! Or a property tax!

Oops.

Josh. Ignorance of our laws is something a global moderator ought to be ashamed of.

*phew*

I dodged that bullet, then!

No specifics from you, because you have no real point, just a need to contradict.

To be clear. You contradicted me. With nonsense.

Hah!

You indicated that "the government cannot reach into your pocket and tax money you already paid taxes on."

I contradicted that. The facts contradict that.

The inheritance tax is exactly that. Indeed, that is one of the biggest complaints against it.

And property tax involves either an annual levy against property you paid a sales tax to acquire, whether it's house/land or its the smaller personal property tax on certain items - let alone that you already also paid (or will pay) income tax on the money used to acquire that property. So.. I pay my income tax, my sales tax, and my property tax on my house - and you say the government cannot tax me on money I already paid taxes on?

I can hear your rebuttals, now. You will try to say something about which government, that purchases are not on money in my pocket, or that if I am dead, it is no longer my pocket being reached into. Or you will simply "lol" and move on or insult me.

Whatever floats your boat. You're still simply wrong.

[josh]

Yes no dirty filthy wall. No public works or infrastructure improvements. FDR will be tossing in his grave.

A WALL IS NOT INFRASTRUCTURE.

Is that really so hard to understand?

Have you read Trump's so-called Infrastructure Plan?!

Or are you going to keep beating this bogus drum?

No it is controlled tax and spend in Keynesian terms combined with the multiplier effect, all is good. Yes a really big public works program to improve and secure our borders. The argument against typical elitist emotionalism, dead babies and animals (just in; the wall theoretically could hurt the grey wolf). But what about the American worker, the jobs created, the economy dummies?

Yeah, what about the American worker!

As has been pointed out to you before, but which you keep ignoring, we have billions of dollars of infrastructure that needs building, Luee - bridges, roads, water systems, schools, dams! We don't lack for places to put that money, tasks that are far more needed than the border with Mexico.

A good many in middle America believe that secure borders are more important than roads or bridges.

Sure. But they believe that because they have been lied to incessantly by the GOP, Luee.

They used to believe (and many still do) that Mexicans are lazy and that Blacks are untamed sexual predators. Many of them believe races should not marry.

We are not in the habit of capitulating to prejudice on that massive a scale as much as we used to be.

But...

Why not do everything instead of whining?

In case it has escaped your attention, we have a significant percentage of the government that is insisting we cannot afford to pay for our veterans' health care and you want to propose that we "do everything?" They won't pay for the infrastructure that needs doing, let alone the placebo you want to give the angry, deluded folks who want to blame "illegal immigrants" for everything from eating up government benefits to the huge increase in violent crime to taking all their jobs, when none of those is truth.

I repeat, "have you looked at the president's so-called infrastructure plan?!"

But you also declared that:

Illegals are not escaping persecution but looking for a free lunch.

So good of you to speak for them all. 60% or more of them overstayed visas. Free lunch is not what they are doing.

"There were 10.7 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2016." That was 3.3%, down from 4% in 2007.

"The U.S. civilian workforce includes 7.8 million unauthorized immigrants, representing a decline since 2007." Does that sound like they're looking for a free lunch to you?! It sure doesn't to me.

They're looking for a job that pays more than what they could get at home or better living conditions or safer living conditions or to stay where they have found and made a home. Handouts are not what they are hear for.

"About two-thirds (66%) of unauthorized immigrant adults in 2016 had been in the U.S. more than 10 years, compared with 41% in 2007. A declining share of unauthorized immigrants have lived in the U.S. for less than five years – 18% of adults in 2016, compared with 30% in 2007."

We have a declining problem at the southern border. We have a long term unauthorized immigrant population far more than a short term one.

And your biased and erroneous view of what they are here for is ignorant.

[josh]

https://wset.com/news/at-the-capitol/virginia-senate-votes-to-end-license-suspensions-over-fees

Drivers licenses should never be suspended over ability or inability to pay court fees.

[FlyingVProd]

https://wset.com/news/at-the-capitol/virginia-senate-votes-to-end-license-suspensions-over-fees

Drivers licenses should never be suspended over ability or inability to pay court fees.

I had an uncle who did a ton of jail time over traffic tickets. What a waste of tax payer money that was. He was poor, and he could not afford to pay the tickets, so he did jail time over it. If he had money he would have never went to jail for any of that. They turned a poor kid into a criminal over traffic tickets.

The justice system that we have is different for people who have money compared to people who do not have money. And when you do not have money for a lawyer then the public defender wants you to take a plea bargain, so everyone is taking plea bargains, and many people are doing time because the lawyer did not want to battle in court for them. 

May God bless the good lawyers who represent the poor fairly when they do work as a public defender, etc.

And we need to stop putting people in jail for traffic tickets.

I also support the ACLU.

Salute,

Tony V. 

[josh]

I am not nearly so confident as this, but it did make me smile.

[REDSTATEWARD]

The latest from presidential- candidate wannabe Elizabth Warren, trying to keep up with AOC on “let’s keep soaking the rich”.

United States Sen­a­tor Eliz­a­beth War­ren (D-Mass.) to­day un­veiled the Ul­tra-Mil­lion­aire Tax, a bold pro­posal to tax the wealth of the rich­est 0.1% of Amer­i­cans. The leg­is­la­tion, which ap­plies only to house-holds with a net worth of $50 mil­lion or more, is es­ti­mated by lead­ing econ­o­mists to raise $2.75 tril­lion in tax rev­enue over a ten-year pe­riod.

Those “ leading “ economists come from the usual cast of leftist characters but that is irrelevant.
Warren’s proposal is clearly unconstitutional.
Which is irrelevant to her purpose.
Which is to further the democrat strategy of only taxing the rich.

How is it unconstitutional?

Read 16th Amend­ment (It fails as an in­come tax) and Ar­ti­cle I, Sec­tion 9, Clause 4 (It fails be­cause it is an un­ap­por­tioned di­rect tax).

The 16th was written precisely because of the gross impracticality of apportionment.  It chucked out apportionment for income tax.  Just because the very rich earn money in a different way doesn't mean that apportionment suddenly becomes sensible again.   Courts have generally rejected apportionment, and it clearly makes no sense when people earn money across multiple state borders.   Think about it.

You need to think about it.
The 16th Amendment allows “ income” from all sources to be taxed. But the government cannot reach into your pocket and tax money you already paid taxes on.

Yeah, like an inheritance tax! Or a property tax!

Oops.

Josh. Ignorance of our laws is something a global moderator ought to be ashamed of.

*phew*

I dodged that bullet, then!

No specifics from you, because you have no real point, just a need to contradict.

To be clear. You contradicted me. With nonsense.

Hah!

You indicated that "the government cannot reach into your pocket and tax money you already paid taxes on."

I contradicted that. The facts contradict that.


The inheritance tax is exactly that. Indeed, that is one of the biggest complaints against it.

Really ?  Who pays the Inheritance tax?  It is an immoral tax, to be sure, but it isirrelevant to this conversation

And property tax involves either an annual levy against property you paid a sales tax to acquire, whether it's house/land or its the smaller personal property tax on certain items - let alone that you already also paid (or will pay) income tax on the money used to acquire that property. So.. I pay my income tax, my sales tax, and my property tax on my house - and you say the government cannot tax me on money I already paid taxes on?

Property taxes are levied by state and local governments. They are not income taxes. They have nothing to do with income.

If I have $51 million after taxes and put it in my mattress and take it out as needed none of it can be subject to a federal income tax again. Do you not understand this?

[luee]

Yes no dirty filthy wall. No public works or infrastructure improvements. FDR will be tossing in his grave.

A WALL IS NOT INFRASTRUCTURE.

Is that really so hard to understand?

Have you read Trump's so-called Infrastructure Plan?!

Or are you going to keep beating this bogus drum?

No it is controlled tax and spend in Keynesian terms combined with the multiplier effect, all is good. Yes a really big public works program to improve and secure our borders. The argument against typical elitist emotionalism, dead babies and animals (just in; the wall theoretically could hurt the grey wolf). But what about the American worker, the jobs created, the economy dummies?

Yeah, what about the American worker!

As has been pointed out to you before, but which you keep ignoring, we have billions of dollars of infrastructure that needs building, Luee - bridges, roads, water systems, schools, dams! We don't lack for places to put that money, tasks that are far more needed than the border with Mexico.

A good many in middle America believe that secure borders are more important than roads or bridges.

Sure. But they believe that because they have been lied to incessantly by the GOP, Luee.

They used to believe (and many still do) that Mexicans are lazy and that Blacks are untamed sexual predators. Many of them believe races should not marry.

We are not in the habit of capitulating to prejudice on that massive a scale as much as we used to be.

But...

Why not do everything instead of whining?

In case it has escaped your attention, we have a significant percentage of the government that is insisting we cannot afford to pay for our veterans' health care and you want to propose that we "do everything?" They won't pay for the infrastructure that needs doing, let alone the placebo you want to give the angry, deluded folks who want to blame "illegal immigrants" for everything from eating up government benefits to the huge increase in violent crime to taking all their jobs, when none of those is truth.

I repeat, "have you looked at the president's so-called infrastructure plan?!"

But you also declared that:

Illegals are not escaping persecution but looking for a free lunch.

So good of you to speak for them all. 60% or more of them overstayed visas. Free lunch is not what they are doing.

"There were 10.7 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2016." That was 3.3%, down from 4% in 2007.

"The U.S. civilian workforce includes 7.8 million unauthorized immigrants, representing a decline since 2007." Does that sound like they're looking for a free lunch to you?! It sure doesn't to me.

They're looking for a job that pays more than what they could get at home or better living conditions or safer living conditions or to stay where they have found and made a home. Handouts are not what they are hear for.

"About two-thirds (66%) of unauthorized immigrant adults in 2016 had been in the U.S. more than 10 years, compared with 41% in 2007. A declining share of unauthorized immigrants have lived in the U.S. for less than five years – 18% of adults in 2016, compared with 30% in 2007."

We have a declining problem at the southern border. We have a long term unauthorized immigrant population far more than a short term one.

And your biased and erroneous view of what they are here for is ignorant.

The US has a legal immigration program designed to help true asylum seekers and designed to not stretch social programs or destroy labor unions.

[josh]

The latest from presidential- candidate wannabe Elizabth Warren, trying to keep up with AOC on “let’s keep soaking the rich”.

United States Sen­a­tor Eliz­a­beth War­ren (D-Mass.) to­day un­veiled the Ul­tra-Mil­lion­aire Tax, a bold pro­posal to tax the wealth of the rich­est 0.1% of Amer­i­cans. The leg­is­la­tion, which ap­plies only to house-holds with a net worth of $50 mil­lion or more, is es­ti­mated by lead­ing econ­o­mists to raise $2.75 tril­lion in tax rev­enue over a ten-year pe­riod.

Those “ leading “ economists come from the usual cast of leftist characters but that is irrelevant.
Warren’s proposal is clearly unconstitutional.
Which is irrelevant to her purpose.
Which is to further the democrat strategy of only taxing the rich.

How is it unconstitutional?

Read 16th Amend­ment (It fails as an in­come tax) and Ar­ti­cle I, Sec­tion 9, Clause 4 (It fails be­cause it is an un­ap­por­tioned di­rect tax).

The 16th was written precisely because of the gross impracticality of apportionment.  It chucked out apportionment for income tax.  Just because the very rich earn money in a different way doesn't mean that apportionment suddenly becomes sensible again.   Courts have generally rejected apportionment, and it clearly makes no sense when people earn money across multiple state borders.   Think about it.

You need to think about it.
The 16th Amendment allows “ income” from all sources to be taxed. But the government cannot reach into your pocket and tax money you already paid taxes on.

Yeah, like an inheritance tax! Or a property tax!

Oops.

Josh. Ignorance of our laws is something a global moderator ought to be ashamed of.

*phew*

I dodged that bullet, then!

No specifics from you, because you have no real point, just a need to contradict.

To be clear. You contradicted me. With nonsense.

Hah!

You indicated that "the government cannot reach into your pocket and tax money you already paid taxes on."

I contradicted that. The facts contradict that.


The inheritance tax is exactly that. Indeed, that is one of the biggest complaints against it.

Really ?  Who pays the Inheritance tax?  It is an immoral tax, to be sure, but it isirrelevant to this conversation

And property tax involves either an annual levy against property you paid a sales tax to acquire, whether it's house/land or its the smaller personal property tax on certain items - let alone that you already also paid (or will pay) income tax on the money used to acquire that property. So.. I pay my income tax, my sales tax, and my property tax on my house - and you say the government cannot tax me on money I already paid taxes on?

Property taxes are levied by state and local governments. They are not income taxes. They have nothing to do with income.

If I have $51 million after taxes and put it in my mattress and take it out as needed none of it can be subject to a federal income tax again. Do you not understand this?

Duh.

But that's the point - you said nothing about income tax a second time.

You said, inaccurately, that "the government cannot reach into your pocket and tax money you already paid taxes on."

Now you want to change your argument that to be that the FEDERAL government cannot charge you a SECOND INCOME TAX, but since nobody suggested that they should, your point is stupid.

The proposal is not an income tax. It's a wealth tax. We don't care where the money came from - income, inheritance, or whatnot. We only care that you have it.

(a) Yes, "the government" can and does reach into people's pockets more than once to take money previously taxed, even if the group doing it is the state or local government, not the federal government.
(b) Yes, the inheritance tax is another example of it - and if the inheritance tax is legal (regardless of morality, then this wealth tax is almost certainly legal, too.

[josh]

Yes no dirty filthy wall. No public works or infrastructure improvements. FDR will be tossing in his grave.

A WALL IS NOT INFRASTRUCTURE.

Is that really so hard to understand?

Have you read Trump's so-called Infrastructure Plan?!

Or are you going to keep beating this bogus drum?

No it is controlled tax and spend in Keynesian terms combined with the multiplier effect, all is good. Yes a really big public works program to improve and secure our borders. The argument against typical elitist emotionalism, dead babies and animals (just in; the wall theoretically could hurt the grey wolf). But what about the American worker, the jobs created, the economy dummies?

Yeah, what about the American worker!

As has been pointed out to you before, but which you keep ignoring, we have billions of dollars of infrastructure that needs building, Luee - bridges, roads, water systems, schools, dams! We don't lack for places to put that money, tasks that are far more needed than the border with Mexico.

A good many in middle America believe that secure borders are more important than roads or bridges.

Sure. But they believe that because they have been lied to incessantly by the GOP, Luee.

They used to believe (and many still do) that Mexicans are lazy and that Blacks are untamed sexual predators. Many of them believe races should not marry.

We are not in the habit of capitulating to prejudice on that massive a scale as much as we used to be.

But...

Why not do everything instead of whining?

In case it has escaped your attention, we have a significant percentage of the government that is insisting we cannot afford to pay for our veterans' health care and you want to propose that we "do everything?" They won't pay for the infrastructure that needs doing, let alone the placebo you want to give the angry, deluded folks who want to blame "illegal immigrants" for everything from eating up government benefits to the huge increase in violent crime to taking all their jobs, when none of those is truth.

I repeat, "have you looked at the president's so-called infrastructure plan?!"

But you also declared that:

Illegals are not escaping persecution but looking for a free lunch.

So good of you to speak for them all. 60% or more of them overstayed visas. Free lunch is not what they are doing.

"There were 10.7 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2016." That was 3.3%, down from 4% in 2007.

"The U.S. civilian workforce includes 7.8 million unauthorized immigrants, representing a decline since 2007." Does that sound like they're looking for a free lunch to you?! It sure doesn't to me.

They're looking for a job that pays more than what they could get at home or better living conditions or safer living conditions or to stay where they have found and made a home. Handouts are not what they are hear for.

"About two-thirds (66%) of unauthorized immigrant adults in 2016 had been in the U.S. more than 10 years, compared with 41% in 2007. A declining share of unauthorized immigrants have lived in the U.S. for less than five years – 18% of adults in 2016, compared with 30% in 2007."

We have a declining problem at the southern border. We have a long term unauthorized immigrant population far more than a short term one.

And your biased and erroneous view of what they are here for is ignorant.

The US has a legal immigration program designed to help true asylum seekers and designed to not stretch social programs or destroy labor unions.

"True" asylum seekers, but which you mean those you approve of?

I happen to agree that there is a "legal immigration program designed to help" asylum seekers. This president has been ignoring it at best and actively undermining it or worse, much of the time.

You've ignored everything else I have written. Is that because it is inconvenient?

1) A wall won't solve the bulk of the immigration problem or even close to it.
2) What we need, Luee, is a serious infrastructure plan, which excludes Donald Trump's proposal.

a) The US Department of Transportation estimates that we need $800,000,000,000 (Eight hundred billion dollars) "just" to shore up our roads and bridges.

b) A consulting firm (McKinsey) estimated we need to spend $150 billion per year from 2017 through 2030 just to keep things going.

c) The American Society of Civil Engineers estimated (in 2016) we needed $1.5 trillion between 2017 and 2025.

d) The EPA estimated (in 2016) that drinking water, wastewater, and irrigation systems will require $632 billion in additional investment over the next decade.

It hasn't gotten better in the last 2 years.

So, take that paltry $5.7 billion that you want to spend on the worthless wall and fix our roads, our bridges, our dams, and our water systems, at a minimum.

It will generate tons of jobs for Americans (even if some unauthorized folks get a few of the jobs, too). It will enhance the economy, but eliminating an estimated drag of $150-200 billion a year caused by our highway and airport delays. It will see up to $3 flow in GDP for ever $1 spent directly.

Or keep up your whining about the ridiculous wall.

[josh]

https://www.businessinsider.com/ann-coulter-slams-trump-on-bill-maher-over-government-shutdown-bill-2019-1?utm_content=buffer94dff&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer-politics

Coulter slammed Trump for the concession, telling "Real Time" host Bill Maher *that the president had broken* "the promise he made every day for 18 months."

"Now you're finding out he's a lying con man," Maher said. "What was your first clue?"

Over laughs and shouts from the audience, Coulter replied "Okay, I'm a very stupid girl, fine."

[REDSTATEWARD]

The latest from presidential- candidate wannabe Elizabth Warren, trying to keep up with AOC on “let’s keep soaking the rich”.

United States Sen­a­tor Eliz­a­beth War­ren (D-Mass.) to­day un­veiled the Ul­tra-Mil­lion­aire Tax, a bold pro­posal to tax the wealth of the rich­est 0.1% of Amer­i­cans. The leg­is­la­tion, which ap­plies only to house-holds with a net worth of $50 mil­lion or more, is es­ti­mated by lead­ing econ­o­mists to raise $2.75 tril­lion in tax rev­enue over a ten-year pe­riod.

Those “ leading “ economists come from the usual cast of leftist characters but that is irrelevant.
Warren’s proposal is clearly unconstitutional.
Which is irrelevant to her purpose.
Which is to further the democrat strategy of only taxing the rich.

How is it unconstitutional?

Read 16th Amend­ment (It fails as an in­come tax) and Ar­ti­cle I, Sec­tion 9, Clause 4 (It fails be­cause it is an un­ap­por­tioned di­rect tax).

The 16th was written precisely because of the gross impracticality of apportionment.  It chucked out apportionment for income tax.  Just because the very rich earn money in a different way doesn't mean that apportionment suddenly becomes sensible again.   Courts have generally rejected apportionment, and it clearly makes no sense when people earn money across multiple state borders.   Think about it.

You need to think about it.
The 16th Amendment allows “ income” from all sources to be taxed. But the government cannot reach into your pocket and tax money you already paid taxes on.

Yeah, like an inheritance tax! Or a property tax!

Oops.

Josh. Ignorance of our laws is something a global moderator ought to be ashamed of.

*phew*

I dodged that bullet, then!

No specifics from you, because you have no real point, just a need to contradict.

To be clear. You contradicted me. With nonsense.

Hah!

You indicated that "the government cannot reach into your pocket and tax money you already paid taxes on."

I contradicted that. The facts contradict that.


The inheritance tax is exactly that. Indeed, that is one of the biggest complaints against it.

Really ?  Who pays the Inheritance tax?  It is an immoral tax, to be sure, but it isirrelevant to this conversation

And property tax involves either an annual levy against property you paid a sales tax to acquire, whether it's house/land or its the smaller personal property tax on certain items - let alone that you already also paid (or will pay) income tax on the money used to acquire that property. So.. I pay my income tax, my sales tax, and my property tax on my house - and you say the government cannot tax me on money I already paid taxes on?

Property taxes are levied by state and local governments. They are not income taxes. They have nothing to do with income.

If I have $51 million after taxes and put it in my mattress and take it out as needed none of it can be subject to a federal income tax again. Do you not understand this?

Duh.

But that's the point - you said nothing about income tax a second time.

Why would I? Whatever I have after income taxes have been paid is mine tax free forever.

You said, inaccurately, that "the government cannot reach into your pocket and tax money you already paid taxes on."

See previous answer of mine and take notes.

Now you want to change your argument that to be that the FEDERAL government cannot charge you a SECOND INCOME TAX, but since nobody suggested that they should, your point is stupid.

Im not changing any argument. Elizabeth Warren is proposing a violation to the 16th Amendment by instituting a tax on wealth, not income.

The proposal is not an income tax. It's a wealth tax.

Which is unconstitutional

We don't care where the money came from - income, inheritance, or whatnot. We only care that you have it.

LOL   Well thanks for admitting you don't care about the Constitution.

(a) Yes, "the government" can and does reach into people's pockets more than once to take money previously taxed, even if the group doing it is the state or local government, not the federal government.

Think about what you just wrote. If that is possible.

(b) Yes, the inheritance tax is another example of it - and if the inheritance tax is legal (regardless of morality, then this wealth tax is almost certainly legal, too.

The inheritance tax,is immoral.  The Warren " wealth tax" is illegal.

[josh]

The inheritance tax,is immoral.  The Warren " wealth tax" is illegal.

Repeating yourself does not actually constitute an argument.

And btw, gift taxes happen while you're alive - and it is, again, the FEDERAL government taxing money that you have already been taxed on.

So, no, not yours forever, under certain circumstances.

And... you misinterpret what the 16th Amendment was/is for. It was not to restrict the taxing ability of Congress, but to answer/reverse a prior SCOTUS decision that blocked income taxes as had been formulated under a prior law.

One example of an explanation at hand is here:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=faculty_publications

[kiidcarter8]

Yes no dirty filthy wall. No public works or infrastructure improvements. FDR will be tossing in his grave.

A WALL IS NOT INFRASTRUCTURE.

Is that really so hard to understand?

Have you read Trump's so-called Infrastructure Plan?!

Or are you going to keep beating this bogus drum?

No it is controlled tax and spend in Keynesian terms combined with the multiplier effect, all is good. Yes a really big public works program to improve and secure our borders. The argument against typical elitist emotionalism, dead babies and animals (just in; the wall theoretically could hurt the grey wolf). But what about the American worker, the jobs created, the economy dummies?

Yeah, what about the American worker!

As has been pointed out to you before, but which you keep ignoring, we have billions of dollars of infrastructure that needs building, Luee - bridges, roads, water systems, schools, dams! We don't lack for places to put that money, tasks that are far more needed than the border with Mexico.

A good many in middle America believe that secure borders are more important than roads or bridges.

Sure. But they believe that because they have been lied to incessantly by the GOP, Luee.

They used to believe (and many still do) that Mexicans are lazy and that Blacks are untamed sexual predators. Many of them believe races should not marry.

We are not in the habit of capitulating to prejudice on that massive a scale as much as we used to be.

But...

Why not do everything instead of whining?

In case it has escaped your attention, we have a significant percentage of the government that is insisting we cannot afford to pay for our veterans' health care and you want to propose that we "do everything?" They won't pay for the infrastructure that needs doing, let alone the placebo you want to give the angry, deluded folks who want to blame "illegal immigrants" for everything from eating up government benefits to the huge increase in violent crime to taking all their jobs, when none of those is truth.

I repeat, "have you looked at the president's so-called infrastructure plan?!"

But you also declared that:

Illegals are not escaping persecution but looking for a free lunch.

So good of you to speak for them all. 60% or more of them overstayed visas. Free lunch is not what they are doing.

"There were 10.7 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2016." That was 3.3%, down from 4% in 2007.

"The U.S. civilian workforce includes 7.8 million unauthorized immigrants, representing a decline since 2007." Does that sound like they're looking for a free lunch to you?! It sure doesn't to me.

They're looking for a job that pays more than what they could get at home or better living conditions or safer living conditions or to stay where they have found and made a home. Handouts are not what they are hear for.

"About two-thirds (66%) of unauthorized immigrant adults in 2016 had been in the U.S. more than 10 years, compared with 41% in 2007. A declining share of unauthorized immigrants have lived in the U.S. for less than five years – 18% of adults in 2016, compared with 30% in 2007."

We have a declining problem at the southern border. We have a long term unauthorized immigrant population far more than a short term one.

And your biased and erroneous view of what they are here for is ignorant.

Very true

Much more "free lunch" goes to US citizens.  But this does not mean that an immigration numbers problem doesn't add at all to those rolls

[REDSTATEWARD]

The inheritance tax,is immoral.  The Warren " wealth tax" is illegal.

Repeating yourself does not actually constitute an argument.

I am stating a fact not an argument.

And btw, gift taxes happen while you're alive - and it is, again, the FEDERAL government taxing money that you have already been taxed on.

Who pays gift taxes?

So, no, not yours forever, under certain circumstances.

Under ALL circumstances

And... you misinterpret what the 16th Amendment was/is for. It was not to restrict the taxing ability of Congress, but to answer/reverse a prior SCOTUS decision that blocked income taxes as had been formulated under a prior law.

One example of an explanation at hand is here:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=faculty_publications

Nice article 
Doesn't change the the meaning of the 16th amendment.
Taxing wealth is illegal.

[luee]

I want a wall and bridges and infrastructure. Sorry I am not for open borders or mass immigration like HRC or Nancy or Chuck. But I cannot afford to bailout when the US inevitably turns into a third world quagmire.