The Trump Presidency – 2016

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The long term alternative is to hurry and build the darn wall already!

Trump should just concede that Mexico won't "directly" pay for the wall (although he can probably say/lie that renegotiated NAFTA essentially means Mexico is paying for it) and scrap a budgeted $13B aircraft carrier to get started.

Please explain the logic here. How is a wall going to deter future caravans? If they are coming on foot over 1,000 miles, a wall isn't going to do anything. A wall is a visible sign of failure of policy. There are still going to be border checkpoints people can go to and apply for asylum.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by cartman

Please explain the logic here. How is a wall going to deter future caravans? If they are coming on foot over 1,000 miles, a wall isn't going to do anything. A wall is a visible sign of failure of policy. There are still going to be border checkpoints people can go to and apply for asylum.

Good point.

Let me amend and say "the wall plus holistic immigration reform".

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Good point.

Let me amend and say "the wall plus holistic immigration reform".

Then why the wall at all?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Then why the wall at all?

Because the wall will help stop/reduce unauthorized border crossing?

[bbgunn]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I was listening to NPR today. They had a guest from Brazil (talking about something else but it got to the elections).

Two things I remember

1) This guy is worse than Trump in terms of rhetoric (more like Duterte)
2) This guy had wide support because apparently people think he is the best chance to curb crime & violence

Apparently crime is really bad.

Yeah, it's pretty bad.

I'm very interested in the country of Brazil to the point where I study Portuguese, watch news from Brazil, have "chat pals" in the country to practice the language, etc.

Basically, all the stuff Trump was saying in his campaign - the inner cities are full of "carnage" and high crime, tons of corruption in the government, etc. - are no doubt true in Brazil. The crime especially is bad, as people have pointed out. You can't even go out your house without being worried about being robbed at gunpoint, carjacked, etc. The economy is in a shambles. The left-leaning party that has ruled for 13 years are corrupt to a T and the public have (rightfully) lost all trust in them, to the point where a slight majority of them are willing to elect a guy who (A) may have even worse views than Trump on gays, minorities, women, the media, etc., (B) has been a politician for 30+ years (meaning he is competent in a way Trump is not) and (C) favors a dictatorship, has military experience as an army captain and is going to fill his cabinet with former generals (kind of like Trump, but Bolsonaro knows how the military works).

[RainMaker]

I think one of the differences in these guys and Trump is that Trump is extraordinarily lazy. It sounds like he just wants to tweet and watch cable news all day while some of these guys are all about action.

I do work in Brazil and go down there twice a year. The country definitely has it's issues and it'll be interesting to see what direction they go. Kind of sad to say but it should be good for business for me as this guy will probably open things up more and let other businesses in to raid the country.

[RainMaker]

And the crime is legit. I remember the first time I was there getting specific instructions on areas I was not supposed to go to. Kind of like a boundary for us where it was safe. And even then we were advised not to carry a wallet full of cash and cards.

Also that first night there was a massive shootout on one of their big highways between the cops and some gang. Like machine guns and all that could be heard from our hotel.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I read some militia folks are going down to the border. So they are obviously worried.

They probably won't help the situation, but yes I believe they'll show up.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Because the wall will help stop/reduce unauthorized border crossing?

In terms of people who live at those cross-country cities maybe, but in terms of a caravan from central america no. They're going to travel 1000+ miles then decide an 8-ft higher wall is the deterrent they can't cross?

Originally Posted by Edward64

It would be an interesting social experiment to put guns in the hands of the "good guys" and see how it plays out.

This list is by cities.

List of cities by murder rate - Wikipedia

Mexico has 5 in top 10
Brazil has 3 in top 10
Venezuela has 2 in the top 10

It is an interesting question. The US market for drugs and the available money from that is probably a little responsible for Mexico having 5, but tying Venezuela and Brasilian cities in would be a stretch.

Obviously much of Africa and places like Iraq aren't counted here if they're "at war", (and I'm shocked no city in Central America makes it), but it's very striking Mexico/SA takes all the top spots here. Given how people talk you'd think a southeast Asian city would be on that list.

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Good guys are in the eye of the beholder, or should I say the eye of the person who writes the history texts. You could look at the Philippines as an example I suppose, and you'd also have to ask if it's worth killing a handful of innocents to get the bad guys, and if you're willing to hand the power over to someone who might just keep the guns trained on the 'bad guys' longer than he needs to, all in the name of public order, of course.

Back when I took PoliSci seriously the numbers showed that having a benevolent authoritarian regime interested in expanding a market economy was the best way to expand your economy. I don't have any clue if that also applies to social norms (and I don't think there was quite enough definitive cultural neutral info coming out in the post Cold War period. Or now.)

I'd never describe guys like Duterte or Bolsonaro as good guys, but as to whether they'll be good for their countries long term trajectory? I'm curious more than anything. (Duterte much less so, as I think there was only a relatively small part of the Phillipines that wasn't pro-Phillipines, and the crime rate across the country was actually much lower despite the rhetoric.) But it's clear something was broken in Brasil's transition from military dictatorship to democracy, so why not reset things and see if they can have less violence now and less corruption when they open up again long term? (I mean, obviously the latter won't happen, but the former definitely will... even if it's juking the stats.)

[miami_fan]

Trump will sign order ending automatic citizenship for children born in US - The Boston Globe

President Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born in the US, Axios reports, citing comments made in an interview for “Axios on HBO.”

If this is signed, can we be done with the "only the illegal immigrants" narrative? The "we want them to come in the right way" narrative?

Yes, I am biased. I am raising my hand as one who would not have had a right to citizenship though I was born in the U.S.

[Edward64]

This is part of the solution for unauthorized immigration (assuming its within his powers) and like it.

I do wish it was part of a holistic package of immigration reform vs dribs-and-drabs so Congress can debate and vote as a whole (e.g. wall, temp workers, H1B reform etc.). However, maybe Trump has it right by doing this in bits and pieces as the big program is too big to do at one time.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/polit...hip/index.html

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump says he plans to sign an executive order that would end the right to citizenship for the children of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on US soil.

It's unclear if the President has the authority to strip citizenship of those born in the US with an executive order, and he did not say when he would sign the order in the clip released by Axios. CNN has reached out to the White House for comment.

"We're the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits," Trump said in an interview for "Axios on HBO."

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Trump will sign order ending automatic citizenship for children born in US - The Boston Globe

If this is signed, can we be done with the "only the illegal immigrants" narrative? The "we want them to come in the right way" narrative?

Yes, I am biased. I am raising my hand as one who would not have had a right to citizenship though I was born in the U.S.

Good point about "non-citizens" being part of this equation. So the scenario is a legit PR/green card holder having kids. If a parent eventually become a citizen, direct relatives (e.g. spouse, kids) already have an relatively easy way to become citizens, assume that would not change (but its not immediate becoming a citizen). Not sure what would happen if the kid turns 18/21 though.

[JPhillips]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

So he wants to amend the constitution by executive order. I can't imagine that survives any legal challenge, but I doubt he even ever formally signs an order. This is probably just another tactic to get the base to vote.

[Ksyrup]

Yeah, this, the troops to the border, floating the idea of another tax cut... all a couple of weeks from the election. What a surprise.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Because the wall will help stop/reduce unauthorized border crossing?

I still amazes me that any reasonably intelligent person, and by all accounts you are, thinks a wall will stop anything.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So he wants to amend the constitution by executive order. I can't imagine that survives any legal challenge, but I doubt he even ever formally signs an order. This is probably just another tactic to get the base to vote.

This is so rich coming from the side who pretends the constitution is a gold plated statute for guns.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I still amazes me that any reasonably intelligent person, and by all accounts you are, thinks a wall will stop anything.

Exactly, living in Arizona the demographic that Trump touts the most in his fear mongering (Drug cartels) don't send their product in on illegals, or migrant "caravans" that sneak across the border where a wall would be. The biggest source of drug trafficking in terms of sheer bulk include the following.

1-Tunnels UNDER the border
2-Product stored in commercial commerce vehicles or private vehicles entering through regulated border crossings
3-Drug Mules that travel legally between countries via commercial couriers
4-Aircraft or boats

A wall would stop exactly 0.00 of these methods.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

They're hundreds of miles away. By the time they get here few of them will be left, and those that show up can be processed like others seeking asylum. A Civil War army could march @15 miles per day. Considering the distance and the composition of the caravan, putting the military on the border now is clearly an election stunt.

Keep in mind a few days ago a WH official was quoted as saying Trump was not being truthful regarding the caravan, but, "that's the play." It's all a con.

I'm not supporting or defending Trump. Perhaps this is nothing but a get out to vote ploy.


But from a just logistic conversation.
1) The caravan is moving faster now that the Mexican government is assisting them and is even considering transporting them.
Mexico City sends 47-vehicle aid brigade to support first migrant caravan
2) You do understand that an order to send military personnel to the border doesn't just wave a magic wand and poof all are there right? It takes time to mobilize and deploy troops. And in the sake of being fair to military families advance notice is kind of nice?



Do I think we need 5,000 armed troops on the border?
I dont know. I dont know how many are in the caravan. But I would rather over respond than under respond. Send too few and they get over whelmed and mistakes happen and you have a huge humanitarian story and needless deaths.


Cartman's point about border crossing current volumes is valid, IF this caravan decides to walk down the road and cross at the marked border crossing. Even then I'm not sure how prepared border crossing stations are for 2,000 folks on foot without documentation. Its one thing to stop/block a vehicle folks on foot are a little harder to detain.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Exactly, living in Arizona the demographic that Trump touts the most in his fear mongering (Drug cartels) don't send their product in on illegals, or migrant "caravans" that sneak across the border where a wall would be. The biggest source of drug trafficking in terms of sheer bulk include the following.

1-Tunnels UNDER the border
2-Product stored in commercial commerce vehicles or private vehicles entering through regulated border crossings
3-Drug Mules that travel legally between countries via commercial couriers
4-Aircraft or boats

A wall would stop exactly 0.00 of these methods.

I personally think there are 2 distinct and completely separate groups/issues.


1) The drugs/gun/whatever smugglers and I agree whole heartedly with you. You are absolutely correct.

2) The illegal immigrants whose sole mission is to get themselves here. Those folks are flowing in pretty much undeterred.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So he wants to amend the constitution by executive order. I can't imagine that survives any legal challenge, but I doubt he even ever formally signs an order. This is probably just another tactic to get the base to vote.

Even this White House can't believe that you can sign an executive order to amend the Constitution.

[JPhillips]

Overstaying a visa is still the easiest way to become an illegal immigrant. In 2017 there were an estimated 545000 people violating their visa terms. A wall won't do anything for those people.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Overstaying a visa is still the easiest way to become an illegal immigrant. In 2017 there were an estimated 545000 people violating their visa terms. A wall won't do anything for those people.

Due to the very nature of estimating such things, estimates vary wildly. But the quick research suggests the total number of illegal immigrants in the country is somewhere between 11M and 22M.


If we take the lowest number of $11M those 545k represent 4.9%

I am ok with initiating action that addresses the 95% initially and then we can circle back to the 5%.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Overstaying a visa is still the easiest way to become an illegal immigrant. In 2017 there were an estimated 545000 people violating their visa terms. A wall won't do anything for those people.

It will help to keep them in!

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

2) The illegal immigrants whose sole mission is to get themselves here. Those folks are flowing in pretty much undeterred.

And they will just bring a ladder or shovel instead of bolt cutters.

[PilotMan]

I kind of stunned how the party of 'no' is so willing to blank check a 25 billion dollar initial expense, that will inevitably lead to a multi-billion dollar ongoing overhead for maintenance and staffing. It's not an insignificant amount of money.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Lathum

And they will just bring a ladder or shovel instead of bolt cutters.

Cameras.
Remote IP addressable.
With laser beams....




I find it a hilarious juxtaposition of the guys who want to ban something in the name of gun control. I.E. Bump stocks (which again I supported their ban) in the name of "even if it doesnt solve the problem it helps and every incremental help is positive" and then the same folks say "a wall wont keep out everyone so why bother"


Dont you think that's a bit inconsistent?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I kind of stunned how the party of 'no' is so willing to blank check a 25 billion dollar initial expense, that will inevitably lead to a multi-billion dollar ongoing overhead for maintenance and staffing. It's not an insignificant amount of money.

But the savings from not supporting illegals and their tax on infrastructure, I would argue, would be a net positive.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

But the savings from not supporting illegals and their tax on infrastructure, I would argue, would be a net positive.

Illegals pay a lot of taxes, get no representation, and are routinely underpaid. I think you're overestimating the actual cost.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

But the savings from not supporting illegals and their tax on infrastructure, I would argue, would be a net positive.

How about the savings from not having a department totally devoted to stopping illegal immigration at all? I think I read it was in the 10-20 billion dollar range of savings to end immigration checks altogether.

If you are interested in saving money, there's a bunch right there.

I guess I don't find my personal stance on gun control and immigration control inconsistent, because I don't want immigration control at all. It is a waste of time and money and is just another easy way to keep people of different races apart and at odds.

Plus, you would get to tax all those "illegals" now. It's a win-win.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Due to the very nature of estimating such things, estimates vary wildly. But the quick research suggests the total number of illegal immigrants in the country is somewhere between 11M and 22M.


If we take the lowest number of $11M those 545k represent 4.9%

I am ok with initiating action that addresses the 95% initially and then we can circle back to the 5%.

The overstay number is PER year. For example, 2016 was 700,000 and in 2000 it was 1.6 million

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Even this White House can't believe that you can sign an executive order to amend the Constitution.

Yep.. In order for it to happen, the 14th amendment would have to eliminated. You know, that one the Civil War was fought over, the one that grants the vote and citizenship to African Americans...

(Not sure if this counts as dog whistle, but getting close)

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Illegals pay a lot of taxes, get no representation, and are routinely underpaid. I think you're overestimating the actual cost.

The ones I see pay virtually no tax and are paid commensurate with legals in the same job. Go on a construction site and find a drywall/painting/plumbing crew. The likely illegals on there are making the same hourly wage as other. They have to be or the owner opens himself up to a discrimination suit. Their tax forms are filled our married and 9 dependents or outright "exempt". In either case nothing beyond FIC is withheld. zero federal or state income tax.


They also cause impact on utility, infrastructure and especially healthcare.

Originally Posted by Butter

How about the savings from not having a department totally devoted to stopping illegal immigration at all? I think I read it was in the 10-20 billion dollar range of savings to end immigration checks altogether.

If you are interested in saving money, there's a bunch right there.

I guess I don't find my personal stance on gun control and immigration control inconsistent, because I don't want immigration control at all. It is a waste of time and money and is just another easy way to keep people of different races apart and at odds.

Plus, you would get to tax all those "illegals" now. It's a win-win.

I mean if we want to just ave money, let's just eliminate the Department of Defense. Hell we'd wipe the deficit away in about 2 years.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

The overstay number is PER year. For example, 2016 was 700,000 and in 2000 it was 1.6 million

Im not sure how that stat is calculated, or where it is even pulled from. I was responding to Jphilips statement that:

In 2017 there were an estimated 545000 people violating their visa terms

If their VISA expired in 2016 or 1999 they are still violating it. So if the total number of visa violators is 545k then its a sub 5% impact.
If you are right and its actually as high as 10% annualized...then as soon as we address the 90% lets also start enforcing the 10%...hell lets even do it concurrently.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I mean if we want to just ave money, let's just eliminate the Department of Defense. Hell we'd wipe the deficit away in about 2 years.

You're the one that said you wanted to save money. If you want to save money, let's save some real fuckin' money. Might even make money by getting many of these "illegals" into the system. But then they're going to "take our jobs" or something. They're all rapists. I don't know what the argument against is this week.

And I would advocate also cutting the DoD budget way down too, so I agree with you.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Butter

You're the one that said you wanted to save money. If you want to save money, let's save some real fuckin' money. Might even make money by getting many of these "illegals" into the system. But then they're going to "take our jobs" or something. They're all rapists. I don't know what the argument against is this week.

And I would advocate also cutting the DoD budget way down too, so I agree with you.

I've been pretty consistent in my viewpoint here on immigration. I support massive reform to streamline and reduce the cost of legal immigration. To make it easier to immigrate legally.



In conjunction I support a 1 strike and you are out forever ammendment. In other words we are going to make a simplified and reasonable path to legal citizenship. However if you try to sneak in or otherwise circumvent that process you are ineligible for citizenship, or legal entry for life.


I dont fear mean sneaky rapist, murder, thief Mexicans. I employ 7 Hispanic descent Americans (out of my 53 employees)...I obviously dont fear them.


My sole complaint is on the wide spread lack of contribution and abuse of the system.


Having said that, I support reform of policy but I also firmly believe until policy is reformed you dont break the law to get what you want.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Cameras.
Remote IP addressable.
With laser beams....




I find it a hilarious juxtaposition of the guys who want to ban something in the name of gun control. I.E. Bump stocks (which again I supported their ban) in the name of "even if it doesnt solve the problem it helps and every incremental help is positive" and then the same folks say "a wall wont keep out everyone so why bother"


Dont you think that's a bit inconsistent?

Seems like a false equivalency. The wall will not be paid for by Mexico, as promised, and will be a huge economic drain. Enacting gun control would likely be of minimal cost to taxpayers and have a far greater benefit. I honestly don’t see how the two are remotely related.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

If their VISA expired in 2016 or 1999 they are still violating it. So if the total number of visa violators is 545k then its a sub 5% impact.
If you are right and its actually as high as 10% annualized...then as soon as we address the 90% lets also start enforcing the 10%...hell lets even do it concurrently.

I believe that number is based on which people had their visa expire that year. FWIW, my father was someone who overstayed his student visa, back in the 1970s. He soon got an engineering job in PA and got a work visa, and eventually became a citizen. Contributed quite a bit of tax money in those 3+ decades (not to mention the tax money his kids have contributed). Folks that overstay generally are ones who have or are in the market for high paying jobs (and then their work places help them get work visas).

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Seems like a false equivalency. The wall will not be paid for by Mexico, as promised, and will be a huge economic drain. Enacting gun control would likely be of minimal cost to taxpayers and have a far greater benefit. I honestly don’t see how the two are remotely related.

Not drawing any correlation in regards to cost. Just in the sake of incremental progress.


I was attempting to draw a parallel to



lets ban high capacity magazines - but no one at XYZ crime scene was killed with a high cap magazine - Well it will prevent some and some is better than none


Contrast that with


Build a wall - well 10% are here legally and the wall wont prevent and some % will climbe the wall or dig under it...wall is no good.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Having said that, I support reform of policy but I also firmly believe until policy is reformed you dont break the law to get what you want.

Just on this or overall? Because I do firmly believe Martin Luther King's statement that there are unjust laws and they should be resisted - such as sitting in white only seats at a lunch counter for example, which is breaking the law after all.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I dont fear mean sneaky rapist, murder, thief Mexicans. I employ 7 Hispanic descent Americans (out of my 53 employees)...I obviously dont fear them.

Are they legal? If so, not really germane to this discussion. If not, then you're part of the problem. I would be very surprised if that were the case.

But I think you would ultimately save more money by allowing "illegal immigrants" into the healthcare system and having some of them pay their own way. The others would be treated like the indigent population is treated now, their cost is shared by the whole "system", often by localities instead of the Federal government.

And in this case, I would advocate law-breaking as part of civil disobedience. If we're going to foment instability in Latin America, then we have to pay the price in one way or another.

[cartman]

Trump on US jobs created by reported $110 billion Saudi arms deal
October 13: 450,000
October 17: 500,000
October 19: 600,000
October 20: 1 million

Reality, from @MichaelStone: Lockheed forecasts fewer than 1,000 US jobs, nearly 10,000 new jobs in Saudihttps://t.co/Mq5KqANuAV

— Jack Detsch (@JackDetsch_ALM) October 30, 2018

At this rate, by Christmas time every one on the planet will have a job due to the Saudi arms deal.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Butter

Are they legal? If so, not really germane to this discussion. If not, then you're part of the problem. I would be very surprised if that were the case.

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - The Trump Presidency – 2016

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Just on this or overall? Because I do firmly believe Martin Luther King's statement that there are unjust laws and they should be resisted - such as sitting in white only seats at a lunch counter for example, which is breaking the law after all.

I was referring specifically to this instance.
I likewise support Dr. King's position.


I would clarify/separate the two, personally, this way. As an American civil disobedience is a protest to (perceived) unjust American laws. As a non-American you dont have the right to protest our laws because they dont apply to you. (royal you not specific you - of course).


I would also point out the Dr. King accepted without fight his arrest. he accepted punishment for breaking the law and intended (and succeeded) to use his plight as an example to enact change.


All too often when discussing civil disobedience people want to enable the act and have zero immediate consequences for that act. That wasnt Dr. King's message

[Butter]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - The Trump Presidency – 2016

Are you/they paying into Medicare / Social Security?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I would clarify/separate the two, personally, this way. As an American civil disobedience is a protest to (perceived) unjust American laws. As a non-American you dont have the right to protest our laws because they dont apply to you. (royal you not specific you - of course).

I might argue that King would disagree with that (as he'd indicate an unjust law is no law at all, regardless of your residency or citizenship as we are all Children of God) .

All too often when discussing civil disobedience people want to enable the act and have zero immediate consequences for that act. That wasnt Dr. King's message

Well I don't think he'd complain terribly if they didn't get consequences for violating the segregation law (it was an unjust law after all), but he did prefer that they ran into a Bull Conner or some other over the top response so he could change public opinion.

[JPhillips]

The SC sales tax is 6%, so they pay that tax on applicable purchases. They pay roughly 39 cents per gallon of gas in state and federal taxes. They are paying about 14% in payroll taxes(there's and employer's share).

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Butter

Are you/they paying into Medicare / Social Security?

FICA is held out of their checks automatically by our payroll processor, currently in all cases. In the past have had an exempt claiming employee who did not have it withheld.

I might argue that King would disagree with that (as he'd indicate an unjust law is no law at all, regardless of your residency or citizenship as we are all Children of God) .

And in that very quote I clarified that I personally separate the two cases based on my belief system. We can go into a rabbit hole discussion here, but its why I dont think foreign terrorist are due due process, or cruel and unusual, or illegal search protection. Those are rights afforded by our governing docs and those not choosing to be bound by those docsarent afforded those rights.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The SC sales tax is 6%, so they pay that tax on applicable purchases. They pay roughly 39 cents per gallon of gas in state and federal taxes. They are paying about 14% in payroll taxes(there's and employer's share).

Of course gas tax is collected at the pump.



Sales tax on things bought - yes, though there is quite a diverse and complex sub market you would be surprised by. There are WIC purchases which are then sold for cash to fund non WIC covered purchases. There are regular clients and shopping lists and its a pretty remarkable thing to watch transpire quite honestly. And it totally circumvents some sales tax, though admittedly not all.



But again everyone pays this, and should.


Its the last piece, the payroll tax where things get complicated.
With a married and 9 declaration no payroll tax is withheld. zero. zilch.


If I were to show you a check stub it would say fed withheld -0 state withheld - 0 ytd 0, 0...and these are guys making $60k year.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

And in that very quote I clarified that I personally separate the two cases based on my belief system. We can go into a rabbit hole discussion here, but its why I dont think foreign terrorist are due due process, or cruel and unusual, or illegal search protection. Those are rights afforded by our governing docs and those not choosing to be bound by those docsarent afforded those rights.

Ok. I wasn't sure if you were indicating that it was King's position.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Ok. I wasn't sure if you were indicating that it was King's position.

Just for clarification, I'm not going to personally protest Japan or Australia's gun control laws because I don't live there and they don't affect me. I don't have a right, in my view, to climb on the table and scream for the rights of their people to won guns. I just choose not to live there.


In the same vein, a non citizen of the US doesnt have the right to protet our citizenship process because it doesnt affect them. If they dont like the process our country set then simply choose not to come here.


To instead insist on coming here and doing it on your terms, is akin to a 5 year old pitching a fit in the grocery store because they want candy and they want it now, in my eyes.

[RainMaker]

All these strict constructionists who praised Kavanaugh are eerily silent on his executive order that violates the 14th amendment.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Its the last piece, the payroll tax where things get complicated.
With a married and 9 declaration no payroll tax is withheld. zero. zilch.

If I were to show you a check stub it would say fed withheld -0 state withheld - 0 ytd 0, 0...and these are guys making $60k year.

I would tell you that the employer is breaking the law.

FICA can't be gamed on a W-4. Everyone has to pay in and employers have to withhold. That's 15.3% on that $60k that you can't get around.

There's also FUTA which is small but still a tax that is paid in that they can't receive benefits from.

So if you take a married man who is making $60k, he's contributing $9,540 toward SS, Medicare and FUTA which he will not be able to collect. Now in your example he's avoiding $6,160 in withholding for federal and state taxes (using your state as an example). So the government and American people are technically $3,380 in the black on this one.