The Trump Presidency – 2016

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Financial fraud and tax evasions is a rather huge issue ...

... that pales in comparison to surrendering a nation to invaders.

[JPhillips]

We can't equally enforce every law, time and resources are finite. Given that, where should we put our focus? As a society we've pretty clearly decided to let crimes by the powerful merit less enforcement than crimes by the powerless. Any discussion about, "enforcing the laws" has to come to grips with these realities.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Also I'm not trying to make a "fuck the rich" rant. I'm just saying I think everyone should have to play by the same rules. If my company pays federal taxes, Amazon should too. If I have to follow laws related to financial fraud, banks should too.

Why do I have a feeling that if you or I laundered money for drug cartels and helped fund terrorists, we'd probably be in jail?

HSBC spared further US money laundering sanctions as it battles to clean up its act

You know the old saying, Kidnap a kid and go to jail, kidnap 2000 kids and eat a nice meal undisturbed.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

So is your counterpoint "why enforce the immigration laws when there are so many other laws not enforced?" If it is, let's settle on one or two laws (non-immigration) that you believe rises to the same level of degree/equivalence/whatever?

You seemed to be stating that the immigration laws already existed and 'required' the current implementation (which isn't the case or previous governments both Democrat and Republican would have done all that this administration is) because its 'law' - so my rebuttal was simply ... 'why for this law when we don't for others'.

I see the stance you're taking as akin to straight Christians pointing at Gay people and shouting 'sinner' because its a sin they won't commit and as such totally untenable ... while sins they might commit (gluttony, lying etc.) are seen as lesser in their eyes.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Many if not most recieve totally free healthcare through the emergency room loophole.
WIC (food stamps) they are eligible for without citizenship or documentation. Same goes for HUD assistance. They dont need citizenship to receive that.

Yes, programs for children are available. We made the decision that children have no say in the manner and should be supported regardless. The vast majority of government programs are not available.

As for the emergency room loophole, that was signed into law by a conservative icon and any attempts to change it have been fought by the same party. The anti-immigration can't exactly blame the loophole they fought to keep in place.

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

You may be right. I dont know. I dont think either of us can say definitively.

You can look up the tax rates and say definitively.

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

This is where we start to diverge a bit. You want to be treated in a dignified way? Carry yourself with some dignity. Dont sneak into a country you aren't allowed in. I have much more understanding and leniency for the expired work visa issue. But the straight out illegal immigrants, don't complain abut the conditions of the situation that you solely created.

Every single one of us would do the same thing if it meant a better life for our family. I mean aren't you the guy who has 8 guns stashed in his home for his family's safety? You wouldn't do that for your kids?

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

We'd have to get into specifics here..which would just derail the entire thread. Are you talking straight out tax evasion, or are you talking tax avoidance? Avoidance is sound business strategy, evasion is illegal. Dont like the laws that allow avoidance, fine change the laws. But dont cry because someone follows them.

I'm not blaming the companies for following the law. I'm blaming politicians for allowing avoidance to occur and be so easy. I'm blaming people who want to fellate a CEO at their own expense when that CEO would slit their throats for an extra nickel on their share price.

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I have much more understanding and leniency for the expired work visa issue.

Yeah I wonder why.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Then again maybe if we drive away enough corporations, maybe it will solve the immigration problem. I mean a poverty stricken land with no jobs and a gluten of unemployable workers is what they are leaving. If we turn America into that maybe it will be less desirable. Thats a hell of a long game, Ill give you that.

Historically if you look into economics taxation of the rich or corporations is in no way an impediment to their existence or whether they flourish, in fact high taxation actually can be argued to encourage growth because it tends to be reinvested in the citizens of a country and drive higher levels of education, productivity and income.

Right wing politicians (in all countries I've lived in) pedal the concept that the rich and corporations would flee if they were taxed more - this is simply their way of trying to bully people into a corner.

With regards to US companies think about it logically - they will still need to function and sell products within the US, so they aren't going anywhere so long as they're profitable they'll stay and contribute.

If you don't enforce corporations paying tax and giving back to society you end up unable to provide basic services for your country such as infrastructure, medical provision and education ... hmmm sounds familiar?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

This is where we start to diverge a bit. You want to be treated in a dignified way? Carry yourself with some dignity. Dont sneak into a country you aren't allowed in. I have much more understanding and leniency for the expired work visa issue. But the straight out illegal immigrants, don't complain abut the conditions of the situation that you solely created.

This I disagree with. Sure if it was a ISIL terrorist, a hispanic/latino drug/criminal go ahead and toss away the key. The typical illegal should be treated with a basic level of dignity (which is yet to be defined well but you get the idea).

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

We'd have to get into specifics here..which would just derail the entire thread. Are you talking straight out tax evasion, or are you talking tax avoidance? Avoidance is sound business strategy, evasion is illegal. Dont like the laws that allow avoidance, fine change the laws. But dont cry because someone follows them.

I agree that tax avoidance should not be included in this discussion, its legal and helps many regular people.

Tax Avoidance

BREAKING DOWN 'Tax Avoidance'
Most taxpayers use some form of tax avoidance. Even though it may seem negative, it really isn't. In fact, tax avoidance is a legal way for people or other entities to minimize their tax liability. These can be in the form of deductions or credits used to their advantage to lower their tax bills.

For example, individuals who contribute to employer-sponsored retirement plans with pre-tax funds are engaging in tax avoidance because the amount of taxes paid on the funds when they are withdrawn in retirement is usually less than the amount the individual would owe. Furthermore, retirement plans allow taxpayers to defer paying taxes until a much later date, which allows their savings to grow at a faster rate.

Tax Avoidance Is Encouraged
Tax avoidance is built into the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), which spans more than 75,000 pages. Lawmakers have used the IRC to manipulate taxpayer behavior by offering tax credits, deductions and exemptions in various aspects of people’s lives including healthcare, saving and investing, education, energy use and other activities. The tax benefits available in qualified retirement plans are to promote self-sufficiency in retirement. The death benefit of a life insurance policy is exempted from taxes to encourage family protection. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate to encourage more investments. Interest deductions on home mortgages foster more home ownership.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

You seemed to be stating that the immigration laws already existed and 'required' the current implementation (which isn't the case or previous governments both Democrat and Republican would have done all that this administration is) because its 'law' - so my rebuttal was simply ... 'why for this law when we don't for others'.

I'm not sure I understand the first part of the first paragraph of "required the current implementation". All I am saying is immigration laws exist, enforce them. If you don't like the laws, change them through the process. You can't have people flaunt the laws.

Which I think leads to the second half of the first paragraph "why for this and not another". The examples you provided were of LEO's using their discretion or giving a pass. I don't think those examples rise to the same level of "degree/equivalence/whatever".

RM then tossed out financial fraud, tax evasion and tax avoidance (I don't agree avoidance should be on the list) as examples he thinks rises to the same level of "degree/equivalence/whatever".

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I see the stance you're taking as akin to straight Christians pointing at Gay people and shouting 'sinner' because its a sin they won't commit and as such totally untenable ... while sins they might commit (gluttony, lying etc.) are seen as lesser in their eyes.

I see this analogy. But not all sins are equivalent or even close to being equivalent. Using an extreme counter example of your Christian-Gay, is killing someone the same as lying on your taxes? There has to be some consideration of whether or not its the same level of "degree/equivalence/whatever".

I do appreciate our civil debate. I think we are expressing our differences pretty well.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I agree that tax avoidance should not be included in this discussion, its legal and helps many regular people.

Tax Avoidance

When I'm talking about tax avoidance, I'm not talking about your IRA. I'm talking about an American company that operates in America hoarding all their earnings in Costa Rica so they don't have to pay taxes here. Or the guy who creates a dozen shell companies to hide his investments in Panama.

Change the laws to embody the spirit of them. Deferring taxes on retirement or health care is done to help people with important parts of their life (retirement, health). The other is abusing a loophole to not pay taxes into the country you benefit greatly from.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We can't equally enforce every law, time and resources are finite. Given that, where should we put our focus? As a society we've pretty clearly decided to let crimes by the powerful merit less enforcement than crimes by the powerless. Any discussion about, "enforcing the laws" has to come to grips with these realities.

As has every soceity (authoritarian, socialist, communist, monarchy, totalitarian, republic... ) in the history of the world. How is this unique to the United States? How is this unique to Donald Trump's presidency? Please cite me some examples of places where the rich aren't treated different? 1800s France? I mean I completely agree it isn't right or fair but it's pretty dumb when people act like this started in 2016. Think Carnegie wasn't playing by different rules? Were the rich going down during Obama's time in office? The impoverished farmer in 1850 had the same treatment as the wealthy tycoon?

[JPhillips]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that claiming to just, "enforce the law" is a problem because we make choices as to how we enforce the law based on time, resources, manpower, whims, money, political power, etc. Saying we're just enforcing the law in regards to immigration is making a choice to put our efforts there rather than to put those efforts towards something else. It isn't neutral.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that claiming to just, "enforce the law" is a problem because we make choices as to how we enforce the law based on time, resources, manpower, whims, money, political power, etc. Saying we're just enforcing the law in regards to immigration is making a choice to put our efforts there rather than to put those efforts towards something else. It isn't neutral.

And what I am saying is there is a strong narrative that somehow Donald Trump began a new era of lawlessness for the rich and powerful like the rich and powerful haven't been in control of everything for the entire history of the world.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Not sure there is a link to summarize my position. It's just that I think financial crimes are abundant and overlooked. Study finds that 25% of all mergers and acquisitions of public companies involve insider trading. That is a huge blow to the average person who has a 401k or some casual investments.

I wanted to find out the "degree" of the M&A impact. I found the below link
http://people.stern.nyu.edu/msubrahm/papers/M&A.pdf

If you go to pg 45, Illicit Profits vs Fines 1990-2013, it seems as if Fines are doing better than Illicit Profits. It looks as if the SEC (or whoever) is doing a pretty good job.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The financial collapse from a decade ago screwed a lot of people over. Banks and financial institutions committing fraud to push more mortgages. When that bubble burst, it didn't just hurt the people who took out bad mortgages, it hurt the property value of everyone with a home. It cost people jobs because their legit companies weren't able to borrow money to make payroll because the banks were in trouble.

I agree. The mortgage companies and the investment banks definitely contributed but I don't see you blame the "people" that took the ninja-and-like loans. They have blame here too.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

My stance is that this should be taken more seriously. The SEC funds itself yet is told to back down. White collar crimes hurt everyone. Not just the people involved in the transaction. And the lack of prosecutions following the financial collapse shows that they were literally above the law.

Absolutely agree with the last sentence. I'm not sure about your "SEC .. told to back down".

Originally Posted by RainMaker

As for taxes, I mean both evasion and avoidance. We need new laws in place that make it harder for companies predominately operating out of this country to funnel their money through shell companies offshore to avoid taxes. We need our government to make better trade deals that will help in stopping evasion as well.

Avoidance is not just big corporations, its you and me also. Its legal. However, I did not find any data on $ benefit to corporations vs people.

For Evasion, I found this wiki page with some stats. It only goes up to 2010. I did try looking for more recent data but I didn't find it.

Tax evasion in the United States - Wikipedia

Revenue lost increased steadily from 2001 to 2006-07 and then decreased to 2010 (latest year with data). If we extrapolate this (and not sure if we can but this is the only data I found), this would indicate the government is doing a better job at tax evasion since 2006-07.

*****

I think the discussion we are having here is why "The US seems to want to enforce the immigration laws but not some other laws/regulations that you believe rises to same level of degree/equivalence". I believe you've proposed financial fraud, tax evasion, and tax avoidance as your examples.

I think $ wise, I can believe the financial fraud, tax evasion exceeds the illegal immigration impact.

However, per my 2 links (admittedly not a holistic view), we are doing something about financial fraud (M&A) & tax evasion already, the laws are being enforced, maybe not as well as we would like it, but its happening somewhat decently.

,

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by panerd

And what I am saying is there is a strong narrative that somehow Donald Trump began a new era of lawlessness for the rich and powerful like the rich and powerful haven't been in control of everything for the entire history of the world.

I've seen bits-and-pieces that you may infer was being blamed on Trump in our discussion but, to be fair, his name hasn't come up alot.

The debate is about illegal immigration. I and some others are saying "There are immigration laws, enforce them. If you don't like the laws, change or reform them through the process. But you can't flaunt the law".

The come-back was "Why enforce the immigration laws when other laws aren't being enforced like financial fraud, tax evasion, tax avoidance"?

I think this is was the context of JPhillips comment, it wasn't specific to Trump's era.

FWIW, I did a quick analysis on "why not" question and just posted my reply above.

Hope this helps. If you already knew this, apologies for butting in.

[PilotMan]

I've kind of dropped off this thread in the last week. I've been a little busy with other things, but today and the last few days are the exact thing I saw coming pre-election and the single most demoralizing thing of this administration and the post-election results.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by panerd

And what I am saying is there is a strong narrative that somehow Donald Trump began a new era of lawlessness for the rich and powerful like the rich and powerful haven't been in control of everything for the entire history of the world.

Has anyone made that argument? We had a recession during Obama's presidency largely because of the lawlessness for the rich. I don't think anyone has forgotten and, unless I missed something, that hasn't been suggested here either.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Historically if you look into economics taxation of the rich or corporations is in no way an impediment to their existence or whether they flourish, in fact high taxation actually can be argued to encourage growth because it tends to be reinvested in the citizens of a country and drive higher levels of education, productivity and income.

Right wing politicians (in all countries I've lived in) pedal the concept that the rich and corporations would flee if they were taxed more - this is simply their way of trying to bully people into a corner.

With regards to US companies think about it logically - they will still need to function and sell products within the US, so they aren't going anywhere so long as they're profitable they'll stay and contribute.

If you don't enforce corporations paying tax and giving back to society you end up unable to provide basic services for your country such as infrastructure, medical provision and education ... hmmm sounds familiar?

Of course not. Here is what so many miss. You can not tax a company without taxing the poor. Period. Tax the largest corporation you can name, triple their tax. You know what happens they raise their price to offset lost profits. Either consumers pay more for their goods, or their business declines and they lay off workers, usually at the lowest and mid levels. Who gets hurt the worst? Unintended consequences and all that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I wanted to find out the "degree" of the M&A impact. I found the below link
http://people.stern.nyu.edu/msubrahm/papers/M&A.pdf

If you go to pg 45, Illicit Profits vs Fines 1990-2013, it seems as if Fines are doing better than Illicit Profits. It looks as if the SEC (or whoever) is doing a pretty good job.

That's when they are caught. It shows that action is taken against persons at a much lower rate (8%). You're still more likely than not to get away with it. And this data doesn't take into account the drop in SEC enforcement over the past year.

Originally Posted by Edward64

I agree. The mortgage companies and the investment banks definitely contributed but I don't see you blame the "people" that took the ninja-and-like loans. They have blame here too.

Sure. But they didn't commit fraud.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Avoidance is not just big corporations, its you and me also. Its legal. However, I did not find any data on $ benefit to corporations vs people.

We're talking about different things. Your IRA, health savings, etc were set up by the government to help people. It is something the government wants you to do because they see it as a benefit to the country.

Setting up holding companies in Bermuda to funnel your money through is not something the government set up because they felt it would benefit the country. It was a loophole that good tax attorneys found. It is a detriment to the country and should be fixed. I don't know how you can defend that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Of course not. Here is what so many miss. You can not tax a company without taxing the poor. Period. Tax the largest corporation you can name, triple their tax. You know what happens they raise their price to offset lost profits. Either consumers pay more for their goods, or their business declines and they lay off workers, usually at the lowest and mid levels. Who gets hurt the worst? Unintended consequences and all that.

If this were the case, why didn't prices drop 15% after the recent corporate tax cut?

Walmart can't triple their prices because their competitors won't and will crush them. Competition is what stops companies from charging whatever they want.

For what it's worth I'm fine with eliminating the corporate tax (well a small tax on holdings to prevent hoarding) if capital gains is taxed the same as income as it should be.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

And what I am saying is there is a strong narrative that somehow Donald Trump began a new era of lawlessness for the rich and powerful like the rich and powerful haven't been in control of everything for the entire history of the world.

No one is saying that. In fact, I think most people would argue that this has been something taking place over the last few decades. I mean I was part of the Google antitrust investigation and can tell you the only reason they weren't broken up is because the Obama administration was bought and paid for by them.

I think you're seeing more talk of it because the Trump administration has eliminated a lot of the regulations and has cut back drastically on enforcement. But I think most of us agree that both parties are in the tank.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's when they are caught. It shows that action is taken against persons at a much lower rate (8%). You're still more likely than not to get away with it. And this data doesn't take into account the drop in SEC enforcement over the past year.

Do you have any information on the total $ that is lost vs recovered/fine?

The chart shows $1.5 illicit vs $5.1 fined so there is alot of cushion for my point.

Otherwise, is it as simple as the the 25% total of all M&A deals minus the 8.3% and extrapolating the $? e.g.

1,859 deals x 25% = 465 suspected of insider trading
1,859 deals x 8.3% =154 deals litigated by SEC

Therefore = approx 3x
And 3 x $1.5 = $4.5 which is < $5.1 in fines

That's how I'm trying to gauge the scale of the problem.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Of course not. Here is what so many miss. You can not tax a company without taxing the poor. Period. Tax the largest corporation you can name, triple their tax. You know what happens they raise their price to offset lost profits. Either consumers pay more for their goods, or their business declines and they lay off workers, usually at the lowest and mid levels. Who gets hurt the worst? Unintended consequences and all that.

Taxes were higher under Obama than Bush yet under Obama we had 5% growth in inflation adjusted income for the median American household while it went down 4% under Bush.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

And what I am saying is there is a strong narrative that somehow Donald Trump began a new era of lawlessness for the rich and powerful like the rich and powerful haven't been in control of everything for the entire history of the world.

I don't know what to tell you. I neither believe that or have said that.

[JPhillips]

Trump: "We have more money and more brains and better houses and apartments and nicer boats. We are smarter than they are. They say the elite. We are the elite. You are the elite. "

A better type of people. Perhaps a master race.

[RainMaker]

This didn't get the kind of attention I thought it should. Not really Trump related as it seems like a program that's been going on for awhile. Kind of a scary and makes me want to encrypt everything.

The NSA’s Hidden Spy Hubs in Eight U.S. Cities

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Sure. But they didn't commit fraud.

Let me say that I certainly do believe there was a bunch of high pressure tactics. But regular people contributed to the problem. They share in the blame.

Was it 50-50, 70-30, I don't really know but your comment was all "banks and financial institutions" and implied it was all their fault which I didn't think was fair.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We're talking about different things. Your IRA, health savings, etc were set up by the government to help people. It is something the government wants you to do because they see it as a benefit to the country.

I see that now but it wasn't clear at the beginning.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Setting up holding companies in Bermuda to funnel your money through is not something the government set up because they felt it would benefit the country. It was a loophole that good tax attorneys found. It is a detriment to the country and should be fixed. I don't know how you can defend that.

Nope, I agree for the most and we should fix it. I've worked for US based multi-nationals that was based in Bermuda and I thought that was "un-patriotic" but it was legal.

I tried to research the delta between the benefit $ of tax avoidance for the corporations vs benefit $ tax avoidance for regular people, this was to try understand who benefited more in today's tax laws re: tax avoidance. I did not find the answer.

Ultimately, I believe this point is moot for our immigration debate as its currently "legal".

[Edward64]

No idea if he is right but if it happens this will tear country apart.

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin: ‘No Doubt’ Abortion Will Be Illegal In 20 States In 18 Months | HuffPost

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin had a grim response Wednesday to the news that Justice Anthony Kennedy will be retiring this summer: “Roe v. Wade is doomed.”

The 81-year-old justice, who has served on the U.S. Supreme Court for 30 years, was known as a swing vote on some issues. Now President Donald Trump will have the opportunity to place a more solidly conservative judge in Kennedy’s place, tilting the nation’s highest bench further in favor of Republicans.

Soon after Kennedy made his announcement, Toobin tweeted his prediction that abortion would be illegal in 20 states within 18 months.
:
:
There was “just no doubt,” Toobin said, that abortion would be illegal in a significant part of the United States within a year and a half.

[JPhillips]

We have more money and nicer boats. We are the elite.

That should be in commercials all over the country.

[cuervo72]

It's kind of what they've been aiming for all along?

[RainMaker]

Roberts might not go with it. His wife is a nutter but he has spoken in the past about precedent and a resistance to change that.

I don't know if it would be as big a deal as people are making it out to be. A lot of those states already make abortion really hard. And I think it would neuter the pro-life movement a bit as they can't use abortion as the excuse to legislate sex.

I do wonder if this would bring in more voters from the left. The Pro-Life movement is much more passionate and vote on the issue. I don't think the Pro-Choice side is as fervent perhaps because it is legal. I wonder if that change would bring people out of the woodwork to vote.

We would join some dubious countries though.

[JPhillips]

Just so we don't forget, none of this is really disputed:

Trump's campaign manager
owed millions to a Russian oligarch
and gave him campaign updates
and changed the RNC Ukraine policy
while Russia was hacking Trump's opponent

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Just so we don't forget, none of this is really disputed:

This and the bogus pardons throw a wrench into his "law and order" narrative with immigration.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This and the bogus pardons throw a wrench into his "law and order" narrative with immigration.

Yea but since a million things happen every day with this idiot those pardons feel like ages ago and by now a lot of people are desensitized to the circus.

[molson]

If a state legislature bans abortion tonight and someone is charged with felony abortion tomorrow it wouldn't be in front of the United States Supreme Court in the next 18 months.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I recommend those stuck on laws to check out the book Three Felonies a Day.

If anyone knows a better way to run a civilization than the rule of law, I'm open to it. Until then though, my understanding of history leads me to view it like that famous line about democracy being the worst form of government except for all the others. There's a lot of things that aren't good about our justice system, but I've yet to see a remotely palatable alternative.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

What reasoning is behind the belief that immigrants are a net negative? ... they commit crime at a lower rate than citizens and create jobs at a higher rate than citizens etc.

Multiple people responded to me with similar thoughts. I really don't know how I make myself clearer. I will try once more to say the same thing I've already said multiple times:

** I'm not against immigration. I'm for it. I think we should have more of it. Legally.

** What prompted my entry into this foray was the declaration by multiple people that the fact that immigrants are entering illegally was basically a non-consideration. IMO it is the biggest consideration, by far, because of what it does to the rule of law when basics like this are ignored. I was making a point about the tragedy of increasing disregard for the rule of law.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

he heat around the issue doesn't match the severity of the problem and most of the reasons given for the seriousness of immigration crime are ignored when discussing other crimes.

This is going around a lot as well. Totally agree that we shouldn't be ignoring other crimes, although I do think those which affect a nation's borders/relations with other countries rightfully should take on somewhat increased significance. To the point that we don't have enough money to enforce everything, there are multiple solutions to that. Funding is one. Simplifying the laws we have/eliminating offenses we have no intention of enforcing is another. Ignoring entire categories as we regularly do now(again immigration is only one of them) is among the worst possible imaginable ways of dealing with that situation.

[Brian Swartz]

On the SCOTUS thing, I think the Democrats should do what they should have done last time. Refuse to consider anyone not named Merrick Garland. Offer to go back to 'normal' once the rightful nominee has been put up. I don't want Garland on the court, but that's a much better solution than continuing to disregard Constitutional imperatives.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Multiple people responded to me with similar thoughts. I really don't know how I make myself clearer. I will try once more to say the same thing I've already said multiple times:

** I'm not against immigration. I'm for it. I think we should have more of it. Legally.

** What prompted my entry into this foray was the declaration by multiple people that the fact that immigrants are entering illegally was basically a non-consideration. IMO it is the biggest consideration, by far, because of what it does to the rule of law when basics like this are ignored. I was making a point about the tragedy of increasing disregard for the rule of law.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This is going around a lot as well. Totally agree that we shouldn't be ignoring other crimes, although I do think those which affect a nation's borders/relations with other countries rightfully should take on somewhat increased significance. To the point that we don't have enough money to enforce everything, there are multiple solutions to that. Funding is one. Simplifying the laws we have/eliminating offenses we have no intention of enforcing is another. Ignoring entire categories as we regularly do now(again immigration is only one of them) is among the worst possible imaginable ways of dealing with that situation.

I think you summed up the two main points of contention pretty well.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by panerd

As has every soceity (authoritarian, socialist, communist, monarchy, totalitarian, republic... ) in the history of the world. How is this unique to the United States? How is this unique to Donald Trump's presidency? Please cite me some examples of places where the rich aren't treated different? 1800s France? I mean I completely agree it isn't right or fair but it's pretty dumb when people act like this started in 2016. Think Carnegie wasn't playing by different rules? Were the rich going down during Obama's time in office? The impoverished farmer in 1850 had the same treatment as the wealthy tycoon?

I agree the rich play by different rules and I don't accept that as a 'given' myself - I'd like to see the playing field leveled and this changed so that they are forced to pay taxes (ditto corporations) and to obey the same laws that the less well off have to.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Multiple people responded to me with similar thoughts. I really don't know how I make myself clearer. I will try once more to say the same thing I've already said multiple times:

** I'm not against immigration. I'm for it. I think we should have more of it. Legally.

** What prompted my entry into this foray was the declaration by multiple people that the fact that immigrants are entering illegally was basically a non-consideration. IMO it is the biggest consideration, by far, because of what it does to the rule of law when basics like this are ignored. I was making a point about the tragedy of increasing disregard for the rule of law.

I'm not against preventing illegal immigration myself however ...

(1) I object to this administration treating asylum seeks as illegal immigrants in flagrant violation of US laws (i.e. falsely indicating they have to go through ports of entry to be considered for asylum etc.).
(2) I object to this administration using inhumane treatment of immigrants (illegal or asylum seekers) in order to try and deter immigrants (ie. splitting children from families etc.).
(3) I object to this administration indicating that the majority of immigrants are criminals and such when in reality they commit crimes at a lower rate than actual citizens of the country.
(4) The reality of the situation is that there are far fewer illegal immigrants coming into the US than in previous years (especially if you go back to say 2000) and this 'crisis' doesn't exist ... its purely a distraction used by Trump to pump up the voting public.
The linked graph shows how pre-2005 yes the illegal immigrant population was growing but since its been very static even while the US population itself has expanded - • Unauthorized immigrant population U.S. 1990-2014 | Statistic

[JPhillips]

Trump today went back to, Russia said they didn't do it. I wish I believed the Dems had a plan on how to deal with a new round of Russian interference this fall.

[kingfc22]

Funny seeing the trolls on twitter mention the Dems can’t call for a delay in the SCOTUS nomination because they were against it when it happened in 2016.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I was making a point about the tragedy of increasing disregard for the rule of law.

Problem is, rule of law without a willingness to adapt, expand, and reevaluate is authoritarianism. I think right now, in many ways, we’ve crossed that line.

There are just too many cases in our history where disobeying the rule of law was the moral thing to do. Devotion to words of the rule of law, rather than the humanity that inspired those words is dogmatic.

FYI, most of this comes from my lecturer on the Declaration of Independence:

Rights of people self-evident, God given.
●If rights are violated then people can descent.
●King given consent to rule based on these rights.
●King violated rights.
Therefore:
●Colonist can revolt and create new government.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Of course not. Here is what so many miss. You can not tax a company without taxing the poor. Period. Tax the largest corporation you can name, triple their tax. You know what happens they raise their price to offset lost profits. Either consumers pay more for their goods, or their business declines and they lay off workers, usually at the lowest and mid levels. Who gets hurt the worst? Unintended consequences and all that.

Of course you can tax companies without it taxing the poor (many companies target customers exclude poor people because they sell luxuries) and even in circumstances when they don't the companies involved realize that poor people have inelastic wealth and so don't pass on the full cost of the taxation for the cheaper good they provide.

The argument you're using is the one used to depress taxation and prevent a living wage being paid to citizens in the US, despite evidence from the past (in the US) and today from elsewhere in the world showing it to be wholly incorrect, compare German taxation and growth to US for instance and you might find the results surprising to you.

PS - This summary also doesn't mention that countries which do tax tend to provide decent social supports for the benefit of the less well off not just in terms of money for food, but also resources for them to get on and improve their lot in life - for instance University education in Germany is totally free (heck I know several families in Florida who have sent their kids there for just that reason).

[Lathum]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/28/polit...utm_term=image

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I'm not against preventing illegal immigration myself however …

I'm with you on 1-3, with the lone exception that I wouldn't call it inhumane; we split up millions of families every year for other crimes. I'm against that as well, but most of those throwing a fit about this aren't and the outrage, while justified and appropriate, also lacks proportion and perspective in many cases.

On #4, that's consistently over 11 million people regularly over a several-year period; everything I've seen says the same. I think a fraction of that number would qualify as a crisis. Obviously it's a red-meat issue for Trump, not arguing that at all, but this just seems to be a frog-in-the-kettle thing. That's the only way I can get to understanding why somebody wouldn't view this as a big problem; it's been happening so long that we're used to it.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

rule of law without a willingness to adapt, expand, and reevaluate is authoritarianism. I think right now, in many ways, we’ve crossed that line.

We've crossed into authoritarianism not because of the rule of law, but because we have a President who thinks its ok to disregard it at his whim and an electorate that basically doesn't care. I mean, we have opportunities available non-stop to adapt and reevaluate. Choosing not to isn't authoritarianism, it's apathy.

As to the point about the conflict between morality and law, the problem is; who gets to decide what the moral thing is, when we are throwing out society's previously established decision? I believe there is a place for civil disobedience, provided that it is respectful and expects to pay the price for such as a matter of protest. The only other thing I can say is to put to you directly the question already posed in my last post; what do we know of that works better? If it is ok to disobey a law because you think it is immoral, then we might as well not have laws at all.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I think you summed up the two main points of contention pretty well.

Thank you sir.

[JPhillips]

�� pic.twitter.com/GxzjUBoOqj

— Cav, My Name is a Warsong (@CombatCavScout) June 28, 2018

[PilotMan]

Money for a wall and upkeep of a wall is a massive fucking waste of money. Especially if you can't walk on it or see it from space. How will space force defend us if they can't see the wall?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'm with you on 1-3, with the lone exception that I wouldn't call it inhumane; we split up millions of families every year for other crimes. I'm against that as well, but most of those throwing a fit about this aren't and the outrage, while justified and appropriate, also lacks proportion and perspective in many cases.

I agree also on 1-3 and I would call splitting up the kids inhumane.

We do split up families if we toss a felon in jail but we don't toss their kids into a "concentration camp". They go with relatives or they have foster/social support.

I don't know if the media sensationalize the accommodations for the kids but it looked pretty bad (and likely indefinite until the media jumped all over it).

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

On #4, that's consistently over 11 million people regularly over a several-year period; everything I've seen says the same. I think a fraction of that number would qualify as a crisis. Obviously it's a red-meat issue for Trump, not arguing that at all, but this just seems to be a frog-in-the-kettle thing. That's the only way I can get to understanding why somebody wouldn't view this as a big problem; it's been happening so long that we're used to it.

I found the same 11M+ "illegals" number which is approx 3.4% of population. Its significant.

I agree, illegal crossing has been decreasing. Eyeballing it, it says 250K avg for the past several years.

Approx 11.3 - 11.5M illegals/undocumented or approx 3.4% of population.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'm with you on 1-3, with the lone exception that I wouldn't call it inhumane; we split up millions of families every year for other crimes.

For misdemeanors?