The Republican Utopia

[Ric Flair]

9 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

It's not very tough if you actually try. But let's ignore that for a second. How do we make a policy which can determine if a specific person refuses to work, or can't find work? Who enforces it?

 

Welcome back, Ric. How long do you plan on sticking around this time? 

 

It’s pretty simple to have a vocational expert determine if someone is physically capable of work. It’s likewise pretty simple to read the newspaper or drive around and see that the economy is booming and jobs are plentiful. In fact, we have more jobs than there are people to fill them. So in my view, every able-bodied person should be working.

 

[Ric Flair]

8 hours ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

 

I heard some good advice once: when you're arguing something, always argue against the strongest form of your opponent's argument. That way you're actually arguing on the merits and not just tackling some straw man. It's something we're all guilty of a lot of the time - arguing against a weak or misleading opposing position. 

 

That's what this is. There may be liberals who call for open borders, but none in the mainstream, certainly no elected officials with any actual power. The bolded is closer to the Koch brothers point of view than that of liberals on immigration.

 

So what limits or curbs on immigration are Democrats comfortable with? More and more are advocating for eliminating ICE. More and more are supporting sanctuary states and cities. Even among Democrats there is concern that they have moved to a de facto open borders philosophy and that their position will kill their electoral prospects.

[ZRod]

2 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

It’s pretty simple to have a vocational expert determine if someone is physically capable of work. It’s likewise pretty simple to read the newspaper or drive around and see that the economy is booming and jobs are plentiful. In fact, we have more jobs than there are people to fill them. So in my view, every able-bodied person should be working.

 

Again , please provide data to show the magnitude of the issue. Maybe it's no not worth bothering to spend the money on the issue if it is a small occurrence.

 

2 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

So what limits or curbs on immigration are Democrats comfortable with? More and more are advocating for eliminating ICE. More and more are supporting sanctuary states and cities. Even among Democrats there is concern that they have moved to a de facto open borders philosophy and that their position will kill their electoral prospects.

Again, you're not even arguing the actual issue. Democrats want to replace ICE since it's become an almost gestapo like entity. No one is saying elminate ICE and do nothing else.

[RedDenver]

2 hours ago, ZRod said:

Again, you're not even arguing the actual issue. Democrats want to replace ICE since it's become an almost gestapo like entity. No one is saying elminate ICE and do nothing else.

Correct. And it's not like ICE has been this agency that we've always depended on or something - it was created in 2002.

[methodical]

59 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Correct. And it's not like ICE has been this agency that we've always depended on or something - it was created in 2002.

 

And it wasn't needed then.  We already had a federal agency doing that job.

[Making Chimichangas]

17 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

We waste a ton of money on social welfare programs and other assorted handouts to people who refuse to work. With unemployment essentially at zero, there’s really no reason for anyone who’s physically capable of work to not be working. That would be a nice downpayment on the Space Force. 

 

Then pass a blanket amnesty for federal inmates accused on simple drug possession or minor non-violent crimes. 

 

Then cut off all federal funding to sanctuary states and cities.

 

See how the money starts piling up? Eliminate wasteful liberal spending and we have plenty of money for national defense.

 

 

And yes I put the highlighted portion in Comic-Sans font because what you said is ludicrous and I wanted an equally ludicrous font to demonstrate it.

 

Except...

 

Corporate Welfare

 

Taxpayers Subsidizing the 1%

 

Quote

So what should we take away from this?  The federal government spends just $212 billion per year on what we could reasonably call “welfare.” (Even then, the poor have to enter the institution of waged labor to get the earned income tax credit.) And there have been numerous studies showing that these programs, especially things like food stamps, are both very efficient and effective at reducing poverty. They just don’t show up in the official poverty statistics, because that’s how the poverty statistics are designed.

 

Truth About "Welfare"

 

So you sit there and predictably rail against the strawman of "welfare queens" or "people who refuse to work" but remain utterly silent on the fact that billionaires, and the huge corporations they own, actually receive MORE "welfare" than poor people ever do. 

 

So let me ask you: Why is there only "indignation" on the part of conservatives when it is poor people receiving benefits?  

 

As Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rightly points out: 

 

Quote

 

Why is it our pockets are only empty when it comes to education and healthcare for our kids … and 100 percent renewable energy that is going to save this planet?” Ocasio-Cortez said. “We only have empty pockets when it comes to the morally right things to do, but when it comes to tax cuts for billions and unlimited war, we seem to be able to invent that money fairly easily.

 

Empty Pockets

 

 

Don't you think it's interesting how conservatives only "care" about fiscal responsibility and limiting government spending when that money goes to poor people? 

 

But they (?you?) have zero qualms or issues when public taxpayer monies goes to their billionaire cronies, national defense, and funding endless wars, why do you suppose THAT is?

 

[NM11046]

6 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

It’s pretty simple to have a vocational expert determine if someone is physically capable of work. It’s likewise pretty simple to read the newspaper or drive around and see that the economy is booming and jobs are plentiful. In fact, we have more jobs than there are people to fill them. So in my view, every able-bodied person should be working.

 

And I guess my question is how many of these people receiving benefits are able to work, or are doing so and are still needing supplemental income to live?

The jobs these immigrants are taking that americans aren't are not the high paying, or even minimum wage paying positions.

[NM11046]

6 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

So what limits or curbs on immigration are Democrats comfortable with? More and more are advocating for eliminating ICE. More and more are supporting sanctuary states and cities. Even among Democrats there is concern that they have moved to a de facto open borders philosophy and that their position will kill their electoral prospects.

Ric I'm just listening to a great interview on NPR on the details of the ICE and how it's evolved.  It's pretty interesting the funding and duplication.  If you have some time I think you'd like it.  Or maybe won't like it but would appreciate the content and discussion.

 

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/09/637125729/how-ice-went-rogue

 

[Ric Flair]

4 hours ago, ZRod said:

Again , please provide data to show the magnitude of the issue. Maybe it's no not worth bothering to spend the money on the issue if it is a small occurrence.

 

Again, you're not even arguing the actual issue. Democrats want to replace ICE since it's become an almost gestapo like entity. No one is saying elminate ICE and do nothing else.

 

So what specific enforcement agency or laws are the Democrats who advocate abolishing ICE pushing ti replace it with? Please list some examples.

[Ric Flair]

32 minutes ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

And yes I put the highlighted portion in Comic-Sans font because what you said is ludicrous and I wanted an equally ludicrous font to demonstrate it.

 

Except...

 

Corporate Welfare

 

Taxpayers Subsidizing the 1%

 

 

So you sit there and predictably rail against the strawman of "welfare queens" or "people who refuse to work" but remain utterly silent on the fact that billionaires, and the huge corporations they own, actually receive MORE "welfare" than poor people ever do. 

 

So let me ask you: Why is there only "indignation" on the part of conservatives when it is poor people receiving benefits?  

 

As Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rightly points out: 

 

 

Don't you think it's interesting how conservatives only "care" about fiscal responsibility and limiting government spending when that money goes to poor people? 

 

But they (?you?) have zero qualms or issues when public taxpayer monies goes to their billionaire cronies, national defense, and funding endless wars, why do you suppose THAT is?

 

 

The “rich” pay the lion’s share of federal income taxes, far more than the percentage of income they receive. Demonizing them for working hard, being successful, creating wealth and jobs for others, etc. is both crazy and anti-American. How many jobs has Warren Buffett created? How many millionaires made their money because if him? How many companies and foundations did they create? Demonizing success, hard work, and innovation is truly bizarre.

 

Please please continue to champion Ocasio-Cortez. I love hearing her speak about economics. She makes Bernie Sanders look like an expert on the subject.

[Ric Flair]

31 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

Ric I'm just listening to a great interview on NPR on the details of the ICE and how it's evolved.  It's pretty interesting the funding and duplication.  If you have some time I think you'd like it.  Or maybe won't like it but would appreciate the content and discussion.

 

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/09/637125729/how-ice-went-rogue

 

 

I always appreciate more information. I’ll listen to it later. Thanks for sharing it.

[Making Chimichangas]

17 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

The “rich” pay the lion’s share of federal income taxes, far more than the percentage of income they receive. Demonizing them for working hard, being successful, creating wealth and jobs for others, etc. is both crazy and anti-American. How many jobs has Warren Buffett created? How many millionaires made their money because if him? How many companies and foundations did they create? Demonizing success, hard work, and innovation is truly bizarre.

 

Please please continue to champion Ocasio-Cortez. I love hearing her speak about economics. She makes Bernie Sanders look like an expert on the subject.

 

You

 

The Point ------------------>

 

And I love how you so blithely side-stepped the issues I raised.

 

You rail against "welfare" for poor people but side-step the fact that rich people take more welfare than poor people do. 

 

Conservatives: Welfare is only bad when it goes to poor people.

 

And my point about Ocasio-Cortez was to highlight her comment that we only "can't afford" things when it flows down to poor people.  When it flows upward into the pockets of the billionaire class and their corrupt GOP cronies, we have all the money in the world.

 

Conservatives:

Tax cuts and tax subsidies for billionaires...we can "afford."

A 6th branch of the military, Space Force...we can "afford."

A runaway defense budget with unlimited funding...we can "afford."

 

Also Conservatives:

Living wages

Protect the environment

Healthcare for all

College or trade schools...WE CAN'T AFFORD THOSE THINGS!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

[Ric Flair]

12 minutes ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

You

 

The Point ------------------>

 

And I love how you so blithely side-stepped the issues I raised.

 

You rail against "welfare" for poor people but side-step the fact that rich people take more welfare than poor people do. 

 

Conservatives: Welfare is only bad when it goes to poor people.

 

And my point about Ocasio-Cortez was to highlight her comment that we only "can't afford" things when it flows down to poor people.  When it flows upward into the pockets of the billionaire class and their corrupt GOP cronies, we have all the money in the world.

 

Conservatives:

Tax cuts and tax subsidies for billionaires...we can "afford."

A 6th branch of the military, Space Force...we can "afford."

A runaway defense budget with unlimited funding...we can "afford."

 

Also Conservatives:

Living wages

Protect the environment

Healthcare for all

College or trade schools...WE CAN'T AFFORD THOSE THINGS!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which specific tax cuts and tax subsidies for billionaires are you talking about? Letting people keep more of the miney they earn, when they already pay the lion’s share of federal income taxes, strikes me as simple fairness. 

 

Defense spending Is constitutionally required and practically indispensable. A Space Force is arguably necessary.

 

Living wages are a crazy concept. How much does it take for someone to live? Is a business supposed to somehow figure that out? Does the business have to pay a single mom with three kids more than a single college kid with no kids? Of course not. Businesses pay the minimum needed to attract the caliber of employees needed to get the job done. It’s a simple transfer of time and labor for money. The idea that a company that chooses to employ a person assumes the obligation for paying for all of her living expenses is bizarre.

 

Those who want more money should find better jobs. That’s the incentive needed to work hard, finish school, add a degree, and otherwise better themselves.

[Making Chimichangas]

7 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Which specific tax cuts and tax subsidies for billionaires are you talking about? Letting people keep more of the miney they earn, when they already pay the lion’s share of federal income taxes, strikes me as simple fairness. 

 

Defense spending Is constitutionally required and practically indispensable. A Space Force is arguably necessary.

 

Living wages are a crazy concept. How much does it take for someone to live? Is a business supposed to somehow figure that out? Does the business have to pay a single mom with three kids more than a single college kid with no kids? Of course not. Businesses pay the minimum needed to attract the caliber of employees needed to get the job done. It’s a simple transfer of time and labor for money. The idea that a company that chooses to employ a person assumes the obligation for paying for all of her living expenses is bizarre.

 

Those who want more money should find better jobs. That’s the incentive needed to work hard, finish school, add a degree, and otherwise better themselves.

 

The highlighted part...oh for the love of ...........

 

The part in red...not the point.

 

So you just ignore the sources I provided earlier, then ask for them again...

 

     

  

[ZRod]

51 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

So what specific enforcement agency or laws are the Democrats who advocate abolishing ICE pushing ti replace it with? Please list some examples.

There hasn't been a clear answer to that yet, but there is a consensus that what is currently happening is unamerican and inhumane and it needs to change. As the discussion evloves proposal will be brought forward as they always are.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/564752/

Quote

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York—a potential 2020 presidential contender—hopped on the bandwagon shortly after, telling CNN, “I believe that ice has become a deportation force … and that’s why I believe you should get rid of it, start over, reimagine it, and build something that actually works.”

 

 

From Benrie

Quote

Senator Bernie Sanders, who had been reluctant to comment on the growing movement, released a vague statement on the issue on July 3: “Now, it is time to do what Americans overwhelmingly want: abolish the cruel, dysfunctional immigration system we have today and pass comprehensive immigration reform,” the statement said. “That will mean restructuring the agencies that enforce our immigration laws, including ice.”

 

Quote

Senator Kamala Harris of California, in a recent interview on MSNBC, said it would be necessary to “reexamine” the agency and perhaps consider “starting from scratch.”

 

Quote

Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, one of the most outspoken lawmakers on the issue, said in an email that she wants “to eliminate the agency as it stands and restructure its functions, starting from scratch.”