Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[Arizona Willie]

The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.

It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.

Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.

That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.

================

Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.

Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
Build a wall, deport the illegals.

Fine employers $1M and jail time of ten years for every illegal they knowingly hire. Does the same thing and you don't spend for building.

How do we do that when liberals whine and moan over rights to privacy and anything that could resemble "profiling" in the workplace? So do they ask Pedro for his green card because he looks Mexican or has a Hispanic last name? Do they require all Latinos to prove citizenship as a condition of employment? How exactly do we ensure companies can comply with the law?

So we impose a $10M fine and 20 years in jail for every illegal they knowingly hire-- as long as they can say they didn't know, what damn difference does it make?

 

[Boss]

The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.

It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.

Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.

That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.

So you think we should punish people who unknowingly break the law?

 

[Dad2three]

HOW LONGS THE GOP HAD CONGRESS BUBS? LOL

Hey, don't come at ME with what the GOP hasn't done about illegal immigration... ask Mitch McConnell and John Boehner why nothing has been done! This is one of the main reasons you have Trump and Carson, two non-politicians, leading the race for the GOP nomination.

We're going to build a damn wall.. when it is finished and the paint is drying, we will pass mandatory e-verify and we will undoubtedly have to endure a SCOTUS challenge to it, led by the people YOU vote for. So sit down, shut up and wait for your moment to be a complete hypocrite again!

LOL, You REALLY think those losertarians will get enough votes in the general election? lol

Mittens got 82% of the conservative vote (pretty damn high) when he got spanked. I figure IF those two run the GOP MIGHT get 90%, and lose the general election by record amounts! lol

Republicans Can't Win With White Voters Alone

An influential set of conservatives argues changing demographics won't doom the GOP, but the smart money -- and the math -- are not on their side.

This much is undisputed: In 2012, President Obama lost white voters by a larger margin than any winning presidential candidate in U.S. history. In his reelection, Obama lost ground from 2008 with almost every conceivable segment of the white electorate. With several key groups of whites, he recorded the weakest national performance for any Democratic nominee since the Republican landslides of the 1980s.

Republicans Can't Win With White Voters Alone

 

[RKMBrown]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

Hey dumb ass.. the rich do pay more.

 

[Dad2three]

The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.

It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.

Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.

That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.

So you think we should punish people who unknowingly break the law?

Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?


Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?

 

[Dad2three]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

Hey dumb ass.. the rich do pay more.

The nation’s tax system is barely progressive. Those who argue that the wealthy are overtaxed focus solely on the federal personal income tax, while ignoring the other taxes that Americans pay. But, as the table to the right illustrates, the total share of taxes (federal, state, and local) that will be paid by Americans across the economic spectrum in 2014 is roughly equal to their total share of income.

Many taxes are regressive, meaning they take a larger share of income from poor and middle-income families than they do from the rich. To offset the regressive impact of payroll taxes, sales taxes and even some state and local income taxes, we need federal income tax policies that are more progressive.

Who Pays Taxes in America in 2014? | CTJReports

 

[hadit]

Top 1% are taxed at 23% EFFECTIVE rates. Go to 46% and the deficit IS wiped out Bubs

AND still leaves them VASTLY wealthy. Weird right Bubs?


AGI ($ millions)

Top 1% income $1,976,738 (trillion)


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

I cant remember the exact figures.......but I once calculated out that if the top 20% paid something like 5% more...........and if we remained revenue neutral,...........then the bottom 80% would have to pay NOTHING.

but of course I guess I'm and old school conservative in some ways cause I think deficits and debt matter and I would want that paid down rather than continue to grow.

Well yes, that would be on income taxes, not all federal taxes

Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth



What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family

But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes), it cuts the deficits by almost 25%


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

Remind us again why Obama didn't fix all that when he had total control of the government?

Oh right, in right wing world EVERYTHING should be fixed AFTER Dubya/GOP put US on the edge of the cliff? lol



DECEMBER 1, 2012






Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.

This timeline shows the facts.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held. Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority



A fleeting, illusory supermajority

Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

He had 58 Senators and a huge majority in the House for 2 years.
Why was he so weak? He's supposed to be so smart.

He managed to ram through obamadon'tcare without a single Republican vote. Why couldn't he "fix" this, if he really wanted to?

 

[Dad2three]

I cant remember the exact figures.......but I once calculated out that if the top 20% paid something like 5% more...........and if we remained revenue neutral,...........then the bottom 80% would have to pay NOTHING.

but of course I guess I'm and old school conservative in some ways cause I think deficits and debt matter and I would want that paid down rather than continue to grow.

Well yes, that would be on income taxes, not all federal taxes

Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth



What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family

But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes), it cuts the deficits by almost 25%


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

Remind us again why Obama didn't fix all that when he had total control of the government?

Oh right, in right wing world EVERYTHING should be fixed AFTER Dubya/GOP put US on the edge of the cliff? lol



DECEMBER 1, 2012






Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.

This timeline shows the facts.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held. Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority



A fleeting, illusory supermajority

Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

He had 58 Senators and a huge majority in the House for 2 years.
Why was he so weak? He's supposed to be so smart.

He managed to ram through obamadon'tcare without a single Republican vote. Why couldn't he "fix" this, if he really wanted to?

Don't understand how Gov't works huh?You MUST be a Tea Bagger

 

[hadit]

Well yes, that would be on income taxes, not all federal taxes

Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth



What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family

But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes), it cuts the deficits by almost 25%


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

Remind us again why Obama didn't fix all that when he had total control of the government?

Oh right, in right wing world EVERYTHING should be fixed AFTER Dubya/GOP put US on the edge of the cliff? lol



DECEMBER 1, 2012






Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.

This timeline shows the facts.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held. Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority



A fleeting, illusory supermajority

Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

He had 58 Senators and a huge majority in the House for 2 years.
Why was he so weak? He's supposed to be so smart.

He managed to ram through obamadon'tcare without a single Republican vote. Why couldn't he "fix" this, if he really wanted to?

Don't understand how Gov't works huh?You MUST be a Tea Bagger

Oh yes, can't forget the kickbacks, the exemptions, the side deals. Don't understand what a massive majority means, huh? You MUST be an Obama voter. Here's a clue. He didn't "fix" it because he knew it make things worse. IOW, better to leave it be.

Hey, weren't the TeaBaggers the adults only floor show at the last DNC convention?

 

[Boss]

The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.

It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.

Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.

That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.

So you think we should punish people who unknowingly break the law?

Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?


Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?

So you think we should profile people based on their inability to speak fluent English?

 

[Dad2three]

The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.

It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.

Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.

That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.

So you think we should punish people who unknowingly break the law?

Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?


Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?

So you think we should profile people based on their inability to speak fluent English?

FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs

This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.

It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.

Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.

That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.

So you think we should punish people who unknowingly break the law?

Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?


Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?

So you think we should profile people based on their inability to speak fluent English?

FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs

This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!

Fine the employers, deport the illegals, build the wall.

 

[RKMBrown]

The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.

It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.

Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.

That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.

So you think we should punish people who unknowingly break the law?

Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?


Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?

So you think we should profile people based on their inability to speak fluent English?

FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs

This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!

Fine the employers, deport the illegals, build the wall.

I say put the elected officials in jail who refuse to enforce the law and even stop our law enforcement folk from fining the employers and deporting illegals.
As for the wall.. building a wall in the desert next to a river... makes no sense. What is needed is observation towers and law enforcement presence with the backing of our government to do their job. What we have is a piece of shit president who has re-tasked our law enforcement personnel into being bus drivers and enablers for illegal immigration. Instead of punishing illegals we give them money and a free ride into the country. Our laws are a fucking joke.

 

[Boss]

The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.

It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.

Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.

That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.

So you think we should punish people who unknowingly break the law?

Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?


Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?

So you think we should profile people based on their inability to speak fluent English?

FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs

This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!

Oh, okay... sorry... so if we ask someone a question in English and they can't respond in English, we can assume they are illegal aliens? ....I'm just trying to clarify your position.

 

[Dad2three]

The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.

It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.

Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.

That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.

So you think we should punish people who unknowingly break the law?

Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?


Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?

So you think we should profile people based on their inability to speak fluent English?

FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs

This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!

Oh, okay... sorry... so if we ask someone a question in English and they can't respond in English, we can assume they are illegal aliens? ....I'm just trying to clarify your position.

This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!

 

[Boss]

..........So you won't answer my question?

How are we to draw up policies if we don't define these variables going in? If we are going to punish employers for not knowing someone is illegal, which I don't agree with by the way, we need to at least define what lengths they can go to in determining such a thing on the basis of their judgement and assumptions. Because, if we can't establish this beforehand, it leaves the employer subject to all sorts of lawsuits for violating rights to privacy or just plain racial discrimination.

From what you posted, it sounds like you're saying it would be okay to profile people on the basis of whether they speak English. Is THAT what you want to do?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

..........So you won't answer my question?

How are we to draw up policies if we don't define these variables going in? If we are going to punish employers for not knowing someone is illegal, which I don't agree with by the way, we need to at least define what lengths they can go to in determining such a thing on the basis of their judgement and assumptions. Because, if we can't establish this beforehand, it leaves the employer subject to all sorts of lawsuits for violating rights to privacy or just plain racial discrimination.

From what you posted, it sounds like you're saying it would be okay to profile people on the basis of whether they speak English. Is THAT what you want to do?

actually except for certain exemptions like age or a mental issue keeping them from learning English, It is a requirement for citizenship.
anyone that is in the working age would know at least basic English in order to be legal. So, in short if Juan comes in looking for a job and he is between the ages of 18 and 54 and cant speak English, he is not a legal citizen.
I think that clears it up.

 

[Dad2three]

..........So you won't answer my question?

How are we to draw up policies if we don't define these variables going in? If we are going to punish employers for not knowing someone is illegal, which I don't agree with by the way, we need to at least define what lengths they can go to in determining such a thing on the basis of their judgement and assumptions. Because, if we can't establish this beforehand, it leaves the employer subject to all sorts of lawsuits for violating rights to privacy or just plain racial discrimination.

From what you posted, it sounds like you're saying it would be okay to profile people on the basis of whether they speak English. Is THAT what you want to do?

I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol

As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!


You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?

AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!

 

[Dad2three]

Watch: A Nobel Economist Debunks Trickle-Down Reaganomics In Four Minutes


Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz lays out a damning indictment of Ronald Reagan’s deregulation and sweeping tax cuts that have resulted in the worst income inequality in the developed world and have been holding America back for the past thirty years. He definitively debunks the delusional “trickle-down” theory of income transfer and bemoans the fact that social mobility in America has been crippled by the concentration of wealth in the top 1%, preventing hard-working Americans from moving upwards in society or improving their lots in life.


”The same market forces, the same forces of technological globalization are at work in the same way in advanced countries. It’s not the economic forces. It’s our policies.”

Watch: A Nobel Economist Debunks Trickle-Down Reaganomics In Four Minutes

 

[Dad2three]

Watch: A Nobel Economist Debunks Trickle-Down Reaganomics In Four Minutes


Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz lays out a damning indictment of Ronald Reagan’s deregulation and sweeping tax cuts that have resulted in the worst income inequality in the developed world and have been holding America back for the past thirty years. He definitively debunks the delusional “trickle-down” theory of income transfer and bemoans the fact that social mobility in America has been crippled by the concentration of wealth in the top 1%, preventing hard-working Americans from moving upwards in society or improving their lots in life.


”The same market forces, the same forces of technological globalization are at work in the same way in advanced countries. It’s not the economic forces. It’s our policies.”

Watch: A Nobel Economist Debunks Trickle-Down Reaganomics In Four Minutes

Adding another nail to the coffin of Reaganomics, a recent study published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has concluded that, contrary to the principles of “trickle-down” economics, an increase in the income share of the wealthiest people actually leads to a decrease in GDP growth.

“The benefits do not trickle down,”


But the IMF study’s five authors say we should instead focus on raising the income of the poor and the middle class. “Widening income inequality is the defining challenge of our time,” they write. “In advanced economies, the gap between the rich and poor is at its highest level in decades.”

Raising up the poor appears to have a dramatic effect: A 1% increase in the income share of the bottom quintile results in a 0.38% increase in GDP. Meanwhile, a 1% increase in the income share of the top 20% results in a 0.08% decrease in GDP growth.


Trickle down economics is wrong, says IMF