A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

[Bob Gray]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

How the hell do you fund a tax cut?

It's their way of thinking and the lingual gymnastics they use to make it sound better. The money is the government's not ours. It's like when the federal government talks about a spending cut, but spending keeps growing, the cut is in the rate of growth. Or someone proposes to cut spending on a given item by 1 or 2 percent, and everyone dons sack cloth and bemoans the draconian cuts.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

It's their way of thinking.

And the Republican way of thinking is to slash taxes for the rich and spend the money anyway. But, yeah, us *******s are the gymnasts.

[Rover]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

It's their way of thinking and the lingual gymnastics they use to make it sound better. The money is the government's not ours. It's like when the federal government talks about a spending cut, but spending keeps growing, the cut is in the rate of growth. Or someone proposes to cut spending on a given item by 1 or 2 percent, and everyone dons sack cloth and bemoans the draconian cuts.

So who owns the debt Bob, the govt or us. Or do you want to live in a bizarro world where its the people's money but the govt's debt? And we can pay it down by selling unicorns to the Zorbodians on a planet far way.

[Kepler]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

The money is the government's not ours.

As opposed to the way of thinking that if you cut my taxes by $5 and Romney's by $5M, but we each have to live without the services that money would have paid for, that's "fair."

The government is us. It's not like it's an alien force. When money goes to the government it still belongs to us, it's in public hands, being used to pay for stuff we as a public voted for.

The thing that cracks me up (and worries me) about the hard core right is how after 30 years of indoctrination they now hate government on sheer reflex, without thinking about it at all. It's just "gubmint bad, bidness good". At least our government is democratic, whereas business is plutocratic. It's as if the right has some deep animosity towards democracy and wants to see it destroyed.

I understand why the criminals hate the cops -- they impede their freedom of action. But I don't get why some citizens fall for it.

Government and business are two strong forces which, if unregulated, will run over us. The trick is to match the forces and oppose them, so they both provide appropriate services but neither takes over. The idea that all government is bad is lazy and wrong, and all it leads to is domination by the rich and powerful.

[jerphisch]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

I always point to the numbers, then I always get a bunch of evasion. The yearly deficit numbers and total debt numbers are easily acquired via google. Obama's share of the debt far outweighs anyone else, even if you give him somewhat of a break the first year or two. But, all I get back is, as with most things, somehow it's all Bush's fault. As if Obama tries to restrain spending at every turn, which of course is ludicrous.

Below are the annual change in debt for Bush and Obama, removes all accounting gimmicks used to calculate the deficit. First off, Obama's share of the debt doesn't far outweigh, or even outweigh at all Bush's share. It will by the time his term is up, but not by far, that's 6.1B Bush and 4.8B Obama to date. The deficit is like steering the titanic, you aren't going to swerve around the ice berg at the last second, it takes time to change course. Since you insist on using the numbers, who would you was steering towards the iceberg and who away from it? Is Obama a small government spending reducing savior? Of course not. But do you know why you always get back that it's Bush's fault? Because it is. Why was the deficit rising so fast under Bush? Tax cuts, wars, and unfunded mandates. Did those go away when Obama took office? No, so the deficit they caused didn't go away either. The one major piece of legislation that has been implemented under Obama was funded, so let's give a little credit that he did try to restrain as far as impact on the defecit. The deficit under Obama would actually look even better had the R's been willing to budge an inch and meet the D's just a fraction of the way, but the no tax increase crowd wouldn't budge and hurt us all. But please, use the numbers and paint a different picture for us. Don't just say look at the numbers, provide some analysis with them that paints a different picture.

Clinton	2001	$133.3M
Bush	2002	$420.8M
Bush	2003	$555.M
Bush	2004	$595.8M
Bush	2005	$553.7M
Bush	2006	$574.3M
Bush	2007	$500.7M
Bush	2008	$1017.1M
Bush	2009	$1885.1M
Obama	2010	$1651.8M
Obama	2011	$1228.7M
Obama	2012	$1275.9M
Obama	2013	$671.9M

[Bob Gray]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

So who owns the debt Bob, the govt or us. Or do you want to live in a bizarro world where its the people's money but the govt's debt? And we can pay it down by selling unicorns to the Zorbodians on a planet far way.

The debt is increasingly owned by China.

[Priceless]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

So who owns the debt Bob, the govt or us. Or do you want to live in a bizarro world where its the people's money but the govt's debt? And we can pay it down by selling unicorns to the Zorbodians on a planet far way.

Socialize risk; privatize profit.

[Kepler]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

To get back to immigration -- Republican Congressman makes inevitable ignorant asshole comment because... of course.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Socialize risk; privatize profit.

Correct. And based on what I've seen this past year it's never been more true.

[Critical Thinker]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Tax cuts cut revenue, so you counter them with revenue increases elsewhere. For example, part of Reagan's 1980 tax changes was taxing federal education loans as income. He used that revenue to (very slightly) defray the cost in revenue of giving his cronies a big tax cut.

The way Republicans typically pay for their tax cuts is increasing the debt burden, because this has the feature of shifting the money from the direct recipient of the tax cut, the wealthy, to the people hurt by diminished services driven by debt, the middle class and poor. It's all part of the shell game where the GOP gradually moves money from earners to investors. That's what their donors pay them to do -- it's their whole point.

Funding is giving money to someone. Taking a smaller percentage of their paycheck is not giving them anything.

[Kepler]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Funding is giving money to someone. Taking a smaller percentage of their paycheck is not giving them anything.

I take it you've never run a business.

Funding is not "giving money to someone," it's budgeting a credit against a debit.

[Critical Thinker]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

The debt is increasingly owned by China.

But in a small percentage. The majority of US debt is owed to US citizens through bonds.

Our debt to China comes from the trade deficit. The Chinese wind up with leftover dollars from American purchases that they don't use to buy more American products. Since they can't buy sh*t with dollars in China, they invest their dollars in US markets, and since Treasury bonds are at a stable rating (for now...), that's where they go. Create a trade surplus, and our debt to China will essentially cease. The debt will keep going up, it'll just be owed to different people.

[Slap Shot]

I can't wait for 2054 when you're still whining about Bush and the budget and how it's all his fault for any and all presidents who spend out of their minds

About as long as it will take FOX NEWS lemmings to admit Junior was a freaking abomination. Who do you think will blink first?

[joecct]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Kepler

Is the government REALLY us? Has it ever been? IMO we the people have abdicated our responsibility to exercise oversight over our political masters.

Without that oversight our masters do whatever they want, enable a bureaucracy to do whatever it wants and shower the plebians with bread and circuses to keep them controlled.

[Bob Gray]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

But in a small percentage. The majority of US debt is owed to US citizens through bonds.

Our debt to China comes from the trade deficit. The Chinese wind up with leftover dollars from American purchases that they don't use to buy more American products. Since they can't buy sh*t with dollars in China, they invest their dollars in US markets, and since Treasury bonds are at a stable rating (for now...), that's where they go. Create a trade surplus, and our debt to China will essentially cease. The debt will keep going up, it'll just be owed to different people.

China owns 8.1 percent of U.S. debt, as of 2012, a number I'd expect is modestly higher today. Here's a handy chart. Overall, foreign nations own 34.2 percent of our national debt if you add them all up. That's a pretty substantial number, and a lot higher than it used to be, when one could really say that the debt isn't as important because we owe it to ourselves. The trade deficit is another, not directly related, topic.

Forgot the link:
http://finance.townhall.com/columnis...3555/page/full