Magox

I absolutely believe even the programmers, designers and other functions will eventually also be relieved of their duties. I believe that and no one will be able to convince me otherwise. Not at this time, anyway.

It's a problem for the citizens of that state. Unfortunately, you live in a state to where that isn't going to change, unless there is some sort of reasonable approach to address some sort of immigration overhaul through out the nation. And yes. Most illegal immigrants do come here with good intentions. Which is to work and help support their families. Your anger on this issue is misguided, it shouldn't be towards people who are looking to improve their lives, it should be on the politicians that enable them to come here illegally and allow them to have these benefits.

That's from an uber liberal state like California which has no regards for law. California is way out there.

Yes, it's called: Let's be like Belgium, striving for .5% growth! Forward!!!!

As I stated earlier:

I believe the better question is, which two quarterbacks do you believe if given the opportunity would produce the best outcome for the Bills?

Philosophically, I agree with you. In practice, it would be bad for the economy. Many people aren't paying federal income taxes as it is, (and we are talking about people who are working) and they are still either falling behind or working their tails off to just tread water. So not only would it be a further drag on these individuals and families, which in turn would mean less consumption in the economy, but tax receipts would also go down significantly. Again, I believe in fairness, and the idea of a flat tax is "fair", but at same point practicality has to factor in. I don't doubt that there will be new opportunities that will arise just that on balance, opportunities will diminish and wages will remain stagnant relative to inflation.

My feelings on this issue have evolved. I honestly believe we are entering into an era of structurally high unemployment and wages for a couple reasons. Globalization and advanced technologies. My gut tells me that robotics will soon dominate many of the lower-skilled and eventually some of the higher skilled job functions that are performed by humans. I don't know how we are going to combat that, and unfortunately as defeatist of a view as this may seem I do believe that there will have to be more benefits provided to those affected by these what I would consider imminent innovations/developments.

To be honest, I like that you have a couple brackets but I do believe it is too regressive. Maybe for below $30k a year 0%. From 30k to 250k 10% above 250k 20%

That's another poor policy opinion from the future taxer-in-chief-wanna-be. There is a misconception from a large segment of the population out there that believes that hedge funds are inherently evil, that they are out there to profit off the backs of the poor while destroying anything in sight. Without doubt there are some unscrupulous actors out there and I am a proponent of stricter oversight to root out these bad characters with prison terms and large fines. But the overall hedge fund industry provides for many investors, which includes unions, retiree's and general investors diverse ways to manage their risk. The hedge fund industry invests not just in the general markets but in real estate, physical commodities and startups. They provide added liquidity and market participation which helps decrease volatility in the markets. If you think the markets are volatile now, imagine how volatile the markets would be with half the participants. There are a number of innovative products that are seeking capital to gain exposure in the markets and hedge funds help these innovators do just that. Many people look to the what they believe are the obvious boogey men, like hedge funds and blame them or use them as foils for the misery of many people. It's not only misguided but dishonest. Capital is a good thing. Capital helps businesses flourish and innovate and taxing the hell out of hedge funds which on balance do much more good than bad is only a feel good measure which lacks any substance in solving any issues. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a higher tax rate, I'm open to discussing that, but "taxing the hell out of them" is much like Trump's appeals to the nativists, which is to blame some boogey man for their perceived ills of the country.

There may be a few that fall through the cracks, but it's not widespread like some people argue. If you don't have documentation that you have legal status, you don't get these benefits. The ones that do is either for reasons of fraudulence or that particular state's neglect to enforce the rules. So if you have beef with it, then the beef is misdirected and should be aimed at the states not enforcing the laws.

This topic can be discussed all day and year long and the bottom line remains, It ain't gonna happen. You'd have to have the president, 2/3 of both bodies of the congress approve of the changes and then 75% of all the states would have to ratify it. You may as well be discussing the possibility of winning the lottery, because the odds of that happening is even greater than the former.

Not too much

So you attempted to clarify my "vague" statement with an incorrect fact? Genius!!

Exactly. It is on income.

General rule of thumb: If you don't have your facts correct, don't make absolute statements that are incorrect. No one said ALL income. That was your imaginary partisan parrot on your shoulder whispering sweet silent nothings. Words matter.

It is on income.

Well, I have lived around a number of them and the great majority of them are hard workers who earn their money through tough physical labor, go to the gas station on the way home, drink their six pack of beer, go to sleep and get up early to just repeat the process all over again, just so that they can send home their extra earnings back home to their families. That's what you call sacrifice. That is simply either demagoguery at it's worst or a complete misunderstanding of the facts on the ground. Illegal immigrants don't qualify for welfare, food stamps, medicaid and most other public benefits. They do not come here to get free benefits. That is absurd. By in large, they come here to make a living. You guys talk about these people as if they are some sort of sub humans or something who just want to mooch off of you.

Like I said earlier, the supporters of each party are drifting further and further out to the extremes. Hardly any of the boards liberals, may as well call them socialists now, don't care for Hillary (who could blame them?), but now support a candidate who believes that the federal tax rate should be at 90% for the wealthy, corporations should be owned by the workers rather than the ones who took the risks to start them, the federal minimum wage should be the same in Podunk Iowa as it is in New York City, an economy fueled by rainbow's and sunshine, supports partial term abortions and that we as a nation should remain in a pacifist/isolationist state no matter what happens to the rest of the world. Bernie stands as much chance to win the elections as Trump, which is nil.

My position has shifted out of deference of all these folks. 1) Even though I believe building a wall isn't going to be the panacea that many believe it to be, I just want it to be taken off the table. Just Build it. 2) I was for a pathway to citizenship, but I've come to the conclusion that from a point of view stemming from fairness, that for all those people who aspired to come the U.S. Through the proper legal channels, which can be quite onerous that it's not fair that someone can come here illegally and then have the opportunity to become a citizen, when many others were denied entry because they played by the rules. I know of this process first hand as I have had many of my friends from South America who attempted to come and visit me who were denied. So rather than providing a direct pathway to citizenship, give them a pathway to some sort of legal status. I just think it gives the wrong signal. You come here illegally, you can become a citizen. That without doubt is serving as a magnet. If these people want to become citizens, then maybe there could be some sort of arrangement to where they could be reassured re entry into the country, but that they'd have to go back home first and go through the proper channels first. That's for the a pathway to citizenship, not legal status. 3) Get rid of all the sanctuary cities. 4) Large fines for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. 5) Work with Mexico in limiting flow of illegal immigrants from their end. If they don't comply sufficiently, then there will consequences. Unfortunately, The Donald's damage is already taking hold. Now you have Jindal and Walker are now for the unconstitutional ending of birth right citizenship. Jindal, you could expect that, once upon a time he use to be a thoughtful man who decried "The party of Stupid" , now he panders to those very same people. Walker, he's been going downhill from my perspective for months now. He's flip flopped on a number of issues and now with his most recent pandering shows me that he most likely won't get my vote in the primaries. He's been disappointing. Bush won somewhere in the low to mid 40's% of the Latino vote, McCain in the low 30's, Romney in the high 20's, and if the GOP nominates one of these candidates that endorse a hardline stance, they will win somewhere in the low 20's. Which would take Nevada and Colorado off the table and seriously jeopardize Virginia and Florida, which for all intents and purposes means that Hillary becomes the next president.

People have truly gone off the rails. Sessions and Coulter, two of the biggest immigration hard liners have helped craft Trump with the most inane immigration proposal that you could possibly imagine. Never mind the fact that it is completely unconstitutional, it would cost in the hundreds of billions of dollars, be seen throughout the entire world and even here as horribly inhumane. What makes Trumps proposal dangerous isn't that it would actually become implemented simply because he stands not a snow balls chance in hell to win the elections, but because now you have TV personalities, opinion writers that hold sway that are actually now defending his indefensible "plan". To be honest, I don't even believe that they believe it's a good plan, but they are selling a product and there are literally hundreds of thousands rabid people who want to buy into this. These morons actually believe that building a damn wall is a real economic plan. They think deporting 12 million people is not only acceptable, but something that they'd actually enjoy seeing. I see it in the comments section plastered all over the place. This sentiment runs rampant within the conservative base. I've thought about the positions these people have and I've come to the conclusion I have more in common with a moderate centrist democrat than I do with these folks. Only thing is that those moderate democrats are nearly extinct, the Democratic Party is essentially a Democratic socialist party. Both parties have moved further out to the extremes. Ronald Reagan would have never endorsed the idea of mass deporting millions of people. All these people who wax nostalgic of the great days of Reagan are nothing like him, and he's nothing like the base of todays Conservative party.

Whatever you want to call it, you represent your "side" poorly.

I just did some researching on Margaret Sanger. All I can say is Wow! Just Wow!

Bernie voted no on Partial birth abortions with the exception to save a mother's life. He is against school vouchers to private schools that allows more choice for student's. He supports sanctuary cities. He supports protectionist trade policies (which is disastrous, see Great depression) His Foreign policy is always that of a pacifist. (In today's ISIS, Iran and Russia problems that are posed, foreign policy will be at the forefront). Ideally, most of us would like to always have peace, but when you are the world's super power, you can't always take military actions off of the table. His views are suited for Sweden, not the U.S His environmental views are way too green. He doesn't support any sort of drilling and is in favor of Cap and trade taxation which would lead to higher energy costs for everyone, including the consumers. Most American's support drilling and this would be exposed. He supports a 90% taxation on the wealthy, but would settle at 50%. That's beyond extreme. He is against reforming S.S despite it's long-term viability, and would actually would like to expand them. He believes in workplace democracy and that eventually all major corporations should be publicly owned by the workers. In other words, everything that made the U.S the super power that it is, he wants to change it. He's not fit to be president of the U.S. Maybe some small populous country out in Europe with really high tax revenues, but not here.