Syrian Refugees

[Dead Duck]

Under the...... Constitution? In a country that has abolished the death penalty? Lol

Which is ironic because not too long ago they had walk-in ovens.

 

[HoughMade]

Which is ironic because not too long ago they had walk-in ovens.

...and because of that, they abolished capital punishment.

Anyhoo....

 

[Dead Duck]

I see that some old habits are hard to kick.......

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Gee , it's a good thing hundreds of " refugees " haven't already swarmed our border states and interpreters haven't been hired . Sarcasim folks , they're already here .

 

[ArcadiaGP]

U.S. To Take In An Extra 25,000 Refugees in 2017 | Foreign Policy

 

[printcraft]

U.S. To Take In An Extra 25,000 Refugees in 2017 | Foreign Policy

Yep, picture on the top of that article is who we are worried about....

 

[bwframe]

Bump the number up to 110, 000.

White House Wants To Resettle 110,000 Refugees In U.S. Next Year : The Two-Way : NPR

I'm really really hoping that the administration's "in your face" sort of attitude while on it's way out helps to solidify what needs to get done in November.

 

[BugI02]

IMO a particularly vicious form of virtue signaling. BHO gets to feel good about himself and the direction his party is leading the US in without ever having to experience a refugee presence in any neighborhood or business district that he is likely to frequent. Same for the officials of his party

How many refugees have they settled in Georgetown or Falls Church?

 

[Jludo]

IMO a particularly vicious form of virtue signaling. BHO gets to feel good about himself and the direction his party is leading the US in without ever having to experience a refugee presence in any neighborhood or business district that he is likely to frequent. Same for the officials of his party

How many refugees have they settled in Georgetown or Falls Church?

I don't have any living in my neighborhood, do you? I'd actually be interested to hear from the folks who are helping the refugees here in the states.

 

[david890]

How many refugees have they settled in Georgetown or Falls Church?

How many INGO members could afford to live there?

"Georgetown market trends indicate a decrease of $225,000 (-19%) in median home sales over the past year. The average price per square foot for this same period fell to $762, down from $827." So, a cozy 1200 sq. ft. house is gonna run you $914,000.

"The median sales price for homes in Falls Church for Jun 15 to Sep 14 was $543,750 based on 310 home sales. Average price per square foot for Falls Church was $362, an increase of 6% compared to the same period last year. The median rent per month for apartments in Falls Church for Aug 15 to Sep 15 was $2,600.". That same 1200 sq ft home would run you $434,000.

 

[printcraft]

How many INGO members could afford to live there?

"Georgetown market trends indicate a decrease of $225,000 (-19%) in median home sales over the past year. The average price per square foot for this same period fell to $762, down from $827." So, a cozy 1200 sq. ft. house is gonna run you $914,000.

"The median sales price for homes in Falls Church for Jun 15 to Sep 14 was $543,750 based on 310 home sales. Average price per square foot for Falls Church was $362, an increase of 6% compared to the same period last year. The median rent per month for apartments in Falls Church for Aug 15 to Sep 15 was $2,600.". That same 1200 sq ft home would run you $434,000.

You've stumbled into the point. The people pushing the risk on the rest of the country are insulated from the effects of those decisions.
Much like oblamacare or rules of classification.... It does not apply to them.

 

[david890]

The people pushing the risk on the rest of the country are insulated from the effects of those decisions.

See also, Trump's proposed tax cuts. How much will YOU benefit from those cuts? How much will Trump and the 1% benefit? The loss in revenue will impact you and I far, far more than the 1%.

But back to the topic: tell us of your interactions with Syrian refugees...

 

[dusty88]

Bump the number up to 110, 000.

White House Wants To Resettle 110,000 Refugees In U.S. Next Year : The Two-Way : NPR

I'm really really hoping that the administration's "in your face" sort of attitude while on it's way out helps to solidify what needs to get done in November.

Like elect someone who will stop encouraging foreign conflicts and creating more homeless people ?

 

[jamil]

See also, Trump's proposed tax cuts. How much will YOU benefit from those cuts? How much will Trump and the 1% benefit? The loss in revenue will impact you and I far, far more than the 1%.

But back to the topic: tell us of your interactions with Syrian refugees...

<triggered type="ot-rant" reason="bull****" />

OMFG. Why does that even matter to you? You don't give a **** when we spend way more than we take in as long as you're taxing the rich. You (rhetorical "you") just say, "debt is good", the debt doesn't matter. Deficits don't matter. So why does it only matter to you when Republicans want to reduce taxes? Why is adding to the debt only bad when you can't tax the rich as much as you want? It's not like you plan to reduce the deficit with that extra money from rich people, you're just going to redistribute more of it anyway. Right? Free college. Free healthcare. Free condoms. Free needles. Free ****, that isn't really free because other people have to pay for it. But you don't. So it's free to you.

So don't act like you want to increase taxes on wealthier people because you want to be "fiscally responsible", because "fiscally responsible" people don't say things like the rich aren't paying their "fair share" when the top 1% earners pay a higher portion of the tax revenue collected than the bottom 90%. Your "fiscal responsibility" has nothing to do with the deficit and has everything to do with an ideological belief in "income equality". You want to confiscate more of more wealthy people's resources to even out the outcomes.

Everyone is taxed enough already, except for the people who pay no taxes on income. We don't need more revenue. We need less spending. It's not the government's job to even the outcomes. It's not the place of elected officials to take resources from some and redistribute it according to their ideological whims. We're a democratic republic, so 50%+1 of the people shouldn't get to tell the 50%-1 that they have to pay for the majority's existence. People shouldn't get to vote themselves income from other people's earnings. That's immoral.

Progressives like to use straw monsters like "the 1%" to con people into believing that's the moral argument. I kinda suspect that if it were all voluntary, our government would magically shrink because these "moral" government programs are only good ideas to you because you aren't paying for it. If YOU have to pay for it, I think you might rethink the scope and breadth of the government you want. People with no skin have no moral claim to vote other people's money away.

If I were GPOTUS (grand poohbah...) I would push towards what I call the "put your money where your mouth is" tax system where there'd be a mandatory flat rate tax on net earnings to pay for the legitimate functions of government, and also a voluntary portion where you get elect to pay more for various programs that the government wants funded. If you (again, rhetorically "you") want a bigger government, YOU pay for it. YOU put your money where YOUR mouth is or STFU. If America elects people who want to increase the size of government, then they would have to beg the people for the money to fund it, which is as it should be.

 

[david890]

If I were GPOTUS (grand poohbah...) I would push towards what I call the "put your money where your mouth is" tax system where there'd be a mandatory flat rate tax on net earnings to pay for the legitimate functions of government, and also a voluntary portion where you get elect to pay more for various programs that the government wants funded. If you (again, rhetorically "you") want a bigger government, YOU pay for it.

You'll have to elaborate on those parts in red. Who decides what is a "legitimate function of government"? The govt wants to fund a lot of things, but obviously can't fund them all. Who decides who gets what? Oh, wait. That's the job of Congress; they prepare the federal budget.

Using your logic, if *I* want a smaller govt or smaller military, can I just pay less or nothing at all? I'm sure a LOT of people would opt to pay nothing at all, including "the 1%". How do you think that would work out??

BTW, conservatives like to latch onto straw monsters such as "welfare queens"; there are no innocents in this fight.

 

[jamil]

You'll have to elaborate on those parts in red. Who decides what is a "legitimate function of government"? The govt wants to fund a lot of things, but obviously can't fund them all. Who decides who gets what? Oh, wait. That's the job of Congress; they prepare the federal budget.

The "Legitimate function of government" is pretty well defined in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution. It doesn't say government has the power to subsidize farmers, bail out bankers, prop up industries, redistribute public wealth, engage in nation building, and so on and on.

When I say "what government wants funded", I'm not saying it is not congress whose function it is to appropriate funds and such. I'm saying that if congress wants to spend the public's resources on things that aren't "constitutional" they should have to beg for it rather than having ideologically stacked courts declare what they want to do constitutional, whether "right" or "left". The "put your money where your mouth is" tax system puts the power of the purse more firmly in the hands of you and I.

Using your logic, if *I* want a smaller govt or smaller military, can I just pay less or nothing at all? I'm sure a LOT of people would opt to pay nothing at all, including "the 1%". How do you think that would work out??

Well, you can't pay nothing (apparently you didn't notice the "mandatory flat rate tax" part). Everyone who receives any income pays a compulsory flat tax. No deductions, no exemptions. This tax goes to fund the legitimate functions of government authorized in the constitution. Taxes would not be paid through withholding. You get a tax bill every period (monthly or quarterly maybe) and you write the check (electronic or paper). The tax bill lists the amount for your compulsory tax amount. It would also have a list of check boxes for various things the legislative process has approved.

So, for example, let's say congress passes a law to have the people prop up an artificial market like the green industrial complex. The president signs it. That item would be added to the next tax payment form. So, as a tax paying citizen, you get your tax bill and you say, "hey, wow, I get to subsidized the profits of the green industrial complex. Yay!" So you check the box, you write your check, which includes the compulsory amount plus whatever your conscience compels you to pay to subsidize the profits of the green industrial complex.

So, how do I think that would work out? People would either opt to put their money where their mouth is, or STFU. We'd end up with smaller government. Our government got YUGE in a large part because people get to vote other people's money away.

BTW, conservatives like to latch onto straw monsters such as "welfare queens"; there are no innocents in this fight.

Oh, c'mon. You can surely come up with better straw monsters of the right than that. There are enough to go around throughout the spectrum.

So that we can talk about the same thing, when I hear that term I understand it as women who have babies for the purpose of drawing a check. That does happen too often. People tend to push the "me" button whenever one is presented. That's a human nature. People are self-interested. I don't blame the people who do that as much as I blame the politicians who created that system.

The welfare system, especially the way ours is engineered, presents a huge "me" button for having babies and collecting a check as a primary occupation. It rewards non-nuclear families, so non-nuclear families is the common outcome of our welfare system. It's only "constitutional" because the people who wanted it said it was.

I'm not against helping families up out of poverty to the fullest extent of what they can provide for themselves. There's a private way to do that. And if I didn't have to pay so much in taxes, I could afford to donate a lot more to help those people in the ways I think they most need help; ways that don't encourage them to do socially harmful things.

And, if you absolutely want the government to have a program, there's a public way you can opt to spend your money. So you check the box, you write the check.

Hopefully you get the idea that this tax plan is not serious. We both know there is zero chance of this ever happening, and government will continue to grow and grow until it collapses from its own weight.

The whole idea of the tax plan is to get people to imagine what the size of government would actually become if people couldn't use the power of government to virtue-signal with other people's money. I think for most people, once they have to pay for their own ideology, they'd likely rethink it. And many may actually become moral people themselves instead of being moral by proxy. They could no longer satisfy a human need to feel moral by voting to make other people do what they think are moral things. They'd have to do those moral things themselves.

 

[david890]

The "Legitimate function of government" is pretty well defined in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution. It doesn't say government has the power to subsidize farmers, bail out bankers, prop up industries, redistribute public wealth, engage in nation building, and so on and on.

Not in those exact words, but the phrase "general welfare" is vague enough to grant Congress those powers.

Well, you can't pay nothing (apparently you didn't notice the "mandatory flat rate tax" part). Everyone who receives any income pays a compulsory flat tax. No deductions, no exemptions.

So, someone making $10K/yr would pay the same as someone making $1M/yr?

So, for example, let's say congress passes a law to have the people prop up an artificial market like the green industrial complex. The president signs it. That item would be added to the next tax payment form. So, as a tax paying citizen, you get your tax bill and you say, "hey, wow, I get to subsidized the profits of the green industrial complex. Yay!" So you check the box, you write your check, which includes the compulsory amount plus whatever your conscience compels you to pay to subsidize the profits of the green industrial complex.

Would that apply to every item in the budget, no matter how large or small? Military spending, social Security payments, etc.?

 

[printcraft]

See also, Trump's proposed tax cuts. How much will YOU benefit from those cuts? How much will Trump and the 1% benefit? The loss in revenue will impact you and I far, far more than the 1%.

Yes, having the people able to create jobs for a lot of other people able to do that is a bad thing. Horrible! Rich bastards! We'll get even with them.

But back to the topic: tell us of your interactions with Syrian refugees...

Well, I'm not sure...... I haven't been raped, decapitated or blown to smoking bits yet so I don't think I've met any.....

 

[jamil]

Not in those exact words, but the phrase "general welfare" is vague enough to grant Congress those powers.

I guess the authors of the constitution shouldn't have bothered to enumerate any powers of government, since in your interpretation "general welfare" contains any conceivable power whereby congress could argue that it promotes "general welfare". Locking everyone in their homes could be argued as "general welfare".

So, someone making $10K/yr would pay the same as someone making $1M/yr?

If the flat rate were, say, 7%, someone making $10K/yr would pay $700/year. Someone making $1M/yr would pay $70K/year. So, unless you're mathematically challenged, surely you can see that $700 =/= $70K.

Would that apply to every item in the budget, no matter how large or small? Military spending, social Security payments, etc.?

Given that this is just an exercise, we don't need to define every detail of the plan. But if you insist, military spending is clearly within an enumerated power. So national defense, per se, would be included in the flat rate mandatory tax and would be subject to congressional over-site as it is now. Social security would obviously be impacted. Since the government doesn't have the authority to redistribute wealth, such a government program would be completely voluntary. <gasp/>

But to your question, I don't think every line item detail needs to be a check box. Congress would define what the check boxes mean. You check the "social security" box, it means whatever the law says it means. But do keep in mind, this is just an exercise to get people to think about the ways we use government to control the property of other people, especially when our own property isn't even in the game.

If I'm not paying taxes, what right do I have to tell other people what they should pay? What right do I have to vote their money into my bank account? How is it moral for me to say that people who make more than me, and are actually paying a higher portion of the nation's tax revenues than me, aren't paying their fair share? We try to say the 1%'ers are immoral for not paying even higher amounts, yet neither of us even earns in a year what these people pay in a year in taxes.

The secretary who complains that she pays more taxes than her CEO is not making an honest argument. She may pay a higher percentage of her income in taxes, but to say that means she pays higher taxes is an outright lie. Mitt Romney made somewhere near $20M in a year, and paid like $3 million in taxes. That secretary won't even make in her lifetime what Mitt Romney pays in taxes in one year. It's dishonest to say she pays more tax than he, and it's immoral to say he doesn't pay his "fair share".

 

[Caleb]

I've been hearing that bloomington will be getting 66 of these terrorist.....I mean syrians next year.