ADVERTISEMENT

Trump or Hillary?

Are you voting for Trump or Hillary?

  • Donald Trump

  • Hillary Clinton

  • Not voting


Results are only viewable after voting.
#4 is not right. At all.

Bush left office with a 72% increase in the national debt; Obama is currently sitting at an 83% increase sitting taking office.
Not true.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm

Through the end of FY 15:

"Barack Obama: Added $6.494 trillion, a 56% increase in the $11.657 trillion debt level attributable to President Bush by the end of his last budget, FY 2009."
"FY 2009 - $253 billion. (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.)"

"George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase to the $5.8 trillion debt level at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001."

Even with another $500B deficit projected for each FY 16 and FY 17, it's still far less of an increase than Bush's 101%.
 
1) Very subjective and debatable.
2) I am not sure WTF you mean here. GDP is currently $18T, the highest it's ever been and GDP growth rate is currently 3.29%, which is below the mean but nowhere near the worst all time.
3) Maybe, but the numbers are declining, reaching a five year low in March.
4) Not true. In fact, Obama's rate of increase to the national debt will be about half as much as Bush's was.

His GDP growth rate will be lucky to be at 1.55%. He's terrible.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...rst-president-ever-not-see-single-year-3-gdp/
 
Then why even have borders? Why waste time pretending this is a separate nation and just say we're an extension of Canada and Mexico?

The fact is that there are floods of people entering this country illegally and staying. If you don't view this as a problem then you are be default insisting that borders are unnecessary and not worth having.

statue-of-liberty-poem-copy2.jpg
 
ITT we learn a lot of people want to pay out the ass for minimum waged employees to pick their fruits and vegetables...
 
  • Like
Reactions: MACHater02
Are you voting for Trump or Hillary? Didn't post 3rd party because even as a Libertarian, I know they have zero chance. Interested in results....
You mean the most experienced executive on the ballot Gary Johnson, who is polling 10% -- which means he may have to be included in the national debates -- has no chance of being such? Huh?

You do understand the Libertarians' main objective is to poll high enough to be included in the debates, right? I.e., even if you're not a Libertarian, it would be nice -- for once -- to get a 3rd person involved so he/she can call out both the Democrats and Republicans when they are arguing over rhetoric, instead of the actual issue Americans care about?

Like bathrooms supposed to be focused on individual privacy, and not special group interests in either direction? And that's just one example that is just an utter distraction and grandstanding by both the Democrats and Republicans who are both using sexist arguments.
 
uac-april-graph-20160517.jpg


204,625 unaccompanied minors entered between 2012 and 2016

It costs $13,000 to educate a single child each year in the public school system

$7,742,358,000 is the cumulative total spent in the last 4 and a half year to educate people that aren't even citizens. Throw in welfare that illegals receive and the number skyrockets.

Add to that, the $25 billion annually sent back to Mexico in remittances; money that leaves the U.S. economy and never returns; money that small businesses here in the U.S. could use in tough economic times.

Illegal immigration is a BIG freakin' problem whether you want to admit it or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fabknight
204,625 unaccompanied minors entered between 2012 and 2016
Yes, that is a very sad number.

It costs $13,000 to educate a single child each year in the public school system. $7,742,358,000 is the cumulative total spent in the last 4 and a half year to educate people that aren't even citizens. Throw in welfare that illegals receive and the number skyrockets.
Did you just make my point for me?

I.e., I said the problem is not educating children who will remain anyway. I said the problem is taxpayer-funded welfare and services fraud by undocumented residents. If we took that way, not only is the $2B/year for education chump change in comparison ... but we take away the primary incentive for the "freeloaders."

Listen, the US has always been based on immigrants who want to pay their own way, in their hard work, taking education seriously and otherwise being the best they can be. I'm all for prosecuting fraud and deporting kids that drop out of school. But you'd be surprised how many undocumented residents, when you take away all the taxpayer assistance -- other than education for children -- actually want to remain, that aren't producing.

Add to that, the $25 billion annually sent back to Mexico in remittances; money that leaves the U.S. economy and never returns; money that small businesses here in the U.S. could use in tough economic times.
Remittances should be re-taxed. Tying that to pulling out of NAFTA and renegotiating is what I've been constantly arguing.

Illegal immigration is a BIG freakin' problem whether you want to admit it or not.
Of course it is! But it's going to happen regardless. That's what you keep ignoring.

I'm more concerned with the organized crime and taxpayer-funded welfare and services fraud. Let's attack that first, which is where 80% of gun homicides come from, 99% of full automatic weapons discharges come from, and many other statistics.

The individual, undocumented immigrant that never commits fraud and betters the US economy is the least of my concerns, in comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MACHater02
Yes, that is a very sad number.

Yes, it’s a very sad number, but at what point is enough enough? Should we take in 1 million children? 2 million? Why not just take them all? At some point, Mexicans and Central Americans need to take a stand against poverty and violence and take their countries back … take an example from the people in Colombia.

I said the problem is not educating children who will remain anyway.

Why should they remain? Send them back, plain and simple. If you crossed the border into Mexico with your child in tow, do you think the Mexican government would roll out the welcome wagon and provide your kid with free education? Heck, they don’t even do that to their own kids. If you can’t afford to pay for school in Mexico, you kid doesn’t go, plain and simple. I know it sounds harsh, but why should we take funds away from taxpaying American citizens and give it to foreign interlopers?


But you'd be surprised how many undocumented residents, when you take away all the taxpayer assistance -- other than education for children -- actually want to remain, that aren't producing.

Just because someone wants something doesn’t mean that they’re entitled to it, Mr. Sanders.

The individual, undocumented immigrant that never commits fraud and betters the US economy is the least of my concerns, in comparison.

Stop kidding yourself, most of these illegals do nothing but put a drain on taxpayer resources. Hospital ER’s, public schools, public housing, EBT food stamps; we probably piss away close to $100 billion every year to take care of illegals when the children of taxpaying U.S. citizens go hungry every day.
--------------------------------------------------

Now tell me, how do you feel about this? Last month it was reported that President Obama has budgeted $17,613 for each of the estimated 75,000 Central American teens expected to illegally cross into the United States this year, $2,841 more than the average annual Social Security retirement benefit.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...-social-security-retirees-get/article/2590078

What a slap in the face. Wade through the rice paddies of Vietnam for your flag and pay taxes your entire life only to come up shortchanged in favor of some gangbanger/drug dealer/baby factory. Only justifiable by a liberal.
 
Comparing the budget for undocumented children and Social Security is stupid at best.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean in your statement, but I will agree that the comparison is stupid. Social Security is a social benefit paid out to U.S. citizens that have worked and paid their entire lives to receive this benefit. People that served in our armed forces, factory workers, medical professionals, teachers, policemen, firefighters, and so forth.

A 70 year old U.S. hardworking taxpaying citizen has earned the right to receive benefits from our government. Illegal kids from Mexico/Central America have earned nothing . . . and deserve nothing!

So you're right in a way; there's no comparison at all here.
 
Yes, it’s a very sad number, but at what point is enough enough? Should we take in 1 million children? 2 million? Why not just take them all?
Now you're getting to the real argument. Yes, it's unsustainable. I utterly agree. And you have to make that argument with people. that the US takes in way, way too many, alleged "refugees" to be sustainable.

Now tell me, how do you feel about this? Last month it was reported that President Obama has budgeted $17,613 for each of the estimated 75,000 Central American teens expected to illegally cross into the United States this year, $2,841 more than the average annual Social Security retirement benefit.
Exactly. That's the argument to make. The problem is, when you get into the other stuff, you play right into the "progressive liberal" game.

Focusing on how much Americans are being wronged is the solution. It's not that we cannot take in refugees. It's that we cannot sustain the rates.

The first way to stop that is to end all the benefits and services undocumented residents can partake in. That will cause many to not want to enter in the first place. It will keep most of their parents from coming to the States.

The next is to focus on the organized crime, which is the real problem with human, drug and gun trafficking. Yes, it's human trafficking, and I don't think "progressive liberals" recognize that's the real problem with undocumented residents.
 
Now you're getting to the real argument. Yes, it's unsustainable. I utterly agree. And you have to make that argument with people. that the US takes in way, way too many, alleged "refugees" to be sustainable.

Exactly. That's the argument to make. The problem is, when you get into the other stuff, you play right into the "progressive liberal" game.

Focusing on how much Americans are being wronged is the solution. It's not that we cannot take in refugees. It's that we cannot sustain the rates.

The first way to stop that is to end all the benefits and services undocumented residents can partake in. That will cause many to not want to enter in the first place. It will keep most of their parents from coming to the States.

The next is to focus on the organized crime, which is the real problem with human, drug and gun trafficking. Yes, it's human trafficking, and I don't think "progressive liberals" recognize that's the real problem with undocumented residents.

OK, that sounds reasonable enough. Take away the carrots and enforce the laws already on the books. Unfortunately, far too many people see it as a way to increase their voter base on our way to national bankruptcy.
 
OK, that sounds reasonable enough. Take away the carrots and enforce the laws already on the books. Unfortunately, far too many people see it as a way to increase their voter base on our way to national bankruptcy.
I love it when Liberals try to say that's not the case, and then I tell them to explain that to those who wonder why we cannot afford Social Security and other, "mandatory" spending.
 
The next is to focus on the organized crime, which is the real problem with human, drug and gun trafficking. Yes, it's human trafficking, and I don't think "progressive liberals" recognize that's the real problem with undocumented residents.

Pretty ironic that the same administration that's fighting to take away our 2nd amendment rights s the exact same administration that supplied known drug cartels with over 600 firearms as part of Fast and Furious.
 
Pretty ironic that the same administration that's fighting to take away our 2nd amendment rights
Actually, the Democrats have damaged the 1st Amendment more than the 2nd Amendment since '06, but that's another story. But agreed ...

is the exact same administration that supplied known drug cartels with over 600 firearms as part of Fast and Furious.
Which is why three (3) ATF agents eventually "whistleblew," despite retribution and career destruction, when a Democratic Congresswoman from California held up one of them, and said straw purchasers were to blame. It was the US federal government actually "caught in the act" of subverting a civil right to turn the populace against it, in utter defiance of its primary purpose.

To this day anyone who downplays, much more defends, this is literally at odds with freedom. Yes, "gun running" was a pilot program that started under W., but didn't produce any dividends. Then it was greatly expanded, not to actually catch the cartels, but ... as would come true ... to provide a "smoking gun incident." Then it backfired, despite virtually destroying the careers of these three (3) agents.

Both the ATF and FBI have learned to "adapt" to this now, forestalling such subversion of civil rights.

E.g., when the administration went after M855 -- the overwhelmingly most popular 5.56mm round in civilian hands, not even used by the US military any more, as its effectiveness has regularly been called into question -- the ATF smartly put out a public "Request for Comments." When 98% of the comments came back "against," mostly with PhD and other intellectuals giving hard facts why it wouldn't do anything but drive up A) cause the overwhelming majority of civilians to have to return already purchased ammunition and B) wouldn't do anything, as all 5.56mm rounds, l like virtually any rifle round, can penetrate NATO Block IIA body armor (every rifle round created in the last 130 years is virtually a "cop killer" by sheer, basic physics), it gave the ATF the "return ammunition" to show it was a political move by the administration that had 0 scientific and legal merit.

This is the main reason why every time ATF and FBI funding increases come up for everything from enforcement to NCIC improvements, every Congressman and woman wants guarantees it will actually be used for existing law enforcement, like improving the accuracy of the NCIC and other, existing, proven systems that have lots of erroneous information -- including checks that would have prevented 2 of the last 4 mass shooters from even purchasing a gun (there is no "loophole").

Yes, I fully understand this. It, along with the jailing of reporters in '06 and tapping AP phones in '09 before the alleged "Korean leak" happened, is why the Democrats have flung past the Republicans on undermining civil liberties, much to the no joy of the courts. But no one talks about that in the media.

In fact, even Maddow on MSNBC attributed the jailing of a reporter to W., even though it was the Democratic-led committee that did it, when they were investigating Libby. Coincidentally, it was Armitage, not Libby, who leaked Plame's name, and when the journalist was released, he confirmed it was Armitage, neither of which were ever charged, only Libby. To this day, most Americans believe Libby was found guilty of leaking Plame's name, and don't know he was only found guilty of lying to a Grand Jury (withholding Armitage's name for 3 years). Same charge and conviction as Bill Clinton, who was actually convicted of lying about more than just Monica.
 
Waah Waah, brown people are entering the country. Waaah.

2040 is coming.

Like UCFBS stated, it's all about sustainability, population management, and respecting the rule of law . . . a concept that our neighbors south of the border have yet to grasp. Guarantee you, if a million French Canadians came down here every year bringing poverty, disease, and an inability to speak basic English and became a drain on society there would be just as much of an outcry to send them back, so don't try and play the "brown man boogeyman card" here.

Get ready because this is what 2040 is shaping up to look like, so be careful what you wish for.
Immigrants-on-train.jpg
 
Like UCFBS stated, it's all about sustainability, population management, and respecting the rule of law . . . a concept that our neighbors south of the border have yet to grasp. Guarantee you, if a million French Canadians came down here every year bringing poverty, disease, and an inability to speak basic English and became a drain on society there would be just as much of an outcry to send them back, so don't try and play the "brown man boogeyman card" here.

Get ready because this is what 2040 is shaping up to look like, so be careful what you wish for.
Immigrants-on-train.jpg
You played the card with your silly post. Regurgitating weak fear tactics of the right. The same right that loves to hire these people.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT