2020 Field

[thethe]

My numbers actually are researched. That's why I stated "statistics show" in my post. Here's a link for reference

Again, calling people burdens (especially disabled people) is despicable. Many of these people are already a part of "our house", and such policies significantly affect their ability to live. Disabled people and the elderly are already among the poorest demographics, precisely because they can't easily find work. Now you want to take their benefits away from those already here and ban such people from entering the country.

And why? Because a small subset of people abuse the system? Brilliant.

Regarding the homeless problem, you do realize that Republicans fight tooth and nail to cut funding of such programs that aim to help the homeless issues in America don't you?

Why do I care about Republicans? They have sold out America just as the Democrats have.

Again, you keep bringing up disabled people as a shield against those able bodied that abuse the system which is by far a larger percentage. You can continue to play that game because you are ok with America subsidizing the third world. I'm not ok with that.

 

[Julio3000]

I've heard the inverse of this from Republicans several times in recent years. After Prop 8 and DoMA were overturned in court, after Harry Reid used the Nuclear Option for confirmations, after the Stupak coalition was smashed, after ACA thumbed its nose at the Hyde Amendment, after a multitude of executive actions by the Obama administration, after several executive actions by Trump were stayed by various courts.

I don't think either party can claim a monopoly on playing hardball.

Reid used the so-called Nuclear Option when it became clear that Rs were not going to confirm any judges at all. When the shoe was on the other foot during the Bush Admin, the Senate reached a compromise to pull a couple of noms in exchange for approval of the rest. So it was hardball, but it was in response to hardball.

 

[Carp]

Why do I care about Republicans? They have sold out America just as the Democrats have.

Again, you keep bringing up disabled people as a shield against those able bodied that abuse the system which is by far a larger percentage. You can continue to play that game because you are ok with America subsidizing the third world. I'm not ok with that.

You keep saying this, yet with nothing to back up such claims. Federal agencies estimate that on average, only 8% of all welfare claims are fraudulent. I've already provided evidence showing the percentage of welfare claims who are disabled. Based on the statistics we can safely say that disabled Americans/immigrants make up a substantially larger portion of people receiving welfare benefits than people who are simply abusing the system.

 

[thethe]

You keep saying this, yet with nothing to back up such claims. Federal agencies estimate that on average, only 8% of all welfare claims are fraudulent. I've already provided evidence showing the percentage of welfare claims who are disabled. Based on the statistics we can safely say that disabled Americans/immigrants make up a substantially larger portion of people receiving welfare benefits than people who are simply abusing the system.

Our definition of abuse is different. If you can work then you shouldnt get welfare. We have to pay for americans mistakes in having kids without being able to appropriately plan for future finances.

There is absolutely no reason we should do that for the third world when there are americans dying in streets every day from poverty

 

[cajunrevenge]

Can I get a list of what economic policies you think Warren or Bernie would get passed assuming Republicans control either the Senate or the House? I really want to know what you think 4-8 years of their Presidency would look like.

 

[The Tariff King]

Can I get a list of what economic policies you think Warren or Bernie would get passed assuming Republicans control either the Senate or the House? I really want to know what you think 4-8 years of their Presidency would look like.

Bernie/Warren are going to finally finish what Obama started and that's bring ISIS over on lifeboats to initiate the full scale invasion.

 

[thethe]

Can I get a list of what economic policies you think Warren or Bernie would get passed assuming Republicans control either the Senate or the House? I really want to know what you think 4-8 years of their Presidency would look like.

Reuglatory refom doesnt need c9ngressional approval.

 

[Carp]

Our definition of abuse is different. If you can work then you shouldnt get welfare. We have to pay for americans mistakes in having kids without being able to appropriately plan for future finances.

There is absolutely no reason we should do that for the third world when there are americans dying in streets every day from poverty

My definition is what is the government considers abuse. I really don't care what your definition is.

The last part is just rhetoric. You don't have to choose either to help the immigrants or help the homeless. It is, in fact, possible to do both. But I guess a useless 30+ billion dollar ego-boosting wall is more important than either of those, amirite?

 

[sturg33]

But what policies, are being enacted or even proposed?

I can point to dozens from the left

Was hoping to get an answer on this

 

[acesfull86]

Can I get a list of what economic policies you think Warren or Bernie would get passed assuming Republicans control either the Senate or the House? I really want to know what you think 4-8 years of their Presidency would look like.

Hopefully they just get student debt relief passed...I’ll take my undeserved $40-50k debt relief and hope they’re voted out before my taxes go up or they get anything else thru

 

[thethe]

My definition is what is the government considers abuse. I really don't care what your definition is.

The last part is just rhetoric. You don't have to choose either to help the immigrants or help the homeless. It is, in fact, possible to do both. But I guess a useless 30+ billion dollar ego-boosting wall is more important than either of those, amirite?

If you can work and still take money from others that is abuse.

And no - economic resources are finite so you can't do both effectively while balancing the rest of the needs of the country.

By saying you want no wall, as well as you previous inclinations for effectively open borders, are stating that you are for supporting the third world. Great policy stance for Americans.

 

[Carp]

If you can work and still take money from others that is abuse.

And no - economic resources are finite so you can't do both effectively while balancing the rest of the needs of the country.

By saying you want no wall, as well as you previous inclinations for effectively open borders, are stating that you are for supporting the third world. Great policy stance for Americans.

You do realize that I listed the stats for estimated fraudulent claims right? People faking an injury would fall into this category.

And yes, we absolutely can support both causes, considering that we currently do. However, Trump's policies have actually made it harder for homeless to get the help they need.

And I've never supported "open borders." But it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see that a Wall will have minimal affect on the issue. It's a huge waste of money and resources, never mind the ecological affects. As far as anything else, I am for supporting people that want to become Americans, regardless of where they come from.

 

[Jaw]

You do realize that I listed the stats for estimated fraudulent claims right? People faking an injury would fall into this category.

And yes, we absolutely can support both causes, considering that we currently do. However, Trump's policies have actually made it harder for homeless to get the help they need.

And I've never supported "open borders." But it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see that a Wall will have minimal affect on the issue. It's a huge waste of money and resources, never mind the ecological affects. As far as anything else, I am for supporting people that want to become Americans, regardless of where they come from.

I see videos all the time of huge groups of immigrants walking across the border illegally, and then I see people say its obvious that a wall wouldn't curb that much, and I can't reconcile the two in any logical way.

Out of curiosity, how many people, per year, are you willing to support becoming Americans?

 

[nsacpi]

I see videos all the time of huge groups of immigrants walking across the border illegally, and then I see people say its obvious that a wall wouldn't curb that much, and I can't reconcile the two in any logical way.

Out of curiosity, how many people, per year, are you willing to support becoming Americans?

A good case can be made that it should be a smaller number than has been the case in recent years. But the rhetoric about rapists from Mexico and people from ****hole countries has poisoned the well for any sort of reasoned reform of immigration laws. At least until we have a new president.

 

[Carp]

I see videos all the time of huge groups of immigrants walking across the border illegally, and then I see people say its obvious that a wall wouldn't curb that much, and I can't reconcile the two in any logical way.

Out of curiosity, how many people, per year, are you willing to support becoming Americans?

The issue is you can't have a massive wall over every inch of the border. Many of the places where illegal immigrants currently cross will continue remain as such, wall or no wall. We'd be much better off investing that money into border security/immigration resources. Add more security points of entry, invest in border security technology (drones, cameras, sensory equipment, etc), add more manpower not only for patrols but also to process the backload of immigration/asylum applications, etc.

As far as the how many people per year, I don't have an answer to that. Obviously overcrowding is becoming an issue in major cities, where the majority of immigrants flock to.

 

[Jaw]

A good case can be made that it should be a smaller number than has been the case in recent years. But the rhetoric about rapists from Mexico and people from ****hole countries has poisoned the well for any sort of reasoned reform of immigration laws. At least until we have a new president.

Would you also say that the newfound outrage over longstanding conditions of detainees has aided in the poisoning?

For the record, I would favor an increase in legal immigration and stronger deterrence of illegal immigration. Rhetoric aside, it is in the nation's best interests to know who is entering the country.

 

[Jaw]

The issue is you can't have a massive wall over every inch of the border. Many of the places where illegal immigrants currently cross will continue remain as such, wall or no wall. We'd be much better off investing that money into border security/immigration resources. Add more security points of entry, invest in border security technology (drones, cameras, sensory equipment, etc), add more manpower not only for patrols but also to process the backload of immigration/asylum applications, etc.

As far as the how many people per year, I don't have an answer to that. Obviously overcrowding is becoming an issue in major cities, where the majority of immigrants flock to.

That seems like a reasonable position to me.

 

[nsacpi]

Would you also say that the newfound outrage over longstanding conditions of detainees has aided in the poisoning?

For the record, I would favor an increase in legal immigration and stronger deterrence of illegal immigration. Rhetoric aside, it is in the nation's best interests to know who is entering the country.

Of course, there are those who treat it as a political football on the Democratic side.

I think from a coldly calculating perspective as a political issue it helps the GOP more. It would take an act of statesmanship to set aside that calculation. Trump is well-positioned to do a Nixon-to-China on immigration. He could put together a deal that would move the issue forward in a way that benefits the country. But you and I both know that aint happening.

 

[Jaw]

I really don't believe he could even if he were so inclined. The Republican stance toward Obama has been mimicked by Trump's Democratic House. They'll only go along when it represents a clear win for them and an overpay for him.

 

[nsacpi]

I really don't believe he could even if he were so inclined. The Republican stance toward Obama has been mimicked by Trump's Democratic House. They'll only go along when it represents a clear win for them and an overpay for him.

I think there are actually some adults on both sides who would be able to move this forward. But it requires a kind of perfect storm for it to happen. A few years ago it looked like it might happen. But Brat upsetting Cantor in the primary closed that window.