mr_genius

I give you... the GOP 2011 Jobs plan http://majorityleader.gov/Jobs/HRP_JOBS.pdf ...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 29, 2011 -> 04:19 PM) FWIW, this would mean that every Walmart in the country would have been shut down by the government as Walmart was a serial employer of Illegals. good. if they constantly hire illegal workers, get caught, continue to hire illegals the store should be shut down and if it's endemic of the entire organization and they refuse to fix the problem they should not be allowed to operate. the execs that knew about it should have been charged.

QUOTE (Tex @ May 29, 2011 -> 03:53 PM) So if you accept a counterfeit birth certificate or a social security card for someone other than who it was issued for, you should be charged and your business closed? Come on. if they are chronic offenders yes. if they are having problems, they need to hire someone, or get some advice, on how to become a competent and lawful organization. because getting fooled and trading goods for a counterfeit bill is not illegal. it is illegal to make the bill. it is different because the vendor did not commit a crime. when hiring an illegal worker you have committed a crime. your 'counterfeit bill' analogy you keep using is not viable.

QUOTE (Tex @ May 29, 2011 -> 02:45 PM) You are ignoring the fact that most illegals that are caught are working for more than minimum wage, they were working for the prevailing wages. then they can find legal workers. problem solved. if they can't find low skilled workers in this economy, give up and do something else. again, this shows me a lack of business skills, not a need for illegal workers. that is a bad analogy. a better analogy would be a convenience store that sells cocaine gets busted. illegal activity, just like using illegal workers. these people hiring illegals are not victims, if anything, they are criminals. no, it should not.

QUOTE (Tex @ May 29, 2011 -> 07:49 AM) Are we going to shut down a farm because they were fooled by a counterfeit birth certificate? Shut down a Title company because a guy in the mail room used someone else's driver's license and social security card? Once we start litigating "knowingly" we're going to be spending a lot of time and money. for repeat offenders? heck yea shut them down, and charge the owner with a felony. sucking at running a business is not a valid excuse to having an illegal operation. if you constantly hire illegal workers, on accident, you obviously do not have the needed skills to run a business. these guys are found guilty of this over and over, but they just keep doing it. the cheap labor is very profitable. better than no job. people will take these jobs, but they won't work for the same price as an illegal work force. just look at the turnout for low paid McDonalds jobs, but those were at least minimum wage. now if have suddenly become a hard line Libertarian, and you want to remove all worker protections (including minimum wage) and have a total free for all open-boarders no government mad max economy, so be it. but I am against that. America currently lets in more Immigrants than any other country in the world.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 28, 2011 -> 08:22 AM) Technically, if a business were to accept a bunch of counterfeit bills, aren't they basically SOL, in terms of not getting that money? I would assume so, otherwise these same types of businesses running illegal operations would just print out fake money, buy their own products, and have the Feds reimburse them for their 'hardship' of getting counterfeit money.

QUOTE (Tex @ May 28, 2011 -> 06:28 AM) My biggest concerns about the harsher penalties for companies. they have decided to run an illegal operation, they should accept the consequences. they knowingly hire illegally. it is cheaper and saves them money. hire local, legal workers. if they can't afford to do so they should re-evaluate their business plan. McDonalds had like a million applicants for 50,000 low paying jobs.

The Heat are a very good team. They play tough D and obviously have scoring.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ May 26, 2011 -> 10:16 PM) How many of those "Heat fans" are wearing stuff that still has tags on it? haha

wow. total choke.

Rose can't do anything with Lebron guarding him

he did foul him on the three

so much for that lead

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 25, 2011 -> 02:48 PM) He's trying to be a Democrat version of Rush but fails miserably. pretty much.

refs have been terrible

f***

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 22, 2011 -> 03:45 PM) First...a huge chunk of our debt is actually held by the Federal Reserve...which takes the profits from those interest payments and sends it back into the treasury. Last year, the Fed returned nearly $80 billion in profit to the Treasury. Although, a good chunk of that came from the other things they purchased during their buying binge. if the fed is flush with cash, don't raise the debt limit. problem solved. we both know that is not the case. by 2020 interest payments on the debt will be greater than the budget deficit. This is a real problem. In 2010 for every $1 of discretionary spending we spend $0.15 on interest. By 2020, for every $1 of discretionary spending we will be spending $0.50 on net interest payments. In 2020 the CBO estimates net interest payments of $778 billion. They estimate the deficit to be $685 billion. Our whole deficit will be a result of the interest on accumulated debt. Net Interest paid is $202 billion in 2010 and $778 billion in 2020.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 21, 2011 -> 12:15 PM) lINK The EU is imposing tariffs on Chinese goods. http://www.2point6billion.com/news/2011/05...ducts-9320.html http://euobserver.com/884/32336

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 22, 2011 -> 02:28 PM) This is where the real difference is between our 2 sides. For your side...on principle, we're always spending too much, there's always too much waste. It doesn't matter what the program is, whether its effective or not, we should spend less on it. It's a matter of faith that spending = bad. there just isn't the funds for this spending. these interest payments on this debt is too much. these massive deficits will have very bad consequences. it's a question of return on price. i don't think the return on most of this spending justifies the cost. what it boils down to is this: the excess spending is doing more harm than good.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 22, 2011 -> 01:44 PM) Exactly. My math brings out a laugh. The only cuts that count are the ones your side likes. That is of course where we diverge. That doesn't even include the Medicare cuts from the Affordable care act, of course. ok ok. i take back the lols but i want more cuts than Obama has offered. Basically, less spending, not more. i'm willing to cut just about all spending. not just the easy stuff.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 22, 2011 -> 01:37 PM) President Obama's budget included $4 trillion in cuts over 10 years.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 22, 2011 -> 01:30 PM) So you're in favor of defaulting on the debt and stopping funding the military entirely? yes i am. but willing to compromise. end all US military operations, send troops home, cut all spending. maybe a temporary debt ceiling increase with around 3 trillion in cuts. i'll even close a bunch of tax loopholes.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 22, 2011 -> 01:20 PM) Again...if all we do is "Nothing", tax rates will return to Clinton Era rates. Cutting them takes additional legislation. If we do "nothing" and we bring the army home, the deficit shrinks away. the do nothing option works on raising the debt ceiling too.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 22, 2011 -> 01:09 PM) I could tolerate that, sure...in a couple years, once we get down to 7% unemployment or so, if we avoid another collapse. Of course, I'm also of the belief that the best solution involves dramatically cutting back tax credit expenditures. Every time we hear about them, it's GE paying no taxes, or the Walton family or Buffet paying no taxes, etc. Right now, the total amount the government doesn't collect in the form of tax expenditures is on the order of $1.2 trillion per year. Now some of that would be really hard to get rid of (i.e. the home mortgage interest tax deduction and the health insurance credits), but it's worth noting when you have a trillion dollar deficit that you're using tax credits to subsidize behaviors to the tune of the same amount. But GE paid a lot of bribes for those tax breaks. Is it fair to take the rug out from under them? I'm sure they'll be on TV whining about how if they don't get these big special privileges there will be another great depression. No one wants another great depression! As far as raising all taxes back to Clinton era, it's a non-starter. The Democrats can't do it. They will end up with an attempt raise on upper bracket tax increases.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 21, 2011 -> 01:40 PM) An alternate way of looking at that chart...in terms of accumulated debt. I assume you are in favor of returning to Clinton era tax rates? Would that be for all tax brackets?