Trump: Convince me without personal attacks

[Smyth]

Since John Roberts decided to play politics and not jurist wrote his tortured and twisted opinion making the penalty for not getting insurance a "tax", the small amount of the "tax" encourages healthy individuals to wait until they get cancer of some other disease to enroll. The "tax" since it's now legal, needs to be more like 90% , or more, of what the average premium for individuals that age. Otherwise, no plan will ever work. Period.

The tax code is already full of financial manipulation of our choices. The only thing different about the Obamacare penalty vs. a thousand other things in the tax code is how it's applied on paper (as a penalty rather than a missed credit or deduction). I disagree with Roberts, but given the practically unlimited authority of the tax code, Roberts would be almost arbitrary to rule any other way. The tax code could be written to present the penalty as a lost credit, but it would be nothing but bureaucratic complexity to achieve the same result.

The penalty is already high enough to make Obamacare the money-saving choice. For most people who have jobs that don't provide insurance, the credit is enough to provide "free", or nearly so, insurance. I think Obamacare's problem is that the working poor are not as healthy as the working middle-class who get insurance through work.

 

[StefanM]

The penalty is already high enough to make Obamacare the money-saving choice. For most people who have jobs that don't provide insurance, the credit is enough to provide "free", or nearly so, insurance. I think Obamacare's problem is that the working poor are not as healthy as the working middle-class who get insurance through work.

If you haven't had health insurance, you haven't had access to the non-emergency care needed to treat many conditions. If you then acquire health insurance, you tend to use it.

 

[Smyth]

A visa used by Mexican citizens to enter the US costs $131. It allows the bearer to visit/travel for 30 days. There is nothing illegal about that, and as we all know this is not a problem.

Not a problem? How many illegal aliens entered with visas? How many would enter with visas if the boarder was otherwise secured at very great cost?

That is why we see so many of them bypassing barriers or sneaking across in the trunks of cars etc. This is one reason to complete the fence.

Neoconservative Fox News loves to highlight people sneaking across the border. But, other than wanted criminals and contraband runners, how many are really have to resort to that?

E-verify is in use in about 1/2 of our states. If it was required for all states then of course illegals would not be able to work here and would self deport. This is part of the Trump policy on securing our border.

Illegals collect a great deal of government assistance, I'd prefer they be allowed to work. They work cash jobs, paying no taxes and not putting a dent in their government assistance income. Cut-off government assistance and they'll self-deport and we'll save $billions.

 

[Adonia]

If you don't help the poor, you're just going to see riots. The country is already burning in some places. Cut off support? Just wait and see what happens. It won't be pretty. We really don't need a French-style revolution in our streets.

Plus, there's a biblical precedent for doing so on a national level, along with individual charity.

Sorry, but I don't think there is any biblical precedent for this type of thing. The government taking money from someone and giving it to another person is theft. No one has a right to the fruits of my labor except me, and it is up for me to decide things here. I need to be charitable as the Scriptures tell me to be, but the outright taking of a part of my wages for someone else's benefit is immoral.

 

[Adonia]

1 isn't a reason.
2 is a good idea.
3 is a good idea.
4 is only a good idea if it's done efficiently. We have tons of waste.
5 is good, depending on the details.
6 is very good.
7 is questionable. Free trade is typically a conservative kind of thing.
8 is ok.
9 is irrelevant. As I once heard, the VP's job "is to be alive in case the President isn't."
10 is offensive.

Well at least I got some positives from you!

 

[Lewis]

Fox News loves to highlight people sneaking across the border. But, other than wanted criminals and contraband runners, how many are really have to resort to that?.

I don't know what Fox news has to do with it.
But DHS apprehended 337,117 illegally crossing the southern border last year. With a catch rate of 2 entries for every 1 apprehended, we are talking about 674,000 per year. LINK

 

[Adonia]

I'm a moderate. I don't like a lot of what Hillary stands for, but I wasn't talking about voting for Hillary. My issue is Trump or 3rd party (out of protest).

I hold some more liberal positions and some more conservative ones.

Trade? I don't believe in protectionism because I don't think its economically productive, and it limits the ability to spread freedom to other nations. I tend to take a conservative position here.

It's telling when a candidate makes too many off -the-cuff comments period because it indicates an inability or unwillingness to keep oneself more restrained. Restraint is absolutely essential for the Presidency. Maybe Trump can change, but as of now, it's an area he needs to improve.

But would I be a conservative by very conservative terms? No. That being said, I'd probably look like the second coming of Mussolini to the far left. I am quite concerned that the far left has so much influence because the moderate Dems are MIA. I'm also quite concerned about the anger in the far right.

How do you feel about the Constitution and the enumerated powers given to the Federal government? Shouldn't we abide by what it really says and not what some people want it to say?

 

[Adonia]

Under the huge topic of Republicans Are Worthless (aside form displacing Democrats) is the Flat Tax, which will increase taxes on the middle-class. If you're at all serious about a Flat Tax, how come you vote for people who don't incrementally flatten the tax? Let's get rid of the home mortgage deduction, but which Republicans are talking about that? Let's get rid of deductions for state and federal taxes. Getting rid of tax breaks for the rich is off the Republican table. Rather, Republicans want to create more tax breaks for the rich.

Obamacare is the most viable idea right now. It just needs some accompanying reforms. But, Republicans are worthless and want to scrap it (without any viable alternative) rather than improve it.



When you cut the marginal rates of the rich (a flat tax), who do you think will pick up the slack? Why should I vote for a Republican Party that can't show it cares about the working man?

The flat tax or even the "Fair Tax" would be the way to go. If I pay 18% on my 60K, the rich guy will pay 18% on his 50 million. There would be plenty of money for the Federal government. And yes, all deductions will be ended, plus the IRS could be cut down by three quarters. The "Fair Tax" would be even better as everyone, even people who work under the table, would be liable. Then we could get rid of the IRS entirely and have the Treasury Dept. handle the collections. It would be a big win for the nation.

 

[Smyth]

I don't know what Fox news has to do with it.
But DHS apprehended 337,117 illegally crossing the southern border last year. With a catch rate of 2 entries for every 1 apprehended, we are talking about 674,000 per year. LINK

You bolded my question, "how many are really have to resort to that?". That's a bit different form how many crossed illegally. The difference is that many those illegal crossers could cross legally with a visa, if the border were really secured. Only wanted criminals and contraband runners have a compelling reason to avoid legal entry. For everyone else, it's probably mostly convenience. Maybe many South Americans enter Mexico and then aren't in a position to get a visa without returning to their home country. For Many Mexicans, illegal entry is just a short-cut to where they want to go.

If the Republicans didn't want to be worthless on immigration, they'd work to cut-off subsidies to illegal immigrants, saving us $billions. And, also work to put teeth into deporting convicted criminals illegally here (exit the jail, get a ride to Mexico, every time. I'm even fine with shaving a few days off their incarceration to pay for the trip). There are many things we could do with cheaper and more effective than building a wall.

 

[carpro]

The penalty is already high enough to make Obamacare the money-saving choice. .

No. It's not. Not even close. That's why premiums are climbing so much. Not enough healthy people enrolling. It's far cheaper to pay the "tax".

I can provide sources , but based on our previous exchanges, you're far too dense to understand it when you are proven wrong.

 

[Lewis]

That's a bit different form how many crossed illegally. The difference is that many those illegal crossers could cross legally with a visa, if the border were really secured...There are many things we could do with cheaper and more effective than building a wall.

The number I cited was how many crossed illegally where the border is not secured.

National Border Patrol Council and Border Patrol Agent Chris Cabrera stated that the U.S. border between Mexico has "gotten less secure" in the last few years and admitted that agents are "lucky to catch 45% of what crosses" with "extremely porous large stretches of our border being left unsecured, unmanned". LINK

This is a situation that needs to be addressed by Republicans, because the Democrats like it just fine as is.

Most of these illegals will not get a passport and enter legally as you suggest, because then they would be on the US immigration radar, and would have to return home in 30 days.

 

[Smyth]

The flat tax or even the "Fair Tax" would be the way to go. If I pay 18% on my 60K, the rich guy will pay 18% on his 50 million. There would be plenty of money for the Federal government. And yes, all deductions will be ended, plus the IRS could be cut down by three quarters. The "Fair Tax" would be even better as everyone, even people who work under the table, would be liable. Then we could get rid of the IRS entirely and have the Treasury Dept. handle the collections. It would be a big win for the nation.

If the people you're voting for aren't incrementally moving the tax code in that direction, then they don't really believe in a national sale tax or a flat tax. And, that's fine because these things are aren't the panaceas you imagine them to be.

Consider, yes, the sales tax wold catch people who work under the table. But, it would let people escape taxes who claim their purchases are for resale. And, it wouldn't catch money from illegal and private sales. And, you'd have to fill out complex tax forms to claim your sales tax rebate.

The Fair Tax and Flat Tax only exist to distract people like yourself from doing anything that would actually help.

 

[Smyth]

Most of these illegals will not get a passport and enter legally as you suggest, because then they would be on the US immigration radar, and would have to return home in 30 days.

Yeah, because people who enter legally would leave before becoming illegal aliens?

 

[Smyth]

I can provide sources , but based on our previous exchanges, you're far too dense to understand it when you are proven wrong.

You're one angry and confused puppy.

From some government website: In 2015, 80% of people in Obamacare had the option of signing up for a plan that costs them under $100/month. That's everyone, of all income levels. The tax credits are phased out with higher income. For 2016, the Obamacare penalty is $58/month. Anyone of modest income can get insurance for under $58, if not free.

 

[carpro]

Y Anyone of modest income can get insurance for under $58, if not free.

The average monthly Obamacare premium is $408 per person.

 

[Smyth]

The average monthly Obamacare premium is $408 per person.

Carpro, would you stop responding to my posts? Unless you're catching a typo, your posts don't have any value. The issue is how much a person pays for his insurance, especially vs. the penalty amount. Government tax credits pay for most of the premiums. Your reply is non-sequitur.

 

[carpro]

Carpro, would you stop responding to my posts? Unless you're catching a typo, your posts don't have any value. The issue is how much a person pays for his insurance, especially vs. the penalty amount. Government tax credits pay for most of the premiums. Your reply is non-sequitur.

Not a chance. Your garbage begs to be exposed for what it is.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is praising the Supreme Court’s ruling on a 2013 Texas law that would have greatly reduced the number of abortion clinics in the state.

Earlier today Clinton voiced her satisfaction with the decision on Twitter.

“SCOTUS's decision is a victory for women in Texas and across America. Safe abortion should be a right—not just on paper, but in reality,” Clinton tweeted.



Clinton argued that the decision "is a reminder of how much is at stake in this election.”

“We need a President who will defend women’s health and rights and appoint Supreme Court justices who recognize Roe v. Wade as settled law,” according to an official statement released by her campaign.

Clinton also attacked Donald Trump's position on abortion. The presumptive Republican nominee has not commented on the Supreme Court decision.

Overall, Democratic lawmakers celebrated the 5-3 ruling, which is a major win for pro-choice advocates.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has said he would vote for Clinton in the November election but has yet to formally suspend his presidential campaign, also applauded the ruling.


“After all the progress we have made on women’s rights, we cannot go back to the days when women in America did not have the right to control their own bodies,” he said.

Former Republican presidential candidate and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz called the decision “profoundly disappointing.”

“The Supreme Court sided with abortion extremists who care more about providing abortion-on-demand than they do protecting women’s health,” Cruz said in a statement.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio also weighed in on the ruling.

“I'm incredibly disappointed in today's #SCOTUS ruling on abortion clinics in TX. I'll continue to fight for life and protect the unborn,” he tweeted.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hill...-texas-law-decision-victory/story?id=40160105

Does anyone on here think a vote for anyone but Trump is a viable option? I don't.

 

[StefanM]

Sorry, but I don't think there is any biblical precedent for this type of thing. The government taking money from someone and giving it to another person is theft. No one has a right to the fruits of my labor except me, and it is up for me to decide things here. I need to be charitable as the Scriptures tell me to be, but the outright taking of a part of my wages for someone else's benefit is immoral.

The Mosaic Law (which include a national, theocratic government to enforce it) required the poor tithe every three years. Also, it required farmers to leave at least part of their crops (what fell to the ground during the harvest) for the poor and the traveler.

It's also not immoral because of Romans 13. We are to submit to the governing authorities, period, and there is no justification to claim that paying taxes is forbidden by God. It's actually endorsed.

That being said, on a practical level it makes sense. Unless you want to see an economically-based kind of Ferguson on a national level, supporting the poor is essential.

Lastly, they aren't just your wages (or anyone's wages). They belong to God, and the fruit of anyone's labor is only because God allows them to retain the ability to earn it. Anyone could have a life-changing medical incident any time.

 

[StefanM]

Well at least I got some positives from you!

Yep. I'm a moderate, not a complete liberal, despite some assumptions.