Why Don't the Liberals Want a Wall?
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
Aimiel
Well-known member
Yeah, I've heard from many of my friends of color how that offends them, since neither they or any of their ancestors are from Africa, though if we follow modern theories: all of us are from Iraq, which is where Babylon and the Garden of Eden are believed to have been located. I'd hate being called an Iraqi-American, that's for damn sure. :aimiel:maybe we could get rid of that "african-american" nonsense
musterion
Well-known member
They never wanted one. Periodically it only sounded good to say so and now it doesnt.
Kit the Coyote
New member
So much of the land along the Rio Grande is privately owned. It seems Texas landowners are not pleased with the idea of the government taking their land for Trump's wall and even worse cut off their water rights to the river. Texas landowners are preparing for legal fights that may tie up the eminent domain cases for years.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...owners-preparing-to-fight-eminent-domain-over
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...owners-preparing-to-fight-eminent-domain-over
binyamin7
Active member
I won't argue that. Either way they are compromised.
Gee, another yahoo inventing horrible ideas and declaring that the people he hates, believe them. A modern adaptation of the blood libel.
WizardofOz
New member
So who is Trump saying will pay for the wall today?
Kit the Coyote
New member
Saw a suggestion today that could bring the Democrats/Liberals on board, why not pay for the wall with a carbon tax. :think:
more taxes = bad!
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
and replace coal as a fuel for power generation with illegal immigrants? :think:
Now he says the wall will pay:
President Trump on Friday said that the border wall will pay for itself "in a month."
What's funny is that there are people who believed each story in turn, and will believe this one as well.
Kit the Coyote
New member
No wall = bad?
If we reduce the level of taxation imposed on the people by the government (through the elimination of socialist programs such as welfare and foreign aid and by eliminating all taxes except for a tax on personal increase), the government would be able to fund the building of a wall on both borders (though, probably not necessary on the northern border), AND still be able to improve/maintain infrastructure throughout the country.
Less taxation means citizens have more money to spend.
More money to spend boosts the economy naturally, and allows it and businesses to grow.
Growing businesses can produce products more efficiently, lowering costs, while still maintaining good pay for its employees... which means they have more money to spend at the end of the pay period.
Which means their standard of living goes way up, and the cycle continues.
More taxes do the exact opposite.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Eminant domain is a huge issue and Trump has already said he has no problem with it. Seems he doesn't believe in property rights.
Arthur Laffer came up with a curve that shows the relationship between tax rates and revenue. It's not a straight line going up to the right. As taxes become excessive, each increment in tax rates returns less and less revenue as businessmen find it less and less profitable to operate.
Eventually, an increase in tax rates will bring in no additional revenue,and after that, will actually bring in less revenue.
The trick is to know where the curve starts to fall off. Laffer advised Governor Brownback in Kansas, where the theory was tested. It turned out that the existing rate was no where near that point, and cuts in tax rates led to catastrophic reductions in revenue, contrary to Laffer's predictions.
Eventually, the republican legislature did an intervention, and moved to end the crisis that had damaged the state's citizens and the state's bond ratings.
Trump once attempted to use eminent domain to take away an elderly woman's home to expand his casino. He was in way over his head:
There once was a widow who lived in a house by the sea.
It wasn’t much of a place, just a fading, clapboard-clad box a few steps from the boardwalk in Atlantic City.
Yet, somehow, that house has turned into a clogged intersection of American celebrity and wealth, an odd mash-up of failed dreams, bombast, stubborn indignation, name-calling, angry taunts and legal bombardment.
The cast of characters populating that house’s curious history over the past three decades includes a friend and co-author of Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, a legendary pornographer, and a famed investor. But the central figures in its life and death saga are a feisty, obstinate woman named Vera Coking and a billionaire, the Republican presidential front-runner, Donald Trump.
Trump is dominating his Republican opponents in the polls. But in the long melodrama that is Trump’s business career, the house in Atlantic City is the place where all the billionaire’s money and all the billionaire’s men couldn’t keep a 5-foot-3 widow from whupping him.
...
Bolick saw the case as a key moment in the battle over eminent domain and property rights. It was a struggle over precious liberties but lacked an obvious embodiment of the stakes.
“What was needed was a villain so heinous that a court would rule against him,” Bolick likes to tell audiences. “Out of central casting came Donald Trump.”
It used to be a reliable laugh line.
“Now I suspect a lot of people wouldn’t find that funny,” Bolick said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...44725fcd3b9_story.html?utm_term=.60fd609955d7