VOTE REPUBLICAN

Author: Dr.Franklin

Posts

Total: 69
#61
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Christen
Having "a fence that people can get over or through in a matter of minutes" is better than no fence.
No it isn't. If the nearest border patrol is an hour or 2 away. 5 minutes climbing the fence makes no difference. But it does cost 10's of billions of dollars. 

They are starting to give certain voting rights to illegal aliens to allow them to vote in certain areas for certain
That is for a school board. It is not a state of federal election. It is irrelevant to the discussion we are having. 

They're even putting illegal aliens in positions of power.
So they will provide a vital service to the community and you don't even want to let them have citizenship. 

You're right. We can help them both, by having those immigrants come here legally instead of illegally, and also by helping the homeless people get into homes and get jobs.
I totally agree with you on this point. The problem is that republicans have no interest in letting them come in legally. So if there is no legal way to enter and they need to flee their homeland, you are forcing them to be criminals or die. If you honestly believe in this kind of reform you should vote democrat. 

Just because it's hard to come here legally doesn't mean it's broken. The country is being flooded with more people than it can handle, which is why it is difficult and takes long to process asylum applications in the first place.
What does this even mean? Unemployment rates are super low. America could handle 10 times the number of immigrants they take in now without much issue. 

I'm sure they don't want to go through the trouble of leaving their country and investing elsewhere, but people will do that if they have to, are able to, and feel that they have no other choice.
They could save millions in taxes if they moved a matter of a few miles. But they choose not to. And you think they will move thousands of miles? It's not going to happen.

A lot of societies like Venezuela have faced economic ruin because they did not do exactly what I am suggesting.
Venezuela's situation is complicated. Much more so than you seem to think. But i don't imagine I could explain it to you. 

Trickle Down Economics does not "destroy the middle class" like you say it does. Trickle Down Economics is meant to help rich, so they can, in turn, help the middle class, so they can, in turn, help the poor.
It's a bit like saying, you hand me your wallet, and maybe, at some point, I will hand a little bit of that money to someone else. And maybe, at some point, that person will hand a little bit of that money to someone else. It is just stupid on the face of it. You are just getting mugged.The rich do not help the middle class with their money. They are just robbing the country. 

If it does destroy them, why hasn't it done so already?
It has been doing so for years. The level of income inequality has reached ridiculous levels. Do you really think that socialist policies like medicare for all would be super popular if the current economy was working well and everyone was succeeding? No, socialism is on the rise because for a large percentage of the american people, the economy isn't working. 

Think about it this way: Say I'm rich, and you are middle class. With my wealth, I can increase your wage, hire more employees, and use my wealth to invest back into the business.
I understand the theory of trickle down economics. The problem is that this is not how it works. What really happens is that the rich take their wealth, and spend it on lobbyists to get even more concession so they can get more wealth. That money never leaves their hands. They never pay the higher wages. 

It's risky, i'll admit, but it can also work in our favor.
Theoretically it could. In practice it doesn't. 

No plan is perfect, and you are right about the risks and potential downsides of Trickle Down Economics, but so far, it's working out just fine.
That's just it though. Trickle down economics doesn't work. Like at all. It helps the rich get richer. That is it. More and more wealth accumulates at the top until the system collapses. We have gotten the massive inequality, we haven't hit the collapse yet. And hopefully a real progressive president will be elected and we wont need to reach it. 
#62
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Christen
Woah, my dude. You are falling for a trap there.

Trickle down economics isn't something that conservatives actually believe. It is a mischaracterization of our believes by the Left.

What we actually believe is supply side economics. It is the idea that money is better kept in the hands of entrepreneurs than being redistributed to consumers. These entrepreneurs make new goods and services that benefit everyone else. This creates jobs, drives down prices, etc. Super simplified version of it, but that is a brief summary.

As you can see, they are along the same lines, but there is a big difference there. It pretends that as businesses make more money that they will just start paying their employees higher. Not necessarily true. Their goal is to make a profit for the shareholders, which means they will not raise costs unless they have to.

Never defend "Trickle Down Economics". It is a charged term, and you will lose every time. 
#63
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
Never defend "Trickle Down Economics". It is a charged term, and you will lose every time. 
Definitely agree. Trickle down economics is a shell game played by the rich. If you just keep giving them money then of course eventually you will get a prize. right?

What we actually believe is supply side economics. It is the idea that money is better kept in the hands of entrepreneurs than being redistributed to consumers.
This is also bad economics. It doesn't matter how much supply you create. If people cannot afford to buy the product, then supplying it is pointless. You drive growth when you create demand. If consumers have money then they will want to buy. That creates the opportunity that entrepreneurs need. This is the main reason you start to see economic slow downs after fiscally conservative governments take over. The social spending gets cuts. Demand for goods and services contracts. So the rich start getting less returns on their investments. 
#64
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
The courts have tried to block him from doing legal things.

If a court blocks it, then it was illegal. That is how courts work. 
Lol. Have you ever heard of a appeals court? Many projects blocked by the leftie court, were overturned on appeal, showing that they were not illegal. Perhaps you need a refresher course on how courts work?

They even got a deal with dems to fully fund the wall which they refused. So it is the republicans that prevented that.
Untrue. The dems put in riders on the bill to allow millions of immigrants already in the country to become citizens. Republicans correctly refused that fakery.

Keep out criminals.

Like what? What has trump tried to do to keep out criminals?
Build a wall. Banned immigration from terrorist countries. Make immigration merit based.

I am assuming you mean the wall, but since most criminals don't walk accross the border,
So we should ignore the ones that do?

...and even if they did, they can usually afford the $100 saw that can cut right through it. 
You are ignorant. Do you know what $100 is to a poor illegal alien? But so what? Because the criminal can get through your defenses, you will have no defense?

Save Americans money for Americans.

I'm not aware of any plans he has tried to pass for this. 
Of course you aren't. But we will save billions for Americans if we don't have to spend the money on non-american health care and repairs for terror.

Bring jobs back to the country. 

He hasn't tried to do this.
And yet employment numbers are through the roof? How can I talk to you if you ignore clear reality in front of you?

Ensure religious rights for believers. Keep terrorists out of the country.

What has he tried to do that the dems blocked?
Keep immigrants from known terrorist hovels from entering the country without being vetted. But thank god he won on appeal.

Support American farmers.

His trade wars have been destroying american farmers. I'm not sure why you think he has been trying to support them. 
I know math. But have you noticed that American farmers support Trump? Do you know any credible political analysts who think our current deals with China, Europe, or mexico were fine?

Support law enforcement officers.

Again, what has he tried to do that the dems blocked?
Sanctuary cities. Abolition of ICE. Block money for our glorious military. Refuse to allow state officials work with federal law enforcement.

You've listed things that either he hasn't tried to do,...
Untrue. Trump has tried to do every one of those things. You are not aware of them  because your fake news outlets never tell you.

...or that he has had a serious negative impact on.
But that's just it. The dems think everything he tries to do will result in a serious negative impact, and reality keeps proving them wrong.

But he is the president. Let the man implement the policies he ran and won on.

Very few of which were blocked by dems.
Name one policy initiative of Trump that the commie dems did not try to stop.

Trump opened the WH bowling alley to WH staff and Pelosi and the dems tried to stop that! How petty!
#65
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,159
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Let me ask you one question: Is the President obligated to help American citizens over illegal immigrants? A yes or no will suffice,
#66
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
The majority of americans do not approve of the wall. 
Untrue

..if the wall can be bypassed in a few minutes with basic tools,...
Untrue. The wall is concrete with steel reenforced rebars.

A politician does something that his constituents want him to do that helps save lives, and you think the courts should stop him. 
A court should stop him when it is illegal, even if his constituents want it, yes. But I notice you only have a problem when its Trump doing what his constituents want.

It wasn't the dems that blocked this, it was trump and right wing republicans refusing to negotiate. 
Untrue. Your link is from MSNBC, (Racheal Maddow) The facts in it are false and skewed.

And if camera's and motion sensors are enough to alert guards, then you don't need a fence that people can get over or through in a matter of minutes.
Think man! If the guards are 3 miles away, and the illegal is right there, the wall delays him till the guards can get there.

No wonder you need the fiction that they can get through the wall in a matter of minutes.

Also, detection devices let authorities know where illegals think surveillance is poor. 

this is a false equivalence. You are pretending that helping one group somehow makes it impossible to help another.
If one cannot help every group, this is true.

We can easily help both.
Which is why our deficit is so high. Who is to pay for helping non-americans? And why should non-americans be helped when there are Americans needing help?

You don't need to attack immigrants to help veterans. 
Americans using its money to help its citizens is not an attack. Where do you people get this silly language from? Have you been "attacking" my kids all these years by spending your money on your kids? Sheeesh!

The much better plan is to raise revenue by taxing the people who can easily afford it so that you can work to protect the people who can't afford it.
Tax the rich to feed the poor, till there are no rich no more.- Ten Years After, "I'd love to change the world"

Take money from producers and distribute it to those who produce nothing. This is the essence of communism, and it fails every time because producers simply stop producing, if the rewards of their hard work are given to others who did not work.

Liberal democrats act as if other peoples money is theirs.
#67
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Supply-side theory is all about privatization, deregulation, tax cuts, and competition. An increase of supply will decrease prices, which accomplishes the same thing as demand side: it allows consumers to buy it. However, the difference is that it creates jobs, rather than destroying them. Instead of the government taking companies out of the market with excessive taxation and regulatory compliance, they will only go out of business if competing firms push them out. That is how you get better products and prices. 
#68
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
Supply-side theory is all about privatization, deregulation, tax cuts, and competition. An increase of supply will decrease prices, which accomplishes the same thing as demand side: it allows consumers to buy it.
Except that it doesn't do that. You make as many plasma screen tvs as you want. If people are struggling to pay their rent and afford food, then it doesn't really matter how cheap you make them. Your consumer base simply can't afford them. 

However, the difference is that it creates jobs, rather than destroying them. 
you have this backwards. If workers are well paid, then they have income they can use to buy things. Maybe they want that plasma tv now. That means that a supplier now has a market and can earn a profit. If the market is there, a supplier to move in to meet the demand. Having a well paid work force doesn't destroy jobs. It is the source of jobs. 

Instead of the government taking companies out of the market with excessive taxation and regulatory compliance, they will only go out of business if competing firms push them out. That is how you get better products and prices. 
No one in america is advocating for "taking companies out of the maket". They are advocating for them actually contributing to the society they are profiting off of and meeting basic requirements to make sure they are treating people with respect that should be due to any american. People who advocate for removing regulations and corporate tax rates are advocating for corporations and the rich to have more rights than american citizens. It isn't right morally, but it is also terrible policy. It creates an environment where corporations will hurt anyone and everyone they want to in order to maximize their profits. 
#69
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@HistoryBuff
The level of income inequality has reached ridiculous levels.
This is probably because too many people are spending years working at low-skilled jobs making minimum wage instead of developing a skill or trade that they can use to get into a better paying job. Because of this, income inequality will always exist, even under communism and socialism. Income inequality should not normally exist under communism or socialism, but, under communism, what happens is that people eventually get bored of everyone having the same stuff, and are eventually overcome by greed, which makes them want more than others, so they do things like steal and trade to acquire more, and, under socialism, it's easier for people to be lazy because the government takes care of them by taxing the wealthy and using it to pay for more benefits.

Do you really think that socialist policies like medicare for all would be super popular if the current economy was working well and everyone was succeeding?
There is no such thing as "everyone" succeeding. No economy has ever lead to that outcome. No economy will ever lead to that outcome. If there was such an economy that existed that would make everyone succeed, every country in the world would be adopting that perfect economy.

No, socialism is on the rise
What about all the people in places like Venezuela who are trying to get away from socialism and into capitalism? If socialism is supposed to be the best solution, why are they all trying to get as far away from it as they can? https://web.archive.org/web/20191109232439/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/world/americas/venezuela-refugees-colombia.html

because for a large percentage of the american people, the economy isn't working.
What do you mean by "isn't working"? Working, how?

If workers are well paid, then they have income they can use to buy things.
If a worker wants to be paid more money, they have to provide a good or service that people are both willing and able to pay more money for. You cannot expect someone working a low-skilled job behind a cash register 8 hours a day to be "well paid". The value of low-skilled labor is diminishing and/or being replaced by robots/automation. More and more people are looking for higher skilled labor.

They are advocating for them actually contributing to the society they are profiting off of
The rich are not "profiting off of" society. They profit off of the valuable goods/services/investments that they provide, which allows them to become wealthy in the first place. They are contributing to society by doing just that - investing in and providing valuable goods and services for many people. The creators of Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Instagram, Ebay, Youtube, and so many more valuable goods/services, are wealthy because they contributed to society by providing their highly valuable products and services. The amount of money that they make from that is the reward for their valuable product or service that they provided. Take away that reward (or reduce it by taxing them more) means that they are less likely to want to keep investing in and contributing to our country with their products/services, which is what Venezuela did.

Like Ethang5 said, "Tax the rich to feed the poor, till there are no rich no more."

People who advocate for removing regulations and corporate tax rates are advocating for corporations and the rich
It makes sense for the people who take big risks, the people who invest in a business, the people who invent something, the people who go that extra mile to get that extra knowledge needed to create that new product or service that helps so many people, the people who do more than just work a minimum wage job like the rest of the "workforce," like Mark Zuckerberg, to be rewarded with plenty of wealth. The wealth is the incentive. Take that incentive away (or even reduce it), and people won't take those big risks and invest in our country as much.

to have more rights than american citizens.
What extra "rights" are the wealthy getting, and aren't those wealthy people "american citizens" too? Are those extra rights like the right to be rewarded greatly for their valuable product or service that they provided for the country and/or the world, as well as the jobs they may also create? If so, why/how is that a bad thing?

It isn't right morally, but it is also terrible policy.
You're acting like the rich became rich by being selfish, and will continue to be selfish to increase their profits. This may be true for some rich people, but it doesn't apply to most of them. How is it not "right morally" that those who take those big risks, create those big businesses, make money work for them, develop a valuable marketable skill, and invent a product or service that benefits so many people, not be rewarded for their efforts?

It creates an environment where corporations will hurt anyone and everyone they want to in order to maximize their profits.
Except corporations do not profit off of hurting people. They profit off of, like I said, making investments, taking risks, providing a highly valuable product or service for others, and going that extra mile, doing far more than joining the thousands of low-skilled "workers" in the low-skilled "workforce" working a minimum wage job and expecting that alone to be enough to get by.

An example of a corporation profiting off of hurting people would be something like slavery, where they would kidnap people from their countries and bring them here to sell them, rape them, and/or make them work for little to no pay, against their will, while beating them publicly if they said or did anything they didn't like. Anyone that does profit off of something like this should be locked up.