• filter:
  • 1166167168169 170
  • Page
  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
rated:
The overall estimated population of illegal immigrants has actually decreased under Obama and his administration is basically deporting as many illegals as congress is giving money to do so. The Obama administration is on pace to deport more illegals than any other president before him. I expect this to continue, even with the most recent announcement. Their is still a lot of illegals that don't meet the criteria and Obama has definitely shown a willingness to deport.

rated:
Obama's address last night screwed up the DVR so now I'm having to watch Big Bang Theory via on demand. Problem is I can't fast and forward through the commercials. Ugh.

rated:
ryeny3 said:   Since some of the people who are in the country illegally don't have driver's licenses
A person can have a driver's license illegally or not have a driver's license legally, but how can a person not have a driver's license illegally?

Well, that's what you said.

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   
ryeny3 said:   �Since some of the people who are in the country illegally don't have driver's licenses�
A person can have a driver's license illegally or not have a driver's license legally, but how can a person not have a driver's license illegally?

Well, that's what you said. �

I wish people would use entire comments and not select portions of a sentence. Let me make this simple for you. Some people in the country illegally have little, if any, proof that they have been residing in the US long enough to be covered by Obama's program. One way for someone to prove that he or she hasbeen living in the US would have been a driver's license which not everyone has. Some states don't provide driver's licenses to people in the country illegally. Others may not have driver's licenses, even if their state was willing to issues them to people in the country illegally, for several reasons like never learning to drive. As you may know, someUS citizens do not have driver's licenses. So, it's possible for some people to be in the country illegally (or legally) for many years and not have a driver's license.

rated:
ryeny3 said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
ryeny3 said:   Since some of the people who are in the country illegally don't have driver's licenses.
A person can have a driver's license illegally or not have a driver's license legally, but how can a person not have a driver's license illegally?

Well, that's what you said.

I wish people would use entire comments and not select portions of a sentence. Let me make this simple for you. Some people in the country illegally have little, if any, proof that they have been residing in the US long enough to be covered by Obama's program. One way for someone to prove that he or she hasbeen living in the US would have been a driver's license which not everyone has. Some states don't provide driver's licenses to people in the country illegally. Others may not have driver's licenses, even if their state was willing to issues them to people in the country illegally, for several reasons like never learning to drive. As you may know, someUS citizens do not have driver's licenses. So, it's possible for some people to be in the country illegally (or legally) for many years and not have a driver's license.

And I wish some people would lighten up and notice that the means "just kidding".








rated:
Reagan and GW Bush used executive action to protect immigrants related to US citizens and permanent residents. TextText

The 2013 Senate immigration bill that passed with bilateral support? TextUnfortunately it still hasn't been brought up for a vote in the House.

Which is perhaps why the President said this:
https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/535605535077593088

rated:
JorgeBurrito said:   The overall estimated population of illegal immigrants has actually decreased under Obama and his administration is basically deporting as many illegals as congress is giving money to do so. The Obama administration is on pace to deport more illegals than any other president before him. I expect this to continue, even with the most recent announcement. Their is still a lot of illegals that don't meet the criteria and Obama has definitely shown a willingness to deport.
These numbers are misleading because the method for counting has changed. Currently, if an illegal is turned back at the border, it is counted as a deportation. In previous administrations, they weren't included in the deportation catagory. The catch and release, it was called.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-...

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   
ryeny3 said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
ryeny3 said:   Since some of the people who are in the country illegally don't have driver's licenses.
A person can have a driver's license illegally or not have a driver's license legally, but how can a person not have a driver's license illegally?

Well, that's what you said.

I wish people would use entire comments and not select portions of a sentence. Let me make this simple for you. Some people in the country illegally have little, if any, proof that they have been residing in the US long enough to be covered by Obama's program. One way for someone to prove that he or she hasbeen living in the US would have been a driver's license which not everyone has. Some states don't provide driver's licenses to people in the country illegally. Others may not have driver's licenses, even if their state was willing to issues them to people in the country illegally, for several reasons like never learning to drive. As you may know, someUS citizens do not have driver's licenses. So, it's possible for some people to be in the country illegally (or legally) for many years and not have a driver's license.

And I wish some people would lighten up and notice that the means "just kidding".








Because you failed to understand that illegally referred to immigration status instead of driver's licenses, you were making fun of me because you thought I made an absurd statement. Hopefully, your inability to comprehend a simple statement was the result of weekend partying and not a more enduring problem. Just kidding.

rated:
A notion that's sorely lacking in the minds of many Americans these days is that actions, and even inaction have consequences. Example: Most of the people I know who are screaming for socialism are either drunks, drug addicts or both, haven't tried all that hard to accomplish much, yet they'll sit around and whine about how "rich people" have their foot on their heads.
Hey man, put down the crack pipe and the booze and maybe, just maybe, life will improve.
This may sound cold but I'm a firm believer that there are very few true victims of circumstance and that we're mostly responsible for our own situation.

rated:
formattc said:   A notion that's sorely lacking in the minds of many Americans these days is that actions, and even inaction have consequences. Example: Most of the people I know who are screaming for socialism are either drunks, drug addicts or both, haven't tried all that hard to accomplish much, yet they'll sit around and whine about how "rich people" have their foot on their heads.
Hey man, put down the crack pipe and the booze and maybe, just maybe, life will improve.
This may sound cold but I'm a firm believer that there are very few true victims of circumstance and that we're mostly responsible for our own situation.

You'd have a point if you were factually correct, but you're not, and the most anti-socialist part of the US, at least by what it proclaims, the deep south, takes more money from the federal government than it pays in taxes, compared to California and New York. Right wing hypocrisy? Of course not.

But it's impressive that you've accomplished far more than drunk, stoned deadbeats like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs.








rated:
larrymoencurly said:   formattc said:   A notion that's sorely lacking in the minds of many Americans these days is that actions, and even inaction have consequences. Example: Most of the people I know who are screaming for socialism are either drunks, drug addicts or both, haven't tried all that hard to accomplish much, yet they'll sit around and whine about how "rich people" have their foot on their heads.
Hey man, put down the crack pipe and the booze and maybe, just maybe, life will improve.
This may sound cold but I'm a firm believer that there are very few true victims of circumstance and that we're mostly responsible for our own situation.

You'd have a point if you were factually correct, but you're not, and the most anti-socialist part of the US, at least by what it proclaims, the deep south, takes more money from the federal government than it pays in taxes, compared to California and New York. Right wing hypocrisy? Of course not.

But it's impressive that you've accomplished far more than drunk, stoned deadbeats like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs.

Well, those guys definitely aren't sitting around whining about "the man" keeping them down, in fact, Buffet is sort of my idol. BTW, I worked for the IRS for three years and it is your facts that are incorrect. California is HORRIBLE about getting back more than they paid in. Really doesn't matter to me where it comes from because I feel that no one should ever get more back than they paid. The tax system is for taxes, not welfare. You want welfare, apply to your state system.
BTW, I don't know how they really enter into this but those great men who have done well FOR THEMSELVES. I certainly haven't accomplished what they have......but I also have never taken a penny of public assistance of any kind, even when my existence was meager and I was barely getting by. Then again, I never got off into alcoholism and/or hard drugs, or had kids I couldn't afford.

rated:
formattc said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
formattc said:   A notion that's sorely lacking in the minds of many Americans these days is that actions, and even inaction have consequences. Example: Most of the people I know who are screaming for socialism are either drunks, drug addicts or both, haven't tried all that hard to accomplish much, yet they'll sit around and whine about how "rich people" have their foot on their heads.
Hey man, put down the crack pipe and the booze and maybe, just maybe, life will improve.
This may sound cold but I'm a firm believer that there are very few true victims of circumstance and that we're mostly responsible for our own situation.

You'd have a point if you were factually correct, but you're not, and the most anti-socialist part of the US, at least by what it proclaims, the deep south, takes more money from the federal government than it pays in taxes, compared to California and New York. Right wing hypocrisy? Of course not.

But it's impressive that you've accomplished far more than drunk, stoned deadbeats like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs.

Well, those guys definitely aren't sitting around whining about "the man" keeping them down, in fact, Buffet is sort of my idol. BTW, I worked for the IRS for three years and it is your facts that are incorrect. California is HORRIBLE about getting back more than they paid in. Really doesn't matter to me where it comes from because I feel that no one should ever get more back than they paid. The tax system is for taxes, not welfare. You want welfare, apply to your state system.
BTW, I don't know how they really enter into this but those great men who have done well FOR THEMSELVES. I certainly haven't accomplished what they have......but I also have never taken a penny of public assistance of any kind, even when my existence was meager and I was barely getting by. Then again, I never got off into alcoholism and/or hard drugs, or had kids I couldn't afford.


*cough* Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction *cough*

rated:
I own my house, no mortgage.

rated:
ryeny3 said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
ryeny3 said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
ryeny3 said:   Since some of the people who are in the country illegally don't have driver's licenses.
A person can have a driver's license illegally or not have a driver's license legally, but how can a person not have a driver's license illegally?

Well, that's what you said.

I wish people would use entire comments and not select portions of a sentence. Let me make this simple for you. Some people in the country illegally have little, if any, proof that they have been residing in the US long enough to be covered by Obama's program. One way for someone to prove that he or she hasbeen living in the US would have been a driver's license which not everyone has. Some states don't provide driver's licenses to people in the country illegally. Others may not have driver's licenses, even if their state was willing to issues them to people in the country illegally, for several reasons like never learning to drive. As you may know, someUS citizens do not have driver's licenses. So, it's possible for some people to be in the country illegally (or legally) for many years and not have a driver's license.

And I wish some people would lighten up and notice that the means "just kidding".

Because you failed to understand that illegally referred to immigration status instead of driver's licenses, you were making fun of me because you thought I made an absurd statement. Hopefully, your inability to comprehend a simple statement was the result of weekend partying and not a more enduring problem. Just kidding.

"Since some of the people who are in the country illegally don't have driver's licenses"just sounded kind of funny, and I stopped reading after that.Or are you too important to make mistakes?


rated:
formattc said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
formattc said:   A notion that's sorely lacking in the minds of many Americans these days is that actions, and even inaction have consequences. Example: Most of the people I know who are screaming for socialism are either drunks, drug addicts or both, haven't tried all that hard to accomplish much, yet they'll sit around and whine about how "rich people" have their foot on their heads.
Hey man, put down the crack pipe and the booze and maybe, just maybe, life will improve.
This may sound cold but I'm a firm believer that there are very few true victims of circumstance and that we're mostly responsible for our own situation.


You'd have a point if you were factually correct, but you're not, and the most anti-socialist part of the US, at least by what it proclaims, the deep south, takes more money from the federal government than it pays in taxes, compared to California and New York. Right wing hypocrisy? Of course not.

But it's impressive that you've accomplished far more than drunk, stoned deadbeats like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs.


Well, those guys definitely aren't sitting around whining about "the man" keeping them down, in fact, Buffet is sort of my idol. BTW, I worked for the IRS for three years and it is your facts that are incorrect. California is HORRIBLE about getting back more than they paid in.


I knew the IRS had records about tax revenue by state, but I didn't know it also closely tracked federal spending by state. So according to the IRS information you saw while you worked at the agency, for every $1.00 in tax revenue the federal government received from California, how much federal spending went to California?
formattc said:   Really doesn't matter to me where it comes from because I feel that no one should ever get more back than they paid. The tax system is for taxes, not welfare. You want welfare, apply to your state system.
Actually it does matter to you where the revenue comes from because you were whining about pro-socialists being messed-up deadbeats who are jealous of the rich, but actually the messed-up deadbeats are more likely to be people claim to hate welfare and socialism and live in red states that get more federal money than they pay in federal taxes. And yes, rich states should pay more to the federal government than they get back in spending and poor states receive more than they pay because that's the way welfare works, and welfare from the government is necessary. Welfare is too important to leave to the states, especially states that outright hate the poor, like those that place the income cap for Medicaid or ACA at less than $6,000 a year for a family of four.
formattc said:   BTW, I don't know how they really enter into this but those great men who have done well FOR THEMSELVES. I certainly haven't accomplished what they have......but I also have never taken a penny of public assistance of any kind, even when my existence was meager and I was barely getting by. Then again, I never got off into alcoholism and/or hard drugs, or had kids I couldn't afford.

It's pretty obvious I mentioned those billionaires because they're rich guys who don't look down on the poor and wrongly stereotype them as messed-up deadbeats. They even believe inheritance taxes should be a lot higher than they are now, just as socialists do. And while I don't know about Steve Jobs, but Buffet and Gates do think they were born kind of lucky -- Gates' father is a lawyer (even worked on the Microsoft anti-trust case), while Buffet's father was a Congressman.

Unless you've had it very rough, avoiding welfare is nothing to brag about. My father is a real-life rugged individualist who had to support his family ever since he was in grade school, not only with jobs but also by shooting squirrels and birds for food. Yet my father thinks we need government welfare and public education, and when I was a teenager living in his house and spouting libertarian philosophy, he kept telling me that nobody makes it alone and that we are our brothers' keepers.

Have you ever noticed that black guys get lectured a lot about welfare? That's got to be tiring, especially for those who've never been on welfare.

rated:
ganda said:   
formattc said:   Well, those guys definitely aren't sitting around whining about "the man" keeping them down, in fact, Buffet is sort of my idol. BTW, I worked for the IRS for three years and it is your facts that are incorrect. California is HORRIBLE about getting back more than they paid in. Really doesn't matter to me where it comes from because I feel that no one should ever get more back than they paid. The tax system is for taxes, not welfare. You want welfare, apply to your state system.
BTW, I don't know how they really enter into this but those great men who have done well FOR THEMSELVES. I certainly haven't accomplished what they have......but I also have never taken a penny of public assistance of any kind, even when my existence was meager and I was barely getting by. Then again, I never got off into alcoholism and/or hard drugs, or had kids I couldn't afford.


*cough* Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction *cough*

A few years ago I found out that when I was a kid, my parents intentionally didn't take that deduction, and we weren't very well off back then.

rated:
I don't look down on poor people, I AM poor people, which is why I doubly resent losers putting their hands in my pocket when I've NEVER had my hand in theirs. I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree with your father more, we are NOT our brother's keepers. My father grew up on a farm during The Depression and he too had to shoot his food or he didn't eat. He was a decorated USMC combat vet and very much believed in standing on your own and not relying on others.
One of the people I was thinking of in my original post, let's call him "Larry", is a 50-something meth freak and a hopeless alcoholic, and he fully believes in handouts. Another person is a 31 year old woman with two children. She floats around and flops with friends till she wears out her welcome, while she searches for a man to support her, and of course, not working. I scared her out of Missouri by simply reminding her that MO is one of the states that requires drug testing for welfare. She high-tailed it back to Kansas, where she gets no-questions-asked welfare.
Also, regardless of what our dear, delusional leader says, welfare is NOT incentive to work, it's the exact opposite. The problem is that you eventually end up with more payees than payers and the system collapses. Human nature dictates that handouts result in a culture of dependency. The best example I can think of is women having children that they fully know they can't afford. They know they can go ahead have a rugrat because the the taxpayers will pay for it.

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   
ryeny3 said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
ryeny3 said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
ryeny3 said:   Since some of the people who are in the country illegally don't have driver's licenses.
A person can have a driver's license illegally or not have a driver's license legally, but how can a person not have a driver's license illegally?

Well, that's what you said.

I wish people would use entire comments and not select portions of a sentence. Let me make this simple for you. Some people in the country illegally have little, if any, proof that they have been residing in the US long enough to be covered by Obama's program. One way for someone to prove that he or she hasbeen living in the US would have been a driver's license which not everyone has. Some states don't provide driver's licenses to people in the country illegally. Others may not have driver's licenses, even if their state was willing to issues them to people in the country illegally, for several reasons like never learning to drive. As you may know, someUS citizens do not have driver's licenses. So, it's possible for some people to be in the country illegally (or legally) for many years and not have a driver's license.

And I wish some people would lighten up and notice that the means "just kidding".

Because you failed to understand that illegally referred to immigration status instead of driver's licenses, you were making fun of me because you thought I made an absurd statement. Hopefully, your inability to comprehend a simple statement was the result of weekend partying and not a more enduring problem. Just kidding.

"Since some of the people who are in the country illegally don't have driver's licenses"just sounded kind of funny, and I stopped reading after that.Or are you too important to make mistakes?


It only sounds funny because you appear incapable of understanding what I said. Instead of the more politically correct "people who are in the country illegally," I will use less words to make it simpler for you. Some illegal aliens don't have driver's licenses.That is not the same as commenting about a person not having a driver's license illegally.

I have a wife and children,so I am used to being made fund of. In fact, I don't even need to do something wrong before I am criticized. Unlike you, if I had been wrong I would have laughed at my mistake and given the postergreen for pointing it out.Imisspeakenough thatthere will be plenty of opportunityfor you to point out an actual mistake. Unfortunately, you appear to bethe one who believes that he is too important to make mistakes.

That was my last attempt to explain this to you.

rated:
formattc said:   I don't look down on poor people, I AM poor people, which is why I doubly resent losers putting their hands in my pocket when I've NEVER had my hand in theirs. I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree with your father more, we are NOT our brother's keepers. My father grew up on a farm during The Depression and he too had to shoot his food or he didn't eat. He was a decorated USMC combat vet and very much believed in standing on your own and not relying on others.
One of the people I was thinking of in my original post, let's call him "Larry", is a 50-something meth freak and a hopeless alcoholic, and he fully believes in handouts. Another person is a 31 year old woman with two children. She floats around and flops with friends till she wears out her welcome, while she searches for a man to support her, and of course, not working. I scared her out of Missouri by simply reminding her that MO is one of the states that requires drug testing for welfare. She high-tailed it back to Kansas, where she gets no-questions-asked welfare.
Also, regardless of what our dear, delusional leader says, welfare is NOT incentive to work, it's the exact opposite. The problem is that you eventually end up with more payees than payers and the system collapses. Human nature dictates that handouts result in a culture of dependency. The best example I can think of is women having children that they fully know they can't afford. They know they can go ahead have a rugrat because the the taxpayers will pay for it.

They sound a lot worse than the homeless transients some of my neighbors hire, the homeless woman my wife tutored and wound up qualifying for a college scholarship, or the poor person who's been renting a room from us.

Cutting welfare won't make things better, not even for people who take no government handouts. The only factor that really matters is the unemployment rate, and people like you have been favoring policies that make it worse (austerity, lack of regulation of the financial sector) and opposing policies that make it better (Obama's, Clinton's). If you want to argue about principles, look at the deep south, where welfare is stingiest, incomes the lowest, and their politicians want the rest of the US to be more like the south.

rated:
ryeny3 said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
"Since some of the people who are in the country illegally don't have driver's licenses"just sounded kind of funny, and I stopped reading after that.Or are you too important to make mistakes?

It only sounds funny because you appear incapable of understanding what I said. Instead of the more politically correct "people who are in the country illegally," I will use less words to make it simpler for you. Some illegal aliens don't have driver's licenses.That is not the same as commenting about a person not having a driver's license illegally.

I have a wife and children,so I am used to being made fund of.

I wouldn't want you to be "madefund of".

rated:
Chuck Hagel isn't good enough. Maybe we just do away with DS and SOS and just micromanage from the Whitehouse Worked brilliantly so far.

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   

Cutting welfare won't make things better, not even for people who take no government handouts. The only factor that really matters is the unemployment rate, and people like you have been favoring policies that make it worse (austerity, lack of regulation of the financial sector) and opposing policies that make it better (Obama's, Clinton's).

Spending $500 billion dollars more every year since 2007 = "austerity."

rated:
deusxmachina said:   
larrymoencurly said:   

Cutting welfare won't make things better, not even for people who take no government handouts. The only factor that really matters is the unemployment rate, and people like you have been favoring policies that make it worse (austerity, lack of regulation of the financial sector) and opposing policies that make it better (Obama's, Clinton's).

Spending $500 billion dollars more every year since 2007 = "austerity."

Some idiots have been chanting that for years, and ironically they supported the very policies that caused the Great Recession. They should look at how Europe and Japan have stagnated under austerity vs. how the US has been doing with stimulus. The US would likely have done much better if the stimulus in the early years of the Great Recession had been bigger. Fans of austerity forget that multipliers work both ways -- not only can deficits return more than they cost, but austerity can reduce tax revenue by more than the spending cuts or tax hikes.

rated:
Spending ~60% more than you collect is not austerity.

rated:
mapatsfan said:   Spending ~60% more than you collect is not austerity.
It was not austerity, especially when the economy was shrinking at a 9% annual rate, which is what happened in the last 3 months of 2008 -- over twice the rate initially estimated, and the $750B stimulus program was based on that estimate.

You people have been wrong about austerity, both the definition and the amount needed to fight the Great Recession. Worse, people of your beliefs got us into this mess, yet you think you know the cure, but the recessions now looming in pro-austerity Japan and Europe only confirm that you don't. So why should you be trusted this time?


rated:
larrymoencurly said:   
deusxmachina said:   

Spending $500 billion dollars more every year since 2007 = "austerity."

Some idiots have been chanting that for years, and ironically they supported the very policies that caused the Great Recession. They should look at how Europe and Japan have stagnated under austerity vs. how the US has been doing with stimulus.


So that's what's been going on in Japan all these years that brought them to the point of having 250%-600% debt vs. GDP. Japan has all that debt because the government didn't spend enough. It makes perfect sense.

Here's Japan's current route. (Got to love the "Keynesian mythology mindless" part.)

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/the-boj-jumps-the-monetary...
. said: This is just plain sick. Hardly a day after the greatest central bank fraudster of all time, Maestro Greenspan, confessed that QE has not helped the main street economy and jobs, the lunatics at the BOJ flat-out jumped the monetary shark.

Never mind that the BOJ will now escalate its bond purchase rate to $750 billion per year-a figure so astonishingly large that it would amount to nearly $3 trillion per year if applied to a US scale GDP.

Whether it attains its 2% inflation Target or not, its is blindingly evident that the BOJ has destroyed every last vestige of honest price discovery in Japans vast bond market.

So there is no recovery whatsoever-not even the faintest prospect that Japan can grow out if its massive debts. The latter now stands at a staggering 250% of GDP on the government account and upwards of 600% of GDP when the debts of business, households and the financial sectors are included.

Its 2% on the CPI..come hell or high water. There is not a smidgeon of evidence that 2% inflation is any better for the real growth of enterprise, labor hours supplied and economic productivity than is 1% or 3%. Its pure Keynesian mythology. Yet all the worlds central banks are beating a path toward the same mindless 2% inflation Target that lies behind this mornings outbreak of monetary madness in Japan.


Over the years, the U.S. has "stimulus spent" $18 Trillion Dollars of your children's money. The economy must be doing incredible by now. Can we stop yet?

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   

You people have been wrong about austerity, both the definition and the amount needed to fight the Great Recession. Worse, people of your beliefs got us into this mess, yet you think you know the cure, but the recessions now looming in pro-austerity Japan and Europe only confirm that you don't. So why should you be trusted this time?


lol. Keynesians and similar nearly destroyed the entire global economy, caused trillions of debt, high unemployment, (real U.S. unemployment is probably over 20%), yet you say people who disagree with those people are the ones who are wrong and can't be trusted this time. With keynesians' track record, who would ever trust anything they ever say again?

What actually got people into this mess? It wasn't austerity. That's just the excuse you use for why it hasn't been fixed. What got so many countries around the world into this mess is their lack of austerity. Spend spend spend, piling debt upon debt, creating money out of thin air, until they could no longer get away with it anymore and no longer borrow anymore, and then it all came crashing down.

The U.S. is blessed that the dollar is the world's reserve currency. That will not last. Russia and China have been buying tons of gold, and other countries are making deals in currencies other than the dollar. And once the dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency, Americans will suffer greatly. And the main fingers pointed will be to those who have destroyed the integrity and value of the U.S. dollar.

rated:
deusxmachina said:   
larrymoencurly said:   

You people have been wrong about austerity, both the definition and the amount needed to fight the Great Recession. Worse, people of your beliefs got us into this mess, yet you think you know the cure, but the recessions now looming in pro-austerity Japan and Europe only confirm that you don't. So why should you be trusted this time?


And the main fingers pointed will be to those who have destroyed the integrity of the U.S. dollar.


*sniff* Sorry 'bout that. /wipes nose

rated:
Just catching up on the thread, I'll get to monetary policy soon.

I just want to say I'd support an amendment to redefine citizenship to remove the crazy birth thing.

rated:
scrouds said:   
I just want to say I'd support an amendment to redefine citizenship to remove the crazy birth thing.


The mayor of London is American. He's positioning himself to be the British Prime Minister. I wonder if he'll run for President afterwards if that if it goes well. That would be a neat trick.

rated:
ganda said:   
scrouds said:   
I just want to say I'd support an amendment to redefine citizenship to remove the crazy birth thing.


The mayor of London is American. He's positioning himself to be the British Prime Minister. I wonder if he'll run for President afterwards if that if it goes well. That would be a neat trick.


From CNN:

"Boris Johnson was born in New York and still has U.S. citizenship, despite leaving the country when he was five years old.

On a recent visit to the U.S. to promote a book, Johnson told NPR that officials were "coming after him" for capital gains tax on the sale of his first London home.

The Daily Telegraph said the mayor owed more than 100,000 ($160,000) in tax after making a profit of 730,000 on the sale.

Asked whether he would pay the bill, he told NPR: "No is the answer. I think it's absolutely outrageous. Why should I? ... I haven't lived in the United States for, you know, well, since I was five years old."

rated:
ryeny3 said:   
ganda said:   
scrouds said:   
I just want to say I'd support an amendment to redefine citizenship to remove the crazy birth thing.


The mayor of London is American. He's positioning himself to be the British Prime Minister. I wonder if he'll run for President afterwards if that if it goes well. That would be a neat trick.


From CNN:

"Boris Johnson was born in New York and still has U.S. citizenship, despite leaving the country when he was five years old.

On a recent visit to the U.S. to promote a book, Johnson told NPR that officials were "coming after him" for capital gains tax on the sale of his first London home.

The Daily Telegraph said the mayor owed more than 100,000 ($160,000) in tax after making a profit of 730,000 on the sale.

Asked whether he would pay the bill, he told NPR: "No is the answer. I think it's absolutely outrageous. Why should I? ... I haven't lived in the United States for, you know, well, since I was five years old."

So he's the UK's Ted Cruz?

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.
  • 1166167168169 170
  • Page


Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014