UT alum

Government policy is an important piece of the correction. How about some rules easing access to private capital for small business startups and expansion? I’m old enough to remember when you could walk into Silsbee State or First National bank and with a good idea and good reputation borrow $15k, 25k, something like that, on a handshake and signature, with the decision made by people who lived here and knew the community. Now those decisions are made by people you won’t even see. They’re in Alabama or Dallas or somewhere that only knows Silsbee because there’s a branch there. Those consolidations have screwed small business growth in small communities. Both parties passed the regs allowing it, but big banking interests wrote the legislation, and as a country we could, if united, get some rewrites done on some of those type laws. I’m telling you, Citizens United decision hurt the power of the vote a lot more than gerrymandering or voter I’d laws.

I just used it as an example. Could have been 15.00. It would have to be incremental, of course, not all at once. Most research I’ve seen indicate that minimum wage increases in the past do not cause the economic upheaval in the labor market you imply. Don’t have time to get into the weeds about it, but the research is out there.

When it comes to public works (i.e. infrastructure), defense, environment, social programs, and other work for the public good, I say yes. What defines “enough” varies from individual to individual, but the key word in that post was “selfish”.

Hagar, I’m taking “not a complete loon” as a high compliment. The common ground is, we’re both Americans and love our country. We been arguing politics since before the Revolution. The great nation we have was born from argument and debate. You’ll never get antagonism out of me for having a different point of view. I’d smile back at ya, but I got this thing about imogees...

Raising the minimum wage to at least 12.50 is a start. Making union formation easier is another. The free market would adjust to those constraints and move on, like it always has.

Again, words have meanings. Merriam Webster: greed: a selfish desire for more (especially money) than is needed. entrepeneur: one who organizes, manages and assumes the risks of s business enterprise. I am an entrepreneur. I own a small business. I don’t equate that with greed.

No, it all comes from the Maker and to whom much is given, much is required. Greed is ruining this country.

That’s pretty vague. How about this for nonsensical policy? Corporations are free to take jobs overseas taking advantage of lower wages, limited or non existing safety regulations, and no thoughts of providing any retirement contributions - all of which have decimated manufacturing jobs in this country. Then, on top of that, they can park their earnings offshore and pay 0% tax. So, that policy allows them to screw American workers AND avoid paying taxes at the same time. Consumers pay tariffs in the form of higher prices. The exporting country is not penalized. Why not let the “tariff” be higher wages for American workers? Conservatives are willing to raise taxes on imports, but not wages or retirement benefits for our own. That’s bad for the US.

Yes

Did you do any reading up on the carried interest loophole that applies only to hedge fund managers? They don’t get treated like you, me and everyone else. They get special treatment. Instituted during George W Bush presidency.

Oh, and I don’t believe anything anyone said they “heard”. There’a a reason heresay evidence isn’t admissible in court.

I misstated. Their income is treated as a capital gain instead of earned income even if they didn’t own what they sold. That’s 23% vs 37%. Still an unfair loophole.

I used distribution in a statistical way. Didn’t mean social distribution.

I don’t know. Morgan has his reasons, but in the past he favored comprehensive reform including barriers, technology, additional judges, and border personnel. If Trump would bargain on DACA he’d get more for his wall, but the great negotiator is refusing to negotiate, only demand.

That is a misleading question. Income tax, maybe more in gross dollars, but not proportionately for value added taxes like sales tax or state income taxes. A much more telling statistic is the amount of wealth distributed to the top 1% versus everyone else. Fifty percent of Americans at the bottown of the chart own about 1/10th of one percent of the nations wealth. I don’t have the stat right at hand for the one percent, but I can get it, and it’s high. Over 70%. He who owns the most should pay the most for a system that protects their way of life. I know that billionaire hedge fund managers pay a 10% rate on their earnings. My rate is twice that. That’s not a fair tax system.

Trickle and plenty are mutually exclusive terms. Middle class wages have barely grown for 30 years while accumulations at the top have skyrocketed. The CEO/ line worker’s earnings ratio increase over that period is one example.

How would you use those funds to give actual citizens a better life? Healthcare? Food stamps? Childcare assistance? Just cut us all a check, what? The tax cuts are going to expire for the middle class but continue for the top earners. You’re talking a trillion dollars over ten years that won’t be going to help us out here working in the real world. Haven’t you had enough trickling down on you for 30 years?

Your question is a false equivalence. The White House and Fort Knox are also heavily guarded. If the wall is so effective, why? Are you proposing a guard every hundred yards along a thousand mile fence? And rich folk, their walls are as much for privacy, if not more, than protection. Guarding 50 or 100 acres with a wall is nothing to compare with protecting a thousand miles of open border. Also, why do you presume to know my intentions just because I am a Democrat? That is highly prejudiced. I don’t see immigrants as votes. I see the vast majority as people looking for a better life. I’m proud to live in a country that is a beacon on the hill. Calling an opponent names is not debate.

I try my best to base my opinions on facts, not on other people’s opinions.

August 25th 2015 in Dubuque, Iowa when asked by a reporter how he would build a 1900 mile wall he said “I’m a builder, it’ll be easy...” I think now it’s down to 1000 miles, but that’s the point. His sands shift faster than Village Creek at flood stage.

Eminent domain (thanks for spelling correction) is government taking of private land for public use with compensation. A lot of people in south Texas will have their land and some homes taken for the wall to be built. Most conservatives find emine domain distasteful at best. Guess it depends on whose ox is being gored.

Again, where “out there” is the evidence? Walls do work in some places, but a wall from Brownsville to San Diego is outrageous. It would cost over 50 billion and be a terrible waste of resources. You a big fan of imminent domain? I don’t hate Donald Trump, I just think he’s dangerously unfit for the job.

I gotcha, Law Man. I just piggybacked on you to put my two cents in.

I’m a leftie, I own it, and I ain’t going nowhere.

Definitions of words matter to the courts. What is happening does not meet that definition in my estimation. We need secure borders. The debate should be over what that looks like and how we fund it. Look, you and I are both Americans, we both want what’s best for the country. That debate has been going on since Jefferson and Madison went at it over states rights versus federalism. If the congress had any cojones, and I’m talking both parties here, they’d get the government back open then openly debate, negotiate, compromise, and come up with a plan that realistically addresses the problem. We may need more wall, but I don’t believe it should be the centerpiece. I’d be interested in your sources documenting the tsunami of immigrants you believe is coming at us.