Well, you'll never get them all.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
To me the bigger benefit was to stop the flow of new ones coming into the country and that seems to have happened. Of course it’s important to remove as many as possible and especially the bad actors. You are correct that we will never get them all for many reasons. We need to evaluate the financial impact of this and make a determination as to what point we should stop. By what point I mean we have successfully captured say 93% of felons, 75% of those with a misdemeanor and 60% that have no criminal record. Is that acceptable because to get more it will take us more time and effort spending more money. Whats the cut off or the off ramp point? Hard to say.
So one has to ask how this works? It’s through an executive order so I don’t like the process of how we got there. Let me ask why this wasn’t put through the house and senate? Surely it would have passed and who in their right mind would have voted no for it. If the democrats did vote no wouldn’t this be a great way to say they are all talk and no action and will do anything to subvert republicans? This to me would be the best bipartisan support bill that I can think of. So why wasn’t it down this way? Not saying Trump shouldn’t have acted and done this it just makes me think there’s more to this and it can be undone easily. Sorry I just do t trust politicians, any of them but this is pretty great and I’d love to see how the left will hate this one. He’s smart to do a few things people might hate then pull this out of his hat to detract from that stuff.
Keep in mind Obama’s 5 million packing that administration decided to count every person encountered and prevented from entering the country. That is a huge difference between hunting them down in the USA, capturing them, and deporting them. Biden could have sent 5-10 times obamas number packing but he opened the gates and let them in instead of turning them away.
I think they continue full steam ahead for a yr or two then just go to normal deportation procedures. Like you said, the big thing is keeping the border secure, which will only last as long as the commies arent in charge.
Thats the problem with everything he has done so far, it'll all be undone just like Biden did when he got put in office. As you say "all talk and no action" is the game thats been played in Congress forever
90% of what? 90% of all illegals in this country captured and deported? Let’s be real and that will never happen. It’s not even feasible. First any number is a guess at best how many are here. 90% of felons might be reasonable but the cost to deport 90% of every illegal will be staggering and nearly impossible to achieve. Biden should have been stopped by arrest or any other legal means to stop these illegals at the boarder. Now we are stuck with many of them forever because it’s just not possible to get them all or even most of them.
www.bbc.com
Not sure I agree with it but it does silence all those talking points about "tax cuts for the rich" and "trump only cares about billionaires". I think it's definitely a political play.Is this winning or losing? Not a fan at all and I’m sure it won’t impact me or anyone I know.
Trump’s tax hike on millionaires is back on the table—but experts say it won't make a dent in the ultra-rich
The richest sliver of Americans now own a record share of the wealth, and tweaking income taxes is unlikely to change that.fortune.com
Agreed but IMO the way to increase tax revenue is to increase business revenues. Change policy and regulations to make it cheaper or easier to produce in the USA. Hrs doing some of that but this is/was a liberal talking point and a reason they were against his tax cuts. He’s essentially validating their concerns. I’m guessing this is his way of getting his spending bill passed. I still don’t like it.
I saw some of the news conference.
Anybody in a position to "tax the rich" is rich themselves, dem or rep. Does anyone really believe they will raise their own taxes?
Maybe but not sure how tariffs raise taxes because tariffs and taxes are different. I know there is a lot of talk about the tariffs increasing revenues in the federal government but it would be how I said it would work by increasing business sales and onshoring. Products made here get corporate taxes but the article spins it a different way saying a new tax bracket would be made for those making 2.5 million and earnings off traded stocks held for less than 3 years would be taxed and treated as income. This I understand slightly and on the base principle but not in-depth because I’m not a stock trader. I can see this and if they cash out the stock and have the money then they should be taxed on it as income, but I’m not sure if they sell Apple stock at a $200 price per share increase but then immediately sell that stock and buy more with the proceeds.
Tariffs *are* taxes.
Fact is, this wouldn't have had a snowball's chance if this was put before the legislature: Every single representative with pharmaceutical companies in their portfolios would have squashed it before it even got out of committee.
Maybe but then it would have been a great point to point out because the left has been crying about this for a long time.
Yes I put that poorly and many consider tariffs taxes. I look at them differently but you’re not wrong about how tariffs can be looked at. I meant in this situation and what Trump is talking about doing. They want to do a new tax bracket so I considered this different than collection through tariffs.
Ugh... in addition to the obvious historical realities, "show me your papers" is also a violation of the fourth amendment.
Sorry man that’s way too far for me. That’s way too much control and power given to the government. You allow this what’s next? Safe inspections on guns, ammo counts, reeducation camps for voting for Trump? This is a bridge we do not want to cross.
