Instead of wall, why not make it a crime to hire, harbor and support illegal immigrants?

I haven't read all the comments, but I do know this. A businessman/woman may hire a contractor that is 100% legit. He has his green card, may even be a legal citizen. But, his operation has illegals working for HIM. They may not even be on the books.

The business owner is really only responsible for knowing the contractor's legitimacy. You can't expect the business owner to be responsible for checking out ABC Contractors' employees.

Time to fix this sh** once and for all.

a reply to: chr0naut

The BCRA eliminates the ACA individual mandate but introduces a penalty of a 30% increase in premiums for one year, for not maintaining continuous coverage, so, the net effect is the same - contribute or your health coverage is screwed.

Wrong.

Has the underlying infrastructure, resources and production capability actually increased

Yes. Business investments in equipment have risen since 2016.

There is no 'might fail' about it. If there is no substance behind it, then all such confidence based bubbles will correct. One might say that they are a 'confidence trick' against gullible markets.

All markets are based on confidence. All markets. That statement shows you know nothing about economics.

The test rockets were a symptom of little Kim's desire to attain a nuclear offensive capability, which Trump has done nothing to impede.

All the advisors and pundits suggested that diplomatic solutions, like Trump tried, would be ineffective because the DPRK, historically, has ignored such agreements.

I see. So you would prefer nuclear war. Noted.

Are you suggesting that the government didn't balance their budget?

We haven't had a balanced budget since the 1970s. Apparently your grasp of history equals your grasp of economics.

I continue to argue for a flat tax rate based upon production, as I do with the establishment of a Universal Basic Income (Canada has already begun implementing one). It isn't the the 18th century any more we need to deal with the ongoing situations from 21'st century economics.

Fine. Implement it in your country and show us how to do it.

You appear to be attempting to emulate other well-known posters with the short quips. Unfortunately, I must point out that you are not in their league. Your ignorance on the various subjects is beyond astounding. You have made more incorrect statements than correct in your search for facts, and this correlates well with your history. I am of the opinion that you think this is some sort of game... for me, it is more. No matter how deep your hatred of the US goes, it is my country and I am proud of it.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

The BCRA eliminates the ACA individual mandate but introduces a penalty of a 30% increase in premiums for one year, for not maintaining continuous coverage, so, the net effect is the same - contribute or your health coverage is screwed.

Wrong.

No, right with some exemptions.

Has the underlying infrastructure, resources and production capability actually increased

Yes. Business investments in equipment have risen since 2016.

There is no 'might fail' about it. If there is no substance behind it, then all such confidence based bubbles will correct. One might say that they are a 'confidence trick' against gullible markets.

All markets are based on confidence. All markets. That statement shows you know nothing about economics.

You know little about economics. Making up money, because the market feels good about it, leads to hyperinflation because they always feel good about getting more cash.

The test rockets were a symptom of little Kim's desire to attain a nuclear offensive capability, which Trump has done nothing to impede.

All the advisors and pundits suggested that diplomatic solutions, like Trump tried, would be ineffective because the DPRK, historically, has ignored such agreements.

I see. So you would prefer nuclear war. Noted.

There you go with your either/or limited conceptualization.

No, there is more than one option.

For starters, a 'deal' against a belligerent opponent, that imposes no penalty if one side breaks it, isn't a deal, it is a capitulation. In the case of the NPRK, there should have been strong monitoring to ensure compliance and consequence for breaking the deal.

Are you suggesting that the government didn't balance their budget?

We haven't had a balanced budget since the 1970s. Apparently your grasp of history equals your grasp of economics.

Yeah, always in deficit.

But hey, why not just make the figures up, then?

You should try that with your personal budget.

I continue to argue for a flat tax rate based upon production, as I do with the establishment of a Universal Basic Income (Canada has already begun implementing one). It isn't the the 18th century any more we need to deal with the ongoing situations from 21'st century economics.

Fine. Implement it in your country and show us how to do it.

Canada is leading the way at present. And their budget balances, too. Look to them.

You appear to be attempting to emulate other well-known posters with the short quips. Unfortunately, I must point out that you are not in their league. Your ignorance on the various subjects is beyond astounding. You have made more incorrect statements than correct in your search for facts, and this correlates well with your history. I am of the opinion that you think this is some sort of game... for me, it is more. No matter how deep your hatred of the US goes, it is my country and I am proud of it.

TheRedneck

No, you hate the US, the majority of whose citizens did not elect the sitting President.

You side against them.

a reply to: chr0naut

No, right with some exemptions.

That link is from the US government. It explicitly states that, beginning in 2019, there is no penalty for non coverage.

Your argument is refuted as an outright lie and you then refuse to admit it when confronted with the official legal statements of the controlling authority. Therefore, the rest of your assertions are to be assumed incorrect as well and you have made your position moot, as in without evidence.

Have a nice day.

TheRedneck

The invaders will still be in country but all that more desperate to eat, house and hide.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

No, right with some exemptions.

That link is from the US government. It explicitly states that, beginning in 2019, there is no penalty for non coverage.

Your argument is refuted as an outright lie and you then refuse to admit it when confronted with the official legal statements of the controlling authority. Therefore, the rest of your assertions are to be assumed incorrect as well and you have made your position moot, as in without evidence.

Have a nice day.

TheRedneck

Triggered!



Check the website, the BCRA fee amounts are retrospective from 2017.

... and Trump has other health related reforms, apparently, on the way. Oh joy!

a reply to: chr0naut

Triggered!

The accept my apologies for triggering you.

Have a nice day.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

Triggered!

The accept my apologies for triggering you.

Have a nice day.

TheRedneck

Ditto.

a reply to: dojozen

7 questions about Trump’s use of undocumented workers at his golf courses - Washington Post

Undocumented former Trump workers ask Congress for protection

a reply to: dojozen

How about we require all persons entering the country to present proof they have been vaccinated. That's what's required of my children for them to go to public school.

If that was a requirement to enter the country...perhaps *ahem* everyone could get on board with enforcing immigration/border laws.