Politics

[woolybug25]

So, a newspaper from idaho is no good for you?

For an accountant, you don't seem to be one for details...

 

[Ndaccountant]

I find it rather amusing that during the entire conversation that we had, never once did I levy and sort of comments about you or those that might disagree with me nor imply that those that disagree with me are simply ignorant. I was trying to highlight the other side of the argument, which was that saftey can still be had while playing the game and that there are countless risks we endure each day and living a life of fear of them is something I personally do not want to take part in.

The way you responded reminded me of this video. While not all liberal do this, this last weekend you had the comments above directed at me and basically called another poster a dumbass. SMH.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uGwtG8nVpUU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[woolybug25]

I find it rather amusing that during the entire conversation that we had, never once did I levy and sort of comments about you or those that might disagree with me nor imply that those that disagree with me are simply ignorant. I was trying to highlight the other side of the argument, which was that saftey can still be had while playing the game and that there are countless risks we endure each day and living a life of fear of them is something I personally do not want to take part in.

The way you responded reminded me of this video. While not all liberal do this, this last weekend you had the comments above directed at me and basically called another poster a dumbass. SMH.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uGwtG8nVpUU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Nice video... doesn't have anything to do with the topic, nor does it validate your point, but cool...

My point was that I showed you studies, linked articles and even posted detailed video that talks about the issue. They all validated my argument. You asked for proof and even demanded I answer your hypothetical "would you let your daughter" questions, which I obliged. But you chose to manipulate a quote from the front page of a site and try to use a bunch of funny math statistics backed up by a reference of a mountiain newspaper article dubbed "magic valley", and are now trying to turn it back on me for being a big meanie to you. Being condencending was never my intent, but if you are going to be this hell bent on proving me wrong, I would think that you would try to at least be vigilint with your facts. Which has not been the case.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Nice video... doesn't have anything to do with the topic, nor does it validate your point, but cool...

My point was that I showed you studies, linked articles and even posted detailed video that talks about the issue. They all validated my argument. You asked for proof and even demanded I answer your hypothetical "would you let your daughter" questions, which I obliged. But you chose to manipulate a quote from the front page of a site and try to use a bunch of funny math statistics backed up by a reference of a mountiain newspaper article dubbed "magic valley", and are now trying to turn it back on me for being a big meanie to you. Being condencending was never my intent, but if you are going to be this hell bent on proving me wrong, I would think that you would try to at least be vigilint with your facts. Which has not been the case.

Okay. The newspaper that you are disregarding provided one, count it...one, of those odds. What about the NCAA odds that say your son playing high school football is nearly twice as likely to get a scholarship that a kid getting a TBI while playing youth football? All of us acknowledge that getting a scholarship is a tough thing to do. So, that is a pretty telling number.Or how the studies show that the real danger is not taking the risk action once injuries do happen. So, awareness of injuries and how to treat them can curtail risk as well.

Besides that, never once did you mention anything about what local communities are doing to curtail risks. Like I said, my community has taken large measures. Instead of discussing that, you imply that someone that does let their kid play is ignoring facts and putting their child in danger. Yea....that could be very insulting to parents.

Just to be certain, do you have any kids? Well, I do and I know the type of risks that they face each and every day throughout their life. One thing that has taught me is that there are certain things I can do to protect them, but ultimately things happen. Kids fall and hit their head. They go over to their friends house and rough house in the basement. They play backyard football with not pads, helmets, or any other ppe with neighbors. They climb trees and throw things at eachother. Basically, they encounter risk all the time, but the activity they are doing brings them joy. I will do all that I can to make sure they are safely doing things that bring them joy. But if I try to limit their activity to only things that were deemed safe by talking heads, well, my kids wouldn't have that great of a life.

 

[woolybug25]

Okay. The newspaper that you are disregarding provided one, count it...one, of those odds. What about the NCAA odds that say your son playing high school football is nearly twice as likely to get a scholarship that a kid getting a TBI while playing youth football? All of us acknowledge that getting a scholarship is a tough thing to do. So, that is a pretty telling number.Or how the studies show that the real danger is not taking the risk action once injuries do happen. So, awareness of injuries and how to treat them can curtail risk as well.

I already addressed the NCAA comment. 1) It doesn't also include that it is the #1 sport for spinal injuries or that 2) It is SIGNIFICANTLY higher risk than every other sport and finally 3) We have only tipped the surface on the issue of CTE, which is completely seperate from TBI. Dave Duerson and Junior Seau were never once diagnosed for TBI, but BOTH had CTE. So it's bigger than your silly-math statistic. I dont understand why you keep ignoring this fact.

Besides that, never once did you mention anything about what local communities are doing to curtail risks. Like I said, my community has taken large measures. Instead of discussing that, you imply that someone that does let their kid play is ignoring facts and putting their child in danger. Yea....that could be very insulting to parents.

Because "local communities" vary wildly and cannot be distinctly identified as a precursor to the risk associated with youth football. Again... this is not a stopgap that fully protects growing children from the dangers of head impact and the associated TBI or CTE.

Just to be certain, do you have any kids? Well, I do and I know the type of risks that they face each and every day throughout their life. One thing that has taught me is that there are certain things I can do to protect them, but ultimately things happen. Kids fall and hit their head. They go over to their friends house and rough house in the basement. They play backyard football with not pads, helmets, or any other ppe with neighbors. They climb trees and throw things at eachother. Basically, they encounter risk all the time, but they activity they are doing brings them joy. I will do all that I can to make sure they are safely doing things that bring them joy. But if I try to limit their activity to only things that were deemed safe by talking heads, well, my kids wouldn't have that great of a life.

I never said that parents need to bubble their kids, but the recearch on youth football and the risks associated with concussions is significant. This is not just a TBI issue, but rather a CTE issue. Which can only be diagnosed post mortam, but there is a resounding amount of data on what causes it. All of which, are prevalent in the sport of football and the risks increases in youth.

I want to also address that your last paragraph is exactly what I was referring to. You are trying to use non-fact based argument to defend against the information I keep providing. I am not going to keep going back and forth with you if all you are going to bring to the table are soft arguments based off of "do you have kids" or "talking heads". Those arguments are opinions that have no basis in facts or statistics.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I already addressed the NCAA comment. 1) It doesn't also include that it is the #1 sport for spinal injuries or that 2) It is SIGNIFICANTLY higher risk than every other sport and finally 3) We have only tipped the surface on the issue of CTE, which is completely seperate from TBI. Dave Duerson and Junior Seau were never once diagnosed for TBI, but BOTH had CTE. So it's bigger than your silly-math statistic. I dont understand why you keep ignoring this fact.



Because "local communities" vary wildly and cannot be distinctly identified as a precursor to the risk associated with youth football. Again... this is not a stopgap that fully protects growing children from the dangers of head impact and the associated TBI or CTE.



I never said that parents need to bubble their kids, but the recearch on youth football and the risks associated with concussions is significant. This is not just a TBI issue, but rather a CTE issue. Which can only be diagnosed post mortam, but there is a resounding amount of data on what causes it. All of which, are prevalent in the sport of football and the risks increases in youth.

I want to also address that your last paragraph is exactly what I was referring to. You are trying to use non-fact based argument to defend against the information I keep providing. I am not going to keep going back and forth with you if all you are going to bring to the table are soft arguments based off of "do you have kids" or "talking heads". Those arguments are opinions that have no basis in facts or statistics.

Well, not much is known on CTE in terms of what it takes to develop the condition. Here is a reasearch report from "Rehabilitation Research and Practice".

Age is another possible risk factor for the development of CTE. At younger ages, while the brain is developing traumatic injury may begin the cascade of destructive events and compounded through the years of continued play. Conversely, at younger ages the brain has more plasticity allowing greater ability to manage injury than that in the mature brain [8, 10]. Length of play is another risk factor where longer careers with prolonged exposures to injury may cause more severe CTE. Of the 51 cases reviewed by Dr. McKee, 39 boxers had an average career of 14.4 years (range 4–25) while the 5 football players averaged careers of 18.4 years (range 14–23 years). These athletes began their respective sports between 11 and 19 years of age [5].

Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy: A Review

Again, my point is that as long as you manage the situation, all indiciations point to things being reasonably safe.

The point is, nothing is concrete here. The report suggests repeated TBI is the causes of CTE thou long lasting exposure to head contact could play a role. How much? Nobody knows.

 

[woolybug25]

Well, not much is known on CTE in terms of what it takes to develop the condition. Here is a reasearch report from "Rehabilitation Research and Practice".

Age is another possible risk factor for the development of CTE. At younger ages, while the brain is developing traumatic injury may begin the cascade of destructive events and compounded through the years of continued play.]Conversely, at younger ages the brain has more plasticity allowing greater ability to manage injury than that in the mature brain [8, 10]. Length of play is another risk factor where longer careers with prolonged exposures to injury may cause more severe CTE. Of the 51 cases reviewed by Dr. McKee, 39 boxers had an average career of 14.4 years (range 4–25) while the 5 football players averaged careers of 18.4 years (range 14–23 years). These athletes began their respective sports between 11 and 19 years of age [5].

Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy: A Review

Again, my point is that as long as you manage the situation, all indiciations point to things being reasonably safe.

The point is, nothing is concrete here. The report suggests repeated TBI is the causes of CTE thou long lasting exposure to head contact could play a role. How much? Nobody knows.

I went ahead and bolded the next sentence of the quote you provided to emphasize that it is trying to actually make my point with youth football.

Furthermore, I disagree that there is nothing concrete there. There is a resounding amount of medical research that ties repeated head truama to CTE. It also is very clear that severity and repeated incidents are key factors. Both of which can be easily avoided by not letting your young child play tackle football until they physically mature. There are a wide array of flag leagues that can introduce kids to the sport until they are physically mature. That one easy step also takes years of repeated head impacts away as well.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I went ahead and bolded the next sentence of the quote you provided to emphasize that it is trying to actually make my point with youth football.

Furthermore, I disagree that there is nothing concrete there. There is a resounding amount of medical research that ties repeated head truama to CTE. It also is very clear that severity and repeated incidents are key factors. Both of which can be easily avoided by not letting your young child play tackle football until they physically mature. There are a wide array of flag leagues that can introduce kids to the sport until they are physically mature. That one easy step also takes years of repeated head impacts away as well.

If the length of time it takes to develop CTE is 18 years, I think a kid playing a few years is safe as long as you are monitoring it. Saying I won't let them play because if they go pro they will get CTE is silly. Again, the key here is moniroing the situation. Being active can help reduce the risk of repeated TBI's, which is a huge risk factor of CTE.

To the bolded part, how much? How much can someone take?

 

[Buster Bluth]

 

[woolybug25]

If the length of time it takes to develop CTE is 18 years, I think a kid playing a few years is safe as long as you are monitoring it. Saying I won't let them play because if they go pro they will get CTE is silly. Again, the key here is moniroing the situation. Being active can help reduce the risk of repeated TBI's, which is a huge risk factor of CTE.

To the bolded part, how much? How much can someone take?

Do you always just pull the information you want to use from comments? I mean, it literally says that the amount of time varied from 14.4-18.4 and never said that it takes 18 years to develop it. They said their studies showed that there is a link between length of play and CTE, not that the number is 18.

How do you "monitor" whether or not a kid is getting hit too much if they aren't showing signs? CTE doesn't show symptoms until years later. There is no way to "monitor" the amount of damaging hits a kid is taking if they don't recieve head trauma or express symptoms of a concussion. You do not have to have massive concussions in order to end up with CTE. You asked the question, "how much can someone take", the answer is that it varies. All a parent can do is limit the exposure their growing children have to sustained impacts to the head.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Do you always just pull the information you want to use from comments? I mean, it literally says that the amount of time varied from 14.4-18.4 and never said that it takes 18 years to develop it. They said their studies showed that there is a link between length of play and CTE, not that the number is 18.

How do you "monitor" whether or not a kid is getting hit too much if they aren't showing signs? CTE doesn't show symptoms until years later. There is no way to "monitor" the amount of damaging hits a kid is taking if they don't recieve head trauma or express symptoms of a concussion. You do not have to have massive concussions in order to end up with CTE. You asked the question, "how much can someone take", the answer is that it varies. All a parent can do is limit the exposure their growing children have to sustained impacts to the head.

Let's take a step back....what is the bigger risk for CTE, repeated TBI's or prolonged exposure to hits to the head that do not produce TBI's?

Oh, and the 14.4 was for boxers....something we have not brought up before.

 

[woolybug25]

Let's take a step back....what is the bigger risk for CTE, repeated TBI's or prolonged hits to the head that do not produce TBI's?

They have both been shown to cause CTE. What point are you trying to make?

Oh, and the 14.4 was for boxers....something we have not brought up before.

They were just giving you the data on the subset they were using. They weren't saying that the specific number was relative to a number associated with CTE. They clearly said that length of time is a factor though, which is one of the main reasons youth football is risky.

 

[Ndaccountant]

They have both been shown to cause CTE. What point are you trying to make?




They were just giving you the data on the subset they were using. They weren't saying that the specific number was relative to a number associated with CTE. They clearly said that length of time is a factor though, which is one of the main reasons youth football is risky.

I know repeated exposure is a risk, but I have not seen anywhere the comparitive risk of multiple TBI's versus repeated exposure. I would imagine that multiple TBI's provides a much higher risk factor, but I have not seen data to quantify how much riskier it is.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Any of you progressive/ leftist/ statists wanna start hating on Torii Hunter's dad for doing the same thing Tiger did in 1996 and Mickelson is going to do?



OPINION January 27, 2013, 3:38 p.m. ET Mickelson and the Sports Star Tax Migration
If Lefty moves to a state with no income tax like Florida, he'll find he has plenty of elite athlete company.Article Video Comments more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ »smaller Larger By ALLYSIA FINLEY

America's top-grossing golfer Phil Mickelson drove himself into a bunker on Jan. 20 when he said that federal and California state tax hikes had made him contemplate making "drastic changes" in his life—including, it was widely assumed, moving to a no-income-tax state such as Texas or Florida. But he was only stating publicly what many professional athletes are mulling privately.


The golfer known as Lefty outraged lefties by noting that a tax burden of more than 60% seemed excessive. Didn't he know that athletes—unlike Hollywood celebrities—are supposed to keep their politics to themselves? Mr. Mickelson quickly apologized for teeing off his critics. "Finances and taxes are a personal matter," he said. In any event, Mr. Mickelson certainly wouldn't be the first athlete to consider relocating for tax purposes.

Last week, Lefty's rival, Tiger Woods, acknowledged that he left California for Florida in 1996 when he turned pro because of the difference in state tax. California's top marginal rate then was 9.3% for individuals earning more than $32,000. The move was particularly farsighted given that rates on high earners in California have since soared.

In November, voters in California approved a ballot measure raising the top rate on income over $1 million to 13.3% (the increase applies retroactively to last year). According to SportsIllustrated.com, Mr. Woods grossed $56.4 million in 2012. As a Floridian, he will keep about $7.5 million that he otherwise would have owed to the state of California. His net tax savings over his 16-year career come to about $100 million. Mr. Mickelson last year earned $60.7 million. Paying the 13.3% California rate, he will owe the state $8 million. "The day California passed the tax increase, I received three calls from concerned athletes," accountant Steve Piascik, president of Piascik & Associates, told me. His firm is one of the largest representatives of professional athletes in the country.

Mr. Piascik isn't urging his clients to pack their bags just yet, but he says that some are considering moving to reduce their tax liabilities. And several of his clients, whose names he won't disclose, have already ordered their lives around the tax code: They play for teams in California but live elsewhere for tax reasons.

Former Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim right fielder Torii Hunter (who recently signed with the Detroit Tigers) lived in Prosper, Texas, during the baseball off-season. The main reason he "moved to Texas is because it doesn't have state income tax," the outfielder told the Orange County Register last year.The benefit of living in a state without an income tax can be diminished by the "jock tax" that states impose on money earned by athletes when they're playing or training in the state. (Luckily for baseball players, spring training is in no-tax Florida or low-tax Arizona.) But in sports like tennis and golf where athletes can train anywhere in the world, a preponderance happen to migrate to states without an income tax.

For instance, Serena and Venus Williams grew up in Compton, Calif., but moved with their father to Florida in the early 1990s. Many of the top teaching pros in tennis set up shop in Florida. Note also that parents can afford to pay more for their children's training in states without income tax, since the parents keep more of their earnings.

The Williams sisters currently reside in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., not far from 23-year-old pro golfer Michelle Wie. Upon graduating from Stanford University last year, Ms. Wie moved with her parents from Palo Alto, Calif., to Jupiter, Fla. Farther up the Florida coast in Coral Gardens lives 19-year-old Sloane Stephens, who unseated Serena Williams in the Australian Open quarterfinals last week.

Meanwhile, 25-year-old Sam Querrey, the second-highest-ranked American in men's tennis, has followed his parents to Las Vegas—Nevada also has no income tax—from Thousand Oaks, Calif. Like Mr. Querrey, rising golf talent Nick Watney spent his formative years in California but has put down roots in Las Vegas.

For journeymen and up-and-comers, California's tax rates can be a major handicap. A few hundred thousand or even a million in prize money isn't such a fortune when an athlete has to pay for travel, coaches, accountants, agents and miscellaneous training-related expenses. Uncle Sam also skims his "fair share" off the top—and that share is rising.

Federal tax rates on income above $400,000 jumped this year to 39.6% from 35%. Meanwhile, ObamaCare levies a new 3.8% surtax on investment income and raises the Medicare tax by 0.9% on wages over $200,000. Limits on itemized deductions for high earners have also been reinstated, which will raise many athletes' marginal rates by one to two percentage points.

Mr. Mickelson was merely reading the wind when he floated the idea of making "drastic changes." PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem, a former adviser to President Jimmy Carter, noted during the Mickelson brouhaha that "there are businesses relocating out of California because they can operate better in states that have lower tax rates." He also noted: "Generally, people making decisions based on the tax rates in California, on top of the federal tax rates, is not a unique thing."

No kidding. About 3.5 million Californians have migrated to other states over the past two decades. Almost anywhere they chose to go would allow them to enjoy greater returns on their labor. Is it really surprising that athletes like Mr. Mickelson might be keeping an eye on the leaderboard?

Ms. Finley is an editorial writer for the Journal.

 

[DSully1995]

^^^ Straight ballin, I live in the most conservative province in Canada (Alberta) and theses things happen here too, people don't want to pay Quebec's/Atlantic Canada's high tax rate so they move or they make sure on their oil sands shift that they're in Alberta on Dec 31, (Alberta has a 10 flat tax rate where in the eastern provinces you get up in the 20s)

 

[Black Irish]

My sister works with a bunch of dyed-in-the-wool progressives doing non-profit work in California. They are all big fans of increased taxation and increased government spending. But whenever my sister comes back home her friends & co-workers line up to give her cash so that she can buy Apple products for them without paying sales tax (Delaware has none). Even with shipping, they still come out ahead by not having to pay California sales tax. It seems tax evasion brings together Americans of all political stripes.

 

[chicago51]

Major immigration reform could be coming. 8 Senators promosing major comprehensivie immigration reform. It includes securing the border which Obama has already made some progress in through executive order and a tough but fair path to citizenship for the 11 million illegals currently in the coutnry.

‘Gang of 8′ announces immigration reform, but ‘devil’s in the details’ — MSNBC

First Word: Obama administration pushing immigration reform — MSNBC

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Major immigration reform could be coming. 8 Senators promosing major comprehensivie immigration reform. It includes securing the border which Obama has already made some progress in through executive order and a tough but fair path to citizenship for the 11 million illegals currently in the coutnry.

‘Gang of 8′ announces immigration reform, but ‘devil’s in the details’ — MSNBC

First Word: Obama administration pushing immigration reform — MSNBC

Still waiting for your response from Saturday night. Glad I didn't hold my breath!

 

[chicago51]

Still waiting for your response from Saturday night. Glad I didn't hold my breath!

What?

 

[phgreek]

Major immigration reform could be coming. 8 Senators promosing major comprehensivie immigration reform. It includes securing the border which Obama has already made some progress in through executive order and a tough but fair path to citizenship for the 11 million illegals currently in the coutnry.

‘Gang of 8′ announces immigration reform, but ‘devil’s in the details’ — MSNBC

First Word: Obama administration pushing immigration reform — MSNBC

we'll see...No tickled Chuck Schumer is in the middle of this...I could think of only two worse from the Dem side in terms of polarizing negotiations...

 

[chicago51]

Since Bluster already beat me to it on the share prices, etc...

1) They are not #1 in the world again. How did you arrive at this conclusion? They're still selling a ton of cars that can't compete in the market (hello, chevy volt).

2) How about the human cost and the labor of the TAXPAYERS whose money is keeping this welfare program afloat? Do the unions and their employees nice wages and cushy benefits packages hold more value than them? Please.

3) Those employees (had GM filed for bankruptcy) could've found employment elsewhere in the same industry. Don't act like 200,000 auto workers would be homeless on the street living in boxes. They might have to leave their big bad union, but they'd be able to find gainful employment in the auto industry.

Okay I back tracked. I assume it is about this.

1) They did reclaim being number.
Steve Parker: GM Claims Number One Sales Crown -- Again
However they did fall behind Toyota again recently so I take responsibility for not be up to date.

2) It would cost the tax payers more in safety net payments than to save the company.
3 answers to the auto bailout debate - Sep. 6, 2012
I was wrong that all the money was repaid. I was not wrong that the bailout saved the nation money.

3) There was even more 200,000 autoworkers that would have lost their jobs. Not all of them would have found work immediately. Remember this was at the worst part of the economic recession. How were they supposed to fine work when companies all over the nation were cutting jobs not hiring.

 

[Black Irish]

Here is what I would like to see in immigration reform, a system where illegal immigrants can come forward and apply for temporary worker's permits without fear of deportation or heavy fines. If an illegal immigrant is holding down a job, raising a family, and not breaking laws then that is someone I want to have in my country. Make them an offer: "Okay, you've been working and staying out of trouble. We'll give you a temporary visa for a year. After a year, if you stay the course, work, pay taxes, we'll get you rolling on either becoming a citizen or a resident alien. If you aren't interested in either of those options, then make arrangements to go back to your native country."

Make illegal immigrants meet us halfway. Get on a path to citizenship or at least legal resident status. We can make it easier than it currently is, but they have to want it and work for it. I'm not in favor of just granting blanket amnesty because people think the problem is too big to handle. Take the first step of offering the illegal immigrants an easy path to legal working status. The rest is up to them; keep your nose clean and stay. Screw up and become a criminal or an unemployed leech and we'll ship you out.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Here is what I would like to see in immigration reform, a system where illegal immigrants can come forward and apply for temporary worker's permits without fear of deportation or heavy fines. If an illegal immigrant is holding down a job, raising a family, and not breaking laws then that is someone I want to have in my country. Make them an offer: "Okay, you've been working and staying out of trouble. We'll give you a temporary visa for a year. After a year, if you stay the course, work, pay taxes, we'll get you rolling on either becoming a citizen or a resident alien. If you aren't interested in either of those options, then make arrangements to go back to your native country."

Make illegal immigrants meet us halfway. Get on a path to citizenship or at least legal resident status. We can make it easier than it currently is, but they have to want it and work for it. I'm not in favor of just granting blanket amnesty because people think the problem is too big to handle. Take the first step of offering the illegal immigrants an easy path to legal working status. The rest is up to them; keep your nose clean and stay. Screw up and become a criminal or an unemployed leech and we'll ship you out.

What if they don't make enough to pay any taxes? Does that change the equation for you? I think 46% of Americans pay no income taxes, and 18% pay no income or payroll taxes. They seem likely to fall into that 18%.

I love immigrants, but I am not sure if it makes sense to fund their benefits since no one from either party seems to know what their real impact on the economy or labor force is (do they really occupy jobs Americans won't do, or do they drive labor costs down to the point that Americans won't do them?).

 

[chicago51]

Thoughtful immigration responses posted above. I like to hear people's opinion's on this.

Here are my thoughts. They say they want a tough but fair path to citizenship. I hope it really is both tough and fair.

Illegals should have get in line behind those doing it right and we have speed things up for those who do it legally. The problem now is that legal immigration takes so long and is so difficult most people will sneak in and take their chances not getting caught. So we need to make it a bit easy for those doing it right.

Also in the immigration package it is likely that a path to citizenship is contingent that we achieve adequate border security. I hope the concept of adequate border security has objective standards. Objective criteria is important so people who really don't want a path to citizenship can't confuse a lack of perfect border security with a lack of adequate border security. If we don't have objective criteria people will hold things up.

 

[Black Irish]

What if they don't make enough to pay any taxes? Does that change the equation for you? I think 46% of Americans pay no income taxes, and 18% pay no income or payroll taxes. They seem likely to fall into that 18%.

I love immigrants, but I am not sure if it makes sense to fund their benefits since no one from either party seems to know what their real impact on the economy or labor force is (do they really occupy jobs Americans won't do, or do they drive labor costs down to the point that Americans won't do them?).

Okay, I think you are missing my point. I'm talking about "taxpayer" in the sense that they are not working for cash under the table but actually get on the books. And do those 18% pay Social Security taxes? If so, they are actually a net positive for that pyramid system; they pay in but never collect (another debate for another time). I think there is another route besides "just give them green cards, no questions asked" and "deport them all!"

From what I've read, illegal immigrant's economic impact is a net negative of local and state governments but a net positive on the federal level (see my Social Security example).

 

[Rizzophil]

My sister works with a bunch of dyed-in-the-wool progressives doing non-profit work in California. They are all big fans of increased taxation and increased government spending. But whenever my sister comes back home her friends & co-workers line up to give her cash so that she can buy Apple products for them without paying sales tax (Delaware has none). Even with shipping, they still come out ahead by not having to pay California sales tax. It seems tax evasion brings together Americans of all political stripes.

Look and see where Al Gore is sheltering his money to avoid taxes.

 

[chicago51]

Look and see where Al Gore is sheltering his money to avoid taxes.

Liberals can be crooks too. We are not all saints.

 

[Black Irish]

Liberals can be crooks too. We are not all saints.

It's the blatant hypocrisy that gets my goat. It's not like you can chalk up repeated tax evasion to youthful indiscretions or crimes of passion. Another example of the "good for thee but not for me" philosophy of our betters.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Okay I back tracked. I assume it is about this.

1) They did reclaim being number.
Steve Parker: GM Claims Number One Sales Crown -- Again
However they did fall behind Toyota again recently so I take responsibility for not be up to date.

2) It would cost the tax payers more in safety net payments than to save the company.
3 answers to the auto bailout debate - Sep. 6, 2012
I was wrong that all the money was repaid. I was not wrong that the bailout saved the nation money.

3) There was even more 200,000 autoworkers that would have lost their jobs. Not all of them would have found work immediately. Remember this was at the worst part of the economic recession. How were they supposed to fine work when companies all over the nation were cutting jobs not hiring.

1) I could care less what GM says. Show me an independent and non-biased source showing GM #1 in sales.

2) At least you can admit when you're wrong. Reps.

3) As noted before, the worst of the recession was over before the stiumulus was shoved down our throats. The auto workers wouldn't have their union there to "protect them" if they left for another company, but they could've found employment with a number of companies based on their skillset.

4) GM's Jeeps are now being made where? Overseas.

 

[woolybug25]

1) I could care less what GM says. Show me an independent and non-biased source showing GM #1 in sales.

#1 in US Sales per Auto Sales - Markets Data Center - WSJ.com

2) At least you can admit when you're wrong. Reps.

hurumph

3) As noted before, the worst of the recession was over before the stiumulus was shoved down our throats. The auto workers wouldn't have their union there to "protect them" if they left for another company, but they could've found employment with a number of companies based on their skillset.

What industry would that have been? Because at the time, all manufacturing (including RV's, Shipping container and commercial vehicle) was failing across the board. If they were depending on their skillset, that skillset was getting cut across the country.

4) GM's Jeeps are now being made where? Overseas.

They are manufacturing Jeeps sold in foriegn markets in China, not ones for American sales. The Jeep you buy in Atlanta or Chicago, will be built here in the US. They are also not even shutting down any sites domestically to do it. They are simply putting additional resources in China to meet foreign demand. If you are going to make a statement like that, then you can at least tell the whole story.