Senate Report: Illegal Immigrants Benefited from Up to $750M in ObamaCare Subsidies

[tonyisme]

Kasich at least has governor experience unlike the Orator in office now .... some past presidents have had governor experience.. at least they didn't screw things up as bad as the current Orator has
I think Trump had been married 3 times. It says a lot about his character.

 

[somarco]

Kasich has no chance. Neither does Ben Carson, Rand Paul (not sure if he is in or out) and most of the other remaining ones.

Right now this is a 2 - 3 man race, depending on what happens over the next month or so.

Personalities aside, Christie was probably the most qualified. Huckabee qualified and apparently honest.

Going back 4 years, Romney had the potential to be another Reagan but he didn't want the office bad enough to really fight.

If Trump wins, he may find himself in as big of a squabble as the current prez has with Congress.

We have suffered through one emperor for the last 7+ years. Don't need another one.

I have no idea where we go from here but at this point I don't see a lot of hope for improvement and turn around from what BHO has done.

 

[scagnt83]

Kasich has no chance. Neither does Ben Carson, Rand Paul (not sure if he is in or out) and most of the other remaining ones.

Right now this is a 2 - 3 man race, depending on what happens over the next month or so.

Personalities aside, Christie was probably the most qualified. Huckabee qualified and apparently honest.

Going back 4 years, Romney had the potential to be another Reagan but he didn't want the office bad enough to really fight.

If Trump wins, he may find himself in as big of a squabble as the current prez has with Congress.

We have suffered through one emperor for the last 7+ years. Don't need another one.

I have no idea where we go from here but at this point I don't see a lot of hope for improvement and turn around from what BHO has done.

Dont be so sure about that. Kasich just got endorsed today by the head of Home Depot (I forget his name), who is a big time donor and power player in the Republican party. That gives him the $$$$ he needs to use his boost in NH to become better known. He was down to $1mm last week... now he will likely have a super pac or two behind him.

Besides, who is left?? Rubio is going down in flames, Bush has no chance, Cruz is having serious issues with trustworthiness, Carson never had a chance to begin with.

Kasich is the only one who has a chance now and actually has executive experience. He has white house experience under Reagan. Plus he can draw a good many independents with his positions, which will be needed to win. The big donors for the republicans are starting to realize that & I bet they will jump on board over the next week if he does well tonight at the debate.


Im not sure that Trump will win SC. It all depends on the debate tonight probably. Bush might actually have a chance to do half decent in SC but he wont win. Cruz will probably do well unfortunately... if I was betting on it I would bet on either Cruz or Trump to take SC. Cruz has spent a lot of time here over the past year. I think Kasich could do well if he gives a good performance at the debate. Especially if he can really hit on the economy and national defense.

 

[LGilmore]

You totally missed my point Larry. The point was not about the individual... it was about the whole.

There were 2 people in that example. Those 2 people COMBINED represent the overall economy. In that example, between the 2 of them, the NET money created was $0. The total amount of money in the economy stayed the same.


Yes the countries economy has millions of people. But the end results after you do the math stay the same.


Larry,
You are a smart man. Literally do the math of the other example I gave. If the main driver of an economy is taxation and redistribution, it creates stagnation and deflation. The numbers do not lie and it is exactly what is going on in the EU.

Did I say "main driver" or did you read it that way? I will have to go back and check. Don't think I said "main driver". I have been talking that public sector jobs provides services and they in turn, create additional spending in the economy. Someone else said the private sector creates jobs and I disagree, I said demand creates jobs. As the public nor the private sector create jobs out of a whim. There has to be demand. Demand between the two (public and private) can be different things. One might be to create profit and the other may be to gain working rather than taking individuals.



LGilmore Inc. pays 50% in taxes on their $100mm in profits. ($50mm)
That $50mm goes back to LGilmore Inc. to boost growth, & they pay $25mm in taxes on it.
That $25mm goes back to LGilmore Inc to boost growth, they pay $12mm in taxes on it.
That $12mm goes back to LG Inc to boost growth, they pay $6mm in taxes on it.
That $6mm goes back to LG Inc to boost growth, they pay $3mm in taxes on it.

The revenue received from taxes becomes less and less over time. Any positive effect that boosting the economy via taxes has, is quickly diminished over time. And if those taxes are the main driver of the economy, it causes deflation because there is less and less available to go back in to buy things.

again main driver? and.. sort of trying to figure your comment out. Why are my sales going down? Are people not able to purchase my product more than once? Do the people who are paid through my tax dollars not purchase my products?

If taxes are the main source of economic growth, it creates a deflationary cycle. As a one time boost like after 08/09... it has the potential to help a little bit in a large economy. But as a year after year systematic approach to growth it is disastrous and the math proves it.

yet a few years after the years you cite, economy doing very well, market is up yada yada.. And I think we're talking two different things.. I think you're talking money infusions to keep the private sector afloat and I am talking jobs. I can't recall but was there a big jump in government employment in 08-9?

Obviously our economy is more complex than just a single company. But the math again is linear and does not change even as you get into bigger and bigger numbers using more and more companies. And since the US has more than just taxes to help support our economy, so this example (like the EU) would be drawn out over a period of time longer than 4 or 5 years. But when the government (taxes or debt that will need future taxes) becomes the main driving source of the economy, it is all downhill from there, just a matter of time. The math does not lie.

again Main Driver? I don't think I ever said that? Got to go back and look.
----------



I never said there was no need for government jobs. My point was that government jobs do not boost the economy. There is no economic growth when you add government jobs. It is simply redistributing the growth that has already happened. We need government jobs, but government jobs are not a solution to stimulate the economy.[/QUOTE]

We disagree on really this. Because when you add government jobs, you also add private sector jobs to meet demand. Again somehow this became all this or all that, when really it's a combination.

No grocery store is going to refuse a check from a government worker. In fact they don't care, as long as it clears the bank. That is my point the private sector responds to demand, not to how the demand is created. They don't care as long as it clears the bank.

If that store has greater demand based on the influx of cash from government workers, they hire more help to meet demand. They don't care where the money comes from, they just want the money to stay in their store. Because the other aspect of demand is that it creates competition. If the store does not hire more to meet demand, a competitor will open and pull some of that demand away.

edit: Never found any text where I used or implied taxation as a main driver. Could it be possible that you found that elsewhere and applied it to me?

 

[Tkruger]

You totally missed my point Larry. The point was not about the individual... it was about the whole.

There were 2 people in that example. Those 2 people COMBINED represent the overall economy. In that example, between the 2 of them, the NET money created was $0. The total amount of money in the economy stayed the same.


Yes the countries economy has millions of people. But the end results after you do the math stay the same.


Larry,
You are a smart man. Literally do the math of the other example I gave. If the main driver of an economy is taxation and redistribution, it creates stagnation and deflation. The numbers do not lie and it is exactly what is going on in the EU.

Did I say "main driver" or did you read it that way? I will have to go back and check. Don't think I said "main driver". I have been talking that public sector jobs provides services and they in turn, create additional spending in the economy. Someone else said the private sector creates jobs and I disagree, I said demand creates jobs. As the public nor the private sector create jobs out of a whim. There has to be demand. Demand between the two (public and private) can be different things. One might be to create profit and the other may be to gain working rather than taking individuals.



LGilmore Inc. pays 50% in taxes on their $100mm in profits. ($50mm)
That $50mm goes back to LGilmore Inc. to boost growth, & they pay $25mm in taxes on it.
That $25mm goes back to LGilmore Inc to boost growth, they pay $12mm in taxes on it.
That $12mm goes back to LG Inc to boost growth, they pay $6mm in taxes on it.
That $6mm goes back to LG Inc to boost growth, they pay $3mm in taxes on it.

The revenue received from taxes becomes less and less over time. Any positive effect that boosting the economy via taxes has, is quickly diminished over time. And if those taxes are the main driver of the economy, it causes deflation because there is less and less available to go back in to buy things.

again main driver? and.. sort of trying to figure your comment out. Why are my sales going down? Are people not able to purchase my product more than once? Do the people who are paid through my tax dollars not purchase my products?

If taxes are the main source of economic growth, it creates a deflationary cycle. As a one time boost like after 08/09... it has the potential to help a little bit in a large economy. But as a year after year systematic approach to growth it is disastrous and the math proves it.

yet a few years after the years you cite, economy doing very well, market is up yada yada.. And I think we're talking two different things.. I think you're talking money infusions to keep the private sector afloat and I am talking jobs. I can't recall but was there a big jump in government employment in 08-9?

Obviously our economy is more complex than just a single company. But the math again is linear and does not change even as you get into bigger and bigger numbers using more and more companies. And since the US has more than just taxes to help support our economy, so this example (like the EU) would be drawn out over a period of time longer than 4 or 5 years. But when the government (taxes or debt that will need future taxes) becomes the main driving source of the economy, it is all downhill from there, just a matter of time. The math does not lie.

again Main Driver? I don't think I ever said that? Got to go back and look.
----------



I never said there was no need for government jobs. My point was that government jobs do not boost the economy. There is no economic growth when you add government jobs. It is simply redistributing the growth that has already happened. We need government jobs, but government jobs are not a solution to stimulate the economy.

We disagree on really this. Because when you add government jobs, you also add private sector jobs to meet demand. Again somehow this became all this or all that, when really it's a combination.

No grocery store is going to refuse a check from a government worker. In fact they don't care, as long as it clears the bank. That is my point the private sector responds to demand, not to how the demand is created. They don't care as long as it clears the bank.

If that store has greater demand based on the influx of cash from government workers, they hire more help to meet demand. They don't care where the money comes from, they just want the money to stay in their store. Because the other aspect of demand is that it creates competition. If the store does not hire more to meet demand, a competitor will open and pull some of that demand away.

edit: Never found any text where I used or implied taxation as a main driver. Could it be possible that you found that elsewhere and applied it to me?[/QUOTE]

My eyes hurt..........

 

[Norwayguy]

"I think I understand you now. Is this really what you are saying with all this back & forth."

yes and no. I don't want to go off on the "I hate Obama " rant that comes with this because some hate the messenger and dislike the message because of it. As I said for an effective economy, it is a combination of government and private sector working to create growth.

I have said in the past that Clinton made more republicans than anybody in recent history... why? cause a lot of people made money under his terms in office. The outrage over the Bj gave them an excuse to hate on him, all the way to the bank. Fact was back then government and business worked pretty optimally to make for a successful period of time.

But can you get back to my question, how many government employees for a nation of 330 million is too much. Are we a 100 employees over? 1000? 1,000,000? What metric have you used to determine we have too many government employees?

I mean right now gun licenses have been suspended because there aren't enough people to process the license requests because demand is so high. Could it be we're underemployed in some areas of government service?

Which government? Federal, State, County, Municipal, School and water districts, nonprofits performing government functions via grants?

 

[Winter_123]

Every great nation throughout history has risen and fallen. We are on the descent. No matter what we do, we will continue to descend. I don't think that is a bad thing, nor do I fear it. .

Obama doesnt fear it either and, like you, he doesnt think it is a bad thing. Maybe this is just the Caliphate's turn to be on the rise and our turn to be in decline. Hey, it's all good. Let's just let it all unfold.

----------

"I think I understand you now. Is this really what you are saying with all this back & forth."

yes and no. I don't want to go off on the "I hate Obama " rant that comes with this because some hate the messenger and dislike the message because of it. As I said for an effective economy, it is a combination of government and private sector working to create growth.

I have said in the past that Clinton made more republicans than anybody in recent history... why? cause a lot of people made money under his terms in office. The outrage over the Bj gave them an excuse to hate on him, all the way to the bank. Fact was back then government and business worked pretty optimally to make for a successful period of time.

But can you get back to my question, how many government employees for a nation of 330 million is too much. Are we a 100 employees over? 1000? 1,000,000? What metric have you used to determine we have too many government employees?

I mean right now gun licenses have been suspended because there aren't enough people to process the license requests because demand is so high. Could it be we're underemployed in some areas of government service?

Over 50% of gilmore's household income comes from government/teachers income. His support for increased government and the unions that protect it has always been endless. You have to keep that factor in mind when he makes his usual "too much igovernment is not enough" argument.

Keep in mind also, his endless arguments about how the stimulus program created jobs. If Obama was willing to spend a trillion dollars to create 43.6 jobs that seems like a good deal to Gilmore, so dont expect to make much headway with him in arguing that governent spending is a drain on the economy. Again, too much is not enough when it comes to government.

 

[healther]

Obama doesnt fear it either and, like you, he doesnt think it is a bad thing. Maybe this is just the Caliphate's turn to be on the rise and our turn to be in decline. Hey, it's all good. Let's just let it all unfold.

To be clear, I am thankful to have faith, not fear. My lack of fear transcends this discussion.

----------

I know that post was not directed at me... but Kasich is the only candidate that can get this country back on the right path. Sanders will put us in the poor house... Hillary is obviously dishonest and will say/do whatever to get elected... the other republicans left are extremist nutcases (except for Trump who is saying stuff just to get press... but I still dont totally trust him)



I never said there was no need for government jobs. My point was that government jobs do not boost the economy. There is no economic growth when you add government jobs. It is simply redistributing the growth that has already happened. We need government jobs, but government jobs are not a solution to stimulate the economy.

Kasich is more in line with what I believe to be rational policy for positive change. But if he picks up anymore Super PACs, I'm out. I agree with Bernie Sanders on one point, Super PACs are undermining our Democracy. Candidates love them for obvious reasons, but the media LOVE THEM EVEN MORE because they can charge the Super PACs (literally) 1000x more per spot than the candidates themselves. It's a BS system that is flying under the radar.

I never meant to imply that you were trying to say that. We see "problematic" Socialist countries referenced in the argument against Socialism all the time. Just trying to see if anyone can point to the inverse situation to support their argument? Perhaps we should only allow people that have attended private schools to respond, due to their superior education, rather than allowing all the drivel from the Socialist public school attendees??

 

[Winter_123]

To be clear, I am thankful to have faith, not fear. My lack of fear transcends this discussion.

----------

Well, it could all work out for you if your faith is radical islam. Otherwise, it is important to distinguish between having faith and just being blind from having the drunk the kool-aid.

The mideast is the home of christianity but christianity is virtually being wiped out there. I am sure quite a few of them had faith too. Oh, I see. All things end so maybe this is another one where it is their turn to be decline. Always easy to be philosophical about things when someone else's family is being beheaded. Coming to a neighborhood near you soon. But you have faith - in Obama among other things. Or is it in Commander in Chief Bernie?

 

[healther]

Well, it could all work out for you if your faith is radical islam. Otherwise, it is important to distinguish between having faith and just being blind from having the drunk the kool-aid.

The mideast is the home of christianity but christianity is virtually being wiped out there. I am sure quite a few of them had faith too. Oh, I see. All things end so maybe this is another one where it is their turn to be decline. Always easy to be philosophical about things when someone else's family is being beheaded. Coming to a neighborhood near you soon. But you have faith - in Obama among other things. Or is it in Commander in Chief Bernie?

Orrr.... I could live in the eternal assumption that we are always on the brink of disaster, which seems to have the GOP in a strangle-hold. You can not quench your fear.