In The News Today...

Quote: SOOPOO

What exactly was passed with huge veto proof majorities? What law is DJT not following? Please specifically mention a Russian sanction that is a law passed by Congress that DJT is breaking by not enforcing?

The bill passed the Senate 98-2, and the House 419-3. He signed it last August.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/02/trump-signs-bipartisan-russia-sanctions-bill-241242

One deadline was Monday.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/28/trump-russia-sanctions-deadline-373106

Quote:

An even more critical moment arrives Monday. The Treasury Department is required to begin imposing sanctions against entities doing business with Russia’s defense and intelligence sectors as well as to produce a hotly anticipated list of oligarchs maintaining close ties to Putin. Implementing the law robustly would risk harming the relationship Trump has tried to cultivate with Putin — and any delay would mean snubbing Congress’ authority.

Quote: SOOPOO

As far as the "I hate Obamacare" right, I DO hate all new multi-billion dollar programs that have no new source of funding or equal spending cut. But once the left gets another freebie given to their people, it is extremely difficult to take it away from the dependent class.

Where is the source of funding for the tax cut?

Quote: boymimbo

Where is the source of funding for the tax cut?

Only spending requires funding. Tax less and spend less.

Quote: Nareed

Absolutely. There is no law or Constitutional provision that requires cities or states to cooperate with immigration agencies. So holding up sanctuary cities or states as examples of refusal to enforce the law, is ridiculous and stupid.

I would argue that ICE should do its job effectively to track and enforce its mandate. It is not up to state and local officials to determine one's immigration status and to take action when it suspects that they are breaking INS (which are civil, not criminal) laws.

When suspected criminals are detained and fingerprints taken, these fingerprints are then matched to ICE automatically. ICE becomes aware of that immigrant's whereabouts and may issue detainment orders and request that local law agencies notify them when they are released. Local law officials do not need to comply because police are responsible for making criminal arrests that break criminal laws. Immigration law is civil, and keeping someone in custody longer than necessary violates your 4th Amendment rights: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That's right: being in the U.S. without lawful immigration status is not a crime. And the 10th Amendment to your great Constitution states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Therefore, no local or state enforcement agency is obligated to comply with federal immigration issues and is up to state and local officials to elect to enforce.

Therefore, sanctuary cities exist because being in the country unlawfully is not a criminal offence. ICE enforces their civil law through its own network via DHS.

Quote: DRich

Only spending requires funding. Tax less and spend less.

Okay, I'll ask again. What spending did they cut to fund the tax bill, which is suspected to cost 1.6 trillion over 10 years.

Quote: boymimbo

Where is the source of funding for the tax cut?

Future generations burdened with more debt.

Quote: boymimbo

That's right: being in the U.S. without lawful immigration status is not a crime.

Imagine if the nativist zealots were to admit this. Then their rhetoric would be reduced to "brown people bad!" which wouldn't gain much traction.

Quote:

Therefore, no local or state enforcement agency is obligated to comply with federal immigration issues and is up to state and local officials to elect to enforce.

And therefore sanctuary states and cities are not refusing to enforce the law, when they choose to devote law enforcement resources to actual criminal matters. Imagine the nativist zealots recognizing that!

Quote: DRich

Only spending requires funding. Tax less and spend less.

+1. Taxes *are* funding. People who ask “how will a tax cut be funded” seem to think everything belongs to the government and we should be glad for what we keep. Such people I feel would be happier with a king in charge than living in freedom.

Quote: boymimbo

Where is the source of funding for the tax cut?

Me! I am paying more taxes after this cut! But seriously, the Repubs would answer (lie) that the lower rates multiplied by more people employed and paying would be a 'win' and not a loss. And just like Obamacare, it will be very difficult to take away the middle class tax cut once it is implemented. 20 trillion dollars at 2.5 % a year is HALF A TRILLION dollars in interest alone we are paying. Get rid of the debt! Raise my taxes AND your taxes and LOWER spending! It will be painful! But it is the right thing to do.

Those are word games (cut, spending, funding, etc) and arguing semantics.

How is the government going to pay for things with less funding from taxation and no spending cuts? Debt.

To be followed closely by "we can't afford to operate this way, we have to cut things!" Which is of course a back-door way to force spending cuts without having to vote to do it specifically ahead of time. Alternative? The screams of "they're raising our taxes!" When the books are attempted to be balanced by raising revenue.

Which I'm sure is all 100% fine with the Republicans.

The whole how much should the government raise and what should they spend it on is a philosophical argument.

How they go about achieving it is an ethical argument.

Having a predictable balanced budget with a percentage of gdp set aside for debt and debt service is a financial argument.

I am for both sides promoting their philosophical position and achieving financial stability (and sanity) through ethical means.