Obama To Announce Uncostitutional Amnesty (1 Viewer)

[Sammy3469]

If one understands payroll taxes, the level of income of most immigrant workers, and the earn-income tax credit.....any economist who suggest that is a big net positive for the treasury is either a complete moron or a lying shill.

Well when you put it like that, you must be correct!

 

[Koya]

If one understands payroll taxes, the level of income of most immigrant workers, and the earn-income tax credit.....any economist who suggest that is a big net positive for the treasury is either a complete moron or a lying shill.

Does being a net positive / negative take into effect the ability of their employers to compete? i.e., if the math is that they take out more than they pay in, but without them there would be no industry of that type to begin with, I'd suggest we need to recalculate.

 

[skol asylum]

Many conservatives here seem convinced that I am a diehard liberal, despite my denials, mostly because I attack the Tea Party so much. But I don't attack the Tea Party because of their ideology; I attack them because of their rigidity and refusal to legislate or compromise, which has more done so much to poison the political atmosphere in the last 6 years. No, Obama and the Democrats are not to blame for this poison; they've made mistakes, and deserve much criticism, but the main and overwhelming cause of most of our political problems now is the Tea Party conservative base of the GOP.

This issue is a prime example. There are at least 11 million illegal immigrants living in this country. Realistically, we're not going to deport all these people. Even if we wanted to, we don't have the manpower or money to do it, and it would involve civil liberty violations which the American people will not accept. Yet the Tea Party base will accept no other alternative. They will not accept a short term path to citizenship. They will not accept a long term path to citizenship. They will not accept border security first and regularization later (as Rich Conway has proposed in this forum.) They will not accept allowing these people to stay, even if there is no path to citizenship. They will not accept ANY compromise on this issue. Like so many other issues, it's their way or the highway. And their way is: close the border, deport all illegals who are caught, change the laws so that their children born here can be deported as well. No deviation, no willingness to work with Dems or moderate Republicans on this issue.

And because since 2010 the Tea Party has come to dominate the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives. they have prevented John Boehner from calling a vote on the Senate Bill. Which puts us where we are- in chaos, just as we are on so many other issues.

Spot on.

A poop spot.

I figured i'd get flack for agreeing with the Pariah Carey of the FFA.

 

[Rich Conway]

Chamber of Commerce types want to keep a free flow of cheap labor to the country to support agriculture and other jobs that supposedly the rest of us won’t do. And I honestly can see the advantage to this, I really can. It’s just not worth the heavy cost to all of us. It would be different if the corporate types were paying for the hospital and education fees and the welfare and prison costs, but are they? No. Also, I don’t believe that there are really jobs that Americans won’t do. I kind of think our kids have gotten lazy; it wouldn’t do them any harm to perform some of these menial chores. The bulk of the work could be done by immigrants, and if we need more than our current quota provides, then by all means let more in legally.

What about the fact that, legal or not, many "full time" jobs result in pay that necessitates gov't intervention in any case (i.e working at walmart and still need gov't assistance)"?

Can't have it both ways.

I don't see the relevance. If full-time jobs that result in gov't assistance are bad, surely they're not as bad as no job at all due to displacement by under the table workers?

 

[jonessed]

If one understands payroll taxes, the level of income of most immigrant workers, and the earn-income tax credit.....any economist who suggest that is a big net positive for the treasury is either a complete moron or a lying shill.

Does being a net positive / negative take into effect the ability of their employers to compete? i.e., if the math is that they take out more than they pay in, but without them there would be no industry of that type to begin with, I'd suggest we need to recalculate.

No. We would obviously all just starve to death.

 

[timschochet]

I agree that I can't produce a report that shows illegals are a net benefit that you will accept. The stats and arguments presented by the University of Arizona, and by the article I posted yesterday, were enough for me. Apparently it's not enough for you.

And no, they won't leave on their own, no matter what you attempt to do. And if you did enforce the laws against our employers, you'd be severely damaging our economy with no gain.

What article from yesterday? You don't mean the one from last week from CNN, do you?

Yes. Didn't mean to write yesterday, thx.

Gotcha. The article referencing a study that shows illegal immigration is a massive net negative is enough to prove to you that it's actually a net positive. And you wonder why some people don't take you seriously? It's because you constantly ignore facts that you don't like.

No, you ignored the part of the article which clearly stated that illegals will NEVER cost more than they contribute. Yes the article mentioned the Heritage study, but it did so in the context of pointing out that the net effect, when we include the Social Security payments is positive. I have been willing to acknowledge again and again and again and again that illegals may cost the border states more than they take in (which is basically what Heritage was focused on) but that when we look at the entire country as a whole, they are a net benefit.

How can he ignore it when it doesn't exist? It's unreal how much #### you make up.

Here is the exact sentence from the article:

The truth is that undocumented immigrants contribute more in payroll taxes than they will ever consume in public benefits.

It's unreal how much #### you ignore.

Well, if that's not proof, I don't know what is. No, wait, that's not proof at all. That's just an unsubstantiated, made-up, opinion.

You both just claimed that the sentence didn't even exist.

You're right, I didn't remember it. But it's pure, unadulterated spin that is in no way supported by even the facts presented by the very same article.

Fair enough. At least you didn't insult me. Humpback, on the other hand, did. Will he offer an apology, or even an acknowledgement that he was wrong?

 

[timschochet]

The problem is we never insisted, as we easily could have, and should have if only for our own security, that the wealth garnered by the Mexican upper classes be spread throughout their entire economy

Wow.

OK Walking Boot, I've disagreed with nearly everything you've written on this subject, but this one time, you and I are in total agreement. You are absolutely correct, and I compliment you greatly for bringing this up.

 

[timschochet]

If one understands payroll taxes, the level of income of most immigrant workers, and the earn-income tax credit.....any economist who suggest that is a big net positive for the treasury is either a complete moron or a lying shill.

The CNN article states that illegals have contributed 100 billion dollars to Social Security alone over the last 10 years. If you believe this assertion is false, then you will need to find evidence to contradict it. If you accept this evidence as true, then it completely refutes your statement here.

 

[Rich Conway]

If one understands payroll taxes, the level of income of most immigrant workers, and the earn-income tax credit.....any economist who suggest that is a big net positive for the treasury is either a complete moron or a lying shill.

The CNN article states that illegals have contributed 100 billion dollars to Social Security alone over the last 10 years. If you believe this assertion is false, then you will need to find evidence to contradict it. If you accept this evidence as true, then it completely refutes your statement here.

How on earth do you draw this conclusion? The bolded in no way proves the bolded and italicized, using any standard definition of logic. To wit, it's entirely possible that illegals have contributed $10B per year to SS, yet drawn out more than $10B per year from SS and other programs. The Heritage study you liked then disliked shows exactly this.

 

[timschochet]

The thing about rounding up the illegals is the impracticality of it when there are simpler and cheaper ways to solve this problem, as I’ve proposed. But I’m not against the morality of rounding them up.

Damn. And you were on such a roll, too...

 

[timschochet]

If one understands payroll taxes, the level of income of most immigrant workers, and the earn-income tax credit.....any economist who suggest that is a big net positive for the treasury is either a complete moron or a lying shill.

The CNN article states that illegals have contributed 100 billion dollars to Social Security alone over the last 10 years. If you believe this assertion is false, then you will need to find evidence to contradict it. If you accept this evidence as true, then it completely refutes your statement here.

How on earth do you draw this conclusion? The bolded in no way proves the bolded and italicized, using any standard definition of logic. To wit, it's entirely possible that illegals have contributed $10B per year to SS, yet drawn out more than $10B per year from SS and other programs. The Heritage study you liked then disliked shows exactly this.

Not sure that it does. But even so, jon mentioned a net positive for the treasury- most of the "benefits" illegals and their families receive are from states. As for Social Security, I'm betting the amount illegals receive from that is negligible.

 

[Sammy3469]

I agree that I can't produce a report that shows illegals are a net benefit that you will accept. The stats and arguments presented by the University of Arizona, and by the article I posted yesterday, were enough for me. Apparently it's not enough for you.

And no, they won't leave on their own, no matter what you attempt to do. And if you did enforce the laws against our employers, you'd be severely damaging our economy with no gain.

What article from yesterday? You don't mean the one from last week from CNN, do you?

Yes. Didn't mean to write yesterday, thx.

Gotcha. The article referencing a study that shows illegal immigration is a massive net negative is enough to prove to you that it's actually a net positive. And you wonder why some people don't take you seriously? It's because you constantly ignore facts that you don't like.

No, you ignored the part of the article which clearly stated that illegals will NEVER cost more than they contribute. Yes the article mentioned the Heritage study, but it did so in the context of pointing out that the net effect, when we include the Social Security payments is positive. I have been willing to acknowledge again and again and again and again that illegals may cost the border states more than they take in (which is basically what Heritage was focused on) but that when we look at the entire country as a whole, they are a net benefit.

How can he ignore it when it doesn't exist? It's unreal how much #### you make up.

Here is the exact sentence from the article:

The truth is that undocumented immigrants contribute more in payroll taxes than they will ever consume in public benefits.

It's unreal how much #### you ignore.

Tim, of course, completely glosses over the high cost of illegal aliens to our schools, hospitals, and prisons. He doesn’t really want to discuss these issues, because they don’t fit in with his romantic ideal of hard workers who heroically cross the border in pursuit of the American dream. But our resources are at their breaking point, and I hold that illegals present a much higher cost to us than any benefit they represent, even if you ignore the fact of their illegality, which I can’t. He compares them to the immigrants of an earlier generation, but of course there are tremendous differences besides the illegal issue. The Jews, Polish, Italians, Irish, etc., yes they huddled in the big cities and caused crime and spoke their own languages, all that is true, but what is also true is that they all aspired to be assimilated. They encouraged their children to speak English, to achieve within the structure of our capitalistic society. Do the illegal aliens from south of the border encourage their kids to speak English? No, they demand bilingual education. They seek to be separate from our culture, they don’t contribute to the old idea of the melting pot, and they retain an antagonism towards American values. This is a concern over the failure of these people to assimilate and the assault on our culture.

lol..what assault? Frankly give me all the tacos and tequila I can consume.

 

[jonessed]

If one understands payroll taxes, the level of income of most immigrant workers, and the earn-income tax credit.....any economist who suggest that is a big net positive for the treasury is either a complete moron or a lying shill.

The CNN article states that illegals have contributed 100 billion dollars to Social Security alone over the last 10 years. If you believe this assertion is false, then you will need to find evidence to contradict it. If you accept this evidence as true, then it completely refutes your statement here.

No it doesn't.

 

[timschochet]

I agree that I can't produce a report that shows illegals are a net benefit that you will accept. The stats and arguments presented by the University of Arizona, and by the article I posted yesterday, were enough for me. Apparently it's not enough for you.

And no, they won't leave on their own, no matter what you attempt to do. And if you did enforce the laws against our employers, you'd be severely damaging our economy with no gain.

What article from yesterday? You don't mean the one from last week from CNN, do you?

Yes. Didn't mean to write yesterday, thx.

Gotcha. The article referencing a study that shows illegal immigration is a massive net negative is enough to prove to you that it's actually a net positive. And you wonder why some people don't take you seriously? It's because you constantly ignore facts that you don't like.

No, you ignored the part of the article which clearly stated that illegals will NEVER cost more than they contribute. Yes the article mentioned the Heritage study, but it did so in the context of pointing out that the net effect, when we include the Social Security payments is positive. I have been willing to acknowledge again and again and again and again that illegals may cost the border states more than they take in (which is basically what Heritage was focused on) but that when we look at the entire country as a whole, they are a net benefit.

How can he ignore it when it doesn't exist? It's unreal how much #### you make up.

Here is the exact sentence from the article:

The truth is that undocumented immigrants contribute more in payroll taxes than they will ever consume in public benefits.

It's unreal how much #### you ignore.

Tim, of course, completely glosses over the high cost of illegal aliens to our schools, hospitals, and prisons. He doesn’t really want to discuss these issues, because they don’t fit in with his romantic ideal of hard workers who heroically cross the border in pursuit of the American dream. But our resources are at their breaking point, and I hold that illegals present a much higher cost to us than any benefit they represent, even if you ignore the fact of their illegality, which I can’t. He compares them to the immigrants of an earlier generation, but of course there are tremendous differences besides the illegal issue. The Jews, Polish, Italians, Irish, etc., yes they huddled in the big cities and caused crime and spoke their own languages, all that is true, but what is also true is that they all aspired to be assimilated. They encouraged their children to speak English, to achieve within the structure of our capitalistic society. Do the illegal aliens from south of the border encourage their kids to speak English? No, they demand bilingual education. They seek to be separate from our culture, they don’t contribute to the old idea of the melting pot, and they retain an antagonism towards American values. This is a concern over the failure of these people to assimilate and the assault on our culture.

It's appears you are incapable of more than one good idea per week. Oh well. What you wrote about Mexico was pretty nifty though. ALMOST makes up for all of the rest of this pile of steaming crap. Almost, but not quite.

 

[jonessed]

If one understands payroll taxes, the level of income of most immigrant workers, and the earn-income tax credit.....any economist who suggest that is a big net positive for the treasury is either a complete moron or a lying shill.

The CNN article states that illegals have contributed 100 billion dollars to Social Security alone over the last 10 years. If you believe this assertion is false, then you will need to find evidence to contradict it. If you accept this evidence as true, then it completely refutes your statement here.

How on earth do you draw this conclusion? The bolded in no way proves the bolded and italicized, using any standard definition of logic. To wit, it's entirely possible that illegals have contributed $10B per year to SS, yet drawn out more than $10B per year from SS and other programs. The Heritage study you liked then disliked shows exactly this.

Not sure that it does. But even so, jon mentioned a net positive for the treasury- most of the "benefits" illegals and their families receive are from states. As for Social Security, I'm betting the amount illegals receive from that is negligible.

So after you disregard most costs as negligible or offset by "unmeasurable" societal benefits it turns out that illegal immigration is a net benefit? That's shocking.

 

[Rich Conway]

I'm curious how the US could "force" Mexico to share its wealth more equally? Not to mention, the US isn't exactly a shining example of income distribution.

 

[jon_mx]

If one understands payroll taxes, the level of income of most immigrant workers, and the earn-income tax credit.....any economist who suggest that is a big net positive for the treasury is either a complete moron or a lying shill.

The CNN article states that illegals have contributed 100 billion dollars to Social Security alone over the last 10 years. If you believe this assertion is false, then you will need to find evidence to contradict it. If you accept this evidence as true, then it completely refutes your statement here.

It could be, but once they are legal, here is what happens. A married guy with two kids works and earns $25k. The employer takes out about $1800 for payroll taxes and x amount for withholdings. He then files taxes and owes zero tax so he gets all x back that was withheld and then about $5400 back with the earned income tax credit. The treasury is out $3600 plus we are now on the hook to pay this guy SS benefits when he retires. I would bet millions of dollars their analysis left those facts out.

 

[timschochet]

I'm curious how the US could "force" Mexico to share its wealth more equally? Not to mention, the US isn't exactly a shining example of income distribution.

For more than 100 years, we have traded with Mexico and supported the incredible corruption of their government. We have responded to every Mexican crisis (and there have been several) by allowing our banks to loan the government money and guaranteeing the loans, and never setting any conditions on those loans.

Mexico has one of the fastest growing economies in the world, yet it's only for the upper classes and upper middle classes. Anyone below that is trapped and stagnant, and there is almost no room for advancement. Reasonable land reform measures, reasonable government investment in the poorer towns and cities- we've never pushed for any of it. When Walking Boot states that this is a threat to our national security, he's absolutely correct. It hasn't hurt us (at least IMO thus far) because our own economy has always been good enough to absorb most of the Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal. But eventually it will.

 

[Rich Conway]

I'm curious how the US could "force" Mexico to share its wealth more equally? Not to mention, the US isn't exactly a shining example of income distribution.

For more than 100 years, we have traded with Mexico and supported the incredible corruption of their government. We have responded to every Mexican crisis (and there have been several) by allowing our banks to loan the government money and guaranteeing the loans, and never setting any conditions on those loans.

Mexico has one of the fastest growing economies in the world, yet it's only for the upper classes and upper middle classes. Anyone below that is trapped and stagnant, and there is almost no room for advancement. Reasonable land reform measures, reasonable government investment in the poorer towns and cities- we've never pushed for any of it. When Walking Boot states that this is a threat to our national security, he's absolutely correct. It hasn't hurt us (at least IMO thus far) because our own economy has always been good enough to absorb most of the Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal. But eventually it will.

1. This seems to be a statement that Mexico doesn't share its wealth equally, rather than a plan to force them to do so.

2. With regard to the bolded, this statement would seem to contradict your position that fully open borders would be good for the US. That is, you seem to be admitting that, eventually, if we let everyone in forever, our own economy will be damaged.

 

[Koya]

If one understands payroll taxes, the level of income of most immigrant workers, and the earn-income tax credit.....any economist who suggest that is a big net positive for the treasury is either a complete moron or a lying shill.

The CNN article states that illegals have contributed 100 billion dollars to Social Security alone over the last 10 years. If you believe this assertion is false, then you will need to find evidence to contradict it. If you accept this evidence as true, then it completely refutes your statement here.

It could be, but once they are legal, here is what happens. A married guy with two kids works and earns $25k. The employer takes out about $1800 for payroll taxes and x amount for withholdings. He then files taxes and owes zero tax so he gets all x back that was withheld and then about $5400 back with the earned income tax credit. The treasury is out $3600 plus we are now on the hook to pay this guy SS benefits when he retires. I would bet millions of dollars their analysis left those facts out.

That is still far too narrow a view, if we are looking at real economic impact.

Real impact has to take into account that the money earned, especially at low income levels, is spent back into the economy and a host of other direct and ancillary impacts. Of course, this is then met with a myriad of supportive costs from education of children to infrastructure burden etc.

But, once again, I don't see anyone answering whether we would still have these employers to begin with if not for the cheap labor pool... are THOSE economic realities considered?

 

[Sand]

Here's another great article from 2006- still very pertinent:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/01/news/economy/immigration_economy/

Illegal workers: good for U.S. economy
The U.S. has benefited from illegal immigrants, most economists say

Maybe an article with one hard number in it?

Good grief.

Chamber of Commerce types want to keep a free flow of cheap labor to the country to support agriculture and other jobs that supposedly the rest of us won’t do.

And why exactly are liberals for this? Should they want equal pay and safe working conditions for all?

Oh wait, it isn't about that, it's about future votes. Never mind, strike that.

 

[jon_mx]

If one understands payroll taxes, the level of income of most immigrant workers, and the earn-income tax credit.....any economist who suggest that is a big net positive for the treasury is either a complete moron or a lying shill.

The CNN article states that illegals have contributed 100 billion dollars to Social Security alone over the last 10 years. If you believe this assertion is false, then you will need to find evidence to contradict it. If you accept this evidence as true, then it completely refutes your statement here.

It could be, but once they are legal, here is what happens. A married guy with two kids works and earns $25k. The employer takes out about $1800 for payroll taxes and x amount for withholdings. He then files taxes and owes zero tax so he gets all x back that was withheld and then about $5400 back with the earned income tax credit. The treasury is out $3600 plus we are now on the hook to pay this guy SS benefits when he retires. I would bet millions of dollars their analysis left those facts out.

That is still far too narrow a view, if we are looking at real economic impact.

Real impact has to take into account that the money earned, especially at low income levels, is spent back into the economy and a host of other direct and ancillary impacts. Of course, this is then met with a myriad of supportive costs from education of children to infrastructure burden etc.

But, once again, I don't see anyone answering whether we would still have these employers to begin with if not for the cheap labor pool... are THOSE economic realities considered?

I am all for cheap imported labor, but making it legal would be a huge net negative with the associated costs of all the benefits.

 

[timschochet]

I'm curious how the US could "force" Mexico to share its wealth more equally? Not to mention, the US isn't exactly a shining example of income distribution.

For more than 100 years, we have traded with Mexico and supported the incredible corruption of their government. We have responded to every Mexican crisis (and there have been several) by allowing our banks to loan the government money and guaranteeing the loans, and never setting any conditions on those loans.

Mexico has one of the fastest growing economies in the world, yet it's only for the upper classes and upper middle classes. Anyone below that is trapped and stagnant, and there is almost no room for advancement. Reasonable land reform measures, reasonable government investment in the poorer towns and cities- we've never pushed for any of it. When Walking Boot states that this is a threat to our national security, he's absolutely correct. It hasn't hurt us (at least IMO thus far) because our own economy has always been good enough to absorb most of the Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal. But eventually it will.

1. This seems to be a statement that Mexico doesn't share its wealth equally, rather than a plan to force them to do so.

2. With regard to the bolded, this statement would seem to contradict your position that fully open borders would be good for the US. That is, you seem to be admitting that, eventually, if we let everyone in forever, our own economy will be damaged.

Figured you'd be smart enough to catch that. Actually, it's not a contradiction, since I believe that ultimately the way to solve Mexico's economic problems (and ours as well) is to have free trade and open borders between us. But I already know that it's a fantasy, will never happen. What I was describing above IS a long term, very real threat to us.

 

[Koya]

If one understands payroll taxes, the level of income of most immigrant workers, and the earn-income tax credit.....any economist who suggest that is a big net positive for the treasury is either a complete moron or a lying shill.

The CNN article states that illegals have contributed 100 billion dollars to Social Security alone over the last 10 years. If you believe this assertion is false, then you will need to find evidence to contradict it. If you accept this evidence as true, then it completely refutes your statement here.

It could be, but once they are legal, here is what happens. A married guy with two kids works and earns $25k. The employer takes out about $1800 for payroll taxes and x amount for withholdings. He then files taxes and owes zero tax so he gets all x back that was withheld and then about $5400 back with the earned income tax credit. The treasury is out $3600 plus we are now on the hook to pay this guy SS benefits when he retires. I would bet millions of dollars their analysis left those facts out.

That is still far too narrow a view, if we are looking at real economic impact.

Real impact has to take into account that the money earned, especially at low income levels, is spent back into the economy and a host of other direct and ancillary impacts. Of course, this is then met with a myriad of supportive costs from education of children to infrastructure burden etc.

But, once again, I don't see anyone answering whether we would still have these employers to begin with if not for the cheap labor pool... are THOSE economic realities considered?

I am all for cheap imported labor, but making it legal would be a huge net negative with the associated costs of all the benefits.

Well, making it legal is a different question than just getting rid of that labor pool and figure it out from there.

FWIW, it kills me that a nation with as much wealth as ours is so unabashedly arrogant and selfish enough to not find a way to even take care of our own. Whether it's the cold hearted lack of caring for a child born into poverty (oh, just tighten that belt strap and overcome, young boy!) or the fact that we send our kids to war and let them rot, mentally and physically when they get home.

In the end, I STILL can not get past this. We HAVE enough wealth - but we are too damn selfish and, I suppose, uncaring, to really do anything about it. It's not as if we HAVE to choose between starving kids or tax breaks for the wealthy. We should be able to accommodate all.

 

[Rich Conway]

I'm curious how the US could "force" Mexico to share its wealth more equally? Not to mention, the US isn't exactly a shining example of income distribution.

For more than 100 years, we have traded with Mexico and supported the incredible corruption of their government. We have responded to every Mexican crisis (and there have been several) by allowing our banks to loan the government money and guaranteeing the loans, and never setting any conditions on those loans.

Mexico has one of the fastest growing economies in the world, yet it's only for the upper classes and upper middle classes. Anyone below that is trapped and stagnant, and there is almost no room for advancement. Reasonable land reform measures, reasonable government investment in the poorer towns and cities- we've never pushed for any of it. When Walking Boot states that this is a threat to our national security, he's absolutely correct. It hasn't hurt us (at least IMO thus far) because our own economy has always been good enough to absorb most of the Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal. But eventually it will.

1. This seems to be a statement that Mexico doesn't share its wealth equally, rather than a plan to force them to do so.

2. With regard to the bolded, this statement would seem to contradict your position that fully open borders would be good for the US. That is, you seem to be admitting that, eventually, if we let everyone in forever, our own economy will be damaged.

Figured you'd be smart enough to catch that. Actually, it's not a contradiction, since I believe that ultimately the way to solve Mexico's economic problems (and ours as well) is to have free trade and open borders between us. But I already know that it's a fantasy, will never happen. What I was describing above IS a long term, very real threat to us.

Your position might be tenable if every other country also fully opened their borders at the same time. As you state, however, that's not going to happen. So, as you note here, it is a problem for us if it's a one way thing.

Even if all borders were open, there would be a transition period, in which poorer nations would essentially export their poverty to the richer nations.

 

[Henry Ford]

If one understands payroll taxes, the level of income of most immigrant workers, and the earn-income tax credit.....any economist who suggest that is a big net positive for the treasury is either a complete moron or a lying shill.

What tax credit do you fully understand, again?

 

[Sand]

Whether it's the cold hearted lack of caring for a child born into poverty (oh, just tighten that belt strap and overcome, young boy!)

Yep - Medicaid to birth these children and take care of them during their formative years. SNAP/WIC etc. to feed them. Welfare for the parents for other needs. Free education. Section 8 housing (if needed) to house them. Heck, they can get a free cellphone, too.

These are all included in the taxes I pay for. How exactly is this a cold hearted lack of caring?

 

[jon_mx]

If one understands payroll taxes, the level of income of most immigrant workers, and the earn-income tax credit.....any economist who suggest that is a big net positive for the treasury is either a complete moron or a lying shill.

What tax credit do you fully understand, again?

The part where they refund you more than you pay in. I think you lack understanding how it works. Millions of Americans have a negative tax rate.

 

[Henry Ford]

If one understands payroll taxes, the level of income of most immigrant workers, and the earn-income tax credit.....any economist who suggest that is a big net positive for the treasury is either a complete moron or a lying shill.

What tax credit do you fully understand, again?

The part where they refund you more than you pay in. I think you lack understanding how it works. Millions of Americans have a negative tax rate.

What's the name of it?

 

[Sand]

If one understands payroll taxes, the level of income of most immigrant workers, and the earn-income tax credit.....any economist who suggest that is a big net positive for the treasury is either a complete moron or a lying shill.

What tax credit do you fully understand, again?

The part where they refund you more than you pay in. I think you lack understanding how it works. Millions of Americans have a negative tax rate.

What's the name of it?

 

[Koya]

Whether it's the cold hearted lack of caring for a child born into poverty (oh, just tighten that belt strap and overcome, young boy!)

Yep - Medicaid to birth these children and take care of them during their formative years. SNAP/WIC etc. to feed them. Welfare for the parents for other needs. Free education. Section 8 housing (if needed) to house them. Heck, they can get a free cellphone, too.

These are all included in the taxes I pay for. How exactly is this a cold hearted lack of caring?

If you choose to only look at it from what THEY might cost YOU? Don't know.

What I have seen, repeatedly :

1. Repeated flippancy by many as if we are not talking about other human beings regardless of what is the best course of action to take.

2. Point #1 is all the worse considering that so many of these folks don't seem to mind us supporting whole industry sectors outside of where it provides pur nation with net benefits

3. Undocumented issue aside I damn well know that our nation falls FAR short of where any kind people should in regard to looking out for those less fortunate than many of us. Let's be honest, it's disgusting. The left want to protect their interests and continuing the poverty whole the right seems to either nor care or even worse, blame the unfortunate to begin with.

 

[Henry Ford]

We should also probably discuss the huge difference between a "negative tax rate" and a "negative federal income tax rate."

 

[Sand]

Whether it's the cold hearted lack of caring for a child born into poverty (oh, just tighten that belt strap and overcome, young boy!)

Yep - Medicaid to birth these children and take care of them during their formative years. SNAP/WIC etc. to feed them. Welfare for the parents for other needs. Free education. Section 8 housing (if needed) to house them. Heck, they can get a free cellphone, too.

These are all included in the taxes I pay for. How exactly is this a cold hearted lack of caring?

If you choose to only look at it from what THEY might cost YOU? Don't know.

What I have seen, repeatedly :

1. Repeated flippancy by many as if we are not talking about other human beings regardless of what is the best course of action to take.

2. Point #1 is all the worse considering that so many of these folks don't seem to mind us supporting whole industry sectors outside of where it provides pur nation with net benefits

3. Undocumented issue aside I damn well know that our nation falls FAR short of where any kind people should in regard to looking out for those less fortunate than many of us. Let's be honest, it's disgusting. The left want to protect their interests and continuing the poverty whole the right seems to either nor care or even worse, blame the unfortunate to begin with.

1. You ascribe flippancy and cold heartedness to those who pay taxes to support the poor. That is simply your worldview showing through.

2. I personally have a distinct issue with us "supporting" these industry sectors as, let's face it, these sectors want labor cheaper than what our country's minimums allow. That liberals don't care about this is infuriating. But then again all in the name of increasing voter rolls.

3. Properly applied our immigration laws should have made this moot. What's disgusting is the current administration's lack of enforcement and outright goading these folks to make this dangerous journey, killing hundreds, causing huge numbers of rapes of young women, bolstering the power of Mexican cartels, and causing lots of ecological damage. You want to talk about shameful and disgusting? There you go.

 

[tommyboy]

Whether it's the cold hearted lack of caring for a child born into poverty (oh, just tighten that belt strap and overcome, young boy!)

Yep - Medicaid to birth these children and take care of them during their formative years. SNAP/WIC etc. to feed them. Welfare for the parents for other needs. Free education. Section 8 housing (if needed) to house them. Heck, they can get a free cellphone, too.

These are all included in the taxes I pay for. How exactly is this a cold hearted lack of caring?

If you choose to only look at it from what THEY might cost YOU? Don't know.

What I have seen, repeatedly :

1. Repeated flippancy by many as if we are not talking about other human beings regardless of what is the best course of action to take.

2. Point #1 is all the worse considering that so many of these folks don't seem to mind us supporting whole industry sectors outside of where it provides pur nation with net benefits

3. Undocumented issue aside I damn well know that our nation falls FAR short of where any kind people should in regard to looking out for those less fortunate than many of us. Let's be honest, it's disgusting. The left want to protect their interests and continuing the poverty whole the right seems to either nor care or even worse, blame the unfortunate to begin with.

item 3 is just wrong. The US gives a lot in charitable giving and donations. Don't have the stats but off the top of my head we rank #1 in the world in that category. Also

evangelical Christians give the most. So that's a double wrong, because evangelical Christians comprise much of "the right" base.

ETA: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=725

http://nccs.urban.org/nccs/statistics/Charitable-Giving-in-America-Some-Facts-and-Figures.cfm

http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/news/article/giving-usa-2014

http://www.aei.org/publication/a-nation-of-givers/

 

[Sand]

Whether it's the cold hearted lack of caring for a child born into poverty (oh, just tighten that belt strap and overcome, young boy!)

Yep - Medicaid to birth these children and take care of them during their formative years. SNAP/WIC etc. to feed them. Welfare for the parents for other needs. Free education. Section 8 housing (if needed) to house them. Heck, they can get a free cellphone, too.

These are all included in the taxes I pay for. How exactly is this a cold hearted lack of caring?

If you choose to only look at it from what THEY might cost YOU? Don't know.

What I have seen, repeatedly :

1. Repeated flippancy by many as if we are not talking about other human beings regardless of what is the best course of action to take.

2. Point #1 is all the worse considering that so many of these folks don't seem to mind us supporting whole industry sectors outside of where it provides pur nation with net benefits

3. Undocumented issue aside I damn well know that our nation falls FAR short of where any kind people should in regard to looking out for those less fortunate than many of us. Let's be honest, it's disgusting. The left want to protect their interests and continuing the poverty whole the right seems to either nor care or even worse, blame the unfortunate to begin with.

item 3 is just wrong. The US gives a lot in charitable giving and donations. Don't have the stats but off the top of my head we rank #1 in the world in that category. Also

evangelical Christians give the most. So that's a double wrong, because evangelical Christians comprise much of "the right" base.

Tsunami donations by country:

US: 2.8 billion

Australia: 1.3 billion

Germany: 1.3 billion

UK and Canada: $800 mil each.

But, you know, we're cold hearted #######s in this country who like to see suffering and despair.

We're such #######s that if that tsunami had hit Mexico our contribution would have only gone up by an order of magnitude or so. We're quite the bastards over here.

 

[jon_mx]

If one understands payroll taxes, the level of income of most immigrant workers, and the earn-income tax credit.....any economist who suggest that is a big net positive for the treasury is either a complete moron or a lying shill.

What tax credit do you fully understand, again?

The part where they refund you more than you pay in. I think you lack understanding how it works. Millions of Americans have a negative tax rate.

What's the name of it?

Welfare.

 

[jonessed]

We should just adopt South America. It's the right thing to do.

 

[Jayrod]

If one understands payroll taxes, the level of income of most immigrant workers, and the earn-income tax credit.....any economist who suggest that is a big net positive for the treasury is either a complete moron or a lying shill.

What tax credit do you fully understand, again?

The part where they refund you more than you pay in. I think you lack understanding how it works. Millions of Americans have a negative tax rate.

What's the name of it?

Welfare.

Its the Earned Income Tax Credit and requires some kind of income from work performed during the year. It is for working people who are still living on very little.

ETA - not that it isn't exploited by people for whom it was never intended

 

[timschochet]

We should just adopt South America. It's the right thing to do.

ive always been in favor of this. Manifest Destiny!

 

[Jayrod]

Meh...South America is limping along, but they have a lot of viable economies doing fine.

Now if we want to really adopt a place in need, Africa is where its at. Maybe chop off everything bordering the Mediterranean and South Africa, and just take the middle part with all of the poor, diseased and war torn nations.

 

[Sand]

Meh...South America is limping along, but they have a lot of viable economies doing fine.

I vote we adopt Ecuador. Easy to assimilate - they're already socialists and on the dollar, so our welfare state would fit in perfectly there.

And as a bonus we can turn the Galapagos into Disneyworld Sur.

 

[humpback]

I agree that I can't produce a report that shows illegals are a net benefit that you will accept. The stats and arguments presented by the University of Arizona, and by the article I posted yesterday, were enough for me. Apparently it's not enough for you.

And no, they won't leave on their own, no matter what you attempt to do. And if you did enforce the laws against our employers, you'd be severely damaging our economy with no gain.

What article from yesterday? You don't mean the one from last week from CNN, do you?

Yes. Didn't mean to write yesterday, thx.

Gotcha. The article referencing a study that shows illegal immigration is a massive net negative is enough to prove to you that it's actually a net positive. And you wonder why some people don't take you seriously? It's because you constantly ignore facts that you don't like.

No, you ignored the part of the article which clearly stated that illegals will NEVER cost more than they contribute. Yes the article mentioned the Heritage study, but it did so in the context of pointing out that the net effect, when we include the Social Security payments is positive. I have been willing to acknowledge again and again and again and again that illegals may cost the border states more than they take in (which is basically what Heritage was focused on) but that when we look at the entire country as a whole, they are a net benefit.

How can he ignore it when it doesn't exist? It's unreal how much #### you make up.

Here is the exact sentence from the article:

The truth is that undocumented immigrants contribute more in payroll taxes than they will ever consume in public benefits.

It's unreal how much #### you ignore.

Which section was that in? I agree that they contribute more to SS than they will take out, but not overall. The author seems to agree, since she clearly cited the Heritage study which says that they are a net negative overall. Again, this is ignoring that this is an awful opinion piece written by someone who works for CNN en Espanol, so even if she said what you claimed, it would be worth the same as your opinion- bubkes.

Oh, #### you.

 

[fatness]

A strong fence on the border, throughout the entire border, and you can’t tell me this won’t solve the problem for the most part. It could be done easily and cheaply, too, compared to the cost of border patrols and to our law enforcement, in general. The American people want this fence.

Just some posts, some chain link, some immigrants to put it up, and bang: Instant Cheap Security!

 

[fatness]

If you choose to only look at it from what THEY might cost YOU? Don't know.

What I have seen, repeatedly :

1. Repeated flippancy by many as if we are not talking about other human beings regardless of what is the best course of action to take.

2. Point #1 is all the worse considering that so many of these folks don't seem to mind us supporting whole industry sectors outside of where it provides pur nation with net benefits

3. Undocumented issue aside I damn well know that our nation falls FAR short of where any kind people should in regard to looking out for those less fortunate than many of us. Let's be honest, it's disgusting. The left want to protect their interests and continuing the poverty whole the right seems to either nor care or even worse, blame the unfortunate to begin with.

item 3 is just wrong. The US gives a lot in charitable giving and donations. Don't have the stats but off the top of my head we rank #1 in the world in that category. Also

evangelical Christians give the most. So that's a double wrong, because evangelical Christians comprise much of "the right" base.

ETA: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=725

LOL, nice site. "This website describes the networks and agendas of the political Left."

It's like reading about Narnia.

I see they're disputing the recent Benghazi report. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1755

The report disputes that there was a delay in responding to the attack beyond what was required for CIA personnel to put on their gear (finding #7). That finding seems to be at odds with the statements of three men directly involved in the response, who told Fox News' Bret Baier that they were ready to go in five minutes and were explicitly told, "Stand down, you need to wait" by a supervisor they refer to as "Bob."

 

[fatness]

The thing about rounding up the illegals is the impracticality of it when there are simpler and cheaper ways to solve this problem, as I’ve proposed. But I’m not against the morality of rounding them up.

It's been done before.

 

[skol asylum]

We should just adopt South America. It's the right thing to do.

ive always been in favor of this. Manifest Destiny!

Screw that. Give me Canada.

 

[drummer]

We should just adopt South America. It's the right thing to do.

ive always been in favor of this. Manifest Destiny!

Screw that. Give me Canada.

Especially the football!

 

[drummer]

Seal the Border nutbags checked in? Have they passed economics class yet?

 

[Stinger Ray]

Seal the Border nutbags checked in? Have they passed economics class yet?

How many beers tonight for you? 10?

 

[drummer]

Seal the Border nutbags checked in? Have they passed economics class yet?

How many beers tonight for you? 10?

I'm drinking hot cocoa. Mexican hot cocoa, loverboy.