Will getting rid of 30 million illegals generate jobs here?

[Tictac]

9 to 10% of the US federal budget. That's every welfare program combined, and in some years it's been even less.

Ah, proglibs and money or numbers. Good for some laughs and not a damned thing else.

It's how much you spend and percent total that matters to mouthbreather prognuts. Who cares what it's used for? It's why government needs more and more money. No one knows what it's spent for. They just need MORE.

 

[thatfeel]

Ah, proglibs and money or numbers. Good for some laughs and not a damned thing else.

It's how much you spend and percent total that matters to mouthbreather prognuts. Who cares what it's used for? It's why government needs more and more money. No one knows what it's spent for. They just need MORE.

It's better to understand the numbers and the facts than to sit there and foam at the mouth about sh!t that you know nothing about, like a good little puppet.

 

[Tictac]

It's better to understand the numbers and the facts than to sit there and foam at the mouth about sh!t that you know nothing about, like a good little puppet.

In FY 2016 total US government spending on welfare — federal, state, and local — is “guesstimated” to be $1,066 billion, including $610 billion for Medicaid, and $456 billion in other welfare.

Sounds more like 25% to me. Now where are YOUR numbers.

Pro tip - pontificating is not numbers.

 

[thatfeel]

Sorry dude, but you're wrong again. Lumping in all social programs with actual welfare and then saying it's 25% of the overall budget is shortsighted.

I already know what the facts are. Clearly you didn't because you literally just googled some boolsh!t and clicked the first link and tried to copy paste some sh!t and tried to pass it off as your support to 'refute' my claim. It's SERIOUSLY not a secret that US welfare spending is ridiculously low compared to everything else in the budget for many past years.

Instead of getting lost in data you and I both now know you can't read or interpret, why don't you just click the link to the pretty "pie chart" on the same page you literally googled and take note of the 7% of welfare spending for FY 2016 of the US federal spending?

 

[Tictac]

Sorry dude, but you're wrong again. Lumping in all social programs with actual welfare and then saying it's 25% of the overall budget is shortsighted.

I already know what the facts are. Clearly you didn't because you literally just googled some boolsh!t and clicked the first link and tried to copy paste some sh!t and tried to pass it off as a "fact" to refute my claim. Instead of getting lost in data you and I both now know you can't read or interpret, why dont' you just click the link to the pretty "pie chart" and take note of the 7% of welfare spending for FY 2016 of the US federal spending?

Defining terms and posting data is customary for those that posit their thoughts. You didn't.

The reason I don't use anything but CBO data is that the classification schema used in different departments at different times obfuscate more than they reveal.

Enjoy your delusions, puppet.

 

[thatfeel]

Defining terms and posting data is customary for those that posit their thoughts. You didn't.

The reason I don't use anything but CBO data is that the classification schema they use obfuscate more than they reveal.

Enjoy your delusions, puppet.

You literally reclassified welfare spending to make it better fit your argument.

 

[Tictac]

You literally reclassified welfare spending to make it better fit your argument.

I used what the CBO reports.

I reclassified nothing.

 

[thatfeel]

You are making two assertions here. One about human behavior and the other about the monetary impact. I am only referring to human behavior.

You statement basically boils down to the belief that no portion of society will do as little as possible to get by (live off of the public teat). I can assure you with absolute 100% confidence, you are wrong.

My statements are based on facts and reality. Yours are based on sweeping generalizations which contribute nothing of value to any discussion.

 

[Tictac]

My statements are based on facts and reality. Yours are based on sweeping generalizations which contribute nothing of value to any discussion.

Your facts aren't. Opinions are neither fact nor reality. Declaring them so just makes you look like a fool.

 

[yuppee]

reagan and nixon could be sent to the pen, TOO, twit. Not a problem. Your people are felonious pos's, and trump's going to lock them up. Milk is MANY times more expensive than gas, at current prices. More than 2x as much, unless you shop at aldi's.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Regarding welfare being permanent or not, it depends on what you call welfare. Disability is the new permanent welfare. Epilepsy is a good one to fake - modern medical science has no way of proving that you do not have it, so it's almost impossible to be denied. Fake one seizure, and you get a check for the rest of your life. That's the problem with the system.

Universal income is the future. Iceland is experimenting with it now. The idea is that every citizen gets a monthly check just for being a citizen. Iceland is even progressive enough to not take the check away from people who also want to work or start a business.

The thing about giving poor people money is that they spend it immediately. It goes right back into the economy, paying taxes, and making rich people richer. Rather than hating poor people, it would be a lot smarter to just be a good capitalist and take your share of that money back when the poor cash that check and spend it.

 

[Tictac]

Regarding welfare being permanent or not, it depends on what you call welfare. Disability is the new permanent welfare. Epilepsy is a good one to fake - modern medical science has no way of proving that you do not have it, so it's almost impossible to be denied. Fake one seizure, and you get a check for the rest of your life. That's the problem with the system.

Universal income is the future. Iceland is experimenting with it now. The idea is that every citizen gets a monthly check just for being a citizen. Iceland is even progressive enough to not take the check away from people who also want to work or start a business.

The thing about giving poor people money is that they spend it immediately. It goes right back into the economy, paying taxes, and making rich people richer. Rather than hating poor people, it would be a lot smarter to just be a good capitalist and take your share of that money back when the poor cash that check and spend it.

A lot of people do need some kind of public support. And a society that won't look after its own is not worth having. There are those with debilitating physical and mental conditions that need a hand, sometimes for life. And there are those who, through no fault of their own, fall into hard times for a while who need a hand up. I know no one that doesn't think that some sort of safety net for both these groups is a good thing.

That's different from multi-generational welfare that subsidizes income, food, medical care, housing (while not calling it income). This accomplishes nothing except to create and enlarge a permanent underclass and buy them off with enough 'aid' to keep them and their progeny in poverty.

 

[Bible_Belt]

to keep them and their progeny in poverty.

Yeah, poverty and prison. The drug cartels are the biggest employers on the south side of Chicago, or at least it's the one job that is the easiest to get. Heroin is about $5 a dose retail. A street dealer buys for half that, and doubles his money every day. It's a great job, until someone shoots you, because they want your spot on the corner so they can double their money every day. Or, more likely, you end up in prison. The police and prison guards have politically powerful unions, and they like things to stay just the way they are. Those unions always oppose any policy that would put fewer people in jail - it's bad for business.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Prison and police unions have opposed every sentencing reform bill that ever existed. We are finally starting to wake up to the fact that sending non-violent drug offenders to jail for decades at a time is a pointless waste of money. But that money gets wasted on $100K a year prison guard salaries, so of course they are going to oppose it.

 

[backbreaker]

The same argument was used against ending slavery. Back then, many people were arguing that the U.S. economy would collapse if slavery was eliminated. That didn't happen.[/QUOTE]

Yeah lol it did. Two times in 20 years actually

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893



Jp morgan himself literally bailed out the us single handedly ending the panic of 93.


The only reason America did not fall completely off he raiks, no pun inrended, was because of the railroad and the invention of steel bother of which were invented (in the rail roads expanded) directly after the civil war.

What trump isn't telling you is that this has already been tried and failed MISERABLY



ALABAMA a few years ago passed the most strict immigration laws in the country, if you were caught hiring an illegal you were either fined heavily or went to jail. If u were an illegal and pulled over or spotted u were deported on the spot basically, sounded great mor jobs

Lol not only did prices go up on all products associated with illegals , Americans weren't willing to do the type of work illegals were and many quit causing a crisis

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...t-also-has-unexpected-consequences/2012/06/17

“The whites lasted half a day, and the blacks wouldn’t come at all. The work was just too hot and hard for them,” Smith said. He dismissed the argument, often made by critics of illegal immigration, that Americans might do the work if offered a higher and hourly wage. “We’ve been using Mexicans for 30 years, and now they’ve been run off,” he said. “Everyone is worried about Arizona. If this law sticks, what’ll we do then?

Within a year and a half they quietly let it die

But the law unleashed a flurry of unintended consequences, many of them damaging to the state’s economy or embarrassing to its image. It suffered a backlash from law enforcement, which did not appreciate legislators dictating their priorities, and from two of Alabama’s most powerful business constituencies — agriculture and auto manufacturing — seriously undermining support for the law.

Initially, HB 56 succeeded in driving undocumented immigrants out of the state in droves. This exodus laid bare the rarely acknowledged fact that farms in Alabama, as in most states, depend on cheap labor from undocumented immigrants. Deprived of many of their workers, farmers lashed out against the law, and Republicans in the state started having second thoughts.

Then, in a widely publicized, awkward incident in November of 2011, cops in Alabama stopped a Mercedes Benz executive driving a rental car and were forced, under the new law’s provisions, to arrest him when he couldn’t produce acceptable ID. The executive was driving near Tuscaloosa, where Mercedes Benz has a manufacturing plant — Alabama, like many Southern states, has bent over backward in recent decades to attract foreign automakers by giving them generous tax breaks and other incentives.

This is popular because Americans I general are spoiled and self entilted, u tell them someone else is the cause of al their problems they will eat it hook line and sinker. But we're lazy and spolied.

 

[FairShake]

/thread

 

[Bible_Belt]

My farmer's market is now accepting food stamps, which are valid to buy food-producing plants as well as food. I am now a recipient of food stamp money, even though I am not on food stamps. I would qualify for them, but I don't want to be on welfare. So I work hard, be a good capitalist, and I end up with someone else's welfare money. Am I still supposed to be against welfare? Those people spend that money right away, and it ends up in the hands of people who work for a living. Welfare supports work, from the perspective of all of us competing to take that money away from them.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

So I work hard, be a good capitalist, and I end up with someone else's welfare money. Am I still supposed to be against welfare? Those people spend that money right away, and it ends up in the hands of people who work for a living. Welfare supports work, from the perspective of all of us competing to take that money away from them.

One might describe that as money laundering. The government prints money, gives it out as welfare, then it gets recycled back through the system and ultimately in the hands of the 1%.

Or you could describe the various "Industrial Complexes" (welfare industrial complex, prison industrial complex, health insurance industrial complex, etc) that use intermediaries (welfare recipients, prisoners, sick people, etc) as transfer agents.

Government Printing Press- -> Transfer Agent --> 1%

Now why on God's Green Earth would the Oligarchs voluntarily reduce the number of "transfer agents"?.