Biden approval rate at 63%.

[CUT93]

so you don't want immigrants coming here, full stop? if undocumented immigrants partake in this "path to citizenship" that somehow bothers you? why?

I do want immigrants coming here, but i want the m to come the way they are supposed to so that they can be properly vetted and so we can control how many.
It bothers me bc I don't think those here illegally should benefit from their illegal behavior for the same reason I don't think we should let bank robbers keep the $$ they steal - it only encourages MORE illegal behavior. This is the most basic psychology lesson in the world. Rewarding a behavior/action encourages more of it, while punishing the behavior/action discourages the behavior/action. Why is that not obvious?

Edit to say I think we desperately need immigration reform. The reform I think we need is a substantial increase in people who process the requests and the need to streamline the process somehow. It is beyond ridiculous how long some people have to wait and how much it co$t them.

 

[dpic73]

The dems are trying to ram through massive government expansion and spending on a strictly partisan basis. Only the left wing of the left wing party wants this stuff. Hard to blame the republicans for not supporting other legislation in an attempt to slow down this garbage.

Really?

"What’s working in Democrats’ favor right now, though, is that the infrastructure bill is popular. An Economist/YouGov poll from last week found that 51 percent of U.S. adults supported the infrastructure measure, while just 19 percent opposed it. A Quinnipiac survey released the same day put support for the bill even higher, with 65 percent of Americans approving of the package."

How The Infrastructure Deal Might Test The Limits Of Popular Bills

Is there a limit to how far popular bills can go? We’ll see with the infrastructure bill.

fivethirtyeight.com

Majorities back Biden spending plan, infrastructure bill: poll

A majority of Americans back both the bipartisan infrastructure bill and Democrats’ much larger budget reconciliation spending plan, according to a new poll.The USA Today-Suffolk Univers…

thehill.com

Majority approve of Biden infrastructure plan — CBS News poll

Most would also support raising taxes on corporations and wealthy to pay for it.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[CUT93]

Really?

"What’s working in Democrats’ favor right now, though, is that the infrastructure bill is popular. An Economist/YouGov poll from last week found that 51 percent of U.S. adults supported the infrastructure measure, while just 19 percent opposed it. A Quinnipiac survey released the same day put support for the bill even higher, with 65 percent of Americans approving of the package."

How The Infrastructure Deal Might Test The Limits Of Popular Bills

Is there a limit to how far popular bills can go? We’ll see with the infrastructure bill.

fivethirtyeight.com

Majorities back Biden spending plan, infrastructure bill: poll

A majority of Americans back both the bipartisan infrastructure bill and Democrats’ much larger budget reconciliation spending plan, according to a new poll.The USA Today-Suffolk Univers…

thehill.com

Majority approve of Biden infrastructure plan — CBS News poll

Most would also support raising taxes on corporations and wealthy to pay for it.

www.cbsnews.com

Why are you posting articles about the infrastructure bill when that is not what his post was about?

 

[dpic73]

Why are you posting articles about the infrastructure bill when that is not what his post was about?

My response was a response to his post regarding the infrastructure bill. I promise you I can read. Thanks for the unnecessary question.

 

[CUT93]

My response was a response to his post regarding the infrastructure bill. I promise you I can read. Thanks for the unnecessary question.

I'm confused, so you were not responding to the part of his pot YOU put in bold print? The part YOU put in bold print was referring to the 3.5T proposal. Why would you just randomly bold part of his post if that was not what you were addressing?

 

[dpic73]

I'm confused, so you were not responding to the part of his pot YOU put in bold print? The part YOU put in bold print was referring to the 3.5T proposal. Why would you just randomly bold part of his post if that was not what you were addressing?

Look man, I'm not going to derail this thread to argue with you. The 3.5T proposal is considered to be the "soft" infrastructure bill. A majority approve of both, which the articles stated, including the very first line of the Hill article "A majority of Americans back both the bipartisan infrastructure bill and Democrats' much larger budget reconciliation spending plan, according to a new poll."

Enjoy your night

 

[scotchtiger]

Really?

"What’s working in Democrats’ favor right now, though, is that the infrastructure bill is popular. An Economist/YouGov poll from last week found that 51 percent of U.S. adults supported the infrastructure measure, while just 19 percent opposed it. A Quinnipiac survey released the same day put support for the bill even higher, with 65 percent of Americans approving of the package."

How The Infrastructure Deal Might Test The Limits Of Popular Bills

Is there a limit to how far popular bills can go? We’ll see with the infrastructure bill.

fivethirtyeight.com

Majorities back Biden spending plan, infrastructure bill: poll

A majority of Americans back both the bipartisan infrastructure bill and Democrats’ much larger budget reconciliation spending plan, according to a new poll.The USA Today-Suffolk Univers…

thehill.com

Majority approve of Biden infrastructure plan — CBS News poll

Most would also support raising taxes on corporations and wealthy to pay for it.

www.cbsnews.com

You seem to be referring primarily to the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Yes, that’s popular.

The more contentious bill is the $3.5T expansion of entitlements. The one that has 48% popularity in the senate.

Of course, you have a significant portion of the population who are 1) of below average intelligence 2) comfortable sticking their hands out and taking money from their fellow Americans. It’s a sad group, but an unfortunately large chunk of the voting block.

Even worse, you have this odd segment of the population who are - unbelievably - completely comfortable spending other people’s’ money on causes they want, but are unwilling to pay for. It’s strange to me, but these people are quite common. I’m guessing this species exists commonly on this message board.

I would be interested to see the popularity of this bill among net tax contributors, or those who will have to pay for it. You know, those with actual skin in the game.

 

[scotchtiger]

Look man, I'm not going to derail this thread to argue with you. The 3.5T proposal is considered to be the "soft" infrastructure bill. A majority approve of both, which the articles stated, including the very first line of the Hill article "A majority of Americans back both the bipartisan infrastructure bill and Democrats' much larger budget reconciliation spending plan, according to a new poll."

Enjoy your night

Yes yes, read above. When you include the entitlement succubi in your esteemed block, then sure, I guess the majority may tilt toward embarrassing handouts.

 

[CUT93]

Yes yes, read above. When you include the entitlement succubi in your esteemed block, then sure, I guess the majority may tilt toward embarrassing handouts.

It's shocking that people who get free stuff are in favor of free stuff, no?

 

[dpic73]

You seem to be referring primarily to the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Yes, that’s popular.

The more contentious bill is the $3.5T expansion of entitlements. The one that has 48% popularity in the senate.

Of course, you have a significant portion of the population who are 1) of below average intelligence 2) comfortable sticking their hands out and taking money from their fellow Americans. It’s a sad group, but an unfortunately large chunk of the voting block.

Even worse, you have this odd segment of the population who are - unbelievably - completely comfortable spending other people’s’ money on causes they want, but are unwilling to pay for. It’s strange to me, but these people are quite common. I’m guessing this species exists commonly on this message board.

I would be interested to see the popularity of this bill among net tax contributors, or those who will have to pay for it. You know, those with actual skin in the game.

"You seem to be referring primarily to the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Yes, that’s popular."
I should have been more clear but I was referring to the 3.5T "human" infrastructure bill.

"Even worse, you have this odd segment of the population who are - unbelievably - completely comfortable spending other people’s’ money on causes they want, but are unwilling to pay for. It’s strange to me, but these people are quite common. I’m guessing this species exists commonly on this message board."
Seems to me there are some members on this board(cough, cough) who made a windfall on a tax cut they didn't need in 2017 and surprisingly they are now "unwilling to pay for it" (See McConnell). This species feels they deserve this gift that comes at the expense of everybody else but at the same time believes everybody else should get no such breaks. (See tax break created a $2 trillion deficit)

"I would be interested to see the popularity of this bill among net tax contributors, or those who will have to pay for it. You know, those with actual skin in the game."
We are talking about 1.8% of the population that make over $400,000 but I'm sure it's wildly unpopular among that group

If the plan works the way it's laid out, it will not increase the deficit. Having said that, it's an astronomical sum and I can understand the reticence to spend that amount and I believe serious conversations need to be had in regards to areas that could be trimmed. But calling it entitlements seems like a bit of a stretch to me because the benefits mostly come via tax cuts(a popular idea among conservatives) and programs to help "working " families. I'm still open minded though and would be interested in what you don't like about the items included. Which ones do you think we should reduce or remove?

$135 billion for the Committee on Agriculture Nutrition and Forestry. Funding to be used to address forest fires, reduce carbon emissions, and address drought concerns.

$332 billion for the Banking Committee. Including investments in public housing, the Housing Trust Fund, housing affordability, and equity and community land trusts.

$198 billion for the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. This would develop clean energy.

$67 billion for the Environment and Public Works Committee. These monies would fund low-income solar and other climate-friendly technologies.

$1.8 trillion for the Finance Committee. This part of the bill is for investments in working families, the elderly, and the environment. It includes a tax cut for Americans making less than $400,000 a year, lowering the price of prescription drugs, and ensuring the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share of taxes.

$726 billion for the Health, Labor, Education, and Pensions Committee. This addresses universal pre-K for 3- and 4-year-olds, childcare for working families, tuition-free community college, funding for historically black colleges and universities, and an expansion of the Pell Grant for higher education.

$37 billion for the HSGAC Committee. This would electrify the federal vehicle fleet, electrify and rehab federal buildings, improve cybersecurity infrastructure, reinforce border management, invest in green-materials procurement, and invest in resilience.

$107 billion for the Judiciary Committee. These funds address establishing "lawful permanent status for qualified immigrants."

$20.5 billion for the Indian Affairs Committee. This addresses Native American health programs and facilities, education programs and facilities, housing programs, energy programs, resilience and climate programs, BIA programs and facilities, Native language programs, and the Native Civilian Climate Corps.

$25 billion for the Small Business Committee. This provides for small business access to credit, investment, and markets.

$18 billion for the Veterans Affairs Committee. This funds upgrades to veteran facilities.

$83 billion for the Commerce Committee. This goes to investments in technology, transportation, research, manufacturing, and economic development. It provides funding for coastal resiliency, healthy oceans investments, including the National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund and the National Science Foundation research and technology directorate.

 

[AugTig]

"You seem to be referring primarily to the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Yes, that’s popular."
I should have been more clear but I was referring to the 3.5T "human" infrastructure bill.

"Even worse, you have this odd segment of the population who are - unbelievably - completely comfortable spending other people’s’ money on causes they want, but are unwilling to pay for. It’s strange to me, but these people are quite common. I’m guessing this species exists commonly on this message board."
Seems to me there are some members on this board(cough, cough) who made a windfall on a tax cut they didn't need in 2017 and surprisingly they are now "unwilling to pay for it" (See McConnell). This species feels they deserve this gift that comes at the expense of everybody else but at the same time believes everybody else should get no such breaks. (See tax break created a $2 trillion deficit)

"I would be interested to see the popularity of this bill among net tax contributors, or those who will have to pay for it. You know, those with actual skin in the game."
We are talking about 1.8% of the population that make over $400,000 but I'm sure it's wildly unpopular among that group

If the plan works the way it's laid out, it will not increase the deficit. Having said that, it's an astronomical sum and I can understand the reticence to spend that amount and I believe serious conversations need to be had in regards to areas that could be trimmed. But calling it entitlements seems like a bit of a stretch to me because the benefits mostly come via tax cuts(a popular idea among conservatives) and programs to help "working " families. I'm still open minded though and would be interested in what you don't like about the items included. Which ones do you think we should reduce or remove?

$135 billion for the Committee on Agriculture Nutrition and Forestry. Funding to be used to address forest fires, reduce carbon emissions, and address drought concerns.

$332 billion for the Banking Committee. Including investments in public housing, the Housing Trust Fund, housing affordability, and equity and community land trusts.

$198 billion for the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. This would develop clean energy.

$67 billion for the Environment and Public Works Committee. These monies would fund low-income solar and other climate-friendly technologies.

$1.8 trillion for the Finance Committee. This part of the bill is for investments in working families, the elderly, and the environment. It includes a tax cut for Americans making less than $400,000 a year, lowering the price of prescription drugs, and ensuring the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share of taxes.

$726 billion for the Health, Labor, Education, and Pensions Committee. This addresses universal pre-K for 3- and 4-year-olds, childcare for working families, tuition-free community college, funding for historically black colleges and universities, and an expansion of the Pell Grant for higher education.

$37 billion for the HSGAC Committee. This would electrify the federal vehicle fleet, electrify and rehab federal buildings, improve cybersecurity infrastructure, reinforce border management, invest in green-materials procurement, and invest in resilience.

$107 billion for the Judiciary Committee. These funds address establishing "lawful permanent status for qualified immigrants."

$20.5 billion for the Indian Affairs Committee. This addresses Native American health programs and facilities, education programs and facilities, housing programs, energy programs, resilience and climate programs, BIA programs and facilities, Native language programs, and the Native Civilian Climate Corps.

$25 billion for the Small Business Committee. This provides for small business access to credit, investment, and markets.

$18 billion for the Veterans Affairs Committee. This funds upgrades to veteran facilities.

$83 billion for the Commerce Committee. This goes to investments in technology, transportation, research, manufacturing, and economic development. It provides funding for coastal resiliency, healthy oceans investments, including the National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund and the National Science Foundation research and technology directorate.

This is a prime example of why our great country is teetering on self destruction. No offense Dpic, MSM is good at brainwashing. Dear God, please let us all see the light before it's too late.

 

[PawsFan_]

Why are we letting millions more cross the border? Because it is written in our laws that we have to. I am all for reforming the laws. Biden sent a proposal on his first day in office but the pubs would not even read it. There is one party who really wants more illegals to come before next November, and it aint the dems. Pubs know that is their best chance at retaking the house and senate. Lets reform our laws to discourage illegal immigration. And I am not talking about executive orders.

As for the unauthorized immigrants here, I see no problem with allowing them a path to citizenship. They work hard, pay taxes and do the jobs most americans wont. Go ask farmers in the southern states and they will tell you.

They pay taxes? Lol.if you don’t have a SSN or work visa, how do you pay taxes? Reality is theses guy get paid penny’s under the table for their work.

 

[jakefest]

They pay taxes? Lol.if you don’t have a SSN or work visa, how do you pay taxes? Reality is theses guy get paid penny’s under the table for their work.

Also, just to point out that even if they are here legally, most of those are low wage/low income workers so they aren't paying taxes regardless. I don't think it's broadly understood that half of the country doesn't have a tax burden.

So the theory that we are going to allow a large inbound rate of immigrants to fix our tax problem doesn't tread water. They will actually burden the "infrastructure" we claim is in desperate need of overhaul.

 

[nytigerfan]

They pay taxes? Lol.if you don’t have a SSN or work visa, how do you pay taxes? Reality is theses guy get paid penny’s under the table for their work.

A report from the Congressional Budget office shows that 50% to 75% of undocumented immigrants pay billions in taxes each year — and have been since the Internal Revenue Service created a program 25 years ago allowing people without a Social Security number to file taxes.

Undocumented immigrants pay billions in taxes each year — and have been for 25 years

A 25-year-old IRS program allows undocumented immigrants without social security numbers to pay taxes, even though they'll likely never get programs taxes fund, like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

www.dispatch.com

 

[nytigerfan]

Also, just to point out that even if they are here legally, most of those are low wage/low income workers so they aren't paying taxes regardless. I don't think it's broadly understood that half of the country doesn't have a tax burden.

So the theory that we are going to allow a large inbound rate of immigrants to fix our tax problem doesn't tread water. They will actually burden the "infrastructure" we claim is in desperate need of overhaul.

So just to sum up the conservative stance on immigration...

Kick out all undocumented immigrants (including the ones that pay taxes).
Continue to significantly limit legal immigration.
Reduce the number of refugees allowed to come here significantly.
Completely stop the flow of illegal immigration coming to the US.

OK great. So our construction, landscape, farming and food processing industries will come to a screeching halt. Golf clubs will be returned to nature (this should motivate you). You will be forced to start cleaning your own house and doing the yard work yourself. The prices of every day goods will skyrocket. Markets will take a substantial hit.

This sounds like a great strategy. I cant wait to find out how are you going to blame it on the dems when it all blows up in your face.

 

[WapPride]

So just to sum up the conservative stance on immigration...

Kick out all undocumented immigrants (including the ones that pay taxes).
Continue to significantly limit legal immigration.
Reduce the number of refugees allowed to come here significantly.
Completely stop the flow of illegal immigration coming to the US.

OK great. So our construction, landscape, farming and food processing industries will climb to a screaching halt. Golf clubs will be returned to nature (this should motivate you). You will be forced to start cleaning your own house and doing the yard work yourself. The prices of every day goods will skyrocket. Markets will take a substantial hit.

This sounds like a great strategy. I cant wait to find out how are you going to blame it on the dems when it all blows up in your face.

no, see, once the dems get out of office and stop with all the handouts, American citizens will welcome going back to making $10/hr doing hard labor.

 

[scotchtiger]

So you are against path to citizenship and for letting the illegals remain here illegally? I am starting to get confused. You gotta be for one or the other, right? Otherwise buildings aint getting built, farms aint getting picked.

You do understand that once they become citizens, and have access to the growing list of entitlements w/o work requirements that your party wants, that the labor element you are leaning on for this argument goes away, right?

I think we do need some path to citizenship. But as part of that, I would propose that unless you have a physical or mental handicap, you are not entitled to government assistance for 10 years after being made a citizen. Problem solved.

 

[WapPride]

You do understand that once they become citizens, and have access to the growing list of entitlements w/o work requirements that your party wants, that the labor element you are leaning on for this argument goes away, right?

I think we do need some path to citizenship. But as part of that, I would propose that unless you have a physical or mental handicap, you are not entitled to government assistance for 10 years after being made a citizen. Problem solved.

except pretty much every study out there says otherwise. documented and undocumented immigrants who are first generation end up working those hard labor jobs that americans seem too proud to work for the peanuts businesses want to pay them. their children end up being more successful, on average, than your average american family, and end up paying more in taxes than their first generation ever took out in entitlements. that statement is backed up by known RW/libertarian outfit The Cato Institute.

 

[scotchtiger]

"You seem to be referring primarily to the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Yes, that’s popular."
I should have been more clear but I was referring to the 3.5T "human" infrastructure bill.

"Even worse, you have this odd segment of the population who are - unbelievably - completely comfortable spending other people’s’ money on causes they want, but are unwilling to pay for. It’s strange to me, but these people are quite common. I’m guessing this species exists commonly on this message board."
Seems to me there are some members on this board(cough, cough) who made a windfall on a tax cut they didn't need in 2017 and surprisingly they are now "unwilling to pay for it" (See McConnell). This species feels they deserve this gift that comes at the expense of everybody else but at the same time believes everybody else should get no such breaks. (See tax break created a $2 trillion deficit)

"I would be interested to see the popularity of this bill among net tax contributors, or those who will have to pay for it. You know, those with actual skin in the game."
We are talking about 1.8% of the population that make over $400,000 but I'm sure it's wildly unpopular among that group

If the plan works the way it's laid out, it will not increase the deficit. Having said that, it's an astronomical sum and I can understand the reticence to spend that amount and I believe serious conversations need to be had in regards to areas that could be trimmed. But calling it entitlements seems like a bit of a stretch to me because the benefits mostly come via tax cuts(a popular idea among conservatives) and programs to help "working " families. I'm still open minded though and would be interested in what you don't like about the items included. Which ones do you think we should reduce or remove?

$135 billion for the Committee on Agriculture Nutrition and Forestry. Funding to be used to address forest fires, reduce carbon emissions, and address drought concerns.

$332 billion for the Banking Committee. Including investments in public housing, the Housing Trust Fund, housing affordability, and equity and community land trusts.

$198 billion for the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. This would develop clean energy.

$67 billion for the Environment and Public Works Committee. These monies would fund low-income solar and other climate-friendly technologies.

$1.8 trillion for the Finance Committee. This part of the bill is for investments in working families, the elderly, and the environment. It includes a tax cut for Americans making less than $400,000 a year, lowering the price of prescription drugs, and ensuring the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share of taxes.

$726 billion for the Health, Labor, Education, and Pensions Committee. This addresses universal pre-K for 3- and 4-year-olds, childcare for working families, tuition-free community college, funding for historically black colleges and universities, and an expansion of the Pell Grant for higher education.

$37 billion for the HSGAC Committee. This would electrify the federal vehicle fleet, electrify and rehab federal buildings, improve cybersecurity infrastructure, reinforce border management, invest in green-materials procurement, and invest in resilience.

$107 billion for the Judiciary Committee. These funds address establishing "lawful permanent status for qualified immigrants."

$20.5 billion for the Indian Affairs Committee. This addresses Native American health programs and facilities, education programs and facilities, housing programs, energy programs, resilience and climate programs, BIA programs and facilities, Native language programs, and the Native Civilian Climate Corps.

$25 billion for the Small Business Committee. This provides for small business access to credit, investment, and markets.

$18 billion for the Veterans Affairs Committee. This funds upgrades to veteran facilities.

$83 billion for the Commerce Committee. This goes to investments in technology, transportation, research, manufacturing, and economic development. It provides funding for coastal resiliency, healthy oceans investments, including the National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund and the National Science Foundation research and technology directorate.

Holy shit dude. This part:

Seems to me there are some members on this board(cough, cough) who made a windfall on a tax cut they didn't need in 2017 and surprisingly they are now "unwilling to pay for it" (See McConnell). This species feels they deserve this gift that comes at the expense of everybody else but at the same time believes everybody else should get no such breaks.

It's not a gift. It doesn't come from someone else. This is money people earned themselves. It's fascinating that your perspective is so distorted to think that money somehow belongs to the government.

Not to mention, even after this much-needed tax reduction, people like me are still paying 25% effective federal rates and contributing 6 figures into the government coffers. We're still paying more than our fair share. And the people whining about it probably pay single-digit effective rates and barely contribute.

Entitlements is exactly the right language. These are new programs that people will begin to feel entitled to.

I would scrap a bunch of that, but I'll give you an example of one: Free community college. A smarter and more efficient program would be to analyze the jobs that will be in high-demand/short-supply over the next 10-15 years. Focus financial incentives on the specific post-secondary education and training required to fill these roles. Offer interest-free loans and potentially other financial incentives. Allow people to apply and take the most qualified. The financial incentives will drive applicant quality.

But no, the government doesn't do smart things. They do politically expedient things.

 

[dpic73]

Holy shit dude. This part:

Seems to me there are some members on this board(cough, cough) who made a windfall on a tax cut they didn't need in 2017 and surprisingly they are now "unwilling to pay for it" (See McConnell). This species feels they deserve this gift that comes at the expense of everybody else but at the same time believes everybody else should get no such breaks.

It's not a gift. It doesn't come from someone else. This is money people earned themselves. It's fascinating that your perspective is so distorted to think that money somehow belongs to the government.

Not to mention, even after this much-needed tax reduction, people like me are still paying 25% effective federal rates and contributing 6 figures into the government coffers. We're still paying more than our fair share. And the people whining about it probably pay single-digit effective rates and barely contribute.

Entitlements is exactly the right language. These are new programs that people will begin to feel entitled to.

I would scrap a bunch of that, but I'll give you an example of one: Free community college. A smarter and more efficient program would be to analyze the jobs that will be in high-demand/short-supply over the next 10-15 years. Focus financial incentives on the specific post-secondary education and training required to fill these roles. Offer interest-free loans and potentially other financial incentives. Allow people to apply and take the most qualified. The financial incentives will drive applicant quality.

But no, the government doesn't do smart things. They do politically expedient things.

The tax cut did come at the expense of everybody else because it created a deficit that we will all be responsible for, though only a select few really benefitted. Flipping the tables so that the beneficiaries of that tax cut will now have higher tax rates - though still lower than before the cuts - doesn't seem so unreasonable on it's face, but I understand that will be a gut punch for those soldiering the burden, I do. And the tax cuts did create a short term gain for the economy but with diminishing returns. The goal was to put money in the pockets of corporations and high earners in hopes that it would spur an economic investment boom, but that's not what happened and instead those entities chose to sit on their pile of cash.

I can sign off on the idea that free community college should only be on the table for those that need it because there won't be as much incentive to finish for those that don't have skin in the game.

I'll give you this though - you are a creative thinker and a problem solver and I can appreciate that. The GOP needs more people like you. You may bitch about a problem but you also look for a solution.

Thanks for the response

 

[Clemson Carl3]

How long do you think that will continue once we give them welfare checks, SNAP benefits, free healthcare and enhanced child payments without work requirements?

They have to work hard and do hard jobs. We've given our citizens safety nets for either their incompetence or laziness. And we've seen what happens. We have POSs that will sit home and collect checks instead of doing hard, uncomfortable jobs. So we need illegals to fill those roles.

Love how they want higher wages, but want to allow more illegal immigrants in. Directly from @nytigerfan “They work hard, and do the jobs most Americans won’t.” Exactly, so we want to end unemployment right? Although, if they don’t want to do the job then let’s give it to an illegal immigrant who does. In essence, creating more competition and lowering wages even more. Although, don’t worry about the American that doesn’t want the hard working job, we will just give them entitlement programs. Then, when inflation is arise, wages are low, and unemployment is at a high, it’s unfathomable… like this isn’t rocket science…some assbackwards thinking with some of y’all

 

[nytigerfan]

Love how they want higher wages, but want to allow more illegal immigrants in. Directly from @nytigerfan “They work hard, and do the jobs most Americans won’t.” Exactly, so we want to end unemployment right? Although, if they don’t want to do the job then let’s give it to an illegal immigrant who does. In essence, creating more competition and lowering wages even more. Although, don’t worry about the American that doesn’t want the hard working job, we will just give them entitlement programs. Then, when inflation is arise, wages are low, and unemployment is at a high, it’s unfathomable… like this isn’t rocket science…some assbackwards thinking with some of y’all

If you bothered to read my comments, you would know that the statement “They work hard, and do the jobs most Americans won’t” was referring to illegals currently in the US who are working and paying taxes and giving them as path to citizenship.

 

[Clemson Carl3]

If you bothered to read my comments, you would know that the statement “They work hard, and do the jobs most Americans won’t” was referring to illegals currently in the US who are working and paying taxes and giving them as path to citizenship.

So, you do want boarder control? You do want to limit the amount of migrants to the US? Or is it just illegals you want to stop? Which is it? Just wondering.

 

[TigerGrowls]

If you bothered to read my comments, you would know that the statement “They work hard, and do the jobs most Americans won’t” was referring to illegals currently in the US who are working and paying taxes and giving them as path to citizenship.

The only fricking tax illegals pay mostly is sales tax and that probably is billions but it's still not jackshit compared to what American citizens pay in general. I do not hate illegals but they need to come in LEGALLY ONLY!

The asylum clause is so used and abused it has become a joke. 99% of those claims are not legitimate.

 

[jakefest]

So just to sum up the conservative stance on immigration...

Kick out all undocumented immigrants (including the ones that pay taxes).
Continue to significantly limit legal immigration.
Reduce the number of refugees allowed to come here significantly.
Completely stop the flow of illegal immigration coming to the US.

OK great. So our construction, landscape, farming and food processing industries will come to a screeching halt. Golf clubs will be returned to nature (this should motivate you). You will be forced to start cleaning your own house and doing the yard work yourself. The prices of every day goods will skyrocket. Markets will take a substantial hit.

This sounds like a great strategy. I cant wait to find out how are you going to blame it on the dems when it all blows up in your face.

No no no.......most on this board are saying we have to lock down the borders and enforce proper methods for obtaining citizenship, not discontinuing the practice of allowing non-citizens to enter the country but force them to enter legally.

Our house cleaner is 1st generation polish and here legally. My landscaper is 1st generation Mexican and owns his own company, he's also here legally.

Again, the only taxes an undocumented pays are sales tax. They can't have payroll tax taken out because they don't have socials and it's illegal for employers to hire them. That's why they sit in front of Home Depot and get paid daily wages in cash. Remind me how we are extracting federal tax, social security, etc from them?

The funny thing about most of the examples you give is that those folks are very likely here LEGALLY.......they have to be in order to work at a golf course or for a large construction company. The risk is too high to hire anyone that is illegal and most companies simply aren't going to run the risk of legal implications to pay under the table. Im sure there are outliers but they would all be on the smaller company side.

The idea that we need trillions to fund our flailing "people infrastructure" is hard to sustain when we are letting so many pour into the country, all of which likely impact government spend outlay at one point or another. Just one example, low income housing. That is tax payer funded spend in order to provide livable environments for low income/low wage people. My state specific tax dollars and very likely some federal dollars fund this and we will certainly need. more of it as we see numbers increase.

 

[jakefest]

except pretty much every study out there says otherwise. documented and undocumented immigrants who are first generation end up working those hard labor jobs that americans seem too proud to work for the peanuts businesses want to pay them. their children end up being more successful, on average, than your average american family, and end up paying more in taxes than their first generation ever took out in entitlements. that statement is backed up by known RW/libertarian outfit The Cato Institute.

View embedded media

I did read something that talked about first generation Nigerians that were flourishing and the first thing I thought was that it destroyed the systemic racism narrative. Probably a debate for another thread/day though.

So then what do those statistics say about the below average American family then? Why can't they do the same thing? You ever hear that quote "No one is coming, it's up to us".........I wonder if these families teach their kids that if they want to breach the low income barrier, they need to work hard and grow their skillsets? One might think that growing up with government support might make you fully dependent on the government if you were to really apply some analytical research.

There are also a ton of programs setup to help immigrant families, such as college grants and scholarships, free programs to help with english, finances etc.

Maybe we should just kick out all of the poor Americans and just let the hardworking immigrants in? Seems like that might have a longer term benefit for future tax rates, government spending, social security, etc. (I mean, that's sarcasm but........)

 

[nytigerfan]

No no no.......most on this board are saying we have to lock down the borders and enforce proper methods for obtaining citizenship, not discontinuing the practice of allowing non-citizens to enter the country but force them to enter legally.

Our house cleaner is 1st generation polish and here legally. My landscaper is 1st generation Mexican and owns his own company, he's also here legally.

Again, the only taxes an undocumented pays are sales tax. They can't have payroll tax taken out because they don't have socials and it's illegal for employers to hire them. That's why they sit in front of Home Depot and get paid daily wages in cash. Remind me how we are extracting federal tax, social security, etc from them?

The funny thing about most of the examples you give is that those folks are very likely here LEGALLY.......they have to be in order to work at a golf course or for a large construction company. The risk is too high to hire anyone that is illegal and most companies simply aren't going to run the risk of legal implications to pay under the table. Im sure there are outliers but they would all be on the smaller company side.

The idea that we need trillions to fund our flailing "people infrastructure" is hard to sustain when we are letting so many pour into the country, all of which likely impact government spend outlay at one point or another. Just one example, low income housing. That is tax payer funded spend in order to provide livable environments for low income/low wage people. My state specific tax dollars and very likely some federal dollars fund this and we will certainly need. more of it as we see numbers increase.

if you and your brother @TigerGrowls bothered to read the article I posted you would see that they are paying income tax. These are UNDOCUMENTED ILLEGALS. But carry on.

 

[PawsFan_]

A report from the Congressional Budget office shows that 50% to 75% of undocumented immigrants pay billions in taxes each year — and have been since the Internal Revenue Service created a program 25 years ago allowing people without a Social Security number to file taxes.

Undocumented immigrants pay billions in taxes each year — and have been for 25 years

A 25-year-old IRS program allows undocumented immigrants without social security numbers to pay taxes, even though they'll likely never get programs taxes fund, like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

www.dispatch.com

"A report from the Congressional Budget office shows that 50% to 75% of undocumented immigrants pay billions in taxes each year —"

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing. No explain to me how the CBO know that 50-75% of undocumented immigrants pay taxes when we don't know the exact number in the US?

Some math. $11billion in taxes and there are an estimated 44 MILLION illegal aliens in the US. That $250/person. Yup....they are paying their share.

 

[moradatiger70]

Can we get the please percentage right on the tread title, already

 

[nytigerfan]

"A report from the Congressional Budget office shows that 50% to 75% of undocumented immigrants pay billions in taxes each year —"

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing. No explain to me how the CBO know that 50-75% of undocumented immigrants pay taxes when we don't know the exact number in the US?

Some math. $11billion in taxes and there are an estimated 44 MILLION illegal aliens in the US. That $250/person. Yup....they are paying their share.

You got a citation for that 44mm illegals number?

A 2018 Pew report said there were 44mm IMMIGRANTS in the US, of which 77% were legal. I'll let you do the math since you are so good at it.

 

[PawsFan_]

You got a citation for that 44mm illegals number?

A 2018 Pew report said there were 44mm IMMIGRANTS in the US, of which 77% were legal. I'll let you do the math since you are so good at it.

You know what Larry.....you are right, I mis-read the source I used. The number is around 11.7 million illegals.

 

[PawsFan_]

And it's reported that Ole Joe released 140,000 new illegal taxpayers into our country. It's as if we have no border at all. The amount of human trafficking this is encouraging is beyond comprehension.

 

[moradatiger70]

If someone had the kahounas they would change the title to the correct percentage. Maybe one day it will go back to 63% and we'll all eat our words.

 

[nytigerfan]

And it's reported that Ole Joe released 140,000 new illegal taxpayers into our country. It's as if we have no border at all. The amount of human trafficking this is encouraging is beyond comprehension.

link?

 

[PawsFan_]

link?

DIY

 

[nytigerfan]

DIY

Translation. You cannot provide a link because it just more of your bullshit that never happened. Almost everything you post on here is made up drivel and so easy to disprove.

My all time favorite still is when you compared the economies under presidents and conveniently left trump's last year off his tally. Unbelievable. I am embarrassed for you.

 

[moradatiger70]

Translation. You cannot provide a link because it just more of your bullshit that never happened. Almost everything you post on here is made up drivel and so easy to disprove.

My all time favorite still is when you compared the economies under presidents and conveniently left trump's last year off his tally. Unbelievable. I am embarrassed for you.

Damn you're a typical liberal lazy

Stuff You Won't Find on Google

 

[moradatiger70]

DIY

Old video, but still happening

Rancher Exposes Trafficking At Southern Border Since Biden Took Office

 

[nytigerfan]

Damn you're a typical liberal lazy

Stuff You Won't Find on Google

Gotta love any news story that relies on tweets as its source. What a joke.

 

[Clem'sSon]

Things are going swimmingly, haven't you heard?