Joe Legal Vs Jose Illegal

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Let us examine that argument.

Scenario A - we allow illegals to remain, pay them a very low wage, in exchange for low prices of low-skilled services. We also spend for the entitlements that come along with a high illegal alien population. That includes education, welfare, government assistance, health care, and incarceration. They mostly use an underground economy to save their money, as they send a good portion of it back home.

Scenario B - we remove all illegal aliens, causing workers in those respective fields to be paid minimum wage, but having citizens and legal residents who will recycle the money back into the economy through the regular purchase of goods and services. Because of this reduced or eliminated illegal population, we have a massive reduction in costs in education, incarceration, health care, welfare, government assistance, reduced cost of car insurance, reduced strain in city infrastructure, decrease in crime, reduced negative gentrification, and reduced level of poverty.

From a financial prospective, which has a higher cost? [/quote]

In scenario A, how many of those businesses would remain viable without the available cheap labor force? It’s not out of the question by any means to assume that there would be businesses that fail if they had to take on the added cost of more expensive labor. This would transfer a larger cost onto taxpayers in the form of unemployment and other similar costs.
[/quote]

ALL those businesses would remain viable - assuming a level playing field.

82

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
What I think this whole thread boils down to is this. The people on the bottom of the “pay into it” scale should be better off than the people at the top of the “recieve aid” scale. No ifs ands or buts. If you have a scale where you CAn be better off for doing less than for doing more, there is going to be problems. Jose Illegal comes here because it is very beneficial for him to do so. Why the hell else would he? He isn’t coming here if it sucks here.

2 solutions, ratchet up the tax line so you have to earn even more money before you start paying into the system. This in my opinion is a horrible idea as you will have even less revenue and even more beneficiaries. The other solution is to reduce the benefits to the beneficiaries, and or lower the threshold for which one starts actually paying into the system.

I want the US to be a place where if you don’t pay taxes, you are dirt poor, living in a shithole, you are skinny because you can only afford so much food. You have ratty old clothes because you have to stretch a pair of jeans for 6 years. I mean really poor people, and then you don’t need to work and I’m not going to bitch, but it’s not goin to be a party for you.

I know a couple who are living together and have a child together. They aren’t married and the mother has a job. BUT because she is a single mother, she gets roughly $8-$10,000 per year from the federal government through various programs. He also works fa full time job and makes decent money. They file individually, he pays a small amount of taxes and she rakes in a huge check every year. If she didn’t get any money from the federal government, they would not be struggling at all, they would be fine. They don’t NEED the assistance, they are not helpless dirt poor people, they are just two people who found a way to milk a little out of the system and the governemnt just keeps writing the check.

Out of all the benefits the government gives out, not much of it goes to the people standing in bread lines at homeless shelters, the people who really have nothing. MOST of the money goes to people who just know or are in a position to work the system. Oh and guess who they supported openly in the elections. And I’ll even quote her, I almost threw up in my mouth when she said it too. here it is… “I’m voting for Obama, gotta keep that money coming in you know” Absolutely sick.

V[/quote]

I agree with you V.

I know of a family that was married making $100k a year, and one of their children needed an operation. They did not have medical insurance and now the child has a prexisting condition so they can not get insurance. What did they do? They got a divorce so the mother and the children go go on Medicaid and Welfare. They still live like they are a married couple. Infact the children do not even know about the divorce. This is just morally wrong and they are gaming the system, and our tax dollars are paying for their ignorance. The man still makes $100k a year. This is the minority so there are people that need help, but this type of gaming the system is just criminal.[/quote]

Right, so the distribution system needs to be better. I am not 100% against helping people who need help, I think there are better ways to do it, but if we are going to do it, lets at least make it work when we do. Anytime the government gives out money there needs to be a thourough backround check. It is SO easy to find out information on someone these days that it would take a skilled governemtn employee (oxymoron I know) 30 minutes on the internet to dig up that this couple is still living together, that the son has been rejected coverage based on a pre-existing condition and then they could deny them the benefits they are applying for. 30 minutes of some persons time who you might pay $20 per hour to save what $50,000? $100,000?

Pay someone $20 for one hour of work to find out the people I know are milking the system for $10K per year, so you spend $20 to stop $10k in benefits from goin out that are not deserved. Again, I think you will find MOST consrvatives will grudgingly go along with some social assistance to those who really need it, but there is a significant portion of the federal and state monies going to people who do not deserve to be taken care of or helped. It makes me sick! Medicare fraud is KNOWN to b e 33%, why hasn’t something ALREADY been done to lower that number? Nobody in power is doing anything. Well except for putting an even bigger system in place that 33% of the people involved with it will find a way to abuse. I mean they did do that.

V

83

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
What I think this whole thread boils down to is this. The people on the bottom of the “pay into it” scale should be better off than the people at the top of the “recieve aid” scale. No ifs ands or buts. If you have a scale where you CAn be better off for doing less than for doing more, there is going to be problems. Jose Illegal comes here because it is very beneficial for him to do so. Why the hell else would he? He isn’t coming here if it sucks here.

2 solutions, ratchet up the tax line so you have to earn even more money before you start paying into the system. This in my opinion is a horrible idea as you will have even less revenue and even more beneficiaries. The other solution is to reduce the benefits to the beneficiaries, and or lower the threshold for which one starts actually paying into the system.

I want the US to be a place where if you don’t pay taxes, you are dirt poor, living in a shithole, you are skinny because you can only afford so much food. You have ratty old clothes because you have to stretch a pair of jeans for 6 years. I mean really poor people, and then you don’t need to work and I’m not going to bitch, but it’s not goin to be a party for you.

I know a couple who are living together and have a child together. They aren’t married and the mother has a job. BUT because she is a single mother, she gets roughly $8-$10,000 per year from the federal government through various programs. He also works fa full time job and makes decent money. They file individually, he pays a small amount of taxes and she rakes in a huge check every year. If she didn’t get any money from the federal government, they would not be struggling at all, they would be fine. They don’t NEED the assistance, they are not helpless dirt poor people, they are just two people who found a way to milk a little out of the system and the governemnt just keeps writing the check.

Out of all the benefits the government gives out, not much of it goes to the people standing in bread lines at homeless shelters, the people who really have nothing. MOST of the money goes to people who just know or are in a position to work the system. Oh and guess who they supported openly in the elections. And I’ll even quote her, I almost threw up in my mouth when she said it too. here it is… “I’m voting for Obama, gotta keep that money coming in you know” Absolutely sick.

V[/quote]

I agree with you V.

I know of a family that was married making $100k a year, and one of their children needed an operation. They did not have medical insurance and now the child has a prexisting condition so they can not get insurance. What did they do? They got a divorce so the mother and the children go go on Medicaid and Welfare. They still live like they are a married couple. Infact the children do not even know about the divorce. This is just morally wrong and they are gaming the system, and our tax dollars are paying for their ignorance. The man still makes $100k a year. This is the minority so there are people that need help, but this type of gaming the system is just criminal.[/quote]

Also shame on them for making 100K per year and not getting health insurance. People are so lazy and irresponsible sometimes. And I deal with people every day as I know you do also (probably more on my end due to the scale of clientele) people who take shortcuts in protection, go without coverage all to save 50 or 100 bucks per year. I understand costs are high, but skip a night out to dinner with your family or wife once a year and use that to buy the insurance you need.

V

84

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
What I think this whole thread boils down to is this. The people on the bottom of the “pay into it” scale should be better off than the people at the top of the “recieve aid” scale. No ifs ands or buts. If you have a scale where you CAn be better off for doing less than for doing more, there is going to be problems. Jose Illegal comes here because it is very beneficial for him to do so. Why the hell else would he? He isn’t coming here if it sucks here.

2 solutions, ratchet up the tax line so you have to earn even more money before you start paying into the system. This in my opinion is a horrible idea as you will have even less revenue and even more beneficiaries. The other solution is to reduce the benefits to the beneficiaries, and or lower the threshold for which one starts actually paying into the system.

I want the US to be a place where if you don’t pay taxes, you are dirt poor, living in a shithole, you are skinny because you can only afford so much food. You have ratty old clothes because you have to stretch a pair of jeans for 6 years. I mean really poor people, and then you don’t need to work and I’m not going to bitch, but it’s not goin to be a party for you.

I know a couple who are living together and have a child together. They aren’t married and the mother has a job. BUT because she is a single mother, she gets roughly $8-$10,000 per year from the federal government through various programs. He also works fa full time job and makes decent money. They file individually, he pays a small amount of taxes and she rakes in a huge check every year. If she didn’t get any money from the federal government, they would not be struggling at all, they would be fine. They don’t NEED the assistance, they are not helpless dirt poor people, they are just two people who found a way to milk a little out of the system and the governemnt just keeps writing the check.

Out of all the benefits the government gives out, not much of it goes to the people standing in bread lines at homeless shelters, the people who really have nothing. MOST of the money goes to people who just know or are in a position to work the system. Oh and guess who they supported openly in the elections. And I’ll even quote her, I almost threw up in my mouth when she said it too. here it is… “I’m voting for Obama, gotta keep that money coming in you know” Absolutely sick.

V[/quote]

I agree with you V.

I know of a family that was married making $100k a year, and one of their children needed an operation. They did not have medical insurance and now the child has a prexisting condition so they can not get insurance. What did they do? They got a divorce so the mother and the children go go on Medicaid and Welfare. They still live like they are a married couple. Infact the children do not even know about the divorce. This is just morally wrong and they are gaming the system, and our tax dollars are paying for their ignorance. The man still makes $100k a year. This is the minority so there are people that need help, but this type of gaming the system is just criminal.[/quote]

Also shame on them for making 100K per year and not getting health insurance. People are so lazy and irresponsible sometimes. And I deal with people every day as I know you do also (probably more on my end due to the scale of clientele) people who take shortcuts in protection, go without coverage all to save 50 or 100 bucks per year. I understand costs are high, but skip a night out to dinner with your family or wife once a year and use that to buy the insurance you need.

V[/quote]

I agree.

85

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
What I think this whole thread boils down to is this. The people on the bottom of the “pay into it” scale should be better off than the people at the top of the “recieve aid” scale. No ifs ands or buts. If you have a scale where you CAn be better off for doing less than for doing more, there is going to be problems. Jose Illegal comes here because it is very beneficial for him to do so. Why the hell else would he? He isn’t coming here if it sucks here.

2 solutions, ratchet up the tax line so you have to earn even more money before you start paying into the system. This in my opinion is a horrible idea as you will have even less revenue and even more beneficiaries. The other solution is to reduce the benefits to the beneficiaries, and or lower the threshold for which one starts actually paying into the system.

I want the US to be a place where if you don’t pay taxes, you are dirt poor, living in a shithole, you are skinny because you can only afford so much food. You have ratty old clothes because you have to stretch a pair of jeans for 6 years. I mean really poor people, and then you don’t need to work and I’m not going to bitch, but it’s not goin to be a party for you.

I know a couple who are living together and have a child together. They aren’t married and the mother has a job. BUT because she is a single mother, she gets roughly $8-$10,000 per year from the federal government through various programs. He also works fa full time job and makes decent money. They file individually, he pays a small amount of taxes and she rakes in a huge check every year. If she didn’t get any money from the federal government, they would not be struggling at all, they would be fine. They don’t NEED the assistance, they are not helpless dirt poor people, they are just two people who found a way to milk a little out of the system and the governemnt just keeps writing the check.

Out of all the benefits the government gives out, not much of it goes to the people standing in bread lines at homeless shelters, the people who really have nothing. MOST of the money goes to people who just know or are in a position to work the system. Oh and guess who they supported openly in the elections. And I’ll even quote her, I almost threw up in my mouth when she said it too. here it is… “I’m voting for Obama, gotta keep that money coming in you know” Absolutely sick.

V[/quote]

I agree with you V.

I know of a family that was married making $100k a year, and one of their children needed an operation. They did not have medical insurance and now the child has a prexisting condition so they can not get insurance. What did they do? They got a divorce so the mother and the children go go on Medicaid and Welfare. They still live like they are a married couple. Infact the children do not even know about the divorce. This is just morally wrong and they are gaming the system, and our tax dollars are paying for their ignorance. The man still makes $100k a year. This is the minority so there are people that need help, but this type of gaming the system is just criminal.[/quote]

Right, so the distribution system needs to be better. I am not 100% against helping people who need help, I think there are better ways to do it, but if we are going to do it, lets at least make it work when we do. Anytime the government gives out money there needs to be a thourough backround check. It is SO easy to find out information on someone these days that it would take a skilled governemtn employee (oxymoron I know) 30 minutes on the internet to dig up that this couple is still living together, that the son has been rejected coverage based on a pre-existing condition and then they could deny them the benefits they are applying for. 30 minutes of some persons time who you might pay $20 per hour to save what $50,000? $100,000?

Pay someone $20 for one hour of work to find out the people I know are milking the system for $10K per year, so you spend $20 to stop $10k in benefits from goin out that are not deserved. Again, I think you will find MOST consrvatives will grudgingly go along with some social assistance to those who really need it, but there is a significant portion of the federal and state monies going to people who do not deserve to be taken care of or helped. It makes me sick! Medicare fraud is KNOWN to b e 33%, why hasn’t something ALREADY been done to lower that number? Nobody in power is doing anything. Well except for putting an even bigger system in place that 33% of the people involved with it will find a way to abuse. I mean they did do that.

V[/quote]

I am all for local charities giving out the money. Sending a check to a mailbox does not show that a person is in need. A local charity could go door to door looking at living conditions, and what they are eating, driving, wearing. They would be allowed to show up unanounced. I actually liked Bush’s Faith Based Charity Initiative, but he did not go any further. Democrats dont want people relying on the Church to take care of people. Democrats want people enslaved to them so they can continue to receive votes as your friend has stated. People dont like the word enslaved so please give me another word to use that has the same meaning.

Does anyone have any research on the average amount of time that someone is on welfare and or Medicade? Assistance should be short term in nature to help you get back on your feet, not a long term solution. I think this is where this country has gone wrong.

86

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
.[/quote]

What it’s like on the illegal beaner-front in TN? You question-dodger you… I’d actually like to know, since I have no plans of visiting.

We’ve already discovered flaws in the original post, mathwise, and generalization-wise. Won’t waste time pointing them out FOR you. You need to find them for yourself, and perhaps start questioning what you read, even if you agree with it.

87

[quote]spyoptic wrote:
Illegal immigrants support social security by billions of dollars even though they are not eligble to receive the benefits.

They are a burden to states but over a lifetime an illegal immigrant will actually pay more in taxes than he receives in benefits.

[/quote]

No. Those who gain employment by use of a fake SSN do pay social security taxes unless they are paid as contract labor via 1099. Those who are paid “under the table”, which is most likely the majority, pay no social security or medicare taxes at all.

89

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
.[/quote]

What it’s like on the illegal beaner-front in TN? You question-dodger you… I’d actually like to know, since I have no plans of visiting.

[/quote]
There are certainly illegals here. It is not like California though. Being in the US is all that’s necessary for an opinion though, seeing as how much of the money in question if federal. And it’s a beautiful state, entirely worth a trip.

So how about my question?

[quote]

We’ve already discovered flaws in the original post, mathwise, and generalization-wise. Won’t waste time pointing them out FOR you. You need to find them for yourself, and perhaps start questioning what you read, even if you agree with it. [/quote]

The only thing you’ve pointed out is that it’s possible for the situation to be different. That in no way disproves it.

90

the wall wont work , it is a BIG i mean really BIG waste of money , you have over it and you have under it , it is effective of going through it though :slight_smile:

91

Pitt,

YOUR wall won’t work, but mine will. Electrify it, put concertina wire on it, dig it 100 ft deep and 50 feet high. Put armed soldiers on it. You know why people hated the Berlin wall? Because it worked.

I do applaud your Arizona for it’s new very strict illegal immigration law just passed. You guys are leading the way with the efforts, Sheriff Joe is no joke.

92

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
.[/quote]

What it’s like on the illegal beaner-front in TN? You question-dodger you… I’d actually like to know, since I have no plans of visiting.[/quote]

While you’re waiting, maybe you could answer a question of mine;

What’s a ‘Sanctuary City’???

I keep hearing reference to them during stories about illegals, but can’t figure out what it means.

93

[quote]cremaster wrote:

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
.[/quote]

What it’s like on the illegal beaner-front in TN? You question-dodger you… I’d actually like to know, since I have no plans of visiting.[/quote]

While you’re waiting, maybe you could answer a question of mine;

What’s a ‘Sanctuary City’???

I keep hearing reference to them during stories about illegals, but can’t figure out what it means.
[/quote]

94

[quote]bluefingas wrote:

[quote]cremaster wrote:

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
.[/quote]

What it’s like on the illegal beaner-front in TN? You question-dodger you… I’d actually like to know, since I have no plans of visiting.[/quote]

While you’re waiting, maybe you could answer a question of mine;

What’s a ‘Sanctuary City’???

I keep hearing reference to them during stories about illegals, but can’t figure out what it means.
[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city[/quote]

That can’t possibly be it, because archiewhittaker -who clearly is more knowledgeable about ALL things California than myself, Bell Roberts or DoubleDuce - has been telling us that illegals get deported from California, yet San Fransisco, Los Angeles and San Diego are all listed as ‘Sanctuary Cities’.

I’m confused.

95

Cremaster,

I would beg to differ about who knows most about California, as I would certainly throw my hat in that ring. In some cities in California, yes they get deported, but here in Los Angeles, they do not. The mayor has openly decried that no one is illegal. He is a former head of MECHA, an organization who wants to take back the American Southwest and give it back to Mexico. We have something called Special Order 40, which does not allow police who arrest anyone to check their immigration status. Jamiel Shaw was murdered by an illegal alien who should have been deported 3 times, but because of this order he wasn’t. A 17 yr old kid who was a college football prospect was killed because of this political correctness.

Sanctuary cities exist, because city officials and law enforcement turn a blind eye to the problem. They think that ignoring it means it doesn’t exist. The policy varies according to the city, and many city boards have many Latino politicians who will not enforce immigration laws. We have a guy running for Lt. Governor speak to Mexican news channels about how one of their own made it to a possible gubernatorial position. Because of a lack of immigration enforcement and weak citizenship laws, this state has become largely Latino, bringing in a large population of poor people. Cali has 35% of the entire country’s welfare, do you think this is a coincidence? We have 12% of the country’s overall population, with 35% of the welfare. Did you know that Cali is the only state who does not enforce the welfare laws that Clinton passed? Women who have anchor babies get $650/month/child, plus food stamps.

Unless you deny all benefits for illegals, every city is a sanctuary city.

96

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Pitt,

YOUR wall won’t work, but mine will. Electrify it, put concertina wire on it, dig it 100 ft deep and 50 feet high. Put armed soldiers on it. You know why people hated the Berlin wall? Because it worked.

I do applaud your Arizona for it’s new very strict illegal immigration law just passed. You guys are leading the way with the efforts, Sheriff Joe is no joke. [/quote]

On this subject I am a dyed in the wool Republican :slight_smile: . If money were no object I would vote for your solution . But unfortunatly money is a huge problem :slight_smile: . I bet we get some soldiers on the border pretty soon . I voted for Joe , but he is an asshole :slight_smile: I do not think he will get elected again ( JUst my Opinion ) . But he is talking about running for Gov. IMO he will never do that either . He has made alot of enemies and they are ganging up on him , I can not see him winning at dog catcher . I would take hime for sherrif but never as Governeor

97

So conservative estimates of the cost of your illegal alien problem seem to be ~$15 billion per annum. Surely a pretty state-of-the-art wall could be built for $15 billion X how ever many years you want to consider it to be a problem-solving investment… 10? 20? 50?.. $150 billion wall, $300 billion wall, $750 billion wall.

Seems like a pretty simple and solid solution. Obviously not a local issue for me, so please clarify why this would not work? A wall just seems like a problem where if you throw enough dosh at it, it’ll get the job done.

98

[quote]cremaster wrote:

[quote]bluefingas wrote:

[quote]cremaster wrote:

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
.[/quote]

What it’s like on the illegal beaner-front in TN? You question-dodger you… I’d actually like to know, since I have no plans of visiting.[/quote]

While you’re waiting, maybe you could answer a question of mine;

What’s a ‘Sanctuary City’???

I keep hearing reference to them during stories about illegals, but can’t figure out what it means.
[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city[/quote]

That can’t possibly be it, because archiewhittaker -who clearly is more knowledgeable about ALL things California than myself, Bell Roberts or DoubleDuce - has been telling us that illegals get deported from California, yet San Fransisco, Los Angeles and San Diego are all listed as ‘Sanctuary Cities’.

I’m confused.
[/quote]

“has been telling us that illegals get deported from California”

yep, I sure said that, and it sure is true. I haven’t said a word about those 3 cities, though. Still confused? May I suggest some more minerals in your diet?

99

So this is why Jose Illegal has a Low Rider?

100

[quote]Cameron_Phillips wrote:
So conservative estimates of the cost of your illegal alien problem seem to be ~$15 billion per annum. Surely a pretty state-of-the-art wall could be built for $15 billion X how ever many years you want to consider it to be a problem-solving investment… 10? 20? 50?.. $150 billion wall, $300 billion wall, $750 billion wall.

Seems like a pretty simple and solid solution. Obviously not a local issue for me, so please clarify why this would not work? A wall just seems like a problem where if you throw enough dosh at it, it’ll get the job done.[/quote]

It would take care of some foot traffic, you can go over and under , and I would bet they would figure ways to do through it as well . I see no reason why you want to spend that much money on an obsolete solution