Jump to content

TX GOV 2010


Porchman

Recommended Posts

This quote, "As these low-skill immigrants (both legal and illegal) take up residence, they impose a substantial tax burden on U.S. taxpayers. The benefits received by low-skill immigrant households exceed taxes paid at each age level; at no point do these households pay more in than they take out." was supposed to be hyperlinked to this article......http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/sr14.cfm

Its a very long read, but contains alot of good information....I already know many will dismiss solely b/c of the source, but it is chalk full of good information.

Oh! Now I get it!

The reason you sound like Fox News is not because you watch Fox News. It's clear you don't since you've said time and time again that you don't watch Fox News.... The reason you sound like Fox News is because you use the same source material!

It's all so much clearer now. Geezus. Why didn't you say so in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

You dont actually believe that illegals can not collect on all these government programs do you?

You know how they collect on all those government programs?

Most likely, your unskilled illegal immigrant labor is putting more into the system than they're getting out. Many have a valid (though illegally obtained) social security number along with a valid (though illegally obtained) ID. Even the vast majority of companies who hire unskilled laborers require some semblance of legality in order to hire someone. Most companies, with the exception of your shady mom-and-pop subcontractors need their cash flow to be on the level. It's better for business that way. It helps them get loans. It helps them grow. It's nearly impossible to get a job in all but the most strenuous of work environments without a couple cards that say you can work here. Case in point, I once worked for a company who had three Mexicans with the same IDs (but with different photos) and three different social security numbers (which oddly matched the identical names on their identically numbered IDs). What do you bet those people, who paid into the system with each one of their paychecks, never filled out a 1040EZ to get their refund?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't been paying too much attention to the race as of yet... but I know one person who will definitely not get my vote... Perry! The fact that he even just mentioned Texas possibly seceding from the United States shows how UN-AMERICAN he is... I want to Governor who is PRO-AMERICA! USA!! :wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This quote, "As these low-skill immigrants (both legal and illegal) take up residence, they impose a substantial tax burden on U.S. taxpayers. The benefits received by low-skill immigrant households exceed taxes paid at each age level; at no point do these households pay more in than they take out." was supposed to be hyperlinked to this article......http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/sr14.cfm

I don't understand the anti-"low-skilled LEGAL immigrants" stance. This great Nation was built by immigrants. Many low-skilled immigrants came here and learned skills they didn't have the opportunity to learn in their home countries. Would you have some test for them at the border where they would have to prove they had skills before they were let in or would you maybe give them 6 months to learn skills and if they don't deport them? Also, would this test be required for all immigrants or just the ones w/ dark skin?

I know on Fox News (they are also not fond of immigrants) they have brought up in the past that white people here in America need to start having more babies b/c the brown-skinned folk are growing in numbers at a greater pace. Fox News being pro-white/christian/conservative is obviously threatened by this. That leads me to believe they would accept white immigrants (legal or illegal, skilled or unskilled) for the sole reason that they would add to the white population. I could be wrong, though. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welfare, Food Stamps - unavailable to illegal immigrants.

while it is more difficult to get food stamps in texas (vs cal and wash st), they do give it to illegal immigrants. this has been confirmed last month from an illegal who came to texas to find a better life. long story but she gave us a 30 min dissertation on the subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know on Fox News (they are also not fond of immigrants) they have brought up in the past that white people here in America need to start having more babies b/c the brown-skinned folk are growing in numbers at a greater pace. Fox News being pro-white/christian/conservative is obviously threatened by this. That leads me to believe they would accept white immigrants (legal or illegal, skilled or unskilled) for the sole reason that they would add to the white population. I could be wrong, though. :-)

Wait, they were saying over on the other thread that corporations couldn't think or feel and were soulless, etc. as a justification for denying them the ability to overtly support a political candidate. But here you're saying that Fox News, a subsidiary of News Corp., is bigoted, racist, pro-white, christian, conservative, and that it feels threatened...almost as though pain or anxiety were possible for it. As far as I'm concerned, if a corporate entity is that human then they need to be allowed the vote in addition to having free speech protections. It'd even have to even be one vote per subsidiary. And in line with the notion of recognizing reproductive rights, that'd mean that they should be able to form as many subsidiaries as necessary to sway the vote. I don't like the consequences of what you're getting at.

Of course, it's possible that you merely described a corporation according to your moral opinion of how it brands itself in order to generate revenue. In the same sense as you describe Fox News as bigoted (rather than as a vehicle for advertising made possible by bigoted viewers), you might also describe a liquor store as an alcoholic (instead of as a retailer with alcoholic customers) or a strip club as slutty (instead of as a sexually oriented business with sluts for employees). But that's not a whole lot better than my first hypothesis, at least IMO.

Use English more good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, they were saying over on the other thread that corporations couldn't think or feel and were soulless, etc. as a justification for denying them the ability to overtly support a political candidate. But here you're saying that Fox News, a subsidiary of News Corp., is bigoted, racist, pro-white, christian, conservative, and that it feels threatened...almost as though pain or anxiety were possible for it.

I think he's referring to the people working at Fox News...and their audience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh! Now I get it!

The reason you sound like Fox News is not because you watch Fox News. It's clear you don't since you've said time and time again that you don't watch Fox News.... The reason you sound like Fox News is because you use the same source material!

It's all so much clearer now. Geezus. Why didn't you say so in the first place?

Typical liberal tactic - dismiss it as biased when you don't agree with it. If it said Barack Obama is a genius, you would plaster it on the front page of every newspaper in the Country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama isn't a genius. If he goes through with this assinine spending freeze, he'll prove that point. I really don't understand all of the conservative angst over Obama. After all, he's now giving us what McCain argued for during the Presidential Debates (a spending freeze), he's given us a troop surge and increased military spending, and his watered down health care bill pisses off the Left just as much as the Right and has no chance at passing meaning it will likely take another decade or two before we debate health care again. Oh, and since many conservatives are concerned about the markets, those have been doing MUCH better under Obama than the last few years under Bush (meaning the rich are getting richer again).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typical liberal tactic - dismiss it as biased when you don't agree with it. If it said Barack Obama is a genius, you would plaster it on the front page of every newspaper in the Country.

Don't take my word for it...

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a New Right think tank. Its stated mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies...

Typical Marksmu tactic - dismiss it as a typical liberal tactic when you don't agree with it.

And, if you think Sourcewatch is a typical liberal dot org attacking the middle-of-the-road, oh-so-impartial and agendaless Heritage Foundation, then just look at the front page of the Heritage Foundation's website. If you still think their conclusions weren't derived a priori from their extant political positions, then I've got a bridge to sell you. It's a real all-American bridge. It likes guns and 4x4s, promotes unfettered capitalism and thinks those brown people oughtta be happy with what they got. The bridge is perfect for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't take my word for it...

Typical Marksmu tactic - dismiss it as a typical liberal tactic when you don't agree with it.

And, if you think Sourcewatch is a typical liberal dot org attacking the middle-of-the-road, oh-so-impartial and agendaless Heritage Foundation, then just look at the front page of the Heritage Foundation's website. If you still think their conclusions weren't derived a priori from their extant political positions, then I've got a bridge to sell you. It's a real all-American bridge. It likes guns and 4x4s, promotes unfettered capitalism and thinks those brown people oughtta be happy with what they got. The bridge is perfect for you.

Simply because the source is biased does not necessarily mean the conclusion is incorrect. Skewed, maybe, I read the article - I happen to believe the conclusions reached. You probably did not read it, and just dismissed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply because the source is biased does not necessarily mean the conclusion is incorrect.

Except when it suits your agenda.

From the climate change thread:

These scientists have an agenda - they want warming to exist so they can try to figure out why.....they manipulate data to prove their points, they ignore data that refutes their hypothesis, and they team up and use "peer review" as a way to call any denier of their theory a nut job, skeptic.

I have no doubt the world has gotten warmer. I do however doubt that humans have caused it.

Please, for the love of Geezus, don't take that quote as a cue to rehash the climate change debate here. That quote is being used merely to illustrate a point. Your disbelief is inconsistent from subject to subject and based exclusively on predetermined a priori conceits. The only reason you believe anything the Heritage Foundation publishes is because you believed it beforehand. Being a thinktank stocked chock full of spin doctors whose goal it is to sway public opinion, their methodology and their conclusions should be suspect. The fact you don't believe scientists who publish scientific peer-reviewed literature but can swallow the pap churned out by that propaganda machine goes a long way as to explaining why I get so damned frustrated in these exchanges you and I have.

And no, I didn't read their report. There's only so much time in the day, and as I choose not to spend too much time perusing propaganda, I avoided it. Besides, you'd already given a sufficiently succint summary explaining the findings, didn't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter what side you're on with the illegals debate...

The fact is, population growth is exponential.

The fact is, if you're born in this country, you are an American, regardless if your parents were or not.

The fact is, if you wanted less brown/brown culture in the country - you should have erected the fence in 1970. You're 4 decades too late to this debate.

We are now the United States of Mexico. Or "Dumpland" as TexasVines would attest.

Deal with it. Or just keep screaming at the rain...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is, population growth is exponential.

That's not accurate at all. The rate of population growth has declined significantly since the 1970's; the fertility rate more than the immigration rate.

In order to assure our economic, monetary, and military hegemony in global affairs, it is essential that the rate of population growth be sustained at a reasonably high rate. This is what allows wages to be sufficiently low that our manufacturing sector is not undercut by the third world. The only way to accomplish that when U.S. citizens opt to have fewer than two children per couple is by allowing for an ever more lax standard for immigration. Yet, in the context of American history, I don't think that it has ever been more difficult to immigrate and become naturalized. In that context, it should not come as a surprise that illegal immigration is so prevalent. We created the incentive and allowed the opportunity. And to our long-term strategic benefit, people came here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not accurate at all. The rate of population growth has declined significantly since the 1970's; the fertility rate more than the immigration rate.

In order to assure our economic, monetary, and military hegemony in global affairs, it is essential that the rate of population growth be sustained at a reasonably high rate. This is what allows wages to be sufficiently low that our manufacturing sector is not undercut by the third world. The only way to accomplish that when U.S. citizens opt to have fewer than two children per couple is by allowing for an ever more lax standard for immigration. Yet, in the context of American history, I don't think that it has ever been more difficult to immigrate and become naturalized. In that context, it should not come as a surprise that illegal immigration is so prevalent. We created the incentive and allowed the opportunity. And to our long-term strategic benefit, people came here.

And they brought their habeneros with them, and I, for one, am not willing to give up my peppers. I'd sooner give Marksmu to some fundamentalist cult in Idaho before I gave up a single Tex-Mex joint in the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not accurate at all. The rate of population growth has declined significantly since the 1970's; the fertility rate more than the immigration rate.

In order to assure our economic, monetary, and military hegemony in global affairs, it is essential that the rate of population growth be sustained at a reasonably high rate. This is what allows wages to be sufficiently low that our manufacturing sector is not undercut by the third world. The only way to accomplish that when U.S. citizens opt to have fewer than two children per couple is by allowing for an ever more lax standard for immigration. Yet, in the context of American history, I don't think that it has ever been more difficult to immigrate and become naturalized. In that context, it should not come as a surprise that illegal immigration is so prevalent. We created the incentive and allowed the opportunity. And to our long-term strategic benefit, people came here.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/010327.html

About 1

. . . of every two people added to the nation’s population between July 1, 2005, and July 1, 2006, was Hispanic. There were 1.4 million Hispanics added to the population over the period. <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/010048.html>

3.4%

Percentage increase in the Hispanic population between July 1, 2005, and July 1, 2006, making Hispanics the fastest-growing minority group. <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/010048.html>

Across the WORLD human population is an exponential growth function, in total. Here is chart for you:

world-population-chart.jpg

Exponential.

Hispanics procreate in Mexico, a quasi-developed country. Come here. And procreate some more.

In order to break-even (sustain a current population numbers), each couple needs 3, not just two children. (because kids do die - 2 or less results in decline)

A lot of Hispanic families are LARGE. Well beyond just 3 kids... hence the growth... by 2050 the national language of the US will be Spanish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryan, the scope of your comments appeared to be limited to the United States when you posted what I was responding to, and you seem to have tried to refute my criticism with a graph that illustrates NOT ONLY that the population growth rate in developed nations such as the U.S. is anything but geometric...but that the population growth rate in developing nations has now demonstrated a second inflection point.

Look, this is a simple argument. Just google around for Census population counts by decade and import the data into Excel. Then run a quick formula to show what the percentage rates have been. As I recall, they top out at about 35% growth per decade (natural + immigration - emigration) in the mid-1800's and pretty steadily decline to around 8% or 9% over the last couple of decades. If we aren't witnessing economic growth at historic levels, cannot compete within the manufacturing sector, and threats to our economic hegemony, we need look no further than that very very basic data set.

And since you seem intent on discussing Hispanic issues...I AGREE with you that a mono-cultural set of source countries are a problem. I'd like to see that problem resolved through more equitable immigration policy, and I'm hoping that this is a place where Obama really shines...Bush's policy proposals weren't bad either, but he'd already spent too much political capital on the war to accomplish anything by the time that immigration became a hot button issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well beyond just 3 kids... hence the growth... by 2050 the national language of the US will be Spanish.

You do know America doesn't have a "national" or an "official" language now, right? English is by far the most common, but by no means is it mandatory. Are you suggesting Spanish-speakers are so enamored with their own language, and since they'll have achieved a majority population share in the US to the point where they can dictate laws, they'll go to the point of actually declaring Spanish a national language in order to spite the dirty English-speaking mongrels? I didn't realize Mexicans were so vindictive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know how they collect on all those government programs?

Most likely, your unskilled illegal immigrant labor is putting more into the system than they're getting out. Many have a valid (though illegally obtained) social security number along with a valid (though illegally obtained) ID. Even the vast majority of companies who hire unskilled laborers require some semblance of legality in order to hire someone. Most companies, with the exception of your shady mom-and-pop subcontractors need their cash flow to be on the level. It's better for business that way. It helps them get loans. It helps them grow. It's nearly impossible to get a job in all but the most strenuous of work environments without a couple cards that say you can work here. Case in point, I once worked for a company who had three Mexicans with the same IDs (but with different photos) and three different social security numbers (which oddly matched the identical names on their identically numbered IDs). What do you bet those people, who paid into the system with each one of their paychecks, never filled out a 1040EZ to get their refund?

E-Verify?! I-9?! Bahahaha!

This debate is beyond hilarious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting Spanish-speakers are so enamored with their own language, and since they'll have achieved a majority population share in the US to the point where they can dictate laws, they'll go to the point of actually declaring Spanish a national language in order to spite the dirty English-speaking mongrels? I didn't realize Mexicans were so vindictive.

are you suggesting that mexicans are the only ones who speak spanish?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typical liberal tactic - dismiss it as biased when you don't agree with it. If it said Barack Obama is a genius, you would plaster it on the front page of every newspaper in the Country.

Sounds like what Conservatives also do when they don't agree w/ it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...