Illegal immigrant who paid a whopping 300 bucks in taxes flips off Trump.

[Max E.]

Ok my final argument and im done, we arent getting anywhere clearly we dont see eye to eye here, but I present you the following, if half of the population already living here is living off the government in one form or another, and that doesnt even include roads schooling, police, etc..... what do you think the odds are that illegals are in the upper half making more money and taking less? I mean it just seems like a ridiculous argument. So again i ask how many can we afford, when we are already 20 trillion in debt.


Do you think the guy cutting your grass is in the top 20% of tax payers, the only people who put more into the system than they take out, if thats what you think why dont we just flood the system with hundreds of millions of illegals since it would be a huge boom to the economy.

1) In 2011, about 49 percent of the population lived in a household where at least one member received a direct benefit from the federal government. A big chunk of these households are retirees. And about 27 percent households benefited from a means-tested poverty program. A quick breakdown:

--Last year, about 29 percent of households received Medicare benefits and 31.6 percent received Social Security. (Obviously there's a lot of overlap between those two, since those programs mainly benefit retirees.)

--Meanwhile, about 32 million households, or 27.1 percent, benefited from at least one means-tested poverty program. The biggest benefits here were Medicaid (19.5 percent), food stamps (12.7 percent) and subsidized lunches (11.2 percent). Again, there's some overlap.

--Smaller benefits include public housing (5 percent of households), unemployment (4 percent), and veterans' compensation (2.6 percent). Only 7 percent of households receive some sort of direct cash assistance, such as the TANF welfare program.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ernment-in-six-charts/?utm_term=.309fd21aa9b5

 

[Tom B]

I don't know what kind of deductions or voodoo tax avoidance tactics you were using but I'd like to know

Nah, I lean left on a lot of social issues. Mostly fiscal conservative and trained in science so I can't go against logic/empirical fact on many things.

April Fools joke?

 

[Cuddles]

Ok my final argument and im done, we arent getting anywhere clearly we dont see eye to eye here, but I present you the following, if half of the population already living here is living off the government in one form or another, and that doesnt even include roads schooling, police, etc..... what do you think the odds are that illegals are in the upper half making more money and taking less? I mean it just seems like a ridiculous argument. So again i ask how many can we afford, when we are already 20 trillion in debt.


Do you think the guy cutting your grass is in the top 20% of tax payers, the only people who put more into the system than they take out, if thats what you think why dont we just flood the system with hundreds of millions of illegals since it would be a huge boom to the economy.

1) In 2011, about 49 percent of the population lived in a household where at least one member received a direct benefit from the federal government. A big chunk of these households are retirees. And about 27 percent households benefited from a means-tested poverty program. A quick breakdown:

--Last year, about 29 percent of households received Medicare benefits and 31.6 percent received Social Security. (Obviously there's a lot of overlap between those two, since those programs mainly benefit retirees.)

--Meanwhile, about 32 million households, or 27.1 percent, benefited from at least one means-tested poverty program. The biggest benefits here were Medicaid (19.5 percent), food stamps (12.7 percent) and subsidized lunches (11.2 percent). Again, there's some overlap.

--Smaller benefits include public housing (5 percent of households), unemployment (4 percent), and veterans' compensation (2.6 percent). Only 7 percent of households receive some sort of direct cash assistance, such as the TANF welfare program.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ernment-in-six-charts/?utm_term=.309fd21aa9b5

It's a difficult question and would have to be done in a tiered way I think. I'm not saying that immigrants are in the top percentage of earners, that's ridiculous. All I'm saying is immigrants are probably more likely to pay their dues (if given the opportunity) and less likely to game/rig the system (due to criminal repercussions of getting the boot). I'd venture to say they're less likely to use benefits too (as the perception of being leeches is pretty shameful among those circles). <<I realize I'm just postulating on perception and by some vague memory of having read something to that effect.

The way I see it, they should be eligible to some benefits (education, health) and not others (unemployment, housing, social security (if not paid >15 yrs or so)).

It's just nuts that corporate welfare is so high and we are so unwilling to touch that, yet we'll scapegoat the hell out of the immigrants and blame their comparatively lower (I would guess) welfare use.

 

[Max E.]

Just when i thought i was out you pulllll me back in, You have conveniently swapped the term "illegal immigrants" with "Immigrants" a tactic the left loves, i have no problem with immigrants in general, they actually tend to out perform, but thats cause we screen them, and its alot easier to get citizenship if you have money/connections.

I have a problem with ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Not LEGAL Immigrants.

When Donald trump said "they arent sending their best and their brightest liberals shit all over him, but lets be honest here, doctors and lawyers arent the ones jumping the fence and walking through the desert and coming here illlegally, what he said was 100% accurate. I have no problem with LEGAL IMMIGRANTS because we get a chance to screen them and generally people who are going to add value have a much higher chance of getting citizenship, plus most people willing to go through the legal route are also going to be above board once they get here, dont conflate the 2 terms.

As for "Corporate welfare" which is another ridiculous term from the left. Corporations add value for the most part, except for maybe some shitty green companies like Solyndra that Obama sunk money into. At the end of the day subsidies only equal a reduced tax rate meaning they are still PAYING into the system on top of employing people. I cant think of an example (though there might be one,) where the government is actually shelling out dollars year after year after year at net loss to keep a company afloat, mostly its tax breaks, meaning the companies are paying something in taxes generally alot in taxes, and just getting a more generous rate.

I am 100% against the government picking winners and losers as they seem to be horrible at it, so im against giving certain companies tax breaks and bailouts and subsidies, but a tax subsidy/tax credit/bailout given to a company that employ tens of thousands of people directly and indicrectly creates hundreds of thousands of jobs that is not welfare, and it is not a net drain on the system so long as you arent pissing it away handing money to insolvent companies like Solyndra. At the end of the day if the government gives a tax credit to someone like Exxon for 2 billion dollars and after that they still pay 6 billion dollars in taxes, Exxon is still a huge net gain on the governments balance sheet.

While i vehemently opposed the bank bailouts, TARP got paid back and the amount of tax dollars all the people whose jobs were saved more than makes up for it. While i despised TARP, at the end of the day it was a net gain on the governments balance sheets so calling it welfare is pretty disingenous.

It's a difficult question and would have to be done in a tiered way I think. I'm not saying that immigrants are in the top percentage of earners, that's ridiculous. All I'm saying is immigrants are probably more likely to pay their dues (if given the opportunity) and less likely to game/rig the system (due to criminal repercussions of getting the boot). I'd venture to say they're less likely to use benefits too (as the perception of being leeches is pretty shameful among those circles). <<I realize I'm just postulating on perception and by some vague memory of having read something to that effect.

The way I see it, they should be eligible to some benefits (education, health) and not others (unemployment, housing, social security (if not paid >15 yrs or so)).

It's just nuts that corporate welfare is so high and we are so unwilling to touch that, yet we'll scapegoat the hell out of the immigrants and blame their comparatively lower (I would guess) welfare use.

 

[Cuddles]

Just when i thought i was out you pulllll me back in, You have conveniently swapped the term "illegal immigrants" with "Immigrants" a tactic the left loves, i have no problem with immigrants in general, they actually tend to out perform, but thats cause we screen them, and its alot easier to get citizenship if you have money/connections.

I have a problem with ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Not LEGAL Immigrants.

When Donald trump said "they arent sending their best and their brightest liberals shit all over him, but lets be honest here, doctors and lawyers arent the ones jumping the fence and walking through the desert and coming here illlegally, what he said was 100% accurate. I have no problem with LEGAL IMMIGRANTS because we get a chance to screen them and generally people who are going to add value have a much higher chance of getting citizenship, plus most people willing to go through the legal route are also going to be above board once they get here, dont conflate the 2 terms.

As for "Corporate welfare" which is another ridiculous term from the left. Corporations add value for the most part, except for maybe some shitty green companies like Solyndra that Obama sunk money into. At the end of the day subsidies only equal a reduced tax rate meaning they are still PAYING into the system on top of employing people. I cant think of an example (though there might be one,) where the government is actually shelling out dollars year after year after year at net loss to keep a company afloat, mostly its tax breaks, meaning the companies are paying something in taxes generally alot in taxes, and just getting a more generous rate.

I am 100% against the government picking winners and losers as they seem to be horrible at it, so im against giving certain companies tax breaks and bailouts and subsidies, but a tax subsidy/tax credit/bailout given to a company that employ tens of thousands of people directly and indicrectly creates hundreds of thousands of jobs that is not welfare, and it is not a net drain on the system so long as you arent pissing it away handing money to insolvent companies like Solyndra. At the end of the day if the government gives a tax credit to someone like Exxon for 2 billion dollars and after that they still pay 6 billion dollars in taxes, Exxon is still a huge net gain on the governments balance sheet.

While i vehemently opposed the bank bailouts, TARP got paid back and the amount of tax dollars all the people whose jobs were saved more than makes up for it. While i despised TARP, at the end of the day it was a net gain on the governments balance sheets so calling it welfare is pretty disingenous.

And that's a fallacy the right makes. I continue to conflate both as I know plenty of immigrants both the legal kind and the illegal kind...I'm talking about hundreds of people I've dealt with over the years. The only difference is the majority of the time someone had the good luck of being born into the right family or marrying into it (legal ones). Trump's statement about 'sending us their worst' is absolutely incorrect. The illegals had the misfortune of not being able to wait the +5 yrs to get an interview. Tends to happen when you're 2 months away from starvation, being persecuted by the cartels/civil war, or have a loved one in immediate need.

You can continue to believe that the "legal" ones are professionals w/degrees making america great, but those numbers are so minuscule by comparison to non-degree holders (both legal and illegal) to make the numbers almost irrelevant (<80k yr).

https://www.us-immigration.com/how-many-immigration-applications-filed-each-year/

I'm not entirely against corporate welfare, but the whole argument breaks apart when you excuse the welfare as an investment into the future of America (by job creation and boosting the economy) yet refuse to grant the same logic to a similar investment to the people w/in it.