Carbon Express Arrows
How many on welfare?
Community
Contributors to this thread:
Spike Bull 07-Jul-18
trublucolo 07-Jul-18
osage 07-Jul-18
trublucolo 07-Jul-18
spike78 08-Jul-18
Spike Bull 08-Jul-18
DConcrete 08-Jul-18
DConcrete 08-Jul-18
itshot 08-Jul-18
DConcrete 08-Jul-18
Mike in CT 08-Jul-18
HA/KS 08-Jul-18
ahunter76 08-Jul-18
'Ike' (Phone) 08-Jul-18
bigeasygator 08-Jul-18
itshot 08-Jul-18
petedrummond 08-Jul-18
itshot 08-Jul-18
trublucolo 08-Jul-18
HDE 08-Jul-18
slade 09-Jul-18
Zim1 09-Jul-18
Zim1 09-Jul-18
Spike Bull 09-Jul-18
bigeasygator 09-Jul-18
petedrummond 09-Jul-18
JL 09-Jul-18
Tonybear61 09-Jul-18
Tonybear61 09-Jul-18
HDE 09-Jul-18
Trax 09-Jul-18
bigeasygator 09-Jul-18
HDE 09-Jul-18
Spike Bull 09-Jul-18
HDE 09-Jul-18
bigeasygator 09-Jul-18
MT in MO 09-Jul-18
HDE 09-Jul-18
Spike Bull 09-Jul-18
trublucolo 09-Jul-18
bigeasygator 10-Jul-18
Trax 10-Jul-18
HA/KS 10-Jul-18
KSflatlander 10-Jul-18
bigeasygator 10-Jul-18
HA/KS 10-Jul-18
HDE 10-Jul-18
HDE 10-Jul-18
KSflatlander 10-Jul-18
bigeasygator 10-Jul-18
HA/KS 10-Jul-18
07-Jul-18

Spike Bull 's Link
How many immigrants are on welfare?

From: trublucolo
07-Jul-18
Too freaking many.

Three word answer, no link required.

From: osage
07-Jul-18
All of them, plus free medical care and food stamps. Once the libs get the latest group settled in, there will be a continual flood like you have never seen.

From: trublucolo
07-Jul-18
the only yelling I'm hearing is the same whiny assed troll that visits day after day.

From: spike78
08-Jul-18
Yfp, I would hope white people are since they make up like 80% of the population. I doubt per capital though just like our jail population.

08-Jul-18
There are no TOTs yet so please, people, totally ignore PutZ on my threads. He does not deserve any kind of answer and we all know he is just here to plant propaganda so do not respond to him. Thanks

The SC has ruled that illegals do not deserve due process so why would we give them ANYTHING, especially a free ride!?!?

From: DConcrete
08-Jul-18
What’s your definition of corporate welfare?

Most lefties define it as tax cuts. I don’t define that as welfare. You can’t congratulate yourself and claim you have given a freebie on money you tried to steal via taxes. And then say, corporations get tax breaks, therefore, that’s welfare!

Now, if a company receives tax dollars in the same fashion a welfare recipient receives “benefits”, then by all means, you’d have a case.

From: DConcrete
08-Jul-18
Who’s to blame? The person who stays there. Paul, do you realize how many people don’t want pay raises because it’ll affect their welfare amount? Welfare being a generalization of “benefits” they receive.

The amount of people who won’t help their own situation is disgusting.

There is a tremendous difference between a hand out and a hand up. It really is as simple as, teach a man to fish VS give him a fish.

There is a certain percentage of LEGITIMATE disabled folks.

Whether that is physically or mentally. But, the truth and the bottom line is, if you want a job, they are everywhere. It all depends on HOW HARD YOU WANT TO WORK. 15.00 an hour minimum?? That already exists in the form of, BE DEPENDABLE AND SHOW UP EVERYDAY AND ON TIME.

I start new employees at 15.00 an hour. It’s well advertised. It’s well known. Nobody, and I mean nobody has been beating my door down for a job. People want the money, but they don’t have the guts to do what it takes for that!! They’d rather bitch that they aren’t getting paid enough for putting pickles on a sandwich. The jobs exist that pay more!!! It’s called, Do more!!!!

From: itshot
08-Jul-18
^^libmath!

hehehehhehhehehehe

From: DConcrete
08-Jul-18
So....basically, no response to it becoming any personal responsibility. No response to people helping themselves.

I’d be interested to know how many of those welfare Recipients work 2 jobs? Live within their means? Smoke? Drink? Drugs?

Guess non of that would matter to you.

Change your life. Don’t expect anyone else to do it for you.

From: Mike in CT
08-Jul-18
Jeff,

In order to advance an agenda of subsidized dependence of the individual the first item must be the removal of the concept of personal responsibility; once you've made it "someone else's fault" it's amazing what types of choices and/or behaviors you can defend.

The supreme irony is anyone who would attempt to cast someone such as yourself who is arguing factually (and eloquently, by the way) as somehow lacking compassion or even worse, morals (Christian most often cited). It is the person who would willingly perpetuate endless dependency who lacks compassion and any kind of moral standing.

The worst type of hypocrite is the one wearing the false cloak of righteousness......

From: HA/KS
08-Jul-18
Christian? I love how people who hate God and believe in evolution resort to "god" when they have no argument against the truth.

"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you: that if any would not work, neither should he eat." 2 Thessalonians 3:10

From: ahunter76
08-Jul-18

ahunter76's embedded Photo
ahunter76's embedded Photo
.......

08-Jul-18
Fun fact, when a proven liar gets destroyed time and time again in debates...

From: bigeasygator
08-Jul-18
Ahhh yes. This is one of my favorite recurring threads on the CF: the economic drain of immigrants posts!

I particularly love how the debate always ignores the economic benefits to immigration (the one that you conservative, free market advocates SHOULD understand). It also tends to leave out the fact that illegals are ineligible for most forms of aid and legal immigrants have to have lived here for five years - five years of making economic contributions and paying taxes here - before they become eligible for welfare.

But you guys keep doing you!

From: itshot
08-Jul-18
I’m still blown away by the people that demand we must “coddle the moochers!” And in the same breath declare this nation a “free” nation.

From: petedrummond
08-Jul-18
Poster had "lib math" everyone else has no math.

From: itshot
08-Jul-18
the economic benefits "to" immigration...sure, you nailed it

how many illegals do you work with, liz? how well do you you know the game? please further explain the economic benefits that illegal immigrants provide us lucky, purely privileged citizens

08-Jul-18
I have a communist colleague I work with who posted a NYT Opinion piece about a 30 acre strawberry farmer in Ohio who is now only harvesting 7 acres due to the immigrant labor shortage because of Trump's mean immigration policies.

First, I don't like strawberries, but I digress.

I read another article the same day how technological leaps are now allowing for harvesting equipment with sensitive produce. It is faster, cleaner etc.

It really is an unbelievable mind set these folks have.

BTW, I bet it was corporate profits that funded the research for that new technology. Another example of companies putting people out of work. LOL!

From: trublucolo
08-Jul-18
beg being beg

From: HDE
08-Jul-18
"I particularly love how the debate always ignores the economic benefits to immigration (the one that you conservative, free market advocates SHOULD understand)."

We do understand. Go and read the article attached to the link this time...

From: slade
09-Jul-18
Come on HDE, you expect a progressive to actually read something before blatherskiting.

From: Zim1
09-Jul-18
I've made 6 trips to China in the last 4 years. The United States is ten times more Communist as today's China. This is a fact, not an opinion. It's not even remotely close. Everyone works there. If you are hard working and motivated, you will be very wealthy there, unlike the US where you will be taxed to death. The wife likes to take me for massages there, and half the employees are blind. Because they are perfectly capable of doing as good or better a job as those with vision. That's how everything works there. They don't throw their murdering gang bangers back on the street to go on welfare either. They send them to the organ donor factory and sell them to Australia. It's a win/win for everyone. The US government is the new Marx & Lenin.

From: Zim1
09-Jul-18
Think this is going to get any better when 15 of 16 new immigrants here are uneducated and have no job skills? While Canada & Australia mop up the best qualified applicants with their point systems? It seems neither of our political parties are willing to change this and update our 100 year old policy. The US is breeding welfare recipients.

09-Jul-18
Correct, thanks to the Soros-Demon vote recruitment policy, Zim1.

From: bigeasygator
09-Jul-18

bigeasygator's Link
I did read the article, HDE. It’s the same cherry picked data that gets recycled and thrown into the immigration debate all the time. The percentage of users says nothing about the costs of welfare immigrants are putting on the system. Like the recent Cato Institute report highlights, native born individuals are much more expensive because they are eligible for far more welfare.

“The average value of welfare benefits per immigrant was about $3,718 in 2016, about 39 percent less than the $6,081 average value of welfare benefits per native. The average immigrant consumed $6 more in cash assistance, $7 more in SNAP benefits, and $98 more in Medicaid than the average native did. However, the average immigrant consumed $56 less in SSI, $610 less in Medicare, and $1,808 less in Social Security retirement benefits than the average native in 2016 — more than compensating for their overconsumption of cash assistance, SNAP, and Medicaid.”

Again this whole welfare argument ignores all of the economic benefits provided by immigrants - cheap labor, cheaper goods, more economic opportunity, more diverse labor pools, more competition, etc etc. Pretty straightforward stuff that and it’s not surprising it’s ignored by the nativists in the group.

I’ll maintain that the economic benefits I’ve outlined far outweigh any costs imposed by immigrants on the system. At worst it’s a wash, which renders the economic arguments against immigration weak and pointless.

From: petedrummond
09-Jul-18
My experience has been that Mexicans always work. They have a much better work ethic than most of our native born white and black kids so what's this welfare crap. You know not of what you speak.

From: JL
09-Jul-18

JL's Link
YFP sez...."" Fun fact: most welfare recipients are white. ""

I had to look that up to see what was going on. Interesting observation about the source of that concept.

"" Do Whites Benefit Disproportionately from Welfare?

By Kevin D. Williamson

February 16, 2017 6:07 PM

The Washington Post today inflicts some weapons-grade stupidity upon the reading public, with its claim that whites benefit disproportionately — not just in higher gross numbers — from federal welfare programs. The question involves a new study from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Tracy Jan of the Post writes:

Government assistance and tax credits lifted 6.2 million working-class whites out of poverty in 2014, more than any other racial or ethnic demographic. Half of all working-age adults without college degrees lifted out of poverty by safety-net programs are white; nearly a quarter are black and a fifth are Hispanic.

You start to see the obvious problem there, i.e., that half of the adults without college degrees lifted out of poverty by federal welfare programs (oddly specific demographic choice — why exclude the college graduates and, probably more significant, the children?) are white, which is true, but whites are more than 60 percent of the population, while blacks make up 13 percent of the population but nearly twice the share of those lifted out of poverty by welfare programs, while Hispanics are 17 percent of the population but a slightly larger share of the beneficiaries.

But there is another way to twist the numbers: What share of the people in each demographic group who would otherwise be in poverty are above the poverty line thanks to welfare programs? Again, it’s a non-obvious way of evaluating the numbers, but even this does not show what the Washington Post purports to show: In fact, the white and black beneficiary rates on this metric are almost exactly the same: forty-four percent for whites and 43 percent for blacks. The outlier — the real headline — is the relatively low (28 percent) rate of benefit among Hispanics.

Well-done, Hispanics! Unless . . .

If you guessed that the Hispanic rate is relatively low mostly because illegal immigrants are not eligible for most welfare programs, there’s a Ph.D. in Obviousness Studies waiting for you at the bottom of a Cracker Jack box (or in the ninth paragraph of the Post’s story). If you guessed that whites benefit more from federal income-support programs because they are as a group older and earn more money (and hence get higher Social Security payments), then you are on a roll.

In fact, there is almost nothing of real interest in the data here. This is instead an almost purely ideological exercise: It is an article of faith on the Left that poor whites are so gobsmacked by Jesus talk and racial dog-whistling on the part of Republican politicians that they — inevitable cliché — “vote against their own interests.” There is a lot of question-begging in that: I think Social Security and Medicare are stupid and destructive programs, but I might very well benefit from them someday. (Maybe. Maybe not.) Am I “voting against my own interests” if I prioritize my values — what I think would be good for the country — above the possibility of a monthly check? And why do we never hear about rich progressives “voting against their own interests” instead of lining up with Grover Norquist on tax questions? If I am a food-stamp recipient who thinks Larry Kudlow has it right on economic policy, and that Kudlow-nomics might produce the kind of robust economic conditions that would allow me to get off food stamps, am I “voting against my own interests” if I follow Kudlow’s lead on Election Day? Even if we believed that continued dependency were in the interest of poor people, is that their only interest?

Either Tracy Jan and the Post got snookered on this one or they are playing along with an exercise in political rhetoric masquerading as an exercise in social research. In either case, this is shoddy work of which they should be embarrassed. ""

From: Tonybear61
09-Jul-18
Give a man a fish- feed him for a day, teach him to fish spends all that hard earned grocery money on boat, trailer, ice hose, fishfinder, etc.

How about teach a man to pray, realize the helpful nature of God and all his creation including other men (plural for men and women for those who don't understand the meaning of the root word as there are only two options). Then all humans (men and women) get together go build a town with a church, a city, then a nation. All under God. I have seen plenty of client locations with folks of about every nationality and structure getting along, enjoying their work. Sharing meals, greeting each other, helping out, being successful as a team. Yes it can be done with the right rules and proper procedure, no shortcuts to tick off the folks who did do it by the rules and were better for it. I have also seen the folks with reduced ability(mental and or physical) working part-time at the same type of locations. Clients are generally very well please with the organizations that offer this service.

No long term handouts with out effort as most people do have value if they apply themselves and are coached properly. Fact is some are too lazy and would rather have the freebie, claiming some bogus issue thus abusing the system. Those are the ones folks can agree need to be weeded out.

From: Tonybear61
09-Jul-18
Give a man a fish- feed him for a day, teach him to fish spends all that hard earned grocery money on boat, trailer, ice hose, fishfinder, etc.

How about teach a man to pray, realize the helpful nature of God and all his creation including other men (plural for men and women for those who don't understand the meaning of the root word as there are only two options). Then all humans (men and women) get together go build a town with a church, a city, then a nation. All under God. I have seen plenty of client locations with folks of about every nationality and structure getting along, enjoying their work. Sharing meals, greeting each other, helping out, being successful as a team. Yes it can be done with the right rules and proper procedure, no shortcuts to tick off the folks who did do it by the rules and were better for it. I have also seen the folks with reduced ability(mental and or physical) working part-time at the same type of locations. Clients are generally very well please with the organizations that offer this service.

No long term handouts with out effort as most people do have value if they apply themselves and are coached properly. Fact is some are too lazy and would rather have the freebie, claiming some bogus issue thus abusing the system. Those are the ones folks can agree need to be weeded out.

From: HDE
09-Jul-18
BEG - the main point to the article:

"About 51% of immigrant-led households receive at least one kind of welfare benefit, including Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches and housing assistance, compared to 30% for native-led households, according to the report from the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for lower levels of immigration.

Those numbers increase for households with children, with 76% of immigrant-led households receiving welfare, compared to 52% for the native-born."

These social programs cost taxpayers money; is the immigrants economic benefit to society able to offset the cost? Are their taxes enough to cover the wellfare checks? Nope. If they were, then they would not need the added subsistence from the gov't. We pay and make up the difference. What they really contribute is keeping the cost of labor low such as, either keeping the purchase price of fresh perishable goods low or a more handsome profit for the corporation. You make a hefty salary, so you should understand why that would be important...

From: Trax
09-Jul-18
The key issue in not immigrants. It is not Mexicans. It is not jobs. It is not welfare. It is the word illegal. Properly address that and all of those other things are addressed.

From: bigeasygator
09-Jul-18
“What they really contribute is keeping the cost of labor low such as, either keeping the purchase price of fresh perishable goods low or a more handsome profit for the corporation”

Yes, precisely. More than offsetting their economic costs. Receiving welfare has nothing to do with the economic contribution you are making to society.

From: HDE
09-Jul-18
It is if it takes money out of my pocket, counteracting to what capitalism is.

Might want to go back and reread your first post and then see how it stacks up against your latest reply to mine. Your still sidstepping...

09-Jul-18
So, let me be sure I got this straight, the illegals are reducing my paycheck by being available to suppress wages and they are increasing my taxes by using benefits set up for citizens!? The benefit to me is cheaper cumquats! And I and supposed to be happy about all that!?

From: HDE
09-Jul-18
Yep, because economic contribution outweighs common sense.

Now if taxes were reduced and the price of cumquats remain low due to low labor cost (aka an operating expense for farm Somethingoranother) then you'd be just plain giddy.

From: bigeasygator
09-Jul-18
It puts money in your pocket, HDE. That’s the whole point. You all focus on one tiny part of the equation ignoring all of the benefits you, apparently, unknowingly derive from immigration. Not sure what I’m “sidestepping.” Again, too many people are either ignorant or choose to ignore the economic benefits that immigration bring.

That’s exactly how anyone without the clearest sense of how markets work would interpret it, Spike. First off, your initial post had nothing to do with illegals. Illegals are not eligible for welfare for the thousandth time.

Acompetitive workforce lowers wages. The more immigrants, the more competition. What do lower wages do? Lower the cost of goods that every American purchases. That’s not the only thing immigrant labor does. Immigration increases the labor force as well. This brings economic opportunity to areas it might not otherwise exist. It allows investors to earn money on capital, which gets returned to shareholders or is invested in future growth opportunities. This is how it has worked in this country, from the initial settlement, through the industrial revolution, to today.

From: MT in MO
09-Jul-18
I have yet to see anyone argue against legal immigration. I do see some slicksters who try to make the argument against illegal immigration to be an argument against all immigration...they just muddy the waters...

From: HDE
09-Jul-18
BEG - still missing the point. The point is that immigrants with lower wages require gov't handouts to bridge the gap. Those handouts are funded by the duty you pay to the gov't for doing well. I am quite certain the extra duty paid does not come close to the savings of a cheap product. And since the competative workforce drives down wages, how does that offset a condition of being better off, a delta of a few percent less in duty paid...?

Hardly.

09-Jul-18
So you can guarantee me that NO illegals are collecting any kind of government money that they are not legally entitled to, beg?

From: trublucolo
09-Jul-18
"I do see some slicksters who try to make the argument against illegal immigration to be an argument against all immigration...they just muddy the waters..."

That's been beg's style since he arrived here..... he'll argue, then he'll deny, then he'll disappear until he's ready to muddy the waters again. I think beg is yfp's older educated sister.

From: bigeasygator
10-Jul-18
Lol, tbc showing off those strong reading comprehension skills again. I’ve been consistent on this thread and every other immigration thread - my stance has been PRO-IMMIGRATION (and has not wavered). It’s other people who are arguing AGAINST immigration and confuse illegal immigration with legal immigration. Maybe you should read the things you quote instead of being so focused on trying to somehow call me out.

Post me one economic analysis that shows the benefits of immigration contrasted with the costs, HDE, that makes the conclusion that immigration is a net cost to this country. There are plenty out there that come to the conclusion I’m arguing for. Post up some data and back up your stance that immigration is a net economic cost to this country. The problem is not with immigration, it’s with the welfare state. Milton Friedman understands this. That immigration is an overwhelming positive to the economy. That in a welfare state, illegal immigration is actually more desirable than legal immigration because illegals are ineligible for entitlements. “Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as it’s illegal.” These comments were not an indictment of immigration - they were the opposite. Not sure why everyone else here tries to put the problem on immigration.

It’s not just about wages. I can tell you that economic opportunities wouldn’t exist without immigrants. My city was rebuilt on the backs of immigrant labor after Katrina. There was no work force to do the necessary work. People profited mightily off the immigrant workforce - and it wasn’t just because they saved $10/hr on labor. It was because they were able to take advantage of economic opportunities that wouldn’t have existed had there not been an immigrant construction force to rebuild this town. That is a microcosm of what immigration and the immigrant workforce does in this economy.

From: Trax
10-Jul-18
Bigeasyliberal once again taking the intention of Friedman completely out of context. It's what liberal's do!

But let's get right to the illegal cost analysis without the leftist spin. True, it would be better to pay illegals (or anyone) without entitlements of any kind. Is this what is happening? What happens when they need a doctor? What happens when their kids need a doctor? Does the illegals anchor baby get entitlements? What happens when the illegals need education for their illegal kids? What percentage of people incarcerated in our prison system are illegals? What percentage of murderers incarcerated are illegals? What strain do illegals put on our judicial and penitentiary systems? Our schools? Our hospitals? Bigeasyliberal won't like the answers, or he won't acknowledge them. Illegals in this country are a major and very serious problem in this country. We need to develop the system that will make them deport themselves and the system that will best serve our needed work force and legal immigrants. The solution is simple.

From: HA/KS
10-Jul-18
BEG is for lawbreaking. If we are not a nation of laws, we are not a free nation.

From: KSflatlander
10-Jul-18

KSflatlander's Link
Be careful about pointing fingers HA/KS. Seems like there are others who have issue with the "nation of laws" philosophy.

From: bigeasygator
10-Jul-18
“BEG is for lawbreaking. If we are not a nation of laws, we are not a free nation.”

Not at all - not even close to what I said. I said the economic arguments against immigration are always incomplete. That’s what I’ve said this whole thread. The OP was about the economics of LEGAL immigration, only focusing on a tiny part of the equation. We do have laws and they should be honored and upheld, despite the economic benefits derived by Americans when they are broken. I’m all for changing the laws to open up competition and allow markets to operate as efficiently as optimally as possible.

And there goes Trax both 1) not understanding Friedman (not surprised as he clearly doesn’t understand Libertarianism) and 2) proving MT in MO’s point. Friedman was crystal clear - welfare is the problem, not immigration.

From: HA/KS
10-Jul-18
Thanks for clarifying BEG. You are saying that people who break immigration laws should suffer the penalties in those laws?

Flatlander presidential pardons are in our laws, so you cannot equate them with not following our laws.

From: HDE
10-Jul-18
BEG, stick to the article. That's the whole point to this thread.

I remeber once you getting into a tiff with another Bowsiter about how much tax you [both] pay, because, you know, you're both wealthy. So here's what I want you to do. I want you to give up 80% of your net take home to charity, live in a modest home, drive ok vehicles with at least 100k miles on them, then come back and talk about how competition to drive down wages is a good thing and how giving any surplus back to suppressed wage workers is good.

Your stance promotes either suppressed prosperity, or unemployment because to be prosperous a guy has to work two jobs to keep from getting a wellfare handout.

It's easy to like the low wage labor pool as you tip the valet attendant or hotel maid a couple of shiny new quarters because you appreciate the job they do. Then you jump in your 2018 brand new whatever and drive away...

From: HDE
10-Jul-18
And, immigration is a problem if it causes a state of wellfare.

All goes back to your competition driving down wages.

From: KSflatlander
10-Jul-18
I would say Trump pardoning those who commit illegal activity is relevant if you want to be absolute and call BEG out.

From: bigeasygator
10-Jul-18
Where have I ever said anything to the contrary, HA/KS? Yes, if you’re here illegally you should face the consequences. This was never a question of legality - if it was there would be no thread as those same laws permit the welfare programs that legal immigrants utilize. This was a question of economics.

From: HA/KS
10-Jul-18
Thanks, BEG

  • Sitka Gear