Bowsite.com

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.

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!!!!

hehehehhehhehehehe

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.

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......

"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

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!

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

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!

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

“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.

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. ""

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.

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.

"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...

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

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...

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.

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.

Hardly.

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.

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.

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

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...

All goes back to your competition driving down wages.