BobStackFan4Life
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 31,661
- Reaction score
- 1,538
No group in the world more entitled than middle class white people in America
Says the fucker living large in Santa Monica.
No group in the world more entitled than middle class white people in America
Facts: Don't take all the jobs but they take many of the jobs while at the same time driving down wages, some are lazy, many are hard working, immigrants tend to be far more dependent on welfare than the native born population.
Have any data to back this up?
Comment left for 84 Lumber on their Facebook page by someone who gets it:
The 84 Lumber owner is a Trump voter who referenced wanting to make sure Trump builds that great big door in the wall that he promised for legal immigration.
Facts: Don't take all the jobs but they take many of the jobs while at the same time driving down wages, some are lazy, many are hard working, immigrants tend to be far more dependent on welfare than the native born population.
Comment left for 84 Lumber on their Facebook page by someone who gets it:
The 84 Lumber owner is a Trump voter who referenced wanting to make sure Trump builds that great big door in the wall that he promised for legal immigration.
Too bad for that dipshit that his company is now being boycotted by decent people who care about MAGA.
Bob did you read the CATO takedown of the CIS immigration data? Looks like your CIS friends were at it again
Motherfucker, I've posted data on this shit for over a year. How dare you ask me to spoon feed you yet again, especially when you'll just ignore the data and remain beholden to your beliefs. Cause it's easier to be sanctimonious and deny the reality of what's happening. But please don't put me back on ignore. Thx.
Remember when bsf told people to stop being mean and calling names?
Nice work, hypocrite.
I don't know what you're referring to. Did CIS offer a rebuttal? Are you a libertarian? If not, why are you reading CATO? Or were you just desperate to try and discredit the data in one of the hundreds of CIS reports and looked for anything you could find to do so?
I am not a libertarian. When I searched "immigrant welfare use" on google, it was the third link, directly under the CIS data. I don't automatically discredit any source, including CIS or CATO. In this case, it was pretty easy to find the CATO piece compelling, because they showed that the data buried in the tables in the CIS publication don't actually say what their headlines claim. Given their previous work, this wasn't surprising to me.
Given the complexity of the SIPP and the sensitivity of the issue, we took the extra step of having all of our calculations verified by Decision Demographics, an independent statistical consulting firm that takes no position on immigration.
So what do open-borders enthusiasts do when confronted with such indisputable data? They change the subject. That's what the Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh did in his response to our study. While we compare the welfare use of immigrants and natives, he spends several paragraphs on what he calls "the interesting question", which is how poor immigrants compare to poor natives in terms of welfare use. He gives no reason why this is a more interesting question. It actually obscures the comparison considerably, since poverty is a major driver of welfare use and immigrants are more likely to live in poverty.
As we make clear in our report, the main reason that immigrants use more welfare than natives is simply that immigrants tend to be less educated and subsequently poorer than natives. Welfare use is not a moral failing on the part of low-skilled immigrants any more than it is for low-skilled natives. Our point is that as long as we continue to take in so many low-skilled immigrants (legal or illegal), immigrant welfare use will remain high. To "correct for" education and income differences is to deliberately obscure that point.
Nowrasteh then finds another subject unrelated to our report to talk about. He says immigrants pay into Social Security and Medicare, making up for the money they draw from the welfare system. But unlike welfare that most Americans will not use, Social Security and Medicare enrollment is nearly universal once people reach retirement age — this is true for both immigrants and natives. Thus, these programs are very different from welfare programs.
Further, low-income Americans (whether they are immigrants or natives) tend to receive more in benefits from Social Security and Medicare than they contribute in payroll taxes. It seems odd that the Cato Institute, which has condemned Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, would celebrate how immigration might prop up the system for a while — before an even larger bill comes due.
In any case, all working immigrants will contribute payroll taxes. Why not carefully select the ones who also will not use welfare? Immigrant selection seems anathema to Nowrasteh's worldview. He wants to let everyone in.
http://cis.org/camarota/cato-institute-misses-point-immigrant-welfare-use-againNowrasteh also tries to change the subject by implying that looking at households (rather than individuals) is somehow unfair to immigrants, despite the fact that we address this thoroughly in the report. It is worth pointing out that the late Julian Simon of the Cato Institute, himself a strong advocate of immigration, explicitly argued that households or families are the only effective way to look at welfare and the fiscal impact of immigration because that is how program eligibility and most taxes are calculated.
With so much media coverage of our report, including in USA Today, other responses are sure to come in. Readers should carefully note when would-be critics try to change the subject. It's an implicit admission that our report is correct.
Who did I Dox? And no, at any point if someone requests their personal life not be used to attack them on the board it should stop. Period. Don't be a dick.
Says the fucker living large in Santa Monica.
This isn't reality, right?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/donald-trump-was-not-briefed-9766516
Donald Trump 'wasn't briefed' on Executive Order he signed appointing Steve Bannon to National Security Council
Donald Trump ‘was not briefed’ on an Executive Order he signed placing an ex-far right website owner on America’s National Security Council.
The President is reportedly fuming because he wasn’t told the piece of paper he signed would put Steve Bannon on the crucial committee.
According to the New York Times, not being fully briefed on the appointment is "a greater source of frustration to the president than the fallout from the travel ban."
Bannon, the former CEO of far-right website Breitbart, is Trump’s ‘chief strategist’ in the White House - and is the first political appointee to be made a primary member of the Council.
2 pages later...
lol
This isn't reality, right?
He has trouble concentrating on policy memos. He can't find light switches. He retires for the night at 6:30 to watch TV in a bathrobe.
Given he's regularly posted the city where he lives on here that's not doxing someone. Go google "buckets santa monica" and see if you can find him. Plus I wasn't saying it to attack him, more just messing with him. But if he had a problem with me posting it I'd promptly delete it. Anyway, have fun going through my old posts Mr. Psycho Butthurt. Oooooops, did I just dox you as well?