Replies

At present, 84 percent of the federal budget is for entitlements, defense, homeland security, or interest on the debt. Any effort to achieve a reduction in spending by focusing on the remaining 16 percent is unlikely to be very effective. For example, a 1 percent cut in nominal non-security discretionary spending for one year reduces total spending by only 0.17 percent. Over five years, it reduces total spending by 0.89 percent......http://www.brookings.edu/views/testimony/sawhill/20060215.htm ......Look at the cash!!!!Another thread on here yesterday noted that one of the Senate plans allowed 193 million immigrants over 20 years. IMHO, that number is no accident. That number is what Capitol Hill has calculated will be required to keep our social programs AND the rest of governmnet running. This explains the "bipartisan" character of border neglect.

This explains the "bipartisan" character of border neglect.

So they need third world slave labor to continue making the ever increasing interest payments on their horrific debt. In other words, they have failed us miserably.

Problem with your theory is they are net takers from the government (taxpayers). They don't pay enough in taxes to cover the benefits they get. Once they are legal the benfits go up. So where is all that cash the government is supposed to be collecting from them?

End the entitlements for the illegals. Welfare, tuition, health care other than true emergencies. Those willing to come here for just what they're now being paid as wages might actually make fine Americans, once acculturated, if we gave them the chance. Working hard, for low pay without freebies, in search of the American dream used to be our immigrant norm. Without the freebies they would be much less of a drain on local resources. Those who couldn't make would relocate home where the cost of living was cheaper. "Illegal" wages would be bid up by the decreased supply of illegals and make it easier for citizens and legals to compete. The courts may give you some problems with this for awhile, but that can be solved by appointing better judges and writing better laws. The framers didn't intend non-citizens to get these freebies (or citizens for that matter!) so this change is a return towards the constitution, regardless of what liberal judges say. Weaning the citizens from THEIR unconstitutional freebies alas will be tougher to achieve but eventually needs to be done. Welfare reformed proved it was possible.