Posted on 07/03/2011 5:30:36 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
p>The Talk Shows
July 3rd, 2011
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Pre-empted by Wimbledon tennis coverage.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Govs. John Kasich, R-Ohio; Deval Patrick, D-Mass.; and Scott Walker, R-Wis.; Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Panels on the Constitution and immigration with analysts and commentators.
STATE OF THE UNION (CNN): Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.; Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan; AOL co-founder Steve Case.
I think the moderator is Shannon Brene. She has been taking over on Special Report some for Bret.
My local Rep spoke at our Tea Party yesterday. He was not complimentary of the R ‘leadership’.
GOD bless him for speaking the truth! Happy 4th FRiend!
LLS
I agree that the figure in your post is most certainly close, if not being spot-on correct.
The numbers in your post will not do much to persuede those on the fence about "amnesty" for the illegals that are here. The cartoon I posted is how they (the pro-amnesty crowd) have and will continue to try to sell it to the masses, ESPECIALLY to the retired or soon-to-be retired who are already frightful from the dems non-stop "mediscare" propaganda.
IIRC, there have been 43 million abortions since Roe V. Wade. Europe is in decline monetarily because of an ever growing reduction in the birth rate. This makes for a decrease in revenue, with more people added to the "retiree welfare rolls", with those that are on it living longer.
Europe has NO real way out. The US does have one shot.
Amnesty.
Both parties KNOW that without an infusion of "new contributors" to those social(ist) programs, they will shortly die under their own weight.
Take that 47% that are NOT on welfare and are possibly a part of the "underground economy", and turn them into "legal contributors" to the system, and this gives the infusion of almost "instant revenue" to continue the sham and scam ponzi scheme for a few years longer, along with no disruption of goodies for those non-contributors hooked on their monthly supply of the government "crack" that you and I pay for.
Even if the Federal Tax money is yearly returned to them under the Earned Income Tax Credit, they have a year or so to "play with it" to cook the books and fudge the "new" higher numbers which will also rise from the non-returned SS and Medicare "contributions" collected.
Why do you think that the 1099 thingee in Obamacare was put in the bill??
IMHO, they know that "underground money" is out there and they aren't getting any of it.
Why do you think Obamacare was written to be "mandatory"??
The Marxists want it "mandatory" for EVERYONE to be in their "database" to "contribute" and by making them "legal" gets them "registered", which is the Marxists goal.
They'll tell you "amnesty" is compassion;
They REALLY want the SS, Medicare and Federal tax money revenue, because with out it, the dems "gov't crack" scheme collapses quite quckly.
IMHO, Obamacare was NEVER about health care.
It WAS all about a national mandatory database, which would have NEVER been able to pass any other way.
(Sorry for the rant kabar, and thanks for your reply to my post.)
And think about Lieberman’s voice... Is in not nasily and whiney like Larry’s? Almost a perfect match...
Except Graham isn’t lovable like Curly. None of them are.
Just a bunch of goofy stooges we’d rather not see for the next 50 Sundays!
That’s because I am a timber company and business is going crazy.
Because the only provision in the Internal Revenue Code for taxing the rich is the Estate Tax, and that happens only when you die. If/when the government decides to actually tax a Multi-BILLIONAIRE like Warren Buffet differently from a 200-MILLIONAIRE differently from some 30-year-old making his first million, that means the reporting and compliance involved will make the 1099 provision in Obamacare look as simple as changing the mileage deduction rate.
When I hear the proponents talk about raising 3.9 TRILLION from taxing the rich, like Fareed, there's no mention of the government spending required to build the buildings to house the employees who will have to write the rules, track the reporting, enforce the provisions, etc. etc. And the estimated amount of pension liability needed to provide for the retirement of all of those government employees needed to make sure that the rich pay a fair share.
Just because there's no development or collection cost for the unicorn tears we will use to power our personal commuting devices of the future doesn't mean that there won't be a cost involved in taxing the rich. It's just that nobody in the media or professional politics wants to confuse us with it. Increased tax proposals apparently don't have a cost; just increased opportunity for the wealth spreaders.
Romney’s the weak Establishment horse and Palin is the only other candidate in a position to stop him, but that simple truth is the last thing anyone in the media wants to acknowledge.
Look at this Gallup poll. Only Romney and the still undeclared Palin register double-digit support (at 24% and 16% respectively), while after the massive media hype of the last two weeks Bachmann only ties at 7th with Gingrich, at 5%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx
I do think that other RINOs could hurt Romney but Pawlenty hasn’t done much and I think Huntsman got lost on his way to entering the Democrat primary. I’m hoping Rudy gets in because he could possibly siphon off Romney’s base of northeast support in states like Pa and NJ.
Though I don’t trust polls this far out, by and large I agree with you. It’s probably Romney or Palin.
Yeah, Huntsman if anything helps Romney by making him not the most conservative candidate in the field. TPaw is pathetic, though there will likely still be a TPaw boomlet somewhere along the way.
Romney and Palin are still and consistently the only two polling in double digits and they are very likely to be the semifinal card.
I’m not surprised. Down here we have a 90 octane fuel that has no ethanol at all. It costs more but most boaters use it.
Congrats way to go.
IMHO, the entire scam is designed to make everyone poorer and the govt. richer. But,like most of their scams it won’t work. Any time you tax rich people they simply pass it on to, you guessed it, if you said middle class or poor people. The regime knows that but they don’t care. They have a tax and spend mentality and have no use for capitalism.
Any legislation that legalizes the status of those who broke our laws by entering our country illegally and allows them to stay is amnesty. We must not only prevent the Democrats and some moderate Republicans from hijacking the meaning of the word amnesty, but the public must be made aware about the true impact of an amnesty. The Heritage Foundation concluded that the cost of amnesty alone would be $2.6 trillion just for the entitlement costs. And the number of additional LEGAL immigrants who would join those who were the recipients of amnesty through chain migration, i.e., family reunification, would approach 70 million over a 20-year period, assuming there are only 12 million illegal aliens. We cannot assimilate such numbers. An amnesty would destroy the United States of America with the stroke of a pen.
If you believe that 70 to 100 million more people from the third world on top of our immigration numbers is a way out, you are crazy.
Take that 47% that are NOT on welfare and are possibly a part of the "underground economy", and turn them into "legal contributors" to the system, and this gives the infusion of almost "instant revenue" to continue the sham and scam ponzi scheme for a few years longer, along with no disruption of goodies for those non-contributors hooked on their monthly supply of the government "crack" that you and I pay for.
Note that the 53% of immigrants who are on welfare are MOSTLY LEGAL IMMIGANTS. In order to qualify legally for federal welfare programs, you must be here legally. The American citizen children of illegal aliens, aka anchor babies are entitled to food stamps, Medicaid, etc.
Here is a recent study on immigrant welfare use repleat with dataAmong the findings:
• In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.
• Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.
• A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.
• Immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, even before the current recession. In 2001, 50 percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for natives.
• Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).
• The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent).
• We estimate that 52 percent of households with children headed by legal immigrants used at least one welfare program in 2009, compared to 71 percent for illegal immigrant households with children. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children.
• Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of program.
There are an estimated 8 million illegal aliens working in the US. Perhaps 30% to 40% of those pay payroll taxes. SS is a pay as you go system. Tapping into an additional 5 million people who would pay into the system with minimum contributions will not save SS. 10,000 people a day are retiring now and will continue to do so for the next 20 years. By 2030 one in five residents of this country will be 65 or older or twice what it is now. And by 2030, there will be just two workers for every retiree. Immigrants grow old as well.
Some people point out that illegal aliens do pay into Social Security. About half are estimated, by our work, to be paying Social Security tax. And we've estimated that the amount of money that illegal aliens pay into Social Security is about $6 billion dollars a year. And so people say, well see, Social Security can be saved by immigration or illegal immigration. But that's not correct. Because what we also found was that in programs other than Social Security, illegal aliens imposed a burden of $16 billion for a net negative for the federal budget of $10 billion.
So yes, they should illegal aliens do create a net fiscal benefit for Social Security, paying about $6 billion (dollars) a year in Social Security taxes. But they create burdens in non-Social Security programs of $16 billion (dollars) for a net negative for the federal government of $10 billion (dollars). Thus, any suggestion that illegal immigration is fixing or saving the social security system is incorrect because there's the non-Social Security part of the federal budget, which you have to consider.
Finally, it should also be pointed out that although we estimate that illegal aliens pay about $6 billion (dollars) in Social Security tax, that comes to only about 1 percent of all the Social Security tax collected in the United States a very tiny fraction of the total. In other words, we could do without all the illegal aliens and all the Social Security taxes they pay, and it would have basically no impact on the Social Security system.
They'll tell you "amnesty" is compassion
Amnesty is to get more Dem voters so they can control the electoral system permanently. The demographics of this country are going their way. Amnesty will just hasten the process. Check out the link below for a study by Professor James Gimpel of the University of Maryland on the impact of immigration and voting:
Immigration, Political Realignment, and the Demise of Republican Political Prospects
They REALLY want the SS, Medicare and Federal tax money revenue, because with out it, the dems "gov't crack" scheme collapses quite quckly.
Immigration is a big contributor to the collapse of the welfare state. The poverty rate for immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) is 17 percent, nearly 50 percent higher than the rate for natives and their children. Massive low-skill immigration works to counteract government anti-poverty efforts. While government works to reduce the number of poor persons, low-skill immigration pushes the poverty numbers up. In addition, low-skill immigration siphons off government anti-poverty funding and makes government efforts to shrink poverty less effective.
Milton Friedman said, “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.” We have both.
That’s a pretty good analysis,would be my bet right now as well.
Oops, yes, and I think you knew what I meant:
Huntsman makes Romney “not the most liberal candidate in the field”.
Yeah for sure,as bad as the rinos want him I don’t think he is going any where.
“Funny, a conservative Democrat should get in the race now”
Funny also that the old-time Dems ARE conservative compared to the far-left Progressives that have taken over their party. I can think of several examples. (Hillary’s not one.)
I’ve said for several weeks now that Trump should run as a Dem if he’s really serious about wanting to defeat BHO as he so often stated, NOT run as an Independent which would assure a BHO victory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.