Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 3 votes

Heritage foundation reporting amnesty would cost $6.3T to deficit


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#46 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,380 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 08:34 PM

wow, that "study" is disgusting.



#47 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,765 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 09:32 PM

g5: Hey you guyz u got nothing to argue about with the unassailable logic of this report so you have to attack the messenger or spout librul media talking points THINK YOU LEMMINGZ



#48 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,431 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 10:34 PM

A racist's news sources are really racist. Who knew?

#49 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,138 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 07:53 AM

Waiting for contrasting studies...

 

 



#50 Gazi

Gazi

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,798 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 10:14 AM

First we need to find a racist ass to pull it out of



#51 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,870 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 10:41 AM

Waiting for contrasting studies...

 

From the actual Social Security Administration

 

http://blogs.wsj.com...overhaul-helps/

 

The Senate immigration bill will help improve Social Security’s long-term solvency and reduce the number of immigrants entering the U.S. illegally, according to a Social Security Administration analysis.

 

On the heels of a Heritage Foundation report that criticized an immigration overhaul as a budget-buster that would cost trillions, the latest data could be a boon for immigration proponents who have touted the economic benefits of a Senate proposal.

 

The analysis concludes that the effect of the immigration bill “will be positive” for Social Security’s finances over the long-term. More workers will pay taxes and, eventually, will be eligible for retirement benefits, and “the additional births for the increased population under this bill will have substantial positive effects,” the Social Security Administration’s Chief Actuary Stephen Goss wrote in a letter to Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.).

 

The letter provides data about how the legislation would impact the U.S. population and Social Security’s finances over a decade. Mr. Goss said SSA was working to evaluate the legislation over a 75-year time frame.

 

The Senate immigration bill, which seeks to increase border security, create new visa programs and provide a path to citizenship for millions in the U.S. illegally, would add more than 6.5 million taxpayers over a decade. They would generate more than $275 billion in revenue for Social Security. Social Security costs would increase by $33 billion over that time, as well, as a result of the bill.

 

The legislation also brings in revenue for Medicare: more than $64 billion over 10 years. But the analysis didn’t provide an estimate for how much Medicare costs would increase over that time.

 

Immigration changes would carry other economic benefits, according to the report. The legislation would add 3.2 million jobs over a decade and increase gross domestic product by 1.63%.

 

The immigration bill would add more than five million U.S. residents over a decade, according to the report. That’s far fewer than some immigration critics had feared. For instance, Sen. Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican who opposes the immigration changes, proposed an amendment that would cap the number of immigrants allowed to gain legal status at 20 million for the next decade.

 

Of the more than 11 million people living in the U.S. illegally, the report estimated that about 8 million would eventually receive an interim legal status, which would put them on the path to becoming permanent legal residents.

 

The Social Security analysis concluded that border security measures in the Senate immigration bill would ultimately reduce the number of new immigrants sneaking into the country. “We estimate these provisions will reduce the number entering the country without authorization by about half a million per year by the time the measures are fully implemented,” the letter states.

 

 

 



#52 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,431 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 11:38 AM

Waiting for contrasting studies...

 

So you can in turn counter with the latest article from Phrenology Today?



#53 dos poptarts

dos poptarts

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 728 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 11:41 AM

So in summary... the consensus is that we want the Gov't to fix the tax law they wrote that provded loopholes to the rich to close those loopholes. Good luck with that.

If all loopholes/deductions/credits were eliminated and we could start over on a new tax code (it can be progressive), I definitely listen.

 

Now back to the immigration issue.

Seems very simple to me.

Step 1: Heavy fines and jail time for companies/employers who hire illegals. If this isn't fixed then granting amnesty fixes nothing. Those employers will just hire the next wave of illegals.

 

I live in Texans and I don't hire illegals for lawn care, home repair, nothing. Though I admit I do provide some business to a couple of food trucks and sno cone stands.

 

Step 2: Sorry, if you need welfare, no citizenship until you prove you are not a burden to the public.

It's been a while since I filled out the paperwork for my wife to immigrate but this was a big one. I had to disclose alot of financial information to show that bringing her to the US that we would not need financial assistance.

Note: I'm saying a requirement for US citizenship, not US residence.

 



#54 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,765 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 08:16 PM

You can't fine the employers. They vote.

 

 

Here's the deal: The GOP will never actually DO anything other than complain about illegals because too many of their donors and supporters use illegal labor. So they are in the position where they HAVE to do something now in order to be relevant in the future, but they rely too much on crazy racists, Tea Partiers and other groups happy to lay the blame for whatever perceived ills they see on the poor/illegal workers. Catch 22.



#55 Gazi

Gazi

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,798 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 03:57 PM

epic thread. Did g5 run away leaving this racist trash behind?



#56 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,765 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 04:03 PM

He'll pop his head up and offer something tangentially related to this in order to clear the slate



#57 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,431 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 04:54 PM

We'll just have to entertain ourselves with the poster that lives inside Arian Foster and JJ Watt.

#58 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,870 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 09:51 AM

The co-author of this study has "resigned"

 

http://www.washingto...age-foundation/

 

 



#59 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,765 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 12:40 PM

When do you think all the marginally reasonable people around here of the conservative persuasion will realize that the talking points they feel are so reasonable continue to be written by people like this?

 

Just consider the mind blowing simplicity of the idea that the ACA is basically the Republican counter offer to the Dems plan of the 90's but even more conservative then it was, yet it's now the originating point of Americas slide into socialism because the guy who signed it had a D in front of his name. It's pretty crazy.



#60 TruthVsComfort

TruthVsComfort

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 421 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 12:14 PM

The co-author of this study has "resigned"

 

http://www.washingto...age-foundation/

 

 

From that article:
 

 

The study written by Richwine and Robert Rector argued that the immigration reform bill would cost $6.3 trillion, but it was widely panned by conservative groups pushing for immigration reform as not accounting for the economic benefits of immigrants.

Complicating matters were a series of revelations about Richwine, including that he had written a doctoral thesis at Harvard University arguing that the United States should focus its immigration efforts on those with high IQs and that he had written for a Web site that describes itself as “nationalist.”

 

 

 

 

He wants to push the idea of IQ correlating with race - but I think a more a accurate correlation on IQ is where you fall on the political spectrum and your religiosity.

 

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs.

 

"The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward," said George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, who was not involved in the study. "It also makes perfect sense that more intelligent people -- people with, sort of, more intellectual firepower -- are likely to be the ones to do that."

 

The study looked at a large sample from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which began with adolescents in grades 7-12 in the United States during the 1994-95 school year. The participants were interviewed as 18- to 28-year-olds from 2001 to 2002. The study also looked at the General Social Survey, another cross-national data collection source.

 

Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid, Kanazawa said. Assuming that, for example, a noise in the distance is a signal of a threat helped early humans to prepare in case of danger.

 

"It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere," Kanazawa said.

 

Participants who said they were atheists had an average IQ of 103 in adolescence, while adults who said they were religious averaged 97, the study found. Atheism "allows someone to move forward and speculate on life without any concern for the dogmatic structure of a religion," Bailey said.

 

"Historically, anything that's new and different can be seen as a threat in terms of the religious beliefs; almost all religious systems are about permanence," he noted.

 

"Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with," he said.

 

Given that human ancestors had a keen interest in the survival of their offspring and nearest kin, the conservative approach -- looking out for the people around you first -- fits with the evolutionary picture more than liberalism, Kanazawa said. "It's unnatural for humans to be concerned about total strangers." he said.

 

The study found that young adults who said they were "very conservative" had an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas those who said they were "very liberal" averaged 106.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...ence/index.html

 

 

In other words, on average, an adolescent liberal atheist is more intelligent than an adult religious conservative. This explains a lot.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.