Budget?

You can do that?

I think you have a great point, bay. Balance. How's about that. Teach 'em life skills AND a little culture.

The facts of this case is being fed to me by some of the "forty/fifty Something" that 'itch & storm about various 'injustices' in the system. I'll let you know, okay?


Thanks Bee. I loved Philosophy, but to a fellow who doesn't know what he owes, to whom he owes it, and when he will get the money to pay him, I think he needs some good accounting training instead of my beloved Immanuel Kant.

What are you doing this weekend?

I meant the question for those who insist that the world will come to an end for U.S. based employers if there isn't as much 'cheap labor' (including very very skilled labor) available.

I don't think that this has to do with what parents taught their children.

Unless you're really arguing that U.S. employers actually could not do what needs to be done with U.S. legal workers on account of their bad attitudes, bad upbringing, etc.

Are you?

Probably recuperating from what I did today.

I suspect everyone on these threads thinks I'm a complete idiot. But I like to know what is happening in my little world, so this morning my husband & I PICKED STRAWBERRIES. This is a familty enterprise; they apparently turned some serious acreage into a berry and fruit farm and people pick at a cost of about half of what is charged at the local WalMart. I wanted some nice fresh berries for a visit I'll be making.

NOT A HISPANIC in the field. It was mostly the Amish families, the young girls/women barefooted with long dresses. They are such a joy. Always laughing and talking. I think the 'trendy' American women have lost the ability to laugh at just the joy of being alive.

We chatted with a man about our age from a community across the way who picked in the row next to ours. He said the severe frost had wiped out this years apple crop (trees he has).

One never knows what life may hand him. I like to keep in practice that I'm not too good, too old, or too stiff (debatable) to handle a major debacle should one arise.

OK. And your verdict, bay? Would you pick berried 12 hours a day for a take-home pay of $3 an hour after deductions for housing, meals, "employment agency fees", "transportation advances", etc?

Yeah, to some degree that is exactly what I'm arguing. If you read a preceeding post you will see I make it a point to know/understand what the people in my little world are doing and thinking, I think there are plenty of US workers if all of them were willing to work. Too many of our young people seem to think they should automatically have what everyone else has, although they have no conception what the haves had to do to get to where they are.

What you never seem to learn about me is this:

I DON'T LIKE PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT EXERT EFFORT. Whether it is in the factory, the class room, the home, etc. People who will not put forth the effort to supply their own and their families needs throw the scales off balance, imho. Pulling your own weight is a learned experience and too many aren't learning it.



That could be a lot of things.... short, sheet, or.

No, but even with my 'boonie' education I could make more than that in several occupations. If that was all there was available to feed my family - then yes I would do it.

Maybe the growers who hire the illegals don't have their stuff together. This family advertised in the local paper and had pickers from previous years who they phoned to say the berries were ready for picking. I would dare say not one of the people picking had to depend on those efforts to make a living. They were local citizens who already had housing, meals, and transportation. So I would have to conclude that growers hiring illegals are:
Keeping too much profit for themselves...
Not charging enough for their product...
Not marketing properly....
If we had bought the berries we picked at supermarket prices minus what the berries cost us, divided by the hours we picked, I figured we made about $5. hr. Of course I picked twice as many (I'm not kidding) as my husband. A lot of the Amish girls were eating more (free) than they were putting in their bucket.

I'm much, much too simplistic for Nomarchy but if it takes loading up our country with illegals to get strawberries picked maybe the world doesn't need strawberries. Or if they do they can pay a little more for them. What is it Noma says.... supply and demand.

Basic finance ought to be taught in sixth grade or less.

Basic economics ought to be a jr high course. I'm afraid a lot of kids don't have the foggiest idea of how the real world works. Some get allowances, but making a budget is just part of dealing with real world economics. The thing is my first real dealing with economics was in college and it wasn't really that complicated. I could have handled it in Jr high or high school and would have been well ahead of the game.

If it weren't worth it to Mexicans they wouldn't bother coming. I suspect going back to Mexico with $600 a month in cash beats doing the myriad of small jobs Mexicans do that net mere survival pay. If you think 13 hours a day for $3 an hour sucks, imagine it for nothing.

That's true. I was watching something - C-Span, maybe - and they were discussing this new I-Bill. One of the gentlemen insisted that nothing would really help until Mexico gets it's act together. If it's as bad as he indicated it was I would pull in our generosity. For these reasons:
Social situations are like stuff in a pressure cooker. Stop up the little valve in the top and %$&#$*&%. Stuff all over the ceiling. (Never happened to me but I've heard about it.) I suspect our relationship with Mexico should be like the 'tough love' scenero. When it gets bad enough the natives will revolt. That may be the best thing that could happen.

Another analogy - too many people hanging onto a boat can sink it.

I had Bookkeeping and General Business in high school; and my desk sit about four feet away from our company Comptroller during my training; so I got a real world business education.

I have always loved math; it seems it is the one thing in life that no one can mess up or change. I can't imagine not having some kind of personal accounting system. I have to admit mine gets a little out of whack from time to time. I can't see worth a darn and pull the Scarlett O'Hara 'I'll think about that tomorrow' thing. Tomorrow keeps getting here sooner and sooner these days, it seems.

ISSUES > Immigration, Citizenship & Border Security

QUOTE

THE HIDDEN COST OF THE AMNESTY BILL

Robert Rector stirred up the puddin' inside the beltway yesterday.

Who is Robert Rector? He is the Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation specializing in welfare, poverty and marriage. He is a leading and respected authority in Washington on poverty and the U.S. welfare system.

Yesterday Heritage released a special report written by Rector and Christine Kim titled "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer." You can read the entire report right here [pdf], or you can click here for the executive summary.

You aren't going to hear very much about this report from the mainstream media. John McCain and Ted Kennedy, the architects of the amnesty bill, are going to do their best to ignore it.

May 21, 2007


Executive Summary: The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer


by Robert E. Rector and Christine Kim

Special Report #14

Each year, families and individuals pay taxes to the government and receive back a wide variety of services and benefits. When the benefits and services received by one group exceed the taxes paid, a distributional deficit occurs, and other groups must pay for the services and benefits of the group in deficit. Each year, government is involved in a large-scale transfer of resources between different social groups.

This paper provides a fiscal distribution analysis of households headed by immigrants without a high school diploma. The report refers to these households as "low-skill immigrant households." In fiscal year (FY) 2004 there were around 4.5 million low-skill immigrant households in the United States, containing 15.9 million persons, roughly 5 percent of the U.S. population. About 60 percent of these low-skill immigrant households were headed by legal immigrants and 40 percent by illegal immigrants

The analysis measures the total benefits and services received by these "low-skill immigrant households" com­pared to the total taxes paid. The difference between benefits received and taxes paid represents the total resources transferred by government on behalf of this group from the rest of society.

In FY 2004, federal, state, and local expenditures combined amounted to $3.75 trillion. Government expendi­tures can be divided into six categories:

Direct benefits, which include Social Security, Medicare, and a few smaller transfer programs;

Means-tested benefits, including cash, food, housing, social services, and medical care for poor and near-poor individuals;

Public educational services, which include the governmental cost of primary, secondary, vocational, and post-secondary education;

Population-based services, which are government services made available to a general community, including police and fire protection, highways, sewers, food safety inspection, and parks.

These first four categories can be termed "immediate benefits and services." Entry of legal or illegal immigrants into the U.S. will generally cause expenditures in these categories to rise. Two additional spending categories are:

Interest and other financial obligations resulting from prior government activity, including interest payments on government debt and other expenditures relating to the cost of government services pro­vided in earlier years; and

Pure public goods, which include national defense, international affairs and scientific research, and some environmental expenditures.

Entry of immigrants into the U.S. will generally not cause expenditures in these last two categories to increase, at least in the short term. Therefore, these categories are not included in the calculations on the fiscal burden imposed by low-skill immigrant households presented in this paper.

In FY 2004, low-skill immigrant households received $30,160 per household in immediate benefits and services (direct benefits, means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services). In general, low-skill immigrant households received about $10,000 more in government benefits than did the average U.S. household, largely because of the higher level of means-tested welfare benefits received by low-skill immigrant households.

In contrast, low-skill immigrant households pay less in taxes than do other households. On average, low-skill immigrant households paid only $10,573 in taxes in FY 2004. Thus, low-skill immigrant households received nearly three dollars in immediate benefits and services for each dollar in taxes paid.

A household's net fiscal deficit equals the cost of benefits and services received minus taxes paid. When the costs of direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services are counted, the average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of $19,588 (expenditures of $30,160 minus $10,573 in taxes).

At $19,588, the average annual fiscal deficit for low-skill immigrant households was nearly twice the amount of taxes paid. In order for the average low-skill household to be fiscally solvent (taxes paid equaling immediate benefits received), it would be necessary to eliminate Social Security and Medicare, all means-tested welfare, and to cut expenditures on public education roughly in half.

American families often are net tax payers during working age and net tax takers (benefits exceeding taxes) dur­ing retirement. This is not the case for low-skill immigrant households; in these households benefits substantially exceed taxes at every age level. Consequently, low-skill immigrant households impose substantial long-term costs on the U.S. taxpayer. Assuming an average adult life span of 60 years for each head of household, the average lifetime costs to the taxpayer will be nearly $1.2 million for each low-skill household for immediate benefits received minus all taxes paid.

As noted, in 2004, there were 4.5 million low-skill immigrant households. With an average net fiscal deficit of $19,588 per household, the total annual fiscal deficit for all of these households together equaled $89.1 billion (the deficit of $19,588 per household times 4.54 million low-skill immigrant households). Over the next ten years, the net cost (benefits minus taxes) to the taxpayer of low-skill immigrant households will approach $1 trillion.

Current immigrants (both legal and illegal) have very low education levels relative to the non-immigrant U.S. population. At least 50 percent and perhaps 60 percent of illegal immigrant adults lack a high school degree.[1] Among legal immigrants the situation is better, but a quarter still lack a high school diploma. Overall, a third of immigrant households are headed by individuals without a high school degree. By contrast, only 9 percent of non-immigrant adults lack a high school degree. The current immigrant population thus contains a disproportionate share of poorly educated individuals. These individuals will tend to have low wages, pay little in taxes, and receive above average levels of government benefits and services.

Recent waves of immigrants are disproportionately low skilled because of two factors. For years, the U.S. has had a permissive policy concerning illegal immigration: the 2,000-mile border with Mexico has remained porous and the law prohibiting the hiring of illegal immigrants has not been enforced. This encourages a disproportionate inflow of low-skill immigrants because few college-educated workers are likely to be willing to undertake the risks and hard­ships associated with crossing the southwest U.S. deserts illegally. Second, the legal immigration system gives pri­ority to "family reunification" and kinship ties rather than skills; this focus also significantly contributes to the inflow of low-skill immigrants into the U.S.

Understanding of the fiscal consequences of low-skill immigration is impeded by a lack of understanding of the scope of government financial redistribution within U.S. society. It is a common misperception that the only indi­viduals who are fiscally dependent (receiving more in benefits than they pay in taxes) are welfare recipients who per­form little or no work, and that as long as an individual works regularly he must be a net tax producer (paying more in taxes than his family receives in benefits).

In reality, the present welfare system is designed primarily to provide financial support to low-income working families. Moreover, welfare is only a modest part of the overall system of financial redistribution operated by the gov­ernment. Current government policies provide extensive free or heavily subsidized aid to low-skill families (both immigrant and non-immigrant) through welfare, Social Security, Medicare, public education, and many other ser­vices. At the same time, government requires these families to pay little in taxes. This very expensive assistance to the least advantaged American families has become accepted as our mutual responsibility for one another, but it is fis­cally unsustainable to apply this system of lavish income redistribution to an inflow of millions of poorly educated immigrants.

Finally, it is sometimes argued that since higher-skill immigrants are a net fiscal plus for the U.S. taxpayers, while low-skill immigrants are a net loss, the two cancel each other out and therefore no problem exists. This is like a stockbroker advising a client to buy two stocks, one that will make money and another that will lose money. Obvi­ously, it would be better to purchase only the stock that will be profitable and avoid the money-losing stock entirely. Similarly, low-skill immigrants increase poverty in the U.S. and impose a burden on taxpayers that should be avoided.

U.S.immigration policy should encourage high-skill immigration and strictly limit low-skill immigration. In general, government policy should limit immigration to those who will be net fiscal contributors, avoiding those who will increase poverty and impose new costs on overburdened U.S. taxpayers.

Recent proposed legislation in the Senate will do exactly the opposite.[2] By granting amnesty to illegal immi­grants (who are overwhelmingly low skilled) and creating massive new "guest worker" programs that would bring millions of additional low-skill families into the nation, such legislation, if enacted, would impose massive costs on the U.S. taxpayer.

Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

So, until and unless all these Americans don't change their ways, U.S. employers are right to insist that they need to import workers from abroad, legally and illegally, in order to get what they need done done economically.

bay, forgive me if I appear curt, but I am not in the mood for sermons.

By all means, bring in skilled workers to drag down wages for white collar workers to poverty level.

Heritage? They're industry mouthpieces, future-impaired greedy morons.

Maybe we should bring in some immigrants to compete for "Senior Research Fellow" jobs. They couldn't do worse, and those bloated, overpaid hacks could use a dose of their own medicine.

When I got promoted into management I learned quite a bit of bookeeping, but I'd already taken accounting. Bookeeping requires a eye for detail and some common sense, but it isn't that complicated. Accounting on the other hand is like law, not so cut and dried. I hated math because dad was so good at it and overwhelmed me when he tried tutoring, but my math SATs were well above average and I made NO attempt to improve them. (I believe I was hungover the morning I took them)

A lot of people have math anxiety. It's too bad, the real world applications are quite useful, sort of like economics or history. The nuts and bolts aren't always fun, but application to the real world is handy.

I'm thinking that we probably should have remained an isolated nation and built the walls a little higher and kept the tariffs/duties in our favor. The "leveling" of salaries for all workers, world-wide, doesn't seem to be working. I pulled away from Pat Buchanan when he separated from the Republican Party, but he is proving to be the "wise one" after all. America is different, because of "Americans" and the culture we built from scratch. Too much dilution will ruin the broth. The liberals, who really don't like our country, started destroying "our culture" in the late 1950s and early 1960s and we haven't been able to stop the rupture.

The Soviets tried that, the Chinese tried that. It doesn't work. Trade makes us richer and more competitive in the long run.

Leaving the borders open is a different problem.

Sorry, I edited that above. Thanks for catching that. bee.

The g/f had her entire thyroid removed, as the 'growth' (for lack of a better word) on the left side was tentatively identified as malignant upon 'ectomy'. She's recovering well, her voice is remarkably close to normal, and she's managing with 'reasonable' doses of morphine and vicoden.

Glad to hear she's recovering and sorry to hear she lost her thyroid.

Hope you both are feeling better soon.

I'm very glad she's better Nomarchy.

Isn't it odd LP, that after all the contentious posts we aimed at one another, that we come to a place in the road where we seem to arrive at the same conclusion.

I was so ticked off with Pat when he destroyed my 'United We Stand America' party that I couldn't see too much good about him. But he seems to be one of the few saying what I believe is correct.

We really do need a third party. If there ever was a time when one might survive it is NOW. It would take another Perot, who has the passion to see this country get back to its shining place on the hill and the money to help make it happen. I don't know if there is such a person. But for the sake of our beloved Republic I hope one surfaces soon.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE(bay @ May 21 2007, 07:50 PM)
Yeah, to some degree that is exactly what I'm arguing. If you read a preceeding post you will see I make it a point to know/understand what the people in my little world are doing and thinking, I think there are plenty of US workers if all of them were willing to work. Too many of our young people seem to think they should automatically have what everyone else has, although they have no conception what the haves had to do to get to where they are.

What you never seem to learn about me is this:

I DON'T LIKE PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT EXERT EFFORT. Whether it is in the factory, the class room, the home, etc. People who will not put forth the effort to supply their own and their families needs throw the scales off balance, imho. Pulling your own weight is a learned experience and too many aren't learning it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


QUOTE (Nomarchy, post #1915)
So, until and unless all these Americans don't change their ways, U.S. employers are right to insist that they need to import workers from abroad, legally and illegally, in order to get what they need done done economically.

bay, forgive me if I appear curt, but I am not in the mood for sermons.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The liberals, who really don't like our country, started destroying "our culture" in the late 1950s and early 1960s and we haven't been able to stop the rupture.

When I type away here at my computer, I'm often trying just to see the problem - and haven't necessarily come up with a 'bay solution'. I don't feel too badly about that - if all the great brains and educated people in this country haven't, why should I??

Also, I ramble, but just bear with me, I'm trying to tie a lot of thoughts together. I'm combinding yours(Nomarchy) and LP's post together because they both present the argument I'm having with myself these days.

Yes LP, I very defiantly agree with you more and more. I DO SEE the offspring from united families faring better in their future generations than those coming from broken homes. Those families with a father earning the support for their families gave the family a model for what should happen. I'm seeing a lot of male children raised by single mothers, who don't seem to understand the importance of earning a living for their mate and offspring - believing the government or someone who owns more than he does will/should do it. Do I think that should be a reason to bring more immigrants in - OF COURSE NOT. How many generations, with our social structure, do you think it will take for the immigrants to have exactly the same mind set as our own American born?? I can tell you... ONE. It's already happening.

The people promoting immigration tell us they are coming here to work. I think that is probably true of the first generation immigrant. But their offspring have already found the welfare offices and all the other freebies we have placed in our system.

SOLUTION?? I'm thinking.

bay, forgive me if I appear curt, but I am not in the mood for sermons.

Quite all right Nomarchy. The truth is your barbs only cause me to dig further into what is left of my gray matter to re-analize my thinking. We would all be wise to do that from time to time. To sort of summerize this segment of my thought process; it seems to me that more and more our young men are abdicating their roles of bread winner/head of household. That may be because (as LP points out) our culture changed. But it also seems to me that women are having to take on more and more burden. We went into the defense plants, factories, schools, hospitals, and all the places we were needed and society hasn't done a H of a lot to help us. As long as there are lazy men who will live off his 'woman with an income', I don't see much changing. And bringing in more immigrants CERTAINLY is NOT going to help the situation.

I don't mean to preach. But after all the material presented by the 'educated elite', who imho don't have a clue what they're talking about, I sometimes get a little loud. I'm a scientist by nature. WILL IT WORK?? The greatest brains can tell me 'this should work'. But old 'prove it' bay most often puts it too the test. I'm observing what is happening in real life. If you haven't, you should.

I do hope she recovers swiftly. Good thoughts from me to you guys. Take good care of her; I can tell you from experience; a good, understanding mate, and a good Oncologist truely 'helps the medicine go down'.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~

AV, no big deal but I can't get my 'quote' element to work. When I click on the little 'funny square' it gives me a window to type in my quote. But it will only accept one line. I tried coping and pasting, but it only accepted the first line of the quote.

My husband always comes unglued when I tell him something isn't working properly. I think 'he thinks' I'm telling him the world is coming to an end. I don't get very excited over much of anything - only pass the info along in case it's something you might want to know.

Have you tried clearing your cache or re-booting your comp?

Which browser are you using?

Thank you Space. I bet I know what is causing it.

You know... let me just say something here. You are such a GREAT poster. You provide feed back and are always so curtious and helpful. You're almost too good to be true. Thank you.

Glad they got it out. Good luck on future inspection.




I'll be in and out do PM or post a problem. I've only had one or two problems, but a couple people have had wierd interactions. Usually they go away after clearing things and rebooting. Sometimes it's the browser. Ask around here and somebody will usually help. With all my yard and house projects I haven't had the time I normally do to check by.

Next up, probably a divorce, but might as well do it all during the slow anyway summer months.

Why thanks, Bay.

Doesn't that just make your day. Every day I see Bay show up is a good day.

I'll say.

Yea, she's funny, I like her!

Bay rocks!

Bay, not Bee.

Bay, not carol or judy.

Those yard projects can get to be work.

About the d i v o r c e. I know you've fought it; but I have thought for a long time that was your best option. It's a very hard step. Once you're convinced that's the way to go, just do it and never look back.
Good luck.

Indeed.

Maybe "getting it over with" is just the best way to go. Somwtimes, one get's bogged down in possible outcomes.

Thanks. Yard looks great. Next, household spring cleaning.

When it's over I'm pretty sure I'll be relieved. Right now I HATE to answer the phone or get the mail thanks to her.

My ex and I get along great now... far better than when we were together...

It's a strange world... the ex kept my name... and my beloved kept her own... it messes with the system and I have to do a lot of explaining from time to time...

"no, you're not getting it... Mrs. Fetty lives over there and my wife lives here with me"...

The new giilded age, for sure.

Amnesty: a threat to America's general welfare!

If anyone believes S. 1348 is good for America and does not present a clear and present danger to the general welfare of the various States, they need to take the time to study The Dark Side Of Illegal Immigration___ Facts, Figures And Statistics On Illegal Immigration





The very purpose of immigration laws is to select who comes into our country, and select those who will not wind up being a financial burden or other type of burden, such as the increase in various commutable disease which we are now experiencing across our nation from those who are invading our borders.

Regards,

JWK

The Congress of the united States is America’s most formidable domestic enemy!

Right from Michael Savage's playbook. He's right about diseases, but forcing the illegal immigrants already here underground isn't going to stop disease, it's going to make it harder to find and cure.

Well, it is interesting that at a time when other countries are screening their immigrants and awarding status based on education and skills, we're doing exactly the opposite.

I don't really look forward to having more skilled workers come in, because it would lead to lower wages for me and mine. At the same time, it might mean higher wages for low skill workers and less disease.

I read a pretty compelling argument for being more picky here:



It's not an easy issue. Probably why it's hopeless sending to Congress.

They are already "underground".


Aside from that, in an article in the Journal of the American Medical Assn., Dr. Reuben Granich, a lead investigator for the CDC commented on MDR-TB:




Also see: Is CDC covering up skyrocketing TB rate?


One thing is certain though: Amnesty (S. 1348 )is a threat to the general welfare of the United States! Those who are invading our borders and plan to stay here will not be checked for contagious diseases which was one of the requirements when my dad came here 70 years ago!


JWK

The Congress of the united States is America’s most formidable domestic enemy!

They won't? Are you sure about that?

Not that I'm doubting your veracity, it's just that NOT requiring health checks (and immunizations) would be so incredibly dumb.

That would not be providing security for the Nation, for sure.

I don't think anyone likes this 1,000 page monster.

Well, c'mon, even back in the Ellis Island days a health check was required. Then, people with TB were denied entry.

I'm not sure about the point of deporting those already here who have TB, but requiring successful treatment ("cure", though you can never be 100% sure a case of TB is cured) doesn't seem unreasonable.

Exactly. The idea is to get them to come out.




Especially considering that until we fix the border they may well get right back in.

True, but no medical check at all is downright stupid.

I believe caution means "last chance for immunizations" in Spanish.

Yep, along with no border enforcement and letting Mexicans work here so they can send money home. But we are where we are and need to start with something effective to build on. Right now it's all about grandstanding in the name of this or that. Security, fairness, votes, justice. I've heard it all, but not a lot of common sense is involved in any of it.