Republicans can’t pass an immigration bill, and somehow that’s Obama’s fault

[patient1]

I don't think the Congressional Pubs have ever been one bit concerned not to embarrass the president at any time since Obama took office.

I quite agree republicans had no respect for the president, but my point is that working on legislation that would expire in committee would have been a waste of time and effort.


I'll go on record. Johnson will not lose a re-election against Russ Fiengold unless outside groups give Johnson a fratricidal mud bath in the primaries, a la ( Tommy Thompson/ Eric Hovde/ Mark Neumann ) vs. Tammy Baldwin.

 

[PayDay]

What exactly do you mean by "manipulated into 'surplus' spending'"? Did you mean to say "deficit"?

I meant this:
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=44405134&postcount=109

So before you read this article
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577619671931313542.html (A+)

Remember these:

"turbocharged entitlement expenditures should underscore the unsettling truth that both political parties have, on the whole, been working together in an often unspoken consensus to fuel the explosion of entitlement spending.

From the founding of our nation until quite recently, the U.S. and its citizens were regarded, at home and abroad, as exceptional in a number of deep and important respects. One of these was their fierce and principled independence, which informed not only the design of the political experiment that is the U.S. Constitution but also their approach to everyday affairs."
+
"Beware the term "Social Security Surplus"; there is no such thing. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme, there is never more in the Trust Fund than will ever be needed."
http://www.federalbudget.com/

and then go here:
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-socialism.htm

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=44405677&postcount=110

SO TOGO w/Post #109::

"Table does NOT include transactions to the Medicare Trust Fund."
http://www.ssa.gov/history/tftable.html
This is the Trust Fund Table---^
note the amounts for 1975-1981

A 'surplus' in Social Security is actually interest that is supposed to roll over to pay for increases in later years.
ASIN:: Spending a Social Security surplus actually CAUSES later shortfalls.

1998 Senate hearing:

Well, the truth is...ah, shoot, well, we all know there's Washington's math problem. Alan Sloan in this past week's Newsweek says he spends 150%.

What we've been doing, Mr. Chairman, in all reality, is taken a hundred billion out of the Social Security Trust Fund, transferring it over to the spending column, and spending it. Our friends to the left here are getting their tax cuts, we getting our spending increases, and hollering surplus, surplus, and balanced budget, and balanced budget plans when we continue to spend a hundred billion more than we take in.

That's the reality, and I think that you and I, working the same side of the street now, can have a little bit of success by bringing to everybody's attention this is all intended surplus. In other words, when we passed the Greenspan Commission Report, the Greenspan Commission Report only had Social Security in 1983 a two hundred million surplus. It's projected to have this year a 117 million surplus. I've got the schedule, I'll ask to put in the record the CBO report: 117, 126, 130, 100, going right through to 2008 over the ten year period of 186 billion surplus. That was intended; this is dramatic about all these retirees, the baby boomers. But we foresaw that baby boomer problem, we planned against that baby boomer problem. Our problem is we've been spending that particular reserve, that set-aside that you testify to that is so necessary. That's what I'm trying to get this government back to reality, if we can do that.

We owe Social Security 736 billion right this minute. If we saved 117 billion, we could pay that debt down, and have the wonderful effect on the capital markets and savings rate. Isn't that correct? Thank you very much, Sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ARTICLE2/budget.php

SO:: If we had not spent the Social Secutity 'surplus' repeatedly, Social Security would still be solvent for and in the future.

'nuff said.

 

[possum123]

Neither the democrats or the republicans want to seal the border.
If either party really wanted to stop the illegals both have had many chances to do that.
Some how they have managed to blame the other for all of the problems.
Some how some people still believe one party over the other.
How many times does it take a person to learn the obvious?

 

[KingOrfeo]

The vast majority of Americans were opposed, clown.

It's not that simple.

Criticism

The bills received heated criticism from both the right wing and the left wing. Conservatives rejected providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, as it would reward them for disregarding United States immigration laws. Liberals criticized the points-based system and provisions limiting family reunification visas available to only nuclear family members of US citizens as unfair. Labor unions, human rights, and some Hispanic organizations attacked the guest workers program, claiming that it would create a group of underclass workers with no benefits.[15] Another criticism of the guest workers program was that because each guest worker is required to return home for a year before renewing his or her visa, these workers would instead overstay their visa, becoming illegal immigrants.

High-tech industry criticized the point-based green card system for scrapping employer sponsorship of green card applications and eliminating priority processing for the highly skilled workers specifically selected by the U.S. employers.[16] Many immigration practitioners, while supporting aspects of the proposal, criticized the bill as "unworkable" and called for fundamentally revising it.[17] Critics of the bill in the U.S. Senate also complained that the Senate consideration of the bill did not follow the usual procedure, as the bill did not go through the committee debate and approval process and the opportunities to offer floor amendments were limited.[18]

A year ago, however, there was broad public support for immigration reform, and I don't think the picture has changed much in that time

PRINCETON, NJ -- A majority of Americans would vote for each of six different policy changes that Congress is considering as part of a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Support ranges from a high of 87% for a multifaceted pathway to citizenship that includes a long waiting period, taxes and a penalty, background checks, and learning English, to a low of 53% for a law that would vary the number of immigrants the U.S. lets into the country, depending on economic conditions.

 

[PayDay]

It's not that simple.

A year ago, however, there was broad public support for immigration reform, and I don't think the picture has changed much in that time

Saying you are the Pope doesn't make you the Pope. I wasn't involved in that 'accurate poll'

 

[KingOrfeo]

I meant this:
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=44405134&postcount=109

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=44405677&postcount=110

More "SS is a Ponzi scheme" bullshit?

The Social Security Administration responds to the criticism as follows:

There is a superficial analogy between pyramid or Ponzi schemes and pay-as-you-go insurance programs in that in both money from later participants goes to pay the benefits of earlier participants. But that is where the similarity ends. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a simple pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end. As long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money paid out, the system can continue forever. There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system, and so it is not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.

If the demographics of the population were stable, then a pay-as-you-go system would not have demographically-driven financing ups and downs, and no thoughtful person would be tempted to compare it to a Ponzi arrangement. However, since population demographics tend to rise and fall, the balance in pay-as-you-go systems tends to rise and fall as well. This vulnerability to demographic ups and downs is one of the problems with pay-as-you-go financing. But this problem has nothing to do with Ponzi schemes or any other fraudulent form of financing; it is simply the nature of pay-as-you-go systems.[144]

 

[PayDay]

More "SS is a Ponzi scheme" bullshit?

You're only looking at what you want to and twisty twistying the facts to fit your argument. Much like the Salon authors you worship. Coincidental?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Saying you are the Pope doesn't make you the Pope. I wasn't involved in that 'accurate poll'

But Gallup is Gallup. Their reputation as a polling outfit is pretty reliable and respectable, and much more so than, say, Rassmussen's.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You're only looking at what you want to and twisty twistying the facts to fit your argument.

More specifically?

 

[PayDay]

More specifically?

We don't need an immigration bill, dem or rep, and saying we do is manipulating the blatant facts. The system we have lets plenty of legal immigrants into the system at a rate that is manageable.

There is no 'public consensus' on the matter because no one has asked everyone, and everyone is not fully informed.

Saying it costs too much to use existing law and law enforcement is crazy since we waste money on unimportant shit and we have plenty of cops to do the job.

The illegal immigration at the border is used a political weapon by both parties to drum up support for their own platform.

Saying Social Security is a ponzi is only half right. It became a ponzi due to surplus spending. It is a functional system set up for existing citizens who pay into it. To suddenly offer Social Security benefits to millions at the drop of a hat will perm kill that system, along with others systems of government.

What else do you need to know? An immigration bill of any kind will only hurt the United States of America.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Lol. Excuses: How many billion is heading towards ebola bailout . . .

There is no "ebola bailout."

. . . how much needlessly went to banks and cars and voodoo dolls?

"Needlessly"? None.

 

[PayDay]

There is no "ebola bailout."

Money was spent for it. Now they want more, bajillions more.

"Needlessly"? None.

Opinion.

 

[KingOrfeo]

We don't need an immigration bill, dem or rep, and saying we do is manipulating the blatant facts. The system we have lets plenty of legal immigrants into the system at a rate that is manageable.

I repeat:

Obviously we shouldn't "just enforce the law." There are anywhere from 7 to 30 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. at present, all producing and consuming -- the economy would really miss them if they were all deported, it would be a major shock. It has been said that if you walked into the kitchen of any restaurant in L.A. and shouted "La migra!" there would be nobody left to work the evening shift. What we need to do is find some way to regularize their status so they can keep working with the protection of the same minimum-wage and other laws that protect citizen workers.

There is no 'public consensus' on the matter because no one has asked everyone . . .

. . . That never happens. You do understand how public-opinion polling works, don't you?

. . . and everyone is not fully informed.

That is always true of every issue; it does not mean no public consensus can exist.

Saying it costs too much to use existing law and law enforcement is crazy since we waste money on unimportant shit and we have plenty of cops to do the job.

I'm not saying it costs too much, I am saying that it is a bad idea on its own merits, and that "securing the border" is no longer an urgent priority if ever it was, and that a completely secure border is apparently impossible in any case.

The illegal immigration at the border is used a political weapon by both parties to drum up support for their own platform.

I'm aware of how the Pubs use it, but how do the Dems use it?

Saying Social Security is a ponzi is only half right. It became a ponzi due to surplus spending.

That would not make it a Ponzi scheme, by definition.

It is a functional system set up for existing citizens who pay into it. To suddenly offer Social Security benefits to millions at the drop of a hat will perm kill that system, along with others systems of government.

There is no "suddenly." If we regularize the status of the illegal immigrants now here, then those who are not already paying SS FICA-payroll tax will begin to do so; and then, they will eventually reach retirement age and start drawing benefits one year at a time just like everybody else.

 

[PayDay]

I repeat:

. . . That never happens. You do understand how public-opinion polling works, don't you?

Obviously you don't. + or - 1% means 350000 would have totally different answers.

That is always true of every issue; it does not mean no public consensus can exist.

No, it means that public consensus is misinformed.

I'm not saying it costs too much, I am saying that it is a bad idea on its own merits, and that "securing the border" is no longer an urgent priority if ever it was, and that a completely secure border is apparently impossible in any case.

Your opinion. You can have it.

I'm aware of how the Pubs use it, but how do the Dems use it?

"We need immigration reform. It won't hurt anything. Everybody wants it."

That would not make it a Ponzi scheme, by definition.

Public worforce insurance. No one ever said a Ponzi scheme cannot work if the intention is benevolent.

There is no "suddenly." If we regularize the status of the illegal immigrants now here, then those who are not already paying SS FICA-payroll tax will begin to do so; and then, they will eventually reach retirement age and start drawing benefits one year at a time just like everybody else.

There are no taxes for illegal immigrants. That's one of the many reasons why they are illegal.

 

[RobDownSouth]

More "SS is a Ponzi scheme" bullshit?

That tertiary wingnut sure does like to bring up old, discredited talking points.
On a scale of 1-to-Vetteman, he's about a 7.

 

[PayDay]

That tertiary wingnut sure does like to bring up old, discredited talking points.
On a scale of 1-to-Vetteman, he's about a 7.

You so smart you are omniscient, right? Fucking non-readers...

Stalk me some more, I still won't fuck you.

 

[possum123]

If anyone thinks any politician wants to get rid of the illegals they should do a search on what happens to the taxes paid in by illegals and approximately how much is in the account.
Or I should say how much is supposed to be in the account.
Notice you never hear about that money.

 

[KingOrfeo]

There are no taxes for illegal immigrants. That's one of the many reasons why they are illegal.

If anyone thinks any politician wants to get rid of the illegals they should do a search on what happens to the taxes paid in by illegals and approximately how much is in the account.
Or I should say how much is supposed to be in the account.
Notice you never hear about that money.

From the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy:

In the public debates over federal immigration reform, much has been made of the argument that undocumented immigrants would be a drain on federal, state and local government resources if granted legal status under reform. But it is also true that the 11.2 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States are already taxpayers, and that their local, state and federal tax contributions would increase under reform.

This report provides state-by-state estimates on the state and local tax contributions of the 11.2 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States.

The key findings are:

• Undocumented immigrants currently contribute significantly to state and local taxes, collectively paying an estimated $10.6 billion in 2010 with contributions ranging from less than $2 million in Montana to more than $2.2 billion in California. This means these families are likely paying about 6.4 percent on average of their income in state and local taxes.

• Allowing undocumented immigrants to work in the United States legally would increase their state and local tax contributions by an estimated $2 billion a year. Their effective state and local tax rate would also increase to 7 percent on average, which would put their tax contributions more in line with documented taxpayers with similar incomes.

Complete report.

From ThinkProgress:

Some are spending Tax Day at their local post office, grumbling in line about their taxes being too high. They might direct their anger at the government or others might even turn their anger on undocumented immigrants, who television personality Bill O’Reilly once blamed for “dodging taxes.” In reality, undocumented immigrants pay billions in taxes, and would likely be paying tens of billions more if Congress passed comprehensive immigration reform.

A study by the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) found that undocumented immigrants paid $10.6 billion in state and local taxes in 2010, a figure that includes $1.2 billion in personal income taxes, $1.2 billion in property taxes, and more than $8 billion in sales and excise taxes. The study found that undocumented immigrants are “likely paying about 6.4 percent on average of their income in state and local taxes,” which is a tax rate close to that of “taxpayers in similar income situations and, in many states, can be higher than the effective tax rates paid by upper income taxpayers.”

With the exception of those living in tax-free states, sales taxes are automatic. Sales and excise taxes include goods and services like utilities, clothing, and gasoline. Property taxes are likely unavoidable, even for renters. Landlords pass on apartment taxes by padding the rent, which undocumented immigrants help to pay. An April 2013 Social Security Administration report estimated that undocumented immigrants and their employers paid $13 billion in payroll taxes. And according to a recent Harvard University study, undocumented immigrants’ payroll contributions to Medicare totaled more than $3 billion each year.

State breakdowns show similar immigrant contributions to state income taxes, sales and excise taxes, and properties, with California’s undocumented immigrants paying more than $2.2 billion in state and local taxes in 2010, Virginia’s undocumented population contributing an estimated total of between $145 million and $174 million, and Colorado’s undocumented population paying between $159 million and $194 million in total taxes in 2005.

A recent Center for American Progress report argued that immigration reform could increase tax revenues since legal status and an eventual pathway to citizenship would mean: there would be five million more immigrants paying payroll taxes “on the books;” that immigrants would pay $69 billion more in federal taxes and $40 billion more in state and local taxes over a ten-year period; that workers would add $606 billion to the Social Security trust fund; that there would be a net $155 billion contribution to the Medicare trust fund; and that reform itself would reduce the deficit by $820 billion over the next two decades.

From the Center for American Progress:

Last year, the Senate passed the bipartisan Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, or S. 744, which the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, found would have significant fiscal and economic benefits for the nation. Yet since its passage, the House of Representatives has dragged its feet and failed to act on meaningful reform. This inaction means that the United States has already missed out on billions of dollars in potential tax revenues.

As millions of Americans file their taxes today, it’s important to remember that our broken immigration system diminishes our potential tax revenue. The following are the top five reasons why immigration reform would increase tax revenues:

1. 5 million more workers and their employers would pay payroll taxes

While unauthorized immigrants currently contribute more than $13 billion in payroll taxes each year, millions of undocumented immigrants are still working in the informal economy and being paid off the books by their employers. Estimates by the Social Security Administration and the Pew Research Center indicate that 63 percent of undocumented workers and their employers don’t pay payroll taxes. Immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship would allow an estimated 5 million unauthorized immigrants and their employers to get on the books and pay payroll taxes.

2. Unauthorized immigrants would pay an additional $109 billion in federal, state, and local taxes

In addition to more immigrants and employers paying payroll taxes after immigration reform, legalization also boosts the earnings of undocumented immigrants, which in turn leads to even greater tax revenues. Researchers have estimated that undocumented immigrants’ wages would increase 15 percent as a result of obtaining legal status and an additional 10 percent after becoming citizens. Therefore, all undocumented immigrants—even those who are currently paying payroll and income taxes—would pay more in taxes as a result of earning higher wages. CAP estimates that undocumented immigrants would pay $69 billion more in federal taxes and $40 billion more in state and local taxes over a 10-year period.

3. Reform would add a net $606 billion to the Social Security trust fund

Over the coming decades, the Social Security system—which is funded through payroll taxes—will experience rising costs as Baby Boomers retire and begin collecting benefits. Immigration reform provides an opportunity to increase the amount of money being paid into the system without creating any net costs over the next three decades. Since most unauthorized immigrants are young and have many working years ahead of them, they could be paying taxes to fund Social Security at the same time that Baby Boomers are collecting benefits. CAP estimates that if undocumented immigrants could obtain legal status and citizenship, they would contribute a net $606 billion to the Social Security system over the next 36 years. This is enough money to fund the retirement benefits of 2.4 million native-born Americans.

4. Reform would extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund by four years

Medicare trustees project that the Medicare trust fund will be depleted by 2026. Immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship would extend the solvency of the trust fund by four years, as undocumented immigrants would go on the books and pay more in taxes. Similar to the long-term benefits of immigration reform to the Social Security system, undocumented immigrants over the next three decades would contribute a net $155 billion to the Medicare trust fund.

5. Reform would reduce the deficit by $820 billion over the next two decades

CBO estimated that comprehensive immigration reform such as S. 744 would not only pay for itself but would also lead to a significant reduction in the deficit. Specifically, CBO found that additional tax revenues would outpace costs of reform by almost two to one. That is, for every dollar of the cost of immigration reform, two dollars would be paid in taxes. It is not surprising then that CBO found that immigration reform would decrease the deficit by $135 billion over 10 years and $820 billion over 20 years.

It’s clear that the United States stands to gain significantly from immigration reform, but each day that the House delays passage of reform is another day of missing out on potential tax benefits. It has been more than 280 days since the Senate passed S. 744, and in that time, the United States has lost out on more than $10 billion in tax revenues. While some members of the House continue to hold back reform due to political calculations, the simple math is clear: Immigration reform is good for our finances, and we can’t afford to wait for reform any longer.

Immigration reform: Good for immigrants, good for America.

 

[PayDay]

From the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy:



Complete report.

From ThinkProgress:



From the Center for American Progress:



Immigration reform: Good for immigrants, good for America.

So, barring the fact that they are using statistics of undocumented illegal immigrants, that only strengthens my argument. It's about votes and money for government and has nothing to do with an United States of America citizen. It also insults ever legal immigrant citizen in this country.

Money grab. the end.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Obviously you don't. + or - 1% means 350000 would have totally different answers.

What is your point?

No, it means that public consensus is misinformed.

Apparently not in this instance; see post #43.

"We need immigration reform. It won't hurt anything. Everybody wants it."

Well, that's different: Dems are using the immigration issue to stir up support for immigration reform, which is appropriate; Pubs are using the immigration issue to stir up mindless inchoate fear about immigrants, terrorism, ISIS, ebola, gay marriage, the deficit, things in general, which is not appropriate.

Public worforce insurance. No one ever said a Ponzi scheme cannot work if the intention is benevolent.

No, a Ponzi scheme cannot work (except for the Ponzi-schemer who takes the money and runs before anyone catches on) because it is a Ponzi scheme, which SS by definition is not. Once again:

There is a superficial analogy between pyramid or Ponzi schemes and pay-as-you-go insurance programs in that in both money from later participants goes to pay the benefits of earlier participants. But that is where the similarity ends. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a simple pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end. As long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money paid out, the system can continue forever. There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system, and so it is not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.

If the demographics of the population were stable, then a pay-as-you-go system would not have demographically-driven financing ups and downs, and no thoughtful person would be tempted to compare it to a Ponzi arrangement. However, since population demographics tend to rise and fall, the balance in pay-as-you-go systems tends to rise and fall as well. This vulnerability to demographic ups and downs is one of the problems with pay-as-you-go financing. But this problem has nothing to do with Ponzi schemes or any other fraudulent form of financing; it is simply the nature of pay-as-you-go systems.[144]

 

[cowslinger64]

What is your point?


No, a Ponzi scheme cannot work (except for the Ponzi-schemer who takes the money and runs before anyone catches on) because it is a Ponzi scheme, which SS by definition is not. Once again:

KO, that's what happens when fox news talking points are put up for discussion.. they never seem to work out well for them when called on it.


Just look at a shriveled sac club thread as long as it's ONLY them.. a train running outta control with them cackling like mad hens.

 

[KingOrfeo]

So, barring the fact that they are using statistics of undocumented illegal immigrants, that only strengthens my argument. It's about votes and money for government and has nothing to do with an United States of America citizen.

Of course it has. More tax revenue being collected is in the interests of American citizens. Regularizing illegal immigrants' status so they will contribute more taxes to our society (more than they already do, which is substantial) is good for American citizens. Deporting all the illegal immigrants would not be good for American citizens, it would cost us all that potential tax revenue and disrupt the economy. As for votes, only citizens can vote, and under any immigration reform, naturalization would remain a long and difficult process -- it would only allow those now undocumented to begin that process; and letting them go through it, and vote after they have done so, would not be bad for American citizens.

It also insults ever legal immigrant citizen in this country.

If they want what's best for America, they should have no objections.

 

[PayDay]

Of course it has. More tax revenue being collected is in the interests of American citizens. Regularizing illegal immigrants' status so they will contribute more taxes to our society (more than they already do, which is substantial) is good for American citizens. Deporting all the illegal immigrants would not be good for American citizens, it would cost us all that potential tax revenue and disrupt the economy. As for votes, only citizens can vote, and under any immigration reform, naturalization would remain a long and difficult process -- it would only allow those now undocumented to begin that process; and letting them go through it, and vote after they have done so, would not be bad for American citizens.



If they want what's best for America, they should have no objections.

In your opinion. To what does that supposed tax revenue go? If they are illegal, and there are records, anyone involved should be in jail by law.

 

[KingOrfeo]

In your opinion. To what does that supposed tax revenue go?

Where all tax revenue goes. Are public services no longer necessary? Is Social Security no longer in danger of insolvency? Is the deficit no longer a problem?

If they are illegal, and there are records, anyone involved should be in jail by law.

What would be the point of that? You want to lock up everybody who has hired one? That would be pretty damned disruptive to the economy. You want to deport all the undocumented? That would be even worse.

 

[PayDay]

Where all tax revenue goes. Are public services no longer necessary? Is Social Security no longer in danger of insolvency? Is the deficit no longer a problem?

You have no basis of proof as to where taxes from undocumented illegal immigrants go.

What would be the point of that? You want to lock up everybody who has hired one? That would be pretty damned disruptive to the economy. You want to deport all the undocumented? That would be even worse.

The law was broken? We should just not care for the sake of money? Yeah, that sounds democratic.