Like I said, I'm not getting knee deep into this election at all and most of it disgusts me. I'd probably go -110 Harris. I just think at the end of the day enough republicans will take Trump for what he is and not let themselves vote for him. (i.e. me) But of course, that is basically coming down to 7 states, right I believe? I reside in one of them being WI but I think at the end of the day, WI goes Harris.
Originally posted by: Nines
That looks like a partial cost accounting from the CBO; they admittedly excluded discretionary spending increases to accommodate the migrant surge. I don't know what those costs actually amount to, but they're not insignificant. The surge would also increase mandatory spending ( including SSI , Medicare, housing, more) as your quoted statement above indicates.
If you want to make a specious and dishonest argument, focus only on one side/aspect of the discussion and ignore the other. Classic MAGA.
In your case, you ignore that the CBO report indicated that both costs AND revenues would increase/have increased as a result of immigration (call it the "migrant surge" if you want to be melodramatic), and the NET GAIN would be $0.9 trillion over the next ten years.
"The surge" (TRILLYUNS O' IMMERGENTS A'FLOODIN' 'CROSS DA BORDER) hasn't and won't result in an increase in SSI and Medicare spending unless and until these folks become citizens, which is unlikely to happen (especially in the face of Republican persecution). And exactly what federal spending goes to house immigrants?
I'll say it again--you may hate brown people, but they're good for the economy. I personally have no animus either way, but aside from that, I know that I'd be paying more at the grocery store if they weren't here.
Originally posted by: Jerry Ice 33
Like I said, I'm not getting knee deep into this election at all and most of it disgusts me. I'd probably go -110 Harris. I just think at the end of the day enough republicans will take Trump for what he is and not let themselves vote for him. (i.e. me) But of course, that is basically coming down to 7 states, right I believe? I reside in one of them being WI but I think at the end of the day, WI goes Harris.
That's the story, that the other 43 states are pretty much noncompetitive, and that the seven swing states are all statistically tied, with Harris very slightly leading in the northern states and Trump very slightly leading in the southern states. My analysis is that the states where Harris is a little bit ahead (WI, MI, and PA) have more electoral votes than the two where Trump is slightly ahead (NV and AZ). It's a major surprise to the Republipigs that Harris and Trump are tied in NC and GA, comfortable Republipig strongholds until recently.
The key is that if each candidate holds the states they "should," as above, then Trump MUST win both NC and GA to win, while Harris could afford to win only one. This makes Harris a de facto 4 to 3 favorite, assuming that all seven states' "tied" statuses are equal.
The absolutely essential nature of a win in GA for Trump has fueled the Republican stuffing of state and county election official positions with MAGAs/election deniers. This has also been done in NC. You can count on a whole bunch of screaming and challenging of the results if Trump loses either state. We probably won't know who won the whole thing until a week after Election Day.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
If you want to make a specious and dishonest argument, focus only on one side/aspect of the discussion and ignore the other. Classic MAGA.
In your case, you ignore that the CBO report indicated that both costs AND revenues would increase/have increased as a result of immigration (call it the "migrant surge" if you want to be melodramatic), and the NET GAIN would be $0.9 trillion over the next ten years.
"The surge" (TRILLYUNS O' IMMERGENTS A'FLOODIN' 'CROSS DA BORDER) hasn't and won't result in an increase in SSI and Medicare spending unless and until these folks become citizens, which is unlikely to happen (especially in the face of Republican persecution). And exactly what federal spending goes to house immigrants?
I'll say it again--you may hate brown people, but they're good for the economy. I personally have no animus either way, but aside from that, I know that I'd be paying more at the grocery store if they weren't here.
The migrant surge phrasing isn't my term..it's in the damned referenced report rather than any attempt at melodrama from me. Did you look at the linked report? I get the CBO ( and your ) claims about increased revenues largely from income taxes from migrants..it is what it is and will be and I don't discount it.. The SSI and Medicare cost increases ( eg mandatory spending) was also in the direct quote in the post. I don't hate brown people..I work and live with them daily. Do you? I doubt it. You accuse people of hating ethnicities while not even knowing who they are nor what they do. I didn't make any specious nor dishonest argument, either. You accuse with lies and inaccuracies, as always. It's who you are and it's why I and many others refrain from participating in this dump. It's easy to leave, fortunately. You once again accuse me of being a member of MAGA; I didn't vote for Trump when I early voted recently, so if that's your qualification for that group you make yet another routine misrepresentation. Enjoy your miserable existence of extending discord.
Originally posted by: Nines
The migrant surge phrasing isn't my term..it's in the damned referenced report rather than any attempt at melodrama from me. Did you look at the linked report? I get the CBO ( and your ) claims about increased revenues largely from income taxes from migrants..it is what it is and will be and I don't discount it.. The SSI and Medicare cost increases ( eg mandatory spending) was also in the direct quote in the post. I don't hate brown people..I work and live with them daily. Do you? I doubt it. You accuse people of hating ethnicities while not even knowing who they are nor what they do. I didn't make any specious nor dishonest argument, either. You accuse with lies and inaccuracies, as always. It's who you are and it's why I and many others refrain from participating in this dump. It's easy to leave, fortunately. You once again accuse me of being a member of MAGA; I didn't vote for Trump when I early voted recently, so if that's your qualification for that group you make yet another routine misrepresentation. Enjoy your miserable existence of extending discord.
You don't have to be a MAGA to adopt a MAGA argument. If you're actually not one of those crazies, I apologize.
That said, you do seem kind of sold on the concept that immigration is a net negative for the nation--which is and always has been incorrect. And yes, I work with immigrant families every day. I'm a teacher in an area that is 50% Hispanic. But my evaluation in this case is strictly economic. Does their presence cost or benefit us? The answer seems obvious.
I'm sorry if I equated you with the idiot eyes-bugged-out MAGA racist loonies who infest this forum. You present your arguments in a thoughtful way. That's more than I can say for our resident Republiturds.
I guess I've just gotten thoroughly sick of all the recent immigrant-bashing.
won't result in an increase in SSI and Medicare spending unless and until these folks become citizens,
As usual kevin is wrong
https://faq.ssa.gov/en-US/Topic/article/KA-02447
Lawfully present noncitizens of the United States who meet all eligibility requirements can qualify for Social Security benefits. This rule also applies to noncitizens authorized to work in the United States who got a Social Security number after December 2003.
It is hard to believe the CBO stats when it estimates that illegal spending in 2024 will be $7b when NYC alone spends $5b on less than 200,000 illegals
New York City has likely surpassed $5 billion in spending on services for migrants — including nearly $2 billion alone on housing the scores of new arrivals flooding into the Big Apple, according to city data.
How many times hae we heard lying kevin say he is a retired teacher. Some teacher; assuming he is a teacher, he spends all day on this site.
I work with immigrant families every day. I'm a teacher in an area that is 50% Hispanic
Originally posted by: tom
won't result in an increase in SSI and Medicare spending unless and until these folks become citizens,
As usual kevin is wrong
https://faq.ssa.gov/en-US/Topic/article/KA-02447
Lawfully present noncitizens of the United States who meet all eligibility requirements can qualify for Social Security benefits. This rule also applies to noncitizens authorized to work in the United States who got a Social Security number after December 2003.
It is hard to believe the CBO stats when it estimates that illegal spending in 2024 will be when NYC spends $5b on less than 200,000 illegals
New York City has likely surpassed $5 billion in spending on services for migrants — including nearly $2 billion alone on housing the scores of new arrivals flooding into the Big Apple, according to city data.
So, bottom line, you believe what you want to and don't believe what you don't.
Social Security benefits aren't paid until beneficiaries retire/reach a certain age. Migrant workers aren't anywhere near that stage, and probably never will reach it.
Stupid Tom.
Loser kevin takes 4 minutes to respond. What a sad life!
Social Security benefits aren't paid until beneficiaries retire/reach a certain age. Migrant workers aren't anywhere near that stage, and probably never will reach it.
Why won't they? They aren't going anywhere.
Originally posted by: tom
Loser kevin takes 4 minutes to respond. What a sad life!
Social Security benefits aren't paid until beneficiaries retire/reach a certain age. Migrant workers aren't anywhere near that stage, and probably never will reach it.
Why won't they? They aren't going anywhere.
Stupid Tom, most migrants/immigrants eventually return to their home countries, and those that stay here long enough to become citizens and collect Medicare/Social Security will have paid into the system for decades.
Stupid Tom.
I guess if you are a landlord this population surge helps to raise property values and rents, but is often offset in higher property taxes and insurance, and much higher rents for US citizens. If you are a farmer or bussiness that uses cheap or non citizen labor that could help the bottom line but the more mouths to feed and clothe would still drive prices higher because of demand. In the end I guess goverment wins because more spending equals more sales tax revenue , minus the social services cost. If it is such a great deal for everone, why is the country not feeling it.
