+ 
= 
Posted on 05/24/2006 6:57:28 AM PDT by Plutarch
It is really shocking. I don't even know what to say, Mo1.
Did you not have guilt because you were spending money that someone else had earned and that you did not?............Remember, the government has NO MONEY that someone did not earn through some endeavor to create wealth for themselves and their family..........
believe somebody detailed once on the floor of the Senate that one family brought in 85 under this system. It is not at all impossible to imagine. Can you see how it can happen? One person comes in, and as a result of the family connections he brought in 85. I think that was Senator Allen Simpson in the debate 20 years ago in 1986.
Just about says it all about an explosion in people legally.
We need to hammer on Frist and the rest of these @ssholes, that Sessions is the ONLY ONE we support and the only one who will get our moneys.
I'm sending this thread to Hagel. And to Ken Mehlman, RNC Chair.
Ken's e-mail address:
Ken.Mehlman@rncchairman.org
Better that they don't conference at all. As Ben Franklin observed:
Neither a fortress nor a maidenhead will hold out long after they begin to Parley.
Nothing but BOHICA can come out of a conference in which the Hagel-Martinez Bill is sitting on the table.
At the time I was prolly just glad I got it, it's alot easier to excuse governmental generosity with other people's money when you are on the receiving end of course. That said, I don't have an issue with tax dollars going to useful things or to help people who need and appreciate it. I would rather give help to someone who is working and trying to improve their lot than give money to someone sitting at home collecting a check- or working under the table *and* collecting a check. As such it would be better to allow people to purchase certain items or take job training courses at discount or free than to hand someone cash.
Is this like reporting us to the hallway monitor, Peach? ;-)
Another theory that explains this bizarre behavior:
The Senators are scared to death that they are going to wind up cutting their campaign contributions from business. It appears that both Republicans and Dumbocraps are afraid of the same thing.
Will Rogers (or Mark Twain, or maybe both) said that we have the best legislature money can buy.
Ain't it so?
I just wish they had some connection with reality.
+ =
Will we still have to add in a tip for the busboys?
The EITC was enacted in 1975.
They brought up a point of order that it violated rules due to cost and was shot down..
other details here: http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/2454.html
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, according to the budget point of order the Senator from Colorado has raised, he will be focusing on, I believe, the second 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office has told us that the first 10 years are net losers. They say that direct spending in this bill authorizes $54 billion. There will be $66 billion in revenue, and discretionary spending will be $64 billion, for a net cost in the first 10 years of $52 billion. That is really significant. The numbers are far worse in the outyears.
Those of us who have watched this Congress operate over the years and have been in it a few years realize that we make some of our biggest mistakes when we jump into programs that sound good at the time and we have not calculated the long-term costs to our country, and we wake up wondering how it ever happened. Sometimes we need to go back to look at precisely how it occurred.
Robert Rector has done some serious number-crunching for the second 10 years. He was a chief architect of America’s welfare reform bill. He is a senior analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a very well respected group in town. These are some of the things he says about that. He believes—let me tell you—that the numbers could be $50 billion to $60 billion per year in the second decade. This is one of his quotes: In the long run, this bill, if enacted, would prove the largest expansion of Government welfare in 35 years.
The largest expansion of Government welfare in 35 years. He estimates that the bill’s provisions that put illegal aliens on a direct path to citizenship will result in $16 billion per year of net additional costs to the Federal Government for benefits given to the amnestied individuals alone. This is just the group that is in the first amnesty. This will be in the amnesty of those who are already here. That will cost $16 billion per year.
He also points out that the fiscal impact of the cost to the Treasury caused by the Senate bill will extend far beyond the benefits given to the individual aliens, those who are here seeking amnesty. Once those aliens receive legal permanent status—that is the green card, and that is what they will receive under the bill before us—they have an automatic guaranteed right to bring their spouses and minor children into the United States even if this had not been one of their strong desires to begin with. Now they have an automatic right to do this. So that will greatly expand the total number of people ultimately granted citizenship under this bill’s provisions. It is not just the people who are here. Undoubtedly, the welfare estimate of $16 billion per year will increase. That is a low estimate. Once an illegal alien becomes a citizen, they have an additional unrestricted right to bring their parents in. Many of these parents will be elderly and need medical care. The Heritage Foundation report points out that parents under the Medicare system could cost as much as $18,000 per person. They estimate that even if 10 percent of the people who are provided citizenship—we are talking about getting into the second 10 years because it will take about that long to go through the process of getting a green card under the restrictions of the bill and under their request for citizenship. You can bring your children and your wife with a green card. If you have a green card, you can bring them. If you become a citizen, you can bring your parents and your brothers and sisters, and they can bring their children. But he estimates that would be $30 billion a year in the outyears.
You say that cannot be. Well, all I know is Members of this body debated for years welfare reform. The people who opposed welfare reform and opposed it steadfastly—and President Clinton vetoed it several times—said it was going to increase poverty. The others argued: No, it will help lift people out of poverty. What has happened? Welfare rolls have dropped by more than 50 percent, and the number of children being raised in poverty is lower than it was at that time. Who said that would happen? Robert Rector at the Heritage Foundation. He was proven correct in that debate. I submit that he is one of the more brilliant students of public life today, of welfare and all of the related issues. He said it will be $50 billion to $60 billion a year in the next decade. That is a lot of money. That is really a lot of money. Over 10 years, that amounts to a half trillion dollars.
So we have to think about this. I suggest to my colleagues that we have not thought this through. We don’t even have an official CBO score on the second 10 years. We are asking the country, the American taxpayer, who lifts the burdens and pays our fat salary and takes care of us and everything else in this Federal Government, to just take a walk with us in the hope that something good might happen. I don’t think so.
more here, use next page bottom right to change pages.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S5081&dbname=2006_record
$2000 dollar fine
$4700 dollars free money
________
$2700 dollars net profit!
Gringos sell rope to hang themselves.
Yet the house is being told they are LESS important than the senate.
I told Melman we are gonna broom all the pro illegals this fall.
bump
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.