This should make us all Happy

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/tax-cr ... mmigrants/

Q: Does the IRS pay billions in tax refunds to workers who are in the U.S. illegally?

A: Yes. The Treasury Department’s Inspector General determined that $4.2 billion was paid in 2010, up from less than $1 billion in 2005. Leading Democrats are resisting a bill that would stop future payments

Why would anyone regardless of party object to stopping this? ( Uhmm, that would be a rehtorical question for you lefties).
Futher more, this exposes the lie that the majority of illegals haven't been using indentity theft or our government knows these people are not here legally and chooses to pay them rather than deport them.

Well you know, Ed, everybody deserves a fair chance!

Didn't you know there are no borders now? It's one big happy global family so get back to work, they're all hungry.

And don't forget to take down your American Flag, it might offend an illegal.

Ed.A wrote:Why would anyone regardless of party object to stopping this? ( Uhmm, that would be a rhetorical question for you lefties).

Uhmm, maybe it's better to have them pay taxes, rather than drive them into the underground economy where they DON'T pay anything and they still drive on tax-supported roads and their kids still go to tax-supported schools and so on. The $4.2 billion is likely an extrapolation based on a small group of audits; so it's not like anybody knows each and every one of the illegals. And let's not muddy the waters too much -- whether you expel the illegals you DO know about, is a totally different question -- keeping refunds that are due would, presumably, require a new law authorizing the IRS to do so, and I doubt that the IRS wants to add immigration investigations to the work it already does.

So in my learned analysis, making noise about these refunds is just political posturing by you rhetorical righties.

That program was intended for the legal parents of American born children & then like most programs got out of hand, then a previous Pres. raised it & then Obama not to be outdone raised it again & it got tied into the Bush tax cuts & with the downturn of the economy more became eligible. It's stuff like this that playing politics really ends up costing, classic example of no compromise & adding amendments to everything.

samhill wrote:That program was intended for the legal parents of American born children & then like most programs got out of hand, then a previous Pres. raised it & then Obama not to be outdone raised it again & it got tied into the Bush tax cuts & with the downturn of the economy more became eligible. It's stuff like this that playing politics really ends up costing, classic example of no compromise & adding amendments to everything.

How many government policies are you going to apologize for until you realize the government shouldn't be doing it in the first place?

jpete wrote:How many government policies are you going to apologize for until you realize the government shouldn't be doing it in the first place?

LOL

Jpete, you didn't apologize for any Gov. policy but come to think of it the retraining program while collecting checks is one we could certainly do without if your an example of the ungrateful individuals that receive it & then criticize it. Kind of like craping where you eat.

samhill wrote:Jpete, you didn't apologize for any Gov. policy but come to think of it the retraining program while collecting checks is one we could certainly do without if your an example of the ungrateful individuals that receive it & then criticize it. Kind of like craping where you eat.

I've told numerous people to please, stick it to me. End the program. I'd much rather have the job I worked for and paid for a degree in, back.

Unfortunately, NAFTA, among other government policies conspired to deprive me of it.

See what I'm saying about government intervention?

The "Trade Readjustment" program is so people like me who are adversely affected by government programs.

It's band aids on top of band aids. At some point, you have to say, stop causing the injury in the first place.

If I felt wholeheartedly as you do then I would have never taken UC or the retraining, in theory your ideals sound much like the Amish except they live by theirs & you only supply lip service. They survive without Gov. help & expect none but still pay their share of tax, whereas you want the Gov. to provide for you but give nothing in return, you want to do away with Gov. while it's providing you with a way to survive. Odd sort of philosophy to live by, I could be totally wrong here, just the impression I get.

jpete wrote:NAFTA, among other government policies conspired to deprive me of [my job].
See what I'm saying about government intervention? The "Trade Readjustment" program is ... band aids on top of band aids. At some point, you have to say, stop causing the injury in the first place.

The opposite of NAFTA is protectionism. The in-between neutral position of government is neither encouragement nor discouragement of trade. Do you think your job would still be available with a neutral position, or would we then have to say that LACK of government intervention caused the injury?

I understand the arguments for free trade, it's a great economic theory, but as a practical matter I think the US would be better off with some level of protectionism, for our manufacturing base at least, and to preserve your job and a lot of others. But that is government intervention....

samhill wrote:If I felt wholeheartedly as you do then I would have never taken UC or the retraining, in theory your ideals sound much like the Amish except they live by theirs & you only supply lip service. They survive without Gov. help & expect none but still pay their share of tax, whereas you want the Gov. to provide for you but give nothing in return, you want to do away with Gov. while it's providing you with a way to survive. Odd sort of philosophy to live by, I could be totally wrong here, just the impression I get.

I think cheer leading for your own destruction is an odd philosophy so I guess we're even.

rberq wrote:

jpete wrote:NAFTA, among other government policies conspired to deprive me of [my job].
See what I'm saying about government intervention? The "Trade Readjustment" program is ... band aids on top of band aids. At some point, you have to say, stop causing the injury in the first place.

The opposite of NAFTA is protectionism. The in-between neutral position of government is neither encouragement nor discouragement of trade. Do you think your job would still be available with a neutral position, or would we then have to say that LACK of government intervention caused the injury?

I understand the arguments for free trade, it's a great economic theory, but as a practical matter I think the US would be better off with some level of protectionism, for our manufacturing base at least, and to preserve your job and a lot of others. But that is government intervention....

I wouldn't go with "protectionism" but a certain amount of trade tariffs aren't out of the question. Unfortunately, I am aware that those types of things can lead to protectionist trade wars which, like other wars, generally aren't good for anyone.

As far as whether my job would still exist in the absence of NAFTA, etc. It's impossible, or at least hard to say.

Do I think my employer would prefer shorter lead times and lower scrap rates? Yes. But not at ANY cost. And I don't blame them at all. If I was in their shoes, I might do the same. 2+2 always equals 4.

Spoken like a true American, anything for the Almighty.