What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[danielpalos]

We should be making money not losing money on border policy.

The amusement park model can make money and use capitalism to help cover costs.

entry visa fees can include catastrophic health coverage and contribute to an unemployment compensation fund.

 

[Flopper]

The longest economic expansion I have seen was
Mar 1991–Mar 2001 - 120 months.
We are currently 108 months into the current expansion. The slow recovery indicates it may well have a serveral years of expansion.

Even if the economy is interrupted by a recession which the average length is about 14 months, there is every reason to expect the 24 million figure will be reached because we are going to get 18 million job openings from boomer retirements even it there is no growth. If current job growth continues at the current level, we would have 13 million jobs from growth. No matter how you cut it the probability is pretty high that we will have far more jobs than we can possibly fill.

Keep in mind the immigration quotas are targets, the president can lower those numbers if needed.

No, I said booming economy, not steady or interrupted by a recession.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Economically, the 1990's were not only the longest period of economic expansions in history but one the strongest with steady job creation averaging 250,000/mo, low inflation, rising productivity, and a surging stock market.

I'm not going to debate that. What I will debate is that we will run out of people to do the work in this country. There is something wrong when you live in a country where there is more work than people, and 40 million people are still collecting food stamps.

Something is wrong, and it's not that we don't have enough people to do the work.

No, there is nothing wrong because when Welfare was reformed, social services were gradually reduced as family income increased. The idea was there would be no sharp cutoffs of benefits to encourage families to turn down work to keep benefits. So instead of a family of 4 losing all food stamps benefits when family income reached say $28,000, benefits started decreasing from $500 a month as income increased. When income reached say $36,000, food stamp benefits had gradually reduced to $30/mo. So we have millions of people on SNAP getting very little in benefits.

We could probably cut 10 million people off of SNAP rolls and no one would go hunger. However, we would have a sharp cut off so if you make a dollar more than cutoff, you lost all benefits.

So in other words, what you are saying is that our social programs encourage people to not create income of their own. I couldn't agree more.

So then the concept switches from needing more people to do the work to redoing our social programs so that social programs do encourage people to work. Again, I agree with that.

In other words, you stated that in the near future, we are going to need 6 million more workers than we have now so we must allow immigration. What's wrong with taking those 6 million collecting food stamps today from our food stamp and welfare pool? It would still leave 34 million on the dole!

Now.....doing the calculations, those 6 million foreigners would still be here to fill in the gap since we bring in over a million people a year into this country plus work Visa's and permits.

We don't need anymore immigration than what we have now. That's the point.

Unfilled job positions at the end of June was 6.7 million. The problem with forcing the people on foods stamps to fill those jobs is most of the adults are already working, 44% of those on food stamps are children, 9% are elderly, and 11% are disabled, and God knows how many are unemployable because of drugs, alcohol, and criminal convictions.

Having 6 million job openings is not a problem. The problem is the baby boomer retirements at the rate of 10,000 a day which will continue for nearly 10 years. Add that to normal job growth of 150,000 to 200,000 a month and that is a really big problem unless we discover a way to start clowning people. Even if we continue with immigration of 1 million a year, that will not come close to meeting our needs.

All social programs provide a reason not to work. Whether it actually encourages someone not to work depends on the person and circumstance. For a person who is physically incapable of working, any encouragement not to work is totally irrelevant. The same would hold truth for people that can earn substantial more working than they receive from welfare programs or a person that is between jobs, etc..

By gradually reducing benefits as income increases there is much reason to turn work down. With SNAP there are millions of people that are getting benefits as low as $15/mo per family.

SNAP like a number of other social programs do not pay for everything. SNAP stands for Supplemental Nourishment, Assistance program. Even if you qualify for full benefits, it will still be supplement and will not provide you with soap, toilet paper, sanitary napkins, toothpaste, pet food, vitamins, medicines, alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food, any food sold for on-premises consumption, soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, ice cream seafood, steaks, bakery cakes, etc. In other words, a family has to have income from somewhere else to meet all their needs because SNAP won't.

 

[Flopper]

We should be making money not losing money on border policy.

The amusement park model can make money and use capitalism to help cover costs.

entry visa fees can include catastrophic health coverage and contribute to an unemployment compensation fund.

The people that can afford to pay those fees won't need the coverage and the people that need the coverage won't be able to pay them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, I said booming economy, not steady or interrupted by a recession.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Economically, the 1990's were not only the longest period of economic expansions in history but one the strongest with steady job creation averaging 250,000/mo, low inflation, rising productivity, and a surging stock market.

I'm not going to debate that. What I will debate is that we will run out of people to do the work in this country. There is something wrong when you live in a country where there is more work than people, and 40 million people are still collecting food stamps.

Something is wrong, and it's not that we don't have enough people to do the work.

No, there is nothing wrong because when Welfare was reformed, social services were gradually reduced as family income increased. The idea was there would be no sharp cutoffs of benefits to encourage families to turn down work to keep benefits. So instead of a family of 4 losing all food stamps benefits when family income reached say $28,000, benefits started decreasing from $500 a month as income increased. When income reached say $36,000, food stamp benefits had gradually reduced to $30/mo. So we have millions of people on SNAP getting very little in benefits.

We could probably cut 10 million people off of SNAP rolls and no one would go hunger. However, we would have a sharp cut off so if you make a dollar more than cutoff, you lost all benefits.

So in other words, what you are saying is that our social programs encourage people to not create income of their own. I couldn't agree more.

So then the concept switches from needing more people to do the work to redoing our social programs so that social programs do encourage people to work. Again, I agree with that.

In other words, you stated that in the near future, we are going to need 6 million more workers than we have now so we must allow immigration. What's wrong with taking those 6 million collecting food stamps today from our food stamp and welfare pool? It would still leave 34 million on the dole!

Now.....doing the calculations, those 6 million foreigners would still be here to fill in the gap since we bring in over a million people a year into this country plus work Visa's and permits.

We don't need anymore immigration than what we have now. That's the point.

Unfilled job positions at the end of June was 6.7 million. The problem with forcing the people on foods stamps to fill those jobs is most of the adults are already working, 44% of those on food stamps are children, 9% are elderly, and 11% are disabled, and God knows how many are unemployable because of drugs, alcohol, and criminal convictions.

Having 6 million job openings is not a problem. The problem is the baby boomer retirements at the rate of 10,000 a day which will continue for nearly 10 years. Add that to normal job growth of 150,000 to 200,000 a month and that is a really big problem unless we discover a way to start clowning people. Even if we continue with immigration of 1 million a year, that will not come close to meeting our needs.

All social programs provide a reason not to work. Whether it actually encourages someone not to work depends on the person and circumstance. For a person who is physically incapable of working, any encouragement not to work is totally irrelevant. The same would hold truth for people that can earn substantial more working than they receive from welfare programs or a person that is between jobs, etc..

By gradually reducing benefits as income increases there is much reason to turn work down. With SNAP there are millions of people that are getting benefits as low as $15/mo per family.

SNAP like a number of other social programs do not pay for everything. SNAP stands for Supplemental Nourishment, Assistance program. Even if you qualify for full benefits, it will still be supplement and will not provide you with soap, toilet paper, sanitary napkins, toothpaste, pet food, vitamins, medicines, alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food, any food sold for on-premises consumption, soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, ice cream seafood, steaks, bakery cakes, etc. In other words, a family has to have income from somewhere else to meet all their needs because SNAP won't.

Oh trust me I know. I see it at my local grocery store all the time. They load the belt with their SNAP items, and then whip out a wad of cash for their cigarettes, wine or beer, greeting cards, perfume, huge bags of dog food, cat litter, and then they push that cart to their late model SUV.

The newest scam is they ask people in line if they could use their food stamps to buy your items. Then at the end of the checkout, they will sell you your items back for five dollars less. You get the discount, they get the cash for their food stamps.

Wages in this country is almost a perfect system with supply and demand. When supply is plentiful, wages go down. When supply is limited, wages go up. Like I said, almost a perfect system unless you throw monkey wrenches into it like unions or immigrants. When you start doing that, you defeat the whole supply and demand concept. Forcing employers to pay more than they have to for labor increases costs to the consumer. Bringing in low level workers keeps pay scales down because the supply part is easily met.

 

[danielpalos]

We should be making money not losing money on border policy.

The amusement park model can make money and use capitalism to help cover costs.

entry visa fees can include catastrophic health coverage and contribute to an unemployment compensation fund.

The people that can afford to pay those fees won't need the coverage and the people that need the coverage won't be able to pay them.

Black marketeers make at least that much.

 

[MaryL]

I have the envied and coveted 509th post here. I am nobody. Illegal aliens, Mexicans whatever they are, they get this "Sanctuary". I got nothing here. Literally, our own so called local government pays more attention to the welfare of illegals from Mexico than our own poor for Christ sake already They live in tents near the Platte river. Mexicans get houses and free housing. Yeah. Poor Americans, nobody sees them. I do, but none the less. But poor itty bitty illegal aliens from Mexico, THEY are the center of the moral universe. Explain that to me, the 509th poster in line. 'Cause something doesn't seem right here.

 

[Flopper]

Since that isn't happening, I'm not that concerned with it. You guys have been looking for the elusive illegal alien voter since 2000 and haven't found him yet.

It's the right that opposes a national ID system, not the left.

So your answer is yes, you would oppose having an ID law requiring proof of citizenship ? To keep aliens from voting. Well sure, because that would keep your illegal alien friends from voting, and helping to get Democrats elected.

And deflecting to how many illegals are voting or not, is a DODGE. Simply enacting a citizenship requirement isn't a big deal. It's inexpensive both with time and money, it's easy, and should be done, regardless of anybody's estimate of the illegality taking place.

And for the illegal alien voter, there's nothing "elusive" about him to me. I've talked to them all across the country, in voting halls, on construction sites, in office buildings doing janitorial work, around my apartment complex doing landscaping, etc. And they're always willing to brag about how many laws they break (voting no exception)

Whatever gave you the idea we hadn't found them ? Let me guess >> CNN, MSNBC, look no further.

Illegals are not voting.

Why would a person hiding from the law walk into a government run facility where they may be asked to show ID?

Why would a person cross our borders illegally or overstay their Visa illegally?

People that sneak into the country have about as much interest in our elections as we have in theirs. Any foreigner who would risk deportation and jail time to vote would have to be nuts since the chance of their vote making any difference is about 1 in million.

 

[danielpalos]

I have the envied and coveted 509th post here. I am nobody. Illegal aliens, Mexicans whatever they are, they get this "Sanctuary". I got nothing here. Literally, our own so called local government pays more attention to the welfare of illegals from Mexico than our own poor for Christ sake already They live in tents near the Platte river. Mexicans get houses and free housing. Yeah. Poor Americans, nobody sees them. I do, but none the less. But poor itty bitty illegal aliens from Mexico, THEY are the center of the moral universe. Explain that to me, the 509th poster in line. 'Cause something doesn't seem right here.

too late; the rich already got richer with your right wing, tax cut economics.

 

[Flopper]

Economically, the 1990's were not only the longest period of economic expansions in history but one the strongest with steady job creation averaging 250,000/mo, low inflation, rising productivity, and a surging stock market.

I'm not going to debate that. What I will debate is that we will run out of people to do the work in this country. There is something wrong when you live in a country where there is more work than people, and 40 million people are still collecting food stamps.

Something is wrong, and it's not that we don't have enough people to do the work.

No, there is nothing wrong because when Welfare was reformed, social services were gradually reduced as family income increased. The idea was there would be no sharp cutoffs of benefits to encourage families to turn down work to keep benefits. So instead of a family of 4 losing all food stamps benefits when family income reached say $28,000, benefits started decreasing from $500 a month as income increased. When income reached say $36,000, food stamp benefits had gradually reduced to $30/mo. So we have millions of people on SNAP getting very little in benefits.

We could probably cut 10 million people off of SNAP rolls and no one would go hunger. However, we would have a sharp cut off so if you make a dollar more than cutoff, you lost all benefits.

So in other words, what you are saying is that our social programs encourage people to not create income of their own. I couldn't agree more.

So then the concept switches from needing more people to do the work to redoing our social programs so that social programs do encourage people to work. Again, I agree with that.

In other words, you stated that in the near future, we are going to need 6 million more workers than we have now so we must allow immigration. What's wrong with taking those 6 million collecting food stamps today from our food stamp and welfare pool? It would still leave 34 million on the dole!

Now.....doing the calculations, those 6 million foreigners would still be here to fill in the gap since we bring in over a million people a year into this country plus work Visa's and permits.

We don't need anymore immigration than what we have now. That's the point.

Unfilled job positions at the end of June was 6.7 million. The problem with forcing the people on foods stamps to fill those jobs is most of the adults are already working, 44% of those on food stamps are children, 9% are elderly, and 11% are disabled, and God knows how many are unemployable because of drugs, alcohol, and criminal convictions.

Having 6 million job openings is not a problem. The problem is the baby boomer retirements at the rate of 10,000 a day which will continue for nearly 10 years. Add that to normal job growth of 150,000 to 200,000 a month and that is a really big problem unless we discover a way to start clowning people. Even if we continue with immigration of 1 million a year, that will not come close to meeting our needs.

All social programs provide a reason not to work. Whether it actually encourages someone not to work depends on the person and circumstance. For a person who is physically incapable of working, any encouragement not to work is totally irrelevant. The same would hold truth for people that can earn substantial more working than they receive from welfare programs or a person that is between jobs, etc..

By gradually reducing benefits as income increases there is much reason to turn work down. With SNAP there are millions of people that are getting benefits as low as $15/mo per family.

SNAP like a number of other social programs do not pay for everything. SNAP stands for Supplemental Nourishment, Assistance program. Even if you qualify for full benefits, it will still be supplement and will not provide you with soap, toilet paper, sanitary napkins, toothpaste, pet food, vitamins, medicines, alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food, any food sold for on-premises consumption, soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, ice cream seafood, steaks, bakery cakes, etc. In other words, a family has to have income from somewhere else to meet all their needs because SNAP won't.

Oh trust me I know. I see it at my local grocery store all the time. They load the belt with their SNAP items, and then whip out a wad of cash for their cigarettes, wine or beer, greeting cards, perfume, huge bags of dog food, cat litter, and then they push that cart to their late model SUV.

The newest scam is they ask people in line if they could use their food stamps to buy your items. Then at the end of the checkout, they will sell you your items back for five dollars less. You get the discount, they get the cash for their food stamps.

Wages in this country is almost a perfect system with supply and demand. When supply is plentiful, wages go down. When supply is limited, wages go up. Like I said, almost a perfect system unless you throw monkey wrenches into it like unions or immigrants. When you start doing that, you defeat the whole supply and demand concept. Forcing employers to pay more than they have to for labor increases costs to the consumer. Bringing in low level workers keeps pay scales down because the supply part is easily met.

I guess you see what you want to see. How do you know people are using SNAP? They put their groceries on the checkout counter, the clerk rings them up and the customer slides their EBT card just like a credit card. Sometimes people separate groceries and use two cards, maybe an EBT and a credit card or maybe just two separate credit cards. Anyway, I go to the grocery twice a week and I have never seen any of the things you see.

The biggest misconception about social programs is that the people that receive benefits are lazy bums and don't work when the truth is they do work and earn enough to pay a big part of the family expenses and their benefits are just a supplement.

I have a friend who manages our local Safeway Store. He told me that almost half of his employee's families have EBT cards and most of them get at least part of their healthcare coverage from Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program.

 

[Unkotare]

I have the envied and coveted 509th post here. I am nobody. Illegal aliens, Mexicans whatever they are, they get this "Sanctuary". I got nothing here. Literally, our own so called local government pays more attention to the welfare of illegals from Mexico than our own poor for Christ sake already They live in tents near the Platte river. Mexicans get houses and free housing. Yeah. Poor Americans, nobody sees them. I do, but none the less. But poor itty bitty illegal aliens from Mexico, THEY are the center of the moral universe. Explain that to me, the 509th poster in line. 'Cause something doesn't seem right here.

You have posted the same thing 11,000 times.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

#getout

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm not going to debate that. What I will debate is that we will run out of people to do the work in this country. There is something wrong when you live in a country where there is more work than people, and 40 million people are still collecting food stamps.

Something is wrong, and it's not that we don't have enough people to do the work.

No, there is nothing wrong because when Welfare was reformed, social services were gradually reduced as family income increased. The idea was there would be no sharp cutoffs of benefits to encourage families to turn down work to keep benefits. So instead of a family of 4 losing all food stamps benefits when family income reached say $28,000, benefits started decreasing from $500 a month as income increased. When income reached say $36,000, food stamp benefits had gradually reduced to $30/mo. So we have millions of people on SNAP getting very little in benefits.

We could probably cut 10 million people off of SNAP rolls and no one would go hunger. However, we would have a sharp cut off so if you make a dollar more than cutoff, you lost all benefits.

So in other words, what you are saying is that our social programs encourage people to not create income of their own. I couldn't agree more.

So then the concept switches from needing more people to do the work to redoing our social programs so that social programs do encourage people to work. Again, I agree with that.

In other words, you stated that in the near future, we are going to need 6 million more workers than we have now so we must allow immigration. What's wrong with taking those 6 million collecting food stamps today from our food stamp and welfare pool? It would still leave 34 million on the dole!

Now.....doing the calculations, those 6 million foreigners would still be here to fill in the gap since we bring in over a million people a year into this country plus work Visa's and permits.

We don't need anymore immigration than what we have now. That's the point.

Unfilled job positions at the end of June was 6.7 million. The problem with forcing the people on foods stamps to fill those jobs is most of the adults are already working, 44% of those on food stamps are children, 9% are elderly, and 11% are disabled, and God knows how many are unemployable because of drugs, alcohol, and criminal convictions.

Having 6 million job openings is not a problem. The problem is the baby boomer retirements at the rate of 10,000 a day which will continue for nearly 10 years. Add that to normal job growth of 150,000 to 200,000 a month and that is a really big problem unless we discover a way to start clowning people. Even if we continue with immigration of 1 million a year, that will not come close to meeting our needs.

All social programs provide a reason not to work. Whether it actually encourages someone not to work depends on the person and circumstance. For a person who is physically incapable of working, any encouragement not to work is totally irrelevant. The same would hold truth for people that can earn substantial more working than they receive from welfare programs or a person that is between jobs, etc..

By gradually reducing benefits as income increases there is much reason to turn work down. With SNAP there are millions of people that are getting benefits as low as $15/mo per family.

SNAP like a number of other social programs do not pay for everything. SNAP stands for Supplemental Nourishment, Assistance program. Even if you qualify for full benefits, it will still be supplement and will not provide you with soap, toilet paper, sanitary napkins, toothpaste, pet food, vitamins, medicines, alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food, any food sold for on-premises consumption, soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, ice cream seafood, steaks, bakery cakes, etc. In other words, a family has to have income from somewhere else to meet all their needs because SNAP won't.

Oh trust me I know. I see it at my local grocery store all the time. They load the belt with their SNAP items, and then whip out a wad of cash for their cigarettes, wine or beer, greeting cards, perfume, huge bags of dog food, cat litter, and then they push that cart to their late model SUV.

The newest scam is they ask people in line if they could use their food stamps to buy your items. Then at the end of the checkout, they will sell you your items back for five dollars less. You get the discount, they get the cash for their food stamps.

Wages in this country is almost a perfect system with supply and demand. When supply is plentiful, wages go down. When supply is limited, wages go up. Like I said, almost a perfect system unless you throw monkey wrenches into it like unions or immigrants. When you start doing that, you defeat the whole supply and demand concept. Forcing employers to pay more than they have to for labor increases costs to the consumer. Bringing in low level workers keeps pay scales down because the supply part is easily met.

I guess you see what you want to see. How do you know people are using SNAP? They put their groceries on the checkout counter, the clerk rings them up and the customer slides their EBT card just like a credit card. Sometimes people separate groceries and use two cards, maybe an EBT and a credit card or maybe just two separate credit cards. Anyway, I go to the grocery twice a week and I have never seen any of the things you see.

The biggest misconception about social programs is that the people that receive benefits are lazy bums and don't work when the truth is they do work and earn enough to pay a big part of the family expenses and their benefits are just a supplement.

I have a friend who manages our local Safeway Store. He told me that almost half of his employee's families have EBT cards and most of them get at least part of their healthcare coverage from Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program.

At least in our state the snaps cards have huge letters saying SNAP'S . But besides that, if somebody is going to use a debit or credit card, they will put all their purchases on that card, not just some of them.

There is no logical reason to use a card and cash unless it's because of a government program.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Since that isn't happening, I'm not that concerned with it. You guys have been looking for the elusive illegal alien voter since 2000 and haven't found him yet.

It's the right that opposes a national ID system, not the left.

So your answer is yes, you would oppose having an ID law requiring proof of citizenship ? To keep aliens from voting. Well sure, because that would keep your illegal alien friends from voting, and helping to get Democrats elected.

And deflecting to how many illegals are voting or not, is a DODGE. Simply enacting a citizenship requirement isn't a big deal. It's inexpensive both with time and money, it's easy, and should be done, regardless of anybody's estimate of the illegality taking place.

And for the illegal alien voter, there's nothing "elusive" about him to me. I've talked to them all across the country, in voting halls, on construction sites, in office buildings doing janitorial work, around my apartment complex doing landscaping, etc. And they're always willing to brag about how many laws they break (voting no exception)

Whatever gave you the idea we hadn't found them ? Let me guess >> CNN, MSNBC, look no further.

Illegals are not voting.

Why would a person hiding from the law walk into a government run facility where they may be asked to show ID?

Why would a person cross our borders illegally or overstay their Visa illegally?

People that sneak into the country have about as much interest in our elections as we have in theirs. Any foreigner who would risk deportation and jail time to vote would have to be nuts since the chance of their vote making any difference is about 1 in million.

I have a list of links if you care to read them about just that. So what happens if an illegal is caught trying to vote? They tell him or her they can't vote. Nobody calls the cops, nobody informs ICE; especially in sanctuary cities, nobody is hauled away. They just get turned down at the polls.

 

[Flopper]

No, there is nothing wrong because when Welfare was reformed, social services were gradually reduced as family income increased. The idea was there would be no sharp cutoffs of benefits to encourage families to turn down work to keep benefits. So instead of a family of 4 losing all food stamps benefits when family income reached say $28,000, benefits started decreasing from $500 a month as income increased. When income reached say $36,000, food stamp benefits had gradually reduced to $30/mo. So we have millions of people on SNAP getting very little in benefits.

We could probably cut 10 million people off of SNAP rolls and no one would go hunger. However, we would have a sharp cut off so if you make a dollar more than cutoff, you lost all benefits.

So in other words, what you are saying is that our social programs encourage people to not create income of their own. I couldn't agree more.

So then the concept switches from needing more people to do the work to redoing our social programs so that social programs do encourage people to work. Again, I agree with that.

In other words, you stated that in the near future, we are going to need 6 million more workers than we have now so we must allow immigration. What's wrong with taking those 6 million collecting food stamps today from our food stamp and welfare pool? It would still leave 34 million on the dole!

Now.....doing the calculations, those 6 million foreigners would still be here to fill in the gap since we bring in over a million people a year into this country plus work Visa's and permits.

We don't need anymore immigration than what we have now. That's the point.

Unfilled job positions at the end of June was 6.7 million. The problem with forcing the people on foods stamps to fill those jobs is most of the adults are already working, 44% of those on food stamps are children, 9% are elderly, and 11% are disabled, and God knows how many are unemployable because of drugs, alcohol, and criminal convictions.

Having 6 million job openings is not a problem. The problem is the baby boomer retirements at the rate of 10,000 a day which will continue for nearly 10 years. Add that to normal job growth of 150,000 to 200,000 a month and that is a really big problem unless we discover a way to start clowning people. Even if we continue with immigration of 1 million a year, that will not come close to meeting our needs.

All social programs provide a reason not to work. Whether it actually encourages someone not to work depends on the person and circumstance. For a person who is physically incapable of working, any encouragement not to work is totally irrelevant. The same would hold truth for people that can earn substantial more working than they receive from welfare programs or a person that is between jobs, etc..

By gradually reducing benefits as income increases there is much reason to turn work down. With SNAP there are millions of people that are getting benefits as low as $15/mo per family.

SNAP like a number of other social programs do not pay for everything. SNAP stands for Supplemental Nourishment, Assistance program. Even if you qualify for full benefits, it will still be supplement and will not provide you with soap, toilet paper, sanitary napkins, toothpaste, pet food, vitamins, medicines, alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food, any food sold for on-premises consumption, soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, ice cream seafood, steaks, bakery cakes, etc. In other words, a family has to have income from somewhere else to meet all their needs because SNAP won't.

Oh trust me I know. I see it at my local grocery store all the time. They load the belt with their SNAP items, and then whip out a wad of cash for their cigarettes, wine or beer, greeting cards, perfume, huge bags of dog food, cat litter, and then they push that cart to their late model SUV.

The newest scam is they ask people in line if they could use their food stamps to buy your items. Then at the end of the checkout, they will sell you your items back for five dollars less. You get the discount, they get the cash for their food stamps.

Wages in this country is almost a perfect system with supply and demand. When supply is plentiful, wages go down. When supply is limited, wages go up. Like I said, almost a perfect system unless you throw monkey wrenches into it like unions or immigrants. When you start doing that, you defeat the whole supply and demand concept. Forcing employers to pay more than they have to for labor increases costs to the consumer. Bringing in low level workers keeps pay scales down because the supply part is easily met.

I guess you see what you want to see. How do you know people are using SNAP? They put their groceries on the checkout counter, the clerk rings them up and the customer slides their EBT card just like a credit card. Sometimes people separate groceries and use two cards, maybe an EBT and a credit card or maybe just two separate credit cards. Anyway, I go to the grocery twice a week and I have never seen any of the things you see.

The biggest misconception about social programs is that the people that receive benefits are lazy bums and don't work when the truth is they do work and earn enough to pay a big part of the family expenses and their benefits are just a supplement.

I have a friend who manages our local Safeway Store. He told me that almost half of his employee's families have EBT cards and most of them get at least part of their healthcare coverage from Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program.

At least in our state the snaps cards have huge letters saying SNAP'S . But besides that, if somebody is going to use a debit or credit card, they will put all their purchases on that card, not just some of them.

There is no logical reason to use a card and cash unless it's because of a government program.

That's nonsense. I go to the grocery a couple of times a week and buy stuff for neighbors and my daughter with cards and cash. I almost always have two piles of stuff on the counter, and I don't have an EBT card. The grocery stores I go to, the customer puts their credit, debt, or EBT card in the machine and it would be really hard to tell what kind of cards they have.

 

[protectionist]

People that sneak into the country have about as much interest in our elections as we have in theirs. Any foreigner who would risk deportation and jail time to vote would have to be nuts since the chance of their vote making any difference is about 1 in million.

Their risk with voting is ZERO. No one has any way of knowing their citizenship (or voting eligibility) status.

 

[protectionist]

I have a list of links if you care to read them about just that. So what happens if an illegal is caught trying to vote? They tell him or her they can't vote. Nobody calls the cops, nobody informs ICE; especially in sanctuary cities, nobody is hauled away. They just get turned down at the polls.

They don't get turned down at the polls, because nobody knows they're aliens. There's nothing to show it.

 

[MaryL]

I have to ASK, at what price do we allow legal immigration? All the jobs lost to illegals, and then, say, all the American families broken up or lost for the sake of catering to Mexican illegals? How many millions of dollars and how many Americans have suffered as a consequence? And why do illegal aliens get such special treatment? Illegal aliens cost us our dignity, our collective soul and our culture Isn't that enough? What else can I say?

 

[JoeB131]

Yep, and that 85 year old guy sitting behind a table is a handwriting expert too!

Funny, I've been voting at my location for the last 15 years, and no one has ever tried to steal my identity and cast my ballot.

How is that, with voter fraud being so rampant?

Look, I realize that you live in mortal fear of the Darkies voting and getting some of your stuff, but really, it's the other white folks you need to watch out for.

 

[JoeB131]

Wow JoeB, not only are you ignorant about geography, you are also ignorant about society as well. Many people are janitors, talk to janitors, and hire janitors. All the time buddy.

Again, doesn't pass the laugh test that bigot like you would have regular conversations with an undocumented worker about his status. You'd probably report him to La Migra five minutes later and he knows it.

Maybe we did and you don't know about it because you refuse to read the news:

When you start off with The Moonie Times as a "news source", there's no taking you seriously. You also have Judicial Watch and the PJ Media. I'm surprised you didn't try to pass off something from the Daily Stormer.

Need more stories, let me know. I have an entire folder of them.

Do you have any from a credible source where people actually have degrees in journalism and don't work for the Moonie Church?