Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[barton]

https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates

[luee]

Your report makes no sense?

---Home   Report   The Cost of Welfare Use By Immigrant and Native Households
The Cost of Welfare Use By Immigrant and Native Households
FacebookTwitterRedditLinkedInEmailCopy LinkPrint
By Jason Richwine on May 9, 2016
Download a PDF of this Backgrounder.

VIDEO: Jason Richwine Discusses Welfare Report on FOX News

Jason Richwine, PhD, is an independent public policy analyst in Washington, D.C., and a contributing writer at National Review.

In September 2015, the Center for Immigration Studies published a landmark study of immigration and welfare use, showing that 51 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one federal welfare program — cash, food, housing, or medical care — compared to 30 percent of native households. Following similar methodology, this new study examines the dollar cost of that welfare use.

The average household headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) costs taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare benefits, which is 41 percent higher than the $4,431 received by the average native household.
The average immigrant household consumes 33 percent more cash welfare, 57 percent more food assistance, and 44 percent more Medicaid dollars than the average native household. Housing costs are about the same for both groups.
At $8,251, households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico have the highest welfare costs of any sending region — 86 percent higher than the costs of native households.
Illegal immigrant households cost an average of $5,692 (driven largely by the presence of U.S.-born children), while legal immigrant households cost $6,378.
The greater consumption of welfare dollars by immigrants can be explained in large part by their lower level of education and larger number of children compared to natives. Over 24 percent of immigrant households are headed by a high school dropout, compared to just 8 percent of native households. In addition, 13 percent of immigrant households have three or more children, vs. just 6 percent of native households.---

https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households

[REDSTATEWARD]

democrat man bites progressive dogs.

Both houses of the democrat-controlled Nevada Legislature approved bill that would cast the state’s electoral votes for the presidential candidate who gets the most votes Nationally. However the democrat governor Steve Sisolak vetoed the measure.
.... joining other states in approving the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose.”

Three cheers for common sense. 

[josh]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/900-migrants-found-texas-facility-125-person-capacity/story?id=63404988

This is another of those situations where the dolt-from-down-under will blame the migrants for putting themselves in that position, while Ward and Kiiiid pretend that these are not the desired fruits of the GOP's policies, Trump's policies, and the rest of us will understand this is morally bankrupt conduct by the government and its designated agencies.

MORALLY BANKRUPT.

[LarryBnDC]

democrat man bites progressive dogs.

Both houses of the democratic-controlled Nevada Legislature approved bill that would cast the state’s electoral votes for the presidential candidate who gets the most votes Nationally. However the democraticgovernor Steve Sisolak vetoed the measure.
.... joining other states in approving the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose.”

Three cheers for common sense.

Whatever point you’re to make is nullified by your insistence on using the equivalent of a school yard taunt.

Have a seat fool.

Meanwhile Governor Sisolak used a high minded argument to defend a breathtakingly stupid decision, which is precisely why you support that dumb shit.

[REDSTATEWARD]

democrat man bites progressive dogs.

Both houses of the democratic-controlled Nevada Legislature approved bill that would cast the state’s electoral votes for the presidential candidate who gets the most votes Nationally. However the democraticgovernor Steve Sisolak vetoed the measure.
.... joining other states in approving the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose.”

Three cheers for common sense.

Whatever point you’re to make is nullified by your insistence on using the equivalent of a school yard taunt.

Have a seat fool.

Meanwhile Governor Sisolak used a high minded argument to defend a breathtakingly stupid decision, which is precisely why you support that dumb shit.

So take up your argument with the Governor.
But he did do the Legislature a favor by preventing it from passing an unconstitutional bill.

[facilitatorn]

Who will do you a favor of preventing you from supporting an illegitimate party and president?

http://slate.com/business/2019/05/trump-mexico-tariffs-stephen-miller.html

[josh]

[josh]

democrat man bites progressive dogs.

Both houses of the democratic-controlled Nevada Legislature approved bill that would cast the state’s electoral votes for the presidential candidate who gets the most votes Nationally. However the democraticgovernor Steve Sisolak vetoed the measure.
.... joining other states in approving the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose.”

Three cheers for common sense.

Whatever point you’re to make is nullified by your insistence on using the equivalent of a school yard taunt.

Have a seat fool.

Meanwhile Governor Sisolak used a high minded argument to defend a breathtakingly stupid decision, which is precisely why you support that dumb shit.

So take up your argument with the Governor.
But he did do the Legislature a favor by preventing it from passing an unconstitutional bill.

And your basis for believing that it is unconstitutional?

Is it more unconstitutional than the bills that dictate a state's EV shall all go to the winner in that state, in your opinion?

[barton]

Your report makes no sense?

You have to read it all the way down to where they explain the metrics they use in defining welfare.   

And differentiate between permanent legal resident and undocumented.

[josh]

[josh]

Your report makes no sense?

You have to read it all the way down to where they explain the metrics they use in defining welfare.   

And differentiate between permanent legal resident and undocumented.

If only that would be enough.

[whiskeypriest]

democrat man bites progressive dogs.

Both houses of the democratic-controlled Nevada Legislature approved bill that would cast the state’s electoral votes for the presidential candidate who gets the most votes Nationally. However the democraticgovernor Steve Sisolak vetoed the measure.
.... joining other states in approving the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose.”

Three cheers for common sense.

Whatever point you’re to make is nullified by your insistence on using the equivalent of a school yard taunt.

Have a seat fool.

Meanwhile Governor Sisolak used a high minded argument to defend a breathtakingly stupid decision, which is precisely why you support that dumb shit.

So take up your argument with the Governor.
But he did do the Legislature a favor by preventing it from passing an unconstitutional bill.

And your basis for believing that it is unconstitutional?

Is it more unconstitutional than the bills that dictate a state's EV shall all go to the winner in that state, in your opinion?

Red has no idea on his own about constitutionality because he read so.eone who said it and does not comprehend the argument, and he will not.defend his comments. He never does.

[REDSTATEWARD]

democrat man bites progressive dogs.

Both houses of the democratic-controlled Nevada Legislature approved bill that would cast the state’s electoral votes for the presidential candidate who gets the most votes Nationally. However the democraticgovernor Steve Sisolak vetoed the measure.
.... joining other states in approving the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose.”

Three cheers for common sense.

Whatever point you’re to make is nullified by your insistence on using the equivalent of a school yard taunt.

Have a seat fool.

Meanwhile Governor Sisolak used a high minded argument to defend a breathtakingly stupid decision, which is precisely why you support that dumb shit.

So take up your argument with the Governor.
But he did do the Legislature a favor by preventing it from passing an unconstitutional bill.

And your basis for believing that it is unconstitutional?

Is it more unconstitutional than the bills that dictate a state's EV shall all go to the winner in that state, in your opinion?

Red has no idea on his own about constitutionality because he read so.eone who said it and does not comprehend the argument, and he will not.defend his comments. He never does.

LOL
Electing a president is a job of the individual states not a winner take all national popularity contest. Article Two explains it. So did Governor Sisolak.

[REDSTATEWARD]

democrat man bites progressive dogs.

Both houses of the democratic-controlled Nevada Legislature approved bill that would cast the state’s electoral votes for the presidential candidate who gets the most votes Nationally. However the democraticgovernor Steve Sisolak vetoed the measure.
.... joining other states in approving the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose.”

Three cheers for common sense.

Whatever point you’re to make is nullified by your insistence on using the equivalent of a school yard taunt.

Have a seat fool.

Meanwhile Governor Sisolak used a high minded argument to defend a breathtakingly stupid decision, which is precisely why you support that dumb shit.

So take up your argument with the Governor.
But he did do the Legislature a favor by preventing it from passing an unconstitutional bill.

And your basis for believing that it is unconstitutional?

Is it more unconstitutional than the bills that dictate a state's EV shall all go to the winner in that state, in your opinion?

There is nothing unconstitutional about state’s requiring electors to vote for candidate who got the most votes in the state. It clearly goes against the US Constition to cast a state’s  electoral votes to someone who did not finish first in that state’s election.