[Dark_crow]

lol wolverine you are more brainwashed that i thought. the stats that come out of america are different than almost every stat that comes out of every country. this year america was the one nation on earth who's FBI came out with a report saying "terrorism has decreased around the world" and "environment is getting cleaner". the world laughs at both these claims. not one western nation showed the same results as the FBI did in these two areas. Also america has told the united nations to calculate poverty in a way in which whoever makes one dollar a day around the world is not to be considered poor. thats hilarious isnt it. dont believe what you say when you see that millions of americans have no healthcare. also the average salary has gone up but that is zero indicator of whether the gap between the rich and poor is going away because prices of EVERYTHING HAVE GONE UP. every person in an economics faculty can tell you this. i can't believe you couldnt figure that one on your own and tried to sell propagnada here. go back to school

Please, refer to your sources if you want to appear creadable, otherwise...

[ETWolverine]

the stats that come out of america are different than almost every stat that comes out of every country. This year america was the one nation on earth who's FBI came out with a report saying "terrorism has decreased around the world" and "environment is getting cleaner". The world laughs at both these claims. Not one western nation showed the same results as the FBI did in these two areas.

Mario, now I know that you are full of crap.

The FBI doesn't report on environmental issues, at all. That is the job of the EPA.

The FBI doesn't issue reports on the threat of terrorism.

The National Intelligence Estimate, however, has quite clearly pointed out the rising international threat of terrorism. From the July 2007 NIE:

Key Judgments
We judge the US Homeland will face a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next
three years. The main threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and cells, especially al-
Qa’ida, driven by their undiminished intent to attack the Homeland and a continued effort by these terrorist groups to adapt and improve their capabilities.

We assess that greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years have constrained the ability of al-Qa’ida to attack the US Homeland again and have led terrorist groups to perceive the Homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11. These measures have helped disrupt known plots against the United States since 9/11.

• We are concerned, however, that this level of international cooperation may wane as
9/11 becomes a more distant memory and perceptions of the threat diverge. Al-Qa’ida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the Homeland, as its central leadership continues to plan high-impact plots, while pushing others in extremist Sunni communities to mimic its efforts and to supplement its capabilities. We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership. Although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the United States with ties to al-Qa’ida senior leadership since 9/11, we judge that al-Qa’ida will intensify its efforts to put operatives here.

• As a result, we judge that the United States currently is in a heightened threat
environment.

So, either you don't bother reading the facts for yourself, or you make them up as you go along. I'm betting on the latter.

Also america has told the united nations to calculate poverty in a way in which whoever makes one dollar a day around the world is not to be considered poor. That's hilarious isn't it.

What is the source of your information?

If the average income in such a country is $0.22 per day then $1.00 per day is a fortune, isn't it. If the average salary is $30 per month, then $1 per day is about average. If the average salary is $5 per day, then $1 per day would be below average, but not necessarily poverty. You have to also take into consideration the costs of basic necessities of food and clothing. If milk costs a penny, and bread costs two pennies, then $1 per day is probably enough to live on. If milk costs $1, then $1 per day is probably not enough to live on. Unless you know what type of economy you are talking about, you cannot comment on what is considered poverty. You cannot apply your own standards to the economies of other countries. (And don't try arguing with me about economics, Mario. This is what I do for a living... I'm a financial analyst.)

don't believe what you say when you see that millions of americans have no healthcare.

Yep. About 15 million, to be precise. Which equates to 5% of the population. Of that number, about half are single males between the ages of 18-30 who are in good health and wish to spend their money on something other than healthcare, like a new flatscreen TV. I don't really care about them, it's their choice. The other 2.5%, roughly 7,000,000, are covered by hospitals that must treat them regardless of ability to pay. NOBODY in the USA is without a healthcare safety net if they need it.

also the average salary has gone up but that is zero indicator of whether the gap between the rich and poor is going away because prices of EVERYTHING HAVE GONE UP.

Non-sequitor. The prices have gone up for rich people too. Your statement is meaningless in this context.

But please read the report at this link. In specific, please read the part that says:

If poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the 35 million people identified as being “in poverty” by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor. While material hardship does exist in the United States, it is quite restricted in scope and severity.

The average “poor” person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

• Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

• Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago,
only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

• Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more
than two rooms per person.

• The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in
Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

• Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

• Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

• Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV
reception.

• Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

In other words, the people living in "poverty" in the USA live fairly well, for the most part. In terms of quality of life, the gap between rich and poor in the USA is smaller than in any other country, and is shrinking, not growing.

every person in an economics faculty can tell you this.

Then perhaps you should go and ask them. Having a degree in economics, and reading economic and financial reports on a daily basis, I think I have something of an understanding of economic issues.

I can't believe you couldn't figure that one on your own and tried to sell propagnada here. Go back to school

What I can't believe is that you think you actually know something about economics, and are telling me to "go back to school". This is what I do for a living, and I think I know more than the average bear about economics. I can't believe how easy it was to find statistical information to back up my position, as opposed to you who have provided none. And I can't believe that anyone would willingly take what they hear from liberal political talking points as gospel without bothering to go to the original data to find out for themselves. That's just pure laziness.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Please post your source.

Well, he heard it somewhere, so it must be true.

[ETWolverine]

here is another bit of information. immigrants and illegal immigrants are causing less money to be sucked out of the system than true blue americans. over 90 percent of the people who get their checks for doing nothing and get aid from the government are third generation white americans. this information was released by the Bush administartion.

Pure baloney.

First of all, what is your source?

Secondly, according to a recent Heritage Foundation report, the cost of a low-income illegal immigrant family to the USA is roughly $22,000 per year in schooling, healthcare, welfare, and other services provided "free" by the government. That is after they pay taxes (assuming that they even bother... they are illegal immigrants, after all). There are roughly 11 million such people, meaning that the cost to the USA is $242 Billion per year. Over a 10-year period, that amount is $2.4 TRILLION. The entire US national budget was only $2.6 Trillion (in 2006). That means that 1/10th of the entire national budget is being spent on supporting illegal immigrants and their families. The amount being spent on illegal immigrants is 65% of the total national budget for healthcare and education.

Keep in mind that financial aid is given in more than one way. In addition to a "check for doing nothing", there is financial aid for schooling, food stamps, health care, etc. So a lot more aid is going to illegals than just the "check from the government".

According to the USDA, 34% percent of families that receive foodstamps are Black. So your 90% figure is automatically wrong.

Just because someone said it to you doesn't make it true, Mario. Go look it up for yourself.

Elliot

[Dark_crow]

Pure baloney.

First of all, what is your source?

Secondly, according to a recent Heritage Foundation report, the cost of a low-income illegal immigrant family to the USA is roughly $22,000 per year in schooling, healthcare, welfare, and other services provided "free" by the government. That is after they pay taxes (assuming that they even bother... they are illegal immigrants, after all). There are roughly 11 million such people, meaning that the cost to the USA is $242 Billion per year. Over a 10-year period, that amount is $2.4 TRILLION. The entire US national budget was only $2.6 Trillion (in 2006). That means that 1/10th of the entire national budget is being spent on supporting illegal immigrants and their families. The amount being spent on illegal immigrants is 65% of the total national budget for healthcare and education.

Keep in mind that financial aid is given in more than one way. in addition to a "check for doing nothing", there is financial aid for schooling, food stamps, health care, etc. So a lot more aid is going to illegals than just the "check from the government".

According to the USDA, 34% percent of families that receive foodstamps are Black. So your 90% figure is automatically wrong.

Just because someone said it to you doesn't make it true, Mario. Go look it up for yourself.

Elliot

I suspect that he may be using social security retirement as a government give-away.

All immigrants that are receiving the aid you reference; do they add anything to the GNP; and do the figures you use include loans which must be repaid?

[Choux]

Mario, that movie you referred me to sounds interesting. I have to get off this dial up so I can get good reception on my computer.

Hey, excon, great to see you again! I didn't drink the koolaid either. Plenty have. ;)

Choux

There are no happy endings.

[ETWolverine]

I suspect that he may be using social security retirement as a government give-away.

All immigrants that are receiving the aid you reference; do they add anything to the GNP; and do the figures you use include loans which must be repaid?

Good question.

The report talks about direct benefits, means tested benefits, public education, population based services etc.

The average illegal alien household receives benefits as follows (with examples of the type of benefit in parenthesis):

Direct benefits: $7,326 (Medicare, etc.)
Means-tested benefits: $4,920 (Foodstamps, etc.)
Educational benefits: $5,143 (Public school, vocational school, Pell grants, etc.)
Population-based services: $5,765 (police, roadways, the stuff provided to EVERYONE)
Interest and related costs: $3,495 (interest on borrowings b the govt. to cover costs associated with providing benefits that would otherwise not be necessary)
Pure Public Goods Expenditures: $6,056 (something that is not used up when one person uses the service... everyone can use the service equally. Examples: a lighthouse, a cure for cancer, etc. The fact that one person uses it doesn't eliminate its use by another. This differs from population-based services, because roadways can become congested, police that are answering one call are not available for another call.)

Total: $32,706.

The same report shows that tax revenues (Federal State and Local) from low-skilled illegal immigrant workers who bothe to actually pay their taxes, is roughly $9,689. This includes FICA, State and local consumption taxes, Federal individual income taxes, state and local property taxes, corporate income taxes, state loterry purchases, state individual income taxes, federal excise taxes and custom duties, unemplyment insurance and workers compensation taxation, federal highway taxes, sales taxes, and other taxes.

This leaves a net annual deficit of roughly $22,000.

Now, I don't see a calculation for their contribution to GNP or GDP. But it may be included in the appendix (the appendix is about 40 pages long). Personally, I think that the calculation for taxes collected offsets the growth of GDP, but I could be wrong. Still, we are, by and large, talking about low-income, low education families that are not large contributors to the GDP.

I continue to look through the report and let you know if I find anything about GNP or GDP in the calculations.

Elliot