First wave of deportations begins amid immigration crisis:

The absolute most hilarious things about these ridiculous threads over this fake "crisis" are all the people blabbering about how we don't have enough money to take care of our own. Since when do conservatives give a s# about that? That's what churches are for, right?

Meanwhile, right now there's a thread with people flipping out because we're phasing out the Tomahawk missile. So where's the comments about how we can't afford to launch hundreds of multi-million dollar missiles on countries we're pretending to liberate because we have all of these poor people?

I'm just saying, why use this particularly disingenuous argument? There's not a lot of concern over EITHER.

EDIT:

Also. I told you you so.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Well maybe you should explain the $17 Trillion National Debt.

How much more will it take to solve the problems ?

The politicians have been binge spending like crazy and the problems are getting worse by the day.

The same compartmentalized high crime/high poverty Democrat voting districts have been there for decades and are expanding with zero results.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Tell the churches to take over making all the welfare payouts. These working, tax paying conservatives are about taxed out...

Des

Think about it. . . even if the cost was only $5,000 it's a pile of money. Multiply that by tens of thousands and it wouldn't be hard to imagine a scenario where a fraction of that money could wind up in higher ups in our government's hands. 25-50 million dollars won't hurt the smugglers bottom line, But it sure could satisfy some greedy government types in secret offshore bank accounts. Heck, I may even turn a blind eye myself to illegal immigration if that much money was waved in front of me. And if it helps my party out too, all the better.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: theantediluvian

Well maybe you should explain the $17 Trillion National Debt.

How much more will it take to solve the problems ?

The politicians have been binge spending like crazy and the problems are getting worse by the day.

The same compartmentalized high crime/high poverty Democrat voting districts have been there for decades and are expanding with zero results.

We sure as hell didn't spend it on welfare if that's what you're insinuating? Here's where some of it went:

The decade-long American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would end up costing as much as $6 trillion, the equivalent of $75,000 for every American household, calculates the prestigious Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

Remember, when President George Bush’s National Economic Council Director, Lawrence Lindsey, had told the country’s largest newspaper “The Wall Street Journal” that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion, he had found himself under intense fire from his colleagues in the administration who claimed that this was a gross overestimation.

According to the Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government 2013 report, this accounted for roughly 20 per cent of the total amount added to the US national debt between 2001 and 2012.

source - Global Research Centre

I sure as hell don't view that as money well spent. I mean, we have all these people at home to take care of, right?

a reply to: theantediluvian

How much have they spent of "welfare" ?

I bet it's a lot compared to the results eh ?

Some deflections are infections.

originally posted by: Destinyone

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
Many people have been very vocal, saying we need to deport as many of these folks as we can. And now that it appears that is exactly what is happening, it's only for show or only because it's harder to get a Honduran the right to vote?

*facepalm*

I'm so sick of this issue.

Well excuse me if I don't jump up and do the happy dance. That won't happen until I see a steady stream of airplanes heading back over our border packed to the max, with those being sent back to their own countries.

And, legislation implemented that stops the flow being located in our cities now.

When all of the above happens...then, and only then, will I jump up and do this...

Des

I'm not asking you to dance a jig, but a little consistency would be nice.

You want em deported? It looks like that is beginning to take place. But now people are complaining that it's not enough and you even implied that they may be going home because it's harder to get a Honduran registered to vote.

Ridiculous.

Let me make a prediction: If they do start loading people in to planes and taking them home, the same people that wanted them shipped-out will complain when the total cost is revealed.....and that will be used to blame Obama.

No matter what, some people will never be satisfied.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: theantediluvian

How much have they spent of "welfare" ?

I bet it's a lot compared to the results eh ?

Some deflections are infections.

Do you mean corporate welfare? You know, the lazy takers who are sucking all of the money out of us?

Oh, no. You meant poor people.

In 2013, "social safety net programs" (including those that don't directly benefit the poor) in total cost us about $398 billion. When you take a closer look at that figure, it works out to be about $212 billion on actual "welfare" programs directly benefiting the poor, or about 6% of what the federal government spent in FY 2013.

Our military spending has more than doubled to over $700 billion a year since 2001.

Let that sink in. Our yearly military expenditure has increased, since 2001, by an amount that is considerably larger than the total amount we spend on programs that benefit tens of million of poor yet you're losing your mind over 50 or 60 thousand illegal immigrant children that the administration has been saying will be sent home ALL along. Illegal immigrants, who as you helped me prove in your other illegal immigrant freak out thread, aren't eligible for means tested welfare programs.

Anyone who doesn't agree with you is "deflecting?" Has it occurred to you that saying "deflection" is in fact, your way of deflecting?

a reply to: theantediluvian

All that and no visible results that are even remotely positive ?

Can you stay focused long enough to explain where even a double amount spent on assistance programs would solve the problem ?

The point being the end results without making it worse like it has.

Maybe the real plan is not to make it better ?

this is just a show. "Obama has been deporting more illegals than Bush" type of stuff. send a few plane loads back, keep the rest of the 20 million. next we'll start taking in the other 6 billion of people who live in war or poverty around the planet. we should up the tax rate to 95% and pay for their welfare. i bet liberals are gonna be the first ones to donate their spare bedroom for a family of "undocumented Americans" and lead by example, to shame the rest of us to follow lead and be more humanitarian!

a reply to: theantediluvian

Illegal immigrants, who as you helped me prove in your other illegal immigrant freak out thread, aren't eligible for means tested welfare programs.

Not "eligible" yet.

But They and future children will be eventually.

Especially since they have little chance of getting out of the rut the government has dug.

That rut is getting deeper by the day.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Illegal immigrants, who as you helped me prove in your other illegal immigrant freak out thread, aren't eligible for means tested welfare programs.

ever heard of identity theft? SSNs are "re-purposed" all the time and these latino gangs/groups have the means to falsify paperwork for the right price. additionally, both parents can claim assistance for a US born child (US citizen) and they will get it.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: theantediluvian

All that and no visible results that are even remotely positive ?

Can you stay focused long enough to explain where even a double amount spent on assistance programs would solve the problem ?

The point being the end results without making it worse like it has.

Maybe the real plan is not to make it better ?

No results? How about all the people benefiting from the programs aren't homeless and there aren't starving children dying in the street like a Dickens novel? You're also assuming that it's the same poor people all the time. Some poor people do get off assistance but then they're just replaced by others. This country needs jobs and not crappy low-paying service jobs. These programs don't create good paying new jobs but neither does the $150-$180 billion or so in corporate welfare. The GDP has been positive since 2010 (after being negative for 2008 and 2009), and yet it's only been the last year that the unemployment rate has dipped considerably. Income inequality is growing rapidly.

You're worried about the wrong sort of wealth redistribution. It's being redistributed alright and it's all going to the top. Stop blaming poor people. The mythical "job creators" at the very top are raking it in hand over fist while the middle class shrinks and here you are, blaming the victims. If something isn't done to stop income inequality, the number of people at the bottom is going to grow so large that we'll find ourselves living in our North American version of a banana republic hell hole.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
You're worried about the wrong sort of wealth redistribution. It's being redistributed alright and it's all going to the top. Stop blaming poor people. The mythical "job creators" at the very top are raking it in hand over fist while the middle class shrinks and here you are, blaming the victims. If something isn't done to stop income inequality, the number of people at the bottom is going to grow so large that we'll find ourselves living in our North American version of a banana republic hell hole.

the welfare programs are just another way that corporations get welfare. cheap labor needs state provided health insurance, housing assistance, snap food assistance... these programs are designed to keep the people dependent on the system. because if there would be a limit of 1 or 2 kids who could get state assistance then the poor wouldn't have 4-5 kids thus perpetuating the poverty situation over generations. middle class gets zero assistance which is why they have less than 2 kids - they have to actually pay for everything out of pocket!

originally posted by: DarkSecret

originally posted by: theantediluvian
You're worried about the wrong sort of wealth redistribution. It's being redistributed alright and it's all going to the top. Stop blaming poor people. The mythical "job creators" at the very top are raking it in hand over fist while the middle class shrinks and here you are, blaming the victims. If something isn't done to stop income inequality, the number of people at the bottom is going to grow so large that we'll find ourselves living in our North American version of a banana republic hell hole.

the welfare programs are just another way that corporations get welfare. cheap labor needs state provided health insurance, housing assistance, snap food assistance... these programs are designed to keep the people dependent on the system. because if there would be a limit of 1 or 2 kids who could get state assistance then the poor wouldn't have 4-5 kids thus perpetuating the poverty situation over generations. middle class gets zero assistance which is why they have less than 2 kids - they have to actually pay for everything out of pocket!

I invite you to back that up. You're promulgating the myth of the Welfare Queen. This has been dispelled time and time and time again but it's a myth that won't die. The average family size is 3.7 people for both families who do not receive assistance and those who don't.

Stop believing Reagan-era propaganda. Also, are you not familiar with TANF? That's right, in 1996, the "first black President," Bill Clinton, signed into law the most significant welfare reform to date.

The Federal government provides assistance through TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). TANF is a grant given to each state to run their own welfare program. To help overcome the former problem of unemployment due to reliance on the welfare system, the TANF grant requires that all recipients of welfare aid must find work within two years of receiving aid, including single parents who are required to work at least 30 hours per week opposed to 35 or 55 required by two parent families. Failure to comply with work requirements could result in loss of benefits.

source

Speaking of TANF and children...


source

Notice what happened in 1996. If you have data to support your claims, please share.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
I invite you to back that up. You're promulgating the myth of the Welfare Queen. This has been dispelled time and time and time again but it's a myth that won't die. The average family size is 3.7 people for both families who do not receive assistance and those who don't.

Stop believing Reagan-era propaganda. Also, are you not familiar with TANF? That's right, in 1996, the "first black President," Bill Clinton, signed into law the most significant welfare reform to date.

I didn't say the welfare recipients don't work - although lately there have been discussions of work exemptions in some states. However I said welfare recipients are a cheap source of labor and that the welfare is just a subsidy to corporations which should pay a living wage but instead pay peanuts and the rest is covered by taxpayers.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Do you mean corporate welfare?

ALL social programs are corporate welfare.

Rob from the haves, and give to the have not's all so they can go buy more stuff.

IE corporate products.

Social programs guarantee them evil corporations income for life.

S&F!

The U.S. deported Honduran children as young as 1-1/2 years old on Monday in the first flight since President Obama pledged to speed up the process of sending back illegal immigrant minors from Central America.

So this smoke screen is all really about spreading more cough cough chemtrails contrails over Central America to change the climate on peoples decisions concerning their cough cough coming to the USA economy!

Follow the money!

it seems the WH / Administration was too quick-on-the-draw...

the "Rex 84" & the "North-American-Union" programs have clashed head-on
and they are not compatible with one another, because the Muslim lover-in-charge was too greedy and anxious to decimate the nation

he might can salvage a 'Martial Law' program with the flood of felons/drug cartel soldiers/ME Cell members allowed free-reign in an unprotected US of A...but that's about it



more to come as I digest the new info & come up with possible scenarios



ADD: I read somewhere today that Obama got an estimated 11 Million votes from the Illeagle voters in his 2012 campaign
It seems that future democrat votes is the whole purpose of this treason based operation
and REX84...(UN intervention & gun seizure)

OR the NAU (open borders, with USA Law being the framework)
are both misdirection operations BUT still beneficial to the globalists...because Barry Obama is weaving the voter commitment into the equasion

originally posted by: St Udio
it seems the WH / Administration was too quick-on-the-draw...

the "Rex 84" & the "North-American-Union" programs have clashed head-on
and they are not compatible with one another, because the Muslim lover-in-charge was too greedy and anxious to decimate the nation

he might can salvage a 'Martial Law' program with the flood of felons/drug cartel soldiers/ME Cell members allowed free-reign in an unprotected US of A...but that's about it



more to come as I digest the new info & come up with possible scenarios

 

ADD: I read somewhere today that Obama got an estimated 11 Million votes from the Illeagle voters in his 2012 campaign
It seems that future democrat votes is the whole purpose of this treason based operation
and REX84...(UN intervention & gun seizure)

OR the NAU (open borders, with USA Law being the framework)
are both misdirection operations BUT still beneficial to the globalists...because Barry Obama is weaving the voter commitment into the equasion

Hate to say this,but I concur.