On May 25, 6:56 pm, Graphic Queen wrote:
Immigration costs far outweigh labors
By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 25, 2007

Low-skilled legal immigrants and illegal aliens in the U.S. are
receiving much more in federal social welfare benefits than they pay
in taxes at a net cost of $89 billion a year to American taxpayers,
according to a Heritage Foundation study.
A cost-benefit analysis by the conservative think tank of the
immigration reform bill being debated in the Senate -- which it said
would grant what many consider amnesty to illegal aliens and increase
the flow of low-skilled workers into the U.S. -- warned that if the
legislation becomes law, it would result in "the largest expansion of
the welfare state in 30 years."
"Such proposals would increase poverty in the U.S. in the short
and long term and dramatically increase the burden on U.S. taxpayers,"
said Robert E. Rector, senior research fellow for welfare at Heritage
and the co-author of the study with Christine Kim.
Mr. Rector's findings and conclusions were sharply disputed by
another conservative think tank, the Cato Institute, which said that
some of his cost estimates were "grossly exaggerated" and that
low-skilled workers, especially Hispanics with a strong work ethic,
contributed to the U.S. economy's overall growth and prosperity.
Daniel Griswold, director of Cato's Center for Trade Policy
Studies, acknowledged that lower-skilled workers on average "consume
more in government services than they pay in taxes." But he pointed to
several studies that showed their work in many low-skill industries,
from agriculture to construction, also helped expand state economies.
"The right policy response to the fiscal concerns about
immigration is not to artificially suppress labor migration but to
control and reallocate government spending," Mr. Griswold said in a
recent paper.
Mr. Rector amassed a significant amount of data drawn from the
U.S. census surveys that he said showed how a wave of poorly educated,
low-income immigrants and illegals were imposing increasing costs on
the country through 60 means-tested aid programs, from welfare to food
stamps for immigrant families with children born in this country.
"Each year, roughly 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants enter
and take up residence in the U.S. This immigrant flow is
disproportionately poorly educated because illegal immigration
primarily attracts low-skill workers and the legal immigration system
favors kinship ties over skill levels," he said.
According to Heritage, the nation has 4.5 million low-skilled
immigrant households containing 15.9 million people, or about 5
percent of the population. About 60 percent of these households were
headed by legal immigrants and 40 percent by illegals, the study said.
Contrary to a belief among many Americans that low-skilled, low-paid
immigrants do not pay any taxes, Mr. Rector said, "These families are
rarely idle; they consistently work and pay taxes."
But the taxes they pay seldom cover the costs of the substantial
benefits they receive, he said.
In fiscal 2004, "the average low-skill immigrant household
received $30,160 in direct benefits, means-test benefits, education
and population-based services from all levels of government," he said.
In return, however, these households on average paid only $10,573 in
taxes that year.
Mr. Rector said the solution is to "reduce the costs of low-skill
immigration to the taxpayers" by enforcing laws against employing
illegal aliens, making a guest-worker program "truly temporary and not
a gateway to welfare entitlements," ending birthright citizenship for
children of illegal aliens and ruling out any amnesty in the
immigration reform bill.
Several government and free-market think tank studies assembled by
Mr. Griswold at the Cato Institute paint a different picture of the
impact of low-skilled immigrants in the U.S. economy.
"Several state-level studies have found that the increased
economic activity created by lower-skilled, mostly Hispanic immigrants
far exceeds the costs to state and local governments," Mr. Griswold
wrote.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...4520-5637r.htm

The cheap labor lobby and the usual collection of poliltical skunks
want to shove
this bill down America's throat.

ted

http://www.vdare.com/ V-Darre

On May 26, 8:35 am, Ted wrote:
On May 25, 6:56 pm, Graphic Queen wrote:





Immigration costs far outweigh labors
By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 25, 2007

Low-skilled legal immigrants and illegal aliens in the U.S. are
receiving much more in federal social welfare benefits than they pay
in taxes at a net cost of $89 billion a year to American taxpayers,
according to a Heritage Foundation study.
A cost-benefit analysis by the conservative think tank of the
immigration reform bill being debated in the Senate -- which it said
would grant what many consider amnesty to illegal aliens and increase
the flow of low-skilled workers into the U.S. -- warned that if the
legislation becomes law, it would result in "the largest expansion of
the welfare state in 30 years."
"Such proposals would increase poverty in the U.S. in the short
and long term and dramatically increase the burden on U.S. taxpayers,"
said Robert E. Rector, senior research fellow for welfare at Heritage
and the co-author of the study with Christine Kim.
Mr. Rector's findings and conclusions were sharply disputed by
another conservative think tank, the Cato Institute, which said that
some of his cost estimates were "grossly exaggerated" and that
low-skilled workers, especially Hispanics with a strong work ethic,
contributed to the U.S. economy's overall growth and prosperity.
Daniel Griswold, director of Cato's Center for Trade Policy
Studies, acknowledged that lower-skilled workers on average "consume
more in government services than they pay in taxes." But he pointed to
several studies that showed their work in many low-skill industries,
from agriculture to construction, also helped expand state economies.
"The right policy response to the fiscal concerns about
immigration is not to artificially suppress labor migration but to
control and reallocate government spending," Mr. Griswold said in a
recent paper.
Mr. Rector amassed a significant amount of data drawn from the
U.S. census surveys that he said showed how a wave of poorly educated,
low-income immigrants and illegals were imposing increasing costs on
the country through 60 means-tested aid programs, from welfare to food
stamps for immigrant families with children born in this country.
"Each year, roughly 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants enter
and take up residence in the U.S. This immigrant flow is
disproportionately poorly educated because illegal immigration
primarily attracts low-skill workers and the legal immigration system
favors kinship ties over skill levels," he said.
According to Heritage, the nation has 4.5 million low-skilled
immigrant households containing 15.9 million people, or about 5
percent of the population. About 60 percent of these households were
headed by legal immigrants and 40 percent by illegals, the study said.
Contrary to a belief among many Americans that low-skilled, low-paid
immigrants do not pay any taxes, Mr. Rector said, "These families are
rarely idle; they consistently work and pay taxes."
But the taxes they pay seldom cover the costs of the substantial
benefits they receive, he said.
In fiscal 2004, "the average low-skill immigrant household
received $30,160 in direct benefits, means-test benefits, education
and population-based services from all levels of government," he said.
In return, however, these households on average paid only $10,573 in
taxes that year.
Mr. Rector said the solution is to "reduce the costs of low-skill
immigration to the taxpayers" by enforcing laws against employing
illegal aliens, making a guest-worker program "truly temporary and not
a gateway to welfare entitlements," ending birthright citizenship for
children of illegal aliens and ruling out any amnesty in the
immigration reform bill.
Several government and free-market think tank studies assembled by
Mr. Griswold at the Cato Institute paint a different picture of the
impact of low-skilled immigrants in the U.S. economy.
"Several state-level studies have found that the increased
economic activity created by lower-skilled, mostly Hispanic immigrants
far exceeds the costs to state and local governments," Mr. Griswold
wrote.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...4520-5637r.htm

The cheap labor lobby and the usual collection of poliltical skunks
want to shove
this bill down America's throat.

ted

http://www.vdare.com/ V-Darre- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How about listing your topic as OT??? That's the correct way to post
something so off topic.

Amnesty is just a right-wing code word used to hide their ignorant and
racist viewpoint. These people are already here. It is physically
impossible as well as undesirable to arrest an deport them.

It is actually a very undesirable bill for the undocumented and they
are totally against it since it required them to register with the
gov't, provides for large fines and puts them on a 15 year waiting
list for citizenship consideration.

On May 26, 10:45 am, Lawrence wrote:
On May 26, 8:35 am, Ted wrote:





On May 25, 6:56 pm, Graphic Queen wrote:

Immigration costs far outweigh labors
By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 25, 2007

Low-skilled legal immigrants and illegal aliens in the U.S. are
receiving much more in federal social welfare benefits than they pay
in taxes at a net cost of $89 billion a year to American taxpayers,
according to a Heritage Foundation study.
A cost-benefit analysis by the conservative think tank of the
immigration reform bill being debated in the Senate -- which it said
would grant what many consider amnesty to illegal aliens and increase
the flow of low-skilled workers into the U.S. -- warned that if the
legislation becomes law, it would result in "the largest expansion of
the welfare state in 30 years."
"Such proposals would increase poverty in the U.S. in the short
and long term and dramatically increase the burden on U.S. taxpayers,"
said Robert E. Rector, senior research fellow for welfare at Heritage
and the co-author of the study with Christine Kim.
Mr. Rector's findings and conclusions were sharply disputed by
another conservative think tank, the Cato Institute, which said that
some of his cost estimates were "grossly exaggerated" and that
low-skilled workers, especially Hispanics with a strong work ethic,
contributed to the U.S. economy's overall growth and prosperity.
Daniel Griswold, director of Cato's Center for Trade Policy
Studies, acknowledged that lower-skilled workers on average "consume
more in government services than they pay in taxes." But he pointed to
several studies that showed their work in many low-skill industries,
from agriculture to construction, also helped expand state economies.
"The right policy response to the fiscal concerns about
immigration is not to artificially suppress labor migration but to
control and reallocate government spending," Mr. Griswold said in a
recent paper.
Mr. Rector amassed a significant amount of data drawn from the
U.S. census surveys that he said showed how a wave of poorly educated,
low-income immigrants and illegals were imposing increasing costs on
the country through 60 means-tested aid programs, from welfare to food
stamps for immigrant families with children born in this country.
"Each year, roughly 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants enter
and take up residence in the U.S. This immigrant flow is
disproportionately poorly educated because illegal immigration
primarily attracts low-skill workers and the legal immigration system
favors kinship ties over skill levels," he said.
According to Heritage, the nation has 4.5 million low-skilled
immigrant households containing 15.9 million people, or about 5
percent of the population. About 60 percent of these households were
headed by legal immigrants and 40 percent by illegals, the study said.
Contrary to a belief among many Americans that low-skilled, low-paid
immigrants do not pay any taxes, Mr. Rector said, "These families are
rarely idle; they consistently work and pay taxes."
But the taxes they pay seldom cover the costs of the substantial
benefits they receive, he said.
In fiscal 2004, "the average low-skill immigrant household
received $30,160 in direct benefits, means-test benefits, education
and population-based services from all levels of government," he said.
In return, however, these households on average paid only $10,573 in
taxes that year.
Mr. Rector said the solution is to "reduce the costs of low-skill
immigration to the taxpayers" by enforcing laws against employing
illegal aliens, making a guest-worker program "truly temporary and not
a gateway to welfare entitlements," ending birthright citizenship for
children of illegal aliens and ruling out any amnesty in the
immigration reform bill.
Several government and free-market think tank studies assembled by
Mr. Griswold at the Cato Institute paint a different picture of the
impact of low-skilled immigrants in the U.S. economy.
"Several state-level studies have found that the increased
economic activity created by lower-skilled, mostly Hispanic immigrants
far exceeds the costs to state and local governments," Mr. Griswold
wrote.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...4520-5637r.htm

The cheap labor lobby and the usual collection of poliltical skunks
want to shove
this bill down America's throat.

ted

http://www.vdare.com/V-Darre- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How about listing your topic as OT??? That's the correct way to post
something so off topic.

Amnesty is just a right-wing code word used to hide their ignorant and
racist viewpoint. These people are already here. It is physically
impossible as well as undesirable to arrest an deport them.

It is actually a very undesirable bill for the undocumented and they
are totally against it since it required them to register with the
gov't, provides for large fines and puts them on a 15 year waiting
list for citizenship consideration.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



If the illegal aliens don't like the bill, which is very generous,
they should just pack up their protest signs and go home. And don't
start playing the race card bull****. There is nothing racist about
wanting our immigration laws enforced and our borders secured. Guys
like you aren't concerned that 3 of the 6 terrorists that were about
to go shoot up Fort Dix were illegal aliens. Or that we have no idea
who the 15mil+ illegals are that are here, even as another 1mil a year
stream across the border. No, you'd rather try to turn this into some
phoney race issue, which is despicable.

Lawrence wrote:


Amnesty is just a right-wing code word used to hide their ignorant and
racist viewpoint.

so now it racism to expect people to obey the law. why have any laws
then. lets pardon all the bank robbers, rapists, and enron exec's, too



These people are already here. It is physically
impossible as well as undesirable to arrest an deport them.

actually it is desireable, to me. maybe let a few million desirables stay.




It is actually a very undesirable bill for the undocumented and they
are totally against it since it required them to register with the
gov't, provides for large fines and puts them on a 15 year waiting
list for citizenship consideration.


poor little law breakers. maybe we should give them a medal,and your house.

How about listing your topic as OT??? That's the correct way to post
something so off topic.

Amnesty is just a right-wing code word used to hide their ignorant and
racist viewpoint. These people are already here. It is physically
impossible as well as undesirable to arrest an deport them.


It is not ignorant to be against law breakers, and illegal aliens are
law breakers, The fact is that is Ignorant to favor law breaking
illegal aliens over law abiding citizen's. Next you will want all
criminals to be set free and given a weekly check for being criminals.

It is actually a very undesirable bill for the undocumented and they
are totally against it since it required them to register with the
gov't, provides for large fines and puts them on a 15 year waiting
list for citizenship consideration.


All criminals are "totally against" any law or law enforcement that will
put them in jail. As far as waiting 15 years for citizenship what do
you want to do just make them citizens because they were brazen enough
to break the law and enter this country illegally?

This have little or nothing to do with home repairs. It would appear
the original writer has posted other off topic messages as he is in my
delete list.

I will only comments that if most citizens of the US look back to their
roots and find their ancestors who came to this country, they are going to
find that they would not be allowed in legally under today's restrictive
rules.

This is not a new topic. I would suggest anyone interested in some fun
history (not very complementary IMO) they may want to look into the Know
Nothing political party of the 1850's. Hate, and fear are nothing new and
as always is counter productive for those on both sides.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 25, 2007

Low-skilled legal immigrants and illegal aliens in the U.S. are
receiving much more in federal social welfare benefits than they pay
in taxes at a net cost of $89 billion a year to American taxpayers,
according to a Heritage Foundation study.

Would you care to tell us who funds the Heritage Foundation and who funds
the Washington Times?

Yeah, we know... if Rev. Moon says so, it must be true.

--
Lubow

Lawrence wrote:
Amnesty is just a right-wing code word used to hide their ignorant and
racist viewpoint.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=amnesty

am·nes·ty [am-nuh-stee] Pronunciation Key noun, plural -ties, verb, -tied, -ty·ing.
?noun
1. a general pardon for offenses, esp. political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.
2. Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole.
3. a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.
?verb (used with object)
4. to grant amnesty to; pardon.

Fits the situation perfectly, no racism involved.

If you disagree, perhaps you'll tell us what race all illegal aliens are
members of.

These people are already here.

The crime is already accomplished, so there's no sense in prosecuting it?

It is physically
impossible as well as undesirable to arrest an deport them.

See below. If liberals could understand analogies, it would scare the ****
out of you.

--
We can't possibly imprison 300 million Americans for not paying their
taxes, so let's grant all of them amnesty NOW!

lubow wrote:

Would you care to tell us who funds the Heritage Foundation and who funds
the Washington Times?

can't say about the foundation but I'd guess that the times is funded by
advertising and subscriptions.

"Ted" wrote in message
oups.com...


The cheap labor lobby and the usual collection of poliltical skunks
want to shove
this bill down America's throat.

I woulda thought that it was the cheap labor people that would be against
it, being that its keeping illegals illegal that is what makes their labor
cheap. Wouldnt making them legal allow them to ask for higher wages?

On May 26, 1:49 pm, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:
This have little or nothing to do with home repairs. It would appear
the original writer has posted other off topic messages as he is in my
delete list.

I will only comments that if most citizens of the US look back to their
roots and find their ancestors who came to this country, they are going to
find that they would not be allowed in legally under today's restrictive
rules.


I can't I build a house on my own land without conforming to all kinds
of strict government requirements that didn't exist 100 years ago
either. Nor can I hire children to work in sweat shops. I can't
run a company today without conforming to safety laws, allowing
workers to unionize and paying taxes that never existed back then
either. Should I just disregard those laws too, cause we all get to
pick and choose now which ones are OK?

Just because some group doesn't like a law doesn't give them the right
to break it and then protest for their "rights" in the street.




This is not a new topic. I would suggest anyone interested in some fun
history (not very complementary IMO) they may want to look into the Know
Nothing political party of the 1850's. Hate, and fear are nothing new and
as always is counter productive for those on both sides.

And here we go again, insinuating hate and fear is the motive behind
enforcing immigration laws that should have been done after the last
amnesty 20 years, and 15 million illegals ago. I guess you don't care
that 3 of the 6 terrorists that were about to shoot up Fort Dix last
week were illegal aliens? If you had effective enforcement of
immigration laws, they would have never made it here, or been deported
long ago. If that's fear, then yes, I'm afraid because we have no
idea what criminals are walking in here in uncontrolled numbers and
that is a national security issue.





--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

"micr0" wrote in message
...
Lawrence wrote:


Amnesty is just a right-wing code word used to hide their ignorant and
racist viewpoint.

so now it racism to expect people to obey the law. why have any laws
then. lets pardon all the bank robbers, rapists, and enron exec's, too

The problem is that the so called law is not enforced as it is meant to be
and is merely a means to enable cheap labor. That's dishonest. The penalty
for breaking the law should be jail or deportation, not low wages. Send
them home or make them legal. No middle ground.

Adam Russell wrote:
"Ted" wrote in message
oups.com...

The cheap labor lobby and the usual collection of poliltical skunks
want to shove
this bill down America's throat.

I woulda thought that it was the cheap labor people that would be against
it, being that its keeping illegals illegal that is what makes their labor
cheap. Wouldnt making them legal allow them to ask for higher wages?

I haven't had a chance to check it out, but I've seen it said that cheap-
labor employers helped write the current bill.

--
We can't possibly imprison 300 million Americans for not paying their
taxes, so let's grant all of them amnesty NOW!

On May 26, 11:45 am, Lawrence wrote:
On May 26, 8:35 am, Ted wrote:





On May 25, 6:56 pm, Graphic Queen wrote:

Immigration costs far outweigh labors
By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 25, 2007

Low-skilled legal immigrants and illegal aliens in the U.S. are
receiving much more in federal social welfare benefits than they pay
in taxes at a net cost of $89 billion a year to American taxpayers,
according to a Heritage Foundation study.
A cost-benefit analysis by the conservative think tank of the
immigration reform bill being debated in the Senate -- which it said
would grant what many consider amnesty to illegal aliens and increase
the flow of low-skilled workers into the U.S. -- warned that if the
legislation becomes law, it would result in "the largest expansion of
the welfare state in 30 years."
"Such proposals would increase poverty in the U.S. in the short
and long term and dramatically increase the burden on U.S. taxpayers,"
said Robert E. Rector, senior research fellow for welfare at Heritage
and the co-author of the study with Christine Kim.
Mr. Rector's findings and conclusions were sharply disputed by
another conservative think tank, the Cato Institute, which said that
some of his cost estimates were "grossly exaggerated" and that
low-skilled workers, especially Hispanics with a strong work ethic,
contributed to the U.S. economy's overall growth and prosperity.
Daniel Griswold, director of Cato's Center for Trade Policy
Studies, acknowledged that lower-skilled workers on average "consume
more in government services than they pay in taxes." But he pointed to
several studies that showed their work in many low-skill industries,
from agriculture to construction, also helped expand state economies.
"The right policy response to the fiscal concerns about
immigration is not to artificially suppress labor migration but to
control and reallocate government spending," Mr. Griswold said in a
recent paper.
Mr. Rector amassed a significant amount of data drawn from the
U.S. census surveys that he said showed how a wave of poorly educated,
low-income immigrants and illegals were imposing increasing costs on
the country through 60 means-tested aid programs, from welfare to food
stamps for immigrant families with children born in this country.
"Each year, roughly 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants enter
and take up residence in the U.S. This immigrant flow is
disproportionately poorly educated because illegal immigration
primarily attracts low-skill workers and the legal immigration system
favors kinship ties over skill levels," he said.
According to Heritage, the nation has 4.5 million low-skilled
immigrant households containing 15.9 million people, or about 5
percent of the population. About 60 percent of these households were
headed by legal immigrants and 40 percent by illegals, the study said.
Contrary to a belief among many Americans that low-skilled, low-paid
immigrants do not pay any taxes, Mr. Rector said, "These families are
rarely idle; they consistently work and pay taxes."
But the taxes they pay seldom cover the costs of the substantial
benefits they receive, he said.
In fiscal 2004, "the average low-skill immigrant household
received $30,160 in direct benefits, means-test benefits, education
and population-based services from all levels of government," he said.
In return, however, these households on average paid only $10,573 in
taxes that year.
Mr. Rector said the solution is to "reduce the costs of low-skill
immigration to the taxpayers" by enforcing laws against employing
illegal aliens, making a guest-worker program "truly temporary and not
a gateway to welfare entitlements," ending birthright citizenship for
children of illegal aliens and ruling out any amnesty in the
immigration reform bill.
Several government and free-market think tank studies assembled by
Mr. Griswold at the Cato Institute paint a different picture of the
impact of low-skilled immigrants in the U.S. economy.
"Several state-level studies have found that the increased
economic activity created by lower-skilled, mostly Hispanic immigrants
far exceeds the costs to state and local governments," Mr. Griswold
wrote.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...4520-5637r.htm

The cheap labor lobby and the usual collection of poliltical skunks
want to shove
this bill down America's throat.

ted

http://www.vdare.com/V-Darre- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How about listing your topic as OT??? That's the correct way to post
something so off topic.

Amnesty is just a right-wing code word used to hide their ignorant and
racist viewpoint.

Nonsense. Amnesty is a free ride to people who are here illegally.
YOU'RE the one being racist believing all illegals are Mexicans.


These people are already here. It is physically
impossible as well as undesirable to arrest an deport them.

While political suicide, it's certainly not impossible to deport.
Most came by foot over desert. Shipping them back in semis is MUCH
easier and faster.


It is actually a very undesirable bill for the undocumented and they
are totally against it since it required them to register with the
gov't, provides for large fines and puts them on a 15 year waiting
list for citizenship consideration.- Hide quoted text -

Nonsense. The government can't possible uphold the criteria in this
bill, so all it does is take away any threat to the illegals. IOW,
it's a free ride.

On May 26, 4:03 pm, "Adam Russell"
wrote:
"Ted" wrote in message

oups.com...



The cheap labor lobby and the usual collection of poliltical skunks
want to shove
this bill down America's throat.

I woulda thought that it was the cheap labor people that would be against
it, being that its keeping illegals illegal that is what makes their labor
cheap. Wouldnt making them legal allow them to ask for higher wages?

No, because it's a supply and demand of labor. There would still be
excess supply, keeping wages down.

lubow wrote:
By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 25, 2007

Low-skilled legal immigrants and illegal aliens in the U.S. are
receiving much more in federal social welfare benefits than they pay
in taxes at a net cost of $89 billion a year to American taxpayers,
according to a Heritage Foundation study.

Would you care to tell us who funds the Heritage Foundation and who
funds the Washington Times?

Yeah, we know... if Rev. Moon says so, it must be true.

Yeah, we know. Can't argue with the message, then attack the messenger.

"Larry Bud" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 26, 4:03 pm, "Adam Russell"
wrote:
"Ted" wrote in message

oups.com...



The cheap labor lobby and the usual collection of poliltical skunks
want to shove
this bill down America's throat.

I woulda thought that it was the cheap labor people that would be against
it, being that its keeping illegals illegal that is what makes their
labor
cheap. Wouldnt making them legal allow them to ask for higher wages?

No, because it's a supply and demand of labor. There would still be
excess supply, keeping wages down.

Its not excess supply of workers in general keeping wages down. Its excess
supply of people that dont dare ask for more.

Stalin and Hitler were also messengers... you're telling us we should have
believed them too?

Give us a messenger with SOME degree of credibility then we can decide on
your message.

--
Lubow
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
lubow wrote:
By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 25, 2007

Low-skilled legal immigrants and illegal aliens in the U.S. are
receiving much more in federal social welfare benefits than they pay
in taxes at a net cost of $89 billion a year to American taxpayers,
according to a Heritage Foundation study.

Would you care to tell us who funds the Heritage Foundation and who
funds the Washington Times?

Yeah, we know... if Rev. Moon says so, it must be true.

Yeah, we know. Can't argue with the message, then attack the messenger.

In article kB46i.281$106.158@trndny02,
says...
Stalin and Hitler were also messengers... you're telling us we should have
believed them too?

Stalin and Hitler (Godwin - you lose) weren't attacked for their
"message". Action message.

Give us a messenger with SOME degree of credibility then we can decide on
your message.

Drop the moral equivalence and someone might take you seriously,
though I doubt it.

--
Keith

Ok... go through life accepting the word and writings of Rev. Moon as the
gospel. I prefer not to.

--
Lubow
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article kB46i.281$106.158@trndny02,
says...
Stalin and Hitler were also messengers... you're telling us we should
have
believed them too?

Stalin and Hitler (Godwin - you lose) weren't attacked for their
"message". Action message.

Give us a messenger with SOME degree of credibility then we can decide on
your message.

Drop the moral equivalence and someone might take you seriously,
though I doubt it.

--
Keith

lubow wrote:
Ok... go through life accepting the word and writings of Rev. Moon as the
gospel. I prefer not to.

is he an illegal alien , too.

Charlie Morgan wrote:
Would you care to tell us who funds the Heritage Foundation and who
funds the Washington Times?

Yeah, we know... if Rev. Moon says so, it must be true.

Yeah, we know. Can't argue with the message, then attack the
messenger.


Yeah, and if somebody posted this same article and said Michael Moore
wrote it, you'd be doing the exact same thing.


Possibly, but probably not.

Only if the message itself was ambiguous would the reputation of the
messenger come into play.

On May 26, 7:33 pm, "Adam Russell"
wrote:
"Larry Bud" wrote in message

ups.com...





On May 26, 4:03 pm, "Adam Russell"
wrote:
"Ted" wrote in message

groups.com...

The cheap labor lobby and the usual collection of poliltical skunks
want to shove
this bill down America's throat.

I woulda thought that it was the cheap labor people that would be against
it, being that its keeping illegals illegal that is what makes their
labor
cheap. Wouldnt making them legal allow them to ask for higher wages?

No, because it's a supply and demand of labor. There would still be
excess supply, keeping wages down.

Its not excess supply of workers in general keeping wages down. Its excess
supply of people that dont dare ask for more

I don't buy it. Don't dare ask for more for what reason? It's not
like there's a risk in getting deported!

In article 7w66i.271$4S5.114@trndny01,
says...
Ok... go through life accepting the word and writings of Rev. Moon as the
gospel. I prefer not to.


Ok... go through life with a muddled mind. I prefer not to.

--
Keith