# Is insanity contagious in Washington?



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

check out these figures, has the U.S. gone mad or is it just the people who are running it.... 
So often, we get caught up in a debate over political semantics and end up ignoring the hard-shell realities of what we're talking about. According to mmigrationCounters.com, here are some of the realities that the Flake-Gutierrez Bill would airbrush out of the picture:
Number of Illegal Aliens in the Country	20,807,645
Money Wired to Mexico City since January, 2006	$ 22,213,001,672.00
Cost of Social Security Services for Illegal Aliens since 1996	$397,450,739,563.00
Number of Children of Illegal Aliens in Public Schools	3,958,789
Cost of Illegal Aliens in K-12 Since 1996:	$ 13, 965,063,431.00
Number of Illegal Aliens Incarcerated	332,594
Cost of Incarcerations Since 2001 $ 1,398,127,429.00
Number of Illegal Aliens Fugitives	642,799
Skilled Jobs Taken by Illegal Aliens	9,872,838

Figures can trick your eyes. Take particular note that items 2,3,5, and 7 reflect BILLIONS not millions of dollars -- and that item 3 exceeds one-third of a TRILLION dollars. 
Can you imagine how much it will cost taxpayers if we triple the number of Illegals entering this country!!
****************

So, What's in a Billion?.......
Granted................. this is from the US!

The next time you hear a politician use the word "billion" in a casual manner, think about whether you want the "politicians" spending your tax money.

A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of its releases.

A. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.

B. A billion minute s ago Jesus was alive.

C. A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.

D. A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.

E. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate our government is spending it.

While this thought is still fresh in our brain, let's take a look at New Orleans . It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division . . .

Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D), is presently asking the Congress for $250 BILLION to rebuild New Orleans. Interesting number, what does it mean?

a. Well, if you are one of 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every man, woman, child), you each get $516,528.00.

b. Or, if you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787.00.

c. Or, if you are a family of four, your family gets $2,066,012.00.

Washington, D.C. .... HELLO!!! ... Are all your calculators broken??

This is too true.........And these numbers don't lie.........and, it's not funny!!


----------



## steaprio (May 18, 2007)

I would really like to see the source of the 9.8 million skilled jobs taken by illegals. Seems pretty hyped up to me.

Also the idea that each household in New Orleans will get anything NEAR 500,000 dollars, much less a million is ludicrous.

immigrationCounters.com, a site that I've never even heard of, isn't a terribly convincing source.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I'm not that familiar with immigrationCounters.com, There are reliable sites, then there are totally insane sites like IBC. Things look a little exaggerated to me also. Although I can see someone as far out of touch as Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D) asking for it. It's as nuts as our gal pal Nancy saying that obsene record stock market profits created by the Bush administration should be taxed at 100%. Can you see these two in charge of anything. I don't mean to cause you nightmares.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Maybe this will help you out. I would think you have heard of the Center For Immigration Studies.










"The argument that America needs illegal aliens and high levels of legal immigration only makes sense if one ignores the plight of less-educated native-born Americans. We find little evidence that immigrants only do jobs natives don't want. Detailed analysis of 473 separate occupations shows that there are virtually no jobs in which a majority of workers are immigrants, let alone illegal aliens. The overwhelming majority of workers in almost every single occupation, even the lowest-paid, are native-born.

We find some direct evidence that immigration has adversely impacted natives. In areas of the country with the largest increase in the number of less-educated immigrant workers, less-educated natives have seen the biggest decline in labor force participation. Native unemployment also tended to be the highest in occupations with the largest influx of new immigrants. While it would be a mistake to assume that every job taken by an immigrant represents a job lost by a native, it would also be a mistake to think that dramatically increasing the number of less-educated immigrant workers has no impact on less-educated natives. This study calls into the question the wisdom of proposals to allow illegal immigrants to remain in the country, or to increase legal immigration still further. The plight of less-educated Americans has generally not been an important consideration for most political leaders in the ongoing debate over immigration. The findings of this report suggest that it should be".

You can read the entire report here.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back206.html


----------



## steaprio (May 18, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> I'm not that familiar with immigrationCounters.com, There are reliable sites, then there are totally insane sites like IBC. Things look a little exaggerated to me also. Although I can see someone as far out of touch as Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D) asking for it. It's as nuts as our gal pal Nancy saying that obsene record stock market profits created by the Bush administration should be taxed at 100%. Can you see these two in charge of anything. I don't mean to cause you nightmares.


100%? I didn't hear anything about that. What do you mean?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... hp?t=40112

Read zogman's post.


----------



## steaprio (May 18, 2007)

I don't know if you really care about the facts and you are just trying to smear the House Leader, but check out the snopes article on it.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/pelosi.asp

Claim: E-mail reproduces proposal from Representative Nancy Pelosi to implement a 100% tax on "stock market windfall profits."

Status: False

As to the so called record profits, read this.
http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2006/20060206.html


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I see a lot of political bias in reporting of the stock market. When it made records during the Clinton administration the left leaning media nearly had an orgasm, but when it's doing good during the Bush administration there may be a downside to it. What a crock.


----------



## steaprio (May 18, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> I see a lot of political bias in reporting of the stock market. When it made records during the Clinton administration the left leaning media nearly had an orgasm, but when it's doing good during the Bush administration there may be a downside to it. What a crock.


The economy minded media outlets are generally moderate.

If you can criticize the outlet printing the story that I cited, please do so. As it stands it seems that you are grasping at straws in hopes of obscuring the truth.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> If you can criticize the outlet printing the story that I cited, please do so.


How about something a little more current instead of something published 16 months ago for the year 2005. Talk about grasping for straws......


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Nice to have ya back Tiger....Still all for the death of unborn babies?


----------



## steaprio (May 18, 2007)

Gohon said:


> > If you can criticize the outlet printing the story that I cited, please do so.
> 
> 
> How about something a little more current instead of something published 16 months ago for the year 2005. Talk about grasping for straws......


I don't see how the theory is rendered useless by the passage of time. Again I invite anyone to offer criticism of the article or the source itself.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> I don't see how the theory is rendered useless by the passage of time. Again I invite anyone to offer criticism of the article or the source itself.


In the first place, theory's evolve and are based on past conditions, existing conditions, and predicted conditions. Today's existing conditions which were once predicted conditions made during past conditions did not come true as predicted by the theory of your two year old article. Guess you missed all times the Feds raised interest rates these last two years to control possible inflation.


----------



## steaprio (May 18, 2007)

Stock market's gains not best gauge of economy

Gross domestic product growth is expected to slow to 2 percent in 2007, weakest in 5 years.

Rachel Beck / Associated Press

NEW YORK -- The stock market's stunning gains in the last year make it easy to assume these must be the best of times for the U.S. economy. But GDP figures tell quite a different tale.

It's a good lesson in economics. Wall Street's surge is being fueled by stronger-than-expected corporate profits, which assess how business is going here and abroad. Gross domestic product, in turn, only tracks U.S economic activity and does so by a different yardstick.

The result: The Standard & Poor's 500 index is trading at record levels after more than a 20 percent climb since last summer, while GDP growth is expected to slow to a mere 2 percent for 2007 -- the weakest in five years.

In a note titled "The Equity Market Ain't the Economy," the economics team at Goldman Sachs points out that corporate profits and sales include all business no matter where they are generated. That makes a big difference when you consider that nearly 50 percent of total S&P 500 company sales now come from abroad, according to Howard Silverblatt, senior index analyst at S&P.

With economic growth overseas outpacing what is seen in the United States, and a weak dollar making foreign profits of U.S. companies more valuable, that has fueled corporate America's top and bottom lines.

"International business has become an equal partner to U.S. sales for many companies and that has been helping to drive profits higher," said Silverblatt, who said foreign sales boosted first-quarter earnings for S&P 500 companies to a better-than expected 8.2 percent gain.

GDP, on the other hand, refers to the value added to goods produced just in the United States.

For instance, a company that sells a car for $20,000 with $10,000 worth of parts from subcontractors would only have created $10,000 in added value, according to Goldman Sachs.

Real GDP, which is considered by economists the best gauge of activity, is adjusted for inflation, while corporate profits are not. The higher the inflation rate, Goldman Sachs says, the bigger the likely gap between corporate results and GDP growth.

Economic activity is also tracked on a quarter-on-quarter annualized rate, differing from the year-over-year results that are typically used to analyze corporate profits.

If Americans crimp their buying this summer as gas prices once again surge above $3 a gallon at the pump, that could replace housing as the No. 1 drag on the economy. A severe spending pullback could also hurt corporate profits more than the housing collapse has done.

That could knock some wind out of the stock market's sails.

Rachel Beck is the national business columnist for the Associated Press. Write to her at [email protected] ap.org.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/ ... Stocks.php
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar ... 1010/BIZ01


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The GDP is misleading also. It doesn't account for the growing number of freeloaders. The stock market reflects the working class putting away money. The average annual productivity of the working class is diminished by the liberal giveaway (buy a vote) political system. Democracy will always turn to socialism when the lazy find they can vote prosperity for themselves at the cost of others.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Plainsmen said:



> The average annual productivity of the working class is diminished by the liberal giveaway (buy a vote) political system. Democracy will always turn to socialism when the lazy find they can vote prosperity for themselves at the cost of others.


Thanks. No spin or Bull**** here, just the plain simple truth.........


----------

