Here is the source of that $150 billion cost estimate: study, "The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers 2023" by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Aren't search engines wonderful? Here is an excerpt from a different report, with source: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "A Rough Estimate of Welfare Cost. The SIPP is much better at measuring the share of the population accessing programs rather than the dollar value of what they receive, and for some programs it does not even report the value of benefits. However, we can estimate the costs created by illegal immigrant households for the eight programs we examined in the welfare study discussed above. Federal expenditures on these programs total $817 billion.32 States spent an additional $226 billion on Medicaid.33 Looking at the share of recipients in illegal immigrant households indicates that they account for 4 percent of the cost of the programs listed above. This means illegal immigrants received about $42 billion from these programs in 2021. This is only a rough estimate because we do not have detailed costs for every program by household.34 Equally important, the SIPP has a significant undercount of illegal immigrants so the number of illegal immigrant households using welfare is under reported in the survey. This undercount is larger than the undercount in other Census Bureau surveys such as the CPS and ACS." --- Testimony of Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research, Center for Immigration Studies for Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee Hearing entitled “The Impact of Illegal Immigration on Social Services,” Thursday, January 11, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course, it would be impractical to post the entire report here in a message, but if anyone is interested, it's easy enough to look it up from the provided citation. "As scarce as truth is, the supply has always exceeded the demand". -- Josh Billings
That's it $750 a person. Kamala worst thing since Nixon. FEMA broke spent all their money on illegals for hurricane victims.
Oprah comes unglued when guest she is interviewing says “I am an American” not “African American” https://x.com/MAGAResource/status/1841871973896409229?t=aBKadnxl9Z1dvB1s0TP5nw&s=19
Were overtaking the lead now new numbers BREAKING: Trump skyrockets to a 7-point lead over Harris, according to the most recent Rasmussen poll. Trump - 52% Harris - 45%
Elon in Butler Pennsylvania registration to vot3 do it. Here's foder for left but have you noticed all the smart people back @realDonaldTrump. The polls really show were going to win this time. All this instability worldwide has a major boost Trump.
Wow, what a lead! All Trump supporters should stay home and not vote at all; why bother when Trump has such a massive lead! Especially since Rasmussen is such a legitimate, respected, unbiased polling source.
It's pronounced "fodder". And no, I have not noticed it. Smart people understand that neither side gives a $hit about the average American. That's as far as I am going. Carry on.
The current dysfunction with Republican House and Democratic Senate may be the best case scenario for the investor. Again, this thread did not ask who you want to win any given seat. Feel free to mention it but all I care about is what will happen in likely scenarios.
Big money likes predictability and slow, calculated governing. It also owns politicians. It's literally why I have focused my money on stocks, because, besides real estate, that's where the money is. Big money will get what it wants, whether it is through a bought and paid for Democrat or Republican. Party affiliation does not matter. Any real change agent does not get the party nomination (See: Bernie Sanders... and even then he would have been a 4 year lame duck). And so my motto is, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." I deserve a piece of that pie.
Destroyed Meet Press Dems today Welker: "Do you think this is a time to falsehoods aside like FEMA funds being redirected to migrant?" Sen. @TomCottonAR: "It is true that FEMA and DHS have been spending billions of dollars on migrants... This administration seems to have no problem finding money when they want to spend it on their priorities."
Sub Prime Loans 08 meltdown with banks all caused by dems see video: Still hitting hard after 18 years.
Works both ways. Illegal immigration has a cost but does also brings return. Those people, part at least, do work, pay taxes and make economy flow. In Europe we have similar problem.
You never answered when I asked why you think the Senate is going to the dems. The map is awful for them.
I apologize for being rude but I am sticking to the topic. The topic is specifically, what will be the market and/or economic reaction to various political scenarios. Arguing over who might win is not a productive use of my time. I believe a Democrat sweep would bring bad things slowly, as stated. Perhaps you would share your thoughts on a Republican Senate and/or presidency would affect the market and/or economy?
This is the answer no one wants to hear, but it's the truth - at least insofar as how I view the election impact. As I already mentioned, I can't predict who will win or what the impact will be - just like I can't time the market. So I will try to pay attention and get out in front of things as they occur. That said, I am one of the few people who has a 100% accuracy rating in predicting national U.S. elections over the past 30+ years. In 2024, as usual, my prediction is: Winner: Politicians Loser: American citizens I can take a small measure of hope from what a few other posters here have stated, and that seems more and more people are waking up to: neither party acts in the best interests of the nation or the citizens - only their own selfish, corrupt interests. There are still a few individual exceptions - sadly, fewer and fewer every election cycle.
That's fair, I just reject the original premise of the post that there's a 70% chance the Dems get a trifecta. The Senate map is almost as bad as can be for the Democrats. I'm completely fine to talk about the economics of all results though. No worries. I believe the best result - specifically for the stock market - over the next 4 years would be a Harris presidency with gridlock in at least 1 chamber.
That is also fair. What would a Harris presidency with split house and senate look like? Perhaps that would put a wet blanket on a spending spree and thus good for investors? For what it's worth, I am confident a Republican sweep would also result in a spending spree. They would just spend wild amounts of money on different stuff.
It would look the same as what we see now. A stock market continuation of the last 4 years, IMO. Only talking about the stock market here, as I have different views on the rest of life.
