Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: Congress: Middle class incomes drop as immigration surges

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    64,562

    Congress: Middle class incomes drop as immigration surges

    By Paul Bedard | April 23, 2015 | 2:48 pm

    Wages of America's middle class have dropped below 1970s levels as immigration has surged 325 percent, according to a new congressional report that questions claims that native Americans are economically helped by greater immigration.

    The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service report studied immigration and middle class income from 1945-2013 and found that as immigration slowed between 1945 and 1970, American incomes increased.

    But when immigration expanded, the incomes of the bottom 90 percent of Americans went flat and then dropped beginning in 2000.

    In the report to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the CRS reported that the foreign-born population of the United States surged 324.5 percent, from 9,740,000 to 41,348,066, from 1970 to 2013.



    And as that happened, incomes of the bottom 90 percent dropped 7.9 percent in 2013 dollars, from an average of $33,621 to $30,980.

    The report could throw cold water on congressional efforts to expand immigration for tech and other jobs. One bill, sponsored by Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch and backed by presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio would boost guest worker levels and remove any cap on green cards for certain foreign graduates of American colleges and universities.

    While the CRS did not offer any opinion on immigration and wages, the report's questions and answer section provided details on the link between higher immigration and lower middle class wages.

    1. From 1945-1970, what was the net change in the foreign-born population, expressed both as a percentage and numerically?

    Answer - The foreign-born population in the United States diminished from 10,971,146 in 1945 to 9,740,000 in 1970, a decline of 1,231,146 persons, representing a percentage decline of 11.2% over this 25 year period.

    2. From 1945-1970, how did overall wages change for the bottom 90% of earners?

    Answer - The reported income of the bottom 90% of tax filers in the United States increased from an average of $18,418 in 1945 to $33,621 in 1970 for an aggregate change of $15,202 or a percent increase of 82.5% over this 25 year period.

    3. From 1945-1970, what was the net change in the share of income held by the bottom 90% of the U.S. income distribution?

    Answer - The share of income held by the bottom 90% of the U.S. income distribution increased from 67.4% in 1945 to 68.5% in 1970, an absolute increase of 1.1 percentage points over this 25 year period.

    4. From 1970-present, what was the net change in the foreign-born population, expressed both as a percentage and numerically?

    Answer - Between 1970 and 2013, the estimated foreign-born population in the United States increased from 9,740,000 to 41,348,066, respectively, an increase of 31,608,066 persons, representing a percentage increase of 324.5% over this 43 year period.

    5. From 1970-present, how did overall wages change for the bottom 90% of earners?

    Answer - The reported income of the bottom 90% of tax filers in the United States decreased from an average of $33,621 in 1970 to $30,980 in 2013 for an aggregate decline of $2,641 or a percent decline of 7.9% over this 43 year period.

    6. From 1970-present, what was the net change in the share of income held by the bottom 90% of the U.S. income distribution?

    Answer - The share of income held by the bottom 90% of the U.S. income distribution declined from 68.5% in 1970 to 53.0% in 2013, an absolute decline of 15.5 percentage points over this 43 year period.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/co...rticle/2563515
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,656
    Thank you again, Jean, for an outstanding article. You are doing such a fantastic job finding these wonderful articles that show a great many people are digging in to learn and report the truth about illegal immigration and legal immigration. For Americans to suffer economically like this at the hands of an inept crooked government is a travesty that's beyond the pale, it's incomprehensible that our government would do such a thing to its own citizens, but it has, and it will continue to do so, until we stop it, because our government is insane, it has no mind or soul, it's a run-away government on the take with the cartels and other criminal interests behind this disaster.
    kevinssdad likes this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    3,185
    I can see Paul Ryan huddled in a corner with his calculator now, figuring to dispute this bi-partisan report. Boehner and Ryan will explain what the CRS missed to skew their calculation by mid-week next week.
    Judy likes this.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,656
    Quote Originally Posted by kevinssdad View Post
    I can see Paul Ryan huddled in a corner with his calculator now, figuring to dispute this bi-partisan report. Boehner and Ryan will explain what the CRS missed to skew their calculation by mid-week next week.
    Exactly. But, "there's nowhere to run, and nowhere to hide" for these traitors, because the truth is the truth, Americans know it first-hand from their own pocketbooks and wallets. We have the common sense to count our own money and see it's what it used to be, and the intelligence to know that when illegal aliens and new immigrants get all the new jobs in an economy that the rest of US are being screwed, stabbed in the back by our own governments.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    3,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    Exactly. But, "there's nowhere to run, and nowhere to hide" for these traitors, because the truth is the truth, Americans know it first-hand from their own pocketbooks and wallets. We have the common sense to count our own money and see it's what it used to be, and the intelligence to know that when illegal aliens and new immigrants get all the new jobs in an economy that the rest of US are being screwed, stabbed in the back by our own governments.
    I wish I could put any faith in what you say. They do not need anywhere to run or anywhere to hide. (They hide in plain sight, Washington D.C.) How many of them have acted as representatives for decades, McConnell, Schumer, Reid, McCain, and others, re-elected over and over and over.


    America is sinking and going down quickly. Always voters tell me next election, next election. Judy, I hate to say it, but truth is the voters lie to me, too. The truth is what it is, reality is that what voters have delivered and is not what America needs. In that light, more voters have broken promises to me than politicians.

    After three decades of talking and making cautionary remarks to people, with no improvement, matter of fact, after each election it got worse, where do I find encouragement.

    I think I have to admit that America does NOT want to be saved from itself. By repeating past mistakes we just keep complicating and exacerbating our problems and America is dreadfully addicted to their party system that now is the parties system, no longer the American people's system.

    Turn out the lights, the party's over.......unless we redesign our elections and/or some parts thereof so that we really establish honest representation.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,656
    Quote Originally Posted by kevinssdad View Post
    I wish I could put any faith in what you say. They do not need anywhere to run or anywhere to hide. (They hide in plain sight, Washington D.C.) How many of them have acted as representatives for decades, McConnell, Schumer, Reid, McCain, and others, re-elected over and over and over.


    America is sinking and going down quickly. Always voters tell me next election, next election. Judy, I hate to say it, but truth is the voters lie to me, too. The truth is what it is, reality is that what voters have delivered and is not what America needs. In that light, more voters have broken promises to me than politicians.

    After three decades of talking and making cautionary remarks to people, with no improvement, matter of fact, after each election it got worse, where do I find encouragement.

    I think I have to admit that America does NOT want to be saved from itself. By repeating past mistakes we just keep complicating and exacerbating our problems and America is dreadfully addicted to their party system that now is the parties system, no longer the American people's system.

    Turn out the lights, the party's over.......unless we redesign our elections and/or some parts thereof so that we really establish honest representation.
    No, we must not try to redesign our elections. I don't even support term limits because I truly believe that if a district wants to re-elect someone for 40 years, as Americans, they should be free to do so. I don't support limits on campaign spending either, for the same reason. I know a lot of people are upset over the Citizens United Supreme Court Decision, but for as long as we have income tax, these companies and corporate contributors have every right to their taxes with representation. One of the reasons I so favor the FairTax is that as soon as we eliminate the corporate income tax which the FairTax does, then we can easily abandon all corporate contributions to political campaigns. They can still run their ads on whatever issue that concerns them, but they can't contribute a dime of corporate money to any political campaign and would have no argument to the contrary, because the rights they've claimed have all been based on the theory of no mandatory taxation without representation which entitles them to representation if they are taxed.

    I believe in our system of elections and representation, but even great systems can go wrong, and ours has gone wrong, not because of the system, but because of corruption, dishonesty, lies over truth, and tricks over representation, and this is the human element, the people we have elected, because we weren't vigilant enough in getting our messages out and making known in a clear and concise manner, what the will of the people of the United States actually is based on the truth.

    The truth is coming out now and look how fast things are happening. Sessions, Abbott, Vitter, King, Goodlatte, Gowdy, Brooks, and so many more are working their butts off to help us solve this problem, and hopefully a few other problems as well. Look at how fast Walker turned with just a couple of meetings with Sessions and Abbott, and there will be more, because no one can run on a platform different than what Walker is now on and expect to win in 2016. With what's happening on the Presidential level, what Senator or Representative could possibly hope to win running on a different platform? What politician can win an election running against the best interests of Americans and American Workers when someone else on the ticket is running for US?

    This will be an historic election where the Power of 2, (Abbott and Sessions) produced the Power of 1 (Scott Walker), that became the restoration of the power of the people of the United States. What idiot would donate to someone with an opposing platform?

    You know the Koch Brothers get a lot of bad press, primarily instigated by Democrats. They get blamed for wanting more immigration, yet I can't find any statement so far where they support such a thing. They may, but I can't verify it. They started an Hispanic Outreach Program through one of their foundations, but I believe that's like the Ford Foundation that Henry Ford resigned from because the Board had turned it into something he didn't believe in. Unfortunately, he couldn't undo the money he'd given them, so it continues to disgrace the Ford family and marches on to this day doing bad things to America.

    That's another reason I support the FairTax because it puts an end to the temptation of wealthy people who want to "give back" and "do good" from having their donations which they make primarily to avoid income tax from being confiscated by socialists and communists doing things that are completely contrary to the core values and beliefs of our country through these phony 501 C 3 orgies, for which no tax benefit should be allowed because there is no "charity" involved, and are in effect tax fraud "charities".

  7. #7
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,393
    Judy wrote:

    I don't even support term limits because I truly believe that if a district wants to re-elect someone for 40 years, as Americans, they should be free to do so. I don't support limits on campaign spending either, for the same reason.
    Two points that I strongly disagree with. I support both, term limits and limits on campaign spending.

    Here is an excellent argument for term limits:

    Arguments for and against term limits

    May 30, 2014 Bob Weeks Leave a comment
    From RestartCongress.org.
    Arguments for term limits


    • With term limits in place, Congress will be more responsible toward their constituents because they will soon be constituents themselves. They will have to live under the laws they have created while in office.
    • Members of Congress will have less time in office to develop financially beneficial commitments to lobbyists and other special interest groups, thereby undermining the threat of lobbyists being a primary influence on legislation.
    • Since the time of the Founding Fathers, a general consensus states that people, when given power, will eventually be corrupted by it. If Congress has term limits in place, their power will also be limited. Candidates will be more likely to run for the purpose of serving the people, and they would have to leave office before corruption dominates their decisions.
    • Congress is heavily entrenched in partisan politics, resulting in gridlock when trying to pass any legislation. If term limits were enacted, toeing the party line would be less important, as the need for re-election and holding onto party seats would no longer be the driving force behind most legislative decisions. Congress would have an easier time passing the legislation that would make a positive difference for the nation.
    • Money is a major factor in who will win an election. Incumbents have the benefit of the profits they made while in power — plus the backing of their party, contributing organizations and special interests — to get re-elected. However, these wealthy incumbents are often not the best person for the job, as they are so far-removed from the daily realities of the American people. A middle class person who better understands the problems facing the average citizen is highly unlikely to get elected over a wealthy incumbent. Term limits will help to eliminate the shady, profitable relationships between members of Congress and special interest groups, and therefore reduce the wealth gap between candidates. In turn, more qualified people will have a real opportunity to win elections.
    • Within Congress, most legislation is written by a committee that handles a specific duty or topic. Committee appointments can be very prized positions for the power, influence and financial backing that can be attained. These positions are often assigned based on political favors and a willingness to support causes or projects. Therefore, career politicians who have formed the most self-serving relationships can often be given the most power in Congress. Term limits would work to stop this cycle of political reward and power abuse. Committee assignments would be determined by merit and expertise, resulting in fair and informed decisions.

    The arguments against term limits

    Career politicians should be valued for their experience. If we regularly fill a Congressional office with a newcomer, we will lose the valuable experience on-the-job that person can offer in government.

    • On occasion, there may be a member of Congress that has fought for his constituents and resisted the corrupt system of power abuse that is considered normal on Capitol Hill. The Founding Fathers discussed the need for a “rotation of office.” When one’s terms are up in one office, that politician can run for another office (such as a member of the House running for Senator, Governor, etc.) and put their experience to use in other helpful ways.
    • The notion that only one person — the incumbent — can do the job well is absurd. Problematically, we continue to elect the incumbent because of name recognition and party affiliation rather than a proven track record. Realistically, there is usually someone just as qualified to take over the incumbent’s office.

    Term limits are not necessary because members of Congress must be regularly re-elected. If they are not doing a good job in office, we can simply vote for someone else.

    • While this would happen in an ideal world, historically the incumbent is re-elected 90% of the time. The playing field is simply not level between incumbents and challenging candidates because of the ability to raise money. In 2010, the average incumbent in the House raised around $1.4 million, while the challengers averaged $166,000. In the same year, Senate incumbents averaged $9.4 million for each campaign, while challengers raised $519,000. With that incredible discrepancy, it is no surprise that the incumbent usually prevails. If a member of Congress is limited to one or two terms, the party itself and other major donors would not invest nearly as much in an incumbent, giving challengers a better chance of winning the race.

    Term limits would give more power to bureaucrats and lobbyists.

    • This argument is based in the notion that incoming legislators will be entirely unqualified for their jobs and will be easily led astray by staff, bureaucrats, special interests, etc. The way the system works today suggests that the real problem is in longevity of office and the complacency that can come along with it. For instance, lobbyists invest heavily in long-term relationships with sitting legislators. Congress members currently shirk many responsibilities by delegating them to bureaucratic agencies.
    • Term limits have the potential to greatly reduce these problems. When more Congressional races are won by challengers from outside the Beltway, this change is likely to bring new staffers with new ideas into Washington, rather than recycling the same old corrupt insiders.

    Term limits are unconstitutional.

    • Clearly this is not the case, as the President of the United States is limited to two terms because of a Constitutional Amendment. A 28th Amendment would be necessary to impose term limits for Congress, and that is precisely what we are seeking. Since Congress will not willingly do so on their own, it is imperative that Americans make their voice heard on this issue.

    http://wichitaliberty.org/politics/a...s-term-limits/

    As for unlimited campaign spending, it just breeds corruption by making elected politicians indebted to their heavy special interest and corporate donors.

    Term limits and limits on campaign spending are supported by the majority of the voting public.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,656
    Quote Originally Posted by MW View Post
    Judy wrote:



    Two points that I strongly disagree with. I support both, term limits and limits on campaign spending.

    Here is an excellent argument for term limits:



    http://wichitaliberty.org/politics/a...s-term-limits/

    As for unlimited campaign spending, it just breeds corruption by making elected politicians indebted to their heavy special interest and corporate donors.

    Term limits and limits on campaign spending are supported by the majority of the voting public.
    Well, I disagree, obviously. It strikes me as bizarre that you want someone's income taxes based on their ability to pay yet you feel you have the right to restrict what they contribute to a political campaign. As for your source on term limits, I can't support a "liberty" organization that wants to restrict the people's right to elect a candidate as many times as they want to.

    Restricting liberty and freedom is not how you fix the United States. If we'd had Presidential term limits during WWII, it's highly likely there would have been a far different outcome because we would have had a different President. People touting "term limits" need to think about that. And, frankly, I can't see that our country is any better off with Presidential term limits. It seems to me we're in quite a mess and have been for quite awhile because of it, because our country ends up with that lame duck term where the President can't even try to run for another term and this turns them into scoundels for the most part with nothing to lose.

    As to Congressional term limits, our beloved Jeff Sessions has served since 1997 in the US Senate. If limited to 2 terms, he wouldn't even be in the US Senate, let alone Chairman of the all-important House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration doing his fine work. If limited to 3 terms, his third term would have ended last year. You need to think hard about these things before you take a position.

    People who want to restrict the liberty of US citizens or limit our choices, are not finding the real solutions to our actual problems.

  9. #9
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    Well, I disagree, obviously. It strikes me as bizarre that you want someone's income taxes based on their ability to pay yet you feel you have the right to restrict what they contribute to a political campaign. As for your source on term limits, I can't support a "liberty" organization that wants to restrict the people's right to elect a candidate as many times as they want to.

    Restricting liberty and freedom is not how you fix the United States. If we'd had Presidential term limits during WWII, it's highly likely there would have been a far different outcome because we would have had a different President. People touting "term limits" need to think about that. And, frankly, I can't see that our country is any better off with Presidential term limits. It seems to me we're in quite a mess and have been for quite awhile because of it, because our country ends up with that lame duck term where the President can't even try to run for another term and this turns them into scoundels for the most part with nothing to lose.

    As to Congressional term limits, our beloved Jeff Sessions has served since 1997 in the US Senate. If limited to 2 terms, he wouldn't even be in the US Senate, let alone Chairman of the all-important House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration doing his fine work. If limited to 3 terms, his third term would have ended last year. You need to think hard about these things before you take a position.

    People who want to restrict the liberty of US citizens or limit our choices, are not finding the real solutions to our actual problems.
    You're certainly entitled to your minority opinion.

    Yep, term limits would have removed Sessions but McCain, Graham, Schumar, Pelosi, Reid, etc., etc., would have also been long gone.
    Mayday likes this.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,656
    Quote Originally Posted by MW View Post
    You're certainly entitled to your minority opinion.

    Yep, term limits would have removed Sessions but McCain, Graham, Schumar, Pelosi, Reid, etc., etc., would have also been long gone.
    And they would have been replaced with people like Luis Guiterrez and Barack Obama. It's not the people, it's their positions. We have to convince American Voters of what's right on these issues and offer solutions that actually solve the problems, then we have a chance to change the composition of the US Congress in a manner that actually serves our country and citizens.

    I understand why people think term limits are the answer, (less of bad is better), I just know they aren't, because you're throwing the baby out with the bath water. And if people stop and think about it, they'll realize that restricting voter liberty and choices is not the answer in a free country of free citizens, the answer is making sure our citizens are educated enough on the issues to elect people on their positions and reject people with positions that hurt our citizens and country.

    Another example of how term limits would have hurt our country is Senator Everett Dirksen, a Republican from Illinois, who served in the US Congress from 1933 until his death in 1969, 1933 to 1949 in the US House of Representatives and 1951 until 1969 when he died at the age of 73 in his fourth term as a US Senator. Dirksen wrote the US Civil Rights Acts that passed in a Democrat-gutted version in 1957, a comprise version to end a Democratic filibuster in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He had devoted his entire Congressional career to civil rights. On the negative, he was also one of the strongest advocates in the Senate for the War in Vietnam. It was Dirksen as Minority Leader who overcame the Democratic filibuster in 1964 of the US Civil Rights Act with a compromise version of his original bill. But it was also Dirksen who convinced Lyndon Johnson to escalate the War in Vietnam.

    The recent GOP is largely responsible for many of the anomalies in our Congress with the GOP Platform on personal issues that alienate and offend social liberals and women voters. Ironically, these are the same personal issues that prevent solvency and sustainability that correlate directly with fiscal and economic instability, so the GOPers who on the one hand believe they are fiscal conservatives, really aren't, because their views on the personal issues make them fiscal liberals funding increased poverty, increased poverty spending, and increased federal taxes and/or public debt to support it. It's something the social conservatives in the GOP need to reflect upon.

    People forget that we are not actually a Democracy, we are a Free Republic, and there is a difference, a very important difference, and thank God for that. Otherwise, we would already be a Socialist/Communist nation wearing uniforms with numbers tattooed on our foreheads living under the Tyranny of the Majority. Instead we are a Free Republic with majority rule couched with the needed protections of the minority, where ironically, the true values of liberty and freedom often reside, probably because a great many people can't understand or lack the vicarious empathy needed to understand the pain of authoritarianism that they've never experienced themselves.

    Our Declaration of Independence was very clear on inalienable rights, and these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The latter is such an odd phrase when thinking of government, but under our national definition of independence, our founders were wise enough to include this simple, elementary, fundamental belief that our citizens are to be not only alive and free, but happy, and that it is our government's responsibility to protect those rights. How far we strayed from that with massive immigration, income taxes, free trade treason, the War on Drugs, and so much more, and how much work we have to do to restore the secured blessings of liberty and the domestic tranquility of our nation for all our citizens, as promised by the Constitution of the United States.
    Last edited by Judy; 04-26-2015 at 01:26 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Middle Class Disappears, Rise of the Praetorian Class
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-20-2012, 10:44 AM
  2. SOCIALISM: RICH CLASS, POOR CLASS, NO MIDDLE CLASS
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-16-2010, 06:35 PM
  3. Immigration's destruction of America's middle class
    By Jean in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-02-2010, 01:08 PM
  4. Obama's Middle-Class Task Force Has No Middle Class
    By Populist in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-05-2009, 12:08 AM
  5. Immigration bill threatens American middle class
    By Jean in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-10-2007, 04:59 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •