Tag: All

Obamanomics Update: All U.S. Job Gains Since December 2007 Have Gone To Foreign-Born Workers

All Job Gains Since December 2007 Have Gone To Foreign-Born Workers – Zero Hedge

With the Fed on the verge of a full relent and admission of policy error, the Fed’s “data (in)dependent” monetary policy once again takes on secondary relevance as we progress into 2016. However, even with the overall job picture far less important, one aspect of the US jobs market is certain to take on an unprecedented importance.

We first laid out what that is last September when we said that “the one chart that matters more than ever, has little to nothing to do with the Fed’s monetary policy, but everything to do with the November 2016 presidential elections in which the topic of immigration, both legal and illegal, is shaping up to be the most rancorous, contentious and divisive.”

We were talking about the chart showing the cumulative addition of foreign-born and native-born workers added to US payrolls according to the BLS since December 2007, i.e., since the start of the recession/Second Great Depression.

As usually happens, it is precisely this data that gets no mention following any job report. However, with Trump and his anti-immigration campaign continuing to plow on despite the Iowa disappointment, we are confident that the chart shown below will soon be recognizable to economic and political pundits everywhere.

And here is why we are confident this particular data should have been prominently noted by all experts when dissecting today’s job report: according to the BLS’ Establishment Survey, while 151,000 total workers were added in January, a number which rises to 615,000 if looking at the Household survey, also according to the same Household survey, a whopping 567,000 native-born Americans lost their jobs, far less than the 98,000 foreign-born job losses.

.

.
Here is a chart showing native-born non-job gains since the start of the depression:

.

.
Alternatively, here are foreign-born worker additions since December 2007:

.

.
Putting the two side by side:

.

.
And the bottom line: starting with the infamous month when it all started falling apart, December 2007, the US has added just 186,000 native-born workers, offset by 13.5x times more, or 2,518,000, foreign born workers.

.

.
If Trump wins New Hampshire and South Carolina, and storms back to the top of the GOP primary polls, expect this chart to become the most important one over the next 10 months.

.

.

Over Half Of All Immigrant Households In U.S. On Some Form Of Welfare

Report: Immigrant Households Using Welfare At Vastly Higher Rate Than Native-Born Households – Big Government

.

.
Immigrant-headed households in the U.S. use welfare at a much higher rate than their native-born counterparts and that trend holds true for both new and long-time immigrant residents, according to a new study.

According to a report released Wednesday from the Center for Immigration Studies, 51 percent of immigrant-headed households (both legal and illegal) reported using at least one welfare program during the year in 2012. Thirty-percent of native-headed households meanwhile used at least one welfare program.

The CIS report analyzed welfare data from the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). Included in the center’s definition of welfare is Medicaid, cash, food, and housing programs.

“If immigration is supposed to benefit the country, then immigrant welfare use should be much lower than native use,” Steven Camarota the CIS’s Director of Research and the report’s author said. “However two decades after welfare reform tried to curtail immigrant welfare use, immigrant households are using most programs at higher rates than natives.”

Camarota noted that the skill and education level of many current immigrants is contributing to their welfare use.

“The low-skill level of many immigrants means that although most work, many also access welfare programs. If we continue to allow large numbers of less-educated immigrants to settle in the country, then immigrant welfare use will remain high,” he added.

While welfare use among both new and old immigrants is high – with 48 percent of immigrants in the U.S. for more than 20 years reporting welfare use – the rates vary based on region of origin.

In 2012, 73 percent of immigrant-headed households from Central America and Mexico reported using one of more welfare program. Households from the Caribbean used welfare at a rate of 51 percent, African immigrants were at 48 percent, South America at 41 percent, East Asia 32 percent, Europe 26 percent, South Asia 17 percent.

The report further highlights that while immigrant-headed households use welfare at a higher rate than natives they also pay taxes at a lower rate.

“On average, immigrant-headed households had tax liability in income and payroll taxes in 2012 that was about 11 percent less than native households, or about 89 cents for every dollar native households pay, based on Census Bureau data. Immigrant households have lower average incomes (from all sources) than native households and are a good deal larger, giving them more tax deductions. As a result, their average income tax liability is less than native households,” the report reads

Other findings in the CIS report include:

• No single program explains immigrants’ higher overall welfare use. For example, not counting subsidized school lunch, welfare use is still 46 percent for immigrants and 28 percent for natives. Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 44 percent for immigrants and 26 percent for natives.

• Immigrant households have much higher use of food programs (40 percent vs. 22 percent for natives) and Medicaid (42 percent vs. 23 percent). Immigrant use of cash programs is somewhat higher than natives (12 percent vs. 10 percent) and immigrant use of housing programs is similar to natives.

• Many immigrants struggle to support their children, and a large share of welfare is received on behalf of U.S.-born children. However, even immigrant households without children have significantly higher welfare use than native households without children – 30 percent vs. 20 percent.

• The welfare system is designed to help low-income workers, especially those with children, and this describes many immigrant households. In 2012, 51 percent of immigrant households with one or more workers accessed one or more welfare programs, as did 28 percent of working native households.

• The large share of immigrants with low levels of education and resulting low incomes partly explains their high use rates. In 2012, 76 percent of households headed by an immigrant who had not graduated high school used one or more welfare programs, as did 63 percent of households headed by an immigrant with only a high school education.

• The high rates of immigrant welfare use are not entirely explained by their lower education levels. Households headed by college-educated immigrants have significantly higher welfare use than households headed by college-educated natives – 26 percent vs. 13 percent.

• In the four top immigrant-receiving states, use of welfare by immigrant households is significantly higher than that of native households: California (55 percent vs. 30 percent), New York (59 percent vs. 33 percent), Texas (57 percent vs. 34 percent), and Florida (42 percent vs. 28 percent).

.

.

37 Consecutive Gallup Polls Show Majority Of Americans Want Abortion To Be Illegal In Most Cases

Two Decades Of Gallup Polls Show Majority Of Americans Want Abortion To Be Illegal In Most Cases – Breitbart

.

.
In 37 consecutive polls performed throughout the past 21 years on the issue of abortion, Gallup has found that a majority of Americans surveyed say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

“In the past 20 years, the percentage who say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances or all but a few circumstances has never dropped below 54 percent,” writes Terence P. Jeffrey at CNS News.com.

A review of the data over the last two decades may appear to be at odds with Gallup’s latest poll, conducted May 6-10, with the headline: “Americans Choose ‘Pro-Choice’ For First Time in Seven Years.”

“Half of Americans consider themselves ‘pro-choice’ on abortion, surpassing the 44% who identify as ‘pro-life,’” Gallup’s Lydia Saad wrote in her analysis of that poll. “This is the first time since 2008 that the pro-choice position has had a statistically significant lead in Americans’ abortion views.”

Saad continued:

The pro-choice view is not as prevalent among Americans as it was in the mid-1990s, but the momentum for the pro-life position that began when Barack Obama took office has yielded to a pro-choice rebound. That rebound has essentially restored views to where they were in 2008; today’s views are also similar to those found in 2001. Some of the variation in public views on abortion over time coincides with political and cultural events that may have helped shape public opinion on the issue, including instances of anti-abortion violence, legislative efforts to ban “partial-birth abortion” or limit abortion funding, and certain Supreme Court cases. While events like these may continue to cause public views on abortion to fluctuate, the broader liberal shift in Americans’ ideology of late could mean the recent pro-choice expansion has some staying power.

As Jeffrey observes, however, in that Gallup survey, a combined 55 percent of participants said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances or in all but a few circumstances.

The poll specifically found that 29 percent of respondents said abortion should be legal “under any circumstances,” and 13 percent “under most circumstances.” However, 36 percent responded that abortion should be “legal only in a few circumstances,” and 19 percent said it should be illegal “in all circumstances,” totaling 55 percent believing abortion should be illegal in all, or all but a few, circumstances.

Gallup’s data sheet for that poll shows results for this particular question of when abortion should be illegal for the 37 surveys it has performed since September of 1994.

“In every one of these surveys, the combined percentage of respondents who said abortion should be illegal ‘in all circumstances’ or in all but ‘a few circumstances’ exceeded 50 percent of those surveyed,” writes Jeffrey, adding that “the lowest these combined answers have ever been was 51 percent,” in both September of 1994 and September of 1995.

Gallup has also asked survey participants the question, “With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?”

In September of 1995, 56 percent of participants described themselves as pro-choice and 33 percent as pro-life, while in the latest survey, 50 percent say they are pro-choice and 44 percent pro-life.

The labels of “pro-life” and “pro-choice,” however, may not be aptly describing Americans’ beliefs about abortion.

In the most recent poll results, on which Gallup’s headline – “Americans Choose ‘Pro-Choice’ For First Time in Seven Years” – was based, 27 percent of “pro-choice” individuals say abortion should be mostly illegal, while only 9 percent of “pro-life” people say it should be mostly legal.

Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, looked at the poll and tells Breitbart News: “While on the surface, it looks like more Americans are self-identifying as pro-choice than pro-life, when you look at the split in what exactly they favor, those numbers tell a different story.”

“Americans may be misidentifying themselves when it comes to the matter of abortion since a majority clearly support significant restrictions on abortion,” Hawkins continued. “We see students misidentifying themselves all the time on campuses across the country, which is why we no longer ask them if they are pro-life or pro-choice. They don’t know what the labels mean. Instead we ask if they support legal abortion or how long into a pregnancy they tolerate abortion.”

“As this pro-life generation continues to mature and technology continues to advance, more and more Americans will come to realize the great human tragedy of abortion,” she added.

Similarly, Maureen Ferguson of the Catholic Association tells Breitbart News, “This poll shows once again that most Americans oppose most abortions. Not only do the majority of people morally oppose most abortions, they want them to be against the law.”

“Polling numbers are even higher when talking about protecting babies from late-term abortion, so we hope the U.S. Senate will listen to the will of the people and pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would ban abortions past 20 weeks of pregnancy,” she added.

.

.

*VIDEO* All Of GruberGate In Two Minutes


.

.

IRS Finally Agrees To Provide Congress With All Of Lois Lerner’s Emails Since Tea Party Targeting Scheme Began

IRS Caves On Lois Lerner Documents, Will Provide Congress With All Of Her Emails Since Tea Party Targeting Scheme Began – Daily Mail

.

.
The powerful House Ways and Means Committee will get everything from disgraced former IRS official Lois Lerner’s email account since a few weeks before Barack Obama became president.

And Republican committee members are hoping they’ll find a smoking gun tying the Obama administration to the years-long scheme to play political favorites with nonprofit groups’ tax-exemption applications.

After eight months of back-and-forth stonewalling, the IRS has agreed to turn over the complete contents of Lerner’s email account, along with other documents that two congressional committees have been demanding.

‘If there’s not a Holy Grail email in this round of documents,’ a senior staffer to a Ways and Means committee member told MailOnline, ‘then we’re not going to find it.’

‘Whether that’s because Lerner covered her tracks or because the IRS is shredding documents, we’re probably never going to know.’

The committee’s chairman, Michigan Republican Rep. Dave Camp, seems eager to put his staff to work sifting through thousands of messages in search of an explanation for the program that has been a major embarrassment to the White House.

‘This is a significant step forward and will help us complete our investigation into the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups,’ Camp said Friday.

‘From the few Lerner documents we have received, we know that Washington, DC orchestrated the targeting of groups applying for tax-exempt status, surveillance of existing tax-exempt groups and formed the proposed 501(c)(4) rules designed to push conservative groups out of the public forum.’

Camp warned the IRS in a February 24 letter that he would start issuing subpoenas if the agency didn’t turn over the documents he wanted.

The IRS has proposed a rewrite of its regulations governing communications restrictions on ‘public benefit’ organizations that are exempt from paying federal income taxes.

That redesign of the rules began long before Lerner herself exposed the IRS’s pattern of holding up right-wing groups’ applications, often with dozens of intrusive questions over several years.

The effects of the agency’s desired rule change would be substantial: Organizations would be prohibited from emailing information, or publishing anything online, about candidates’ voting records during the last 60 days before an election.

Tea party groups, which began their rise to prominence five years ago, comprised most of the organizations that the IRS targeted beginning in 2010. Their political free-speech concerns have driven more than 146,000 public comments to the IRS, demanding that the regulatory revisions be scrapped.

Cleta Mitchell, a board member of the American Conservative Union Foundation, said Friday during that organization’s annual Conservative Political Action Conference that the new rules would affect the event where she was speaking.

‘It would mean that in even-numbered years, CPAC could have no speakers who are candidates for office,’ she said, dumbfounded.

Mitchell, an attorney, is representing some of the tea party groups in lawsuits related to the IRS targeting scheme.

The House Oversight Committee, chaired by California Rep. Darrell Issa, has cast a larger public shadow than Ways and Means has on the IRS targeting scandal.

Lerner has appeared before Issa-led hearings twice, both times invoking her Fifth Amendment rights and refusing to testify, despite President Obama’s insistence in a February interview that the IRS displayed ‘not a smidgen of corruption’ in the damaging episode.

Becca Glover Watkins, the Oversight Committee’s communications director, told MailOnline that Issa’s and Camp’s committee staffers are working hand-in-hand.

‘The Oversight Committee and the Ways and Means Committee have worked in partnership during the course of this investigation,’ Watkins said.

‘We expect the IRS will also be delivering a copy [of the complete Lerner files] to the Oversight Committee.’

A spokesperson for the Ways and Means Committee told MailOnline that it was the new IRS Commissioner, John Koskinen, who broke the inertia after months of requests.

‘We have been asking for the materials for months, and after many discussions the new IRS Commissioner has said the IRS will comply with the request,’ said the committee’s Sarah Swinehart.

Lerner ‘was clearly at the center of the IRS targeting and was running it out of the Washington, D.C. office,’ she added. ‘We expect her documents to provide a fuller picture of this.’

Koskinen took over the tax agency on December 23, ending a 13-month period during which two interim commissioners served as caretakers.

The IRS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Union Director Tells Triple Amputee Veteran: ‘I Hope You All Lose Your Limbs And Die’

Union Director Tells Triple Amputee Veteran: ‘I Hope You All Lose Your Limbs And Die’ – Pat Dollard

.

.

.

.

.
By Jeff Rainforth aka iResistAll on Twitter

Update 5: There is a new Facebook page mocking Airman Brian Kolfage, and posting pictures of his 4-month-old child with disparaging messages attached to them. A few of the memes the owner of the page made are below. Leave it to a leftist to mock a war veteran’s injuries. Brian Kolfage lost both legs and an arm in Iraq. The comments this person makes are utterly disgusting. Visit the page, and report it to Facebook. The page is HERE.

.

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————
¡pyaak Onoedetnt?

Cruel Friends…

An image tagged in kolfage,scumbag
IMGFLIP.COM
————————————————————————————————————————

.
Update 4: Leftists on Facebook are creating bogus accounts and using them to say they “raped” Brian’s 4-month-old child. The left claims to care for people. Is this their idea of “caring”? Absolutely disgusting, despicable behavior. Airman Kolfage’s Facebook page is at Brian Kolfage

Note: The “John Kimball” in this picture is from an account that a leftist copied from a real person. The real John Kimball on Facebook had nothing to do with this.

.

.
Update 3: Airman Brian Kolfage provided screenshots of an admin of the Facebook page (Republican Family Values) that Janet Vrotsos is or was connected to. The admin used one of Brian’s photos of his 4-month-old child, and turned it into a disparaging meme. It appears there is more than one person behind this, not just Janet.

Janet’s union, IBEW Local 2222, has issued a statement that they don’t believe she made the comments, and that her Facebook account was hacked. Because of the other screenshots of disparaging remarks made towards Brian, and his family by other members/leaders of the Facebook group “Republican Family Values,” it appears that someone may be trying to cover this up. I suppose IBEW Local 2222 will say that all of the Facebook accounts that were used to disparage Brian & veterans were hacked. Of course, it’s highly unlikely that they were.

There is no way to verify what the union is saying is true. In any case, Facebook is being contacted to see if Janet’s account was truly hacked. If it was, that still leaves the other admin who made vile comments about veterans. We will update as information comes in.

.
————————————————————————————————————————
Airman Kolfage
@AirmanKolfage

@iResistAll @PatDollard we busted her yesterday before anything went down pic.twitter.com/TsceKgV4u9
————————————————————————————————————————
Airman Kolfage
@AirmanKolfage

@iResistAll @PatDollard Admin #2 hes already been called out online and his entire record is on a few sites pic.twitter.com/J2IE1p1LSZ
7:05 PM – 28 Dec 2013


————————————————————————————————————————

.
Update 2: I contacted Airman Brian Kolfage via Twitter to confirm that Janet Vrotsos had indeed said these things about him and other disabled veterans. He verified that she was the one behind the comments, and provided screenshots. More updates to follow.

.
————————————————————————————————————————
Jeffrey Rainforth
@iResistAll

@AirmanKolfage Hi Brian. I have a story about Janet Vrotsos on war correspondent @PatDollard‘s site. Can u confirm? http://patdollard.com/2013/12/scumbag-union-director-says-all-disabled-veterans-should-lose-their-limbs-die
————————————————————————————————————————
Airman Kolfage
@AirmanKolfage

@iResistAll @PatDollard yes that’s it. She’s one of the admins over there we have about 3 exposed now
5:53 PM – 28 Dec 2013
————————————————————————————————————————

.
————————————————————————————————————————
Jeffrey Rainforth
@iResistAll

@AirmanKolfage Hi Brian. I have a story about Janet Vrotsos on war correspondent @PatDollard‘s site. Can u confirm? http://patdollard.com/2013/12/scumbag-union-director-says-all-disabled-veterans-should-lose-their-limbs-die
————————————————————————————————————————
Airman Kolfage
@AirmanKolfage

@iResistAll @PatDollard we busted her yesterday before anything went down pic.twitter.com/TsceKgV4u9
5:54 PM – 28 Dec 2013


————————————————————————————————————————

.
Update: Janet Vrotsos has deleted her personal Facebook page. I visited it once, and it has since disappeared.

Making the rounds of the Twitterverse this week is a disgusting display of hatred towards our military veterans. A woman named Janet Vrotsos, Chief Steward and assistant to the Business Manager of Local Union 2222 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers posted this stunningly crude remark on Facebook to triple amputee, Senior Airman Brian Kolfage.

………..

.
Her disgusting comments go beyond the pale even for those on the left. To wish that military veterans would lose their arms and legs in war is something that cannot be ignored, and hopefully the left will stand up and discipline their own. Those veterans are someone’s sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers, etc. To wish this on them and their families is truly despicable.

Please spread the picture around, and contact her union where she is an official. Also contact her elected representative.

Janet runs a Facebook page that vilifies Republicans called “Republican Family Values.” You can visit the page and comment here:
Republican Family Values

Her union (IBEW Local 2222) can be contacted at 617-929-6000, and the Fax # is 617-929-6099.

The president of her union is Ed Fitzpatrick.
Phone: (617) 929-6006
Email: edfitzpatrick@ibew2222.org

The vice-president of her union is Kevin Holland.
Phone: (617) 929-6018
Email: kevinholland@ibew2222.org

Her Congressman is Michael Capuano.
Phone: (617) 621-6208
Send him an email here: http://www.house.gov/capuano/contact/email.shtml

This kind of disgusting hate speech towards our military men and women needs to be addressed, and the woman held accountable for her vile words. If she represents her union in any official capacity, one would hope she would be stripped of her title, and that the union would state their support for our veterans. Let’s see how they respond. Please share this article far and wide.

You can read Airman Kolfage’s story here.
Brian Kolfage is on Twitter here.
His Facebook page is at Brian Kolfage

Shout outs go to @unlikelycowgirl, @LeahR77, @hitman0321, and Pat Dollard contributor @kaytlin81 for being the first to get news of this event out there.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.