I only read about half of your above paragraph Lois. Do you ever read a book? Were you awake in High School history? Look up things like The New Deal or The War on Poverty. We did exactly the things that you say can't be done within the framework of this democracy. We overthrow the government every four years without a drop of blood in the streets. You act like you just woke up in the world and everyone is telling you that this is the way the world has always been and you believe them.You wrote: "I only read about half of your above paragraph Lois." Have someone read it to you, then. I guarantee I could beat you on any American history test. If you think we overthrow the US government every four years, you would fail on the first question. That statement alone proves that you don't have the slighest idea of how how the American governmemt works and I doubt you could learn the first thing about it within the next 10 years of studying it every day, even if you have someone reading to you. Lois I can't exactly complain about the ad hominems, but you have answered fewer of my questions and offered less new data as the day has worn on. If you know so much history, why do you think that taxes will remain at historical lows or that we will continue to support a standing army larger than any in history? Historically, when wealth disparity has reached the levels we are seeing, change has occurred.
I get the feeling Lausten isn’t an American in the first place. Here’s another example of his angle on American History.
If someone distorts history around this much in order to advocate for illegal immigrants it would indicate that that person isn’t an American
themselves or they are deluded into the typical fantastical liberal/left faction of One World Utopia/No Borders type thinking.
And no, obviously Lausten couldn’t be bothered by taking in some of these homeless people.
We have enough Americans in this country that need help, medical, shelter, food and jobs. We don’t need to import more of them.
Frankly it’s a slap in the face to Americans who are already being squeezed by the Reactionary Right Conservatives who are trying to limit any and all resources being made to low income Americans.
Now these illegals come in and get immediate attention, housing, medical etc. The same thing that most low income Americans have had to fight for for decades.
Lausten-No. It’s the entire history of prejudice. Get people to hate other people who are just like them, except for their ethnicity. Get them to focus on fighting each other for the scraps you are throwing them. If I’m wrong, then you need to come up with a justification for why you get to have everything you have. You can’t deny that America was built on war and slavery. If we somehow deserve this land and others don’t, then you are saying all of that is just and right.What a myopic, uninformed view of the US. And then he tells us we have to justify "why we get to have everything we have." Sounds like Lausten isn't an American citizen himself. Who else would write that? Definitely not someone who has a family history of hard working American Citizens who sacrificed blood, sweat and tears to build this country. To Lausten America is just a big land to be exploited by people who are willing to run around the laws. Lausten says: "If you can't justify your right to be a citizen, then anybody should be allowed to come here and take her spoils and riches."
I was wondering when VYAZMA was going to chime in. You should be careful when using quote marks, be sure to clarify that you are saying what you think I mean, not what I said. I’ve responded to your straw man arguments enough. No point in going over something again. Funny that you bring up an old quote instead of saying anything about the recent articles I’ve linked to.
They face deportation under US laws, the same as anyone faces deportation under any country's laws. It doesn't help your case to play dumb. LoisYou didn't even look at the link to DACA did you? You are being completely unreasonable. You are shouting at the wind and no one is listening. I did look at the link. If anyone is shouting in the wind it's you. You haven't come up with one suggestion as to how we are to take in everyone who wants asylum. Not one idea. And you certainly haven't come up with one suggestion as to how we take care ofthe millions of homeless, jobless people who are aleady here before we invite in millions more. Please tell me where the money and human resources are going to come from to support more homeless and hopeless people. Just lay out as much as an outline of a plan and we can talk. Lois I don't have to answer that because it is already being answered. Just look up the US budget. It's online. We're handling it just fine. The stock market is back at record levels after bankers almost destroyed the economy, not Mexican children. My grocery bill has been affected by storms, not by Mexican children, but it's pretty much the same as it was a few years ago. Do you own a map? Find another place in the world where a big industrialized country is bordered by a big "third world" country. Find a border like that where less than two hundred years ago, that border didn't exist, where it was still their country. Now make one of your stupid analogies fit our situation. Explain to me again why we should treat this unique situation just like any other immigration issue in the world. I accused you of not looking at the link because you continue to say "they face deportation" and we "give asylum to everyone". The DACA is about addressing a specific situation with a 2 year deferral, creating a reasonable exception for a humanitarian crisis. A crisis which you are deaf to and just make argumentum absurdum ad inifinitum. Oohhh. Look at those BIG words! In Latin, too! That must mean you have won this debate. Congratulations. Lois
Oohhh. Look at those BIG words! In Latin, too! That must mean you have won this debate. Congratulations. LoisIs there a prize?
Oohhh. Look at those BIG words! In Latin, too! That must mean you have won this debate. Congratulations. LoisIs there a prize? respice in ephah arca archa ;-)
I only read about half of your above paragraph Lois. Do you ever read a book? Were you awake in High School history? Look up things like The New Deal or The War on Poverty. We did exactly the things that you say can't be done within the framework of this democracy. We overthrow the government every four years without a drop of blood in the streets. You act like you just woke up in the world and everyone is telling you that this is the way the world has always been and you believe them.You wrote: "I only read about half of your above paragraph Lois." Have someone read it to you, then. I guarantee I could beat you on any American history test. If you think we overthrow the US government every four years, you would fail on the first question. That statement alone proves that you don't have the slighest idea of how how the American governmemt works and I doubt you could learn the first thing about it within the next 10 years of studying it every day, even if you have someone reading to you. Lois I can't exactly complain about the ad hominems, but you have answered fewer of my questions and offered less new data as the day has worn on. If you know so much history, why do you think that taxes will remain at historical lows or that we will continue to support a standing army larger than any in history? Historically, when wealth disparity has reached the levels we are seeing, change has occurred. I never said change would not occur. Nor did I say that taxes would not increase. I said that it's extremely difficult to raise them now and now is what we're dealing with. Any more red herrings in place of reasoned arguments? Lois
I never said change would not occur. Nor did I say that taxes would not increase. I said that it's extremely difficult to raise them now and now is what we're dealing with. Any more red herrings in place of reasoned arguments? LoisI had no intention of being misleading or deflecting anything you said, so that makes your use of "red herring" an example of "begging the question" We can keep exchanging these pointless assessments of each other's ability to formulate a sentence or you could back your stand up with facts or reasoning. It appears to me that it is taking an awful lot of effort and wealth to keep the status quo in place. Sure, congress is corrupt, but we know about it, the very acts necessary to keep congress doing what the rich want them to do is costing them in terms of support. People want to know where their consumer dollar is going and they have more tools than ever to figure it out.
I never said change would not occur. Nor did I say that taxes would not increase. I said that it's extremely difficult to raise them now and now is what we're dealing with. Any more red herrings in place of reasoned arguments? LoisI had no intention of being misleading or deflecting anything you said, so that makes your use of "red herring" an example of "begging the question" We can keep exchanging these pointless assessments of each other's ability to formulate a sentence or you could back your stand up with facts or reasoning. It appears to me that it is taking an awful lot of effort and wealth to keep the status quo in place. Sure, congress is corrupt, but we know about it, the very acts necessary to keep congress doing what the rich want them to do is costing them in terms of support. People want to know where their consumer dollar is going and they have more tools than ever to figure it out. You could back your stand with facts and reasoning, too, but you have yet to do so. Unfortunately, people have shown they don't know and don't care where their consumer dollar is going. They keep electing the same fools to Congress in every election, and every once in a while they find a brand new one. Lois
You could back your stand with facts and reasoning, too, but you have yet to do so. Unfortunately, people have shown they don't know and don't care where their consumer dollar is going. They keep electing the same fools to Congress in every election, and every once in a while they find a brand new one. LoisYou don't respond to my reasoning and when you do you just call it stupid, so I can't tell what you've missed or what you are ignoring, and I've already repeated myself more than once. First you said politicians get elected because money has corrupted politics, now you say people don't care. If people didn't care, why would powerful people need to spend so much money to spread lies?
Do you have any idea how economies work? LoisYes, I kinda do]
I think we have to recognize the less publicized aspects of immigration from the Latin Americas. First, Obama has repeatedly requested a good sized appropriation to fund personnel and equipment to block this immigration, but the Republican Congress, namely Boehner, won't even let it come up for a vote. If the Republicans are so strongly against this immigration, why won't they go along with efforts to stop it? The reason is simple - corporations can hire them (the workers, but also the Congressmen) at very low wages, not give them the perqs U.S. workers require, don't pay them overtime, etc. In other words, much more profit for employers. However, they do have to pay unemployment insurance and Social Security deductions to the government, but the workers will never be able to collect on those so the government makes money from them. As long as employers hire them they'll keep coming. If we want to stop this influx, we need extremely harsh punishments for the employers to prevent them from hiring them. We need things like a mandatory 20 year imprisonment without possibility of parole for the top five percent of company management, and government confiscation of all the company assets to be sold on the open market for any company found to be hiring undocumented workers. And include a $100,000 payment for anyone who reports such hiring. OccamI would add to that - "they don't complain much about working conditions because if they do the employer will threaten to report them to DHS and IRS". You got my vote mod for whenever you run for office - if I could vote that is. :coolsmile:
You could back your stand with facts and reasoning, too, but you have yet to do so. Unfortunately, people have shown they don't know and don't care where their consumer dollar is going. They keep electing the same fools to Congress in every election, and every once in a while they find a brand new one. LoisYou don't respond to my reasoning and when you do you just call it stupid, so I can't tell what you've missed or what you are ignoring, and I've already repeated myself more than once. First you said politicians get elected because money has corrupted politics, now you say people don't care. If people didn't care, why would powerful people need to spend so much money to spread lies? It's all of a piece. Corruption has many sources-- money, apathy, lies. They go hand in hand. Lois
Do you have any idea how economies work? LoisYes, I kinda do] Have you had a chance to absorb this link yet Lois? Or do economists not know how economies work either?
The Link Lausten posted is by Adam Davidson. A journalist with a Degree in History of Religion.
He’s definitely not an economist. Even if he were an economist that wouldn’t amount to hill of beans.
Anyone can find a particular stripe of economist to write or do the math on any ideological driven bit of socio-economic policy.
After all, if economics was a hard science or school, then there would be very few problems in the world. World leaders would be seeking out these economists. They could just follow the economist’s instructions to a path to prosperity. But anyways…
The article is written by a journalist with an ideological bent. The article contains no actual economic values or factors.
Besides the articles admission of a handful of obvious detriments to the US that are caused by illegal immigrants, the article leaves me thinking with one thought:
Ok, with the paltry pieces of “data” the author cites, what would be the net loss to our economy if all of these illegal immigrants suddenly were
not here?
The answer is there would be no loss. At best these illegals are breaking even. At best by the articles standards.
But when we take into account the high crime rates in illegal immigrant neighborhoods(cited by author), the heavy use of public services(cited by author) or the reduction in real wages for 25 million Americans by 4-7 percent caused by illegal immigrants(cited by author) we can see that these illegal immigrants are a drain on the economy.
That’s why illegal immigrants are illegal in the first place.
The real economists try their best to do the model for a functional population in a given nation. They then issue Visas to foreigners who wish to come and work here Legally!!
The illegal immigrants from poor, squalor type nations tend to lower the bar for wealthy nations like the US.
These illegal immigrants are willing to settle for less. Lower standards.
We need to stick with the fresh, young, vibrant, multi-cultural cornucopia of Legal Immigrants who follow the letter of the law and understand the value of order and economics.
Not shadowy, illegal figures that have to duck low, stay off the grid, rely on social services, and settle for lower standards.
Never ceases to amaze me
Do you have any idea how economies work? LoisYes, I kinda do] Have you had a chance to absorb this link yet Lois? Or do economists not know how economies work either? Yes, and I notice it says, "These days, Chan helps skilled (and fully documented) carpenters, electricians and stucco installers do their jobs by carrying heavy things and cleaning the work site. For this, he earns up to $25,000 a year, which is considerably less than the average entry wage for New York City’s 100,000 or so documented construction workers. Chan’s boss, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that unless he learned a specialized skill, Chan would never be able to move up the income ladder. As long as there are thousands of undocumented workers competing for low-end jobs, salaries are more likely to fall than to rise." This is the nub of the problem. If you flood the market with people willing to work for wages that can't support even one person, you do negatively affect the economy, and everyone else pays the price. It's only the business owners who profit from cheap labor. They get labor for cut-rate prices and the rest of the population subsidizes it. There are also pressures on housing, transportation, education and medical care. Who pays for these things? Not the wealthy businesspeople but the lowest classes and the middle classes--the ones who are displaced and whose jobs are affected. Labor is a commodity and it should be treated as a commodity. If you had a product you were manufacturing and making a decent profit on, what do you think would happen to your income and your business if the market were flooded with cheap knock-offs, from China, let's say? The same thing happens when the market is flooded with cheap labor, except that everyone else pays the price, not just the manfacturer and his employees. Multiply that by millions. It's the law of supply and demand--on the labor end of business as well as for the business owners. Too many people want to ignore the labor end of business and its effect on the overall economy. You can't flood the market and expect the economy to prosper. LL
You could back your stand with facts and reasoning, too, but you have yet to do so. Unfortunately, people have shown they don't know and don't care where their consumer dollar is going. They keep electing the same fools to Congress in every election, and every once in a while they find a brand new one. LoisYou don't respond to my reasoning and when you do you just call it stupid, so I can't tell what you've missed or what you are ignoring, and I've already repeated myself more than once. First you said politicians get elected because money has corrupted politics, now you say people don't care. If people didn't care, why would powerful people need to spend so much money to spread lies? Because it lines their pockets. Do you think that corruption happens in a vacuum? Corruption creates apathy because people feel hopeless and powerless and moneyed interests take advantage of that. Lois
List of facts VYAZMA and Lois ignored:
Chan is not a citizen. He is competing with similarly disadvantaged workers.
Regardless of the byline, the article cites Giovanni Peri, a published economist, and Heidi Shierholz from the Economic Policy Institute and Jared Bernstein from Center or Budget and Policy Priorities.
Peri says the presence of undocumented workers helps increase skilled/legal worker pay.
Undocumented workers contribute $15 billion to SSA and only take out $1 billion per year.
Lower cost labor reduces costs. Do I actually have to point that out? I guess I do since Lois said that cheap labor hurts the economy.
The crime and government costs that Lois keeps harping about are in places where there is a concentration of undocumented workers. These coincide with concentrations of poor legal citizens. A general lack of respect for the working class is the problem, not any particular workers.
The article is about overall benefits. These are harder to see and get less attention than the smaller, isolated, visible costs.
The solution is simple and stated in two sentences, “Immigrants bring diffuse and hard-to-see benefits to average Americans while imposing more tangible costs on a few, Shierholz says. The dollar value of the benefits far outweigh the costs, so the government could just transfer extra funds to those local populations that need more help." I would include some overall reform of rights and benefits for low income workers, but that is probably politically impossible in the short term.
If you have other economists that say the dollar value of immigrants is less than the costs, just cite them. I’ll gladly consider their opinion.
List of facts VYAZMA and Lois ignored: Chan is not a citizen. He is competing with similarly disadvantaged workers. Regardless of the byline, the article cites Giovanni Peri, a published economist, and Heidi Shierholz from the Economic Policy Institute and Jared Bernstein from Center or Budget and Policy Priorities. Peri says the presence of undocumented workers helps increase skilled/legal worker pay. Undocumented workers contribute $15 billion to SSA and only take out $1 billion per year. Lower cost labor reduces costs. Do I actually have to point that out? I guess I do since Lois said that cheap labor hurts the economy. The crime and government costs that Lois keeps harping about are in places where there is a concentration of undocumented workers. These coincide with concentrations of poor legal citizens. A general lack of respect for the working class is the problem, not any particular workers. The article is about overall benefits. These are harder to see and get less attention than the smaller, isolated, visible costs. The solution is simple and stated in two sentences, “Immigrants bring diffuse and hard-to-see benefits to average Americans while imposing more tangible costs on a few, Shierholz says. The dollar value of the benefits far outweigh the costs, so the government could just transfer extra funds to those local populations that need more help." I would include some overall reform of rights and benefits for low income workers, but that is probably politically impossible in the short term. If you have other economists that say the dollar value of immigrants is less than the costs, just cite them. I’ll gladly consider their opinion.You wrote: "Chan is not a citizen. He is competing with similarly disadvantaged workers." Yes, that's why Chan works for such low wages. All undocumented workers are competing with each other but they are also competing with US citizens who could demand higher wages if the market were not flooded with undocumented workers willing to work for less. This is Economics 101. You wrote: "Peri says the presence of undocumented workers helps increase skilled/legal worker pay." Can you explain how that works? How does the presence of illegal workers with no leverage and willing to work for less than minimum wage increase pay for skilled legal workers? Explain that. You wrote: "Undocumented workers contribute $15 billion to SSA and only take out $1 billion per year." Can you explain how that works when undocumented workers have no Social Security number and can't get one? If any are putting money in, few would be in a position to collect Social Security payments yet, so how can they "take out" anything? You wrote: "The dollar value of the benefits far outweigh the costs, so the government could just transfer extra funds to those local populations that need more help." What extra funds? How would that work? The Social Security Fund is self sustaining and is used only for pensions, disability and widows' and orphans' benefits. Money cannot be transferred for other uses. You wrote, "I would include some overall reform of rights and benefits for low income workers, but that is probably politically impossible in the short term." And in the long term, as well. Everyone who contributes to Social Security gets the same benefits. Anyone who does not contribute doesn't get any benefits. Please explain how undocumented workers contribute to the Social Security fund when they can't get Social Security numbers. If you are talking about new laws giving the undocumented benefits you don't know how government works nor how unlikely it is for the government to create new benefit schemes for undocumented workers--or even legal low-income workers. Lois