Cato institute found that Trump administration cuts to legal immigration are twice as great on a monthly basis as cuts to illegal immigration at border. Crudely turning legal immigrants into illegal immigrants.
0
Cato institute found that Trump administration cuts to legal immigration are twice as great on a monthly basis as cuts to illegal immigration at border. Crudely turning legal immigrants into illegal immigrants.
Economic policy institute estimates Trump's bigoted war against immigration costs $2358 per US tax payer. $270 billion could be better spend on funding 12 million Americans on medicaid.
0
Economic policy institute estimates Trump's bigoted war against immigration costs $2358 per US tax payer. $270 billion could be better spend on funding 12 million Americans on medicaid.
So aside from silly partisan retorts, what numbers do you come up with about the cost of this useless war? Does it matter the source of the information more than the actual data and stats being referenced?
How much in war costs, inflation present and future AND the sum of what this bad choice will have in total?
270 B to me is low, very low especially since the impact on goods and services and future farm products is completely unknown and underestimated.
Sooooo........
0
@Raiders22
So aside from silly partisan retorts, what numbers do you come up with about the cost of this useless war? Does it matter the source of the information more than the actual data and stats being referenced?
How much in war costs, inflation present and future AND the sum of what this bad choice will have in total?
270 B to me is low, very low especially since the impact on goods and services and future farm products is completely unknown and underestimated.
Economic policy institute estimates Trump's bigoted war against immigration costs $2358 per US tax payer. $270 billion could be better spend on funding 12 million Americans on medicaid.
How many of those millions are illegals?
1
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:
Economic policy institute estimates Trump's bigoted war against immigration costs $2358 per US tax payer. $270 billion could be better spend on funding 12 million Americans on medicaid.
Why post a reply ridiculing a source when you do not actually provide a reply to the content? Are you happy following the other guys around nitpicking a source just to take a shot like that?
There is no real value in a reply just meant to retaliate or nit pick a source because without you providing a different perspective on the content you are actually stooping lower than the person you are taking a shot at.
I would ask if your sole purpose is to solely criticize a source maybe you should not make the reply at all. Do you have a figure on how much this useless war is costing the US taxpayer?
I made a reply because I knew why you made the message and I am giving you a nudge on not following that approach PLUS the number you were making a comment on or source I think is LOW...which kind of blows up your contention unless you have a solid reasonable number and rationale, which you didnt and you obviously do not.
0
@Raiders22
Why post a reply ridiculing a source when you do not actually provide a reply to the content? Are you happy following the other guys around nitpicking a source just to take a shot like that?
There is no real value in a reply just meant to retaliate or nit pick a source because without you providing a different perspective on the content you are actually stooping lower than the person you are taking a shot at.
I would ask if your sole purpose is to solely criticize a source maybe you should not make the reply at all. Do you have a figure on how much this useless war is costing the US taxpayer?
I made a reply because I knew why you made the message and I am giving you a nudge on not following that approach PLUS the number you were making a comment on or source I think is LOW...which kind of blows up your contention unless you have a solid reasonable number and rationale, which you didnt and you obviously do not.
Why post a reply ridiculing a source when you do not actually provide a reply to the content? Are you happy following the other guys around nitpicking a source just to take a shot like that?
Same as you just did.
Yes, I ridiculed the source. If that poster wants a better one they can ask. But I am sure the only reason they used that source is because of its bias.
0
@wallstreetcappers
Why post a reply ridiculing a source when you do not actually provide a reply to the content? Are you happy following the other guys around nitpicking a source just to take a shot like that?
Same as you just did.
Yes, I ridiculed the source. If that poster wants a better one they can ask. But I am sure the only reason they used that source is because of its bias.
There is no real value in a reply just meant to retaliate or nit pick a source because without you providing a different perspective on the content you are actually stooping lower than the person you are taking a shot at.
There is not real value in that poster posting silly partisan nonsense or you defending the poster when I call it out.
0
@wallstreetcappers
There is no real value in a reply just meant to retaliate or nit pick a source because without you providing a different perspective on the content you are actually stooping lower than the person you are taking a shot at.
There is not real value in that poster posting silly partisan nonsense or you defending the poster when I call it out.
I made a reply because I knew why you made the message and I am giving you a nudge on not following that approach PLUS the number you were making a comment on or source I think is LOW...which kind of blows up your contention unless you have a solid reasonable number and rationale, which you didnt and you obviously do not.
I would nudge you into replying with your own points and not just knocking mine since you know why I made the reply.
I have plenty of rationale for critiquing that poster's source. If they are interested in defending choosing a biased source they can do it. They should not need you to jump in.
The parenthetical expression is there already in my original post. If you did not get it -- then it is not for you.
0
@wallstreetcappers
I made a reply because I knew why you made the message and I am giving you a nudge on not following that approach PLUS the number you were making a comment on or source I think is LOW...which kind of blows up your contention unless you have a solid reasonable number and rationale, which you didnt and you obviously do not.
I would nudge you into replying with your own points and not just knocking mine since you know why I made the reply.
I have plenty of rationale for critiquing that poster's source. If they are interested in defending choosing a biased source they can do it. They should not need you to jump in.
The parenthetical expression is there already in my original post. If you did not get it -- then it is not for you.
I actually replied to the content and retorted your lazy jab. I said the number is likely off to the downside...so if you are going to try and cheap shot me then do so with context and not ignoring the bulk of my message.
0
@Raiders22
I actually replied to the content and retorted your lazy jab. I said the number is likely off to the downside...so if you are going to try and cheap shot me then do so with context and not ignoring the bulk of my message.
@wallstreetcappers I made a reply because I knew why you made the message and I am giving you a nudge on not following that approach PLUS the number you were making a comment on or source I think is LOW...which kind of blows up your contention unless you have a solid reasonable number and rationale, which you didnt and you obviously do not. I would nudge you into replying with your own points and not just knocking mine since you know why I made the reply. I have plenty of rationale for critiquing that poster's source. If they are interested in defending choosing a biased source they can do it. They should not need you to jump in. The parenthetical expression is there already in my original post. If you did not get it -- then it is not for you.
Actually it is not your place to instruct other members in following the rules but it is the obligation and duty of a moderator to do exactly what I did.
Consider the suggestion and try to avoid intentional combative messages like you have been displaying in this thread.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
@wallstreetcappers I made a reply because I knew why you made the message and I am giving you a nudge on not following that approach PLUS the number you were making a comment on or source I think is LOW...which kind of blows up your contention unless you have a solid reasonable number and rationale, which you didnt and you obviously do not. I would nudge you into replying with your own points and not just knocking mine since you know why I made the reply. I have plenty of rationale for critiquing that poster's source. If they are interested in defending choosing a biased source they can do it. They should not need you to jump in. The parenthetical expression is there already in my original post. If you did not get it -- then it is not for you.
Actually it is not your place to instruct other members in following the rules but it is the obligation and duty of a moderator to do exactly what I did.
Consider the suggestion and try to avoid intentional combative messages like you have been displaying in this thread.
You made the bad comment which is borderline breaking the rules, my message was both a retort to the CONTENT and a very reasonable nudge to you about not replying as you did.
A number/figure which is in PROCESS is kind of impossible to finalize, but why are you even worried about what I think when your purpose was NOT of any content or constructive purpose?
I dont care what your viewpoint is as you admitted and we both know the purpose for your message. Just stop doing replies like that.
0
@Raiders22
You made the bad comment which is borderline breaking the rules, my message was both a retort to the CONTENT and a very reasonable nudge to you about not replying as you did.
A number/figure which is in PROCESS is kind of impossible to finalize, but why are you even worried about what I think when your purpose was NOT of any content or constructive purpose?
I dont care what your viewpoint is as you admitted and we both know the purpose for your message. Just stop doing replies like that.
Even Trump admins story are changing around - first their story was they stole your job - now you deporting them are the reason your job numbers are going down - which of the two is it - do you create jobs to meet the bigger labour force coming in (and thereby creating more combined wealth, demand etc. something that is basically impossible to estimate - because they can be Albert Einstein or they can die in two years having accomplished nothing - so most firms set their calculations low) or do you have a fixed amount of jobs and they are stealing yours ! Because they have said both - only one of them are true (and I do know which one) but maybe Trump should be held accountable for saying both
Don't mention the frogs - we don't want to scare the toddler - we want him to sleep
0
Even Trump admins story are changing around - first their story was they stole your job - now you deporting them are the reason your job numbers are going down - which of the two is it - do you create jobs to meet the bigger labour force coming in (and thereby creating more combined wealth, demand etc. something that is basically impossible to estimate - because they can be Albert Einstein or they can die in two years having accomplished nothing - so most firms set their calculations low) or do you have a fixed amount of jobs and they are stealing yours ! Because they have said both - only one of them are true (and I do know which one) but maybe Trump should be held accountable for saying both
Maybe these figures you guys throw around is just ICE costs etc. but the long term cost this will take off your GDP of the future is impossible to figure out - but it will be in the double digit trillions figure in lost revenue - and that will just be in my lifetime - unless they go full AI and make all of you obsolete
Don't mention the frogs - we don't want to scare the toddler - we want him to sleep
0
Maybe these figures you guys throw around is just ICE costs etc. but the long term cost this will take off your GDP of the future is impossible to figure out - but it will be in the double digit trillions figure in lost revenue - and that will just be in my lifetime - unless they go full AI and make all of you obsolete
Mass deportation reduces overall jobs in the US because immigrant and native workers are economic complements rather than substitutes. Immigrants do unpleasant, low paying or hard jobs that Americans don't want to do. When industries such as construction, agriculture and hospitality lose workers, businesses cannot finish projects or meet demand. Forcing them to cut jobs for all workers. No surprise most economists and Americans say immigration is positive for US economy in the long term. Immigrants contribute as workers, tax payers, consumers and entrepreneurs.
1
@Calde13
Mass deportation reduces overall jobs in the US because immigrant and native workers are economic complements rather than substitutes. Immigrants do unpleasant, low paying or hard jobs that Americans don't want to do. When industries such as construction, agriculture and hospitality lose workers, businesses cannot finish projects or meet demand. Forcing them to cut jobs for all workers. No surprise most economists and Americans say immigration is positive for US economy in the long term. Immigrants contribute as workers, tax payers, consumers and entrepreneurs.
Price of food was kept in check by migrant workers. We could sustain our agriculture industry by utilizing workers all over our nation. Without this resource our crops literally rot in the fields....
This is somewhat true. But it is not kept in check by just migrant workers. A lot of things affect the pricing: energy, fertilizer, tariffs, weather, retail margins, etc.
I have older charts and data saved on this. I am sure it has not changed all that much. Hired labor for most vegetables is around 35% -- fruits are a good bit higher.
The food-at-home cost was only 18.4 cents of a dollar a couple of years ago and that is usually pretty consistent.
The issue is the illegal 'benefit' and whether that demographic is worthwhile to offset the already legal guest-workers on legal visas to work along with regular citizens in this sector.
Another issue is that the crop workers in the nation are not nearly as migratory 'all over the nation' as they used to be. Most of the workers are 'settled' workers -- like 85%. There are only about 4% of workers that are traditional 'follow-the-crop' migrant workers.
The issue is that the folks have become used to what is essentially 'modern-day slavery' off the backs of the illegals to make their crops a bit cheaper.
The bigger point is that going with traditional legal visa workers and citizens and not using illegals is far better for the country as opposed to justifying allowing illegals in just as 'excuse' to get tad cheaper crops.
Yes, there would be availability issues with workers if overnight illegals were gone. But that is something that could be handled in various ways. So, yes, it might cost more to keep crops from 'rotting in the fields' but the overall benefit to the country would far outweigh a slight increase in the price of vegetables.
0
@nature1970
Quote Originally Posted by nature1970:
Price of food was kept in check by migrant workers. We could sustain our agriculture industry by utilizing workers all over our nation. Without this resource our crops literally rot in the fields....
This is somewhat true. But it is not kept in check by just migrant workers. A lot of things affect the pricing: energy, fertilizer, tariffs, weather, retail margins, etc.
I have older charts and data saved on this. I am sure it has not changed all that much. Hired labor for most vegetables is around 35% -- fruits are a good bit higher.
The food-at-home cost was only 18.4 cents of a dollar a couple of years ago and that is usually pretty consistent.
The issue is the illegal 'benefit' and whether that demographic is worthwhile to offset the already legal guest-workers on legal visas to work along with regular citizens in this sector.
Another issue is that the crop workers in the nation are not nearly as migratory 'all over the nation' as they used to be. Most of the workers are 'settled' workers -- like 85%. There are only about 4% of workers that are traditional 'follow-the-crop' migrant workers.
The issue is that the folks have become used to what is essentially 'modern-day slavery' off the backs of the illegals to make their crops a bit cheaper.
The bigger point is that going with traditional legal visa workers and citizens and not using illegals is far better for the country as opposed to justifying allowing illegals in just as 'excuse' to get tad cheaper crops.
Yes, there would be availability issues with workers if overnight illegals were gone. But that is something that could be handled in various ways. So, yes, it might cost more to keep crops from 'rotting in the fields' but the overall benefit to the country would far outweigh a slight increase in the price of vegetables.
If we could make agriculture workers legal and address this from within preferred nations to send workers such as the coast here utilizes eastern European workers to fill hospitality and tourism centers we would remove the need for illegal migration giving legal access to agriculture and construction projects due to unavailability of labor in certain areas.
As George walker ush described in I believe 2004 he was speaking with an onion farmer at the time and needed labor .. Bush off cuff remark was well I am not going to pick them. Hence a larger issue needs to be explored. Yes we do need high advanced skilled workers but we also need low skilled as well. And prisoner work programs seem to inadequate to address the inflation of food.
Developing the Venezuela oil fields should be a high priority as well as drilling in the Brazilian sun contentint while Persian lt crude is being disrupted....
But we have to do better as a nation to solve this economic challenge regardless of who is in power in Washington we the people need to step up.
0
If we could make agriculture workers legal and address this from within preferred nations to send workers such as the coast here utilizes eastern European workers to fill hospitality and tourism centers we would remove the need for illegal migration giving legal access to agriculture and construction projects due to unavailability of labor in certain areas.
As George walker ush described in I believe 2004 he was speaking with an onion farmer at the time and needed labor .. Bush off cuff remark was well I am not going to pick them. Hence a larger issue needs to be explored. Yes we do need high advanced skilled workers but we also need low skilled as well. And prisoner work programs seem to inadequate to address the inflation of food.
Developing the Venezuela oil fields should be a high priority as well as drilling in the Brazilian sun contentint while Persian lt crude is being disrupted....
But we have to do better as a nation to solve this economic challenge regardless of who is in power in Washington we the people need to step up.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
EPI is a left wing 'think' tank --so, of course, they have viewpoint.
Hot Forum Topics
