As I posted long ago, I concluded Trump was among the most contemptible human beings alive when he came through town with one of the phony get rich quick real estate scheme hucksters many years ago. The kind of programs where you pay guys who have figured out the system a bunch of money to teach you their tricks--they are only teaching the classes out of a desire to give back since the techniques they have learned have made them super rich already though the programs will bilk you out of thousands.
There may be salvation for the scum bags pitching those programs to the invariably undereducated and poorer clientele. But for a billionaire to do it? Of course Trump may not be so well off, in which case what a fraud.
I remember interviews with him saying the democratic way works better, and of course Hillary came to his wedding.
So when he ran for president, it wasn't that surprising: he was a scumbag playing a populist card to get votes.
But as time has gone, is that the case? I can see a few scenarios:
a) he doesn't have political beliefs, and because his efforts to get elected alienated everyone but the right, he is just playing to his base,
b) he has really become a reactionary as he has become senile,
c) these were always his politics to some extent, but he pretended to be moderate previously to protect his brand/businesses
A combination is of course possible. To an extent however, a) indicates self awareness and political insight, b) is that he is just senile.
He has always had old fashioned instincts so I do think at his age he has become more reactionary as time has gone by. I mean he genuinely seems to latch onto whatever silly idea the olds are into these days. Like how the darn kids playing Doom are what leads to shootings and shit.
But even if he was over on my side I would still dislike him immensely on a personal level. He represents the kind of entitled and smug and self-serving idiocy that thinks it knows everything that I find most loathsome about my country's character. But even more than that he has actually done scummy and ethically questionable things, as you note.
I've always thought it was A. Hence my frequent assertion that Trump doesn't have policies, he has whims.
Quote from: dps on August 09, 2019, 12:34:01 PM
I've always thought it was A. Hence my frequent assertion that Trump doesn't have policies, he has whims.
I agree. Whatever feels right to him is right.
He probably isn't fully sentient. I suppose A) is closest to the truth.
Quote from: Valmy on August 09, 2019, 12:34:49 PM
Quote from: dps on August 09, 2019, 12:34:01 PM
I've always thought it was A. Hence my frequent assertion that Trump doesn't have policies, he has whims.
I agree. Whatever feels right to him is right.
I think that's true for many issues but not all. Gun control, abortion, some parts of foreign policy, he really doesn't care and is taking the line of whoever he last heard from. However on things like international trade, immigration, racism, reducing taxes on the wealthy he is very consistent.
Quote from: dps on August 09, 2019, 12:34:01 PM
I've always thought it was A. Hence my frequent assertion that Trump doesn't have policies, he has whims.
Agreed. Just listen to one of his press conferences. His whims can change in mid sentence.
I'm going with A. He has some gut feelings about things but it would be a stretch to call them coherent political beliefs. Hatred for Blacks and Hispanics isn't really a political belief.
I don't know how seriously Trump takes his political beliefs, but I don't think his positions would be considered extreme prior to the current social justice paradigm. Remember, it wasn't until recently that even most of the Democratic party didn't support open borders, free healthcare for illegals (even before medicare for all), and slavery reparations.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on August 11, 2019, 12:23:20 PM
I don't know how seriously Trump takes his political beliefs, but I don't think his positions would be considered extreme prior to the current social justice paradigm. Remember, it wasn't until recently that even most of the Democratic party didn't support open borders, free healthcare for illegals (even before medicare for all), and slavery reparations.
(https://pics.me.me/english-motherfucker-do-you-speak-it-13596485.png)
We support open borders, free healthcare for illegals (??), and slavery reparations? :unsure: And is Trump defined by his opposition to those positions? Of course not. How ridiculous.
I think his positions (or policies I guess) are poorly thought out and counterproductive and generally just bad ideas, not really extreme...I don't think unless you have a particular point in mind.
But AD you have a weasel politicians talent for not answering a question and instead shifting the conversation to something else. With dishonesty like that you might consider public office.
I just don't agree with the premise that Trump's political views are necessarily reactionary or not moderate as per the scenarios suggested by alfred russel.
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2019, 02:48:00 PM
We support open borders, free healthcare for illegals (??), and slavery reparations? :unsure: And is Trump defined by his opposition to those positions? Of course not. How ridiculous.
You have numerous Presidential candidates who believein:
-disbanding ICE and decriminalizing illegal border crossings
-many who believe in universal health care, while at the same time not testing for citizenship in providing social services; and
-who support "studying" reparations
Decriminalizing illegal immigration is the status quo ante.
Quote from: Barrister on August 13, 2019, 10:30:34 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2019, 02:48:00 PM
We support open borders, free healthcare for illegals (??), and slavery reparations? :unsure: And is Trump defined by his opposition to those positions? Of course not. How ridiculous.
You have numerous Presidential candidates who believein:
-disbanding ICE and decriminalizing illegal border crossings
I thought the idea was that ICE had abused their authority and become corrupt so previous ways of handling the issue were to be restored. Oh and that it is not currently a crime but a civil offense.
In any case I have made it pretty clear that my opinion is that the current immigration laws fail because they are completely and hopelessly out of touch with the economic realities of labor needs. Our economy is dependent on these people, ergo why enforcement will usually fail. I would like to see some reasonable reform a la what GWB tried. But I was under the impression with collapsing birth rates all over Latin America this problem was solving itself. So excuse me if I am not freaking out about it like apparently I should be doing for some reason. It is not even in my top 10 issues. But in any case those suggestions seem like administrative reforms and reversing the human rights violations of the current Presidency not just throwing the borders open to everything and everybody. So just a tad misleading.
But maybe I have that wrong.
Quote-many who believe in universal health care, while at the same time not testing for citizenship in providing social services;
So not, in fact, a policy of providing free health care to all illegals but rather a series of policy decisions that might do so. Lots of unknowns there. I have a hard time believing that a bone crushingly expensive program like universal health care would not care at all about who gets what.
Quoteand -who support "studying" reparations
So not, in fact, being for them. Heck I would appreciate knowing what exactly reparations would even mean, what exactly is even being asked for here? A symbolic act? I don't know. It would probably be over-optimistic to hope that such a study would produce clear answers to those questions.
And certainly in no case is this so universally common held opinions that Donald Trump represents the radical voice being opposed to them.
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2019, 11:30:01 PM
And certainly in no case is this so universally common held opinions that Donald Trump represents the radical voice being opposed to them.
DJT makes up a whole lot of shit. But he doesn't have to stretch very far on these points.
Personally, I'm of the view that Democrats should stop talking about policy positions that make it so easy for DJT to mischaracterize in this fashion. You know, maybe talk once in a while about the need to stop illegal immigration (while wholeheartedly supporting legal immigration). But nobody appears to be looking for my advice...
Quote from: Barrister on August 13, 2019, 11:35:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2019, 11:30:01 PM
And certainly in no case is this so universally common held opinions that Donald Trump represents the radical voice being opposed to them.
DJT makes up a whole lot of shit. But he doesn't have to stretch very far on these points.
Personally, I'm of the view that Democrats should stop talking about policy positions that make it so easy for DJT to mischaracterize in this fashion. You know, maybe talk once in a while about the need to stop illegal immigration (while wholeheartedly supporting legal immigration). But nobody appears to be looking for my advice...
Democrats don't need to pander to Trump voters. It doesn't work. People need to realize on their own that he's the worst choice. If they don't, they don't.
Those Dem senators and congressmen that tried to veer to the right all lost anyway. Except for Manchin, but he's an asshole and is going to lose the next one if he runs anyways. So fuck him.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 13, 2019, 11:48:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 13, 2019, 11:35:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2019, 11:30:01 PM
And certainly in no case is this so universally common held opinions that Donald Trump represents the radical voice being opposed to them.
DJT makes up a whole lot of shit. But he doesn't have to stretch very far on these points.
Personally, I'm of the view that Democrats should stop talking about policy positions that make it so easy for DJT to mischaracterize in this fashion. You know, maybe talk once in a while about the need to stop illegal immigration (while wholeheartedly supporting legal immigration). But nobody appears to be looking for my advice...
Democrats don't need to pander to Trump voters. It doesn't work. People need to realize on their own that he's the worst choice. If they don't, they don't.
Those Dem senators and congressmen that tried to veer to the right all lost anyway. Except for Manchin, but he's an asshole and is going to lose the next one if he runs anyways. So fuck him.
That's actually pretty wrong. :mellow:
The Dems won in 2018 by running a lot of moderate candidates in "purple" districts.
"People need to realize on their own that he's the worst choice. If they don't, they don't." sounds like a recipe for a second Trump term.
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2019, 12:37:39 AMThe Dems won in 2018 by running a lot of moderate candidates in "purple" districts.
Yeah, the Democrats flipped large areas of the midwest and the Rust Belt in 2018 where Trump dominated in 2016.
Trump is vulnerable, the hard part for the Dems is to nominate a candidate that could win Ohio and, say, Pennsylvania.
I've heard however that it wasn't trumps right wing credentials that won it for him in many places, rather it was his radical populist credentials. Which can of course come from either extreme.
If both parties get the same votes in the same places, Trump will win again - that's a truism. The Democrats can hope for higher turnout but they would be well advised to try to get some Trump voters to switch. Even 1% would make a big difference.
The difference of appreciation seems to be whether bolder leftist policies will attract some of these Trump voters or whether some more centrist policies will attract these Trump voters.
My sense is this: the people who were liable to vote for Trump to stick it to the establishment are not those mythical reasonable conservatives... They are, for better or for worse, people who are more susceptible to a discourse of anger than a discourse of reasonableness. If anger, and desire for change is left to the sole Republicans, and is allowed to become part of Republican identity, the Democrats may still win this election, but the causes of Trumpism will go unaddressed.
The conundrum of the Democratic Party is that many of these bolder policies are driven by the more progressive part of the party, and its racial politics are at odds with some white resentment that does drive some of this anger.
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2019, 11:30:01 PM
In any case I have made it pretty clear that my opinion is that the current immigration laws fail because they are completely and hopelessly out of touch with the economic realities of labor needs. Our economy is dependent on these people, ergo why enforcement will usually fail. I would like to see some reasonable reform a la what GWB tried. But I was under the impression with collapsing birth rates all over Latin America this problem was solving itself. So excuse me if I am not freaking out about it like apparently I should be doing for some reason. It is not even in my top 10 issues. But in any case those suggestions seem like administrative reforms and reversing the human rights violations of the current Presidency not just throwing the borders open to everything and everybody. So just a tad misleading.
I still reject the idea that our economy is dependent on immigrants, illegal or otherwise. OTOH, I do support the idea of changing our immigration laws to allow it to be easier to come to the US legally, not on utilitarian grounds but on the grounds that it's the right thing to do.
Quote from: dps on August 14, 2019, 10:23:47 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2019, 11:30:01 PM
In any case I have made it pretty clear that my opinion is that the current immigration laws fail because they are completely and hopelessly out of touch with the economic realities of labor needs. Our economy is dependent on these people, ergo why enforcement will usually fail. I would like to see some reasonable reform a la what GWB tried. But I was under the impression with collapsing birth rates all over Latin America this problem was solving itself. So excuse me if I am not freaking out about it like apparently I should be doing for some reason. It is not even in my top 10 issues. But in any case those suggestions seem like administrative reforms and reversing the human rights violations of the current Presidency not just throwing the borders open to everything and everybody. So just a tad misleading.
I still reject the idea that our economy is dependent on immigrants, illegal or otherwise. OTOH, I do support the idea of changing our immigration laws to allow it to be easier to come to the US legally, not on utilitarian grounds but on the grounds that it's the right thing to do.
OK ?
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 14, 2019, 10:23:26 AMMy sense is this: the people who were liable to vote for Trump to stick it to the establishment are not those mythical reasonable conservatives... They are, for better or for worse, people who are more susceptible to a discourse of anger than a discourse of reasonableness. If anger, and desire for change is left to the sole Republicans, and is allowed to become part of Republican identity, the Democrats may still win this election, but the causes of Trumpism will go unaddressed.
The optics of the seemingly viable Dem progressive candidates next to Trump is what worries me. Imagine Pocahontas or Bernie side by side with Trump on a debate stage. Trump will be the moderate next to wizened socialist Bernie and uncharismatic wonkish Warren. Biden is the leftovers from the mid-90's political consensus most of us here came of age to and it has thoroughly run out of juice. Plus, he's aged badly and keeps having these repeated cognitive malfunctions.
As to why Trump got elected, the current paradigm is roadkill from both the left and the right, it was great for the investment and salary classes but immiserated millions of wage earners in the West who in the wake of the 2008 crash were in a justifiably foul mood.
Quote from: Legbiter on August 14, 2019, 10:45:03 AM
As to why Trump got elected, the current paradigm is roadkill from both the left and the right, it was great for the investment and salary classes but immiserated millions of wage earners in the West who in the wake of the 2008 crash were in a justifiably foul mood.
Trump's economic policy has been to slash working class access to health care, gut what little is left of labor protections in the US, and tilt the tax code even further (and massively) in favor of the super-rich. He is the "90s paradigm" taken to the ultimate extreme with the exception that he has a penchant for starting and losing trade wars.
Either wage earners voting Trump are fools or they are supporting him for reasons other than the pocketbook.
You can only lie to people so much before they start to get wise to your act.
My main hope for the election next year is that a sizeable number of nominal Trump voters, who say in polls that they approve of the President, don't feel energized to vote and stay home next November because Donald screwed them over one too many times.
I'm looking at you, farmers of America.
The Farmers have gotten completely and utterly fucked by Trump.
Which is ironic since I remember all the people saying the rural areas were voting Trump because everybody else had abandoned them economically...which wasn't true. But if it was then Trump has certainly not helped the situation, quite the opposite.
However having spent time in rural areas the chances the farmers make Trump pay for fucking them is slim to none.
Quote from: dps on August 14, 2019, 10:23:47 AM
I still reject the idea that our economy is dependent on immigrants, illegal or otherwise. OTOH, I do support the idea of changing our immigration laws to allow it to be easier to come to the US legally, not on utilitarian grounds but on the grounds that it's the right thing to do.
Well it might be true that if we could somehow eliminate all immigration the economy would not collapse. But there would be lots of losers in such an arrangement, particularly in the border states. Those economic interests are what keeps illegal immigration going.
But, in any case, sometimes people can come to the same place from different directions :P
Quote from: dps on August 14, 2019, 10:23:47 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2019, 11:30:01 PM
In any case I have made it pretty clear that my opinion is that the current immigration laws fail because they are completely and hopelessly out of touch with the economic realities of labor needs. Our economy is dependent on these people, ergo why enforcement will usually fail. I would like to see some reasonable reform a la what GWB tried. But I was under the impression with collapsing birth rates all over Latin America this problem was solving itself. So excuse me if I am not freaking out about it like apparently I should be doing for some reason. It is not even in my top 10 issues. But in any case those suggestions seem like administrative reforms and reversing the human rights violations of the current Presidency not just throwing the borders open to everything and everybody. So just a tad misleading.
I still reject the idea that our economy is dependent on immigrants, illegal or otherwise. OTOH, I do support the idea of changing our immigration laws to allow it to be easier to come to the US legally, not on utilitarian grounds but on the grounds that it's the right thing to do.
Its kind of like rejecting the idea of gravity before stepping off a tall building. If population growth declines or the US experiences population decreases, what happens to economic growth?
If the population decreases, it doesn't need economic growth.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 14, 2019, 11:55:33 AM
Either wage earners voting Trump are fools or they are supporting him for reasons other than the pocketbook.
It's without a doubt a bit of both - his economic policy, such as it is, is aimed almost entirely at evoking lost grandeur. Whether or not it works, is entirely different from the reasons why people would subscribe to the message. And because it's more about lost grandeur - or the sense of autonomy and social belonging that has been intertwined, in discourse at least, with economic growth - what he needs are mostly empty signs: unemployment rates, growth percentages, the opening of manufactures, etc.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 14, 2019, 01:30:07 PM
If the population decreases, it doesn't need economic growth.
Uh, why not?
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 14, 2019, 01:51:33 PM
It's without a doubt a bit of both - his economic policy, such as it is, is aimed almost entirely at evoking lost grandeur.
I don't think that's really true; it's far more crass than that. It's aimed at rentiers who earn various forms of passive returns on capital. I.e. people like him.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 14, 2019, 02:51:13 PM
I don't think that's really true; it's far more crass than that. It's aimed at rentiers who earn various forms of passive returns on capital. I.e. people like him.
Sorry, I expressed myself poorly: his economic *message*, not policy.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2019, 02:38:35 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 14, 2019, 01:30:07 PM
If the population decreases, it doesn't need economic growth.
Uh, why not?
If the economy contracts enough no immigrant will want to come to the US? Or some similar Trumpian nonsense.
Another interpretation is that if the economy stays the same size, but the population is contracting, then everyone is getting richer.
Quote from: Habbaku on August 14, 2019, 04:24:08 PM
Another interpretation is that if the economy stays the same size, but the population is contracting, then everyone is getting richer.
Sure, but for that to occur productivity would have to increase to make up for the drop in population. Not impossible but a big gamble for the sake of keeping brown people out. Given the number of foreign students in US STEM university programs I am not sure banning entry to immigrants would assist with increasing productivity.
Quote from: Habbaku on August 14, 2019, 04:24:08 PM
Another interpretation is that if the economy stays the same size, but the population is contracting, then everyone is getting richer.
Considering the way wealth has been redistributed in recent times of economic growth, I remain highly doubtful that this is a likely scenario.
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2019, 11:30:01 PM
In any case I have made it pretty clear that my opinion is that the current immigration laws fail because they are completely and hopelessly out of touch with the economic realities of labor needs. Our economy is dependent on these people, ergo why enforcement will usually fail.
My understanding was that illegals use far more in public benefits than they pay in taxes. That this burden largely doesn't fall on their employers doesn't change that this is a burden.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on August 14, 2019, 07:35:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2019, 11:30:01 PM
In any case I have made it pretty clear that my opinion is that the current immigration laws fail because they are completely and hopelessly out of touch with the economic realities of labor needs. Our economy is dependent on these people, ergo why enforcement will usually fail.
My understanding was that illegals use far more in public benefits than they pay in taxes. That this burden largely doesn't fall on their employers doesn't change that this is a burden.
:lol:
No, it's not the system that's wrong. It's the truly powerless folks' fault!
Here in California, undocumented workers pay taxes. They also pay to get a driver's license, etc. Since they are such an important part of the state's economy, and recent trends has moved to better pay for agricultural workers, California makes sure they pay their share. Seems to work.
Quote from: Habbaku on August 14, 2019, 04:24:08 PM
Another interpretation is that if the economy stays the same size, but the population is contracting, then everyone is getting richer.
Well, that did happen in Europe in the 14th century. Though there economy was based on land ownership. There was also a labor shortage and lower classes tried to use that to their advantage. They were slaughter as a result. We have a labor shortage now, but that hasn't really helped wages much.
Quote from: PDH on August 14, 2019, 07:49:26 PM
Here in California, undocumented workers pay taxes. They also pay to get a driver's license, etc. Since they are such an important part of the state's economy, and recent trends has moved to better pay for agricultural workers, California makes sure they pay their share. Seems to work.
If this was in response to me, I know all that. They're still a significant net burden, especially the large and growing proportion of them who don't work.
Quote from: Habbaku on August 14, 2019, 04:24:08 PM
Another interpretation is that if the economy stays the same size, but the population is contracting, then everyone is getting richer.
Most modern economies - including the US - have pay-as-you go pension systems. That ends up badly if population keeps contracting and new workers aren't replacing old ones.
Another side effect of declining population is that businesses come to expect declining demand over time and so will invest less. Business are run for cash and not to invest and expand. That leads to a stagnation equilibrium.
The US economy in particular has been organized for about a century and half on the premise of steadily increasing labor force and investment over time. Can't just turn that on a dime and expect no pain.
Yeah, I want to make it very clear that I don't buy that scenario in the least. Was just providing an alternative that could have been intended.
You're right, it's better to perpetually expand until we literally run out of resources.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 14, 2019, 09:54:14 PM
You're right, it's better to perpetually expand until we literally run out of resources.
Economic expansion does not necessarily mean increased use of limited resources. I suppose we could expand until we have used every erg of energy put out by the sun, but not in the near term.
Significant amounts of economic expansion have been concerned with using fewer resources to do the same job. But nice strawman.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on August 14, 2019, 07:35:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2019, 11:30:01 PM
In any case I have made it pretty clear that my opinion is that the current immigration laws fail because they are completely and hopelessly out of touch with the economic realities of labor needs. Our economy is dependent on these people, ergo why enforcement will usually fail.
My understanding was that illegals use far more in public benefits than they pay in taxes. That this burden largely doesn't fall on their employers doesn't change that this is a burden.
Presuming this is true, then having some kind of reform guest worker program to properly tax and monitor their public service usage might be something worth trying instead of continually trying the same failed tactics only more so.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on August 14, 2019, 08:07:19 PM
Quote from: PDH on August 14, 2019, 07:49:26 PM
Here in California, undocumented workers pay taxes. They also pay to get a driver's license, etc. Since they are such an important part of the state's economy, and recent trends has moved to better pay for agricultural workers, California makes sure they pay their share. Seems to work.
If this was in response to me, I know all that. They're still a significant net burden, especially the large and growing proportion of them who don't work.
Now wait a second. How can you know their labor trends?
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2019, 10:54:34 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on August 14, 2019, 08:07:19 PM
Quote from: PDH on August 14, 2019, 07:49:26 PM
Here in California, undocumented workers pay taxes. They also pay to get a driver's license, etc. Since they are such an important part of the state's economy, and recent trends has moved to better pay for agricultural workers, California makes sure they pay their share. Seems to work.
If this was in response to me, I know all that. They're still a significant net burden, especially the large and growing proportion of them who don't work.
Now wait a second. How can you know their labor trends?
He be talking out his ass again? :o
Alternatively, the same way PDH knows them(probably having read it somewhere).
PDH just said some basic policy initiatives, AD was acting like he had a large amount of very specific trends and claims so he had my attention.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 15, 2019, 01:07:36 AM
Alternatively, the same way PDH knows them(probably having read it somewhere).
I know it because it is the law here. Undocumented workers are needed for the agricultural sector most importantly, and this has been recognized for decades. Coordinated action by workers and support from the state government has increased wages over time. Workers are required to pay taxes, even agricultural workers, the state has become quite good at checking this and employers do not want to face large fines for doing things off the books.
The end result has helped the state. There are the other problems California faces, obviously, but the addition of such workers into the tax base has helped over time. California does run a surplus, and it seems in the best interest to continue such policies as agriculture is such a key part of the equation.
I do not know where the "large and growing proportion who do not work" comes from, that sounds like anecdotal pulling out scare phrases - the biggest issue is that after the first generation, the children of the workers are no longer in agriculture, but instead college trained and working in the larger economy.
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2019, 10:54:34 PM
Now wait a second. How can you know their labor trends?
Hold on, let me consult my crystal ball...
Illegals used to be disproportionately young men, now more of them are women with children. It's also easier for them to receive government benefits.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on August 15, 2019, 11:16:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2019, 10:54:34 PM
Now wait a second. How can you know their labor trends?
Hold on, let me consult my crystal ball pull something out of my ass...
Illegals used to be disproportionately young men, now more of them are women with children. It's also easier for them to receive government benefits.
FTFY. Really, you are going to have to try harder with your trolls.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on August 15, 2019, 11:16:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2019, 10:54:34 PM
Now wait a second. How can you know their labor trends?
Hold on, let me consult my crystal ball...
I am glad we have a clairvoyant on our board.
QuoteIllegals used to be disproportionately young men, now more of them are women with children. It's also easier for them to receive government benefits.
Like what? Food stamps and public school? I mean it is not like there are just a ton of great benefits they, or anybody really, can get. Also when you say they are a net burden you are talking only about taxes and not overall economic value I presume. But also schools are paid for with property taxes, which they might pay indirectly through rents so those might not show up.
I mean presuming we can accurately track that sort of thing. By definition these people are undocumented.
FWIW, there are a lot of contradictory stories out there about how much illegals contribute vs how much they utilize government services. AD didn't come up with that.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 15, 2019, 12:02:46 PM
FWIW, there are a lot of contradictory stories out there about how much illegals contribute vs how much they utilize government services. AD didn't come up with that.
I did not say he did. I was just curious since he seemed so confident about something I am not that confident about.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 14, 2019, 09:54:14 PM
You're right, it's better to perpetually expand until we literally run out of resources.
Economic growth spurs technological growth which in turn increases the the percentage of resources that can be exploited. Certainly most resources are non-renewable, but the technoligical growth may one day allow use to exploit resources in places that aren't Earth.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 15, 2019, 12:02:46 PM
FWIW, there are a lot of contradictory stories out there about how much illegals contribute vs how much they utilize government services. AD didn't come up with that.
There are loads of stories. Stories are just that, stories - often fanciful. There are also a lot of studies based on research. These seem to support the notion that those here illegally: 1) Have a majority who pay taxes (federal, state, local), including social security (even though they will not ever likely see anything from this), and 2) Use public services less than citizens or documented workers (because of fear of being deported).
Texas and California have reported the economic impact of undocumented workers exceeds the costs. Of course, as has happened many times before, the bugaboo of "Different kind of immigrants" is being raised to show that all these past studies no longer mean anything. But that card has been played again and again, it is akin to crying wolf.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 15, 2019, 12:02:46 PM
FWIW, there are a lot of contradictory stories out there about how much illegals contribute vs how much they utilize government services. AD didn't come up with that.
Plus, AD doesn't seem to distinguish between illegals (who mostly come through airports and overstay visas) and asylum seekers (who are not illegal at all). I'd say asylum seekers are probably taking more than giving, but that's the very nature of asylum seekers.
Quote from: grumbler on August 15, 2019, 04:43:18 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 15, 2019, 12:02:46 PM
FWIW, there are a lot of contradictory stories out there about how much illegals contribute vs how much they utilize government services. AD didn't come up with that.
Plus, AD doesn't seem to distinguish between illegals (who mostly come through airports and overstay visas) and asylum seekers (who are not illegal at all). I'd say asylum seekers are probably taking more than giving, but that's the very nature of asylum seekers.
Asylum seekers are imo preferable because they have no other alternative than to make a go of it in their new country. Anecdotally one of my partners was a child of a family granted asylum after they left Uganda and one of my clients was part of the Vietnamese Boat People who were granted asylum. Mobile affluent immigrants on the other hand often leave and in Vancouver help increase the price of real estate while running businesses and earning their money elsewhere.
Quote from: PDH on August 15, 2019, 01:51:13 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 15, 2019, 12:02:46 PM
FWIW, there are a lot of contradictory stories out there about how much illegals contribute vs how much they utilize government services. AD didn't come up with that.
There are loads of stories. Stories are just that, stories - often fanciful. There are also a lot of studies based on research. These seem to support the notion that those here illegally: 1) Have a majority who pay taxes (federal, state, local), including social security (even though they will not ever likely see anything from this), and 2) Use public services less than citizens or documented workers (because of fear of being deported).
Texas and California have reported the economic impact of undocumented workers exceeds the costs. Of course, as has happened many times before, the bugaboo of "Different kind of immigrants" is being raised to show that all these past studies no longer mean anything. But that card has been played again and again, it is akin to crying wolf.
FWIW, as someone who works in the retail sector and has a lot of everyday contact with the general public, I can say that my experience is that Hispanic immigrants are less likely to pay with Food Stamp cards and WIC cards than other groups.