2016 New Hampshire Primaries

Oh suck on a pecker. As far as reputable sources go, the studies supporting my argument outnumber yours 10 to 1. Americans don't like immigrants, they never have. That's what this boils down to.

 

I don't follow. I'm looking at Table A-8 for "Government Benefits and Services Received by Unlawful Immigrant Households Under Current Law, 2010. It comes to $3,797,680. Where are you looking? Are you sure you aren't looking at the projected cost during and after amnesty, which is what the entire paper is actually about?

 

We're talking overall economic impact here, keep up.

 

No control f 54.5 billion. They also estimate that the cost drops in the first years after amnesty

 

No they don't. Great argument. Why don't you pull the race card too?

 

I'm look at the data they gave. I see what they say in that summary, and I see it written on the far right of the tables as well as average per household. So why do the totals add up to where the tax paid in is greater than the cost of services received? I don't know, I'm asking.

 

Pray tell how they are making up $14k a person in economic impact if they are making $20k a year?

 

Total expenditures are well over $5 trillion. They seem to be backing out some sort of goods number to get to the number you have.

 

That number appears to be putting 100 percent of the cost of services to that number if you read the fine print. In other words I pay someone $50, that chart is saying I'm getting $50 benefit. Well that's obviously not a correct analogy. The real question is how much would I be paying if I didn't have access to that labor pool. Edit: now I don't know if that's what it's stating. It's confusing. In particular using my phone

 

It is not according to their current costs data.

Also, how could it be $5 trillion? They say there are roughly 11 million illegals. Let's assume those are all individual households (so super generously over-estimating) and they said that was a net cost of 14,000 per household. 11,000,000 x 14,000 =? 154,000,000,000? 154 billion is nowhere ****ing close to 5 trillion. I'm just trying to understand how they are arriving at that.

 

I don't know what they mean by "less pure public goods expenditures." Total expenditures is showing over $5

 

I'm leaving it for now. Maybe someone will come in here and clarify things for me tomorrow.

 

No expenditures is $5. Net it's $1. At least as far as I can understand. Edit: they are estimating 4 mil households at a negative $54 bil a year according to the summary. I still don't get the chart because your number or mine don't add up to the summary. Bleh. Reading this shit on your phone makes my head explode

 

I won't have time tommorow, but I'd like an explanation too. It's a very complicated study. Hell they even have an estimate of the amount of federal debt interest paid by illegals every year. God know how they came up with that. So many variables in these calculations. It's crazy

 

And btw your own study is showing a large negative economic impact at the state level, so even if you want to tell me net all Americans benefit you can understand why I personally don't want to subidize the rest of the country. And also your study is showing a small positive economic impact, nothing overwelming and certainly not a high enough number to get the universal approval from economists that you claim exists.

 

At first droski was like:

And then droski was like:

Because droski hadn't actually read it.

 

I can't tell you how much the missus enjoys it when someone asks what I do, and I reply, "I'm an adult film producer."

Last time I did it was when I was introduced to some folks she works with. Went over well.

 

Small positive economic impact. That's what I'm saying economists have a consensus on, I don't know what you're pulling "universal approval" from.

And I don't claim that it exists. It focking exists, it's a widely accepted idea.

 

I can't argue with this. And to go even further, while I personally vacillate on the whole immigration problem and particularly how to best and most fairly resolve it, it is the ignoring of the rule of law, where I place my supreme belief and assign the highest value, that is most unacceptable to me.

Basically, if a majority of Americans wants to provide a path to amnesty, then change the laws to allow for it. But if there is not sufficient support to do so, then it is what it is, and the existing and unedited the laws which remain, must be observed. There is no safe or suitable way to simply ignore them, because we find them inconvenient, difficult to enforce or even distasteful. If society is to truly function for the equal protection and interest of all, the rule of law must always prevail.

And Trump, for all of his bluster, is going to force America to confront this issue. Frankly, he may not like how that turns out, when America begins to comprehend the deportation of these people. But, it can't continue like it is.

So, that's quick peek behind the veil, so to speak.

 

Net neutral? Good grief.