Liberal & Conservative Think Tanks Agree on The Net Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration

[sakinago]

Ok that post didn't quote right. This app is kind of a pain in the ass. My responses are in inside the quotations, after yours.

TY for letting me know. I appreciate your courtesy in doing that.

Sarcasm? I really can't tell.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Sarcasm? I really can't tell.

No. I was not being sarcastic; I was being completely sincere. Had you not explained what had happened, I would not have looked inside the quoted passage for your responses. I would have just thought you somehow goofed and managed to make a post that had no content from you.

 

[sakinago]

Sarcasm? I really can't tell.

No. I was not being sarcastic; I was being completely sincere. Had you not explained what had happened, I would not have looked inside the quoted passage for your responses. I would have just thought you somehow goofed and managed to make a post that had no content from you.

Like I said couldn't tell, hard to read through texts. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Sarcasm? I really can't tell.

No. I was not being sarcastic; I was being completely sincere. Had you not explained what had happened, I would not have looked inside the quoted passage for your responses. I would have just thought you somehow goofed and managed to make a post that had no content from you.

Like I said couldn't tell, hard to read through texts. Thanks for clearing that up.

You're welcome.

 

[usmbguest5318]

My responses are in inside the quotations, after yours.

I've put your remarks in quotes below and associated them with your post above.

Out of curiosity is English your native language?

What's not to understand? This concept is simple. Really not hard to understand at all, you must not be trying. It's called the Overton window.
Overton window - Wikipedia

TY for the clarification.

your conclusion is that the cost of deporting would outweigh the gain, and be a net loss in the end.

• Are you referring to the conclusion in the post to which you responded (that you quoted), which was post #54? If so, that isn't a conclusion found in that post. I'm not sure you understand what that post was about for this is the second time you've inaccurately stated what conclusions/assertions are in that post. I'm okay with your not understanding it, but I don't want to explain it further, and I don't want to continue discussing that post's content/theme with someone who doesn't understand it.
  
  Edit:
  Don't bother answering the question above...as you'll see from my remarks below, I'm done with this line of discussion with you. I no longer care how you'll reply.

you are equating addition to the GDP with overall gain from migrants.

The "addition to GDP" and the "overall gain" are, in this instance, the same things.

• Contributions to GDP + (reductions to GDP) = Net gain to GDP in all instances whereby contributions exceed reductions.
  
• Contributions to GDP + (reductions to GDP) = Net GDP loss in all instances whereby reductions exceed contributions.

I was very clear to use the word "net." Do you know what that means? It's means "gains minus costs." My entire discussion has been in consistent consideration of both, that is the net impact, not just the costs and not just the gains.

So now you and I can just stop conversing on this topic because I won't waste my time conversing with someone to whom I had to explain basic math and the meaning of the word "net." Sorry, but that's just not going to continue. Good day.

 

[sakinago]

My responses are in inside the quotations, after yours.

I've put your remarks in quotes below and associated them with your post above.

Out of curiosity is English your native language?

What's not to understand? This concept is simple. Really not hard to understand at all, you must not be trying. It's called the Overton window.
Overton window - Wikipedia

TY for the clarification.

your conclusion is that the cost of deporting would outweigh the gain, and be a net loss in the end.

• Are you referring to the conclusion in the post to which you responded (that you quoted), which was post #54? If so, that isn't a conclusion found in that post. I'm not sure you understand what that post was about for this is the second time you've inaccurately stated what conclusions/assertions are in that post. I'm okay with your not understanding it, but I don't want to explain it further, and I don't want to continue discussing that post's content/theme with someone who doesn't understand it.
  
  Edit:
  Don't bother answering the question above...as you'll see from my remarks below, I'm done with this line of discussion with you. I no longer care how you'll reply.

you are equating addition to the GDP with overall gain from migrants.

The "addition to GDP" and the "overall gain" are, in this instance, the same things.

• Contributions to GDP + (reductions to GDP) = Net gain to GDP in all instances whereby contributions exceed reductions.
  
• Contributions to GDP + (reductions to GDP) = Net GDP loss in all instances whereby reductions exceed contributions.

I was very clear to use the word "net." Do you know what that means? It's means "gains minus costs." My entire discussion has been in consistent consideration of both, that is the net impact, not just the costs and not just the gains.

So now you and I can just stop conversing on this topic because I won't waste my time conversing with someone to whom I had to explain basic math and the meaning of the word "net." Sorry, but that's just not going to continue. Good day.

Yes English is my first language you racist prick. And yes I understand what net means, do you understand what GDP means. You're equating addition to GDP with addition to tax dollars...WHICH IS WHERE YOUR PREMISE FAILS. Thanks for clarifying in your equation, which is proving my point!! And that equation still doesn't take into consideration that more workers entering willing to work for lower wages and no benefits such as health, 401ks, and oh by the way we don't have to pay payroll taxes on many of the migrant workers= driving down the wage of American citizens no matter if they're Hispanic, black, white, Asian...As the CBO stated that the left has newfound love with (not that you have to be a genius to figure that out). And this effect is only a negative for America, a sinking tide lowers all ships. Unless you think lower wages across the board is good for Americans?

And again I can't believe I have to bring this up again, but your argument is still based on ends justify the means.... even though the original premise is still faulty. If your willing to accept that than congrats, you've taken leftism to its final ends...that many on the left can't admit.

Let me reiterate where your premise is faulty...you equate NET GDP GAIN OVER DRAIN ON TAX SYSTEM. And then further justify it saying it's much more expensive to deport, and even more when you have deported and lost that net GDP gained. I feel like I made that pretty obvious now, eben do no speeka engalish so good.

 

[danielpalos]

My responses are in inside the quotations, after yours.

I've put your remarks in quotes below and associated them with your post above.

Out of curiosity is English your native language?

What's not to understand? This concept is simple. Really not hard to understand at all, you must not be trying. It's called the Overton window.
Overton window - Wikipedia

TY for the clarification.

your conclusion is that the cost of deporting would outweigh the gain, and be a net loss in the end.

• Are you referring to the conclusion in the post to which you responded (that you quoted), which was post #54? If so, that isn't a conclusion found in that post. I'm not sure you understand what that post was about for this is the second time you've inaccurately stated what conclusions/assertions are in that post. I'm okay with your not understanding it, but I don't want to explain it further, and I don't want to continue discussing that post's content/theme with someone who doesn't understand it.
  
  Edit:
  Don't bother answering the question above...as you'll see from my remarks below, I'm done with this line of discussion with you. I no longer care how you'll reply.

you are equating addition to the GDP with overall gain from migrants.

The "addition to GDP" and the "overall gain" are, in this instance, the same things.

• Contributions to GDP + (reductions to GDP) = Net gain to GDP in all instances whereby contributions exceed reductions.
  
• Contributions to GDP + (reductions to GDP) = Net GDP loss in all instances whereby reductions exceed contributions.

I was very clear to use the word "net." Do you know what that means? It's means "gains minus costs." My entire discussion has been in consistent consideration of both, that is the net impact, not just the costs and not just the gains.

So now you and I can just stop conversing on this topic because I won't waste my time conversing with someone to whom I had to explain basic math and the meaning of the word "net." Sorry, but that's just not going to continue. Good day.

Yes English is my first language you racist prick. And yes I understand what net means, do you understand what GDP means. You're equating addition to GDP with addition to tax dollars...WHICH IS WHERE YOUR PREMISE FAILS. Thanks for clarifying in your equation, which is proving my point!! And that equation still doesn't take into consideration that more workers entering willing to work for lower wages and no benefits such as health, 401ks, and oh by the way we don't have to pay payroll taxes on many of the migrant workers= driving down the wage of American citizens no matter if they're Hispanic, black, white, Asian...As the CBO stated that the left has newfound love with (not that you have to be a genius to figure that out). And this effect is only a negative for America, a sinking tide lowers all ships. Unless you think lower wages across the board is good for Americans?

And again I can't believe I have to bring this up again, but your argument is still based on ends justify the means.... even though the original premise is still faulty. If your willing to accept that than congrats, you've taken leftism to its final ends...that many on the left can't admit.

Let me reiterate where your premise is faulty...you equate NET GDP GAIN OVER DRAIN ON TAX SYSTEM. And then further justify it saying it's much more expensive to deport, and even more when you have deported and lost that net GDP gained. I feel like I made that pretty obvious now, eben do no speeka engalish so good.

that doesn't seem to match our current economic reality.

We have the largest economy in the world, even with illegal immigration.

Shouldn't we have a worse economy, if what those of your point of view claim, were true?

 

[sakinago]

My responses are in inside the quotations, after yours.

I've put your remarks in quotes below and associated them with your post above.

Out of curiosity is English your native language?

What's not to understand? This concept is simple. Really not hard to understand at all, you must not be trying. It's called the Overton window.
Overton window - Wikipedia

TY for the clarification.

your conclusion is that the cost of deporting would outweigh the gain, and be a net loss in the end.

• Are you referring to the conclusion in the post to which you responded (that you quoted), which was post #54? If so, that isn't a conclusion found in that post. I'm not sure you understand what that post was about for this is the second time you've inaccurately stated what conclusions/assertions are in that post. I'm okay with your not understanding it, but I don't want to explain it further, and I don't want to continue discussing that post's content/theme with someone who doesn't understand it.
  
  Edit:
  Don't bother answering the question above...as you'll see from my remarks below, I'm done with this line of discussion with you. I no longer care how you'll reply.

you are equating addition to the GDP with overall gain from migrants.

The "addition to GDP" and the "overall gain" are, in this instance, the same things.

• Contributions to GDP + (reductions to GDP) = Net gain to GDP in all instances whereby contributions exceed reductions.
  
• Contributions to GDP + (reductions to GDP) = Net GDP loss in all instances whereby reductions exceed contributions.

I was very clear to use the word "net." Do you know what that means? It's means "gains minus costs." My entire discussion has been in consistent consideration of both, that is the net impact, not just the costs and not just the gains.

So now you and I can just stop conversing on this topic because I won't waste my time conversing with someone to whom I had to explain basic math and the meaning of the word "net." Sorry, but that's just not going to continue. Good day.

Yes English is my first language you racist prick. And yes I understand what net means, do you understand what GDP means. You're equating addition to GDP with addition to tax dollars...WHICH IS WHERE YOUR PREMISE FAILS. Thanks for clarifying in your equation, which is proving my point!! And that equation still doesn't take into consideration that more workers entering willing to work for lower wages and no benefits such as health, 401ks, and oh by the way we don't have to pay payroll taxes on many of the migrant workers= driving down the wage of American citizens no matter if they're Hispanic, black, white, Asian...As the CBO stated that the left has newfound love with (not that you have to be a genius to figure that out). And this effect is only a negative for America, a sinking tide lowers all ships. Unless you think lower wages across the board is good for Americans?

And again I can't believe I have to bring this up again, but your argument is still based on ends justify the means.... even though the original premise is still faulty. If your willing to accept that than congrats, you've taken leftism to its final ends...that many on the left can't admit.

Let me reiterate where your premise is faulty...you equate NET GDP GAIN OVER DRAIN ON TAX SYSTEM. And then further justify it saying it's much more expensive to deport, and even more when you have deported and lost that net GDP gained. I feel like I made that pretty obvious now, eben do no speeka engalish so good.

that doesn't seem to match our current economic reality.

We have the largest economy in the world, even with illegal immigration.

Shouldn't we have a worse economy, if what those of your point of view claim, were true?

Your point is large economy= good economy=better wages? Not really how that works.
A. I'm pretty sure china has surpassed us as the largest economy a few years ago. Their economy is very unstable, and their wages are chicken shit. China has pretty much invented a new form of slavery.

B. Large economy doesn't mean good economy. We have had the slowest recovery from a recession in about 80 years. That federal reserve has been using quantitative easing every years since the recession, printing an additional 2 trillion dollars a year. They have also have been loaning money with a 0% interest rate to try to further help stimulating the economy. Problem is since loans are so cheap, the people getting the loans are just dumping that money into their own stocks, inflating our stock market. What they were expected to do with that money is give out loans, expand business, invest etc. We never let the market self correct in 2008, and have been artificially propping it up, just creating a bigger and bigger bubble. At the same time our government is borrowing about a million dollars a minute, money that we do not have. We're up to almost 20 trillion in national debt.

C. Large economy does not equal better wages. American workers haven't seen a wage increase in 15 years despite rising inflation, taxes, cost of living, food prices, and things like healthcare.

 

[usmbguest5318]

We have the largest economy in the world, even with illegal immigration.

GDP ranking | Data

 

[sakinago]

We have the largest economy in the world, even with illegal immigration.

GDP ranking | Data

Ok so they haven't overtaken us yet. My point still remains the same. China, the 2nd biggest GDP, does not have a stable economy, and their wages are trash.

 

[danielpalos]

My responses are in inside the quotations, after yours.

I've put your remarks in quotes below and associated them with your post above.

Out of curiosity is English your native language?

What's not to understand? This concept is simple. Really not hard to understand at all, you must not be trying. It's called the Overton window.
Overton window - Wikipedia

TY for the clarification.

your conclusion is that the cost of deporting would outweigh the gain, and be a net loss in the end.

• Are you referring to the conclusion in the post to which you responded (that you quoted), which was post #54? If so, that isn't a conclusion found in that post. I'm not sure you understand what that post was about for this is the second time you've inaccurately stated what conclusions/assertions are in that post. I'm okay with your not understanding it, but I don't want to explain it further, and I don't want to continue discussing that post's content/theme with someone who doesn't understand it.
  
  Edit:
  Don't bother answering the question above...as you'll see from my remarks below, I'm done with this line of discussion with you. I no longer care how you'll reply.

you are equating addition to the GDP with overall gain from migrants.

The "addition to GDP" and the "overall gain" are, in this instance, the same things.

• Contributions to GDP + (reductions to GDP) = Net gain to GDP in all instances whereby contributions exceed reductions.
  
• Contributions to GDP + (reductions to GDP) = Net GDP loss in all instances whereby reductions exceed contributions.

I was very clear to use the word "net." Do you know what that means? It's means "gains minus costs." My entire discussion has been in consistent consideration of both, that is the net impact, not just the costs and not just the gains.

So now you and I can just stop conversing on this topic because I won't waste my time conversing with someone to whom I had to explain basic math and the meaning of the word "net." Sorry, but that's just not going to continue. Good day.

Yes English is my first language you racist prick. And yes I understand what net means, do you understand what GDP means. You're equating addition to GDP with addition to tax dollars...WHICH IS WHERE YOUR PREMISE FAILS. Thanks for clarifying in your equation, which is proving my point!! And that equation still doesn't take into consideration that more workers entering willing to work for lower wages and no benefits such as health, 401ks, and oh by the way we don't have to pay payroll taxes on many of the migrant workers= driving down the wage of American citizens no matter if they're Hispanic, black, white, Asian...As the CBO stated that the left has newfound love with (not that you have to be a genius to figure that out). And this effect is only a negative for America, a sinking tide lowers all ships. Unless you think lower wages across the board is good for Americans?

And again I can't believe I have to bring this up again, but your argument is still based on ends justify the means.... even though the original premise is still faulty. If your willing to accept that than congrats, you've taken leftism to its final ends...that many on the left can't admit.

Let me reiterate where your premise is faulty...you equate NET GDP GAIN OVER DRAIN ON TAX SYSTEM. And then further justify it saying it's much more expensive to deport, and even more when you have deported and lost that net GDP gained. I feel like I made that pretty obvious now, eben do no speeka engalish so good.

that doesn't seem to match our current economic reality.

We have the largest economy in the world, even with illegal immigration.

Shouldn't we have a worse economy, if what those of your point of view claim, were true?

Your point is large economy= good economy=better wages? Not really how that works.
A. I'm pretty sure china has surpassed us as the largest economy a few years ago. Their economy is very unstable, and their wages are chicken shit. China has pretty much invented a new form of slavery.

B. Large economy doesn't mean good economy. We have had the slowest recovery from a recession in about 80 years. That federal reserve has been using quantitative easing every years since the recession, printing an additional 2 trillion dollars a year. They have also have been loaning money with a 0% interest rate to try to further help stimulating the economy. Problem is since loans are so cheap, the people getting the loans are just dumping that money into their own stocks, inflating our stock market. What they were expected to do with that money is give out loans, expand business, invest etc. We never let the market self correct in 2008, and have been artificially propping it up, just creating a bigger and bigger bubble. At the same time our government is borrowing about a million dollars a minute, money that we do not have. We're up to almost 20 trillion in national debt.

C. Large economy does not equal better wages. American workers haven't seen a wage increase in 15 years despite rising inflation, taxes, cost of living, food prices, and things like healthcare.

A previous democrat administration was able to realize massive federal budget surpluses and the lowest unemployment rate in thirty years, back then.

Even illegal immigration is not the problem; lousy management is. Congress makes public policies that affect us all, regardless of whether or not they are promoting the general welfare of our Republic.