| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| NW30, my comment that you quoted related to hospitals treating sick folks, many of which are probably illegal immigrants without insurance. Your "at the border" comment is just a useless dodge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's all related, which makes my answer accurate the way I see things, we just see things differently.
A dodge? Hardly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| An effort to praise Robert Kennedy becomes an excuse for right wingers to post fake news from Fux news and hate on immigrants. Sad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Few on the right actually do some checking before they post. Such it is with the claim that undocumented migrants cost the taxpayers vast sums. From politifact:
| Quote: | Half-True Trump
"Current immigration policy imposes as much as $300 billion annually in net fiscal costs on U.S. taxpayers."
— Donald Trump on Friday, December 15th, 2017 in White House graphic
Do immigrants cost U.S. taxpayers $300 billion annually?
By Miriam Valverde on Tuesday, January 23rd, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.
President Donald Trump wants immigrants to come based on skills, not family ties, so he’s pushing to limit the number of relatives lawful permanent residents can petition to join them in the United States.
A page on the White House website argues so-called "chain migration" is bad for the U.S. economy.
"There is general agreement amongst immigration experts that low-skilled migrants create a net fiscal deficit, creating more in government expenditures than they pay in taxes. According to one study, current immigration policy imposes as much as $300 billion annually in net fiscal costs on U.S. taxpayers," said one of the graphics posted Dec. 15.
Graphic posted on WhiteHouse.gov
The economic impact of immigration is widely debated, but PolitiFact decided to take a closer look at the $300 billion figure.
Trump’s team highlighted a September 2016 Washington Times story headlined: "Mass immigration costs government $296 billion a year, depresses wages." It reported on a study from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on the economic and fiscal consequences of immigration.
A consultant who contributed to the report told us that in 2013 the total fiscal burden -- average outlays minus average receipts multipled by 55.5 million individuals -- was $279 billion for the first generation of immigrants. But making a conclusion on that one figure is a mighty case of cherry-picking.
Economic and fiscal consequences report
The National Academies found that first-generation immigrants (who were born outside of the United States) cost governments more money than the native-born population. The costs are largely taken on by state and local governments that educate the immigrants’ children.
But members of the second generation "are among the strongest economic and fiscal contributors in the U.S. population," the report said, with tax contributions greater than their parents and the native-born population.
In the long term, the immigrant impact is "generally positive" at the federal level but remains negative at state and local levels, varying significantly across states.
Sponsored Content
Men's Slim Fit Non-Iron Cotton Satin Check Dress Shirt
By paulfredrick.com
"To characterize that one number as the cost to current native-born taxpayers, is absolutely a case of cherry-picking one result out of a very detailed report," said Gretchen Donehower, an academic specialist at the University of California at Berkeley and consultant who contributed to the report.
Donehower gave us three caveats to the White House’s message:
The government runs on a deficit, so on average, taxpayers, including the native-born, benefit more than they pay in taxes. While members of the first, second, and third generations on average all cost more than they pay, we are all pushing a substantial amount of debt onto future generations — and immigrants and their descendants will also be "on the hook" for that debt.
Some costs won’t go away even if immigrants do. If all of the first-generation immigrants suddenly left the country, the government wouldn’t immediately have its expense burden reduced by $279 billion. Calculations in the study included defense costs and interest on the existing public debt, which would not go down without the 55.5 million immigrants. If those costs were excluded, the total fiscal burden for the first generation and dependents would go down to $43 billion, and the per capita burden would be more for the native-born population than for the first-generation immigrants.
The overall effect of immigration on economic growth was positive. Whatever costs immigrants might present now will be "paid back" by overall economic growth that will lead to more tax revenue on average for the government and less demand for need-based benefit programs. "The $279 billion calculation does not include any estimate of this effect and so is an upper bound on total fiscal impact," Donehower said.
The study analyzed fiscal impacts using assumptions under different scenarios, which led to varying outcomes, said Chris Mackie, a study director with the Committee on National Statistics at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The $279 billion impact stems from the combination of worst-case assumptions, he said. Under other assumptions, the fiscal burden was $43 billion.
The point is that these numbers are estimates and depend on various factors, including immigrants’ age, education and timeframe examined.
The study also said the historical record suggests that the total net fiscal impact of immigrants across all levels of government has become more positive over time.
"The evidence does not suggest that current immigrant flows cost native-born taxpayers money over the long-run nor does it provide support for the notion that lowering immigration quotas or stepping up enforcement of existing immigration laws would generate savings to existing taxpayers," said a post on Econofact co-authored by Donehower and Francine Blau, an economics professor at Cornell University who chaired the panel that released the report.
The claim from the White House shows "a pretty misleading reading of the study," said Margaret Peters, an assistant professor of political science at the University of California-Los Angeles.
"While the first generation does impose fiscal costs, those costs are more than made up for at the federal level by the second generation (the children of immigrants)," Peters said. "On the state level, it is true that immigrants impose more of a burden in large part because they have children who go to school and states don't always recoup the costs of schooling."
David Dyssegaard Kallick, director of immigration research at the Fiscal Policy Institute, said, "This is just sophistry."
Since the United States has been running a deficit for years, "by definition, all Americans have a bigger net cost than contribution — first-generation immigrants, second-generation immigrants, and those of us who have been here for three or more generations," he said. "That’s a failure of tax policy, not a story about immigrants."
Our ruling
The White House claimed that "current immigration policy imposes as much as $300 billion annually in net fiscal costs on U.S. taxpayers."
A study from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine analyzed the fiscal impact of immigration under different scenarios. Under some assumptions, the fiscal burden was $279 billion, but $43 billion in other scenarios.
The report also found that U.S.-born children with at least one foreign-born parent are among the strongest economic and fiscal contributors, thanks in part to the spending by local governments on their education.
The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details. We rate it Half True. |
Imagine that, agent orange went off half cocked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wsurfer
Joined: 17 Aug 2000
Posts: 1635
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mac wrote: | Few on the right actually do some checking before they post. Such it is with the claim that undocumented migrants cost the taxpayers vast sums. From politifact:
| Quote: | Half-True Trump
"Current immigration policy imposes as much as $300 billion annually in net fiscal costs on U.S. taxpayers."
— Donald Trump on Friday, December 15th, 2017 in White House graphic
Do immigrants cost U.S. taxpayers $300 billion annually?
By Miriam Valverde on Tuesday, January 23rd, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.
President Donald Trump wants immigrants to come based on skills, not family ties, so he’s pushing to limit the number of relatives lawful permanent residents can petition to join them in the United States.
A page on the White House website argues so-called "chain migration" is bad for the U.S. economy.
"There is general agreement amongst immigration experts that low-skilled migrants create a net fiscal deficit, creating more in government expenditures than they pay in taxes. According to one study, current immigration policy imposes as much as $300 billion annually in net fiscal costs on U.S. taxpayers," said one of the graphics posted Dec. 15.
Graphic posted on WhiteHouse.gov
The economic impact of immigration is widely debated, but PolitiFact decided to take a closer look at the $300 billion figure.
Trump’s team highlighted a September 2016 Washington Times story headlined: "Mass immigration costs government $296 billion a year, depresses wages." It reported on a study from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on the economic and fiscal consequences of immigration.
A consultant who contributed to the report told us that in 2013 the total fiscal burden -- average outlays minus average receipts multipled by 55.5 million individuals -- was $279 billion for the first generation of immigrants. But making a conclusion on that one figure is a mighty case of cherry-picking.
Economic and fiscal consequences report
The National Academies found that first-generation immigrants (who were born outside of the United States) cost governments more money than the native-born population. The costs are largely taken on by state and local governments that educate the immigrants’ children.
But members of the second generation "are among the strongest economic and fiscal contributors in the U.S. population," the report said, with tax contributions greater than their parents and the native-born population.
In the long term, the immigrant impact is "generally positive" at the federal level but remains negative at state and local levels, varying significantly across states.
Sponsored Content
Men's Slim Fit Non-Iron Cotton Satin Check Dress Shirt
By paulfredrick.com
"To characterize that one number as the cost to current native-born taxpayers, is absolutely a case of cherry-picking one result out of a very detailed report," said Gretchen Donehower, an academic specialist at the University of California at Berkeley and consultant who contributed to the report.
Donehower gave us three caveats to the White House’s message:
The government runs on a deficit, so on average, taxpayers, including the native-born, benefit more than they pay in taxes. While members of the first, second, and third generations on average all cost more than they pay, we are all pushing a substantial amount of debt onto future generations — and immigrants and their descendants will also be "on the hook" for that debt.
Some costs won’t go away even if immigrants do. If all of the first-generation immigrants suddenly left the country, the government wouldn’t immediately have its expense burden reduced by $279 billion. Calculations in the study included defense costs and interest on the existing public debt, which would not go down without the 55.5 million immigrants. If those costs were excluded, the total fiscal burden for the first generation and dependents would go down to $43 billion, and the per capita burden would be more for the native-born population than for the first-generation immigrants.
The overall effect of immigration on economic growth was positive. Whatever costs immigrants might present now will be "paid back" by overall economic growth that will lead to more tax revenue on average for the government and less demand for need-based benefit programs. "The $279 billion calculation does not include any estimate of this effect and so is an upper bound on total fiscal impact," Donehower said.
The study analyzed fiscal impacts using assumptions under different scenarios, which led to varying outcomes, said Chris Mackie, a study director with the Committee on National Statistics at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The $279 billion impact stems from the combination of worst-case assumptions, he said. Under other assumptions, the fiscal burden was $43 billion.
The point is that these numbers are estimates and depend on various factors, including immigrants’ age, education and timeframe examined.
The study also said the historical record suggests that the total net fiscal impact of immigrants across all levels of government has become more positive over time.
"The evidence does not suggest that current immigrant flows cost native-born taxpayers money over the long-run nor does it provide support for the notion that lowering immigration quotas or stepping up enforcement of existing immigration laws would generate savings to existing taxpayers," said a post on Econofact co-authored by Donehower and Francine Blau, an economics professor at Cornell University who chaired the panel that released the report.
The claim from the White House shows "a pretty misleading reading of the study," said Margaret Peters, an assistant professor of political science at the University of California-Los Angeles.
"While the first generation does impose fiscal costs, those costs are more than made up for at the federal level by the second generation (the children of immigrants)," Peters said. "On the state level, it is true that immigrants impose more of a burden in large part because they have children who go to school and states don't always recoup the costs of schooling."
David Dyssegaard Kallick, director of immigration research at the Fiscal Policy Institute, said, "This is just sophistry."
Since the United States has been running a deficit for years, "by definition, all Americans have a bigger net cost than contribution — first-generation immigrants, second-generation immigrants, and those of us who have been here for three or more generations," he said. "That’s a failure of tax policy, not a story about immigrants."
Our ruling
The White House claimed that "current immigration policy imposes as much as $300 billion annually in net fiscal costs on U.S. taxpayers."
A study from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine analyzed the fiscal impact of immigration under different scenarios. Under some assumptions, the fiscal burden was $279 billion, but $43 billion in other scenarios.
The report also found that U.S.-born children with at least one foreign-born parent are among the strongest economic and fiscal contributors, thanks in part to the spending by local governments on their education.
The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details. We rate it Half True. |
Imagine that, agent orange went off half cocked. |
Still waiting for the swamp to be drained, instead of adding more water and weeds!
SAD  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nw30 wrote: | | swchandler wrote: |
Lastly, if you don't get rid of the disease, it will continue to do its damage. The way that I like to look at it, it's American citizens and businesses that hire illegals immigrants are the disease here, and it's not the illegal immigrants. |
If you think that is the only magnet, then it's no wonder you feel the way you do, you've got a lot to learn about the multitude of magnets that are out there enticing the illegals, it's not just work.
Many of them have no interest in honest work, but they have great interest in our welfare system, medical services, schools, and even driver's licenses here in Ca., most all of which don't require a job. Hell just the opportunity of being able to stroll thru one of our supermarkets is like Disneyland to them.
On balance the illegals hurt our economy far more than they help it. |
Have you ever been to a Mexican supermarket NW? OMG! They are the most amazing stores I have ever been in. There is one in LaPaz that is bigger than anything I have been in the States...It was like "Disneylando" to me. Sorry, that sounded racist...hmmm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thank god for immigrants opening Mexican restaurants. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The question that needs to be asked is about our need for immigrants. The illegal ones are just a reflection our failure to address the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| coboardhead wrote: | | nw30 wrote: | | swchandler wrote: |
Lastly, if you don't get rid of the disease, it will continue to do its damage. The way that I like to look at it, it's American citizens and businesses that hire illegals immigrants are the disease here, and it's not the illegal immigrants. |
If you think that is the only magnet, then it's no wonder you feel the way you do, you've got a lot to learn about the multitude of magnets that are out there enticing the illegals, it's not just work.
Many of them have no interest in honest work, but they have great interest in our welfare system, medical services, schools, and even driver's licenses here in Ca., most all of which don't require a job. Hell just the opportunity of being able to stroll thru one of our supermarkets is like Disneyland to them.
On balance the illegals hurt our economy far more than they help it. |
Have you ever been to a Mexican supermarket NW? OMG! They are the most amazing stores I have ever been in. There is one in LaPaz that is bigger than anything I have been in the States...It was like "Disneylando" to me. Sorry, that sounded racist...hmmm. |
Yes, been to Mexico many times, love it, but I wasn't necessarily talking about Mexicans only. You do realize that there is a lot of pass thru from other countries south of there, but I shouldn't have to mention that to you, you should know that, but you'd rather assume that I'm a racist.
Fuck off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mac wrote: | | Thank god for immigrants opening Mexican restaurants. |
I agree, but the illegals can't really do that, can they? That's a good thing, it would mean illegal competition, which isn't fair to the legal immigrants. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
