Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Maxperson]

In contrast, some conservative think tanks have put forth an estimate that it will cost $6T over 50 years to legalize the illegal immigrants in the country today. Sounds like a lot, but it is less per year than the cost of deporting them (per DHS numbers) and the hit the economy would take per The Cato Institute's estimates.

17 billion x 50 years is 850 billion. Add in that 260 initial billion and you're at 1.11 trillion. How is that more than 6 trillion?

You didn't include the numbers for the cost of the fence, but I doubt it's going to be nearly 5 trillion dollars.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The idea of catching and deporting 80% of the illegals is absurd. It can't work.

I'm glad that you recognize that- that puts you ahead of the GOP frontrunner.

That's why you have to hit them where it hurts. In the pocket. If you aggressively hunt down and severely punish businesses and individuals that hire them, people won't hire them and they will leave. For proof of that, all you have to do is look at recession we just had. The illegals couldn't find work and were self-deporting all over the place. Wonder of wonders, we had a negative flow of illegals for a few years.

In economics, there is a rarely discussed principle called the economically efficient level of crime prevention. At some point, every crime becomes more expensive to prevent than permit.

Given the hundreds of billions of dollars economic contraction caused by even self-deportation of illegal immigrants, we may already be at that point. And that is assuming The Cato Institute accounted for the inflationary effects of businesses having to pay higher wages.

 

[Maxperson]

This is NOT about your illegal alien fetish. I am talking about legally adding more taxpayers by accepting more refugees. YOU keep interjecting illegal aliens like it's some kind of Tourettes tick.

Then your plan is even more absurd than I thought. There aren't enough refugees to make a dent in the amount we currently need. I was using illegals, because at least they have numbers in the millions and could make a dent. Millions can't overcome the current deficit. Thousands of refugees have less of a chance than I do of winning the lottery.

Of course they will. They did it before when the minimum wage was first created (and every time it was raised), and it didn't cause any catastrophe. According to the BLS, the percentage of change in the minimum wage has historically not affected the percentage of change in U.S. GDP, nor has raising the minimum wage affected the steady increase in per capita GDP. BLS also estimates that raising the minimum wage will result in 3.1 million people no longer needing food stamps. It is also known that people at the lowest end of the economic spectrum don't just throw this money in the bank, or in stocks: they spend it on things that they actually need but have been doing without, so that money will go right back into the economy and trickle across (?*). 600 economists, including seven Nobel Laureates agree that the minimum wage should be raised.

*I added a question mark because the bulk of increased spending doesn't trickle down, it trickles up to business-owners, B2B suppliers, and to taxing authorities. Only a small portion of it actually trickles down.

First, ever watch economists make guesses as to how the economy will react to events? I have. It's funny to see how many different opinions (mostly wrong) you get. Second, 600 is hardly the bulk of economists. In 2012 there were 16,900 with jobs (in the U.S.) and God knows how many more without.

 

[MechaPilot]

Then your plan is even more absurd than I thought. There aren't enough refugees to make a dent in the amount we currently need. I was using illegals, because at least they have numbers in the millions and could make a dent. Millions can't overcome the current deficit. Thousands of refugees have less of a chance than I do of winning the lottery.

New taxpayers alone don't have to overcome the deficit. The point of adding new taxpayers, as I have REPEATEDLY pointed out now is to provide an inflow of cash to the fund while a proper fix is hammered out. Social security probably never should have been designed so that the current generation of workers pays for the current generation of retirees, but it was also probably the only way they had to make payments to retirees available quickly when the program was created and implemented. Add it to the list of things that aren't perfect right away and that need eventual fixing (i.e. everything).

First, ever watch economists make guesses as to how the economy will react to events? I have. It's funny to see how many different opinions (mostly wrong) you get. Second, 600 is hardly the bulk of economists. In 2012 there were 16,900 with jobs (in the U.S.) and God knows how many more without.

I didn't say that 600 was the bulk of them, but getting 600 scholarly types to agree on just about anything is difficult enough that it's impressive. And don't forget the seven Nobel Laureates among that group.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

17 billion x 50 years is 850 billion. Add in that 260 initial billion and you're at 1.11 trillion. How is that more than 6 trillion?

For one thing, you've left out the $250B in annual economic contraction because there are @9.5-11.5M fewer economic actors being removed from the equation.

 

[Kramodlog]

He isn't droning American citizens to death.

You consider this a valid argument?

 

[Maxperson]

For one thing, you've left out the $250B in annual economic contraction because there are @9.5-11.5M fewer economic actors being removed from the equation.

Saving us billions annually in medical costs, schooling costs, and other programs that the illegals take advantage of. California alone pays 10.5 billion a year.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/6/20041206-102115-6766r/?page=all

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Honestly, I was surprised he even brought it up- at least one of the 4 Americans in question was strongly suspected as being a terrorist, and the warrants for the strikes were all cleared through the secret court process set up during the Bush administration. All 4 strikes were on foreign soil- not in the USA.

The other 3 killed were collateral damage- unfortunate, no doubt, but a small number compared to collateral damage expectations from traditional air strikes. And, from what I understand, despite not being the target of the strike, at least one of those 3 was also a suspected terrorist.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm glad that you recognize that- that puts you ahead of the GOP frontrunner.

There isn't a GOP candidate that could get my vote. The only Democrat that has a shot of getting my vote is Martin O'Malley and I doubt he can beat the disaster that is Clinton to get the nomination.

In economics, there is a rarely discussed principle called the economically efficient level of crime prevention. At some point, every crime becomes more expensive to prevent than permit.

Given the hundreds of billions of dollars economic contraction caused by even self-deportation of illegal immigrants, we may already be at that point. And that is assuming The Cato Institute accounted for the inflationary effects of businesses having to pay higher wages.

I know you haven't made this argument, but many here seem to think that raising the minimum wage for several million people won't have the impact you are describing there. If that's true, then it also won't have the impact when it comes to the illegals. Assuming 11.6 million illegals, many of them will be old, young or housewives. You're probably looking at 3-4 million in the workforce, a number of whom already make more than 7.25 an hour. That's far less than number of American's who will be affected by a minimum wage raise to the Federally proposed 10.10 an hour.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Saving us billions annually in medical costs, schooling costs, and other programs that the illegals take advantage of. California alone pays 10.5 billion a year.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/6/20041206-102115-6766r/?page=all

The Cato Institute's number was a net figure- IOW, costs like that were accounted for in their calculations to reach that total.

Their 2009 report explicitly mentions that they took into account said savings. (The 2012 report I cited used the same methodology.)
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tpa-040.pdf

A CBO (Congressional Budget Office) report on the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 concluded that a path to legalization for immigrants would increase federal revenues by $48 billion. Such a plan would see $23 billion in increased costs from the use of public services, but ultimately, it would produce a surplus of $25 billion for government coffers.