Trump's problematic economic policies

[nat4900]

No, you tend to agree with anything Trump disagrees with.

Actually I would FULLY agree with Trump if he called himself a clueless, pompous clown....So there !!!

 

[Indeependent]

No, you tend to agree with anything Trump disagrees with.

Actually I would FULLY agree with Trump if he called himself a clueless, pompous clown....So there !!!

Which shows how clueless you are.
But you've already proven that with your analysis of the Asian Economy and it's effects on Blacks.

 

[Indeependent]

Yet YOU are the one propagating it.

Fine, fine....I'll let others "judge".....

You are de facto a racist.

 

[MisterBeale]

The Hillary Recession, by Larry Kudlow, National Review

Trump knows you can’t tax your way into prosperity. This economy may be perilously close to recession. That was the message of the second-quarter real-GDP report and its meager 1.2 percent growth rate. Over the past year, real GDP has slipped to a paltry 1.2 percent. Business investment continues to fall. Building and factory construction has dropped sharply. Productivity is flat. The profits recession is still in force. And what’s the Hillary Clinton plan? Tax us into prosperity.

In her own words at the DNC on Thursday night, this is the fix: “Wall Street, corporations, and the super-rich are going to start paying their fair share of taxes.” Why? “Not because we resent success. [!] Because when more than 90 percent of gains have gone to the top 1 percent, that’s where the money is.” Let me get this right. In order to spur growth, Hillary intends to raise taxes on individuals, businesses, capital gains, stock trading, and firms that move overseas (which they do because the U.S. has the most uncompetitive tax system in the corporate world).

In addition, Hillary’s door is open for a carbon tax, higher payroll taxes, and a 25 percent gun tax. She also argued in Philadelphia that the economy is not working the way it should because our democracy isn’t working the way it should. Huh?

What she’s getting at is appointing Supreme Court justices who “will get money out of politics” and passing “a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.” Citizens United removed spending limits for super-PACs. And yet those mean and nasty super-PACs have thus far benefited from pro-Hillary hedge-fund contributions to the tune of $48.5 million, according to the Wall Street Journal. Donald Trump, on the other hand, has received only $19,000 from hedge funds. Get it? Citizens United, according to Hillary, is the source of our weak recovery and must be overturned. Meanwhile, she is the big beneficiary of the Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited political donations. Next there are the recurring themes of class warfare and inequality, roots of evil according to Hillary. Turns out that the top 1 percent received a big share of income growth during the recovery. Okay, but it also suffered the biggest loss during the Great Recession. Research from Scott Winship of the Manhattan Institute shows that during the recession, the top 1 percent lost 36 percent of its income while the bottom 90 percent lost 12 percent. And through 2014, the top 1 percent was still poorer by 18 percent than it was in 2000. That’s compared to a 9 percent decline for the rest of us. According to Winship, income for the top 1 percenters was basically no higher in 2014 than in 2000. Turns out that group bumped into the same income stagnation suffered by the U.S. middle class since 2000.

And according to new studies by Aparna Mathur of AEI, raising top marginal tax rates reduces growth incentives and yields very few revenues. Yet in addition to higher tax rates, Hillary wants $1 trillion in new spending programs. The numbers also don’t add up for Obama, who defended his so-called recovery at the DNC and even called Hillary, a 30-year member of the establishment, a change-maker.

Obama’s seven-year recovery averaged 2.1 percent real growth at an annualized rate. For historical comparison, after seven years, JFK’s economy increased by 5.4 percent yearly and Reagan’s by 4.5 percent. Did JFK and Reagan beget long booms by raising taxes? No. They cut tax rates across the board. Hillary is a combination of Barack Obama 3.0 and Bernie Sanders 2.0. This is not change. This will not yield strong growth, lift jobs and wages, and make America more globally competitive.

MORE 2016 HILLARY CLINTON, YOU’RE NO JOHN F. KENNEDY TRUMP’S FATAL FLAW ROSS PEROT’S LESSONS FOR TODAY A week prior to the DNC Donald Trump offered a different perspective at the RNC: “America is one of the highest-taxed nations in the world. Reducing taxes will cause new companies and new jobs to come roaring back into our country. Then we are going to deal with the issue of regulation, one of the greatest job-killers overall. . . .

We are going to lift restrictions on the production of American energy. . . . With these new economic policies, trillions of dollars will start flowing into our country.”

So Trump wants to reduce tax rates and regulations, unleash energy, and make America the most hospitable investment destination in the world. Hillary wants to raise taxes, regulations, and spending, and put the energy sector out of business. (She would abolish coal and oil-and-gas fracking.) No wonder the blue-collar, hard-hat, Democratic middle class is going for Trump. Hillary is not an agent of change.

Nor does she have any idea how to restore rapid economic growth. Instead, she is a prisoner of the Left. Tax the rich, inequality, redistribution. If Trump stays on his growth message, he’ll whup her in November.

I have always found it fascinating that the DNC is running someone that is at once running someone that claims things are going great, while at the same time is going to be a "change maker."

WTH?

Don't nominees from the incumbent party usually run on the record of the previous incumbent or not?

 

[MisterBeale]

Yet YOU are the one propagating it.

Fine, fine....I'll let others "judge".....

You are de facto a racist.

Naw, I think he knows what he is doing, I think he is racist by birth. He is a de jure racist.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yet YOU are the one propagating it.

Fine, fine....I'll let others "judge".....

No judgment necessary.
Business Visas and Trespassers have kept Blacks shining shoes and serving fries.

In my area, the fry servers are all trespassers, not a black to be seen.

 

[MisterBeale]

Christ, you're the racist. How is shining shoes more racist than scooping ice cream?

For fuck's sake.

Hey moron, its the image that YOUR ilk propagates, like this right winger in Colorado sending out this picture .....If you STILL don't get it, seek help.

No, seriously, tell me what my "ilk" is? I'm curious.


Quote for me something I've typed that indicated to you how you think I am a bigot. Go on smarty pants.


You on the other hand, saying one job can be inherently more racist than the other? Whatever. Any job can be linked with racism, or not.

OTH;

Scooping Ice Cream, if you know the History? As I am sure SJ was clueless to. . .


How the tune played by ice cream trucks is one of the most RACIST songs in history

• Widely used ice cream truck jingle is based upon bigoted song which mocks African Americans
• The song is popularly known as 'Turkey in the Straw'
• However, this based on minstrel song that is entitled, 'N***** Love a Watermelon, Ha! Ha! Ha!

...
Ice cream truck jingle is one of the most RACIST songs in history


The moral of the story? Stop trying to use the race card when your ideas are inferior. It makes you look like a douche.

 

[Andylusion]

There is always the lingering question among right wingers as to how Hillary Clinton can better our economy, but little scrutiny has been give to what Trump has proposed in his economic plans (probably because Trump's big mouth and flip flopping on immigration steal the spotlight)....

Now, most right wingers will dismiss Moody's assessment as "left wing" but actually the leading researcher on the assessment is an ex-conservative..

Trump has three really bad economic policies, according to Moody's
Trump's plans would cost 3.5 million jobs:

1. Trade: Trump's idea to put big taxes on imports from China and Mexico would hurt growth, Moody's finds. Americans would face higher prices at the store on many goods, inflation would rise overall, and the U.S. would get less foreign investment.

2. Immigration: The plan to limit immigration and deport up to 11 million illegal immigrants would be costly -- for the government and businesses.

3. Taxes: Trump proposes large tax cuts for individuals and businesses. At the same time, Trump wouldn't touch the big drivers of government spending - Social Security and Medicare. As a result, the tax cuts are costly. The Tax Policy Center estimates Trump's plan would add nearly $10 trillion to the debt over the next decade.

Another result of these policies would be an increase in inequality.

"More than one-third of the proposed tax cuts on personal income will go to the top 1% of income earners, with the average taxpayer in this group receiving a reduction in their tax bill of $275,000. Taxpayers in the bottom 99% of income earners will receive a tax cut of less than $2,500," Moody's writes.

That's problematic for the economy for a number of reasons, but Moody's points out that middle and working class families are the ones that typically go out and spend money at stores, restaurants and Disney World when they get extra dollars. It would be better for the economy to give the 99% more of the tax break,
according to Moody's..

Trump's plan would cause 3.5 million job losses, Moody's says

2. Immigration: The plan to limit immigration and deport up to 11 million illegal immigrants would be costly -- for the government and businesses.

And it would save money for local governments and increase wages for low-skilled Americans.

Debatable. Whatever increase to wages, would be at the extreme low end, for $1 or less an hour.

That said, it would inherently harm the GDP. Regardless of anything else, immigrants bring GDP. In fact every additional person that works, is a benefit to society. Whatever tiny gain from a slightly higher wage, would be out weight by the loss of GDP and loss of consumer demand.

Now I'm still in favor of fixing the illegal immigrant problem, but rather to make it simpler to immigrate legally.

Ironically though, if Trump were to do with, he would eliminate 11 million people who are uninsured people, thus reducing the number of uninsured people in the US, by more than how much ObamaCare did. That would be amusing to me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is always the lingering question among right wingers as to how Hillary Clinton can better our economy, but little scrutiny has been give to what Trump has proposed in his economic plans (probably because Trump's big mouth and flip flopping on immigration steal the spotlight)....

Now, most right wingers will dismiss Moody's assessment as "left wing" but actually the leading researcher on the assessment is an ex-conservative..

Trump has three really bad economic policies, according to Moody's
Trump's plans would cost 3.5 million jobs:

1. Trade: Trump's idea to put big taxes on imports from China and Mexico would hurt growth, Moody's finds. Americans would face higher prices at the store on many goods, inflation would rise overall, and the U.S. would get less foreign investment.

2. Immigration: The plan to limit immigration and deport up to 11 million illegal immigrants would be costly -- for the government and businesses.

3. Taxes: Trump proposes large tax cuts for individuals and businesses. At the same time, Trump wouldn't touch the big drivers of government spending - Social Security and Medicare. As a result, the tax cuts are costly. The Tax Policy Center estimates Trump's plan would add nearly $10 trillion to the debt over the next decade.

Another result of these policies would be an increase in inequality.

"More than one-third of the proposed tax cuts on personal income will go to the top 1% of income earners, with the average taxpayer in this group receiving a reduction in their tax bill of $275,000. Taxpayers in the bottom 99% of income earners will receive a tax cut of less than $2,500," Moody's writes.

That's problematic for the economy for a number of reasons, but Moody's points out that middle and working class families are the ones that typically go out and spend money at stores, restaurants and Disney World when they get extra dollars. It would be better for the economy to give the 99% more of the tax break,
according to Moody's..

Trump's plan would cause 3.5 million job losses, Moody's says

2. Immigration: The plan to limit immigration and deport up to 11 million illegal immigrants would be costly -- for the government and businesses.

And it would save money for local governments and increase wages for low-skilled Americans.

Debatable. Whatever increase to wages, would be at the extreme low end, for $1 or less an hour.

That said, it would inherently harm the GDP. Regardless of anything else, immigrants bring GDP. In fact every additional person that works, is a benefit to society. Whatever tiny gain from a slightly higher wage, would be out weight by the loss of GDP and loss of consumer demand.

Now I'm still in favor of fixing the illegal immigrant problem, but rather to make it simpler to immigrate legally.

Ironically though, if Trump were to do with, he would eliminate 11 million people who are uninsured people, thus reducing the number of uninsured people in the US, by more than how much ObamaCare did. That would be amusing to me.

Whatever increase to wages, would be at the extreme low end, for $1 or less an hour.

And millions more employed Americans. And billions less government spending.

That said, it would inherently harm the GDP. Regardless of anything else, immigrants bring GDP.

They can take it back to Mexico and fix their economy.

Now I'm still in favor of fixing the illegal immigrant problem, but rather to make it simpler to immigrate legally.

Nah. Boot all the illegals. If we need workers, set up a temporary worker visa.
Harvesting season ends, they go back.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ooh this thread is full of wannabe liberal economists, who actually know jackshit about the economy.

 

[Andylusion]

There is always the lingering question among right wingers as to how Hillary Clinton can better our economy, but little scrutiny has been give to what Trump has proposed in his economic plans (probably because Trump's big mouth and flip flopping on immigration steal the spotlight)....

Now, most right wingers will dismiss Moody's assessment as "left wing" but actually the leading researcher on the assessment is an ex-conservative..

Trump has three really bad economic policies, according to Moody's
Trump's plans would cost 3.5 million jobs:

1. Trade: Trump's idea to put big taxes on imports from China and Mexico would hurt growth, Moody's finds. Americans would face higher prices at the store on many goods, inflation would rise overall, and the U.S. would get less foreign investment.

2. Immigration: The plan to limit immigration and deport up to 11 million illegal immigrants would be costly -- for the government and businesses.

3. Taxes: Trump proposes large tax cuts for individuals and businesses. At the same time, Trump wouldn't touch the big drivers of government spending - Social Security and Medicare. As a result, the tax cuts are costly. The Tax Policy Center estimates Trump's plan would add nearly $10 trillion to the debt over the next decade.

Another result of these policies would be an increase in inequality.

"More than one-third of the proposed tax cuts on personal income will go to the top 1% of income earners, with the average taxpayer in this group receiving a reduction in their tax bill of $275,000. Taxpayers in the bottom 99% of income earners will receive a tax cut of less than $2,500," Moody's writes.

That's problematic for the economy for a number of reasons, but Moody's points out that middle and working class families are the ones that typically go out and spend money at stores, restaurants and Disney World when they get extra dollars. It would be better for the economy to give the 99% more of the tax break,
according to Moody's..

Trump's plan would cause 3.5 million job losses, Moody's says

2. Immigration: The plan to limit immigration and deport up to 11 million illegal immigrants would be costly -- for the government and businesses.

And it would save money for local governments and increase wages for low-skilled Americans.

Debatable. Whatever increase to wages, would be at the extreme low end, for $1 or less an hour.

That said, it would inherently harm the GDP. Regardless of anything else, immigrants bring GDP. In fact every additional person that works, is a benefit to society. Whatever tiny gain from a slightly higher wage, would be out weight by the loss of GDP and loss of consumer demand.

Now I'm still in favor of fixing the illegal immigrant problem, but rather to make it simpler to immigrate legally.

Ironically though, if Trump were to do with, he would eliminate 11 million people who are uninsured people, thus reducing the number of uninsured people in the US, by more than how much ObamaCare did. That would be amusing to me.

Whatever increase to wages, would be at the extreme low end, for $1 or less an hour.

And millions more employed Americans. And billions less government spending.

That said, it would inherently harm the GDP. Regardless of anything else, immigrants bring GDP.

They can take it back to Mexico and fix their economy.

Now I'm still in favor of fixing the illegal immigrant problem, but rather to make it simpler to immigrate legally.

Nah. Boot all the illegals. If we need workers, set up a temporary worker visa.
Harvesting season ends, they go back.

First off, the only way that employers would increase wages, is if they can't fill positions.

If American workers fill all the jobs of immigrant workers, then wages will not increase.

Second, back in the late 1990s, I was working at Wendy's and a lady came in, and told us she only intended to work long enough to give back on welfare. She even told us the date when she qualified again, and sure enough didn't show up anymore.

This is going to happen whether there are immigrants to take those jobs, or not. As long as we pay people to not work, many millions of people are not going to work.

Third, I'm not sure what cost to government you are referring to, other than individual state governments. If California wants to give money to illegals, that's their problem, and their taxes.

But at the Federal level, the largest funding is Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, which no illegal has access to. Yet illegals still pay state level sales tax, and property taxes, which offset the costs of all government services.

Now it doesn't cover all costs, that's true. So deporting would reduce government expenses slightly, but not nearly enough than the loss of economic production.

Yes they could take their production back to Mexico, but so could all immigrants in the US, which accounts for the vast majority of the entire population of this country. That's not a good argument. If it's true for them, it's true for you.

Lastly, I think you greatly underestimate the damage this could do to the economy.

Look at Japan. One of the biggest reason they have been in a nearly 20 year stagnation, is because of their falling population levels.

With more and more people retiring, and fewer and fewer young to take their place, the cost on the tax payer, to pay for retirement benefits, is destructive at best. And that's being nice.

For example property prices have crashed in Japan. Japan never had the property bubble most of the world had, because housing prices have been falling for over 15 years. Basically since 1992, housing prices have fallen. And not just in suburbs, or in rural, but even in major urban centers.

In Tokyo itself, property values have fallen by more than 75%.

Why? Because the population has fallen. The only reason the house you own, has any value whatsoever, is because every year there are more people, and people need places to live, and every new couple looking for a home, is more demand for housing. That pushes up prices, which pushes up investment.

In Tokyo, they don't have this. Every year there are fewer couples looking for homes.

Japan’s Growing Number of Ghost Towns and the Reasons Behind It

Entire towns and villages that existed for 50 years, have dried up and blown away.

But that's just what you can see externally. What you don't see is that the consumer demand in Japan has dropped with the population. It's easy to see empty building, but harder to see the slump in consumer demand. Fewer people, means fewer consumers. You can clearly see that as the population growth started dropping in the 1990s, the increase in consumer demand also started leveling off. In fact, for the past 5 years, consumer demand is almost flat. As the population declines faster, I would not be too surprised if demand growth were to go negative.

Why am I pointing all this out?

Because if we had eliminated immigration in the 1970s, our population would be falling right now. If we stopped immigration prior to the 1970s, our population would be falling years ago. If we stop immigration today, the population will start falling in 2030. If we stop immigration, and deport 11 million people.... Hard to say. Could be in just a few years time.

Then we'll be in economic stagnation just like Japan. With one minor difference. Our economy is the crutch that has held Japan steady during it's stagnation. What economy anywhere in the world, is going to be our crutch?

 

[nat4900]

But at the Federal level, the largest funding is Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, which no illegal has access to. Yet illegals still pay state level sales tax, and property taxes, which offset the costs of all government services.

Now it doesn't cover all costs, that's true. So deporting would reduce government expenses slightly, but not nearly enough than the loss of economic production.

The above is worth repeating....Thanks

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is always the lingering question among right wingers as to how Hillary Clinton can better our economy, but little scrutiny has been give to what Trump has proposed in his economic plans (probably because Trump's big mouth and flip flopping on immigration steal the spotlight)....

Now, most right wingers will dismiss Moody's assessment as "left wing" but actually the leading researcher on the assessment is an ex-conservative..

Trump has three really bad economic policies, according to Moody's
Trump's plans would cost 3.5 million jobs:

1. Trade: Trump's idea to put big taxes on imports from China and Mexico would hurt growth, Moody's finds. Americans would face higher prices at the store on many goods, inflation would rise overall, and the U.S. would get less foreign investment.

2. Immigration: The plan to limit immigration and deport up to 11 million illegal immigrants would be costly -- for the government and businesses.

3. Taxes: Trump proposes large tax cuts for individuals and businesses. At the same time, Trump wouldn't touch the big drivers of government spending - Social Security and Medicare. As a result, the tax cuts are costly. The Tax Policy Center estimates Trump's plan would add nearly $10 trillion to the debt over the next decade.

Another result of these policies would be an increase in inequality.

"More than one-third of the proposed tax cuts on personal income will go to the top 1% of income earners, with the average taxpayer in this group receiving a reduction in their tax bill of $275,000. Taxpayers in the bottom 99% of income earners will receive a tax cut of less than $2,500," Moody's writes.

That's problematic for the economy for a number of reasons, but Moody's points out that middle and working class families are the ones that typically go out and spend money at stores, restaurants and Disney World when they get extra dollars. It would be better for the economy to give the 99% more of the tax break,
according to Moody's..

Trump's plan would cause 3.5 million job losses, Moody's says

2. Immigration: The plan to limit immigration and deport up to 11 million illegal immigrants would be costly -- for the government and businesses.

And it would save money for local governments and increase wages for low-skilled Americans.

Debatable. Whatever increase to wages, would be at the extreme low end, for $1 or less an hour.

That said, it would inherently harm the GDP. Regardless of anything else, immigrants bring GDP. In fact every additional person that works, is a benefit to society. Whatever tiny gain from a slightly higher wage, would be out weight by the loss of GDP and loss of consumer demand.

Now I'm still in favor of fixing the illegal immigrant problem, but rather to make it simpler to immigrate legally.

Ironically though, if Trump were to do with, he would eliminate 11 million people who are uninsured people, thus reducing the number of uninsured people in the US, by more than how much ObamaCare did. That would be amusing to me.

Whatever increase to wages, would be at the extreme low end, for $1 or less an hour.

And millions more employed Americans. And billions less government spending.

That said, it would inherently harm the GDP. Regardless of anything else, immigrants bring GDP.

They can take it back to Mexico and fix their economy.

Now I'm still in favor of fixing the illegal immigrant problem, but rather to make it simpler to immigrate legally.

Nah. Boot all the illegals. If we need workers, set up a temporary worker visa.
Harvesting season ends, they go back.

First off, the only way that employers would increase wages, is if they can't fill positions.

If American workers fill all the jobs of immigrant workers, then wages will not increase.

Second, back in the late 1990s, I was working at Wendy's and a lady came in, and told us she only intended to work long enough to give back on welfare. She even told us the date when she qualified again, and sure enough didn't show up anymore.

This is going to happen whether there are immigrants to take those jobs, or not. As long as we pay people to not work, many millions of people are not going to work.

Third, I'm not sure what cost to government you are referring to, other than individual state governments. If California wants to give money to illegals, that's their problem, and their taxes.

But at the Federal level, the largest funding is Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, which no illegal has access to. Yet illegals still pay state level sales tax, and property taxes, which offset the costs of all government services.

Now it doesn't cover all costs, that's true. So deporting would reduce government expenses slightly, but not nearly enough than the loss of economic production.

Yes they could take their production back to Mexico, but so could all immigrants in the US, which accounts for the vast majority of the entire population of this country. That's not a good argument. If it's true for them, it's true for you.

Lastly, I think you greatly underestimate the damage this could do to the economy.

Look at Japan. One of the biggest reason they have been in a nearly 20 year stagnation, is because of their falling population levels.

With more and more people retiring, and fewer and fewer young to take their place, the cost on the tax payer, to pay for retirement benefits, is destructive at best. And that's being nice.

For example property prices have crashed in Japan. Japan never had the property bubble most of the world had, because housing prices have been falling for over 15 years. Basically since 1992, housing prices have fallen. And not just in suburbs, or in rural, but even in major urban centers.

In Tokyo itself, property values have fallen by more than 75%.

Why? Because the population has fallen. The only reason the house you own, has any value whatsoever, is because every year there are more people, and people need places to live, and every new couple looking for a home, is more demand for housing. That pushes up prices, which pushes up investment.

In Tokyo, they don't have this. Every year there are fewer couples looking for homes.

Japan’s Growing Number of Ghost Towns and the Reasons Behind It

Entire towns and villages that existed for 50 years, have dried up and blown away.

But that's just what you can see externally. What you don't see is that the consumer demand in Japan has dropped with the population. It's easy to see empty building, but harder to see the slump in consumer demand. Fewer people, means fewer consumers. You can clearly see that as the population growth started dropping in the 1990s, the increase in consumer demand also started leveling off. In fact, for the past 5 years, consumer demand is almost flat. As the population declines faster, I would not be too surprised if demand growth were to go negative.

Why am I pointing all this out?

Because if we had eliminated immigration in the 1970s, our population would be falling right now. If we stopped immigration prior to the 1970s, our population would be falling years ago. If we stop immigration today, the population will start falling in 2030. If we stop immigration, and deport 11 million people.... Hard to say. Could be in just a few years time.

Then we'll be in economic stagnation just like Japan. With one minor difference. Our economy is the crutch that has held Japan steady during it's stagnation. What economy anywhere in the world, is going to be our crutch?

If American workers fill all the jobs of immigrant workers, then wages will not increase.

If you have 10 million illegal aliens and 10 million Americans competing for 10 million jobs, wages will rise when there are no illegal aliens competing for those jobs, even if every single job is filled.

This is going to happen whether there are immigrants to take those jobs, or not. As long as we pay people to not work, many millions of people are not going to work.

Yes, we need to reform welfare and reverse the massive expansion of the rolls that occurred under Obama.

Third, I'm not sure what cost to government you are referring to, other than individual state governments.

State and local governments bear a heavy cost due to illegal aliens.

If California wants to give money to illegals, that's their problem, and their taxes.

Sure. And after the illegals go home, California can give money to someone else.

Yet illegals still pay state level sales tax, and property taxes, which offset the costs of all government services.

That's some stunningly bad math you have there.

Now it doesn't cover all costs, that's true.

Not even close.

Yes they could take their production back to Mexico, but so could all immigrants in the US, which accounts for the vast majority of the entire population of this country

All immigrants make up well more than 50% of our population?
Please, share your calculations.

For example property prices have crashed in Japan. Japan never had the property bubble most of the world had,

You must be very young.

 

[nat4900]

If American workers fill all the jobs of immigrant workers, then wages will not increase.

If you have 10 million illegal aliens and 10 million Americans competing for 10 million jobs, wages will rise when there are no illegal aliens competing for those jobs, even if every single job is filled.

TWO responses to the above moronic assertion......

Not all of those "10 million"are workers and even a simpleton should conclude that....and

Two, American workers who are unemployed may not easily relocate to CA, or AZ or CO for the $20 per day of work.

Now, if you want your pound of tomatoes to cost $30, well, that may be a different story.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If American workers fill all the jobs of immigrant workers, then wages will not increase.

If you have 10 million illegal aliens and 10 million Americans competing for 10 million jobs, wages will rise when there are no illegal aliens competing for those jobs, even if every single job is filled.

TWO responses to the above moronic assertion......

Not all of those "10 million"are workers and even a simpleton should conclude that....and

Two, American workers who are unemployed may not easily relocate to CA, or AZ or CO for the $20 per day of work.

Now, if you want your pound of tomatoes to cost $30, well, that may be a different story.

Not all of those "10 million"are workers and even a simpleton should conclude that

There are at least 20 million illegals.

 

[Andylusion]

There is always the lingering question among right wingers as to how Hillary Clinton can better our economy, but little scrutiny has been give to what Trump has proposed in his economic plans (probably because Trump's big mouth and flip flopping on immigration steal the spotlight)....

Now, most right wingers will dismiss Moody's assessment as "left wing" but actually the leading researcher on the assessment is an ex-conservative..

Trump has three really bad economic policies, according to Moody's
Trump's plans would cost 3.5 million jobs:

1. Trade: Trump's idea to put big taxes on imports from China and Mexico would hurt growth, Moody's finds. Americans would face higher prices at the store on many goods, inflation would rise overall, and the U.S. would get less foreign investment.

2. Immigration: The plan to limit immigration and deport up to 11 million illegal immigrants would be costly -- for the government and businesses.

3. Taxes: Trump proposes large tax cuts for individuals and businesses. At the same time, Trump wouldn't touch the big drivers of government spending - Social Security and Medicare. As a result, the tax cuts are costly. The Tax Policy Center estimates Trump's plan would add nearly $10 trillion to the debt over the next decade.

Another result of these policies would be an increase in inequality.

"More than one-third of the proposed tax cuts on personal income will go to the top 1% of income earners, with the average taxpayer in this group receiving a reduction in their tax bill of $275,000. Taxpayers in the bottom 99% of income earners will receive a tax cut of less than $2,500," Moody's writes.

That's problematic for the economy for a number of reasons, but Moody's points out that middle and working class families are the ones that typically go out and spend money at stores, restaurants and Disney World when they get extra dollars. It would be better for the economy to give the 99% more of the tax break,
according to Moody's..

Trump's plan would cause 3.5 million job losses, Moody's says

2. Immigration: The plan to limit immigration and deport up to 11 million illegal immigrants would be costly -- for the government and businesses.

And it would save money for local governments and increase wages for low-skilled Americans.

Debatable. Whatever increase to wages, would be at the extreme low end, for $1 or less an hour.

That said, it would inherently harm the GDP. Regardless of anything else, immigrants bring GDP. In fact every additional person that works, is a benefit to society. Whatever tiny gain from a slightly higher wage, would be out weight by the loss of GDP and loss of consumer demand.

Now I'm still in favor of fixing the illegal immigrant problem, but rather to make it simpler to immigrate legally.

Ironically though, if Trump were to do with, he would eliminate 11 million people who are uninsured people, thus reducing the number of uninsured people in the US, by more than how much ObamaCare did. That would be amusing to me.

Whatever increase to wages, would be at the extreme low end, for $1 or less an hour.

And millions more employed Americans. And billions less government spending.

That said, it would inherently harm the GDP. Regardless of anything else, immigrants bring GDP.

They can take it back to Mexico and fix their economy.

Now I'm still in favor of fixing the illegal immigrant problem, but rather to make it simpler to immigrate legally.

Nah. Boot all the illegals. If we need workers, set up a temporary worker visa.
Harvesting season ends, they go back.

First off, the only way that employers would increase wages, is if they can't fill positions.

If American workers fill all the jobs of immigrant workers, then wages will not increase.

Second, back in the late 1990s, I was working at Wendy's and a lady came in, and told us she only intended to work long enough to give back on welfare. She even told us the date when she qualified again, and sure enough didn't show up anymore.

This is going to happen whether there are immigrants to take those jobs, or not. As long as we pay people to not work, many millions of people are not going to work.

Third, I'm not sure what cost to government you are referring to, other than individual state governments. If California wants to give money to illegals, that's their problem, and their taxes.

But at the Federal level, the largest funding is Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, which no illegal has access to. Yet illegals still pay state level sales tax, and property taxes, which offset the costs of all government services.

Now it doesn't cover all costs, that's true. So deporting would reduce government expenses slightly, but not nearly enough than the loss of economic production.

Yes they could take their production back to Mexico, but so could all immigrants in the US, which accounts for the vast majority of the entire population of this country. That's not a good argument. If it's true for them, it's true for you.

Lastly, I think you greatly underestimate the damage this could do to the economy.

Look at Japan. One of the biggest reason they have been in a nearly 20 year stagnation, is because of their falling population levels.

With more and more people retiring, and fewer and fewer young to take their place, the cost on the tax payer, to pay for retirement benefits, is destructive at best. And that's being nice.

For example property prices have crashed in Japan. Japan never had the property bubble most of the world had, because housing prices have been falling for over 15 years. Basically since 1992, housing prices have fallen. And not just in suburbs, or in rural, but even in major urban centers.

In Tokyo itself, property values have fallen by more than 75%.

Why? Because the population has fallen. The only reason the house you own, has any value whatsoever, is because every year there are more people, and people need places to live, and every new couple looking for a home, is more demand for housing. That pushes up prices, which pushes up investment.

In Tokyo, they don't have this. Every year there are fewer couples looking for homes.

Japan’s Growing Number of Ghost Towns and the Reasons Behind It

Entire towns and villages that existed for 50 years, have dried up and blown away.

But that's just what you can see externally. What you don't see is that the consumer demand in Japan has dropped with the population. It's easy to see empty building, but harder to see the slump in consumer demand. Fewer people, means fewer consumers. You can clearly see that as the population growth started dropping in the 1990s, the increase in consumer demand also started leveling off. In fact, for the past 5 years, consumer demand is almost flat. As the population declines faster, I would not be too surprised if demand growth were to go negative.

Why am I pointing all this out?

Because if we had eliminated immigration in the 1970s, our population would be falling right now. If we stopped immigration prior to the 1970s, our population would be falling years ago. If we stop immigration today, the population will start falling in 2030. If we stop immigration, and deport 11 million people.... Hard to say. Could be in just a few years time.

Then we'll be in economic stagnation just like Japan. With one minor difference. Our economy is the crutch that has held Japan steady during it's stagnation. What economy anywhere in the world, is going to be our crutch?

If American workers fill all the jobs of immigrant workers, then wages will not increase.

If you have 10 million illegal aliens and 10 million Americans competing for 10 million jobs, wages will rise when there are no illegal aliens competing for those jobs, even if every single job is filled.

This is going to happen whether there are immigrants to take those jobs, or not. As long as we pay people to not work, many millions of people are not going to work.

Yes, we need to reform welfare and reverse the massive expansion of the rolls that occurred under Obama.

Third, I'm not sure what cost to government you are referring to, other than individual state governments.

State and local governments bear a heavy cost due to illegal aliens.

If California wants to give money to illegals, that's their problem, and their taxes.

Sure. And after the illegals go home, California can give money to someone else.

Yet illegals still pay state level sales tax, and property taxes, which offset the costs of all government services.

That's some stunningly bad math you have there.

Now it doesn't cover all costs, that's true.

Not even close.

Yes they could take their production back to Mexico, but so could all immigrants in the US, which accounts for the vast majority of the entire population of this country

All immigrants make up well more than 50% of our population?
Please, share your calculations.

For example property prices have crashed in Japan. Japan never had the property bubble most of the world had,

You must be very young.

Jobs are not static. And Americans are not competing for them. As more people are employed, and more people are buying and consuming, more jobs are created. You eliminate 11 million consumers, jobs will disappear.

I would need more evidence of this 'heavy' cost. Some cost possibly, depending more on the state level laws in place. But even there, the more generous the state level laws are, it's more likely that US citizens taking advantage of them, create a far greater burden than any illegals.

The only exceptions, are left-wing backward states like California.

It's not bad math. It's documented by several published papers.

All immigrants make up well more than 50% of our population?
Please, share your calculations.

Well it simply depends on where you draw the cut off line.

Do we say that everyone here before 1970s, is no longer an immigrant, and everyone that came here after the 1970s is? Or perhaps the 1960s? Or the 1940s? Or the 1900s? At what point do we consider people who immigrated here, and their offspring, to no longer be immigrants?

Because my family came from Germany, prior to the existence of the US. George Sebastian Eichelberger, came to the America, in about 1758. He died in 1777.

What's my point? We are nearly all immigrants. It just depends on where you put the cut off year. If you move the cut off year back far enough, 99% of the country is immigrants.

There is some truth to this picture. Now that doesn't mean I am in favor of illegal immigration. Absolutely not. I want clear, simply, easy legal immigration.

But my point is, everyone here in this country is an immigrant. We just arbitrarily place a magic year, and claim everyone that came before X year, is no longer an immigrant.

 

[nat4900]

There are at least 20 million illegals.

Ahhhhhh, this nation thanks you for your accurate and painstaking census on "illegals"......LOL

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

2. Immigration: The plan to limit immigration and deport up to 11 million illegal immigrants would be costly -- for the government and businesses.

And it would save money for local governments and increase wages for low-skilled Americans.

Debatable. Whatever increase to wages, would be at the extreme low end, for $1 or less an hour.

That said, it would inherently harm the GDP. Regardless of anything else, immigrants bring GDP. In fact every additional person that works, is a benefit to society. Whatever tiny gain from a slightly higher wage, would be out weight by the loss of GDP and loss of consumer demand.

Now I'm still in favor of fixing the illegal immigrant problem, but rather to make it simpler to immigrate legally.

Ironically though, if Trump were to do with, he would eliminate 11 million people who are uninsured people, thus reducing the number of uninsured people in the US, by more than how much ObamaCare did. That would be amusing to me.

Whatever increase to wages, would be at the extreme low end, for $1 or less an hour.

And millions more employed Americans. And billions less government spending.

That said, it would inherently harm the GDP. Regardless of anything else, immigrants bring GDP.

They can take it back to Mexico and fix their economy.

Now I'm still in favor of fixing the illegal immigrant problem, but rather to make it simpler to immigrate legally.

Nah. Boot all the illegals. If we need workers, set up a temporary worker visa.
Harvesting season ends, they go back.

First off, the only way that employers would increase wages, is if they can't fill positions.

If American workers fill all the jobs of immigrant workers, then wages will not increase.

Second, back in the late 1990s, I was working at Wendy's and a lady came in, and told us she only intended to work long enough to give back on welfare. She even told us the date when she qualified again, and sure enough didn't show up anymore.

This is going to happen whether there are immigrants to take those jobs, or not. As long as we pay people to not work, many millions of people are not going to work.

Third, I'm not sure what cost to government you are referring to, other than individual state governments. If California wants to give money to illegals, that's their problem, and their taxes.

But at the Federal level, the largest funding is Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, which no illegal has access to. Yet illegals still pay state level sales tax, and property taxes, which offset the costs of all government services.

Now it doesn't cover all costs, that's true. So deporting would reduce government expenses slightly, but not nearly enough than the loss of economic production.

Yes they could take their production back to Mexico, but so could all immigrants in the US, which accounts for the vast majority of the entire population of this country. That's not a good argument. If it's true for them, it's true for you.

Lastly, I think you greatly underestimate the damage this could do to the economy.

Look at Japan. One of the biggest reason they have been in a nearly 20 year stagnation, is because of their falling population levels.

With more and more people retiring, and fewer and fewer young to take their place, the cost on the tax payer, to pay for retirement benefits, is destructive at best. And that's being nice.

For example property prices have crashed in Japan. Japan never had the property bubble most of the world had, because housing prices have been falling for over 15 years. Basically since 1992, housing prices have fallen. And not just in suburbs, or in rural, but even in major urban centers.

In Tokyo itself, property values have fallen by more than 75%.

Why? Because the population has fallen. The only reason the house you own, has any value whatsoever, is because every year there are more people, and people need places to live, and every new couple looking for a home, is more demand for housing. That pushes up prices, which pushes up investment.

In Tokyo, they don't have this. Every year there are fewer couples looking for homes.

Japan’s Growing Number of Ghost Towns and the Reasons Behind It

Entire towns and villages that existed for 50 years, have dried up and blown away.

But that's just what you can see externally. What you don't see is that the consumer demand in Japan has dropped with the population. It's easy to see empty building, but harder to see the slump in consumer demand. Fewer people, means fewer consumers. You can clearly see that as the population growth started dropping in the 1990s, the increase in consumer demand also started leveling off. In fact, for the past 5 years, consumer demand is almost flat. As the population declines faster, I would not be too surprised if demand growth were to go negative.

Why am I pointing all this out?

Because if we had eliminated immigration in the 1970s, our population would be falling right now. If we stopped immigration prior to the 1970s, our population would be falling years ago. If we stop immigration today, the population will start falling in 2030. If we stop immigration, and deport 11 million people.... Hard to say. Could be in just a few years time.

Then we'll be in economic stagnation just like Japan. With one minor difference. Our economy is the crutch that has held Japan steady during it's stagnation. What economy anywhere in the world, is going to be our crutch?

If American workers fill all the jobs of immigrant workers, then wages will not increase.

If you have 10 million illegal aliens and 10 million Americans competing for 10 million jobs, wages will rise when there are no illegal aliens competing for those jobs, even if every single job is filled.

This is going to happen whether there are immigrants to take those jobs, or not. As long as we pay people to not work, many millions of people are not going to work.

Yes, we need to reform welfare and reverse the massive expansion of the rolls that occurred under Obama.

Third, I'm not sure what cost to government you are referring to, other than individual state governments.

State and local governments bear a heavy cost due to illegal aliens.

If California wants to give money to illegals, that's their problem, and their taxes.

Sure. And after the illegals go home, California can give money to someone else.

Yet illegals still pay state level sales tax, and property taxes, which offset the costs of all government services.

That's some stunningly bad math you have there.

Now it doesn't cover all costs, that's true.

Not even close.

Yes they could take their production back to Mexico, but so could all immigrants in the US, which accounts for the vast majority of the entire population of this country

All immigrants make up well more than 50% of our population?
Please, share your calculations.

For example property prices have crashed in Japan. Japan never had the property bubble most of the world had,

You must be very young.

Jobs are not static. And Americans are not competing for them. As more people are employed, and more people are buying and consuming, more jobs are created. You eliminate 11 million consumers, jobs will disappear.

I would need more evidence of this 'heavy' cost. Some cost possibly, depending more on the state level laws in place. But even there, the more generous the state level laws are, it's more likely that US citizens taking advantage of them, create a far greater burden than any illegals.

The only exceptions, are left-wing backward states like California.

It's not bad math. It's documented by several published papers.

All immigrants make up well more than 50% of our population?
Please, share your calculations.

Well it simply depends on where you draw the cut off line.

Do we say that everyone here before 1970s, is no longer an immigrant, and everyone that came here after the 1970s is? Or perhaps the 1960s? Or the 1940s? Or the 1900s? At what point do we consider people who immigrated here, and their offspring, to no longer be immigrants?

Because my family came from Germany, prior to the existence of the US. George Sebastian Eichelberger, came to the America, in about 1758. He died in 1777.

What's my point? We are nearly all immigrants. It just depends on where you put the cut off year. If you move the cut off year back far enough, 99% of the country is immigrants.

View attachment 88349

There is some truth to this picture. Now that doesn't mean I am in favor of illegal immigration. Absolutely not. I want clear, simply, easy legal immigration.

But my point is, everyone here in this country is an immigrant. We just arbitrarily place a magic year, and claim everyone that came before X year, is no longer an immigrant.

I would need more evidence of this 'heavy' cost.

Here in Illinois, the average cost per elementary student is nearly $12000 per year.
How much sales taxes are these illegal aliens paying to cover that?

Well it simply depends on where you draw the cut off line.

Well that's easy, cut it off at birth.
If you were born elsewhere, you're an immigrant or an illegal alien.
Now work on that math and get back to me.

 

[Andylusion]

Debatable. Whatever increase to wages, would be at the extreme low end, for $1 or less an hour.

That said, it would inherently harm the GDP. Regardless of anything else, immigrants bring GDP. In fact every additional person that works, is a benefit to society. Whatever tiny gain from a slightly higher wage, would be out weight by the loss of GDP and loss of consumer demand.

Now I'm still in favor of fixing the illegal immigrant problem, but rather to make it simpler to immigrate legally.

Ironically though, if Trump were to do with, he would eliminate 11 million people who are uninsured people, thus reducing the number of uninsured people in the US, by more than how much ObamaCare did. That would be amusing to me.

Whatever increase to wages, would be at the extreme low end, for $1 or less an hour.

And millions more employed Americans. And billions less government spending.

That said, it would inherently harm the GDP. Regardless of anything else, immigrants bring GDP.

They can take it back to Mexico and fix their economy.

Now I'm still in favor of fixing the illegal immigrant problem, but rather to make it simpler to immigrate legally.

Nah. Boot all the illegals. If we need workers, set up a temporary worker visa.
Harvesting season ends, they go back.

First off, the only way that employers would increase wages, is if they can't fill positions.

If American workers fill all the jobs of immigrant workers, then wages will not increase.

Second, back in the late 1990s, I was working at Wendy's and a lady came in, and told us she only intended to work long enough to give back on welfare. She even told us the date when she qualified again, and sure enough didn't show up anymore.

This is going to happen whether there are immigrants to take those jobs, or not. As long as we pay people to not work, many millions of people are not going to work.

Third, I'm not sure what cost to government you are referring to, other than individual state governments. If California wants to give money to illegals, that's their problem, and their taxes.

But at the Federal level, the largest funding is Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, which no illegal has access to. Yet illegals still pay state level sales tax, and property taxes, which offset the costs of all government services.

Now it doesn't cover all costs, that's true. So deporting would reduce government expenses slightly, but not nearly enough than the loss of economic production.

Yes they could take their production back to Mexico, but so could all immigrants in the US, which accounts for the vast majority of the entire population of this country. That's not a good argument. If it's true for them, it's true for you.

Lastly, I think you greatly underestimate the damage this could do to the economy.

Look at Japan. One of the biggest reason they have been in a nearly 20 year stagnation, is because of their falling population levels.

With more and more people retiring, and fewer and fewer young to take their place, the cost on the tax payer, to pay for retirement benefits, is destructive at best. And that's being nice.

For example property prices have crashed in Japan. Japan never had the property bubble most of the world had, because housing prices have been falling for over 15 years. Basically since 1992, housing prices have fallen. And not just in suburbs, or in rural, but even in major urban centers.

In Tokyo itself, property values have fallen by more than 75%.

Why? Because the population has fallen. The only reason the house you own, has any value whatsoever, is because every year there are more people, and people need places to live, and every new couple looking for a home, is more demand for housing. That pushes up prices, which pushes up investment.

In Tokyo, they don't have this. Every year there are fewer couples looking for homes.

Japan’s Growing Number of Ghost Towns and the Reasons Behind It

Entire towns and villages that existed for 50 years, have dried up and blown away.

But that's just what you can see externally. What you don't see is that the consumer demand in Japan has dropped with the population. It's easy to see empty building, but harder to see the slump in consumer demand. Fewer people, means fewer consumers. You can clearly see that as the population growth started dropping in the 1990s, the increase in consumer demand also started leveling off. In fact, for the past 5 years, consumer demand is almost flat. As the population declines faster, I would not be too surprised if demand growth were to go negative.

Why am I pointing all this out?

Because if we had eliminated immigration in the 1970s, our population would be falling right now. If we stopped immigration prior to the 1970s, our population would be falling years ago. If we stop immigration today, the population will start falling in 2030. If we stop immigration, and deport 11 million people.... Hard to say. Could be in just a few years time.

Then we'll be in economic stagnation just like Japan. With one minor difference. Our economy is the crutch that has held Japan steady during it's stagnation. What economy anywhere in the world, is going to be our crutch?

If American workers fill all the jobs of immigrant workers, then wages will not increase.

If you have 10 million illegal aliens and 10 million Americans competing for 10 million jobs, wages will rise when there are no illegal aliens competing for those jobs, even if every single job is filled.

This is going to happen whether there are immigrants to take those jobs, or not. As long as we pay people to not work, many millions of people are not going to work.

Yes, we need to reform welfare and reverse the massive expansion of the rolls that occurred under Obama.

Third, I'm not sure what cost to government you are referring to, other than individual state governments.

State and local governments bear a heavy cost due to illegal aliens.

If California wants to give money to illegals, that's their problem, and their taxes.

Sure. And after the illegals go home, California can give money to someone else.

Yet illegals still pay state level sales tax, and property taxes, which offset the costs of all government services.

That's some stunningly bad math you have there.

Now it doesn't cover all costs, that's true.

Not even close.

Yes they could take their production back to Mexico, but so could all immigrants in the US, which accounts for the vast majority of the entire population of this country

All immigrants make up well more than 50% of our population?
Please, share your calculations.

For example property prices have crashed in Japan. Japan never had the property bubble most of the world had,

You must be very young.

Jobs are not static. And Americans are not competing for them. As more people are employed, and more people are buying and consuming, more jobs are created. You eliminate 11 million consumers, jobs will disappear.

I would need more evidence of this 'heavy' cost. Some cost possibly, depending more on the state level laws in place. But even there, the more generous the state level laws are, it's more likely that US citizens taking advantage of them, create a far greater burden than any illegals.

The only exceptions, are left-wing backward states like California.

It's not bad math. It's documented by several published papers.

All immigrants make up well more than 50% of our population?
Please, share your calculations.

Well it simply depends on where you draw the cut off line.

Do we say that everyone here before 1970s, is no longer an immigrant, and everyone that came here after the 1970s is? Or perhaps the 1960s? Or the 1940s? Or the 1900s? At what point do we consider people who immigrated here, and their offspring, to no longer be immigrants?

Because my family came from Germany, prior to the existence of the US. George Sebastian Eichelberger, came to the America, in about 1758. He died in 1777.

What's my point? We are nearly all immigrants. It just depends on where you put the cut off year. If you move the cut off year back far enough, 99% of the country is immigrants.

View attachment 88349

There is some truth to this picture. Now that doesn't mean I am in favor of illegal immigration. Absolutely not. I want clear, simply, easy legal immigration.

But my point is, everyone here in this country is an immigrant. We just arbitrarily place a magic year, and claim everyone that came before X year, is no longer an immigrant.

I would need more evidence of this 'heavy' cost.

Here in Illinois, the average cost per elementary student is nearly $12000 per year.
How much sales taxes are these illegal aliens paying to cover that?

Well it simply depends on where you draw the cut off line.

Well that's easy, cut it off at birth.
If you were born elsewhere, you're an immigrant or an illegal alien.
Now work on that math and get back to me.

I thought IL schools were funded by property taxes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Whatever increase to wages, would be at the extreme low end, for $1 or less an hour.

And millions more employed Americans. And billions less government spending.

That said, it would inherently harm the GDP. Regardless of anything else, immigrants bring GDP.

They can take it back to Mexico and fix their economy.

Now I'm still in favor of fixing the illegal immigrant problem, but rather to make it simpler to immigrate legally.

Nah. Boot all the illegals. If we need workers, set up a temporary worker visa.
Harvesting season ends, they go back.

First off, the only way that employers would increase wages, is if they can't fill positions.

If American workers fill all the jobs of immigrant workers, then wages will not increase.

Second, back in the late 1990s, I was working at Wendy's and a lady came in, and told us she only intended to work long enough to give back on welfare. She even told us the date when she qualified again, and sure enough didn't show up anymore.

This is going to happen whether there are immigrants to take those jobs, or not. As long as we pay people to not work, many millions of people are not going to work.

Third, I'm not sure what cost to government you are referring to, other than individual state governments. If California wants to give money to illegals, that's their problem, and their taxes.

But at the Federal level, the largest funding is Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, which no illegal has access to. Yet illegals still pay state level sales tax, and property taxes, which offset the costs of all government services.

Now it doesn't cover all costs, that's true. So deporting would reduce government expenses slightly, but not nearly enough than the loss of economic production.

Yes they could take their production back to Mexico, but so could all immigrants in the US, which accounts for the vast majority of the entire population of this country. That's not a good argument. If it's true for them, it's true for you.

Lastly, I think you greatly underestimate the damage this could do to the economy.

Look at Japan. One of the biggest reason they have been in a nearly 20 year stagnation, is because of their falling population levels.

With more and more people retiring, and fewer and fewer young to take their place, the cost on the tax payer, to pay for retirement benefits, is destructive at best. And that's being nice.

For example property prices have crashed in Japan. Japan never had the property bubble most of the world had, because housing prices have been falling for over 15 years. Basically since 1992, housing prices have fallen. And not just in suburbs, or in rural, but even in major urban centers.

In Tokyo itself, property values have fallen by more than 75%.

Why? Because the population has fallen. The only reason the house you own, has any value whatsoever, is because every year there are more people, and people need places to live, and every new couple looking for a home, is more demand for housing. That pushes up prices, which pushes up investment.

In Tokyo, they don't have this. Every year there are fewer couples looking for homes.

Japan’s Growing Number of Ghost Towns and the Reasons Behind It

Entire towns and villages that existed for 50 years, have dried up and blown away.

But that's just what you can see externally. What you don't see is that the consumer demand in Japan has dropped with the population. It's easy to see empty building, but harder to see the slump in consumer demand. Fewer people, means fewer consumers. You can clearly see that as the population growth started dropping in the 1990s, the increase in consumer demand also started leveling off. In fact, for the past 5 years, consumer demand is almost flat. As the population declines faster, I would not be too surprised if demand growth were to go negative.

Why am I pointing all this out?

Because if we had eliminated immigration in the 1970s, our population would be falling right now. If we stopped immigration prior to the 1970s, our population would be falling years ago. If we stop immigration today, the population will start falling in 2030. If we stop immigration, and deport 11 million people.... Hard to say. Could be in just a few years time.

Then we'll be in economic stagnation just like Japan. With one minor difference. Our economy is the crutch that has held Japan steady during it's stagnation. What economy anywhere in the world, is going to be our crutch?

If American workers fill all the jobs of immigrant workers, then wages will not increase.

If you have 10 million illegal aliens and 10 million Americans competing for 10 million jobs, wages will rise when there are no illegal aliens competing for those jobs, even if every single job is filled.

This is going to happen whether there are immigrants to take those jobs, or not. As long as we pay people to not work, many millions of people are not going to work.

Yes, we need to reform welfare and reverse the massive expansion of the rolls that occurred under Obama.

Third, I'm not sure what cost to government you are referring to, other than individual state governments.

State and local governments bear a heavy cost due to illegal aliens.

If California wants to give money to illegals, that's their problem, and their taxes.

Sure. And after the illegals go home, California can give money to someone else.

Yet illegals still pay state level sales tax, and property taxes, which offset the costs of all government services.

That's some stunningly bad math you have there.

Now it doesn't cover all costs, that's true.

Not even close.

Yes they could take their production back to Mexico, but so could all immigrants in the US, which accounts for the vast majority of the entire population of this country

All immigrants make up well more than 50% of our population?
Please, share your calculations.

For example property prices have crashed in Japan. Japan never had the property bubble most of the world had,

You must be very young.

Jobs are not static. And Americans are not competing for them. As more people are employed, and more people are buying and consuming, more jobs are created. You eliminate 11 million consumers, jobs will disappear.

I would need more evidence of this 'heavy' cost. Some cost possibly, depending more on the state level laws in place. But even there, the more generous the state level laws are, it's more likely that US citizens taking advantage of them, create a far greater burden than any illegals.

The only exceptions, are left-wing backward states like California.

It's not bad math. It's documented by several published papers.

All immigrants make up well more than 50% of our population?
Please, share your calculations.

Well it simply depends on where you draw the cut off line.

Do we say that everyone here before 1970s, is no longer an immigrant, and everyone that came here after the 1970s is? Or perhaps the 1960s? Or the 1940s? Or the 1900s? At what point do we consider people who immigrated here, and their offspring, to no longer be immigrants?

Because my family came from Germany, prior to the existence of the US. George Sebastian Eichelberger, came to the America, in about 1758. He died in 1777.

What's my point? We are nearly all immigrants. It just depends on where you put the cut off year. If you move the cut off year back far enough, 99% of the country is immigrants.

View attachment 88349

There is some truth to this picture. Now that doesn't mean I am in favor of illegal immigration. Absolutely not. I want clear, simply, easy legal immigration.

But my point is, everyone here in this country is an immigrant. We just arbitrarily place a magic year, and claim everyone that came before X year, is no longer an immigrant.

I would need more evidence of this 'heavy' cost.

Here in Illinois, the average cost per elementary student is nearly $12000 per year.
How much sales taxes are these illegal aliens paying to cover that?

Well it simply depends on where you draw the cut off line.

Well that's easy, cut it off at birth.
If you were born elsewhere, you're an immigrant or an illegal alien.
Now work on that math and get back to me.

I thought IL schools were funded by property taxes.

Fine, how many illegals own homes?