OCCOM BILL wrote:20 billion sounds about right and is a drop in the bucket in a 13 trillion dollar economy. That's like blowing $60 on a Christmas present to a guy who earns $40,000 a year. Most of us (I hope) spend considerably more than that on charity already. I suspect; the more numbers you dig up, the less convinced you'll be that these new citizens will result in a net loss.
Here's one source weighing in that supports my opinion:
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalfindings.html#Demographic
Be sure to read the conclusion (although I happen to agree with the suggestion that from a humanitarian point of view, this is something we'll just have to live with).
It just irks me that the politicans won't address the issue.
I'll try to find a source that supports your opinion.
Bill
Annexation? Exactly what are you suggesting. Please don't tell me something like the arrangement we have with Puerto Rico. That would be an adoption by the US of a sick economy. And in any event based upon how many Mexicans, legal and illegal are in the states. It would seem they have a better chance of annexing the US than the other way around.
Note: how soon will I have to learn to speak spanish. Had 4 years in highschool but that was 60 years ago.
Do you ever research anything? The percentage of Mexicans in the U.S. is considerably higher than the percentage they represent of it. Their economy would heal as both countries experienced an explosion of economic growth.i seriously doubt that you'd find many mexicans that would have any interest in being annexed by the u.s. or anyone else.
I am not buying Obill's argument that paying guest workers a decent wage would drive anybody out of business, either. He says 20 or 30 billion against a few trillion is a drop in the bucket. Well, an extra dollar or two on a steak dinner isn't going to deter people from eating out either as is demonstrated in those cities that are setting considerably higher minimum wages for everybody, including kitchen help, than the feds require.
OCCOM BILL
It most definitely be a net loss. Generally, these people are at the lowest rung of the financial ladder and pay little or no tax. In addition they demand the most in the way of social services. ie Food stamps, medical,{Medicaide] special schooling, SSI for the elderly and financial assistance and whatever handout is available. You can bet your bottom dollar they financially speaking will be a net loss. And another millstone around the necks of the American taxpayer.
I continually hear from the immigration advocates their theme song. We are a nation of immigrants. Agreed. However when our parents, grandparents and as far back as you go. It was swim or sink. There was no such thing as a safety net. Now when immigrants arrive they soon learn to stretch out their arms with the palms up.
OBill's analysis is generally true: money is not static nor a one time event. When money is spent, it produces income for somebody who in turns spends it to increase the income of others. That in turn increases tax revenue. Taxed money doesn't produce much in the way of marketable goods and services. When you look at the budgets of local, state and federal governments, the greatest portion goes to fund social overhead capital. Since the military doesn't produce goods and services that can be "sold," whatever is spent becomes a greater burden to inflation. If that same money was spent to produce "marketable" goods and services, that increases the productive capacity of those funds that allows a more efficient capitalistic economy.
Well said, save governt employs a shitload of people who do indeed recycle the money.
cicerone imposter wrote:The federal government now spends 51% on current military and past military needs, 32% on human resources that includes social security and medicare, and 9% goes to pay interest. Not very efficient to promote capitalism or the efficient circulation of money.
