Foxfyre wrote:Yes little dog. At least I know my opinions are based on first hand knowledge. What do you base yours on?
First hand knowledge, intelligence, logical reasoning, and the ability to think rationally, something which you apparently lack.
I have little doubt that you have experience in certain areas - most people do, after all - but your ability to transform that experience into coherent opinions about society and the path we should take in the future is sorely lacking and hampered by your inability to understand basic logic and argumentative structure. It is then further compounded by your stubborn refusal to see that others are better at these things then you are, and even further compounded by the frustration you feel when this is proven to you time and time again. It must suck, really, so I don't blame you for your sour attitudes.
And I encourage you to continue to refer to me in whatever fashion makes you feel the happiest about yourself and your situation. Whatever you feel is necessary to say is perfectly fine by me.
Cycloptichorn
Here's another view of the federal budget.
Foxfyre wrote:Apart from your one business venture, have you ever owned or managed businesses in stiff competition with other businesses? I have. I also have close friends and at least one relative in the restaurant business.
So don't be so sure that I'm as ignorant as you want me to be.
Of course my other businesses were in stiff competition. Is there another kind? I don't
want you to be ignorant. I'm trying to educate you enough to stop speaking nonsense. Your denial that taking a substantial portion of the workforce, in any skilled position wouldn't artificially inflate the value of those left at those positions, thereby pushing stores that are already riding the edge over it; is flat out idiotic. It matters little what the business or position. You are forcing me to be insulting with your inexplicable denial of a very simple fundamental of supply and demand.
From Wikipedia (both the above graph and the following):
$586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
$466.0 billion (+4.0%) - Defense
$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
$367.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
$243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt
$89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training
$76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation
$72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits
$43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice
$33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment
$32.5 billion (-15.4%) - Foreign affairs
$27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture
$26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development
$25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology
$20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government
$1.1 billion (-47.6%) - Energy
CI, please source your graphs. The first one looks ridiculous, and I can't read the second.
cicerone imposter wrote:From Wikipedia (both the above graph and the following):
$586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
$466.0 billion (+4.0%) - Defense
$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
$367.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
$243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt
$89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training
$76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation
$72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits
$43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice
$33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment
$32.5 billion (-15.4%) - Foreign affairs
$27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture
$26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development
$25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology
$20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government
$1.1 billion (-47.6%) - Energy
A simple reading of this information proves your assertion false.
It doesn't matter what the "source" is; it's up to you to find fault with it.
I never claimed it was correct/accurate. I took the 51% from this source. In other words, I just didn't make it up.
The other graph and numbers came from Wikipedia - as I have posted.
OBill, It's not "my" assertion; it's who ever made that graph. FYI, I did not say "I believe this or that to be my position or that I think this is true." I just did a quick Search and posted what I found. If it's a mistake, I'm more than willing to concede it's wrong, but it's not my "assertion." Tell me why it's wrong, and I'll agree it's not accurate. Simple, isn't it?
cicerone imposter wrote:It doesn't matter what the "source" is; it's up to you to find fault with it.
I never claimed it was correct/accurate. I took the 51% from this source. In other words, I just didn't make it up.
The other graph and numbers came from Wikipedia - as I have posted.
The WIKI Pie Chart is showing about 80% NOT going to defense, foreign affairs or veterans benefits, CI. It clearly
does matter what the source is. :wink:
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.
This is clearly your assertion.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Apart from your one business venture, have you ever owned or managed businesses in stiff competition with other businesses? I have. I also have close friends and at least one relative in the restaurant business.
So don't be so sure that I'm as ignorant as you want me to be.
Of course my other businesses were in stiff competition. Is there another kind? I don't
want you to be ignorant. I'm trying to educate you enough to stop speaking nonsense. Your denial that taking a substantial portion of the workforce, in any skilled position wouldn't artificially inflate the value of those left at those positions, thereby pushing stores that are already riding the edge over it; is flat out idiotic. It matters little what the business or position. You are forcing me to be insulting with your inexplicable denial of a very simple fundamental of supply and demand.
What I'm telling you Obill is that I am ignorant on many many subjects, but this isn't one of them. I am seeing and have seen first hand the results of illegal immigration in our part of the world--the good, the bad, and the ugly. I talk to restaurant owners and contractors four and five days a week most weeks and I am not depending on their superficial opinions. I'm seeing their payrolls and their financials. I KNOW what they're paying and I know how that compares with the union scales, those subject to Davis-Bacon and those who have to meet certain criteria for city and county jobs or reputable firms with skills that get them contracts though they pay their people a living wage. Restaurant owners who WANT to pay their people a decent wage are competing with restaurant owners who are paying WELL below prevailing wage, even some below minimum wage, because their illegal employees would not dare complain to anybody. And just a few years ago before I hung up my adjuster's license, I was seeing injuries that never would have happened if employees had dared complain about what they were being required to do.
I've met some wonderful people who are in the country illegally, and others who are the scum of the Earth and who no country on Earth would want. I've run across some who are making very good money with reputable firms and others who are barely subsisting. But without the illegals, ALL the small contracting firms would likely be paying better wages because they would all be in the same boat and competing on equal footing when they bid for contracts. If they can't win the bids, nobody working for them gets paid for long. Many restaurant owners tell me much the same.
So, when you are able to better educate yourself on the hard facts and not just base your opinion on squishy feel good criteria with no basis in fact, you will probably see things more as I see them. Or not. Depends on which of us chooses to remain ignorant I guess. You've said in the past that you didn't hire any illegals so you may not have any experience with this at all.
FCNL Budget Analysis: It's How You Slice the Pie3/9/2007
Why does FCNL's budget analysis differ from analyses by some other national groups - and why do they differ from each other?
It's How You Slice the Pie (or stack the coins, or count the beans)...
Among the handful of groups that monitor either the whole budget, or the parts of the budget devoted to military spending, the figures and percentages vary. The differences have to do with which specific programs each group includes in a "slice" and how finely they cut each slice.
First - what pie? FCNL's analysis looks at the federal funds budget. This is the overall budget, including discretionary, entitlement, and mandatory spending, supported by general revenues, including income taxes and estate and gift taxes. Because the FCNL analysis aims to illustrate how our income dollars are spent, it does not include trust funds, such as Social Security and Medicare, which have their own dedicated revenues.
Here's how that makes a difference: When president's proposal says that only 21% of the budget goes to the military, it includes Social Security and Medicare in his definition of the budget. Because this analysis starts with a bigger pie (called the "unified budget"), the military appears as a relatively smaller slice, and social spending looks larger.
Conversely, some national organizations look only at "discretionary spending" - the part of federal spending that Congress handles through appropriations bills. In this case, they're starting with a smaller budget pie than FCNL, so military spending appears to be a bigger slice.
But Congress has control over entitlement or "mandatory" spending as well as discretionary spending. Changes can be (and often are) made in the budgets for entitlement programs - they're just made through a different congressional process. Whether discretionary or entitlement spending, the money still comes out of your income tax dollars.
Second - what's included in the slice? When FCNL talks about military spending, we talk about two slices - current military spending and spending due to past wars and military activity. The first slice, current military spending, is what most other analyses report on and what is most understandable on Capitol Hill. On the Hill, decisions before Congress generally focus on current military spending rather than the already-accumulated responsibilities for past military spending. At the same time, we recognize that the obligations of past wars are indeed a component of military spending and should be taken into account when Congress considers new or additional military commitments.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) looks only at current military spending; some organizations add current and past military spending together and present just one figure.
What's in the current military slice? FCNL's analysis of current military spending includes the following:
all spending for the Department of Defense (DOD).
the "050 function," a categorizing number that OMB uses to identify defense-related spending, regardless of the agency that spends the funds. This category includes funding in many "independent agencies" as well some parts of the Department of Homeland Security, parts of the Coast Guard, and other bits and pieces sprinkled through the budget.
responsibility for the Defense Department retirees as a military expense, although it is not listed as such by OMB.
portions of the foreign aid budget that are, in fact, military programs. These include the foreign military assistance accounts and international military training.
In the past, we included portions of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) budget. We no longer include that money because NASA changed its arrangements with the Defense Department so that any work done for the DOD by NASA is paid for out of the DOD's budget.
Most analyses of current military spending are similar. Differences arise in how much is included from agencies that include some defense-related functions. See "how finely do you slice it?" below.
What's in the "past military" slice? This slice includes primarily the Veterans' Administration and a portion of the interest paid on the federal debt.
This slice is where some of the big differences between FCNL's analysis and those of other groups arise. FCNL calculates the portion of the debt due to military spending by accumulating, year to year, the portion of each year's budget that went to military spending. We don't assume that the deficit would not have existed if military spending had been lower - we simply add up how much was added to the debt each year and allocate the percentage that was spent on the military that year. FCNL's current calculations show about 47% of the debt is due to past military spending.
How finely do you slice it? Some pies include some guesswork or assumptions about future congressional behavior. Some of these guesses may be fairly well rooted in recent experience and may be quite valid. FCNL has chosen to report only what the president proposes for the upcoming fiscal year and what was actually spent (outlays) in the past fiscal year.
We also examine closely agencies with a "mixed" mission and include only specific military-related activities in our military numbers. For example, eighty-five percent of the budget of the Department of Homeland Security is allocated to immigration and border activities, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the non-military activities of the Coast Guard (boat safety, rescues, etc.). While some of these activities are police-related, we do not categorize them as military activities.
Reviewed: 3/12/2007
FYI, I've only repeated what's in the graph; I didn't make up those numbers. What I present from an outside source can be right or wrong. It's up to you to prove it wrong; not for me to claim it's my numbers. All you need to do is show evidence, any, that what's claimed by the graph is wrong.
Foxfyre wrote:So, when you are able to better educate yourself on the hard facts and not just base your opinion on squishy feel good criteria with no basis in fact, you will probably see things more as I see them. Or not. Depends on which of us chooses to remain ignorant I guess. You've said in the past that you didn't hire any illegals so you may not have any experience with this at all.
After reading the IRS Numbers that I provided and you completely ignored, it became clear that the IRS doesn't give a rat's ass who's legal and who isn't; hence, I'm going to go ahead and assume that much the ID I accepted, and passed on through new hire reporting, was actually bogus but no one cared.
Your denial of fundamental laws of supply and demand cannot be explained with any amount of experience doing anything. All you're accomplishing is reinforcing what everyone already knows; it is a waste of time to prove things to you because you have an incredible ability to ignore the obvious when it suits your purpose.
FYI, I also cannot prove the graph or list is accurate that's presented by Wikipedia. It they are wrong, it's not for me to prove its verasity, but for the person that challenges those numbers. I'm not in a position to prove them right or wrong, but they are "sourced."
cicerone imposter wrote: FYI, I've only repeated what's in the graph; I didn't make up those numbers.
No, and no one said you did. You did, however, provide them as fact without mentioning or linking a source. That makes it your assertion. It is now time to retract it.
cicerone imposter wrote: What I present from an outside source can be right or wrong.
How pray tell was anyone supposed to know it was an outside source?
cicerone imposter wrote:It's up to you to prove it wrong; not for me to claim it's my numbers. All you need to do is show evidence, any, that what's claimed by the graph is wrong. [/b]
You already have. Go back to Wiki and blow up the second pie chart. It shows about 80% percent of the dough not going to military, past or present (like I said above). Relax. Retract the erroneous statement and move on.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Foxfyre wrote:So, when you are able to better educate yourself on the hard facts and not just base your opinion on squishy feel good criteria with no basis in fact, you will probably see things more as I see them. Or not. Depends on which of us chooses to remain ignorant I guess. You've said in the past that you didn't hire any illegals so you may not have any experience with this at all.
After reading the IRS Numbers that I provided and you completely ignored, it became clear that the IRS doesn't give a rat's ass who's legal and who isn't; hence, I'm going to go ahead and assume that much the ID I accepted, and passed on through new hire reporting, was actually bogus but no one cared.
Your denial of fundamental laws of supply and demand cannot be explained with any amount of experience doing anything. All you're accomplishing is reinforcing what everyone already knows; it is a waste of time to prove things to you because you have an incredible ability to ignore the obvious when it suits your purpose.
IRS numbers don't reflect wages that are paid under the table. IRS numbers don't reflect who is being paid what wages. If you were paying your people substandard wages just because you could, shame on you along with everybody else who is benefitting from illegal labor.
A hundred or so pages back, I conceded that my numbers of incarcerated illegals was inflated. Other numbers are also probably off here and there. So far you haven't conceded anything nor even attempted to dispute what I and many other are trying to tell you. But you are resorting to 'the liberal way' of personally attacking and/or insulting the messenger because that's all the ammo you have. I use your quote in this post as graphic evidence of that.
So would you care to rephrase?
Quote:12 to 20 million illegal aliens aren't just employees; they are 12 to 20 million consumers as well. I remain convinced that the net effect on our overall economy is a good one. Probably a VERY good one. Even if it did fall a little short; I'm fine with that too.
It's not
just 12 to 20 million employees, though. Not all are employed and a fair portion (44% I think) are women. Add the parents, adult siblings, and children that each illegal is eligible to bring in. Do that math and then consider the poverty-level in which they live due to their skill and education levels and the social services that will be required to sustain them. As citizens, they will be entitled to
all of the services. Do you really think we can absorb, say, 50 million more on the welfare rolls and still see a positive fiscal impact?
Bill
au1929 wrote:
Quote: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.
Bill Wrote
Quote:I haven't met any of those yet, and I think you know by now what category such a generalization fits into.
Come to NY City and be enlightened. And by the way it is by no means limited to Hispanics.
Foxfyre wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:Foxfyre wrote:So, when you are able to better educate yourself on the hard facts and not just base your opinion on squishy feel good criteria with no basis in fact, you will probably see things more as I see them. Or not. Depends on which of us chooses to remain ignorant I guess. You've said in the past that you didn't hire any illegals so you may not have any experience with this at all.
After reading the IRS Numbers that I provided and you completely ignored, it became clear that the IRS doesn't give a rat's ass who's legal and who isn't; hence, I'm going to go ahead and assume that much the ID I accepted, and passed on through new hire reporting, was actually bogus but no one cared.
Your denial of fundamental laws of supply and demand cannot be explained with any amount of experience doing anything. All you're accomplishing is reinforcing what everyone already knows; it is a waste of time to prove things to you because you have an incredible ability to ignore the obvious when it suits your purpose.
IRS numbers don't reflect wages that are paid under the table. IRS numbers don't reflect who is being paid what wages. If you were paying your people substandard wages just because you could, shame on you along with everybody else who is benefitting from illegal labor.
A hundred or so pages back, I conceded that my numbers of incarcerated illegals was inflated. Other numbers are also probably off here and there. So far you haven't conceded anything nor even attempted to dispute what I and many other are trying to tell you. But you are resorting to 'the liberal way' of personally attacking and/or insulting the messenger because that's all the ammo you have. I use your quote in this post as graphic evidence of that.
So would you care to rephrase?
Why? A fundamental law of supply and demand is if you decrease the supply(cooks) it increases the demand. After years and years of these positions being filled by illegal aliens; if they suddenly disappear; there WILL BE A SHORTAGE of cooks, which WILL ARTIFICIALLY INFLATE THE VALUE OF SAME, well beyond where the equilibrium would have been had there never been Mexicans trained into place in the first place. This is obvious, and I've re-worded it repeatedly, yet you continue to deny it inexplicably. How else do you expect me to react to such blatant disregard for the obvious?
