Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:Prepare for Arizona's unemployment rate to go up and local economies to suffer.

interesting claim. With the high unemployment rate right now, any businesses in AZ who lose illegal laborers may have to actually hire legal citizens to fill jobs. With illegals closing businesses, remaining businesses may see an increase in income. I predict a decrease in the unemployment rate in AZ, and an increase in the surrounding states, particularly CA and NM.

This is where the right's rank and file can be a bit myopic, and where its handlers have their followers very well twisted...the fact is, actual business-minded conservatives subversively support illegal immigration for the cheap labor pool it provides. The nation's dirty little secret is that while our governments pretend to dislike illegal immigration and try to "stop" it, they only try so hard. Why? Cheap labor = nice profits. Additionally, the tax base does ultimately grow from the population increase (as I touched on earlier). So, while conservatives basically tossed the gate wide open in the 90's and let cheap illegal labor (and economy/population enhancers) flow in like water, they still work over their (primarily white) constituents about how "bad" illegal immigration is. What a world-class snow job!

But...Enough of this flawed, manipulative ideology. Let's get down to hard facts about business:

NO, lol...the business owners don't just then "hire Whitey". Whitey's legal status allows him to collect unemployment in excess of the wages most illegals receive, and he ain't gonna stoop that low. Not to mention, the white "legals" at that end of the employment chain are typically also the unemployable, and make irresponsible and undependable employees. Give me a hard-working illegal with real values and a thirst to better himself ANY day over that trailer trash.

So now, said business owner has one workable option: increase wages to legally hire. He can do one of three things: make way less money for himself, go out of business, or raise prices. He'll raise prices to cover the addtional cost. His goods and/or services now cost locals more money.

But wait! He has yet another kick in the head to contend with! It's pretty basic and inarguable: reduced sales volume in all sectors. All those illegals spent a lot of the money they make locally. The losses to local businesses will be enormous. An ironic and tragic outcome then: less income for the local government from sales and income taxes. That part really sucks.


Am I proponent of illegals? No. But I AM a pragmatist, and I understand many nuances of the illegal immigration concept, not just the most simplistic hot-button "issues". Those who fail to consider my short summary above while they wave their flags and pound their white chests are doing so only out of ignorance and manipulation...and dare I also say, outright racial hatred.

LOL. What a fine example of your weakness. You have nothing to add here but to try and smear anyone. You have now resorted to the most common smear tactic of all: just claim racism. Please show us all where I said anything about "hiring whitey". I have said here often that Mexicans can be some of the hardest working people out there, but I have no sympathy for those who are here illegally.

Funny you start talking about how the business owner will have to go out of business or raise his prices as an argument against driving out illegal workers, yet you'll cry foul about the "right wing" gutting our manufacturing base by shipping jobs out of the country. See the hypocrisy here? You're saying that it's hard for a business to properly function in the US hiring legal workers, yet you are apparently for raising taxes, which also increases the cost of labor.

You've put yourself in a corner here, Bill. LOL. You spend so much of your time trying to discredit me that you put your foot in it again.

R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:Prepare for Arizona's unemployment rate to go up and local economies to suffer.

interesting claim. With the high unemployment rate right now, any businesses in AZ who lose illegal laborers may have to actually hire legal citizens to fill jobs. With illegals closing businesses, remaining businesses may see an increase in income. I predict a decrease in the unemployment rate in AZ, and an increase in the surrounding states, particularly CA and NM.

This is where the right's rank and file can be a bit myopic, and where its handlers have their followers very well twisted...the fact is, actual business-minded conservatives subversively support illegal immigration for the cheap labor pool it provides. The nation's dirty little secret is that while our governments pretend to dislike illegal immigration and try to "stop" it, they only try so hard. Why? Cheap labor = nice profits. Additionally, the tax base does ultimately grow from the population increase (as I touched on earlier). So, while conservatives basically tossed the gate wide open in the 90's and let cheap illegal labor (and economy/population enhancers) flow in like water, they still work over their (primarily white) constituents about how "bad" illegal immigration is. What a world-class snow job!

But...Enough of this flawed, manipulative ideology. Let's get down to hard facts about business:

NO, lol...the business owners don't just then "hire Whitey". Whitey's legal status allows him to collect unemployment in excess of the wages most illegals receive, and he ain't gonna stoop that low. Not to mention, the white "legals" at that end of the employment chain are typically also the unemployable, and make irresponsible and undependable employees. Give me a hard-working illegal with real values and a thirst to better himself ANY day over that trailer trash.

So now, said business owner has one workable option: increase wages to legally hire. He can do one of three things: make way less money for himself, go out of business, or raise prices. He'll raise prices to cover the addtional cost. His goods and/or services now cost locals more money.

But wait! He has yet another kick in the head to contend with! It's pretty basic and inarguable: reduced sales volume in all sectors. All those illegals spent a lot of the money they make locally. The losses to local businesses will be enormous. An ironic and tragic outcome then: less income for the local government from sales and income taxes. That part really sucks.


Am I proponent of illegals? No. But I AM a pragmatist, and I understand many nuances of the illegal immigration concept, not just the most simplistic hot-button "issues". Those who fail to consider my short summary above while they wave their flags and pound their white chests are doing so only out of ignorance and manipulation...and dare I also say, outright racial hatred.

LOL. What a fine example of your weakness. You have nothing to add here but to try and smear anyone. You have now resorted to the most common smear tactic of all: just claim racism. Please show us all where I said anything about "hiring whitey". I have said here often that Mexicans can be some of the hardest working people out there, but I have no sympathy for those who are here illegally.

Funny you start talking about how the business owner will have to go out of business or raise his prices as an argument against driving out illegal workers, yet you'll cry foul about the "right wing" gutting our manufacturing base by shipping jobs out of the country. See the hypocrisy here? You're saying that it's hard for a business to properly function in the US hiring legal workers, yet you are apparently for raising taxes, which also increases the cost of labor.

You've put yourself in a corner here, Bill. LOL. You spend so much of your time trying to discredit me that you put your foot in it again.

Smear? You're chickening out because I added a (valid) dimension you just don't like to hear. You may not consider yourself a racist, and you may well not be...however, your chosen political affiliation is followed by more white racist causes than any other, and is also just plain more white in numbers than any other...thus it tends to represent the views of whites and racists...more than any other. This is inherent. Me pointing it out may hurt, but it's not an invalid observation. In discussions like this that are charged with aspects of race or national oprigin, this aspect is EXTREMELY relevant.

Let's instead stick to the economic facts I presented. Juxtaposing my position here to my position on outsourcing is ludicrous. I want jobs to stay in America. That some of them go to illegal aliens is not my preferred choice, but I see it as a neccesary evil. The jobs remain here, and US business owners reap the profits, our real mom-and-pop types...not corporate greedists who take their plants and purchasing overseas to leave US workers (legal and otherwise) in the dirt. Lower wages for illegals makes for healthier businesses, thus why the USA has "looked the other way" on this for so long. I don't perceive it as taking jobs "away" from legals. I maintain that were this cheap labor source so abundant, those jobs likely would not exist anyway.

I advise you stay on point with the effects of the Arizona bill and how it will affect the local economies and people. That's the substance here, it's not another podium for you to filibuster on and on.


Edited 3 time(s). Last edited Tuesday, July 27, 2010 2:43 PM

BillHahn

Quote:

I want jobs to stay in America. That some of them go to illegal aliens is not my preferred choice, but I see it as a neccesary evil.

Why is it neccesary that American jobs go to illegal imigrants? I don't want an answer to any other question but this one. Why is it neccesary that jobs, for which American citizens are qualified and eligible, go to an migrant who's mere presence on our soil is a crime?

.



“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

LOL. You are so clouded by propaganda that you are lost beyond words. The "right wing" is not racist. Like anywhere else, you can find racists if you look for them, but you are falling for the non-stop barrage from the liberal left that everyone on the right is a racists.

Back to the economic portion of this discussion, the illegal workers are not any kind of necessary evil, especially when you have unemployed legal workers, who receive an income from the government (read: tax payers), while the business owner takes advantage of the fact that he can hire an illegal worker that doesn't demand as much pay. This expense on the public only comes back around to affect us all, so the end result is that the money saved by those who hire illegals gets passed on to the ones who don't.

In this same discussion, you've advocated higher taxes which will make it more difficult for small businesses to pay anyone, let alone a legal citizen. This will cause more suffering, and more recession, which means a higher burden that people such as yourself will argue needs to be paid with higher taxes. Do you see the vicious cycle here? On the other side, you can have the tried-and-true method of shrinking the government, and stimulating economic growth through lower taxes on everyone, and ultimately more tax revenue.

And also back on topic, this ties into the discussion going on in the inheritance tax thread. If the Fed would properly deal with the illegal immigrant problem (which does NOT include amnesty), and also lower taxes for small businesses, our unemployment would drop, and we would see real economic recovery.

R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:Prepare for Arizona's unemployment rate to go up and local economies to suffer.

interesting claim. With the high unemployment rate right now, any businesses in AZ who lose illegal laborers may have to actually hire legal citizens to fill jobs. With illegals closing businesses, remaining businesses may see an increase in income. I predict a decrease in the unemployment rate in AZ, and an increase in the surrounding states, particularly CA and NM.

This is where the right's rank and file can be a bit myopic, and where its handlers have their followers very well twisted...the fact is, actual business-minded conservatives subversively support illegal immigration for the cheap labor pool it provides. The nation's dirty little secret is that while our governments pretend to dislike illegal immigration and try to "stop" it, they only try so hard. Why? Cheap labor = nice profits. Additionally, the tax base does ultimately grow from the population increase (as I touched on earlier). So, while conservatives basically tossed the gate wide open in the 90's and let cheap illegal labor (and economy/population enhancers) flow in like water, they still work over their (primarily white) constituents about how "bad" illegal immigration is. What a world-class snow job!

But...Enough of this flawed, manipulative ideology. Let's get down to hard facts about business:

NO, lol...the business owners don't just then "hire Whitey". Whitey's legal status allows him to collect unemployment in excess of the wages most illegals receive, and he ain't gonna stoop that low. Not to mention, the white "legals" at that end of the employment chain are typically also the unemployable, and make irresponsible and undependable employees. Give me a hard-working illegal with real values and a thirst to better himself ANY day over that trailer trash.

So now, said business owner has one workable option: increase wages to legally hire. He can do one of three things: make way less money for himself, go out of business, or raise prices. He'll raise prices to cover the additional cost. His goods and/or services now cost locals more money.

But wait! He has yet another kick in the head to contend with! It's pretty basic and inarguable: reduced sales volume in all sectors. All those illegals spent a lot of the money they make locally. The losses to local businesses will be enormous. An ironic and tragic outcome then: less income for the local government from sales and income taxes. That part really sucks.


Am I proponent of illegals? No. But I AM a pragmatist, and I understand many nuances of the illegal immigration concept, not just the most simplistic hot-button "issues". Those who fail to consider my short summary above while they wave their flags and pound their white chests are doing so only out of ignorance and manipulation...and dare I also say, outright racial hatred.

LOL. What a fine example of your weakness. You have nothing to add here but to try and smear anyone.

Nothing to add?! But... he just added everything I underlined(I made it easy since you apparently missed quite a bit). Only the last part could potentially qualify as a smear. I'd prefer to say he has "profiled" you instead. Namely instead of profiling your for your religious beliefs, he has instead profiled you for your political beliefs. I dare say there is a thin line between political and religious beliefs in this country. its quite comparable.

Its kinda like when people around here say "not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims." Only now he's saying "Not all Conservatives are 'White Power' proponents, but most 'White Power' proponents are Conservative." So then, how do you guys feel about belief based profiling now? Its cool as long as it doesn't happen to you, eh?

Judging by the reactions you guys had to the "right wing extremist report" (despite the fact that this started under GWB and simply finished under BHO or the fact that a similar study was done on left wing extremists), I think I know the answer already.

That being said Bill - the reason I intentionally did not underline your use of "Whitey" etc is that you probably should substitute the term "legal citizen" to me more accurate. It has nothing to do with race, but that problem aside, you are right on. Some people don't get it, and here is the disconnect - as I mentioned above.

bk3k wrote:Random fact - During the Bubonic plague in Europe, an angry and fearful mob turned their anger on cats - cats which kill mice - mice which where the primary spreaders of the plague. These people wanted to "do something" but where ignorant and only made things worse. Some things never change.

Just like today - a serious problem exist. People are angry and scared. People want "something" done, but do NOT understand the problem. So they blame illegal immigrants today just as they once blamed those "Satanic" cats. In their rush to blame something and "do something," they are messing with things that they just do not understand and are only hurting us all. This is a complex world and you DO NOT fix it with simple methods and especially not with knee-jerk reactions such as this.

R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:Back to the economic portion of this discussion, the illegal workers are not any kind of necessary evil, especially when you have unemployed legal workers, who receive an income from the government (read: tax payers), while the business owner takes advantage of the fact that he can hire an illegal worker that doesn't demand as much pay. This expense on the public only comes back around to affect us all, so the end result is that the money saved by those who hire illegals gets passed on to the ones who don't.

You are actually partially correct here. Its kinda like the problem if us outsourcing our labor to China etc. We benefit from low prices, but ultimately pay by lowering our own income. Illegal labor is a smaller issue only because it happens here and so a good chunk of their wages will be spent here too. But the base problem as I underlined, is the same.

That being said, it really is a necessary evil - at least for now. We really are addicted to cheap labor in many industries - as I have mentioned above, food production being a major one. Yes, we do need to break the addiction. But not now. We are in a recession, and this kinda thing WILL have a negative economic effect for a while. Eventually the economy will adjust and recover, but we need to do this in a time when the economy can weather the initial impact. Right now is NOT that time.

Another concern - as Bill correctly noted - is the quality of workers at that end the the pay spectrum. Illegals are not sitting on engineering jobs, they aren't pharmacists, they aren't working skilled labor positions. They are picking tomatoes, cleaning cow brains off the slaughterhouse floor, etc. Most of what they do are NOT desirable positions with any future at all. As he noted, the labor candidates who are typically competing with illegals on that end of the labor pool are typically drug addicts and other people with a severe criminal history. I can tell you from experience for a while working with these people, he is right. People accustomed to making $65,000/year are not gonna start shoveling manure for less than minimum wage. They aren't gonna start jobs with 1/5th the prestige of working at McDonalds. What you propose looks good on paper, but just doesn't match the reality of our potential workforce.

R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:In this same discussion, you've advocated higher taxes which will make it more difficult for small businesses to pay anyone, let alone a legal citizen. This will cause more suffering, and more recession, which means a higher burden that people such as yourself will argue needs to be paid with higher taxes. Do you see the vicious cycle here? On the other side, you can have the tried-and-true method of shrinking the government, and stimulating economic growth through lower taxes on everyone, and ultimately more tax revenue.

And also back on topic, this ties into the discussion going on in the inheritance tax thread. If the Fed would properly deal with the illegal immigrant problem (which does NOT include amnesty), and also lower taxes for small businesses, our unemployment would drop, and we would see real economic recovery.

It just doesn't work that way in the real world. Sure, you believe it. Most economists do not. Even life-time Conservative economic guru Alan Greenspan(which I linked above) is calling for the expiration of the very tax cuts he himself helped usher in. He has publicly said that he regrets ever pushing for them in the first place. But you think YOU know better?

I'll link a longer article for you.
Here are a couple of exerts for you.

Quote:

Greenspan, in a telephone conversation after his Bloomberg TV interview was taped, said his position is that all the expiring Bush tax cuts should end, for middle-class and high- income families alike.

Ending the cuts "probably will" slow growth, Greenspan, 84, said in the TV interview. The risk posed by inaction on the deficit is greater, he said.

"Unless we start to come to grips with this long-term outlook, we are going to have major problems," said Greenspan, who led the U.S. central bank from 1987 to 2006. "I think we misunderstand the momentum of this deficit going forward."

Deficit Difficulty

Greenspan said reducing the deficit is "going to be far more difficult than anybody imagines" after "a decade of major increases in federal spending and major tax cuts."

Quote:

In his 2007 memoir, The Age of Turbulence, Greenspan attacked Bush for abandoning Republican principles on spending and deficits and expressed regret for his 2001 congressional testimony favoring the tax cuts, recounting how former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Democratic Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota asked him to hold off on an endorsement.

"It turned out that Conrad and Rubin were right," Greenspan wrote in the memoir.

There is something else you should see. You also argue that lowering taxes is what we need - that lowering taxes will give companies the revenue they need to hire more workers. Problem being, companies are not in the business of hiring as many as possible. They are in the business of making profits at high as possible. Hiring people is just a necessary mean to that end.

I have another link for you. I even bothered to use a Conservative site, just for you.

Quote:

One piece of economic data that has caught the attention of Byrnes, and others in his predicament, is a fairly staggering figure that comes out of the Bureau of Economic Analysis: Despite widespread unemployment, the BEA reports that U.S. corporations, reluctant to expand in an uncertain economy, are sitting on $1.6 trillion in cash reserves, a record amount, according to BEA economist Greg Key.

Even looking at the companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 index of blue chips -- and stripping out financials, which are required by regulators to keep large cash reserves in order to cushion against risk -- the cash on hand number is still rather monstrous: $1.1 trillion. To put that in perspective, as a percentage of companies' total market capitalization, that $1.1 trillion is more than double the ratio seen before the crisis.

"Cash is piling up faster than companies can figure out what to do with it," said David Bianco, head of U.S. equity strategy at Bank of America.

Asked about the mountain of corporate money sitting on the sidelines, the out-of-work Byrnes offered his own suggestion for what to do with it.

"Companies should absolutely spend some of that money to put people back to work," Byrnes said by telephone earlier this week, clearly frustrated. "I suppose they need to make shareholders happy, but come on already."

"Companies slashed their work forces and now find that they could function far more resourcefully than they ever realized possible," Bianco said. "If anything, we could start to see some of the money being used to expand overseas or to acquire other companies. In either case, that does not bode well for job creation. In fact, mergers lead to job reductions unfortunately."

Yet another link.

Quote:

Judging from corporate profits, we should be enjoying a powerful economic recovery. The drop in profits in the recession was about a third, the worst since World War II. But every day brings reports of gains. In the second quarter, IBM's earnings rose 9.1 percent from a year earlier. Government statistics through the first quarter (the latest available) show that profits have recovered 87 percent of what they lost in the recession. When second-quarter results are tabulated, profits may exceed their previous peak.

The rebound in profits ought to be a good omen. It frees companies to be more aggressive. They're sitting on huge cash reserves: a record of $838 billion for industrial companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 index (companies such as Apple, Boeing and Caterpillar) at the end of March, up 26 percent from a year earlier. "They have the wherewithal to do whatever they want -- hire; make new investments; raise dividends; do mergers and acquisitions," says S&P's Howard Silverblatt. Historically, higher profits lead to higher employment, says Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com. Except for start-ups, loss-making companies don't generate many new jobs.

So far, history be damned. The contrast between revived profits and stunted job growth is stunning. From late 2007 to late 2009, payroll employment dropped nearly 8.4 million. Since then, the economy has recovered a scant 11 percent of those lost jobs. Companies are doing much better than workers; that defines today's economy.

The most obvious explanation is that the relationship between labor and capital (to borrow Marxist vocabulary) has changed. Capital has gotten stronger; labor has weakened. Economist Robert J. Gordon of Northwestern University argues that the "shift of executive compensation towards much greater use of stock options" has made corporate managers more zealous cost-cutters in recessions and more reluctant hirers early in recoveries. Lowering the head count is the quickest way to restore profits and, from there, a company's stock price.

They CAN hire now. They CHOOSE not too. This is how corporations operate. You do NOT pay out money that you do not have too. It is not the lack of money coming in(as such would be with burdensome taxes), but the lack of need for money to come out. I could keep going and going, but should probably go to bed soon instead. I do hope the picture is starting to come together for you...