FactCheck: Obama tells the truth.

[Larry]

Fact Check (a really nifty web site that tells you where the politicians are lying) mentions that they researched something a politician said, and it turned out to be true. (Or at least, believable.):

Truth Strikes

One Obama claim that we wondered about turned out to be true, or at least close enough.

Obama: An employer has more of a chance of getting hit by lightning than be prosecuted for hiring an undocumented worker. That has to change.

We find different estimates of the number of persons struck by lightning. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Severe Storms Laboratory puts the number killed or injured by lightning in the U.S. at about 600 per year. Richard Kithil Jr., founder and CEO of the National Lightning and Safety Institute, estimates the figure to be 1,000, including 300 cases that go unreported.

We have no idea how many of those lightning casualties are employers, let alone how many might have hired illegal aliens. What we do know is that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement service reports that in the most recent 12-month period on record, the total number of arrests of persons in the “employer supervisory chain” was 91.

[TrumanB]

Wasn't Obama in favor of driver licenses for illegal immigrants? Or maybe he wasn't? It was hard to tell because he didn't really answer the question in the debate. Or was that Hillary? Or both? Perhaps Factcheck can post the real truth about that.

[Ignatius J.]

Truman,

I think you're thinking of hillary. Obama has been clear on that issue since the beginning. He is in favor of giving illegal immigrants driver's licenses. As a state senator in illinois he helped push legislation to do exactly that. Go back and listen to his response because I think his point is an important one.

Illegal immigrants aren't flooding across our borders to drive cars. If you want to crack down on illegal immigrants, go after employers and it will stop. Refusing to license illegal immigrants does nothing but endanger our streets. Obama wants to address the real problem here instead of getting into battles over the symptoms.

Go after employers and the problem ends.

[zoony]

Go after employers and the problem ends.

I don't blame employers in the least. In most cases, illegal immigrants are the only option. I see it everyday.

[Ignatius J.]

Fair enough zoony, but if you're going to accept employing these people, you should support giving them licenses.

[Larry]

I don't blame employers in the least. In most cases, illegal immigrants are the only option. I see it everyday.

You have never seen it. Because there is no such thing.

[Midnight Judges]

Wasn't Obama in favor of driver licenses for illegal immigrants? Or maybe he wasn't? It was hard to tell because he didn't really answer the question in the debate. Or was that Hillary? Or both? Perhaps Factcheck can post the real truth about that.

You obviously didn't watch the debate. Obama's answer was quite clear:

Obama stated: "Look, I have already said, I support the notion that we have to deal with public safety and that driver's licenses at the state level can make that happen." When debate moderator Wolf Blitzer asked him to respond "yes or no" to the question, "Do you support driver's licenses for illegal immigrants?" Obama answered, "Yes."

[alexey]

I don't blame employers in the least. In most cases, illegal immigrants are the only option. I see it everyday.

Sure they cannot afford to hire legals when other companies hire illegals... but going after everybody should change that.

Still, i find it hard to believe there were only 91 arrests for hiring illegals. That seems incredibly unlikely low.

[Koolblue13]

Good site, lots of Rudy on there. I didn't see anything on Paul though.

But we can leave this thread to the "which Dem lies less" arguement.

[Larry]

Actually, I do have to admit that virtually all of their "reviews" are of the "this claim is based on something somebody else said, which was based on something somebody else said, which was based on information which is mostly regarded as inaccurate" type.

They do occasionally catch some flat-out lies, but the overwhelming response to the "true/false" question is "misleading". (Which is, let's face it, the target that the politicians are aiming for. They're looking for "what's the most outrageous thing I can say in one sentence that can't be rebutted in a single paragraph?" Because they know that if it takes more then one paragraph to rebut their claim, then nobody will pay attention.

(One of these days, I'd like to see a Presidential Debate where the moderator has the authority to interrupt the speaker with "that's not true". At that point the "play clock" stops, and the candidate can defend his statement to the moderator. Yeah, I fantasize a lot.)

[chiefhogskin48]

Obama should be the next President of the United States. No question. He has turned this conservative to the left, if only temporarily.

[Duncan]

I don't blame employers in the least. In most cases, illegal immigrants are the only option. I see it everyday.

Offer more money for the job and you'll find the workers. I see it everyday.

[zoony]

You have never seen it. Because there is no such thing.

you lack a basic understanding of economics. We've had this discussion before, and quite frankly, I was embarassed for you. So no real need to have it again, just go back and read what was posted before. Or not. But you really owe it to yourself to become better educated. I would start with the laws of supply and demand.

[zoony]

Offer more money for the job and you'll find the workers. I see it everyday.

uhh... no you don't.

If you sell a product with elastic demand, nobody is going to purchase it at inflated prices. Especially in the service sector where standard cost is calculated almost entirlely by labor alone.

So while I'm sure that quip felt good to type, it was completely dumb.

Next lesson for you and Larry is to study inflation. Specifically the cost-push variety.

Of course, I told Larry that the last time. And he completely dodged/ignored it... which makes his drive-by bull**** all the more confusing in this thread.

[luckydevil]

Obama should be the next President of the United States. No question. He has turned this conservative to the left, if only temporarily.

I would love to hear the conservative case for Obama. Why do you find him so appealing?

[alexey]

zoony,

You said that in many cases hiring illegals is employers' only option. Why do you say that?

Thank You.

[Larry]

you lack a basic understanding of economics. We've had this discussion before, and quite frankly, I was embarassed for you. So no real need to have it again, just go back and read what was posted before. Or not. But you really owe it to yourself to become better educated. I would start with the laws of supply and demand.

Which states that supply increases if the price increases.

Please, show me the version of "the law of supply and demand" that says "it is impossible to find enough supply of something (labor, in this case) by increasing the price.

In fact, how about you simply show me one of those cases you claim firsthand knowledge of. You know, the ones that can't follow the law. And I can already tell you what my response is going to be: They could follow the law, if they just paid more.

And I'll be right. And you (and everyone else here) knows it.

Pay more, and more people will show up for work.

-----

Now that fact doesn't mean that kicking out the illegals (and starting a really big bidding war for the entire labor market) would automatically be good for the economy. (Among other things, one consequence of such an action, IMO, would be an across the board increase in the cost of American labor, compared to the price of everybody else's labor. And an increase in the cost of living.) I'm not claiming that it's an absolute, unarguable fact that across the board increases in the price of labor is A Good Idea.

What is an absolute, unarguable fact is that it's possible.

[laurent]

I don't blame employers in the least. In most cases, illegal immigrants are the only option. I see it everyday.

Just curious, but if illegal immigrants are the only option doesn't it mean that the business model of that company is inherently flawed and that isn't possible to legally sustain it?

Why should those businesses not die?

[USS Redskins]

(One of these days, I'd like to see a Presidential Debate where the moderator has the authority to interrupt the speaker with "that's not true". At that point the "play clock" stops, and the candidate can defend his statement to the moderator. Yeah, I fantasize a lot.)

I would like to see a debate where there are no speeches allowed - just yes or no answers and describe why in 30 seconds or less.

Jessie Ventura was not a good governor but I loved the way he spoke. It was direct, to the point and no bull.... like all politicians.

I would join the No BS party in 10 seconds.

[PleaseBlitz]

Just curious, but if illegal immigrants are the only option doesn't it mean that the business model of that company is inherently flawed and that isn't possible to legally sustain it?

Why should those businesses not die?

Because they supply something that America wants and cant get (or is unwilling to pay for) by other means.

[Larry]

If you sell a product with elastic demand, nobody is going to purchase it at inflated prices.

And there you get to your fallback lie. The "well, yeah, they could pay more, but then they couldn't sell their product" one.

Hypothetical company Acme Widget is using illegal, cheap labor. Their competition is Cogswell Cogs.

Your fallback lie is that Acme can't follow the law (and pay the legal price for their labor) because if they did, then nobody'd buy from Acme, they'd all buy from Cogswell.

Problem is that one of the following two statements is true:

1. Cogswell is using illegals, too. And if they followed the law, then they'd have to increase their prices, too.
   
2. Or, Cogswell already is following the law. In which case, what's been proven is that it is possible to compete legally, that Acme is simply either unwilling or unable to do so.
   

-----

You've also managed to include a second lie, in the same sentence, by reference. That's the lie that says that the illegal price for something is the "market" price, whereas the legal price is an "inflated" one.

(Hypothetical) The price of a flatscreen TV at Best Buy is $1200. The price of a stolen TV is $50. That does not mean that "I have no choice but to buy stolen TVs, because greedy Best Buy just won't sell them to me at a fair market price".

Especially in the service sector where standard cost is calculated almost entirlely by labor alone.

Lie #3, only with the bail-out word "almost" slipped in there.

A business whose "cost is calculated entirlely by labor alone" is a business which doesn't have a building or a truck, which doesn't pay taxes or utilities, and which purchases no raw products whatsoever.

I'd also claim that, while there may be businesses where labor is almost all of their costs (the examples which occur to me are law firms and Doctor's offices), those aren't the businesses that are hiring a lot of illegals.

Whereas, to pick the classic example of low-income employment, the McDonald's I've managed averaged labor costs of 17% of gross, which says, to me, that if a magic wand were to double the cost of low-skilled labor, overnight, that the selling price of a McDonald's hamburger would have to go up by 17%.

The net result (if you were to consider McDonald's and their employees as if they were the entire world) would be a 100% increase in personal income, and 17% inflation.

Now, no, McDonalds is not the entire American economy. Other businesses (in the case of a 100% increase in labor costs) would have larger or smaller increases in their prices. The prices of some items would go up by 5%, others might go up by 60%. (And, obviously, some labor would see bigger or smaller wage increases.)

But the only businesses that would see 100% increases, would be the (non-existent) businesses whose costs are 100% labor. And it would be impossible for any business, even a hypothetical one, to have a cost increase of over 100%.

Therefore, if labor costs were to increase 100%, prices (as a whole) are guaranteed to increase by less than 100%.

(Although, as I stated earlier, if the price of American labor goes up, the "Bad News" side of the debate occurs when you consider that such an increase makes American labor less competitive against foreign labor. IMO, the likely "unintended consequence" of the US becoming "protectionist" about their labor would be to encourage businesses to export jobs (and to import goods).)

[PleaseBlitz]

And there you get to your fallback lie. The "well, yeah, they could pay more, but then they couldn't sell their product" one.

Hypothetical company Acme Widget is using illegal, cheap labor. Their competition is Cogswell Cogs.

Your fallback lie is that Acme can't follow the law (and pay the legal price for their labor) because if they did, then nobody'd buy from Acme, they'd all buy from Cogswell.

Problem is that one of the following two statements is true:

1. Cogswell is using illegals, too. And if they followed the law, then they'd have to increase their prices, too.
   
2. Or, Cogswell already is following the law. In which case, what's been proven is that it is possible to compete legally, that Acme is simply either unwilling or unable to do so.
   

:laugh:

You are forgetting that people just might by something completely different than "cogs" or "widgets" if they dont want to pay more. Thats the whole definition of "elastic demand" as zoony pointed out.

Edit: I feel the need to give you an example to follow because im not sure if the above makes sense to you.

Guess who's stock INCREASED following 9/11. Best Buy. Why? Because people no longer wanted to spend their disposable income on travel (elastic demand), so they spent it on home electronics instead.

[PleaseBlitz]

You've also managed to include a second lie, in the same sentence, by reference. That's the lie that says that the illegal price for something is the "market" price, whereas the legal price is an "inflated" one.

(Hypothetical) The price of a flatscreen TV at Best Buy is $1200. The price of a stolen TV is $50. That does not mean that "I have no choice but to buy stolen TVs, because greedy Best Buy just won't sell them to me at a fair market price".

Here you are confusing "Market Value" with "Market Price."

The "market price" is whatever you can get it for. Its a microeconomic concept, not a macro one. So, yes, if you can get the labor for below minimum wage, that is the market price.

[gbear]

Larry,

You are right about the effect being protectionist policy. That would make us poorer and more isolated, not just economically but security wise as well.

The moment we go protectionist, the dollar probably stops being the international curency of trade with in 5 years. As it stands now, it's likely to lose that due to wreckless spending and a weakening dollar. At that point, I see your inflation projection as low.

All in all, do we really benefit from trying to pursue a no illegal immigrant policy? This all ignores the impact on SS where the rosy predictions require a rather stark increase in population that quite frankly isn't happening from our citizens.

[Larry]

Here you are confusing "Market Value" with "Market Price."

The "market price" is whatever you can get it for. Its a microeconomic concept, not a macro one. So, yes, if you can get the labor for below minimum wage, that is the market price.

Wow. We should obviously remove all prohibitions against the sale or purchase of stolen property, because they are obviously interfering in the free market. Why, how dare they prosecute people for buying stolen TVs, when clearly the market gives them no other choice (other than to pay the artificially, grossly over-inflated prices charged by the so-called "retailers".

Heck, fences are only doing a vital service that Best Buy just won't do.