290,000 Illegal Immigrants crossed into the US last few months - released pending hearings

[JMS]

oh dear ....there he goes on the deficit dropping LOL

Is there any question the deficite has been cut by more than 2/3 rds under Obama?

Not from any reputable source I've seen.

 

Deficit continues to drop sharply - CBO

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/04/news/economy/budget-outlook-deficits-cbo/

CBO Estimates U.S. Deficit Will Shrink More Than Expected in 2014

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303887804579501563800875216

U.S. Budget Deficit Shrinks Far Faster Than Expected

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/business/cbo-cuts-2013-deficit-estimate-by-24-percent.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[ABQCOWBOY]

I've said it before, I'll say it again.. the 21st century manifest destiny of the United States is to expand our boarders and absorb Mexico. Probable Canada, probable central America all the way down to Panama.

A huge percentage of the populations of these countries are already here. After our next amnesty bill which appears both parties support... we wil have massive numbers of duel citizens, and very likely will double those numbers as more illegals come to replace those who have obtained citizenship.

With the corruption, instability, violence in many of these countries it's frankly unbelieveable some of these countries haven't already petitioned us for statehood. When the majority of a country like Mexico's workforce is living in the US which will occur, then it's only a matter of time before they go for statehood... I give it 30-40 years tops.

Mexico comes over you will see several other countries sourth of Mexico follow suit in rapid sucession..

 

 

Yeah, I've heard you say that and it's no more realistic today then it will be in the near future.   We are not going to add those countries and extend our boarders.   Not going to happen and even if it were economically possible, the rest of the world would not allow it.  

[Larry]

No, we can't.   The numbers are doubling each year.   It is not sustainable and no amount of BS Broken Window economics are going to change that.  

 

This country is not the richest country in the world anymore and the cost associated with things like Healthcare have not even really kicked in yet.   Cost associated with all of the social programs that have been implemented are going to be significant.   We can not simply take in everybody.

If you can't manage to quit posting BS claims faster than I can point out that they are BS, could you at least make it easier for me to point out that you're posting BS, by, say, explaining which "numbers are doubling each year" and which standard you're using to claim that "This country is not the richest country in the world anymore"?

[ABQCOWBOY]

----------

If you can't manage to quit posting BS claims faster than I can point out that they are BS, could you at least make it easier for me to point out that you're posting BS, by, say, explaining which "numbers are doubling each year" and which standard you're using to claim that "This country is not the richest country in the world anymore"?

 

 

Right, your one to tell anybody about posting BS.   Yeah, I'll certainly listen very closely to what you say.

[Larry]

Read it but it's not true.   It would be true if you had 100% of the people paying Federal Taxes but you don't.   You have about half and that number is not increasing.

Now, here I think you're trying real hard to recite an Untrue Talking Point. But you've garbled things so much that it's hard to tell.

For example, are you asserting that there is something wrong with the country, say, if people with no income, aren't "paying federal taxes"?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Now, here I think you're trying real hard to recite an Untrue Talking Point. But you've garbled things so much that it's hard to tell.

For example, are you asserting that there is something wrong with the country, say, if people with no income, aren't "paying federal taxes"?

 

 

Yes.  I'm saying that this is a problem.   Further, I'm saying that people with income who are not paying are also a problem.  

[JMS]

JMS the economist.  Maybe we can implement your tax plan and save us all.  It's amazing how Wikipedia can solve the US problems. 

It's common knowledge Chip, Since the End of WWII 70 years ago. The United States economy has had an unbroken streak of being the largest economy in the world.

That streek I beleive goes back well beyond WWII dating back to around 1900 I believe..when we overtook the UK; although I could not confirm this except for GDP per capita figures.

[Larry]

Right, your one to tell anybody about posting BS.   Yeah, I'll certainly listen very closely to what you say.

Do you plan to back up the BS you posted? Or just make personal attacks?

[ABQCOWBOY]

It's common knowledge Chip, Since the End of WWII 70 years ago. The United States economy has had an unbroken streak of being the largest economy in the world.

That streek I beleive goes back well beyond WWII dating back to around 1900 I believe..when we overtook the UK; although I could not confirm this except for GDP per capita figures.

 

The largets economy in the world is not the same as the richest. 

[Larry]

Yes.  I'm saying that this is a problem.   Further, I'm saying that people with income who are not paying are also a problem.  

 

Let's see if we can deal with your assertion that there is something wrong with people who have no income, not being taxed, first.  Then we'll move on to your somewhat revised Untrue Talking Point. 

 

How do you propose we should implement your plan to tax two year olds who have no income? 

The largets economy in the world is not the same as the richest. 

 

Perhaps if you would specify which ruler you wish to claim we should be using?  (As I have now requested twice?) 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Do you plan to back up the BS you posted? Or just make personal attacks?

 

What exactly is it that you think I owe you an explanation on?

[JMS]

This country is not the richest country in the world anymore and the cost associated with things like Healthcare have not even really kicked in yet.   Cost associated with all of the social programs that have been implemented are going to be significant.   We can not simply take in everybody.

Actually all the negative effects of Obamacare economically speaking have already kicked off.

Today we are expereicing our 5th straight year of unprecidently small increases to healthcare costs which means while Healthcare continues to be the 800 lb gurilla in the room, it's no longer the 1200 lb gerilla, and Obamacare has at least had a partial role in these reduced costs.

As for the social programs, I'm unsure with what you are reffering... Obama has basically held spending relatively constant with the smallest growth in new spending since IK in the 1950's, and allowed us to grow our way out of the economic hole.. What new social programs are you reffering...

With regard to healthcare, the CBO always projected Obamacare as a neutral economic impact over the short term, turning into a multi trillion dollar savings over the long term. That projection has not changed over several iterations of the CBO studying the bill.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Let's see if we can deal with your assertion that there is something wrong with people who have no income, not being taxed, first.  Then we'll move on to your somewhat revised Untrue Talking Point. 

 

How do you propose we should implement your plan to tax two year olds who have no income? 

 

 

Well, if there two years old and are legal citizens, then I guess we should consider taxing their parents.  If they are two years old and not legal citizens, then we should send them back to where they belong and leave that problem for there own countries to solve.   How'd I do?

 

 

Actually all the negative effects of Obamacare economically speaking have already kicked off.

Today we are expereicing our 5th straight year of unprecidently small increases to healthcare costs which means while Healthcare continues to be the 800 lb gurilla in the room, it's no longer the 1200 lb gerilla, and Obamacare has at least had a partial role in these reduced costs.

As for the social programs, I'm unsure with what you are reffering... Obama has basically held spending relatively constant with the smallest growth in new spending since IK in the 1950's, and allowed us to grow our way out of the economic hole.. What new social programs are you reffering...

With regard to healthcare, the CBO always projected Obamacare as a neutral economic impact over the short term, turning into a multi trillion dollar savings over the long term. That projection has not changed over several iterations of the CBO studying the bill.

 

No they haven't.   Not even close but we'll soon see them.   Right after the election I'm guessing.

[JMS]

Yeah, I've heard you say that and it's no more realistic today then it will be in the near future.  

Now that we have treaties (NAFTA) to disassemble teh crossing boarders and allow the free travel of trucks an murchandise to flow across, now that we have what 20% of their workforce from Mexico living here, now that the second largest source of forgein currency to the Mexican economy is the remitance checks being sent home frmo Illegals, and now that we have concented to open up polling / voting facilities in US cities so the illegal immigrants can vote in Mexican elections... I think my envisoned outcome is much more likely today than it was in the 70's or 80's.

The largest tipping point will be on the next round of amnesty passed in congress. If it follows the John McCain Model where we legalize the poor immigrants here illegally, and extend free passage to the Mexican Middle Class I think that will greately accellerate the process.

When you couple all this softenning and relaxation of boarder protections with the almost total dependence of the Mexican Economy on the US and the dramatic increases in violence and unstability which resulted from NAFTA; and you project all of these things will increase over the next three decades as they have increased over the last three decades; Why wouldn't Mexico explore statehood, or some form of United Economic zone resulting in Statehood?

If Mexico goes that way, there are half a dozen smaller countries to their south who would follow suit like domino's as they economically have an even greater dependence on the US.

We are not going to add those countries and extend our boarders.   Not going to happen and even if it were economically possible, the rest of the world would not allow it.

[Larry]

Well, if there two years old and are legal citizens, then I guess we should consider taxing their parents. If they are two years old and not legal citizens, then we should send them back to where they belong and leave that problem for there own countries to solve. How'd I do?

Observing that "taxing their parents" does absolutely nothing about you having a problem with the fact that two year olds do not pay federal taxes.

You know, the bombastic claim that started this hijack?

(Frankly, I suspect that that's not what you wanted to claim. It would be perfectly fine with me if you were to revise your claim, and admit that maybe it's not a problem if there is a person, somewhere, who isn't paying federal taxes. Only reason I'm still pointing out what a stupid claim it is, is because you insist on continuing to make it. But it would be just fine with me if you'd abandon it, and then move on to the untrue claim that you actually were trying to make, instead.)

----------

Now that we have treaties (NAFTA) to disassemble teh crossing boarders and allow the free travel of trucks an murchandise to flow across, now that we have what 20% of their workforce from Mexico living here, now that the second largest source of forgein currency to the Mexican economy is the remitance checks being sent home frmo Illegals, and now that we have concented to open up polling / voting facilities in US cities so the illegal immigrants can vote in Mexican elections... I think my envisoned outcome is much more likely today than it was in the 70's or 80's.

I think your dream is completely unrealistic.

But then, I dream of Space Colonization, so I guess I can't really point fingers.

[JMS]

Two graphics. One showing revenue for all levels of government, as a percentage of GDP, since 1950. (I figure that's pretty much the longest we can look at, and not get into eras where things are ridiculously different.)

And a second, showing federal revenues only, but otherwise the same.

Looks to me like your graphic supports my statement for 2009-2012 that our revenue was at near historic lows during this time period. I would also suggest looking at the concentration in wealth coing on so that the top 10% now own an unprecidented ( post WWII ) share of the assets and income in this country; and those at the top of that list are enjoying the lowest Top income rate since the 1930's and have for been for decades now.

Note: Neither graph starts the vertical axis at zero. Frankly, when I see people doing that, my first assumption is that they're being intentionally deceptive, because the effect of doing so is to make small changes in the numbers look huge.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying here or it's implecations.

[Slateman]

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

[JMS]

I think your dream is completely unrealistic.

But then, I dream of Space Colonization, so I guess I can't really point fingers.

21st century manifest destiny to expand the us boarders both North and South.

Not my dream or my desired outcome.. I do think it is the enevitable future given the path we walk. The issues which were dramatic and provokative in 1980 resulting in the first unprecidented amnesty bill are today orders of magnatude worse. The voting block inside the United States of hispanics who are emotionally and politically alinged with loosening further our boarders are the largest minority voting block in he country today. A large block which enjoys broad support from the leadership of both poliitical parties. These things are all going to accellerate in the coming decades as they have in the preceeding decades.

It makes sense from a central american perspective... It also makes sense from an american perspective.

For central Americans they bring their traditioanal homes closer to their new homes. there is stability, jobs, upgraded infrastructure, rights and even better integration into the economy... representation and prosperity.

The US in the ocming decades faces serious challenges from Asia economically (India, and China) which will supass us wirh respect to GDP 20-30 years. They will do this almost exclusively based upon developing their domestic populations. Adding a few hundred million central and North Americans to our own economy would help us forstal and combate these emerging economic challengers as well as lock in valluable work force, raw materials, necessary for economic growth well into the 21st century.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Folks, we have two choices.

1) Allow anybody who wants to, to come here, whenever they want to, and stay for as long as they feel like it.

2) Create and enforce rules as to who can and can't come here, and similar restrictions.

Please feel free to announce which option you prefer.

Option 2 was chosen and has proven to be a failure both in terms of the rules, implementation and enforcement.

Time for a new option.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Observing that "taxing their parents" does absolutely nothing about you having a problem with the fact that two year olds do not pay federal taxes.

You know, the bombastic claim that started this hijack?

 

Observing that the question of taxing 2 year old children was ridiculous to begin with but whatever.  You asked the question so I answered it.

 

I don't really know what bombastic claims you are referring to.   Judging from the absurd point you make of taxing children, I can only guess that it's going to be equally fruitless to discuss.

 

[Larry]

Looks to me like your graphic supports my statement for 2009-2012 that our revenue was at near historic lows during this time period.

If you look real closely, you may note that 08-11 were not typical years. 

 

Yes, during the worst economic collapse of our lifetimes, revenues went down.

You post however made the claim that tax rates were at historic lows. No, those rates didn't magically plummet in 08, and then rise back up in 12. Revenues dropped, those years, because the economy sucked.

 

If you want to argue that the huge deficits of that period were mostly caused by falling revenue, then I'm with you. 

 

If you want to claim that tax rates are causing government revenue to plummet, then you can't just pick three years.  Tax rates really haven't changed much since 2001. 

[JMS]

The largets economy in the world is not the same as the richest.

Actually it is.. That's exactly what it means.

[Larry]

Actually it is.. That's exactly what it means.

 

You've stated which ruler you're using, to make your claim. 

 

(FWIW, it's a ruler which is highly regarded.  One which, I suspect, pretty much every rational person would agree is the one to use.) 

 

However, it's possible that ABQ is using a different ruler. 

 

(Or he could just be talking out of his Philly.) 

 

That's why I've asked him which measure he is using.  Twice, now. 

 

Edit: 

 

This thread has moved a really long way from it's topic.  I hereby propose that I will attempt to avoid posting in the thread, at least for a while, unless it's actually about our current wave of immigration. 

[JMS]

You post however made the claim that tax rates were at historic lows. No, those rates didn't magically plummet in 08, and then rise back up in 12. Revenues dropped, those years, because the economy sucked.

.....

 

If you want to claim that tax rates are causing government revenue to plummet, then you can't just pick three years.  Tax rates really haven't changed much since 2001.

Here is what I'm thinking. Top income tax rate in the US are at near historic lows since WWII... and have been for decades.

1920 - 73%

1930 - 25% <- Hoover

1940 - 81%

1950 - 91%

1960 - 91%

1970 - 72%

1980 - 70%

1990 - 28%

2000 - ~40%

2010 - 35%

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

[ABQCOWBOY]

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Emma Lazarus - The New Colossus

 

Did you know that she was a life long supporter of the Single Tax Movement?

Actually it is.. That's exactly what it means.

 

I don't think so.

Here is what I'm thinking. Top income tax rate in the US are at near historic lows since WWII... and have been for decades.

1920 - 73%

1930 - 25% <- Hoover

1940 - 81%

1950 - 91%

1960 - 91%

1970 - 72%

1980 - 70%

1990 - 28%

2000 - ~40%

2010 - 35%

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

 

 

This would seem to suggest that fewer and fewer people are actually working and that wealth is becoming more and more divided.