Who was worse? Adolf Hitler or George S. Patton

[El Rod d'Irico]

:meh:

Here's what you know: there are costs to illegal immigration.
Here's what you don't know: the costs of illegal immigration outweigh the benefits.

Can you refute that?

 

[Tyrant]

I see he's about to give up completely and enter the trivial minutiae phase.

Yes, I did ask for the data although it was rather vague (Post 79 I believe, the very first sentence.)

You're grabbing at straws with your latest post. I pointed out your initial argument from ignorance when you began your incessant prattle about benefits outweighing costs... I guess it was a massive stretch for you to present a number, since you seem to prefer mewling about bias.

 

[El Rod d'Irico]

I see he's about to give up completely and enter the trivial minutiae phase.

Yes, I did ask for the data although it was rather vague (Post 79 I believe, the very first sentence.)

You're grabbing at straws with your latest post. I pointed out your initial argument from ignorance when you began your incessant prattle about benefits outweighing costs... I guess it was a massive stretch for you to present a number, since you seem to prefer mewling about bias.

Messenger, resorting to invective does nothing to help your argument. Your economic analysis is incomplete, as I've demonstrated repeatedly.

 

[Tyrant]

I defy you to balance that paltry $23 billion against the cost savings to consumers the cheap labor has provided.

OK

 

[El Rod d'Irico]

yep. :bigass:

 

[The Question]

How do you know? Are you saying that the net savings to consumers is less than $23 billion?

I'm saying that since consumers had to pay that $23 billion above and beyond what illegals pay into the system, that $23 is a net loss.

 

[Cranky Bastard]

Do you know that the costs outweigh the benefits?

Do you know that they don't?

Two can play the silly rhetoric game.

 

[Tyrant]

yep. :bigass:

So you've had absolutely nothing to say, and are as dim-witted as you've 'pretended' to be?

I see what you did there! That is so clever! Your troll is a success, but at least we needn't take anything you say seriously anymore.

Now it's time for the grown-ups to get back to discussing stuff.

 

[El Rod d'Irico]

You're a grown up? I've challenged you to make your economic analysis complete, and you have resisted. Therefore, the claims you've made about costs can't be taken seriously, since they're not adjusted for benefits.

 

[El Rod d'Irico]

I'm saying that since consumers had to pay that $23 billion above and beyond what illegals pay into the system, that $23 is a net loss.

But what about the savings to consumers? This $23 billion you're all harping on is effectively a government-sponsored subsidy for a low-cost workforce.

 

[Cranky Bastard]

You're a grown up? I've challenged you to make your economic analysis complete, and you have resisted. Therefore, the claims you've made about costs can't be taken seriously, since they're not adjusted for benefits.

You haven't reciprocated. Only adolescents debate that way.

 

[El Rod d'Irico]

Do you know that they don't?

Two can play the silly rhetoric game.

It most certainly is not a silly rhetorical game. The figures bandied about here are meaningless unless the total picture is taken into account. How can you legitimately assume the costs outweigh the benefits?

 

[El Rod d'Irico]

You haven't reciprocated. Only adolescents debate that way.

Pfft to your ad hominem. The evidence on one side is not credible, and the only way to establish its credibility is to compare it with the benefits. Messenger's argument is all assumption, no reasoning.

 

[Cranky Bastard]

Pfft to your ad hominem. The evidence on one side is not credible, and the only way to establish its credibility is to compare it with the benefits. Messenger's argument is all assumption, no reasoning.

You can take it as ad hominem... but the generality was the truth.

You've provided nothing, only rhetoric. We provide numbers, you provide more rhetoric.

End of debate.

 

[The Question]

How can you legitimately assume the costs outweigh the benefits?

Because there are no real benefits. Without 12-20 million illegals overburdening our economy, you'd be able to pay the same thing to American kids that you pay third-worlders for, and without supporting an agenda that's destroying your local economy, driving up prices for consumer goods and services and importing with it an army of criminals.

 

[Cranky Bastard]

Because there are no real benefits. Without 12-20 million illegals overburdening our economy, you'd be able to pay the same thing to American kids that you pay third-worlders for, and without supporting an agenda that's destroying your local economy, driving up prices for consumer goods and services and importing with it an army of criminals.

American teenagers are the highest % of unemployed, too. High teen %s.

Any teenager could match an illegal for whatever job they do.

 

[Tyrant]

Elrod's position is that consumers who pay less for a having their lawns trimmed have more spending power, thus strengthening the economy. The actual increase is spending power is entirely unknown, but the fact people can hire Mexicans to do this or that for them at a lower cost is reason enough for him to lean on it without providing any amount (Instead we see sidewinding at breakneck speeds.)

Of course he completely ignores the other costs brought on by having to police aliens, give them free healthcare, schools for their anchor babies, etc.

But so long as the consumer has a bit of extra dough to buy other shit that they're too lazy to clean themselves it's all good.

 

[El Rod d'Irico]

Because there are no real benefits. Without 12-20 million illegals overburdening our economy, you'd be able to pay the same thing to American kids that you pay third-worlders for, and without supporting an agenda that's destroying your local economy, driving up prices for consumer goods and services and importing with it an army of criminals.

No way. The cheap labor provides services that wouldn't otherwise be provided. Now, everyone can have landscaping services, house cleaners, child care, and more affordable restaurants because of the cost savings. This gives us more time for:

1) working at our several orders more productive jobs
2) enjoying our extraordinarily high incomes in leisure time

 

[El Rod d'Irico]

Elrod's position is that consumers who pay less for a having their lawns trimmed have more spending power, thus strengthening the economy. The actual increase is spending power is entirely unknown, but the fact people can hire Mexicans to do this or that for them at a lower cost is reason enough for him to lean on it without providing any amount (Instead we see sidewinding at breakneck speeds.)

Of course he completely ignores the other costs brought on by having to police aliens, give them free healthcare, schools for their anchor babies, etc.

But so long as the consumer has a bit of extra dough to buy other shit that they're too lazy to clean themselves it's all good.

This is a parody of a much larger argument. One of the more glaring errors is that you conflate spending power and living standards. As I suggest above, low-cost menial services give workers more time to be productive in their higher-paying jobs. It also enables both parents in a family to work.

However, the matter at hand is that you've spouted off a number of talking point that suggest there are HUGE costs to the US without accounting for any benefits. I acknowledge that there are very real costs, among them those you cite above. Intellectually honesty on your part would entail some research into the benefit side of the equation.

 

[Tyrant]

This is a parody of a much larger argument. One of the more glaring errors is that you conflate spending power and living standards.

Show me.

As I suggest above, low-cost menial services give workers more time to be productive in their higher-paying jobs. It also enables both parents in a family to work.

Please explain how exploitative low-costs give workers with higher-paying jobs more time to be productive. I'm dying to hear it.

However, the matter at hand is that you've spouted off a number of talking point that suggest there are HUGE costs to the US without accounting for any benefits. I acknowledge that there are very real costs, among them those you cite above. Intellectually honesty on your part would entail some research into the benefit side of the equation.

They aren't suggestions; the costs are huge and include numerous economic consequences. Your point about providing countering the value of costs vs. benefits is apt.

You're basically trying to wash away costs by citing that without data re: benefits, it's impossible to know net gains or losses. It makes sense, except I don't see the point in whining about it for as long as you have. If you lean on them so, then please provide some figures.

SEE, MOST DISCUSSIONS GO LIKE: POINT/COUNTERPOINT, instead of dissecting "Intellectual honesty" endlessly, which is apparently more fascinating a topic than the discussion itself.



Please outline how money saved from employing aliens at lower costs services ultimately outweighs the enormous cost increase in social services and infrastructure.