Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Who was worse? Adolf Hitler or George S. Patton

El Rod d'Irico said:
As I already stated, cheap labor benefits consumers. I even put it in concrete terms for you, referring to the specific ways cheap labor benefits my particular life. Do you have any idea what the total savings to consumers adds up to? If you don't, then why are your nattering on about total costs? There are two sides to this economic equation, and, in your googlings for factlets to prop up your biases, you appear to have neglected the "benefit" side.
Click to expand...
Not as badly as you've neglected to stand behind an argument as to why illegal immigration is a positive step towards building and maintaining a better economy. Of course I'm biased against people illegally coming into the country, taking advantage of the taxes I pay without having to pay anything back. I don't know which country you are a citizen of, but I'm a US citizen.

And a bit of advice before trying to discredit something found on the Internet? Contest it with your claim, and back it up with something other than exclamations of bias and incorrect statistics.
 
Save your advice, Messenger.

The point is if you don't have any idea what the aggregate economic benefits of cheap immigrant labor are, then the numbers you cited as costs are meaningless. You might as well substitute an X.

But billions sound like a lot!
 
El Rod d'Irico said:
Save your advice, Messenger.

The point is if you don't have any idea what the aggregate economic benefits of cheap immigrant labor are, then the numbers you cited as costs are meaningless. You might as well substitute an X.

But billions sound like a lot!
Click to expand...
I asked you before to show me some data in regards to how much people save. Like 50 posts ago.

Here you go, grasshopper.
 
There's no need to invoke Wikipedia's Rules of Argument, Messenger. What makes my case for me is your inability to conceive of the issue of illegal immigration in normal economic terms. Because you are biased, you only look for evidence of the costs, and remain willfully ignorant of the benefits, indeed rejecting their very possibility. What credibility can you have on the subject, then, when you refuse to treat it rationally?

It would be no favor to array a bunch of counterpoints to your talking points. You'll sharpen your own mind most by investigating the subjects you care about through publications with which you disagree. Leave the crackpots of the internets to their mutterings.
 
El Rod d'Irico said:
There's no need to invoke Wikipedia's Rules of Argument, Messenger.
Click to expand...
Why not? It's what you've been using as an excuse to dismiss what I've put forth, as though if there is a number larger than the billions I have present which makes immigration worth the cost.

What makes my case for me is your inability to conceive of the issue of illegal immigration in normal economic terms. Because you are biased, you only look for evidence of the costs, and remain willfully ignorant of the benefits, indeed rejecting their very possibility. What credibility can you have on the subject, then, when you refuse to treat it rationally?
Click to expand...
It is because I am able to understand the issue in economic terms is why . . My only bias is being a citizen of a nation which is being harmed by illegal immigration, and I must say that your prattling on about it demonstrates more of a preference towards the opinion that immigrants and the situation they create are 'good,' and that curtailing their flooding into this country as being 'bad'. Quite the bias.

Heck, you might as well just say "Yeah yeah, you have all those 'statistics' and 'facts' backing up your opinion that illegals are harmful, but you do it because you are biased. And because you are biased, what you argue is automatically incorrect and very wrongist," and be done with it.


It would be no favor to array a bunch of counterpoints to your talking points. You'll sharpen your own mind most by investigating the subjects you care about through publications with which you disagree. Leave the crackpots of the internets to their mutterings.
Click to expand...
Well since I'll stick by my Internet keyboard commando debate and bid you a very nice day, you have no reason to stick around.

Toodles!
 
El Rod d'Irico said:
I defy you to balance that paltry $23 billion against the cost savings to consumers the cheap labor has provided.
Click to expand...

Since taxpayers had to foot that bill, there's no positive gain to balance.
 
Messenger said:
Why not? It's what you've been using as an excuse to dismiss what I've put forth, as though if there is a number larger than the billions I have present which makes immigration worth the cost.


It is because I am able to understand the issue in economic terms is why . . My only bias is being a citizen of a nation which is being harmed by illegal immigration, and I must say that your prattling on about it demonstrates more of a preference towards the opinion that immigrants and the situation they create are 'good,' and that curtailing their flooding into this country as being 'bad'. Quite the bias.

Heck, you might as well just say "Yeah yeah, you have all those 'statistics' and 'facts' backing up your opinion that illegals are harmful, but you do it because you are biased. And because you are biased, what you argue is automatically incorrect and very wrongist," and be done with it.

Well since I'll stick by my Internet keyboard commando debate and bid you a very nice day, you have no reason to stick around.

Toodles!
Click to expand...
The problem is that you're making a political argument but confuse it for an economic one. If you're going to talk about costs, they're only meaningful if they're net costs -- balanced against benefits. You don't have any "facts" or "statistics" to back up your argument, merely convenient large-sounding talking points that illuminate nothing when divorced from a comprehensive economic analysis.

It is your bias whichleads you to confuse politics for economics, I'd warrant. Can you even admit that there might be a benefit to illegal immigration somewhere in the American economy?
 
For every job consumed by an illegal, one less job is available to a legal. The legal who then cannot find a job is supported by other legals paying taxes into the welfare system.

There are an estimated 30 million illegals in the US, probably a third of which have jobs.

According to government numbers, 7 million people are unemployed.

Pretty close.

The current workload for welfare is 3 workers to each recipient. Rough net impact of illegals is then 21 million workers paying for 7 million unemployed with a total of some 28 million people either supporting or soaking due to the illegals.

I could carry many different tendrils of this out to further conclusions, but suffice it to say, I see no benefit in the aggregate just so a general can save $5 an hour hiring an illegal carpenter over an American.
 
Thank you, Wall Street Journal, for your pro-illegal immigration screed.

If it's such a boon to the public, then why not have full illegal unemployment and no legal employment? Who will pay the taxes then? Illegal fairy-goddess?

Your statements are superficial and literally ripped from the opinion articles of WSJ, which have been roundly trounced by fact since the 70s.

The entire capitalist abuse of laws in this regard is short-sighted. WSJ refuses to see anything beyond the immediate bottom line. I can see you suffer the same malady.
 
Basic economic theory is superficial? OK.

There's some jobs that the illegal workforce is more suited to, and some that legals are more suited to. The latter tend to be far more productive, requiring greater skills, and are compensated accordingly.

Not that I'm saying that it's desirable that the low-skill jobs be filled by illegal immigrants. But imported cheap labor makes a lot of sense. Without it, my standard of living would decrease.
 
El Rod d'Irico said:
The problem is that you're making a political argument but confuse it for an economic one. If you're going to talk about costs, they're only meaningful if they're net costs -- balanced against benefits. You don't have any "facts" or "statistics" to back up your argument, merely convenient large-sounding talking points that illuminate nothing when divorced from a comprehensive economic analysis.
Click to expand...
I'm making both. We can talk about all sorts of arguments, but you have yet to supply a smidgen of data which accounts for your 'benefits'. I've given a number to my claim of greater cost. Let's see you give one for 'benefits'.

It is your bias whichleads you to confuse politics for economics, I'd warrant. Can you even admit that there might be a benefit to illegal immigration somewhere in the American economy?
Click to expand...
Can you move forward somewhere in this discussion, without reverting to such philosophical debate?


10 bucks says he mentions 'bias' and the rest of the stuff that's been covered without giving a single bit of data to support his wish that illegal immigration is economically sound and advantageous.
 
Messenger said:
I'm making both. We can talk about all sorts of arguments, but you have yet to supply a smidgen of data which accounts for your 'benefits'. I've given a number to my claim of greater cost. Let's see you give one for 'benefits'.
Click to expand...

No, you've given a number to your claim of 'cost.' You have no idea whether this cost is greater or lesser. You're assuming that the costs are greater, because you are biased towards that conclusion. How do you know that the costs outweigh the benefits? Without such knowledge, how can the cost figures you cite be meaningful?
 
To sum up the debate here:

Mess: Illegal aliens cost this country billions of $s.

Elrod: The benefits far outweigh the costs.

Mess: Ok, then show me some data.

Elrod: You're biased.

Mess: Answer the question.

Elrod: You're biased.

Mess: Could you please provide some data?

Elrod: You don't know economics because my fictitious billions in benefits are greater than your costs, and you're biased.

Mess: Bias, yeah, sure. Now could you stop dancing around the same idea and give us a number?

Elrod: You've given a number to your claim of cost. You have no idea whether this cost is greater or lesser than the benefits. Even though I have absolutely no number to present, I assure you that they [benefits] are greater.

Mess: 0_o

Elrod: You're biased.


El Rod d'Irico said:
No, you've given a number to your claim of 'cost.' You have no idea whether this cost is greater or lesser. You're assuming that the costs are greater, because you are biased towards that conclusion. How do you know that the costs outweigh the benefits? Without such knowledge, how can the cost figures you cite be meaningful?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top