PDA

View Full Version : Immigrants Causing One Fifth Of Federal Deficit



Mister D
10-17-2011, 12:57 PM
Edwin Rubenstyein proposes an immigration moratorium.


I have good news and bad news on the federal deficit front.



The good news: it has been worse. At the end of WWII the federal deficit was more than twice as high relative to Gross Domestic Product [GDP].



The bad news: this is the first economic recovery since World War II in which the deficit has not declined as a share of GDP. It was 10% of GDP in 2009 and is projected to be 11% in FY2011, which ended on Friday.



We’ve had weak recoveries before. George W. Bush’s first three years were essentially jobless. But he managed to reduce the federal budget imbalance by two-thirds (as a share of GDP) during his economic expansion.



This time, it is different.



This is also the first recovery in our post war history in which immigration has exceeded job creation.



The nexus between immigration, unemployment, and the federal deficit may be one of the greatest stories never told.

Snip

It’s no longer just an immigration problem. It’s not even a poverty problem: in this economy many middle-class households pay less tax than they receive in federal services.



It’s a population problem. We are all culpable.



As I see it, the country’s fiscal deterioration has a lot in common with its environmental and ecological deterioration. They are both exacerbated by population growth.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/immigrants-causing-one-fifth-of-federal-deficit

Conley
10-17-2011, 01:12 PM
"It’s sobering to realize that 15 years ago the entire federal deficit was less than one-half of 1% of GDP."

Is that really true? That doesn't seem possible.

Mister D
10-17-2011, 02:57 PM
"It’s sobering to realize that 15 years ago the entire federal deficit was less than one-half of 1% of GDP."

Is that really true? That doesn't seem possible.


Not sure. They way we've been spending though...

Conley
10-17-2011, 03:04 PM
"It’s sobering to realize that 15 years ago the entire federal deficit was less than one-half of 1% of GDP."

Is that really true? That doesn't seem possible.


Not sure. They way we've been spending though...


I have no doubt it's exploded, I'm just thinking that stat is either wrong or it is using Clinton's funky projections. No figures I've seen even comes close to that.

Mister D
10-17-2011, 03:09 PM
"It’s sobering to realize that 15 years ago the entire federal deficit was less than one-half of 1% of GDP."

Is that really true? That doesn't seem possible.


Not sure. They way we've been spending though...


I have no doubt it's exploded, I'm just thinking that stat is either wrong or it is using Clinton's funky projections. No figures I've seen even comes close to that.


You would know better than I.

Conley
10-17-2011, 03:16 PM
"The year was 1995, when total federal spending was about $1.5 trillion—less than half of what it is today."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Testimony/2011/10/The-Imperative-of-Spending-Control

Federal Spending was a little over 1.5T, GDP was 7.3T, unless I am reading this wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#Federal_s pending.2C_federal_debt.2C_and_GDP

I encourage everyone to look at that chart. It is disturbing and more people need to realize what we're facing.

Mister D
10-17-2011, 03:42 PM
In 15 years...what the heck happened?

Conley
10-17-2011, 04:03 PM
In 15 years...what the heck happened?


That is a really good question. It has gone on for years now, through Democrats and Republicans in both the presidency and Congress. It seems like at some point the politicians just stopped caring about it. I have read that Nixon abandoning the gold standard also led to the debt we have now, since removing it was basically a license to print money without anything backing it up.

Mister D
10-17-2011, 06:37 PM
In 15 years...what the heck happened?


That is a really good question. It has gone on for years now, through Democrats and Republicans in both the presidency and Congress. It seems like at some point the politicians just stopped caring about it. I have read that Nixon abandoning the gold standard also led to the debt we have now, since removing it was basically a license to print money without anything backing it up.


Wars are expensive but not that expensive. Perhaps the author has a good point about the increased population.

MMC
10-18-2011, 07:13 AM
We’ve had weak recoveries before. George W. Bush’s first three years were essentially jobless. But he managed to reduce the federal budget imbalance by two-thirds (as a share of GDP) during his economic expansion.

This need to be reminded to those on the left. Each and everytime they bring up the economy. The one point that all those lefty economist keep failing to mention. >:(

"This is also the first recovery in our post war history in which immigration has exceeded job creation."

Another constant reminder in response anytime the Left starts blaming the right about jobs.

Conley
10-18-2011, 08:03 AM
We’ve had weak recoveries before. George W. Bush’s first three years were essentially jobless. But he managed to reduce the federal budget imbalance by two-thirds (as a share of GDP) during his economic expansion.

This need to be reminded to those on the left. Each and everytime they bring up the economy. The one point that all those lefty economist keep failing to mention. >:(

"This is also the first recovery in our post war history in which immigration has exceeded job creation."

Another constant reminder in response anytime the Left starts blaming the right about jobs.


Those numbers don't make sense either, unfortunately. I'd love it if someone could prove me wrong. If you look at the chart I linked to before (all numbers coming from the government itself) it is a steady increase during all presidencies and all sessions of congress. George W. Bush was one of the worst offenders, raising spending about 4% every single year. During his time in office spending went from 2T to 3T in only eight years.

Conley
10-18-2011, 08:03 AM
You can blame Congress for that too of course. There is plenty of shared responsibility in all of this.

MMC
10-18-2011, 08:57 AM
You can blame Congress for that too of course. There is plenty of shared responsibility in all of this.


Was that connected to GDP tho? :-\

Conley
10-18-2011, 08:59 AM
You can blame Congress for that too of course. There is plenty of shared responsibility in all of this.


Was that connected to GDP tho? :-\


Yeah...GDP has been going up too but at a much slower rate :(

Mister D
10-18-2011, 09:38 AM
I would hardly classify Bush as "Right" but I'd like to suit back and really give this article my full attention. The population increase makes a lot of sense. if you are adding tens of millions of new americans most of whom are relatively poor and absorb more in services than they pay in taxes it could be the crux of the problem.

Conley
10-18-2011, 10:06 AM
I would hardly classify Bush as "Right" but I'd like to suit back and really give this article my full attention. The population increase makes a lot of sense. if you are adding tens of millions of new americans most of whom are relatively poor and absorb more in services than they pay in taxes it could be the crux of the problem.


There's no doubt in my mind at least that it is a significant part of the problem.

My guess is that the biggest drain by illegals come from the health care system, especially ER visits. The cost of healthcare has skyrocketed during these same fifteen years and that has had a big hand in running up the bills and bankrupting states. We waste a lot of money on education but not as much as on healthcare IMO. Could be wrong but that is my sense.

Conley
10-18-2011, 10:07 AM
Not even just illegals, uninsured of all types showing up at public hospitals. But at least presumably the uninsured citizens have paid some sort of taxes relative to the illegals who have likely paid none.

jgreer
10-18-2011, 10:15 AM
Ninety percent of statistics are made up including the headline of this topic.

Mister D
10-18-2011, 10:43 AM
I would hardly classify Bush as "Right" but I'd like to suit back and really give this article my full attention. The population increase makes a lot of sense. if you are adding tens of millions of new americans most of whom are relatively poor and absorb more in services than they pay in taxes it could be the crux of the problem.


There's no doubt in my mind at least that it is a significant part of the problem.

My guess is that the biggest drain by illegals come from the health care system, especially ER visits. The cost of healthcare has skyrocketed during these same fifteen years and that has had a big hand in running up the bills and bankrupting states. We waste a lot of money on education but not as much as on healthcare IMO. Could be wrong but that is my sense.


Education is another and probably severely impacts states like CA.

Mister D
10-18-2011, 10:44 AM
Ninety percent of statistics are made up including the headline of this topic.


Great argument. ::)

jgreer
10-18-2011, 10:49 AM
Ninety percent of statistics are made up including the headline of this topic.


Great argument. ::)


It better than quoting articles full of lies like you do and posting from white supremist cites like VDare.

Mister D
10-18-2011, 10:50 AM
Ninety percent of statistics are made up including the headline of this topic.


Great argument. ::)


It better than quoting articles full of lies like you do and posting from white supremist cites like VDare.


Another great argument. ::)

MMC
10-18-2011, 11:03 AM
If one equates the prinicple to population then it merely statistical and therefore can equate it to a mathmatical equation. Even if the numbers are not specific. Such is still a fact. If the numbers continue to rise and are unchecked, eventually you have a population that supercedes the orignal inhabitants of the country. The Middle East and Europe are fine examples. resources, drains, less, etc etc.

One should debate the merits on going back to the city-state. Over that of a Unified Country.

Conley
10-18-2011, 11:13 AM
If one equates the prinicple to population then it merely statistical and therefore can equate it to a mathmatical equation. Even if the numbers are not specific. Such is still a fact. If the numbers continue to rise and are unchecked, eventually you have a population that supercedes the orignal inhabitants of the country. The Middle East and Europe are fine examples. resources, drains, less, etc etc.

One should debate the merits on going back to the city-state. Over that of a Unified Country.


That's an interesting idea. I don't want to abandon the United States but we definitely need to return states' rights to the states! That is part of what made this country great to begin with. Not a power and spending crazy DC ruining it for us all.

MMC
10-18-2011, 12:14 PM
If one equates the prinicple to population then it merely statistical and therefore can equate it to a mathmatical equation. Even if the numbers are not specific. Such is still a fact. If the numbers continue to rise and are unchecked, eventually you have a population that supercedes the orignal inhabitants of the country. The Middle East and Europe are fine examples. resources, drains, less, etc etc.

One should debate the merits on going back to the city-state. Over that of a Unified Country.


That's an interesting idea. I don't want to abandon the United States but we definitely need to return states' rights to the states! That is part of what made this country great to begin with. Not a power and spending crazy DC ruining it for us all.


I think it could go back to the City State, ruling by region not just city limits. Just as it would if some world-wide disaster stuck. Like With Sparta and Athens back in the good ole days. :-\

Conley
10-18-2011, 12:17 PM
If one equates the prinicple to population then it merely statistical and therefore can equate it to a mathmatical equation. Even if the numbers are not specific. Such is still a fact. If the numbers continue to rise and are unchecked, eventually you have a population that supercedes the orignal inhabitants of the country. The Middle East and Europe are fine examples. resources, drains, less, etc etc.

One should debate the merits on going back to the city-state. Over that of a Unified Country.


That's an interesting idea. I don't want to abandon the United States but we definitely need to return states' rights to the states! That is part of what made this country great to begin with. Not a power and spending crazy DC ruining it for us all.


I think it could go back to the City State, ruling by region not just city limits. Just as it would if some world-wide disaster stuck. Like With Sparta and Athens back in the good ole days. :-\


So you want to give up on the Ol' U S of A ?

I don't want to do that...I think Texas might declare war on California :D

Mister D
10-18-2011, 12:20 PM
I may print this out with it's supporting links this week and take a good look. It makes a lot of sense. If the population expansion consists (and we know it does) of low income migrants and those migranst use more in services (health, education etc.) then they pay in taxes the guy may have a good point.

MMC
10-18-2011, 12:41 PM
If one equates the prinicple to population then it merely statistical and therefore can equate it to a mathmatical equation. Even if the numbers are not specific. Such is still a fact. If the numbers continue to rise and are unchecked, eventually you have a population that supercedes the orignal inhabitants of the country. The Middle East and Europe are fine examples. resources, drains, less, etc etc.

One should debate the merits on going back to the city-state. Over that of a Unified Country.


That's an interesting idea. I don't want to abandon the United States but we definitely need to return states' rights to the states! That is part of what made this country great to begin with. Not a power and spending crazy DC ruining it for us all.


I think it could go back to the City State, ruling by region not just city limits. Just as it would if some world-wide disaster stuck. Like With Sparta and Athens back in the good ole days. :-\


So you want to give up on the Ol' U S of A ?

I don't want to do that...I think Texas might declare war on California :D


No I didnt say I want to do it.....but I could see it going back to that way after some world-wide disaster.

Conley
10-18-2011, 12:51 PM
If one equates the prinicple to population then it merely statistical and therefore can equate it to a mathmatical equation. Even if the numbers are not specific. Such is still a fact. If the numbers continue to rise and are unchecked, eventually you have a population that supercedes the orignal inhabitants of the country. The Middle East and Europe are fine examples. resources, drains, less, etc etc.

One should debate the merits on going back to the city-state. Over that of a Unified Country.


That's an interesting idea. I don't want to abandon the United States but we definitely need to return states' rights to the states! That is part of what made this country great to begin with. Not a power and spending crazy DC ruining it for us all.


I think it could go back to the City State, ruling by region not just city limits. Just as it would if some world-wide disaster stuck. Like With Sparta and Athens back in the good ole days. :-\


So you want to give up on the Ol' U S of A ?

I don't want to do that...I think Texas might declare war on California :D


No I didnt say I want to do it.....but I could see it going back to that way after some world-wide disaster.


Oh definitely. I could see that happening although I will tell ya right now that Californians will not be lining up to be part of the Sacramento city-state ;D

MMC
10-18-2011, 12:54 PM
If one equates the prinicple to population then it merely statistical and therefore can equate it to a mathmatical equation. Even if the numbers are not specific. Such is still a fact. If the numbers continue to rise and are unchecked, eventually you have a population that supercedes the orignal inhabitants of the country. The Middle East and Europe are fine examples. resources, drains, less, etc etc.

One should debate the merits on going back to the city-state. Over that of a Unified Country.


That's an interesting idea. I don't want to abandon the United States but we definitely need to return states' rights to the states! That is part of what made this country great to begin with. Not a power and spending crazy DC ruining it for us all.


I think it could go back to the City State, ruling by region not just city limits. Just as it would if some world-wide disaster stuck. Like With Sparta and Athens back in the good ole days. :-\


So you want to give up on the Ol' U S of A ?

I don't want to do that...I think Texas might declare war on California :D


No I didnt say I want to do it.....but I could see it going back to that way after some world-wide disaster.


Oh definitely. I could see that happening although I will tell ya right now that Californians will not be lining up to be part of the Sacramento city-state ;D


Your all good if ya nowheres around San Francisco. ;D

Mister D
10-18-2011, 12:56 PM
If one equates the prinicple to population then it merely statistical and therefore can equate it to a mathmatical equation. Even if the numbers are not specific. Such is still a fact. If the numbers continue to rise and are unchecked, eventually you have a population that supercedes the orignal inhabitants of the country. The Middle East and Europe are fine examples. resources, drains, less, etc etc.

One should debate the merits on going back to the city-state. Over that of a Unified Country.


That's an interesting idea. I don't want to abandon the United States but we definitely need to return states' rights to the states! That is part of what made this country great to begin with. Not a power and spending crazy DC ruining it for us all.


I think it could go back to the City State, ruling by region not just city limits. Just as it would if some world-wide disaster stuck. Like With Sparta and Athens back in the good ole days. :-\


So you want to give up on the Ol' U S of A ?

I don't want to do that...I think Texas might declare war on California :D


No I didnt say I want to do it.....but I could see it going back to that way after some world-wide disaster.


Oh definitely. I could see that happening although I will tell ya right now that Californians will not be lining up to be part of the Sacramento city-state ;D


Your all good if ya nowheres around San Francisco. ;D


That ain't Callahan's city anymore.

Conley
10-18-2011, 12:59 PM
If one equates the prinicple to population then it merely statistical and therefore can equate it to a mathmatical equation. Even if the numbers are not specific. Such is still a fact. If the numbers continue to rise and are unchecked, eventually you have a population that supercedes the orignal inhabitants of the country. The Middle East and Europe are fine examples. resources, drains, less, etc etc.

One should debate the merits on going back to the city-state. Over that of a Unified Country.


That's an interesting idea. I don't want to abandon the United States but we definitely need to return states' rights to the states! That is part of what made this country great to begin with. Not a power and spending crazy DC ruining it for us all.


I think it could go back to the City State, ruling by region not just city limits. Just as it would if some world-wide disaster stuck. Like With Sparta and Athens back in the good ole days. :-\


So you want to give up on the Ol' U S of A ?

I don't want to do that...I think Texas might declare war on California :D


No I didnt say I want to do it.....but I could see it going back to that way after some world-wide disaster.


Oh definitely. I could see that happening although I will tell ya right now that Californians will not be lining up to be part of the Sacramento city-state ;D


Your all good if ya nowheres around San Francisco. ;D


That ain't Callahan's city anymore.


:D Oakland could use a Callahan!

MMC
10-18-2011, 01:16 PM
If one equates the prinicple to population then it merely statistical and therefore can equate it to a mathmatical equation. Even if the numbers are not specific. Such is still a fact. If the numbers continue to rise and are unchecked, eventually you have a population that supercedes the orignal inhabitants of the country. The Middle East and Europe are fine examples. resources, drains, less, etc etc.

One should debate the merits on going back to the city-state. Over that of a Unified Country.


That's an interesting idea. I don't want to abandon the United States but we definitely need to return states' rights to the states! That is part of what made this country great to begin with. Not a power and spending crazy DC ruining it for us all.


I think it could go back to the City State, ruling by region not just city limits. Just as it would if some world-wide disaster stuck. Like With Sparta and Athens back in the good ole days. :-\


So you want to give up on the Ol' U S of A ?

I don't want to do that...I think Texas might declare war on California :D


No I didnt say I want to do it.....but I could see it going back to that way after some world-wide disaster.


Oh definitely. I could see that happening although I will tell ya right now that Californians will not be lining up to be part of the Sacramento city-state ;D


Your all good if ya nowheres around San Francisco. ;D


That ain't Callahan's city anymore.


:D Oakland could use a Callahan!


UNFORGIVEN Final scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyV7PDXTVQ0#)
No Oakland could use a William Muny outta Missouri...... >:D

Mister D
10-18-2011, 01:43 PM
Yeah, Oakland sure could. :o As nutty as San Fran might be I thin I'd feel safe there.

Elibe
10-18-2011, 03:50 PM
you guys could learn to be more tolerant like san francisco

live and let live

MMC
10-18-2011, 04:12 PM
you guys could learn to be more tolerant like san francisco

live and let live


Uhm.....you mean let live and let them spend more and more? Greedy bastards OCCUPY SAN FRANCISCO!!!!! :D :D ;)

Elibe
10-18-2011, 04:18 PM
i just dont get why you guys are angry all the time and looking for fights

may be it is just me

Mister D
10-18-2011, 05:24 PM
i just dont get why you guys are angry all the time and looking for fights

may be it is just me


Why do you always take this stuff so seriously?

Pendragon
10-18-2011, 05:28 PM
We should all stand for what we believe is right and true. I respect each and every one of you for providing your opinions and fighting for the causes you believe are just. To paraphrase Hemingway, tis a beautiful world and one worth fighting for!

Mister D
10-18-2011, 05:55 PM
Although things like "occupy San Fran" are obviously in jest.

MMC
10-18-2011, 06:56 PM
Although things like "occupy San Fran" are obviously in jest.


It was..... ;D

Conley
10-18-2011, 07:03 PM
http://image.spreadshirt.com/image-server/image/composition/16004636/view/1/producttypecolor/92/type/png/width/280/height/280/o-snap_design.png

:D