Save the environment, join F.A.I.R.

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 76
    Interesting, I just found some real numbers (direct from the Census office itself).



    The Census was first taken in 1790. In the hundred years from 1790 - 1890, the average growth rate for a ten year period was 32.06%, with a peak growth rate of 36.4% from 1800 - 1810, and a minimum growth rate of 22.6% from 1860 - 1870. Over the next 50 years from 1890 - 1940, the average decade growth rate was 16.1%, with a maximum of 21.0% from 1890 - 1900, and a minimum of 7.3% from 1930 - 1940 (which is actually the lowest recorded history growth). The average growth from 1940 - 2000 was per decade 13.45% with a peak of 18.5% from 1950 - 1960 (the so-called "baby boom") and a minimum of 9.8% from 1980 - 1990.



    So by actually looking at the numbers, we see not a "boom" in population, but actually a gradual decline (which we should see based on then demographic transition).



    The growth rate from 1990 - 2000 was 13.1%, which is actually the 4th lowest decade by decade growth rate in U.S. history.



    The following Census document was the source for these calculations.
  • Reply 62 of 76
    steve666steve666 Posts: 2,600member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by king

    I signed up- thanks for the thread





    Excellent! That makes 2 new members from this thread. Please try to spread the word. It will take sheer numbers to counterract the Pro-mass immigration lobby.



    Also tune in to Lou Dobbs on CNN. He has been doing great work on the exporting of American jobs and the folly of an illegal alien amnesty. O'Reilly on Fox also...................
  • Reply 63 of 76
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by steve666

    They all work off the books



    That's a lie.



    .................................................. .......
  • Reply 64 of 76
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MaxParrish

    I did'nt get it either...I never said anything about exponential growth of pollution so I've got no idea where that came from.



    Since the illegals are a net gain for the economy, they cover their environmental impact as well as a native. Only if their impact were exponentially worse could they possibly not generate enough to cover the extra loss.



    That's how you unknowingly implied exponential growth in pollution. I think I understand your points better than you do.
  • Reply 65 of 76
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MaxParrish

    The ONLY labor shortage I have ever heard discussed in the U.S. for the past 1/2 century was during the 90's....



    Is immigration new to the country or something? There's no labor shortage because there are always immigrants to fill in the gaps. Your statement makes no sense.
  • Reply 66 of 76
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    Since the illegals are a net gain for the economy, they cover their environmental impact as well as a native. Only if their impact were exponentially worse could they possibly not generate enough to cover the extra loss.



    That's how you unknowingly implied exponential growth in pollution. I think I understand your points better than you do.




    Try as I might, I cannot decipher your ?exponential pollution? babble-speak, I?m afraid you?re just chasing your own tail.



    If you do understand my points, you?ve studiously avoided demonstrating it. So far, you?ve offered no substantive evidence or counter arguments and continue to issue declarations of ?fact? (e.g. immigrants are "a net gain to the economy") without support. I may be trying to educate a rock, but let?s try one last time:



    a)\tImmigrants pay the lowest tax bracket, when they do pay. They receive all the social benefits and services provided by the government (from national defense, to education, to highways, to subsidized transportation, to recreation, etc.). THEREFORE, that is AN obvious net loss; i.e. our society subsidizes immigration.

    b)\tIn a 100% free market, immigrants would pay their own direct and indirect costs (or faced with starvation, they?d leave). However, 40% of the national wealth is redistributed by politics, not by the market driven cost-benefits; so again society subsidizes immigration.

    c)\tEVEN if it were a totally free market, there are national resources that are ?inelastic?; meaning that supply is fairly restricted AND even moderate additional demands for the resource produces disproportionately high prices (e.g. land and water). This does not create new wealth, just new costs.

    d)\t?Declaring? that immigrants pay for themselves by making the economy richer is not supported and is misleading. To make it meaningful, and justifiable, you must show that immigration creates higher average per capita income for American citizens, which, in addition, will also offset social and resource costs.

    e)\tIf you were at all familiar with the history of American immigration and labor shortages, you?d be aware that the United States has frequently suffered from unemployment (as it does now mook) and rarely, if ever, labor shortages. The lowest recent period of immigration was from 1930 to 1975, and there was NO labor shortage. If you are familiar with the literature, labor shortages have been a historical topic of discussion for Europe BUT never for the U.S., regardless of the historical period and the immigration rate (high or low). And on the occasion that it has been mentioned in the press as a valid fear, it has only been for shortages of highly skilled and educated workers. Your claim that ?but for immigration? our economy would have shortages is as speculative as it is unimaginative.



    I?m not sure how beneficial it would be to continue this discussion with the dogmatically obtuse ? so if you want to continue, just address the points raised heretofore.
  • Reply 67 of 76
    steve666steve666 Posts: 2,600member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    Since the illegals are a net gain for the economy, they cover their environmental impact as well as a native. Only if their impact were exponentially worse could they possibly not generate enough to cover the extra loss.



    That's how you unknowingly implied exponential growth in pollution. I think I understand your points better than you do.




    According to a report on CNN last night, for every $1 billion that immigrants give to the economy they take back $2 billion in services and other costs. That is most definitely not a benefit to the economy.



    As for the environmental impact, it doesnt matter even if they contributed to the economy that doesnt make up for the fact that they are using up resources and creating more pollution. Add to that a higher birth rate and you have a third world country in the making, which is sadly what the US is turning into. I fear for our granchildren....................
  • Reply 68 of 76
    Quote:

    Originally posted by steve666

    According to a report on CNN last night, for every $1 billion that immigrants give to the economy they take back $2 billion in services and other costs. That is most definitely not a benefit to the economy.



    As for the environmental impact, it doesnt matter even if they contributed to the economy that doesnt make up for the fact that they are using up resources and creating more pollution. Add to that a higher birth rate and you have a third world country in the making, which is sadly what the US is turning into. I fear for our granchildren....................




    Another Stat I heard is that illegal immigrants alone cost the U.S. 70 Billion a year...



    You know, that's like rebuilding Iraq every year - only its to subsidize immigration.
  • Reply 69 of 76
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    And I heard a great report on CNN too, where some Republican Senator from Arizona refused to answer Lou Dobbs' questions about what illegal immigrants give back to Arizona by helping citrus growers. Why? Because if he answered honestly his argument would be blown.



    You guys are attacking a minnow and letting the whale get away. The recent tax cuts do more to hurt the economy than illegals.
  • Reply 70 of 76
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    And I heard a great report on CNN too, where some Republican Senator from Arizona refused to answer Lou Dobbs' questions about what illegal immigrants give back to Arizona by helping citrus growers. Why? Because if he answered honestly his argument would be blown.



    You guys are attacking a minnow and letting the whale get away. The recent tax cuts do more to hurt the economy than illegals.




    While I have little fear of a grapefruit shortage, ever heard of the guest worker program ? That provided LEGAL workers...
  • Reply 71 of 76
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MaxParrish

    While I have little fear of a grapefruit shortage, ever heard of the guest worker program ? That provided LEGAL workers...



    I'm all in favor of getting these people in legally instead of illegally, I just don't believe they're a net burden when they are illegal.



    As for the proportions, I'll explain it again. IF they are a net gain (as I believe) then they do not cause a burden on the environment because they're producing enough extra cash for our government to clean up after them. If the government chooses to spend that money elsewhere, then we're back to what I said before. The problem isn't the illegals, it's the fault of the government and the general populace for not giving a shit.



    It's very simple, even if you can't understand it.
  • Reply 72 of 76
    steve666steve666 Posts: 2,600member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    I'm all in favor of getting these people in legally instead of illegally, I just don't believe they're a net burden when they are illegal.



    As for the proportions, I'll explain it again. IF they are a net gain (as I believe) then they do not cause a burden on the environment because they're producing enough extra cash for our government to clean up after them. If the government chooses to spend that money elsewhere, then we're back to what I said before. The problem isn't the illegals, it's the fault of the government and the general populace for not giving a shit.



    It's very simple, even if you can't understand it.




    He cant understand it because it doesnt make sense! The govmnt doesnt clean up after increased traffic and increased suburban sprawl. Throwing money at the environment doesnt make it cleaner, having a sustainable population does. If there are too many people we are ficked. That is the crux of the problem-our population is growing too large too fast. In any case illegals are not a net gain, they are a burden................
  • Reply 73 of 76
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    I'm all in favor of getting these people in legally instead of illegally, I just don't believe they're a net burden when they are illegal.



    As for the proportions, I'll explain it again. IF they are a net gain (as I believe) then they do not cause a burden on the environment because they're producing enough extra cash for our government to clean up after them. If the government chooses to spend that money elsewhere, then we're back to what I said before. The problem isn't the illegals, it's the fault of the government and the general populace for not giving a shit.



    It's very simple, even if you can't understand it.




    "You can't reason somebody out of something that they did not reason themselves into" (Oscar Wilde)



    Bunge...lets try this step by step (the lad needs after school economics help)..if "they're producing 'extra cash' for our government" where is it ? Its not in the taxes collected, I've already shown that to be a net loss. And if they make that 'invisible' extra cash for the government when they work, why can't I say that EVERYBODY who works makes invisible "extra cash" for the government ? Of course, as we are running a huge defiect, only Bunge can tell us how that "magic extra cash" gets to the government, and then "magically" disappears.



    The simple truth is that some taxpayers contribute more to the economy and taxes, and some much less. Those who contribute more, pay for those who contribute less (ever heard of progressive taxation, my man?). You've had your voodo dance in the name of your brand of mystical economics - amusing but rather looney.
  • Reply 74 of 76
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MaxParrish

    Bunge...lets try this step by step (the lad needs after school economics help)..if "they're producing 'extra cash' for our government" where is it ?



    I'd guess that just about everything you buy is subsidized by illegal employment at some level.
  • Reply 75 of 76
    steve666steve666 Posts: 2,600member
    Immigration Subcommittee Examines Immigration's Impact on the Prospects for American Workers



    On Oct. 30, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims held a hearing on immigration's impact on the prospects for American workers.

    Chairman John Hostettler (R-IN) called the hearing to examine the extent to which declines in wages and working conditions among U.S. workers can be attributed to immigration policy.



    Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, Professor Vernon Briggs of Cornell University, and Terry Anderson of KRLA radio spoke about how mass immigration is harmful to working Americans.



    Camarota asserted that immigration has a negative impact on U.S. workers not particularly because of exploitation of immigrants, but instead because of the oversupply of immigrant labor.



    Briggs spoke on the dramatic change in position of organized labor towards immigration, particularly illegal immigration. He asserted that what organized labor is doing today is based on the politics of appealing to racial, ethnic, and other special interests rather than the needs or security of working Americans. He went on to explain that there is no such thing as a job people won't do. Instead, he said wages and working conditions drive down what workers will do. He said that if labor union protections were provided to agricultural workers, this would be proven.



    Anderson spoke about the disconnect between politicians in Washington, D.C. and the sentiments of the American people concerning illegal immigration.
Sign In or Register to comment.