patrick.net

MMR says

For his part, Donald trump has expressed interest increasing deficit by spending on infrastructure other than the wall

Significant increase to military, and a massive infrastructure spending proposal, and we are 6 weeks in.
(Isn't Ironman posting his little debt clock everywhere adorable? Poor thing.)

None of you mention the real problem. Cept Ironman.

The immigrant and the illegal immigrants are subdized.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/16/report-stopping-only-nine-percent-of-illegal-alien-border-crossers-would-pay-for-trumps-border-wall/

What this means is that they have taken over the trades.

Even if there is benefit to employers, it still hurts tax revenue because it's off the books. It's a lose/lose for the rest of us honest taxpayers.

"Wrong argument. Ditch diggers will get less than upper management because digging ditches requires very little skill and education. Not so with upper management. Look at it this way.......why doesn't the ditch digger work as an upper manager and make $250K?"

You may be too young for this movie, but it would be educational.. And the humor still works.

Tat that film is not about management.

Why do you think that a board of director pays a manager big bucks? They are not stupid. e.g. Apple with Steve Jobs took off Sculley fired him they flounder, they hired him back and Apple skyrocketed.

Ironman says

So tell me Rew, how did YOU (and the rest of the country) benefit from Obama tacking $10 TRILLION on to the national debt? What do you have to show for it (besides your sons having a MASSIVE tax bill in the future to pay it off)?

Actually that was mostly from entitlements, not to immigrants but to medicare and social security.

"Why do you think that a board of director pays a manager big bucks? They are not stupid. e.g. Apple with Steve Jobs took off Sculley fired him they flounder, they hired him back and Apple skyrocketed."

Wasn't Jobs' replacement making big bucks also? Wasn't Scully making big bucks? Didn't seem to mean they were good.

joeyjojojunior says

Wasn't Jobs' replacement making big bucks also? Wasn't Scully making big bucks? Didn't seem to mean they were good.

Yup, politics does enter into it.

But even Sculley had proven himself with Pepsi, IOW a CEO is not the buffoon your narrative portrays...

WaPoIsHitler Lipsovitch says

The "Americans are lazy" is Corporate Propaganda.

On an aggregate basis, I'm sure many people would jump at opportunity to make double the money, if the work is easy.

City girls from middle to upper middle class might not be raring at bit to kill chickens but guys might.

Girls from poorer families and/or agrarian places would probably do it.

Having said all that, Mexicans with murky legal status easily outwork the average bricktuckian and it isn't even close, especially when the job involves harder labor. Just an anecdote with 15 years of observation of my parents businesses

indigenous says

You trust Fox to get facts rights?!?!?!?! Fox is the mother of all fake news outlets.

Dan8267 says

There are also economic impacts beyond tax revenues and expenditures. There's also the impact of immigration, legal or not, on housing. If you want high house prices and people living in dilapidated and tiny spaces, as most already home owners and landlords do, then increase immigration to the max. If you want the most house for your dollar, as anyone purchasing their first home or upgrading do, then minimize immigration.

I say that until housing, education, and medical care are affordable, we shouldn't be trying to increase the population of the U.S.

Immigration does not necessarily increase home prices. Not building enough increases home prices.
e.g. Japan has no immigration, but home prices are a lot more expensive than the US.

Strategist says

Not building enough increases home prices.

Wrong. Buildings are cheap to raise nowadays. It's the land that is expensive, and land is expensive for two reasons.
1. Land hording by the rich and landlords. The hording of land by landlords is possible because...
2. High population density.

Lower the population density and it's not profitable to be a landlord. People start owning at most one house, and that means people stop renting and start owning. And people own larger and better built houses. Construction also booms as dilapidated houses are replaced with new ones built better and to higher building codes. All those new home owners also drive the rest of the economy when they start being able to spend disposable income.

A stranglehold on the economy by one industry harms every other industry. Money spent on rent or mortgages is money not spent on the other 99.999999% of the economy. As such, high housing prices, high health care costs, and high college costs are very bad for the economy. A good economy has a very diverse set of goods and services that are exchanged. All economies dominated by a few goods or services are primitive and less productive.

Bonus. Problem 1 is solved with a Georgist land tax that increases exponentially with the total land owned.

rando says

Maybe you're a closet Georgist and just haven't realized it yet.

Excellent.

Dan8267 says

indigenous says

You trust Fox to get facts rights?!?!?!?! Fox is the mother of all fake news outlets.

If it were CNN or MSNBC, would you believe it? Fact is, no liberal media will report this because it doesn't fit their narrative.

By the way, the data came from the Heritage Foundation, not Fox News.

Dan8267 says

Buildings are cheap to raise nowadays. It's the land that is expensive, and land is expensive for two reasons.

I don't think it is the land per se what is expensive. I see townhouses with no yards selling for $800K and above - not much less than houses (older but bigger) with nice lots.

I suspect the regulations make the development process expensive and the profit margins of the developers are fat too.

just any guy says

If it were CNN or MSNBC, would you believe it?

Personally, I like to have multiple independent verification. That said, nothing on Fox can be at all trusted. You have to assume they are lying because that is the far most common case.

just any guy says

Fact is, no liberal media will report this because it doesn't fit their narrative.

You mean leftist media. There is no liberal media.

And as bad and political as MSNBC and CNN are, at least they don't outright lie about things. Fox News does.

just any guy says

By the way, the data came from the Heritage Foundation, not Fox News.

The Heritage Foundation is a propaganda machine. And even if it were not, Fox News would misreport information from legitimate sources as well.

Now I'm not saying that the statistic is wrong. After all, even a broken clock is right sometimes. However, I have absolutely no reason to believe it is in any way truthful or accurate. Call it the boy who cried wolf syndrome. When a group lies constantly, even the true things they say cannot be believed, and if no one else is saying that truth, then that truth is not accepted. There are practical costs to lying, namely you don't get believed even when the truth supports your position.

FP says

I don't think it is the land per se what is expensive.

It is where I live.

Dan8267 says

It is where I live.

Boca Raton? So if you compare townhouses with similar size detached houses, how much is the difference?

FP says

Boca Raton? So if you compare townhouses with similar size detached houses, how much is the difference?

Disregarding the whole country club factor, townhouses cost about half as much as detached houses and have about half as much land usage.

Both are way overpriced.

Dan8267 says

Disregarding the whole country club factor, townhouses cost about half as much as detached houses and have about half as much land usage.

I see. This confirms my observation about the SFBA - the numbers here are very different.

Do you have any idea just how worthless this is ? Even if it's true ?

Am I to infer that it's 5 people getting an average of 24K in welfare, and 20 million paying the 10K in taxes ?

Obviously it's not the same people doing both.

.
.

indigenous says

marcus says

Am I to infer that it's 5 people getting an average of 24K in welfare, and 20 million paying the 10K in taxes ?

Yes

Consider school costs, medical service, section 8 housing, WIC, the fact that many claim 8 dependents so they get 100% of withholding back.

marcus says

No, that's you're way of framing it.

Nope, I'm "framing" it the way it is.

34% Of the nation’s welfare recipients live in California but only …

12%… of the U.S. population resides here.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sdut-welfare-capital-of-the-us-2012jul28-htmlstory.html