Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KMBZ Kansas City)   Citing a report by the Institute for Rectally Extracted Statistics, former Senator Jim DeMint claims immigration reform will cost the US "trillions"   (kmbz.com) divider line 48
    More: Unlikely, Senator Jim DeMint, United States, immigration reform, Robert Rector  
•       •       •

504 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 May 2013 at 11:50 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-06 10:48:44 AM  
"The study you'll see from Heritage this week..."

origin.heritage.org
 
2013-05-06 11:46:24 AM  
As opposed to what it's reported costing us now?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-05-06 11:47:19 AM  
Well, it will cost a lot of money to people who have to pay minimum wages and things like Workman's comp and overtime instead of paying illegals under the table.
 
2013-05-06 11:49:02 AM  
Keep it up, Republicans. You'll never win another Presidential election again.
 
2013-05-06 11:50:12 AM  
Capitalism does not work if your population is not expanding.  We should be offering citizenship to anyone that gets a four year degree from a US university.
 
2013-05-06 11:53:48 AM  
You know who's really freaking the fark out over immigration reform? Tech companies

It's not like they pay taxes so what he means by US is his paymasters.
 
2013-05-06 11:53:52 AM  
Conservative math...........a result of the southern educational system.
 
2013-05-06 11:55:13 AM  

Note that Heritage study coauthor Robert Rector peddled the "Obama guts welfare reform" myth and says Xboxes mean poor people are all right.

- Dylan Matthews (@dylanmatt) May 6, 2013
 
2013-05-06 11:55:17 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Capitalism does not work if your population is not expanding.  We should be offering citizenship to anyone that gets a four year degree from a US university.


That would be highly unfair to natural born citizens, after all our public education system can't compete.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-05-06 11:55:42 AM  

vernonFL: Keep it up, Republicans. You'll never win another Presidential election again.


Not any time soon.  It's a lot like segregation.  It allows some politicians to cling to power because it plays well in some regions but it's is poison in the rest.

It is pitting the state parties against the national party.

Poor GOP.
 
2013-05-06 11:55:42 AM  
Man if only he was a senator and could do something about it.
 
2013-05-06 11:57:37 AM  
"The study you'll see from Heritage this week presents a staggering cost of another amnesty in our country,"

Which is what happens when you pay for a study to say what you want it to say.
 
2013-05-06 11:59:25 AM  
I usually don't smoke breath mints, but when I do, I do the best, deMints

albertineandodette.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-05-06 12:02:01 PM  
"Former Senator Jim DeMint" is a beautiful phrase.
 
2013-05-06 12:06:43 PM  
So if 12 million illegals get amnesty, it will cost 2.6 trillion bucks?  That's over $200,000 per illegal.  That right there shows just how rectal this study is.
 
2013-05-06 12:07:32 PM  

Diogenes: As opposed to what it's reported costing us now?


This bears repeating. What does it cost NOT to reform immigration, and what would it cost to 'round 'em all up and deport them'?
 
2013-05-06 12:08:11 PM  
See? So when all his Tea party minions pour into the streets to fight this immigration bill it will merely be because of their "fiscal responsibility"  and in NO WAY motivated by an animus towards brown people and a desire not let as many of them into their country.  Got that?  YOU are the real racist for even suggesting such a thing...
 
2013-05-06 12:08:17 PM  
who?
 
2013-05-06 12:13:17 PM  
farking amateur.

If you extrapolate the costs out over the expected life of the universe, you will plainly see that the costs of the smallest of Obama's programs will cost us INFINITY dollars.
 
2013-05-06 12:24:24 PM  
Citing a report by the Institute for Rectally Extracted Statistics, former Senator Jim DeMint claims immigration reform will cost the US corporations "trillions"

FTFY
 
2013-05-06 12:26:36 PM  

AngryDragon: Citing a report by the Institute for Rectally Extracted Statistics, former Senator Jim DeMint claims immigration reform will cost the US corporations "trillions" over the next 125 years


FTFY
 
2013-05-06 12:27:43 PM  

D135: AngryDragon: Citing a report by the Institute for Rectally Extracted Statistics, former Senator Jim DeMint claims immigration reform will cost the US corporations "trillions" over the next 125 years

FTFY


I'm OK with both answers.
 
2013-05-06 12:50:51 PM  
Well, the Heritage Foundation provided the study, so yeah it was rectally extracted.

So was Jim DeMint.
 
2013-05-06 12:55:42 PM  

AngryDragon: Citing a report by the Institute for Rectally Extracted Statistics, former Senator Jim DeMint claims immigration reform will cost the US corporations "trillions"

FTFY


Really? The influx of millions of now legal immigrants to the legal labor force is going to cost corporations trillions? I dont think you thought it all the way through.

/Haven't read the heritage logic
 
2013-05-06 01:00:53 PM  
I read that as Rectally Extruded Statistics.
 
2013-05-06 01:08:56 PM  
Wasn't Fareed Zakaria going on yesterday about how a study showed immigration reform would BOOST our GDP by over a trillion over the next decade, and reduce unemployment to boot?

It was a left-leaning study, so I'd expect it to have been overly optimistic, but...

/No wonder the right wants to stop immigration reform while Obama's in office
 
2013-05-06 01:12:03 PM  

BlastYoBoots: It was a left-leaning study, so I'd expect it to have been overly optimistic, but...


www.americanprogress.org

Study. Link, .PDF
 
2013-05-06 01:17:10 PM  
Not doing anything already has
 
2013-05-06 01:18:22 PM  

vpb: Well, it will cost a lot of money to people who have to pay minimum wages and things like Workman's comp and overtime instead of paying illegals under the table.


Pretty much.

We want real immigration reform, then you go after the folks who employ illegal workers. You don't go after just the folks sitting outside of Home Depot hoping for a truck to pull up, but you go after the folks who drive the dang things. You go after the builders, you go after the factories, the farms, and the rest. You want to end a tide of folks coming to this country illegally, then you go after the folks who are giving them jobs under the table. You go after the folks who prey on them for housing and protection. You shore up the gang units, we end some of the drug trade that makes it profitable to smuggle pot into this country through family and friends. It won't stop meth, it won't stop coke, but you can end a fair portion of the illegal trade--not to mention the crappy dirt weed that folks bring in--by ending the marijuana prohibition, and tax it, and make the trade complain bitterly about them damn 'Revnooors! coming in to get their pound of flesh.

Go after the source of jobs. Go after the folks who are housing folks. Shift focus on the police to ending human trafficking, as opposed to interdicting drugs, and concentrate on domestic suppliers for meth and other drugs. It won't stop everything, because if there's a profit to be had, folks will find it, but shift our resources to stopping the worst, and likewise, end the supply of labor not at the street level, but go after the folks who are offering it in the first place. Without jobs, without housing, folks will be less inclined to enter the country illegally, and you will do something useful, as opposed to just doing something...
 
2013-05-06 01:20:45 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: AngryDragon: Citing a report by the Institute for Rectally Extracted Statistics, former Senator Jim DeMint claims immigration reform will cost the US corporations "trillions"

FTFY

Really? The influx of millions of now legal immigrants to the legal labor force is going to cost corporations trillions? I dont think you thought it all the way through.

/Haven't read the heritage logic


Per Dusk's graphic, granting them legal status will cause their wages to increase 15.1%.  Who, oh highly educated savant, might pay those increases in wages?  For a guy claiming to have an MBA, CFA and CPA, you're remarkably obtuse.
 
2013-05-06 01:40:08 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: BlastYoBoots: It was a left-leaning study, so I'd expect it to have been overly optimistic, but...

[www.americanprogress.org image 619x1500]

Study. Link, .PDF


Speaking of Rectally Extracted Statistic...

I'm not an economist, and I don't play one on TV, so maybe I'm missing something....  How are we guaranteeing any percentage of increase in wage, let alone something as specific as 15.1%?  Let's say the farmer that's been paying the fruit picker under the table does actually hire them legally.  In addition to this magical 15.1% increase in salary, he's going to start having to fork out overtime, benefits, etc.  That's going to hurt his bottom line, and since that will never happen - guess who picks up the tab?  $10 bucks for a container of strawberries?  $20 for a bag of apples?  Yeah - that will do WONDERS for the economy.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that the very top part of that graphic went full-retard, and as that's the case, pretty much everything below it is ultra-retard.

I'm all for a path to citizenship and helping people make the most of an opportunity to thrive in this country, but that chart is as equally full of shiat as DeMint's comments.
 
2013-05-06 01:43:11 PM  

El Pachuco: Debeo Summa Credo: AngryDragon: Citing a report by the Institute for Rectally Extracted Statistics, former Senator Jim DeMint claims immigration reform will cost the US corporations "trillions"

FTFY

Really? The influx of millions of now legal immigrants to the legal labor force is going to cost corporations trillions? I dont think you thought it all the way through.

/Haven't read the heritage logic

Per Dusk's graphic, granting them legal status will cause their wages to increase 15.1%.  Who, oh highly educated savant, might pay those increases in wages?  For a guy claiming to have an MBA, CFA and CPA, you're remarkably obtuse.


So, you are arguing in favor of slave wages?
True American.
 
2013-05-06 01:45:19 PM  

El Pachuco: Per Dusk's graphic, granting them legal status will cause their wages to increase 15.1%.  Who, oh highly educated savant, might pay those increases in wages?


Who do you think?  The consumers of the products and services of the businesses who's HR costs increase.  Any time the cost of doing business increases, the results flow downhill to the end buyer.  What's your point - low wages are good?
 
2013-05-06 01:59:56 PM  

El Pachuco: Debeo Summa Credo: AngryDragon: Citing a report by the Institute for Rectally Extracted Statistics, former Senator Jim DeMint claims immigration reform will cost the US corporations "trillions"

FTFY

Really? The influx of millions of now legal immigrants to the legal labor force is going to cost corporations trillions? I dont think you thought it all the way through.

/Haven't read the heritage logic

Per Dusk's graphic, granting them legal status will cause their wages to increase 15.1%.  Who, oh highly educated savant, might pay those increases in wages?  For a guy claiming to have an MBA, CFA and CPA, you're remarkably obtuse.


What it will do, is adjust the labor market a bit, and force folks who are using business practices that are less than legal to undercut their competition to adjust their practices. It will bring competition to the forefront, and that means more efficient use of labor, more efficient use of resources, and perhaps, indeed, less bonuses for execs. And that really is the issue. Folks are worried that this will cut into their bottom line, because they use unfair practices to undercut their competition, and they don't want to see anything like a fair market or fair competition. Folks who scream that this will kill their businesses are essentially saying, "Please, investigate us for labor practices, because if we can't use migrant labor that we don't pay fairly to strangle our competition that IS following the law, then we may be found criminally negligent with our shareholders' money."

And that is really the crux of this. It is fear of anything like a fair market. It is a fear of real competition and capitalism. Instead, folks want an assisted market that secures cheap labor, looks the other way at their own practices, stifles their competition, and covers their butts when investigations come around on their end of the line. And that's the biggest problem that we have in our current economy: it isn't a free market, it is an assisted market, but only with selected players getting the assist, and using the arm of the gub'ment to stifle competition.
 
2013-05-06 02:10:14 PM  

FilmBELOH20: Dusk-You-n-Me: BlastYoBoots: It was a left-leaning study, so I'd expect it to have been overly optimistic, but...

[www.americanprogress.org image 619x1500]

Study. Link, .PDF

Speaking of Rectally Extracted Statistic...

I'm not an economist, and I don't play one on TV, so maybe I'm missing something....  How are we guaranteeing any percentage of increase in wage, let alone something as specific as 15.1%?  Let's say the farmer that's been paying the fruit picker under the table does actually hire them legally.  In addition to this magical 15.1% increase in salary, he's going to start having to fork out overtime, benefits, etc.  That's going to hurt his bottom line, and since that will never happen - guess who picks up the tab?  $10 bucks for a container of strawberries?  $20 for a bag of apples?  Yeah - that will do WONDERS for the economy.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that the very top part of that graphic went full-retard, and as that's the case, pretty much everything below it is ultra-retard.

I'm all for a path to citizenship and helping people make the most of an opportunity to thrive in this country, but that chart is as equally full of shiat as DeMint's comments.


What it will do is adjust the market a bit. Right now, folks are using illegal labor, and taking the profit to undercut the folks who don't use illegal labor. Not every farmer uses illegal labor. Not every builder uses illegal labor. What illegal labor does, is increase the profit line, while keeping wages suppressed as those who do use legal labor, can't afford to pay more, because in order to make a profit, they are already operating under slender margins. The markets will adjust, and better practices and better operations will move forward. The law of supply and demand will still be operating, and folks will find it a more natural adjustment, than what the assisted market model is doing now. Will it mean more expensive apples?  In some places, yes. Will it mean that the money will go not just into the pockets of growers, and thus also go back into those communities? Yup. Folks have to eat, they have to find a place to sleep, and when forced to compete fairly, then market will adjust to where it should be, as opposed to the model now, where folk actively use illegal labor to undercut their competition, and skewing the market. When folks are basing their business model on illegal practices--and it should be noted that I don't hear a lot of the usual hue and cry from the "don't do it because it's illegal!" crowd that likes to chime in on drug legalization--then we have an issue of gaming the market, and screwing up what should be a fair trade issue. Fair. Everyone on the same playing field, and the best practices and products then rise to the top. We don't have that now, and it is long past time for this to stop being an issue.
 
2013-05-06 02:12:26 PM  
The same Heritage Foundation that said that only 40,000 troops would be needed to take over and maintain order in Iraq, that the war would be over in a couple of years at most, and that the Iraqis would greet us with open arms?

i.qkme.me

I think I found a picture of an Overzealous Staffer™ at The Heritage Foundation.

i301.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-06 02:29:31 PM  

El Pachuco: Debeo Summa Credo: AngryDragon: Citing a report by the Institute for Rectally Extracted Statistics, former Senator Jim DeMint claims immigration reform will cost the US corporations "trillions"

FTFY

Really? The influx of millions of now legal immigrants to the legal labor force is going to cost corporations trillions? I dont think you thought it all the way through.

/Haven't read the heritage logic

Per Dusk's graphic, granting them legal status will cause their wages to increase 15.1%.  Who, oh highly educated savant, might pay those increases in wages?  For a guy claiming to have an MBA, CFA and CPA, you're remarkably obtuse.


I find it ironic that the heritage study is dismissed (perhaps rightfully so), but we're supposed to take a pro-immigration graphic from the center for American progress at face value.

More legal immigrant labor means more competition for currently legal labor. This may vary by industry, clearly domestic strawberry pickers are already faced with full competition from immigrants.
 
2013-05-06 02:47:15 PM  

Aquapope: El Pachuco: Per Dusk's graphic, granting them legal status will cause their wages to increase 15.1%.  Who, oh highly educated savant, might pay those increases in wages?

Who do you think?  The consumers of the products and services of the businesses who's HR costs increase.  Any time the cost of doing business increases, the results flow downhill to the end buyer.  What's your point - low wages are good?


No offense, but you're mistakenly thinking that prices for products and services are on a cost-plus basis.

They are not.

Prices are set at whatever the market will bear.  Costs are pushed down via any means possible.  There is no direct link between them with consumer items.

An increase in costs affects profits.  If profits are lower than the producer can tolerate, they may try to raise prices if they think their consumers will continue to buy, or they may exit that market.

In many cases, changes in worker compensation affect marginal product costs so minimally, business complaint are kind of ridiculous.  Remember "Papa" John Schnatter's saying that giving his employees healthcare would be disastrously expensive, but when the numbers were crunched it was found it would require a cost increase of 11 cents per pizza his company sells?
 
2013-05-06 02:59:37 PM  

MFAWG: Diogenes: As opposed to what it's reported costing us now?

This bears repeating. What does it cost NOT to reform immigration, and what would it cost to 'round 'em all up and deport them'?


$285BILLION
 
2013-05-06 03:03:09 PM  

Aquapope: El Pachuco: Per Dusk's graphic, granting them legal status will cause their wages to increase 15.1%.  Who, oh highly educated savant, might pay those increases in wages?

Who do you think?  The consumers of the products and services of the businesses who's HR costs increase.  Any time the cost of doing business increases, the results flow downhill to the end buyerAre shared by both the buyer and seller .  What's your point - low wages are good?


FTFY, since in reality there is a certain amount of costs absorbed by a producer/manufaturer when the price of inputs increase so as to not scare consumers away.
 
2013-05-06 03:05:03 PM  

El Pachuco: Aquapope: El Pachuco: Per Dusk's graphic, granting them legal status will cause their wages to increase 15.1%.  Who, oh highly educated savant, might pay those increases in wages?

Who do you think?  The consumers of the products and services of the businesses who's HR costs increase.  Any time the cost of doing business increases, the results flow downhill to the end buyer.  What's your point - low wages are good?

No offense, but you're mistakenly thinking that prices for products and services are on a cost-plus basis.

They are not.

Prices are set at whatever the market will bear.  Costs are pushed down via any means possible.  There is no direct link between them with consumer items.

An increase in costs affects profits.  If profits are lower than the producer can tolerate, they may try to raise prices if they think their consumers will continue to buy, or they may exit that market.

In many cases, changes in worker compensation affect marginal product costs so minimally, business complaint are kind of ridiculous.  Remember "Papa" John Schnatter's saying that giving his employees healthcare would be disastrously expensive, but when the numbers were crunched it was found it would require a cost increase of 11 cents per pizza his company sells?


Damn you for being more ellaborate!
 
2013-05-06 04:09:44 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: I find it ironic that the heritage study is dismissed (perhaps rightfully so), but we're supposed to take a pro-immigration graphic from the center for American progress at face value.


Among others dismissing the Heritage study, FTFA we have noted Marxist* Alex Nowrasteh of the far-left* Cato Institute, who wrote in April that the study's "flawed methodology produced a grossly exaggerated cost to federal taxpayers of legalizing unauthorized immigrants while undercounting or discounting their positive tax and economic contributions."   So the Heritage study indeed seems dubious, per TFA.

The CAP graphic includes citations for its claims, and you are free to investigate and challenge their conclusions.  Dusk helpfully included a link to the pdf for the CAP study, so knock yerself out, sparky, and no doubt a  guy claiming to have an MBA, a CFA and a CPA can easily and instantly spot flaws in their assumptions and claims.

Of course, if you don't, we will find it ironic.

/* those are jokes
 
2013-05-06 05:19:30 PM  

El Pachuco: Debeo Summa Credo: I find it ironic that the heritage study is dismissed (perhaps rightfully so), but we're supposed to take a pro-immigration graphic from the center for American progress at face value.

Among others dismissing the Heritage study, FTFA we have noted Marxist* Alex Nowrasteh of the far-left* Cato Institute, who wrote in April that the study's "flawed methodology produced a grossly exaggerated cost to federal taxpayers of legalizing unauthorized immigrants while undercounting or discounting their positive tax and economic contributions."   So the Heritage study indeed seems dubious, per TFA.

The CAP graphic includes citations for its claims, and you are free to investigate and challenge their conclusions.  Dusk helpfully included a link to the pdf for the CAP study, so knock yerself out, sparky, and no doubt a  guy claiming to have an MBA, a CFA and a CPA can easily and instantly spot flaws in their assumptions and claims.

Of course, if you don't, we will find it ironic.

/* those are jokes


Oh, dear, I guess if the anti-immigration* Cato Institute has dismissed the Heritage study, then I suppose all illegal immigrants are automatically citizens*, Juan Valdez is president for life of Starbucks*, and you and your economics degree* don't have to bother actually reading any of the assumptions of any study before dismissing them.

/* - those are jokes
 
2013-05-06 05:29:39 PM  
 
2013-05-06 05:44:40 PM  
The CAP study seems flawed. They state that the don't reduce the incremental revenues from higher tax receipts resulting from the assumed higher wages for the increased deductions that businesses will take, and they state that they don't reduce the benefit for the cost of additional benefits that newly legal immigrants will get.

Also, I don't see anywhere in the report where they discuss or consider the impact on currently legal workers. It's not a free lunch, if illegal immigrants are suddenly able to compete for better jobs, as the study claims as a benefit of immigration reform, there will be more competition for currently legal workers in those "better jobs", with corresponding downward pressure on wages.

In short, looks like a terribly flawed, partisanly biased study, intended for the consumption of partisan fools. Not unlike the heritage report is suspect.
 
2013-05-06 05:50:02 PM  
Of course it will, as long as you look at the costs over a long enough time span and dont compare it against the savings compared to the current sytem.
 
2013-05-07 07:03:22 AM  
What would cost a lot of money is finding and deporting 14 million people while 1) observing due process of law, 2) not deporting US citizens by mistake and 3) not killing huge numbers of people by packing them onto cattle cars.

So if a rightwinger tells you we should deport 'em all, either he doesn't care about the cost, or he doesn't care about those three points.
 
2013-05-07 08:20:35 AM  
If immigrants with less than a 10th grade education will cost us money, we should deport anyone with less than a 10th grade education.

/this includes children
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report