gdp's Comments

KATU - Portland, OR : Latest jobs data shows continuing but slow hiring rate | Business | KATU.com - Portland News, Sports

Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:12:44 +0000

It's obvious that there is a loss of benefits given to low-skill non-immigrant households, but with my simple calculations based off Mr. Rector's data we come to the conclusion that is constantly brought up, that immigrants are in fact paying more money into the system than are those who are non-immigrants in the same economic bracket. Here's another study that assesses the difference between immigrant and non-immigrant contributions and benefits received: http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2007/05/21/21.... "IMMIGRANTS IN FLORIDA: CHARACTERISTICS AND CONTRIBUTIONS": Eisenhauer, Zhang, Hernandez, & Angee; 2007 In the study some points are brought up: "...we find that both immigrants and non-immigrants contribute more per capita than they receive, but that the net gain from immigrants is greater.Immigrants contribute nearly $1,500 per year more than they receive, while non-immigrants contribute about $1,390 more than they receive." (pg. 35) "We hope that this portrait of immigrants in the state of Florida is useful to those concerned with the state’s policies and its relations with its immigrant population. It provides a wealth of data concerning this population. The statistical evidence we have been able to uncover indicates that these newer residents and neighbors contribute more than they take from the state of Florida, although our evidence is unlikely to be the last word for those with a political or ideological disposition against immigrants." (pg. 36) "The role of immigrants in our society is a highly contentious issue. Strongly ideological and “political” positions have been put forward in debates over public policy on this issue. This report hopes to inform that public debate, but it has not entered into highly ideological questions. Instead it adheres closely to questions that can be answered on a factual basis without relying heavily on ideology." (Pg. 36) The last excerpt is really golden when applied to this discussion. I admire your attempt to provide evidence from a "reputable source" (here The Heritage Foundation), but looking at the goals of that foundation, I'm seeing how politically charged and biased their "scholarly reseach" is. Looking at the similarities between the two articles by Mr. Rector reveals a lot about what the Heritage Foundation is truly advocating for. His study "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households" seems to give the impression that the solution to the deficit problems is to in fact remove the low-skill household bracket from the economy by addressing issues of Medicare and Social Security. His one caveat is that the biggest changes would come from immigration reform and that a sudden increase in immigrant workers would cause the deficit to skyrocket, when in fact they would still be paying more than non-immigrant households do in taxes. I think it's funny that someone would use a source to try to support their claims when in fact their source puts all poor people at the butt end of the stick. The Heritage Foundation is an elitist conservative think tank that serves the upper class poorly disguised as a legitimate research organization. I encourage everyone to look for legitimate unbiased information when addressing this issue, unless he or she wants to have some frantic ideological orgy.

KATU - Portland, OR : Latest jobs data shows continuing but slow hiring rate | Business | KATU.com - Portland News, Sports

Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:12:06 +0000

PhredE, We were discussing immigration on another article's comment section and I was hoping to hear your rebuttal for my comment. Luckily you brought up immigration here so it's not entirely off topic. First off, there's an important semantics issue that's brought up in Mr. Rector's article: the use of immigrant rather than illegal immigrant. The point he is bringing up in his study is that low-skill immigrants are a drain on the US economy. But I'll entertain the idea that this is applicable and useful infomation for the issue at hand. In another article he brings up essentially the same thing about the entire low-skill demographic."The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households", Robert Rector: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/04/.... And here are some interesting excerpts from it: Aggregate Net Fiscal Costs In 2004, there were 17.7 million low-skill households. As shown in Chart 5, the average net fiscal deficit per household was $22,449. This means that the total annual fiscal deficit (total benefits received minus total taxes paid) for all 17.7 million low-skill households together equaled $397 billion (the deficit of $22,449 per household times 17.7 million households). This sum includes direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services. If the low-skill households' share of interest and other financial obligations for past activities is added, the total annual fiscal deficit of these households rose to $483 billion. Over the next ten years, the constant dollar net cost of low-skill households (immediate benefits received minus taxes paid) is likely to be at least $3.9 trillion. Policy changes that would expand entitlement programs such as Medicaid will increase these costs at the margin. On the other hand, changes in immigration law that would significantly increase the inflow of low-skill workers and families will increase future government spending dramatically. Now let's compare it to the statistics he listed in his "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to State and Local Taxpayers": "In 2004, there were 4.54 million low-skill immigrant households. The average net fiscal deficit per household for federal, state and local spending combined was $19,588. This means that the total annual fiscal deficit (total benefits received minus total taxes paid) for all 4.54 million low-skill immigrant households together equaled $89.1 billion. Over half of this fiscal deficit occurs at the state and local level. The annual fiscal deficit for all low skill immigrant households at the state and local level in 2004 was $49.1 billion. Over the next ten years the state and local fiscal deficit will approach a half trillion dollars." Now using simple arithmetic I will calculate how much (17.7 million total low-skill households) - (4.54 million total low-skill immigrant households) = 13.16 million total low-skill non-immigrant households ($483 billion total fiscal deficit for low-skill households) - ($89.1 billion total fiscal deficit for low-skill immigrant households) = 393.9 billion total fiscal deficit for low-skill non-immigrant households The $89.1 billion accounts for roughly 19% of the $483 total fiscal deficit. ($393.9 billion total fiscal deficit for low-skill non-immigrant households) / (13.16 million total low-skill non-immigrant households) = $29931.61 total fiscal deficit per low-skill non-immigrant household The $393.9 billion accounts for roughly 81% of $483 billion total fiscal deficit. So that makes it a difference of $10343.61 between the annual deficit incurred by immigrant and non-immigrant households. Low-skill immigrant households also pay more per household in taxes than their non-immigrant counterparts. $127.5 bil taxes paid (72% of taxes paid) for 13.16 mil households (75% of low-skill population) $47.9 bil taxes paid (28% taxes paid) for 4.54 mil households (25% of low-skill population)

KATU - Portland, OR : Hundreds march through Portland for immigrant rights | Local & Regional | KATU.com - Portland News,

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 04:24:57 +0000

It's obvious that there is a loss of benefits given to low-skill non-immigrant households, but with my simple calculations based off Mr. Rector's data we come to the conclusion that is constantly brought up, that immigrants are in fact paying more money into the system than are those who are non-immigrants in the same economic bracket. Here's another study that assesses the difference between immigrant and non-immigrant contributions and benefits received: http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2007/05/21/21... "IMMIGRANTS IN FLORIDA: CHARACTERISTICS AND CONTRIBUTIONS": Eisenhauer, Zhang, Hernandez, & Angee; 2007 In the study some points are brought up: "...we find that both immigrants and non-immigrants contribute more per capita than they receive, but that the net gain from immigrants is greater.Immigrants contribute nearly $1,500 per year more than they receive, while non-immigrants contribute about $1,390 more than they receive." (pg. 35) "We hope that this portrait of immigrants in the state of Florida is useful to those concerned with the state’s policies and its relations with its immigrant population. It provides a wealth of data concerning this population. The statistical evidence we have been able to uncover indicates that these newer residents and neighbors contribute more than they take from the state of Florida, although our evidence is unlikely to be the last word for those with a political or ideological disposition against immigrants." (pg. 36) "The role of immigrants in our society is a highly contentious issue. Strongly ideological and “political” positions have been put forward in debates over public policy on this issue. This report hopes to inform that public debate, but it has not entered into highly ideological questions. Instead it adheres closely to questions that can be answered on a factual basis without relying heavily on ideology." (Pg. 36) The last excerpt is really golden when applied to this discussion. I admire your attempt to provide evidence from a "reputable source" (here The Heritage Foundation), but looking at the goals of that foundation, I'm seeing how politically charged and biased their "scholarly reseach" is. Looking at the similarities between the two articles by Mr. Rector reveals a lot about what the Heritage Foundation is truly advocating for. His study "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households" seems to give the impression that the solution to the deficit problems is to in fact remove the low-skill household bracket from the economy by addressing issues of Medicare and Social Security. His one caveat is that the biggest changes would come from immigration reform and that a sudden increase in immigrant workers would cause the deficit to skyrocket, when in fact they would still be paying more than non-immigrant households do in taxes. I think it's funny that someone would use a source to try to support their claims when in fact their source puts all poor people at the butt end of the stick. The Heritage Foundation is an elitist conservative think tank that serves the upper class poorly disguised as a legitimate research organization. I encourage everyone to look for legitimate unbiased information when addressing this issue, unless he or she wants to have some frantic ideological orgy.

KATU - Portland, OR : Hundreds march through Portland for immigrant rights | Local & Regional | KATU.com - Portland News,

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 04:24:29 +0000

First off, there's an important semantics issue that's brought up in Mr. Rector's article: the use of immigrant rather than illegal immigrant. The point he is bringing up in his study is that low-skill immigrants are a drain on the US economy. But I'll entertain the idea that this is applicable and useful infomation for the issue at hand. In another article he brings up essentially the same thing about the entire low-skill demographic."The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households", Robert Rector: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/04/... And here are some interesting excerpts from it: Aggregate Net Fiscal Costs In 2004, there were 17.7 million low-skill households. As shown in Chart 5, the average net fiscal deficit per household was $22,449. This means that the total annual fiscal deficit (total benefits received minus total taxes paid) for all 17.7 million low-skill households together equaled $397 billion (the deficit of $22,449 per household times 17.7 million households). This sum includes direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services. If the low-skill households' share of interest and other financial obligations for past activities is added, the total annual fiscal deficit of these households rose to $483 billion. Over the next ten years, the constant dollar net cost of low-skill households (immediate benefits received minus taxes paid) is likely to be at least $3.9 trillion. Policy changes that would expand entitlement programs such as Medicaid will increase these costs at the margin. On the other hand, changes in immigration law that would significantly increase the inflow of low-skill workers and families will increase future government spending dramatically. Now let's compare it to the statistics he listed in his "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to State and Local Taxpayers": "In 2004, there were 4.54 million low-skill immigrant households. The average net fiscal deficit per household for federal, state and local spending combined was $19,588. This means that the total annual fiscal deficit (total benefits received minus total taxes paid) for all 4.54 million low-skill immigrant households together equaled $89.1 billion. Over half of this fiscal deficit occurs at the state and local level. The annual fiscal deficit for all low skill immigrant households at the state and local level in 2004 was $49.1 billion. Over the next ten years the state and local fiscal deficit will approach a half trillion dollars." Now using simple arithmetic I will calculate how much (17.7 million total low-skill households) - (4.54 million total low-skill immigrant households) = 13.16 million total low-skill non-immigrant households ($483 billion total fiscal deficit for low-skill households) - ($89.1 billion total fiscal deficit for low-skill immigrant households) = 393.9 billion total fiscal deficit for low-skill non-immigrant households The $89.1 billion accounts for roughly 19% of the $483 total fiscal deficit. ($393.9 billion total fiscal deficit for low-skill non-immigrant households) / (13.16 million total low-skill non-immigrant households) = $29931.61 total fiscal deficit per low-skill non-immigrant household The $393.9 billion accounts for roughly 81% of $483 billion total fiscal deficit. So that makes it a difference of $10343.61 between the annual deficit incurred by immigrant and non-immigrant households. Low-skill immigrant households also pay more per household in taxes than their non-immigrant counterparts. $127.5 bil taxes paid (72% of taxes paid) for 13.16 mil households (75% of low-skill population) $47.9 bil taxes paid (28% taxes paid) for 4.54 mil households (25% of low-skill population)

KATU - Portland, OR : Hundreds march through Portland for immigrant rights | Local & Regional | KATU.com - Portland News,

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 06:25:22 +0000

I'd watch out when citing the Center for Immigration Studies. After all look at the last paragraph of their purpose statement: The data collected by the Center during the past quarter-century has led many of our researchers to conclude that current, high levels of immigration are making it harder to achieve such important national objectives as better public schools, a cleaner environment, homeland security, and a living wage for every native-born and immigrant worker. These data may support criticism of US immigration policies, but they do not justify ill feelings toward our immigrant community. In fact, many of us at the Center are animated by a "low-immigration, pro-immigrant" vision of an America that admits fewer immigrants but affords a warmer welcome for those who are admitted. That seems a little too lenient for you to be citing. And definitely lacking in racist connotations.

KATU - Portland, OR : Hundreds march through Portland for immigrant rights | Local & Regional | KATU.com - Portland News,

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 06:14:38 +0000

Wasn't it you who used my "points" as some sort of evidence to back your point? That's the poorest excuse of arguing I've ever seen. Learn to find references and cite them. Then I'll feel obliged to do the same for you.

KATU - Portland, OR : Hundreds march through Portland for immigrant rights | Local & Regional | KATU.com - Portland News,

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 06:09:13 +0000

I can't account for what someone told you but according to the HUD guidelines "WHO IS ELIGIBLE? Public housing is limited to low-income families and individuals. An HA determines your eligibility based on: 1) annual gross income; 2) whether you qualify as elderly, a person with a disability, or as a family; and 3) U.S. citizenship or eligible immigration status..." My only concern is that people are treated in the most beneficial way possible to them. Of course nothing will be perfect but at least it is a goal that is working toward fair and equal treatment of everyone despite what their legal status is. To me treating humans as humans surpasses the technicality of law.

KATU - Portland, OR : Hundreds march through Portland for immigrant rights | Local & Regional | KATU.com - Portland News,

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:56:39 +0000

It's sad to think that anyone who fancies himself as educated would leave his self-professed intellectual supremacy to a point counter. No, I take it back: it isn't sad but absolutely laughable.

KATU - Portland, OR : Hundreds march through Portland for immigrant rights | Local & Regional | KATU.com - Portland News,

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:49:40 +0000

Looks like you've learned how to be racist in sociology class. Your broad swaths of perspective would make any educated person sick. You make unjust claims that are downright derogatory. Apparently you've been brainwashed like so many on this comments page into thinking that illegal immigrants receive welfare, social security, health benefits, etc. when you're wrong. The are ineligible except in the case of emergency situations in which case they are temporarily assisted.

KATU - Portland, OR : Hundreds march through Portland for immigrant rights | Local & Regional | KATU.com - Portland News,

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:40:45 +0000

I see a trend: the progressive incoherence of your sentences and conjectures inside them. Someone who's educated usually takes care of the most pertinent part of their argument first: the evidence. You fail to provide direct evidence in any of your claims.

KATU - Portland, OR : Hundreds march through Portland for immigrant rights | Local & Regional | KATU.com - Portland News,

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:20:14 +0000

I'm a born and bred Oregonian, SwissBank. I suppose any source of information that doesn't have authorship by or hasn't been endorsed by Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck is biased in your mind. The only backward thinkers in this society are the ones who won't make simple sacrifices to help out fellow humans - that seems to include a lot of the people on this comments page (so you're not alone).

KATU - Portland, OR : Hundreds march through Portland for immigrant rights | Local & Regional | KATU.com - Portland News,

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:02:50 +0000

I don't recollect calling myself a name-caller. I'm looking now at the CBP fiscal year report and I'm seeing nothing to indicate what economic effect illegal immigrants are having on the US. Here's an article published on NPR's website that addresses some questions about illegal immigration: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor... You will likely think it's biased, but I encourage you to look for some more information about the true economic effects of illegal immigrants. I'm sure you'll be further disgusted! As for your last plug to imply I'm a Communist, this isn't 1955 and xenophobe is a common word used to describe those who discriminate against people from foreign countries.

KATU - Portland, OR : Hundreds march through Portland for immigrant rights | Local & Regional | KATU.com - Portland News,

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 04:29:21 +0000

I was asking for some unbiased statistics, not the unharnessed rants of xenophobes. The reason why I'm challenging you and your ideological compatriots is that what research I've done has indicated that they have no such negative effects on the economy. Meanwhile, the anti-immigration folks in general support political movements that seek to give tax breaks to high income people and organizations. Maybe if we taxed the wealthy more than we tax the lower class (which in fact includes illegal immigrants when they pay property and sales taxes during their stay in the US), we would have the economic stability that seems so central to anti-immigration discourse; of course that wouldn't be very fun since hypocrites always need a scapegoat...

KATU - Portland, OR : Hundreds march through Portland for immigrant rights | Local & Regional | KATU.com - Portland News,

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 04:23:53 +0000

KATU - Portland, OR : Hundreds march through Portland for immigrant rights | Local & Regional | KATU.com - Portland News,

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 03:16:55 +0000

I challenge anyone here who insists on deportation of all illegal immigrants to offer some factual data that supports any of the cornerstone points that keep showing up. Those are: a significant blight on the economy, loss of benefits for citizens, loss of jobs for citizens, misused taxes paid for by citizens, etc.

KATU - Portland, OR : Hundreds march through Portland for immigrant rights | Local & Regional | KATU.com - Portland News,

Sun, 18 Dec 2011 23:22:16 +0000

My point isn't about the legality of the issue, it is that the hatred toward illegal immigrants (particularly Latinos) is one of race rather than a genuine distaste for illegal behavior. After all, many of those who are fundamentally unforgiving towards illegal immigrants seem to freely support giving tax breaks to the wealthy of this country. In my book that itself is theft. In the end it's always the poorest bracket (in this case Latino immigrants) that get put to blame.

KATU - Portland, OR : Hundreds march through Portland for immigrant rights | Local & Regional | KATU.com - Portland News,

Sun, 18 Dec 2011 22:34:27 +0000

KATU - Portland, OR : Hundreds march through Portland for immigrant rights | Local & Regional | KATU.com - Portland News,

Sun, 18 Dec 2011 22:11:01 +0000

It also appears that someone who's gone through the US education system doesn't know better than to use two conjunctions at the start of a sentence.

KATU - Portland, OR : Hundreds march through Portland for immigrant rights | Local & Regional | KATU.com - Portland News,

Sun, 18 Dec 2011 10:03:26 +0000

It's rather obvious, with all due respect, that your son-in-law has received far more opportunities than a working-class immigrant from Mexico. With a Ph.D in Electrical Engineering, it's most likely that your son-in-law could have (and maybe did) apply for permanent residence due to his occupation. Also, even your son-in-law will not receive the rights and perks that citizens do until he is naturalized (which will only be possible starting 5 years after he has obtained permanent residence status). I fail to see how "these wretches" are killing this country. Simply by hiring illegal immigrants for minimal pay the very farms that provide you and your family with food are in fact creating a NEED for cheap labor.

KATU - Portland, OR : Hundreds march through Portland for immigrant rights | Local & Regional | KATU.com - Portland News,

Sun, 18 Dec 2011 09:49:02 +0000

I believe the point wordstoBUILD is trying to make is that the large and small-scale farms, which hire illegal immigrant workers, are the ones to blame for this issue. By paying them meager wages, it perpetuates a continuous demand for cheap labor in order for any farms to compete in the market and price war. So in effect, by eating we're all supporting illegal immigrants! What's especially funny is that many farm owners support a political party that is most adamant about deporting illegal immigrants, yet they keep on hiring... But of course, they always have the KATU conservative trolls to back them for their honest, hard-working, and compassionate business making...