Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Tucker Carlson: probably not in deep trouble anymore, but he should be.


Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

But that's not the alternative, is it? The alternative is that those immigrants don't exist and their labor and all the other dollars they spend in the economy also go away. 

That is unless you propose to outlaw foreign wire transfers altogether, which would be quite detrimental to US companies.

I believe the alternative should be their labor is fulfilled by Americans who spend their wages in the US economy.  I say “should be” because tim and others go make a valid argument that illegals often do these jobs because no one in America will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 430
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Today they'll say no.  But then?  The same people who argue against women, immigrants, trans, gay, etc today said yes.   Racism, xenophobia and white supremacy never really die.  The people who h

I’ve met and known hundreds, probably over a thousand members of the military, and the majority of them did not smash and break things as part of their day to day job. Some are mechanics. Some are pro

That quote is even worse than my summary. The idea that there are “Americans” on one side and “immigrants” on the other goes against everything I was taught to believe about the greatness of this coun

24 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

I believe the alternative should be their labor is fulfilled by Americans who spend their wages in the US economy.  I say “should be” because tim and others go make a valid argument that illegals often do these jobs because no one in America will.

I think the bolded true, but there is sometimes a clause missing from the end: "at a given wage" (goes along with @Sands previous post.

I agree that immigration is good and a net benefit.  I agree that illegal immigration is bad - as a sovereign country we have the right to control our border.  I agree that visas are often abused by big business.  We have a mess in this country and no party is willing to fix it.

Build the damn wall, enact amnesty and quadruple the refugees we bring in.  How's that for a mixed message?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

I believe the alternative should be their labor is fulfilled by Americans who spend their wages in the US economy.  I say “should be” because tim and others go make a valid argument that illegals often do these jobs because no one in America will.

That’s the problem, it is a valid argument. And the dirty truth is this labor force is baked into our current pricing of the goods we consume. A dramatic shift in that work force and 10’s of millions of people will be filling that pain (and I’m not taking about the illegals themselves).  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also embarrassed that Tucker blurts out obvious white nationalist talking points and red team instinctually defends him.  Come on. 

Sometimes things actually are racist dog whistles.  Tucker is a world champion at making white nationalist propaganda sound reasonable.

  • Like 3
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shula-holic said:

We very much disagree on this and there is no reconciling our two views.  But let me just say this, when a conservative hears what Carlson said they very much view it in terms of illegal immigration.  You may not hear it that same way, but you aren't a conservative and so to you what he's saying doesn't speak to a concern, rather you take it terms of the way you see the world.  Again, there are fringe people who would advocate for no immigration, but these people aren't mainstream even in the world of Tucker Carlson and people who watch him.  I think your assumption is wrong, and frankly these types of beliefs about others leads to more of the hostility.  When each side believes the worst in the other, we often live down to that expectation.  If everything becomes about race, it shouldn't surprise us when people cluster in their activities, their schools, their voting more by race.  I've said this before, the two sides today have no common goals about what they want America to be, they can't even agree as to what we were in the past.  

Part of the reason it is hard to reconcile this is we just had an administration with an explicit goal of reducing legal immigration. But, you're right, that is different than no immigration.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

That’s the problem, it is a valid argument. And the dirty truth is this labor force is baked into our current pricing of the goods we consume. A dramatic shift in that work force and 10’s of millions of people will be filling that pain (and I’m not taking about the illegals themselves).  

I have no idea what farm labor gets paid.  Does the left insist that illegals get paid $15/hour like they want everyone else to?  If not, why not?

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

How dare you accuse Tucker Carlson of saying something racist without including the full context of his quote!

Now excuse me while I lie about Joe Biden saying the N-word...

Sure, clearly no racism in Biden’s past....:lmao:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/biden-said-desegregation-would-create-a-racial-jungle-2019-7%3Famp

Or at least there’s a (D) next to his name so we are sure you are full of excuses for it at least. Sad.  

  • Laughing 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

I have no idea what farm labor gets paid.  Does the left insist that illegals get paid $15/hour like they want everyone else to?  If not, why not?

🤷‍♂️  I’m not left nor do I represent them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

I have no idea what farm labor gets paid.  Does the left insist that illegals get paid $15/hour like they want everyone else to?  If not, why not?

H2-A seasonal farm workers are already required to make at least the minimum wage (alongside showing they tried to hire Americans but couldn't find any). I would be against paying them less because it would be illegal and an indication that the farm was avoiding paying taxes by doing things illegally. These workers already average $13 an hour so not too much different from the proposed wage, and they are provided housing. I'm willing to consider a situation where they make less than minimum wage to account for provided housing, similar to how wait staff makes less wage but receives tips.

https://www.epi.org/blog/trump-administration-reportedly-looking-to-cut-the-already-low-wages-of-h-2a-migrant-farmworkers-while-giving-their-bosses-a-multibillion-dollar-bailout/#:~:text=In 2019%2C the average wage,the average for all workers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

Sure, clearly no racism in Biden’s past....:lmao:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/biden-said-desegregation-would-create-a-racial-jungle-2019-7%3Famp

Or at least there’s a (D) next to his name so we are sure you are full of excuses for it at least. Sad.  

Good link, I suggest you read it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, thriftyrocker said:

Good link, I suggest you read it.

Already have, would love to hear you all pretend an (R) next to someone saying this wouldn’t be a problem. So typical of the Left, meanwhile they use daily gymnastics to call anyone they can on the other side racist. 

Edited by GoBirds
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

Already have, would love to hear you all pretend an (R) next to someone saying this wouldn’t be a problem. So typical of the Left, meanwhile they use daily gymnastics to call anyone they can on the other side racist. 

The quote is actually about being afraid white people will start a race war. Are you saying Biden is racist against white people? I mean he is a self hating liberal, but I wouldn't go that far.

I agree the media would jump all over a phrase like "racial jungle" if anyone used it today. But that's because the media is lazy and sensationalistic.

The full quote and his stance at the time I do not have a problem with. 

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, thriftyrocker said:

The quote is actually about being afraid white people will start a race war. Are you saying Biden is racist against white people? I mean he is a self hating liberal, but I wouldn't go that far.

I agree the media would jump all over a phrase like "racial jungle" if anyone used it today. But that's because the media is lazy and sensationalistic.

The full quote and his stance at the time I do not have a problem with. 

I stand by my comment 100% that you and others would not make the same excuses for Trump the way you do out of touch Joe. Blatant hypocrisy. Any (R) that had comments like this in their past would be canceled. 

Edited by GoBirds
  • Laughing 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, timschochet said:

It would actually be quite easy for you to convince me that you’re right. All you have to do is start producing politicians on the right who say “I can’t stand undocumented immigration, but I absolutely love legal immigration, the more the merrier, let’s open the doors come on in!” As soon as I hear that I will be convinced that it’s all about the illegals and that it’s got nothing to do with immigration in general. 

You and I discussed this a week or two back.  I have no desire for less immigration, but I do believe our system should go to a more merit based system rather than as much family based and lottery based as we currently do.  This was where the whole un-American discussion started regarding that view.  I'm fine with our immigration levels, I'd be open to more, but absolutely not unlimited.  You'll never get a conservative to agree to that, there would be no way to absorb unlimited amounts of people at one time.   

I do think it should be more merit based.  I'll grant you I'm not the standard politician on the right and could never get elected as such.  But the point being that if a politician said what I just did or spoke those views, including a more merit based system and even open to allowing some level of larger numbers of immigrants, would you object because they weren't allowing unlimited immigration or because of the method?  I'd argue neither stance is anti-immigration.  To hang the caveat on there from above of "open the doors come on in" is a non starter for any conservative politician for economic reasons, and honestly was for most center to center-left Democrats not all that long ago.  I know because I used to vote for them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, thriftyrocker said:

H2-A seasonal farm workers are already required to make at least the minimum wage (alongside showing they tried to hire Americans but couldn't find any). I would be against paying them less because it would be illegal and an indication that the farm was avoiding paying taxes by doing things illegally. These workers already average $13 an hour so not too much different from the proposed wage, and they are provided housing. I'm willing to consider a situation where they make less than minimum wage to account for provided housing, similar to how wait staff makes less wage but receives tips.

https://www.epi.org/blog/trump-administration-reportedly-looking-to-cut-the-already-low-wages-of-h-2a-migrant-farmworkers-while-giving-their-bosses-a-multibillion-dollar-bailout/#:~:text=In 2019%2C the average wage,the average for all workers.

I had no idea how it worked with the housing also, thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shula-holic said:

You and I discussed this a week or two back.  I have no desire for less immigration, but I do believe our system should go to a more merit based system rather than as much family based and lottery based as we currently do.  This was where the whole un-American discussion started regarding that view.  I'm fine with our immigration levels, I'd be open to more, but absolutely not unlimited.  You'll never get a conservative to agree to that, there would be no way to absorb unlimited amounts of people at one time.   

I do think it should be more merit based.  I'll grant you I'm not the standard politician on the right and could never get elected as such.  But the point being that if a politician said what I just did or spoke those views, including a more merit based system and even open to allowing some level of larger numbers of immigrants, would you object because they weren't allowing unlimited immigration or because of the method?  I'd argue neither stance is anti-immigration.  To hang the caveat on there from above of "open the doors come on in" is a non starter for any conservative politician for economic reasons, and honestly was for most center to center-left Democrats not all that long ago.  I know because I used to vote for them. 

How are you defining "merit"?

I suspect that a true "merit" based approach, as considered by most conservatives, would actually be counter-intuitive.  Under such approach, immigrants would be coming in and taking high paying jobs from citizens - pushing many citizens down the corporate ladder )or off completely).

 

For centuries, the most "valuable" immigrants have been those who are willing to start at the bottom and work their way up.  They  take on jobs that most citizens don't want, or won't do.  The trade off for those immigrants is really the fact that their families, and future generations, are in a better position for success. These immigrants - from around the world - have been largely responsible for the growth of the nation - literally and figuratively.  They built cities, they built infrastructure connecting the cities, they delivered the food, etc. 

It also strike me as interesting that conservatives will be in favor of shipping jobs overseas - because it produces greater corporate profits - but are opposed to more entry level immigrants, which leads to greater corporate profits (for big and small businesses).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sea Duck said:

How dare you accuse Tucker Carlson of saying something racist without including the full context of his quote!

Now excuse me while I lie about Joe Biden saying the N-word...

yeah @Sand you are gonna have to provide a link or something that back up your claim in this

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

How are you defining "merit"?

I suspect that a true "merit" based approach, as considered by most conservatives, would actually be counter-intuitive.  Under such approach, immigrants would be coming in and taking high paying jobs from citizens - pushing many citizens down the corporate ladder )or off completely).

 

For centuries, the most "valuable" immigrants have been those who are willing to start at the bottom and work their way up.  They  take on jobs that most citizens don't want, or won't do.  The trade off for those immigrants is really the fact that their families, and future generations, are in a better position for success. These immigrants - from around the world - have been largely responsible for the growth of the nation - literally and figuratively.  They built cities, they built infrastructure connecting the cities, they delivered the food, etc. 

It also strike me as interesting that conservatives will be in favor of shipping jobs overseas - because it produces greater corporate profits - but are opposed to more entry level immigrants, which leads to greater corporate profits (for big and small businesses).

There are good paying jobs available everywhere in the trades.  These really need to be filled so our economy can go forward.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

There are good paying jobs available everywhere in the trades.  These really need to be filled so our economy can go forward.  

I am sure there are.  How do you expect the "America First" party to fill those good paying jobs?  With foreigners?

 

And that goes back to the original question - how do you define "merit"?

 

And, who are you expecting to fill the remaining jobs?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I am sure there are.  How do you expect the "America First" party to fill those good paying jobs?  With foreigners?

 

And that goes back to the original question - how do you define "merit"?

 

And, who are you expecting to fill the remaining jobs?

 

Just like other countries do - if you offer skills that are in demand,  your chances are much better to come in legally.   I am for Legal entry, not a free-for-all especially in a pandemic.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

Just like other countries do - if you offer skills that are in demand,  your chances are much better to come in legally.   I am for Legal entry, not a free-for-all especially in a pandemic.  

I guess I am not making my point very clear - many of the jobs that are in demand, are for low wage earners.  These are jobs that current residents are unwilling to do.  This has been true since the founding of the country.  Immigrants come in (admittedly some by force) and they do the jobs citizens don't want.  

 

And - for an "America First" party - giving high paying jobs to foreigners, while pushing Americans further down the chain, seems a bit counter-intuitive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shula-holic said:

You and I discussed this a week or two back.  I have no desire for less immigration, but I do believe our system should go to a more merit based system rather than as much family based and lottery based as we currently do.  This was where the whole un-American discussion started regarding that view.  I'm fine with our immigration levels, I'd be open to more, but absolutely not unlimited.  You'll never get a conservative to agree to that, there would be no way to absorb unlimited amounts of people at one time.   

I do think it should be more merit based.  I'll grant you I'm not the standard politician on the right and could never get elected as such.  But the point being that if a politician said what I just did or spoke those views, including a more merit based system and even open to allowing some level of larger numbers of immigrants, would you object because they weren't allowing unlimited immigration or because of the method?  I'd argue neither stance is anti-immigration.  To hang the caveat on there from above of "open the doors come on in" is a non starter for any conservative politician for economic reasons, and honestly was for most center to center-left Democrats not all that long ago.  I know because I used to vote for them. 

Fair enough. Perhaps I overstated it. Let me amend by saying that if Republican politicians were to argue for increasing immigration in general, and taking in much more refugees, I’d be more impressed by the claim that all they want to do is stop illegal immigration. 
But again, this is the opposite of the facts: your point of view is not what we are hearing. The Republican politicians most vocal about illegal immigration attack ALL immigration. Those who push “merit based immigration” do so not as addition but as an alternative, and it all too often becomes code for “more white people, less brown” which brings us back to the white supremacism that Carlson and many others in the Trump era are pushing for.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ekbeats said:

I believe the alternative should be their labor is fulfilled by Americans who spend their wages in the US economy.  I say “should be” because tim and others go make a valid argument that illegals often do these jobs because no one in America will.

Americans will 100% do those job if those jobs offered a better wage.  Look into what immigrant farm labor is paid for example.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sinn Fein said:

I guess I am not making my point very clear - many of the jobs that are in demand, are for low wage earners.  These are jobs that current residents are unwilling to do.  This has been true since the founding of the country.  Immigrants come in (admittedly some by force) and they do the jobs citizens don't want.  

And - for an "America First" party - giving high paying jobs to foreigners, while pushing Americans further down the chain, seems a bit counter-intuitive.

And they say conservatives are the racist ones.  Wow.  :doh:

I remember when Kelly Osbourne said the same thing and everyone on the left lost their sh#t: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/kelly-osbourne-makes-controversial-remark-latinos-n403991

"If you kick every Latino out of this country, then who is going to be cleaning your toilet, Donald Trump?"

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sinn Fein said:

I am sure there are.  How do you expect the "America First" party to fill those good paying jobs?  With foreigners?

 

And that goes back to the original question - how do you define "merit"?

 

And, who are you expecting to fill the remaining jobs?

 

I work as an electrician, and we are struggling to find workers to keep up with the incoming work, and that’s just in our trade. Honestly, I don’t have an issue with guys coming in to help up, it’ll make the work a bit easier, and it’ll help me bone up on my Spanish as well. I just wish I had worked at it more in high school.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

And they say conservatives are the racist ones.  Wow.  :doh:

I remember when Kelly Osbourne said the same thing and everyone on the left lost their sh#t: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/kelly-osbourne-makes-controversial-remark-latinos-n403991

"If you kick every Latino out of this country, then who is going to be cleaning your toilet, Donald Trump?"

The fact that immigrants, legal and illegal, do jobs that Americans are not prepared to do is not even remotely controversial.  The point that Osborne made is correct, even if she could have made it in a less demeaning and offensive way.  

There is a ton of material written on the subject.  Start with the agriculture industry.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, zoonation said:

The fact that immigrants, legal and illegal, do jobs that Americans are not prepared to do is not even remotely controversial.  The point that Osborne made is correct, even if she could have made it in a less demeaning and offensive way.  

There is a ton of material written on the subject.  Start with the agriculture industry.    

Yeah, I know, it's racist.  Had a Conservative said this you would have proclaimed it to the heavens all day, every day, for the next 3 years.

It just proves my point that the real racists vote Democrat.  Old habits die hard - or don't die at all.

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Yeah, I know, it's racist.  Had a Conservative said this you would have proclaimed it to the heavens all day, every day, for the next 3 years.

It just proves my point that the real racists vote Democrat.  Old habits die hard - or don't die at all.

No.  I wouldn’t have.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

It just proves my point that the real racists vote Democrat. 

I’m massively confused by this statement.  Do you believe Dave Duke, his followers and the KKK vote D?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ekbeats said:

I get it.  The dollar is strengthened and we get better exchange rates.  No way in hell that offsets the negative impact of those dollars not being used directly in the US economy.

They are used directly in the U.S. economy.

Those dollars are generally not spent in Mexico. Typically they are exchanged for pesos that are spent in Mexico. (Some stores in Tijuana will actually take dollars, but then the stores still exchange them for pesos.)

After the dollars are exchanged for pesos, then what happens to them? The reason people want to exchange dollars into pesos is so that they can spend the pesos in Mexico. On the other side of that equation are the people exchanging pesos into dollars so that they can spend the dollars in the United States.

So the answer to "What happens to dollars after they are sent to Mexico?" is that they are spent in the U.S.

If a laborer does work in the United States, benefiting his employer and the employer's customers, and in return gets little green IOUs that he never cashes in against Americans, that would be awesome for Americans. It would amount to free labor for us! But unfortunately, those little IOUs do ultimately get spent on American goods and services. There's no such thing as "sending dollars back to Mexico" such that they never get spent on American goods or services -- but if there were such a thing, it would be extremely fantastic for the American economy. So it's a weird thing to worry about.

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

I’m massively confused by this statement.  Do you believe Dave Duke, his followers and the KKK vote D?

No, I don't.  Although, Duke did endorse Tulsi Gabbard last election.

I'm talking about the racists that don't come out publicly.  The closest racists.  The ones who think minorities can't do anything for themselves.  The ones who want to feel good about themselves and portray themselves as the "white savior".  Those racists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

No, I don't.  Although, Duke did endorse Tulsi Gabbard last election.

I'm talking about the racists that don't come out publicly.  The closest racists.  The ones who think minorities can't do anything for themselves.  The ones who want to feel good about themselves and portray themselves as the "white savior".  Those racists.

Well now you’re parsing out your definition. Your original post was “real racists”.  

While there are certainly racist that do vote D, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say the GOP has a large contingent of them as well. And in fact the classic old-school Democrat racist (the ones of years past as you often point out) are now the classic GOP racists.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Well now you’re parsing out your definition. Your original post was “real racists”.  

While there are certainly racist that do vote D, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say the GOP has a large contingent of them as well. And in fact the classic old-school Democrat racist (the ones of years past as you often point out) are now the classic GOP racists.  

Disagree on the bolded, but that's okay.

And I'm not changing the definition.  REAL racists are in the Democrat Party alive and well - they just don't publicly pronounce it but you see it in their posts, comments, tweets, etc...

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Disagree on the bolded, but that's okay.

And I'm not changing the definition.  REAL racists are in the Democrat Party alive and well - they just don't publicly pronounce it but you see it in their posts, comments, tweets, etc...

How do you disagree? So you think the old school southern Democrats (the Confederate flag creating anti-Lincoln ones) are still voting D today?  That those racist confederate flag waving people of today aren’t voting GOP, they voted for Obama and Hillary???  Come on man.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, timschochet said:

Fair enough. Perhaps I overstated it. Let me amend by saying that if Republican politicians were to argue for increasing immigration in general, and taking in much more refugees, I’d be more impressed by the claim that all they want to do is stop illegal immigration. 
But again, this is the opposite of the facts: your point of view is not what we are hearing. The Republican politicians most vocal about illegal immigration attack ALL immigration. Those who push “merit based immigration” do so not as addition but as an alternative, and it all too often becomes code for “more white people, less brown” which brings us back to the white supremacism that Carlson and many others in the Trump era are pushing for.  

I think you notion here that Republicans don’t support legal immigration is grossly exaggerated.  There were two bills restricting legal immigration that were submitted during the Trump years and neither one got off the ground.  With regard to rank and file Republicans,   according to this Pew Research poll the percentage of Republicans supporting an increase in legal immigration has gone up 50% from 2006 to 2018.  Quinnipiac and Gallup polls from  2018 show that anywhere from 55 percent to 68 percent of Republicans support keeping immigration at current levels or increasing it, while a minority as low as 28 percent support restricting legal immigration levels.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

How do you disagree? So you think the old school southern Democrats (the Confederate flag creating anti-Lincoln ones) are still voting D today?  That those racist confederate flag waving people of today aren’t voting GOP, they voted for Obama and Hillary???  Come on man.  

It's all just a deflectionary tactic. This thread is supposed to be about Tucker Carlson, but it's been hijacked into re-litigating History 101 stuff. That's the game.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

I think you notion here that Republicans don’t support legal immigration is grossly exaggerated.  There were two bills restricting legal immigration that were submitted during the Trump years and neither one got off the ground.  With regard to rank and file Republicans,   according to this Pew Research poll the percentage of Republicans supporting an increase in legal immigration has gone up 50% from 2006 to 2018.  Quinnipiac and Gallup polls from  2018 show that anywhere from 55 percent to 68 percent of Republicans support keeping immigration at current levels or increasing it, while a minority as low as 28 percent support restricting legal immigration levels.

I’ve read these polls too. And I’ve read polls that say that Republican voters support more gun control, and they support Obamacare, and Biden’s infrastructure proposal, and doing things about climate change. Whenever Republican voters are actually polled they end up supporting all kinds of moderate and, IMO, sensible positions. 
And yet when they get into the voting booth they pull the trigger for politicians who reject all of these things and play the game of being against whatever Democrats are for. And before you point out that this is true of the other side as well, the problem with that is that beyond tax cuts Republicans never seem to propose anything. I offer the 4 previous years as my example. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

They are used directly in the U.S. economy.

Those dollars are generally not spent in Mexico. Typically they are exchanged for pesos that are spent in Mexico. (Some stores in Tijuana will actually take dollars, but then the stores still exchange them for pesos.)

After the dollars are exchanged for pesos, then what happens to them? The reason people want to exchange dollars into pesos is so that they can spend the pesos in Mexico. On the other side of that equation are the people exchanging pesos into dollars so that they can spend the dollars in the United States.

So the answer to "What happens to dollars after they are sent to Mexico?" is that they are spent in the U.S.

If a laborer does work in the United States, benefiting his employer and the employer's customers, and in return gets little green IOUs that he never cashes in against Americans, that would be awesome for Americans. It would amount to free labor for us! But unfortunately, those little IOUs do ultimately get spent on American goods and services. There's no such thing as "sending dollars back to Mexico" such that they never get spent on American goods or services -- but if there were such a thing, it would be extremely fantastic for the American economy. So it's a weird thing to worry about.

How do Remittances Impact an Economy?

When an individual sends money earned in the United States to friends, relatives or business associates still living abroad, that money is taken out of the U.S. economy and injected into a foreign economy.

IMPACT TO THE U.S. ECONOMY

Rather than being used to purchase goods and services in the United States, the majority of remittance monies go directly into the pockets of foreign businesses. A smaller portion of remittance payments indirectly wind up in the coffers of foreign governments through duties imposed upon the cash transfer itself or taxes on the goods and services purchased with that cash.

The money sent abroad is typically disposable income (that would often be spent on small luxuries). These small luxuries are subject to sales taxes, restaurant taxes, excise taxes, resort taxes, etc., known as “consumption taxes” (taxes levied on money spent, rather than upon money earned). Most state and local governments rely on consumption taxes to provide the revenue necessary to maintain roads and fund important services such as fire and police protection. When immigrants remit portions of their income to other countries, it places more pressure on the local jurisdictions in the states where they reside to make up that lost revenue elsewhere. This often results in higher overall taxation rates.

Furthermore, local businesses suffer because those who send remittance payments abroad typically end up with less disposable income. Money sent to other countries means less money to spend on goods and services in the communities where foreign-born individuals live.

According to 2017 data gathered by the Census Bureau, the median annual income for a household headed by someone born in the United States is roughly $61,987.[6] On the other hand, households headed by someone born outside the United States earn approximately $57,273.[7] That may seem like a small difference. However, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, 63 percent of non-citizen households access welfare programs, compared to 35 percent of native households do.[8] That means immigrants are more likely to consume public services, but due to lower incomes, pay a smaller share of the costs for those services.

That problem is compounded by the fact that many immigrants send a significant percentage of their lower salaries abroad. According to the Center for Latin American Monetary Studies, Central American and South American immigrants send anywhere from 17 percent to 30 percent of their lower salaries abroad.[9]That income is removed from the U.S. economy. Therefore, it no longer generates any tax revenue that can be used to pay for public services.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

How do Remittances Impact an Economy?

When an individual sends money earned in the United States to friends, relatives or business associates still living abroad, that money is taken out of the U.S. economy and injected into a foreign economy.

IMPACT TO THE U.S. ECONOMY

Rather than being used to purchase goods and services in the United States, the majority of remittance monies go directly into the pockets of foreign businesses. A smaller portion of remittance payments indirectly wind up in the coffers of foreign governments through duties imposed upon the cash transfer itself or taxes on the goods and services purchased with that cash.

The money sent abroad is typically disposable income (that would often be spent on small luxuries). These small luxuries are subject to sales taxes, restaurant taxes, excise taxes, resort taxes, etc., known as “consumption taxes” (taxes levied on money spent, rather than upon money earned). Most state and local governments rely on consumption taxes to provide the revenue necessary to maintain roads and fund important services such as fire and police protection. When immigrants remit portions of their income to other countries, it places more pressure on the local jurisdictions in the states where they reside to make up that lost revenue elsewhere. This often results in higher overall taxation rates.

Furthermore, local businesses suffer because those who send remittance payments abroad typically end up with less disposable income. Money sent to other countries means less money to spend on goods and services in the communities where foreign-born individuals live.

According to 2017 data gathered by the Census Bureau, the median annual income for a household headed by someone born in the United States is roughly $61,987.[6] On the other hand, households headed by someone born outside the United States earn approximately $57,273.[7] That may seem like a small difference. However, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, 63 percent of non-citizen households access welfare programs, compared to 35 percent of native households do.[8] That means immigrants are more likely to consume public services, but due to lower incomes, pay a smaller share of the costs for those services.

That problem is compounded by the fact that many immigrants send a significant percentage of their lower salaries abroad. According to the Center for Latin American Monetary Studies, Central American and South American immigrants send anywhere from 17 percent to 30 percent of their lower salaries abroad.[9]That income is removed from the U.S. economy. Therefore, it no longer generates any tax revenue that can be used to pay for public services.

What is your source please? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

It's all just a deflectionary tactic. This thread is supposed to be about Tucker Carlson, but it's been hijacked into re-litigating History 101 stuff. That's the game.

 

I disagree. I don’t believe it’s a game or intentional. I believe it’s what they believe.  And that’s far scarier to me*. It just shows how deep the red team/blue team bias are.  Perspectives have completely shrunk down to looking through a straw.  No one can see the other side of the disagreement anymore. It’s my way or no way.  No middle ground what-so-ever.  
 

 

 

*for clarity I’m not speaking to fear of different opinions then “mine”. My point is the sentences that follow that one.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, timschochet said:

What is your source please? 

I found it. Your source is the Federation for American Immigration Reform: 

https://www.fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/united-states-loses-150-billion-annually-remittances

No wonder you didn’t provide a link. You have claimed that you are coming at this from a non-racial position, and I believe you, yet you are using as your source a racist hate group with ties to white supremacist groups. That’s disappointing, but it goes to my point that, unfortunately, the main arguments made against immigration, and especially undocumented immigration, are being pursued with racial animus in mind. And that is what was so awful about Tucker Carlson’s statement, and so depressing that some conservative types in this forum jump in so quickly to defend him. 

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

They are used directly in the U.S. economy.

Those dollars are generally not spent in Mexico. Typically they are exchanged for pesos that are spent in Mexico. (Some stores in Tijuana will actually take dollars, but then the stores still exchange them for pesos.)

After the dollars are exchanged for pesos, then what happens to them? The reason people want to exchange dollars into pesos is so that they can spend the pesos in Mexico. On the other side of that equation are the people exchanging pesos into dollars so that they can spend the dollars in the United States.

So the answer to "What happens to dollars after they are sent to Mexico?" is that they are spent in the U.S.

WRT the bolded, I assume you are saying they are “spent in the US” in that the year are used to buy pesos.  My point is that the money (whether the primary US dollars or the pesos exchanged for) is not used to purchase goods or services in the US economy.  They are used in Mexico to buy food, pay rent there, repair their cars hire, hire contractors there.  That is what most people would define as “spent”.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

WRT the bolded, I assume you are saying they are “spent in the US” in that the year are used to buy pesos.

No, I mean that Jose earns dollars and wants to spend them in Mexico, so he trades them to Jim for pesos. Jim then spends the dollars in the United States. (That's why Jim's traded his pesos for dollars.)

The dollars earned by Jose are spent in the United States because that's the whole point of dollars. That's where they can be spent. Whether Jose spends them in the United States himself or trades them to Jim for Jim to spend in the United States doesn't matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I found it. Your source is the Federation for American Immigration Reform: 

https://www.fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/united-states-loses-150-billion-annually-remittances

No wonder you didn’t provide a link. You have claimed that you are coming at this from a non-racial position, and I believe you, yet you are using as your source a racist hate group with ties to white supremacist groups. That’s disappointing, but it goes to my point that, unfortunately, the main arguments made against immigration, and especially undocumented immigration, are being pursued with racial animus in mind. And that is what was so awful about Tucker Carlson’s statement, and so depressing that some conservative types in this forum jump in so quickly to defend him. 

I've noticed this trend the last few months - posting a quote or part of an article without a link where the poster got it.   I assumed there was a reason for that.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:
29 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

WRT the bolded, I assume you are saying they are “spent in the US” in that the year are used to buy pesos.

No, I mean that Jose earns dollars and wants to spend them in Mexico, so he trades them to Jim for pesos. Jim then spends the dollars in the United States. (That's Jim's whole reason for trading his pesos for dollars.)

I don't want you to miss the point, though, that if what I wrote above is wrong, that's good for the U.S., not bad.

When Jose tells Wal-Mart, "I'll do an hour's worth of work for you in return for some lemonade," that seems like a fair trade. Now suppose they do the deal and Jose tells Wal-Mart, "Okay, I did the hour's worth of work, but you know what? I'm not really thirsty. You can keep the lemonade. Consider my work to be a freebie." That's an even better deal for Wal-Mart.

It's just as true when you substitute the United States in for Wal-Mart. From our perspective, Jose's labor is a benefit, and the lemonade we have to give him for it is the cost of getting that benefit. If Jose does some work in the U.S. and then gets his lemonade in Mexico, that's awesome for the U.S. (and terrible for Mexico)!!!

That's not what really happens because Jose in fact gives his lemonade-voucher to Jim, who cashes it in for U.S. lemonade.

But if economics were wrong and Jose were really able to make his dollars disappear to Mexico, never to be spent in the U.S., that would be to the advantage of the U.S. To worry about that happening is to put the lemonade transaction in the wrong column in our cost-benefit table.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I found it. Your source is the Federation for American Immigration Reform: 

https://www.fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/united-states-loses-150-billion-annually-remittances

No wonder you didn’t provide a link. You have claimed that you are coming at this from a non-racial position, and I believe you, yet you are using as your source a racist hate group with ties to white supremacist groups. That’s disappointing, but it goes to my point that, unfortunately, the main arguments made against immigration, and especially undocumented immigration, are being pursued with racial animus in mind. And that is what was so awful about Tucker Carlson’s statement, and so depressing that some conservative types in this forum jump in so quickly to defend him. 

So you are calling me a racist?  Do I have that correct?  Boy you really are a piece of work.  First off, I have no idea who FAIR is.  I did a quick Google on remittances hurting the US economy and it was at the top of what came up.  I didn’t include a link because I didn’t see anything in there that was worthy of a citation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • timschochet changed the title to Tucker Carlson: probably not in deep trouble anymore, but he should be.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...