Discussion of Concerns for Trump Presidency

[TimHauck 2,624]

This is still great:

https://twitter.com/thereal_truther/status/1827053305614483788
 

BREAKING: RFK JR. abandons his supporters to endorse the father of the Covid vaccine

[Engorgeous George 2,145]

4 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

In the grand scheme of things I think where RFK Jr wants to cut stuff is far more dangerous than where Elon wants to cut stuff

In the grander scheme of things the stuff Democrats wanted to cut (Little boy penises) was more concerning still.

[Sean Mooney 1,942]

1 minute ago, Engorgeous George said:

In the grander scheme of things the stuff Democrats wanted to cut (Little boy penises) was more concerning still.

I mean I don't think they actually wanted to cut them but were like "Hey it's cool if you want to get it cut off for yourself." Now if like there was a person put in charge whose role was "Head of Choppy Choppy Pee Pee"- then yeah that's a problem.

[jonmx 2,424]

2 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

I mean I don't think they actually wanted to cut them but were like "Hey it's cool if you want to get it cut off for yourself." Now if like there was a person put in charge whose role was "Head of Choppy Choppy Pee Pee"- then yeah that's a problem.

 

Cutting off kiddies pee-pees was/is a multi-billion industry which held conferences and tracked growth and had models over how much revenue could be generated from chopping off a single pee-pee and the lifetime stream of revenue it would generate.  There were over 300 clinics specializing in gender care targeting children including several major hospitals.  Thankfully this practice is being exposed. 

[Sean Mooney 1,942]

25 minutes ago, jonmx said:

 

Cutting off kiddies pee-pees was/is a multi-billion industry which held conferences and tracked growth and had models over how much revenue could be generated from chopping off a single pee-pee and the lifetime stream of revenue it would generate.  There were over 300 clinics specializing in gender care targeting children including several major hospitals.  Thankfully this practice is being exposed. 

How much revenue were they getting from it?

[WhiteWonder 2,681]

1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

Part of that trickle up effect though is that a business who maybe had 10 employees that were illegal immigrants getting paid under the table now have 10 people getting paid more and on the books- so they need to raise the prices of things in order to keep their margins where they are.

On an anecdotal semi-unrelated note- I'm friends with a guy who owns a roofing business. Good dude- hardcore MAGA guy. You go to his shop and there are tons of "Don't Tread on Me" flags, and the one with Trump as Rambo and all that, and 3 American flags on his property with signs that say things like "Love it or leave it." He does well and always has work. He has two teams that do roofs for him- of the 12 guys he employs- 10 of them are guys with questionable citizenship status. He has two white guys who are on his payroll as the foremen. He and i were pretty banged up one night and he was saying stuff like "It's great with these guys. I pay them peanuts and they just work like crazy." He also indicated at one point too that he can't get a "white guy" to work half as hard as those Mexicans even at twice the pay. 

 

doesn't matter. The sad truth is that as much as we can crack down on border control issues, we may be able to make the overall issue better but guys like your friend will always find a way to get some illegal immigrants working for them. It's never going to completely stop. 

The point is, if some of these businesses are forced to hire a few more citizens for these low end jobs, they will have to pay them more and have them on the books. Yes, the price of a meal at that restaurant may go up a bit as the costs are passed along to the consumer  (although we are still talking minimum wage jobs here)  but... 

1. the people dining out at these restaurants should be willing to spend just a little more, knowing that more jobs are being opened up for legal citizens

2. some of the people dining out would be considered the "rich people" that democrats want to pay up anyway. 

3. the "lower class" citizens who would take these jobs are now in better positions financially and the less reliant some people become on government assistance, the better for our economy. 

[WhiteWonder 2,681]

3 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Also, while higher wages for the jobs currently being filled by illegal immigrants should be good for the citizens that might fill the jobs, it wouldn’t be good for the people using the services, and could cause lower demand which then causes less of those jobs to be available.

Not exactly. I assume youre saying it could not be good for the people using those services because prices may go up?  If the demand goes down because of that, the businesses will need to adjust lower to get business back in the door. It won't always result in layoffs, etc. 

[jonmx 2,424]

8 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

How much revenue were they getting from it?

Each patient was valued at about $1.3 million because of the lifetime of visits, medications, cosmetic surgeries, counselling and maintaining the non-functioning mutilated sex organ they tried creating. 

[Sean Mooney 1,942]

2 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:

The point is, if some of these businesses are forced to hire a few more citizens for these low end jobs, they will have to pay them more and have them on the books. Yes, the price of a meal at that restaurant may go up a bit as the costs are passed along to the consumer  (although we are still talking minimum wage jobs here)  but... 

1. the people dining out at these restaurants should be willing to spend just a little more, knowing that more jobs are being opened up for legal citizens

2. some of the people dining out would be considered the "rich people" that democrats want to pay up anyway. 

3. the "lower class" citizens who would take these jobs are now in better positions financially and the less reliant some people become on government assistance, the better for our economy. 

That bolded part is one of those devil in the details type things.

1.) If we believe the entire premise of this past election was the economy and the price of things...I think it's a little wishful thinking to think people will say "Well yeah that 2 for 25 at Chilis is now 2 for 35 and it's cool.

2.) I don't think we can assign "rich" and "poor" in those manners.

3.) The problem is those "lower class" citizens don't want those jobs. There is an inflated sense of worth when it comes to these things. If someone graduated high school and gets a job washing dishes they should probably get paid minimum wage (whatever that number is). The problem is people want minimum wage plus for that job....because the alternative is sitting at home and collecting the benefits that are available and not doing anything. 

[squistion 1,955]

36 minutes ago, jonmx said:

Cutting off kiddies pee-pees was/is a multi-billion industry which held conferences and tracked growth and had models over how much revenue could be generated from chopping off a single pee-pee and the lifetime stream of revenue it would generate.  There were over 300 clinics specializing in gender care targeting children including several major hospitals.  Thankfully this practice is being exposed. 

Quit repeating this lie. No kiddies have had their "pee-pees" cut off. None.

[Sean Mooney 1,942]

3 minutes ago, jonmx said:

Each patient was valued at about $1.3 million because of the lifetime of visits, medications, cosmetic surgeries, counselling and maintaining the non-functioning mutilated sex organ they tried creating. 

Where was this mentioned and discussed? Like who provided those numbers.? Also, do places have numbers for other types of patients?

Even still too- there wasn't a sense that Democrats were specifically going in and saying "Yes let's chop pee pees" in the same way of "Well this local project gets money from HUD."

[WhiteWonder 2,681]

3 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

That bolded part is one of those devil in the details type things.

1.) If we believe the entire premise of this past election was the economy and the price of things...I think it's a little wishful thinking to think people will say "Well yeah that 2 for 25 at Chilis is now 2 for 35 and it's cool.

2.) I don't think we can assign "rich" and "poor" in those manners.

3.) The problem is those "lower class" citizens don't want those jobs. There is an inflated sense of worth when it comes to these things. If someone graduated high school and gets a job washing dishes they should probably get paid minimum wage (whatever that number is). The problem is people want minimum wage plus for that job....because the alternative is sitting at home and collecting the benefits that are available and not doing anything. 

1.  In order to fight inflation and the cost of things, I happen to believe we will need to deal with a temporary rise.   Not like the rise at the start of Bidens admin because that was not a "self imposed" rise. It was a rise he did little to fix other than sit back and let the feds raise interest rates.  It's a little different when the rise is a means to an end, so to speak.   Also, we are talking more about small businesses who have more of these illegals working for them. The mom and pop italian restaurant in your neighborhood and I doubt you would see a 40% increase passed along to the consumer, as in your chilis example. 

2. Think it or don't think it but dining out at restaurants is considered a sign of disposable income. The family who eats out at the fancy italian restaurant in town 3 night a week is probably viewed as more well off.  We can remove the terms rich and poor if it makes you feel better.

3. Lower class citizens don't want those jobs because they currently don't pay enough. Theres really no good argument for continuing to employee people who are in this country illegally, yet that seems to be what some of you are doing. Perhaps some changes also need to be made to the benefits system, but something tells me liberals won't like that either. 

 

just to use an example of my own.  I have a friend who dates an illegal brazillian woman. She was working as a hair stylist in a heavily hispanic and black area. If that salon was not able to hire her for less money and keep her off the books (and basically not allow her to keep as much of her tips) you don't think there is not a young black or hispanic woman who is a citizen who would gladly fill that role?   People assume all of these jobs being filled by illegals are toilet and dish washers 

[Sean Mooney 1,942]

3 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:

1.  In order to fight inflation and the cost of things, I happen to believe we will need to deal with a temporary rise.   Not like the rise at the start of Bidens admin because that was not a "self imposed" rise. It was a rise he did little to fix other than sit back and let the feds raise interest rates.  It's a little different when the rise is a means to an end, so to speak.   Also, we are talking more about small businesses who have more of these illegals working for them. The mom and pop italian restaurant in your neighborhood and I doubt you would see a 40% increase passed along to the consumer, as in your chilis example. 

2. Think it or don't think it but dining out at restaurants is considered a sign of disposable income. The family who eats out at the fancy italian restaurant in town 3 night a week is probably viewed as more well off.  We can remove the terms rich and poor if it makes you feel better.

3. Lower class citizens don't want those jobs because they currently don't pay enough. Theres really no good argument for continuing to employee people who are in this country illegally, yet that seems to be what some of you are doing. Perhaps some changes also need to be made to the benefits system, but something tells me liberals won't like that either. 

 

just to use an example of my own.  I have a friend who dates an illegal brazillian woman. She was working as a hair stylist in a heavily hispanic and black area. If that salon was not able to hire her for less money and keep her off the books (and basically not allow her to keep as much of her tips) you don't think there is not a young black or hispanic woman who is a citizen who would gladly fill that role?   People assume all of these jobs being filled by illegals are toilet and dish washers 

I think the minute you take a worker who is off the books and replace it with a worker on the books you are raising your costs. That will get passed to a consumer in some way or another. That italian restaurant in the example may not feel community effects of the price change but they will feel more global effects.

As a case in point- i posted this a few weeks ago- somewhere around half of the people who work on farms in the dairy industry are undocumented immigrants. 

There is also this in a story about dairy farmers in Idaho: 

Quote

 

According to studies done by Watson and his colleague Hernan Tejeda, the dairy industry brought $10.7 billion into Idaho in 2020. That number includes revenue generated not only by milk producers like Peter but also by milk processors. The state’s best-known processing plant belongs to the Greek yogurt maker Chobani, but its largest is owned by Glanbia, which makes the kind of nonbrand cheese used by Domino’s and Pizza Hut. Idaho milk is also the basis of generic cheese sold in value stores like Walmart.

In a 2012 study, Watson estimated that if Idaho cut its supply of foreign-born, less-educated labor by 50 percent, the state’s G.D.P. would fall by $905 million. In 2024, he told me, that number would only be bigger. The dairy industry generated about $155 million in state and local tax revenue in 2020, he noted, compared with $90 million in 2012. Idaho’s dairy farms may employ only 4,400 people, Watson and Tejeda have found, but those farms enable 30,600 other jobs in milk processing and other supporting businesses. If the industry departed, it would affect Idaho broadly, including schools and restaurants across the state.

 

You run the risk of like what happened to the coal cracker towns in the middle of Pennsylvania. Those towns were built around mining and they had everything within a few square miles. Then the mining dried up...and those businesses went away....then the local food shops started closing....then the drug stores.....then the other businesses......then the bars......once the fundamental core is gone- everything around it dries up,

[Hardcore troubadour 14,952]

I’m concerned there won’t be any internment / deportation camps within driving distance. And I don’t want to pay a toll. 

[Sean Mooney 1,942]

Thought this was interesting:

Quote

The average cost of apprehending, detaining, processing and removing one undocumented immigrant in 2016 was $10,900, according to figures released by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the time.

If those numbers are accurate then deporting 10 million illegals would be 109 billion dollars.

I would assume with inflation and everything those numbers are higher. Let's assume 10% higher. Now you are at 119,900,000,000

[Hardcore troubadour 14,952]

We have spent 150 billion on them already and the till is still running.  Maybe math should be a requirement again? 

[TimHauck 2,624]

1 hour ago, WhiteWonder said:

Not exactly. I assume youre saying it could not be good for the people using those services because prices may go up?  If the demand goes down because of that, the businesses will need to adjust lower to get business back in the door. It won't always result in layoffs, etc. 

Yes, and yes I said less jobs “could” happen.  It won’t always happen, but if sales decline, that’s a likely result, or things like reduced hours particularly if we seem to be talking things like restaurants here.

43 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:

1.  In order to fight inflation and the cost of things, I happen to believe we will need to deal with a temporary rise.   Not like the rise at the start of Bidens admin because that was not a "self imposed" rise. It was a rise he did little to fix other than sit back and let the feds raise interest rates.  It's a little different when the rise is a means to an end, so to speak.   Also, we are talking more about small businesses who have more of these illegals working for them. The mom and pop italian restaurant in your neighborhood and I doubt you would see a 40% increase passed along to the consumer, as in your chilis example. 

2. Think it or don't think it but dining out at restaurants is considered a sign of disposable income. The family who eats out at the fancy italian restaurant in town 3 night a week is probably viewed as more well off.  We can remove the terms rich and poor if it makes you feel better.

3. Lower class citizens don't want those jobs because they currently don't pay enough. Theres really no good argument for continuing to employee people who are in this country illegally, yet that seems to be what some of you are doing. Perhaps some changes also need to be made to the benefits system, but something tells me liberals won't like that either. 

 

 

Again I agree we don’t need to keep illegals here just so they can provide cheap labor, just saying that is an impact of them being here. 

I do think you may be underestimating the potential cost impacts.  As @Sean Mooney said, I wouldn’t necessarily bank on people gladly paying more because there’s an American washing their dishes.  Yes, the people eating there have disposable income, but they don’t need to spend it all there.   Instead of 3x a week at the Italian restaurant, maybe 1 of those goes to Chili’s instead, and it trickles down.

Ironically, I’d predict the biggest impact could be on housing, as there are a lot of illegals working in the construction trades.  I know some here will claim that will be offset by less people looking for housing, but unless you’re looking to move to a border town or crime ridden area of a major city, I’d disagree.

[Sean Mooney 1,942]

The easiest answer to immigration is pick some countries where the most people come from- send weepaws to one, send Hardcore Troubadouche to another.....after about an hour those governments will be like "Okay, we will take back everyone gratis just please take back these chuds. They are your problem."

Then we should laugh at those governments and say- nah suckers....

[Hardcore troubadour 14,952]

23 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

The easiest answer to immigration is pick some countries where the most people come from- send weepaws to one, send Hardcore Troubadouche to another.....after about an hour those governments will be like "Okay, we will take back everyone gratis just please take back these chuds. They are your problem."

Then we should laugh at those governments and say- nah suckers....

Maybe you can go to them and set up a classroom? Then when the kids are seated just go back to posting here. 

[Engorgeous George 2,145]

The costs are more or less fixed, the question is where and when are they paid.  Do we pay them at the restaurant, for instance, or do we pay them partially at the restaurant and in taxes to support the servicves needed by the illegals and by our own unemployed.  In the end the cost is more or less the same.

[Sean Mooney 1,942]

Looks like HT wants to keep illegal immigrants here now....Let's get him MAGA!

[BrahmaBulls 628]

2 hours ago, squistion said:

Quit repeating this lie. No kiddies have had their "pee-pees" cut off. None.

Can you prove this?

[The Real timschochet 6,443]

Stephen Miller named deputy chief of staff with “unlimited power.”

Yeah OK I admit I’m a bit concerned about this…

[jerryskids 6,574]

4 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

A concern- well maybe two depending on how closely one thinks they are aligned together- I have about the 2nd Trump presidency is I'm worried they are going to overreach and try to do too much from a governmental cleanup side and won't understand some of the side effects of that. 

Look I'll never argue against there being waste in government agencies. There is- and being a Republican at heart I fully believe in a smaller government however, I have come to understand that there are aspects that we need government for and I think that should not be ignored even with their being bloat at spots. In Trump's first term there were people in place around him in spots that understood that government can't be completely gutted and they worked to keep some of those things in place. A lot of the chatter now is about Trump putting in guys who have loyalty to Trump and less to the institutions that help make government function. I know people love what Elon is selling about gutting branches- but government isn't poorly run because of too many people, it's poorly run because there is too much left hand and right hand not working together. Organizational structure overhauls are needed but gutting people will just put more work on more people and that won't make it run smoother. I know people love what RFK Jr. is selling but the FDA and EPA and all that serve a purpose. Are there things we can ease on or take a look at? Absolutely- but again gutting those branches into oblivion won't make things better and would most likely make things worse. I would love to see these government organizations have a hard look taken at them. Streamline processes, figure out where things can be done differently and more effectively, and set paraments going forward in a quasi audit situation. What is being set up though feels like "Just gut it all and figure it out later."

Along with that I wonder who in the second term will be the one that has the courage to tell Trump "No" on ideas. Any leader needs someone to tell them "No" on some ideas. It feels like too much of this second term is already being built around "You get to do this, and you get to do that..." with people easily capitulating to it without any sense of pushing back. Basically "Don't tell me what to do and you can do whatever you want". Hell even over the weekend Trump made some comment about essentially pushing through cabinet appointments without discussion so he gets whatever he wants and sycophant Rick Scott (a leading candidate for senate majority leader) was like "Yes, I agree. I will do that, just give me the job everyone." That was within minutes he said that. 

I heard a word to describe Trump recently, I think regarding the tariffs:  brinkmanship.  

noun

the art or practice of pursuing a dangerous policy to the limits of safety before stopping, especially in politics.

 

Basically it is consistent with what I said to @The Real timschochet -- that this is how Trump negotiates, his "art of the deal."

 

Anyway, I wonder how much of this is brinkmanship.

 

That being said, it is certainly a valid concern.  I worked with some high-level people at SpaceX, and Elon had no qualms about whacking people or even whole groups if they, say, missed a schedule.  So, he will most likely recommend some drastic cuts.  The question is, how much will they actually be implemented.

[The Real timschochet 6,443]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

I heard a word to describe Trump recently, I think regarding the tariffs:  brinkmanship.  

noun

the art or practice of pursuing a dangerous policy to the limits of safety before stopping, especially in politics.

 

Basically it is consistent with what I said to @The Real timschochet -- that this is how Trump negotiates, his "art of the deal."

 

Anyway, I wonder how much of this is brinkmanship.

 

That being said, it is certainly a valid concern.  I worked with some high-level people at SpaceX, and Elon had no qualms about whacking people or even whole groups if they, say, missed a schedule.  So, he will most likely recommend some drastic cuts.  The question is, how much will they actually be implemented.

We’re gonna find out. 
 

The first point- if it’s indeed brinksmanship, then it will only be tariffs on particular countries, like China and Mexico, in order to get them to do certain things. If it’s tariffs on EVERY country, as Trump promised, then it’s hard for me to see how it’s brinksmanship. 

[WhiteWonder 2,681]

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

 

Ironically, I’d predict the biggest impact could be on housing, as there are a lot of illegals working in the construction trades.  I know some here will claim that will be offset by less people looking for housing, but unless you’re looking to move to a border town or crime ridden area of a major city, I’d disagree.

So on this topic I would counter with a few points. 
1. there is indeed housing in urban areas that are going to illegals and forcing lower income families to settle for housing that is a step up and not fully affordable for them. Those families would take the cheapest options if they were available. This isn’t speculation, I live fairly close to Newark and I know people in this situation. Independent landlords are willing to rent to illegals because they can basically act as slum lords because who is going to complain? 
 

2. these rise in costs you guys seem so worried about because of the lack of cheap illegal labor can potentially be offset (and to a larger degree) if we can lower to cost of materials. It’s a big if, but my point is those are actually the bigger issues impacting to cost of goods and services. It’s the cost of eggs and bread and flour etc at the restaurant more so than having to pay a dish washer minimum wage. And I believe American citizens would be much more tolerant of some rise in the cost of their meals or new roofs if it means more jobs for citizens than they currently are with the rise in the costs because we get spanked on trade deals 

[Death 301]

18 hours ago, jerryskids said:

This is a bit all over the place, but I'll try to respond.

Abortion:  I had asked for what would be different under a Trump admin vs. Harris.  I take from this that your answer is that you are skeptical if Trump would veto a national abortion ban.  I'm sorry, but I just don't see this happening.  Trump has consistently said he has no interest in such a ban.  SCOTUS has said that this is in the purview of the states, so would almost definitely kill such a law.  And really, no states are calling for this.  I'll add to the list a potential national ban at some date, say 15 weeks, that might restrict the rights of some states.

You state that Democrats don't support late-term abortions, but that's categorically wrong.  Arizona just passed a constitutional amendment allowing abortion to birth for reasons including "mental health."  So, if a woman tells her therapist that she is super stressed about her upcoming baby and doesn't think she can handle it, that therapist can approve an abortion, regardless of time.

I also don't understand why a rape or incest victim needs a late term abortion.  Regardless, this is typical "legislating at the extremes."

Pulling licenses of major broadcasting companies:  I don't know much about this, so I'll add it for now.

Misinformation:  Not serious.  The Left targets masculinity, whites, and Trump voters.  I'd say that's a larger block.

 

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/donald-trump-has-threatened-to-shut-down-broadcasters-but-can-he/

This is dangerous as hell. He wants to shut down what doesn't please him. That's right out of the dictator playbook. 

His supporters take Trump at his every word and rarely, if ever, question it. He has them believing that all ABC, CBS and NBC do is broadcast fake information. Meanwhile, the fact-check machine redlines every time he gives a speech. 

Oh, and all the fearmongering. 

I'm telling you this guy is acting like Hitler did in the 1930s. My hope is that reasonable-minded Republicans keep him in check. 

He admires Russia and Hungary, the latter no longer considered a democracy as it acts more like an autocracy.

If he goes after his "enemies" like he says he will, all hell will break loose in this country. He is a petty, thin-skinned vindictive man who soon will  have more power than anyone else on the planet.

 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,242]

4 hours ago, TimHauck said:

This is still great:

https://twitter.com/thereal_truther/status/1827053305614483788
 

BREAKING: RFK JR. abandons his supporters to endorse the father of the Covid vaccine

derp derp yawn.  Its idiotic

 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,242]

I think Trump should reach across the isle and do as the Dems desire

Pack the supreme court

 

[Death 301]

23 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

We’re gonna find out. 
 

The first point- if it’s indeed brinksmanship, then it will only be tariffs on particular countries, like China and Mexico, in order to get them to do certain things. If it’s tariffs on EVERY country, as Trump promised, then it’s hard for me to see how it’s brinksmanship. 

I wonder if those who whined about inflation will whine about the drastic inflation all these tariffs will cause. 

Yeah, inflation is only OK if Trump causes it.

[TimHauck 2,624]

1 minute ago, WhiteWonder said:

So on this topic I would counter with a few points. 
1. there is indeed housing in urban areas that are going to illegals and forcing lower income families to settle for housing that is a step up and not fully affordable for them. Those families would take the cheapest options if they were available. This isn’t speculation, I live fairly close to Newark and I know people in this situation. Independent landlords are willing to rent to illegals because they can basically act as slum lords because who is going to complain? 
 

2. these rise in costs you guys seem so worried about because of the lack of cheap illegal labor can potentially be offset (and to a larger degree) if we can lower to cost of materials. It’s a big if, but my point is those are actually the bigger issues impacting to cost of goods and services. It’s the cost of eggs and bread and flour etc at the restaurant and at more so than having to pay a dish washer minimum wage. And I believe American citizens are oils be much more tolerant of some rise in the cost of their meals if it means more jobs for citizens than they currently are with the rise in the cost of their meals because general produce is too expensive. 

Ok so your first scenario is basically one of the few times I cited where it would actually have an impact.

Your second point may be true but honest question, what are Trump’s plans to reduce materials costs?

[purdygood 334]

16 hours ago, WhiteWonder said:

Why would you not want neighbors to report if they know illegal immigrants are renting next door or in their neighborhood?

why would you not want businesses to have to report known illegal employees?

Maybe because they are nice people who work hard and don't cause any problems? And also pay taxes and do job's you won't do?

[Sean Mooney 1,942]

8 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:

2. these rise in costs you guys seem so worried about because of the lack of cheap illegal labor can potentially be offset (and to a larger degree) if we can lower to cost of materials. It’s a big if, but my point is those are actually the bigger issues impacting to cost of goods and services. It’s the cost of eggs and bread and flour etc at the restaurant more so than having to pay a dish washer minimum wage. And I believe American citizens would be much more tolerant of some rise in the cost of their meals or new roofs if it means more jobs for citizens than they currently are with the rise in the costs because we get spanked on trade deals 

On this though- the entire farming and agriculture industry is built on undocumented immigrant labor. Undocumented farm workers make up approximately 50% of the farm labor workforce. And people in the dairy industry estimate that the price of milk would double without their undocumented workers.

According to CMS estimates, there are approximately 283,000 undocumented immigrants who work in the United States as agricultural workers. These individuals make up approximately 4 percent of the total undocumented workforce in United States.- that means there are almost 7 million undocumented workers in the US (and some estimates have it as high as 11 million).

Take those people out and now you have 11 million jobs needing to be filled with people asking for more money. And when those jobs aren't filled- they will be cut leading to supply issues.

[nobody 2,567]

20 minutes ago, purdygood said:

Maybe because they are nice people who work hard and don't cause any problems? And also pay taxes and do job's you won't do?

We should ask Tim if he's withholding taxes for the illegals he hires.  My guess is he doesn't.

[Engorgeous George 2,145]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

Stephen Miller named deputy chief of staff with “unlimited power.”

Yeah OK I admit I’m a bit concerned about this…

Unlimited power.  That seems like a lot.  I thought the Constitution limited power to the government, reserving most of it to the people.  Of course I realize that politicians often do not use language precisely.  If he acts as if his power is unlimited he may find himself brought to a rather dramatic and punative halt, at least I hope so.

[The Real timschochet 6,443]

35 minutes ago, nobody said:

We should ask Tim if he's withholding taxes for the illegals he hires.  My guess is he doesn't.

I only hire them for a few hours at a time so no. I’m not legally required to do so because they are independent contractors. 

[Engorgeous George 2,145]

45 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

On this though- the entire farming and agriculture industry is built on undocumented immigrant labor. Undocumented farm workers make up approximately 50% of the farm labor workforce. And people in the dairy industry estimate that the price of milk would double without their undocumented workers.

According to CMS estimates, there are approximately 283,000 undocumented immigrants who work in the United States as agricultural workers. These individuals make up approximately 4 percent of the total undocumented workforce in United States.- that means there are almost 7 million undocumented workers in the US (and some estimates have it as high as 11 million).

Take those people out and now you have 11 million jobs needing to be filled with people asking for more money. And when those jobs aren't filled- they will be cut leading to supply issues.

If the true cost of milk is revealed as doubled but my taxes are reduced I think I can live with it

[The Real timschochet 6,443]

1 minute ago, Engorgeous George said:

Unlimited power.  That seems like a lot.  I thought the Constitution limited power to the government, reserving most of it to the people.  Of course I realize that politicians often do not use language precisely.  If he acts as if his power is unlimited he may find himself brought to a rather dramatic and punative halt, at least I hope so.

I put it in quotation marks for a reason. But I don’t like giving Stephen Miller ANY power. (I would, however, be willing to give the Steve Miller Band some power.) 

[Engorgeous George 2,145]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

I only hire them for a few hours at a time so no. I’m not legally required to do so because they are independent contractors. 

So you turn a deliberately blind eye and ear and take refuge in a technicality.  Seems an odd moral stance for someone who moralizes as much as do you.

[Engorgeous George 2,145]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I put it in quotation marks for a reason. But I don’t like giving Stephen Miller ANY power. (I would, however, be willing to give the Steve Miller Band some power.) 

I suspect he will come to a bad end hurting others in the process.