Posted on 01/24/2007 3:00:13 PM PST by stockpirate
I don't do dueling links. That is little less rewarding than having someone post a LONG link which has little to do with the topic under discussion. If one cannot argue a case using their own words maybe they should not be arguing. And posting links to one crackpot or biased source is also of little use.
Post 20 refers to costs of 400 billion and another half trillion which I summarized as "almost a trillion" dollars NOT "over" a trillion as you claim.
I CALCULATED the per capita figure to show it was unlikely you missed it entirely but are willing to swallow it because you WANT it to be true.
"It's curious that you would say that illegals are not associated with traffic fatalities in Chicago." I did not say that Illegals were not "associated" with traffic fatalities. Obviously they are involved in SOME.
Most murders in Chicago are of Blacks by Blacks (non-Hispanic) some may be by illegal Nigerians.
There are easily obtained racial statistics which verify this statement.
Welfare benefit programs used strictly by the illegal immigration population were costing "$400 billion a year -...
Based on the figure of 30 million illegals they use that would be $13,333 of expense per year per capita.
...He said that figure did not include another half-trillion dollars lost each year "due to payroll and income tax fraud from the underground economy created by having 30 million illegal aliens in the United States."
Here the figure would be $16,666 per capita in lost revenue.
Estimates of the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. vary considerably, but the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) said the numbers cited by Gilchrist "sound about right."
The figures for expense, missed opportunity cost and the population base are clearly in the text. You present a figure of $83,000 per year expense and your number is what I was supposed to swallow? I did not swallow their number, I pointed out that context mattered, which it clearly did because you tried to feed me a BS number without providing any alternative context. Exactly what I was pointing out
"Occasionally you will see an accident with Illegals but they are not that common."
I did not say that Illegals were not "associated" with traffic fatalities. Obviously they are involved in SOME.
If Hispanic males are involved in fatal accidents at 5 times the rate of caucasion males (NHTSA data indicates male Hispanics is the single highest demographic group). Fatal accidents involving Hispanic males must be the most common. Chicago does not release the residency status of those involved in the accidents, how do you know illegals are not involved?
Agree. A number that large would be a major headline in most cities. They beef about the 3,000 in Iraq so 45,000 would be an atrocity.
My math does not use BS figures such as 30 million Illegals when there are about 12-13 million. But exaggeration is a critical part of your schtick. Someone above cited Vincente Fox as saying 10% of his nation was north of the border. THAT figure is consistent with Non-Whackjob estimates of 12 million. Naturally YOU would reject that.
The "lost revenue" figure is particularly hilarious. At the lowest tax rate this would mean the earnings of Illegals is almost $60,000 PER CAPITA. Only an absolute fool would believe that when it is HIGHER than the Median Household Income much less per capita. But facts and logic mean nothing to you.
Illegals in Chicago do not own automobiles at anywhere near the rate of citizens hence are not as likely to be involved in accidents. Your 5x figure is likely something you did not read correctly or interpret correctly like most of the things I have said that you incorrectly understood.
Residency status of an Illegal is whatever city he is living in. Or is that another misunderstanding of yours that a resident is a citizen?
Your math in fact used 10 million. Your fault is that you did not specify it. You stated the figure was wrong without providing any basis.
But exaggeration is a critical part of your schtick.
No, it is part of yours. I have not accepted or rejected any numbers without providing an indication of the source. When I make anecdotal observations I have said so up front. I stated clearly that I had not verified any of the base numbers of the report that was being quoted. I had only examined the methodology used for processing those numbers and found it valid. I have my own estimate of the number of illegals in the country but it is not relevant to any point I put forth so I reserved that opinion.
The "lost revenue" figure is particularly hilarious. At the lowest tax rate this would mean the earnings of Illegals is almost $60,000 PER CAPITA. Only an absolute fool would believe that when it is HIGHER than the Median Household Income much less per capita. But facts and logic mean nothing to you.
Again you have it backwards. Facts and logic are all that matter to me. Deducing a per capita on a base population other than that presented in the data set is neither fact nor logic. If you disagree with the 30 million base population express the factual basis of your disagreement then present a conclusion based on the new fact set. The fact set presented was $500 billion lost revenue with a base population of 30 million or $16,666 per capita. Either dispute the 30 million, the $16,666, or both. Your $60,000 number is an invalid conclusion because you are changing the fact set without acknowledging it. Again, I have neither accepted nor rejected the base numbers, only your invalid manipulation of them.
Illegals in Chicago do not own automobiles at anywhere near the rate of citizens hence are not as likely to be involved in accidents. Your 5x figure is likely something you did not read correctly or interpret correctly like most of the things I have said that you incorrectly understood.
The source of your ownership claims would be? As for the 5x figure, it is common to reports from the NHTSA, State Farm Insurance and All State Insurance. You can access NHSTSA; the insurance reports are from pay sites so I can't pass them on. There also dozens of editorial works available on the web which reference source data. You can easily Google them just as I did. I have accepted the 5x figure as it is represented in multiple reputable sources. Please note it is fatal accidents, not all accidents.
Residency status of an Illegal is whatever city he is living in. Or is that another misunderstanding of yours that a resident is a citizen?
Clearly for the purpose of this thread residency status refers to either legal resident or illegal resident. Chicago public employees will not release this information, at least through 2005. It may have changed since then, but no report I looked at had information past 2005. Conversely, the city of Houston does release that information so it is available in news reports. I have not seen any compiled data, therefore I labeled my information as anecdotal.
I do have my own opinion on the number of illegals in the country, their impact on the economy and the socioeconomic structure of the country. They really didn't matter to the discussion so I reserved them. I expressed facts where facts were available and I labeled anecdotal information as such. My original post was on what I had observed in reviewing the study in question. I expressed no acceptance or rejection of it's conclusions. I in fact qualified my comments to that extent. I believe the data set and methodology applied are critical in assessing the validity of the presented result. I find fault with those who criticize or disparage an expressed result without providing a clear argument for an alternate data set, methodology or previously unaddressed facts. As it turns out, it looks like you are their poster child.
I used 12,000,000 for my calculations.
In order to show the absurdity of the $16,666 figure I ACCEPTED both bloated figures. Then, as I explained, the per capita figure was calculated FROM them. Then, as I explained, that figure derived from YOUR figures was used to calculate the per capita income figure consistent with the "revenue loss". So the absurd $60,000 came from YOUR numbers and the lowest tax rate of 28%. It is only a beginning point and can be changed by changing the assumptions under which it was derived.
Automobile ownership is a function of income and poor people own fewer of them. This really is not rocket science.
"While no one – in or out of government – tracks traffic accidents caused by illegal aliens, the statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests many of last year's 42,636 road deaths involved illegal aliens." WND 11/12/06 article goes on to say:
"In California, another study showed that those who have never held a valid license are about five times more likely to be involved in a fatal road accident than licensed drivers."
This sounds like the number you are using and appears to justify my skeptical response.
"I find fault with those who criticize or disparage an expressed result without providing a clear argument for an alternate data set, methodology or previously unaddressed facts." Anyone can see I demolished the figures you appear to give credence to. And explained why they were bogus.
I know that. I intentionally demonstrated how an authoritative statement can be totally wrong lacking context.
So the absurd $60,000 came from YOUR numbers and the lowest tax rate of 28%.
The lowest federal tax rate is 10%. The reference was not just to federal tax. You must also compute state and local individual taxes and the impact on business and franchise taxes, license fees and other forms of registration. There are economic formulas available to do that. They are complex and your simplistic approach does not even approximate the true picture.
Automobile ownership is a function of income and poor people own fewer of them. This really is not rocket science.
It's not rocket science, but wouldn't actual facts be better. The latest census for instance shows just under 75% of households living below the poverty level own automobiles. Over 30% own two or more.
This sounds like the number you are using and appears to justify my skeptical response.
Nope didn't see that one. Probably because of the reference to "illegal" where I focused on Hispanic.
Here a just of few of the easily available sources of information. It takes only minutes to find them and they cooberate each other very well. Some are of particular interest because Chicago or Illinios were involved in the studies. I didn't include any of the pay sites I have access to.
http://azbilingualed.org/AABE%20Site/AABE%20NEWS%202003/death_rate_in_accidents_is_high.htm
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=494798
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2006/809956.pdf
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/sa06ba030/section_13.htm
http://www.hispanicprwire.com/news.php?l=in&id=4019&cha=3
http://www.aemj.org/cgi/content/full/10/11/1249
http://www.usroads.com/journals/p/rilj/9712/ri971204.htm
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=496631
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17717
http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=its/tsc
http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/Bulletins/duifinal.pdf
You've demolished nothing. Try reading a little. You might learn something.
The lowest federal tax rate is 10%. [Using 10% makes the figure even MORE absurd.]
The reference was not just to federal tax. [I explicitly said this was an initial calculation which could be modified and made more precise.] You must also compute state and local individual taxes [Only in a few states are these high and significant]and the impact on business and franchise taxes [seems to have no bearing at all], license fees and other forms of registration [also of no bearing]. [All of those included get you nowhere close to 16,666 per person.] There are economic formulas available to do that. They are complex and your simplistic approach does not even approximate the true picture. [Any honest person would admit that I never claimed any such thing as "the true picture" and explicitly mentioned refining the estimate through changing the assumptions. But you prefer to pretend I intended something explicitly rejected.]
The latest census for instance shows just under 75% of households living below the poverty level own automobiles. Over 30% own two or more. [That is not true in the cities where automobile ownership is much more costly.]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.