Boehner hits brakes on immigration overhaul

[TerryMathews]

Yes, "odd" situations indeed, though of course you made no mention of just how odd it would be for Romney to magically flip 400K battleground state voters, like this was some simple task. I wonder why you omitted this explanation?



I can't say for certain, but I'm pretty sure no one here claimed Obama crushed Romney, though I will grant you that you seem to be using rhetoric here.



Thanks!

I guess I assumed you would be able to follow the implication.

You linked the post. Go read it. In what way was it dishonest or misleading?

This is basic electoral college math. There are many different ways to arrive at a solution. I believe I picked the easiest one although there may be an easier route I did not analyze.

I like how you qualify it with "I can't say for certain". Read the fine thread, there are a number of posters who have claimed that Obama crushed Romney.

I know how low you're running on electrons, what with how you've been burning them today. I'll quote some of those statements for you so that you dont run out.

 

[TerryMathews]

I can't say for certain, but I'm pretty sure no one here claimed Obama crushed Romney, though I will grant you that you seem to be using rhetoric here.

Talk about blatant dishonesty

No, he didn't "almost win". He got his ass handed to him by a weak incumbent president. The fact that many in the GOP still think Romney almost won shows how out of touch/anti-facts they have become.

lulz

Electoral college: 332-206
Popular vote: 65,917,258 to 60,932,235



Yes, actually. Needing half a million voters in the 4 most important battleground states to not only not vote for Obama but to change their vote entirely to Mitt Romney (instead of, say, sitting out or voting for a 3rd party candidate, which they very easily could have done) is the height of getting your ass handed to you, oh and totally unrealistic to occur in the first place btw since there's no way those voters change their votes to Romney without it also being a national trend. And with such a weak economy, which drives voters more than any other single issue a good 90% of elections, it really was quite a drubbing.

 

[TerryMathews]

I'll post my math tonight. The WaPo election map won't come up on my phone. I'll expect you to acknowledge that my math is in fact correct since you called it into question.

As promised, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/election-map-2012/president/

Ohio: 18 electoral votes
Spread: 2,697,260 D vs 2,593,779 R (103,481)

Florida: 29 electoral votes
Spread: 4,235,270 D vs 4,162,081 R (73,189)

Virginia: 13 electoral votes
Spread: 1,905,528 D vs 1,789,618 R (115,910)

Colorado: 9 electoral votes
Spread: 1,238,490 D vs 1,125,391 R (113,099)

Total: 69 electoral votes, 405,679 ballots.

 

[Munky]

Per usual you are woefully misinformed and terribly inadequate as a compelling poster in general; the CBO's projections do indeed have plenty of citations and end notes (rofl) and are indeed relying on historical data i.e. empirical evidence, as these events already took place. In fact, they cite on page 7 footnote 11 the 1986 amnesty law, specifically its effects with regards to immigrants higher wage power from a better bargaining position due to legalization, in the above linked CBO document.

Oh look, after spouting verbal diarrhea for a full day, you finally produce the actual link, instead of WSJ tripe. The version I'm looking at has none of that.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/s744.pdf.
The magical retroactive revision fairy strikes again.

You're just not good at either reading or posting; the word abstract appears quite clearly on page 4 on the document you linked previously on page 5.

Please note that you still haven't manned up and admitted you completely misread (or likely, didn't at all read) what that study was actually studying.

Edit: corrected broken link

We're talking about your link, not mine. Where's the "abstract" in that one?

Edit:
And to address your last little dance, GDP is not a measure of quality of life in society. More specifically, you didn't see what you wanted to see, and are complaining about having to think outside your quantifiable fantasy model of reality.

 

[shortylickens]

Here's what I'd suggest as an immigration policy:

Make the southern border secure. Build a wall, shoot on sight, enforce the border. Harshly.
/QUOTE]

I hear this all the time and I am all for securing the boarder better, however I'll believe the above claim when Geosurface is the first person to shoot a mother carrying a newborn across the boarder then walks over and shoots the baby. Its real easy to talk tough.
How about something more rational that can actually be accomplished instead of tough guy talk.

I joined the service to "defend my country".
The government had me kill people who never threatened america.

Youd be amazed what I would do to actually defend my country.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

There was a good discussion on Fox News Sunday between George Will and Laura Ingraham on this subject yesterday.

WALLACE: I must say we also need to point out that none of the people that would be legalized or given a path to citizenship are going to be on the voting roles for a decade. In any case, the conservative editorial page of "The Wall Street Journal" which has been very pro-immigration said that Boehner's retreat, and that was the word they used, on immigration reform will hurt growth. I want to pick up on their editorial. The result of doing nothing will be a de facto amnesty in which 11 million illegal immigrants will continue to work using fake documents. Mr. Obama will look for ways to grant more of them legal status using executive power and the GOP will look even more unwelcoming to minorities. We have asked all of you to send us questions and we got one on Twitter from someone named Nando Samoza. Why can't the GOP move towards the center a little bit? Let the Dem’s stay extreme. Laura, how do you answer Nando?​

LAURA INGRAHAM: Let me talk about the "The Wall Street Journal" first then I’ll get to that. “The Wall Street Journal” attacked in that editorial talk radio and is kind of the people rising up against this and John Boehner cowering. As far as I can tell, "The Wall Street Journal" is on the side of Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama, Pat Leahy and La Raza. Talk radio for the most part is on the side of yes, Heritage, probably other Tea Party type groups, most Republican Senators and Congressmen and I think the lion’s share of the American people. So I'm going to frame that editorial from "The Wall Street Journal." I think they should put down the dog-eared copy of Fountain Head and live in the real world where people’s wages are flat lining. The middle ground—​

WALLACE: Strong message to follow folks.​

INGRAHAM: The middle ground on immigration I think is enforcement. Right now we're not really enforcing our laws uniformly. The president as John Boehner just realized apparently is not trustworthy. He has a deferred action for a million and a half people who are here illegally. Just basically changing law with the stroke of a pen and allowing people to work here and stay here would are legally present If you want to know why people don't have trust in the rule of law today applying evenly, is because of things like that. And apparently the Republicans don't have a problem with it.​

WALLACE: No. Wait. Because I think this is so interesting. Because what we're seeing here is the split inside the Republican Party between two staunch conservatives. Wait. Let me finish. And I'd like you and George to explore this. George, how do you respond on this issue of whether immigration reform is good or bad for the country?​

WILL: With three needs the country has, the welfare state needs its workforce replenished. As the elderly retire, 10,000 baby boomers everyday becoming eligible for Social Security and Medicare. Second, there's an intense global competition for human capital and we're losing out on that. Third, to emigrate is to make an entrepreneurial act, to uproot yourself and perhaps your family and take a risk. And those are the kind of people I want more of.​

INGRAHAM: Do we care about American workers at all and their jobs and their wages and their dreams?​

WILL: Laura, you're the one who is arguing the AFL-CIO argument, which is--​

IGRAHAM: They’re for it.​

WILL: They’re for it with so many caveats they nullify it. You're arguing—​

INGRAHAM: Why have borders?​

WILL: You're arguing the zero sum game.​

INGRAHAM: No-​

WILL: When, in the lives of our children and grandchildren, there are 500 million Americans and they're all going to be working because we're going to have economic dynamism aided by immigration.​

INGRAHAM: So the argument though, however, leads to why have borders at all? Why have a border? If it's just about people as widgets who come in and workers without really a concern about assimilation, without concern about how it affects people in middle America, I mean a lot of people who are in favor of this don't send their kids to public schools, are not affected by illegal immigration at all. But I would submit that there are people watching this show right now who are screaming at the top of their lungs going who in Washington is representing my interests? The labor shortage argument that Paul Ryan is making that we have an impending labor shortage I don't-- I think is transparently it is ridiculous to most people today. We don't have participation in the workforce as it is.​

WILL: It's not a shortage, it's growth we want. We don’t—​

INGRAHAM: Then we can talk about legal immigration. Not illegal immigration.​

WILL: You talk about the borders. As you know, 40% of all the people here illegally overstate the Visas.​

INGRAHAM: Visa overstays. Then why don’t crack down on that.​

WILL: Go ahead and crack down. But that is still compatible.​

INGRAHAM: We don't want to crackdown on that. There is no will to enforce the border. There is no faith in this administration to do it and the Republican elites and Democrat elites agree and the people are revolving around this country. ​

 

[First]

I guess I assumed you would be able to follow the implication.

You linked the post. Go read it. In what way was it dishonest or misleading?

I already addressed this and I'll repeat it again, in bold this time, since you never directly addressed this: Am I now to believe that your original post claiming "Since when is 2.05% equivalent to having your ass handed to you?" was a statement made knowing that such a turnaround is quite improbable? Of course, that then begs the question, what in the hell was the point of that post in the first place? Were you posting for shits or giggles or, more likely, did you just take the Washington Post article at face value without much analysis or critical thought being put into it?

This is basic electoral college math. There are many different ways to arrive at a solution. I believe I picked the easiest one although there may be an easier route I did not analyze.

The problem is what you just regurgitated the WaPo, without actually attempting to think how ridiculous it is to claim "just" 400K battleground state voters needed to change their votes to Romney (I've already addressed how improbable that is).

I like how you qualify it with "I can't say for certain". Read the fine thread, there are a number of posters who have claimed that Obama crushed Romney.

I know how low you're running on electrons, what with how you've been burning them today. I'll quote some of those statements for you so that you dont run out.

Yeah, again, your strength does not include Internet posting.

As promised, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/election-map-2012/president/

Ohio: 18 electoral votes
Spread: 2,697,260 D vs 2,593,779 R (103,481)

Florida: 29 electoral votes
Spread: 4,235,270 D vs 4,162,081 R (73,189)

Virginia: 13 electoral votes
Spread: 1,905,528 D vs 1,789,618 R (115,910)

Colorado: 9 electoral votes
Spread: 1,238,490 D vs 1,125,391 R (113,099)

Total: 69 electoral votes, 405,679 ballots.

You're woefully confused again, reread my original request; the 400,000 battleground state votes are not the equivalent of half the national margin of victory, which was nearly 5M. Perhaps you just worded this very poorly.

 

[First]

Oh look, after spouting verbal diarrhea for a full day, you finally produce the actual link, instead of WSJ tripe.

The WSJ cites the CBO report. I can't help that you are literally so bad at the Internet that you needed a direct link to the study outside of the WSJ citation.

The version I'm looking at has none of that.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/s744.pdf.
The magical retroactive revision fairy strikes again.

Again, I cannot help that you are so bad at the Internet that you not only couldn't find the correct CBO report from the WSJ citation, but that you also can't read carefully enough (again) to see that I specifically cited the CBO's report on the Senate immigration bill's net economic impact, not some separate report on cost.

We're talking about your link, not mine. Where's the "abstract" in that one?

No, you are yet again quite confused, as I quite clearly quoted your Econstor study in this post here and was very specific about how its abstract does not say what you thought it said. Please reread for clarification.

Edit:
And to address your last little dance, GDP is not a measure of quality of life in society. More specifically, you didn't see what you wanted to see, and are complaining about having to think outside your quantifiable fantasy model of reality.

This is a nice change of pace and deflection, but I'll play; if you don't want to use GDP (legit request), come up with another measure of quality of living (wages, household income, etc.) and I'll help you determine the veracity of it. You game?

 

[Vic]

The real reason the GOP is back pedaling on immigration: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.c...his-former-home-state-texas-could-turn-blue/

Sen. Rand Paul on Saturday made a prediction that plenty of Democrats would love to see come true, but Republicans hope to avoid:

 

[berzerker60]

Best of all:

“That doesn't mean we give up on what we believe in, but it means we have to be a more welcoming party,” Paul said. “We have to welcome people of all races. We need to welcome people of all classes - business class, working class.”
That diversity is needed not just along ethnic lines, but in appearances, too, he said.
“We need to have people with ties and without ties, with tattoos and without tattoos; with earrings, without earrings,” he said. “We need a more diverse party. We need a party that looks like America.”
...
His line drew mild applause from the audience.

“That was kind of tepid,” he said.

 

[Munky]

The WSJ cites the CBO report.

Yeah, the one I linked to. Not the one you linked after wasting a full day. And explain why there are two versions of it in the first place, both from the same date supposedly.

I can't help that you are literally so bad at the Internet that you needed a direct link to the study outside of the WSJ citation.

Translation: "I suck at linking, but will blame it on you for not automagically figuring out my links for me."

Again, I cannot help that you are so bad at the Internet that you not only couldn't find the correct CBO report from the WSJ citation,

Again, I will blame others for not reading my mind...

but that you also can't read carefully enough (again) to see that I specifically cited the CBO's report on the Senate immigration bill's net economic impact, not some separate report on cost.

That's not how this works. If you post to refute my claims on how amnesty will affect employment, then try to stay on topic. Not rambling off on some convenient tangent about "net economic impact" which happens to be projections from a GDP perspective... and your projections don't even address the impact on local government, which they at least admit to.

No, you are yet again quite confused, as I quite clearly quoted your Econstor study in this post here and was very specific about how its abstract does not say what you thought it said. Please reread for clarification.

Oh no? Perhaps it says something about GDP and CBO projections? LMAO... That must be the reason why you wasting my time with your version of the story.

This is a nice change of pace and deflection, but I'll play; if you don't want to use GDP (legit request), come up with another measure of quality of living (wages, household income, etc.) and I'll help you determine the veracity of it. You game?

Nah, you simply finally arrived, after wasting my time, at the realization that GDP was never part of the original point, but rather the movement of "amnestied" illegals to unemployment and welfare.

 

[First]

Yeah, the one I linked to. Not the one you linked after wasting a full day.

Please cite where in the WSJ report they cite your CBO study and not mine.

It's not particularly difficult to search the WSJ's title "CBO: Senate Immigration Bill to Save $175 Billion" in Google where you will find, toward the bottom of the first page of results, a CBO link entitled "CBO Releases Two Analyses of the Senate's Immigration Legislation".

And explain why there are two versions of it in the first place, both from the same date supposedly.

You're asking me to explain why the CBO made the decision to look at both the cost to the government of the program and the economic benefit of the program? Sadly, I can't tell if you're being serious.

Translation: "I suck at linking, but will blame it on you for not automagically figuring out my links for me."

I blame you for sucking at Internet searching so bad you couldn't be bothered to do a 30 second Google search of the WSJ article's title.

Again, I will blame others for not reading my mind...

lol

That's not how this works. If you post to refute my claims on how amnesty will affect employment, then try to stay on topic. Not rambling off on some convenient tangent about "net economic impact" which happens to be projections from a GDP perspective...

I literally cannot help you if you do not see that net economic impact is directly related to employment and that I stayed perfectly on topic. Meanwhile, you laughably linked to the 2nd CBO report on government cost, something I never talked about or even alluded to. But nice try.

and your projections don't even address the impact on local government, which they at least admit to.

The CBO is a federal budgeting agency, so it would be quite odd indeed for them to produce an in-depth impact report on all 50 states, lol.

Oh no? Perhaps it says something about GDP and CBO projections? LMAO... That must be the reason why you wasting my time with your version of the story.

Weak wimpout, 3/10. Next time man up and admit your error for not reading your own linked studies.

Nah, you simply finally arrived, after wasting my time, at the realization that GDP was never part of the original point, but rather the movement of "amnestied" illegals to unemployment and welfare.

You still lose on the unemployment and welfare argument kiddo. I can't hold your hand on every point, though, so maybe you're figure out why someday.

 

[Munky]

Please cite where in the WSJ report they cite your CBO study and not mine.

It's not particularly difficult to search the WSJ's title "CBO: Senate Immigration Bill to Save $175 Billion" in Google where you will find, toward the bottom of the first page of results, a CBO link entitled "CBO Releases Two Analyses of the Senate's Immigration Legislation".

For someone who sucks at linking, you also suck at reading your own links. Here - follow your own pretentious little link, click on the WSJ result at the top, and then click the link that says "read the report." It's so easy, even an economist can do it...

You're asking me to explain why the CBO made the decision to look at both the cost to the government of the program and the economic benefit of the program? Sadly, I can't tell if you're being serious.

And published them in two separate places... How clever...

I blame you for sucking at Internet searching so bad you couldn't be bothered to do a 30 second Google search of the WSJ article's title.

Your self ownage is amusing.

I literally cannot help you if you do not see that net economic impact is directly related to employment and that I stayed perfectly on topic. Meanwhile, you laughably linked to the 2nd CBO report on government cost, something I never talked about or even alluded to. But nice try.

Weak cop out. In other news, when two things are related, you can conveniently substitute one for the other to steer the argument in a favorable direction.

The CBO is a federal budgeting agency, so it would be quite odd indeed for them to produce an in-depth impact report on all 50 states, lol.

Which makes your use of their findings all the more laughable in the context of my point on unemployment.

Weak wimpout, 3/10. Next time man up and admit your error for not reading your own linked studies.

Oooh, man-shaming language, my favorite. Usually spoken by circular-logic hamsters right at the point when things aren't going their way.

You still lose on the unemployment and welfare argument kiddo. I can't hold your hand on every point, though, so maybe you're figure out why someday.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[First]

For someone who sucks at linking, you also suck at reading your own links. Here - follow your own pretentious little link, click on the WSJ result at the top, and then click the link that says "read the report." It's so easy, even an economist can do it...

And published them in two separate places... How clever...

I can't help that you didn't perform your due diligence. I'm not a hand-holder, ask my wife.

Your self ownage is amusing.

Oh the ironing.

Weak cop out. In other news, when two things are related, you can conveniently substitute one for the other to steer the argument in a favorable direction.

Well gee golly, steering an argument, on-topic, in a favorable direction by linking two related concepts I believe is called making a strong argument. lol.

Which makes your use of their findings all the more laughable in the context of my point on unemployment.

You didn't have a point on unemployment, your post was mostly trash with zero citations btw.

Oooh, man-shaming language, my favorite. Usually spoken by circular-logic hamsters right at the point when things aren't going their way.

You should feel ashamed for not reading the studies you cite.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Another wimpout.

 

[senseamp]

Let GOP decide what they want to do. Meanwhile, the Democrats need to strike while the iron is hot and keep reaching out to Latino and Asian voters, and turning more of them into life long Democrats, before Republicans decide to compete for those votes.

 

[Munky]

I can't help that you didn't perform your due diligence. I'm not a hand-holder, ask my wife.

"Redefine reality to suit my whims" tactic. Reminds me of a petulant child.

Well gee golly, steering an argument, on-topic, in a favorable direction by linking two related concepts I believe is called making a strong argument. lol.

It's called shifting goal posts.

You didn't have a point on unemployment, your post was mostly trash with zero citations btw.

lol, the irony

You should feel ashamed for not reading the studies you cite.

You have conveniently selective memory.

Another wimpout.

Big words from someone who won't admit posting incorrect links.

 

[First]

"Redefine reality to suit my whims" tactic. Reminds me of a petulant child.

Nothing redefined, it's all there in black and white; you weren't well informed about the CBO's immigration reports. That's documented fact now.

It's called shifting goal posts.

Linking common concepts is accepted argumentation among critical thinkers.

You have conveniently selective memory.

Another wimpout.

Big words from someone who won't admit posting incorrect links.

Admitting I did wouldn't change your mind though; you've still got nothing on this immigration debate, be it employment, economic benefits or government cost, federal or state.

 

[compuwiz1]

Let GOP decide what they want to do. Meanwhile, the Democrats need to strike while the iron is hot and keep reaching out to Latino and Asian voters, and turning more of them into life long Democrats, before Republicans decide to compete for those votes.

Right.....so we can have things fucked up in two languages instead of one.

 

[Thebobo]

What has Boehner NOT hit the brakes on since becoming Speaker?

Besides ACA repeal, of course?

Oh that the'll vote on some 40 times lol

 

[Munky]

Nothing redefined, it's all there in black and white; you weren't well informed about the CBO's immigration reports. That's documented fact now.

You provided the wrong link, and claimed the article cited the report which it didn't. That would make you either a dumbass or a liar, your choice.

Linking common concepts is accepted argumentation among critical thinkers.

Learn the difference between a related concept and a substitute. That would make you seem less of an insane loon.

Another wimpout.

Stomp your feet a little harder... it might just convince someone any day now.

Admitting I did wouldn't change your mind though; you've still got nothing on this immigration debate, be it employment, economic benefits or government cost, federal or state.

You fail at reading as much as you fail at linking. The very same abstract you obsessed about already addressed my original POV regarding the flow of unskilled "newly legals" to unemployment.

 

[First]

You provided the wrong link, and claimed the article cited the report which it didn't. That would make you either a dumbass or a liar, your choice.

Whatever you gotta tell yourself, I can't do the research for you. You were uninformed.

Learn the difference between a related concept and a substitute. That would make you seem less of an insane loon.

Critical thinkers disagree. Employment is merely a subset of net economic benefits. This is common knowledge among non-knuckle draggers.

Stomp your feet a little harder... it might just convince someone any day now.

Smart people laugh at your posts.

You fail at reading as much as you fail at linking. The very same abstract you obsessed about already addressed my original POV regarding the flow of unskilled "newly legals" to unemployment.

Your original abstract says nothing about employment for the U.S. at large. You read it wrong. Move on kiddo.

 

[Munky]

Whatever you gotta tell yourself, I can't do the research for you. You were uninformed.

Smells like denial to me.

Critical thinkers disagree. Employment is merely a subset of net economic benefits. This is common knowledge among non-knuckle draggers.

Doubling down on stupidity doesn't make you a critical thinker.

Smart people laugh at your posts.

Your ignorance is amusing.

Your original abstract says nothing about employment for the U.S. at large. You read it wrong. Move on kiddo.

My original abstract says exactly what I meant. Twisting the original intent of it only makes you look desperate.

 

[First]

Smells like denial to me.

Doubling down on stupidity doesn't make you a critical thinker.

Your ignorance is amusing.

People are laughing at your retorts.

My original abstract says exactly what I meant. Twisting the original intent of it only makes you look desperate.

Based on the lack of potency in your posts, I'm guessing what "you meant" is still witlessly careening somewhere in that noggin of yours.

Feel free to get back on-topic and tell us how employment will be negatively impacted. Should be funny to watch.

 

[Munky]

People are laughing at your retorts.

Tell us more about your insecurities....

Based on the lack of potency in your posts, I'm guessing what "you meant" is still witlessly careening somewhere in that noggin of yours.

Feel free to get back on-topic and tell us how employment will be negatively impacted. Should be funny to watch.

Better yet, you should present your strawman ahead of time, and then try to convince everyone how much of a critical thinker you are.

 

[First]

Tell us more about your insecurities....



Better yet, you should present your strawman ahead of time, and then try to convince everyone how much of a critical thinker you are.

Ah, so you are wimping out of continuing the discussion on how immigration would effect unemployment. How shocking.