CBO's high score for Senate Immigration Bill

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Row6, Jul 4, 2013.

  1. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    We all know political considerations outweigh factual analysis in the Congress, but if not, the only reason to oppose the current immigration bill passed by the Senate would be that anything less than perfect is an argument for the status quo.

    "As a result, CBO says, the net inflow of future illegal immigration “would be reduced by between one-third and one-half compared with the projected net inflow under current law. That effect would not be immediate, as it would take several years before DHS could hire the full number of Border Patrol agents called for in the act.”

    The final bill would also have a smaller effect on the deficit, thanks to all the additional outlays for border security. CBO estimates that the bill would lead to a net savings of $135 billion over the next decade, compared with $200 billion for the original bill."

    www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkbl...on-bill-now-cuts-illegal-immigration-by-half/
  2. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    69,786
    Likes Received:
    4,304
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +8,676
    I always wonder how the cbo can score something that is so subjective
  3. brainstorm
    Online

    brainstorm VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    16,458
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Green Cove Springs
    Ratings Received:
    +839
    Read the article comments to get some reasoned viewpoints.
  4. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    69,786
    Likes Received:
    4,304
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +8,676
    I read the article brain
  5. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,716
    Likes Received:
    412
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,785
    The fact that the CBO can only score what's put in front of it and can't do any sort of actuarial or investigate process greatly limits the value of its work. It's very easy to hand something to CBO that's designed to get exactly the answer you, as author of legislation, are willing to accept.

    That said, it's pretty awe-inspiring when even the easily stage-managed CBO report still has crappy news -- like that we have a "comprehensive immigration bill" that on its face isn't likely to reduce illegal immigration by even half. Face... palm.
  6. brainstorm
    Online

    brainstorm VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    16,458
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Green Cove Springs
    Ratings Received:
    +839
    Did you get a chance to read the comments at the bottom of the article? Many made some interesting points.
  7. dadx4
    Offline

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    28,955
    Likes Received:
    428
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Greenville SC
    Ratings Received:
    +952
    You mean the Amnesty bill.
  8. mastoidbone
    Offline

    mastoidbone VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,239
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +18
  9. dangolegators
    Offline

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,326
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +595
    That's because the immigration bill prohibits them from getting welfare. Should CBO just decide to change the parameters of the bill they are supposed to be analyzing?

    And you gotta love this from your editorial as well:

    So $175 billion is no big deal. It's chump change. But if Obama were to announce some new program tomorrow that was going to cost 175 billion over the next 10 years, all of a sudden $175 billion is a lot of money. It's funny how relative money is.
  10. DieAGator
    Offline

    DieAGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    17,364
    Likes Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +921
    Nonsense. They simply won't comply to become citizens. Since illegals already receive a disproportionate amount of assistance you would have to prove not complying with citizenship requirements prevents them from accessing county, state, federal benefits; and how, based on their income, if they did obtain citizenship they wouldn't be eligible for benefits to citizens with low income. You would also have to prove the IRS is going to get involved to drastically reduce the damage from fraudulent tax returns as well.

    This propaganda does little to persuade me that what's cooking in Washington solves any problems whatsoever.
  11. dangolegators
    Offline

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,326
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +595
    Speaking of nonsense, could you rewrite this paragraph to at least make it intelligible.
  12. Gatoragman
    Offline

    Gatoragman VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +43
    I guess the CBO is all we have to view legislation "fairly". As been stated up thread and many other times, is even worth noting anything the CBO says? I mean they can only make assumptions on the data given to them, and we all know how legislators from both sides will make the best case scenario assumptions for their bills. Not sure it is worthn the paper used unless the parimeters of assumptions provided to them are detailed in CBO report.
    Would love to see them have the ability to make their own assumptions based on prior bills.
  13. g8trjax
    Offline

    g8trjax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,944
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +296
    Now they're in the business of estimating illegal entries into the U.S.? All hail the C.B.O.!
  14. DieAGator
    Offline

    DieAGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    17,364
    Likes Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +921
    What don't you understand?

    Nonsense. No comprende?

    They simply won't comply to become citizens. Are they forced to comply with citizenship requirements? There's no penalty. If becoming a citizen means they have to pay more and get less they won't do it. Common sense.

    Since illegals already receive a disproportionate amount of assistance you would have to prove not complying with citizenship requirements prevents them from accessing county, state, federal benefits; and how, based on their income, if they did obtain citizenship they wouldn't be eligible for benefits to citizens with low income. speaks for itself. If they are receiving benefits now because they are poor how would you propose to prevent them from same if they become poor citizens?

    You would also have to prove the IRS is going to get involved to drastically reduce the damage from fraudulent tax returns as well. Do you need a link?

    This propaganda does little to persuade me that what's cooking in Washington solves any problems whatsoever. Your common sense matters. As far as I can tell this bill does little to defray the costs. Common sense begs you to ask yourself what legalizing unskilled workers does to lower their burden. It neither increases their wage, education, skill level, or desire to contribute more. I guess you would have me believe there are millions of illegals looking to contribute but cannot until we "bring them out of the shadows"?

    Only about 40 percent of Reagan's illegals became citizens and this legislation, supposedly, sets a higher standard. If that's the case how can this possibly solve the problem? The answer is, it will not. Even if there is 100 percent compliance how does this magically make illegals revenue neutral? The answer, it doesn't.

    In what state do you live?
  15. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    195
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +552
    Do you know why only 40% of Reagan's amnesty recipients became citizens? Because the majority of the other 60% didn't stay here illegally. They went back home. Several hundred thousand immigrants return home every year, so much that recently, the net migration from Mexico in 2012 was 0% or less. Why? Well, for one reason, if there aren't jobs here, no reason to stay. Two, there are always immigrants who come, make what they need, and return home.

    Another thing you are missing is the ability to enforce the new laws. One major reason why current laws aren't enforced is because of the economic backlash that are INS raids. From the Vidalia Onion raids in 1998, to more recent increased enforcement, every major raid lead to fiscal problems not just for owners who hired illegals, but for everyone. Decreased supply at the beginning of the chain lead to less work all the way down, not to mention, inflation.

    However, consider a country that has a way for illegals to become legal, stay here and work. INS could raid an area, check those who have applied to become legal under the new law, and cite those who have not and tell them they have 90 days to comply or be deported. Return 90 days and follow up with the threats and deport anyone not in compliance.

    The effect on the business would be minimal. Why? Because already, there would be a percentage of immigrants doing things the right way according to law. And in the first wave cited, many more will be scared into complying under the law in order to remain in this country. And those not in compliance? Well, the business owner would have 90 days to get his guys under the law and/or replace those who decided not to.

    And the best part is with the fines and Visa payments collected from the first wave of immigrants signing up to stay, we could use that money to pay for the first wave of raids!

    Or, we could do nothing. That's really the only other viable option, as case studies from states like Alabama, Georgia, and Arizona have shown that increased enforcement alone is a fiscal disaster. And not a policy worth pursuing.
  16. gatorchamps0607
    Offline

    gatorchamps0607 Always Rasta

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    Messages:
    39,980
    Likes Received:
    746
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Ft. Myers, Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +1,711
    One thing Obama admin has done a good job on is deporting illegal aliens. I think a few years ago he had already deported 1.4 million of them, who knows what that number is now.

    The unfortunate thing (even though I don't care that much since they do try to come here illegally).. is that they usually end up living on the street or in makeshift houses (either dug into the ground or made by scraps they find) near the border waiting for a time to come back. The reason I dont care is that they shouldn't have been here illegally, or at the least they should have tried to become legal so that they werent separated from their family that is basically legal due to being born in the US.

Share This Page