Sandbox – 4jun15

June 2015
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30

OUR LINKS

YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

Sandbox – 4jun15

04 June 2015

[As most RR readers have seen, the sandbox 'all topics welcome' forums (fora?) in these pages have been more than well received – their comment streams quickly fill with multiple topic threads discussed among multiple participants. Recently these sandboxes have begun 'filling' more rapidly – e.g. the 1jun15 sandbox garnered over 200 comments in three days. This has given rise to a growing concern of mine about the readability of very long comment streams containing several live threads. Fortunately, most commenters have started using name/time tag referents to point readers to which of the preceding comments their current comment addresses. (However, some still believe that their particular thread is being so closely followed by everyone that no such provenance pointers are needed – hubris?)

So I wonder if perhaps readability would be enhanced were RR to implement categorical sandboxes – national policy, local issues, foreign policy, climate change, science, education, … ?? While that approach MAY focus discussions and make them more readable, it would also detract from the apparently pleasant melee or potpourri of thoughts that readers now experience as they revisit the comment stream to have their interest piqued by some new comment/er. Easiest would be not to 'fix' what seems to work, and to just open new sandboxes whenever the comment streams grow beyond a hundred or so. Anyway, I invite a discussion and your thoughts on the matter. gjr]

Posted in Comment Sandbox

260 responses to “Sandbox – 4jun15”

Jon

06 June 2015

For all you dam fans, the State is again seriously studying the Sites area north of Colusa/Williams in the north Sac Valley as one of the last remaining locations for a potential new reservoir at a price that won’t bury CA.

LikeLike
Jon

06 June 2015

Who are the PROPONENTS of illegal immigration?

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

06 June 2015

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 06 June 2015 at 08:06 AM
The difference between you and me Todd is that I can source my data, and make a logical case. My argument against the Auburn Dam is a simple matter of economics. My statement about paying for Sites from urban and agricultural water users is from their own sources, and direct conversations with MWD. I am on record supporting smaller scale and more cost effective solutions in numerous places.
I find it amusing that conservatives would support spending money so profligately when other solutions have so much more return on investment. It is simply proof to me that your opinions are driven by ideology and propaganda rather than facts.
I can’t help your envy over the fact that my organization is successful, that we drive millions of dollars a year worth of investment into the region, or that I am compensated commensurate with the staff I oversee, the budget we manage, and the value we create.
We are one of the most professionally managed and transparent non-profits in the region.
Your beef is with the very existence of organizations whose perspective you don’t agree with, which is really the definition of prejudice, not to mention hypocrisy because I don’t see you busting the Howard Jarvis TaxpayersAssociation 🙂
I’m proud of our record and would stand by it any day of the week. If you don’t value that it is no skin off my nose.

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

06 June 2015

Barry, the number of illegal immigrants in the US as of 2005 most oft cited is the official US census bureau number, as you noted, of 11.5 million, with a margin of error that could place it as high as 20 million. However since 2005 illegal immigration has notably slowed, as natural population increase has continued, so demographers point out that the number as a proportion of the population is decreasing rather than increasing. Of course that could change. There is almost no reliable source that can model a 40 million number, so at a minimum, Don and Todd are wildly exaggerating by a factor of roughly 100%

LikeLike
fish

06 June 2015

Among the findings from the new data:
The nation’s immigrant population (legal and illegal) hit a record 41.3 million in July 2013, an increase of 1.4 million since July 2010. Since 2000 the immigrant population is up 10.2 million.
The 41.3 million immigrant population (legal and illegal) in 2013 was double the number in 1990, nearly triple the number in 1980, and quadruple that in 1970, when it stood at 9.6 million.
http://cis.org/immigrant-population-record-2013
Now you may say that these guys are biased….and that may well be true….I doubt they are more biased than those who make sure that the 11 million number is repeated over and over again.
Remember that FedGovs numbers are always completely accurate and unbiased and those of their contractors as well.
…..and if you like your healthcare plan you can keep your healthcare plan.

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

06 June 2015

Posted by: Jon | 06 June 2015 at 08:30 AM
The problem Jon is that right now not even Sites pencils, although I suspect it will in the future if we raise water prices and I suspect it will be built at great cost and subsidized by the taxpayers to assuage the nonsense coming from people like Todd and Don.
The reality is the ROI on conservation, groundwater recharge, upper watershed and forest restoration and conjunctive use are all better than new Dams at any of the 4 most commonly sited locations, Shasta, Los Vaqueros, Sites and Temperance.
I am posting this dissertation as an example of the type of cost benefit analysis that needs to be done, and is being done by the BOR and DWR as they are considering these decisions:
http://www.csus.edu/ppa/thesis-project/bank/2011/Greaves.pdf

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

06 June 2015

Posted by: fish | 06 June 2015 at 09:04 AM
First, nothing to do with health care plans so don’t divert attention. Second, you are mixing apples and oranges by including legal immigration. Third, I gave the crazies the benefit of the doubt and increased the number to 20 million, double the Census figure; they are still 100%. Fourth, you are going to have to back those numbers up with something besides the narrative from the Center for Immigrations Studies. Where did they get the data and how did they calculate the figures? Oh, and take out legal immigration and natural population increase by legal citizens of immigrants while you are at it.

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

06 June 2015

Posted by: fish | 06 June 2015 at 09:04 AM
Unless of course you have something against LEGAL immigrants and people having children as well Fish?

LikeLike
fish

06 June 2015

First, nothing to do with health care plans so don’t divert attention.
Has everything to do with credibility. Your side seems to have less every day.
Second, you are mixing apples and oranges by including legal immigration.
I don’t see that it makes much difference…..why does the US need to import so many new residents? I posted the link and the reference to both legal and illegal is shown in the excerpted text.
Fourth, you are going to have to back those numbers up with something besides the narrative from the Center for Immigrations Studies. Where did they get the data and how did they calculate the figures?
I suppose I could do that after I see your “homework” (remember show your work or credit won’t be given).
Oh, and take out legal immigration and natural population increase by legal citizens of immigrants while you are at it.
No. And thank you for bolstering my point that illegal vs. legal is largely irrelevant. Those “huddled masses, yearning to breathe free” and their offspring tend to consume boatloads of government resources…..where’s the money for that coming from?

LikeLike
fish

06 June 2015

Posted by: Steven Frisch | 06 June 2015 at 09:16 AM
If the legal immigrants are paying their own freight than no I don’t but since we are getting so many third orders who expect and are coached to game the system to collect services I’m sure the a good environmentalist like yourself can see the downside to having a population coming from conditions of privation suddenly being handed EBT cards, Section 8 housing vouchers, and “free” medical care.

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

06 June 2015

Posted by: fish | 06 June 2015 at 09:23 AM
It is relevant Fish because the figures cited by Don were, “..30 or 40 million illegal resource gobblers…”
The study you cited does not separate legal and illegal immigration….by the way, it is also just an aggregate number of the total immigrants living in the USA. A pretty strong case could be made that since we live about 20 years longer than we did when many of them were born the increase could easily be from other causes. My point is that raw data, especially interpreted raw data from the CIS that is camouflaged as Census Bureau data, has its limitations, and externalities that must be taken into account, once again something those posting here never seem to have the wherewithal to interpret independently, must be taken into account.

LikeLike
fish

06 June 2015

…..since we are getting so many third orders
“Third Worlders”…..fucking auto correct.

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

06 June 2015

Posted by: fish | 06 June 2015 at 09:27 AM
I could cite numerous studies that show that immigration, even illegal immigration, is a net benefit to the US economy and tax base. I will post just one, because I suspect the net effect is closer to a wash than a cost. We could do ‘dueling studies’ here, but if you are willing to stipulate that there are winners and losers I would move on.
http://www.analysisonline.org/site/aoarticle_display.asp?issue_id=1&sec_id=140002434&news_id=140001400

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

06 June 2015

Posted by: fish | 06 June 2015 at 09:23 AM
Specifically what ‘homework’ do you want to see…I will post it.

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

06 June 2015

Oh damn, I just could not help it…
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8711/12-6-immigration.pdf
“Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use.”

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

06 June 2015

I can’t hep but note that Don and Greg never seem to post in the morning (and Greg confuses my night with my morning often when he notes I post at 4 am).
Could this be indicative of a bigger problem with getting up and being productive in the morning? (Or in this case unproductively amused.)

LikeLike
fish

06 June 2015

Posted by: Steven Frisch | 06 June 2015 at 09:37 AM
The study you cited does not separate legal and illegal immigration.
Already addressed…..The 41.3 million immigrant population (legal and illegal) in 2013 was double the number in 1990…and again even if Don lumped them all in as illegals it doesn’t change the fact that a significant percentage coming from regions where education is even worse than that provided in the US wind up as wards of the state because they don’t speak the language and have few skills to offer employers.
A pretty strong case could be made that since we live about 20 years longer than we did when many of them were born the increase could easily be from other causes.
Well then, I eagerly await your presentation.
My point is that raw data, especially interpreted raw data from the CIS that is camouflaged as Census Bureau data, has its limitations, and externalities that must be taken into account, once again something those posting here never seem to have the wherewithal to interpret independently, must be taken into account.
Again Steve you posited that there was no possible way that there could be 40 million illegals…which may be completely accurate. You do seem to acknowledge that there may be 20 million which is on the order of 6% of the total population. 6% is a big percentage. What do you think is a manageable percentage in these days of dwindling money and natural resources. How many should we invite in knowing that there are costs in doing so?

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

06 June 2015

I believe we should have a moratorium on all immigration for say twenty years. America did that apparently from the 20’s to the 60’s so people would assimilate. We need to do that again so all these (mostly peasant class) third world people can assimilate. Learn English, get of welfare etc. Even so-called “legal” immigrants get to bring in every relative, real or shirt tail, and many hit the welfare gravy train instantly.
Frisch is to be commended though. He has figured a way to get millions in taxpayers money for mostly makework or meaningless projects. It does take a certain amount of intelligence to run that. Bernie Madaoff did spend a lot of other people’s money until he was caught. So, I do admire the smoothness some people show in their ability to get into the pockets of hard working people.

LikeLike
Larry Wirth

06 June 2015

So, its settled. Illegal aliens go home, CA population drops 20% and the water problem is alleviated. To say nothing of welfare costs, traffic congestion, education and size of state government (to mention just a few).

LikeLike
fish

06 June 2015

Posted by: Steven Frisch | 06 June 2015 at 09:47 AM
“According to available estimates, there are about 12 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States.”
Wow…that number keeps popping up….first sentence too. Twelve million estimated in 2007 and 11.7 million now…..color me doubtful. It’s going to take me a while to bulldoze through more turgid government reportspeak so I’ll need to get back to you.
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 06 June 2015 at 09:43 AM
I will post just one, because I suspect the net effect is closer to a wash than a cost. We could do ‘dueling studies’ here, but if you are willing to stipulate that there are winners and losers I would move on.
Of course there are winners and losers.
WINNER:
Government – if you assume that some percentage are working they are being taxed. If you assume that others aren’t working it’s safe to assume that they are collecting government benefits. Government wins again in increased entitlement, social service and law enforcement budgets. Government also benefits in that they are counting on the needy to reliably pull the lever for TEAM DEMOCRAT.
Big Business – Win through the general suppression of wages (H-1B program, squeezing out of native born blue collar population from employment in construction trades etc.), increased revenues from providing the administration of government services to the recipients of these services. Larger market for products and services produced by these businesses.
LOSER:
As is always the case…the taxpayer.

LikeLike
George Boardman

06 June 2015

I’m a little late with this, but what the heck.
Dr. R challenged Paul Emery on 6/5 at 3:47 PM to “point to a couple flagrant misreports of fact by Limbaugh.” Allow me.
When the House of Representatives was getting ready to vote to impeach Bill Clinton, the U.S. bombed a factory in North Africa suspected of aiding terrorists. Limbaugh (and many other people) claimed this was a ploy to delay the vote. “Even Dianne Feinstein believes that,” he said on the air. (The quote is a paraphrase.)
I thought that was strange because I saw a story inside the San Francisco Chronicle that morning quoting Feinstein on the action that I hadn’t bothered to read. If what Limbaugh said was true, that story would have been on page one.
So I went back and read the story, and sure enough Feinstein said (I’m paraphrasing again) “At first I thought the attack was designed to delay the vote, but I was briefed by the Pentagon and I’m convinced that wasn’t the case.”
Now here’s one involving Rush and every conservative’s favorite news network, Fox. After Obama beat McCain, stories started surfacing about how difficult it was for McCain’s people to keep Sarah Palin focused and under control. Most of those stories were initiated by Fox.
Limbaugh was upset that the stories were leaked and that Fox reported them. Doesn’t Rush want the truth to come out, or just some of the truth? Is Fox a conservative team player, or does it report the news without fear or favor? Clearly Rush thinks they should be a team player.
Fox is popular with conservatives because it’s the only major network that views the news through a conservative filter. They are so predictable in how they are going to spin a story, they must have a template laid out by Roger Ailes.
In a survey it took several years, the Pew Research Center found that people who cite Fox News as their primary source of news and information were more likely to believe that Sadam was involved in 9/11 and that he had weapons of mass destruction. Now why would watching Fox News cause them to believe that?
Rush and Fox are popular because they are two of the few places that will validate what conservatives believe, even when that requires them to spin the news and make selective us of the facts.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

06 June 2015

OK got it GeorgeB. Rush said a couple of things that Jon Stewart might agree were what? Comedy? Jeeze, is that all you have? Clinton bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan, very full of those terrorists, and right when impeachment was happening? Yep, just a coincidence. Limbaugh is fallible of course, and his every word is recorded and vetted by many left wing groups like Media Matters. Media Matters was started with funds from Hillary and Bill Clinton. I bet you believe MM don’t you?
FOX News puts liberals on every panel they have on every program they have. I would like you to tell us what liberal news shows do the same? Oh, you can’t? Who wooda guessed?
The reason we like FOX is because they air the issues not usually aired by the Alphabeters. They simply give both sides. I bet you are a fan of 60 Minutes aren’t you? If ever there was a biased program.

LikeLike
Walt

06 June 2015

Maybe Boardman can explain why the like of CNN and MSNBC viewership is in the crapper. (as with all LIB news) FOX got the Conservative viewers YEARS ago. yet FOX ratings continue to climb. Why is that George?
Rush is still the most listened to on radio. ( ya,, that just fry’s LIBS backsides)
“Selective use of facts”.. Now there is a good one. It’s a far cry better than the “manufactured” (ha)facts that LIBS try and pass off. Just how many examples would you care to see? ( Lord knows there are truck loads of them) Ummmm,, Like AGW?? Book cooking by the true believers? I’m sure you have read that news,, NOAA manipulated the data to put global warming back where it “should be”. 20 years of no warming… GONE. Yup.. fixed that little problem.
How bout’ Hillary? That’s old news by now. No relevance. Ambassador Stevens is just Nevada County land fill at this point. So what she lied about emails, and destroyed them.
No big deal. Her Hubby gets free rides of pedifile 1 ( you did hear about those exploits,,, right?)
But point fingers at the Right there George B.

LikeLike
fish

06 June 2015

Posted by: George Boardman | 06 June 2015 at 10:13 AM
So I went back and read the story, and sure enough Feinstein said (I’m paraphrasing again) “At first I thought the attack was designed to delay the vote, but I was briefed by the Pentagon and I’m convinced that wasn’t the case.”
So Feinstein did say it, and Limbaugh not having benefit of his own personal Pentagon briefing reported what Feinstein said?
More interesting though is that Feinstein thought it in the first place.
Now here’s one involving Rush and every conservative’s favorite news network, Fox. After Obama beat McCain, stories started surfacing about how difficult it was for McCain’s people to keep Sarah Palin focused and under control. Most of those stories were initiated by Fox.
Limbaugh was upset that the stories were leaked and that Fox reported them. Doesn’t Rush want the truth to come out, or just some of the truth? Is Fox a conservative team player, or does it report the news without fear or favor? Clearly Rush thinks they should be a team player.
“……every conservative’s favorite news network”….?
Talk about your “flagrant misreports”.
Oh I don’t know…..Team Clinton leftys both in government and media used to get pretty peeved when the court intrigue, sexual peccadilloes, and political innuendo was reported as fact about the Clintons. Seems like everybody is going to defend their “Team”.
Paul called Limbaugh a comedian….not sure it’s incumbent upon a comedian to be fair and unbiased.

LikeLike
Walt

06 June 2015

OK Team LIB,, Has Lefty news called BS on “O”‘s claim that ” The United States is the most respected country on Earth.” ?? Do post proof from MSNBC, CNN, etc. and how bout’ from on line media? Let’s see just how factual “your side” is.
The real fact is we are laughed at by the world, and considered cowards with “O” running the show. ( In fact “O” when first elected wanted to take our standing down more than a notch or two. He even said as much.)

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

06 June 2015

Fish, watch the “straw man” logical fallacies….I never said that, “… there was no possible way that there could be 40 million illegals.”
I said, “…no one can cite any trusted reference to the 30 to 40 million illegal immigrant number that Don threw out.” You still have not done so. Your study included legal immigrants.
Two completely different things.
Homey don’t fight straw men.

LikeLike
Bonnie McGuire

06 June 2015

Mr. Boardman, I think most of us look at things according to our personal experience. What we’ve experienced isn’t necessarily someone else’s experience so they’ll disagree. I like Rush because he talks common sense. As for McCain…I kind of liked him because of what he suffered as a prisoner of war. However, now I have no use for the man because of how he used And abused Palin. In fact, my estimation of Leiberman went up when he told her to not listen to the handler’s prompting, but instead to say what she believed in. Because of how honest and good he treated her it became evident as to why his fellow Democrats had earlier kicked him into the closet across the hall.
The discussions on RR are wonderful. Lots of dumb stuff by some people pretending to know it all, while others display common sense experienced from hands on hard work. Nothing is going to work properly in our government because they get paid outrageous salaries, benefits and retirements without being aware of where the money comes from. And all along the way from the source there are many fingers in the till taking money unaccounted for. It’s called corruption. One of the big problems created was taxation without representation. For example, Social Security used by the General Fund. Money collected from the driving public and truckers for the Transportation Highway Fund used by the General Fund. And last, but not least because you might still notice this one…the illegal extra state Fire Tax ($117) imposed on rural property owners that mostly goes to the General Fund. This abuse of taxTion means there will never be enough money for what the tax was intended…and require a steady raising of taxes…to pay for everything else including our Gov reps obscene expenditures. It amounts to flushing money down the toilet. Sorry, but common sense dictates that if you follow the money you’ll find where the bad odor is coming from.

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

06 June 2015

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 06 June 2015 at 10:02 AM
Three observations on Todd’s post:
1) I wonder under his immigration ‘moratorium’ who is going to grow and harvest food, build homes, work in hospitals and for that matter pay the increased costs that would derive from the jobs going to nice middle class American kids.
2) I wonder who is going to pay the social costs of reducing immigrant contributions to social programs since immigrants are a net contributor to the programs.
3) Your class envy is showing…why don’t you go out and get a productive job you deadbeat!

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

06 June 2015

Steve Frisch 11:18 AM
1. Harvesting food? You need to put on your big boy pants and go harvest those almonds. They need you. (I did apples when I was a kid) American kids then could get the jobs.
2. Immigrants are a massive debit on the economy Steve Frisch. When they are at their home country they can get welfare there.
3. I have no class envy. I am one of the humblest men I know. I do call out deadbeats like tax cheats, thieves of their employees taxes and liens from local state and federal governments. Also, I think I probably did about 40 million into the economy of free enterprise money in my lifetime. Now that I am retired it is up to others. Maybe you? Naw, you have a taste for the taxpayers dough for a deadbeat non-profit. Sheesh!

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

06 June 2015

I did forget one point about immigration. I would allow a return to the “bracero” type of worker with guidelines to prevent abuse. My moratorium is for those desiring citizenship. Give them time to assimilate. Frisch screwed that up as most libs are famous doing.

LikeLike
fish

06 June 2015

Posted by: Steven Frisch | 06 June 2015 at 11:12 AM
OK Homey what number of illegal immigrants do you accept as a valid number? The wonderfully static 12 million or is there another extrapolated number that falls between 12 and 40 million that you think is likely?

LikeLike
George Rebane

06 June 2015

Jon 831pm – “Who are the proponents of illegal immigration?” I’m surprised at the question coming from you. It is, of course, the Left that is working hard to fundamentally transform America into a new socialist state which is possible only through overwhelming Democrat majorities in our federal and state governments. Now fasten your seatbelt – illegals, especially Hispanic illegals and their cultural halo of Americans, will overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Also read George Friedman’s ‘Next 100 Years’.
StevenF 843am – “… millions of dollars a year worth of investment” into region induced by SBC. An astounding claim, which if confirmed, would most certainly change my opinion of what you do for a living. I wasn’t aware that anyone anyone these days was making an investment in Nevada County of the order of ‘millions of dollars’. (I hope you’re not confusing spending with investment as our left-leaning govt types are wont to do.)
Re the net cost of resident legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, and illegal aliens (there is a difference) – if all of them pay more into the Treasury than they consume in transfer payments, then how come the American workforce fraction is so low and decreasing while job opportunities for the immigrants and aliens continue to increase, opportunities that are rejected by a growing number of American citizens? A most disconcerting puzzle if true.

LikeLike
fish

06 June 2015

Three observations on Todd’s post:
1) I wonder under his immigration ‘moratorium’ who is going to grow and harvest food, build homes, work in hospitals and for that matter pay the increased costs that would derive from the jobs going to nice middle class American kids.
Ah….the “A Day without a Mexican” trope…..seems that our society will pay in one form or another. I guess you are only interested in addressing “externalities” in certain instances.
2) I wonder who is going to pay the social costs of reducing immigrant contributions to social programs since immigrants are a net contributor to the programs.
Under this rationale we should import as many immigrants as we can…..each one producing more than he/she consumes will eventually make us all incredibly wealthy!

LikeLike
fish

06 June 2015

Crap! [fixed it; you’re welcome 😉 gjr]

LikeLike
Walt

06 June 2015

Food pickers?? LOL!!! even grapes can now be picked by machine Tree crops.. Machine.
you name it a machine can probably do it. So instead of 200 Mexicans, 20 can do the job.
If it’s on flat ground, a computer can do it.
Now that crops have been cut back here in the state, ( by 20% reports say) that means 20% less illegals can find jobs, but Moonbeam still has the welcome mat out, and now is pushing to give them healthcare at OUR expense. They already are getting driver’s licenses.
Funny. Us legal citizens are required to get insurance on our cars. If not, and get stopped by the poe poe, the care is off to the car jail… But not illegals. It’s “unfair”.
Do look into that Stevey,,
Funny how you have ignored all my questions. You and Paul are two pees in a pod.

LikeLike
Gregory

06 June 2015

Note that Frisch’s 6:08AM went right to the personal attacks rather than deal with his position that ALL residential wells in California should be metered and owners charged for the water they have an existing right to use.
The so-called Sierra Business Council’s president, once a proponent of government access of private property to search for flora and fauna needing inventory and protection, now thinks everyone with a well should have a government meter to assess fees and, one expects, limit use if deemed necessary.
We may or may not be in a long term drought. I agree there aren’t great places left to store more water.
Frisch also ignores that his precious Frisco gets to use all of its stolen Hetch Hetchy water, while agriculture and residents in the central valley (where the water would flow had it not been appropriated by Baghdad by the Bay) get to let half of their water flow out to sea in a futile attempt to keep the Delta Smelt population from going to zero. I suspect if DiFi’s birthright to water on the other side of the state was challenged, she might be more focused on the central valley’s plight.

LikeLike
Walt

06 June 2015

This might help understand the illegal “tally”
http://www.cairco.org/issues/how-many-illegal-aliens-reside-united-states-elbel
” “… millions of dollars a year worth of investment” into region induced by SBC”
PROVE IT!! Growing DOPE don’t count. Maybe by friends in Red china?
Name names Bub, post the revenue spread sheets.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

06 June 2015

Keep it simple George (sandbox) , no reason to change anything.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

06 June 2015

No time for answering your questions till tomorrow. I have to work today.

LikeLike
Walt

06 June 2015

I forgot all about this. LIB news didn’t give it much press.
Some may recall when the EPA redrew property lines.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/21/editorial-land-seizure-in-wyoming/
A million or so acres handed over to the Indians. Town and all.
If it happened there, it can happen anywhere.
The EPA sure has some wild authority. It seems they are their own government.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

06 June 2015

I guess if Frisch is correct that illegals contribute more than they take perhaps we should just annex Mexico and viola” No more debt or deficits! Probably pay off the 19 trillion ASAP! Go Frisch! (He has no immigrants from Mexico in his SBC office I understand)

LikeLike
fish

06 June 2015

Who wins? It would seem that it’s not the native born citizenry.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-06/illegal-immigrant-recovery-presenting-most-stunning-number-may-jobs-report

LikeLike
George Rebane

06 June 2015

PaulE 1219pm – It looks like that’s what people are voting for with their comments and/or disinterest. But the interweaving of multiple topic threads in one comment stream really calls for commenters to use the name/time tags when responding to previous commenters. And I’m happy to say that people are starting to catch on – Yay!

LikeLike
George Rebane

06 June 2015

fish 105pm – Very interesting govt data you cite there. It makes my 1148am question even more relevant. How can it be claimed that so many illegal aliens working at so many low-paying jobs (many/most qualifying for additional govt transfer payments) in the net contribute more to the common coffers than they draw from it? The Left has run this claim for years now, and Mr Frisch’s (947am) claim is only the local echo of such nationally received wisdom. The CBO has a notorious reputation of significantly missing their marks. Anyway, something doesn’t add up, but then the Left has never really done numbers well. Here is a more measured look at the fiscal impact of such ‘immigrants’.
http://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/fiscal-impact-immigration

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

06 June 2015

Posted by: George Rebane | 06 June 2015 at 11:48 AM
What you don’t know and don’t understand about what I do would fill a book, and I have no doubt that we define ‘investment’ differently. I consider your definition narrow.

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

06 June 2015

Well we really are digressing now, but let’s be clear, the industries that primarily employ illegal aliens are traditionally conservative ones–construction, farm work, hospitality and health care–and I have no doubt that the Republican and Conservative constituencies would be screaming bloody murder if Todd achieved his goal.

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

06 June 2015

Dear Greg, I go for your jugular because you go for mine…fortunately I am more thick skinned than you are.
I have answered your questions about water policy and private ownership of water a dozen times. If we really have to do it again here is the primer:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/board_info/water_rights_process.shtml#law
Water in California is not a private property right.
Here is the operative paragraph:
“The conflicting nature of California’s dual water right system prompted numerous legal disputes. Unlike appropriative users, riparian right holders were not required to put water to reasonable and beneficial use. This clash of rights eventually resulted in a constitutional amendment (Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution) that requires all use of water to be “reasonable and beneficial.” These “beneficial uses” have commonly included municipal and industrial uses, irrigation, hydroelectric generation, and livestock watering. More recently, the concept has been broadened to include recreational use, fish and wildlife protection, and enhancement and aesthetic enjoyment.”
You may not like the law, but it is the law, and in a world with limited resources I would totally support the state metering the water coming out of your well so you can take a crap, and I think you are going to get there within the next 20 years under California’s groundwater law.
Does that answer your question?

LikeLike
fish

06 June 2015

Posted by: Steven Frisch | 06 June 2015 at 01:38 PM
I would have thought that you would applaud the internalization of those externalities?

LikeLike
George Rebane

06 June 2015

StevenF 131pm – No doubt you are right on all counts, most certainly in the definition of ‘investment’.
For the interested reader – the progressives have pursued an active program of compressing the semantics of the English language for at least the last 50 years. By this I mean that they gather more and more diverse meanings under the skirts of a more accepted word that successfully hides their larger agenda. A truly progressive approach to language is effected in the technology sector that invents and assigns new words to new/different things and processes. And as most know, the non-technical sectors have adopted many technology spawned words into their non-technical daily round, just because they describe a thing/process so precisely and unambiguously.
Human languages by their nature are and have been infinitely expandable, instead of contractable in the Orwellian manner that saw its most successful application in Mao’s China when the state reduced the popularly published written language down to a carefully chosen set of about 2,000 ideographs. In the English languages the Left has been busy cobbling together many (politically correct) meanings under single formerly simply defined terms – ‘investment’ is just one of many. Others are words like ‘challenged’ instead of ‘handicapped’, or ‘special needs’ for ‘cognitively impaired’, or even ‘hero’ and ‘discriminate’ whose meanings have been completely turned on their heads by the Left. More egregious obfuscations which have been wildly successful are’undocumented immigrant’ for ‘illegal alien’, and ‘climate change denier’ for ‘AGW skeptic’. More on this was at –
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2007/12/when-you-own-th.html
Much more of this topic can be found when you google ‘Sapir-Whorf, rebane’s ruminations’ and read articles like –

The Rise of the Post-New Left Political Vocabulary

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

06 June 2015

Greg, to answer your second question, Hetch-Hetchy has not come up as a topic of conversation so I am not ignoring anything.
“Frisch also ignores that his precious Frisco gets to use all of its stolen Hetch Hetchy water, while agriculture and residents in the central valley (where the water would flow had it not been appropriated by Baghdad by the Bay) get to let half of their water flow out to sea in a futile attempt to keep the Delta Smelt population from going to zero. I suspect if DiFi’s birthright to water on the other side of the state was challenged, she might be more focused on the central valley’s plight.”
But the answer is rivers still need to be rivers, and life depends upon their function. The Bay Delta system would completely collapse if we did not allow environmental floes, and the cost to you, the taxpayer, and in the long run agriculture would be much higher from salinity intrusion than the cost to farmers during the current drought are.
Here is an interesting article highlighting a recent study from the California
http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article21958428.html
“This is the state of California agriculture in the fourth year of record-setting drought. With deliveries of surface water through state and federal pipelines slashed by 70 percent overall, the state’s 77,000 growers are struggling to produce the diverse agricultural bounty that makes California the nation’s leading farm state. At least 800,000 acres likely will sit idle this year, or nearly 9 percent of the statewide total, according to the California Farm Water Coalition. The coalition says about 690,000 acres were taken out of production last year due to drought, although other estimates have been lower.
Even as many farmers cut back their planting, California’s farm economy overall has been surprisingly resilient. Farm employment increased by more than 1 percent last year. Gross farm revenue from crop production actually increased by two-tenths of 1 percent last year, to $33.09 billion, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The revenue figures don’t take into account animal agriculture, such as beef and dairy production.”
By the way, while the number of acres under production have gone down by 9% (not the 20% Walt cited) the value of farm products has actually gone up 1%, which is less than previous years, but still and increase.
But of course I don’t expect anyone to respond to data or go read the study which I read last week.

LikeLike