Is there any data on how developed America would be with only whites? What about only blacks? What about only hispanics? What about only asians and whites?

submitted by 8thmonitor from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

this study is interesting. https://archive.ph/v7xxt It says working-class whites are the biggest beneficiaries of federal poverty-reduction programs, even though blacks and Hispanics have substantially higher rates of poverty....

[–]EuropeanAwakening14 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It's really dishonest to not point out that that "study" doesn't take into account per capita measurements. White Americans make up a little under 60% of the American population. It's actually Black's and Hispanics that are over represented on a per capita basis.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In 2020, hispanics and latinos contributed 2.8 trillion USD to the economy. Meanwhile in 2020 the ENTIRE US budget for social services was around 1 trillion USD. This means that hispanics and latinos could support the ENTIRE safety net for all races 3 times over. This means that it is physically impossible for hispanics and latinos to be a net drain on social services. This is a fallacy.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Did they contribute 2.8 trillion USD to the federal budget?

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Every time the topic of wetbacks come up, we always hear about Muh GDP. I'm not a GDP nationalist. Whites are doing just fine maintaining very high GDP around the world. The anlgosphere is wealthy. That's why wetbacks want in. If Mexicans immigrants really do raise GDP, I don't want it. It's not worth it. I don't want to send my kids to a school with a bunch of Spanish speaking Mexicans, for a slight increase in GDP.

Every time this GDP stuff comes up I'm always perplexed by it. I guess leftists view it as some sort of gotcha, checkmate. All these wetbacks raise GDP, therefore let the invasion continue?

[–]8thmonitor[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

I don't understand if this is responding to my previous comment. Sure but there are still more than enough whites that are overall benefit for America and pay for those poor whites. That is sadly not the case for latinos and blacks. There are just so many latinos and blacks being a cost and burden on America.

I am pretty sure poor people of any race are overall cost.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

if you look at the overall net contribution of latinos to GDP, versus what they consume in safety net services, it's a plus. In other words, latinos contribute more than they consume. Not sure about the other races, but from my research, its a net positive. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/us-latino-economic-output-rank-5th-world-gdp-according-new-study-rcna48740

[–]EuropeanAwakening14 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Actually it's been mathematically shown that blacks and Hispanics both take waaaay more than they put in. Unfortunately alt hypes website is down but his video debunking you is still up https://www.bitchute.com/video/lGpgvkf3THs/

The link you provided doesn't say what you have concluded. It says nothing about contribution versus cost of hispanics. It just says how much they contribute to the GDP.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Actually it's been mathematically shown that blacks and Hispanics both take waaaay more than they put in.

The problem with all of these economic studies is they fail to capture the social and cultural cost of having millions Mexicans living in our communities. The Mexicans in my neighborhood don't mow their lawn, pickup their trash, maintain their dwelling appearance, or adhere to proper occupancy numbers. That has a cost.

The greater concern however is the adults speak English and Spanish, and when they have a child, they raise it bilingual.

German Americans dont speak German. Norwegian Americans don't speak Norwegian, but Mexicans Americans will retain Spanish, and they know exactly what they are doing. They are retaining their ethnic and cultural identity. This seems more like invasion than assimilation. What is the economic cost of turning parts of America into Mexico?

Another uncaptured cost is having to maintain yet another entitled minority victim group. Muh Latinx. Lol, they even made Oprah grovel for not selecting the right mexican books. When you go to work in a corporate office, there will be a LatinX affinity group shilling for more diversity hires. When you send your kids to a high Latin percentage school, they will be further alienated during formative.

All of these things have a cost that aren't captured in much GDP studies. We don't need these people.

[–]8thmonitor[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I see the same disgusting behavior. In my neighborhood, the only difference is that most Latino kids cannot speak English either. In my public high school, Latinos were around 50% of the school and needed to be in their own special classes for idiots that cannot speak English.

They cause so many problems. The worse ones are definitely the boys. I have no idea what they do except bully, harass, disrupt, and more problems. In my middle school, there were 0 smart Latino boys. Not even 1. In high school, there was 1 smart latino boy. At least there were a few smart latino girls in poverty that really did work hard and value education, but the remaining latino girls are focused on pumping out as many kids as possible to ruin America further.

This is 100% invasion. I try not to think about what schools and the country will look like in the upcoming decades.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Latinos were around 50% of the school and needed to be in their own special classes for idiots that cannot speak English.

They're not necessarily idiots. Learning another language is hard and their parents teach them Spanish first, because they know that's more important. They know they will learn English eventually in school.

They cause so many problems

They are a hostile foreign non-white minority group, so of course.

This is 100% invasion

Obviously.

[–]8thmonitor[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

No it is not. Your link doesn't say that. I already linked my source that explained latinos are an overall burden.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

I'd feel a lot better about your source if it included references, citations etc. I get that the person is explaining that they are using tax and demographic data from the states, but there is nothing that shows the actual source. Trusting someone's source without supporting data isn't something I'm comfortable with, personally.

The NBC news link I presented above shows that Hispanics and Latinos contribute more than the entire Federal budget for safety net programs, for ALL races. This means that hispanics on their own could support the entire welfare program for all races. This makes your argument impossible.

Contribution of hispanics and Latinos to USA economy in 2020 = 2.8 trillion; Total social services budget in 2020 for USA = 1 trillion.

*hispanics and latinos contribute 3 times more than they consume. *

source:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/us-latino-economic-output-rank-5th-world-gdp-according-new-study-rcna48740

https://federalsafetynet.com/welfare-budget/#:~:text=Federal%20Spending%20in%20Fiscal%20Years,%24773%20billion%20to%20%241.215%20trillion.

[–]8thmonitor[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

It does include references and citations. It is all on the bottom of the page.

You are confusing GDP vs. budget. That claim that hispanics and latinos contribute 3 times more than they consume is 100% incorrect.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

How am I confusing GDP though? From my source (the NBC article) it clearly states the 2020 hispanic contribution to GDP is 2.8 trillion. From the other source it clearly states that the maximum could be spent on social services for 2020 is 1 trillion. It would be physically impossible then for hispanics to be a net drain on the economy.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It would be physically impossible then for hispanics to be a net drain on the economy.

This argument assumes social services is the only economic cost of wetbacks. This is false.

Secondly, it takes much more than $2.8 trillion worth of economic throughput to generate $1 trillion in surplus funding for social services

Third, of the $2.8 trillion in GDP, a large portion of this is going back to Hispanics. If a wetback sells me a taco for a dollar, that is a lift in GDP and income for the wetback. The $2.8 trillion includes money paid to wetbacks.

Lastly, simply adding up hispanic GDP doesn't provide any economic consideration for substitution. For example, if a wetback sells me a taco for lunch for $1, he lifts GDP. If the taco stand isn't there, am I going to skip lunch? No, I buy a hot dog from a Joe instead, substituting a taco for a hot dog, still lifting GDP. Of the $2.8 trillion, many of these transactions would still occur, without the wetbacks.

[–]8thmonitor[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I never said that Latinos are a drain on the economy. I said they are a fiscal burden like my source says. That means the tax revenue they generate for nation is less than the tax revenue they take from the nation. The total US GDP numbers vs. total US budget numbers is not the same. It makes 0 sense to compare them. You need to compare budget numbers for both like my citation.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Your citation isn't backed up by any data.

[–]8thmonitor[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It is backed up. All the sources are cited.

[–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

but there is nothing that shows the actual source. Trusting someone's source without supporting data isn't something I'm comfortable with, personally.

Well that's interesting because the nbcnews article you linked is not an actual source either. Nor does it link to an actual source. It links to a website of a pro-latino organization that published the report. I guess you are comfortable with trusting sources without data as long as it shows what you want to see.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I guess you are comfortable with trusting sources without data as long as it shows what you want to see.

geez, that's kinda uncalled for, and pot calling kettle black. I've seen multiple reports that put hispanic small business contribution at about 1 trillion, and worker contribution between 1 and 2 trillion - to GDP. Based on the research I've done, I feel pretty confident quoting those numbers. I'm not a statistician, or economist, so I may not have the knowledge to get this info directly from the source, but I'm perfectly ok accepting that these news organizations are as legit as the sources you're quoting. I personally feel like its legit and good, and therefor I am going to continue using these sources with no guilt. You don't have to like it if you don't want. My audience is people who are reasonable and willing to acknowledge that perhaps its a myth that hispanics are takers. If you're not in that audience that's perfectly ok with me. cheers and have a great day.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

perhaps its a myth that hispanics are takers

Hispanics are hard workers. They are certainly not takers. They mostly just get medicaid for their children. There is a rigorous argument for why wetbacks should be excluded from the anlgosphere, but being takers isn't part of it, in my opinion.

It's also important to point out that your argument appears to assume that social service spending is the only economic cost associated with wetbacks. This is a poor assumption, for obvious reasons.