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 -  (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.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Not seeing it.

[–]8thmonitor[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

What don't you see? It is all included on bottom of page. https://web.archive.org/web/20220216230408/https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2020/03/19/fiscal-impact-by-race-in-2018/

US Government Revenue in 2018: https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/year_revenue_2018USbn_21bs1n#usgs302

US Government Spending in 2018: https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2018USbn_21bs2n#usgs302

Racial Distribution of Income Brackets: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/cps-hinc/hinc-05.html

Tax Payment by Bracket: https://itep.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2018/

Income By Race and State: https://www.census.gov/search-results.html?q=median+income&page=1&stateGeo=none&searchtype=web&cssp=SERP

Medicare Usage by Race: https://www.kff.org/medicare/state-indicator/medicare-beneficiaries-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

Medicaid Usage by Race: https://www.kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/medicaid-enrollment-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

Social Security Usage by Race in 2017: https://books.google.com/books?id=g8VWDwAAQBAJ&pg=RA10-PA2002&lpg=RA10-PA2002&dq=Social+Security+Recipients+by+Age,+Sex,+Race,+and+Hispanic+Origin+2017&source=bl&ots=6lrbUZJ7uP&sig=ACfU3U2S9AqC3gfhTwKl7577fpY8-_eXPQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj73vKUu6boAhVeJDQIHVUtAiEQ6AEwBnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Social%20Security%20Recipients%20by%20Age%2C%20Sex%2C%20Race%2C%20and%20Hispanic%20Origin%202017&f=false

Cost of Living by State: https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/cost-of-living-index-by-state/

Percent White by State: https://www.governing.com/gov-data/census/state-minority-population-data-estimates.html

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I'm sorry but this seems just to be a random offering of some unofficial (and to be fair) a couple of official data sources that are backing the png file you sent earlier? Trying to actually validate these sources is an exercise in futility, and it's why data at this level of granularity is so difficult to find and why so few people actually reference it to create arguments.

This is why I'm perfectly happy using the GDP and Social Safety net numbers I offered, because A) they're accurate, and B) show overwhelmingly that it would be impossible for a racial group that contributes 2 trillion dollars to the economy, yet only uses 1 trillion in aid, to be takers. (Sorry, op said " I know blacks and hispanics are overall costs on US " which is pretty much the same thing as saying "takers"... either way, hispanics are not "costs" on the economy, they're contributors.

[–]8thmonitor[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You are welcome to disprove the citation, but again- it doesn't matter how much hispanics put to the ECONOMY. they do not generate even 1 trillion in FISCAL TAX revenue. They take more in tax revenue than they give. That is what makes them a cost for the nation. You are comparing apples to oranges. GDP contribution is not even close to the same thing as federal tax revenue. Do you know that? The total US budget is not even 3 trillion unlike total 23 trillion economy.

It is 100% possible for a racial group to contribute more to the national economic measure than what they give national fiscal measure and still be leeches and costs for the nation. That is because they do not generate enough tax revenue. I never said hispanics are costs on the economy. I am not arguing if they are contributors for economy or not. No one here is arguing about GDP.

Do you even have a citation that hispanics generate more tax revenue than they take? Nope, GDP numbers do not prove anything.

[–]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.