President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

I'll play along since I have a little unexpected free time this morning. As you know, the story from The Washington Times that you linked says at the top:

Legalizing 2 million illegal immigrant “Dreamers” would cost the government $25.9 billion over the next decade, as those now-legal people would claim more tax, education and other benefits they haven’t been able to get before, the Congressional Budget Office said Friday.

I would agree that this is a relevant fact to be considered. And I do think the CBO is largely non-partisan and reputable, and that its numbers are as accurate as one could reasonably hope for projections of the future, which are by definition unknowable. But I'd toss in a large caveat: the methodology and approach of any such calculation must also be considered.

For instance, here's something interesting from the bottom of the very story you linked:

The new CBO report looked only at the taxes paid and benefits collected by Dreamers. It did not include a “dynamic” score looking at the costs and benefits once the effects on the economy are included.

Past CBO estimates of broader immigration legalization bills have done “dynamic” scoring, and those found legalizing migrants would be a positive factor in the near term because there would be more people working above board, paying taxes.

I find that interesting. One could certainly make a reasonable argument that by focusing solely on projected direct costs, and not looking at potential accompanying benefits via dynamic scoring, that this calculation is unduly negative.

There are also other ways to approach a "true" calculation of how much keeping DACA would cost vs. eliminating it.

For instance, if you eliminate it, shouldn't we estimate the cost of enforcing the deportations? And what about the opportunity cost of foregone tax revenue now that these hard-working, tax-paying Dreamers are removed from the country? Or other costs to the community from that their absence? It seems that we'd want this kind of information if we're trying to make a straight cost-benefit analysis, if that's what a clear-eyed conservative might prefer to the squishy human-decency argument.

 

JFC dude. All I'm saying is that the border wall is a colossal waste of money. That statement can stand on its own without having to justify it by countering it against the cost of DACA. Your whataboutism is tiring.

 

Yes. We should make the districts geographically balanced and let ethnic communities self-sort if they so desire. Thanks for asking.

I take it you believe gerrymandering is ok, because politics?

 

Oh yeah, there was nothing intentionally misleading about running that art.

I don't know if that was the Times original caption of the photo, or a stealth edit after criticism, but I really don't know why the AP would make that the main photo for the story. it's everywhere, and it's completely misleading.

CreditCorey Lowenstein/The News & Observer, via Associated Press

 

All of us men, women, broken or not would love you to, yes.

 

So does the fact that at one point Oprah took a picture with Donald Trump or Harvey Weinstein really mean anything?

 

Apologies in advance for quoting myself, but here is an interesting take from the libertarian (though right-leaning) Cato Institute taking issue with the CBO score:

Two Problems with the CBO's score of the DREAM Act and One Solution

 

How many photos did The News & Observer provide to the AP from the meeting? Moreover, that looks like a file photo since the politicians weren't standing around and looking at the map yesterday. I believe that's an image from February. So it's possible that's the only option the other outlets had for art.

And the only people who are finding the photo misleading are those A) looking for reasons to whine and B) those who didn't bother reading the caption.

Edit (non-stealth!): A quick and simple Google shows that caption was not changed by the NYT.

FILE - In this Feb. 16, 2016, file photo, Republican state Sens. Dan Soucek, left, and Brent Jackson, right, review historical maps during The Senate Redistricting Committee for the 2016 Extra Session in the Legislative Office Building at the N.C. General Assembly, in Raleigh, N.C. Federal judges ruled Tuesday, Jan. 9, 2018, that North Carolina's congressional district map drawn by legislative Republicans is illegally gerrymandered because of excessive partisanship that gave GOP a rock-solid advantage for most seats and must quickly be redone. (Corey Lowenstein/The News & Observer via AP, File)

 

It's a file photo. Corey Lowenstein died last month. RIP.

 

The map with "fewer squiggly lines," which was struck down yesterday is as equally unbalanced as the previous maps, including the 2011 map created by the GOP, which was somehow even worse than the 1992 map created by Democrats.

For reference, here is the 2011 map, which was struck down as unconstitutional and replaced with the new map that has now also been struck down.




If North Carolina had balanced, logical districts each party would have four safe seats and the other five seats would be competitive - resulting in moderate dems and reps being sent to Congress instead of the 10 extremist Republicans and 3 incredibly liberal dems that we have now.

 

The single most important line from Trump's Tuesday talk-a-thon - CNNPolitics

"I think my positions are going to be what the people in this room come up with."