Radopolis, your arguements would be funny were they not so pathetic. Scotsman, you are correct, but that is not the way the market works. There will always be hidden costs ... that is the nature of any government regulation and the core of crony capitalism. The key is to try to minimalize them and make them equal across the board.
If you, as the consumer, had to pay the real cost of an apple, at such a rate that the US Citizen laborer would be willing to pick it, the US Citizen farmer would be willing to grow it, the US Corporation would be willing to accept for fertilizer and machinery and fuel, and the US Citizen transportation infrastructure would be willing to accept to ship it, and the US market would accept as profit to sell it, then you get a $10 apple. The key in all this is each part of the chain has a profit motive, and just because you are hungry, it does not mean they should go without profit. Were I the liberal you claim I am, we would simply say everyone accept less profit (or no profit), and we would all be happy as part of OWS, not the Tea Party.
Now, the US farmer is competing with farmers from around the world ... have you ever bought any Chilean produce? How is it they can grow it, pick it, and ship it to the US and still be cheaper? Simple, our cost of living, which includes the hidden costs you infer Scotsman, are built into our costs, whereas the Chilean’s only have the last mile of costs to incur ... shipping from the port to the grocer and the grocer’s profit. Thier cost of labor, land, fuel, etc is all lower than ours. Part of this is true lower direct costs, part of this is government subsidy and “free trade zones”. That is how a country paying $5/gal for gas can still undercut our prices.
Real economics (which by the way Rad, unlike you, I studied Econ and know what I am talking about) accepts the fact that if we actually charged what things actually cost, we would have REAL runaway inflation, because what the government has done for the last century is subsidize FOOD. You get rid of farm subsidies in this country overnight, and even if you have a job, you will not be able to afford to eat!
This is the gordian knot that the socialists built into our system, and idealogs like you want a sound bite answer and I am sorry, but it does not exist. That does not make me a liberal, it means I know what I am talking about. It is going to take real fortitude in the part of our leaders to unbreak this egg, and it is going to take time. You start one step at a time, and the Guest worker program, if properly managed, is that first step. Again, the reason it has not worked up to this point is that the D’s have no desire to see the illegals go home. They want them to vote.
Register them, set up a check in - check out process, let them work for piece-meal, and then you start to cut into the other hidden costs that you are talking about Scots ... we at least go from year round services to partial year services. Next you cut off citizen benefits.
This cannot happen overnight folks ... there needs to be a strategy, and under the strategy tactics. Sound bites mean nothing. Newt has laid out the clearest strategy that gets us to our goal. Like I said, his plan is actionable ... so rather than trying to smash Newt, how about you tell me what your candidate would do different, and back it up with thier words, not just what you believe. What you are going to find is, most of them stop at “Humane”. Sarah did, Cain did ... they both said that word, and described a high level plan similar to Newt (some would get to stay) ... but Newt described what he meant by Humane. Sarah and Cain did not.
You are talking out of your arse.
1. The US has traditionally subsidized agriculture to boost prices, not lower them. The entire point of the Food Stamp program was to give away surplus food supplies to the poor. So your notion that we need illegals to keep food costs down is a bogus one.
2. There is no evidence of food inflation before the illegal invasion of the last 30 years when Americans grew their own food.
I dare you to go pull out the charts over the last 50 years documenting food inflation to defend your theory.
3. Most countries in the world grow their own food without the support of illegals and have no food cost inflation as a result of their relatively high paid domestic workforce, notably in Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan and Europe, where no Mexican illegals are growing their food, yet they all seem to be able to feed their populations at a low cost.
4. You harp on about the hidden costs of US subsidized agriculture, yet complete ignore the economic and social costs of the state supporting illegals in education, health care, housing, and welfare.
How many Americans would trade more expensive produce for the lower public sector costs of taking care of the illegals?
I dare you to break down the cost per American of having domestically grown food versus the cost per American to publicly subsidize an illegal.
5. We have 13 million illegals in this country and there are only a 2 million people at most who work in agriculture, and the United States already gives out tens of thousands of AG visas out a year.
6. Most agricultural communities already have doubt digit unemployment. What will make you happy, when farm communities have 50% unemployment instead of 25%?
You have no clue what you are talking about and just spew your La Raza liberal propaganda because you have no loyalty to this country or the American people.
You can’t even make an honest, open borders economic argument in defense of your Free Traitor theories.
Newt, not unlike you doesn't have an unspoken thought. He could have said what he needed to say in one sentence, but he had to elaborate. He will now find out how popular amnesty by any name really is.