Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-23-2018, 08:20 PM
cmkeller's Avatar
cmkeller cmkeller is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 13,203
Wow, that sounds like it came right out of a Dilbert cartoon from the Pointy-Haired Boss.
  #52  
Old 12-24-2018, 02:32 AM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizerta View Post
Trump wants five billion dollars to pay for the wall. Why isn't anyone saying, "Hey, Mr. President, you promised that Mexico would pay for the wall."?

We know Trump does not have the authority to spend Mexico's money, but why doesn't anyone call him on his promise.
Why isn't anyone? You mean like everyone besides the entire freakin internet? The fact that you seem to think this is an original thought is amusing.
  #53  
Old 12-24-2018, 02:42 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,930
Trump has come up with a way to pay for The Wall!

The newest Trumptweet reads as follows:
Quote:
The Wall is different than the 25 Billion Dollars in Border Security. The complete Wall will be built with the Shutdown money plus funds already in hand. The reporting has been inaccurate on the point. The problem is, without the Wall, much of the rest of Dollars are wasted!
How can you support this idiot and not feel shame for yourself?
  #54  
Old 12-24-2018, 05:20 PM
Dandan Dandan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 27
I was just a bit disoriented when I clicked on the link and realized that I wasn't getting a tour of the bunkers of Alabama.

Dan
  #55  
Old 12-27-2018, 06:18 PM
Ancient Erudite Ancient Erudite is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
You’re glossing over the phone call between Trump and Pena Neto where Trump basically begged Mexico to pay for the wall, because otherwise “it would make me [Trump] look so bad and I [the lying dotard] have only been here a week.”

You can’t say that Trump didn’t think he could make Mexico pay for the wall. He literally was groveling and pleading for them to do so, because Trump’s reputation was at stake.

We all know how that’s turned out.

If Trump wanted to, he could make Mexico pay for it. They depend on us for 85% of their exports. Why not just put on a tariff of whatever percentage he might need until the wall is built and paid for?

The U.S. goods trade deficit with Mexico was $71.0 billion in 2017. A 3% tariff a year on that number for 2.5 years would yield over 5 billion dollars. A presidential executive order, though I don't profess to know all of the technical rules should be able to do this. Problem solved, and there is nothing Mexico could say or do about it. They rely on us for business.

Mexicans are the ones exporting the drugs that ruin lives and human trafficking. And its undeniable a portion of the people entering the USA illegally are comment crimes.

If internal politics fail, this is an option that can work. Would consumers really notice a 3% tariff to the consumers? Hardly. We'll the Democrats counter offer. They aren't saying no we won't help Trump fund it, they are crowing about the price tag. Maybe they are okay with say 2 billion, and the tariff would only need to be 1.5% for 2 years. Something like that. I get the sense something will be built.

Last edited by Ancient Erudite; 12-27-2018 at 06:19 PM.
  #56  
Old 12-27-2018, 06:25 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,247
So who exactly is paying; Mexico or indifferent American consumers?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #57  
Old 12-27-2018, 07:18 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 18,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
If Trump wanted to, he could make Mexico pay for it. They depend on us for 85% of their exports. Why not just put on a tariff of whatever percentage he might need until the wall is built and paid for?

The U.S. goods trade deficit with Mexico was $71.0 billion in 2017. A 3% tariff a year on that number for 2.5 years would yield over 5 billion dollars. A presidential executive order, though I don't profess to know all of the technical rules should be able to do this. Problem solved, and there is nothing Mexico could say or do about it. They rely on us for business.
Tariffs increase the cost of goods for consumers; they in no way “...make Mexico pay for it [Wall]”. And the problem is that many of those consumables, materials, and finished goods contribute to the American economy, creating jobs in distribution, retail, final assembly, et cetera. The notion that in applying a tariff you just get to peel off that additional percentage without any impact on the economy is blithely ignorant of the realities of macroeconomics; increasing the end purchaser cost means there will almost certainly be a reduction in sales, thus requiring higher tariffs to achieve the target goal, et cetera, ad ignoratum. This is not “problem solved”; it is “problem created.”

The notion that Mexico is and will always be dependant upon the United States as its primary trading partner is so patently false I’m not sure where to start addressing it. Mexico and the United States enjoy a special arrangement via NAFTA (and the associated NAAEC and NAALC). NAFTA essentially eliminated tariffs, and arbitrarily imposing tariffs on Mexico is invalidating NAFTA. Without that agreement and with the imposition of high tariffs, Mexico may well turn the manufacturing capability it has developed to serving some other burgeoning economic superpower—say, China—which would further weaken the United States and increase its vulnerability in not having privileged access to favorably priced imports. Tariffs are and have always been for one purpose—special government protection of ‘vulnerable’ (i.e. noncompetitive) industries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
Mexicans are the ones exporting the drugs that ruin lives and human trafficking. And its undeniable a portion of the people entering the USA illegally are comment crimes.
Holy shit is that a completely counterfactual statement: Washington Post: Two charts demolish the notion that immigrants here illegally commit more crime

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
If internal politics fail, this is an option that can work. Would consumers really notice a 3% tariff to the consumers? Hardly. We'll the Democrats counter offer. They aren't saying no we won't help Trump fund it, they are crowing about the price tag. Maybe they are okay with say 2 billion, and the tariff would only need to be 1.5% for 2 years. Something like that. I get the sense something will be built.
I tell you what; let’s just have Customs and Border Protection hold a bake sale and use the proceeds to build an ‘stealth’ wall for the ten dollars and forty cents they raise. We can have a ribbon cutting ceremony complete with Humpity Trump bragging that his wall is the best, most beautiful wall ever, and is so stealthy that it cannot be seen even by the naked eye or most advanced radar, lidar, and infrared detection systems. Then we can rest assured that all of the evil-doers hoping to sneak across the border to take our shitty, low-paying jobs cleaning toilets and working in slaughterhouses will be prevented from entering, and then we can focus some legislative effort on actual immigration reform so that honest, hard-working people seeking the same American dream that every single politician in Congress and Donald Drumpf himself benefitted in that their ancestors could come to America to work and build. Or we can continue to listen to the Stephen Millers and Kirstjen Nielsons argue that immigration is some horrible scurge that will destroy society and that “we need ‘Wall’” as the only feasible solution as if we are living in a bad John Carpernter/Kurt Russell movie.

Stranger

Last edited by Stranger On A Train; 12-27-2018 at 07:19 PM.
  #58  
Old 12-27-2018, 09:18 PM
Ancient Erudite Ancient Erudite is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
Tariffs increase the cost of goods for consumers; they in no way “...make Mexico pay for it [Wall]”. And the problem is that many of those consumables, materials, and finished goods contribute to the American economy, creating jobs in distribution, retail, final assembly, et cetera. The notion that in applying a tariff you just get to peel off that additional percentage without any impact on the economy is blithely ignorant of the realities of macroeconomics; increasing the end purchaser cost means there will almost certainly be a reduction in sales, thus requiring higher tariffs to achieve the target goal, et cetera, ad ignoratum. This is not “problem solved”; it is “problem created.”

The notion that Mexico is and will always be dependant upon the United States as its primary trading partner is so patently false I’m not sure where to start addressing it. Mexico and the United States enjoy a special arrangement via NAFTA (and the associated NAAEC and NAALC). NAFTA essentially eliminated tariffs, and arbitrarily imposing tariffs on Mexico is invalidating NAFTA. Without that agreement and with the imposition of high tariffs, Mexico may well turn the manufacturing capability it has developed to serving some other burgeoning economic superpower—say, China—which would further weaken the United States and increase its vulnerability in not having privileged access to favorably priced imports. Tariffs are and have always been for one purpose—special government protection of ‘vulnerable’ (i.e. noncompetitive) industries.

Holy shit is that a completely counterfactual statement: Washington Post: Two charts demolish the notion that immigrants here illegally commit more crime

I tell you what; let’s just have Customs and Border Protection hold a bake sale and use the proceeds to build an ‘stealth’ wall for the ten dollars and forty cents they raise. We can have a ribbon cutting ceremony complete with Humpity Trump bragging that his wall is the best, most beautiful wall ever, and is so stealthy that it cannot be seen even by the naked eye or most advanced radar, lidar, and infrared detection systems. Then we can rest assured that all of the evil-doers hoping to sneak across the border to take our shitty, low-paying jobs cleaning toilets and working in slaughterhouses will be prevented from entering, and then we can focus some legislative effort on actual immigration reform so that honest, hard-working people seeking the same American dream that every single politician in Congress and Donald Drumpf himself benefitted in that their ancestors could come to America to work and build. Or we can continue to listen to the Stephen Millers and Kirstjen Nielsons argue that immigration is some horrible scurge that will destroy society and that “we need ‘Wall’” as the only feasible solution as if we are living in a bad John Carpernter/Kurt Russell movie.

Stranger
Stranger,


1 ) Trump certainly could charge Mexicans an upfront fee for their goods to enter our country if he wanted to. 2% is a small amount for two years. I'd argue our social nets have to pay for way more than what it would cost to build a wall on drug rehab, and medical costs alone. Substance abuse costs our Nation over $600 billion annually, let's be really conservative and say 20 billion of the amount is from hard core Mexcian Drugs. See the ROI? I'm not against work visas mind you.

2 ) My point that some of the people entering the USA illegally are commit crimes is a fact. And these crimes numbers in the tens of thousands. Better border security will lower this number. You can put a price on lives lost, rapes / human trafficking, etc... if you wish. Lately, an illegal immigrant cop killer has been in the news. Trump's failure is not pointing the cameras on the USA victims as it would be very powerful. I'm not going to bother playing my website is better than yours on exactly how much crime is committed, or the rate of the crimes by the illegals as that can vary depending on the source. The Mexican murder rate is even higher than ours, about 5x higher. I'll settle by its a major problem, and be correct.

3 ) 85% of Mexican exports go to the USA. That's a very high number, they need us, and we give them millions in aid.

Last edited by Ancient Erudite; 12-27-2018 at 09:21 PM.
  #59  
Old 12-27-2018, 09:41 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
2 ) My point that some of the people entering the USA illegally are commit crimes is a fact. And these crimes numbers in the tens of thousands. Better border security will lower this number.
Yes, but a wall (the subject of this thread) is not,

https://www.cato.org/publications/co...wall-wont-work
Quote:
To put it most simply, border barriers will never stop illegal immigration, because a wall or fence cannot apprehend crossers. The agents that Fox News spoke to called a wall “meaningless” without agents and technology to back it up. Mayor Michael Gomez of Douglas, Arizona, labeled the fence a failure in 2010, saying “they jump right over it.” Former Border Patrol spokesperson Mike Scioli has called the fence little more than “a speed bump in the desert.”

The Efficacy of a Wall

Trump speaks with absolute certainty of a wall’s ability to repel entries, yet the efficacy of the existing barriers has gone largely unstudied. The president is proposing a project likely to cost tens of billions of dollars and to suck up many other resources, and he is doing so without a single evaluation of the barrier. Obviously, any obstacle to passage will reduce entries at the margin. But would other options work better?

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) of the House Homeland Security Committee failed to obtain an answer to this exact question from the Obama administration. Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) concluded in 2013 that “it would be an inefficient use of taxpayer money to complete the fence,” but he gave no indication of how he evaluated the costs and benefits. A 2016 Migration Policy Institute review of the impact of walls and fences around the world turned up no academic literature specifically on the deterrent effect of physical barriers relative to other technologies or strategies, and concluded somewhat vaguely that walls appear to be “relatively ineffective.”

Fences can have strong local effects, and the case for more fencing often relies completely on these regional outcomes. Take the San Diego border sector, probably the most commonly cited success story in this debate.

From 1990 to 1993, it replaced a “totally ineffective” fence with a taller, opaque landing mat fence along 14 miles of the border. This had little impact on the number of border crossers. “The primary fence, by itself, did not have a discernible impact on the influx of unauthorized aliens coming across the border in San Diego,” the Congressional Research Service concluded.
  #60  
Old 12-27-2018, 10:16 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
Stranger,


1 ) Trump certainly could charge Mexicans an upfront fee for their goods to enter our country if he wanted to. 2% is a small amount for two years. I'd argue our social nets have to pay for way more than what it would cost to build a wall on drug rehab, and medical costs alone. Substance abuse costs our Nation over $600 billion annually, let's be really conservative and say 20 billion of the amount is from hard core Mexcian Drugs. See the ROI? I'm not against work visas mind you.

2 ) My point that some of the people entering the USA illegally are commit crimes is a fact. And these crimes numbers in the tens of thousands. Better border security will lower this number. You can put a price on lives lost, rapes / human trafficking, etc... if you wish. Lately, an illegal immigrant cop killer has been in the news. Trump's failure is not pointing the cameras on the USA victims as it would be very powerful. I'm not going to bother playing my website is better than yours on exactly how much crime is committed, or the rate of the crimes by the illegals as that can vary depending on the source. The Mexican murder rate is even higher than ours, about 5x higher. I'll settle by its a major problem, and be correct.

3 ) 85% of Mexican exports go to the USA. That's a very high number, they need us, and we give them millions in aid.
Whether or not Trump could do this (I'm less than convinced), he hasn't. He's failed to get Mexico to pay for the wall, and is now trying to get American taxpayers to fund it. And he fails to realize that the Democrats in Congress have zero incentive to cooperate.
  #61  
Old 12-27-2018, 10:27 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
3 ) 85% of Mexican exports go to the USA. That's a very high number, they need us, and we give them millions in aid.
As noted earlier in this thread, the vast majority of the aid we "give" to Mexico is devoted to purposes that are directly important to the US, such as fighting illegal drug trafficking. Withdrawing that funding would just be cutting off our own nose to spite Mexico's face.

And as Stranger pointed out, the chief reason that Mexico sends us most of their exports is because of the advantageous terms established by the North American FREE Trade Agreement or NAFTA. If the US pigheadedly insists on imposing tariffs on Mexican goods, contrary to the intent of NAFTA, then Mexico will no longer have a financial incentive to send most of their goods to us rather than elsewhere. They don't "need" us as a primary trade partner if we're not giving them a better deal than they can get from somebody else.
  #62  
Old 12-27-2018, 10:37 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,592
And $5 billion is just a down payment. All it gets you is a half finished project. If you are considering the amount of tariffs you’d need to extract the cost, you ought to factor in the total cost, in addition to reconsidering who would be most impacted by that tariff.

Last edited by Moriarty; 12-27-2018 at 10:38 PM.
  #63  
Old 12-27-2018, 11:30 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 18,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
1 ) Trump certainly could charge Mexicans an upfront fee for their goods to enter our country if he wanted to. 2% is a small amount for two years. I'd argue our social nets have to pay for way more than what it would cost to build a wall on drug rehab, and medical costs alone. Substance abuse costs our Nation over $600 billion annually, let's be really conservative and say 20 billion of the amount is from hard core Mexcian Drugs. See the ROI? I'm not against work visas mind you.
You seem to have no idea what a tariff (tax) actually is and who pays it. In almost all cases, the importer pays the tariff, so it is a tax on importer/distributors that is generally passed onto the consumer in the guise of higher prices. Mexico won’t pay shit for any wall; the people paying for it are the people whose lifestyle depends on inexpensive goods coming from a cheap labor market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
2 ) My point that some of the people entering the USA illegally are commit crimes is a fact. And these crimes numbers in the tens of thousands. Better border security will lower this number. You can put a price on lives lost, rapes / human trafficking, etc... if you wish. Lately, an illegal immigrant cop killer has been in the news. Trump's failure is not pointing the cameras on the USA victims as it would be very powerful. I'm not going to bother playing my website is better than yours on exactly how much crime is committed, or the rate of the crimes by the illegals as that can vary depending on the source. The Mexican murder rate is even higher than ours, about 5x higher. I'll settle by its a major problem, and be correct.
You are not correct. Every metric and measure of crime by immigrants (documented and undocumented) is lower than by the citizen population by a wide margin. And the crimes that are most typical among undocumented immigrants—domestic violence and other forms of spousal and child abuse—are exacerbated by the unwillingness of undocumented immigrants to cooperate with authorities out of a very legitimate fear of being deported even if they are a victim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
3 ) 85% of Mexican exports go to the USA. That's a very high number, they need us, and we give them millions in aid.
Those exports go to the United States not because they need us but because we need them, hence NAFTA and the replacement United States—Mexico—Canada Agreement (when and if ratified) in order to be able to maintain a consumer lifestyle in which cheap manufactured goods are readily available. If the United States elected to put an onerous tariff on these goods that made the products unappealing to consumers, Mexico could turn around and sell goods to other emerging great economies with consumers looking for inexpensive products and growing labor costs, e.g. China, Korea, et cetera.

You don’t actually seem to know much about the topics of tariffs and trade, and appear resistant to being educated, but if you’d like to know more: the non-partisan Tax Policy Center [URL=https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/what-tariff-and-who-pays-it]”What Is A Tariff And Who Pays It?”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
And $5 billion is just a down payment. All it gets you is a half finished project. If you are considering the amount of tariffs you’d need to extract the cost, you ought to factor in the total cost, in addition to reconsidering who would be most impacted by that tariff.
US$5B isn’t even half-finished. The costs on a comprehensive sea-to-sea wall are likely something more like US$30B to US$50B, and even then there are going to be areas where creating a permanent physical barrier is going to be extremely challenging. US$5B might not even cover annual surveillance and upkeep. And the reality is that we need immigrants not only for the inexpensive labor they provide but for the young wage earners and taxpayers they create in order to provide a sustainable economy and labor for services where automation is unlikely to significantly replace human effort, e.g. child care, health care, elder care, construction, et cetera.

“Wall” is just a dumb idea that serves as a distraction from getting to the actual work of immigration reform so that we can let in the people that will be real contributors and weed out those few who are trying in some way to game the system or who pose a threat.

Stranger
  #64  
Old 12-28-2018, 01:02 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
Stranger,


1 ) Trump certainly could charge Mexicans an upfront fee for their goods to enter our country if he wanted to. 2% is a small amount for two years. ...
A 2% Tariff on mexican goods would mean us Americans pay it. The merchants would simply raise their prices 2%. That's how tariffs operate in the real economy.

Last edited by DrDeth; 12-28-2018 at 01:02 AM.
  #65  
Old 12-28-2018, 01:39 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,247
I'm a tad bemused by the notion that Mexico is sending goods (and drugs) into the U.S. just for the hell of it and the U.S. government can charge them a fee for the privilege of doing so. Those items are coming to the U.S. because Americans want them and are willing to buy them, and putting barriers in the way just raises the prices for those Americans.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #66  
Old 12-28-2018, 06:59 AM
penultima thule penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
1 ) Trump certainly could charge Mexicans an upfront fee for their goods to enter our country if he wanted to.
As others have pointed out, you haven't grasped what tariffs or for that matter what imports are.

There isn't a Mexican government store in downtown Las Vegas selling this Mexican owned stuff out of a warehouse.

It is being imported by American businesses, for demand by American consumers. If the tariff is 2% or 200% it's added to the cost of goods and passed on to the consumer. The other countries exporting to the US will bump up their prices by the equivalent of the tariff as will every US manufacturer.

Every cent of the increased import cost is borne by US consumers. The tariff may cost Mexican exporters but any differential isn't paid to the US Treasury.

If the tariff is sufficient to make Mexican sourced goods less competitive then (if volumes can't be placed into other markets) the worst that will happen to Mexico will be falls in factory production and with it wages and employment increasing the socioeconomic incentives to migrate legally or otherwise to the US.

It might is a simple notion that's easily sold, but it's counterproductive to both sides of the trade, and worse for the US than Mexico.
  #67  
Old 12-28-2018, 09:27 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,143
With the usual Dopers complaining about the Wall, it seems fair to listen to a paean to the Wall, sung by one of the orange man's supporters.
__________________
andros had more faith in an American jury than I had; and he was right. I'm happy to lose a bet and hope this trend continues.
  #68  
Old 12-28-2018, 09:37 AM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,430
On a more sombre note, https://www.google.com/search?q=why+...hrome&ie=UTF-8
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #69  
Old 12-28-2018, 02:00 PM
Ancient Erudite Ancient Erudite is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Whether or not Trump could do this (I'm less than convinced), he hasn't. He's failed to get Mexico to pay for the wall, and is now trying to get American taxpayers to fund it. And he fails to realize that the Democrats in Congress have zero incentive to cooperate.


I don't think Trump supporters judge him on what he says on a campaign or cares about fact-checking. They clamor for his vision and results first and foremost. Almost all politicians of stature by the nature of the business have moments when they say something and it doesn't happen, or they change their initial opinions.

I have never met anyone for illegal immigration or a person that denies the problems that come with it.

Is 5 billion dollars really a lot of money? Obama's stimulus was somewhere in the neighborhood of 800 billion dollars. Did it build anything? I recall the former President saying there are shovel-ready projects, only to retract it by saying I guess they weren't so shovel ready. Something like that.

With Trump, if he gets the money approved, I do believe he will build a wall for better border security. The ROI on the wall for the problems with drugs alone would come quickly, overall crime from illegal immigration would go down, and so would human trafficking.

So what's the problem? I'll tell you, even though Chuck Schumer was for better border security when Obama was president, I believe Democrats fear that by giving Trump a signature win, he'll be harder defeat in 2020.
  #70  
Old 12-28-2018, 02:05 PM
Ancient Erudite Ancient Erudite is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
A 2% Tariff on mexican goods would mean us Americans pay it. The merchants would simply raise their prices 2%. That's how tariffs operate in the real economy.

Consumers are not forced to buy anything. Call it a tax, a fee, whatever you wish. 2% for 2 years will not be noticed unless your buying things in bulk

But talking about the real economy, how much of it does the USA government spend for the problems illegal imitation, drug trafficking, crimes, and such. Give me your best guess.

I'd venture to say a 5 billion dollar investment the taxpayers would see an ROI in a few years, so if you want to talk about how much of the taxpayer money goes to welfare to support illegals before sending them home, security, drug rehab, you name it on the above problems, economically speaking building the wall makes sense.

Last edited by Ancient Erudite; 12-28-2018 at 02:06 PM.
  #71  
Old 12-28-2018, 02:07 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
Almost all politicians of stature by the nature of the business have moments when they say something and it doesn't happen, or they change their initial opinions.
Trump's moment has been running constantly for almost two years now. It might be a record.

Quote:
With Trump, if he gets the money approved, I do believe he will build a wall for better border security. The ROI on the wall for the problems with drugs alone would come quickly, overall crime from illegal immigration would go down, and so would human trafficking.
I get that your gut is telling you this, because I haven't seen any evidence that would convince your brain.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #72  
Old 12-28-2018, 02:11 PM
beowulff's Avatar
beowulff beowulff is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Scottsdale, more-or-less
Posts: 16,207
When is someone going to point out the real reason Trump wants the wall?

It's obvious he gives fuck-all about "border security." All he is interested in doing is building something he can put his name on.
So far, he has accomplished nothing constructive in his administration. This would be his legacy.
  #73  
Old 12-28-2018, 02:12 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
I don't think Trump supporters judge him on what he says on a campaign or cares about fact-checking. They clamor for his vision and results first and foremost.
How do Trump supporters even know what his "vision" is without paying attention to what he says? And how do you evaluate his "results" without at least some fact-checking?

I suspect what you really mean is that Trump supporters just enjoy hearing the rhetorical demagoguery he pulls out of his ass and don't like having their buzz harshed by comparing it to reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite
Obama's stimulus was somewhere in the neighborhood of 800 billion dollars. Did it build anything?
Do you really need somebody else to look this up for you?
Quote:
[...] Infrastructure investment
Total: $105.3 billion [...]

Transportation [...]
Total: $48.1 billion,[44] some in the form of Transportation Income Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Grants

$27.5 billion for highway and bridge construction projects
$8 billion for intercity passenger rail projects and rail congestion grants, with priority for high-speed rail
$6.9 billion for new equipment for public transportation projects (Federal Transit Administration)
$1.5 billion for national surface transportation discretionary grants
$1.3 billion for Amtrak
$1.1 billion in grants for airport improvements
$750 million for the construction of new public rail transportation systems and other fixed guideway systems.
$750 million for the maintenance of existing public transportation systems
$200 million for FAA upgrades to air traffic control centers and towers, facilities, and equipment
$100 million in grants for improvements to domestic shipyards
Water, sewage, environment, and public lands
Total: $18 billion

$4.6 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers for environmental restoration, flood protection, hydropower, and navigation infrastructure projects
$4 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund wastewater treatment infrastructure improvements (EPA)
$2 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund drinking water infrastructure improvements (EPA)
$1.38 billion for rural drinking water and waste disposal projects
$1 billion to the Bureau of Reclamation for drinking water projects for rural or drought-likely areas
$750 million to the National Park Service
$650 million to the Forest Service
$600 million for hazardous waste cleanup at Superfund sites (EPA)
$515 million for wildfire prevention projects
$500 million for Bureau of Indian Affairs infrastructure projects
$340 million to the Natural Resources Conservation Service for watershed infrastructure projects
$320 million to the Bureau of Land Management
$300 million for reductions in emissions from diesel engines (EPA)
$300 million to improve Land Ports of Entry (GSA)
$280 million for National Wildlife Refuges and the National Fish Hatchery System
$220 million to the International Boundary and Water Commission to repair flood control systems along the Rio Grande
$200 million for cleanup of leaking Underground Storage Tanks (EPA)
$100 million for cleaning former industrial and commercial sites (Brownfields) (EPA)
Government buildings and facilities[edit]

Total: $7.2 billion

$4.2 billion to repair and modernize Defense Department facilities.
$890 million to improve housing for service members
$750 million for federal buildings and U.S. Courthouses (GSA)
$250 million to improve Job Corps training facilities
$240 million for new child development centers
$240 million for the maintenance of United States Coast Guard facilities
$200 million for Department of Homeland Security headquarters
$176 million for Agriculture Research Service repairs and improvements
$150 million for the construction of state extended-care facilities
$100 million to improve facilities of the National Guard

[...] Housing
Total: $14.7 billion

$4 billion to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for repairing and modernizing public housing, including increasing the energy efficiency of units.
$2.25 billion in tax credits for financing low-income housing construction
$2 billion for Section 8 housing rental assistance
$2 billion for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program to purchase and repair foreclosed vacant housing
$1.5 billion for rental assistance to prevent homelessness
$1 billion in community development block grants for state and local governments
$555 million in mortgage assistance for wounded service members (Army Corps of Engineers)
$510 million for the rehabilitation of Native American housing
$250 million for energy efficient modernization of low-income housing
$200 million for helping rural Americans buy homes (Department of Agriculture)
$140 million in grants for independent living centers for elderly blind persons (Dept. of Education)
$130 million for rural community facilities (Department of Agriculture)
$100 million to help remove lead paint from public housing
$100 million emergency food and shelter for homeless (Department of Homeland Security) [...]
  #74  
Old 12-28-2018, 02:12 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
Consumers are not forced to buy anything. Call it a tax, a fee, whatever you wish. 2% for 2 years will not be noticed unless your buying things in bulk
Hey, you know who buys things in bulk? Manufacturers do, and if their costs suddenly jump 2%, they definitely notice and typically respond by laying people off as well as raising prices. End consumers might not notice the price increase, assuming they're not the ones who got laid off.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #75  
Old 12-28-2018, 02:17 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
I don't think Trump supporters judge him on what he says on a campaign or cares about fact-checking. They clamor for his vision and results first and foremost. Almost all politicians of stature by the nature of the business have moments when they say something and it doesn't happen, or they change their initial opinions.

I have never met anyone for illegal immigration or a person that denies the problems that come with it.

Is 5 billion dollars really a lot of money? Obama's stimulus was somewhere in the neighborhood of 800 billion dollars. Did it build anything? I recall the former President saying there are shovel-ready projects, only to retract it by saying I guess they weren't so shovel ready. Something like that.
Or something else, as usual a lot of what you are relying on was the Republican propaganda against anything the government did to help.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/o...omplished.html
Quote:
The legacy of that policy, detailed by the White House last week in its final report on the effects of the stimulus, affects virtually every American who drives, uses mass transit, or drinks water. It improved 42,000 miles of road, fixed or replaced 2,700 bridges, and bought more than 12,000 transit vehicles. It cleaned up water supplies, created the school reforms of the Race to the Top program, and greatly expanded the use of renewable energy and broadband Internet service.

It’s probably too late for the White House to persuade skeptics about its program, but its assessment echoes the views of many independent economists and the independent Congressional Budget Office. “The Recovery Act was not a failed program,” the C.B.O.’s director, Douglas Elmendorf, told annoyed Republican lawmakers in 2012. “Our position is that it created higher output and employment than would have occurred without it.”

Government spending worked, helping millions of people who never realized it. And it can work again, whenever lawmakers agree that putting people to work is more important than winning ideological fights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
With Trump, if he gets the money approved, I do believe he will build a wall for better border security. The ROI on the wall for the problems with drugs alone would come quickly, overall crime from illegal immigration would go down, and so would human trafficking.
Uh, No. More likely is that like Arpaio did in Arizona by concentrating on ideological things like walls and hunting immigrants for driving around, more pressing needs like hunting rape criminals suffered because of budget priorities that were set that way so as to make the Arizona bigots happy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
So what's the problem? I'll tell you, even though Chuck Schumer was for better border security when Obama was president, I believe Democrats fear that by giving Trump a signature win, he'll be harder defeat in 2020.
Nonsense, considering that thanks to the latest fight about the wall Trump is getting more unpopular in the polls and in the past elections the Democrats won the house also by disparaging the wall.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 12-28-2018 at 02:19 PM.
  #76  
Old 12-28-2018, 02:23 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
2% for 2 years will not be noticed unless your buying things in bulk
As Bryan Ekers pointed out, manufacturers and wholesalers do buy things in bulk, and their purchases make up the vast majority of our imports from Mexico.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite
I'd venture to say a 5 billion dollar investment the taxpayers would see an ROI in a few years, so if you want to talk about how much of the taxpayer money goes to welfare to support illegals before sending them home, security, drug rehab, you name it on the above problems, economically speaking building the wall makes sense.
Only if you "venture" to assume, entirely unrealistically, that a $5B wall would actually be effective in substantially reducing illegal immigration and its costs. Which it would not.

For the nth time: Most of the people known as "illegal immigrants" entered the US LEGALLY. Even a physically effective border wall---which your proposed $5B boondoggle would not be---would have absolutely zero effect on the millions of undocumented residents who originally entered the country on a legally valid visa.
  #77  
Old 12-28-2018, 03:37 PM
Kropotkin Kropotkin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: North
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
The Pakistan-Afghanistan border wall currently under construction, has a cost estimate under a Billion USD. In much worse terrain.
Admittedly costs of work are lower,but not by that much.
As noted above, it’s a wire fence, not a wall, runs about 2,000 kilometres, not 2,000 miles, and the daily minimum wage in Pakistan is about $3.70 a day. Even doubling that for skilled fence builders is less than $8/day rather than whatever figure you care to plug in for the hourly rate for building the US wall.

Whatever you figure the cost of the US wall might be, what kind of projects would you rather see that money go to? Would it be better invested in education? Usable infrastructure? Health? Awesome wifi connectivity? Businesses that would create sustainable jobs and training? Free beer for everyone?
  #78  
Old 12-28-2018, 04:20 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
I don't think Trump supporters judge him on what he says on a campaign or cares about fact-checking.
<snip>

This speaks very poorly of Trump supporters, if true.

Quote:
With Trump, if he gets the money approved, I do believe he will build a wall for better border security. The ROI on the wall for the problems with drugs alone would come quickly, overall crime from illegal immigration would go down, and so would human trafficking.
I see no reason to believe any of this is likely to be true. This sounds like magical thinking. The wall would be symbolic, and that's about it. It would serve as, at most, a very minor challenge in an already-very-difficult journey for those who seek to cross illegally.

Quote:
So what's the problem? I'll tell you, even though Chuck Schumer was for better border security when Obama was president, I believe Democrats fear that by giving Trump a signature win, he'll be harder defeat in 2020.
The problem is that the Democrats have literally zero incentive to cooperate. Their supporters oppose the wall as a symbol of stupidity and hatred. They were voted into office largely to oppose Trump. The only Americans who strongly support the wall are already in Trump's camp, and the Democrats have no likelihood of gaining their support. And polling shows that the public is largely blaming this shutdown on Trump. So from a political perspective, the shutdown helps the Democrats and hurts Trump, and capitulating to Trump would hurt the Democrats politically and help Trump.
  #79  
Old 12-30-2018, 09:46 AM
enipla enipla is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 13,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by beowulff View Post
When is someone going to point out the real reason Trump wants the wall?

It's obvious he gives fuck-all about "border security." All he is interested in doing is building something he can put his name on.
So far, he has accomplished nothing constructive in his administration. This would be his legacy.
You got it in one.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #80  
Old 12-30-2018, 09:05 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post

Do you really need somebody else to look this up for you?
So, what did he spend the other 7 trillion on during his presidency? Just curious.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #81  
Old 12-30-2018, 10:52 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
So, what did he spend the other 7 trillion on during his presidency? Just curious.
Pretty much exactly what Trump is spending on now.
  #82  
Old 12-31-2018, 02:13 AM
guizot guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Do you really need somebody else to look this up for you?
That doesn’t count, because it wasn’t on Fox.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
So, what did he spend the other 7 trillion on during his presidency? Just curious.
Right. Because the President sits there alone and decides how each dollar is spent. He was up all night writing checks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beowulff View Post
When is someone going to point out the real reason Trump wants the wall?
As I mentioned in another thread, Trump doesn’t really want a wall, or care if it's actually built. (If he really cared about getting an actual wall built, he has had opportunities to make it happen before, but he doesn’t take those opportunities.)

All Trump wants is the rhetorical battle around the wall, and the optics that provides. We can't understand this situation if we don't realize this.
  #83  
Old 12-31-2018, 07:15 AM
upend upend is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
If by "you" you mean Steve McQueen.
to be fair he didnt jump it.
  #84  
Old 12-31-2018, 06:05 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
If Trump wanted to, he could make Mexico pay for it. They depend on us for 85% of their exports. Why not just put on a tariff of whatever percentage he might need until the wall is built and paid for?

Maybe he can get your pyramid aliens to help build it.
  #85  
Old 12-31-2018, 06:34 PM
SigMan SigMan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 853
The wall is a joke. Just put the soldiers on border and let them shoot them on sight. Words will get around.

Anyway, why are we sending money to Mexico? Why don't we fix our own problems and them theirs?
  #86  
Old 12-31-2018, 10:20 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by guizot View Post
Right. Because the President sits there alone and decides how each dollar is spent. He was up all night writing checks.
so only legislation with his name on it counts and none from his party?

Quote:
Originally Posted by guizot View Post
As I mentioned in another thread, Trump doesn’t really want a wall, or care if it's actually built. (If he really cared about getting an actual wall built, he has had opportunities to make it happen before, but he doesn’t take those opportunities.)
All Trump wants is the rhetorical battle around the wall, and the optics that provides. We can't understand this situation if we don't realize this.
So Obama and HRC were looking for a rhetorical battle when they voted money for the wall? Those bastards.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #87  
Old 12-31-2018, 11:29 PM
scr4 scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 15,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by SigMan View Post
Anyway, why are we sending money to Mexico? Why don't we fix our own problems and them theirs?
We do. That's why we send the money to Mexico - to fix our problems.
  #88  
Old 01-01-2019, 09:50 AM
Ruken Ruken is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
I'd venture to say a 5 billion dollar investment the taxpayers would see an ROI in a few years
How about you venture to show us a real cost benefit analysis with verifiable numbers. Let's see your math.

Of course you won't show us this because you don't have one and don't actually know what the relevant data are. But it will be fun to either see you try or avoid backing up your "venture" entirely.
  #89  
Old 01-01-2019, 09:56 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
You liberals are so cute, with your antiquated notions like "Facts Matter."
  #90  
Old 01-01-2019, 11:04 AM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by SigMan View Post
The wall is a joke. Just put the soldiers on border and let them shoot them on sight. Words will get around.

Anyway, why are we sending money to Mexico? Why don't we fix our own problems and them theirs?
"Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States!"
- Porfirio Diaz
  #91  
Old 01-01-2019, 11:16 AM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
so only legislation with his name on it counts and none from his party?

So Obama and HRC were looking for a rhetorical battle when they voted money for the wall? Those bastards.
Why don’t you do us all a favor and define what wall you and Trump are talking about?

After all, we know that the border with Mexico has oodles of barriers of many kinds stretching across hundreds of miles. These barriers have been extremely effective since the number of illegals entering the country has been dropping for years. Now, we can probably agree that these barriers could use some improvements, and that’s why the Republicans voted $1.3 billion for it in the CR. But that’s not the “wall.” Trump says so. So nothing anybody has voted on in the past counts for the purpose of defining the wall. Trump wants $5 billion to pay for something. What is that something? We all know that the something is not a full wall across the southern border. Everybody on every side of the issue agrees that the cost of the wall would be many times that amount. Trump wants the money for some teeny tiny piece that by his own definition won’t stop illegal entrance. What is that piece? Is it a concrete wall? John Kelly says that a concrete wall was abandoned by Trump a long time ago. And Trump sometimes calls the wall a fence. Kellyanne Conway used that as a defense of Trump. Yet Trump repudiated her, saying that his wall will be concrete. Which doesn’t match up with the steel slats he tweeted about, along with an actual picture of actual steel slats that he described as being see-through and declared that attribute to be a great help to the border patrol. Are steel slats the wall now? Are the spaces in between going to be filled in with concrete? Will they stretch to fit all the miles needed to make up the unpaid for gaps? Is the wall just a metaphor, as Lindsey Graham suggests?

[Soap]"Confused? You won't be, after Magiver explains to us in full and complete detail what’s in Trump’s head on the next episode of Dope."[/Soap]
  #92  
Old 01-01-2019, 12:07 PM
guizot guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
So Obama and HRC were looking for a rhetorical battle when they voted money for the wall?
No, they weren't. That's the difference. They didn't run around the country chanting "build the wall" to squeak through their elections. For Trump, it's the main act of his dog-and-pony show.
  #93  
Old 01-02-2019, 06:49 AM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
....[Soap]"Confused? You won't be, after Magiver explains to us in full and complete detail what’s in Trump’s head on the next episode of Dope."[/Soap]
What would be appropriate? A "spoiler alert", maybe? Maybe a "parental advisory", if my son calls me and warns me not to look.
  #94  
Old 01-02-2019, 08:47 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
So Obama and HRC were looking for a rhetorical battle when they voted money for the wall? Those bastards.
By this standard, Democrats have already funded the wall. Why do we need to build it again, and NOT HAVE MEXICO PAY FOR IT?
  #95  
Old 01-02-2019, 01:48 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
By this standard, Democrats have already funded the wall. Why do we need to build it again, and NOT HAVE MEXICO PAY FOR IT?
From the articles in the Times today, it seems that this funding never got passed since it was tied in to some immigration reform which the Republicans torpedoed.
  #96  
Old 01-02-2019, 01:58 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
From the articles in the Times today, it seems that this funding never got passed since it was tied in to some immigration reform which the Republicans torpedoed.
Different issue. Obama and Clinton voted for "wall" funding before Trump was in office. Ergo, the first wall was already funded.

Last edited by Ravenman; 01-02-2019 at 01:59 PM.
  #97  
Old 01-02-2019, 02:02 PM
BeenJammin's Avatar
BeenJammin BeenJammin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizerta View Post
Why isn't anyone saying, "Hey, Mr. President, you promised that Mexico would pay for the wall."?
Why isn't anyone around here smart enough to realize "the Wall" is just a euphemism for immigration and border security policy? Trump's base surely isn't. But it is a simple concept easily understood by people who otherwise get easily confused by complicated issues.

Dems should take a lesson.
  #98  
Old 01-02-2019, 02:07 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeenJammin View Post
Why isn't anyone around here smart enough to realize "the Wall" is just a euphemism for immigration and border security policy? Trump's base surely isn't. But it is a simple concept easily understood by people who otherwise get easily confused by complicated issues.

Dems should take a lesson.

If the debate was actually about putting more sensors and so on at the border, Dems would -- and have -- voted for that in substantial numbers. No, the issue is a physical wall.

It can't be a euphemism when the guy proposing it talks about specific designs -- from thirty feet high concrete walls, to now it's some babble about steel slats.

In reality, "the Wall" is a euphemism for racism against poor wretches fleeing horrific violence. It's a euphemism for "Fuck you, go die in your own country because we don't want your kind here."
  #99  
Old 01-02-2019, 02:43 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 18,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeenJammin View Post
Why isn't anyone around here smart enough to realize "the Wall" is just a euphemism for immigration and border security policy? Trump's base surely isn't. But it is a simple concept easily understood by people who otherwise get easily confused by complicated issues.

Dems should take a lesson.
“We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.”

Stranger
  #100  
Old 01-02-2019, 02:52 PM
BeenJammin's Avatar
BeenJammin BeenJammin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by K364 View Post
I have some basic questions:

There must be some kind of fence or wall in place now. How effective is it?

If it is not 100% effective, then how bad is the problem, and is it worth spending billions on fixing it?

(Trump wants 5B, but that's just the start)
I suggest a better question might be: Does anyone actually understand the real cost of maintaining effective border security? On ANY border?

The answer is as always of course, it depends. Apparently nobody in government can agree on the definition of that concept in terms of Federal budgetary constraints. So we make it a campaign issue, get everybody gen'd up one way or another and the problem just gets worse.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017