🇺🇸 Discussion: The DEMOCRATIC P - Part 3

[The Overlord]

This was this past week.

Also, The Worst Provision in the Funding Bill

I am not sure I trust that website, I think some of what they say is highly dubious:

Can a Wall Pay for Itself?: An Update

For conservatives, they always seem to propose things that ''pay for themselves'', but never do, like upper-class tax cuts and the war in Iraq.

Will Trump’s Wall Pay for Itself? - FactCheck.org

I question their numbers and their objectivity. You can't say on hand ''we can't afford this'' and the other says ''do not worry, this massively expensive thing will pay for itself''.

What if you guys are wrong and the wall does not pay for itself, then what? Will you just shrug? I don't buy these arguments, because I think conservatives cherry pick what is wasteful spending and what will ''pay for itself'' based on ideology, rather than facts.

 

[2kt09]

I am not sure I trust that website, I think some of what they say is highly dubious:

Can a Wall Pay for Itself?: An Update

For conservatives, they always seem to propose things that ''pay for themselves'', but never do, like upper-class tax cuts and the war in Iraq.

Will Trump’s Wall Pay for Itself? - FactCheck.org

I question their numbers and their objectivity. You can't say on hand ''we can't afford this'' and the other says ''do not worry, this massively expensive thing will pay for itself''.

What if you guys are wrong and the wall does not pay for itself, then what? Will you just shrug? I don't buy these arguments, because I think conservatives cherry pick what is wasteful spending and what will ''pay for itself'' based on ideology, rather than facts.

It's discretionary spending of which the US can apparently afford $1.3 trillion, 30% of total annual spending. The argument is long-term benefit. Less people to deport if a physical barrier is effective. Less money needed to fund border security because it goes into maintenance rather than policing.
All of this is moot given "Congress is back at it with a last-minute, massive spending bill that no one will have time to read." So, whomever the few legislators that write those up have all the power to debate/discuss while everyone else has to do a mad dash to get it passed. So, they're spending money with as little time possible to think about what they're spending.

 

[MaceB]

It's discretionary spending of which the US can apparently afford $1.3 trillion, 30% of total annual spending. The argument is long-term benefit. Less people to deport if a physical barrier is effective. Less money needed to fund border security because it goes into maintenance rather than policing.
All of this is moot given "Congress is back at it with a last-minute, massive spending bill that no one will have time to read." So, whomever the few legislators that write those up have all the power to debate/discuss while everyone else has to do a mad dash to get it passed. So, they're spending money with as little time possible to think about what they're spending.

There is no compelling evidence that an unmanned wall will significantly reduce our illegal immigration problem. And we'll still have to deport people who overstay their VISAs, which is the bulk of the problem. The wall will have to be manned to be effective, and it certainly won't pay for itself.

And wait? You're saying that If we put up the wall, that means we can allocate less money for immigration police? Someone better tell Republicans that. Why do I think that many don't know that's part of the deal? Folks are crazy if they think Republican congressmen are going to approve less spending for border police.

Meanwhile.... I still haven't seen any definitive estimates on how much the wall would actually cost. How effective it's predicted to be. Nothing. There's no evidence on this thing. And you're complaining about folks pushing something through? The Wall hasn't even gone through committee. There's no accountability on this project right now. It's all based on the President's word... a President... by the way.. who can't seem to stick with actual statistics on the topic to save his life.

 

[The Overlord]

It's discretionary spending of which the US can apparently afford $1.3 trillion, 30% of total annual spending. The argument is long-term benefit. Less people to deport if a physical barrier is effective. Less money needed to fund border security because it goes into maintenance rather than policing.
All of this is moot given "Congress is back at it with a last-minute, massive spending bill that no one will have time to read." So, whomever the few legislators that write those up have all the power to debate/discuss while everyone else has to do a mad dash to get it passed. So, they're spending money with as little time possible to think about what they're spending.

Wasn't the Iraq war supposed to pay for itself too?

Well if conservatives can support the massive waste seen in defense spending, I guess a little more wasteful spending on this stupid border wall is nothing, right?

What if you spend the 20 billion to build the wall, the untold sums to upkeep it, seize people's land and cause environmental damage on the border and it does not provide any benefits, then what?

Why the Wall Won't Work

March 08, 2017: Five Problems Trump’s Wall Won’t Solve, According to Professor Emeritus Michael Dear

Trump's border wall would stop less than half of illegal immigration in the U.S.

This is a solution a child would come up with, not based in reality, frankly the fact that we have discuss such a childish thing, makes me wonder how serious some people are solving real problems. I think most conservatives have no serious desire to confront the realities of why American society is so wasteful.

 

[2kt09]

There is no compelling evidence that an unmanned wall will significantly reduce our illegal immigration problem. And we'll still have to deport people who overstay their VISAs, which is the bulk of the problem. The wall will have to be manned to be effective, and it certainly won't pay for itself.

And wait? You're saying that If we put up the wall, that means we can allocate less money for immigration police? Someone better tell Republicans that. Why do I think that many don't know that's part of the deal? Folks are crazy if they think Republican congressmen are going to approve less spending for border police.

Meanwhile.... I still haven't seen any definitive estimates on how much the wall would actually cost. How effective it's predicted to be. Nothing. There's no evidence on this thing. And you're complaining about folks pushing something through? The Wall hasn't even gone through committee. There's no accountability on this project right now. It's all based on the President's word... a President... by the way.. who can't seem to stick with actual statistics on the topic to save his life.

It's a physical barrier that physically stops from entering vs no physical barrier

Manned walls mean as little as security cams.
Tell that to Democrats as well. They agreed to pass that spending bill for wall money so it did go through committee...They also reduced funds for policing.

The total cost reported from everywhere from liberal & conservative media would apparently equate taxing the 10% at 70%, ~70 bil.

 

[MaceB]

Unmanned walls don't physically stop them from entering. They can get ladders or dig tunnels.

Manned walls are the most effective if you are enforcing zero immigration. Much more than security cams. So in order to make the wall effective, we'd have to man it. Can you imagine what that new cost would be?

The security border deal that was recently passed allots no funds for a concrete wall. Zero. It pays for barriers that are similar to the ones passed under Obama. But is partial fencing a wall now? I'm confused. If I were to put an 8ft wide slab in front of my garage, can I really say "look at the new wall around my property?" Of course not. A wall isn't a wall, unless it's enclosed. A wall is defined as: a continuous vertical brick or stone structure that encloses an area of land.

The total cost of the wall would equate to 10% of what taxing 70% of what? There has been no definitive number on how much a complete border wall would cost. News outlets wouldn't even know such a thing. That's up to the government to project, which they haven't.

Could you cite again where you're finding this reduction in border policing funds? The new bill:

• $30 million for family case management support.
• $192 million for a new Customs and Border Protection processing and holding site in El Paso, Texas
• ICE gets 112 new health staff at detention facilities.
• An increase of $95 million over last year for “custody operations” (a 3 percent increase over last year).
• Funding for 50 new judges over last year’s amount.
• $128 million for medical staff for Customs and Border Protection
• Funds 200 border patrol agents who were hired earlier this year.
  
• Funds 600 new customs agents for this year. The bill also funds additional recruiting to help fill some 600 open slots.
  
• Funds space to detain a daily average of 45,274 people for the year.
  
• A 22-percent increase in alternatives to detention program.

 

[Travesty]

Walls don't physically stop them from entering. They can get ladders or dig tunnels.

Yes, but Conservatives know this. This isn't going to persuade them. They don't see the wall as some impenetrable force, they see it as a deterrent. The analogy they always tell me, is that it's similar to locking your door. Yes, a robber can still bust your door down, pick the lock, bust a window, etc, but at the end of the day, you still lock your door at night. Your door isn't impenetrable, but its still a deterrent from robbers getting in.

 

[MaceB]

That's fair, but then let's see some statistics on how much unmanned walls actually deter border crossers. So like, illegal border crossing is... let's say... 30% of all illegal immigration in the US. And the wall will deter... let's say... 50%? That seems generous. Keep in mind that these folks aren't trying to steal your DVD player... they're fleeing violence. It's hard to believe that they'd let an easily thwarted, unmanned wall get in their way. And out of those deterred, how many are violent offenders versus fleeing families? So we're talking about a wall that will deter 15% of illegal immigration... half of which might be needy families.

And we have no idea how much the total wall will cost. So saying it pays for itself certainly seems silly to me.

 

[2kt09]

Could you cite again where you're finding this reduction in border policing funds? The new bill:

• $30 million for family case management support.
• $192 million for a new Customs and Border Protection processing and holding site in El Paso, Texas
• ICE gets 112 new health staff at detention facilities.
• An increase of $95 million over last year for “custody operations” (a 3 percent increase over last year).
• Funding for 50 new judges over last year’s amount.
• $128 million for medical staff for Customs and Border Protection
• Funds 200 border patrol agents who were hired earlier this year.
  
• Funds 600 new customs agents for this year. The bill also funds additional recruiting to help fill some 600 open slots.
  
• Funds space to detain a daily average of 45,274 people for the year.
  
• A 22-percent increase in alternatives to detention program.

Democrats doing their due diligence.

 

[MaceB]

Democrats doing their due diligence.

Can you answer the question and provide your source?

 

[2kt09]

Can you answer the question and provide your source?

I was busy looking around for your source.

 

[MaceB]

I was busy looking around for your source.

Okay then.. well they're are pretty wildly available. I'm not going to play games with you. If you have a source that says Dems decreased immigration policing in the latest deal, I'd love to read it. If you can't, then I'll assume you misspoke.

 

[Travesty]

And we have no idea how much the total wall will cost. So saying it pays for itself certainly seems silly to me.

Well, from what I can recall, they start talking about the economy, jobs, taxes, benefits, healthcare, etc, and how illegal immigrants are more of a detriment to those things. They're talking about illegal immigrants coming in, not legal. Right now, the most infuriating thing that the Left does when talking to the Right, is they are purposefully mixing up legal and illegal immigrants. And I know why they do it, they're trying to make the Conservatives look like bigots and racists, but it really muddies the water. Conservatives are just talking about illegal immigrants, and how it'll effect the economy. So by building the wall, they think it'll help strengthen economy in the long run.....I think that's their point?

But overall, I'm not that versed on their side of this particular issue, as I'm not a Conservative myself, but I do try to talk to them as much as I can, to try and understand their position. I'm in ATL right now, so I'm around a LOT compared to when I'm in Chicago or LA, which seems to be nothing but Progressives or Liberals.

 

[MaceB]

Illegal immigrants don't take our benefits or our healthcare. They don't have social security numbers. They can't apply for food stamps or medicaid. The most that they do is go to the ER sometimes, but given that Republicans are trying their hardest to take away health insurance from 15 million Americans, their argument seems disingenuous to say the least. A wall certainly wouldn't do anything about 12 million illegals that are already here. The best way to fix that situation is amnesty, if conservatives were serious about the drain that immigrants have on our economy.

I think conservatives mix up illegal and legal immigrants far more often than liberals. They're also purposely ignoring a crucial distinction at this point between illegal immigrants and illegal border crossers. A wall won't do anything to stop illegal immigration not at the border, which is the bulk of illegal immigration.

And hey... before we talk about whether the wall will pay for itself, we first need to know what the wall would cost, which no government office has given us credible numbers for yet.

 

[2kt09]

And hey... before we talk about whether the wall will pay for itself, we first need to know what the wall would cost, which no government office has given us credible numbers for yet.

Still unrelated to the Democratic party,
but the news is simply 1.3 billion is what's going into wall/fence/w.e you wanna call it. Trump wanted 6.
4th National Emergency declared, thus meeting Obama's count before re-election

 

[Travesty]

And hey... before we talk about whether the wall will pay for itself, we first need to know what the wall would cost, which no government office has given us credible numbers for yet.

Yeah, that's true. Personally, I don't care about the wall. So whatever total they come up, I rather we allocate that money elsewhere, but whatever, it's kinda out of my hands.

 

[MaceB]

Yeah, that's true. Personally, I don't care about the wall. So whatever total they come up, I rather we allocate that money elsewhere, but whatever, it's kinda out of my hands.

What are you saying? You're not in charge of this?

 

[MaceB]

Still unrelated to the Democratic party,
but the news is simply 1.3 billion is what's going into wall/fence/w.e you wanna call it. Trump wanted 6.
4th National Emergency declared, thus meeting Obama's count before re-election

You are literally so hard to understand. Like... what's the point you are trying to make with this post?

 

[2kt09]

You are literally so hard to understand. Like... what's the point you are trying to make with this post?

Non-theoretical numbers for what lawmakers have agreed to spend and what reportedly the president wanted.
Just threw in the Obama stuff for good measure to have some "Democrat"-related posting.

 

[MaceB]

Non-theoretical numbers for what lawmakers have agreed to spend and what reportedly the president wanted.
Just threw in the Obama stuff for good measure to have some "Democrat"-related posting.

Once again... dude.. a sentence has a subject and a predicate. Your fragment sentences are really hard to understand. Is English your second language out of curiosity? I apologize if so. I'll try harder.

... I can appreciate that lawmakers agreed to spend 1.3 billion on fencing, which was less than the president wanted. Everyone knows that. What's the point that you are trying to make about the wall and the payments to the wall, exactly? That Dems gave Trump what he wanted; that they didn't...? And what's unrelated to the Democratic Party? Do me a solid, and breathe out your argument for me in full.

At any rate... I repeat... no government office has given a credible estimate of what the total "wall" will cost. 6 Billion is not the estimate to complete the wall. It's what Trump was requesting for an additional stretch of "walling." If we don't know the final number, it's pretty darn hard to say it pays for itself.

 

[2kt09]

Once again... dude.. a sentence has a subject and a predicate. Your fragment sentences are really hard to understand. Is English your second language?

... I can appreciate that lawmakers agreed to spend 1.3 billion on fencing, which was less than the president wanted. Everyone knows that. What's the point that you are trying to make about the wall and the payments to the wall, exactly? That Dems gave Trump what he wanted; that they didn't...? And what's unrelated to the Democratic Party? Do me a solid, and breathe out your argument for me in full.

At any rate... I repeat... no government office has given a credible estimate of what the total "wall" will cost. In which case, it's pretty darn hard to say it pays for itself.

Initially, the Dems were staunchly opposed and now they're willing to go from "$1" to $1.3 billion.
My Dem comment on policing was based on the decrease in detention beds. They apparently agreed to so much more.

Had no clue this wall debate would escalate out of stating Congress rushed to pass a spending bill & one provision that some article stated would be harmful to kids being forcefully brought here.

We're posting on a forum.

 

[MaceB]

Initially, the Dems were staunchly opposed and now they're willing to go from "$1" to $1.3 billion.

Oh sure, sure... this is a big defeat for Democrats. /s Trump literally got no wall funding. Dems were in support of specific fencing in specific places from the very start. They actually asked Republicans to provide them with a location by location request for walling, based on border patrol's specific requests. The Dems essentially gave up nothing, while the Republicans shut down the government for a deal that was worse than the ones Democrats offered before it started.

My Dem comment on policing was based on the decrease in detention beds. They apparently agreed to so much more.

So there you go. Dems didn't decrease border security one lick in this new deal. I don't know what you mean when you say "They apparently agreed to so much more."

Had no clue this wall debate would escalate out of stating Congress rushed to pass a spending bill & one provision that some article stated would be harmful to kids being forcefully brought here.

Again, this sentence hurts my brain. I don't know what the problem is exactly....
At any rate, I don't know where you're getting that congress rushed. And you didn't start out saying that it'd be harmful to kids. You said that Dems took away immigration policing funds, which is not true.

The bed issue is different than what we've been discussing this entire time.

 

[2kt09]

Oh sure, sure... this is a big defeat for Democrats. /s Trump literally got no wall funding. Dems were in support of specific fencing in specific places from the very start. They actually asked Republicans to provide them with a location by location request for walling, based on border patrol's specific requests. The Dems essentially gave up nothing, while the Republicans shut down the government for a deal that was worse than the ones Democrats offered before it started.

The bed issue is different than what we've been discussing this entire time.

So there you go. Dems didn't decrease border security one lick in this new deal. I don't know what you mean when you say "They apparently agreed to so much more."

$25 bil for DACA protection?

Again, this sentence hurts my brain. I don't know what the problem is exactly....
At any rate, I don't know where you're getting that congress rushed. And you didn't start out saying that it'd be harmful to kids. You said that Dems took away immigration policing funds, which is not true.

Speaking to another poster which this tangent blew out of. The spending bill was finalized 2-3 days before the members of Congress who did not write it had to vote on and pass it. How is that not rushing it? A national emergency followed.
Reduced policing funds* I can retract since they agreed to the opposite.

 

[MaceB]

Reduced policing funds* I can retract since they agreed to the opposite.

I still can't quite understand what you are trying to say most of the time, but I think you are admitting here that no - the dems didn't take away money for policing. Thank you.

 

[2kt09]

I still can't quite understand what you are trying to say most of the time, but I think you are admitting here that no - the dems didn't take away money for policing. Thank you.

Thought the Trump salute solidified that.
Politics is a fun game.