Such total BS!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Printable View
Such total BS!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
WOW, bet your nose grew 3" after telling that lie!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Someone needs to throw water on Nancy Pelosi. I've seen The Wizard Of Oz!!!
50,000 illegals are detained/arrested every month coming across our southern border. But, that's not a crisis. I guess.
That they are stopped?Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
That at least that many get through as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I am all for the government getting shut down again if that is needed to fix this mess.
I don't care about 800,000 government employees, either. Whatever needs to be done.
And before you whine about 800,000 poor workers getting jacked around, I will tell you I was working with the coal industry when Obama was president and saw just how much our government really cares about workers (and this morning I see a couple of congressional idiots - one a repub - are proposing a carbon tax with the intent of putting the whole coal industry out of business). Every time they raise the minimum wage, more low-skilled jobs are mechanized. Every illegal crossing the border is potential cheap labor and drives down wages (wages determined by supply and demand, not government dictates) for those least able to make a living.
To the 800,000 - or however many there will be this time causing a media tear jerk - find something else to do. You can keep doing that until they come for you there. And they will....I've seen it.
What are your estimates on the cost of the problem vs. the cost of the solution?Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Those numbers have been given, by several sources, so you can pick whichever you personally believe is the most accurate. But in all cases the cost of the problem > the cost of the solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
For instance one source, uses $150 billion as the cost of the problem compared to $35 billion for a proposed solution(s). And! it should be pointed out that while the cost of the problem grows every year, so it will be $160 billion next year, most of that $35 billion is a one-time investment in "barriers" and other measures. About $10 billion will be annual operational costs, reoccurring. Oh sure! it is possible and very plausible "we" may wish to invest more in the solutions down the road, and spend more than $10 billion in a given FY.
Appears that the solutions trump the problem!
Which source is that? I'm genuinely curious. I haven't found numbers that don't vary wildly depending on the political persuasion of those writing the piece.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
The CBO is mighty swampy.
I'd rather have a business person in charge than red tape experts.
Amen! And never a lawyer.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
As I said you can pick your source. One source, something called The Center of Immigration Studies, sets the price tag at $750 billion. Others use different figures. The source I referred to, the $150 billion vs. $35 billion, was cited by a congressman interviewed on FOX. During his interview they were flashing graphics, links to websites, I was able to jot down one and went to it. That site, which I no longer remember, claims to be non-political and just sticks to the facts. I just remember those two numbers 150 & 35. They cited CBO as their main source. BUT! as is also pointed out too often ONLY Federal budget numbers are used. States and local governments, like county sheriffs, also spend money because of illegals and those numbers rarely, if ever, are included on the cost side.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
When I saw a lib congresswoman (CA) admit there are costs involved in "accommodating" illegals but justified it based on humanitarian reasons, I knew the problem was bad, and no doubt MUCH WORSE than most of know.
Your point is well-taken. You are right, it is virtually impossible to find a truly non-biased source. Not all sources are necessarily politically-motivated. But, how any source picks and chooses, and prioritizes the stats causes a bias in their conclusions. It may very well be unintended...i.e. the source is genuinely trying to arrive at an accurate number(s)...but they introduce bias simply by the methodology used.
I have taken 4 stats classes in my academic career. I have used, and continue to use, stats in my business(es). Heck! as sports' fans we know how stats can be manipulated to give you whatever conclusion you want.
MY CONCLUSION: the cost of the problem > than a solution. Period. FIND A SOLUTION!
How effective is the wall? What percent reduction in cost is reasonable to predict?
Ask China about their great wall and Israel about theirs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
IF the wall is properly used, we can slash that $150 Billion (using that number) cost in half, at least. Probably more. So the wall pays for itself in a matter of a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I say "properly used" because we all know it still takes the political will, especially early on, to allow the wall to do its thing. If properly used then fairly quickly no one will join one of these invasion caravans and the other illegal crossings will all stop.
THEN! predictably 5 years down the road some idiot politician will TRY to earn brownie points by saying, "We spent $billions on that wall and not a single illegal is trying to cross it these days." And of course idiots...like, ahem, ya know...will say, See! we wasted money on the wall!