Well our irresponsible politicians are giving us greedy Americans just what we asked for:
- Tax cuts
- Spending Increases
- More debt to burden future citizens
From over here
ReplyDelete"The wall is being built, it will continue to be built, and it WILL get done." Jerry
"As for the wall... Only time will tell, but since Congress has the power of the purse... I would not hold my breath if I were you." G2A
"Frankly I think that is the problem. Congress tackles every issue as something to throw money at, rather than to decide how best to solve a given problem. For example, how did they decide that 1.375 billion was exactly the right amount of wall to be built? It wasn't a practical or even informed decision, was it? Most right-wing pundits are expressing the opinion/belief that Trump will take the money, let the contracts and then "find" the rest of the money easily." Jerry
"It is funny that illegal immigration is at a modern low and you want to SPEND money on a border wall." G2A
The wall discussion took an interesting twist, so I moved it here.
ReplyDeleteI mean can you imagine the miracle that Trump worked with Jerry...
Jerry is not only agreeing with the Federal government spending tens of billions of tax dollars to build somewhat useless structures in the middle of the no where... He is actually cheering Trump on. :-)
No wonder the deficits and debt keeps growing...
Now I wonder what Jerry would say if his taxes were going to be increased to pay for the wall? :-)
OK, so another $3 billion for border security, out of a budget of over $3 TRILLION, is how you propose to solve the deficit spending problem? Based on your belief that the current level of illegal immigration, drug, sex and human tafficking is acceptable?
ReplyDelete3B here... 3 B there...
ReplyDeleteThat is how we got to 3T
Perhaps more correctly, we got there by not solving problems and not prioritizing spending. Here are two examples:
ReplyDelete--Washington spends $25 billion annually maintaining unused or vacant federal properties.[3]
--Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them -- costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually -- fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.[4]
National security, IMHO, is a higher priority than a complete waste. Fund the wall, cut just these two items, and cut the deficit by $143 billion.
Sources?
ReplyDeleteHeritage, I think. Also, notice that the Democrats have stuffed this spending bill with something like $50 billion MORE than Trump's budget request. And the various estimates of the COST of illegal immigration run the gamut, up to some $300 Billion/year.
ReplyDeleteThe Conservative view...
ReplyDeleteAnd that cost of illegal immigration is just silly... Some people gain and some people lose... It is likely a wash.
"It is likely a wash" source?
ReplyDeleteThere is a common theme here... WH will not provide their math...
ReplyDeleteSource 1
Source 2
You should know better than to use Trump as a reliable source of information. Do a google search, you will find all kinds of estimates, none of them, I suspect, "a wash" but others range from modest billions up to hundreds of billions.
ReplyDeleteMy source says modest billions.
ReplyDeleteAnd I am not sure how they account for all the money we consumers save due to lower cost labor.
Just think of what new roofs, lawn maintenance, nannies, house cleaning, field labor, etc would cost without them...
okay, I went and did a Google search, and just wrote down the numbers from the top 20 or so results. I note that many of them are dedicated Trump-hating sources, but still, these are the numbers, all in billions of dollars per year. (Remember that the wall cost is one time)
ReplyDelete50-250
116
135
54
250
200
135
65
100-338
155
133
80
115
55
2-19 (Medicaid only)
45 (schools only)
113
75-150
as near as I can tell all of these numbers are NET, but what you are arguing is that the net number should consider all the taxes paid, and the lower cost of goods and services the rest of us receive because of this cheap labor. I don't think that is the correct way to look at it. The correct way would be to look at the GROSS cost, because all of the taxes, goods and services, etc. would, if all illegal immigrants were removed, not be paid in at all, but would instead be underwritten by the taxes and work of Americans or of LEGAL immigrants. In other words, we do not need to incur the costs of illegal immigrants just to reap the benefits of illegal immigrants.
Why as a US citizen would I care if the worker making my food, picking my food, cleaning my hotel, mowing my yard, paying their taxes, etc is here legally or illegally?
ReplyDeleteHow is their presence costing me anything?
Now if they are in cash businesses and claiming big expensive social benefits that is one thing. But most of them apparently have FICA withheld and of course they pay sales, gas and other taxes...
So what exactly are these "costs" that you are concerned about?
How is this any different than sending jobs and money to workers China?
Now I do agree that having low skill low knowledge illegal workers in the country keeps wages and costs down for all Americans... Kind of like importing so much from over seas...
ReplyDeleteShould we also declare a national emergency to stop imports?
Maybe it isn't different in effect-- it puts American workers out of work and sends money out of the country. The difference is that imports are expected to be "free trade," but illegals are not engaged in free trade because they are not legally "importing" their labor. Maybe we should pay for the wall with a simple "tariff" on imported labor. And of course simple goods import does not create the problems of disease, crime, exploitation, cultural non-assimilation, extra government services, etc.
ReplyDeleteOh God...
ReplyDelete"the problems of disease, crime, exploitation, cultural non-assimilation, extra government services, etc. "
You really got to cut back on the amount of time you spend watching Right wing media and listening to Trump...
Facts and Data
So you are a fan of Free Trade...
ReplyDeleteAnd yet you want to limit immigration...
Please remember that not only does Trump want to slow illegal immigration...
He also wants to reduce legal immigration...
1. Wrong
ReplyDelete2. Wrong
Remember what the Chinese premier said, in response to the request that China allow its own citizens to emigrate freely? "How many Chinese you want? 1 million? 10 million?"
As for your "facts" they are just one more "how to lie with statistics" tactic from the Left. The most important fact is, even if "illegals commit FEWER crimes" is true, that if they were not here they would commit ZERO crimes here.
ReplyDeleteAnd if they were not here.
ReplyDeleteThey would do no work, pay no taxes, etc.
Yes there are pros and cons to their presence.
Just like with legal residents.
Not "just like legal residents." What part of "illegal" do you not understand? One can muster all sorts of reasons why at least some of these people should be allowed to come/stay here, I have them myself, but I cannot tolerate the kind of lawlessness, anarchy, and mixing of the "cons" (in both senses of the word) with the "pros." A general amnesty is a terrible idea, especially without the wall. A "guest worker program" would solve most of the problem. Remember that the previous amnesty offered a path to citizenship and few people took it? They just wanted to work. But we need that wall first, stop making the problem worse.
ReplyDeleteNot even I am naïve enough to think that the "wall" will make much of a difference... Ladders and shovels are just too readily available...
ReplyDeleteBesides those pesky facts that most illegal folks are over staying their visa. And most drugs come in via different means...
But you spend thrifts just keep spending like liberals. :-)
One problem at a time. Thousands of people "walk across" our southern border every day. The border patrol intercepts many of them but they get to stay in this country under the "catch and release" system. Forcing them to carry a 30 foot ladder (two of them) or dig a 40 foot tunnel slows them down so more can be intercepted BEFORE they cross. Walls work, and anybody that says differently says so only because they do not want the border secured. The cost is simply one more phony reason to object.
ReplyDeleteNow you do know that these are single walls, they don't go very far in to the ground and they are not being built on the border in many cases... (ie along the Rio Grande)
ReplyDeleteI agree that they may slow folks a little... But a "national emergency"???
I can already hear you moaning when the next President declares a "national emergency" to fight climate change... :-)
actually, I relish the thought. The proof that we have rampant lawlessness and an invasion at the southern border is everywhere. The proof that US production of CO2 is causing or will cause a global climate catastrophe does not exist. Remember the U.S. Senate's position on the Kyoto treaty? They voted not to consider it by vote of 99-0. They will bluster, but the data is the same now as it was then, and the whole theory is about as significant as a single cow fart.
ReplyDelete“Invasion...”.
ReplyDeleteWhen we are at modern low levels...
And “rampant lawlessness” when crime is at historic lows...
ReplyDeleteYou really need to give up right wing media outlets.
You may sleep better without the scary fictional stories.
OK.... so the Huns are only burning about one village a week instead of one a day. I guess we should all just lay back and enjoy the peace? I cannot understand this idea that there is some level of violence, criminality and assorted destruction that is acceptable and therefore should NOT be opposed.
ReplyDeleteWe like the benefits of all the great low cost labor,..
ReplyDeleteAnd a few more criminal acts is an okay consequence. Especially since it is at a lower rate than that of legal residents.
Maybe that is how we can lower the overall rate. Bring even more illegals in?
Who is this "we" you speak of? You do know how we could eliminate the crime of murder, don't you? By simply legalizing it? IMHO, I am being no more facetious than you are.
ReplyDeleteTo continue this discussion, you need to separate out the deficit issue from the illegal immigration issue, because they do not belong together. If the #1 job of the federal government is to "provide for the common defense" then controlling the border is surely worth a 1% increase in the defense budget. If that creates a deficit that must be reduced, something of lesser importance should be cut. Obviously the only reason anybody cares about the deficit now is because they do not want the border controlled, or simply want to deny Trump fulfilling a campaign promise-- playing politics with domestic security.
Again... It is a non-emergency and just Trump playing politics...
ReplyDeleteFacts and data regarding declining illegal immigration rates
Please remember that I am fine with spending on the border barrier...
ReplyDeleteIt is the silly idea of it being "an emergency" after Trump and the GOP did nothing with this for ~2 years...
Good point, but remember we had all that sturm and drang about "comprehensive immigration reform" that had to be defeated first. And the fact that an intolerable situation persists without remedy only adds to the justification to declare an emergency now.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if the emergency does not get declared is is overturned by the courts, the border barrier you say you support does not get built. Are you saying that the end does NOT justify these reasonable means? Congress also had months to get it right, especially the Democrat Congress, and their refusal was silly and extreme.
No the ends do not justify the means.
ReplyDeleteThough I am sure some future DEM president will appreciate Trump expanding their powers...
Then the GOPers will moan and cry.
And yet you are counting on our system of checks and balances to stop Trump, but let that future Dem do whatever they want? An emergency declaration must be within Presidential power and address some provable "crisis" situation. Decades of neglect of our border and invading armies coming forward, I would think, constitute an emergency. Banning fossil fuels to prevent 1/100 of 1 degree, 100 years from now, would not be.
ReplyDelete"Invading armies"....
ReplyDeleteI think now you have become delusional...
Or that army is made up of Families, Women and Children.
However I realize you are getting older and may be more easily frightened... :-)