Everyone That's Bitching About Spending 5 Big On Wall.....

[BFritz21]

All the Democrats are bitching about spending five billion on a wall (or however much they're saying it will cost now), but isn't that spending money on companies in the United States and paying American laborers?

That's assuming that the parts will be made it America, which some may not be, but the laborers and some parts have to be coming from America, so why is everyone bitching about spending money in America and putting Americans to work, while also saving America money in the long run?

I haven't heard anyone argue those points, or am I seeing that wrong?

Are Democrats intentionally ignoring it because it doesn't fit their agenda or Trump/Republican bashing?

[*bfine32*]

Or we could have the Army Corp of Engineers build it using American Steel. Get something out of that overpriced Military.

[BmorePat87]

We could also spend $5b on improving our infrastructure or providing more care/care centers for our veterans.

If we're going to spend money, let's spend it on something worthwhile, not a wall that he only wants to build to appease his base.

[Belsnickel]

Most government spending falls into that category, so this is no different. When the government spends money it is injecting money into the economy. When it increases revenues (taxes) it is taking money out of the economy. So whether the $5 billion is spent on the wall or something else, you're still putting it towards the American economy. I would just argue there are more beneficial projects that have a higher return on the investment than a wall on the border.

[BFritz21]

(12-21-2018, 08:23 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: We could also spend $5b on improving our infrastructure or providing more care/care centers for our veterans.

If we're going to spend money, let's spend it on something worthwhile, not a wall that he only wants to build to appease his base.

(12-21-2018, 09:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Most government spending falls into that category, so this is no different. When the government spends money it is injecting money into the economy. When it increases revenues (taxes) it is taking money out of the economy. So whether the $5 billion is spent on the wall or something else, you're still putting it towards the American economy. I would just argue there are more beneficial projects that have a higher return on the investment than a wall on the border.

To both of you, but it saves the country so much money that would be spent on services for illegal immigrants that it will eventually pay for itself, while also allowing for more jobs to be available to citizens, as well as saving money on government agencies trying to stop illegal immigrants.

It eventually pays for itself and allows for more jobs to be available for citizens and the local economies to build.

[Belsnickel]

(12-21-2018, 11:18 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: To both of you, but it saves the country so much money that would be spent on services for illegal immigrants that it will eventually pay for itself, while also allowing for more jobs to be available to citizens, as well as saving money on government agencies trying to stop illegal immigrants.

It eventually pays for itself and allows for more jobs to be available for citizens and the local economies to build.

Show me the data for this. We have a whole thread devoted to the topic of how much illegal immigration actually costs the country. The long and short is that there has been no definitive answer as to whether illegal immigration is a net negative or positive for us. Undocumented immigrants aren't eligible for government services. They pay taxes in that they don't get back. With or without the wall you would still need spending to combat illegal immigration since so many undocumented immigrants don't cross the southern border but stay on expired visas, and since you still need manpower on the wall and around the border.

Jobs and helping local economies can be achieved through infrastructure spending around the country or the Green New Deal. Replacing crumbling roads and bridges or making us energy independent provide huge long term cost benefits.

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2018, 08:23 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: We could also spend $5b on improving our infrastructure or providing more care/care centers for our veterans.

If we're going to spend money, let's spend it on something worthwhile, not a wall that he only wants to build to appease his base.

As much as I'd like to see the monies going to where you suggest; that's not what he ran on.

He ran on border security and the promise of a wall. Is it so wrong to "appease" the base that voted you in? 

Everyone here could come up with better ways to spend the money. but....

[BFritz21]

(12-21-2018, 11:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Show me the data for this. We have a whole thread devoted to the topic of how much illegal immigration actually costs the country. The long and short is that there has been no definitive answer as to whether illegal immigration is a net negative or positive for us. Undocumented immigrants aren't eligible for government services. They pay taxes in that they don't get back. With or without the wall you would still need spending to combat illegal immigration since so many undocumented immigrants don't cross the southern border but stay on expired visas, and since you still need manpower on the wall and around the border.

Jobs and helping local economies can be achieved through infrastructure spending around the country or the Green New Deal. Replacing crumbling roads and bridges or making us energy independent provide huge long term cost benefits.

WatchDog.com

Quote:According to the most recent analysis by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.

FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.

[BmorePat87]

(12-21-2018, 11:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As much as I'd like to see the monies going to where you suggest; that's not what he ran on.

He ran on border security and the promise of a wall. Is it so wrong to "appease" the base that voted you in? 

Everyone here could come up with better ways to spend the money. but....

It's may or may not be wrong for him if his only concern is getting reelected, but it's wrong for our country to hold the government hostage over a waste of money. 

And his need to appease his base doesn't really change my opinion in a thread that's trying to convince me to support this use of $5b.

[BmorePat87]

(12-21-2018, 11:18 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: To both of you, but it saves the country so much money that would be spent on services for illegal immigrants that it will eventually pay for itself, while also allowing for more jobs to be available to citizens, as well as saving money on government agencies trying to stop illegal immigrants.

It eventually pays for itself and allows for more jobs to be available for citizens and the local economies to build.

A far right think tank might think it does, but their word alone doesn't sell me on this waste of money.

Building roads and bridges will do the same and impact more Americans everyday. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2018, 11:49 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's may or may not be wrong for him if his only concern is getting reelected, but it's wrong for our country to hold the government hostage over a waste of money. 

And his need to appease his base doesn't really change my opinion in a thread that's trying to convince me to support this use of $5b.

I realize that you don't support the means or the ways; but he was duly elected and one of his main promises was to build the wall.

If he does not dig in his heels then those that did vote for him on this promise will feel betrayed; while, you'll just experience more disdain.  

It's absolutely no different than the prior admin holding the "government hostage" because they wouldn't fund Obama care. I was furloughed twice and forced to only work and be paid 4 days a week another time. So I know all about "holding the government hostage".  Were you filled with disdain then? 

[BmorePat87]

(12-21-2018, 11:40 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: WatchDog.com

FAIR, The anti immigration hate group? The group that pushed laws in various places, such as Arizona and Prince Williams Co. Virginia, that required cops to pull over people who looked like they were illegal immigrants? 

That law was passed in Prince William's Virginia under the pretense that crime was up (the opposite was so, it was at a record low) and ended up causing the economy to tank and growth to slow after latinos moved out of the county in response to it. They ended up getting rid of it. 

When a Federal Civil Rights Commission came to the county to determine if the law was violating the civil rights of residents of the county, FAIR sent their lawyer (who wrote the bill and gave it to the county's chairman) and director to defend the bill. In response to being questioned how they could argue that there was rampant crime when the evidence showed crime was at an all time low, they responded by saying that you can't refuse to act on the problem just because the facts don't show a problem (lol, what?). 


Yea, this is the group you want me to believe regarding immigration policy? Hard pass.

[BmorePat87]

(12-22-2018, 12:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I realize that you don't support the means or the ways; but he was duly elected and one of his main promises was to build the wall.

If he does not dig in his heels then those that did vote for him on this promise will feel betrayed; while, you'll just experience more disdain.  

It's absolutely no different than the prior admin holding the "government hostage" because they wouldn't fund Obama care. I was furloughed twice and forced to only work and be paid 4 days a week another time. So I know all about "holding the government hostage".  Where you filled with disdain then? 

I acknowledged he has a personal reason to act.

What does this have to do with convincing me to support it?

[*bfine32*]

(12-22-2018, 12:08 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I acknowledged he has a personal reason to act.

What does this have to do with convincing me to support it?

Saying the reasons are "personal" kinda diminishes what the people voted for don't you think?

I fully understand you don't support it. That money could be spent to....... 

[Belsnickel]

(12-21-2018, 11:40 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: WatchDog.com

Pat already came back at this, and we discussed these numbers in the other thread. FAIR is legitimately tied to white supremacist organizations. Their data is extremely flawed. Even CATO called them out on it.

[Belsnickel]

(12-22-2018, 12:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Saying the reasons are "personal" kinda diminishes what the people voted for don't you think?

I fully understand you don't support it. That money could be spent to....... 

I don't think using the argument that "the people" voted for something really works when the official did not win the popular vote. It can also be turned around to be said that with a more recent mandate, the 2018 election, the people voted to not want this with the turnover of the House. That being the origin point for all spending bills.

[NATI BENGALS]

(12-22-2018, 12:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Saying the reasons are "personal" kinda diminishes what the people voted for don't you think?

I fully understand you don't support it. That money could be spent to....... 

pay people to rake the forests and prevent fires.

buy space ships and astronaut ice cream for the space force. 

[BmorePat87]

(12-22-2018, 12:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Saying the reasons are "personal" kinda diminishes what the people voted for don't you think?

I fully understand you don't support it. That money could be spent to....... 

I didn't say it to diminish what they voted for, but that doesn't mean you can't view it as being diminishing. 

[BFritz21]

(12-22-2018, 12:04 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: FAIR, The anti immigration hate group? The group that pushed laws in various places, such as Arizona and Prince Williams Co. Virginia, that required cops to pull over people who looked like they were illegal immigrants? 

That law was passed in Prince William's Virginia under the pretense that crime was up (the opposite was so, it was at a record low) and ended up causing the economy to tank and growth to slow after latinos moved out of the county in response to it. They ended up getting rid of it. 

When a Federal Civil Rights Commission came to the county to determine if the law was violating the civil rights of residents of the county, FAIR sent their lawyer (who wrote the bill and gave it to the county's chairman) and director to defend the bill. In response to being questioned how they could argue that there was rampant crime when the evidence showed crime was at an all time low, they responded by saying that you can't refuse to act on the problem just because the facts don't show a problem (lol, what?). 


Yea, this is the group you want me to believe regarding immigration policy? Hard pass.

(12-22-2018, 12:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Pat already came back at this, and we discussed these numbers in the other thread. FAIR is legitimately tied to white supremacist organizations. Their data is extremely flawed. Even CATO called them out on it.

Here:

Quote:A study from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine analyzed the fiscal impact of immigration under different scenarios. Under some assumptions, the fiscal burden was $279 billion, but $43 billion in other scenarios.

[*Nately120*]

I still think Trump can make Mexico pay for it, so we don't need to spend a cent on it. He's going to get this deal done because that's what he does. Americans paying for this wall and letting Mexico off the hook is a form of surrendering in my eyes.

Anyone who legitimately supports Trump knows he will keep his initial promise and get the deal done. Have faith in our president or GTFO.