Was Ending The Shutdown Honorable?!

[BmorePat87]

(01-29-2019, 11:48 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Studies on common sense.  

Different times, different costs, different circumstances.

Well if you do find some evidence that it'll actually save money, please quote this post so I can read it. 

[*bfine32*]

(01-29-2019, 11:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: How many different ways do you want to ask the question?

I've already said it was perfectly acceptable and explained why.  You feeling being upset about it (over and over) don't change that any more than asking it in a dozen different ways.

So I suppose I'll ask it until I get an answer the actual question posed. But I'm not holding my breath. I didn't ask was it perfectly acceptable; I asked was it honorable. Hell lots of folks can accept things that are less that honorable. 

[GMDino]

(01-30-2019, 12:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So I suppose I'll ask it until I get an answer the actual question posed. But I'm not holding my breath. I didn't ask was it perfectly acceptable; I asked was it honorable. Hell lots of folks can accept things that are less that honorable. 

Yeah and then you'll find another way to ask the same question because you didn't like the answer.

Cry me a river....

Seems to be something that could actually happen versus you stopping this inane attempt to pump up your boy Trump by hanging on to what Schumer said.

Maybe somewhere along the line you will read the responses and learn your lesson?

[*bfine32*]

(01-30-2019, 12:35 AM)GMDino Wrote: Yeah and then you'll find another way to ask the same question because you didn't like the answer.

Cry me a river....

Seems to be something that could actually happen versus you stopping this inane attempt to pump up your boy Trump by hanging on to what Schumer said.

Maybe somewhere along the line you will read the responses and learn your lesson?

In some weird PnR logic: If you take issue with something that anyone other than Trump says; you're defending Trump.


FWIW I've only asked the question one way. As I said: I'm not holding my breath. 

[BFritz21]

(01-30-2019, 12:15 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Well if you do find some evidence that it'll actually save money, please quote this post so I can read it. 

Read away:

It looks like this is assuming the cost of the wall would be 7 billion instead of 5, and it STILL PAYS FOR ITSELF:

Quote:

• This means that for each 100,000 illegal immigrants stopped or deterred by a wall, the saving to taxpayers would be nearly $7.5 billion.
• If a border wall prevented 160,000 to 200,000 illegal crossings (excluding descendants) in the next 10 years it would be enough to pay for the estimated $12 to $15 billion cost of the wall. 1
• Newly released research by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) done for the Department of Homeland Security indicates that 170,000 illegal immigrants crossed the border successfully without going through a port of entry in 2015. While a significant decline in crossings from a decade ago, it still means that there may be 1.7 million successful crossings in the next decade. If a wall stopped just 9 to 12 percent of these crossings it would pay for itself.2
• If a wall stopped half of those expected to successfully enter illegally without going through a port of entry at the southern border over the next 10 years, it would save taxpayers nearly $64 billion — several times the wall’s cost.
  

There's more in the link, but there's your savings.

[Benton]

(01-30-2019, 01:25 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Read away:

It looks like this is assuming the cost of the wall would be 7 billion instead of 5, and it STILL PAYS FOR ITSELF:

There's more in the link, but there's your savings.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/05/23/more-occasional-crank-2012-times-center-immigration-studies-circulated-white-nationalist

Quote:The Southern Poverty Law Center listed CIS as a hate group for the first time when our annual count was published in February of this year. The designation resulted primarily from their move to start publishing the work of discredited race scientist Jason Richwine (who was once forced to resign from the arch-conservative Heritage Foundation) and their shocking circulation of an article from one of America’s most prominent white nationalist websites and another written by a fringe Holocaust-denier in their weekly newsletter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies

Quote:The Center for Immigration Studies has been criticized for publishing reports deemed to be misleading and using poor methodology by scholars on immigration (such as the authors of the National Academies of Sciences 2016 report on immigration); by think tanks such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Cato Institute,[57] Urban Institute[58] and Center for American Progress; fact-checkers such as FactCheck.Org, PolitiFact, Washington Post, Snopes and NBC News; and by immigration-research organizations (such as Migration Policy Institute and the Immigration Policy Center[59].

There's more, but, CIS isn't commonly considered an unbiased source. Or, generally, a factual one. It's an agenda-driven group that's long worked to reduce the number of immigrants, something they haven't really hidden.

[Belsnickel]

(01-30-2019, 02:13 AM)Benton Wrote: There's more, but, CIS isn't commonly considered an unbiased source. Or, generally, a factual one. It's an agenda-driven group that's long worked to reduce the number of immigrants, something they haven't really hidden.

Leaving the SPLC out of the conversation, this is the most important part. There are non-profit organizations that provide studies on policy that can be objective and have a goal of providing information rather than promoting an agenda. CIS (and FAIR, from which they spun off) are not those sorts of organizations. They are advocacy organizations, not true think tanks, and any information they provide should be taken with a grain of salt big enough to fill Crater Lake.

[Au165]

(01-30-2019, 02:13 AM)Benton Wrote: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/05/23/more-occasional-crank-2012-times-center-immigration-studies-circulated-white-nationalist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies


There's more, but, CIS isn't commonly considered an unbiased source. Or, generally, a factual one. It's an agenda-driven group that's long worked to reduce the number of immigrants, something they haven't really hidden.

You mean he posted "Fake News"....as the kids say.

[fredtoast]

(01-30-2019, 12:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: . I didn't ask was it perfectly acceptable; I asked was it honorable. 

So the only thing people are allowed to say about Trump are "honorable".  Anything else and they "lose the moral high ground".

So what happens if Trump does something that is less than honorable?  No one is allowed to ever mention it?

How would you have phrased what Shumer said in an "honorable" way that would not be "going low"?

[hollodero]

(01-30-2019, 10:52 AM)fredtoast Wrote: How would you have phrased what Shumer said in an "honorable" way that would not be "going low"?

Well... "I hope we all learned a lesson". He already answered that one.

[BmorePat87]

(01-30-2019, 01:25 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Read away:

It looks like this is assuming the cost of the wall would be 7 billion instead of 5, and it STILL PAYS FOR ITSELF:

There's more in the link, but there's your savings.

CIS misuses NAS's data and was even called out on it by those who found the data.

One of the first issues is that they purposefully left out the economic impact of 2nd generation children, who tend to be some of the strongest economic contributors and offset their parents. They leave in the cost of these children and then leave out their contributions as adults. 

They also took the 8 future tax and spending scenarios from the NAS report and averaged them, but the scenarios include some extreme examples. The authors of the report said that the most likely scenarios should have been used not an average of 8 very different and unrelated scenarios. 

CIS also used the CBO's long term budget outlook which is often flawed for assuming Congress will cut the deficit. 

The CIS estimates that 1.7m immigrants will cross the border in a decade, using the estimate of 170,000 in 2015 and just multiplying it by 10. This doesn't take into account actual growth of the illegal immigrant population. 170,000 may come, but not all are seeking permanent residence, so it doesn't take into account those who leave. 

The CIS also suggests that the wall would stop 9-12% (which would pay of itself), but this figure is incredibly high. It is also dependent on the 1.7m all being unique, which we know is false. There are many repeat crossers. Tucked into the footnotes is the admission that the wall might need to stop as many as 20% of all crossings to pay for itself. 


Final analysis: The CIS report relies too heavily on data from a group that has stated that CIS used their data incorrectly and made many false assumptions. It is also reliant on a very high efficacy rate and purposefully chooses to not look at the effect of immigrant children once they are adults. For this reason, one cannot accept their findings.

[fredtoast]

(01-30-2019, 11:04 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well... "I hope we all learned a lesson". He already answered that one.

But he refuses to say what lesson.

[CJD]

I mean...if you think it's honorable for someone doing something stupid to stop doing something stupid then yea. Trump ending his shutdown was "honorable."

The more honorable thing would have been to never shut down the government in the first place, of course.

So the fact that he opened up the government after a 35 day shutdown by signing virtually the exact same bill that he rejected (and which led to the shutdown) just makes him look like an idiot with no gameplan regarding how to get his money.

The "master negotiator" couldn't even negotiate out a single dollar for his wall, let alone the 5 billion he wants. He literally conceded because he realized he had no leverage and that the majority of Americans blamed him for the shutdown more than any other person or political party.

The only thing honorable about ending the shutdown that he created was the fact that he finally realized that he had to give up his fantasy and return to reality, albeit just for a few weeks. We'll see what he chooses to do on February 15th.