BREAKING: GoFundMe for Border Wall: $1 Million and Counting

Raddison wrote:

Not Alan wrote:

He’s answered this a few times but apparently you and the dems don’t or refuse to understand.

USMCA = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc

Every politician from all across the spectrum has used this line of argument to justify their pet projects. Do any of the following sound familiar?

Tax cuts= more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc

Infrastructure spending = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc

Increased Tariffs = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc

Reduced Tariffs = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc

Quantitative easing= more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc

More spending on education = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc

More spending on defense = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc

More subsidies to the energy sector = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc

Reduced regulation = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc

Reduced corporate taxes = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc

More subsidies to small business = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc

If all these were true then there would be no unemployment, each household would have at least 100K a year for eating out and entertainment, retirement would be at 45 and the government would be paying us taxes.

Trust me the net effect on you of the USMCA compared to NAFTA will be zero. But don't worry, a lot of fat cat consultants and lobbyists made a small fortune advising all the various levels of government during the negotiations. And guess where the money to pay them came from?

Not Alan wrote:

NOT Not Alan wrote:

Okay, that’s fine. But, Trump said just yesterday that we are getting “billions and billions of dollars” from Mexico via new NAFTA. So, why not use that money—which he just claimed we are getting—for the wall? Why have a shut down over 5 billion dollars of tax payer money if Mexico is paying for this wall?

Also, as I think Alan was alluding to, a lot of the supposed money we are getting for New NAFTA would go to private companies. Some—a small percentage—may go back to the government in the form of taxes but he just cut corporate taxes significantly so even less is going to the government. So that “ billions and billions” would be millions and millions—not enough for the wall.

Billions and billions of dollars will flow into the US economy. That will result in higher corporate and personal income taxes. (Also, lower welfare costs from higher employment rates.). The higher tax revenues are available to spend on the “wall” or other barrier but the Dems are blocking access to those funds. The shutdown is a two way street. The government wouldn’t be shut down if the Dems would authorize the wall funding

Not Alan wrote:

Raddison wrote:

Every politician from all across the spectrum has used this line of argument to justify their pet projects. Do any of the following sound familiar?

Tax cuts= more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc

Infrastructure spending = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc

Increased Tariffs = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc

Reduced Tariffs = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc

Quantitative easing= more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc

More spending on education = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc

More spending on defense = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc

More subsidies to the energy sector = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc

Reduced regulation = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc

Reduced corporate taxes = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc

More subsidies to small business = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc

If all these were true then there would be no unemployment, each household would have at least 100K a year for eating out and entertainment, retirement would be at 45 and the government would be paying us taxes.

Trust me the net effect on you of the USMCA compared to NAFTA will be zero. But don't worry, a lot of fat cat consultants and lobbyists made a small fortune advising all the various levels of government during the negotiations. And guess where the money to pay them came from?

I would take the above in place of Socialism and Medicare for all and social justice and open borders and global warming etc which all sound good and take the moral high ground but have no practical footing and which all rely on a tired tag lines of tax the rich and accusations racism and misogyny

I wonder why it is so hard to acknowledge that we have a crisis at our southern border and attempt to take action to attempt a solution without getting bogged down in politics

Not Alan wrote:

PIO! wrote:

Perhaps because there is no crisis.

///

Unless, of course you consider it a crisis that most illegal immigration does not come through our southern border.

Or perhaps you consider it a crisis that more illegals are leaving the US for Mexico than are coming into the US from Mexico.

Or maybe the problem is that our fruits and vegetables are picked by Mexicans, our houses are cleaned by Mexicans, our children are watched by Mexicans and our yards are maintained by Mexicans (many here illegally).

Or perhaps Mexicans have brown skin.

Which one of these constitutes your "crisis"?

LOL. Whatever. Caravans constituted of thousands, children dying, tear gas flying, drugs, gang members etc. Obviously a crisis which also obviously you refuse to accept.

It’s got nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with nationality. I am brown skinned, if it matters

Raddison wrote:

Not Alan wrote:

I would take the above in place of Socialism and Medicare for all and social justice and open borders and global warming etc which all sound good and take the moral high ground but have no practical footing and which all rely on a tired tag lines of tax the rich and accusations racism and misogyny

I wonder why it is so hard to acknowledge that we have a crisis at our southern border and attempt to take action to attempt a solution without getting bogged down in politics

If you read the list carefully you will see that the initiatives I quoted come from both the left and the right. But hey, just read the first one and go with your confirmation bias. Your first paragraph is indicative of why we in the west have such a problem with our leadership. Politicians know that a significant portion of their base is so tribal that it does not matter what they do their base will still support them. They make promises they have no intention of keeping and their base forgives them. They get caught in some sort of a scandal and the base says what about the other sides scandal. When things go bad the base blames the previous administration. The tribal us-them mentality just plays into the hands of the career politician, and they will do everything they can to stoke it. There will be a general election in 2024. Nobody knows who the candidates will be but something like 80% of the population have already decided which way they will vote. That is not healthy for democracy.

Regarding your second paragraph, the USA, along with the rest of the western world, has a problem with uncontrolled immigration. The southern border is just part of that problem. As others have pointed out the majority of illegals came in through temporary visas and then just never left. The border is not the primary route. We have a finite amount of money we can spend to address this issue. The wall is just symbolic - it will make the base feel good but in the end not much will change and the taxpayer will be $25B poorer. Any idiot can spend $25B, but spending $25B wisely takes considered thought.

Ask yourself the question, why do they want to come to the USA? The main reason is there are jobs and they can earn good money. Why are there jobs? Probably because the US has a thriving underground economy. Why is this economy thriving? Because for years the authorities have turned a blind eye. Why have they turned a blind eye? Because in many ways they have benefited from the cheap service labor. Why won't they do something about it now? Because it has permeated into so much of our society that the cure will be worse than the decease. So the wall becomes a nice token gesture meanwhile hotels and golf courses can still employ illegals, through third party companies of course.

Not Alan wrote:

I read the list and did note that it included items from both the left and right. That did not bother me. This is not a zero sum game. There is tremendous overlap between what both sides would like to do, including border security, but the partisans hang on nuance and narrative to hijack the process for political gain.

Many leaders on the left have endorsed a wall, barrier, fence or whatever you want to call it. This includes Obama and Clinton. All of a sudden it is an issue because of the current president. Wtf. Just get on with it and solve the issue. The solution includes and is not limited to a wall/fence/barrier.

I agree illegal immigration comes from other avenues as well. Just because other avenues are involved does not mean that we should ignore the southern border. The other channels themselves have filters and other mechanisms to control the flow (visa issuance, cost of air or sea transport, finite number of airplanes) flawed as they might be. On the other hand, what would we do if all of Guatemala or Venezuela all of a sudden appeared at our southern border?

Indeedly wrote:

Not Alan wrote:

I read the list and did note that it included items from both the left and right. That did not bother me. This is not a zero sum game. There is tremendous overlap between what both sides would like to do, including border security, but the partisans hang on nuance and narrative to hijack the process for political gain.

Many leaders on the left have endorsed a wall, barrier, fence or whatever you want to call it. This includes Obama and Clinton. All of a sudden it is an issue because of the current president. Wtf. Just get on with it and solve the issue. The solution includes and is not limited to a wall/fence/barrier.

I agree illegal immigration comes from other avenues as well. Just because other avenues are involved does not mean that we should ignore the southern border. The other channels themselves have filters and other mechanisms to control the flow (visa issuance, cost of air or sea transport, finite number of airplanes) flawed as they might be. On the other hand, what would we do if all of Guatemala or Venezuela all of a sudden appeared at our southern border?

Indeed! Certainly we must consider this tremendously likely scenario! We should also consider what we would do if ants all of a sudden acquired machine guns. Have you thought of that? What is your plan?

Or are you just emoting again, rather than thinking?

Indeedly wrote:

Not Alan wrote:

I read the list and did note that it included items from both the left and right. That did not bother me. This is not a zero sum game. There is tremendous overlap between what both sides would like to do, including border security, but the partisans hang on nuance and narrative to hijack the process for political gain.

Many leaders on the left have endorsed a wall, barrier, fence or whatever you want to call it. This includes Obama and Clinton. All of a sudden it is an issue because of the current president. Wtf. Just get on with it and solve the issue. The solution includes and is not limited to a wall/fence/barrier.

I agree illegal immigration comes from other avenues as well. Just because other avenues are involved does not mean that we should ignore the southern border. The other channels themselves have filters and other mechanisms to control the flow (visa issuance, cost of air or sea transport, finite number of airplanes) flawed as they might be. On the other hand, what would we do if all of Guatemala or Venezuela all of a sudden appeared at our southern border?

Indeed! Certainly we must consider this tremendously likely scenario! We should also consider what we would do if ants all of a sudden acquired machine guns. Have you thought of that? What is your plan?

Or are you just emoting again, rather than thinking?

Not Alan wrote:

Raddison wrote:

If you read the list carefully you will see that the initiatives I quoted come from both the left and the right. But hey, just read the first one and go with your confirmation bias. Your first paragraph is indicative of why we in the west have such a problem with our leadership. Politicians know that a significant portion of their base is so tribal that it does not matter what they do their base will still support them. They make promises they have no intention of keeping and their base forgives them. They get caught in some sort of a scandal and the base says what about the other sides scandal. When things go bad the base blames the previous administration. The tribal us-them mentality just plays into the hands of the career politician, and they will do everything they can to stoke it. There will be a general election in 2024. Nobody knows who the candidates will be but something like 80% of the population have already decided which way they will vote. That is not healthy for democracy.

Regarding your second paragraph, the USA, along with the rest of the western world, has a problem with uncontrolled immigration. The southern border is just part of that problem. As others have pointed out the majority of illegals came in through temporary visas and then just never left. The border is not the primary route. We have a finite amount of money we can spend to address this issue. The wall is just symbolic - it will make the base feel good but in the end not much will change and the taxpayer will be $25B poorer. Any idiot can spend $25B, but spending $25B wisely takes considered thought.

Ask yourself the question, why do they want to come to the USA? The main reason is there are jobs and they can earn good money. Why are there jobs? Probably because the US has a thriving underground economy. Why is this economy thriving? Because for years the authorities have turned a blind eye. Why have they turned a blind eye? Because in many ways they have benefited from the cheap service labor. Why won't they do something about it now? Because it has permeated into so much of our society that the cure will be worse than the decease. So the wall becomes a nice token gesture meanwhile hotels and golf courses can still employ illegals, through third party companies of course.

I read the list and did note that it included items from both the left and right. That did not bother me. This is not a zero sum game. There is tremendous overlap between what both sides would like to do, including border security, but the partisans hang on nuance and narrative to hijack the process for political gain.

Many leaders on the left have endorsed a wall, barrier, fence or whatever you want to call it. This includes Obama and Clinton. All of a sudden it is an issue because of the current president. Wtf. Just get on with it and solve the issue. The solution includes and is not limited to a wall/fence/barrier.

I agree illegal immigration comes from other avenues as well. Just because other avenues are involved does not mean that we should ignore the southern border. The other channels themselves have filters and other mechanisms to control the flow (visa issuance, cost of air or sea transport, finite number of airplanes) flawed as they might be. On the other hand, what would we do if all of Guatemala or Venezuela all of a sudden appeared at our southern border?

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Not Alan wrote:

I read the list and did note that it included items from both the left and right. That did not bother me. This is not a zero sum game. There is tremendous overlap between what both sides would like to do, including border security, but the partisans hang on nuance and narrative to hijack the process for political gain.

Many leaders on the left have endorsed a wall, barrier, fence or whatever you want to call it. This includes Obama and Clinton. All of a sudden it is an issue because of the current president. Wtf. Just get on with it and solve the issue. The solution includes and is not limited to a wall/fence/barrier.

I agree illegal immigration comes from other avenues as well. Just because other avenues are involved does not mean that we should ignore the southern border. The other channels themselves have filters and other mechanisms to control the flow (visa issuance, cost of air or sea transport, finite number of airplanes) flawed as they might be. On the other hand, what would we do if all of Guatemala or Venezuela all of a sudden appeared at our southern border?

Leaders on the left have not endorsed a wall. They're fine with a fence, but there is a huge difference in cost compared to a wall. The dispute is which is more cost effective; fencing and technology or a big concrete wall (or steal slats).