• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reconcile this....

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Given the combined implications and existentiality of following:

A. Customs and Border Patrol Budgets:​

  • [*=1]Materials:

    • [*=1]$8.7 billion in concrete (97 percent of the materials)
      [*=1]$3.6 billion in steel (3 percent of the materials)
    [*=1]Labor:

    • [*=1]$12.3 billion
    [*=1]Land Acquisition:

    • [*=1]$200 million
C. Trump assertion:

  • [*=1]"You know, the border is down 78 percent. Under past administrations, the border didn’t go down, it went up. But if it went down 1 percent, it was like this was a great thing. Down 78 percent....In fact, the southern border of Mexico, we did them a big favor -- believe me. They get very little traffic in there anymore, because they know they're not going to get through the border to the United States."
    -- Donald Trump, July 28, 2017 (Transcript)

  • [*=1]Legal immigrants/immigration --> ~$1.2 trillion
    [*=1]Illegal immigrants/immigration --> ~$0.4 trillion ($400 billion)
E. Behaviors, per Trump Admin. DHS, accounting for new illegal immigrants' presence in the US:​
F. Terrorists are not entering the US via the southern border:
G. Illegal drugs mostly enter the US at official ports of entry, not via unbarriered sections of the southern border.
H. Human trafficking does not avail itself of southern border porosity between ports of entry.

Please, if you believe the US should spend taxpayer money to build a wall on the southern border, provide a sound/cogent case illustrating the preponderance of pecuniary benefits over pecuniary costs of doing so.
 

AliHajiSheik

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
11,695
Reaction score
4,014
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Given the combined implications and existentiality of following:

A. Customs and Border Patrol Budgets:​

  • [*=1]Materials:

    • [*=1]$8.7 billion in concrete (97 percent of the materials)
      [*=1]$3.6 billion in steel (3 percent of the materials)
    [*=1]Labor:

    • [*=1]$12.3 billion
    [*=1]Land Acquisition:

    • [*=1]$200 million
C. Trump assertion:

  • [*=1]"You know, the border is down 78 percent. Under past administrations, the border didn’t go down, it went up. But if it went down 1 percent, it was like this was a great thing. Down 78 percent....In fact, the southern border of Mexico, we did them a big favor -- believe me. They get very little traffic in there anymore, because they know they're not going to get through the border to the United States."
    -- Donald Trump, July 28, 2017 (Transcript)

  • [*=1]Legal immigrants/immigration --> ~$1.2 trillion
    [*=1]Illegal immigrants/immigration --> ~$0.4 trillion ($400 billion)
E. Behaviors, per Trump Admin. DHS, accounting for new illegal immigrants' presence in the US:​
F. Terrorists are not entering the US via the southern border:
G. Illegal drugs mostly enter the US at official ports of entry, not via unbarriered sections of the southern border.
H. Human trafficking does not avail itself of southern border porosity between ports of entry.

Please, if you believe the US should spend taxpayer money to build a wall on the southern border, provide a sound/cogent case illustrating the preponderance of pecuniary benefits over pecuniary costs of doing so.

When it your term paper due? I want to give a worthy response and need more time.
 

tecoyah

Illusionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,453
Reaction score
3,844
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
given the combined implications and existentiality of following:

a. Customs and border patrol budgets:​

  • [*=1]materials:

    • [*=1]$8.7 billion in concrete (97 percent of the materials)
      [*=1]$3.6 billion in steel (3 percent of the materials)
    [*=1]labor:

    • [*=1]$12.3 billion
    [*=1]land acquisition:

    • [*=1]$200 million
c. Trump assertion:

  • [*=1]"you know, the border is down 78 percent. Under past administrations, the border didn’t go down, it went up. But if it went down 1 percent, it was like this was a great thing. Down 78 percent....in fact, the southern border of mexico, we did them a big favor -- believe me. They get very little traffic in there anymore, because they know they're not going to get through the border to the united states."
    -- donald trump, july 28, 2017 (transcript)

  • [*=1]legal immigrants/immigration --> ~$1.2 trillion
    [*=1]illegal immigrants/immigration --> ~$0.4 trillion ($400 billion)
e. Behaviors, per trump admin. Dhs, accounting for new illegal immigrants' presence in the us:​
f. Terrorists are not entering the us via the southern border:
g. Illegal drugs mostly enter the us at official ports of entry, not via unbarriered sections of the southern border.
h. Human trafficking does not avail itself of southern border porosity between ports of entry.

please, if you believe the us should spend taxpayer money to build a wall on the southern border, provide a sound/cogent case illustrating the preponderance of pecuniary benefits over pecuniary costs of doing so.

rapists....bad hombres...drugs....gangs...…..uh......clinton!
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
rapists....bad hombres...drugs....gangs...…..uh......clinton!

Off-topic:
Why did you change the case of the first words of the emboldened first/last sentence of the OP?

For some reason in quoting the OP, "Given" has become "given," and "Please" has become "please."
 

tecoyah

Illusionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,453
Reaction score
3,844
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Off-topic:
Why did you change the case of the first words of the emboldened first/last sentence of the OP?

For some reason in quoting the OP, "Given" has become "given," and "Please" has become "please."

I changed nothing and I take it sarcasm is not your strong point.
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
38,226
Reaction score
9,269
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Given the combined implications and existentiality of following:
A. Customs and Border Patrol Budgets:​



  • [*=1]Materials:

    • [*=1]$8.7 billion in concrete (97 percent of the materials)
      [*=1]$3.6 billion in steel (3 percent of the materials)

    [*=1]Labor:

    • [*=1]$12.3 billion

    [*=1]Land Acquisition:

    • [*=1]$200 million
C. Trump assertion:


  • [*=1]"You know, the border is down 78 percent. Under past administrations, the border didn’t go down, it went up. But if it went down 1 percent, it was like this was a great thing. Down 78 percent....In fact, the southern border of Mexico, we did them a big favor -- believe me. They get very little traffic in there anymore, because they know they're not going to get through the border to the United States."
    -- Donald Trump, July 28, 2017 (Transcript)


  • [*=1]Legal immigrants/immigration --> ~$1.2 trillion
    [*=1]Illegal immigrants/immigration --> ~$0.4 trillion ($400 billion)
E. Behaviors, per Trump Admin. DHS, accounting for new illegal immigrants' presence in the US:​

F. Terrorists are not entering the US via the southern border:
G. Illegal drugs mostly enter the US at official ports of entry, not via unbarriered sections of the southern border.
H. Human trafficking does not avail itself of southern border porosity between ports of entry.

Please, if you believe the US should spend taxpayer money to build a wall on the southern border, provide a sound/cogent case illustrating the preponderance of pecuniary benefits over pecuniary costs of doing so.

From your own link regarding the immigration GDP benefits (https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/popular/CIS2013.pdf) :
Of the $1.6 trillion increase in GDP, 97.8 percent goes to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits; the remainder constitutes the “immigration surplus” — the benefit accruing to the native-born population, including both workers, owners of firms, and other users of the services provided by immigrants.

and to erase the rest through lowered wages to US citizens:
Although the net benefits to natives from illegal immigrants are small, there is a sizable redistribution effect. Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by an estimated $99 to $118 billion a year, and generates a gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107 to $128 billion.

Before you try to tell us what they contribute you shouldn't top out the highest number without deriving what the net benefit becomes.

PS and those wage losses? Those are permanent. Meaning there is cumulative effect on downward wage pressure.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
rapists....bad hombres...drugs....gangs...…..uh......clinton!

Off-topic:
Why did you change the case of the first words of the emboldened first/last sentence of the OP?

For some reason in quoting the OP, "Given" has become "given," and "Please" has become "please."

I changed nothing and I take it sarcasm is not your strong point.

I got the sarcasm in your post. I don't have something to say about it. Why would I? It (1) tacitly illustrates one of the challenges wall-supporters have not and apparently cannot overcome, one that my OP expressly bids them to attempt to best and (2) alludes to the non-sequitur lines they typically proffer.

Blue:
Well, look at your quoting of the OP and look at the OP and you'll see the changes I noted. Something made that happen. I asked you hoping you'd know what made it happen.
 

Slavister

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
8,631
Reaction score
5,573
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Please, if you believe the US should spend taxpayer money to build a wall on the southern border, provide a sound/cogent case illustrating the preponderance of pecuniary benefits over pecuniary costs of doing so.

You forgot

I. Trump's misrepresentation of illegal immigrants as criminal monsters that rape and kill our women, when on average they are much more peaceful than native born Americans

... a December 2016 study published in the Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice. They show that US saw a 118% increase in its immigrant population (documented and undocumented) from 1980 through 2016.

Yet during this same period, the rate of violent crime — homicides, rapes, robberies, and assaults, according to the FBI — fell by 36% to about 386 incidents per 100,000 residents.
Shayanne Gal/Business Insider

A more recent peer-reviewed study, published in March 2017 by The Sociological Quarterly, compared all forms of immigration and violence in rural versus urban communities from 1990 through 2010. The number of foreign-born residents — accounting for many other factors — appeared to reduce violent crime rates in rural areas, though not at statistically significant levels. But in cities, immigration was significantly associated with reduced rates of violent crimes.

There's also a study published in February by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, which further rejects the idea that illegal immigration is tied to increases in rates of violent crime. The study looked at conviction data in Texas — the state with the second-largest population of foreign-born residents — for native-born, unauthorized immigrant, and legal immigrant residents. The research found that native-born residents were most likely to commit and be convicted of crimes, while unauthorized immigrants saw a conviction rate that was about 50% lower. Legal immigrants appeared to be the most law-abiding, with 86% fewer convictions than native-born Texans.

There's also a Criminology journal study from March that examined states' reported rates of violent crime and illegal immigration. From 1990 through 2014, that data found a negative correlation — meaning that the more a population was made up of unauthorized immigrants, the lower the violent crime rate seemed to be.
 
Last edited:

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
89,808
Reaction score
38,794
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

  • [*=1]Legal immigrants/immigration --> ~$1.2 trillion
    [*=1]Illegal immigrants/immigration --> ~$0.4 trillion ($400 billion)

Please, if you believe the US should spend taxpayer money to build a wall on the southern border, provide a sound/cogent case illustrating the preponderance of pecuniary benefits over pecuniary costs of doing so.

First of all, it should be established that the money Trump is trying to get out of Congress isn't solely for building a wall. It will also be spent on other items important to border security, such as more agents, more detection equipment, more immigration courts, etc. These increases will increase security all across the border...including ports of entry.

Now, I want to direct your attention to the link you provided and the statements from that Harvard study...which, btw, is six years old...about net economic contribution by illegal aliens. It gives a figure, by their own account an estimate, of $400 Billion. That's all fine and dandy, but that study doesn't mention any of the costs to our government, to the taxpayers or to individual citizens. (except insofar as illegal aliens take jobs away from citizens) If one accepts the President's numbers, illegal drugs cost our country $500 Billion. This figure, alone, negates any economic contribution we might get from illegal aliens. So...if we were to spend, say, $25 Billion on border security...which would build a wall AND increase border security across the board...we could get close to saving $75 Billion ($100B - $25B). If we then used that savings to increase border security even more, we would save the American citizen...and taxpayer...even more.

So...even disregarding the bulk of your thesis...with just a consideration of the affects of illegal drug smuggling...it is obvious that increasing border security is worth the money...not to mention the lives of American citizens that would be saved.
 

tecoyah

Illusionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,453
Reaction score
3,844
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I got the sarcasm in your post. I don't have something to say about it. Why would I? It (1) tacitly illustrates one of the challenges wall-supporters have not and apparently cannot overcome, one that my OP expressly bids them to attempt to best and (2) alludes to the non-sequitur lines they typically proffer.

Blue:
Well, look at your quoting of the OP and look at the OP and you'll see the changes I noted. Something made that happen. I asked you hoping you'd know what made it happen
.

I have no idea as all I did was click "Reply with quote".
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,783
Reaction score
53,439
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If the addition of "undocumented" foreign nationals with HS or less education who cannot speak, read or write English and will work for very low pay in unsafe/unsanitary conditions is a net benefit to society then why do we spend so much on education and "safety net" programs? We could easily create our own underclass (for the alleged economic benefit?) and let them work and live without benefit "safety net" programs or the ability to report labor law violations.
 

1751Texan

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Messages
638
Reaction score
246
Location
Southcentral Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
First of all, it should be established that the money Trump is trying to get out of Congress isn't solely for building a wall. It will also be spent on other items important to border security, such as more agents, more detection equipment, more immigration courts, etc. These increases will increase security all across the border...including ports of entry.

Now, I want to direct your attention to the link you provided and the statements from that Harvard study...which, btw, is six years old...about net economic contribution by illegal aliens. It gives a figure, by their own account an estimate, of $400 Billion. That's all fine and dandy, but that study doesn't mention any of the costs to our government, to the taxpayers or to individual citizens. (except insofar as illegal aliens take jobs away from citizens) If one accepts the President's numbers, illegal drugs cost our country $500 Billion. This figure, alone, negates any economic contribution we might get from illegal aliens. So...if we were to spend, say, $25 Billion on border security...which would build a wall AND increase border security across the board...we could get close to saving $75 Billion ($100B - $25B). If we then used that savings to increase border security even more, we would save the American citizen...and taxpayer...even more.

So...even disregarding the bulk of your thesis...with just a consideration of the affects of illegal drug smuggling...it is obvious that increasing border security is worth the money...not to mention the lives of American citizens that would be saved.

your assessment is so full of large holes I could drive a tractor-trailer packed full of 1000s of killos of weed right through it.

Your first incorrect assessment is to believe that their exists an brake-down accounting or plan that accounts for how money wants for "border security" is divvy up.

Mexico brings in the drugs...it is Americas that suck them up.

There is no job that is designated an American job. Not even in the US. I had to compete with designers from outside the US. Who in the federal government has assured you employment? Did your government job when you turned 18?
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
From your own link regarding the immigration GDP benefits (https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/popular/CIS2013.pdf) :
Of the $1.6 trillion increase in GDP, 97.8 percent goes to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits; the remainder constitutes the “immigration surplus” — the benefit accruing to the native-born population, including both workers, owners of firms, and other users of the services provided by immigrants.

and to erase the rest through lowered wages to US citizens:
Although the net benefits to natives from illegal immigrants are small, there is a sizable redistribution effect. Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by an estimated $99 to $118 billion a year, and generates a gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107 to $128 billion.

Before you try to tell us what they contribute you shouldn't top out the highest number without deriving what the net benefit becomes.

PS and those wage losses? Those are permanent. Meaning there is cumulative effect on downward wage pressure.

Red:

7mPF.gif




  • Contributions to GDP, as calculated in Borjas' book that the linked content summarizes, are net sums.
  • From that same source, the allocation of the GDP net increase is apportioned between:
    • the immigrant workers themselves in the form of wages and benefits associated with their employment
      • No shock this. This is what happens for everyone who earns a wage.
    • immigration surplus, i.e., private sector business profit, returns to capital
  • Accordingly, the US as a whole, immigrant workers and business realize a net gain as a result of immigrants.
  • Borjas distinguishes the returns to natives from those to immigrants; however, he disregards the fact that the vast majority of immigrants sell labor at rates for which refuse to sell labor. That is natives' choice, but it doesn't alter the fact that the price at which the labor is sold is the price buyers of that labor are willing to pay.
    • One cannot force a buyer to pay more for anything than the buyer is willing to pay. One can force a buyer to purchase goods/services from suppliers who sell at lower prices than one does. Buyers that are firms also can and do choose to shift from buying one type of production resource(s) to another. That shift can be from labor to capital or from one type of labor to another. Firm buyers can also choose to exist the market in which they can no longer obtain, at a sufficiently profitable rate, a given supplied resource, in this case labor.
Borjas uses the fact of the apportionment to denigrate and qualitatively/normatively, rhetorically discount the contribution immigrants/immigration plays in the US economy; however, the fact remains that the US economy is boosted by 11 percent as a result of immigrants/immigration.

Thus were one to assume that all immigration/immigrants' net contribution to the US economy removed "overnight," the US economy would suffer an 11% drop. By how much has GDP grown? Nothing even near to 11%, yet wall advocates would spend $25 billion to build a wall, even though their doing so would decrease the very economy they aim to enhance by doing so. Last I checked, it's financially imprudent to spend any sum of money if doing so is going to effect an enduring net loss. Simply put, rational folks spend $25 billion on "X," the wall, if doing so effects the loss of $35B, $400B or $1.6T that one would have earned had one simply not spent the $25 on "X."


All the above notwithstanding, the central fact -- that immigration/immigrants increase GDP by $1.6T -- remains so, no matter the classification of the recipients of that GDP increase. Remove from the economy the parties who produce that $1.6T increase and GDP is correspondingly lowered.


Blue:
The so-called wage losses are permanent on an individual level; however, in terms of the US economy, they aren't losses. The money in question resides in firms' balance sheets/income statements. Accordingly, and insofar as the very same folks who most ardently supported the corporate tax cut using supply-side lines of argument also are the wall's most ardent supporters, those individuals cannot gripe about a happenstance, immigration, that contributes to firms' bottom lines more so than would abating that same happenstance.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You forgot

I. Trump's misrepresentation of illegal immigrants as criminal monsters that rape and kill our women, when on average they are much more peaceful than native born Americans

I omitted that factor, but only because folks besides myself get "queasy" over the notion of actuarial quantifications of the value of a human life, and because determining the value of the lives ended by immigrants requires a person-by-person quantification. Like it or not, the murder of high earners removes more from an economy than does the killing of low earners; consequently, obtaining a reasonable estimate of the cost of immigrant-caused unlawful deaths is not reasonable to ask of web forum discussants.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If the addition of "undocumented" foreign nationals with HS or less education who cannot speak, read or write English and will work for very low pay in unsafe/unsanitary conditions is a net benefit to society then why do we spend so much on education and "safety net" programs? We could easily create our own underclass (for the alleged economic benefit?) and let them work and live without benefit "safety net" programs or the ability to report labor law violations.

Incorporate that into whatever reconciliation you have and present a final tally that reflects its incorporation.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,783
Reaction score
53,439
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
From your own link regarding the immigration GDP benefits (https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/popular/CIS2013.pdf) :


and to erase the rest through lowered wages to US citizens:


Before you try to tell us what they contribute you shouldn't top out the highest number without deriving what the net benefit becomes.

PS and those wage losses? Those are permanent. Meaning there is cumulative effect on downward wage pressure.

Many illegal immigrants are said to take (mainly or only) jobs that US citizens will not do. That is simply not true because US citizens have more choices of jobs (and "safety net" alternatives) to work a less demanding job for equal or greater pay. Employers are not apt to offer more pay/benefits than that which is required to attract and retain qualified labor - if lacking legal status is not a disqualifying factor then such jobs (positions?) are apt to be snapped up by illegal immigrants who were disqualified (for lack of leagl status alone) by other employers.
 
Last edited:

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
89,808
Reaction score
38,794
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
your assessment is so full of large holes I could drive a tractor-trailer packed full of 1000s of killos of weed right through it.

Well then, trot out your rig. I don't see it.

Your first incorrect assessment is to believe that their exists an brake-down accounting or plan that accounts for how money wants for "border security" is divvy up.

I didn't say there was a "brake-down". I said that the money for border security will go to more than just a wall...and I gave examples of those other things the money will pay for.

Stop making **** up.

Mexico brings in the drugs...it is Americas that suck them up.

Yes. So? Is this supposed to be a reason to not try to stop the flow of drugs into our country? :roll:

There is no job that is designated an American job. Not even in the US. I had to compete with designers from outside the US. Who in the federal government has assured you employment? Did your government job when you turned 18?

Again...stop making **** up. I didn't designate any job as "American job". I spoke briefly about that Harvard study that dealt with illegal aliens working in America.

And your nonsense about how you had to compete with designers from other countries...your nonsense about government assuring employment...all irrelevant because I made no statement on those issues.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
29,774
Reaction score
13,911
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
First of all, it should be established that the money Trump is trying to get out of Congress isn't solely for building a wall. It will also be spent on other items important to border security, such as more agents, more detection equipment, more immigration courts, etc. These increases will increase security all across the border...including ports of entry.

Now, I want to direct your attention to the link you provided and the statements from that Harvard study...which, btw, is six years old...about net economic contribution by illegal aliens. It gives a figure, by their own account an estimate, of $400 Billion. That's all fine and dandy, but that study doesn't mention any of the costs to our government, to the taxpayers or to individual citizens. (except insofar as illegal aliens take jobs away from citizens) If one accepts the President's numbers, illegal drugs cost our country $500 Billion. This figure, alone, negates any economic contribution we might get from illegal aliens. So...if we were to spend, say, $25 Billion on border security...which would build a wall AND increase border security across the board...we could get close to saving $75 Billion ($100B - $25B). If we then used that savings to increase border security even more, we would save the American citizen...and taxpayer...even more.

So...even disregarding the bulk of your thesis...with just a consideration of the affects of illegal drug smuggling...it is obvious that increasing border security is worth the money...not to mention the lives of American citizens that would be saved.

Good, let Donald's administration make an actual formal proposal to Congress for what he wants Appropriations for instead of shoving them across a WH table at Hill Leadership or trying to bootstrap them to a CR all against the backdrop of a Shutdown that Trump owns. Coercion and subversion of process are not governance. They are Tyranny.
 

Sampson Simpson

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 11, 2018
Messages
5,137
Reaction score
2,795
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
[B
Please, if you believe the US should spend taxpayer money to build a wall on the southern border, provide a sound/cogent case illustrating the preponderance of pecuniary benefits over pecuniary costs of doing so.

You won't get any, because there isn't any. you will get the same dumb comments we get from wall supporters, "Oh, your house has walls". "Oh, prisons have walls and it works"

You aren't dealing with the sharpest tools in the shed, the fact they think a border wall would help tells you all you need to know
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
89,808
Reaction score
38,794
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Good, let Donald's administration make an actual formal proposal to Congress for what he wants Appropriations for instead of shoving them across a WH table at Hill Leadership or trying to bootstrap them to a CR all against the backdrop of a Shutdown that Trump owns. Coercion and subversion of process are not governance. They are Tyranny.

He has made proposals. Guess what...Chuck and Nancy wouldn't even look at them.

You seem to think Trump hasn't made any effort to make a deal...to compromise. He has. The refusal to make a deal has all come from those two Dems.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
29,774
Reaction score
13,911
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
He has made proposals. Guess what...Chuck and Nancy wouldn't even look at them.

You seem to think Trump hasn't made any effort to make a deal...to compromise. He has. The refusal to make a deal has all come from those two Dems.

Nope...never did. He never made an effort through the Appropriations process which is what he needed to do here. The only "Bill" that was hustled up late was the July 2018 Bill that Ryan actually prevented from coming to the floor because:
a) he could not even get the votes from his House Majority for it and he knew it
b) it was not supported by an effort by ANYBODY to House Appropriations to justify it, rationalize it or describe any specifics of it
c) points "a" and b" are part and parcel of there being no actual effort to get that Bill passed and Ryan knew it which is why he slipped it out of the voting calendar before it ever came to the floor.

The absolute only "effort" Trump has made is no effort at all. He has tried to bootstrap what are actually New Appropriations onto CR's which subverts that actual process of gaining Appropriations. In this last round of attempting to bootstrap onto CR's he got it onto the House version of a CR and it was DOA in the Senate because in fact, new Appropriations should not be bootstrapped onto CR's. Trump got away with it in waining moments of the 115th House. But it was never going anywhere in the Senate.

Now, Trump is trying to both subvert the Appropriations process and coerce the result he wants via Gov shutdown. Sorry...that is not government. That is not an effort. That is tyranny. Trump is not King though he exhibits tendencies of the worst of dimwitted, inbred, ignorant as the day is long, European Royalty up through the 20th Century.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
29,774
Reaction score
13,911
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
He has made proposals. Guess what...Chuck and Nancy wouldn't even look at them.

You seem to think Trump hasn't made any effort to make a deal...to compromise. He has. The refusal to make a deal has all come from those two Dems.

As for Chuck and Nancy....They are not going to succumb to an effort to subvert process especially via coercion. If Trump actually wanted his Wall he would have started an actual Appropriation process for it early in the 115th Congress. Instead he chose retribution in the form of time he wasted trying to overturn the ACA and then went on to his tax cut. By the way, the Obama administration knew enough about process to field multiple legislative support efforts at the same time.

The next time you boys want to destroy government and then have the audacity to ask what is left of it for something you want, choose a champion that knows how to do more than flap his gums incoherently.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
89,808
Reaction score
38,794
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Nope...never did. He never made an effort through the Appropriations process which is what he needed to do here. The only "Bill" that was hustled up late was the July 2018 Bill that Ryan actually prevented from coming to the floor because:
a) he could not even get the votes from his House Majority for it and he knew it
b) it was not supported by an effort by ANYBODY to House Appropriations to justify it, rationalize it or describe any specifics of it
c) points "a" and b" are part and parcel of there being no actual effort to get that Bill passed and Ryan knew it which is why he slipped it out of the voting calendar before it ever came to the floor.

The absolute only "effort" Trump has made is no effort at all. He has tried to bootstrap what are actually New Appropriations onto CR's which subverts that actual process of gaining Appropriations. In this last round of attempting to bootstrap onto CR's he got it onto the House version of a CR and it was DOA in the Senate because in fact, new Appropriations should not be bootstrapped onto CR's. Trump got away with it in waining moments of the 115th House. But it was never going anywhere in the Senate.

Now, Trump is trying to both subvert the Appropriations process and coerce the result he wants via Gov shutdown. Sorry...that is not government. That is not an effort. That is tyranny. Trump is not King though he exhibits tendencies of the worst of dimwitted, inbred, ignorant as the day is long, European Royalty up through the 20th Century.

"the Appropriations process"?? What appropriations process? Trump is the President. Appropriations is the responsibility of Congress. They own the "process". Blame Congress for the "appropriations process".

Trump has only one function: Decide if he's going to sign a bill that's given to him or not. He has told Congress he isn't going to sign if they don't give him the money he wants for border security. He told them how much he wants and what he's going to use it for. Chuck and Nancy haven't looked at any of that. They've only said no.


shrug...

Perhaps Congress should do their job an appropriate money, eh?
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
89,808
Reaction score
38,794
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
As for Chuck and Nancy....They are not going to succumb to an effort to subvert process especially via coercion. If Trump actually wanted his Wall he would have started an actual Appropriation process for it early in the 115th Congress. Instead he chose retribution in the form of time he wasted trying to overturn the ACA and then went on to his tax cut. By the way, the Obama administration knew enough about process to field multiple legislative support efforts at the same time.

The next time you boys want to destroy government and then have the audacity to ask what is left of it for something you want, choose a champion that knows how to do more than flap his gums incoherently.

sigh...

How easily you forget. You give truth to my sig.

We've been through this "appropriation process" before. Back then, Chuck was actually willing to give Trump $25 Billion in exchange for Dreamer relief...until his own Dems slapped him upside the head.

Now, Chuck just says no.
 
Top Bottom