Things democrats have funded that cost more than the border wall

[lwf]

For the record, I'm not a wall proponent. A band aid on a broken leg. I favor drying up the reasons they come here. No more jobs, no more kiddie education. No more bennies. No more sanctuary anything.

I don't think President Trump sees the wall as a monument. I'm not sure he sees it as a broken campaign promise. He may see it as an ego buster.

My problem is the lie that it's about money.

Waste is waste. Even if the op's premise were correct that all of the things democrats have paid more money for in the past were a waste, that doesn't make spending money on wasteful things in the present any more rational.

 

[jimbo]

If you don't want a wall, welcome to the majority. And if you don't want to pay for it, you'll get your wish.

Does that also apply to those government programs I neither use nor want?

 

[Pedestrian]

"After President Trump requested $5.7 billion to fund the border wall he campaigned on in 2016, Democrats have dug in, refusing to appropriate the funds that the administration says are needed to better manage the flow of immigration across the southern border.

Democrats are not traditionally known for their fiscal rectitude but are particularly parsimonious over what ultimately amounts to a very small percentage of the federal budget. (In 2018, the feds spent $4.173 trillion overall, meaning the border wall would amount to just 1/10th of 1 percent of current annual federal spending.)

Indeed, these lawmakers have happily funded various projects over the years that cost far more than the border wall — and many of which had very questionable value. Below are some examples of wasteful federal spending projects that individually cost more than the proposed border wall (data courtesy of Citizens Against Government Waste)​

https://news.grabien.com/story-things-democrats-have-funded-cost-more-border-wall


I guess the money ain't the reason then?


$8.2B, $6B, $15B, ... pretty soon you're talking free healthcare for a couple of weeks.

Things the dems should shut down the govt. for:

.....everything they want and still can't get the votes. that should make the right happy.

 

[Cardinal]

Does that also apply to those government programs I neither use nor want?

Those are not this topic, so a different set of variables and factors surround them.

 

[Hari Seldon]

"After President Trump requested $5.7 billion to fund the border wall he campaigned on in 2016, Democrats have dug in, refusing to appropriate the funds that the administration says are needed to better manage the flow of immigration across the southern border.

Democrats are not traditionally known for their fiscal rectitude but are particularly parsimonious over what ultimately amounts to a very small percentage of the federal budget. (In 2018, the feds spent $4.173 trillion overall, meaning the border wall would amount to just 1/10th of 1 percent of current annual federal spending.)

Indeed, these lawmakers have happily funded various projects over the years that cost far more than the border wall — and many of which had very questionable value. Below are some examples of wasteful federal spending projects that individually cost more than the proposed border wall (data courtesy of Citizens Against Government Waste)​

https://news.grabien.com/story-things-democrats-have-funded-cost-more-border-wall


I guess the money ain't the reason then?


$8.2B, $6B, $15B, ... pretty soon you're talking free healthcare for a couple of weeks.

A wall would be a giant waste of funds. What exactly do we get for $5 billion? As conservatives have mentioned in the past. Elections have consequences.

 

[VanceMack]

Leftists took border security seriously in 2006. They took it seriously in 2012. Idiot leftist muppet supporters nodded and cheered blindly when leftists voted FOR walls and fences in the past and cited the dangers and ills of illegal immigration.

Today, its unimportant.

because leftists are liars and hypocrites.

 

[Nickyjo]

O

"After President Trump requested $5.7 billion to fund the border wall he campaigned on in 2016, Democrats have dug in, refusing to appropriate the funds that the administration says are needed to better manage the flow of immigration across the southern border.

Democrats are not traditionally known for their fiscal rectitude but are particularly parsimonious over what ultimately amounts to a very small percentage of the federal budget. (In 2018, the feds spent $4.173 trillion overall, meaning the border wall would amount to just 1/10th of 1 percent of current annual federal spending.)

Indeed, these lawmakers have happily funded various projects over the years that cost far more than the border wall — and many of which had very questionable value. Below are some examples of wasteful federal spending projects that individually cost more than the proposed border wall (data courtesy of Citizens Against Government Waste)​

https://news.grabien.com/story-things-democrats-have-funded-cost-more-border-wall


I guess the money ain't the reason then?


$8.2B, $6B, $15B, ... pretty soon you're talking free healthcare for a couple of weeks.

You are not making sense. Who said money was the reason? Both parties have earmarked money for border enforcement.

 

[Cardinal]

Leftists took border security seriously in 2006. They took it seriously in 2012. Idiot leftist muppet supporters nodded and cheered blindly when leftists voted FOR walls and fences in the past and cited the dangers and ills of illegal immigration.

Today, its unimportant.

because leftists are liars and hypocrites.

Republicans have lied nearly 100% of the time about the wall issue. Republicans have completely lost on this issue, and now they're lashing out with even more obfuscation, lies and insults to make up for the past failed lies and obfuscation.

If the wall was truly important to Republicans then they should have been honest surrounding the facts of the issue from the start. Instead they lied compulsively about it and the majority of the country is sick of it.

 

[VanceMack]

Republicans have lied nearly 100% of the time about the wall issue. Republicans have completely lost on this issue, and now they're lashing out with even more obfuscation, lies and insults to make up for the past failed lies and obfuscation.

If the wall was truly important to Republicans then they should have been honest surrounding the facts of the issue from the start. Instead they lied compulsively about it and the majority of the country is sick of it.

Go ahead and try to avoid the reality that you and people like you bow and swallow everything every leftist ever fed you about illegal immigration.

It wont work. And I think what has you so salty is you know it. Thats hopeful, because at least you have the grace to feel a LITTLE bit guilty about your lies and hypocrisy.

 

[Cardinal]

Go ahead and try to avoid the reality that you and people like you bow and swallow everything every leftist ever fed you about illegal immigration.

It wont work. And I think what has you so salty is you know it. Thats hopeful, because at least you have the grace to feel a LITTLE bit guilty about your lies and hypocrisy.

Your insults are hollow and don't change the fact that Republicans have hopelessly lost the public debate on this narrative. And they have nobody but themselves to blame for it.

 

[VanceMack]

Your insults are hollow and don't change the fact that Republicans have hopelessly lost the public debate on this narrative. And they have nobody but themselves to blame for it.

There was no insult...only an expression of fact. And you know it.

Blather on. Two people you will never convince with your words. Me...and your own self.

 

[Grokmaster]

"After President Trump requested $5.7 billion to fund the border wall he campaigned on in 2016, Democrats have dug in, refusing to appropriate the funds that the administration says are needed to better manage the flow of immigration across the southern border.

Democrats are not traditionally known for their fiscal rectitude but are particularly parsimonious over what ultimately amounts to a very small percentage of the federal budget. (In 2018, the feds spent $4.173 trillion overall, meaning the border wall would amount to just 1/10th of 1 percent of current annual federal spending.)

Indeed, these lawmakers have happily funded various projects over the years that cost far more than the border wall — and many of which had very questionable value. Below are some examples of wasteful federal spending projects that individually cost more than the proposed border wall (data courtesy of Citizens Against Government Waste)​

https://news.grabien.com/story-things-democrats-have-funded-cost-more-border-wall


I guess the money ain't the reason then?


$8.2B, $6B, $15B, ... pretty soon you're talking free healthcare for a couple of weeks.

The "reason" is petulant, little demogogue democrats, desperate to "GET TRUMP", who couldn't care less about the safety of Americans.

 

[bubbabgone]

Waste is waste. Even if the op's premise were correct that all of the things democrats have paid more money for in the past were a waste, that doesn't make spending money on wasteful things in the present any more rational.

Is the fact that Democrats have funded other things a good reason for continuing to do stupid things?

Here is an example of the steel slat wall and how easy it is to break through with a saw purchased at the local store.

https://www.msnbc.com/stephanie-ruhle/watch/dhs-testing-of-steel-slat-border-wall-prototype-proved-it-could-be-cut-through-1423316547991

Isn't it about time to start doing things intelligently and for the betterment of the nation, instead of doing things on a person's whim?

That's got to be one of the weakest threads on this I've seen.

Democrats have appropriated money to other things that were more expensive, therefore ....? :lamo

Most of those things in the article were not a one-time expense. They're still costing us as noted.
The Wall would not be in that category.

 

[Mr Person]

That's got to be one of the weakest threads on this I've seen.

Democrats have appropriated money to other things that were more expensive, therefore ....? :lamo

Most of those things in the article were not a one-time expense. They're still costing us as noted.
The Wall would not be in that category.

....which continues to have nothing to do with anything relevant.





Please tell me you didn't actually look at this and think your head "if we ignore what the thing is, why we're paying for it, and what it's likely to do, some things cost more, then we see that completely different things that cost more .....cost more! Huh great argument".

Please tell me, because that would be hopelessly stupid to do or say. So stupid that it would in fact most likely just be dishonesty aimed at a policy goal, means over ends.




Someone already spelled this out for those still "confused": It's like saying, "gee, you just bought a new truck for 30k this year. How dare you refuse to buy that 3k bottle of ancient whiskey!?"

It's just....well, as I said. It's so stupid it has to be dishonesty instead, because nobody could legitimately think the "you spent more other stuff, so you're wrong to not spend less on this" argument makes the slightest fraction of a lick of a fraction of a nanogram of sense.

 

[bubbabgone]

....which continues to have nothing to do with anything relevant.





Please tell me you didn't actually look at this and think your head "if we ignore what the thing is, why we're paying for it, and what it's likely to do, some things cost more, then we see that completely different things that cost more .....cost more! Huh great argument".

Please tell me, because that would be hopelessly stupid to do or say. So stupid that it would in fact most likely just be dishonesty aimed at a policy goal, means over ends.

It's money that continues to be spent with nothing to show for it and could be discontinued for something functional instead.

 

[Mr Person]

Most of those things in the article were not a one-time expense. They're still costing us as noted.
The Wall would not be in that category.

....which continues to have nothing to do with anything relevant.





Please tell me you didn't actually look at this and think your head "if we ignore what the thing is, why we're paying for it, and what it's likely to do, some things cost more, then we see that completely different things that cost more .....cost more! Huh great argument".

Please tell me, because that would be hopelessly stupid to do or say. So stupid that it would in fact most likely just be dishonesty aimed at a policy goal, means over ends.




Someone already spelled this out for those still "confused": It's like saying, "gee, you just bought a new truck for 30k this year. How dare you refuse to buy that 3k bottle of ancient whiskey!?"

It's just....well, as I said. It's so stupid it has to be dishonesty instead, because nobody could legitimately think the "you spent more other stuff, so you're wrong to not spend less on this" argument makes the slightest fraction of a lick of a fraction of a nanogram of sense.

It's money that continues to be spent with nothing to show for it and could be discontinued for something functional instead.

Money that could be spent with nothing to show for it? What?

Remember: the argument you defended was that we spent more money on other things, therefore __________ so build the wall.



That is nonsense. People spend money on all sorts of things. Spending more money on one thing because X,Y,Z, doesn't mean one is somehow a fool or hypocrite to not spend less money on something completely different.

**** man, I should just give up on America. You just don't care what you break to get your way. And enough people are doing it that we're increasingly running into real (and completely unnecessary) problems.




What you said is utter bull****, and it is the true problem - not the wall, but the pattern of justify-with-anything - that will spell any doom this country has.

 

[Lursa]

"After President Trump requested $5.7 billion to fund the border wall he campaigned on in 2016, Democrats have dug in, refusing to appropriate the funds that the administration says are needed to better manage the flow of immigration across the southern border.

Democrats are not traditionally known for their fiscal rectitude but are particularly parsimonious over what ultimately amounts to a very small percentage of the federal budget. (In 2018, the feds spent $4.173 trillion overall, meaning the border wall would amount to just 1/10th of 1 percent of current annual federal spending.)

Indeed, these lawmakers have happily funded various projects over the years that cost far more than the border wall — and many of which had very questionable value. Below are some examples of wasteful federal spending projects that individually cost more than the proposed border wall (data courtesy of Citizens Against Government Waste)​

https://news.grabien.com/story-things-democrats-have-funded-cost-more-border-wall


I guess the money ain't the reason then?


$8.2B, $6B, $15B, ... pretty soon you're talking free healthcare for a couple of weeks.

It's not about the price tag.

It's about it not actually being an effective enough solution to make that $$ worth spending.

And the facts supporting this are available and repeated in about 10 threads here and in the media constantly.

 

[bubbabgone]

Money that could be spent with nothing to show for it? What?

Remember: the argument you defended was that we spent more money on other things, therefore __________ so build the wall.



That is nonsense. People spend money on all sorts of things. Spending more money on one thing because X,Y,Z, doesn't mean one is somehow a fool or hypocrite to not spend less money on something completely different.

**** man, I should just give up on America. You just don't care what you break to get your way. And enough people are doing it that we're increasingly running into real (and completely unnecessary) problems.




What you said is utter bull****, and it is the true problem - not the wall, but the pattern of justify-with-anything - that will spell any doom this country has.

It's explained in the article and in #40.

 

[bubbabgone]

It's not about the price tag.

It's about it not actually being an effective enough solution to make that $$ worth spending.

And the facts supporting this are available and repeated in about 10 threads here and in the media constantly.

Why would the BP keep saying it's effective if it isn't, and why would people who can't show it isn't say it's ineffective.

 

[Lursa]

Leftists took border security seriously in 2006. They took it seriously in 2012. Idiot leftist muppet supporters nodded and cheered blindly when leftists voted FOR walls and fences in the past and cited the dangers and ills of illegal immigration.

Today, its unimportant.

because leftists are liars and hypocrites.

Are you implying that just because we wont pay for a wall that we dont take border security seriously? :lamo

Some people cant take in anything that doesnt match their biases apparently, because the list of $$, programs, and solutions for border security and solving the illegal immigration issue is fairly long.

And that $5 billion could be better spent *on that issue*. And it's been written in multiple threads here, over and over.

One example: Just $1 billion to investigate, identify, and punish employers that hire illegals. Just think of the oversight we could get for that $$?

And not wasting $ on a wall for the claim of 'stopping drug and human trafficking' when the data shows that the great majority of that takes place right at the legal border crossings, in smuggled in cars and trucks.

 

[Airyaman]

Hey OP, that GoFundMe account is still open, and slowing down yugely in donations. You should check it out if you want to fund a wall.

 

[Lursa]

Why would the BP keep saying it's effective if it isn't, and why would people who can't show it isn't say it's ineffective.

Why would the BP tell us that most drug and human trafficking wouldnt be affected by the wall? Because they've published that, it's been posted here and in the media?

Why wouldnt the BP prefer that the $$ be spent on their needs instead of elsewhere, like law enforcement cracking down on employers, and thus removing the #1 reason illegals come here? (Gee, because then they'd see a lot of layoffs)

 

[In8theGreat]

"After President Trump requested $5.7 billion to fund the border wall he campaigned on in 2016, Democrats have dug in, refusing to appropriate the funds that the administration says are needed to better manage the flow of immigration across the southern border.

Democrats are not traditionally known for their fiscal rectitude but are particularly parsimonious over what ultimately amounts to a very small percentage of the federal budget. (In 2018, the feds spent $4.173 trillion overall, meaning the border wall would amount to just 1/10th of 1 percent of current annual federal spending.)

Indeed, these lawmakers have happily funded various projects over the years that cost far more than the border wall — and many of which had very questionable value. Below are some examples of wasteful federal spending projects that individually cost more than the proposed border wall (data courtesy of Citizens Against Government Waste)​

https://news.grabien.com/story-things-democrats-have-funded-cost-more-border-wall


I guess the money ain't the reason then?


$8.2B, $6B, $15B, ... pretty soon you're talking free healthcare for a couple of weeks.

Its not about spending more...…..its about spending money on a wall that's not going to work, when illegal immigration is going down, and most studies show that immigration is a net positive to this country.

So it seems that republican want to spend money on ineffective ideas made up from their tiny heads while democrats want to spend money on healthcare and necessities that actually help people. Thanks for making my case for me.

 

[JustHanging]

Canadians are not the problem

Yes we are.

Only six immigrants in terrorism database stopped by CBP at southern border from October to March

On the northern border, CBP stopped ... 41 who were not American citizens or residents.


Canada is far more of a problem. Build the Northern Wall! NOW!

 

[RAMOSS]

"After President Trump requested $5.7 billion to fund the border wall he campaigned on in 2016, Democrats have dug in, refusing to appropriate the funds that the administration says are needed to better manage the flow of immigration across the southern border.

Democrats are not traditionally known for their fiscal rectitude but are particularly parsimonious over what ultimately amounts to a very small percentage of the federal budget. (In 2018, the feds spent $4.173 trillion overall, meaning the border wall would amount to just 1/10th of 1 percent of current annual federal spending.)

Indeed, these lawmakers have happily funded various projects over the years that cost far more than the border wall — and many of which had very questionable value. Below are some examples of wasteful federal spending projects that individually cost more than the proposed border wall (data courtesy of Citizens Against Government Waste)​

https://news.grabien.com/story-things-democrats-have-funded-cost-more-border-wall


I guess the money ain't the reason then?


$8.2B, $6B, $15B, ... pretty soon you're talking free healthcare for a couple of weeks.

YOu do know that 5.7 billion would not build the wall. It would at least 25 billion, and that does not include the cost overruns.