The Border Wall or Fence

[John Cuthber]

If Trump was proposing to spend the money on schools and libraries, most people would support it.

If he was spending $5B on a gold statue of himself, people might not support it, but they might accept that it's a small price to pay to get government moving again and thus vote it through.

But the true cost of Trump's wall isn't $5B, because of all the knock-on costs. Nobody knows how big the full cost is.

But since it does no good, it would be too expensive, even if it was free.

The folk waiting for their paychecks are in a hole.
But that hole gets worse if you set a precedent where Trump- or anyone else- can get anything he wants by screwing them over, simply because it teaches him to do it again and again.

That's the real cost- not just $5B.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

So. If you had missed two paychecks at this point and you were already struggling with your bills prior to the shutdown, by this point you'd be even more adamant that no matter what you don't give into Trumps demands.

Again. Easy for you to say that the deal is worthless and everything when you're not being affected by it. 

 

You care more about pinning the blame to someone and holding onto your ideological ideals, then you do about actually helping people who need it.

Congratulations. Politics has beaten your humanity.

 

10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I certainly have no real answer to your question, nor am I pretending anything. All I have is questions on that myself.

I think that is part of the  5.7 billion dollar question. Can this be put in economic terms? What is the dollar value of the what they should allow? What good is that much spending in dollars...say any residual value of that spending? .

Ten oz has at least explained why he can't ascertain any value to Trumps potential spending of that 5.7B, 

2

Stop blaming the victims...

 

[rangerx]

 

When a group of young white private school boys goes on a field trip to mock and yell "BUILD THE WALL"  in the face a first nation veteran as he peacefully protests, tells me this issue has  nothing to do with border security and everything about upholding white supremacy.

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, rangerx said:

 

When a group of young white private school boys goes on a field trip to mock and yell "BUILD THE WALL"  in the face a first nation veteran as he peacefully protests, tells me this issue has  nothing to do with border security and everything about upholding white supremacy.

It must feel doubly strange being mocked by a bunch of immigrants kids on ones own land. 

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Not suggesting less blame to Trump, but say, additional to Trump, and finally some to the Democrats as well? If only for goading Trump and leaving him no "egomaniacal room" whatsoever?

To buckle now would be to sow the seeds of more of that behaviour because, like a temper-tantrum child, he would see that it works.

Edited January 20, 2019 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

35 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So no one seems to have any idea of an answer in concrete terms. (or steel, or litigation etc)

OTOH there have been attempts to put the cost of the shutdown in dollar terms.

But maybe no one can really summarize the whole of it in this manner, and it is best left to hand waving arguments, hopefully at least based on the most objective evidence...and then "may the best rhetoric win"?

Since Trump is the one asking for 5.7 billion isn't the onus on him to put it in concrete terms? You don't think is it strange that the whole govt is shutdown over a funding request that no one can quantify. I provided you what DHS's plans are. DHS is ran by a Trump appointee and not by Democrats. Their 2019 budget lays out ,in concrete terms, what they feel they need to get the job done. Democrats have already agreed to give DHS 100% of what they have outlined they needed to include money for them to develop a department within DHS to analyse how to best build a wall and what the estimated costs would be. Trump has failed to release any specifics for his wall. There is no plans in place for what would happen if Congress gave Trump 5.7 billion dollars. 

It is inaccurate to say "may the best rhetoric win". The 1.6 billion Democrats have offered is specifically earmarked to pay for the thing DHS requested in there budget. It is not rhetoric. It is actionable. That money is in addition to the 3.5 billion budget increase for the 2019 year. Between the 3.5 billion and the 1.6 billion DHS will be receiving 5.1 billion dollars this year over what it received in 2018. A total increase of nearly 12% over last year. Oh, by the way DHS got a 4 billion dollar increase in 2018. So in 2yrs DHS is looking at 9.1 billion increases. That is a 22.5% increase over 2016 (Obama's last DHS budget). Those are the concrete terms. Under Trump DHS has already asked for and receive massive increases to hire hire more agents, judges, lawyers, repair existing fencing, build new fencing, and develop new department specifically to plan a wall.

We can clearly see where that money Democrats are offering would go. We can't do the same for Trump's 5.7 billion. It is just a number he keeps repeating but is not attached to any specific plan. So the only empty "rhetoric" here is Trump's 5.7 billion. Democrats are offering money for real policies that DHS has real plans for. 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Ten oz has at least explained why he can't ascertain any value to Trumps potential spending of that 5.7B

Can you? The issue isn't that I can't. The issue is that no one can. Why don't you help all us out and link Trump's associated proposal for what specifically that 5.7 billion would pay for. 

[rangerx]

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Not suggesting less blame to Trump, but say, additional to Trump, and finally some to the Democrats as well? If only for goading Trump and leaving him no "egomaniacal room" whatsoever?

No egomaniacal room whatsoever? Wow! Quite the false narrative.

Everything he's done is egomaniacal. He's driven by egomania, speaks in egomaniacal terms, acts in egomaniacal deeds.

If anything, this is an opportunity to create himself some "presidential room" but no.

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, rangerx said:

No egomaniacal room whatsoever? Wow! Quite the false narrative.

Everything he's done is egomaniacal. He's driven by egomania, speaks in egomaniacal terms, acts in egomaniacal deeds.

If anything, this is an opportunity to create himself some "presidential room" but no.

J.C. is operating on the well worn platitude that the only truly fair and moderate position in politics in to blame both sides. He is refuting the idea that Trump is or could be anymore to blame than anyone else. In my opinion it is a fairly immature perspective which rather stubbornly fails to consider the actual facts. On the surface blaming both side seems fair but in practice accomplishes nothing. Real choices do have to get made at some point.

If you scream 1 step forward and I scream 1 step backward and we amicably agree to split the difference and meet in the middle no steps will get made. To move in either direction one of us will simply have to get what we want.

[iNow]

Kidnapper abducts 50 of your colleagues. Says he will only release them if you let him have sex with your wife. You say, no. Are you now responsible for the 50 colleagues being held hostage? Of course not. The magnitude of stupid required to suggest such a thing is overwhelming. 

Kidnapper says, fine.  Let me have sex with your wife, I’ll also return the many items I stole from your home last year, and will additionally agree not to steal anything else for 2 more years. Agree to this and I’ll release the hostages. Understandably, you again say, no. Are you now responsible for the 50 colleagues being held hostage? Of course not. Are you the one now at fault for “not compromising” with the kidnapper? Of course not. The magnitude of stupid required to suggest such a thing is overwhelming. 

“What if you just let him put it in the butt?? that’s a compromise” ... that’s where this conversation has devolved into. No. Not just no, but hell no.

Yet that’s precisely what’s happening here when posters keep saying Democrats are the ones responsible despite their MANY votes attempting to reopen government and to get workers paid, and despite the obvious obstacle here being Mitch McConnel and the president for refusing to even allow a vote. 

[MigL]

Bad analogy INow.

How about a couple with kids, getting divorced, and using custody as a weapon against each other ( even if one of them started it, and should get all the blame )
The very children they should be taking care of, are the ones suffering the most.

At least, that's how I see it.
But I'm not American.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

How about a couple with kids, getting divorced, and using custody as a weapon against each other ( even if one of them started it, and should get all the blame )
The very children they should be taking care of, are the ones suffering the most.

Fine, but what you don’t acknowledge here is that it’s only ONE of the parents who is refusing to feed the kids until an agreement gets made on custody. 

[MigL]

So are you saying that because one parent won't feed the kids, the other shouldn't either, as that would be 'giving in' ?

In my opinion ( for what its worth ) parents, and governments, shouldn't be about assigning blame.
Rather, taking care of those they are responsible for.
Am I being naïve ?

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

Am I being naïve ?

No, but you do seem to putting forth hollow platitudes nobody disagrees with.

I think at this point Democrats have tried at least 8x in January alone to get the government open again, yet this type of “both sides” rhetoric persists (and that’s problematic for the reasons so well laid out several times already by Ten Oz)

Edited January 20, 2019 by iNow

[rangerx]

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

Am I being naïve ?

No. Just obtuse.

You're claiming to be taking moral high ground.

By the same logic you've detailed, where is the concern for the children at the border?

On one hand you'd move mountains for kids, but on the other remain indifferent for denying them opportunity.

 

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yet that’s precisely what’s happening here when posters keep saying Democrats are the ones responsible despite their MANY votes attempting to reopen government and to get workers paid, and despite the obvious obstacle here being Mitch McConnel and the president for refusing to even allow a vote.

This is one thing I must admit Trump is really good at. Trump does so much posturing and creates so many distractions that it is very difficult to maintain a rational conversation. Everyone gets so caught lost arguing over the morality of the wall, the logistics of a wall, the lies said about immigration data, the insults spat at politicians, and etc that many basic facts get lost in the shuffle. Basic facts like Trump doesn't currently have an plan for a wall. Just as Trump never had, still doesn't have, a plan to replace the ACA.  

Your analogy is correct. Trump is using 2019's budget to take hostages. There are numerous ways one can attempt to sleep with someones wife. Taking coworkers hostage is just one of a million different ways. It doesn't have to be hostages. Likewise there is nothing about Trump's request for 5.7 billion which requires the govt be shutdown. Trump can ask for the money at any time. Congress can appropriate money at any time during any month. This fight doesn't need to be attached to the 2019 budget.

Also the annual federal budget runs October through September. We are 4 months into 2019's fiscal year. Congress kicked the can back in Sept to extend debate which is why we are arguing the budget now in January. I think that is confusing some people. January is the beginning of the year so I think some people think this is when the budget cycle begins, it isn't. The Federal budget is passed in September. Congress spends the summer writing the budget. We are already 4 months into 2019's budget. However this shutdown ends Congress and the White House will begin negotiations for 2020's budget within the next few months because it is due in by September of this year.  So even if one mistakenly thinks the 5.7 billion must be attached to an annual federal budget why not negotiate this summer and get in in 2020 budget? It is the difference of a few months and not another full year to next January. 

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

 You don't think is it strange that the whole govt is shutdown over a funding request that no one can quantify. I provided you what DHS's plans are.

No. I do think it is strange.

 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

 

Can you? The issue isn't that I can't. The issue is that no one can. Why don't you help all us out and link Trump's associated proposal for what specifically that 5.7 billion would pay for. 

Ten oz. I'm not making any claims here (yet, but see below at my feeble attempt), outside of pointing out something that seems unanswered. I am asking questions with regard to it. You have assured me I will not find that information, that there is no real plan and therefore no link. Perhaps I will do a brief google search...

In the meantime I will start with a wild conjecture that the cost of the 5.7B would reap 2.85B in value to America, admitting that it could be more and it could be less, including the outside possibility that the value could be in the negative.

My assumptions are that perhaps the wall (more accurately the spending, as you have pointed out there will be costs involved that will not go directly toward the wall e.g. litigation etc.) that there will has some value, but my ignorance dictates that I can do no better at this point than splitting the difference between full value and none. This is also assuming that the wall is not in fact immoral on it's own, even if it's future use might have that potential. (which would be highly dependant on who is in office after it is built)

That leaves Trumps 5.7B price tag at a net cost of 2.85B, which can be compared to the ongoing costs of the shutdown, that economists can at least estimate and on top of which other human costs can be considered.

Here we have some estimates that would put the cost so far at between 5 and 10 Billion,  with it going up by 200 to 400 million a day.

This may admittedly be rubbish accounting, but if no one can improve upon it (I believe that is very unlikely) it is the best we have. It is not blame neutral, or blame one side or the other. It does not assess blame at all.

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

Kidnapper abducts 50 of your colleagues. Says he will only release them if you let him have sex with your wife. You say, no. Are you now responsible for the 50 colleagues being held hostage? Of course not. The magnitude of stupid required to suggest such a thing is overwhelming. 

Kidnapper says, fine.  Let me have sex with your wife, I’ll also return the many items I stole from your home last year, and will additionally agree not to steal anything else for 2 more years. Agree to this and I’ll release the hostages. Understandably, you again say, no. Are you now responsible for the 50 colleagues being held hostage? Of course not. Are you the one now at fault for “not compromising” with the kidnapper? Of course not. The magnitude of stupid required to suggest such a thing is overwhelming. 

“What if you just let him put it in the butt?? that’s a compromise” ... that’s where this conversation has devolved into. No. Not just no, but hell no.

Yet that’s precisely what’s happening here when posters keep saying Democrats are the ones responsible despite their MANY votes attempting to reopen government and to get workers paid, and despite the obvious obstacle here being Mitch McConnel and the president for refusing to even allow a vote. 

Why do you feel compelled to make this misleading statement? Do you not feel your arguments are solid enough without it?

 

43 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

J.C. is operating on the well worn platitude that the only truly fair and moderate position in politics in to blame both sides. He is refuting the idea that Trump is or could be anymore to blame than anyone else. In my opinion it is a fairly immature perspective which rather stubbornly fails to consider the actual facts. On the surface blaming both side seems fair but in practice accomplishes nothing. Real choices do have to get made at some point.

If you scream 1 step forward and I scream 1 step backward and we amicably agree to split the difference and meet in the middle no steps will get made. To move in either direction one of us will simply have to get what we want.

Ten oz.possibly is operating on the Leftist platitude that accurate interpretation of the words from anyone the perceive to be on the right of them is wholly unnecessary, and that the case for Leftist argument can be best built with deceit. Another possibility is that he continuously makes honest errors when reading, and it just coincidently falls in one direction.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Stop blaming the victims...

 

I don't remember blaming the 800,000 currently without paychecks, but will apologize profusely if I have unintentionally done so.

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why do you feel compelled to make this misleading statement? Do you not feel your arguments are solid enough without it?

Lol. Am I the only one actually reading?

It’s not misleading at all. In fact, here’s a direct quote from less than 24 hours ago:

17 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

in my personal opinion, I now blame the Democrats for an extension of this government shutdown. Not Trump.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Lol. Am I the only one actually reading?

It’s not misleading at all. In fact, here’s a direct quote from less than 24 hours ago:

 

You need to provide more than one example for "posters keep saying", unless you accidentally pluralized "poster", and by keep" you meant "once".

Otherwise it was intentionally misleading.

...or is it just habitual Leftist writing with no real intent to mislead?

Edited January 20, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

So are you saying that because one parent won't feed the kids, the other shouldn't either, as that would be 'giving in' ?

In my opinion ( for what its worth ) parents, and governments, shouldn't be about assigning blame.
Rather, taking care of those they are responsible for.
Am I being naïve ?

I have already linked (few separate times) the DHS 2019 budget. It outlines what its programs are and how much money they need to accomplish their mission as directed by the President. DHS is ran by Trump appointees. Their budget details how many new agents they plan to hire, plans for fence repairs, new technology, and etc, etc, etc. Everything in it has been approved by Congress. DHS will receive 5.1 billion dollars over last years budget. So far under Trump DHS has received 9.1 billion in budget increases. 

There is no plan in DHS's budget for a 5.7 billion wall. Or in DOD's budget for that matter (Trump claims to have a military option). Can you provide us with the specifics for the 5.7 billion? Maybe I missed the White House press release where they detailed the 5.7 billion wall plan. If you can't produce it I would argue that you are in fact being naive. Trump is demanding money for something there are no plans in place for. The govt doesn't even own the required land. Imminent Domain will need to be argued in court (a length process) between Trump's administration and numerous land owners.   

There is precedence for this type of behavior from Trump. He demanded Congress repeal and Replace the ACA but never provided Congress a plan. Trump signed an executive order for a travel banned which couldn't be implemented and was quickly tossed out in court. Paul Ryan and fellow Republicans  wrote Trump's tax plan on the fly while voting was taking place. Trump's admin never bother to formal write one. 

[rangerx]

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Ten oz.possibly is operating on the Leftist platitude that accurate interpretation of the words from anyone the perceive to be on the right of them is wholly unnecessary, and that the case for Leftist argument can be best built with deceit. Another possibility is that he continuously makes honest errors when reading, and it just coincidently falls in one direction.

Ahh, so it's just a leftist conspiracy then.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, rangerx said:

Ahh, so it's just a leftist conspiracy then.

Tactic. Seems to be a very consistent one.

Edited January 20, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Ten oz. I'm not making any claims here (yet, but see below at my feeble attempt), outside of pointing out something that seems unanswered.

Trump is the one asking for the 5.7 billion dollars. Please explain to me why the onus is not squarely on his shoulders to provide the answer?

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I am asking questions with regard to it. You have assured me I will not find that information, that there is no real plan and therefore no link. Perhaps I will do a brief google search...

I have told you I am not aware of one. I could be wrong. I would actually like to read Trump's plan if one actually exists and were released. Wouldn't you? 

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

In the meantime I will start with a wild conjecture that the cost of the 5.7B would reap 2.85B in value to America, admitting that it could be more and it could be less, including the outside possibility that the value could be in the negative.

My assumptions are that perhaps the wall (more accurately the spending, as you have pointed out there will be costs involved that will not go directly toward the wall e.g. litigation etc.) that there will has some value, but my ignorance dictates that I can do no better at this point than splitting the difference between full value and none. This is also assuming that the wall is not in fact immoral on it's own, even if it's future use might have that potential. (which would be highly dependant on who is in office after it is built)

That leaves Trumps 5.7B price tag at a net cost of 2.85B, which can be compared to the ongoing costs of the shutdown, that economists can at least estimate and on top of which other human costs can be considered.

What are your assumptions possibly based on? You have no idea what Trump's 5.7 billion dollars would be spent on or when. You have not read an official plan.

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Ten oz.possibly is operating on the Leftist platitude that accurate interpretation of the words from anyone the perceive to be on the right of them is wholly unnecessary, and that the case for Leftist argument can be best built with deceit. Another possibility is that he continuously makes honest errors when reading, and it just coincidently falls in one direction.

Democrats have support a real plan we can all read where the money and associated agency over sight is clearly define. Trump has provided nothing. Please explain to me (as specifically as you are able) how bothsides can meet in the middle between a real plan and no plan at all?  

Edited January 20, 2019 by Ten oz

[rangerx]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Tactic. Seems to be a very consistent one.

Well, you would know. It's your MO.

[iNow]

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

<paraphrasing quotes these last 5 pages...> Leftist this, leftist that... Leftist this, leftist that... Leftist this, leftist that... Leftist this, leftist that... 

Please feel free to open a new thread exploring these quote unquote leftist tactics, but for here in this particular thread it would be much appreciated if you could please stop attacking posters as individuals, focus on the actual arguments being made, and cease from inserting unnecessary and unhelpful tribal divisions and generalizations into your posts. 

[MigL]

Where have I, or JCM ever blamed or assigned fault to Democrats.
We are Canadian. We expect our government to work.
Maybe Americans have different expectations, and expect their government to fight their ideological battles for them.

You guys don't seem to read posts by others ( I don't even know what Rangerx is reading ), but you keep repeating the same things over again.
And nothing gets resolved.

If you're happy with that, no government, and 800000 of your countrymen going without pay, then, great.
But if you think there's a problem that needs resolving, then you should consider all options.
( cause you know D Trump won't solve anything )

[rangerx]

Accusing your accuser of what doing what you're doing.