Re: House spending bill funds all of Trump's initial $1.6 billion border wall plan
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikekle
You are joking...right?
If the goal was to actually reduce or stop these things, it could be
achieved by going after the source, usually thats what a govt does when
they are attacked and lives are lost and ruined, after 9-11, we went
after the source, using military was justified and expected. The mexican
cartels and the millions of acres of drugs are not on some secret
continent, I would bet the poppy fields can be seen from space since
they consistently produce enough to keep the entire US supplied!
The wall is just more money being thrown at fighting a problem, the goal
is NOT to cure or stop, its to ensure 'fighting' will go on and on for
decades, in order to justify the huge budgets, new regulations, laws,
etc, the 'problem' must be there and must be bad enough for the
justification to continue.
|
Are you suggesting that the US invade Mexico?
Jul 19, '17, 12:34 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: August 8, 2014
Posts: 5,627
Religion: Christian
|
|
Re: House spending bill funds all of Trump's initial $1.6 billion border wall plan
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProdigalSun
Are you suggesting that the US invade Mexico?
|
And the Caribbean, central America, and Columbia too.
He wants a full fledged American Empire, so we can rule these countries and people PROPERLY.
__________________
FACTS MATTER!
|
Jul 19, '17, 1:00 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: February 1, 2005
Posts: 1,230
Religion: Roman Catholic
|
|
Re: House spending bill funds all of Trump's initial $1.6 billion border wall plan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theo520
And the Caribbean, central America, and Columbia too.
He wants a full fledged American Empire, so we can rule these countries and people PROPERLY.
|
????Who want's this?
|
Jul 19, '17, 5:16 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: August 8, 2014
Posts: 5,627
Religion: Christian
|
|
Re: House spending bill funds all of Trump's initial $1.6 billion border wall plan
I was just thinking, the F35 is ideal for that work, it does everything!
Won't we make up the cost difference with increased volume (lol).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monte RCMS
The United States paid for crop sprayers in Colombia that took out the poppy fields there.
The airplanes had to be armored to protect the engines and pilots.
They were so effective that other countries bought the same planes to use for counter guerrilla and counter terrorism attacks.
http://www.iomax.net/in-the-news/arc...o-tank-buster/
http://www.iomax.net/archangel/
Cost effective.
The supersonic mafia is not happy with the competition. |
__________________
FACTS MATTER!
|
Jul 19, '17, 5:26 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Posts: 36,739
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: House spending bill funds all of Trump's initial $1.6 billion border wall plan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theo520
And the Caribbean, central America, and Columbia too.
He wants a full fledged American Empire, so we can rule these countries and people PROPERLY.
|
Why not answer it seriously?
It appears most of the heroin (about 90%) comes into this country from
Mexico. Much, or most of it is grown in Mexico. Seriously, are we to
send our planes in there to kill the poppies in Sinaloa, whether the
Mexican government agrees to it or not? Obviously, the Mexican
government could spray those fields anytime it wants to, but doesn't.
So, if we send in planes filled with herbicides and if Mexico sends up fighters against them, do we shoot them down?
|
Jul 21, '17, 3:14 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: August 8, 2014
Posts: 5,627
Religion: Christian
|
|
Re: House spending bill funds all of Trump's initial $1.6 billion border wall plan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridgerunner
Why not answer it seriously?
It appears most of the heroin (about 90%) comes into this country from
Mexico. Much, or most of it is grown in Mexico. Seriously, are we to
send our planes in there to kill the poppies in Sinaloa, whether the
Mexican government agrees to it or not? Obviously, the Mexican
government could spray those fields anytime it wants to, but doesn't.
So, if we send in planes filled with herbicides and if Mexico sends up fighters against them, do we shoot them down?
|
Simple answer, we need to stop our one sided relationship with
Mexico, If they want to sell exports to the US, they need to buy
appropriate US exports, and start enforcing the the rule of law. They
can get control of it, if they have any motivation.
__________________
FACTS MATTER!
|
Jul 21, '17, 3:36 pm
|
|
Veteran Member
|
|
Join Date: June 26, 2005
Posts: 10,583
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: House spending bill funds all of Trump's initial $1.6 billion border wall plan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theo520
Simple answer, we need to stop our one
sided relationship with Mexico, If they want to sell exports to the US,
they need to buy appropriate US exports, and start enforcing the the
rule of law. They can get control of it, if they have any motivation.
|
There is nothing one sided about our current relationship with
Mexico. People buy goods produced in Mexico if it benefits them. Mexico
sells us goods if it benefits them. Each side has veto power over the
transaction. People are perfectly capable of managing their own affairs
without the government thinking it knows better than the individual
participants in the market.
|
Jul 21, '17, 3:41 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: March 26, 2008
Posts: 22,104
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: House spending bill funds all of Trump's initial $1.6 billion border wall plan
How much wall is this supposed to build? 100 miles? 
If Mexico wanted to pay for a border wall, it would be on the border
between Mexico and Guatemala. I don't think they're interested. They do
have a few law enforcement projects of their own to fund down there.
|
Jul 21, '17, 3:44 pm
|
 |
Veteran Member
|
|
Join Date: June 4, 2005
Posts: 9,259
Religion: Roman Catholic
|
|
Re: House spending bill funds all of Trump's initial $1.6 billion border wall plan
As been said, building the wall at the border is not something new, it had been done.
The wall is not necessary if there is efficient border control but to do that it takes both sides of the fence.
The reason why the wall has to be built is because the other side of the
border do not control the movement of their people to the US enough, as
if being deliberately so. And along with that comes illegals, crimes
and drug. No government would want that and the wall is actually a last
resort to secure the border, a lateral action, with or without Mexico's
participation.
It is a drastic move trying to solve the south border problem, which is obvious.
The only thing, unfortunately, only Trump would want to do this, not the
Democrats who favor unrestricted Mexicans movement into the US. That is
why we have so much opposition to the wall probably because it will
hurt them to see illegals being stopped into the country.
And of course, if the wall will solve some of that problem, then the
Democrats would look very ineffective themselves, and they do not want
that.
Hopefully, the wall is built accordingly, and perhaps getting Mexico to pay the cost indirectly.
__________________
Lord, by your cross and resurrection
you have set us free.
You are the Savior of the world.
Life begins at conception not implantation.
|
Jul 21, '17, 3:46 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: March 26, 2008
Posts: 22,104
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: House spending bill funds all of Trump's initial $1.6 billion border wall plan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reuben J
Hopefully, the wall is built accordingly, and perhaps getting Mexico to pay the cost indirectly.
|
What does it mean to get Mexico to pay indirectly? I don't see any
economic repercussions against Mexico that will make that wall so much
as a dime cheaper for the US to build and maintain.
|
Jul 21, '17, 3:47 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: August 8, 2014
Posts: 5,627
Religion: Christian
|
|
Re: House spending bill funds all of Trump's initial $1.6 billion border wall plan
You are confusing macro vs micro economics.
Govt policy defines the playing field for the game of micro economics.
I believe the Govt should aim for generally balanced trade overall, and
let each country develop specializations. Obviously you think
differently
Quote:
Originally Posted by stinkcat_14
There is nothing one sided about our
current relationship with Mexico. People buy goods produced in Mexico if
it benefits them. Mexico sells us goods if it benefits them. Each side
has veto power over the transaction. People are perfectly capable of
managing their own affairs without the government thinking it knows
better than the individual participants in the market.
|
__________________
FACTS MATTER!
|
Jul 21, '17, 4:08 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Posts: 36,739
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: House spending bill funds all of Trump's initial $1.6 billion border wall plan
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasterJoy
How much wall is this supposed to build? 100 miles?
If Mexico wanted to pay for a border wall, it would be on the border
between Mexico and Guatemala. I don't think they're interested. They do
have a few law enforcement projects of their own to fund down there. |
Probably $1.6 billion will build 500 miles of wall, assuming it
would cost about the same per lineal foot as the Israeli wall. The
entire border is about 2000 miles, but a wall would not be necessary for
the entire length because some of the terrain is so bad it is a virtual
wall itself. How much more than 500 miles it would take to do it well
is something I don't know.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...06/fences.html
|
Jul 21, '17, 4:20 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Posts: 36,739
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: House spending bill funds all of Trump's initial $1.6 billion border wall plan
Quote:
Originally Posted by stinkcat_14
There is nothing one sided about our
current relationship with Mexico. People buy goods produced in Mexico if
it benefits them. Mexico sells us goods if it benefits them. Each side
has veto power over the transaction. People are perfectly capable of
managing their own affairs without the government thinking it knows
better than the individual participants in the market.
|
But there can be artificial advantages and disadvantages that are
not inherent in production of the product. For example, American
ranchers can no longer use growth-enhancing antibiotics in feed by
regulation. Mexico has no such regulation. That gives Mexico an
advantage not only in poundage, but in disease control and poundage lost
in employing other, less effective, methods of control. Mexico has no
"animal welfare" regulations and regulators comparable to those in the
U.S. Those add to the cost of American meat as well. Mexico does not
have BSE regulations like ours that can reduce the percentage of the
animal that can produce T-bone steaks. Mexico does not have a FMLA that
adds to American costs. It doesn't have an OSHA that will make
unannounced visits to a factory floor and fine a company if the fire
extinguishers have not been properly checked or if there is insufficient
cleanup of an ice or grease spill. It doesn't have an ADA that requires
accommodation in design of business or industrial places and "alternate
placement" of disabled individuals.
There are reasons why some other countries can produce goods more
cheaply, and in a lot of those cases it's because of abuse of workers.
In some countries slave labor is used. That's not really the kind of
"free market" we want to encourage.
|
Jul 21, '17, 5:25 pm
|
|
Veteran Member
|
|
Join Date: June 26, 2005
Posts: 10,583
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: House spending bill funds all of Trump's initial $1.6 billion border wall plan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridgerunner
But there can be artificial advantages
and disadvantages that are not inherent in production of the product.
For example, American ranchers can no longer use growth-enhancing
antibiotics in feed by regulation. Mexico has no such regulation. That
gives Mexico an advantage not only in poundage, but in disease control
and poundage lost in employing other, less effective, methods of
control. Mexico has no "animal welfare" regulations and regulators
comparable to those in the U.S. Those add to the cost of American meat
as well. Mexico does not have BSE regulations like ours that can reduce
the percentage of the animal that can produce T-bone steaks. Mexico does
not have a FMLA that adds to American costs. It doesn't have an OSHA
that will make unannounced visits to a factory floor and fine a company
if the fire extinguishers have not been properly checked or if there is
insufficient cleanup of an ice or grease spill. It doesn't have an ADA
that requires accommodation in design of business or industrial places
and "alternate placement" of disabled individuals.
There are reasons why some other countries can produce goods more
cheaply, and in a lot of those cases it's because of abuse of workers.
In some countries slave labor is used. That's not really the kind of
"free market" we want to encourage.
|
Most of these really are issues of consumer sovereignty. If people
want hormone free beef, they ought to be able to choose that. If people
don't care about hormones in the beef, then they should be free to
choose that as well. It is certainly not Mexico's fault that we are
over-regulated.
|
Jul 22, '17, 10:41 am
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: August 8, 2014
Posts: 5,627
Religion: Christian
|
|
Re: House spending bill funds all of Trump's initial $1.6 billion border wall plan
Quote:
Originally Posted by stinkcat_14
Most of these really are issues of
consumer sovereignty. If people want hormone free beef, they ought to be
able to choose that. If people don't care about hormones in the beef,
then they should be free to choose that as well. It is certainly not
Mexico's fault that we are over-regulated.
|
No, consumers have little choice on the main constraints around
their food production, and they have limited knowledge to reference.
They fall to marketing gimmicks like buy organic or buy gluten free
__________________
FACTS MATTER!
|
Jul 22, '17, 10:47 am
|
|
Veteran Member
|
|
Join Date: June 26, 2005
Posts: 10,583
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: House spending bill funds all of Trump's initial $1.6 billion border wall plan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theo520
No, consumers have little choice on the
main constraints around their food production, and they have limited
knowledge to reference. They fall to marketing gimmicks like buy organic
or buy gluten free
|
I certainly believe that consumers are much better at making their
own choices than the government is. There is no evidence that the
government is any better at decision making than households.
|
Jul 25, '17, 5:22 am
|
 |
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: February 8, 2017
Posts: 584
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: House spending bill funds all of Trump's initial $1.6 billion border wall plan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojourner003
Do you have anything to back up this assertion?
|
Surely you're kidding? The very words and actions of Bill Clinton
and the fact that he was supported by his party at the time. Is this a
point one amongst us here in reality could even argue against or will
you just defend the hypocritical and clueless democrats regardless of
the issue?
|
|
House spending bill funds all of Trump's initial $1.6 billion border wall plan
No comments:
Post a Comment