rickyp wrote:The source was Customs and Border protection, surely experts in the area of border fencing no? ; replying to questions from Congress on the cost of a single fence in preparing this budget. I prefer it to something Michelle Bachman made up.... But what fantasy, from what nutbar do you have in mind?

You. You're the nutbar I had in mind. You threw out the $1T figure and then hopscotched all over logic like you were the Mad Hatter to puff up the source you cited to approximate your price.

It wasn't even close and you know it.

So from the original 22.4 billion from Customs and Border security , doubled for two fences (one's no good) you get to 45 billion. Add $5billion for land purchases ...You're at $50 billion. At the Boeing experienced 1492% overrun you eventually arrive at final delivered cost of at 746 billion.

1255 miles of the border is a little something we like to call the Rio Grande river. I suspect something a bit different could and should be done here.

You are extrapolating based on something that ignores the river altogether.

But go ahead and explain why you think the govenrment will do this in a cost effective and efficient manner, and why hiring the enormous staff it will require in order to eliminate 4,000 breeches a year evrey 20 miles makes economic sense when deficts are so high... . It'll be the first time you've argued that the government could do anything in an efficient or effective manner....
I look forward to the epistle.

As always, you're a fool. You act as though all the illegal immigration and easy crossing of the border has no economic effect. It does. How many murders have their been in the border states as a result of violence from the Mexican drug cartels? How many from coyotes transporting illegal aliens?

Illegal immigration costs lives and money. So, for once in your life, stop being a bonehead. If Americans want to secure the border, we have that right.

Doctor Fate wrote:Why bother? Whatever figure I give you, whatever research I do, what difference would it make to you?

I know the answer, which is why I will not bother. I might as well ask rickyp to use spellcheck.

Thus you claim the moral high ground? Why can you not give a clue as to how much money is appropriate to spend on 'sealing the border'?

The genuine issue is a President who holds himself above the law.

In what way? Is he an illegal immigrant too? If you are talking about the selective application of the law, doesn't that happen all the time, all the way down to a cop who shows discretion?

fate

You act as though all the illegal immigration and easy crossing of the border has no economic effect. It does

Hardly. I've clearly written that the easy crossing has lead to the illegal employment by US companies of millions of illegals... That has definitely had an economic impact. It has kept the cost of labour down, and in some industries regressed the cost of labour decades (meat packing for instance). .
Your idea of closing the border does nothing to address this situation. Why spend all that money on a fence (regardless whether its just tens of billions or the eventual trillion I predict) that does nothing to address the continued illegal activities of American companies that will continue to encourage illegal immigrants to attempt the border crossing, regardless of what physical barrier you place in the way? (Barn door, cattle scenario?)
By the way, the economic impact of rounding up every single illegal employed in US industry? Ever considered that Einstein? You'd shut down enormous portions of your food production industry and drive up food prices enormously.That was understood when Purdues shut down the last time there was a call for general strike by Latinos regarding immigration reform. Fact is, the illegals came in and took jobs that companies were finding trouble keeping filled...

1255 miles of the border is a little something we like to call the Rio Grande river. I suspect something a bit different could and should be done here.

You are extrapolating based on something that ignores the river altogether.

In the summer the Rio Bravo Norte can be crossed in many places without getting your knees wet. Your suspicions are based on ignorance... Your "budget predictions" ignore precedence. Athough i'll be fair and remind you that you actually havn't pointed to any evidence or experience in the successful construction of an impereable 2100 border structure . Let alone one beset by the topical difficulties of the Rio Grande/ Rio Bravo Norte.
You usually say that the local police understand the practical nature of applying the law more than any "liberal". Have you considered what the law enforcement agents in the border region think of the "fencing idea?
Here's a selection

Before most of the border walls were built, Randy Hill, then the border patrol chief for Del Rio Sector in Texas, predicted that walls "will slow down illegal crossers by minutes." Not stop anyone, just slow them down by "minutes." Border patrol spokesperson Mike Scioli said: "The border fence is a speed bump in the desert."

As a recent YouTube video of two young women climbing the border wall in under 20 seconds demonstrates, the assertion that walls slow crossers by minutes is probably too generous

Last month, the Obama administration finally pulled the plug on the "virtual fence" that was supposed to line the border between the United States and Mexico with cameras and radar towers. After sinking more than $1 billion into the scheme, the Department of Homeland Security determined that it was a complete failure. Mark Borkowski, executive director of the electronic fence program at DHS, summed it up by saying, "It was a great idea, but it didn't work

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opi ... ing-nature

I do think its cute that you think the US government could efficiently and effectively undertake this engineering and policing monstosity. That you have so much faith in big government is refreshing.

fate

How many murders have their been in the border states as a result of violence from the Mexican drug cartels

And many thousands more in Mexico. But that hasn't changed your opinion of restricting gun purchases in Arizona or Texas has it?
However, the question remains - how would a 2100 mile fence effect this? Evidence from former cartel members is that the guns are largely smuggled across at manned border crossings in trucks carrying legitimate goods, not carried across the border by pedestrians....

rickyp wrote:fate

You act as though all the illegal immigration and easy crossing of the border has no economic effect. It does

Hardly. I've clearly written that the easy crossing has lead to the illegal employment by US companies of millions of illegals... That has definitely had an economic impact. It has kept the cost of labour down, and in some industries regressed the cost of labour decades (meat packing for instance). .

Yet, there are other costs that you continually ignore--illegal immigrants commit all manner of crimes. Those crimes are not "free." Many of the costs--lost human life--are incalculable.

Why do you keep ignoring this?

Your idea of closing the border does nothing to address this situation. Why spend all that money on a fence (regardless whether its just tens of billions or the eventual trillion I predict) that does nothing to address the continued illegal activities of American companies that will continue to encourage illegal immigrants to attempt the border crossing, regardless of what physical barrier you place in the way? (Barn door, cattle scenario?)

Apparently, your memory is as faulty as your thinking. We have talked about this before. I favor fining employers, etc. All that stuff.

That said, if the United States is going to continue giving things away, like Obamacare, people are going to continue coming for free stuff. PS: the facilities in El Salvador might not be as nice as the US.

By the way, the economic impact of rounding up every single illegal employed in US industry? Ever considered that Einstein?

Pathetic. I didn't suggest it. So, Einstein has a message for you:

In the summer the Rio Bravo Norte can be crossed in many places without getting your knees wet. Your suspicions are based on ignorance...

So, anyone can get across it, eh Gringo?

How deep is the Rio Grande River?

Answer:
At some points it goes to inches whereas in others it can get up to 60 Feet

So, what is really "ignorant" is to attempt to plan any endeavor without first knowing all the details of the geography. It would take a lot more time and effort than either one of us would care to put in. You have to account for population density, roads, water availability, technology, etc.

This is why I am not willing to estimate the cost. There are far too many factors. If you or Danivon want to do it, knock yourselves out.

For example, your San Diego fence illustration is bunk. That is a highly populated area with a very good highway system. It would take a far better fence and border control system there than somewhere without significant population or water, rugged terrain, etc.

It takes a comprehensive examination of all factors, not just a little snippet multiplied by whatever. That is ignorant.

fate

How many murders have their been in the border states as a result of violence from the Mexican drug cartels

And many thousands more in Mexico. But that hasn't changed your opinion of restricting gun purchases in Arizona or Texas has it?

No, because gun control is not the issue. Border control is.

Besides that, if your favorite President wasn't keeping a man who authorized gunrunning to Mexico, we wouldn't have the problem.

Do a comprehensive study of all 2100 miles. Review all the technological, geography, population density, etc. and then tell me what will or won't work.

To follow your reasoning, it's impossible to do anything to restrict the border. Therefore, we might as well forget it.

Americans disagree. And, we don't need any help from you.

If your company fails, it's not your fault. It's the President's.

So Obama thinks that everyone but the entrepreneur is responsible for his success, with his comment the other day that “If you got [sic] a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” Good to know that the corollary must be true, namely, that if your business fails (as many small businesses do), it must be somebody else’s fault, too. Can we blame Obama and the government for that, too? Or just Goldman Sachs and Wall Street? . . .

The Index of Small Business Optimism declined 3 points in June, falling to 91.4. The decline is significant, relinquished the gains achieved earlier this year and is a clear indication of slow growth. Only one of the 10 Index components improved, expected credit conditions. Nearly one-quarter of owners cite weak sales as their most important business problem (23%), followed by taxes (21%) and unreasonable regulations and red tape (19%). . . There was no good news in the June survey.

Still waiting for the surging economy to carry the President to victory?

The 'somebody else' is not just the President. It's a combination of your customers, your investors, your employees, your suppliers, your teachers, your parents... and the government at all kinds of levels does help a bit too.

And the A=>B does not always mean that B=>A, so the 'corollary must be true' is actually false. It may be true, but is not necessarily.

Apart from those two fundamental failures of logic, the point is, well, a point.

danivon wrote:The 'somebody else' is not just the President. It's a combination of your customers, your investors, your employees, your suppliers, your teachers, your parents... and the government at all kinds of levels does help a bit too.

And the A=>B does not always mean that B=>A, so the 'corollary must be true' is actually false. It may be true, but is not necessarily.

Apart from those two fundamental failures of logic, the point is, well, a point.

Well, actually, it wasn't my point (I cited the article), so thanks for that illustration of logic failure.

My point was spot on. Let me quote it for you, since you missed it: "Still waiting for the surging economy to carry the President to victory?"

In other words, the economy is flat or stalling.

President Obama's point was the real failure in logic: those who work hard are not responsible for their success. Romney is right: what Obama said is un-American.

That does not mean Obama is un-American, but what he said is. Success is not collective. Failure is not collective. It is not the government that built the US into an economic giant. It is government that cripples it. He thinks the entrepreneurs owe the US. He's wrong: they create wealth and jobs and the collective (the government) gets the benefit via taxation. What President Obama wants to do is raise taxes. Why? Not because it will help the deficit, but because it's a political issue that he thinks helps him.

Romney telling it like it is.

As long as Obama remains the President, our country is going to flounder economically.

I saw that speech by Obama when he states that no one is solely responsible for their success. He mentioned the fact that businesses do not build roads or bridge or infrastructure that business needs; they did not build the American system that allowed them to thrive. It was basically a philosophical argument saying that no one is American is causally solely responsible for their success (which should be self-evident and should only bother libertarians)

freeman2 wrote:I saw that speech by Obama when he states that no one is solely responsible for their success. He mentioned the fact that businesses do not build roads or bridge or infrastructure that business needs; they did not build the American system that allowed them to thrive. It was basically a philosophical argument saying that no one is American is causally solely responsible for their success (which should be self-evident and should only bother libertarians)

That is not an accurate summary. It's arguable whether he meant businesses do not build roads or bridges or whether he meant you don't build a business yourself.

He was explaining why taxes should go up. The reason? Not to reduce the debt, but out of a desire for fairness or "balance."

And, I don't care how you try to spin it, he was discounting hard work. He was saying that he doesn't care if you work 90 hours a week, you owe part of your success to the government, so cough up the tax money.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

Who does he suppose pays for roads, bridges, firemen, cops?

Newsflash, Mr. President: TAXPAYERS pay for those things! Now that about 50% pay no Federal taxes other than SSI (and other taxes that do not build bridges, roads, etc.). The "government" builds NOTHING!

If someone works hard, the President wants to take from them and give to others, who may not work at all. That's "fair" in his eyes. Individual success is to be punished. We succeed or fail only on the basis of how the least of us does, whether they work hard or not.

I understand. It's something like this: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

There is nothing in that speech about, Marxism. It just attempts to refute the libertarian idea that successful people have done everything by themselves and when the government attempts to tax them that they have "stolen" from them. Why should the rich pay a higher rate? Their success is not entirely due to their own efforts (theydepend on the full faith and credit of the United States, they depend on government building roads and bridges, they depend on trade agreements negotiated by the governement, etc., etc.)

freeman2 wrote:There is nothing in that speech about, Marxism. It just attempts to refute the libertarian idea that successful people have done everything by themselves and when the government attempts to tax them that they have "stolen" from them.

Romney has not been making that argument, so who was he refuting?

As for Marxism, his speech certainly smacks of a collectivist mindset.

Why should the rich pay a higher rate? Their success is not entirely due to their own efforts (theydepend on the full faith and credit of the United States, they depend on government building roads and bridges, they depend on trade agreements negotated by the governement, etc., etc.)

1. What is rich?

2. What percentage of Federal income taxes do they already pay?

3. What is a "fair" rate for them to pay?

4. Who is "the government?"

5. Where does the government get money to build roads and bridges and to pay for diplomats to negotiate trade agreements?

6. If I start a business, work 80 hours a week for 10 years and it is successful, how much of that success is due to roads, bridges, etc., that I did not contribute to while I was working 80 hours a week?

FYI, since I don't think anybody has bothered to post the full text so CONTEXT can be considered, here's what Obama actually said:

We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more …

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president – because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.

Now if you take the worst line out of that and stand it on its own, it sounds very bad. Awful. Not just that, but it would be such a stupid thing to say that you'd have to wonder if the Prez had had one too many martinis. Please allow me to impart a small lesson: when you see a short soundbite, clearly removed from a larger context, that sounds like it was said by a complete idiot, but was in fact said by a smart guy, whisper to yourself: smell test.

This is a classic example of something not passing the smell test. Powerline blog, which Dr. Fate links to often, is extremely partisan. When they reproduce a brief few words that sound ludicrously bad and then don't provide a link to the full text - the smell test has been failed. I wish Dr. Fate would develop a better sense of smell - it would save us all a lot of time and effort.

Pres. Obama chose a bad collection of words to string together to express the thought he was trying to express. But consider the rest of the words he said. I'll extract those which most confound the far right's misrepresentation:

"Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive."
"...when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
"...there are some things we do better together... That’s how we sent a man to the moon."

That's the general - he was not saying that government does more to build business than entrepreneurs, he was saying that entrepreneurs alone do not make a country like the USA, and he's right. Now for the specific - let's add one sentence from before the oft-quoted line, and one after (underlining added):

Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.

Now look at the word I underlined. Does the "that" refer to the business, or to the roads and bridges (and internet)? Only a blindly partisan person could fail to recognize that he wasn't saying that a person can't build a business, that he was saying that businessowners didn't build the infrastructure that contributes so much to our national success.

SMELL TEST. Obama is not an idiot, and if he's a Marxist he's smart enough not to go around in a campaign year spouting off ridiculous anti-capitalist lines. This line, taken in isolation from its context, could be construed as ridiculously, absurdly, insanely anti-capitalist. Obama is not insane.

SMELL TEST

Man, I like this guy Purple. He's actually adding perspective and content to these discussions. Best addition we've had here in years.

Doctor Fate wrote:If someone works hard, the President wants to take from them and give to others, who may not work at all. That's "fair" in his eyes. Individual success is to be punished. We succeed or fail only on the basis of how the least of us does, whether they work hard or not.

I understand. It's something like this: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

I know you think that is evidence that Obama is a Marxist or at least a socialist. I would say it's equally as much evidence that he's a Christian. Acts 2:41-47 and 4:32-35 were far ealier expressions of the idea of 'from each... to each...'. Christ also had a fair bit to say about how we would be judged according to our treatment of 'the least of us'.

Of course, it doesn't prove that Obama is a Marxist or a Christian. All it suggests is that you, Doctor Fate, are hostile to both.

And Purple has indeed (yet again) nailed it. You dismissed my argument and that of Freeman, but when we see the context of the quote you found it seems we were not far away at all. Maybe your approach works with the credulous, but not with us, bub.

Purple wrote:FYI, since I don't think anybody has bothered to post the full text so CONTEXT can be considered, here's what Obama actually said:

We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more …

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president – because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.

Now if you take the worst line out of that and stand it on its own, it sounds very bad. Awful. Not just that, but it would be such a stupid thing to say that you'd have to wonder if the Prez had had one too many martinis. Please allow me to impart a small lesson: when you see a short soundbite, clearly removed from a larger context, that sounds like it was said by a complete idiot, but was in fact said by a smart guy, whisper to yourself: smell test.

This is a classic example of something not passing the smell test. Powerline blog, which Dr. Fate links to often, is extremely partisan. When they reproduce a brief few words that sound ludicrously bad and then don't provide a link to the full text - the smell test has been failed. I wish Dr. Fate would develop a better sense of smell - it would save us all a lot of time and effort.

Pres. Obama chose a bad collection of words to string together to express the thought he was trying to express. But consider the rest of the words he said. I'll extract those which most confound the far right's misrepresentation:

"Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive."
"...when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
"...there are some things we do better together... That’s how we sent a man to the moon."

That's the general - he was not saying that government does more to build business than entrepreneurs, he was saying that entrepreneurs alone do not make a country like the USA, and he's right. Now for the specific - let's add one sentence from before the oft-quoted line, and one after (underlining added):

Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.

Now look at the word I underlined. Does the "that" refer to the business, or to the roads and bridges (and internet)? Only a blindly partisan person could fail to recognize that he wasn't saying that a person can't build a business, that he was saying that businessowners didn't build the infrastructure that contributes so much to our national success.

SMELL TEST. Obama is not an idiot, and if he's a Marxist he's smart enough not to go around in a campaign year spouting off ridiculous anti-capitalist lines. This line, taken in isolation from its context, could be construed as ridiculously, absurdly, insanely anti-capitalist. Obama is not insane.

SMELL TEST

Obama is an ideologue. He had no TelePrompTer. He said what he believed.

For the record, you're wrong. I posted the link for the entire speech FROM THE WHITE HOUSE'S OWN SITE.

So, if Purple "nailed it" after misrepresenting the truth, it says more about his fanboys than anything else. I will address the rest of this later. However, if the foundation is weak . . .