We've found the money

This_person

Well-Known Member
According to a Defense Department Inspector General report, since 2013, the DOD’s relinquished over $27 billion to the U.S. Treasury.
And why? Because it couldn’t spend it fast enough.

Dang it! Just couldn’t shell out the dough as quickly as needed. I hate when I have that problem.

This, as Dems just can’t cough up $5.7 Big Ones. And have been adamant about it, for 20 partial-shutdown days.
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
Naturally you understand that is not how it works, right?

Nah...if you did you wouldn't have made such a stupid post.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
For discussion purposes, let's say they do this. Let's say the treasury somehow appropriates the money being asked for. $5.7b.

White House says they can build 234 miles of barrier with that money. About 14% of the approx. 1,637 miles of border that doesn't have a barrier.

Hypothetically, what would happen if nothing really changed in terms of illegal immigration and their perceived drain on society after the almost $6 billion gets spent? Given how govt. is, do you feel like they'd want more money for more border barrier? As mentioned in another thread, typical govt. infrastructure projects end up being 3.3 times more than the original budget (and I assumed no cost overrun for the above hypothetical, which almost certainly would NOT happen) so expect $60-$100 billion or so for a full barrier. Cool, we find 6 billion here, but what about the rest? Or are we happy with 14%?
 

Aimhigh2000

New Member
Can you point out where in the report it supports that claim by redstate? I read the entire report and didn't see the data or information they are reporting was given back to treasury.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Can you point out where in the report it supports that claim by redstate? I read the entire report and didn't see the data or information they are reporting was given back to treasury.

I just watched Acosta go up against a wall that is working.
Put the major portion of the new wall in the places where they are crossing the most.
That makes them go farther and farther out of their way to get across.
Some of those places put them way away from help if they need it. It places them in places where they are easily spotted.
It slows it down.It makes it harder.

Sometimes you have to work with what you have. That's better than working with nothing.
It's like stopping a leak with duct tape. It might slow it down to a controllable drip.

Meantime we are pissing away Billions to make Chuck Schumer happy.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Can you point out where in the report it supports that claim by redstate? I read the entire report and didn't see the data or information they are reporting was given back to treasury.

Can you answer any of the questions that I asked you previously first? It's best if we do this in chronological order.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
For discussion purposes, let's say they do this. Let's say the treasury somehow appropriates the money being asked for. $5.7b.

White House says they can build 234 miles of barrier with that money. About 14% of the approx. 1,637 miles of border that doesn't have a barrier.

Hypothetically, what would happen if nothing really changed in terms of illegal immigration and their perceived drain on society after the almost $6 billion gets spent? Given how govt. is, do you feel like they'd want more money for more border barrier? As mentioned in another thread, typical govt. infrastructure projects end up being 3.3 times more than the original budget (and I assumed no cost overrun for the above hypothetical, which almost certainly would NOT happen) so expect $60-$100 billion or so for a full barrier. Cool, we find 6 billion here, but what about the rest? Or are we happy with 14%?

The likelihood of it being more expensive is high. The likelihood of it being ineffective is exceptionally low. The likelihood of it being perfectly effective is nil.

It would require many more facets than the border barrier, as the tunnels we have found prove.

We need e-Verify as a requirement. We need to specifically deny any form of welfare, from Medicaid to SNAP to EVERYTHING, to someone who is not here legally. We need to end the ability for chain migration.

In short, we need to remove the incentives for illegal immigration and replace them with strong disincentives.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Hypothetically, what would happen if nothing really changed in terms of illegal immigration and their perceived drain on society after the almost $6 billion gets spent?

I guess it means you've been paying attention for the last century or so, because yes, that's how government
typically does things - I keep thinking of countless Great Society programs that are STILL running even though
the claim is made that they're still needed. My general observation about things like affirmative action is, if
we're still funding and promoting it after 50+ years, it's either not working or people just want to have it around
in spite of it working. Ditto mission creep in all our latest war efforts - we go in - and we never leave.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I guess it means you've been paying attention for the last century or so, because yes, that's how government
typically does things - I keep thinking of countless Great Society programs that are STILL running even though
the claim is made that they're still needed. My general observation about things like affirmative action is, if
we're still funding and promoting it after 50+ years, it's either not working or people just want to have it around
in spite of it working. Ditto mission creep in all our latest war efforts - we go in - and we never leave.

Affirmative Action is still needed. We should admit that.
No one would hire workers that cannot show up for work on time, take undue advantage of liberal sick leave, are mostly incompetent,and cannot pass an entrance exam with a high enough grade to be hired , and meet a quota, if they didn't have to.

The fact that it has been around so long is testimony that it is needed.
The big gap in High school scores is another indicator of the need.

Now take you best shots,but the fact is, it is needed

Entrance exams and promotional exams have been dumbed down and it is still needed.


By the way if you do not agree with my reasoning about why it is needed, come up with your own, but admit that it is still needed.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
By the way if you do not agree with my reasoning about why it is needed, come up with your own, but admit that it is still needed.

I don't - but for completely different reasons.

I do not believe as you suggest, that the purpose of affirmative action is to give jobs and education access to
people who do not have any business being there. It was to open the door for people who at least come close
to the requirements but who have been shut out for a long time due to prejudice, whether intentional or not.
It has however been abused to do exactly as you say.

When people have a large pool of qualified applicants - at least at one time, they tended to hire people JUST
like themselves. I do believe people often do this without thinking, but certainly people did it on purpose.
Affirmative action was intended to erase this idea. In the era I grew up in, if I needed the best programmer,
I wouldn't care what he looked like or if he was handicapped or if he was old, gay, ugly or wasn't a he.
I'd want the best one, period.

The IDEA was that eventually, equality is achieved and you don't need it at all. But my complaint is, not only is
it believed to still be needed, there's no metric whatsoever to measure if it's accomplished anything at all.
Fifty plus years for a program that hasn't improved anything is a failed program. It needs to be ended or replaced
with something that works.

Ditto programs to end poverty. They haven't ended poverty - they've preserved it.

I brought up the subject, because government tends to perpetuate or extend failed or failing programs and
continue to spend money on things that don't work, on the idea that it just needs more time and money.
 

Aimhigh2000

New Member
oh, you mean the part of the wall where right next to him was the 4 ft high chain link fence? The part of the wall where the female CPB agent showed the President a photo of one of the two tunnels they found? Underneath sections of the border that had a wall? Is that what you are talking about?
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
When people have a large pool of qualified applicants - at least at one time, they tended to hire people JUST
like themselves.

I respectfully disagree.When people had a large quantity of qualified applicants they tended to hire the most qualified.
The ones who wrote the best on the test scores.
Some blacks were hired this way, but not enough to fill the quota's.
If they did that today, they would still need Affirmative Action and we both know it.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Underneath sections of the border that had a wall?



so the wall worked .... those wishing to gain access illegally were FORCED do so something Else



NORKS dug Invasion Tunnels under the DMZ ..... that did NOT invalidate the DMZ
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
If they did that today, they would still need Affirmative Action and we both know it.

?????
The *purpose* of Affirmative Action is not and never has been to keep unqualified people employed.
It may be abused for that purpose, but that is not why it was created.
If that is what it's doing now, it reaffirms what I said that it has NOT accomplished its goal.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
oh, you mean the part of the wall where right next to him was the 4 ft high chain link fence? The part of the wall where the female CPB agent showed the President a photo of one of the two tunnels they found? Underneath sections of the border that had a wall? Is that what you are talking about?

Pretty cool feature of a wall; makes them go to a ton of extra expense and effort to try and cross the border. So much winning. ;-)
 
Top