Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Trump is his loyalist want that wall so badly let them pay for it. I shouldn't have to pay taxes on something or someone I didn't vote for! No one should!
How on earth do you think that is a legitimate argument? So basically what you are saying is every 4 to 8 years, a different group of Americans, depending on their political party loyalties, should be the ones paying the bills because the other group did not vote for the current President? Or is your idea that we should be able to pick and choose what our tax dollars actually finance? Just how is that supposed to work? I mean, I think the first option I gave is absolutely ridiculous, but hey, the second option might be doable. And I'm pretty sure if things were worked out that way, Trump would have no problem securing the money he needs for the wall. Because along with this sort of change, there would really be no need for representatives either. We could do away with Congress. No debate would be needed because the money would either be there or it wouldn't. The country would simply be run according to what the citizens were willing to finance. And I think Trump could secure permission to use funds from his constituents for the wall pretty easily. So what do you think? I've laid out some groundwork for a new nation here reed, based on your ideas. Think we can pull it off?
How on earth do you think that is a legitimate argument? So basically what you are saying is every 4 to 8 years, a different group of Americans, depending on their political party loyalties, should be the ones paying the bills because the other group did not vote for the current President? Or is your idea that we should be able to pick and choose what our tax dollars actually finance? Just how is that supposed to work? I mean, I think the first option I gave is absolutely ridiculous, but hey, the second option might be doable. And I'm pretty sure if things were worked out that way, Trump would have no problem securing the money he needs for the wall. Because along with this sort of change, there would really be no need for representatives either. We could do away with Congress. No debate would be needed because the money would either be there or it wouldn't. The country would simply be run according to what the citizens were willing to finance. And I think Trump could secure permission to use funds from his constituents for the wall pretty easily. So what do you think? I've laid out some groundwork for a new nation here reed, based on your ideas. Think we can pull it off?
Now we all realize you are right, we can't possibly decide which policy we should pay for and which we should not. But again YOUR President claimed Mexico would pay for it as he was lobbying for votes. Many of us tried to tell you how foolish that claim was, you bought it so we kind of feel that you should pay for it even though we know it's not practical.
Not wanting to pay for a wall that won't work does not translate into believing that we want more illegals flooding into the United States. It's embarrassing that you would make that claim but that's clearly how you folks approach topics like this, with bizarre conclussions.
The only way to stop illegal immigrants from coming into the United States is to seal the southern border completely. A great number of people who live in the countries to south view the United States as the land of gold. The United States is far richer than all of those countries combined. Coming to the United States is like winning the lottery for them. They are always desperately trying to enter our country by illegally crossing our border.
That is why there is no other alternative to keeping them out except by building a border wall.
Not wanting to pay for a wall that won't work does not translate into believing that we want more illegals flooding into the United States. It's embarrassing that you would make that claim but that's clearly how you folks approach topics like this, with bizarre conclussions.
You are the same group that hears the words "we want responsible gun control" and determine that means "we want to knock on your door and seize all your guns". And that's why your opinion carries little weight.
Exactly. Righties simply assume that if a person disagrees with some aspect of a concept or the implementation of it, they must "love the opposite." For example, they also think that if you hate Trump you "must love Hillary." No, they both are terrible, but Trump is simply less mature and mentally stable, and he's a bigot on top of that.
As for the illegal situation in this nation, if the government wanted the problem with illegal alien workers solved, it would be solved, no wall needed. The companies here know full well who they are hiring and that they are illegal. Oh, but slave wages keeps corporate profits up, so nothing will be done, particularly when the far-right is in power. Don't get me wrong - the corporate Democrats aren't much better - but we all see the truth. As long as it makes big business happy, that's what we'll get.
As for the criminals and gangs roving the border, again, if those in power wanted to fix the problem, it would have been done already. I'm not sure exactly what benefit comes from allowing violent gangs to cross the border - maybe more gun sales or people in the for-profit prisons - but, obviously, nobody in either party among the voters is in favor of having criminals running around. And yet we have the most powerful military in the world and some of the most advanced technology, and we're to believe that "nothing can be done" about this? Really? We can blow up ISIS strongholds on the other side of the world, but we can't do anything about some thugs in a tractor-trailer with some guns and drugs? Come on...
A wall MIGHT help with the criminal problem - maybe - but given all the technology we have at our disposal to address this issue and the fact that neither party has done anything about it while in power makes it rather clear that certain power groups in charge (political party be danged) don't WANT to fix it. So, I'd be shocked if "the wall" didn't fall into the same category.
The Trump administration has told lawmakers that it wants $18 billion over the next decade for the initial phase of a Mexico border wall, laying out for the first time a detailed financial blueprint for the president’s signature campaign promise.
The money would pay for 316 miles of new fencing and reinforce another 407 miles where barriers are already in place, according to cost estimates sent to senators Friday by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. If the work was completed, more than half of the 2,000-mile border with Mexico would have a wall or other physical structure by 2027.
Not wanting to pay for a wall that won't work does not translate into believing that we want more illegals flooding into the United States. It's embarrassing that you would make that claim but that's clearly how you folks approach topics like this, with bizarre conclussions.
You are the same group that hears the words "we want responsible gun control" and determine that means "we want to knock on your door and seize all your guns". And that's why your opinion carries little weight.
What other explanation could there be since proof has already been provided that the good walls do work and they cost much less than the costs of illegal immigration?
How on earth do you think that is a legitimate argument? So basically what you are saying is every 4 to 8 years, a different group of Americans, depending on their political party loyalties, should be the ones paying the bills because the other group did not vote for the current President? Or is your idea that we should be able to pick and choose what our tax dollars actually finance? Just how is that supposed to work? I mean, I think the first option I gave is absolutely ridiculous, but hey, the second option might be doable. And I'm pretty sure if things were worked out that way, Trump would have no problem securing the money he needs for the wall. Because along with this sort of change, there would really be no need for representatives either. We could do away with Congress. No debate would be needed because the money would either be there or it wouldn't. The country would simply be run according to what the citizens were willing to finance. And I think Trump could secure permission to use funds from his constituents for the wall pretty easily. So what do you think? I've laid out some groundwork for a new nation here reed, based on your ideas. Think we can pull it off?
I get what your saying but again WHY, should I have to pay for something I am against? Why should you have to pay for something you don't agree with or didn't want? Wasn't there a thread about not paying said taxes if you don't have kids? I'll get back tomorrow the wife wants me to log off for a bit.
Now we all realize you are right, we can't possibly decide which policy we should pay for and which we should not. But again YOUR President claimed Mexico would pay for it as he was lobbying for votes. Many of us tried to tell you how foolish that claim was, you bought it so we kind of feel that you should pay for it even though we know it's not practical.
How do you know that Mexico won't pay for the wall? Just because they said so? There are ways to make them pay for it involuntarily and that's the plan.
I don't care if we do pay for the wall though because it will be worth it. Tell you what, we pro-wall people will pay for the $25 billion wall while you anti-wall people continue to pay the over $100 billion a year that illegals cost us. Deal....?
According to the DHS, the wall is actually the cheaper part of the border security.
"The expected construction cost is only 1 cent for every $20 spent by the federal government.
"If carried out as described, by 2027, about 970 miles of the 2,000-mile southwest border would have some sort of fencing or wall separating the U.S. from Mexico …The non-wall requests include $5.7 billion over five years for towers, surveillance equipment, unmanned aerial vehicles and other technology; $1 billion over five years for road construction and maintenance; and $8.5 billion over seven years for 5,000 new Border Patrol agents and other personnel.
"The planned $18 billion over a decade in spending on the wall matches the $1.6 billion already approved for 2018 by the GOP-controlled House and Senate, amid protests from Democratic Party leaders."
A summary of the Wall Street Journal article is here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I shouldn't have to pay taxes on something or someone I didn't vote for! No one should!
There are ways to make them pay for it involuntarily and that's the plan. 
