CDZ Trump, The Wall, jobs and border security

[Wry Catcher]

Money would be better spent by creating an enterprise zone along the border, from Texas to California. A zone which employed Mexicans and Americans to create, build, maintain and promote commerce and trade at a lesser cost to the Americas.

Solar energy, used to create electrical power to widen the Rio Grande and the Tijuana Rivers, building a R.R. system connecting the two, and providing a means to move products, produce and people from the east to the west, and the west to the east, without using the Panama Canal.

Lots of jobs would be created in construction, technology, farming, tourism and recreation. A win-win Food for thought.

We put men on the moon, nearly a half century ago, since that time we have spent billions (trillions?) on wars and building the tools of war. It seems this vision is not nearly as improbable as men walking on the moon!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Imagine how much easier today then erie canal built between 1817 and 1825, the original traversed 363 miles from Albany to Buffalo. It was the longest artificial waterway and the greatest public works project in North America; It transformed New York City into the nation's principal seaport and opened the interior of North America.

 

[Correll]

Money would be better spent by creating an enterprise zone along the border, from Texas to California. A zone which employed Mexicans and Americans to create, build, maintain and promote commerce and trade at a lesser cost to the Americas.

Solar energy, used to create electrical power to widen the Rio Grande and the Tijuana Rivers, building a R.R. system connecting the two, and providing a means to move products, produce and people from the east to the west, and the west to the east, without using the Panama Canal.

Lots of jobs would be created in construction, technology, farming, tourism and recreation. A win-win Food for thought.

We put men on the moon, nearly a half century ago, since that time we have spent billions (trillions?) on wars and building the tools of war. It seems this vision is not nearly as improbable as men walking on the moon!

Our trade, as it has been managed, has not been mutually beneficial. .


Indeed, it has been quite harmful to large segments of the US.


So, increasing trade, is not a win for US.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Money would be better spent by creating an enterprise zone along the border, from Texas to California. A zone which employed Mexicans and Americans to create, build, maintain and promote commerce and trade at a lesser cost to the Americas.

Solar energy, used to create electrical power to widen the Rio Grande and the Tijuana Rivers, building a R.R. system connecting the two, and providing a means to move products, produce and people from the east to the west, and the west to the east, without using the Panama Canal.

Lots of jobs would be created in construction, technology, farming, tourism and recreation. A win-win Food for thought.

We put men on the moon, nearly a half century ago, since that time we have spent billions (trillions?) on wars and building the tools of war. It seems this vision is not nearly as improbable as men walking on the moon!

Our trade, as it has been managed, has not been mutually beneficial. .


Indeed, it has been quite harmful to large segments of the US.


So, increasing trade, is not a win for US.

You've totally missed the point of this thread,

Which large segments are harmed by NAFTA?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The problem is the wall isn't about border security or jobs, it's about bigotry, hate, and an unwarranted fear of immigrants.

 

[Correll]

Money would be better spent by creating an enterprise zone along the border, from Texas to California. A zone which employed Mexicans and Americans to create, build, maintain and promote commerce and trade at a lesser cost to the Americas.

Solar energy, used to create electrical power to widen the Rio Grande and the Tijuana Rivers, building a R.R. system connecting the two, and providing a means to move products, produce and people from the east to the west, and the west to the east, without using the Panama Canal.

Lots of jobs would be created in construction, technology, farming, tourism and recreation. A win-win Food for thought.

We put men on the moon, nearly a half century ago, since that time we have spent billions (trillions?) on wars and building the tools of war. It seems this vision is not nearly as improbable as men walking on the moon!

Our trade, as it has been managed, has not been mutually beneficial. .


Indeed, it has been quite harmful to large segments of the US.


So, increasing trade, is not a win for US.

You've totally missed the point of this thread,

Which large segments are harmed by NAFTA?

Working class Americans.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The problem is the wall isn't about border security or jobs, it's about bigotry, hate, and an unwarranted fear of immigrants.

Agreed, but this is the CZ and the issue is there may be better solutions than the policies being promoted today. Working with Mexico to create a barrier which benefits both nations and their people. Diplomacy, not Brinkmanship, can lead to win-win solutions.

Many will think this idea is harebrained, but I'm sure many thought JFK's goal of putting men on the moon in 10 years was too.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The problem is the wall isn't about border security or jobs, it's about bigotry, hate, and an unwarranted fear of immigrants.

Nope.

It's about Democrats knowing their ideas are destructive and having to ship in new voters to stay in power.

Please go away, you offer nothing and violate the rules of the CZ.

 

[Correll]

The problem is the wall isn't about border security or jobs, it's about bigotry, hate, and an unwarranted fear of immigrants.

DOes this really pass muster for the Clean Debate zone? All you did there was call your enemies names.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Money would be better spent by creating an enterprise zone along the border, from Texas to California. A zone which employed Mexicans and Americans to create, build, maintain and promote commerce and trade at a lesser cost to the Americas.

Solar energy, used to create electrical power to widen the Rio Grande and the Tijuana Rivers, building a R.R. system connecting the two, and providing a means to move products, produce and people from the east to the west, and the west to the east, without using the Panama Canal.

Lots of jobs would be created in construction, technology, farming, tourism and recreation. A win-win Food for thought.

We put men on the moon, nearly a half century ago, since that time we have spent billions (trillions?) on wars and building the tools of war. It seems this vision is not nearly as improbable as men walking on the moon!

Our trade, as it has been managed, has not been mutually beneficial. .


Indeed, it has been quite harmful to large segments of the US.


So, increasing trade, is not a win for US.

You've totally missed the point of this thread,

Which large segments are harmed by NAFTA?

Working class Americans.

Please go away.

 

[Correll]

Money would be better spent by creating an enterprise zone along the border, from Texas to California. A zone which employed Mexicans and Americans to create, build, maintain and promote commerce and trade at a lesser cost to the Americas.

Solar energy, used to create electrical power to widen the Rio Grande and the Tijuana Rivers, building a R.R. system connecting the two, and providing a means to move products, produce and people from the east to the west, and the west to the east, without using the Panama Canal.

Lots of jobs would be created in construction, technology, farming, tourism and recreation. A win-win Food for thought.

We put men on the moon, nearly a half century ago, since that time we have spent billions (trillions?) on wars and building the tools of war. It seems this vision is not nearly as improbable as men walking on the moon!

Our trade, as it has been managed, has not been mutually beneficial. .


Indeed, it has been quite harmful to large segments of the US.


So, increasing trade, is not a win for US.

You've totally missed the point of this thread,

Which large segments are harmed by NAFTA?

Working class Americans.

Please go away.

We've seen our wages stagnate for generations, while productivity and over all wealth climbed dramatically.


That is not fair.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Money would be better spent by creating an enterprise zone along the border, from Texas to California. A zone which employed Mexicans and Americans to create, build, maintain and promote commerce and trade at a lesser cost to the Americas.

Solar energy, used to create electrical power to widen the Rio Grande and the Tijuana Rivers, building a R.R. system connecting the two, and providing a means to move products, produce and people from the east to the west, and the west to the east, without using the Panama Canal.

Lots of jobs would be created in construction, technology, farming, tourism and recreation. A win-win Food for thought.

We put men on the moon, nearly a half century ago, since that time we have spent billions (trillions?) on wars and building the tools of war. It seems this vision is not nearly as improbable as men walking on the moon!

Our trade, as it has been managed, has not been mutually beneficial. .


Indeed, it has been quite harmful to large segments of the US.


So, increasing trade, is not a win for US.

You've totally missed the point of this thread,

Which large segments are harmed by NAFTA?

Working class Americans.

Please go away.

We've seen our wages stagnate for generations, while productivity and over all wealth climbed dramatically.


That is not fair.

This is true ^^^ and totally off topic. Go away or offer something substantive to the issue in the OP.

 

[Correll]

Our trade, as it has been managed, has not been mutually beneficial. .


Indeed, it has been quite harmful to large segments of the US.


So, increasing trade, is not a win for US.

You've totally missed the point of this thread,

Which large segments are harmed by NAFTA?

Working class Americans.

Please go away.

We've seen our wages stagnate for generations, while productivity and over all wealth climbed dramatically.


That is not fair.

This is true ^^^ and totally off topic. Go away or offer something substantive to the issue in the OP.

Trade and immigration are obviously huge factors in that wage stagnation.


YOu aren't denying that are you?

 

[Wry Catcher]

You've totally missed the point of this thread,

Which large segments are harmed by NAFTA?

Working class Americans.

Please go away.

We've seen our wages stagnate for generations, while productivity and over all wealth climbed dramatically.


That is not fair.

This is true ^^^ and totally off topic. Go away or offer something substantive to the issue in the OP.

Trade and immigration are obviously huge factors in that wage stagnation.


YOu aren't denying that are you?

No, but the that's not the issue, and it is not the sole reason for wage stagnation or the vast spread of wealth in our country.

This thread is about jobs, border security and diplomacy, seeking a win-win result.

 

[Correll]

Working class Americans.

Please go away.

We've seen our wages stagnate for generations, while productivity and over all wealth climbed dramatically.


That is not fair.

This is true ^^^ and totally off topic. Go away or offer something substantive to the issue in the OP.

Trade and immigration are obviously huge factors in that wage stagnation.


YOu aren't denying that are you?

No, but the that's not the issue, and it is not the sole reason for wage stagnation or the vast spread of wealth in our country.

This thread is about jobs, border security and diplomacy, seeking a win-win result.

It is not a win win for First World Workers to compete on a "level" playing field against Third World Workers.

 

[Darkwind]

The problem is the wall isn't about border security or jobs, it's about bigotry, hate, and an unwarranted fear of immigrants.

NO, that is just how you need to sell it in order to cover for your desire for open borders and a flood of new voters for the Democrat base.

There is no money better spent than money spent to keep America safe.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Please go away.

We've seen our wages stagnate for generations, while productivity and over all wealth climbed dramatically.


That is not fair.

This is true ^^^ and totally off topic. Go away or offer something substantive to the issue in the OP.

Trade and immigration are obviously huge factors in that wage stagnation.


YOu aren't denying that are you?

No, but the that's not the issue, and it is not the sole reason for wage stagnation or the vast spread of wealth in our country.

This thread is about jobs, border security and diplomacy, seeking a win-win result.

It is not a win win for First World Workers to compete on a "level" playing field against Third World Workers.

That's true, Mexican workers work hard, they will likely earn more.

 

[Correll]

We've seen our wages stagnate for generations, while productivity and over all wealth climbed dramatically.


That is not fair.

This is true ^^^ and totally off topic. Go away or offer something substantive to the issue in the OP.

Trade and immigration are obviously huge factors in that wage stagnation.


YOu aren't denying that are you?

No, but the that's not the issue, and it is not the sole reason for wage stagnation or the vast spread of wealth in our country.

This thread is about jobs, border security and diplomacy, seeking a win-win result.

It is not a win win for First World Workers to compete on a "level" playing field against Third World Workers.

That's true, Mexican workers work hard, they will likely earn more.

American worker productivity is ranked 5th in the OECD, Mexico is last (or 38th).


So your point is false, and regardless does not challenge my point.


Which stands.



It is not a win win for First World Workers to compete on a "level" playing field against Third World Workers.



The average US hourly wage is 25 dollars a hour. The average Mexican hourly wage is just under 2 and a half dollars a hour.


The opportunity for employers to make large profits by firing US workers and hiring Mexican workers is pretty evident.


THe opportunity for Mexican workers to get more jobs, is pretty evident.


I don't see the win for America or Americans.


It is a win for them, and a lose for US.

 

[Toronado3800]

Money would be better spent by creating an enterprise zone along the border, from Texas to California. A zone which employed Mexicans and Americans to create, build, maintain and promote commerce and trade at a lesser cost to the Americas.

Solar energy, used to create electrical power to widen the Rio Grande and the Tijuana Rivers, building a R.R. system connecting the two, and providing a means to move products, produce and people from the east to the west, and the west to the east, without using the Panama Canal.

Lots of jobs would be created in construction, technology, farming, tourism and recreation. A win-win Food for thought.

We put men on the moon, nearly a half century ago, since that time we have spent billions (trillions?) on wars and building the tools of war. It seems this vision is not nearly as improbable as men walking on the moon!

Our trade, as it has been managed, has not been mutually beneficial. .


Indeed, it has been quite harmful to large segments of the US.


So, increasing trade, is not a win for US.

You've totally missed the point of this thread,

Which large segments are harmed by NAFTA?

Working class Americans.

I believe we still throw American Dollars into foreign countries with the intent of propping up their economies. The idea being we can win them over with love better than with our military after they have a communist or worse revolution.

Marshall Plan - Wikipedia

There is a limit to this and I would like to be looked in the face as an adult and told when we were doing it though.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This is true ^^^ and totally off topic. Go away or offer something substantive to the issue in the OP.

Trade and immigration are obviously huge factors in that wage stagnation.


YOu aren't denying that are you?

No, but the that's not the issue, and it is not the sole reason for wage stagnation or the vast spread of wealth in our country.

This thread is about jobs, border security and diplomacy, seeking a win-win result.

It is not a win win for First World Workers to compete on a "level" playing field against Third World Workers.

That's true, Mexican workers work hard, they will likely earn more.

American worker productivity is ranked 5th in the OECD, Mexico is last (or 38th).


So your point is false, and regardless does not challenge my point.


Which stands.



It is not a win win for First World Workers to compete on a "level" playing field against Third World Workers.



The average US hourly wage is 25 dollars a hour. The average Mexican hourly wage is just under 2 and a half dollars a hour.


The opportunity for employers to make large profits by firing US workers and hiring Mexican workers is pretty evident.


THe opportunity for Mexican workers to get more jobs, is pretty evident.


I don't see the win for America or Americans.


It is a win for them, and a lose for US.

• My point which you call false was sarcasm.
• Labor is labor, and I support equal pay for equal work
• The exploitation of third world workers occurs in non union businesses.
• Thus, your average hourly wage includes those being exploited by the Private sector
• Trump is wrong, but even a trump can offer something of value, any company which moves their business to a foreign nation ought to pay a tariff based on the savings they accrue, from savings in labor costs
• Every dime of that tariff ought to go to train American workers in 21st century careers, and in the pot of money for Unemployment Insurance.
• You don't see anything in my post because you will not consider them.