Effectively you would be using a large portion of the military budget to defend the border, at least $50 billion a year. How is that cheaper? Trump's replacement would reassign those troops the day he got in. We need a solution that is Democrat proof.
Two pages back in this very thread....
Pull the troops out of German and Italy and Iraq and Afghanistan and station them along the southern border and have them defend this country for a change.
It is a win/win/win...we save money on not building a wall and bringing the troops home, we secure our border and we stop having troops killed in places like Afghanistan for no fucking reason.
That is what takes the place of the wall.
Then step 2 you go after the people paying the illegals once they get here, and you go after them so hard a few go bankrupt...then it becomes cost prohibitive to hire them.
Then final step 3...you create an actual, workable guest worker program so that wanting to come and work and those companies that need the migrant labor can be connected and the work can get done above the board and legally.
The military is already getting paid, the 50 billion is being spent on the military regardless if they are defending this nation or Afghanistan. Why do you want to keep spending our money defending other countries?
The wall is not Democrat proof, a wall that is not patrolled or maintained is just a speed bump. Especially one that does not actually cover the whole border.
Wrong, you have to account for the cost of using the military to secure the border under your plan. If we otherwise pull those troops out of those areas we would reduce the size of the military thus reducing defense spending. You don't get to pretend your plan has no costs sorry.
They are doing a job in those foreign countries that wouldn't get done if they weren't there.Effectively you would be using a large portion of the military budget to defend the border, at least $50 billion a year. How is that cheaper? Trump's replacement would reassign those troops the day he got in. We need a solution that is Democrat proof.
Two pages back in this very thread....
Pull the troops out of German and Italy and Iraq and Afghanistan and station them along the southern border and have them defend this country for a change.
It is a win/win/win...we save money on not building a wall and bringing the troops home, we secure our border and we stop having troops killed in places like Afghanistan for no fucking reason.
That is what takes the place of the wall.
Then step 2 you go after the people paying the illegals once they get here, and you go after them so hard a few go bankrupt...then it becomes cost prohibitive to hire them.
Then final step 3...you create an actual, workable guest worker program so that wanting to come and work and those companies that need the migrant labor can be connected and the work can get done above the board and legally.
The military is already getting paid, the 50 billion is being spent on the military regardless if they are defending this nation or Afghanistan. Why do you want to keep spending our money defending other countries?
The wall is not Democrat proof, a wall that is not patrolled or maintained is just a speed bump. Especially one that does not actually cover the whole border.
Wrong, you have to account for the cost of using the military to secure the border under your plan. If we otherwise pull those troops out of those areas we would reduce the size of the military thus reducing defense spending. You don't get to pretend your plan has no costs sorry.
The cost of using the troops to secure the border would be less than the cost of housing them in foreign countries.
There ya go: You just admitted that Congress would never approve your plan.
Effectively you would be using a large portion of the military budget to defend the border, at least $50 billion a year. How is that cheaper? Trump's replacement would reassign those troops the day he got in. We need a solution that is Democrat proof.
Two pages back in this very thread....
Pull the troops out of German and Italy and Iraq and Afghanistan and station them along the southern border and have them defend this country for a change.
It is a win/win/win...we save money on not building a wall and bringing the troops home, we secure our border and we stop having troops killed in places like Afghanistan for no fucking reason.
That is what takes the place of the wall.
Then step 2 you go after the people paying the illegals once they get here, and you go after them so hard a few go bankrupt...then it becomes cost prohibitive to hire them.
Then final step 3...you create an actual, workable guest worker program so that wanting to come and work and those companies that need the migrant labor can be connected and the work can get done above the board and legally.
The military is already getting paid, the 50 billion is being spent on the military regardless if they are defending this nation or Afghanistan. Why do you want to keep spending our money defending other countries?
The wall is not Democrat proof, a wall that is not patrolled or maintained is just a speed bump. Especially one that does not actually cover the whole border.
Wrong, you have to account for the cost of using the military to secure the border under your plan. If we otherwise pull those troops out of those areas we would reduce the size of the military thus reducing defense spending. You don't get to pretend your plan has no costs sorry.
The cost of using the troops to secure the border would be less than the cost of housing them in foreign countries.
They are doing a job in those foreign countries that wouldn't get done if they weren't there.Effectively you would be using a large portion of the military budget to defend the border, at least $50 billion a year. How is that cheaper? Trump's replacement would reassign those troops the day he got in. We need a solution that is Democrat proof.Two pages back in this very thread....
Pull the troops out of German and Italy and Iraq and Afghanistan and station them along the southern border and have them defend this country for a change.
It is a win/win/win...we save money on not building a wall and bringing the troops home, we secure our border and we stop having troops killed in places like Afghanistan for no fucking reason.
That is what takes the place of the wall.
Then step 2 you go after the people paying the illegals once they get here, and you go after them so hard a few go bankrupt...then it becomes cost prohibitive to hire them.
Then final step 3...you create an actual, workable guest worker program so that wanting to come and work and those companies that need the migrant labor can be connected and the work can get done above the board and legally.
The military is already getting paid, the 50 billion is being spent on the military regardless if they are defending this nation or Afghanistan. Why do you want to keep spending our money defending other countries?
The wall is not Democrat proof, a wall that is not patrolled or maintained is just a speed bump. Especially one that does not actually cover the whole border.
Wrong, you have to account for the cost of using the military to secure the border under your plan. If we otherwise pull those troops out of those areas we would reduce the size of the military thus reducing defense spending. You don't get to pretend your plan has no costs sorry.
The cost of using the troops to secure the border would be less than the cost of housing them in foreign countries.
Effectively you would be using a large portion of the military budget to defend the border, at least $50 billion a year. How is that cheaper? Trump's replacement would reassign those troops the day he got in. We need a solution that is Democrat proof.Two pages back in this very thread....
Pull the troops out of German and Italy and Iraq and Afghanistan and station them along the southern border and have them defend this country for a change.
It is a win/win/win...we save money on not building a wall and bringing the troops home, we secure our border and we stop having troops killed in places like Afghanistan for no fucking reason.
That is what takes the place of the wall.
Then step 2 you go after the people paying the illegals once they get here, and you go after them so hard a few go bankrupt...then it becomes cost prohibitive to hire them.
Then final step 3...you create an actual, workable guest worker program so that wanting to come and work and those companies that need the migrant labor can be connected and the work can get done above the board and legally.
The military is already getting paid, the 50 billion is being spent on the military regardless if they are defending this nation or Afghanistan. Why do you want to keep spending our money defending other countries?
The wall is not Democrat proof, a wall that is not patrolled or maintained is just a speed bump. Especially one that does not actually cover the whole border.
Wrong, you have to account for the cost of using the military to secure the border under your plan. If we otherwise pull those troops out of those areas we would reduce the size of the military thus reducing defense spending. You don't get to pretend your plan has no costs sorry.
The cost of using the troops to secure the border would be less than the cost of housing them in foreign countries.
You don't get to claim cost savings, if those troops are not needed in those countries, we simply release them from service. If you need troops to secure the border you have to eat the cost for that in your plan.
Someone brought up the cost of maintenance on the border fence, what do you think the maintenance costs for military weapons, systems, trucks, planes, drones, etc. is going to cost over time vs a fence.
Your plan has promise, as part of a hybrid solution of wall, fence, open areas secured by troops sure. And if the number of attempted illegal border crossings can be reduced by other elements of your plan, one day reducing the number of troops required all the better. But bro funding the military to do this job that's like the most expensive option there is.
Also thank you for posting the plan, its refreshing to see someone propose a solution to a problem.
There is no need, because the Democrats are already to fund the wall, but much more slowly than the President is demanding. The bill the Democrats are presently supporting would provide $1.6 billion for the present year, but the President is demanding either $5 billion this year or $2.5 billion for each of the next two years.
Nope, because if these men weren't stationed on the border, we wouldn't be spending the money on the expense of maintaining them. We save the money when we close our overseas commitments. What you do is create another commitment.
You don't get to claim cost savings, if those troops are not needed in those countries, we simply release them from service. If you need troops to secure the border you have to eat the cost for that in your plan.
Someone brought up the cost of maintenance on the border fence, what do you think the maintenance costs for military weapons, systems, trucks, planes, drones, etc. is going to cost over time vs a fence.
Your plan has promise, as part of a hybrid solution of wall, fence, open areas secured by troops sure. And if the number of attempted illegal border crossings can be reduced by other elements of your plan, one day reducing the number of troops required all the better. But bro funding the military to do this job that's like the most expensive option there is.
Also thank you for posting the plan, its refreshing to see someone propose a solution to a problem.
We are already funding the military, and we will still be funding the military even if you wall gets built. your plan has the added expense of the wall, mine saves that much at a minimum, not to mention that it is cheaper to station the military here than it is in foreign countries
The Democrats are not funding the wall. They are pretending. They claimed they were spending $1.6 billion on the wall in the last budget, but it didn't allow any of that money to actually be spent on the wall.
We should build 2000 miles of wall. Fuck the rest of that. It's just window dressing to they can pretend they are doing something. The minute a Dim gets into office, it will be written out of the budget. Everything but the wall can disappear in the blink of an eye. That's why open-border types are always supporting these non-solutions.Effectively you would be using a large portion of the military budget to defend the border, at least $50 billion a year. How is that cheaper? Trump's replacement would reassign those troops the day he got in. We need a solution that is Democrat proof.Two pages back in this very thread....
Pull the troops out of German and Italy and Iraq and Afghanistan and station them along the southern border and have them defend this country for a change.
It is a win/win/win...we save money on not building a wall and bringing the troops home, we secure our border and we stop having troops killed in places like Afghanistan for no fucking reason.
That is what takes the place of the wall.
Then step 2 you go after the people paying the illegals once they get here, and you go after them so hard a few go bankrupt...then it becomes cost prohibitive to hire them.
Then final step 3...you create an actual, workable guest worker program so that wanting to come and work and those companies that need the migrant labor can be connected and the work can get done above the board and legally.
The military is already getting paid, the 50 billion is being spent on the military regardless if they are defending this nation or Afghanistan. Why do you want to keep spending our money defending other countries?
The wall is not Democrat proof, a wall that is not patrolled or maintained is just a speed bump. Especially one that does not actually cover the whole border.
Wrong, you have to account for the cost of using the military to secure the border under your plan. If we otherwise pull those troops out of those areas we would reduce the size of the military thus reducing defense spending. You don't get to pretend your plan has no costs sorry.
The cost of using the troops to secure the border would be less than the cost of housing them in foreign countries.
You don't get to claim cost savings, if those troops are not needed in those countries, we simply release them from service. If you need troops to secure the border you have to eat the cost for that in your plan.
Someone brought up the cost of maintenance on the border fence, what do you think the maintenance costs for military weapons, systems, trucks, planes, drones, etc. is going to cost over time vs a fence.
Your plan has promise, as part of a hybrid solution of wall, fence, open areas secured by troops sure. And if the number of attempted illegal border crossings can be reduced by other elements of your plan, one day reducing the number of troops required all the better. But bro funding the military to do this job that's like the most expensive option there is.
Also thank you for posting the plan, its refreshing to see someone propose a solution to a problem.
Nope, because if these men weren't stationed on the border, we wouldn't be spending the money on the expense of maintaining them. We save the money when we close our overseas commitments. What you do is create another commitment.
You don't get to claim cost savings, if those troops are not needed in those countries, we simply release them from service. If you need troops to secure the border you have to eat the cost for that in your plan.
Someone brought up the cost of maintenance on the border fence, what do you think the maintenance costs for military weapons, systems, trucks, planes, drones, etc. is going to cost over time vs a fence.
Your plan has promise, as part of a hybrid solution of wall, fence, open areas secured by troops sure. And if the number of attempted illegal border crossings can be reduced by other elements of your plan, one day reducing the number of troops required all the better. But bro funding the military to do this job that's like the most expensive option there is.
Also thank you for posting the plan, its refreshing to see someone propose a solution to a problem.
We are already funding the military, and we will still be funding the military even if you wall gets built. your plan has the added expense of the wall, mine saves that much at a minimum, not to mention that it is cheaper to station the military here than it is in foreign countries
Lol no it fucking doesn’t. Oh my god you are dumb.It will be made of concrete, dumbass. That lasts even longer.Lol oh so you think the wall will be made purely of galvanized steel?
I'm sorry but you said something incredibly stupid. Todays galvanized steels last 80 years and longer with rain, snow, and sun beating down on them daily. In a dry desert environment much longer. Then there's this evidence...
Yep, you are right. What sort of insane person wants their military to defend their country when they could out defending some shit hole in the middle east being killed so that the defense contractors can keep making billions. Cannot do anything to upset the apple cart.
You are right, we should keep our troops all over the world defending other countries and do nothing to defined this one. That is for sure the answer...
