Reply With Quote
I'd have no issue with giving $5 billion of funding for Customs and Border Patrol to use at their discretion.
My guess is it would be up to Customs and Border Patrol to set priorities. Seems more reasonable than asking Spurstalk. A lot of existing barriers you are counting are just vehicle barriers....posts set in the ground every few feet.
I'd have no issue with giving $5 billion of funding for Customs and Border Patrol to use at their discretion.
butterfly preserve to be destroyed, along with lots of protected areas to have their pussies grabbed.
Then there's $B / year in inevitably increasing maintenance costs
Last edited by boutons_deux; 02-18-2019 at 01:35 PM.
Poor butterflies will have to fly over the fence instead of walking.
Yeah I don't understand how a fence with holes butterflies can get through would be a big deal
I know there are areas in Texas where a wall would decimate the black bear population which I think is a bigger deal.
You can go a few blocks down and eat at the cove.
I walked up on a big black bear boar sleeping in a little thicket on a ranch out north of Marathon about 15 years ago. Scared the out of me when he stood up about 30 feet from me. It was the last thing I was expecting to see. Both of us hauled ass.Yeah I don't understand how a fence with holes butterflies can get through would be a big deal
I know there are areas in Texas where a wall would decimate the black bear population which I think is a bigger deal.
I do, but not every day. Cutting down on carbs so don't do many burgers.
LOL. You get so bent out of shape about the littlest things.
"God damn, don't your dare run down Luby's".
You smacktalk about the stupidest things. Your obvious penis envy is sad.
LMAO. I'm calling bull if you're saying you go to Luby's and eat low-carb.
Call all you want, porky. Just because you pig out on mac & cheese it doesn't mean I do.
wtf. "smacktalk"
This policy would destroy America
also, lets put it up for a vote! so that we can pwn the libs for 2020
A smart campaign move for Dems in Kentucky would be to run ads about how Mitch McConnell refused to prevent a vote on an anti-coal and anti-Military piece of legislation that also calls for socialized health care.
Ocasio-Cortez's 'Deals' to Cost $338,000 Per Taxpayer, Analysis Shows
Sen. Warren Unveils ‘Universal Child Care’ Plan, Will Cost $70 BILLION PER YEAR
Drop in the bucket when we fund 1.5 trillion dollar fighter plane projects.
Do you have a board in your company? Those packages sound real nice, they'll probably disappear as soon as that company goes public. That is somewhat the point. It's not that you're not doing your part, is that you're nowhere in the position of the Jeff Bezos of the world, as well as you might've done in your lifetime (which sounds like it's something to be proud of, I don't want to take anything away from you). At some point, if the company does really well, it goes from the hands-on to the automatic, and the automatic means shareholders, quarterly revenue increases, CEOs, restructuring, shakeups, where the focus is on the bottom line, not on the people. And that's why, I think, mid doesn't quite understand the fervor for these companies who honestly, truly, only care about the mighty buck.
And you really can't tell me with a straight face that you think it's OK that Amazon doesn't pay federal income taxes, while you work 60 hours a week, and have to pay every penny in taxes. The money they didn't pay will come out from all of us or added to the debt, coz we ain't cutting spending either.
Wild rmt is dumb as a rock, but I know you know what mid is talking about. There's a point where the system becomes perverse, and has nothing to do with envy. Almost every society historically eventually cracked from the pressure between the have and have not. As mid said, it invites what would otherwise sound very much like crackpots, like AOC, to resonate in some minds. It's not you that they hate, it's the $1+ billion mammoths that skirt taxes, dictate policy in DC, hire illegal immigrants, and get away with all of it.
Oh snap! dets a burn right durr! hahaha what a gy that guy is, huh CC?
imo
globalist thought-leader Jeffrey Sachs makes the case that the GND is affordable:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/22/opini...chs/index.htmlThe costs of renewable energy are plummeting, making decarbonization eminently feasible. Detailed estimates put the costs of substantial decarbonization (80% or more by 2050) at around 1% of GDP per year or less. (See here for one recent study). In many cases, renewable energy is already at "grid parity," meaning that it is at a cost point comparable to fossil fuels. Most of the modest costs of decarbonization will never hit the federal budget, as they will be absorbed by the utility industry, the automobile producers, and other parts of the private economy.
Decarbonization is already underway in the US, just not yet with the pace and scale required. US utilities are no longer building coal-fired power plants; many are now scrapping plans for gas-fired plants in favor of renewable energy. Investors and in-house lawyers are warning companies not to invest in fossil fuels, as these investments would be stranded in future years. Automobile companies are rapidly shifting to electric vehicles. New buildings are going electric, with tough efficiency codes. These transformations are being driven mainly by environmental regulations, integrated resource planning by utilities, and market forces, not by federal outlays.
Lower-cost, high-quality health care for all, for example through Medicare for All, is also within reach. As with decarbonization, the right wing and corporate lobbies are using scare tactics to hide the basic fact: Health care costs in the US can be cut considerably, while improving services.
The US spends around 17% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care coverage, while other countries spend 10-12%. The main difference lies with the high prices of US health care, for drugs, hospital stays, medical procedures, and other goods and services, rather than with greater utilization of health services. These high prices have resulted in part from the rising concentration and market power of health care providers at the metropolitan level. The result is outlandish salaries, bloated administration, heavy costs of advertising, and other inefficiencies that result in high incomes for the health care industry and exorbitant costs for taxpayers and for workers paying for private health care plans.
The question is therefore not whether we can afford Medicare for All, but whether we will get there before the private health care industry bankrupts us. As one approach, the private insurance premiums now flowing to private health insurers could be re-directed to a Medicare account that would reimburse the health providers at Medicare rates, with much lower management salaries and administrative costs. The nationwide cost savings of Medicare for All -- hundreds of billions of dollars per year -- could be remitted to taxpayers or used to reduce the federal budget deficit.
Can debt-free higher education for all be achieved? The other rich countries all accomplish it. One proposal for "College for All," presented by Senator Bernie Sanders, would cost around one-quarter of 1% of GDP, a price point that is tiny compared with the burdens of a society weighed down by student debts that create lifelong anxieties until retirement years.
I'd chunk the billions in the SSI account or some remittance as part of a front loaded qualitative easing program.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
