America - The Official Thread

[Famine]

How can you have facts if you can't count them or keep track of them? No one has a real number of illegal immigrants they are estimates.

Unless they show a net influx, right?

They are, of course, estimates. But "estimate" doesn't mean "guess". It means "to calculate within reasonable margin for error based on known data". An estimate that the illegal population has fallen by 1.5m from 12.2m to 10.7m since 2007 is unlikely to represent anything other than a seven figure drop in an eight figure quantity.

We have reports of 5-10K+ at the border waiting to come in.

Which begs several questions. I mean, we can start with your own question right back - how do you know those numbers are accurate? Then we can wonder why are they waiting if the border is open and how they're being slowed down without a wall...

Also I don't see 5-10K+ at the border trying to leave.

Did you see 2.5 million being deported by Deporter in Chief Barack Obama?

In 2000 there were 1.75m attempts to cross that border that resulted in capture and detainment. In 2017 there were 309,000.

Gwinnett county would beg to differ too. Our legal and illegal immigrant population grew way more than county leaders expected the last few years.

That just raises further questions about how a portion of northern Georgia needs a wall across parts of southern California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas?

 

[UKMikey]

I thought they were going to stick solar panels and wind turbines on the wall to make it pay for itself but it looks like that idea is dead in the water.

 

[Danoff]

How about the government stops giving themselves undeserved raises. Better yet, go without pay if they are so concerned about the debt.

Are you talking about the military, congress, or the federal workforce? Either way this is super misguided. I posted not too long ago about how personnel is just about the only place where the government has to compete directly with private industry. That includes congress. In short, if you want someone like Elon Musk to run for congress (I don't, but supposing someone does), you can't make him a slave in the process.

But to go a little further into your knee-jerk reaction here, let's take a look at federal employee wages paid. $136B. 2019's projected budget deficit is $1T. So even if you could just stop paying everyone who works for the government, and for some reason let's even suppose that they keep working there... so like... the TSA still works at the airport, and your mail gets delivered, and the IRS keeps collecting tax revenue... you've dented the federal deficit by 13%. That's before accounting for places like the Patent Office, which pay thousands of employees, but which generates its own revenue outside of taxes and actually kicks some additional revenue into the general fund. So you'd have to subtract them from the $136B number. I'll add that figure in just a sec.

Edit: $3.5B for the Patent office, so the number is down to $132.5B without blinking.

Military expenses come in at about $1.2T (including veteran's benefits and war operations, all of it). So if you were talking about asking military personnel to work as slaves, and not kick paychecks back to their families, that'd make a bigger dent. You have to stop making aircraft, bombs, guns, and all of the rest of it too. And nobody work to maintain any nuclear arms.

Social Security and Medicare come in at $1.2T. That's straight up an entitlement program (that's unsustainable and everyone knows it).

A while back, many years ago actually, I went through the entire federal government breakdown of offices and departments and itemized which ones I'd shut down and which programs I'd end to balance the budget. It's probably not possible to find anymore.

Edit:

Good place to start... Farm Subsidies... $20B.

 

[TexRex]

A while back, many years ago actually, I went through the entire federal government breakdown of offices and departments and itemized which ones I'd shut down and which programs I'd end to balance the budget. It's probably not possible to find anymore.

Here you go. (I think.)



Funny enough, I didn't really have time to do a deep dive but I was curious, so I used the forum's search function to find posts of yours that include the word "budget". There were 198 posts (wherein you used the word or you quoted someone else using the word) on 10 pages of results, so I went to the last page on a wag and it was at the very top. Use the word 21 more times and it will no longer be possible to find with those search parameters.

 

[ryzno]

how do you know those numbers are accurate?

I don't that's why I left it very broad with a +

Are you talking about the military, congress, or the federal workforce?

Don't know how your quote got here, anyways, who gives themselves raises? Congress and them, the ones who don't even work half a year and sit on thier butts doing much about nothing. Might not be much but every little bit helps.

Then we can wonder why are they waiting if the border is open and how they're being slowed down without a wall

Cause they don't know where there is no border wall? They are like cattle. They are just following the leader IMO. Also a group that large if they attempt to move our troops down there will probably move in coordination with them.
Or let my hit my conspiracy desk and say they want it to look like it looks to make Trump look bad. One has to wonder who formed such an orginized group. It's not like a guy started walking down the street and people come out of the woodworks and start following him like some commercial.

Did you see 2.5 million being deported by Deporter in Chief Barack Obama?

Yeah, I even talked about it with McLaren about it last night in this very thread.

That just raises further questions about how a portion of northern Georgia needs a wall across parts of southern California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas?

I'm not going to continue to repeat myself. It'll deter some, slow down others enough for border control to catch them and others will succeed...
My girls brother doesn't get back here every year on a plane or boat. I'm not going to say where but the families home town in Mexico is right at the border with an American town. He waltzs right on over and his dad is waiting at a hotel down there to drive him back.
We wouldn't need to build a border wall if we had one complete.

 

[Danoff]

Here you go. (I think.)



Funny enough, I didn't really have time to do a deep dive but I was curious, so I used the forum's search function to find posts of yours that include the word "budget". There were 198 posts (wherein you used the word or you quoted someone else using the word) on 10 pages of results, so I went to the last page on a wag and it was at the very top. Use the word 21 more times and it will no longer be possible to find with those search parameters.

Well done sir! Now I have to read what I wrote.

 

[TexRex]

Well done sir! Now I have to read what I wrote.

It's a good read; I think you'll enjoy it.

 

[Danoff]

It's a good read; I think you'll enjoy it.

I've learned a little since then. Department of Commerce for example is where the aforementioned Patent Office is. So a third of that budget is paid for by itself. Since then I think I might have done an about face on the EPA too, but I'd have them act a lot differently than they do now.

Every time I really dig into the government structure and offices and various functions. I'm surprised by two things. First, how much of it is totally unnecessary. And Second, how much of it is totally necessary.

 

[TexRex]

I've learned a little since then. Department of Commerce for example is where the aforementioned Patent Office is. So a third of that budget is paid for by itself. Since then I think I might have done an about face on the EPA too, but I'd have them act a lot differently than they do now.

Every time I really dig into the government structure and offices and various functions. I'm surprised by two things. First, how much of it is totally unnecessary. And Second, how much of it is totally necessary.

I suspect you got the joke, but on the off chance that you didn't, the notion that you'd enjoy the read was tongue-in-cheek, since you wrote it to begin with. But I digress.

NASA is interesting to contemplate, since it's a bit of a relic and sort of like masturbation (I'm sure there's a joke in there about nerds at computers). I'm fascinated by discoveries that are made possible by its existence, but [especially now] I think it should be private, with a defense aspect retained (but that's a can of worms in and of itself).

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I suspect you got the joke, but on the off chance that you didn't, the notion that you'd enjoy the read was tongue-in-cheek, since you wrote it to begin with. But I digress.

NASA is interesting to contemplate, since it's a bit of a relic and sort of like masturbation (I'm sure there's a joke in there about nerds at computers). I'm fascinated by discoveries that are made possible by its existence, but [especially now] I think it should be private, with a defense aspect retained (but that's a can of worms in and of itself).

My brother works for a company (won't say which one) that is heavily intertwined with the DOD. I would very hesitate to fold any federal agency into the DOD for reasons...



Of course, I imagine you could apply the same logic to many agencies, but the DOD is especially bad. (I have a little experience with HUD & State as a comparison, neither seem as bad as DOD, based on my brother's observations...)

I do think that NASA should worry more about science and let the private sector do the engineering...which is exactly what they are transitioning into I believe.

edit: This might be more in response to danoff than you...or maybe no one...I'm not sure

 

[Famine]

I don't that's why I left it very broad with a +

So what's the margin for error? Why are those numbers with that margin for error acceptable, but others are "just estimates" and don't merit your time?

Why is "We have reports of 5-10K+ at the border waiting to come in." (which border? Where on that border? Where do the reports come from?) acceptable, but you can sweep published figures showing a net annual drop of 200,000 over the last three years under the rug as if they're irrelevant? It can't be confirmation bias, surely?

Cause they don't know where there is no border wall?

Wait, there already is a wall?

They are like cattle. They are just following the leader IMO.

One has to wonder who formed such an orginized group. It's not like a guy started walking down the street and people come out of the woodworks and start following him like some commercial.

This response writes itself.

Yeah, I even talked about it with McLaren about it last night in this very thread.

Ah, so you recognise that there is an outflow mechanism then, thus negating the comment you made that you "don't see 5-10K+ at the border trying to leave" rather facile when it comes to discussing net migration, even before you made it...

I'm not going to continue to repeat myself. It'll deter some, slow down others enough for border control to catch them and others will succeed...

What's been doing that since 2000 then?

My girls brother doesn't get back here every year on a plane or boat. I'm not going to say where but the families home town in Mexico is right at the border with an American town. He waltzs right on over and his dad is waiting at a hotel down there to drive him back.

Why have you not reported them? You're aware that you're an accessory to the crime, right?

We wouldn't need to build a border wall if we had one complete.

... one complete what?

 

[TexRex]

My brother works for a company (won't say which one) that is heavily intertwined with the DOD. I would very hesitate to fold any federal agency into the DOD for reasons...



Of course, I imagine you could apply the same logic to many agencies, but the DOD is especially bad. (I have a little experience with HUD & State as a comparison, neither seem as bad as DOD, based on my brother's observations...)

I do think that NASA should worry more about science and let the private sector do the engineering...which is exactly what they are transitioning into I believe.

edit: This might be more in response to danoff than you...or maybe no one...I'm not sure

I mean...better management was suggested at one point in Danoff's post, but it ought to be applied across the board.

 

[Danoff]

I suspect you got the joke, but on the off chance that you didn't, the notion that you'd enjoy the read was tongue-in-cheek, since you wrote it to begin with. But I digress.

NASA is interesting to contemplate, since it's a bit of a relic and sort of like masturbation (I'm sure there's a joke in there about nerds at computers). I'm fascinated by discoveries that are made possible by its existence, but [especially now] I think it should be private, with a defense aspect retained (but that's a can of worms in and of itself).

I'm not sure why you think NASA is a relic. I could guess... I'd guess along the lines of Shuttle, ISS, and SpaceX. But NASA is pretty much the only place in the world that does any extensive exploration of the solar system, and is just beginning a really exciting time of exploration of other solar systems.

Also asteroids, which can hit the Earth.

My brother works for a company (won't say which one) that is heavily intertwined with the DOD. I would very hesitate to fold any federal agency into the DOD for reasons...



Of course, I imagine you could apply the same logic to many agencies, but the DOD is especially bad. (I have a little experience with HUD & State as a comparison, neither seem as bad as DOD, based on my brother's observations...)

I do think that NASA should worry more about science and let the private sector do the engineering...which is exactly what they are transitioning into I believe.

edit: This might be more in response to danoff than you...or maybe no one...I'm not sure

I enjoyed the clip. The thing is, you'd be surprised just how much of everything works exactly like that clip. Not just the DOD, not just government agencies, but also big corporations. And yes, NASA.

 

[ryzno]

So what's the margin for error?

You're really starting to frustrate me. I have no freaking idea. I've read 5K on one site, 7K on another, 10K on another. 12K on another. I'll gladly go down there and count them for you if you get me a passport and plane ticket. It'd probably be fun for me if the cartels don't kidnap me and hold me for a ransom no one could or would pay. There furthest West I've gone is Carrollton which is 10ish miles from the Alabama line lol.

Wait, there already is a wall?

Wasn't it you who said we should upgrade the existing sections? This is why I don't like wasting my time answering 100 useless questions.

Why have you not reported them? You're aware that you're an accessory to the crime, right?

Wouldn't be the first time and I don't snitch on family even though I wouldn't mind if they kept him down there. I don't like him, unlike her other brother.

one complete what?

Seriously? Wall, fence whatever you want to call it... What have we been talking about?

I'm stopping here cause you are frustrating me and you are the last person I want to piss off or say the wrong to.

 

[Famine]

You're really starting to frustrate me. I have no freaking idea. I've read 5K on one site, 7K on another, 10K on another. 12K on another.

Does that not suggest you need some better sources? You've established there a mean of 8,500, with a 40% margin for error. That's not an estimate, it's a guess. If you're willing to accept a 40% error margin on your sources that means you're willing to accept that 5=7...

This smacks of "I've heard information that fits my preconceived notions about a thing, and there's a big number of it, so it's true". Which is confirmation bias...

... and we're still to hear why that number can be stated as fact, but a much larger number that does not agree with your preconceived notions can be disregarded as "just an estimate".

Wasn't it you who said we should upgrade the existing sections?

No.

This is why I don't like wasting my time answering 100 useless questions.

Perhaps if you didn't regard them as useless you'd have a much better time of it. As I said earlier, answering questions about your opinion forces you to critically evaluate it. The answers you give may force others to answer and critically evaluate theirs. Everyone sees the weaknesses in their own opinions and finds a way to improve how solid they are - everyone wins.

That particularly applies to those who had strong belief-led opinions that had few strengths. A belief-led opinion that ignores facts in favour of feelings is essentially how we've got flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers. Nobody wins there.

Wouldn't be the first time and I don't snitch on family even though I wouldn't mind if they kept him down there. I don't like him, unlike her other brother.

Okay, but this is literally the crime you're complaining about here, to the point where you actually want the US Government to spend billions of dollars on a wall that we're yet to establish will fix the problem (although we've not established what the problem it's supposed to fix is).

You have an opportunity to fix it yourself, but won't because it's being a "snitch"? Really?

Seriously? Wall, fence whatever you want to call it... What have we been talking about?

I'm stopping here cause you are frustrating me and you are the last person I want to piss off or say the wrong to.

So your statement would be "We wouldn't need to build a border wall if we had a border wall"?

Seems a bit... obvious of a statement to make. Hence my query.

 

[TexRex]

I'm not sure why you think NASA is a relic. I could guess... I'd guess along the lines of Shuttle, ISS, and SpaceX. But NASA is pretty much the only place in the world that does any extensive exploration of the solar system, and is just beginning a really exciting time of exploration of other solar systems.

Also asteroids, which can hit the Earth.

It's hard to not link NASA with the Cold War, with much of the effort a result of being egged on by our nation's foes, but why has it continued to be a cash sink when the exploration could (if warranted, that is) have fallen on the shoulders of the private sector?

 

[Danoff]

It's hard to not link NASA with the Cold War, with much of the effort a result of being egged on by our nation's foes, but why has it continued to be a cash sink when the exploration could (if warranted, that is) have fallen on the shoulders of the private sector?

You don't get a mission like Cassini out of the private sector. Too many unknowns, too much risk, not enough return. Even asteroid mining, which has a big actual return, is hard for the private sector.

 

[TexRex]

You don't get a mission like Cassini out of the private sector. Too many unknowns, too much risk, not enough return. Even asteroid mining, which has a big actual return, is hard for the private sector.

"Too much risk, not enough return...let's do it" from a government spending perspective is the issue, though.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

"Too much risk, not enough return...let's do it" from a government spending perspective is the issue, though.

I think it's hard to put an economic value/return on exploration.

 

[Danoff]

"Too much risk, not enough return...let's do it" from a government spending perspective is the issue, though.

Wow, you sound like a Libertarian. According to pure Libertarian philosophy, yes absolutely. What I've maintained since I joined this site, is that NASA is not the first place I'd cut. It might be one of the last bits of non-Libertarian-approved government spending that I'd go after. It's very difficult to put a commercial value on exploration. When you send Cassini to Saturn, you know that the price tag is $5B, and that you don't know very much about Saturn. But what you don't know is what the value of the data you'll get back is. You don't know when you can monetize the data you don't know you'll get from a Titan lander, or from studying the rings, or from learning about the composition of all of various moons, and the discovery of them. It would take private industry a long time to get there. And while I agree that it's not right to point a gun at someone and tell them that they have to cough up the dough to fund that exploration, I'd go after sooooo much government spending before that - because the discoveries that NASA brings to the table are profound to the history of our species.

Edit:

I think there could be some fun room in our tax code for voluntary contributions to government programs, like NASA. How much do you want to donate to NASA this year? $61 per American would do it.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Wow, you sound like a Libertarian. According to pure Libertarian philosophy, yes absolutely. What I've maintained since I joined this site, is that NASA is not the first place I'd cut. It might be one of the last bits of non-Libertarian-approved government spending that I'd go after. It's very difficult to put a commercial value on exploration. When you send Cassini to Saturn, you know that the price tag is $5B, and that you don't know very much about Saturn. But what you don't know is what the value of the data you'll get back is. You don't know when you can monetize the data you don't know you'll get from a Titan lander, or from studying the rings, or from learning about the composition of all of various moons, and the discovery of them. It would take private industry a long time to get there. And while I agree that it's not right to point a gun at someone and tell them that they have to cough up the dough to fund that exploration, I'd go after sooooo much government spending before that - because the discoveries that NASA brings to the table are profound to the history of our species.

Edit:

I think there could be some fun room in our tax code for voluntary contributions to government programs, like NASA. How much do you want to donate to NASA this year? $61 per American would do it.

I've always thought a certain percentage of your tax bill should be 'electable'. Meaning, if you owe $30,000 in taxes, you get to pick where, say, $10,000 of that money goes. It would be a kind of financial democracy, shortcutting congress a bit. I'm not sure it's a good idea, but it's certainly an idea.

edit: I think doing the above would eliminate every single pothole in America

 

[TexRex]

I think it's hard to put an economic value/return on exploration.

Undoubtedly. And that's even with every point on a mission objective being successful. But that's still kind of the point.

@Danoff there's a response to your remarks on the topic in there as well.

I appreciate discoveries that have been made, without question, but it's still a really frickin' big pill to swallow.

Wow, you sound like a Libertarian.

I mean...I am and I'm not.

Edit:

I think there could be some fun room in our tax code for voluntary contributions to government programs, like NASA. How much do you want to donate to NASA this year? $61 per American would do it.

I've always thought a certain percentage of your tax bill should be 'electable'. Meaning, if you owe $30,000 in taxes, you get to pick where, say, $10,000 of that money goes. It would be a kind of financial democracy, shortcutting congress a bit. I'm not sure it's a good idea, but it's certainly an idea.

It's a fun exercise to consider either/both, but you have to imagine it'd just end up being a huge mess. And without transparency, it's easily abused.

 

[Danoff]

I appreciate discoveries that have been made, without question, but it's still a really frickin' big pill to swallow.

We spend as much subsidizing farmers as we do on all of NASA. Also, for a little while there, NASA was doing a lot of the climate science. I think Trump decided to fight that, not sure what the status is. NASA has had some elements that are more bang for the buck than others. Every shuttle launch was costing $500M, which was, by the way, the entire budget for Dawn, a decade long mission to two asteroids. One shuttle launch was done just to check out the launch, look at tiles, and land again. That's some serious expense. So NASA's budget could for sure be... honed.

Speaking of Cassini... $5B is 20% of the farming subsidy for one year. In exchange, we get to watch planetary scientists absolutely mystified by the first detailed photos of Iapetus - one of Saturn's moons which is brown on one side and white on the other. And has a bizarre equatorial ridge.

And we get to learn more about extremely faint rings by putting the sun behind saturn and backlighting them (that's a real photo... minus the labels)

And we get to discover liquid water from beneath the surface of Enceladus shooting out into space - making it a possible place to find life.

And there's just beauty:

That's Mimas above Saturn's rings and a sweet sweet shadow cast across the face of Saturn. Man Cassini was such a great mission. Juno is also really stunning.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I appreciate discoveries that have been made, without question, but it's still a really frickin' big pill to swallow.

When I think about spending money on science, I always think about the progression of nuclear physics.

Before 1896 it would have been impossible to know that there was such an enormously powerful source of energy that was nuclear fission. We didn't know what we didn't know. Evaluating such a thing in a purely ROI sense would have never lead to the development of nuclear science. It was the poking around (at great expense) to see whats there that did. Say what you want about the development of nuclear physics, including nuclear weapons, it is an enormously important field.

(I highly recommend the book The Making of the Atomic Bomb for a fantastic retelling of the history of nuclear physics)

 

[Exorcet]

It's a fun exercise to consider either/both, but you have to imagine it'd just end up being a huge mess. And without transparency, it's easily abused.

There are a number of different ways to approach it. When I've thought about it the idea, I've imagined having different contract options where you might promise a given amount for a certain period of time to help prevent wild fluctuations in program funding over time. Then you also have to consider some of the difficulty this might pose for the average person. For those people that may not have the time of knowledge to micromanage their contributions, there could also be the option to donate your portion to an elected representative for them to use on voters' behalf.

I particularly like the idea of citizens being able to prevent/pull funding from unnecessary military operations (mostly wars that aren't directly self defense).

 

[ryzno]

Does that not suggest you need some better sources?

Do you have a link you are confident in of how many are actually down there?

As I said earlier, answering questions about your opinion forces you to critically evaluate it.

Critically evaluate what? What is there to critically think about? How expensive it is? How useless y'all think it'll be when y'all have as much evidence as a I on how useful it could be? Why America is such a bad county cause we don't want to just let anyone in, even though we're trying to be shamed into letting them all in cause some have kids and they had to walk here? Or should I think about the possibility of terrorist taking advantage of our poor border? Or should I think about the Deporter in Chief who didn't have a deranged party and courts blocking his fundind cuts to sanctuary cities, while I the Prez and all of his supporters are labeled racist? Or should I think that it makes no difference that even though illegals are leaving and there are plenty wanting to take their place? Or should I think about more drones and border patrol agents that might do as much good as the wall? Or should I think about I'm some deranged racist American that's over protective of his country?
As far as I'm concerned I've thought about all of that, additional things y'all have said and then some and I still come to the same conclusion and I stand by my conclusion.
America, American citizens and Americas safety first.
What do you want me to critically think about?

Seems a bit... obvious of a statement to make.

Then why ask?

 

[Danoff]

Do you have a link you are confident in of how many are actually down there?
Critically evaluate what? What is there to critically think about? How expensive it is? How useless y'all think it'll be when y'all have as much evidence as a I on how useful it could be? Why America is such a bad county cause we don't want to just let anyone in, even though we're trying to be shamed into letting them all in cause some have kids and they had to walk here? Or should I think about the possibility of terrorist taking advantage of our poor border? Or should I think about the Deporter in Chief who didn't have a deranged party and courts blocking his fundind cuts to sanctuary cities, while I the Prez and all of his supporters are labeled racist? Or should I think that it makes no difference that even though illegals are leaving and there are plenty wanting to take their place? Or should I think about more drones and border patrol agents that might do as much good as the wall? Or should I think about I'm some deranged racist American that's over protective of his country?
As far as I'm concerned I've thought about all of that, additional things y'all have said and then some and I still come to the same conclusion and I stand by my conclusion.
America, American citizens and Americas safety first.
What do you want me to critically think about?

...whether a wall is needed or makes sense.

 

[VolkswagenX]

...whether a wall is needed or makes sense.

From reading his posts, I think he critically thought about it and really feels the wall is needed and makes sense. I could be wrong.

 

[Danoff]

From reading his posts, I think he critically thought about it and really feels the wall is needed and makes sense. I could be wrong.

Well if that's true, he didn't present his thought process. So far the conversation has been something along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing here):

Danoff: What do you guys think about this political fight over the wall
@ryzno: I think a wall makes sense and is needed
Folks: What about all these alternatives, and what about the fact that the problem is overstated
@ryzno: What's with the questioning? I think it makes sense and is needed.

Maybe I missed it. All I've seen in this thread are facts about why a wall is not feasible and won't create a significant impact.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

There are a number of different ways to approach it. When I've thought about it the idea, I've imagined having different contract options where you might promise a given amount for a certain period of time to help prevent wild fluctuations in program funding over time. Then you also have to consider some of the difficulty this might pose for the average person. For those people that may not have the time of knowledge to micromanage their contributions, there could also be the option to donate your portion to an elected representative for them to use on voters' behalf.

I particularly like the idea of citizens being able to prevent/pull funding from unnecessary military operations (mostly wars that aren't directly self defense).

Maybe it could be more broadly distributed. Say you can allocate 20% of your income tax to one of these categories:

-Matters of Defense
-Matters of the interior (social services, education, infrastructure, science, etc)
-Matters outside the interior (foreign aide & similar)
-Paying down US Debt

The percentage would have to be sizable enough to actually have some effect in terms of congressional budgeting, but not so large that it would destabilize the budget entirely. At best, it would probably form a kind of bellwether for the sentiment of the American public. Voting with your wallet. Congress: "Oh, they seem to want to prioritize fixing things inside the country right now." Or, "oh, they seem to be wanting to strengthen the military right now."