|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Something I read in the News
On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 8:57:57 PM UTC-8, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:58:10 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote: Today's Bangkok Post had an article entitled "US careens towards government shutdown". From reading the article it seems that the President wants a 5 billion dollar budget for the Mexican Wall and Congress doesn't want to give it to him. 5,000,000,000 divided by 1,954 miles is what? $25,588,536.33 a mile (that may be wrong as I'm not used to working with really big numbers) It's easier with exponential notation: $5 billion = 5*10^9 dollars. 5*10^9 / 2*10^3 = 2.5*10^6 = 2.5 million dollars / mile but even for the largest economy in the world that seems a tiny bit expensive, doesn't it? That's fairly close to what it would cost to build a 2 lane undivided rural road: https://medium.com/@TimSylvester/i-agree-it-sounds-astronomical-but-i-actually-understated-the-costs-according-to-artba-2e8baeac2a46 "Copying Israel's wall would cut Trump's price nearly in half" https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/copying-israels-wall-would-cut-trumps-price-nearly-in-half Actually, the construction contract will probably go to one of the major US construction companies, who will then subcontract the actual work to smaller Mexican companies. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 Again we didn't see Frank who was supposed to be a highly educated teacher discover the error in math. And the wall will also have a two lane road built next to it so that it can be patrolled and it will have solar cell fed cameras all over the place. In fact it is a very cheap price. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Something I read in the News
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 7:16:56 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/18/2018 1:36 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 21:11:04 -0800 (PST), " wrote: On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 8:58:15 PM UTC-6, John B. Slocomb wrote: Today's Bangkok Post had an article entitled "US careens towards government shutdown". From reading the article it seems that the President wants a 5 billion dollar budget for the Mexican Wall and Congress doesn't want to give it to him. 5,000,000,000 divided by 1,954 miles is what? $25,588,536.33 a mile (that may be wrong as I'm not used to working with really big numbers) but even for the largest economy in the world that seems a tiny bit expensive, doesn't it? cheers, John B. What Jeff said. $2.5 million per mile of fencing. Not $25. Given the cost of everything the government buys, $2.5 million for a mile of fence doesn't really sound too extreme. We pay $10-20-30-40-50 Billion for every airplane or boat we buy for the military. So $2.5 million per mile is change we could find in the couch. Of course the fence could just be a single strand of electric fence with a stake stuck in the ground every 100 yards. All put up by some Mexican illegal immigrants paid below minimum wage. And the contractor could be laughing at how he made out like a bandit stealing money from the government as he jets off to Hawaii for vacation. That sounds far more reasonable. And of course this crook will make a $2.5 million donation to the Republican party and his buddies. Yes, as I said, I don't work well with really large numbers but then... there are such things a "cost overruns". The San Francisco bridge was originally estimates at $250 million and actual costs were about $6.5 billion. At that rate the 5 billion might just be a drop in the bucket. Re the $10-20-30-40-50 Billion. President Eisenhower, in his farewell address warned about the potential influence of the "military - industrial complex". Did anyone listen? cheers, John B. Here's how things don't work out here in the real world: https://www.constructiondive.com/new...poor-p/542635/ -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 Although Brown sold this as costing about a billion dollars all of the engineering companies said that you could not achieve that for less than a trillion. What's more despite those cost overruns they dropped the idea of special high speed rails and intend to run it on the present rail system which absolutely will NOT accommodate high speed trains. This is the Democrat Party Boondoggle System of the Year. This is like the Oakland portion of the Bay Bridge. It came in more than twice the cost of the original bid. It had been given to a Chinese company despite an American company making almost the identical bid. And not every single piece of steel in the bridge has been shown to be dramatically under specification. All of the support pillars steel bolts have broken and American company has replaced them with slides which would allow the bridge to rock back and forth in a Earthquake. Even more dramatic - the support wires in less than specification and the finish on them was not waterproof and they are rusting away. The bridge to last a 100 years without maintenance is not a maintenance nightmare. "Hello, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Something I read in the News
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 12:53:27 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 7:38:58 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/17/2018 9:58 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: Today's Bangkok Post had an article entitled "US careens towards government shutdown". From reading the article it seems that the President wants a 5 billion dollar budget for the Mexican Wall and Congress doesn't want to give it to him. 5,000,000,000 divided by 1,954 miles is what? $25,588,536.33 a mile (that may be wrong as I'm not used to working with really big numbers) but even for the largest economy in the world that seems a tiny bit expensive, doesn't it? That can't be true! When he was campaigning he promised Mexico was going to pay for the wall! I heard him say so! That darn Bangkok Post must be pushing fake news. -- - Frank Krygowski Did you also hear that we have a new North American Free Trade Act that makes 5 billion seem like chickenfeed? Or doesn't that count with you? Mexico HAS already paid for it. Gawdamighty. Did you actually buy into the idea that NAFTA 2.0 is going to make Mexico pay for the wall? That twitter claim doesn't even make sense. Here, bookmark this on your browser. You'll need it. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/12/is...through-usmca/ And any minor increases in either tariff or tax revenues would be a drop in the giant budget deficit bucket. And no matter how you cut it, "Mexico" is not paying for the wall. There are no direct extractions from Mexico -- only from US citizens paying tariffs on Mexican goods or additional income taxes paid by US companies who somehow benefit from the treaty. Think powdered-milk sellers to Canada. -- Jay Beattie. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Something I read in the News
On 12/18/2018 2:41 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 11:40:46 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 12/18/2018 12:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 1:56:23 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote: I wonder why the U.S. doesn't follow Thailand in matter of illegal immigrants. Here the only individuals that qualify for government assistance of any sort are citizens , or, in some cases, legal workers who pay taxes. Illegal immigrants are liable to jail terms but are usually just extradited to their home country. AND, those who employ illegal workers are liable to a 1 year jail term and a large fine. I'm not sure about it but Thai law usually assigns one penalty per crime committed, i.e., two illegal workers equals two years and double fine, etc. While finding that one will be hanged in a fortnight is said to concentrates the mind wonderfully I also find that "no food unless you earn it" tends to ensure that most people will be gainfully employed. Well, I think this issue is extremely complex. Some salient points: First, the U.S. is a nation of immigrants. During most of its history it needed to actively import people to make use of the huge amount of virgin land, to do farm work, to build railroads, to keep the factories running. That's how and why my grandparents came here. It's still true that lots of businesses - agriculture and everything else, from lawn care to manufacturing - want cheap labor. There must be thousands of businesses owned by people all across the political spectrum who depend on people with questionable papers who are willing to work for less. And I think for most of those people, it's not a question of "no work so no food" policies chasing them home. They work and work hard. I read a couple articles last year about tomatoes rotting in fields because the people who used to pick them were now too afraid to work. The farm owner said he couldn't get "regular Americans" to do the work. They wouldn't put up with the job for more than one day. There's also the bit about asylum. I once helped a foreign guy get asylum, albeit unwittingly. (He asked me to write him a letter inviting him to visit. When he landed, he applied for and received asylum.) Because of its history, the US has laws allowing people to seek asylum. I suppose some might want to go back in time and stop those laws from being written. But odds are they were logical when written, and are probably fairly logical now. The big influx from Central America certainly contains many people who are literally fleeing for their lives. From what I've read, some of that is precipitated by past U.S. policies in Central America. And I'll note that one relative of mine works for an agency that supports refugees in some ways. There are horrible stories to hear. Also, I think there's little comparison between U.S. and Thailand. This is a huge country with an enormous economy and lots of prosperity. There's a long, long land border with Mexico, a much poorer country. That means there's a lot of motivation to sneak across that border and serious difficulty preventing the crossings. Which is not to say Trump's wall would really work. It would stop those walking across, probably a small percentage. Until, perhaps, the ladder was invented. Overall, it's a complicated problem. America is filled with know- nothings who think every problem is easy. But this problem would be tricky even if millions of people didn't make millions of dollars by hiring illegal immigrants. Those people - many of whom are well connected politically - will stand in the way of any fierce enforcement against firms that employ these people. And it's not even necessarily big firms. When you need your grass cut and you check the bulletin board at the grocery store, you call around for the best price. You don't say "Oh, and let me see your citizenship papers." Hell, it recently came out that Trump has had (and probably still has) illegal immigrants working for him. Wall- necessary but not sufficient. Won't solve all problems, or even most, but necessary. Immigrants- Yes we children of immigrants love immigrants. Illegal invaders are not the same as immigrants. Conflating terms is not helpful. Public charge- Logically, immigrants are proscribed from being a public charge with good reason. Laws unenforced or ignored altogether- https://ktla.com/2018/12/17/man-dies...entral-valley/ The wall only became necessary when Trump ran for president. It certainly isn't necessary he https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5...423_r31920.jpg Unless there are invading hordes of Mexican rock climbers. I'd worry more about hang-gliders. Nets! We need nets! There were already appropriations for new sections of fencing. There still are appropriations for new sections of fencing -- even in the proposed Democratic budget. There just isn't a budget for a dopey border-to-border mega-wall through inaccessible terrain. This is all pandering to the base. Sad! Wall-hunt! No Collusion! Yes, ridiculous is our new level of discourse but facts are stubborn things. Several Congresses over 30-odd years* voted to better secure the southern border, partially wall, fence, even a failed e-surveillance program. Meanwhile Texas reports over a half-million felonies per year by illegals and California no longer reports. Listen to any Jamile Shaw interview in the past ten years about his son and tell me border enforcement is pointless. http://jamielshaw.com/ Or Kate Steinle's father who watched her die as she said, "Dad, help me". There are dozens of memorial websites like: http://www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp To say a wall is insufficient or ineffective or too expensive is an argument, and I would engage that. To say there is no problem is ridiculous. * The loudest voices against Mr Trump's wall voted for it in the WJC era and blamed GWB for _not_ building it. As with so much of politics, the default position is "I'm for whatever he's against". This is not productive for the nation. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Something I read in the News
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 08:47:46 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/17/2018 8:58 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: Today's Bangkok Post had an article entitled "US careens towards government shutdown". From reading the article it seems that the President wants a 5 billion dollar budget for the Mexican Wall and Congress doesn't want to give it to him. 5,000,000,000 divided by 1,954 miles is what? $25,588,536.33 a mile (that may be wrong as I'm not used to working with really big numbers) but even for the largest economy in the world that seems a tiny bit expensive, doesn't it? cheers, John B. John, you've worked in and out of government. States do things which range from misguided, inept, pernicious to evil but nothing they do could be called efficient. Yes, you are correct and that is probably the greatest failing of the communist system. But it is also becoming a failure of the democratic systems as they grow larger. When I was in high school the little New England town I grew up in was governed by the old fashioned,and fundamental, democratic system. There was a "town meeting" each year to elect the "Selectman" who ran the town and the heads of the various departments, lights, water, roads, etc., and the Selectman and department heads had to get up and inform the public about what their department had accomplished in the past year and answer complaints. Certainly many, maybe most, of the complaints were along the line of "why does it take so long for my street to get plowed after a snow storm" but just as knowing that you will hang in a fortnight is said to concentrate the mind wonderfully, knowing that you, personally, will have to get up in front of the entire town and explain why you didn't plow Miss Gracie's street quickly enough to keep her happy will tend to ensure that streets get plowed efficiently. cheers, John B. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Something I read in the News
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:10:53 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/18/2018 12:56 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 22:38:54 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/17/2018 9:58 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: Today's Bangkok Post had an article entitled "US careens towards government shutdown". From reading the article it seems that the President wants a 5 billion dollar budget for the Mexican Wall and Congress doesn't want to give it to him. 5,000,000,000 divided by 1,954 miles is what? $25,588,536.33 a mile (that may be wrong as I'm not used to working with really big numbers) but even for the largest economy in the world that seems a tiny bit expensive, doesn't it? That can't be true! When he was campaigning he promised Mexico was going to pay for the wall! I heard him say so! That darn Bangkok Post must be pushing fake news. NO, the Bangkok Post prints only the Truth! That is a bit of a tongue in cheek as the Post has never, in the history of the paper, printed anything that was derogatory to the government in power at press time :-O Actually the Post quoted the AFP - Agency France Press - for that tidbit. I wonder why the U.S. doesn't follow Thailand in matter of illegal immigrants. Here the only individuals that qualify for government assistance of any sort are citizens , or, in some cases, legal workers who pay taxes. Illegal immigrants are liable to jail terms but are usually just extradited to their home country. AND, those who employ illegal workers are liable to a 1 year jail term and a large fine. I'm not sure about it but Thai law usually assigns one penalty per crime committed, i.e., two illegal workers equals two years and double fine, etc. While finding that one will be hanged in a fortnight is said to concentrates the mind wonderfully I also find that "no food unless you earn it" tends to ensure that most people will be gainfully employed :-) cheers, John B. How would that advance more illegal alien voters for the communist party? I'm not sure what you mean (which allows me to wander off in any direction) but a good friend grew up in Hungary under the communist system there. He told me that everyone in Hungary had a job and had to work at that job. Or more accurately, he said, show up every morning at that job. He had free schooling through four years of collage and "escaped" from Hungary not because he hated communism but because the state ordered him to work in the food industry (he was a chemical engineer) and he wanted to work in the oil industry. cheers, John B. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Something I read in the News
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:14:06 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/18/2018 1:20 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 20:57:54 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:58:10 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote: Today's Bangkok Post had an article entitled "US careens towards government shutdown". From reading the article it seems that the President wants a 5 billion dollar budget for the Mexican Wall and Congress doesn't want to give it to him. 5,000,000,000 divided by 1,954 miles is what? $25,588,536.33 a mile (that may be wrong as I'm not used to working with really big numbers) It's easier with exponential notation: $5 billion = 5*10^9 dollars. 5*10^9 / 2*10^3 = 2.5*10^6 = 2.5 million dollars / mile Well as I said, I don't do really big numbers :-) But still 2.5 million a mile is (unless I make another mistake) is 2.5 million divided by 5,280 comes to $473.48 a foot, or in more precise terms $39.45 an inch. but even for the largest economy in the world that seems a tiny bit expensive, doesn't it? That's fairly close to what it would cost to build a 2 lane undivided rural road: https://medium.com/@TimSylvester/i-agree-it-sounds-astronomical-but-i-actually-understated-the-costs-according-to-artba-2e8baeac2a46 "Copying Israel's wall would cut Trump's price nearly in half" https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/copying-israels-wall-would-cut-trumps-price-nearly-in-half Actually, the construction contract will probably go to one of the major US construction companies, who will then subcontract the actual work to smaller Mexican companies. Mexican labor rates seem to be in the neighborhood of US$3.00 an hour while U.S. rates are what? $10.00 an hour? Certainly labor is not the only costs involved but even so, at $39.45 an inch a chap might be able to make a buck or two :-) And yes, the major U.S. construction companies will be standing in line to get their fingers in that pot. cheers, John B. Add in logistics cost to move labor and materials to remote areas. Then add survey and planning (expensive labor in remote areas) and a few years of paper pushing for all the various 'studies'. Material may be the smallest item in the project. Certainly. In Indonesia we had several contracts in Irian Jaya (now West Papua) where supply of any large item was a 3 week barge tow away. cheers, John B. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Something I read in the News
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 3:08:02 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/18/2018 2:41 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 11:40:46 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 12/18/2018 12:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 1:56:23 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote: I wonder why the U.S. doesn't follow Thailand in matter of illegal immigrants. Here the only individuals that qualify for government assistance of any sort are citizens , or, in some cases, legal workers who pay taxes. Illegal immigrants are liable to jail terms but are usually just extradited to their home country. AND, those who employ illegal workers are liable to a 1 year jail term and a large fine. I'm not sure about it but Thai law usually assigns one penalty per crime committed, i.e., two illegal workers equals two years and double fine, etc. While finding that one will be hanged in a fortnight is said to concentrates the mind wonderfully I also find that "no food unless you earn it" tends to ensure that most people will be gainfully employed.. Well, I think this issue is extremely complex. Some salient points: First, the U.S. is a nation of immigrants. During most of its history it needed to actively import people to make use of the huge amount of virgin land, to do farm work, to build railroads, to keep the factories running. That's how and why my grandparents came here. It's still true that lots of businesses - agriculture and everything else, from lawn care to manufacturing - want cheap labor. There must be thousands of businesses owned by people all across the political spectrum who depend on people with questionable papers who are willing to work for less. And I think for most of those people, it's not a question of "no work so no food" policies chasing them home. They work and work hard. I read a couple articles last year about tomatoes rotting in fields because the people who used to pick them were now too afraid to work. The farm owner said he couldn't get "regular Americans" to do the work. They wouldn't put up with the job for more than one day. There's also the bit about asylum. I once helped a foreign guy get asylum, albeit unwittingly. (He asked me to write him a letter inviting him to visit. When he landed, he applied for and received asylum.) Because of its history, the US has laws allowing people to seek asylum. I suppose some might want to go back in time and stop those laws from being written. But odds are they were logical when written, and are probably fairly logical now. The big influx from Central America certainly contains many people who are literally fleeing for their lives. From what I've read, some of that is precipitated by past U.S. policies in Central America. And I'll note that one relative of mine works for an agency that supports refugees in some ways. There are horrible stories to hear. Also, I think there's little comparison between U.S. and Thailand. This is a huge country with an enormous economy and lots of prosperity. There's a long, long land border with Mexico, a much poorer country. That means there's a lot of motivation to sneak across that border and serious difficulty preventing the crossings. Which is not to say Trump's wall would really work. It would stop those walking across, probably a small percentage. Until, perhaps, the ladder was invented. Overall, it's a complicated problem. America is filled with know- nothings who think every problem is easy. But this problem would be tricky even if millions of people didn't make millions of dollars by hiring illegal immigrants. Those people - many of whom are well connected politically - will stand in the way of any fierce enforcement against firms that employ these people. And it's not even necessarily big firms. When you need your grass cut and you check the bulletin board at the grocery store, you call around for the best price. You don't say "Oh, and let me see your citizenship papers." Hell, it recently came out that Trump has had (and probably still has) illegal immigrants working for him. Wall- necessary but not sufficient. Won't solve all problems, or even most, but necessary. Immigrants- Yes we children of immigrants love immigrants. Illegal invaders are not the same as immigrants. Conflating terms is not helpful. Public charge- Logically, immigrants are proscribed from being a public charge with good reason. Laws unenforced or ignored altogether- https://ktla.com/2018/12/17/man-dies...entral-valley/ The wall only became necessary when Trump ran for president. It certainly isn't necessary he https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5...423_r31920.jpg Unless there are invading hordes of Mexican rock climbers. I'd worry more about hang-gliders. Nets! We need nets! There were already appropriations for new sections of fencing. There still are appropriations for new sections of fencing -- even in the proposed Democratic budget. There just isn't a budget for a dopey border-to-border mega-wall through inaccessible terrain. This is all pandering to the base. Sad! Wall-hunt! No Collusion! Yes, ridiculous is our new level of discourse but facts are stubborn things. Several Congresses over 30-odd years* voted to better secure the southern border, partially wall, fence, even a failed e-surveillance program. Meanwhile Texas reports over a half-million felonies per year by illegals and California no longer reports. Listen to any Jamile Shaw interview in the past ten years about his son and tell me border enforcement is pointless. http://jamielshaw.com/ Or Kate Steinle's father who watched her die as she said, "Dad, help me". There are dozens of memorial websites like: http://www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp To say a wall is insufficient or ineffective or too expensive is an argument, and I would engage that. To say there is no problem is ridiculous. Nobody is saying there is no problem, although one can disagree on the magnitude of the problem -- and the best, most fiscally responsible way of dealing with the problem. Anecdotes of people getting killed also say nothing about whether the killer would have been deterred by a wall. For all we know, Pedro Espinoza's mom may have taken a bus to El Paso or come to the US through a tunnel in Tijuana. Moreover, there is already a wall in most population areas on the southern border, including Tijuana. We built tons of walls under the Secure Fence Act of 2006. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006 Maybe more are needed but not an engineering marvel across the canyons of Texas. * The loudest voices against Mr Trump's wall voted for it in the WJC era and blamed GWB for _not_ building it. As with so much of politics, the default position is "I'm for whatever he's against". This is not productive for the nation. Being a first-class ass-wipe not surprisingly puts Trump at odds with the mainstream so even his reasonable policies get discounted, but building a massive wall from border to border is not a reasonable policy. Notwithstanding Faux News and the tin-foil hat news outlets, even the liberal boogeywoman Nancy Pelosi is not advocating for "open borders." Not even the Republican controlled Senate wants to shut down the government for Trump's wall -- or Hadrian's Wall or the Maginot Line. This is all part of his weird pandering. A reasonable politician would identify areas that required fortification and would fortify those areas and not advocate for some great wall through nowhere. But then again, a reasonable politician would not have gutted federal revenues and created a monumental budget gap -- not in a hot economy, but that's a whole other issue. -- Jay Beattie. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Something I read in the News
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:16:54 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/18/2018 1:36 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 21:11:04 -0800 (PST), " wrote: On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 8:58:15 PM UTC-6, John B. Slocomb wrote: Today's Bangkok Post had an article entitled "US careens towards government shutdown". From reading the article it seems that the President wants a 5 billion dollar budget for the Mexican Wall and Congress doesn't want to give it to him. 5,000,000,000 divided by 1,954 miles is what? $25,588,536.33 a mile (that may be wrong as I'm not used to working with really big numbers) but even for the largest economy in the world that seems a tiny bit expensive, doesn't it? cheers, John B. What Jeff said. $2.5 million per mile of fencing. Not $25. Given the cost of everything the government buys, $2.5 million for a mile of fence doesn't really sound too extreme. We pay $10-20-30-40-50 Billion for every airplane or boat we buy for the military. So $2.5 million per mile is change we could find in the couch. Of course the fence could just be a single strand of electric fence with a stake stuck in the ground every 100 yards. All put up by some Mexican illegal immigrants paid below minimum wage. And the contractor could be laughing at how he made out like a bandit stealing money from the government as he jets off to Hawaii for vacation. That sounds far more reasonable. And of course this crook will make a $2.5 million donation to the Republican party and his buddies. Yes, as I said, I don't work well with really large numbers but then... there are such things a "cost overruns". The San Francisco bridge was originally estimates at $250 million and actual costs were about $6.5 billion. At that rate the 5 billion might just be a drop in the bucket. Re the $10-20-30-40-50 Billion. President Eisenhower, in his farewell address warned about the potential influence of the "military - industrial complex". Did anyone listen? cheers, John B. Here's how things don't work out here in the real world: https://www.constructiondive.com/new...poor-p/542635/ We once bid a job to construct a oil gathering station in a rather remote area in S. Sumatra. This included the station, living quarters, roads in and out and several pipelines. We were awarded the contract and then because of the Indonesian Government the project was delayed for several months and by the time that we were given the go ahead the rainy season had started. You can't build roads and pipeline right or ways through swamps in the rainy season and you can't do major earth works in the rainy season so all major construction was delayed and our "cost overruns" were up something in the neighborhood of a million dollars on that project. We attempted to get compensation for what we termed an act of God (it rained) but in those days all oil projects were a joint venture with the Indonesian government and they argued that as the terms in the contract were clear, Acts of God were spelled out and didn't include rain, that we had no claim. Ever try to sue a national government? cheers, John B. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Something I read in the News
On 12/18/2018 5:57 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 3:08:02 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 12/18/2018 2:41 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 11:40:46 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 12/18/2018 12:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 1:56:23 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote: I wonder why the U.S. doesn't follow Thailand in matter of illegal immigrants. Here the only individuals that qualify for government assistance of any sort are citizens , or, in some cases, legal workers who pay taxes. Illegal immigrants are liable to jail terms but are usually just extradited to their home country. AND, those who employ illegal workers are liable to a 1 year jail term and a large fine. I'm not sure about it but Thai law usually assigns one penalty per crime committed, i.e., two illegal workers equals two years and double fine, etc. While finding that one will be hanged in a fortnight is said to concentrates the mind wonderfully I also find that "no food unless you earn it" tends to ensure that most people will be gainfully employed. Well, I think this issue is extremely complex. Some salient points: First, the U.S. is a nation of immigrants. During most of its history it needed to actively import people to make use of the huge amount of virgin land, to do farm work, to build railroads, to keep the factories running. That's how and why my grandparents came here. It's still true that lots of businesses - agriculture and everything else, from lawn care to manufacturing - want cheap labor. There must be thousands of businesses owned by people all across the political spectrum who depend on people with questionable papers who are willing to work for less. And I think for most of those people, it's not a question of "no work so no food" policies chasing them home. They work and work hard. I read a couple articles last year about tomatoes rotting in fields because the people who used to pick them were now too afraid to work. The farm owner said he couldn't get "regular Americans" to do the work. They wouldn't put up with the job for more than one day. There's also the bit about asylum. I once helped a foreign guy get asylum, albeit unwittingly. (He asked me to write him a letter inviting him to visit. When he landed, he applied for and received asylum.) Because of its history, the US has laws allowing people to seek asylum. I suppose some might want to go back in time and stop those laws from being written. But odds are they were logical when written, and are probably fairly logical now. The big influx from Central America certainly contains many people who are literally fleeing for their lives. From what I've read, some of that is precipitated by past U.S. policies in Central America. And I'll note that one relative of mine works for an agency that supports refugees in some ways. There are horrible stories to hear. Also, I think there's little comparison between U.S. and Thailand. This is a huge country with an enormous economy and lots of prosperity. There's a long, long land border with Mexico, a much poorer country. That means there's a lot of motivation to sneak across that border and serious difficulty preventing the crossings. Which is not to say Trump's wall would really work. It would stop those walking across, probably a small percentage. Until, perhaps, the ladder was invented. Overall, it's a complicated problem. America is filled with know- nothings who think every problem is easy. But this problem would be tricky even if millions of people didn't make millions of dollars by hiring illegal immigrants. Those people - many of whom are well connected politically - will stand in the way of any fierce enforcement against firms that employ these people. And it's not even necessarily big firms. When you need your grass cut and you check the bulletin board at the grocery store, you call around for the best price. You don't say "Oh, and let me see your citizenship papers." Hell, it recently came out that Trump has had (and probably still has) illegal immigrants working for him. Wall- necessary but not sufficient. Won't solve all problems, or even most, but necessary. Immigrants- Yes we children of immigrants love immigrants. Illegal invaders are not the same as immigrants. Conflating terms is not helpful. Public charge- Logically, immigrants are proscribed from being a public charge with good reason. Laws unenforced or ignored altogether- https://ktla.com/2018/12/17/man-dies...entral-valley/ The wall only became necessary when Trump ran for president. It certainly isn't necessary he https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5...423_r31920.jpg Unless there are invading hordes of Mexican rock climbers. I'd worry more about hang-gliders. Nets! We need nets! There were already appropriations for new sections of fencing. There still are appropriations for new sections of fencing -- even in the proposed Democratic budget. There just isn't a budget for a dopey border-to-border mega-wall through inaccessible terrain. This is all pandering to the base. Sad! Wall-hunt! No Collusion! Yes, ridiculous is our new level of discourse but facts are stubborn things. Several Congresses over 30-odd years* voted to better secure the southern border, partially wall, fence, even a failed e-surveillance program. Meanwhile Texas reports over a half-million felonies per year by illegals and California no longer reports. Listen to any Jamile Shaw interview in the past ten years about his son and tell me border enforcement is pointless. http://jamielshaw.com/ Or Kate Steinle's father who watched her die as she said, "Dad, help me". There are dozens of memorial websites like: http://www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp To say a wall is insufficient or ineffective or too expensive is an argument, and I would engage that. To say there is no problem is ridiculous. Nobody is saying there is no problem, although one can disagree on the magnitude of the problem -- and the best, most fiscally responsible way of dealing with the problem. Anecdotes of people getting killed also say nothing about whether the killer would have been deterred by a wall. For all we know, Pedro Espinoza's mom may have taken a bus to El Paso or come to the US through a tunnel in Tijuana. Moreover, there is already a wall in most population areas on the southern border, including Tijuana. We built tons of walls under the Secure Fence Act of 2006. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006 Maybe more are needed but not an engineering marvel across the canyons of Texas. * The loudest voices against Mr Trump's wall voted for it in the WJC era and blamed GWB for _not_ building it. As with so much of politics, the default position is "I'm for whatever he's against". This is not productive for the nation. Being a first-class ass-wipe not surprisingly puts Trump at odds with the mainstream so even his reasonable policies get discounted, but building a massive wall from border to border is not a reasonable policy. Notwithstanding Faux News and the tin-foil hat news outlets, even the liberal boogeywoman Nancy Pelosi is not advocating for "open borders." Not even the Republican controlled Senate wants to shut down the government for Trump's wall -- or Hadrian's Wall or the Maginot Line. This is all part of his weird pandering. A reasonable politician would identify areas that required fortification and would fortify those areas and not advocate for some great wall through nowhere. But then again, a reasonable politician would not have gutted federal revenues and created a monumental budget gap -- not in a hot economy, but that's a whole other issue. -- Jay Beattie. Half a kumbaya, my half brother. I was with you until that last sentence. Federal revenues are up. Unfortunately both parties* joined in spending even more than that. http://blog.independent.org/2018/07/...eep-piling-up/ Every major tax cut has produced increased revenue. Hell even Putin back in 2003(?) made Russia's tax a flat 13% across the board and filled his treasury. Revenue is only one side of the equation however... *Repugnicans ought to know better. And, sadly, once did know that, or at least faked it. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The best news is the history you haven't read | AMuzi | Techniques | 2 | June 27th 12 04:17 AM |
Good news: not doping. Bad news: 1 year suspension | Robert Chung | Racing | 0 | May 7th 08 12:37 AM |
2300 news articles for victory. 3100 news articles for doping to get there | [email protected] | Racing | 2 | July 30th 06 07:52 PM |
'Some' news is good news :) | flyingdutch | Australia | 24 | September 6th 05 12:20 PM |
Good news/bad news from Chicago | Paul Turner | General | 18 | November 30th 04 03:54 PM |