if camera's and motion sensors are enough to alert guards, then you don't need a fence that people can get over or through in a matter of minutes.
Having "a fence that people can get over or through in a matter of minutes" is better than no fence. It still helps, and if it keeps an illegal alien from coming here and raping/killing people, then you're saving lives without even knowing it.
The border is meant to be an extra layer of security; another obstacle that invaders have to overcome. It isn't meant to be the silver bullet solution to stopping invaders.
you just said that this gets him votes. Obviously that isn't from the illegal immigrants, since they can't vote.
Plus, those illegal aliens can come here and have anchor babies who will be able to grow up and vote in favor of the Democrats and their families.
We can easily help both. You don't need to attack immigrants to help veterans.
You're right. We can help them both, by having those immigrants come here legally instead of illegally, and also by helping the homeless people get into homes and get jobs.
Unfortunately the system is broken and republicans have no interest in fixing it. In fact they are actively working to make it harder to come in legally.
Just because it's hard to come here legally doesn't mean it's broken. The country is being flooded with more people than it can handle, which is why it is difficult and takes long to process asylum applications in the first place.
Instead of blaming our system for being "broken" blame the stupid countries that they come from with all the poverty, violence, and corruption that forces people to flee in the first place.
They could save millions if they moved to the suburbs.
I'm sure they don't want to go through the trouble of leaving their country and investing elsewhere, but people will do that if they have to, are able to, and feel that they have no other choice.
Alot of societies have faced economic ruin because they did exactly what you are suggesting. The end result is you destroy the middle class and create a system where there is only the rich and the poor.
A lot of societies like Venezuela have faced economic ruin because they did not do exactly what I am suggesting. The end result is you make the rich want to leave and go someplace else, and create a system where there is only the poor and the poorer. A society needs to have rich people to function, and there needs to be enough of them. The rich people are able to create businesses, services, products, and/or jobs, which helps the middle class and the poor. Without the rich, who will create plenty of jobs? Without the rich, who will take big risks and make big investments to uplift everyone?
Trickle Down Economics does not "destroy the middle class" like you say it does. Trickle Down Economics is meant to help rich, so they can, in turn, help the middle class, so they can, in turn, help the poor.
If it does destroy them, why hasn't it done so already?
Think about it this way: Say I'm rich, and you are middle class. With my wealth, I can increase your wage, hire more employees, and use my wealth to invest back into the business. With the extra money that you, and the other workers, have, you can pay additional taxes, help the government generate more tax revenue, which helps the government pay for SNAP and other benefits to help the poor.
However, if the government taxes me too much to the point where I am forced to move my wealth elsewhere, there won't be anyone to pay you more, hire more employees, pay them more, or create more wealth and expand. Then you won't have as much money to pay in taxes, and then the government won't have as much money to pay for services for the poor.
I don't know if that's exactly how it works, realistically, but that's the whole idea behind it.
And if the yacht was built in Italy and the hotel is in dubai, you have written off billions in tax revenue to hand that money off to a saudi prince who owns an expensive hotel.
That may be true, however, people from other countries can also do the same thing here, where they buy our goods/services and help us gain extra money. Different countries are helping each other this way. It's risky, i'll admit, but it can also work in our favor.
The much better plan is to raise revenue by taxing the people who can easily afford it so that you can work to protect the people who can't afford it.
What this whole issue boils down to is this: Both of our plans have flaws. Trickle down economics can help us as long as it leads to the rich, middle class, and poor all benefitting, but it can be risky since we could also lose wealth. Your plan to tax the wealthy can help us as long as the wealthy stick around and don't move elsewhere, but can be risky since taxing them too much will make them want to leave, ruining everything.
No plan is perfect, and you are right about the risks and potential downsides of Trickle Down Economics, but so far, it's working out just fine.
Both plans can help or hurt people, but it's matter of which plan would help more, which plan is riskier, and which plan has the biggest downside.
