Not all solutions have to be complicated. Most Americans say that they live paycheck to paycheck due to their debt. Only 46% say they can manage their debt while 56% admit they were in all over their heads. If people tried to avoid debt or only take in debt they can manage then the solution of people having trouble saving would be solved or atleast easier to solve.

My source bwt is NBC https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck.html .

The Pi guy brought up the finding that most Americans say they live paycheck to paycheck. In the finding he was referring to one of the reasons for this was peoples debts. Thats how the debt angle up come. You can find the link to the finding he and I are refering to in the quoted response above.

You took a small portion of what I said out of context and want me to explain what I think about it? Umm, no. Nice visuals though.

Why build walls if they were so much more expensive and useless?

1. Focus on ports of entry, which should easily take less resources than trying to cover vast open area's of no wall. The wall. 

2. The wall hasn't been finished. The wall that exists is utterly useless in some locations. You can't not build a proper wall and say a wall wouldn't work. Want proof? The analysts and experts said Trump had little to no chance at becoming Prez. How can he be Prez? Now that is he Prez, don't you think they can use this to study the event and find out the how and why it differed from their perfect predictions and see if it continues, only to use that info to better predict who will become Prez in the future?

3. Those were a few of the reasons I gave, out of the many that would be part of the outcome, yet you disagree and believe drugs, crime, etc, wouldn't be reduced whatsoever, and no jobs would be created, because immigrants only work on farms? Hmm.

"Here's my problem with the argument. It's been pointed out with charts etc, that illegal immigration is at a low point right now, relative to the past, so it's not really a problem and nothing to worry about apparently. Yet climate charts show that CO2 levels are low right now, relative to the past, and yet it's an immediate danger that's going to destroy the planet. Umm, ok?"

Have we always known what the climate used to be? Did we always know how far back humans go? Do we still know for sure? If we really are the latest and greatest type of monkey, ape, whatever, then how far back do they go and what was the climate then? What were they before they became monkeys? Could humans have lived in those conditions back then?

Well one way or another the kinks have to get worked out. You can't honestly believe when science makes a prediction that the large majority of the time when put into practice it works perfectly as intended. That's how the tests are done though and have been in the past. If you can't verify it in different set ups then it can't be fully proven. This sometimes is a major headache and a major undertaking but needs to be done to legitimately prove the method. Analysts and experts aren't always scientists and don't always use hard science to come up with their results either.

I'm not the one who brought science into this. I also said the planet not humans. We're working on Mars so is Earth necessary in the future if we can live elsewhere? Since we're talking about the future and what could happen and all.

So why not a simple chain link fence since the beginning? Why a wall at all? 

1. Depends how narrow the gaps are and how deep the posts go, but if they really want to dig a lot to get under, probably not. A proper wall will still be cheaper in the long run though. I also find it quite ironic that money for a border wall should likely go towards conservatives where as money for border tech should likely go towards liberals. Interesting.

2. Well based on what I've read, the border security experts asked for more wall than was budgeted for, and less tech and manpower than was budgeted for. After of course the speaker made it clear there would be no wall because it's immoral. Why didn't congress agree with their expertise? Was it because of the TV panelists and pollsters?

3. After a quick glance I don't see it. Very well may have been pi guy since you both were replying on the same things at the same time. If you didn't say it I take it back. No decrease in drugs or crime and no increase in jobs at all whatsoever? Now who's being flippant?

Same here since I'm wondering when we're going to get back to the original topic of paying for the wall but it seems you want to stay away from that.

I didn't question the climate historical data.

We only know based on what we've found, and to assume we've found everything is one bold assumption. How do you know for sure that we couldn't have lived in those conditions? There's been plenty of change already and we're still here. If it's tech that's aloud us to survive, then why can't it continue to based on it's ever rapid innovation and evolution?

How do you definitely know there will be 12 billion people in 100 years? Why will it be around 100 years before we can live on Mars if at all? I thought we only had 12 years? The expert scientists told us all so already.

I agree.

To finish the previous conversation, I do believe skepticism is a valid means when data is presented as 100% accurate and factual, when it sometimes is found not to be, especially in reoccurring cycles. That's not to say it was a lie to begin with, because new facts may have come to light since, but that doesn't change the fact that it was incorrect or incomplete when presented, yet unknowingly. For example, your point about Mars. Since you keep using historical data and trends etc, if you simply look at human history in it's entirety as we know it, and compare that to the last 100 years, then it shouldn't be crazy to think we couldn't have billions of people on Mars in 100 years or so. That's not to say it's definitely going to happen, but based on some of the tools you were using for your previous points, it should fit the mold, yet you didn't seem to think so. This of course leads me to confusion.

What I think is the most important is to find and use tools that both sides agree upon and debate using them. If both sides are using completely different tools, or using them in a completely different manner, then having a productive conversation is going to be extremely difficult. Not only do both people need to 'learn the same language', they need to both have the same understanding of it's 'words and meanings', if you get my point. Things like bias however can disrupt this understanding nonetheless, and trying to remove that is like trying to remove stage 4 cancer, which we're still working on curing. There isn't a one fits all answer unfortunately so sometimes we have to compromise and sometimes there's no choice but to face the fact that there's very little you can do about the problem as the present time and just know you tried and hopefully learned.

I just wanted to chip in here to say that you have the patience of a saint!

I've found lots of your points really informative and appreciate the effort you go to so supply links/references/evidence to back up your well thought-out arguments. Especially when in return you often get a lazy one-liner that's only purpose is to distract or obfuscate...

Unfortunately some of those that you are debating with don't seem to have any actual interest in absorbing new information or considering a different opinion in an intellectually honest way, but rather are solely focussed on maintaining the same position as they entered the thread with - at all costs!

It would be great if people could recognise that being open-minded and having a willingness to change their mind in the face of a convincing argument is actually strength, not a weakness...

Anyway, just wanted to highlight the fact that myself and no doubt a few other lurkers are appreciating your input - even if we're not necessarily your intended targets :)

I voted for Trump for one big reason: HILLARY. Trump was and, very much vs. any Democrat today, he continues to be the LESSER evil. Evil, of course, but somewhat of a lesser evil when the only other option is a stupid and evil Democrat.

Oh, for some calibration, I actually voted for Obama back in 2008 and what a disappointment he was. Believe it or not, I actually registered myself 'Democrat' so that I could vote for Obama and more importantly AGAINST Hillary at my state's primary.

Also worth noting that the Wall of China was ineffective. The Huns invaded the country specifically because they also thought that's enough, and didn't man the walls and towers with enough guards. Result: The Huns entered China through a door the Chinese forgot to close and once hey found out that the Huns entered there they were already dozens of miles inlands.

Another example: The Limes, the roman border wall in between the Rhine and Danube rivers, stood for centuries. But once the roman empire couldn't afford the guards there anymore (Long story short, the western roman empire had hyperinflation and already reduced their equipment value as it got too expensive. The legionaries got a 300% pay raise a couple years before the wall fell, but that practically bankrupted the already fragile economy of western roman empire), the vandals, goths and allamans quickly got through.

As you can see, history shows that a wall alone is ineffective. The wall needs to be both guarded and patrolled 24/7 to be really worthwhile, otherwise those who really want to get past it (like smugglers) will find a way.

@bolded: Considering the length of the border and the amount of fortifications (and some are not shown in those diagrams, like the minefield, 5 Trillion would probably closer to the truth. And 5 Million Border guards, give or take.

Jason, at some point you are going to be considered as trolling with a statement like that.