Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I heard that the popular version of the German war machine is blitzkrieg and much better tanks and the whole lot, when the reality is they were still moving a lot of things with horse drawn wagons and marching men.  They were said to be astounded at the level of mechanization of American forces once we got involved in the war.  One of the reasons was because they never had the fuel available to move all that machinery. 

Fuel and trucks.  

German logistics were a nightmare.  Instead of relying predominantly on ONE type of truck like the US they had a slew of different ones which meant that they needed boatloads of various spare parts to keep everything running and they were perpetually short on replacement parts.  Over the course of the war the Germans lost a tremendous amount of mechanized equipment simply because the equipment was unable to fall back due to being disabled for lack of spare parts.  

The US military was the ONLY fully mechanized army in the world even in 1945.  Everybody else was doing the bulk of their non-RR transport by Ox/Mule/Horse, etc.  The British *might* have been fully mechanized by the end of the war but even if they were it was only because they had US Trucks given to them.  The Russians moved a lot of stuff with livestock and the vast majority of the trucks that they did have were US Lend-Lease Studebakers.  Even 30 years after WWII Studebakers still made up a significant portion of Soviet logistics.  

The German Army was an interesting contrast.  By mid 1944 they had some mechanized units that were as good as any in the world but they only had a very few of them and basically everything else looked an awful lot like a WWI army.  

Your last comment is so true.  I once saw an interview with a German veteran of the Battle of the Bulge.  He said that when they overran a US supply depot he realized that Germany was hopeless because of the abundance of stuff that the US had in this depot.  He explained that here they were just a few hundred miles from Germany's industrial heartland in the Ruhr and they were short on everything while the US, THOUSANDS of miles from home, had unbelievable stockpiles of everything from meals to fuel to tires to ammunition.  

We show gas as an expense in our books.

Some of the gas taxes are for "use of the Roads"  so if you buy gas for equipment that is not used on the "roads"  you can get that tax refunded to you if you track the expense.  For most it is not worth the effort to track it, but for large companies it can be quite a sum. 

This is... not good.

Mayorkas Warns FEMA Lacks Funding for Hurricane Cleanup after Agency Spent over a Billion on Migrants (msn.com)

This is... not good.

Mayorkas Warns FEMA Lacks Funding for Hurricane Cleanup after Agency Spent over a Billion on Migrants (msn.com)

But, but but @MaximumSam says immigrants are making us all richer.  How can this be true?  

Some of the gas taxes are for "use of the Roads"  so if you buy gas for equipment that is not used on the "roads"  you can get that tax refunded to you if you track the expense.  For most it is not worth the effort to track it, but for large companies it can be quite a sum.

I'm able to to do this with my boat gasoline.  Because boats use SO much gas, it adds up.

Do you fill up on the street?

We fill at the marina and they don't charge the taxes. Plus, we get their wholesale price as members. $3.49/gallon for 90 octane.

Yes, before we had the boat in dry-stack at the marina, I trailered boats for over 20 years.

Oh my goodness, we may have finally discovered the underlying error that explains all the nonsense you spew on immigration. 

Medina never said GDP would shrink, it obviously grows but you apparently don't understand numbers so let me explain it to you:

Suppose you have a City that has 1,000 households that each make $100,000 (each or average it doesn't really matter).  Your city GDP is simple:

• $100,000*1,000 = $100,000,000

So now your city is blessed (LoL) with 200 immigrant households who each make $20,000 (again each or average it doesn't matter).  Your city GDP is higher:

• $100,000*1,000 = $100,000,000
• PLUS $20,000*200 = $4,000,000
• Total $104,000,000

So your city GDP has grown by 4% from $100,000,000 to $104,000,000. 

The problem that you either don't see or conveniently ignore is that while your GDP grew by 4% your population grew by 20% so your GDP per-capita shrunk:

• Prior GDP per household was $100,000 ($100,000,000/1,000)
• New GDP per household is $86,667 ($104,000,000/1,200)

Your GDP grew by 4% but your per-household GDP shrunk by a staggering 13.33%. 

The ability of the city to provide services for citizens has dropped by more than 13%.  Yay immigration!

This problem is made infinitely worse if your city (like our federal government) was ALREADY deficit spending.  As I've mentioned before, SS is already a fiscal loser for the government so adding even an average participant makes the hole bigger.  Adding sub-average participants is a catastrophe.  Medicare is actually a bigger fiscal loser for the government than SS so there again, adding even average participants makes the hole bigger.  Adding sub-average participants is a catastrophe. 

Medina's war on math continues.

The per capita GSP of the United States has grown by 13 thousand dollars since 2020, despite "unfettered, uncontrolled immigration" in that time.

I don't think it's me who doesn't understand numbers!