Truth.
Truth.
I didn't vote for Trump but I don't see why everyone is upset about better border security. A $5 billion dollar investment will save the US that much money within the year its completed. Even a $25 billion investment would be worth it. Why is everyone upset about this?
WhatsWrong wrote:
I didn't vote for Trump but I don't see why everyone is upset about better border security. A $5 billion dollar investment will save the US that much money within the year its completed. Even a $25 billion investment would be worth it. Why is everyone upset about this?
He promised Mexico would pay for the wall. If that is the case, why is he asking for tax payer money for this wall? Also, if Mexico is—in fact—paying indirectly via the new NAFTA then...well ...the question is the same, why is there a government shut down due to his demand for 5 billion in tax payer money?
I thought Mexico was getting the tab? wrote:
WhatsWrong wrote:
I didn't vote for Trump but I don't see why everyone is upset about better border security. A $5 billion dollar investment will save the US that much money within the year its completed. Even a $25 billion investment would be worth it. Why is everyone upset about this?
He promised Mexico would pay for the wall. If that is the case, why is he asking for tax payer money for this wall? Also, if Mexico is—in fact—paying indirectly via the new NAFTA then...well ...the question is the same, why is there a government shut down due to his demand for 5 billion in tax payer money?
And how does any of the savings from the USMCA translate into revenue for the US Government, that can be used for a Great Wall of Trump? I know Trump has been asked this a few dozen times and never answers. He’s betting on the average schmos stupidity when it comes to basic math, must be that Bush Math.
Alan
When so-called eminent domain legal battles occur, one side tries to negotiate with the other side or tries to complete project(s) without battling those who can afford to battle. Some multi-millionaires/billionaires can afford to tie up the court until they die of old age. Eisenhower's case for national emergency was far stronger than Trump's case for national emergency. Up until Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush ended Cold War either late 1989 or early, 1990, nuclear missiles and/or nuclear warheads on flat bed trucks traveled up, down and across U.S. interstate highways on a regular basis. Off the top of my head: I-35E Saint Paul, MN wasn't completed until 1990's. Due to compromise with wealthy real estate owners in Saint Paul, I-35E near downtown Saint Paul is only a 45 mph parkway. No large trucks are allowed. There are other locations also. There are wealthy rancher families that have owned Texas real estate for 150 or so years. You can read general theories of eminent domain if you like. The wall will not be built.
Runningart2004 wrote:
I thought Mexico was getting the tab? wrote:
He promised Mexico would pay for the wall. If that is the case, why is he asking for tax payer money for this wall? Also, if Mexico is—in fact—paying indirectly via the new NAFTA then...well ...the question is the same, why is there a government shut down due to his demand for 5 billion in tax payer money?
And how does any of the savings from the USMCA translate into revenue for the US Government, that can be used for a Great Wall of Trump? I know Trump has been asked this a few dozen times and never answers. He’s betting on the average schmos stupidity when it comes to basic math, must be that Bush Math.
Alan
He’s answered this a few times but apparently you and the dems don’t or refuse to understand.
USMCA = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc
Not Alan wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
And how does any of the savings from the USMCA translate into revenue for the US Government, that can be used for a Great Wall of Trump? I know Trump has been asked this a few dozen times and never answers. He’s betting on the average schmos stupidity when it comes to basic math, must be that Bush Math.
Alan
He’s answered this a few times but apparently you and the dems don’t or refuse to understand.
USMCA = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc
Okay, that’s fine. But, Trump said just yesterday that we are getting “billions and billions of dollars” from Mexico via new NAFTA. So, why not use that money—which he just claimed we are getting—for the wall? Why have a shut down over 5 billion dollars of tax payer money if Mexico is paying for this wall?
Also, as I think Alan was alluding to, a lot of the supposed money we are getting for New NAFTA would go to private companies. Some—a small percentage—may go back to the government in the form of taxes but he just cut corporate taxes significantly so even less is going to the government. So that “ billions and billions” would be millions and millions—not enough for the wall.
WhatsWrong wrote:
I didn't vote for Trump but I don't see why everyone is upset about better border security. A $5 billion dollar investment will save the US that much money within the year its completed. Even a $25 billion investment would be worth it. Why is everyone upset about this?
Why do you think that a wall will provide better border security?
Most people that are in this country illegally enter legally and overstay their visa. A wall does nothing to address this. Most drugs entering this country from Mexico, Central and South America are smuggled through border entry points. A wall does nothing to address this. Terrorists aren't entering the USA illegally across the southern border, so a wall does nothing to address the threat of terrorism.
The wall is a vanity project, or more accurately, a government giveaway to keep the hard right happy. It's exactly the sort of wasteful and useless spending that the Republicans used to oppose. at least until they sold their souls to Trump.
By the way, it's not $5 billion, it's more like $20 - $25 billion, and that's before cost overruns. You think it's worth it? I disagree. It's a lot of money for little or no return. And given that Trump swore up and down that American taxpayers would not be paying for the wall, this is one lie of his that's hard to ignore.
Not Alan wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
And how does any of the savings from the USMCA translate into revenue for the US Government, that can be used for a Great Wall of Trump? I know Trump has been asked this a few dozen times and never answers. He’s betting on the average schmos stupidity when it comes to basic math, must be that Bush Math.
Alan
He’s answered this a few times but apparently you and the dems don’t or refuse to understand.
USMCA = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc
Do you have any evidence that the change from NAFTA to USMCA will result in Mexico effectively paying for the wall (even if indirectly)?
Or is this just made up sh!t and you believed him when he said, "Believe me!"?
Money is only trickling in.
$19,197,375 of $1.0B goal
Looks like the Mexicans are not paying for that stupid wall.
Because Trump told me so!
///
Also, whenever anyone starts out their post with, "I didn't vote for Trump but . . . " you can be 100% certain that they are a Trumpette, through and through.
NOT Not Alan wrote:
Okay, that’s fine. But, Trump said just yesterday that we are getting “billions and billions of dollars” from Mexico via new NAFTA. So, why not use that money—which he just claimed we are getting—for the wall? Why have a shut down over 5 billion dollars of tax payer money if Mexico is paying for this wall?
Also, as I think Alan was alluding to, a lot of the supposed money we are getting for New NAFTA would go to private companies. Some—a small percentage—may go back to the government in the form of taxes but he just cut corporate taxes significantly so even less is going to the government. So that “ billions and billions” would be millions and millions—not enough for the wall.
Billions and billions of dollars will flow into the US economy. That will result in higher corporate and personal income taxes. (Also, lower welfare costs from higher employment rates.). The higher tax revenues are available to spend on the “wall” or other barrier but the Dems are blocking access to those funds. The shutdown is a two way street. The government wouldn’t be shut down if the Dems would authorize the wall funding
Not Alan wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
And how does any of the savings from the USMCA translate into revenue for the US Government, that can be used for a Great Wall of Trump? I know Trump has been asked this a few dozen times and never answers. He’s betting on the average schmos stupidity when it comes to basic math, must be that Bush Math.
Alan
He’s answered this a few times but apparently you and the dems don’t or refuse to understand.
USMCA = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc
Even if this were all true and came to pass ... that is not Mexico paying for the wall. That would be US tax payers paying for the wall. Seems kind of straight forward doesn't it?
even if... wrote:
Not Alan wrote:
He’s answered this a few times but apparently you and the dems don’t or refuse to understand.
USMCA = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc
Even if this were all true and came to pass ... that is not Mexico paying for the wall. That would be US tax payers paying for the wall. Seems kind of straight forward doesn't it?
Great point!
Well Do You? wrote:
Not Alan wrote:
He’s answered this a few times but apparently you and the dems don’t or refuse to understand.
USMCA = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc
Do you have any evidence that the change from NAFTA to USMCA will result in Mexico effectively paying for the wall (even if indirectly)?
Or is this just made up sh!t and you believed him when he said, "Believe me!"?
It’s sort of like trickle down economics.
In theory the USMCA, still not approved by Congress, will result in more jobs etc, but that is a distant future not yet realized unicorn money. Even if that money is realized why use it towards yet another deficit increasing government program?
I also don’t get his rant against Apple and the IPhone. It’s a global economy and he wants us to go back to the pre-WW2 isolationism. He either doesn’t understand, or does as is simply feeding his nationalistic base, that companies will use components that are cheap and work well regardless of country of origin. Basically he would rather we have a $3000 iPhone that works even worse than currently but is better because it brings jobs back to the US.....even though these new workers can no longer afford the IPhone...
Companies have learned that certain foreign made goods are just better and are cheaper to make overseas in many instances. The result is a better or cheaper product for the American consumer. Now if we had some prolonged period of super high unemployment I would understand the need to move many more jobs back here.
Alan
Gordon Gekko wrote:
Money is only trickling in.
$19,197,375 of $1.0B goal
https://www.gofundme.com/thetrumpwall?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fb_dn_cpgnstaticxlarge_r&fbclid=IwAR1FesrSvtyS6dlIc6XjKnH6rCBLIxvyv7ipfipx4rywXuIwwPB98RJnreYLooks like the Mexicans are not paying for that stupid wall.
The is scammer also needs 100 million signatures in support of the wall. He has 3.5 million so far. 100 million is never going to happen.
Also note: Make Payable to : WeFund The Wall, Brian Kolfage, ..., Castle Rock, CO
-- The above tells you that an individual controls the funds. Not a legally created non-profit that might better protect the money.
https://wefundthewall.com/Well Do You? wrote:
Not Alan wrote:
He’s answered this a few times but apparently you and the dems don’t or refuse to understand.
USMCA = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc
Do you have any evidence that the change from NAFTA to USMCA will result in Mexico effectively paying for the wall (even if indirectly)?
Or is this just made up sh!t and you believed him when he said, "Believe me!"?
The USMAC is not contingent on a wall being built, so any revenue generated by the agreement is irrelevant to the cost of a wall. It would be like saying additional revenue from Trump's Tariff war with China would justify more military spending.
The only way Mexico will pay for the wall is if they give us a $25B check.
100 million wrote:
Gordon Gekko wrote:
Money is only trickling in.
$19,197,375 of $1.0B goal
https://www.gofundme.com/thetrumpwall?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fb_dn_cpgnstaticxlarge_r&fbclid=IwAR1FesrSvtyS6dlIc6XjKnH6rCBLIxvyv7ipfipx4rywXuIwwPB98RJnreYLooks like the Mexicans are not paying for that stupid wall.
The is scammer also needs 100 million signatures in support of the wall. He has 3.5 million so far. 100 million is never going to happen.
Also note: Make Payable to : WeFund The Wall, Brian Kolfage, ..., Castle Rock, CO
-- The above tells you that an individual controls the funds. Not a legally created non-profit that might better protect the money.
https://wefundthewall.com/
Jesus! I know that guy.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
The USMAC is not contingent on a wall being built, so any revenue generated by the agreement is irrelevant to the cost of a wall. It would be like saying additional revenue from Trump's Tariff war with China would justify more military spending.
The only way Mexico will pay for the wall is if they give us a $25B check.
Good gosh. Some people are just so literal. I get it, some people will be unhappy until Mexico hands over a $25B check. Of course they won’t but that doesn’t mean they won’t begin to bear some of the cost of illegal immigration into our country. Part of the USMCA negotiation I am sure involved persuading Mexico to play a bigger role in stemming the flow of illegal immigrants. Already Mexico has indicated that they will house illegals in Mexico pending adjudication of asylum requests. This absolves the US of the costs of doing so, not to mention healthcare, education costs, etc.
We keep obsessing about the man and hating, while taking eyes off of doing the right thing from a policy standpoint. Illegal immigration is a huge cost to this country, and there will be costs to controlling and deterring illegal immigration. A wall is an effective deterrent. It is not foolproof and needs to be supplemented by other measures (drones, etc). What we truly need is comprehensive reform and end catch and release but realistically that will never happen so long as politician inhabit DC. Until then, a wall is a bare necessity
Not Alan wrote:
He’s answered this a few times but apparently you and the dems don’t or refuse to understand.
USMCA = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc
Every politician from all across the spectrum has used this line of argument to justify their pet projects. Do any of the following sound familiar?
Tax cuts= more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc
Infrastructure spending = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc
Increased Tariffs = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc
Reduced Tariffs = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc
Quantitative easing= more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc
More spending on education = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc
More spending on defense = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc
More subsidies to the energy sector = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc
Reduced regulation = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc
Reduced corporate taxes = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc
More subsidies to small business = more jobs in USA = higher payroll taxes = higher FICA (social security + Medicare) contributions = lower unemployment = lower unemployment benefits = higher consumer spending = higher export revenue = lower import costs = etc, etc, etc
If all these were true then there would be no unemployment, each household would have at least 100K a year for eating out and entertainment, retirement would be at 45 and the government would be paying us taxes.
Trust me the net effect on you of the USMCA compared to NAFTA will be zero. But don't worry, a lot of fat cat consultants and lobbyists made a small fortune advising all the various levels of government during the negotiations. And guess where the money to pay them came from?