Mexico of course! Wonder if he'll say this, and the chants of this will be echoed at the next MAGA rally?
"As Trump Seizes Money For Wall, Congress's Spending Power Weakens"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-seizes-money-wall-congresss-150353071.html
It was always foolish to say Mexico would pay for it.
I suppose one way to look at the military budget diversion is in effect a 1% cut in their spending. Military spending is already way too bloated we can both agree even though I know we disagree on the need for additional physical barriers.
If Congress could actually work we would have real FY budgets passed and we'd have legislation where the Republicans gave something in return for wall spending. But neither side can ever let the other side "win" on anything ever because the ever vocal and strengthening bases will not tolerate it. And Congresses spending authority is eroding and Presidential power is growing as a result per the article - it's utter dysfunction.
I always thought he could use tariff money to pay for it (or to offset it). Custom and duty revenue is up FY 2019 $70.8 billion vs FY 2018 $41.3 billion and it would seem logical this new money can justify new spending on anything really, border enforcement included.
I always thought he could use tariff money to pay for it (or to offset it). Custom and duty revenue is up FY 2019 $70.8 billion vs FY 2018 $41.3 billion and it would seem logical this new money can justify new spending on anything really, border enforcement included.
Do you have a figure that we're outlaying to American businesses (example - farmers) for subsidies of lost revenue as result of tariffs? I wonder if the MAGA crowd considers this socialism or just Trump pounding his chest?
I always thought he could use tariff money to pay for it (or to offset it). Custom and duty revenue is up FY 2019 $70.8 billion vs FY 2018 $41.3 billion and it would seem logical this new money can justify new spending on anything really, border enforcement included.
Do you have a figure that we're outlaying to American businesses (example - farmers) for subsidies of lost revenue as result of tariffs? I wonder if the MAGA crowd considers this socialism or just Trump pounding his chest?
I do not have that figure. I could try and find something, as can you, but I get your point.
I very strongly believe in tariffs as a transformation tool to achieve objectives. We have had many conversations on it.
Look, the guy said Mexico was going to pay for it and the crowd cheered it back to him probably at hundreds of rallies. Ridiculousness, I know. Some people, myself included, think additional physical barriers can play a deterrent role in the flow of illegal immigration. I know, use tech, they can get over, under and around walls...it's about making it harder on the people trying to get here and rather than just capturing them and having to process them, it's about trying to keep them out. Somebody, a lot of somebodies thought it was a good idea to put some wall up in some locations along the border. Trump isn't the first person to advocate for a barrier and he won't be the last. There are still some areas vulnerable that could benefit from new barrier and other areas where barrier enhancement is helpful.
I have not retort for you on the whole Mexico paying for it and Trump lying and this and that on all of it. But at the end of the day, I think we need some more barriers, I do.
Might as well keep the Wall budget going - the next admin is going to require funds to dismantle it.
Why is not a Mexican Flag flying over your home town?
Why is not a Mexican Flag flying over your home town?
Could you rephrase the question please
Pretty clear. But I will simplify for you while answering my own question. There is no Mexican Flag flying in an official capacity in your home town because of the border that separates the two countries, a border that a lot of people in Mexico regardless of their reasons have no respect for and make the conscience effort to avoid LEGAL points of entry on a regular basis. Thus the need for a wall, see how easy that was?
When you say this:
Pretty clear. But I will simplify for you . . .
You are actually saying this:
"You are dumber than me."
When you say this:
. . . see how easy that was?
You are actually saying:
"I am smarter than you."
These toxic bookends render the content of an otherwise perfectly valid opinion down to an alpha chimp dominance display.
You are unable to communicate in any way other than confrontational challenge. This unfortunate and offensive social handicap is what makes it difficult for you to get along with others.
Thanks Doctor, where do I send my check for this unsolicited opinion?
Why is not a Mexican Flag flying over your home town?
Could you rephrase the question please
Pretty clear. But I will simplify for you while answering my own question. There is no Mexican Flag flying in an official capacity in your home town because of the border that separates the two countries, a border that a lot of people in Mexico regardless of their reasons have no respect for and make the conscience effort to avoid LEGAL points of entry on a regular basis. Thus the need for a wall, see how easy that was?
Try conscious effort there smart guy. See how easy that is.
From the Chicago Tribune today...
Remember how President Donald Trump said this country could not absorb any more immigrants, legal or illegal?
“Our country is full,” he declared during a visit to the border, among other occasions, a year ago. “Can’t take you anymore ... so turn around.”
That was then. Imagine my surprise when The Washington Post reported last week that Trump’s acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney had described our country at a private gathering in England as being quite the opposite of “full.”
Instead of having too many newcomers, Mulvaney told the crowd that we have too few, according to an audio recording of his remarks obtained by the Post.
“We are desperate — desperate — for more people,” Mulvaney said. “We are running out of people to fuel the economic growth that we’ve had in our nation over the last four years. We need more immigrants.”
Oh? That’s certainly not what we’ve been hearing since Trump announced his candidacy five years ago. That’s when he infamously accused Mexico of “sending people” who are “bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.”
As president he has spent the past three years hardening this country’s immigration system into an obstacle course of physical and bureaucratic barriers. Most recently he added Myanmar, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Sudan, Tanzania and Africa’s biggest country, Nigeria, to the travel ban.
What’s going on? I wondered, is this another Mulvaney gaffe?
After all, Mulvaney has gained a reputation in his rapid rise to his current job for giving new life to journalist Michael Kinsley’s often-quoted definition of a Washington gaffe as “when a politician tells the truth — some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.”
Mulvaney had unspooled a series of job-threatening stumbles late last year. He unintentionally added fuel to the Ukraine scandal’s quid pro quo allegations when he tried to dismiss the U.S. withholding of aid under similarly coercive conditions as something that’s done “all the time.”
On another day, he made some imprudent comments — “He’s in the hospitality business” — about Trump’s later-reversed intentions to hold this year’s G-7 summit at Trump’s property in Doral, Florida.
On another day, he described what sounded like the price of his attention during his years in Congress with, “If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.”
Classy, huh? Candor like that made him a reporter’s delight, even as the press and his administration colleagues puzzled as to how he had managed to keep his job. Rumors of his possible firing were so heated that Trump himself tried to quash them with a tweeted declaration that they were, “Just more Fake News.” Besides, it’s hard to find good help for this Oval Office. Mulvaney is the third man to have the job, following Reince Priebus and retired Gen. John Kelly — since Trump took office.
But Mulvaney’s latest reported remarks may touch off earthquakes inside the rest of Team Trump. Particularly prominent: senior policy adviser Stephen Miller, who has been carefully studying immigration policy so he can change it to admit fewer immigrants, whether legal or illegal, and deport more.
Miller promotes the widely believed but also widely disputed idea that the steady admittance of newcomers depresses wages, particularly in the low-income brackets — a potential problem that is least likely to happen during a healthy economy.
Miller and former Trump adviser Stephen Bannon embraced those arguments during the president’s 2016 campaign, which they argued was key to Trump’s electoral success in depressed Rust Belt states in the upper Midwest.
But the Mulvaney quotes reflect what actually has been the traditional view of the Republican and Wall Street establishment, and libertarian think tanks like the Cato Institute: Immigrants on the whole tend to pay for themselves many times over with their entrepreneurship, strong work ethic and lower crime rate than other Americans.
So, while Trump continues to frighten us with fears of MS-13, the international criminal gang, under every bed, Mulvaney appears to see a more clear and present danger: Young Americans — particularly whites — are not entering the workforce at a high enough rate to keep up with the growing costs of providing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid for rising numbers of seniors.
As the Wall Street Journal reported in 2018, citing new census data, for most of the past few decades, the ratio of retiree-aged adults to those of working age barely budged. From 1980 to 2010, the number of American adults age 65 and over barely budged from 19 for every 100 Americans between 18 and 64, census data show.
But that ratio rose to 21 in 2010 then bumped upward to 25 by 2017, according to numbers released in 2018. That number is expected to continue to rise to 35 by 2030 and 42 by 2060, barring unforeseen circumstances.
So, contrary to Trump’s remarks, our country is not “full.” But we do need a serious discussion and action across partisan lines about the country’s fiscal future, instead of just kicking the population can down the road.
Why is not a Mexican Flag flying over your home town?
Could you rephrase the question please
Pretty clear. But I will simplify for you while answering my own question. There is no Mexican Flag flying in an official capacity in your home town because of the border that separates the two countries, a border that a lot of people in Mexico regardless of their reasons have no respect for and make the conscience effort to avoid LEGAL points of entry on a regular basis. Thus the need for a wall, see how easy that was?
By that logic, since their is no Mexican flag flying in my home town in an official capacity, then the border is and has been working fine.
See how easy that was?
From the Chicago Tribune today...
Remember how President Donald Trump said this country could not absorb any more immigrants, legal or illegal?...
https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2018
I'm not sure what the 2019 figures are from this site, they have not been released yet, however it looks to me like the United States takes in plenty legal immigrants.
[Edited on 2/25/2020 by nebish]
If there were no immigrants, social security would collapse. Given the number of retirees entering the system, and the current number of workers in the US and the birthrate in the US, there would not be enough workers in the US paying into the system to sustain it. That is a fact.
How is a "wall" going to stop brown people from south of the border from coming here and overstaying their visa?. the majority of illegal immigration happens that way. a wall is just a symbol of hate that you and the maga crowd rally behind, in your shared hatred of mexicans and otm people from central and south america.
The majority of illegal immigration happens that way
Let us make a quantum leap and assume this is a fact, if so are you for the deportation en mass of people who overstay their allotted Visa time frame? I am.
brown people
hatred of mexicans and otm people from central and south america
"otm"?
Wow, just wow. To be for a secure border, can only mean the above statements are true?
Why is it that it is always the same people here who go directly to the race card? YOU see it that way, so therefore everyone must and to disagree, well....(see above quotes)
If there were no immigrants
Missing Keyword: "ILLEGAL" immigrants.
Visa over-stays are a significant challenge that requires attention for sure. Maybe it's ankle bracelets, maybe it is making a family member already in the US accountable for timely reporting by the visa holder, or for work visa over-stays maybe it is making employers responsible with fines and penalties when visa holders do not report or leave on schedule.
So yes, we have a problem with visa over-stays that need solutions.
That should not mean we ignore the fact that apprehensions at the southwest border were 977,509 in FY 2019.
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
I can admit we have problems in various areas of our immigration system. Why can't those on the left agree we have a problem with illegal entry at the border? At one time there was some bipartisan support for fence and barriers at the Mexican border - where did that go?
National Review story with additional information and perspective on the Mulvaney comments:
at the 2019 State of the Union, saying “I want people to come into our country in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally.”
The following day he doubled down, saying “I need people coming in because we need people to run the factories and plants and companies that are moving back in. We need people.” He’s brought it up a number of times since.
YOU see it that way, so therefore everyone must and to disagree, well..
pops gave his opinion and clearly struck a nerve - just look at wording of this sentence.
what a psychopath.
Why does it always lower itself to the personal level with you and another here? Name calling is such a sign of the mind not being capable of processing mature thought. Example, your use of the word "Psychopath"
as defined: "a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior."
Wow, just wow
For what is worth, my quoting PCB was because of his and others here and their immediate need to always play the race card when referencing the border and a viewpoint that differs from theirs. It always seems to go directly to an imagined "Hate" of brown people. That's it, there can be no other reason!
Me? This is the best country in the world, we've the freedom to say, do and become anything we want. Millions have laid down their lives for these rights and will continue to do so. I can fully understand how people from all over the globe wish to come here and improve their lives, does not concern me if you're from Asia, Africa, Europe or South of the border. It matters not to me the color of skin. Come here, thrive and prosper.
But follow the law and rules. Enter legally, do the paperwork, stand in line, do not be a burden on the hard working taxpaying, legally voting citizens of this Nation. This is why I am for the wall. Not because of the color of ones skin, because of the constant effort put forth by people to avoid the law of the land they so desperately choose to profit from.
They aren't all lucky enough to be hookers picked up in Nogales and sponsored and given a place to stay by old white losers until their citizenship process is done.
How much of your own money do you give to help these people? And why should this be my financial burden?
When do the countries responsible for these people pick up the slack and provide for their own?
. . . why should this be my financial burden?
I don't know, maybe ask your mail order Bangkok ladyboy, he might have some idea why you give him so much money?
Interesting that on the surface you seem to have the same view on this as most Liberals, that this is somehow a problem that we all should view the same way, that we should all pay and when called on it, you too are just as capable of deflecting when you choose.
I'm not the one harboring an illegal because it was the only way I could ever have sex again before I croaked.
Well, I will grant you this, it would appear I have met my match when it comes to the skill of deflecting.
The following day he doubled down, saying “I need people coming in because we need people to run the factories and plants and companies that are moving back in. We need people.” He’s brought it up a number of times since.
"but they have to come in legally"
Seems pretty clear.
I thought Pink Floyd's record company paid for it?
We should build a wall around Dumbfuckistan.
Do you mean Tajikistan?
Break the law, go to prison.
Depending on the how violent the crime, I agree.
Enter this country ILLEGALLY and make the choice to circumvent the law by avoiding a legal point of entry?
Get deported.
I just don't get how radio stations are getting away with music promoting border crime and DUI. I am flabbergasted. Who is the target audience for this crap?
Does this "Crap" include illegal immigration?
Does this "Crap" include illegal immigration?
Illegal immigration is border crime, so absolutely. My question is who the hell is the target audience for this kind of music, promoting contraband and transport of illegals? Gangs?
Can only be one answer...
Democrats
Where is Tipper Gore and the PMRC when you need them?
Was not Tipper a Democrat?
BrerRabbit having fun. Sets it up and knocks it down.
As a youth in the 80s and early 90s Tipper Gore and the PMRC was enemy #1. Looking back it is rather amazing how political issues come and go and sometimes even flip parties. If there was a PMRC these days which party would be more likely to be behind it?
