Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seems like a bargain compared to 30 billion for a wall that probably will go down in history as Trump's biggest folly.
pknopp is not a Trump fan and again, "two wrongs don't make a right." We can do better with our tax payer money, and I can do better with my time than keep repeating myself with equally poor results all around...
Another good day and all the best to America despite ourselves!
Yes, you cold be correct if Mexico suddenly wants to pay the US to build a wall to keep Americans from crossing into Mexico, but other than that, Mexico stated they will not pay for the wall. But even in this scenario, will we be charging them yearly for the maintenance on the wall too?
As has been said before, there are several ways to get Mexico to pay for the wall other than direct billing. Will any of them happen? Doubtful, but stranger things have happened and even stranger bills/laws have been passed over the last decade or two.
Mexico can say whatever they "f'ing" want (to use their word) about paying but they don't control tariffs on products coming into the U.S. from Mexico nor do they control U.S. tariffs on monies being transferred from the U.S. to Mexico.
So, if the "will" is there it can be done.
pknopp is not a Trump fan and again, "two wrongs don't make a right." We can do better with our tax payer money, and I can do better with my time than keep repeating myself with equally poor results all around...
Another good day and all the best to America despite ourselves!
Not sure why you are jumping in with that. My statement has nothing to do with two wrongs don't make a right; spending taxpayer money to provide people with health insurance is infinitely better than building this joke of a wall.
Not sure why you are jumping in with that. My statement has nothing to do with two wrongs don't make a right; spending taxpayer money to provide people with health insurance is infinitely better than building this joke of a wall.
I agree. Workers will get injured building the wall so they will need the insurance. I don't think Trump has thought through well enough.
Now we go from what I referenced as total donations from the "securities and investments" sector to only that of Goldman Sachs, so you are arguing of Obama's $775+ million raised, Obama needed or concerned himself with about $1.25 from Goldman Sachs? Not the number one donor either BTW.
Fact. What Obama indicated were his intentions in this regard did not transpire as many expected and hoped, including me. Call that what you wish, a "lie, lie, lie," as you so often do. Speculate as to why as well, but I think for better or worse Obama chose to focus on new legislation that would help prevent further abuse into the future rather than go the way of attempting prosecution for past wrong doing in an environment when just about everyone had their hand in the cookie jar in not altogether honorable fashion...
As such, the concern about the health of the finance industry is/was not an altogether unwarranted one, but thinking it was for want of Goldman Sachs political contributions is somewhat ridiculous if you ask me.
Nobody was going to crash the industry or even care because Angelo Mozilo went to prison. That you would even suggests such a thing...........well.
Not sure why you are jumping in with that. My statement has nothing to do with two wrongs don't make a right; spending taxpayer money to provide people with health insurance is infinitely better than building this joke of a wall.
It absolutely is. I've argued this point over and over and over. These subsidize were created to prop up Wall Street entities though. So they remained acceptably profitable to Wall Street.
As has been said before, there are several ways to get Mexico to pay for the wall other than direct billing. Will any of them happen? Doubtful, but stranger things have happened and even stranger bills/laws have been passed over the last decade or two.
Mexico can say whatever they "f'ing" want (to use their word) about paying but they don't control tariffs on products coming into the U.S. from Mexico nor do they control U.S. tariffs on monies being transferred from the U.S. to Mexico.
So, if the "will" is there it can be done.
Yes jimj, it's very 'doubtful' that Mexico will pay for the stupid wall.
Let's start by looking at the legality of it:
Under the Trade Act of 1974, the president is allowed to impose 15 percent tariff for balance of payments for 150 days. And after that it would need Congressional approval. The only other way to impose a tariff would be to claim it's a national emergency.
Who would it hurt? Supply chains of the manufactures that go across the U.S. Mexico border, i.e the auto industry. Not to mention the impact on the import of produce and livestock, Mexico would simply add on the tariff and we would be stuck with the bill.
So basically if Trump uses a tariff to pay for the wall he would really be imposing a new tax on US Consumers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
