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.
Still digging yourself deeper in that hole of yours then?
Check the record. This is what you wrote, "Goldman Sachs was Obama's top donor."
Your own article provided here again points at the FACT that your statement above is incorrect.
Goldman Sachs was AMONG Obama's top donors, not Obama's top donor.
Also, more importantly, do the math. Again, what percentage is represented by GS's donation as compared to the total of $775 million? Then reconsider your belief that Obama's want of this money is why he did not make good on jailing Wall Street execs.
My how some do forever enjoy wasting time with foul balls in this thread...
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.
If you want to base your faith, trust or opinion on the fact that "stranger things have happened," that's up to you of course, but not what most people consider very sound reasoning. On the other hand, maybe this strange source of funding what we want in America, by way of tariffs, is something we should consider further, do more often? Why stop at tariffs to pay for just the wall? What a novel idea!!!
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken
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.
"Crash the industry?" Can't remember writing that, and what I HAVE been suggesting is maybe a bit too complicated over "lies, lies, lies," but for those who can manage, I've offered my opinion contrary to yours.
I'm perfectly happy if Trump is unwilling or unable to repeal and replace Obamacare - so in that case, yeah, it's no big deal. What's your point?
Ken
Let's say he does decide to leave it in place as is. Who would be willing to retire early with this program, knowing that the rug could be pulled out from under them at any moment? Depending on what state you live in, the premiums are already outrageous under Obamacare. They could double or triple under Trumpcare. Plenty of small business owners that worked all their lives to be able to retire early but with the prospect of premiums under Trumpcare for those in the 50's and 60's, that will become a distant dream. Trump's way of saying "thank you" to all those small business entrepreneurs.
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.
The comment was this one first, "Taxpayers will fork over nearly $10 billion more next year to cover double-digit premium hikes for subsidized health insurance under President Barack Obama’s law, according to a study released Thursday."
You wrote that was a bargain compared to the $40 billion for the wall...
My point is that we can do better in both cases and/or that comparing what seems like too much expense for one problem is not made any better by comparing with too much expense for another problem. Right?
If you want to base your faith, trust or opinion on the fact that "stranger things have happened," that's up to you of course, but not what most people consider very sound reasoning. On the other hand, maybe this strange source of funding what we want in America, by way of tariffs, is something we should consider further, do more often? Why stop at tariffs to pay for the wall? What a novel idea!!!
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken
The point being the stand you are taking is that Mexico cannot be made to pay for the wall and that stand is factually incorrect. As I said in my prior post (which you conveniently ignored) that it was "doubtful" that they would use those options which means I don't fully believe it would happen.
I also never thought we'd be forced]by law to buy health insurance either, especially the part that had attempted to add jail time for those who refused (original version of Obamacare law).
So, given the bizarre/partisan decisions that have come out of government over the last couple of decades nothing much would shock me anymore and most certainly lends credence to the statement "stranger things have happened".
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.
