I'm shocked - Washington Post - Trump won
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/opinions-trump-won-the-night-schumer-and-pelosi-lost/ar-BBRZZU6?li=BBnb4R7
Opinions | Trump won the night. Schumer and Pelosi lost.
Marc Thiessen 14 hrs ago
President Trump did something Tuesday night that he has rarely done since taking office: He used the presidential bully pulpit to reach beyond his hardcore base of supporters to make his case to the American people as a whole.
Speaking from the Oval Office for the first time during his presidency, Trump embraced our country?s tradition as a nation of immigrants, declaring ?America proudly welcomes millions of lawful immigrants who enrich our society and contribute to our nation.? He then offered a cogent explanation why he believes we face what he called ?a humanitarian crisis ? a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul? along our southern border.
He pointed out the human cost of our broken system to illegal migrants themselves, expressing compassion for the ?children [who] are used as human pawns by vicious coyotes and ruthless gangs? and the ?women [who] are sexually assaulted on the dangerous trek up through Mexico.? He shared heartbreaking stories of Americans killed by criminal aliens who had no right to be here ? including a police officer in California who was murdered, a 16-year-old girl who was brutally stabbed in Maryland, and an Air Force veteran who was raped and beaten to death.
?I?ve held the hands of the weeping mothers and embraced the grief-stricken fathers,? Trump declared. ?I will never forget the pain in their eyes, the tremble in their voices, or the sadness gripping their souls.?
And he laid out his solution, which he explained was ?developed by law enforcement professionals and border agents? and includes funds for cutting-edge technology, more border agents, more immigration judges, more bed space and medical support ? and $5.7 billion for a ?physical barrier? that he called ?just common sense.? Without naming her, Trump responded to the absurd charge from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that a wall is ?immoral.? Democrats voted repeatedly for physical barriers until he was elected president, he noted. If a wall is immoral, Trump asked, ?why do wealthy politicians build walls, fences and gates around their homes? They don?t build walls because they hate the people on the outside, but because they love the people on the inside.?
The president did not unilaterally declare a national emergency. Instead, he called for compromise and said, ?To those who refuse to compromise in the name of border security, I would ask: imagine if it was your child, your husband, or your wife, whose life was so cruelly shattered and totally broken??
He was, in short, presidential.
Democrats insisted on equal time, which is highly unusual for presidential addresses other than the State of the Union. It was a mistake. In contrast to Trump, Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) came across as small and intransigent.
While Trump spoke calmly and rationally from behind the Resolute Desk, the Democratic leaders accused him of ?pounding the table? and having a ?temper tantrum.? While Trump told human stories, they complained about process. They accused him of arguing that the women and children at the border were ?a security threat? when he had just explained to the American people that they were victims, too. They charged him with using the ?backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis, stoke fear and divert attention from the turmoil in his administration.? They were partisan and petty, while Trump came across as reasonable and even compassionate.
To normal Americans watching in the heartland, and who are not steeped in Trump hatred, the president must have seemed like the adult in the room.
And, most important, Pelosi and Schumer failed to use the one word that millions of Americans were longing to hear ? compromise. But Trump did. That is why the president won the night. Schumer and Pelosi appealed to their base, while Trump made an effective appeal to persuadable Americans.
Until now, Trump has owned the 18-day government shutdown that prompted this address, because he?s the one who started it. But if Democrats continue to attack him, and won?t entertain any compromise, soon the shutdown will be all theirs ? because they?re the ones who have refused to end it.
Opinions | Trump won the night. Schumer and Pelosi lost.
Marc Thiessen 14 hrs ago
President Trump did something Tuesday night that he has rarely done since taking office: He used the presidential bully pulpit to reach beyond his hardcore base of supporters to make his case to the American people as a whole.
Speaking from the Oval Office for the first time during his presidency, Trump embraced our country?s tradition as a nation of immigrants, declaring ?America proudly welcomes millions of lawful immigrants who enrich our society and contribute to our nation.? He then offered a cogent explanation why he believes we face what he called ?a humanitarian crisis ? a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul? along our southern border.
He pointed out the human cost of our broken system to illegal migrants themselves, expressing compassion for the ?children [who] are used as human pawns by vicious coyotes and ruthless gangs? and the ?women [who] are sexually assaulted on the dangerous trek up through Mexico.? He shared heartbreaking stories of Americans killed by criminal aliens who had no right to be here ? including a police officer in California who was murdered, a 16-year-old girl who was brutally stabbed in Maryland, and an Air Force veteran who was raped and beaten to death.
?I?ve held the hands of the weeping mothers and embraced the grief-stricken fathers,? Trump declared. ?I will never forget the pain in their eyes, the tremble in their voices, or the sadness gripping their souls.?
And he laid out his solution, which he explained was ?developed by law enforcement professionals and border agents? and includes funds for cutting-edge technology, more border agents, more immigration judges, more bed space and medical support ? and $5.7 billion for a ?physical barrier? that he called ?just common sense.? Without naming her, Trump responded to the absurd charge from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that a wall is ?immoral.? Democrats voted repeatedly for physical barriers until he was elected president, he noted. If a wall is immoral, Trump asked, ?why do wealthy politicians build walls, fences and gates around their homes? They don?t build walls because they hate the people on the outside, but because they love the people on the inside.?
The president did not unilaterally declare a national emergency. Instead, he called for compromise and said, ?To those who refuse to compromise in the name of border security, I would ask: imagine if it was your child, your husband, or your wife, whose life was so cruelly shattered and totally broken??
He was, in short, presidential.
Democrats insisted on equal time, which is highly unusual for presidential addresses other than the State of the Union. It was a mistake. In contrast to Trump, Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) came across as small and intransigent.
While Trump spoke calmly and rationally from behind the Resolute Desk, the Democratic leaders accused him of ?pounding the table? and having a ?temper tantrum.? While Trump told human stories, they complained about process. They accused him of arguing that the women and children at the border were ?a security threat? when he had just explained to the American people that they were victims, too. They charged him with using the ?backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis, stoke fear and divert attention from the turmoil in his administration.? They were partisan and petty, while Trump came across as reasonable and even compassionate.
To normal Americans watching in the heartland, and who are not steeped in Trump hatred, the president must have seemed like the adult in the room.
And, most important, Pelosi and Schumer failed to use the one word that millions of Americans were longing to hear ? compromise. But Trump did. That is why the president won the night. Schumer and Pelosi appealed to their base, while Trump made an effective appeal to persuadable Americans.
Until now, Trump has owned the 18-day government shutdown that prompted this address, because he?s the one who started it. But if Democrats continue to attack him, and won?t entertain any compromise, soon the shutdown will be all theirs ? because they?re the ones who have refused to end it.
0
-
Dumb Chuck and Rancid Polozi instant internet stars. 
0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by wiplash
Ok Naysayers, so whats the answer?
Do you want a Fence or no? How should it be funded?
Border security is a huge issue this country faces currently. ICE says, and logic and history concur, that a border wall of some salience would help. Great. Building it poses endless eminent domain issues. If I thought for one second Trump had landowner's interest in mind I would probably support him. Were that the only issue, I would probably support him. It's not. Many Americans own land that crosses the border. Have you heard how that's going to be addressed? How about animals that migrate freely currently. What is the plan to address livestock and game animal habitat? And that doesn't even begin to touch the state's rights issues created by constructing a FEDERAL wall on State land.
So, whats your answer to the problem?0 -
He lies
He?s racist
He hates women
He?s in bed with Putin
Can anyone provide proof?
Like ?If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?
Or ?Saddam has WMD?s?
Or ?I did not have sexual relations with that woman?
Or ?Read my lips. No new taxes?
If I own cows and my neighbor does not, guess who is responsible for the fence.0 -
A fence/wall is pointless.Tunnels, ladders, wire cutters, ect will defeat any barrier.
Remove any incentive to cross illegally and stiff punishments for those that do will be far more effective and cost efficient.0 -
This forum is getting full of liberal left wing low life democrat ass kissers!! [xx(] 0 -
. 0 -
quote:He said Mexico was going to pay for the wall, and has completely abandoned that idea, meaning that all of the eminent domain land grabs will be subsidized by our tax dollars. Yep wonderful!!
For being perfect you seem to have little understanding of what can happen to change the course. The illegals according to one late study I read recently cost the American tax payers $287 billion a year. Ya think that might be coming out of the pocket of tax payers ? I have seen other studies that all seem to come up with something above $200 billion so don't bother to try to call BS on the amount.
$5.7 billion is not the problem - democrats and anti Trump morons are the problem.0 -
You would have to be a complete lying POS not to admit this is the demoncraps attempt to seize power for the future with all the illegal filth they will legalize at first chance
All the barf filled dnc propaganda can not hide that fact.
Scumbags out breed the responsible law abiding taxpayer.
The republic is history since the scum can be owned by demoncraps promises of free poop.0 -
quote:Originally posted by droptop
Dumb Chuck and Rancid Polozi instant internet stars.
I mentioned American Gothic vis-a-vis the Chuck and Nancy show to one of the guys at the shop. A fitting juxtapositon.0 -
quote:Originally posted by GreatGuns
Not Mr. P. but it was addressed back in 2001/2002 when a border fence was first discussed and decided against then. Nobody agreed to do it then and nothing ever carried over to current day. That's all BS and it's been perpetuated to the point of being current news. It isn't. In each of their terms, Clinton was opposed, Bush was opposed and Obama was opposed. I don't believe it ever went to a vote, it just died due to being "impractical," not the cost to install it. There will also be perpetual maintenance, repairs and replacements, forever. [B)]
Covert tunnels can now be placed at an operating cost of $1000 a foot through non bedrock soils, progressing 1-4 feet per hour by a self-propelled auger 5' in diameter with minimal to zero reinforcement needed. Technology allows those that want a tunnel to put one anywhere they want it, quickly and all it takes is money (and that's no object). [:0]
We should build three subsidiary military bases, one in Arizona, one in Texas and one in California, staffed by a joint effort from all branches working in cooperation for a common cause. It can be done in a realistic rotation of 30 days "tours" to prevent duty from getting too routine or biased. [;)]
By pointing out the cost associated with breaching a wall/barrier, you confirm its worth.
No doubt the cartels will attempt incursion, but relatively inexpensive listening devices will detect tunneling activity for miles and well in advance of the tunnel reaching the border. A solid wall will, by your own admission, funnel miscreants to narrower and narrower points of entry, allowing for a much more cost effective response.
It is also fairly obvious to most thinking folks that periodic maintenance of a wall will be much less expensive that constant patrol of the same region.
Walls work.
Walls are cost effective.
It is only politics that has confused the issue.
The 'Mexico will pay for it' mantra was ridiculous from the start. I would think that 72% of Trump voters were well aware of this. The fact remains, however, that the wall will, over a fairly short period of time pay for itself in reduced patrol costs and reduced tangible and intangible costs associated with the illegal entry of people into this country.
Much has been made of the stated fact that illegal immigrants commit less crime that do native born Americans. Even if this stated fact is true, this includes those who entered legally and have overstayed their visas. Dollars to donuts a study of those who entered outside of controlled ports of entry have a much higher rate of criminal behavior than the average illegal and the native born population.0 -
quote:Originally posted by mnrivrat48
quote:He said Mexico was going to pay for the wall, and has completely abandoned that idea, meaning that all of the eminent domain land grabs will be subsidized by our tax dollars. Yep wonderful!!
For being perfect you seem to have little understanding of what can happen to change the course. The illegals according to one late study I read recently cost the American tax payers $287 billion a year. Ya think that might be coming out of the pocket of tax payers ? I have seen other studies that all seem to come up with something above $200 billion so don't bother to try to call BS on the amount.
$5.7 billion is not the problem - democrats and anti Trump morons are the problem.
It's amazing to me how far you so completely and totally missed the point. Congratulations.0 -
quote:Originally posted by GreatGuns
quote:Originally posted by Smitty500mag
This forum is getting full of liberal left wing low life democrat ass kissers!! [xx(]
More like full of those that enjoy the wool pulled over their eyes. The problems this country is experiencing is believing the bs as factual and reacting to it like panicked women. [B)]
Hit a nerve did I?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Smitty500mag
This forum is getting full of liberal left wing low life democrat ass kissers!! [xx(]
While seemingly somewhat true generally, your statement seems ill placed in this thread where so little evidence would back it up.0 -
Criticizing Trump,in most cases, infers that the one Christianizing is more intelligent than Trump. In Such cases it is a form of bragging.
Mexico is paying for the wall. Believe it. It will happen.0 -
I would think since they are our third largest trading partner if we iced them out they would pay for it or lose out on a lot of trade, question is would Ford and others be OK with no mexican auto imports Etc.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Anyone who thought that Mexico would pay for the wall was an idiot.
Anyone who thinks that the trade deal helping pay for the wall is not based upon additional costs to the American Consumer is also an idiot.
If jobs come back to the US because of the new deal, it is because of the mandated wage floor for some auto workers in Mexico. Oddly, we oppose minimum wages in the US, but are all for entering a trade deal that establishes them in a foreign country.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Smitty500mag
This forum is getting full of liberal left wing low life democrat ass kissers!! [xx(]
And they are here to sew dissent. Is it working?
Did you think the liberals would leave this site alone?0 -
0
-
quote:Originally posted by wiplash
Ok Naysayers, so whats the answer?
Do you want a Fence or no? How should it be funded?
I think a consensus of what the rank and file boarder patrol want should determine what we give them. let them decide where their budget money should go to help them do the job they are tasked with. NOT THE DEPT. HEADS BUT THE PEOPLE ON THE FRONT LINE.
and/or, you let the "legal" citizens of the boarder states vote on it.
if you catch ONE proven terrorist trying to cross the boarder or can prove they have in the past then you should be able to fund it with the "war on terror" budget.0 -
quote:Originally posted by mogley98
I would think since they are our third largest trading partner if we iced them out they would pay for it or lose out on a lot of trade, question is would Ford and others be OK with no mexican auto imports Etc.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Anyone who thought that Mexico would pay for the wall was an idiot.
Anyone who thinks that the trade deal helping pay for the wall is not based upon additional costs to the American Consumer is also an idiot.
If jobs come back to the US because of the new deal, it is because of the mandated wage floor for some auto workers in Mexico. Oddly, we oppose minimum wages in the US, but are all for entering a trade deal that establishes them in a foreign country.
Extortion to pay for the wall to satisfy a stupid campaign slogan?
The money for the wall should come from the General Fund and be paid by US taxpayers without any childish games or claims that it is not the case.
We should have a wall along much if not most of the Southern Border. Mexico should not have to pay for it, and strong-arming them to do so would cause considerable economic and diplomatic disruption.0 -
I see that Justin Amash has introduced legislation that would protect land owners from eminent domain land grabs. Well done, Justin! 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by mogley98
I would think since they are our third largest trading partner if we iced them out they would pay for it or lose out on a lot of trade, question is would Ford and others be OK with no mexican auto imports Etc.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Anyone who thought that Mexico would pay for the wall was an idiot.
Anyone who thinks that the trade deal helping pay for the wall is not based upon additional costs to the American Consumer is also an idiot.
If jobs come back to the US because of the new deal, it is because of the mandated wage floor for some auto workers in Mexico. Oddly, we oppose minimum wages in the US, but are all for entering a trade deal that establishes them in a foreign country.
Extortion to pay for the wall to satisfy a stupid campaign slogan?
The money for the wall should come from the General Fund and be paid by US taxpayers without any childish games or claims that it is not the case.
We should have a wall along much if not most of the Southern Border. Mexico should not have to pay for it, and strong-arming them to do so would cause considerable economic and diplomatic disruption.
Mexico should follow the right of way laws. Go to center point. We build and maintain the fence to our right, and Mexico does the same.
Works well for our landowners here.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by select-fire
quote:Originally posted by droptop
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
He said Mexico was going to pay for the wall, and has completely abandoned that idea, meaning that all of the eminent domain land grabs will be subsidized by our tax dollars. Yep wonderful!![xx(][xx(][xx(]
Trump says the new trade deal with Mexico will more than pay for the wall. No concrete proof but it's definitely possible.
[:D][:D]
Yes, and that was his aim from the beginning.
It was eh? So he didn't say Mexico was going to pay for the wall? Which is it? Is Mexico paying for the wall at the expense of trade, or is the wall paying for itself, or is Mexico paying for the wall some other way? WTH does "Mexico is paying for the wall" even mean anymore? Not to mention that now the wall isn't even a wall, it's a fence, because he compromised on that firm ground. God the NRA folks must love him.
The way that I have understood Trump from the very beginning is that Mexico was going to pay for the wall one way or the other, which would be in line with what he stated in his address.
kimi, you are an intelligent man. In what way does this trade deal even remotely have Mexico paying for the wall?
Indirectly, remotely, possibly, kinda-sorta, hell, point to anything and I'll at least listen.
That is the point of the subject in its entirety, Don, in that Trump, to my knowledge has never, ever, detailed a particular method of payment that Mexico would make to pay for the barrier. He has, however, on umpteen occasions that Mexico would in one way or the other, eat the cost of building it. This is where I am coming from with the new trade deal, which is to say that I believe It will benefit American citizens more than Mexican citizens, dollar wise, and in the long run not only pay for the wall, but continue to benefit Americans over Mexicans in this respect.0 -
0
-
quote:Originally posted by kimi
That is the point of the subject in its entirety, Don, in that Trump, to my knowledge has never, ever, detailed a particular method of payment that Mexico would make to pay for the barrier. He has, however, on umpteen occasions that Mexico would in one way or the other, eat the cost of building it. This is where I am coming from with the new trade deal, which is to say that I believe It will benefit American citizens more than Mexican citizens, dollar wise, and in the long run not only pay for the wall, but continue to benefit Americans over Mexicans in this respect.
This is where I see the problem, Kimi. Under NAFTA, there were virtually no tariffs other than on some agricultural goods, and that was principally with Canada, not Mexico. We manufacture equipment and have sold into Canada and Mexico under NAFTA with no tariffs.
There seems to be structures in the new deal that will dictate a minimum wage of something like $ 16.00 per hour for certain automobile and related items. (Got this from the highlight reel, and I confess to not reading the entire thing.)
If this is the case, it seems the majority of the gain for the US will be some of these higher wage jobs coming back into the US from Mexico. That is a good thing on the surface, but it will obviously result in an increase in cost to the American consumer for these products. So yes, there is increased economic activity in the US and decreased activity in Mexico, but so far a paying for the wall, it would be the increased tax base on American labor and business that will be the source.
This tax base increase is accompanied by a price increase to the American consumer on these items, so, it will be the American consumer who pays for the wall.
There is some legitimacy in citing the trickle down effect of increased economic activity as a direct benefit to our economy, but there is no legitimate connection, IMO, to Mexico paying for anything.
This does not, IMO, discount the necessity for a wall or barrier, and frankly I am tired of the left's citing the 'Mexico will pay for it' line as a reason to not go ahead with it.
If a wall is necessary, and I believe it is, it does not matter who pays for it.
It will pay for itself rather quickly.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by kimi
That is the point of the subject in its entirety, Don, in that Trump, to my knowledge has never, ever, detailed a particular method of payment that Mexico would make to pay for the barrier. He has, however, on umpteen occasions that Mexico would in one way or the other, eat the cost of building it. This is where I am coming from with the new trade deal, which is to say that I believe It will benefit American citizens more than Mexican citizens, dollar wise, and in the long run not only pay for the wall, but continue to benefit Americans over Mexicans in this respect.
This is where I see the problem, Kimi. Under NAFTA, there were virtually no tariffs other than on some agricultural goods, and that was principally with Canada, not Mexico. We manufacture equipment and have sold into Canada and Mexico under NAFTA with no tariffs.
There seems to be structures in the new deal that will dictate a minimum wage of something like $ 16.00 per hour for certain automobile and related items. (Got this from the highlight reel, and I confess to not reading the entire thing.)
If this is the case, it seems the majority of the gain for the US will be some of these higher wage jobs coming back into the US from Mexico. That is a good thing on the surface, but it will obviously result in an increase in cost to the American consumer for these products. So yes, there is increased economic activity in the US and decreased activity in Mexico, but so far a paying for the wall, it would be the increased tax base on American labor and business that will be the source.
This tax base increase is accompanied by a price increase to the American consumer on these items, so, it will be the American consumer who pays for the wall.
There is some legitimacy in citing the trickle down effect of increased economic activity as a direct benefit to our economy, but there is no legitimate connection, IMO, to Mexico paying for anything.
This does not, IMO, discount the necessity for a wall or barrier, and frankly I am tired of the left's citing the 'Mexico will pay for it' line as a reason to not go ahead with it.
If a wall is necessary, and I believe it is, it does not matter who pays for it.
It will pay for itself rather quickly.
Thanks for your insight on this subject with the details you have presented, Don. All of which is in line with my limited study connected to marketing and business management...[:D]. Please provide more of your insight in reference to your last comment concerning that it will pay for itself rather quickly.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by kimi
That is the point of the subject in its entirety, Don, in that Trump, to my knowledge has never, ever, detailed a particular method of payment that Mexico would make to pay for the barrier. He has, however, on umpteen occasions that Mexico would in one way or the other, eat the cost of building it. This is where I am coming from with the new trade deal, which is to say that I believe It will benefit American citizens more than Mexican citizens, dollar wise, and in the long run not only pay for the wall, but continue to benefit Americans over Mexicans in this respect.
This is where I see the problem, Kimi. Under NAFTA, there were virtually no tariffs other than on some agricultural goods, and that was principally with Canada, not Mexico. We manufacture equipment and have sold into Canada and Mexico under NAFTA with no tariffs.
There seems to be structures in the new deal that will dictate a minimum wage of something like $ 16.00 per hour for certain automobile and related items. (Got this from the highlight reel, and I confess to not reading the entire thing.)
If this is the case, it seems the majority of the gain for the US will be some of these higher wage jobs coming back into the US from Mexico. That is a good thing on the surface, but it will obviously result in an increase in cost to the American consumer for these products. So yes, there is increased economic activity in the US and decreased activity in Mexico, but so far a paying for the wall, it would be the increased tax base on American labor and business that will be the source.
This tax base increase is accompanied by a price increase to the American consumer on these items, so, it will be the American consumer who pays for the wall.
There is some legitimacy in citing the trickle down effect of increased economic activity as a direct benefit to our economy, but there is no legitimate connection, IMO, to Mexico paying for anything.
This does not, IMO, discount the necessity for a wall or barrier, and frankly I am tired of the left's citing the 'Mexico will pay for it' line as a reason to not go ahead with it.
If a wall is necessary, and I believe it is, it does not matter who pays for it.
It will pay for itself rather quickly.
Thanks for your insight on this subject with the details you have presented, Don. All of which is in line with my limited study connected to marketing and business management...[:D]. Please provide more of your insight in reference to your last comment concerning that it will pay for itself rather quickly.0 -
quote:Originally posted by wiplash
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by wiplash
Ok Naysayers, so whats the answer?
Do you want a Fence or no? How should it be funded?
Border security is a huge issue this country faces currently. ICE says, and logic and history concur, that a border wall of some salience would help. Great. Building it poses endless eminent domain issues. If I thought for one second Trump had landowner's interest in mind I would probably support him. Were that the only issue, I would probably support him. It's not. Many Americans own land that crosses the border. Have you heard how that's going to be addressed? How about animals that migrate freely currently. What is the plan to address livestock and game animal habitat? And that doesn't even begin to touch the state's rights issues created by constructing a FEDERAL wall on State land.
So, whats your answer to the problem?
Again, what's your answer to the problem?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
I see that Justin Amash has introduced legislation that would protect land owners from eminent domain land grabs. Well done, Justin!
Interesting, the United States can't protect its borders because they are "owned" by private individuals. I'd think a wall right away isn't a big deal with the required road for access and patrolling.
Also it seems there are areas owned on either side of the border. Haven't researched but this would mean there are U.S. citizens who own a contiguous piece of property that crosses into Mexico.
Seems a 'flaw' in the national laws.0 -
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by kimi
That is the point of the subject in its entirety, Don, in that Trump, to my knowledge has never, ever, detailed a particular method of payment that Mexico would make to pay for the barrier. He has, however, on umpteen occasions that Mexico would in one way or the other, eat the cost of building it. This is where I am coming from with the new trade deal, which is to say that I believe It will benefit American citizens more than Mexican citizens, dollar wise, and in the long run not only pay for the wall, but continue to benefit Americans over Mexicans in this respect.
This is where I see the problem, Kimi. Under NAFTA, there were virtually no tariffs other than on some agricultural goods, and that was principally with Canada, not Mexico. We manufacture equipment and have sold into Canada and Mexico under NAFTA with no tariffs.
There seems to be structures in the new deal that will dictate a minimum wage of something like $ 16.00 per hour for certain automobile and related items. (Got this from the highlight reel, and I confess to not reading the entire thing.)
If this is the case, it seems the majority of the gain for the US will be some of these higher wage jobs coming back into the US from Mexico. That is a good thing on the surface, but it will obviously result in an increase in cost to the American consumer for these products. So yes, there is increased economic activity in the US and decreased activity in Mexico, but so far a paying for the wall, it would be the increased tax base on American labor and business that will be the source.
This tax base increase is accompanied by a price increase to the American consumer on these items, so, it will be the American consumer who pays for the wall.
There is some legitimacy in citing the trickle down effect of increased economic activity as a direct benefit to our economy, but there is no legitimate connection, IMO, to Mexico paying for anything.
This does not, IMO, discount the necessity for a wall or barrier, and frankly I am tired of the left's citing the 'Mexico will pay for it' line as a reason to not go ahead with it.
If a wall is necessary, and I believe it is, it does not matter who pays for it.
It will pay for itself rather quickly.
Thanks for your insight on this subject with the details you have presented, Don. All of which is in line with my limited study connected to marketing and business management...[:D]. Please provide more of your insight in reference to your last comment concerning that it will pay for itself rather quickly.
A proper barrier will discourage many who would otherwise make the journey, reducing the resources necessary to patrol and enforce the border.
It will also channel the more committed into narrower entry points which will also lessen the demands for resources to patrol and enforce the border.
A wall will be a barrier to those we want in this country the least. Those without any criminal history will still enter via ports of entry and overstay their visas, but it is safe to assume that the worst of the illegals are not crossing through ports of entries. While I am not a fan of the war on drugs as currently waged, a proper barrier will reduce the inflow of fentanyl for example, and consequently reduce the costs associated with interdiction and of course the costs associated with addiction, crime and deaths associated with it.
Customs and Border enforcement currently spends almost $ 14 billion per year. A quick check does not reveal the cost along the Mexican border, though it looks like upwards of $ 5 - 6 billion of that $ 14 billlion is spent there. If spending $ 20 billion on a wall cuts this in half, the payback on patrolling alone will be in under 10 years. Factor in the other savings, and I would think that the totality of the savings will pay for that $ 20 billion in less than half of that amount of time.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by kimi
That is the point of the subject in its entirety, Don, in that Trump, to my knowledge has never, ever, detailed a particular method of payment that Mexico would make to pay for the barrier. He has, however, on umpteen occasions that Mexico would in one way or the other, eat the cost of building it. This is where I am coming from with the new trade deal, which is to say that I believe It will benefit American citizens more than Mexican citizens, dollar wise, and in the long run not only pay for the wall, but continue to benefit Americans over Mexicans in this respect.
This is where I see the problem, Kimi. Under NAFTA, there were virtually no tariffs other than on some agricultural goods, and that was principally with Canada, not Mexico. We manufacture equipment and have sold into Canada and Mexico under NAFTA with no tariffs.
There seems to be structures in the new deal that will dictate a minimum wage of something like $ 16.00 per hour for certain automobile and related items. (Got this from the highlight reel, and I confess to not reading the entire thing.)
If this is the case, it seems the majority of the gain for the US will be some of these higher wage jobs coming back into the US from Mexico. That is a good thing on the surface, but it will obviously result in an increase in cost to the American consumer for these products. So yes, there is increased economic activity in the US and decreased activity in Mexico, but so far a paying for the wall, it would be the increased tax base on American labor and business that will be the source.
This tax base increase is accompanied by a price increase to the American consumer on these items, so, it will be the American consumer who pays for the wall.
There is some legitimacy in citing the trickle down effect of increased economic activity as a direct benefit to our economy, but there is no legitimate connection, IMO, to Mexico paying for anything.
This does not, IMO, discount the necessity for a wall or barrier, and frankly I am tired of the left's citing the 'Mexico will pay for it' line as a reason to not go ahead with it.
If a wall is necessary, and I believe it is, it does not matter who pays for it.
It will pay for itself rather quickly.
Thanks for your insight on this subject with the details you have presented, Don. All of which is in line with my limited study connected to marketing and business management...[:D]. Please provide more of your insight in reference to your last comment concerning that it will pay for itself rather quickly.
A proper barrier will discourage many who would otherwise make the journey, reducing the resources necessary to patrol and enforce the border.
It will also channel the more committed into narrower entry points which will also lessen the demands for resources to patrol and enforce the border.
A wall will be a barrier to those we want in this country the least. Those without any criminal history will still enter via ports of entry and overstay their visas, but it is safe to assume that the worst of the illegals are not crossing through ports of entries. While I am not a fan of the war on drugs as currently waged, a proper barrier will reduce the inflow of fentanyl for example, and consequently reduce the costs associated with interdiction and of course the costs associated with addiction, crime and deaths associated with it.
Customs and Border enforcement currently spends almost $ 14 billion per year. A quick check does not reveal the cost along the Mexican border, though it looks like upwards of $ 5 - 6 billion of that $ 14 billlion is spent there. If spending $ 20 billion on a wall cuts this in half, the payback on patrolling alone will be in under 10 years. Factor in the other savings, and I would think that the totality of the savings will pay for that $ 20 billion in less than half of that amount of time.
Thank you.
When you mention factoring in the other savings are you taking into account the monies saved, say, on providing nothing more than life time cradle to death benefits to the illegals and all of their descendants that cross the border for now and in the future? Trump only mentioned the drug and crime bit, and not cradle to ddeath life benefits due to protecting the republican party from getting slammed in future elections.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
71 comments