- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Yes, Trump really did say Mexico would write a check for the wall
Posted on 1/11/19 at 6:23 am to 8thyearsenior
Posted on 1/11/19 at 6:23 am to 8thyearsenior
quote:I waffle back and forth between being highly-entertained and deeply saddened.
Are you not entertained? I tell people about this board and they don’t believe me. Then they come and read one of the many civil war post and the look on their face afterwards.... this has been a very entertaining couple of years.
0
Posted on 1/11/19 at 6:36 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Says the payment is to ensure the $24billion continues to flow. Nothing about a wall or even a check. Are you retarded?
make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year. There are several ways to compel Mexico to pay for the wall including the following:
I think maybe you are the retarded ond
This post was edited on 1/11/19 at 6:37 am
Posted on 1/11/19 at 6:36 am to TOKEN
quote:Under NAFTA, Mexico enjoyed a ~$75B annual trade surplus with the US. We exported ~$240B to Mexico. If the USMCA shifts just 1/3rd of the US-Mex trade deficit, so our production/exports climb to $265B, the change would correspond to $25B in new US income, i.e., $25B less income in Mexico.
When it comes to the USMCA, Mexico generally doesn't pay taxes on goods imported into the U.S.
Of that $25B new US income which would not exist under NAFTA, the US will collect >$5B taxes which it would not have collected under NAFTA.
Could you argue that the tax money in that instance is technically coming from US coffers? I guess so.
But the jobs and money generating it would come from Mexico.
Look at it any way you'd like though.
Posted on 1/11/19 at 6:37 am to foshizzle
If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
Sounds like a plan. Didn't end up that way.
shite happens, right libs?
Sounds like a plan. Didn't end up that way.
shite happens, right libs?
This post was edited on 1/11/19 at 6:38 am
Posted on 1/11/19 at 6:46 am to TOKEN
quote:Even though it desperately tries, the NYT does not make that case
New NAFTA deal won’t pay for wall either
quote:The TDS is so strong with these folks that Lincicome actually claims manufacturers relocating from Mexico to the US "is not coming at the expense of Mexico," and the NYT eagerly prints the claim.
Mr. Trump may be suggesting that the new agreement will increase economic activity in the United States, therefore generating enough tax revenue to offset the cost of his wall. The new trade deal is intended to make it less lucrative for American manufacturers to locate production in Mexico by requiring higher wages for autoworkers — a provision that the Trump administration says will shift more car production back to the United States.
But even if that happens, higher economic output in the United States “is not coming at the expense of Mexico. It’s a trade growth effect,” said Mr. Lincicome.
Posted on 1/11/19 at 6:52 am to foshizzle
I really don't care how it's paid for. It's a net gain for the country.
Posted on 1/11/19 at 6:53 am to foshizzle
Did you even read the rest of the website, or are you cherry picking?
quote:
Trade tariffs, or enforcement of existing trade rules: There is no doubt that Mexico is engaging in unfair subsidy behavior that has eliminated thousands of U.S. jobs, and which we are obligated to respond to; the impact of any tariffs on the price imports will be more than offset by the economic and income gains of increased production in the United States, in addition to revenue from any tariffs themselves. Mexico needs access to our markets much more than the reverse, so we have all the leverage and will win the negotiation. By definition, if you have a large trade deficit with a nation, it means they are selling far more to you than the reverse - thus they, not you, stand to lose from enforcing trade rules through tariffs (as has been done to save many U.S. industries in the past).
Cancelling visas: Immigration is a privilege, not a right. Mexico is totally dependent on the United States as a release valve for its own poverty - our approvals of hundreds of thousands of visas to their nationals every year is one of our greatest leverage points. We also have leverage through business and tourist visas for important people in the Mexican economy. Keep in mind, the United States has already taken in 4X more migrants than any other country on planet earth, producing lower wages and higher unemployment for our own citizens and recent migrants.
Visa fees: Even a small increase in visa fees would pay for the wall. This includes fees on border crossing cards, of which more than 1 million are issued a year. The border-crossing card is also one of the greatest sources of illegal immigration into the United States, via overstays. Mexico is also the single largest recipient of U.S. green cards, which confer a path to U.S. citizenship. Again, we have the leverage so Mexico will back down.
Conclusion: Mexico has taken advantage of us in another way as well: gangs, drug traffickers and cartels have freely exploited our open borders and committed vast numbers of crimes inside the United States. The United States has borne the extraordinary daily cost of this criminal activity, including the cost of trials and incarcerations. Not to mention the even greater human cost. We have the moral high ground here, and all the leverage. It is time we use it in order to Make America Great Again.
This post was edited on 1/11/19 at 6:55 am
Posted on 1/11/19 at 6:53 am to foshizzle
I love unedited live Trump. Makes the MSM and its disciples look even weaker.
Very much like this OP. Weak
Very much like this OP. Weak
Posted on 1/11/19 at 6:54 am to BurningHeart
And to add to that, he's been saying since the primary rallies that it would likely be paid through a trade deal.
Look up old Youtube rallies if you're that interested.
Look up old Youtube rallies if you're that interested.
Posted on 1/11/19 at 6:56 am to Chuker
quote:
I never gave a frick who was paying for the wall.
Posted on 1/11/19 at 7:15 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Under NAFTA, Mexico enjoyed a ~$75B annual trade surplus with the US.
As I noted in the OP, this doesn't mean what most of you thinks it means.
All a trade deficit means is that we're sending depreciating US dollars to Mexico in exchange for goods worth about the same amount. We aren't getting robbed here.
If you buy a ticket worth $100 to watch LSU play a football game, your "trade deficit" is $100 even if the Tigers run up the score against Alabama that night.
Posted on 1/11/19 at 7:16 am to BurningHeart
quote:
he's been saying since the primary rallies that it would likely be paid through a trade deal.
Then why did his campaign site promise a one-time wire transfer, aka a check?
Posted on 1/11/19 at 7:22 am to foshizzle
quote:
Then why did his campaign site promise a one-time wire transfer, aka a check
Because that's an option as well, just not the one that came to fruition.
Posted on 1/11/19 at 7:27 am to bmy
quote:
make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year. There are several ways to compel Mexico to pay for the wall including the following: I think maybe you are the retarded ond
The one time payment is explicitly for the purpose of keeping the $24billion flowing. He then, in a separate sentence, moves on to list how the wall could be paid for, “there are several ways to compel Mexico to pay for the wall...”. None of which include a check, I might add.
Retard
This post was edited on 1/11/19 at 7:28 am
Posted on 1/11/19 at 7:28 am to foshizzle
quote:Certainly appears it does not mean what you think it means.
As I noted in the OP, this doesn't mean what most of you thinks it means.
What do you think domestic manufacturing and/or income production means?
This post was edited on 1/11/19 at 7:49 am
Posted on 1/11/19 at 7:34 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Because that's an option as well, just not the one that came to fruition.
^^^
Libs want to prove Trump wrong at all costs that they resort to trying to find ways that taxpayers will fund a miniscule portion of the budget rather than see the bigger picture here of why it's needed, regardless of who pays.
Posted on 1/11/19 at 7:34 am to foshizzle
I don't think you realize what "if" means.
Posted on 1/11/19 at 7:47 am to TrueTiger
quote:Yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
I've advocated for 15 years on this board that if Americans want their country back they're going to have to take it back themselves.
this path is very hard, it means that people will have to suffer privation and make great sacrifices
I don't the people are ready for that, yet
Isn't it interesting how those who rage against big-government liberal filth, are the same people now begging at the feet of government to save them?
Isn't more government how we got into this mess in the first place? And now these faux conservatives are insisting that more government is the answer.
Posted on 1/11/19 at 7:50 am to TX Tiger
quote:You are confused.
insisting that more government is the answer.
Posted on 1/11/19 at 8:03 am to Robin Masters
The caption of the Trump campaign talking point is: Compelling Mexico to Pay For The Wall. The talking point says "mexico will write a check." By not even reading the link you prove that the retard is you. 
This post was edited on 1/11/19 at 8:04 am
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News