• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

President Trump: Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
dudalb said:
I don't think Trump is quite as smart as you make him out to be.
Click to expand...

I think he's something like a savant. I don't believe he works all this out intellectually, he just instinctively knows how to make the right moves to get the results he wants. It helps that his desired results are narrowly self-centered.
 
Jesus Christ... "I'd like the border patrol and homeland security people to know I'm behind them 100%" (stop there... stop there... stop there...) "and not just because they all unanimously voted for me."
 
Last edited:
Oh for Pity's sake, the Trump speech is nothing but a campaign speech full of the same crappy lies and the main news stations are all covering it live as if it was really news worthy.

Listen to the language: "We are going to 'ask for' blah blah blah..."

The room full of cheerleaders were as staged as a pageant.
 
crescent said:
My wife was just pointing out that East Germany managed to get West Germany to pay for their wall.

Well, at least the "tearing it back down again" part of it.

ETA: At any rate, the average Mexican is probably looking north right now and saying "Maybe now is not the best time to go there."
Click to expand...

Do what the Celts did with Hadrians Wall, get in a boat and go round the end.
 
Civet said:
Back during the campaign, he threatened to block remittances until Mexico pays a lump fee to fund the wall. Since those make up a significant piece of Mexico's economy, it really would put a lot of pressure on Mexico if he could pull it off.
Click to expand...

I doubt it would be legal or practical (would that mean U.S. companies couldn't pay their Mexican suppliers?), but even then, I'm sure rules could be circumvented by sending money to accounts in another country to be forwarded to Mexican recipients (with fat fees getting charged at every step). This is all just noise, but the Trumpets seem to lap it up.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
I doubt it would be legal or practical (would that mean U.S. companies couldn't pay their Mexican suppliers?), but even then, I'm sure rules could be circumvented by sending money to accounts in another country to be forwarded to Mexican recipients (with fat fees getting charged at every step). This is all just noise, but the Trumpets seem to lap it up.
Click to expand...

It remains to be seen how much of this is just Political Theater;he will still have to get congress to pay for the wall.
And it is no secret that a lot of GOP congress people think the Wall is a stupid boondoggle.
 
Bob001 said:
I doubt it would be legal or practical (would that mean U.S. companies couldn't pay their Mexican suppliers?), but even then, I'm sure rules could be circumvented by sending money to accounts in another country to be forwarded to Mexican recipients (with fat fees getting charged at every step). This is all just noise, but the Trumpets seem to lap it up.
Click to expand...

An outright ban probably wouldn't work, but a substantial tax could be legal and viable as long as it wasn't significantly higher than the total cost of circumventing it. Presumably corporations would be exempt.
 
Technology is always used to circumvent such obstacles. Someday someone will invent the rope. Or they may go really high-tech and finally invent the ladder.
 
Civet said:
Back during the campaign, he threatened to block remittances until Mexico pays a lump fee to fund the wall. Since those make up a significant piece of Mexico's economy, it really would put a lot of pressure on Mexico if he could pull it off.
Click to expand...

The problem is how to do so without also impacting transfer payments to subsidiary companies based in Mexico to keep supply chains functioning. I would imagine that might be a big part of the 'significant piece of Mexico's economy' referred to, possibly more-so than the 'illegal immigrants sending their ill begotten money back home to stuff under their mattresses' sort of nonsense that people use to make this all seem like an exercise in 'squaring the scales of justice.'

With the "just in time" business model of far-flung supply chains, it won't be long before downstream U.S. workers are laid off, then more overhead/office types when inventory empties and sales drop off a cliff.
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
The problem is how to do so without also impacting transfer payments to subsidiary companies based in Mexico to keep supply chains functioning. I would imagine that might be a big part of the 'significant piece of Mexico's economy' referred to, possibly more-so than the 'illegal immigrants sending their ill begotten money back home to stuff under their mattresses' sort of nonsense that people use to make this all seem like an exercise in 'squaring the scales of justice.'

With the "just in time" business model of far-flung supply chains, it won't be long before downstream U.S. workers are laid off, then more overhead/office types when inventory empties and sales drop off a cliff.
Click to expand...
There is such a thing as people's rights and due process. King Trump imagines he can implement such a ban, but that's ludicrous.
 
First Mexico will pay for the wall, now it's, "will absolutely pay us back." Such an imagination.
 
Oklahoma made about $12 million in a year off of a 1% fee on person-to-person out-of-state wire transfers. Oklahoma taxpayers are can claim it as a tax credit, so it mostly hits undocumented workers. Doesn't even apply to wire transfers sent through a bank. Scale that up nationwide and that's serious money. Not crazy-wall-on-the-border money, maybe, but hardly a pittance.
 
Civet said:
Oklahoma made about $12 million in a year off of a 1% fee on person-to-person out-of-state wire transfers. Oklahoma taxpayers are can claim it as a tax credit, so it mostly hits undocumented workers. Doesn't even apply to wire transfers sent through a bank. Scale that up nationwide and that's serious money. Not crazy-wall-on-the-border money, maybe, but hardly a pittance.
Click to expand...

So he's going to stop people from Mexico coming in and he's going to pay for it by charging the people from Mexico who come in, a wire transfer fee? There might be a problem with that scenario.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
The problem is how to do so without also impacting transfer payments to subsidiary companies based in Mexico to keep supply chains functioning. I would imagine that might be a big part of the 'significant piece of Mexico's economy' referred to, possibly more-so than the 'illegal immigrants sending their ill begotten money back home to stuff under their mattresses' sort of nonsense that people use to make this all seem like an exercise in 'squaring the scales of justice.'

With the "just in time" business model of far-flung supply chains, it won't be long before downstream U.S. workers are laid off, then more overhead/office types when inventory empties and sales drop off a cliff.
Click to expand...

No, this is just talking about the money workers send home. It's a lot. Some of these guys here in LA live pretty poorly so they can send a large portion of their earnings to their families.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/doliaes...s-main-source-of-foreign-income/#39a07c7703b3
 
Spindrift said:
So he's going to stop people from Mexico coming in and he's going to pay for it by charging the people from Mexico who come in, a wire transfer fee? There might be a problem with that scenario.
Click to expand...

The funding plan works because the wall won't actually stop people from coming in to work. It's a combination security theater/jobs creation scheme. Also makes the coyotes a more essential part of the process which will create jobs in Mexico.
 
Civet said:
No, this is just talking about the money workers send home. It's a lot. Some of these guys here in LA live pretty poorly so they can send a large portion of their earnings to their families.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/doliaes...s-main-source-of-foreign-income/#39a07c7703b3
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get what they're talking about. My question is whether there are legal and financial mechanisms that can stop it without obstructing desirable transactions, like payments for Mexican goods and services. If they make wire transfers harder, can they keep people from mailing money orders to Mexican addresses? Or packages of cash? Or sending guys across the border with suitcases full of cash in individually addressed envelopes? Will people leaving the country be searched for money? And I can't imagine how they could keep people from sending money to an account in another country to be forwarded without having a massive negative effect on all commerce. What I can imagine are a lot of bad things growing out of efforts to impose limits, including robbery and fraud.

This is just stupidity. And I note once again that in all the chatter about "send'em home" and "build a wall" and "block their money," the Repubs aren't talking about making e-verify mandatory, with penalties for non-compliance, because that would hurt the businesses that depend on and benefit from low-paid illegal workers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom