Trump: “America First”....Democrats: ‘Mexico First’

[jc456]

The Wall was going to be paid for by fixing the trade deficit. Whether that is feasible IDK but currently the deficit with Mexico ~$60Bn if we can get it down to $30Bn then Mexico would have effectively paid for the Wall. That was his plan. I don't know if he can execute. This is not about the "Wall" anyway this is about the Democrats trying to show that the GOP does not keep its campaign promises so that they may use that against them in the 2020 election.

I believe both parties agree that we have an issue at the border. But the Democrats will never agree to a wall because it was Trump's signature when running. This is 100% political and politicians on both sides could not care less about the people in the US, IMO.

No, what that would mean is that the US Consumers bought less from Mexico than they did in the past. That doesn’t mean that the US Consumers are spending more on American goods.

Irregardless, the less trade with foreign nations means less revenue for the US government because you can’t tax what isn’t shipped.

Additionally whatever is purchased by American consumers is taxed at the local and state level; none of that tax money goes to the Federal Government for a wall appropriation.

when they buy less from Mexico, does that give mexico, more or less money? And if they buy american, that is money that is added to our economy. right? what is it you don't understand exactly?

 

[jc456]

they are already paying, the trade and the caravan in Tijuana have cost the mexicans quite a lot that we haven't had to pay out.

Edit: again, you are not smart enough to understand basic economics.

Economics?

Okay. Please give us a figure….how much have we gotten from the new NAFTA trade deal as of 1/15/2019.

Estimate….ball park figure.

here from Mexico themselves, look at the spending to the US.

Mexico Government Spending | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

"Mexico Trade Balance Swings to Deficit"

That the Mexican economy may be suffering doesn’t mean they are paying for a wall….

AGAIN…how much money has the US Treasury received from the new Trade deal as of 1/15/2019?

You said that the Mexican Government was paying for the wall through trade.

All I’m asking for is a figure.

yeah, ok. again, economics changed in Mexico, correct? based on what, the trade with the US. you asked I provided. now tell me, why are you opposed to saving 20 or 30 billion dollars? I don't get you idiots.

No, you haven’t told us how much money we’ve gotten from Mexico to pay for the wall through this new NAFTA deal.

You put up a bunch of jargon about the Mexican economy failing which, in no way, enriches the United States. Just because someone else loses, doesn’t mean that we win.

well son, that was the plan. It's working. when americans spend our money in our country we get tax revenue from that money and it doesn't go to mexico. again, trying to explain economics to a brick.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Tariffs have been used wherever a foreign country tries to sell its products in the USA at prices lower than a US company can sell for.

Its about protecting US jobs and companies in the USA. Why is that a bad thing to do?

It is not a bad thing if you prefer your government to pick the winners and losers instead of the free market.

It works wonderfully in China since they have a Socialist Market Economy.

Personally, I am one of those weird ones that prefer the private market to make these choices vice the government. But then again I am not a statist like you.

If the free market was totally open on a world wide basis, then workers in the US would see their pay reduced to $5/day or less in order to compete with Chinese child labor. OR, American companies would close and everything would be made in china. How exactly would that help americans? We cannot compete with most of the world on an hourly rate basis, everyone knows that. Tariffs keep America on an equal footing, but like most liberals, you seem to want this country to fail. I don't understand that.

Your argument failed just as soon as you typed "Like Most Liberals" and hit send.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The Wall was going to be paid for by fixing the trade deficit. Whether that is feasible IDK but currently the deficit with Mexico ~$60Bn if we can get it down to $30Bn then Mexico would have effectively paid for the Wall. That was his plan. I don't know if he can execute. This is not about the "Wall" anyway this is about the Democrats trying to show that the GOP does not keep its campaign promises so that they may use that against them in the 2020 election.

I believe both parties agree that we have an issue at the border. But the Democrats will never agree to a wall because it was Trump's signature when running. This is 100% political and politicians on both sides could not care less about the people in the US, IMO.

No, what that would mean is that the US Consumers bought less from Mexico than they did in the past. That doesn’t mean that the US Consumers are spending more on American goods.

Irregardless, the less trade with foreign nations means less revenue for the US government because you can’t tax what isn’t shipped.

Additionally whatever is purchased by American consumers is taxed at the local and state level; none of that tax money goes to the Federal Government for a wall appropriation.

#1) There is no such word as "irregardless"
#2) No. For example if we buy corn from Mexico but Mexico buys rubber from France we can force Mexico to buy rubber from us or increase the price of corn to shorten the deficit. This was Trump's plan with many of our trade deals. He thought it was unfair that we imported so much but did not export enough.
#3) If Mexico buys more goods from us then companies will produce more, higher more people and generate higher profits, all would be tax revenue.

 

[candycorn]

The Wall was going to be paid for by fixing the trade deficit. Whether that is feasible IDK but currently the deficit with Mexico ~$60Bn if we can get it down to $30Bn then Mexico would have effectively paid for the Wall. That was his plan. I don't know if he can execute. This is not about the "Wall" anyway this is about the Democrats trying to show that the GOP does not keep its campaign promises so that they may use that against them in the 2020 election.

I believe both parties agree that we have an issue at the border. But the Democrats will never agree to a wall because it was Trump's signature when running. This is 100% political and politicians on both sides could not care less about the people in the US, IMO.

No, what that would mean is that the US Consumers bought less from Mexico than they did in the past. That doesn’t mean that the US Consumers are spending more on American goods.

Irregardless, the less trade with foreign nations means less revenue for the US government because you can’t tax what isn’t shipped.

Additionally whatever is purchased by American consumers is taxed at the local and state level; none of that tax money goes to the Federal Government for a wall appropriation.

when they buy less from Mexico, does that give mexico, more or less money?

Neither. It gives the Mexican seller less money if they don’t sell it elsewhere. Whatever taxes they pay to the Mexican Central Government happen on a yearly basis.

If Mexico Makes $1B on taxes one year and makes $800M on taxes the next doesn’t mean we made $200M off of Mexico.

What it does mean to the US is that if the Mexican exporters sent $200M less in goods to the US, we have lost import tax revenue (tariffs) on $200M worth of products.

And if they buy american, that is money that is added to our economy. right? what is it you don't understand exactly?

There is no guarantee that it is happening though in the first place.

In the 2nd place, if ACME makes a widget in Wisconsin and sells it in Phoenix, the consumer buying the ACME Widget pays a tax on the widget to the City of Phoenix. The Federal government sees none of that revenue.

What does happen is that the ACME company in Wisconsin may be taxed more by Wisconsin and the Federal Government.

Unless you want to impose a federal sales tax…the trade argument is rather mute.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Apple is opening a cell phone factory in the USA as a result of Trump's corporate tax cuts.

Where? When? Are they opening it or just talking about it?

Interesting that you only think of yourself and don't give a shit about the country.

The free market and capitalism is what is best for this country, it is what this country was built on. Not the socialist economic polices you are pushing

Free Market doesn't work. There is too much cheating going on for it's to be free. What we need is Fair Market and Tariffs are part of that. Yes, Binky, I have been called a Liberal by many of you fruitcake rightwing nutjob cupcakes but guess again. You mistake us Fiscal Conservatives as Liberals and yet it's us that keeps things operating when both of you nutcases screw the pooch.

 

[Thinker101]

Tariffs have been used wherever a foreign country tries to sell its products in the USA at prices lower than a US company can sell for.

Its about protecting US jobs and companies in the USA. Why is that a bad thing to do?

It is not a bad thing if you prefer your government to pick the winners and losers instead of the free market.

It works wonderfully in China since they have a Socialist Market Economy.

Personally, I am one of those weird ones that prefer the private market to make these choices vice the government. But then again I am not a statist like you.

If the free market was totally open on a world wide basis, then workers in the US would see their pay reduced to $5/day or less in order to compete with Chinese child labor. OR, American companies would close and everything would be made in china. How exactly would that help americans? We cannot compete with most of the world on an hourly rate basis, everyone knows that. Tariffs keep America on an equal footing, but like most liberals, you seem to want this country to fail. I don't understand that.

Your argument failed just as soon as you typed "Like Most Liberals" and hit send.

So it should have been "all liberals"? Dumbass.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Tariffs have been used wherever a foreign country tries to sell its products in the USA at prices lower than a US company can sell for.

Its about protecting US jobs and companies in the USA. Why is that a bad thing to do?

It is not a bad thing if you prefer your government to pick the winners and losers instead of the free market.

It works wonderfully in China since they have a Socialist Market Economy.

Personally, I am one of those weird ones that prefer the private market to make these choices vice the government. But then again I am not a statist like you.

If the free market was totally open on a world wide basis, then workers in the US would see their pay reduced to $5/day or less in order to compete with Chinese child labor. OR, American companies would close and everything would be made in china. How exactly would that help americans? We cannot compete with most of the world on an hourly rate basis, everyone knows that. Tariffs keep America on an equal footing, but like most liberals, you seem to want this country to fail. I don't understand that.

Your argument failed just as soon as you typed "Like Most Liberals" and hit send.

So it should have been "all liberals"? Dumbass.

And I should listen to you why? Your partisanship seems to override your ability to discuss issues. Too bad. Have a nice day, cupcake.

 

[candycorn]

The Wall was going to be paid for by fixing the trade deficit. Whether that is feasible IDK but currently the deficit with Mexico ~$60Bn if we can get it down to $30Bn then Mexico would have effectively paid for the Wall. That was his plan. I don't know if he can execute. This is not about the "Wall" anyway this is about the Democrats trying to show that the GOP does not keep its campaign promises so that they may use that against them in the 2020 election.

I believe both parties agree that we have an issue at the border. But the Democrats will never agree to a wall because it was Trump's signature when running. This is 100% political and politicians on both sides could not care less about the people in the US, IMO.

No, what that would mean is that the US Consumers bought less from Mexico than they did in the past. That doesn’t mean that the US Consumers are spending more on American goods.

Irregardless, the less trade with foreign nations means less revenue for the US government because you can’t tax what isn’t shipped.

Additionally whatever is purchased by American consumers is taxed at the local and state level; none of that tax money goes to the Federal Government for a wall appropriation.

#1) There is no such word as “irregardless"

\

#2) No. For example if we buy corn from Mexico but Mexico buys rubber from France we can force Mexico to buy rubber from us or increase the price of corn to shorten the deficit. This was Trump's plan with many of our trade deals. He thought it was unfair that we imported so much but did not export enough.

okay...

#3) If Mexico buys more goods from us then companies will produce more, higher more people and generate higher profits, all would be tax revenue.

“higher more people” LOL. I guess you mean “hire more people”?

That would be great.

Perhaps you can tell us; as of 1/15/2019; through this new NAFTA trade deal, how much has Mexico contributed to the US Treasury?

 

[Thinker101]

Tariffs have been used wherever a foreign country tries to sell its products in the USA at prices lower than a US company can sell for.

Its about protecting US jobs and companies in the USA. Why is that a bad thing to do?

It is not a bad thing if you prefer your government to pick the winners and losers instead of the free market.

It works wonderfully in China since they have a Socialist Market Economy.

Personally, I am one of those weird ones that prefer the private market to make these choices vice the government. But then again I am not a statist like you.

If the free market was totally open on a world wide basis, then workers in the US would see their pay reduced to $5/day or less in order to compete with Chinese child labor. OR, American companies would close and everything would be made in china. How exactly would that help americans? We cannot compete with most of the world on an hourly rate basis, everyone knows that. Tariffs keep America on an equal footing, but like most liberals, you seem to want this country to fail. I don't understand that.

Your argument failed just as soon as you typed "Like Most Liberals" and hit send.

So it should have been "all liberals"? Dumbass.

And I should listen to you why? Your partisanship seems to override your ability to discuss issues. Too bad. Have a nice day, cupcake.

That was a question, dumbass. Maybe you ought to work on your reading comprehension.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The Wall was going to be paid for by fixing the trade deficit. Whether that is feasible IDK but currently the deficit with Mexico ~$60Bn if we can get it down to $30Bn then Mexico would have effectively paid for the Wall. That was his plan. I don't know if he can execute. This is not about the "Wall" anyway this is about the Democrats trying to show that the GOP does not keep its campaign promises so that they may use that against them in the 2020 election.

I believe both parties agree that we have an issue at the border. But the Democrats will never agree to a wall because it was Trump's signature when running. This is 100% political and politicians on both sides could not care less about the people in the US, IMO.

No, what that would mean is that the US Consumers bought less from Mexico than they did in the past. That doesn’t mean that the US Consumers are spending more on American goods.

Irregardless, the less trade with foreign nations means less revenue for the US government because you can’t tax what isn’t shipped.

Additionally whatever is purchased by American consumers is taxed at the local and state level; none of that tax money goes to the Federal Government for a wall appropriation.

#1) There is no such word as “irregardless"

View attachment 240254 \

#2) No. For example if we buy corn from Mexico but Mexico buys rubber from France we can force Mexico to buy rubber from us or increase the price of corn to shorten the deficit. This was Trump's plan with many of our trade deals. He thought it was unfair that we imported so much but did not export enough.

okay...

#3) If Mexico buys more goods from us then companies will produce more, higher more people and generate higher profits, all would be tax revenue.

“higher more people” LOL. I guess you mean “hire more people”?

That would be great.

Perhaps you can tell us; as of 1/15/2019; through this new NAFTA trade deal, how much has Mexico contributed to the US Treasury?

Yes hire, my bad. As I said I am not sure that is a great plan but that was his plan. A Wall is a permanent structure so if Mexico pays for it over 20 years via the improved trade deals (which again I am not certain will work) then effectively Mexico would have paid for the Wall. That was his plan. He never said Mexico would write a check, LOL.


Many scholars maintain there is no such word as irregardless because regardless already means “without regard.” The -ir prefix is redundant.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It is not a bad thing if you prefer your government to pick the winners and losers instead of the free market.

It works wonderfully in China since they have a Socialist Market Economy.

Personally, I am one of those weird ones that prefer the private market to make these choices vice the government. But then again I am not a statist like you.

If the free market was totally open on a world wide basis, then workers in the US would see their pay reduced to $5/day or less in order to compete with Chinese child labor. OR, American companies would close and everything would be made in china. How exactly would that help americans? We cannot compete with most of the world on an hourly rate basis, everyone knows that. Tariffs keep America on an equal footing, but like most liberals, you seem to want this country to fail. I don't understand that.

Your argument failed just as soon as you typed "Like Most Liberals" and hit send.

So it should have been "all liberals"? Dumbass.

And I should listen to you why? Your partisanship seems to override your ability to discuss issues. Too bad. Have a nice day, cupcake.

That was a question, dumbass. Maybe you ought to work on your reading comprehension.

My My, do you get a bit testing when called on? If I piss off both sides of a single issue then I am probably on the right track. Consider yourself pissed off. Now to piss off the other side. It's a job but someone has to do it.

 

[candycorn]

The Wall was going to be paid for by fixing the trade deficit. Whether that is feasible IDK but currently the deficit with Mexico ~$60Bn if we can get it down to $30Bn then Mexico would have effectively paid for the Wall. That was his plan. I don't know if he can execute. This is not about the "Wall" anyway this is about the Democrats trying to show that the GOP does not keep its campaign promises so that they may use that against them in the 2020 election.

I believe both parties agree that we have an issue at the border. But the Democrats will never agree to a wall because it was Trump's signature when running. This is 100% political and politicians on both sides could not care less about the people in the US, IMO.

No, what that would mean is that the US Consumers bought less from Mexico than they did in the past. That doesn’t mean that the US Consumers are spending more on American goods.

Irregardless, the less trade with foreign nations means less revenue for the US government because you can’t tax what isn’t shipped.

Additionally whatever is purchased by American consumers is taxed at the local and state level; none of that tax money goes to the Federal Government for a wall appropriation.

#1) There is no such word as “irregardless"

View attachment 240254 \

#2) No. For example if we buy corn from Mexico but Mexico buys rubber from France we can force Mexico to buy rubber from us or increase the price of corn to shorten the deficit. This was Trump's plan with many of our trade deals. He thought it was unfair that we imported so much but did not export enough.

okay...

#3) If Mexico buys more goods from us then companies will produce more, higher more people and generate higher profits, all would be tax revenue.

“higher more people” LOL. I guess you mean “hire more people”?

That would be great.

Perhaps you can tell us; as of 1/15/2019; through this new NAFTA trade deal, how much has Mexico contributed to the US Treasury?

Yes hire, my bad. As I said I am not sure that is a great plan but that was his plan. A Wall is a permanent structure so if Mexico pays for it over 20 years via the improved trade deals (which again I am not certain will work) then effectively Mexico would have paid for the Wall. That was his plan. He never said Mexico would write a check, LOL.


Many scholars maintain there is no such word as irregardless because regardless already means “without regard.” The -ir prefix is redundant.

As soon as we get the 20 years of payments from Mexico, we can start building the wall. You don’t want to put more money on the nation’s credit card and increase the debt do you?

 

[Thinker101]

If the free market was totally open on a world wide basis, then workers in the US would see their pay reduced to $5/day or less in order to compete with Chinese child labor. OR, American companies would close and everything would be made in china. How exactly would that help americans? We cannot compete with most of the world on an hourly rate basis, everyone knows that. Tariffs keep America on an equal footing, but like most liberals, you seem to want this country to fail. I don't understand that.

Your argument failed just as soon as you typed "Like Most Liberals" and hit send.

So it should have been "all liberals"? Dumbass.

And I should listen to you why? Your partisanship seems to override your ability to discuss issues. Too bad. Have a nice day, cupcake.

That was a question, dumbass. Maybe you ought to work on your reading comprehension.

My My, do you get a bit testing when called on? If I piss off both sides of a single issue then I am probably on the right track. Consider yourself pissed off. Now to piss off the other side. It's a job but someone has to do it.

"get a bit testing"? Dang, maybe work on those writing skills too.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The Wall was going to be paid for by fixing the trade deficit. Whether that is feasible IDK but currently the deficit with Mexico ~$60Bn if we can get it down to $30Bn then Mexico would have effectively paid for the Wall. That was his plan. I don't know if he can execute. This is not about the "Wall" anyway this is about the Democrats trying to show that the GOP does not keep its campaign promises so that they may use that against them in the 2020 election.

I believe both parties agree that we have an issue at the border. But the Democrats will never agree to a wall because it was Trump's signature when running. This is 100% political and politicians on both sides could not care less about the people in the US, IMO.

No, what that would mean is that the US Consumers bought less from Mexico than they did in the past. That doesn’t mean that the US Consumers are spending more on American goods.

Irregardless, the less trade with foreign nations means less revenue for the US government because you can’t tax what isn’t shipped.

Additionally whatever is purchased by American consumers is taxed at the local and state level; none of that tax money goes to the Federal Government for a wall appropriation.

#1) There is no such word as “irregardless"

View attachment 240254 \

#2) No. For example if we buy corn from Mexico but Mexico buys rubber from France we can force Mexico to buy rubber from us or increase the price of corn to shorten the deficit. This was Trump's plan with many of our trade deals. He thought it was unfair that we imported so much but did not export enough.

okay...

#3) If Mexico buys more goods from us then companies will produce more, higher more people and generate higher profits, all would be tax revenue.

“higher more people” LOL. I guess you mean “hire more people”?

That would be great.

Perhaps you can tell us; as of 1/15/2019; through this new NAFTA trade deal, how much has Mexico contributed to the US Treasury?

Yes hire, my bad. As I said I am not sure that is a great plan but that was his plan. A Wall is a permanent structure so if Mexico pays for it over 20 years via the improved trade deals (which again I am not certain will work) then effectively Mexico would have paid for the Wall. That was his plan. He never said Mexico would write a check, LOL.


Many scholars maintain there is no such word as irregardless because regardless already means “without regard.” The -ir prefix is redundant.

As soon as we get the 20 years of payments from Mexico, we can start building the wall. You don’t want to put more money on the nation’s credit card and increase the debt do you?

Do I? No. Our politicans do, however. Started with Bush, gone on steroids by Obama and continued by Trump. They are very bad. VERY BAD. Congress needs a complete overhaul.

 

[SmokeALib]

Stop buying Chinese garbage. Problem solved.

people like golf gator are not able to grasp that simple concept, they only look at the bottom line price to them, people like him are why there are walmarts selling tons of Chinese crap.

I buy the best combination of price and quality. I do not give a fuck where it is made.

I bet you have a Chinese made cellphone..you lying hypocrite.

If you're interested in quality, China ain't it.
And I believe most Samsung phones are made in S. Korea.

 

[candycorn]

No, what that would mean is that the US Consumers bought less from Mexico than they did in the past. That doesn’t mean that the US Consumers are spending more on American goods.

Irregardless, the less trade with foreign nations means less revenue for the US government because you can’t tax what isn’t shipped.

Additionally whatever is purchased by American consumers is taxed at the local and state level; none of that tax money goes to the Federal Government for a wall appropriation.

#1) There is no such word as “irregardless"

View attachment 240254 \

#2) No. For example if we buy corn from Mexico but Mexico buys rubber from France we can force Mexico to buy rubber from us or increase the price of corn to shorten the deficit. This was Trump's plan with many of our trade deals. He thought it was unfair that we imported so much but did not export enough.

okay...

#3) If Mexico buys more goods from us then companies will produce more, higher more people and generate higher profits, all would be tax revenue.

“higher more people” LOL. I guess you mean “hire more people”?

That would be great.

Perhaps you can tell us; as of 1/15/2019; through this new NAFTA trade deal, how much has Mexico contributed to the US Treasury?

Yes hire, my bad. As I said I am not sure that is a great plan but that was his plan. A Wall is a permanent structure so if Mexico pays for it over 20 years via the improved trade deals (which again I am not certain will work) then effectively Mexico would have paid for the Wall. That was his plan. He never said Mexico would write a check, LOL.


Many scholars maintain there is no such word as irregardless because regardless already means “without regard.” The -ir prefix is redundant.

As soon as we get the 20 years of payments from Mexico, we can start building the wall. You don’t want to put more money on the nation’s credit card and increase the debt do you?

Do I? No. Our politicans do, however. Started with Bush, gone on steroids by Obama and continued by Trump. They are very bad. VERY BAD. Congress needs a complete overhaul.

So we agree; once we get the money, build the wall then. Great.

 

[jc456]

The Wall was going to be paid for by fixing the trade deficit. Whether that is feasible IDK but currently the deficit with Mexico ~$60Bn if we can get it down to $30Bn then Mexico would have effectively paid for the Wall. That was his plan. I don't know if he can execute. This is not about the "Wall" anyway this is about the Democrats trying to show that the GOP does not keep its campaign promises so that they may use that against them in the 2020 election.

I believe both parties agree that we have an issue at the border. But the Democrats will never agree to a wall because it was Trump's signature when running. This is 100% political and politicians on both sides could not care less about the people in the US, IMO.

No, what that would mean is that the US Consumers bought less from Mexico than they did in the past. That doesn’t mean that the US Consumers are spending more on American goods.

Irregardless, the less trade with foreign nations means less revenue for the US government because you can’t tax what isn’t shipped.

Additionally whatever is purchased by American consumers is taxed at the local and state level; none of that tax money goes to the Federal Government for a wall appropriation.

when they buy less from Mexico, does that give mexico, more or less money?

Neither. It gives the Mexican seller less money if they don’t sell it elsewhere. Whatever taxes they pay to the Mexican Central Government happen on a yearly basis.

If Mexico Makes $1B on taxes one year and makes $800M on taxes the next doesn’t mean we made $200M off of Mexico.

What it does mean to the US is that if the Mexican exporters sent $200M less in goods to the US, we have lost import tax revenue (tariffs) on $200M worth of products.

And if they buy american, that is money that is added to our economy. right? what is it you don't understand exactly?

There is no guarantee that it is happening though in the first place.

In the 2nd place, if ACME makes a widget in Wisconsin and sells it in Phoenix, the consumer buying the ACME Widget pays a tax on the widget to the City of Phoenix. The Federal government sees none of that revenue.

What does happen is that the ACME company in Wisconsin may be taxed more by Wisconsin and the Federal Government.

Unless you want to impose a federal sales tax…the trade argument is rather mute.

when car manufacturers brought plants back from mexico, the salaries being taxed on the workers employed was a gain in revenue and a loss to Mexico.

BTW, incoming tariffs are paid by US companies not Mexico. So not spending money on tariffs actual give business money to hire, more employees, more tax revenue, and fewer welfare payments or unemployment money. again, you don't understand economics so you won't nor ever understand. you ask questions on subjects you know nothing about and expect to be the SME. subject matter expert. all you are is a schmoe, someone with no knowledge.

 

[SmokeALib]

The Wall was going to be paid for by fixing the trade deficit. Whether that is feasible IDK but currently the deficit with Mexico ~$60Bn if we can get it down to $30Bn then Mexico would have effectively paid for the Wall. That was his plan. I don't know if he can execute. This is not about the "Wall" anyway this is about the Democrats trying to show that the GOP does not keep its campaign promises so that they may use that against them in the 2020 election.

I believe both parties agree that we have an issue at the border. But the Democrats will never agree to a wall because it was Trump's signature when running. This is 100% political and politicians on both sides could not care less about the people in the US, IMO.

No, what that would mean is that the US Consumers bought less from Mexico than they did in the past. That doesn’t mean that the US Consumers are spending more on American goods.

Irregardless, the less trade with foreign nations means less revenue for the US government because you can’t tax what isn’t shipped.

Additionally whatever is purchased by American consumers is taxed at the local and state level; none of that tax money goes to the Federal Government for a wall appropriation.

#1) There is no such word as “irregardless"

View attachment 240254 \

#2) No. For example if we buy corn from Mexico but Mexico buys rubber from France we can force Mexico to buy rubber from us or increase the price of corn to shorten the deficit. This was Trump's plan with many of our trade deals. He thought it was unfair that we imported so much but did not export enough.

okay...

#3) If Mexico buys more goods from us then companies will produce more, higher more people and generate higher profits, all would be tax revenue.

“higher more people” LOL. I guess you mean “hire more people”?

That would be great.

Perhaps you can tell us; as of 1/15/2019; through this new NAFTA trade deal, how much has Mexico contributed to the US Treasury?

Yes hire, my bad. As I said I am not sure that is a great plan but that was his plan. A Wall is a permanent structure so if Mexico pays for it over 20 years via the improved trade deals (which again I am not certain will work) then effectively Mexico would have paid for the Wall. That was his plan. He never said Mexico would write a check, LOL.


Many scholars maintain there is no such word as irregardless because regardless already means “without regard.” The -ir prefix is redundant.

As soon as we get the 20 years of payments from Mexico, we can start building the wall. You don’t want to put more money on the nation’s credit card and increase the debt do you?

I wonder if we've paid back that 30 plus billion we sent to terrorist Iran yet?

 

[jc456]

The Wall was going to be paid for by fixing the trade deficit. Whether that is feasible IDK but currently the deficit with Mexico ~$60Bn if we can get it down to $30Bn then Mexico would have effectively paid for the Wall. That was his plan. I don't know if he can execute. This is not about the "Wall" anyway this is about the Democrats trying to show that the GOP does not keep its campaign promises so that they may use that against them in the 2020 election.

I believe both parties agree that we have an issue at the border. But the Democrats will never agree to a wall because it was Trump's signature when running. This is 100% political and politicians on both sides could not care less about the people in the US, IMO.

No, what that would mean is that the US Consumers bought less from Mexico than they did in the past. That doesn’t mean that the US Consumers are spending more on American goods.

Irregardless, the less trade with foreign nations means less revenue for the US government because you can’t tax what isn’t shipped.

Additionally whatever is purchased by American consumers is taxed at the local and state level; none of that tax money goes to the Federal Government for a wall appropriation.

#1) There is no such word as “irregardless"

View attachment 240254 \

#2) No. For example if we buy corn from Mexico but Mexico buys rubber from France we can force Mexico to buy rubber from us or increase the price of corn to shorten the deficit. This was Trump's plan with many of our trade deals. He thought it was unfair that we imported so much but did not export enough.

okay...

#3) If Mexico buys more goods from us then companies will produce more, higher more people and generate higher profits, all would be tax revenue.

“higher more people” LOL. I guess you mean “hire more people”?

That would be great.

Perhaps you can tell us; as of 1/15/2019; through this new NAFTA trade deal, how much has Mexico contributed to the US Treasury?

whatever the deficit is with mexico, and it is down from what it was. It has to be, we are importing less.