How will you feel when you find you you are paying for "the wall?"

[Divine Wind]

I always assumed us Americans would pay for the wall one way or another and I'm okay with this. I'm all for secure borders but not the wall, for various reasons. Still, it'll create jobs and slow down illegal immigration and drug traffic, at least a little.
I'm a U.S. taxpayer so I'm use to the government spending my money in a frivolous way. I voted for Trump and Trump promised a wall to his supporters and I can't hold it against him that he's keeping that promise, even if it's a promise I'd rather he ignore.

Clinton would have spent the same amount of money blowing up some middle east dictator or two and creating a new ISIS stronghold.

I don't mind paying taxes for the common good, but I do expect that money would be spent wisely, frugally and as if it were their own money being spent.

That's a lot to expect from a government with a 20 trillion debt!

Which also explains why we don't have a President Hillary and now have a Republican Congress.

 

[usmbguest5318]

How might Trump pay for his wall? He's suggested a tax on goods imported from Mexico. Great, right? Well, just who buys goods imported into the U.S. from Mexico? It's not Mexicans or Canadians.

Americans are used to taxpayer-funding of anti-Christian and leftwing talk radio at NPR. Why would a step towards border security bother US?

The RW has been using NPR as a whipping boy for over 20 years. It is primarily self-funded with only about 16% coming from Federal, State and local government sources.

Public Radio Finances

http://www.npr.org/about/statements/fy2016/National_Public_Radio_-_S1615_FINAL_(S).pdf

Don't Forget the Facts About NPR Funding

If it is self funded, why does it need Any direct funding from the taxpayers? Why not self fund as a non profit or God forbid, compete as a stand alone media outlet? If it must receive taxpayer funds at any level, then it needs to be regulated or monitored for content from a fair and balance perspective. Get Lefties and true Right Wingers in there delivering content and agendas so that all of the taxpayers are represented. Otherwise, stop taking tax dollars at any level.

• Because it's primarily, not entirely, self funding.
• NPR is a non-profit.

You really don't know what NPR is, do you. It is the United States' radio network. That's why it gets public funding. That's why it can cover the kinds of stories and in the depth it does; it doesn't have to be sensational enough to attract advertising revenue in order to sustain itself. It's really a shame that you don't listen to NPR.

It's one of the few places that one can actually get stories and talk that comes at issues from both sides. I know you only hear about it when it doesn't favor what you happen to want to believe, but if you listened to it more often you might actually learn something, not only about the liberal POV but also about the conservative one. You might actually elevate yourself into the ranks of conservative intellectuals, which is something of which USMB, and the U.S. in general, there is great paucity.

It should be entirely self funded. You are not upholding the case for direct taxpayer funding. When I said non profit, I meant 100 percent self funded, non profit. If it qualifies for tax breaks, then let it. No more funding from Congress.

What part of "it's the U.S.' radio" did you overlook? Just as the USPS is the U.S.' mail service and is self funding, if NPR didn't secure funding from private donors, it'd be funded by the government. It's going to exist either way; it was created by an act of Congress. It's merely that citizens take it upon themselves to donate to it. Did you really not read the content at the link? It seems as though you did not given that ignorant remark you responded with.

 

[LeftofLeft]

How might Trump pay for his wall? He's suggested a tax on goods imported from Mexico. Great, right? Well, just who buys goods imported into the U.S. from Mexico? It's not Mexicans or Canadians.

Americans are used to taxpayer-funding of anti-Christian and leftwing talk radio at NPR. Why would a step towards border security bother US?

The RW has been using NPR as a whipping boy for over 20 years. It is primarily self-funded with only about 16% coming from Federal, State and local government sources.

Public Radio Finances

http://www.npr.org/about/statements/fy2016/National_Public_Radio_-_S1615_FINAL_(S).pdf

Don't Forget the Facts About NPR Funding

If it is self funded, why does it need Any direct funding from the taxpayers? Why not self fund as a non profit or God forbid, compete as a stand alone media outlet? If it must receive taxpayer funds at any level, then it needs to be regulated or monitored for content from a fair and balance perspective. Get Lefties and true Right Wingers in there delivering content and agendas so that all of the taxpayers are represented. Otherwise, stop taking tax dollars at any level.

• Because it's primarily, not entirely, self funding.
• NPR is a non-profit.

You really don't know what NPR is, do you. It is the United States' radio network. That's why it gets public funding. That's why it can cover the kinds of stories and in the depth it does; it doesn't have to be sensational enough to attract advertising revenue in order to sustain itself. It's really a shame that you don't listen to NPR.

It's one of the few places that one can actually get stories and talk that comes at issues from both sides. I know you only hear about it when it doesn't favor what you happen to want to believe, but if you listened to it more often you might actually learn something, not only about the liberal POV but also about the conservative one. You might actually elevate yourself into the ranks of conservative intellectuals, which is something of which USMB, and the U.S. in general, there is great paucity.

It should be entirely self funded. You are not upholding the case for direct taxpayer funding. When I said non profit, I meant 100 percent self funded, non profit. If it qualifies for tax breaks, then let it. No more funding from Congress.

What part of "it's the U.S.' radio" did you overlook? Just as the USPS is the U.S.' mail service and is self funding, if NPR didn't secure funding from private donors, it'd be funded by the government. It's going to exist either way; it was created by an act of Congress. It's merely that citizens take it upon themselves to donate to it. Did you really not read the content at the link? It seems as though you did not given that ignorant remark you responded with.

I read the link. Its 2017.... Why does it need any funding from Congress? Your retort sites the Act of Congress that created NPR and you arrogantly call my response "arrogant" yet you continue to fail to build the case or justify continued direct taxpayer funding on any level for NPR. Just because it was created as per an act by Congress as was the USPS does not sustain the case for continued taxpayer funding on any level.

 

[BrokeLoser]

You misunderstood me.
The annual cost to harbor illegals here has been estimated to be between 75-85 billion on the low end with no spin.

Thanks for the clarification. Is that net or are there figures showing the economic contribution of illegals in the work force? Even if it was a push, that fact remains it's illegal and we need to resolve the issue. That means Congress is going to have to do their job. This covers a lot of territory including the obvious of enforcement and how best to track illegals (which means tracking legals) and immigration reform.

IMHO, part of the problem is that some big business people are making a lot of money off illegals and they don't want to have that change. When the subject was brought up under President Bush, a lot of construction and hotel CEOs began complaining that costs would go up. My thought was "so what?" but it goes to show there is some big money involved here.

Is that net or are there figures showing the economic contribution of illegals in the work force?

You two are working from analyses of FISCAL cost.......

One based on ECONOMIC cost (or benefit) looks completely different...

The sales tax paid on Bud Lights and Tapatio never add up to anything significant enough to talk about nor does it offset the negative impact enough to matter. And don't give us that; "what about the jobs they'll work that American's won't" bullshit.
Further, there are many ways illegals cost taxpayers money that are never included in the annual cost estimates we've all seen. Some of these costs include, improvements to roads and highways to handle extra (illegal) volume, uninsured / under-insured drivers in accidents, graffiti and trash clean-up and removal, crime investigations and many more. Also, how do you put a number on how illegals negatively affect American society and the quality of life of American's?
The bottom line is, there are no measurable positive "contributions" made by illegals, that's fabricated bullshit created by other illegals or people of recent illegal descent. To even bring up the issue of positive contributions made by illegals is desperate and fucking retarded. Here's a metaphor for you to consider, are you bright enough to see the correlation?

"On the way to burglarize a home John stopped at the hardware store to by a pry bar to use for the job."
Would you have the balls to bring up the fact that John did something good in the act because he bought the pry bar and paid sales tax?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Americans are used to taxpayer-funding of anti-Christian and leftwing talk radio at NPR. Why would a step towards border security bother US?

The RW has been using NPR as a whipping boy for over 20 years. It is primarily self-funded with only about 16% coming from Federal, State and local government sources.

Public Radio Finances

http://www.npr.org/about/statements/fy2016/National_Public_Radio_-_S1615_FINAL_(S).pdf

Don't Forget the Facts About NPR Funding

If it is self funded, why does it need Any direct funding from the taxpayers? Why not self fund as a non profit or God forbid, compete as a stand alone media outlet? If it must receive taxpayer funds at any level, then it needs to be regulated or monitored for content from a fair and balance perspective. Get Lefties and true Right Wingers in there delivering content and agendas so that all of the taxpayers are represented. Otherwise, stop taking tax dollars at any level.

• Because it's primarily, not entirely, self funding.
• NPR is a non-profit.

You really don't know what NPR is, do you. It is the United States' radio network. That's why it gets public funding. That's why it can cover the kinds of stories and in the depth it does; it doesn't have to be sensational enough to attract advertising revenue in order to sustain itself. It's really a shame that you don't listen to NPR.

It's one of the few places that one can actually get stories and talk that comes at issues from both sides. I know you only hear about it when it doesn't favor what you happen to want to believe, but if you listened to it more often you might actually learn something, not only about the liberal POV but also about the conservative one. You might actually elevate yourself into the ranks of conservative intellectuals, which is something of which USMB, and the U.S. in general, there is great paucity.

It should be entirely self funded. You are not upholding the case for direct taxpayer funding. When I said non profit, I meant 100 percent self funded, non profit. If it qualifies for tax breaks, then let it. No more funding from Congress.

What part of "it's the U.S.' radio" did you overlook? Just as the USPS is the U.S.' mail service and is self funding, if NPR didn't secure funding from private donors, it'd be funded by the government. It's going to exist either way; it was created by an act of Congress. It's merely that citizens take it upon themselves to donate to it. Did you really not read the content at the link? It seems as though you did not given that ignorant remark you responded with.

Just because it was created as per an act by Congress as was the USPS does not sustain the case for continued taxpayer funding on any level.

You just run with that.....

 

[LeftofLeft]

Americans are used to taxpayer-funding of anti-Christian and leftwing talk radio at NPR. Why would a step towards border security bother US?

The RW has been using NPR as a whipping boy for over 20 years. It is primarily self-funded with only about 16% coming from Federal, State and local government sources.

Public Radio Finances

http://www.npr.org/about/statements/fy2016/National_Public_Radio_-_S1615_FINAL_(S).pdf

Don't Forget the Facts About NPR Funding

If it is self funded, why does it need Any direct funding from the taxpayers? Why not self fund as a non profit or God forbid, compete as a stand alone media outlet? If it must receive taxpayer funds at any level, then it needs to be regulated or monitored for content from a fair and balance perspective. Get Lefties and true Right Wingers in there delivering content and agendas so that all of the taxpayers are represented. Otherwise, stop taking tax dollars at any level.

• Because it's primarily, not entirely, self funding.
• NPR is a non-profit.

You really don't know what NPR is, do you. It is the United States' radio network. That's why it gets public funding. That's why it can cover the kinds of stories and in the depth it does; it doesn't have to be sensational enough to attract advertising revenue in order to sustain itself. It's really a shame that you don't listen to NPR.

It's one of the few places that one can actually get stories and talk that comes at issues from both sides. I know you only hear about it when it doesn't favor what you happen to want to believe, but if you listened to it more often you might actually learn something, not only about the liberal POV but also about the conservative one. You might actually elevate yourself into the ranks of conservative intellectuals, which is something of which USMB, and the U.S. in general, there is great paucity.

It should be entirely self funded. You are not upholding the case for direct taxpayer funding. When I said non profit, I meant 100 percent self funded, non profit. If it qualifies for tax breaks, then let it. No more funding from Congress.

What part of "it's the U.S.' radio" did you overlook? Just as the USPS is the U.S.' mail service and is self funding, if NPR didn't secure funding from private donors, it'd be funded by the government. It's going to exist either way; it was created by an act of Congress. It's merely that citizens take it upon themselves to donate to it. Did you really not read the content at the link? It seems as though you did not given that ignorant remark you responded with.

Just because it was created as per an act by Congress as was the USPS does not sustain the case for continued taxpayer funding on any level.

You just run with that.....

Your justification is limited to "established as an Act of Congress" yet provide no basis or substance as to why our tax dollars should fund it directly at any level.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The RW has been using NPR as a whipping boy for over 20 years. It is primarily self-funded with only about 16% coming from Federal, State and local government sources.

Public Radio Finances

http://www.npr.org/about/statements/fy2016/National_Public_Radio_-_S1615_FINAL_(S).pdf

Don't Forget the Facts About NPR Funding

If it is self funded, why does it need Any direct funding from the taxpayers? Why not self fund as a non profit or God forbid, compete as a stand alone media outlet? If it must receive taxpayer funds at any level, then it needs to be regulated or monitored for content from a fair and balance perspective. Get Lefties and true Right Wingers in there delivering content and agendas so that all of the taxpayers are represented. Otherwise, stop taking tax dollars at any level.

• Because it's primarily, not entirely, self funding.
• NPR is a non-profit.

You really don't know what NPR is, do you. It is the United States' radio network. That's why it gets public funding. That's why it can cover the kinds of stories and in the depth it does; it doesn't have to be sensational enough to attract advertising revenue in order to sustain itself. It's really a shame that you don't listen to NPR.

It's one of the few places that one can actually get stories and talk that comes at issues from both sides. I know you only hear about it when it doesn't favor what you happen to want to believe, but if you listened to it more often you might actually learn something, not only about the liberal POV but also about the conservative one. You might actually elevate yourself into the ranks of conservative intellectuals, which is something of which USMB, and the U.S. in general, there is great paucity.

It should be entirely self funded. You are not upholding the case for direct taxpayer funding. When I said non profit, I meant 100 percent self funded, non profit. If it qualifies for tax breaks, then let it. No more funding from Congress.

What part of "it's the U.S.' radio" did you overlook? Just as the USPS is the U.S.' mail service and is self funding, if NPR didn't secure funding from private donors, it'd be funded by the government. It's going to exist either way; it was created by an act of Congress. It's merely that citizens take it upon themselves to donate to it. Did you really not read the content at the link? It seems as though you did not given that ignorant remark you responded with.

Just because it was created as per an act by Congress as was the USPS does not sustain the case for continued taxpayer funding on any level.

You just run with that.....

Your justification is limited to "established as an Act of Congress" yet provide no basis or substance as to why our tax dollars should fund it directly at any level.

That's because I'm not going to continue having a conversation about the program/initiative creation and appropriations process with someone who doesn't already understand it. I'm interested in having discussions with very well informed people, at least as go the topics they choose to discuss.

 

[Cellblock2429]

How might Trump pay for his wall? He's suggested a tax on goods imported from Mexico. Great, right? Well, just who buys goods imported into the U.S. from Mexico? It's not Mexicans or Canadians.

/---- We've been paying for your families welfare for decades. Where was your concern for that?

 

[LeftofLeft]

• Because it's primarily, not entirely, self funding.
• NPR is a non-profit.

You really don't know what NPR is, do you. It is the United States' radio network. That's why it gets public funding. That's why it can cover the kinds of stories and in the depth it does; it doesn't have to be sensational enough to attract advertising revenue in order to sustain itself. It's really a shame that you don't listen to NPR.

It's one of the few places that one can actually get stories and talk that comes at issues from both sides. I know you only hear about it when it doesn't favor what you happen to want to believe, but if you listened to it more often you might actually learn something, not only about the liberal POV but also about the conservative one. You might actually elevate yourself into the ranks of conservative intellectuals, which is something of which USMB, and the U.S. in general, there is great paucity.

It should be entirely self funded. You are not upholding the case for direct taxpayer funding. When I said non profit, I meant 100 percent self funded, non profit. If it qualifies for tax breaks, then let it. No more funding from Congress.

What part of "it's the U.S.' radio" did you overlook? Just as the USPS is the U.S.' mail service and is self funding, if NPR didn't secure funding from private donors, it'd be funded by the government. It's going to exist either way; it was created by an act of Congress. It's merely that citizens take it upon themselves to donate to it. Did you really not read the content at the link? It seems as though you did not given that ignorant remark you responded with.

Just because it was created as per an act by Congress as was the USPS does not sustain the case for continued taxpayer funding on any level.

You just run with that.....

Your justification is limited to "established as an Act of Congress" yet provide no basis or substance as to why our tax dollars should fund it directly at any level.

That's because I'm not going to continue having a conversation about the program/initiative creation and appropriations process with someone who doesn't already understand it. I'm interested in having discussions with very well informed people, at least as go the topics they choose to discuss.

They only thing you understand is that it should be funded because Congress said so. That is a very slippery slope you hitching to.

 

[Norman]

It would be an honor to pay for such an iconic monument.

Mexico can be proud.

 

[Clementine]

The cost of border security has always fallen on tax payers. It's a necessary and legitimate function of government to prevent people from entering this country illegally. Obama and Bill Clinton both agreed that more border security to prevent illegal crossings and deportation of those who did enter illegally are things we need to do.

Trump hasn't planned anything that wasn't suggested before. The idea of upholding our immigration laws is not unique but actually following up the words with actions is something new, apparently. The left is completely freaking out over every little thing and it has more to do with being unable to cope with losing than anything else.

We can and should secure the borders by any means necessary. As Obama and Clinton both agreed, we also need to ensure that no one who crosses the borders illegally is unfairly rewarded. No benefits. Also, we need let them know that anchor babies are a thing of the past. If parents are not citizens, then their U.S. born baby is a citizen of their own country and birth certificates will reflect that.

Whether it takes a wall, a fence or more border guards, the cost will be offset by the billions saved each year housing, feeding, educating, clothing and providing medical care for millions of illegal aliens.

 

[Cellblock2429]

How might Trump pay for his wall? He's suggested a tax on goods imported from Mexico. Great, right? Well, just who buys goods imported into the U.S. from Mexico? It's not Mexicans or Canadians.

/---- Just tell me my share and where to mail the check.

 

[sartre play]

What do we get from Mexico? Will the price of Corona beer go up or tequila? We don't even know if they fertilize veggies with human shit before we import them or use recycled pesticides made from Agent Orange. What else do they send us besides drugs and murderers? When are whiny timid lefties going to get some freaking balls and realize that the U.S. is calling the shots?

I was amazed to see the amount of fruit & veggies that come from Mexico, some reports say 60 % that's scary.

 

[Correll]

What do we get from Mexico? Will the price of Corona beer go up or tequila? We don't even know if they fertilize veggies with human shit before we import them or use recycled pesticides made from Agent Orange. What else do they send us besides drugs and murderers? When are whiny timid lefties going to get some freaking balls and realize that the U.S. is calling the shots?

I was amazed to see the amount of fruit & veggies that come from Mexico, some reports say 60 % that's scary.

That sounds like bullshit. And even if it is not.

We are the largest agricultural producer in the world. If Mexican fruit and veggies get expensive, we can make it up here.

Or buy from some other nation that are not being dicks.

 

[sartre play]

Not fighting the wall as so many people want it. maybe it will bring some needed jobs, but people who live in the mid west who wont be effected really should hear what people who live on the border have to say. Any one on here live near by?

 

[sartre play]

What do we get from Mexico? Will the price of Corona beer go up or tequila? We don't even know if they fertilize veggies with human shit before we import them or use recycled pesticides made from Agent Orange. What else do they send us besides drugs and murderers? When are whiny timid lefties going to get some freaking balls and realize that the U.S. is calling the shots?

I was amazed to see the amount of fruit & veggies that come from Mexico, some reports say 60 % that's scary.

That sounds like bullshit. And even if it is not.

We are the largest agricultural producer in the world. If Mexican fruit and veggies get expensive, we can make it up here.

Or buy from some other nation that are not being dicks.

Yes I thought California was the leader in veggies, but then I started thinking about the stores I shop in that label there stuff, think it is true or close. & if we buy from country's farther away wont transport kick up the cost?

 

[sartre play]

How might Trump pay for his wall? He's suggested a tax on goods imported from Mexico. Great, right? Well, just who buys goods imported into the U.S. from Mexico? It's not Mexicans or Canadians.

Americans are used to taxpayer-funding of anti-Christian and leftwing talk radio at NPR. Why would a step towards border security bother US?

The RW has been using NPR as a whipping boy for over 20 years. It is primarily self-funded with only about 16% coming from Federal, State and local government sources.

Public Radio Finances

http://www.npr.org/about/statements/fy2016/National_Public_Radio_-_S1615_FINAL_(S).pdf

Don't Forget the Facts About NPR Funding

If it is self funded, why does it need Any direct funding from the taxpayers? Why not self fund as a non profit or God forbid, compete as a stand alone media outlet? If it must receive taxpayer funds at any level, then it needs to be regulated or monitored for content from a fair and balance perspective. Get Lefties and true Right Wingers in there delivering content and agendas so that all of the taxpayers are represented. Otherwise, stop taking tax dollars at any level.

• Because it's primarily, not entirely, self funding.
• NPR is a non-profit.

You really don't know what NPR is, do you. It is the United States' radio network. That's why it gets public funding. That's why it can cover the kinds of stories and in the depth it does; it doesn't have to be sensational enough to attract advertising revenue in order to sustain itself. It's really a shame that you don't listen to NPR.

It's one of the few places that one can actually get stories and talk that comes at issues from both sides. I know you only hear about it when it doesn't favor what you happen to want to believe, but if you listened to it more often you might actually learn something, not only about the liberal POV but also about the conservative one. You might actually elevate yourself into the ranks of conservative intellectuals, which is something of which USMB, and the U.S. in general, there is great paucity.

You have to be open minded NPR will put out info that will amaze you, anger you, make you cheer, they even have some that will bore you to death with its detailed 2 sides to an issue. not for the weak minded.

 

[usmbguest5318]

How might Trump pay for his wall? He's suggested a tax on goods imported from Mexico. Great, right? Well, just who buys goods imported into the U.S. from Mexico? It's not Mexicans or Canadians.

/---- Just tell me my share and where to mail the check.

Whatever sum you feel you can afford to contribute you can contribute it as follows:

• There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:
  • At Pay.gov, you can contribute online by credit card, debit card, PayPal, checking account, or savings account.
  • You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, and, in the memo section, notate that it's a gift to reduce the debt held by the public. Mail your check to:
    
    Attn Dept G
    Bureau of the Fiscal Service
    P. O. Box 2188
    Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188
• Alternatively, you can simply mail your check here:
  • Gifts to the United States
    U.S. Department of the Treasury
    Credit Accounting Branch
    3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
    Hyattsville, MD 20782

 

[usmbguest5318]

How might Trump pay for his wall? He's suggested a tax on goods imported from Mexico. Great, right? Well, just who buys goods imported into the U.S. from Mexico? It's not Mexicans or Canadians.

Americans are used to taxpayer-funding of anti-Christian and leftwing talk radio at NPR. Why would a step towards border security bother US?

The RW has been using NPR as a whipping boy for over 20 years. It is primarily self-funded with only about 16% coming from Federal, State and local government sources.

Public Radio Finances

http://www.npr.org/about/statements/fy2016/National_Public_Radio_-_S1615_FINAL_(S).pdf

Don't Forget the Facts About NPR Funding

If it is self funded, why does it need Any direct funding from the taxpayers? Why not self fund as a non profit or God forbid, compete as a stand alone media outlet? If it must receive taxpayer funds at any level, then it needs to be regulated or monitored for content from a fair and balance perspective. Get Lefties and true Right Wingers in there delivering content and agendas so that all of the taxpayers are represented. Otherwise, stop taking tax dollars at any level.

• Because it's primarily, not entirely, self funding.
• NPR is a non-profit.

You really don't know what NPR is, do you. It is the United States' radio network. That's why it gets public funding. That's why it can cover the kinds of stories and in the depth it does; it doesn't have to be sensational enough to attract advertising revenue in order to sustain itself. It's really a shame that you don't listen to NPR.

It's one of the few places that one can actually get stories and talk that comes at issues from both sides. I know you only hear about it when it doesn't favor what you happen to want to believe, but if you listened to it more often you might actually learn something, not only about the liberal POV but also about the conservative one. You might actually elevate yourself into the ranks of conservative intellectuals, which is something of which USMB, and the U.S. in general, there is great paucity.

You have to be open minded NPR will put out info that will amaze you, anger you, make you cheer, they even have some that will bore you to death with its detailed 2 sides to an issue. not for the weak minded.

Dialectic presentations of the issues:

• Many news organizations pay lip service to the notion of presenting the full picture on the issue. NPR and PBS are the only ones I know of that do so to any real extent.

Not for the weak minded:

• Agree. If one's aim is merely to toe the party line and become conversant with partisan talking points, listening to NPR isn't going to facilitate that.

 

[Correll]

What do we get from Mexico? Will the price of Corona beer go up or tequila? We don't even know if they fertilize veggies with human shit before we import them or use recycled pesticides made from Agent Orange. What else do they send us besides drugs and murderers? When are whiny timid lefties going to get some freaking balls and realize that the U.S. is calling the shots?

I was amazed to see the amount of fruit & veggies that come from Mexico, some reports say 60 % that's scary.

That sounds like bullshit. And even if it is not.

We are the largest agricultural producer in the world. If Mexican fruit and veggies get expensive, we can make it up here.

Or buy from some other nation that are not being dicks.

Yes I thought California was the leader in veggies, but then I started thinking about the stores I shop in that label there stuff, think it is true or close. & if we buy from country's farther away wont transport kick up the cost?

My understanding is that container shipping is very, very cheap.


If Mexico wants to be dicks, and apparently they do, we can ship in veggies from freaking Argentina if we want to.