Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
___________Everyone gets it.
The Racist Democrats are against controlling illegal immigration because they have a goal to make white voters the minority ASAP.
I believe Mexico will pay for the Wall.
But, I was never at any time as stupid as you Bolsheviks...stupid enough to believe they were just going to up and write a check as soon as Trump sent them a bill. Hardly anybody, except Demo-Bolsheviks are that stupid.
But, Mexico started paying for the Wall the day Trump prevailed on Ford to build a plant in the U.S.A. instead of Mexico by promising a better business climate that the Bolshevik Obama was providing.
They are arguably making payments on the Wall today, in that their worst and most useless citizens are no longer invading this country at Obama's invitation to use fraud to get signed up to suckle off the U.S Taxpayer Tit, like so many Demo-Bolsheviks do already. Mexico is now stuck with more of their own Dregs, and have to pay for them; instead of Productive Americans.
And Mexico is paying for the Wall in that there are fewer Mexicans sneaking into this country and taking jobs away from American Citizens, and also suppressing wages for Americans....and sending the U. S. dollars they earn back to Mexico to stimulate Mexico's economy.
I realize that all this is too much for someone educated in a Rotting Northern City controlled by Democrats and their Teachers Unions---to understand, but YEA, it looks to me like Mexico is in fact paying for the Wall....just not with a direct check....which no one with a Brain expected anyway.
Thanks Donald!
___________
I believe Mexico will pay for the Wall.
Trump pleaded with him to pretend Mexico would payWho didn't see the transcript of Trump's conversation with Mexico's president? Mexico is not going to agree to pay for Trump's wall. Period. Trump can cry all he wants, it's not going to happen. To this day, I don't know what he was thinking when he made the claim that Mexico would pay for the wall.
He dosnt need Mexico to agree. He can divert money we currently send them in the form of finacial aide and drug enforcement to his wall. Thats about 300 million a year. He can also use a trade tariff to finance the wall.Who didn't see the transcript of Trump's conversation with Mexico's president? Mexico is not going to agree to pay for Trump's wall. Period. Trump can cry all he wants, it's not going to happen. To this day, I don't know what he was thinking when he made the claim that Mexico would pay for the wall.
That's exactly what he did.Trump pleaded with him to pretend Mexico would payWho didn't see the transcript of Trump's conversation with Mexico's president? Mexico is not going to agree to pay for Trump's wall. Period. Trump can cry all he wants, it's not going to happen. To this day, I don't know what he was thinking when he made the claim that Mexico would pay for the wall.
Not going to happen. The American people do not want a wall built. Rasmussen shows likely voters oppose it by a 56-37 margin. Only a small section will be built. Plus they want to destroy a wildlife reserve to do it. Typical moron Republicans.
Typical unhinged Democrats: Valuing some stupid three-toed lizard in a wildlife preserve, more then they do the lives of their own friends and family members.
You really think that all the landowners on the Tex Mex border who are going to resist this are Democrats?
You mean the Tex Meth border. You really think all the landowners on board are Republicans.
He dosnt need Mexico to agree. He can divert money we currently send them in the form of finacial aide and drug enforcement to his wall. Thats about 300 million a year. He can also use a trade tariff to finance the wall.Who didn't see the transcript of Trump's conversation with Mexico's president? Mexico is not going to agree to pay for Trump's wall. Period. Trump can cry all he wants, it's not going to happen. To this day, I don't know what he was thinking when he made the claim that Mexico would pay for the wall.
You guys do realize the more you mock him about this the more likely he uses draconian measures on mexico to force them to pay for the wall? If you guys let the issue go it would probably not get built at all. His supporters are indifferent to it as long as the flow is dramatically slowed. The more you guys insist that he is gonna fail the more likely he is to build it. If we end up with a wall it will be thanks to the persistence of the left.
Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
He can divert money we currently send them in the form of finacial aide and drug enforcement to his wall.
The math I used came from a quick Google search on money we give mexico. The most current data I found was from 2013 so I went with that. It claimed we gave them about 200 million to assist with drug enforcement and another 60 million in foregin aide. I rounded it up a bit to account for it being 4yrs later. Thats how I came up to 300 million.He dosnt need Mexico to agree. He can divert money we currently send them in the form of finacial aide and drug enforcement to his wall. Thats about 300 million a year. He can also use a trade tariff to finance the wall.Who didn't see the transcript of Trump's conversation with Mexico's president? Mexico is not going to agree to pay for Trump's wall. Period. Trump can cry all he wants, it's not going to happen. To this day, I don't know what he was thinking when he made the claim that Mexico would pay for the wall.
You guys do realize the more you mock him about this the more likely he uses draconian measures on mexico to force them to pay for the wall? If you guys let the issue go it would probably not get built at all. His supporters are indifferent to it as long as the flow is dramatically slowed. The more you guys insist that he is gonna fail the more likely he is to build it. If we end up with a wall it will be thanks to the persistence of the left.
Sent from my SM-T800 using TapatalkHe can divert money we currently send them in the form of finacial aide and drug enforcement to his wall.
I suppose strictly speaking he can order that employees of his Administration do that, but whether doing so is legal depends on the way Congress appropriated those funds. (See also: Appropriations Clause) That's circumventing Congress' appropriation laws is the essence of what the Reagan Administration did in concocting "arms for hostages," though that unlawful "deal" was considerably more complex than what we're discussing here. Trump can certainly attempt to unlawfully do something similar; the man certainly seems to have no compunction about doing whatever the heck he wants regardless of whether it's lawful or right or turpitudinous.
Congress, for the most part, does not in effect say, "Here's several trillion dollars. Spend it as you see fit." It typically says, "Here's X-dollars for 'this' and X-dollars for that." The POTUS (his Administration) may or may not spend all that Congress appropriates, but in many instances it cannot on "B" spend the money appropriated for "A."
In some instances the level of the appropriation is high enough that money can be shifted from one place to another, but whether the money we provide to Mexico for "financial aid and drug enforcement" (your terms not mine [1]) are by the POTUS/Cabinet secretaries discretionarily transferable to other uses is something I don't know. One'd have to review the relevant appropriations to find out. Generally speaking, appropriations are made at a program level, the consequence being that the Administration can spend it on that program or not, but not on something other than that program. Such is the "power of the purse."
Note/Edit:
- AFAIK, the U.S. doesn't give "financial aid" to Mexico, "financial aid" meaning "money for nothing," that is, "straight-up" hand-outs of money/resources/supplies...what some might call "welfare." I don't know what you meant by "financial aid" as you made no effort to be clearer than that, and that term has relevance to me in the context of trade school, graduate school and undergraduate college tuition assistance for students attending institutions in the U.S. The money the the U.S. provides to other nations is called "foreign aid," which includes all monies provided to foreign governments and organizations.
Overwhelmingly, what the U.S. spends in Mexico is money for U.S.-related defense and law enforcement.According to the U.S. Agency for International Development, roughly a dozen agencies directed roughly $1.6 billion overall in aid to Mexico from 2011 to 2015, the most recent year for which complete data is available.
The State Department, Defense Department and USAID provided the largest amounts, accounting for 95% of the $338 million in aid in 2015. The remainder included much smaller slivers from the departments of Energy, Labor, Interior, and Health and Human Services, and the Peace Corps, among others.
Law enforcement and counter-narcotics initiatives accounted for $260 million, while support for justice and legal reforms added up to roughly $10 million, and military aid accounting for another $10 million. The other aid initiatives in 2015 include:
The Bernstein Research group estimated the cost for building the southern border wall could range from $15 billion to $25 billion. If the United States redirected all of its foreign aid, at the current annual average, it would take nearly 50 years to reach the low end of that range.
- $5.7 million for a program to improve the competitiveness of Mexican businesses and to improve “environmental policy management to mitigate climate change and preserve Mexican biodiversity.”
- $4.4 million to help with implementation of programs to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.
- $ 4 million to support Mexican-led efforts to develop and implement a low-emissions development strategy.
- $4 million for crime and violence prevention.
The math I used came from a quick Google search on money we give mexico. The most current data I found was from 2013 so I went with that. It claimed we gave them about 200 million to assist with drug enforcement and another 60 million in foregin aide. I rounded it up a bit to account for it being 4yrs later. Thats how I came up to 300 million.He dosnt need Mexico to agree. He can divert money we currently send them in the form of finacial aide and drug enforcement to his wall. Thats about 300 million a year. He can also use a trade tariff to finance the wall.Who didn't see the transcript of Trump's conversation with Mexico's president? Mexico is not going to agree to pay for Trump's wall. Period. Trump can cry all he wants, it's not going to happen. To this day, I don't know what he was thinking when he made the claim that Mexico would pay for the wall.
You guys do realize the more you mock him about this the more likely he uses draconian measures on mexico to force them to pay for the wall? If you guys let the issue go it would probably not get built at all. His supporters are indifferent to it as long as the flow is dramatically slowed. The more you guys insist that he is gonna fail the more likely he is to build it. If we end up with a wall it will be thanks to the persistence of the left.
Sent from my SM-T800 using TapatalkHe can divert money we currently send them in the form of finacial aide and drug enforcement to his wall.
I suppose strictly speaking he can order that employees of his Administration do that, but whether doing so is legal depends on the way Congress appropriated those funds. (See also: Appropriations Clause) That's circumventing Congress' appropriation laws is the essence of what the Reagan Administration did in concocting "arms for hostages," though that unlawful "deal" was considerably more complex than what we're discussing here. Trump can certainly attempt to unlawfully do something similar; the man certainly seems to have no compunction about doing whatever the heck he wants regardless of whether it's lawful or right or turpitudinous.
Congress, for the most part, does not in effect say, "Here's several trillion dollars. Spend it as you see fit." It typically says, "Here's X-dollars for 'this' and X-dollars for that." The POTUS (his Administration) may or may not spend all that Congress appropriates, but in many instances it cannot on "B" spend the money appropriated for "A."
In some instances the level of the appropriation is high enough that money can be shifted from one place to another, but whether the money we provide to Mexico for "financial aid and drug enforcement" (your terms not mine [1]) are by the POTUS/Cabinet secretaries discretionarily transferable to other uses is something I don't know. One'd have to review the relevant appropriations to find out. Generally speaking, appropriations are made at a program level, the consequence being that the Administration can spend it on that program or not, but not on something other than that program. Such is the "power of the purse."
Note/Edit:
- AFAIK, the U.S. doesn't give "financial aid" to Mexico, "financial aid" meaning "money for nothing," that is, "straight-up" hand-outs of money/resources/supplies...what some might call "welfare." I don't know what you meant by "financial aid" as you made no effort to be clearer than that, and that term has relevance to me in the context of trade school, graduate school and undergraduate college tuition assistance for students attending institutions in the U.S. The money the the U.S. provides to other nations is called "foreign aid," which includes all monies provided to foreign governments and organizations.
Overwhelmingly, what the U.S. spends in Mexico is money for U.S.-related defense and law enforcement.According to the U.S. Agency for International Development, roughly a dozen agencies directed roughly $1.6 billion overall in aid to Mexico from 2011 to 2015, the most recent year for which complete data is available.
The State Department, Defense Department and USAID provided the largest amounts, accounting for 95% of the $338 million in aid in 2015. The remainder included much smaller slivers from the departments of Energy, Labor, Interior, and Health and Human Services, and the Peace Corps, among others.
Law enforcement and counter-narcotics initiatives accounted for $260 million, while support for justice and legal reforms added up to roughly $10 million, and military aid accounting for another $10 million. The other aid initiatives in 2015 include:
The Bernstein Research group estimated the cost for building the southern border wall could range from $15 billion to $25 billion. If the United States redirected all of its foreign aid, at the current annual average, it would take nearly 50 years to reach the low end of that range.
- $5.7 million for a program to improve the competitiveness of Mexican businesses and to improve “environmental policy management to mitigate climate change and preserve Mexican biodiversity.”
- $4.4 million to help with implementation of programs to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.
- $ 4 million to support Mexican-led efforts to develop and implement a low-emissions development strategy.
- $4 million for crime and violence prevention.
As far as your point about congress goes, sure they can block Trumps attempt to make mexico pay. They take the blame off of Trump for not keeping his promise once they do that but they can if they want to. They also give Trump an excuse to not sign things they want too. So yeah they can but Im not sure it would be prudent for them to do it.
To your point about how much the wall is going to cost and how long it will take Mexico to pay for it. I think that point is very valid. If he forces mexico to pay for the wall it will take them a long time to do so. IMO this is the single biggest reason I would like to see them drop the idea of building a wall. It is a big expense that offers little benefit. Their are better methods to improve security that I rather see money spent on.
The math I used came from a quick Google search on money we give mexico. The most current data I found was from 2013 so I went with that.
Thats how I came up to 300 million.
They take the blame off of Trump for not keeping his promise once they do that but they can if they want to.
They also give Trump an excuse to not sign things they want too.
To your point about how much the wall is going to cost and how long it will take Mexico to pay for it.
The math I used came from a quick Google search on money we give mexico. The most current data I found was from 2013 so I went with that.
Xelor said:Okay. I have no problem with that. The sums themselves are not what concern me to discuss. You could have indicated just about any $100M+ to several billion dollar sum and I'd have acquiesced to it being the sum we spend in Mexico.
As goes Trump's wall, I don't much care if he gets it built or not. I care that some of my tax dollars go to build it. I don't want any of them, not one red cent, to be used to build that wall.
Im glad your not one of those people who wants to nitpick over details and instead debates the larger point. Not wanting any tax money spent on it is valid and One I share with you. Reality is that we dont really get much of a say in what our tax money is spent on. We get to vote on who represents our interests and than its out of our hands.
Thats how I came up to 300 million.
Xelor said:I don't and didn't have any issue with the sum of money you noted. My point had only to do with your remarks about the nature and extent of discretion Trump has in spending the money appropriated for use in/given to Mexico. That's the reason the main part of my post was about Congressional appropriations and the appropriations process.
good the exact amount is unimportant
They take the blame off of Trump for not keeping his promise once they do that but they can if they want to.
Xelor said:I disagree. Part of the POTUS' job is to "sell" his agenda. Trump, the "great negotiator," based on his assertions about his negotiating skill, should be able to "sell ice to Eskimos."
To some extent I agree but that is something thats subjective and each voter can decide for themselves which party is being reasonable or unreasonable as the case may be.
Xelor said:Regardless of Trump's ability to and success at obtaining "wall money" from Congress, the fact remains that withholding funds from someone, in this case Mexico, is not the same thing as that person/entity paying for something. Any money with which he'd build a wall, by dint ostensibly of withholding it from Mexico, and that does not come from Mexico's treasury, is, from square one, the U.S.' taxpayers' money, not Mexico's. That we don't give any sum of money to Mexico doesn't make that money be not the U.S.' taxpayers' money.
This is a matter of semtantics. At the end of the day If mexico wrote us a check for the exact amount that we give them in aide, one could argue that we paid for our own wall even though the check was written by mexico and the reality is that the us treasury would look exactly the same and mexicos would be the one missing money. In this sense mexico is indeed paying for the wall.
They also give Trump an excuse to not sign things they want too.
Xelor said:Congress does not in all instances need Trump's signature. In fact, most legislation passes with veto-proof majorities. So, no, they really need Trump's signature. Perhaps Trump, like you, thinks Congress does need his "John Hancock." It wouldn't surprise me he's that unaware of the reality of the legislative process. It wouldn't be the first thing of which he's utterly ignorant.
- On all bills that became law during this period, more than 60 percent of minority lawmakers voted in favor of passage on average, and in many congresses more than 80 percent of the minority voted yes.
- On landmark laws we see more variation in minority support across congresses, but still find that, on average, more than 65 percent of minority lawmakers vote in favor of these laws. Only in two congresses, the 103rd and the 111th, does the percentage of minority support fall below 50 percent.
- In spite of stronger, more cohesive parties, as well as more powerful leaders with tools to execute partisan lawmaking, laws passed in Congress are mostly done with large percentages of the minority voting in the affirmative. Contrary to consistent claims of majority party dominance over the minority, laws, including landmark bills, are typically passed with majorities of both parties in support.
Unless you have a supermajority concensus a bill can not be signined into law without the POTUS. Trump has the power of the veto.
To your point about how much the wall is going to cost and how long it will take Mexico to pay for it.
Xelor said:I think you've confused me with someone else. Neither of those things were among any of my points. I didn't even allude to such ideas being among the things I discussed.
This is what you said that my comment was directed at
Xelor said:The Bernstein Research group estimated the cost for building the southern border wall could range from $15 billion to $25 billion. If the United States redirected all of its foreign aid, at the current annual average, it would take nearly 50 years to reach the low end of that range.
The math I used came from a quick Google search on money we give mexico. The most current data I found was from 2013 so I went with that.
Xelor said:Okay. I have no problem with that. The sums themselves are not what concern me to discuss. You could have indicated just about any $100M+ to several billion dollar sum and I'd have acquiesced to it being the sum we spend in Mexico.
As goes Trump's wall, I don't much care if he gets it built or not. I care that some of my tax dollars go to build it. I don't want any of them, not one red cent, to be used to build that wall.
Im glad your not one of those people who wants to nitpick over details and instead debates the larger point. Not wanting any tax money spent on it is valid and One I share with you. Reality is that we dont really get much of a say in what our tax money is spent on. We get to vote on who represents our interests and than its out of our hands.
Thats how I came up to 300 million.
Xelor said:I don't and didn't have any issue with the sum of money you noted. My point had only to do with your remarks about the nature and extent of discretion Trump has in spending the money appropriated for use in/given to Mexico. That's the reason the main part of my post was about Congressional appropriations and the appropriations process.
good the exact amount is unimportant
They take the blame off of Trump for not keeping his promise once they do that but they can if they want to.
Xelor said:I disagree. Part of the POTUS' job is to "sell" his agenda. Trump, the "great negotiator," based on his assertions about his negotiating skill, should be able to "sell ice to Eskimos."
To some extent I agree but that is something thats subjective and each voter can decide for themselves which party is being reasonable or unreasonable as the case may be.
Xelor said:Regardless of Trump's ability to and success at obtaining "wall money" from Congress, the fact remains that withholding funds from someone, in this case Mexico, is not the same thing as that person/entity paying for something. Any money with which he'd build a wall, by dint ostensibly of withholding it from Mexico, and that does not come from Mexico's treasury, is, from square one, the U.S.' taxpayers' money, not Mexico's. That we don't give any sum of money to Mexico doesn't make that money be not the U.S.' taxpayers' money.
This is a matter of semtantics. At the end of the day If mexico wrote us a check for the exact amount that we give them in aide, one could argue that we paid for our own wall even though the check was written by mexico and the reality is that the us treasury would look exactly the same and mexicos would be the one missing money. In this sense mexico is indeed paying for the wall.
They also give Trump an excuse to not sign things they want too.
Xelor said:Congress does not in all instances need Trump's signature. In fact, most legislation passes with veto-proof majorities. So, no, they really need Trump's signature. Perhaps Trump, like you, thinks Congress does need his "John Hancock." It wouldn't surprise me he's that unaware of the reality of the legislative process. It wouldn't be the first thing of which he's utterly ignorant.
- On all bills that became law during this period, more than 60 percent of minority lawmakers voted in favor of passage on average, and in many congresses more than 80 percent of the minority voted yes.
- On landmark laws we see more variation in minority support across congresses, but still find that, on average, more than 65 percent of minority lawmakers vote in favor of these laws. Only in two congresses, the 103rd and the 111th, does the percentage of minority support fall below 50 percent.
- In spite of stronger, more cohesive parties, as well as more powerful leaders with tools to execute partisan lawmaking, laws passed in Congress are mostly done with large percentages of the minority voting in the affirmative. Contrary to consistent claims of majority party dominance over the minority, laws, including landmark bills, are typically passed with majorities of both parties in support.
Unless you have a supermajority concensus a bill can not be signined into law without the POTUS. Trump has the power of the veto.
To your point about how much the wall is going to cost and how long it will take Mexico to pay for it.
Xelor said:I think you've confused me with someone else. Neither of those things were among any of my points. I didn't even allude to such ideas being among the things I discussed.
This is what you said that my comment was directed at
Xelor said:The Bernstein Research group estimated the cost for building the southern border wall could range from $15 billion to $25 billion. If the United States redirected all of its foreign aid, at the current annual average, it would take nearly 50 years to reach the low end of that range.
Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
/---/ 50 years???? Try less than two years:The math I used came from a quick Google search on money we give mexico. The most current data I found was from 2013 so I went with that.
Xelor said:Okay. I have no problem with that. The sums themselves are not what concern me to discuss. You could have indicated just about any $100M+ to several billion dollar sum and I'd have acquiesced to it being the sum we spend in Mexico.
As goes Trump's wall, I don't much care if he gets it built or not. I care that some of my tax dollars go to build it. I don't want any of them, not one red cent, to be used to build that wall.
Im glad your not one of those people who wants to nitpick over details and instead debates the larger point. Not wanting any tax money spent on it is valid and One I share with you. Reality is that we dont really get much of a say in what our tax money is spent on. We get to vote on who represents our interests and than its out of our hands.
Thats how I came up to 300 million.
Xelor said:I don't and didn't have any issue with the sum of money you noted. My point had only to do with your remarks about the nature and extent of discretion Trump has in spending the money appropriated for use in/given to Mexico. That's the reason the main part of my post was about Congressional appropriations and the appropriations process.
good the exact amount is unimportant
They take the blame off of Trump for not keeping his promise once they do that but they can if they want to.
Xelor said:I disagree. Part of the POTUS' job is to "sell" his agenda. Trump, the "great negotiator," based on his assertions about his negotiating skill, should be able to "sell ice to Eskimos."
To some extent I agree but that is something thats subjective and each voter can decide for themselves which party is being reasonable or unreasonable as the case may be.
Xelor said:Regardless of Trump's ability to and success at obtaining "wall money" from Congress, the fact remains that withholding funds from someone, in this case Mexico, is not the same thing as that person/entity paying for something. Any money with which he'd build a wall, by dint ostensibly of withholding it from Mexico, and that does not come from Mexico's treasury, is, from square one, the U.S.' taxpayers' money, not Mexico's. That we don't give any sum of money to Mexico doesn't make that money be not the U.S.' taxpayers' money.
This is a matter of semtantics. At the end of the day If mexico wrote us a check for the exact amount that we give them in aide, one could argue that we paid for our own wall even though the check was written by mexico and the reality is that the us treasury would look exactly the same and mexicos would be the one missing money. In this sense mexico is indeed paying for the wall.
They also give Trump an excuse to not sign things they want too.
Xelor said:Congress does not in all instances need Trump's signature. In fact, most legislation passes with veto-proof majorities. So, no, they really need Trump's signature. Perhaps Trump, like you, thinks Congress does need his "John Hancock." It wouldn't surprise me he's that unaware of the reality of the legislative process. It wouldn't be the first thing of which he's utterly ignorant.
- On all bills that became law during this period, more than 60 percent of minority lawmakers voted in favor of passage on average, and in many congresses more than 80 percent of the minority voted yes.
- On landmark laws we see more variation in minority support across congresses, but still find that, on average, more than 65 percent of minority lawmakers vote in favor of these laws. Only in two congresses, the 103rd and the 111th, does the percentage of minority support fall below 50 percent.
- In spite of stronger, more cohesive parties, as well as more powerful leaders with tools to execute partisan lawmaking, laws passed in Congress are mostly done with large percentages of the minority voting in the affirmative. Contrary to consistent claims of majority party dominance over the minority, laws, including landmark bills, are typically passed with majorities of both parties in support.
Unless you have a supermajority concensus a bill can not be signined into law without the POTUS. Trump has the power of the veto.
To your point about how much the wall is going to cost and how long it will take Mexico to pay for it.
Xelor said:I think you've confused me with someone else. Neither of those things were among any of my points. I didn't even allude to such ideas being among the things I discussed.
This is what you said that my comment was directed at
Xelor said:The Bernstein Research group estimated the cost for building the southern border wall could range from $15 billion to $25 billion. If the United States redirected all of its foreign aid, at the current annual average, it would take nearly 50 years to reach the low end of that range.
Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
to Mexico or to everyone?/---/ 50 years???? Try less than two years:The math I used came from a quick Google search on money we give mexico. The most current data I found was from 2013 so I went with that.
Xelor said:Okay. I have no problem with that. The sums themselves are not what concern me to discuss. You could have indicated just about any $100M+ to several billion dollar sum and I'd have acquiesced to it being the sum we spend in Mexico.
As goes Trump's wall, I don't much care if he gets it built or not. I care that some of my tax dollars go to build it. I don't want any of them, not one red cent, to be used to build that wall.
Im glad your not one of those people who wants to nitpick over details and instead debates the larger point. Not wanting any tax money spent on it is valid and One I share with you. Reality is that we dont really get much of a say in what our tax money is spent on. We get to vote on who represents our interests and than its out of our hands.
Thats how I came up to 300 million.
Xelor said:I don't and didn't have any issue with the sum of money you noted. My point had only to do with your remarks about the nature and extent of discretion Trump has in spending the money appropriated for use in/given to Mexico. That's the reason the main part of my post was about Congressional appropriations and the appropriations process.
good the exact amount is unimportant
They take the blame off of Trump for not keeping his promise once they do that but they can if they want to.
Xelor said:I disagree. Part of the POTUS' job is to "sell" his agenda. Trump, the "great negotiator," based on his assertions about his negotiating skill, should be able to "sell ice to Eskimos."
To some extent I agree but that is something thats subjective and each voter can decide for themselves which party is being reasonable or unreasonable as the case may be.
Xelor said:Regardless of Trump's ability to and success at obtaining "wall money" from Congress, the fact remains that withholding funds from someone, in this case Mexico, is not the same thing as that person/entity paying for something. Any money with which he'd build a wall, by dint ostensibly of withholding it from Mexico, and that does not come from Mexico's treasury, is, from square one, the U.S.' taxpayers' money, not Mexico's. That we don't give any sum of money to Mexico doesn't make that money be not the U.S.' taxpayers' money.They also give Trump an excuse to not sign things they want too.
Xelor said:Congress does not in all instances need Trump's signature. In fact, most legislation passes with veto-proof majorities. So, no, they really need Trump's signature. Perhaps Trump, like you, thinks Congress does need his "John Hancock." It wouldn't surprise me he's that unaware of the reality of the legislative process. It wouldn't be the first thing of which he's utterly ignorant.
- On all bills that became law during this period, more than 60 percent of minority lawmakers voted in favor of passage on average, and in many congresses more than 80 percent of the minority voted yes.
- On landmark laws we see more variation in minority support across congresses, but still find that, on average, more than 65 percent of minority lawmakers vote in favor of these laws. Only in two congresses, the 103rd and the 111th, does the percentage of minority support fall below 50 percent.
- In spite of stronger, more cohesive parties, as well as more powerful leaders with tools to execute partisan lawmaking, laws passed in Congress are mostly done with large percentages of the minority voting in the affirmative. Contrary to consistent claims of majority party dominance over the minority, laws, including landmark bills, are typically passed with majorities of both parties in support.
To your point about how much the wall is going to cost and how long it will take Mexico to pay for it.
Xelor said:I think you've confused me with someone else. Neither of those things were among any of my points. I didn't even allude to such ideas being among the things I discussed.
This is what you said that my comment was directed at
Xelor said:The Bernstein Research group estimated the cost for building the southern border wall could range from $15 billion to $25 billion. If the United States redirected all of its foreign aid, at the current annual average, it would take nearly 50 years to reach the low end of that range.
Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
In fiscal year 2014, the U.S. government allocated the following amounts for aid:
Total economic and military assistance: $43.10 billion
Total military assistance: $10.57 billion
Total economic assistance: $32.53 billion
of which USAID Implemented: $17.82 billion[4]
/----/ Excuse me for being precise, but when I read "If the United States redirected all of its foreign aid," I understand it to be ALL FOREIGN AID, not just aid to one country.to Mexico or to everyone?/---/ 50 years???? Try less than two years:The math I used came from a quick Google search on money we give mexico. The most current data I found was from 2013 so I went with that.
Xelor said:Okay. I have no problem with that. The sums themselves are not what concern me to discuss. You could have indicated just about any $100M+ to several billion dollar sum and I'd have acquiesced to it being the sum we spend in Mexico.
As goes Trump's wall, I don't much care if he gets it built or not. I care that some of my tax dollars go to build it. I don't want any of them, not one red cent, to be used to build that wall.
Im glad your not one of those people who wants to nitpick over details and instead debates the larger point. Not wanting any tax money spent on it is valid and One I share with you. Reality is that we dont really get much of a say in what our tax money is spent on. We get to vote on who represents our interests and than its out of our hands.
Thats how I came up to 300 million.
Xelor said:I don't and didn't have any issue with the sum of money you noted. My point had only to do with your remarks about the nature and extent of discretion Trump has in spending the money appropriated for use in/given to Mexico. That's the reason the main part of my post was about Congressional appropriations and the appropriations process.
good the exact amount is unimportant
They take the blame off of Trump for not keeping his promise once they do that but they can if they want to.
Xelor said:I disagree. Part of the POTUS' job is to "sell" his agenda. Trump, the "great negotiator," based on his assertions about his negotiating skill, should be able to "sell ice to Eskimos."
To some extent I agree but that is something thats subjective and each voter can decide for themselves which party is being reasonable or unreasonable as the case may be.
Xelor said:Regardless of Trump's ability to and success at obtaining "wall money" from Congress, the fact remains that withholding funds from someone, in this case Mexico, is not the same thing as that person/entity paying for something. Any money with which he'd build a wall, by dint ostensibly of withholding it from Mexico, and that does not come from Mexico's treasury, is, from square one, the U.S.' taxpayers' money, not Mexico's. That we don't give any sum of money to Mexico doesn't make that money be not the U.S.' taxpayers' money.They also give Trump an excuse to not sign things they want too.
Xelor said:Congress does not in all instances need Trump's signature. In fact, most legislation passes with veto-proof majorities. So, no, they really need Trump's signature. Perhaps Trump, like you, thinks Congress does need his "John Hancock." It wouldn't surprise me he's that unaware of the reality of the legislative process. It wouldn't be the first thing of which he's utterly ignorant.
- On all bills that became law during this period, more than 60 percent of minority lawmakers voted in favor of passage on average, and in many congresses more than 80 percent of the minority voted yes.
- On landmark laws we see more variation in minority support across congresses, but still find that, on average, more than 65 percent of minority lawmakers vote in favor of these laws. Only in two congresses, the 103rd and the 111th, does the percentage of minority support fall below 50 percent.
- In spite of stronger, more cohesive parties, as well as more powerful leaders with tools to execute partisan lawmaking, laws passed in Congress are mostly done with large percentages of the minority voting in the affirmative. Contrary to consistent claims of majority party dominance over the minority, laws, including landmark bills, are typically passed with majorities of both parties in support.
To your point about how much the wall is going to cost and how long it will take Mexico to pay for it.
Xelor said:I think you've confused me with someone else. Neither of those things were among any of my points. I didn't even allude to such ideas being among the things I discussed.
This is what you said that my comment was directed at
Xelor said:The Bernstein Research group estimated the cost for building the southern border wall could range from $15 billion to $25 billion. If the United States redirected all of its foreign aid, at the current annual average, it would take nearly 50 years to reach the low end of that range.
Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
In fiscal year 2014, the U.S. government allocated the following amounts for aid:
Total economic and military assistance: $43.10 billion
Total military assistance: $10.57 billion
Total economic assistance: $32.53 billion
of which USAID Implemented: $17.82 billion[4]
Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
The Wall construction has already started, idiot.
/----/ And when he does make Mexico pay for the wall one way or the other, you'll be first in line to dismiss his success with some childish rant like "Well he didn't make them actually write out a check." or "It took him too long." or "He didn't really mean to do it, it just happened." or "Mexico only paid for 99% of the wall."Anyone with a functioning brain cell knows this is just more of the same bluster and bullshit from the head bs artist. But the base will love it and that's what he is playing it for.
/----/ Your point being....The Wall construction has already started, idiot.
.......and where a wall has been built, dozens of tunnels UNDER the wall have been found.....
