Trump says Mexico will eventually pay for border wall

[sanemax]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Does anything Trump did up to now gives you the impression he's on top of things? Especially when it comes to actual details?

 

Trump may have better access to information. That doesn't say a whole lot about how he utilizes it or whether he actually does. Come to think about it, strike that. It actually does say a whole lot that the POTUS, with all the information available to him, would constantly spew misleading statements and outright lies.

 

Trump does not have the ability to "force Mexico to pay for the wall", at least not without either hurting US economy as well, or dispatching with the way the US is run.

 

Whereas you rely on Trump's campaign or campaign-like statements, posters have produced facts, figures and reasoned arguments as to why this is a failed proposition.

Although most of the facts produced were made up facts .

Building the wall will be good for the local  economy , all those jobs created in the construction industry  .

   I gave a few possibilities as to how the wall could pay for itself : Charge people to use the border , that may take a while , same as Thai airports , build an airport and charge people to use that airport .

    Having the wall will enable the USA to deport all the non tax paying illegal workers , which would force U.S. Companies to employ legal workers and thus having to pay tax  on their salaries .

   There will be a clampdown on cross border smuggling , cheap goods from Mexico will have to pay taxes on imports .

   Stop all the drugs coming in , all those U.S $ going straight to Columbia , keep those $ in the USA and people will spend their money on other things , rather than drugs .

    The wall will benefit the US economy and the USA as a whole .

Drugs may be in short supply and tacos may cost a bit extra , but the economy and society will benefit .

   Druggies, cheap taco eaters and people who employ Mexicans on the cheap may suffer though

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Although most of the facts produced were made up facts .

Building the wall will be good for the local  economy , all those jobs created in the construction industry  .

   I gave a few possibilities as to how the wall could pay for itself : Charge people to use the border , that may take a while , same as Thai airports , build an airport and charge people to use that airport .

    Having the wall will enable the USA to deport all the non tax paying illegal workers , which would force U.S. Companies to employ legal workers and thus having to pay tax  on their salaries .

   There will be a clampdown on cross border smuggling , cheap goods from Mexico will have to pay taxes on imports .

   Stop all the drugs coming in , all those U.S $ going straight to Columbia , keep those $ in the USA and people will spend their money on other things , rather than drugs .

    The wall will benefit the US economy and the USA as a whole .

Drugs may be in short supply and tacos may cost a bit extra , but the economy and society will benefit .

   Druggies, cheap taco eaters and people who employ Mexicans on the cheap may suffer though

 

The facts produced were not "made up". That you don't like them, doesn't make them "made up". That they do not fall in line with Trump's rhetoric, doesn't make them "made up" either.

 

The "Wall" issue been done to death on this forum. To pretend there weren't no facts, no reasoned analysis and no strong arguments against it presented is disingenuous.

 

I do not offhand recall clear examples (other than one liner assertions) regarding how exactly it will be "good for the local economy" (in more than one such locality, people aren't supportive). As for "jobs created" - again, not too clear that is backed up by something concrete (no pun intended). Trump's record on making such statements is not necessarily accurate or factual. And that's without factoring this view doesn't take negative effect on the economy under consideration.

 

Most of the supposedly possible options you listed for the wall "paying for itself" were thoroughly discussed and debunked. Both on this topic and previous ones, rehashing it all over and over again, as if it's a first....up to you. Once more, it wasn't demonstrated that the overall effect generated would be a positive one, or that the investment is even worthwhile. There are other ways to deal with problems related to immigration, which do not necessitate undertaking a controversial, megalomaniac construction project.

 

All them "solutions" you go on about can be implemented without much of the investment the wall represents. The wall (as Trump paints it) isn't a necessary component in all of this. If you think these measures will suffice for the wall to "pay for itself" (maybe a long time down the line), then imagine the profit they could generate if they were implemented without the huge (Yuge!) investment constructing Trump's wall represents.

[billd766]

2 hours ago, samran said:

<<insert head slapping emoji here>>

 

By the way, I have a bridge over Sydney harbour which I own.

 

I'll sell it to you for a good price. Promise....

 

I might be interested if it is the right colour. I will pay COD.

[sanemax]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

I do not offhand recall clear examples (other than one liner assertions) regarding how exactly it will be "good for the local economy" (in more than one such locality, people aren't supportive). As for "jobs created" - again, not too clear that is backed up by something concrete (no pun intended).

It stands to reason :

How much will the wall cost ?

Where will that money go to ?

The money will go to the companies that will build the wall and they will employ people to make the wall and pay them money and that money will be spent on the local economy .

  The 1.6 B $ will be going straight back into the local economy  , via the workers who build the wall .

   Even if charging people to use the border , if that takes100 years to pay off, then so be it . It will pay for itself eventually 

[samran]

11 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

I might be interested if it is the right colour. I will pay COD.

It comes in blue-grey, though if you don’t paint it regularly it will turn rusty red pretty quickly. 

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, sanemax said:

It stands to reason :

How much will the wall cost ?

Where will that money go to ?

The money will go to the companies that will build the wall and they will employ people to make the wall and pay them money and that money will be spent on the local economy .

  The 1.6 B $ will be going straight back into the local economy  , via the workers who build the wall .

   Even if charging people to use the border , if that takes100 years to pay off, then so be it . It will pay for itself eventually 

 

Your "model" of how things would work is simplistic, at best. Maybe something Trump rally attenders would swallow. Those of us who aren't blinkered, and lived to see a whole lot of government mega projects not living up to expectations or going south, would probably take a more realistic approach.

 

As for the 100 year span - again, nothing to support the "so be it" imperative. And I don't think "pay for itself within a 100 years" is how things were marketed to the masses. All good if there's a need for a megalomaniac undertaking, but actually addressing issues might be a better way to spend public funds.

 

 

[sanemax]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Both are imaginary, impractical constructs. Same same.

OK, so you believe that the wall will never happen and that it will never be built .

You are of the belief that the wall is just imaginary .

If that is the case, then why are you so concerned about it ?

To me, that doesnt make any sense .

You are concerned about something that you do not believe will happen ?

Why waste you time even thinking about a wall that youbeleive will never be built ?

[attrayant]

8 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Even if charging people to use the border , if that takes 100 years to pay off, then so be it . It will pay for itself eventually 

 

Is the wall a service that people will pay for after it's built?  You obviously haven't read a thing I've written.  It is NOT a good idea to finance a $20B loan.  It's a bad idea at 50 years, and it's an even worse idea at 100 years.

 

 

22 minutes ago, sanemax said:

The 1.6 B $ will be going straight back into the local economy, via the workers who build the wall.

 

 

And that's going to cost us $90 billion in debt and loan obligations. That's a mind-numbingly bad deal.

 

By the way, where does this $1.6B figure come from?  Conservative estimates are now hovering around $20B and we all know how massive government projects balloon over time.  Then there is going to be annual upkeep and maintenance costs. 

 

This idea is a money pit, and will do NOTHING to stop people who fly in on tourist visas and don't return home.  Presently, border crossings on foot are at an all time low of less than 170,000 per year.  Meanwhile, eighteen million fly in via air.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

OK, so you believe that the wall will never happen and that it will never be built .

You are of the belief that the wall is just imaginary .

If that is the case, then why are you so concerned about it ?

To me, that doesnt make any sense .

You are concerned about something that you do not believe will happen ?

Why waste you time even thinking about a wall that youbeleive will never be built ?

 

Another argument that's been done to death.

 

There's nothing saying that public funds won't be thrown into this black hole of a mega-project, never to be seen again. Perhaps some of us feel these could be better utilized.

 

And then there's the issue of the POTUS disconnect from facts and reality, whenever they don't suit his wishes. Again, some may see this as an issue, Trump supporters obviously do not.

[Jingthing]

On top of that, the man is seriously stubborn. He really could have already had his funding for his STUPID black hole of a wall if he had only agreed to a clean DACA deal. So one wonders if he really wants it in reality or rather just wants the issue to continue to DEMAGOGUE it? 

[attrayant]

10 minutes ago, sanemax said:

If you are tired of this subject , maybe you should move to a different thread with a different topic ?

 

Because we have a morbid fascination as to why, despite repeatedly being shown how bad an idea this border wall is, and how ineffective it would be, you and others still continue to think it has merit.

 

Normally, when somebody is shown why a certain capital venture is bound to be an ineffective and massively expensive boondoggle, they'll see the many problems and say something like "Gosh you're right, that's a really bad idea!"  It's baffling to us what is stopping you from seeing that inevitable conclusion.

 

We keep asking you for reasons, but you only continue putting up the same old "what about this" and "maybe that" that have already been shot full of holes.

 

 

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by attrayant

[sanemax]

25 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Because we have a morbid fascination as to why, despite repeatedly being shown how bad an idea this border wall is, and how ineffective it would be, you and others still continue to think it has merit.

Normally, when somebody is shown why a certain capital venture is bound to be an ineffective and massively expensive boondoggle, they'll see the many problems and say something like "Gosh you're right, that's a really bad idea!"  It's baffling to us what is stopping you from seeing that inevitable conclusion.

We keep asking you for reasons, but you only continue putting up the same old "what about this" and "maybe that" that have already been shot full of holes.

I have read what you have posted and I disagree with you , and I have also stated my reasons as to why .

    You are mentioning a long term loan to pay for the wall .

A long term loan hasnt been applied for to pay for the wall , the fiances for the wall havent been finalized yet

[sanemax]

51 minutes ago, attrayant said:

This idea is a money pit, and will do NOTHING to stop people who fly in on tourist visas and don't return home.  Presently, border crossings on foot are at an all time low of less than 170,000 per year.  Meanwhile, eighteen million fly in via air.

Yes, the wall will not stop people flying in .

That is quite obvious really , unless they built the wall 46 000 feet high , then         aeroplanes will be able to fly over it .

   Although there will be immigration controls at the airports and if people do overstay their visa , they can be sent back to Mexico and they will not be able to just walk straight back into the USA again .

   That is the purpose of the wall , to stop people just walking into the USA

[FritsSikkink]

21 hours ago, stud858 said:

so the usual is zero. nothing to complain about.  

YOU will pay import tax on Mexican goods.

[bristolboy]

20 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Do give an example of myself quoting things out of context .

Quoting out of context isnt allowed on TV , give an example of myself quoting out of context or retract the allegation .

Whilst I agree with you on practically none of the issues, here you make an absolutely valid point and demand.

[attrayant]

7 minutes ago, sanemax said:

I have read what you have posted and I disagree with you , and I have also stated my reasons as to why .

 

You are mentioning a long term loan to pay for the wall .  A long term loan hasn't been applied for to pay for the wall , the fiances for the wall haven't been finalized yet

[added some punctuation for readability]

 

But your reasons aren't reasons - they're assertions or beliefs and many of us have shown, with sound financial data, why you should stop clinging to them.

 

You said $1.6B will go into the local economy (without mentioning it would be spread out over many years).  I showed that getting saddled with $90B in debt to foreign countries is not a wise trade-off to get $1.6B into some local economy.  At that point, if you had been debating honestly, you should have either (A) conceded the point, or (B) offered further rationale as to why you think it is a good deal.  You did neither.

[sirineou]

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Yes, the wall will not stop people flying in .

That is quite obvious really , unless they built the wall 46 000 feet high , then         aeroplanes will be able to fly over it .

   Although there will be immigration controls at the airports and if people do overstay their visa , they can be sent back to Mexico and they will not be able to just walk straight back into the USA again .

   That is the purpose of the wall , to stop people just walking into the USA

I don't understand this reply . Do you mean there are no immigration controls at the airports now, But there will be after you Guys build the wall? And how would airport controls prevent people from overstaying their visas?

And finally, do you mean that  those who now illegally enter the US via air are stopped. but re enter via Mexico and a wall would solve the problem?

 

[attrayant]

9 minutes ago, sanemax said:

That is the purpose of the wall , to stop people just walking into the USA

 

Which is happening so rarely now, that it's not worth spending $20B (plus annual upkeep) to stop.

 

I'd like to know something.  If a wall gets built, will we no longer need border patrol agents?  Presently they're catching around 30,000 crossings per month.  Would you advocate getting rid of some or all of them?

 

[heybruce]

21 minutes ago, sanemax said:

I have read what you have posted and I disagree with you , and I have also stated my reasons as to why .

    You are mentioning a long term loan to pay for the wall .

A long term loan hasnt been applied for to pay for the wall , the fiances for the wall havent been finalized yet

The US government is operating on long term loans that cover the budget deficit.  The wall will be paid for by increasing this deficit.

 

Of course the federal budget deficit isn't bad for everyone.  It allows countries that have a trade surplus with us to buy interest earning treasury bonds.  If it weren't for the budget deficit, these countries would have nothing to do with the money they got from us other than spending it on US goods and investments, eliminating the budget deficit. 

 

In other words, Trump's wall will increase the budget deficit and increase our trade deficit.  Though not as much as his budget busting tax cuts.

 

Funny how complicated government, finances, and the economy are, isn't it?  Everything is related, and everything has consequences that surprise people who don't think things through.

[sanemax]

4 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Which is happening so rarely now, that it's not worth spending $20B (plus annual upkeep) to stop.

 

I'd like to know something.  If a wall gets built, will we no longer need border patrol agents?  Presently they're catching around 30,000 crossings per month.  Would you advocate getting rid of some or all of them?

 

Move them all up to the Northern border , stop all the Canadians coming in ?

[sanemax]

19 minutes ago, attrayant said:

You said $1.6B will go into the local economy (without mentioning it would be spread out over many years).  I showed that getting saddled with $90B in debt to foreign countries is not a wise trade-off to get $1.6B into some local economy.  At that point, if you had been debating honestly, you should have either (A) conceded the point, or (B) offered further rationale as to why you think it is a good deal.  You did neither

That was my mistake , I thought that the wall would cost $1.6 Billion .

If the figure is .

   But my point still stands , all the money spent on the wall will go back into the local economy .

   The money will be spent on materials , which will be made in the USA and the workers who will build the wall , will receive a salary and that money will be spent locally .

   The $US 90 B spent on the wall will boost the U.S economy , workers will receive a salary and spend it locally , 

[stud858]

1 hour ago, FritsSikkink said:

YOU will pay import tax on Mexican goods.

RIght, so, the most likely situation would be .. Goods coming from Mexico will need to have suppliers' import taxes paid at the Mexican side by Mexicans to the Trump campaign before goods will be allowed into the US. Then once in the US the receivers of the goods will need to pay receivers' import tax also. At the retail side there are no VAT.

Prices will invariably rise at the wholesale and retail ends so ultimately the purchasers of these Mexican imported products will pay for the wall.  

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and the replies have been removed. 

 

 

[wabothai]

On 5/30/2018 at 12:03 PM, EVENKEEL said:

I'm standing tall, Don't know about you?? Seems the libs are running scared.

Not scared, but anxious for November to come.

And would you please devine intelligently what you are referring to as 'libs'?

[wabothai]

22 hours ago, stud858 said:

land mines placed strategically is better than a wall.  much cheaper and effective. who in their sane mind would traverse a mine field?

 

Please remove yourself

[wabothai]

12 hours ago, sanemax said:

The reality is that no one knows yet who is going to pay for the wall .

Typical anti-trump supporters :Make things up, keep saying those made up things and then it becomes their facts and reality .

    The truth is that the walls funding isnt yet in place , so no one knows where the money will come from .

   Donald says that the Mexicans will pay for it , the Mexicans say that they will not pay for it .

   Only time will tell about who actually pays for it 

Time will tell whether there actually will be a wall.

My teawater says no wall, so nobody has to pay.

[Quidio]

Mexico isn't going to pay for the wall and there is no way to make them pay.   Any system to tax or make people pay will be nothing more than just a tax and it will fall mostly on US citizens, no matter how you cut it.   

[mike324]

On 5/30/2018 at 4:41 PM, dragonballz said:

nearly as scary as the establishment  leftie voters being blind  to everything except fake news 555 . the wall will be built and it will ending up costing mexican citizens  . I am not a TRUMP SUPPORTER  or any supporter , just a person who can see

I don't see how the wall will not cost american citizens first. Goods coming form mexico benefits americans as much as mexicans, its a win win on both sides. Trump supporters don't understand how global trade works. Amercain first - Yes but some jobs can't be brought back at a competitive price.

[dragonballz]

8 minutes ago, mike324 said:

I don't see how the wall will not cost american citizens first. Goods coming form mexico benefits americans as much as mexicans, its a win win on both sides. Trump supporters don't understand how global trade works. Amercain first - Yes but some jobs can't be brought back at a competitive price.

yes you are right it cannot be on goods which will hurt both sides but there are lots of other ways of which i am not informed enough to know but stopping the 330 million $ aid given to mexico every year would be a start

Edited June 1, 2018 by dragonballz
not finished

[mike324]

3 minutes ago, dragonballz said:

yes you are right it cannot be on goods which will hurt both sides but there are lots of other ways of which i am not informed enough to know but stopping the 330 million $ aid given to mexico every year would be a start

There is always a good reason why aid is given, most times its more beneficial for America due to trade reasons and perks they receive. But that could be a start I suppose, but either way the wall is still a stupid idea in my opinion.