Forums / Discussion / General

One could make an argument that the Left is the reason the republican states are in such a dire situation in the first place. Due to Bill Clinton helping to form NAFTA, the former taxes which kept businesses from wanting to import goods into the country versus domestic production went away. This meant that it was much easier to have massive production centers and agriculture take place in Mexico, where taxes for businesses were more lenient at the time. As more and more tax programs were enacted that targeted large businesses, even Canada's tax rate was lower then the US's, incentivizing further migration of work away from the US. Meanwhile in places like mexico, large US companies put many farmers out of work in the mexican territory and essentially destroyed their domestic economy with a more well funded US one, pushing many of the rural areas of Mexico to take their skills in farming and apply them to products large companies could not produce, like Marijuana, Cocaine, Heroin, and eventually, Meth, creating the Drug Cartels that have plagued our country for the last few decades.

I think the republicans are a bunch of uppity cunts when it comes to sucking off the corporate bukkake pile, but at the same time, It's not like the democrats were any better, nor have they played no part in ruining the economies and societies of multiple countries for the sake of their own ideals of only the upper class paying taxes.

The fact is, everyone in a country needs to pay taxes, if everyone in a country is going to have good benefits like Welfare and Medicare. Every other country seems to understand that all people, regardless of income, need to contribute something to help sustain their programs. Only in the US are people deluded enough to think that only one part of the country, be it the middle class or the upper class, can actually support the entire countries social needs on their backs.

I agree everyone should be taxed and everyone should contribute to the social programs.

My problem right now is that once you get enough money, you can start paying lawyers to evade taxes through loopholes. I'm willing to bet a huge sum of money would suddenly arrive if the wealthiest of americans started paying their full taxes that they are expected too.

Personally I would lower taxes but cut out any loopholes that are used to get around them. I think the 1% paying less taxes is fine as long as they are actually paying their damn taxes. Instead of avoiding them. Though I have a feeling Donald doesn't want any of this and has taken part in avoiding paying his taxes fraudulently.

@Basilius
States by GDP:

States by population:

Huh, it's almost as if a state's population is directly tied to it's GDP and what party is in charge has little real bearing on things.

Also, reminder that the GOP has complete control over half of all states and has a say in every state government except California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Hawaii, and Delaware.

Its almost as if Republicans enjoy doing things that are bad for the economy…

Yes, the RNC cackles maniacally everything someone becomes unemployed. It's almost as if you're engaging in incredible hyperbole.

…like going into pointless wars in the middle east over nothing…

Almost every president's engaged in pointless war, from Johnson to Clinton. They may not have taken place in the Middle East, but they were just as bloody and fruitless The Iraq War was certainly a terrible thing Bush II did, but don't pretend it's only the GOP that eats up that bloated defense budget.

he New Deal and “The Second New Deal” (as some historians use) saved the US economy from the worst depression it had faced up until the point…

Actually, WW2 saved us from the Great Depression. Things were still floundering well into 1937.

Trump is being sued by a watchdogs group
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/07125bdca0364d0abf5d8dbd2077e86d

"The lawsuit claims that Trump is violating a clause in the Constitution that prohibits him from receiving money from diplomats for stays at his hotels or foreign governments for leases of office space in his buildings."

Damn I was expecting at least a few weeks of silence before the lawsuits started coming out.

This isn't necessarily new news. I wouldn't be able to find the article at the moment, but I read sometime that Trump would use the proceeds from his hotels to help pay off the national debt. Furthermore, it was already known that he wouldn't be heading his company when he took office, handing control of it over to his sons.

Schrodinger's Trump, nothing applies until it happens.

He had an aide outline his plans for eliminating conflicts of interest at the "You are Fake News" press conference.

Link

"So President-elect Trump has decided -- and we are announcing today -- that he is going to voluntarily donate all profits from foreign government payments made to his hotels to the United States Treasury. "

The opposition needs to be careful. If they fire all their lawsuits off now, they will won't have any for 2020.

If the lawsuit does proceed, it should be interesting regardless of the outcome. From what little I understand of the situation, most of the issues being reviewed have no judicial precedents established in the previous 228 years of US law.

Not quite sure if this is quite the place to ask, but here we go:

Why do the Far Lefties on this site seem to think that if fascists or even just "alt-righters" were to gain even a smidgeon of power, that there'd be the first to go in some purge? It smacks of both paranoia and arrogance to me, not to mention the delusion of thinking these people would ever rise to full power in today's political climate. I don't understand why they're so terrified of a distant "maybe" threat compared to the one that is already attacking nations and killing people across the Western world.

WOAH I heard Trump just pulled out of the TPP via executive order!

The mad man! The absolute mad man did it!

Good job orange president

Why do the Far Lefties on this site seem to think that if fascists or even just “alt-righters” were to gain even a smidgeon of power, that there’d be the first to go in some purge?

Quick note: It is best to never generalize when speaking to/around the group you're speaking of. Technically, I am a "far lefty" – I just recognize the US probably isn't gonna suddenly turn into my utopian vision, and so just push for what is realistic to get.

About the purge thing, they're probably worrying about "suppress all dissent" types. Of course, this is assuming people think through their political views, which is only true for some people.

It smacks of both paranoia and arrogance to me, not to mention the delusion of thinking these people would ever rise to full power in today’s political climate.

Maybe not today's political climate, but it's a tricky game to deny that the window-of-acceptable-opinion has opened up towards the authoritarian right. While I don't think it's cause to worry, I understand why people might get nervous. In most cases, momentum towards an extreme should be stopped, or at the least extremely slowed to make sure that we aren't adhering to impossible, immoral, utopian views of the future.

I don’t understand why they’re so terrified of a distant “maybe” threat compared to the one that is already attacking nations and killing people across the Western world.

It's new.

You adapt to things. Things that were once terrifying get dulled down. New things are terrifying, but that dulls over time too.

That's my guesses, at least.

Yeah, sorry, just got out of an argument-turned-pissing match with the Marxist/Communist contingent here. I should have said "a chunk."

>it's new
blink I thought neonazis have been around for decades, even if they were just violent street toughs. But yes, I suppose all the propaganda surrounding Trump led these remnants and fringers to think they had a voice, and so get more confident. It doesn't make them anything more than that, though.

It would take a financial disaster on the scale of the Great Depression for their chance to even rise above the low single digits.

Oh yes, they have been around for quite a while. My point is though that now it's slightly more acceptable to hold those views. While some are overreacting their worry is understandable.

I see. Thank you. Even if I still detest their politics, your explanation makes them easier to deal with.

Maybe I've just missed it, but has there been any discussion about Trump's executive order about the across the board federal hiring freeze except those "necessary to meet national security or public safety responsibilities" (additional exception being the military). I know a lot of people who will be personally affected by this (possibly myself included) as many in congress don't view Natural Resources as "essential". I'm a little worried trying to email/write politicians about this wouldn't just make them a bigger target.

I personally think "public safety responsibilities" includes natural resources, but the platform doesn't imply that.

I'm pretty sure you can write up a good reason to thaw fed. hiring, such as replacing retired/dismissed workers.

Basilius said:

Trump is being sued by a watchdogs group…

A lawsuit that will likely be dismissed due to lack of standing. I don't see why there's this big rush to nail Trump. If he's as fascist and evil as is claimed, he'll royally fuck up soon enough. Get him on something that counts and you can get broad support on, not an obscure constitutional clause that SCOTUS has never touched on before and that leaves most enforcement up to Congress anyway.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/beware-the-rise-left-wing-authoritarianism-19145

Excerpt:
The irony does not stop there, however. If the radicals who burn with self-righteous ire would calm down and read a little a history, they might learn about how genuinely extreme right-wing movements come to power. Nice, middle-class voters do not wake up one day and decide they’d like to be harangued from a balcony by Mussolini. What empowers the authoritarian right is the horror the extremist left gives rise to among otherwise moderate voters. Bolshevism was the midwife to fascism.

America is far from either Bolshevism or fascism, but the counter-productive nature of left-wing violence for the left’s own purported ideals is obvious. The Black Lives Matter protests backfired in last year’s election, where Trump’s solidarity with law enforcement in the face of BLM criticism only helped solidify his support. Yiannopolous’s whole career is predicated on the intense reactions he can count on provoking from the left--reactions, typically censorious and not seldom violent, that only fuel the interest in hearing what Yiannopolous has to say.

In its own cowardly way, the center-left goes even further, with the liberals in the media giving David Duke and other white-nationalist crackpots far more attention than they receive from any actual right-wing outlet. The urge to brand everyone on the right as a racist and authoritarian by association drives certain self-righteous journalists--and some who are just cynically chasing ratings--to act as publicists for the Klan and neo-Nazis. This can only have a radicalizing effect on everyone in the long run: it draws a small number of the stupid and resentful to the Klan’s banner; it creates the impression in the minds of timid liberal viewers that right-wing extremists are on the rise (and logically, must be forcefully countered by government or street action); and it outrages and polarizes conservative viewers who are sick of seeing a partisan media shower attention upon marginal extremists on the right while turning a blind eye to left-wing intimidation. Those outraged conservatives are as a result only more likely to vote for Trump and to support him in his hard criticisms--and before long, perhaps hard policy measures--against the media.

Time

Independant

Trump froze up the EPA

BBC

Trump is planning on pushing forward with the Keystone Pipeline and Dakota Access pipeline.

I may be wrong on this (wouldn't be surprised), but wasn't the Keystone Pipeline issue one of the few cases where it remained a relatively peaceful protest and succeeded?
What's the point of peaceful protesting when it can all get rolled over due to one call by one person who happens to be powerful?
And he froze the EPA
Jesus Christ I'm depressed…

Shoulda seen that coming.

This was probably to cut energy dependence on other nations, it still hurts to see the oil age extended another few years.

Well, he's done more than just frozen the EPA.

Boss man implemented a hiring freeze among most federal agencies (goodbye to moving to a federal position in environmental health in the next half to full decade for me, I guess.)

And the CDC cancels climate change conference, but doesn't say why.

Although

…a co-sponsor was told by the Centers for Disease and Prevention that the agency was worried how the conference would be viewed by the Trump administration.

…this is fine. We're fine.

We're fine. These are OK things to happen.

I don't think oil is going to go anywhere anytime soon. It is still a widely available, and relatively cheap form of energy. And it's consumption has been exploding:

Energy, is, and will be, the greatest biggest resource that every major nation is going to clamor for hardcore. Creating, supplying, and exporting energy is going to be the biggest goal of any major geo-political move. And currently, oil is cheap, and will be for a while yet. Even if the US transforms it's energy infrastructure into alternative energy (which would be exceptionally difficult to do and would require massive private and public undertaking) you will still be dealing with dozens of growing economies that are increasingly craving energy, and right now, fossil fuels are cheaper, and more widely available for the majority of the world.

If you look at major geo-political policy, in terms of securing energy, acquiring energy, etc, you'll be able to make better sense of behaviors from all countries.

According to new models the Paris agreement could be a "beacon of hope" for global warming.
Link

If half the world's energy comes from renewable resources by 2060 and the 2 degree Celsius limit is kept we could avoid disaster. Lets just hope Trump doesn't fuck up the environment too bad in his time in office and we can still salvage this ball of dirt. Though it is clear that if the US doesn't become the global leader in the effort to stop global warming, China will.

Trump is playing a dangerous game here. He is doing things that could slingshot China into a global leader in many fields.

The Department of Energy oversees the creation of Supercomputers and has been in a race with China's own supercomputer creation for a while.

And China pulls out in front in that field

Considering Trump's cabinet pick for that department doesn't even like the damn thing, I don't have hope for the US in this technology race.

So out of the two executive orders I know of that President Trump signed (TPP and MCP), I call it a 1-1 in my opinion, but 50% for a president so far is pretty damn good. Well done.

This is a general pattern in history.

There's a thesis, antithesis, and then a synthesis

In this case, radical leftism is the thesis, radical right wing-ism?, is the antithesis and soon there will be a synthesis. In which ideally, the bits of truth in both ideals will coalesce into something better. Things will get better, but not after a lot of pendulum swinging.

You're forgetting the other possibilities, that the factors that allow said ideologies to spread, that being hyperbole and scare tactics, are kept and the traits that are more ignored or neglected, such as facts and research, are left at the wayside of this evolution of ideology.

The synthesis, then, would be an ideology completely founded upon gut feelings and pleas to emotions, and contain no truth whatsoever.

Comey will likely remain as FBI director and Trump has narrowed his SCOTUS pick down to three--Hadiman, Gorsuch, and Pryer. Gorsuch appears to be the frontrunner, but Pryer, who's controversial with conservatives for his pro-transgender ruling and with liberals for his anti-abortion views, has Attorney General nominee Session's full backing.

Somebody help me get a raw transcript of what she was saying-- all I could hear was "FOUR MORE YEARS OF TRUMP!"

Really, though, the sycophancy is palpable. I don't even think the people that stood there could take her seriously. I don't even think she took herself seriously-- it was as if she was just giving them what she thought they wanted to hear.

See, I think the Dems are floundering right now, but I don't think that they're in so much disarray that they would double down on techique proven to further ostracize the majority race in the country, and they certainly wouldn't elect someone who has effectively both implicitly and explicitly communicated that she has no leadership skills.

She outright admitted that she's out of touch with the people-- thus why she has to ask minorities about their grievances and why she needs to act as a voice for them, when she should have already known at this point if she wanted to prove she was listening: she has nary a solid goal of her own for the party outside of restoring race relations within the party that, given the strong minority support they had in even the last election, isn't proving so much to be an issue compared to their flagrant rigging practices, and moreso in favor of a low energy candidate, that ended up blasting their credibility while forcing out their organization's top brass.

Speaking of which, she nailed her own coffin when she decided to go on even when the lady at the podium was about to call it a wrap for her and then decided to go on to insult the people that they as a party presumably chose to lead without any balance of compliment or even qualification of insult, after having effectively said that she has no idea what she's doing, herself. This was the time where she could mention how they sullied their image by rigging their own primary and unleveling the playing field for Clinton in the generals (Brazile giving debate questions to Clinton ahead of time comes to mind). But she just goes and effectively says "the chair doesn't know what they're doing"-- even the lady at the podium at 3:45 is like "um, excuse you".

They couldn't possibly elect someone who has zero subtlety when telling white people to pipe down because of the color of their skin and sounds like the kind of person who's only ever been around black people when she asked them to do her "plumbing". They'd much sooner appoint an actual capable black person, with the field of logic she wants to employ.

But you know what? It'd be fun to see the DNC go full stupid and actually elect her.

A rogue National Park went on twitter to tweet Climate Change Facts

The tweets have since been deleted.

(Mm… I ended up finding out that this particular forum was centered around race relations. On one hand, that invalidates my point about her only being focused on race relations; on the other, it's kind of odd that they're having a forum centered on race relations when they carry the majority of minority votes, and did so even in this past election. It seems like a waste of time-- but that reflects more on the party itself.)

Is-is this the beginning of the end for the whole Democratic Party?

People said that when Trump stormed the primaries.

It's not dying, it's ev/dev(your pick) olving.

Kinda surprised that no one has mentioned the new chair of the FCC, Ajit Pai, who, as described in a TechCrunch article "vehemently objected to the FCC’s landmark Open Internet Order from February last year; his epic 67-page dissent statement takes issue with practically every aspect of it, from conception to execution."

Not really holding out much hope US net neutrality will survive this administration.

Looking into this topic that I was all but unfamiliar with, I'd like to understand the positions the folks have here on the matter; it would seem like there are valuable arguments on both ends. For example, ensuring net neutrality would also ensure that a monopolistic takeover of the internet couldn't happen, and that the Internet-- which has admittedly become way more important since its public release-- would become accessible to those who otherwise wouldn't be able to keep up with the ridiculous pricing.

On the other hand, the ensuring of net neutrality requires that the American internet be turned over to federal hands, which would indubitably make it easier for them to be more intrusive (though, how much more intrusive than they already are, I'm unsure).

I know how this program works.

-NPS units with Twitter accounts are handled by one person, usually a media specialist.

-Tweets are often written ahead of time and scheduled automatically,meaningits possible these were scheduled a while ago and only coincidentally released.

-Tweets are to be limited to specific park information, or specific resources within the park.

Now, it is entirely possible that this person was posting in good faith, but I highly doubt it. As someone with experience with NPS social media, it looks to me as of someone used their position to hijack an official government Twitter account to use it as a personal soapbox. That is wrong, and the person will be lucky if they don't face disciplinary action for doing so.

Your link also provides the broader context of what is going on: the official NPS-wide Twitter account retweeted two posts questioning Trump's position on climate change. You simply can't do that as a government employee or a government agency. When you're working, you don't undermine government policy or positions by bad-mouthing it in public. It is grounds for termination of employment.

As a result of these actions, ALL NPS twitter accounts were temporarily banned.

In a more lighthearted turn of events Ted Cruz just BTFO Deadspin

"This is a joke, but to be honest considering how many executive orders in a row he’s doing [10, according to Wikipedia](Which most presidents don’t do because they KNOW executive orders aren’t exactly mentioned in the constitution and really don’t want to abuse the power, because otherwise they’d start trying to make amendments that limit their scope.) he might as well be skipping congress entirely. Which is normally alright, because congress never does anything due to political parties, but when you do THIS much THIS fast it becomes worrying… especially since the EPA is kind of important. You know, in addition to like the other several things he’s shutting down. Like the right of federal workers to report what’s going on."

-Monster Kid

https://gotfunnypictures.com/photos/1214703-trump-s-first-order-of-business

There is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders. The term executive power in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution refers to the office of President as the executive. They are instructed therein by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5 or face impeachment.

http://www.startribune.com/trump-to-move-on-border-security-immigration-enforcement/411708186/

He wasn't fucking arounf

Trump said he was against net neutrality iirc. Dissapointing, but expected.

About the SC picks, I'm hoping for either Hardiman or Pryor. I read a few things about them, and was not a huge fan of Gorsuch.

Is it really not fucking around if you sincerely attempt to do something impossible and fail anyway?

Just the fact that he's trying though….

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38740717

Earlier on Wednesday, Mr Trump told ABC News he would recoup costs of the wall from Mexico.
"There will be a payment. It will be in a form, perhaps a complicated form," he said.

GOP in South Dakota use emergency power to repeal anti-corruption bill

This bill was passed in November. The bill did the following:
1. Limits on lobbyist gifts to politicians.
2. New transparency rules
3. Publicly funded elections.
4. Increased penalties for actual bribery.
5. Established an independent ethics commission to oversee the above.

Badlands Park Twitter begins to tweet in defiance of Trump

Death Valley Park begins to tweet in defiance of trump

Trump's senior staff have private email server
Extra link

Trumps Cabinet pick, Steven Mnuchin, is registered to vote in 2 states

Steven Barron another Trump White house worker is registered to vote in 2 states

@Tche

Earlier on Wednesday, Mr Trump told ABC News he would recoup costs of the wall from Mexico.
“There will be a payment. It will be in a form, perhaps a complicated form,” he said.

Mexico's govt. has already refused to pay, and I doubt they ever even had the absurd amount of money required to build the damn thing in the first place. "Complicated form" is a roundabout way of saying "I have no idea how the fuck I'm going to get Mexico to pay for this."

@Basilius

GOP in South Dakota use emergency power to repeal anti-corruption bill

[SWAMP FILLING NOISES]

I'm sure more right-minded folks here aren't phased by the chain of links and previous posts, and I'm sure they're aware of other bits and pieces of news. But I'm hesitating from jumping to the conclusion that the US just did something very…very…"something."

Do any of these concern the more conservative folks here? Not enough time to assess the outcomes? If anyone voted for President Trump, are there any feelings at all of "…I didn't expect that, and I'm not really OK with that?"

Because I normally try to stay calm and pick my news sources from middle-ish news sources. But I'm a little on edge at the moment.

Could you be more specific?

What is putting you on edge?

Response Round-Up

A) [Trump’s senior staff have private email server]

Pulled from the link: "Making use of separate political email accounts at the White House is not illegal. In fact, they serve a purpose by allowing staff to divide political conversations (say, arranging for the president to support a congressional re-election campaign) from actual White House work."

B) [Trumps Cabinet pick, Steven Mnuchin, is registered to vote in 2 states

Steven Barron another Trump White house worker is registered to vote in 2 states]

Pulled from the link: "While it is illegal to cast ballots in multiple states, it is not illegal to be registered in two states at the same time. In a tweet Wednesday, the president called for an investigation into voter fraud, including whether citizens are registered to vote in two states."

Nothing wrong with B), although IMO it should be. No laws have been broken.

As to A) After all the email controversy surrounding Hillary Clinton, this appears less defensible. However, there is a difference between the Secretary of State illegally using a private server to conduct state business, and White House staff using a private server within established, legal parameters to conduct non-official business. In fact, it sounds as if there would be a legal problem if certain activities were conducted by WH staff on government systems, because there would be Hatch Act violations as a result.

As to the NPS tweets, I can guarantee you there is going to be a shit storm if this continues, because as I said federal employees cannot use federal platforms to criticize government policies. These latest tweets are toeing the line but not crossing it. I've done it before, although not on social media. Regardless there is going to be a showdown if things continue down this path.

C) South Dakota Anti-Corruption Bill

I know nothing about this, and can't find a reliable, neutral source. At this point I will say the legislature's action looks bad and it looks like an indefensible act, but snarky comments about a state legislature "filling the swamp" seem to imply Trump has some sort of control over this, which he doesn't. By the same standard, I'm not going to hold the national DNC responsible for the Democratic-controlled Massachusetts' legislature raising its pay for the second time in 4 weeks, and tying this one to judge's pay raise as well in order to make it impossible to overturn by ballot initiative.

And I will further point Trump hasn't exactly made a lot of friends within the GOP by running on a reformist platform. Even in his inaugural address he criticized politicians of both parties for failing the people. Whatever his many faults are, party partisanship is not one of them.

D) Mexico paying for the wall

Of course Mexico is going to say it won't pay for it. I pointed out months ago that small tax on the $25,000,000,000 sent to Mexico every year by Western Union and other money wire transfers could easily fund a border wall's construction. This is Mexico "paying" for the wall and having no say in the matter.

Last point (got timed out of editing above post).

Most of these Trump executive orders are repealing Obama executive orders. As with Obama's orders, any that are potentially un-Constitutional should and will be challenged in court. But if Obama had the power a week ago to issue such orders, then surely Trump has the right to repeal them.

The media should be reporting on issues such as this rather trying to play gotcha on the size of the inauguration audience or about illegal voting investigation. Trump keeps dangling red meat in front of them and they chase it like starving lions.

@Sandor

but snarky comments about a state legislature “filling the swamp” seem to imply Trump has some sort of control over this, which he doesn’t

I don't mean to imply that Trump is somehow behind the repeal, but that fact that corrupt politicians took action to seize power literally as soon as Trump was inaugurated does not bode well. What this says to me is that the scum of the proverbial swamp feel safe enough under Trump to make blatant power grabs like this.

Of course Mexico is going to say it won’t pay for it. I pointed out months ago that small tax on the $25,000,000,000 sent to Mexico every year by Western Union and other money wire transfers could easily fund a border wall’s construction. This is Mexico “paying” for the wall and having no say in the matter.

How, exactly, is that not just making American citizens pay for the wall through raised taxes? If I wired money to Mexico, would I not be the one footing the bill for the wall with the tax?

A) Ok, that is a little clearer. I still don't think you can draw any conclusions on what a state legislature does to a President's policy. Presidents have zero control over what a state legislature or local government decides to do, unless that legislature does something un-Constitutional. In that case, a President can choose to pursue a legal case against that entity in federal court.

Otherwise, there is no means for a President to directly enforce his will on a lower level government. The closet a President can come to doing so would be to threaten the withholding of federal funds for certain programs such as for highway or law enforcement grants.

For all we know, Trump could be putting such pressure on SD behind closed doors, or giving them a thumbs up. We simply don't have enough information to draw a conclusion. I could just as easily hypothesize the SD legislature is afraid of Trump, and acting quickly now before he can pressure them, as you can that they feel no threat from him at all. Neither really claim really has any evidence for basis.

As far as established track records go, the House GOP tried to roll back similar reform efforts before Trump was sworn in, and when he spoke out against it the House shelved its plan.

B) Do you regularly send money to Mexico? Are you planning to? Do you know anyone who does?

As I said, Mexico receives about $25,000,000,000 in the form of wire transfers from the US every year. To put that amount in perspective, in 2015 Mexico received more revenue from US remittances than from its oil revenue. US remittances represent a significant portion of Mexico's total economy.

Now, how do we know that all this money is being sent home by Mexican nationals working, legal or illegally, in the US and not by US college students prepping for Spring Break?

Well, the remittance rate rises and falls when the US economy is growing or in recession. Remittances rose between 1995 and 2008, reaching a record high in October 2008, just before the Global Financial Crisis. It hit a ~10 year low in 2010, and has started increasing again since then as the US economy has stabilized.

Logic would lead us to conclude that nearly all this money is being sent by Mexican nationals, working in the United States, to their families in Mexico. A quick overview of the social and economic impacts of this dynamic can be found here.

Putting a small tax of 1% on wire transfers used by Mexican nationals to send money to their Mexican families living in Mexico would raise 250,000,000 dollars a year for border wall construction and maintenance. A 1.5% would raise 325,000,000. Would a small amount of American citizens also be taxed? Probably, but we would literally be counting pennies.

And least we think such a tax would only target Mexicans and therefore be racist, remittances to other Latin American nations is actually higher than remittances to Mexico, coming in at $320,000,000,000 in 2013. So lets look at the 1% tax again, this time on $570,000,000,000. That's $570 million per year in border wall funding, and none of it coming out of the US treasury. At 1.5% we'd be getting close to the billion dollar mark, and at 2% we'd be over it.

When Trump says "Mexico is going to pay for it" I believe this is what he means. It's not a literal statement, in the sense of the Mexican government directly paying the US treasury. It's a catchy way of saying the US is not going to pay for it.

I've been lurking this thread for awhile. Figured you might find this interesting. Boarder Agents are trying to get the social media information of Muslim Americans returning from abroad

Thoughts?