The Mexicans don’t want those tariffs, and are willing to take serious steps to curb the passage of immigrants from Central America to the USA
If this deal comes off, it is a win for the president, and for the country. Trump took a lot of flak for calling the southern border a national emergency, but recent developments have shown that he was correct. The number of illegal crossings has grown beyond America’s capacity to absorb the people and process their cases. The wall may have been the wrong solution to the problem, but Trump may now have found a different approach that works.
Most experts think that the actual tariffs would have been a terrible idea – but the THREAT of tariffs seems to be pretty effective.
I’m not really sure what you conservatives/libertarians think you’re seeing when you’re presented with legitimate evidence and facts, so it’s pointless to crawl through that wall of text when others have already refuted it. Hell, most Republicans and Libertarians don’t even DISPUTE income inequity. They just pounce on it to say that simply corporations and the extremely wealthy just aren’t given ENOUGH to have it trickle down for everyone.
John Maynard Keynes said it best: “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.”
In other words, Chicago-school, trickle down economics, is the belief if you give the rich enough power and money – they’ll create jobs for everyone because they want more money, so they expand. But as it turns out, as this becomes more and more inequitable, they just take the money and buy back public stock to raise stock prices or to push for an acquisition that increases their own compensation under a larger, consolidated company. This is documented, what is so hard to believe about this in logic or in documented fact?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/did-trumps-tax-cuts-boost-hiring-most-companies-say-no
And listen, I’m not a died in the wool, “government has to be either A or B or C and that’s it, done” person. I believe in ‘flex’ government. If Joe Blow creates his own independent small business as a sole proprietorship, I believe he should get the full benefit of tax breaks and the least amount of intervention as possible.
But that’s not what’s happening here. Sorry, if you’re a public company and you make a ridiculous acquisition that causes 10% of your massive workforce to get let go, you shouldn’t get a $60 million dollar golden parachute – like Tim Armstrong did when Verizon made the horrible decision to purchase Yahoo and AOL, and completely bombed. Thousands of people lose their jobs, yet someone who failed miserably is cashing out at $60 million?
There’s not one complete answer to everything, and most libertarians/conservatives are only that when ‘convenient’ to them anyway. Zero government intervention and the ‘invisible hand’ of the market should decide everything. Except when it comes to using the protection of the US government to enforce an archaic patent system for their own gain. Or to use the Interstate Highway System, FAA, FDIC, or other government created and backed institutions to obtain and enforce their own wealth.
If you want true hands off society, then a libertarian is just a convenient anarchist or Darwinist. In other words, hide behind government protections when it benefits ‘me’ – but if someone else is getting a protection, then government is interfering in the ‘invisible hand of the market.’
You want no strings on how a company or the rich manipulates the stock, tax, and commerce system we all live in? Well then, lets go all the way, and take the strings off of the protections those people get through the patent, legal, and law and order system we all live in and go full anarchist. Then we’ll see who truly runs society. I’ll take the 99% over that 1% any day of the week.
Louis Cypher said: “Income inequality is a myth. Again, look at the facts.”
Louis, as far as I know, we ARE looking at the facts, and the facts say you are ridiculously wrong. What facts do you think you are looking at?
(One thing I have noticed as the twentieth century ended and the twenty first rolls along is that more and more people have an increasing ability to deny facts they do not wish to be true, find a place that states as facts those things they do wish to be true, and mistake a refusal to stop arguing for winning an argument. They, of course, accuse their opponents of the same sins. What are we to do if facts cannot be agreed upon? But please, point us to where you got the facts on income inequality, so that we may have a chance to know the truth.)
See above
Indy says:
June 7, 2019 at 4:03 pm
“Your rationale is wrong and you’re a terrible human being for it.”
And here it is! Name calling and refusing acknowledge facts!
Explain why my sources or beliefs are not as legitimate as yours. I respect your OPINION but as you have plainly stated, you do not respect anyone who does not agree with you. You show yourself to be why we have the situation in our society we have today. I respectfully agree to disagree without name calling or histrionics.
For your information, I am a registered nurse, just finished working 50 hours in 4 days and now enjoying spending my hard earned money. I paid for my education by myself without any hand outs or student loans.
The bottom line is the burden to the system of people who take and do not put back into the system. You say they give but do not take? Check the government statistics and see how much the illegal immigrants are receiving.
I pay taxes, obey all laws (except for speeding) if I like them or not and I accept the consequences of my actions. I refuse to pay for people who think they cannot support themselves or the many offspring they sire in a lawful manner. Now if you read what I just said, I mention PEOPLE. That includes everyone and excludes no one.
Income inequality is a myth. Again, look at the facts. Because you will not accept a fact I tell you, look it up and not just from one side or the other. When you weight your statistics with welfare recipients you will find what you are fishing for.
You might not believe it but I do have sympathy for the people who wish to come to this awful country of ours (as you see it) for a better life. Wait, if the US is so terrible, why would anyone want to come here? I guess it is a damned if you do and damned if you don’t scenario. Try and clean up the corrupt governments and try and help the people but then be condemned for meddling in foreign affairs and trying to put into place a democratic republic that has worked for the US and put us on top economically in a shorter span than any other nation.
Income inequity is a myth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality#/media/File:Income_inequality_-_share_of_income_earned_by_top_1%_1975_to_2015.png
I have facts, I have research to back this up. This is not a myth, maybe it’s a myth to the ignorant and uninformed. If illegal immigration and the ‘welfare’ state were a true drain, that chart would be going in the complete opposite direction.
And trust me, I know about college and college loans, and I’ve paid myself out of nearly $50,000 worth of debt. You know the difference between you and I though?
I *know* the grind for that, and I know that it’s a raw deal, even though I’m in a better place now. I used to work with someone like you, with your philosophy. One day it was in the news about free ‘universal community college’ and she said ‘Wow I bet you’re mad about that with all your loans.’
And I said, why? Why would I be mad knowing the hell and stress that causes when it doesn’t have to be like that, and isn’t like that in other countries? Shouldn’t we want better?
That’s the difference between you and me. You look down on people because life was hard for you, so therefore it should be hard for everyone else. We shouldn’t want better, so make sure to put that boot on the neck of the destitute a little bit harder. I want the world a better place, and I don’t care if someone gets something I don’t.
The one percent do it CONSTANTLY. You think that chart I linked to just happens because CEOs suddenly became smarter or harder working from the mid 70s until now? Or maybe it’s when they get tax cuts, they funnel it into mergers and acquisitions that raise their compensation, or funnel it into share buybacks that raise the price of their own shares. This is DOCUMENTED:
“Instead companies put much of the money toward stock buybacks rather than investments. Buybacks hit a record $1 trillion in 2018, a nearly 50 percent increase from the year before.”
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/did-trumps-tax-cuts-boost-hiring-most-companies-say-no
Just like illegal immigration studies have shown they don’t produce a negative impact.
So keep believing what you want to believe, no actual facts will change a cult members mind. It’s like talking to Scientologists. Keep doing the same thing that’s been done for millennia. Look down on the poor. Rule with an iron fist.
If a ruler or politician tells you societal ills are caused by the immigrants, blacks, Jews or whatever – they have to be stopped, just a little longer, just a little harder would finally do it. Because we all know the great human history we have using this strategy down this road.
Maybe one day when you hit the situation a lot of others have, you’ll get the same hardline treatment philosophy you believe in, right back at you.
Re: And here it is! Name calling…and this is why I voted for Donald Trump!
I have found, as a conservative who despises the current administration, that more and more “conservatives” follow the President’s habit of stating outlandish opinions without any rationale or support. He will say “fake news” and not say why he considers something to be fake news, and his sheep bleat and follow him. So you have just done with “income inequality is a myth.” Apparently this is true because you state it as true, and feel no need to support it. You may feel free to state the facts that lead you to believe that, but if you do not state any reason to believe what you believe, don’t be surprised when the others on the board, armed with facts, call you a fool. As I’m sure you know, there are two paths to being thought a fool. You can fail to present your case and people will assume you are a fool, or you can open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Hi Scoopy,
If you would have carefully read the whole thread, you will see that no where did I ever state or imply, “the President’s habit of stating outlandish opinions without any rationale or support.” or “Apparently this is true because you state it as true, and feel no need to support it.”
What I did say is, “Explain why my sources or beliefs are not as legitimate as yours. I respect your OPINION but as you have plainly stated, you do not respect anyone who does not agree with you. You show yourself to be why we have the situation in our society we have today. I respectfully agree to disagree without name calling or histrionics.”
As for presenting my facts, I also stated this,”you will not accept a fact I tell you, look it up and not just from one side or the other. ”
So here are my sources for my OPINION. Just let it be said that even if GOD himself (or pick the deity of choice) wrote these articles, they would not have any weight in the disagreement.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/is-increasing-income-inequality-a-myth
https://www.americanexperiment.org/reports-books/the-truth-about-income-inequality/
https://reason.com/video/stosselinequality/
Now not to leave you out of the mix Scoop, you posted a piece on gender pay inequity that stated it was a myth.
http://www.othercrap.com/2019/05/what-is-the-true-gender-pay-gap/
But I call bullshit because I found this article that contradicts you!
https://inequality.org/gender-inequality/
Oh my! 😉
You have made judgment calls on my political beliefs which are patently false. I am a centrist Libertarian and I am registered as one.
One thing we can agree upon is the quote often attributed to Mark Twain, Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. The truth here is that he never said it. How do I know? Here is my research!
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/02/19/fool/
Ah, see! Now you have presented the source of your opinions. That’s the way it should be. And now we can address the issues.
First. The contention that “the widening income gap is a myth” is a self-contradictory argument. It contends that the gap is not so bad because of transfer payments. Oh, the math of that is perfectly fine, but the logic is not. It is a false rationale which confuses cause and effect. Those increased transfer payments are necessary BECAUSE the gross income gap is widening. If the gap were not widening, the ever larger transfer payments would not be necessary in the first place. Comparing the totals post-transfer payments just demonstrates that the society has had to become ever more generous because of the widening gap in income. Even the experts they cite, the people who say the widening gap is a myth, admit that. In their own words: “It’s still fairly clear that the before-tax, before-transfer distribution of income has become significantly worse.” The ever-widening income gap creates an ever-greater culture of dependency in which the lower levels must become ever more dependent on the largesse of the upper.
Re: my article versus that other one. They are not in conflict in any way. Everything in my article is 100% correct. Everything in the other article is 100% correct. They are about two completely different subjects. Mine is only about one very specific question – when men and women work the same jobs at the same proficiency levels with the same qualifications, what is the difference in their pay? The other compares the overall situation in male vs female earning power. In my article I specifically mention that the gender EMPLOYMENT gap is real and dramatic, even though women do get equal pay for equal performance in those comparatively rare occasions when they are given the opportunity. (Well, not exactly equal, but within 2%.) The societal problems are (1) that they have trouble getting those jobs in the first place; and (2) in the areas that are dominated by women, society does not reward those jobs in fair proportion to jobs dominated by men. This leads one to wonder hypothetically – if most elementary school teachers were men, and most police officers women, would teachers still be paid less than police officers, who have far less education on the average? (I don’t know, but I doubt it.)
The last part is interesting to me, because it was something I was thinking about recently when I was at a restaurant. I remembered the Canadian lawyer and politician Peter McKay make a comment along the lines that ‘being a server was the hardest job I ever had. You’re always on your feet, you have to be fast, you have to keep a lot of things in your head and you always have to be polite.’
So, I started to think, given all that, why is it that the average lawyer earns more than the average server?
Is it because it takes a lot of years of years of education to be a lawyer while there are (almost) no barriers to entry of being a server? (Supply side)
Is it because most people don’t often use a lawyer while they often go to restaurants so they’re willing to pay more for a lawyer? (demand side)
Well, I think an argument can be made, especially with services (where prices aren’t set basically by cost + mark-up) that there isn’t really any logical reason. It’s all just based on conditioning.
A couple anecdotal data points:
1.Why are people willing to pay around $75 for a 2 hour or so top sporting event, but only willing to pay around $15 for a 2 hour or so movie? I suppose you could argue that alternatives set a maximum price, but I’m not sure.
2.The line: Q: What’s the (main) difference between a barber and a hair stylist? A: $50.
I wondered if there was a theory in economics on this, and I also thought, “I’ll bet this isn’t a popular theory because it gets very close to Marxist social critique.”
So, I looked up ‘conditioning theory’ and ‘economics’ (perhaps Chomskyites would use that term) and found nothing, and then I looked up ‘convention theory’ and ‘economics’ and found several French economists in the mid 1980s had explored these ideas and that, indeed, it is considered alongside with Marxist social critique. (I still haven’t read their paper beyond that.)
Oh yeah, forgot to point out: if restaurants, by convention, paid the average server say $50 an hour, obviously they’d have to charge a lot higher prices, so there would be a lot less restaurants, as people wouldn’t be able to afford to eat out anywhere near as much, but, the Economics 101 argument that ‘supply and demand’ would somehow make the average server wage go down and we’d end up right where we are now doesn’t necessarily have any merit to it either.
Things are often the way they are because people make choices, not because things had to end up this way. It’s only because people tend to not be able to imagine things being different that they seem to assume that things had to be this way. Religious people who think or at least, ‘the world’ has order because of God seem to also make this same mistake. (I believe in God or a creator but I also believe what order there is on the basis of initial random events (the equivalent of choices) that then cascaded. Had those initial events been different, the planet could be entirely different now.)
“It’s still fairly clear that the before-tax, before-transfer distribution of income has become significantly worse.” The ever-widening income gap creates an ever-greater culture of dependency in which the lower levels must become ever more dependent on the largess of the upper.
According to this paper, that is not the case.
The combined effect of means-tested transfers and federal taxes in 2015 was, on average, to increase income at the bottom of the income distribution and decrease income at the top of the distribution.
After accounting for the effects of means-tested transfers and federal taxes:
Average income among households in the lowest quintile of the income distribution was about $33,000.
Average income among households in the highest quintile was about $215,000.
Among households in the bottom half of the highest quintile, average income was $125,000; among households in the top 1 percent, it was $1.2 million.
The numbers might not mean much but if you look at the graph, the gap is not that wide.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54646
If you look at this page, you can see that the income gap in previous years were worse and have steadily got better.
https://www.cbo.gov/topics/income-distribution
Lets just agree to disagree.
And for the gender article, you took the bait. I just wanted to point out that you can find anything to repute someones opinion. I just happen to find one that did not have the 2% information so I could “say” it did not support your claims. This is the real issue when discussing politics. Everyone believes that their truth is the only truth. Both sides of the discussion are rarely discussed equally and without emotion.
I will admit I was trolling the extreme wings of the political spectrum that like to post and think they are winning the argument but then end up writing insults when they feel threatened. Trump might not be a great human being but I do believe that he really has the US’s best interest in mind. We know he is not a politician so why do we keep trying to hold him to those values? There is a lot wrong in Washington but I do not think Trump is the main concern. We have a congress that has done next to nothing the last 3 years other than bitch about loosing an election. We need non partisanship to help fix what is broken. We do not need people coming into congress and immediately start bashing the president or people believe they can change the world with the stroke of a pen. This is not a school yard. They are literally fucking with peoples lives and I am tired of it!
1. The charts don’t show what you say they show. In fact, they show the opposite. The bar charts show the gap in “after transfer” income is increasing in the meaningless short term (the difference in after-transfer income between the top and bottom quintiles was $176,000 in 2014, $182,000 in 2015) and in the long. That same link says, “CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by: 275 percent for the top 1 percent of households; 65 percent for the next 19 percent; just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent; and 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.” (That is specifically referring to income after taxes and transfers.) Where is the supposed evidence to the contrary?
2. You set a trap by making an irrelevant argument, thus luring me into noting that it was irrelevant? That’s not really much of a trap, is it? More of a time-waster.
3. People are not “bashing” the President any more than the feds were “bashing” Al Capone. The president is clearly guilty of criminal behavior, and covering it up, and they are pointing it out regularly. They would be derelict in their duties if they did not, just as the Republican senators are derelict for ignoring the President’s criminal behavior. As Nixon pointed out, “People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook.” Hell, if the G.O.P. really wanted to get the country moving forward, they’d jettison Trump and get people working together through Pence. Obviously nobody on the other side is going to work with Trump when (1) he spends all of his time on Twitter insulting the people he needs to work with; (2) he’s obviously guilty of a boatload of crimes; (3) he’s willing to keep the country from an infrastructure bill because he’s being investigated, thus clearly placing his personal feelings over the needs of the country. Pence, on the other hand, has no baggage and is probably even more conservative. I can’t for the life of me see why the Republican senators want to place all their eggs in the Trump basket. I suppose they must fear that his fanatical base will turn on them.
You have certainly pointed out that statistics can be interpreted in different ways, and the question of ‘what to measure’ is much more subjective than those who see a precise number (or what they think is a precise number) and believe it must be definitive.
This is certainly well known in economics where empirical studies have tended to not be taken seriously based on the that, indeed, ‘my numbers disagree with your numbers.’
Of course, this is changing quite a lot with the rise of ‘big data’ and analytics.
The PBS story and the data linked to in the Reason story certainly do suggest the reality is a bit different taking transfers into account. (Of course, Republicans and Libertarians have fought most if not all of these transfers) however they also do both show that income inequality over the past 40 or so years has risen.
I would also expect that, given the importance of health care transfers in their data that income inequality will jump quite a bit with the partial repeal of Obamacare, if that is not reversed.
As to the separate issue of ‘is income inequality/rising income inequality a problem?’ there are big data/analytics studies on both the supply and demand side that show that income inequality is causing increasing problems that impact on economic growth.
I don’t want to link to it, but if you google Mark Thoma’s blog Economist View, you can find a number of recent articles on all of these things, including the response from Piketty:
The Wealth Detective Who Finds the Hidden Money of the Super Rich – Bloomberg
“How rich are the rich in the world’s wealthiest nation? The answer—far richer than previously imagined—thrust the pair deep into the American debate over inequality. …”
So, no one study and no one methodology are going to be definitive, but it seems the convergence of evidence is that income inequality/rising income inequality is real, that it is a problem, and to the degree that it’s not as big as has generally been regarded, it’s based on government transfers, that those who claim there is no problem, have constantly and continuously fight against.
The latest jobs report…hmmm…75,000 Jobs vs. expected 175,000 jobs …yeah, I smell success.
The reference to the revisionists in my original post was to people like most of the posters here, who want to rewrite history to show a different situation, that better supports their current world-view.
I think we’re in violent agreement over what the word means, we just differ over who is doing it. This whole Steve King “we’re the best and always have been” trip may feel good, but it takes a lot of selective blindness to believe.
Indy says:
June 7, 2019 at 12:29 pm
“A very American-ist view, except when you do actual objective research, none of what you said is true.”
We can go back and forth using selective metrics to back our claims. Unfortunately statistics do lie and depending on how you split hairs, you can make a case for pedophiles, murders and lets not forget the eugenics side of abortion. (had to throw that in the mix to really stir the pot!)
As for IF the US is better than other countries, please take your toys and go live there. I wish I had a dollar for everyone who said they would leave the US when Trump or (put your politician here) was elected. Oh yeah, make sure you immigrate legally or else you will be shown the border.
The bottom line to all of this is that the US has a government system is made to work for the people. (or so it is suppose to work this way) When the elected officials do not reflect our beliefs, we elect ones that do. (again this is the way it works in a perfect world) We will see soon how much the elected are representing their constituents.
Nature Mom says:
June 7, 2019 at 12:56 pm
“Revisionism would be talking about “Mob rules,…….”
I hate to repeat myself but it really matters on how you look at the definition of revisionism and how you use it. But to your point, please explain how you qualify your statement.
I’m not going anywhere, you fuckers leave. If it were up to me, I would send all your Trump supporting Republican asses out to the amazon jungles of Central and South America and replace each and every one of you human scum with hard working, respectful, people who risk their lives just to survive day by day. Not sit on their ass on message boards or watch FOX News and Twitter with your little free speech persecution complex, so you can worship your mentally handicapped demented cult leader.
This country was built on the backs of immigrants and hard working people who don’t get a chance at anything because of idiots like Donald Trump who leech off the system through manipulation to steal money, then declares bankruptcy once he’s manipulated the tax and real estate system for his own game.
You can say whatever you want about this or that, but the FACT .. key word FACT, not opinion. Not Fox News anecdotal evidence. Not “I’m mad because I saw a black person loot or a Mexican get arrested.” THE FACTS are, income inquiry is at its greatest, and THAT is the the lag on the system – and that’s 100% the fault of the party and person YOU support.
Virtually every single reputable study shows trickle down economics doesn’t work, yet you continue to support it. And virtually every single reputable study shows at WORST illegal immigration has a net neutral impact, and most say they have a net positive impact, because they pay into the system with state sales tax, social security, and income tax and get none of it back.
Your rationale is wrong and you’re a terrible human being for it. I wish all your entitled asses would get deported and I’ll take every one of those Salvadorians who work their asses off and actually have a soul to boot. If there’s a Hell like your evangelical buds think, I hope you guys burn in it.
I don’t qualify my statement, it means exactly what it says. Revisionism is pretending things are what they ain’t, that there are facts supporting your beliefs when there are not. It’s the weekend now, time to pull your head out and get the Led out. K bye
Revisionism would be talking about “Mob rules, corruption the norm, friends in charge and the worst offenders of human rights making decisions for other countries” and thinking you’re not talking about D.C. right now.
Indy says:
June 7, 2019 at 11:35 am
“But I guess that’s ‘revisionism.’ The new alt-right talking point to replace ‘fucking lie.’”
Please tell me why facts = revisionism and what “fucking lie” you are referring to?
Ignorance is bliss! Read your history books and see what has made the world what it is today. America is one of the most powerful and wealthiest nations in the shortest period of time. It is because of the ideas of the founding fathers who knew what not to do. That is not to be like every other nation!
Trump is trying to get the US back on track to being the nation that we should be, not what the rest of the world wants us to be!
You want to see what a pure Democracy really looks like? Look no further than the UN. Mob rules, corruption the norm, friends in charge and the worst offenders of human rights making decisions for other countries.
Got several good points. But the revisionists will claim just the opposite.
The founding fathers knew what not to do, yet you’re talking about UN human rights problems? That’s ironic.
Yeah, human slavery and pushing Native Americans off of their land had nothing to do with our ‘revered’ founding fathers. But I guess that’s ‘revisionism.’ The new alt-right talking point to replace ‘fucking lie.’
I never said that the original idea was perfect. In fact, due to the way our constitution is written and structured, we have been able to correct the problems and mistakes that have arisen. We know that what was the norm in the past does not make it correct now. We learn and we change for the better of OUR country and citizens, not the rest of the world.
Again, we have accomplished in less time, a better country with living conditions, economics and a homogeneous society than anywhere else in the world. And again, not perfect, but if you would take all the money and effort put into ILLEGAL immigration into our own society, I bet the average CITIZEN’S standard of living would increase. Just saying!
A very American-ist view, except when you do actual objective research, none of what you said is true.
A couple of metrics about about being a ‘better’ country:
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/overall-rankings
https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp
Cited facts on illegal immigration and ‘standard of living’ of natives:
“Research shows that illegal immigrants increase the size of the U.S. economy/contribute to economic growth, enhance the welfare of natives, contribute more in tax revenue than they collect, reduce American firms’ incentives to offshore jobs and import foreign-produced goods, and benefit consumers by reducing the prices of goods and services Economists estimate that legalization of the illegal immigrant population would increase the immigrants’ earnings and consumption considerably, and increase U.S. gross domestic product.There is scholarly consensus that illegal immigrants commit less crime than natives.Sanctuary cities—which adopt policies designed to avoid prosecuting people solely for being in the country illegally—have no statistically meaningful impact on crime, and may reduce the crime rate. Research suggests that immigration enforcement has no impact on crime rates.”
During 2006, Standard & Poor’s analysts wrote: “Each year, for example, the U.S. Social Security Administration maintains roughly $6 billion to $7 billion of Social Security contributions in an “earnings suspense file”—an account for W-2 tax forms that cannot be matched to the correct Social Security number. The vast majority of these numbers are attributable to undocumented workers who will never claim their benefits. For 2010, the Social Security Administration estimated that undocumented immigrants and their employers paid $13 billion in required social security payroll taxes.”
“From tax years 1937 through 2003 the ESF had accumulated about 255 million mismatched wage reports, representing $520 billion in wages and about $75 billion in employment taxes paid into the over $1.5 trillion in the Social Security Trust funds.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States
I’ve heard CROW is better with salt and pepper…
Well here’s your chance to find out – Trump caved on the tariffs
If the tariff threats work, will he stop the wall construction? Unlikely because he wants a tangible monument to his regime.
…or Mexico is willing to SAY they’re taking serious steps. Trump chalks one up in the MAGA column and blunders on. Mexico knows that with his house-fly style memory, he won’t bother to follow through.
I don’t think that would be possible in this case because Trump presumably would know if the number of U.S border crossings has declined.
What I’d look for in this agreement is who’s paying for it? Has Trump agreed to hand over U>S $ to pay for Mexico stepping on here?
If that were the case it would be kind of ironic, Trump could say “Mexico built the border wall (not a literal wall, but close enough) and the United States paid for it.”
Because such great efforts as the ‘War on Drugs’ and Contra have worked wonders for Mexico and Central America.
If Reagan spent half as much money on trying to make some of these poverty ridden areas a better place, instead of hard line authoritarianism, maybe those countries wouldn’t have become hell on earth than no human would want to stay in.
But that’s what we’re great for, as a country. Want a war or revolution? We’ve got your blank check for guns and grenades. When that ruling regime leaves the natives starving with crime and disease? Yeah fuck off, we don’t do welfare.
Who cares about other countries? That’s not our problem. As citizens, we pay taxes to provide for US. That’s the purpose of government. If you want to save the world, then feel free to donate your paycheck to them.
The US is not some self-sufficient bubble. There will be trade and its not in the US’s best interest to not trade with shitholes. Public and private investment in foreign nations helps those nations to become less shitty.
The US used to understand that. China currently understands that.
Then why do Republicans launch efforts to interfere over decades and decades and add a ton more debt thanks to the military industrial complex?
Missiles and guns cost a ton more than just trying to fix things. Same with this stupid ass wall. Either fix right them, or don’t. It’s like the tariffs, you want to punish China? Fine. Don’t give welfare to farmers then because of dumbass policies, because it just costs money.
I guess things like ‘welfare’ and ‘socialism’ aren’t that though when you’re spending that money on missiles or its helping ‘your’ side though. Typical Republican/Trump hypocrisy.
Helsinki solved massive homelessness, and the Nordic country philosophies have solved a lot of societal ills in general. And here’s a hint: it wasn’t with the iron fist authoritarianism that you Republicans love and has failed for thousands of years in human history.
If you want to fix issues, do it right, with established studies on what works and doesn’t. Not anecdotal FOX bullshit and conservative bitching to find someone to look down on.
Deflect much? Where did I say I was a trump supporter or a republican? Like I said… you want to support social causes or international altruism, feel free to send your paycheck over. I’m not interested so don’t spend mine.
More interested in spending your money on that fifth yacht for the Koch brothers is more like it, eh? Your money is going somewhere regardless, you guys just decide to give it to the assholes who already have infinite wealth. You tell me which one makes society better.
Also, this is kind of interesting, from the Boston Globe:
Tucker Carlson says he agrees with
Elizabeth Warren. Yes, that Elizabeth Warren
Senator Elizabeth Warren’s new economic plan got a warm reception from an unlikely place Wednesday: Fox News’ Tucker Carlson.
Following the release of Warren’s so-called “economic patriotism” plan Tuesday, which called for more government intervention on behalf of workers, new rules on how companies can use federal research and development funding, and improved apprenticeship programs, Carlson praised her ideas and said the Democratic presidential candidate sounded like “Donald Trump at his best.
This is true. The problem I suppose is can Mexico trust Trump to stick to anything he negotiates? I think the same thing would also be true if Trump knocked China down a peg. Again though, what does Trump what? Does he want to take on China’s growing threat to the world as an increasingly rogue nation, or does he only want to reduce China’s trade surplus with the U.S?
It’s also not correct that Obama didn’t recognize the growing threat from China as that’s a large part of what the TPP was about: containing China by strengthening its neighbors. Of course, that Trump is going after China without trying to work with potential allies (throw China out of the WTO or, at least, threaten to do so?) is not encouraging.
Like him or hate him, Trump will be forever remembered as the POTUS who broke the back of the Chinese. Victory over China in this trade war will be the greatest American strategic win since WW2.
As with North Korea and Iran, Trump has accomplished nothing tangible yet. It’s incredible the degree to which you idiot Trump cultists want to claim victory when nothing has been achieved.
Also, as I wrote in my post, it’s not even certain what Trump wants from China. Of course, it wouldn’t surprise me if Trump doesn’t even know what he wants.
If Trump does actually knock China down a peg, or even better, contain or even isolate China, I agree, that would be a major success. On the other hand, if all Trump achieves is ‘trade balance’ with China, nobody who understands international trade should regard that as a victory.
However, Trump hasn’t gotten anything so far.