But, I thought the Mexicans........

...........are going to pay for the wall. Now there is talk about the government shutting down over the issue.

Oh yes, Trump is an Ivy Leaguer and they are all for open borders and free trade. Never mind.

 

The promise that Mexico would pay for the wall was stupid as hell, and anyone who believed it was off the charts stupid. Furthermore, it made no sense. Mexico doesn't have a duty to keep its people from leaving. The people who should pay for the wall are American businesses that hire and benefit from illegal immigrant labor.

Nevertheless, I don't see how Trump caves on this. Building a wall was his core promise and central to his campaign. If he abandons it to appease the party that doesn't control either house of Congress, it'll be one of the biggest shows of weakness I've ever seen in a President. It would be a bigger capitulation than if Obama had agreed to defund Obamacare, because at least that would have been giving into a majority party on Capitol Hill. Has a president ever completely folded like a cheap lawn chair on his central campaign promise to avoid a budget fight with the party that controls neither house of Congress? Not that I'm aware of.

 

The Texas Republican introduced a bill Tuesday that would use assets seized from notorious Mexican drug kingpin Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman and other drug lords to pay for the wall and bolster border security.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/pol...using-assets-seized-el-chapo-fund-border-wall

El Chapo is worth more than The Donald?





















The proposal would repurpose $14 billion in assets that the government is seeking from El Chapo to complete the wall. The name of the measure is “Ensuring Lawful Collection of Hidden Assets to Provide Order Act,” or ELCHAPO.

 

I don't think the American people will hold Trump accountable if the Mexicans don't pay for the wall by cutting a check to the U.S. I don't think Trump meant that anyway. I think he meant Mexico would pay for it via tariffs and taxes.

The American people will definitely hold him accountable if he doesn't get it built. He better fund it somehow and git 'er done or he's a one-termer.

 

As Clean said it was always a loaded slogan. Most of us knew (and he even clarified in interviews) it would be an indirect reimbursement by savings in trade deficit, border taxes, eliminating taxpayer costs for illegals, etc. Only a small portion of the base believed he'd make Mexico write a check.

He's backing off a red line of funding the wall right now because it's not worth a shutdown at this stage and won't set things back much. There's still a ways to go in the planning phase (selecting materials, design, vendors, etc) and there's already funds available to complete that part.

Preparations will continue to move forward and he'll lay down the hard line on funding construction when it's time. I think I'll trust the billionaire real estate mogul when it comes to the best way to complete a massive construction project.

Bottom line with the wall is simple...this is one promise that has an extended timetable. As long as the wall gets built in the first term, it's a rousing success for America.

Construction will no doubt start by least Year 2, but this one gets a little leeway on my end. Just get it done like none of the others could, and it's great for our country.

Why is it different than other campaign promises? The next few presidents can't use the stroke of the pen to undo it. Once a wall is there, it's there.

Well at least for a decade or so until the Libs have the balls to campaign on tearing it down...which is assured at some point.

 

To Deez's point, I can't imagine anyone seriously thought of that as a "promise" so much as an intent. That's what Trump does: he believes he can do whatever he decides to do and he talks a big game. It's not that different from every pep rally you ever went to. Was there ever a coach that told the media that he didn't think his team could win a game?

 

Obviously, this would be great, but even if they actually collect every penny of that $14B, it may not cover the whole thing. It depends on whose cost estimates end up being right. Accordingly, at least some additional money would likely have to come from somewhere. Even if the the El Chapo load turns out to be enough, the law would have to be changed to dedicate that funding exclusively to the wall, which is why Cruz is offering legislation to do that.

And I would assume Democrats will fight to stop Cruz's bill just as they're fighting the budget process. It's not because they don't want the government to grab El Chapo's cash. It's because they don't want the wall built at any price. They'd fight it if it was going to be built for free. They're not dumb enough to just say "No." They'll offer amendments to Cruz's bill to dedicate the funds to some politically popular cause just to divert it away from the wall - could be education, "women's health services," etc. They might even get smart enough to try to divert it to the military/veterans, so they could argue that the GOP and Trump are "cutting" the military/veterans to pay for the wall.

 

This was pretty close.

 

Perhaps we could confiscate drugs as they cross the border and then sell them to pay for the wall? This cuts out the middleman.

 

You are correct that Trump clarified that Mexico wasn't going to write out a check. That is true. However, the problem I see is that Democrats are never going to go along with the wall, because it has become a political pissing match for them. They're going to dig in and fight it tooth and nail, so at some point he's going to face a showdown with them that will likely involve a government shutdown. I agree that he can fold now and fight later, but it's going to get harder, not easier.

 

Exactly. This will resurface in six months and the democrats won't budge. Combine this with some Republicans that won't pass a budget without huge budget cuts and you've got a guarantee there isn't going to be a wall.

 

100% correct. The battle to secure funding will be nasty even down the road. There will also be more pressure on Reps to have his back once mid-terms draw closer.

And it only gets worse once funding is approved and construction is set to begin. Enter the lawsuits (in several forms), injunctions, and legal delays.

Once legal hurdles are cleared and construction begins, the on-site protests, sabotage, and violence against workers begin.

The landmines are endless. Which is why if construction is in full-swing by 2019 it'll still be a tremendous success in my book.

 

Ted Cruz's idea has merit but surely the Democrats will fight any funding of the wall. They think it's an expensive symbol rather than a functional defense mechanism.

Could El Chapo really have been dumb enough to leave $14B in assets in the hands of US controlled entities?

 

If I were active in Democratic circles (believe it or not my liberalism isn't pure enough for me to be welcome among activists of the party) I'd advocate giving the wall at least a partial embrace. It was a winning point among the electorate. Maybe I would redirect to a "more cost effective and targeted border security" but I'd help build some sort of wall and grab some political capital amongst middle America. If you really want to help the folks that are getting crapped on in the new economy -- working class folk without college degrees -- (I grew up with lots of 'em" and remain on speaking terms) you need to pay attention to issues they feel strongly about.

 

[sarcasm]Gee, Crockett, with common-sense like that, I just cannot imagine why you are not welcome in the Dem activist circles.[/sarcasm]

 

The problem is that the Democratic base has Trump Derangement Syndrome in much the same way the Republican base had Obama Derangement Syndrome, except it's probably even worse. The Gorsuch filibuster was indicative - just a pissing match for the sake of a pissing match. There's no way Schumer actually thought that was a good idea.

Any Democratic incumbent who's seen as going along with Trump on anything is going to face a firestorm in the primary, especially if that Democrat votes for the wall. That would be like a Republican voting for Obamacare. They pretty much have no choice but to go to war on the issue.

About the only issue where Democrats might actually work with Trump a little is on the infrastructure bill. After all, everybody likes spending money. However, to get them to go along, they'd have to piss away a lot of money on green energy and high speed rail.