Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by theiioftx, Nov 10, 2016.
Here is Trump on Obama's ambassador to Japan back in 2015 -- its only 2.5 minutes, worth your time
Just out of curiosity, does anyone else see the irony of this?
Meanwhile, and speaking of irony, back in 2006, Obama voted to construct a wall at the US-Mexico border. Now Obama is building his own wall around his new Georgetown mansion
Interesting story from south of the border ....
"Mexico's former finance minister, ousted after Trump's visit, reportedly to be named foreign minister"
"Mexico's president on Wednesday will revive the career of his fallen former finance minister and appoint him foreign minister just four months after replacing him in the wake of a controversial visit by Donald Trump, sources told Reuters. ....
* * * *
Pena Nieto was subjected to a wave of criticism Trump's visit, which was what many saw as poorly handled, given the real-estate magnate's anti-Mexico rhetoric.
The Mexican president took responsibility for bringing Trump to the country, but reports at the time indicated that Videgaray had pitched the meeting as a chance to build ties with Trump and ease turmoil in financial markets — an important concern considering Mexico's ongoing economic doldrums.
"He left because of Trump, no doubt," Viridiana Rios, a fellow at the Wilson Center and columnist for Mexican newspaper Excelsior, told Business Insider at the time of Videgaray's exit.
Videgaray, who holds a doctorate in economics from MIT, is held in high regard outside of Mexico but attracted criticism during his tenure as finance minister because of the country's weak economic growth.
Several weeks prior to his resignation, Videgaray reportedly met with Jared Kushner, a source close to the Mexican government told The Wall Street Journal in early September. ....."
WAPO article on the transition and Trump's relations with Congress
I found the bolded part most troubling -- but read the whole thing if you have time
".......... Ensconced in his gilded Manhattan tower earlier in the week, Trump sent House Republicans reeling with a duo of tweets — just four minutes apart — that criticized his party’s controversial decision to decimate an independent congressional ethics office. Lawmakers, already under siege from their constituents, quickly reversed themselves.
But a day later, Pence headed to Washington with a decidedly humbler mission. Nestled in a windowless basement room in the Capitol, he spent more than an hour listening to the parochial concerns of House lawmakers, nodding along as rank-and-file members talked about western land use and the minutiae of health policy.
Trump and Pence’s dueling interactions with Congress offered an early preview of how the incoming White House may attempt to alternately strong-arm, cajole and tweet Congress into submission.
Perhaps most vulnerable to the dynamic are the relationships between Trump and Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Already enacting a robust domestic agenda, the two leaders are busy corralling their own members and allies say they are not eager to devote extensive time to managing the caprices of Trump. ..........."
The question is: Can the Mexican building the wall do so in a way to keep himself out, or will Obama allow a hole in the wall that will allow the Mexican to enter freely and find sanctuary in Michelle's bedroom without reprisal?
Could have titled this -- "Democrat bundlers denied continued taxpayer funded vacations"
Always tasteful lefties are knitting some special hats for the inauguration
Anyone want to be that the "Anti-War Movement," which has been oddly silent the past 8 years, will suddenly spring back to life?
Here is an example of what they have been missing
Let's talk about the Mexico Wall. You and I will be paying for it (via Congress budget approval) then later the Trump administration will go to Mexico to get them to pay for it.
Trump was clearly expecting this as he preempted any media reporting with this tweet.
The wall won't get it done by itself. Until we change our employment practices and birthright citizenship, we will continue to have immigration problems.
1. Require employers to verify citizenship prior to hire, and fine them if they don't follow the rules.
2. Require that at least one parent already be a citizen of US in order to obtain birthright citizenship, OR you go through normal immigration/citizenship channel. That's it. no other way to become a citizen of this country. Make it a law. That's the only way to make it sustainable.
And these two elements won't require that we spend taxpayers money. A wall is as permeable as the enforcers (President, AG, etc) want it to be. Once Dem's are back in office, the wall won't be sufficient.
This clip from Clinton's SOTU 1995 should be played over and over by the Trump people. Notice the Dems are the ones giving Bubba a standing o.
Sorry that is not the right link. Let me find it. It is from 1995 and was only about 50 secs on how Clinton wanted to stop illegal aliens.
Notice he references Barbara Jordan.
I've always believed that the wall won't be paid by Mexico directly. Indirectly? Yes!!! We are the biggest consumers in the world and Mexico needs us 100 times more than we need them.
Nor do we need their concession or permission to have them pay for it.
We discussed this all already, back whenever the idea was first breached.
My idea has always been a fee on remittances (Western Union, et al.)
Other folks have advanced ideas like higher fee on Visa Apps.
There are plenty of ways to achieve this goal. Maybe it will be some combination of them?
From my perspective, "the how" question does not really matter.
Getting it built is what matters.
And they will. Your failure to grasp the most basic concepts makes me think you must have matriculated through the Liberal Arts School. Is this true?
Your attempts to insult my intelligence are as transparent as Trumps dog-whistle usage of Twitter. Most of the ideas thrown out in the original thread had a direct cost to US taxpayers or companies.
So, let's tax the remittances to the Mexico. In 2009 there was an estimated $26B in remittances to Mexico. The wall is estimated to cost $15B - $25B. How many visa applications would need to be processed/taxed to add up to $15B? Let's count the tariffs in this calculation maybe? How do we limit the economic impact of those to only pay for the wall? Yeah, just like last time, the continued statement that "Mexico will pay for the wall" is a good marketing slogan but is complete BS when evaluated by anything other than a pro-Trump political lens.
More direct than transparent.
Look, many of your responses are inchoate. They are like incomplete thoughts in written form. By their nature, they prevent replies since no one understands the point you are struggling to make.
Someone says to you -- "Looks like rain"
You reply -- "Aha! Gotcha! Corgis are clearly the best dog breed!"
-Add a 1% tax on exports to Mexico (approx. $2.3billion per year)
-Cut off aid to Mexico (over $3.2billion given away from 2005-2015)
-Throw out unlawful immigrants (every 1million illegal + children we "export" saves $1.4billion per year). Chuck all 7million and we pay for the wall in two years.
We can build the fence on credit, and have Mexico pay for it over time. Don't forget to include interest cost!
Again, you are looking at it wrong. It's not total dollar amount within one year. It the volume of transactions.
Another faulty premise is that the fees must all be collected within one fiscal year. Why? Makes no sense. A nickel (or 7, or 10 cents) per transaction over 4 years would add up. We have already covered this ground.
I dont know. But these fees too will add up quickly. Add these fees to the remittance fees and suddenly we are talking about a large and steady flow of revenues.
The second sentence is an example of a thought lacking internal logic. That sentence makes no sense.
There was no "last time." This has never been done before. It was talked about. It was legislated. it was even funded. But never actually done (except for a small strip in Sandy Eggo)
Feinstein in '06: 'Democrats Support the Border Fence'
GOP plans to use past votes (and words) against party foes.
(also Obama, Clinton, Biden, Reid, Schumer, Boxer, Harkin, Mikulski,,,,)
"Republicans plan to use a 2006 border security law supported by more than half of Senate Democrats to fund the wall President-elect Donald Trump pledged his administration would construct, Politico reported Thursday. The Secure Fence Act mandated double-layer fencing between particular ports of entry from just east of San Diego all the way to the southern tip of Texas, totaling hundreds upon hundreds of miles. The language was amended in a 2007 appropriations bill to provide the Homeland Security Department discretion to choose the nature and type of the barrier, and to require simply that 700 miles of it be established, regardless of where. Republican lawmakers and immigration hawks once decried the changes for effectively "gutting" the original measure. But with Trump to take office and the GOP to continue its congressional majority, the lack of constraints could empower the new White House to call for whatever kind of wall it wants, however long it wants it to be.
Many Democrats may rue the day, if only because of their pending political discomfort for supporting the 2006 legislation. None other than Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, as well as Sens. Tom Carper, Dianne Feinstein, Bill Nelson, Debbie Stabenow, and Ron Wyden, were among the 26 Senate minority backers of the Fence Act. Sen. Sherrod Brown, a House member at the time, also voted in favor of the package. Then being an election year, their cohort upbraided the GOP majority for legislating only on border security in its consideration of immigration reform.
--- But Feinstein, for one, didn't use politics as an out—rather, she owned her vote. "Democrats are solidly behind controlling the border, and we support the border fence," she said, according to the Los Angeles Daily News. "We've got to get tough on the border. There's no question the border is a sieve."
--- Then-Senate minority leader Harry Reid echoed her: "Democrats are for border security," he was quoted as saying plainly. "And when the roll is called you'll find Democrats on that roll."
--- Former Iowa senator Tom Harkin was one of them. "I believe that strengthening our border security is a key component to any comprehensive immigration solution and that is why I supported the Secure Fence Act,"
--- Other recently retired senators firmly on the party's left who boosted the bill were California's Barbara Boxer and Maryland's Barbara Mikulski. The three biggest names, however, were at one point the three highest-ranking members of the Obama administration: then-Sens. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton.
That must've been before they realized a wall would hurt their voting block.
Besides a fee on remittance payments, increased visa fees on visas and repurposed aid, some of the other ideas floated include:
-- increased fees on all border crossing cards (we issue ~ 1M to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays);
-- increased fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays);
-- increased fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico;
-- use of assets seized from drug cartels and others in the illicit drug trade (MX would probably go along with this one)
-- legalize and tax pot (this would be indirect, of course, but would definitely hurt the MX Econ) - [Scott Adams' idea]
By the way, remittances are now a larger part of their economy than their petroleum industry.
2015 Remittances were $24.8B
2015 Oil revenues were $23.4B
This is going to be a gigantic issue for them, and turning more to China (as some of them have already threatened) cannot do near enough to fill this gap. Which means they will probably be more willing to negotiate some of this at some point in the future.
One last point, 97% of Mexican remittances are sent electronically
I don't know if he'll get it, but I think Bobby Valentine has much closer ties to Japan and its leaders and would be a better ambassador than Kennedy.
Probably so, but it also affects the national reach of any of them.
As this election has shown