Trump to Fund Wall by US not Mexico

originally posted by: goou111

originally posted by: Misterlondon

originally posted by: goou111
What exactly is the point of a wall? Mexicans have ladders... And shovels.. Just seems so pointless.

This wall will be covered in cctv.. And lol.. Dig a hole under it.. What do you think this is 1800's wild west..

Yeah right like they dont dig effing tunnels. Are you just being deliberately ignorant because you think I want illegals here?

Worried about tunnels when the wall just needs to be built into the bedrock, then when they have to start blasting we'll know when and where they are coming from

a reply to: UKTruth

Where did I say they were required? I pointed out that the conditions and/or pay are inadequate, which is why citizens don't normally apply for those jobs. The obvious solution would be to increase the wages and benefits for those positions in order to increase the number of citizens who'd be willing to take those jobs.

I also pointed out that customers seem to prefer cheap contractors over more expensive contractors, which simply fuels the cheaper but illegal labor pool. A simple solution would be for customers (be they companies or individuals) to face more scrutiny & liability when hiring contractors.

Besides, there are already foreign worker programs. I've listed at least 2 in my previous posts. But that still doesn't change the fact that many companies, temp services, and customers prefer hiring cheaper illegal labor.

originally posted by: TownCryer
a reply to: dr1234

Illegals DO pay taxes, Einstein. If they have a job, and their employer isn't breaking that law by paying them under the table, Illegals have taxes taken out of their pay, just like you....

The difference is that while illegal immigrants pay into Social Security and Medicaire Medicaid...They are not eligible to benefit and withdrawl those benefits. They actually pay into the system, but don't take out!

All of this being different argument than the fact they pay rent and sales tax etc..

Or that they work for less than min wage driving profits into sectors...

Or that the agricultural and farming industries would collapse in the USA without them.

originally posted by: VinylTyrant
a reply to: Greggers

You need both. 2000 miles is a lot to cover even with a land mine field.

I can't imagine a wall doing any good at all.

The real solution is to take away the incentives for them to enter the country.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: cavedweller88

All they have to do is cut all foreign aid and implement the tax on sending money he was proposing. Mexico won't be writing a check per se, but in a roundabout way they will actually be paying for it.

A tax on sending money simply won't work. We don't have nearly the manpower, the resources, or the infrastructure to track every financial transaction between the US and Mexico, much less to discern the origins of each person or business involved in each transaction.

Um wrong?

Every financial transaction is recorded. I mean every...single...one.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: goou111
What exactly is the point of a wall? Mexicans have ladders... And shovels.. Just seems so pointless.

Well, ask Mexico why they built a wall on their southern border..

Newsflash..Many people say Mexico has a wall on its southern border. It doesn’t.

a reply to: Vector99

You really believe that every time a family member gives money to another family member, it's being recorded? LOL Because that's what you're basically saying (in context).

There's no way govt agencies can track every financial transaction. They can't even track the taxes for every registered business, charity, or individual, literally relying on them to voluntarily report that information every year or every quarter. And you can automatically rule out the tracking of cash transactions unless the parties involved choose to keep records of them.

There simply aren't enough federal resources available to audit every financial transaction. And since immigrants and/or their family members back home can also be business owners, the number of legal ways that they can transfer money are simply too numerous to be tracked. And this doesn't even count the financial transactions in the underground economy.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Vector99

You really believe that every time a family member gives money to another family member, it's being recorded? LOL Because that's what you're basically saying (in context).

Digitally? Yes.

There's no way govt agencies can track every financial transaction. They can't even track the taxes for every registered business, charity, or individual, literally relying on them to voluntarily report that information every year or every quarter. And you can automatically rule out the tracking of cash transactions unless the parties involved choose to keep records of them.

Well other than the fact financial record keeping is required by law for businesses. Sure they could just say no, but they wouldn't remain in business very long.

There simply aren't enough federal resources available to audit every financial transaction.

No need for an audit when every transaction pays a fee.

the number of legal ways that they can transfer money are simply too numerous to be tracked

again, companies are required by law to maintain financial records.

a reply to: Vector99

The context isn't about companies; it's about immigrants sending money back home. You're the one claiming all of those transactions are recorded, which is laughable.

When an immigrant takes a trip home and gives out some money to different relatives, nothing is tracked. When family members come to visit them and money exchanges hands, nothing is tracked. When they literally send money home (called "remittances", btw), those remittances may or may not be tracked, depending on the service used.

Some cultures (and organizations) use a remittance system that's based on your word/credibility, where you: 1. give the money to someone in your host country, 2. that person places an "order" w/an affiliate in the country where your family is, and 3. the affiliate then gives an equivalent amount of money to your family. Once again, there are no records of these transactions either.

As for companies being required to record all transactions, I'm really starting to wonder if you're naive or just trolling. Have you never dealt with a company that didn't print a receipt? Or an independent contractor who took cash for a product or service? A street vendor, drug dealer, "adult" business worker, bartender, independent musician, etc? Or given tips to a waiter, driver, movers, neighbor's kid for mowing the lawn, etc? Even simple things like yard sales aren't required to keep records of every transaction that are made.

In my State, you can legally buy licenses for a flat fee that allow you to generate up to $9,999 a year without paying taxes on the sales (no audits or anything). And there are a number of separate licenses here for traveling business vendors which have similar conditions (with no requirements for record keeping, either).

Like I said, there are simply too many different forms of transactions for any govt agency to track, much less scrutinize to determine the legal status of the involved parties.

originally posted by: cavedweller88

(CNN) President-elect Donald Trump's transition team has signaled to congressional Republican leaders that his preference is to fund the border wall through the appropriations process as soon as April, according to House Republican officials.

The move would break a key campaign promise when Trump repeatedly said he would force Mexico to pay for the construction of the wall along the border, though in October, Trump suggested for the first time that Mexico would reimburse the US for the cost of the wall.

www.google.com...




Seems like Trump may have US fund border wall in hopes Mexico will repay us in the future (good luck with that). If this is true, you Trump supporters should be pissed.

Tariffs take time, not hard to figure out.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

You seriously are clueless.

EVERY SINGLE MONEY TRANSFER IS RECORDED

Sorry for the caps, but I don't think you would otherwise understand.

Handing out money personally to relatives is NOT how money is sent to Mexico, it's via wire transfer.

As for companies being required to record all transactions, I'm really starting to wonder if you're naive or just trolling. Have you never dealt with a company that didn't print a receipt? Or an independent contractor who took cash for a product or service? A street vendor, drug dealer, "adult" business worker, bartender, independent musician, etc? Or given tips to a waiter, driver, movers, neighbor's kid for mowing the lawn, etc? Even simple things like yard sales aren't required to keep records of every transaction that are made.

more evidence you are absolutely clueless about how a business works from an ownership and legal stance. lets see whats next!

In my State, you can legally buy licenses for a flat fee that allow you to generate up to $9,999 a year without paying taxes on the sales (no audits or anything). And there are a number of separate licenses here for traveling business vendors which have similar conditions (with no requirements for record keeping, either).

again with the spouting of zero knowledge of business, and what state might this e, and it what reference to "generating income"?

Like I said, there are simply too many different forms of transactions for any govt agency to track, much less scrutinize to determine the legal status of the involved parties.

and like I said it's not up to the government to track all of this. It is however required by ANY business and/or individual to keep records of finances and transactions for a timeframe usually of 5-7 years.

Run a business, or consult one, then get back to me when you know what the f* you are talking about.

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
I think most people care it gets built and arent worried about the particulars.

Its funny how CNN always focus on the negative aspects, he promised to build a wall, hes taking steps to see it gets done.

When was the last time any of you can remember a politician keeping even half of an election promise?

Is that a joke? The cost to build it is going to be astronomical, and so yea.. it's a huge difference if the U.S. pays for it, or Mexico. If the U.S. has to pay 25 billion to build this wall.. you think just just focusing on a negative aspect?

originally posted by: cavedweller88

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: cavedweller88
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

What hand outs are you referring to? Illegal immagants cannot apply for public assistance.

Yeas they can.

No they cannot...

They can if they use a legal citizens social security number.... how do you think they get factory jobs or other jobs that are "on the books"? Same method.

Let's not play dumb here, we know exactly what is going on. If they hired me I could literally root out thousands of illegals a week with just two or three team members.

originally posted by: fleabit

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
I think most people care it gets built and arent worried about the particulars.

Its funny how CNN always focus on the negative aspects, he promised to build a wall, hes taking steps to see it gets done.

When was the last time any of you can remember a politician keeping even half of an election promise?

Is that a joke? The cost to build it is going to be astronomical, and so yea.. it's a huge difference if the U.S. pays for it, or Mexico. If the U.S. has to pay 25 billion to build this wall.. you think just just focusing on a negative aspect?

Give me a breakdown of Obama's spending in the past eight years....but only the things that costed 25 Billion or more..show me some things that costed as much or more that was so much more important.

a reply to: Vector99

LOL Aww don't get triggered bro. You couldn't refute a single one of my examples, which makes me think you simply don't know what you're talking about. I described some of the financial situations I've seen with my own eyes from traveling and dealing with immigrants right here. So your words won't carry much weight with me.

As for remittances, one of the systems for remittances that I described is an Islamic system for transferring money called "Hawala". But of course, you'll claim it doesn't exist either, right? Many other organizations (including in the underground market) use similar internal systems, specifically when they're trying not to be tracked. LOL

And you're whining about my business knowledge yet I'm guessing you've never heard of "Minimal Activity Licenses" or "Transient Vendor Licenses"? Those are just 2 of the different forms of business licenses in my State that don't have the legal requirements that you so ignorantly posted. In fact, Minimal Activity Licenses can't require records for 7 years because they're only 1-year temporary licenses here. If the license holder makes $10,000 or more during that year, they'd have to apply for a full business license & follow the procedures you alluded to. But I'm sure you knew that, right?

And the transient vendor licenses are only valid for 14 days for traveling vendors, so your 7 year criteria clearly doesn't fit there either. Oh yeah, and we're allowed to have yard sales/garage sales twice a year here without reporting them for tax purposes, which once again means that there's no need for records of each transaction. But like my other examples, I'm guessing you'll just ignore these too because you can't admit that you're wrong.

Though I'm wondering why you didn't at least address this paragraph because it's full of more examples of financial transactions that aren't recorded in any capacity:

As for companies being required to record all transactions, I'm really starting to wonder if you're naive or just trolling. Have you never dealt with a company that didn't print a receipt? Or an independent contractor who took cash for a product or service? A street vendor, drug dealer, "adult" business worker, bartender, independent musician, etc? Or given tips to a waiter, driver, movers, neighbor's kid for mowing the lawn, etc? Even simple things like yard sales aren't required to keep records of every transaction that are made.

And let's not forget the context for all of this. This thread is about the Trump Wall, how US taxpayers will pay for it, and how Trump supporters think they'll be able to get Mexico and Mexican immigrants to pay for it. I'm simply pointing out that it's impossible for our federal government to track every single financial transaction that's done legally here, much less any illegal transfers of money.

ETA: Even large companies cheat on their taxes & fudge their numbers. And large multinationals intentionally manipulate their books in things like "transfer mispricing" to (you guessed it) get around reporting the actual value & quantity of their transactions across borders. But I guess in your world, everyone is squeaky clean when it comes to money, so fraud and financial manipulations simply don't happen?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: goou111
What exactly is the point of a wall? Mexicans have ladders... And shovels.. Just seems so pointless.

Ask Mexico, they have one on their southern border. So, why didn't they build one on their northern border?

While you are at it, try asking them how successful that wall has been.

Ask Israel how successful their wall has been.

a reply to: cavedweller88

Mexico Will Pay for the Wall One way or Another In the Long Run...........


" Trump was more direct: "The dishonest media does not report that any money spent on building the Great Wall (for sake of speed), will be paid back by Mexico later!" he tweeted.

Under the plan being discussed, the new construction would be pushed through without any new border legislation, relying on a 2006 law that authorized more fencing along the southern border. Congress would pay for it in its annual spending bills.

Trump told the New York Times in an interview Friday that the spending plan would help "speed up the process," and insisted that even if taxpayers pay upfront, "We're going to, get reimbursed."

The money, he told the paper, would likely be recouped through a renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which he had criticized often in the past. "


bigstory.ap.org...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Perhaps you should go drive 2000 miles and get a perspective on the task you are casually saying things can be done so easily with.

Is there not natural barrier consisting of about 1,000 of that 2,000 miles? Yes or no?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Anyone who pays attention to ANY sort of politics should know that when a politician says we should do something that hurts with promises of reprieve down the line is pulling your leg. That is politics speak 101.

Good thing Trump isn't a politician.

He was just elected President, no? He's officially a politician now. You can't use that defense anymore.

Wrong , he has not been inaugurated. In other words he is not officially in office yet. Obama is still running the show. Trump is not yet officially president yet. Obama is still officially president. Trump is still not yet a politician because he is not yet President.

Wanna debate this? I don't think you do.

So yeah I'm correct. I am right Trump is not a politician like I said.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Technically he is a politician, depending on the definition you're going by.

"Politician" definition at Dictionary.com

noun
1. a person who is active in party politics.
2. a seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles.
3. a person who holds a political office.

He meets the criteria for both #1 and #2 (especially #2). In fact, since he ran for President in 2000 with the Reform Party, he's been a politician since 2000 by this definition.

"Politician" definition at OxfordDictionaries.com

A person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of an elected office

Note that it says "especially as a holder of office", not "strictly as a holder of office". Since he's started moving his assets to a blind trust run by his kids, I'd say he's now professionally involved right? Unless that phrasing only counts once he receives his first paycheck for the Presidency. Then again, I think he's already being reimbursed for Secret Service accommodations at Trump Tower. So who knows?

"Politician" definition in the Cambridge English dictionary

This one is strange because it has separate definitions for British English and American English.

British English:

a member of a government or law-making organization:

American English:

a person who is active in politics, esp. as a job

Going by these 2 definitions, you would both be correct.