The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[chipbennett]

I go back to the last Fox debate (I think... they all blend together after awhile) where he was specifically asked about the EPA and drug subsidies. Fox had graphics that showed his numbers were... unpossible, to put it lightly. He talked around it.

I bring that up to say that he cannot deliver on what he is promising, even if he could do it in a legal sense. And I'm not sure he can, without a constitutional crisis, which may also be part of his thinking.

Private businesses typically have a strong executive in terms of powers. Trump, most certainly, is a strong executive. He would probably do everything he can to make the presidency a strong executive. But, is that what we really want?

I don't watch the debates (I don't find them to be informative; they're more like circus entertainment), but part of the (legitimate) criticism about Trump has been a lack of detail. Trump has never been a politician, and has had to learn as he goes. Part of that learning curve is understanding that you have to be able to provide basis-of-design specifics at a stage where, in business, you're only at the project feasibility stage. I think he's gotten better on that point, and has much room for further improvement.

As for funding the wall specifically: I think Trump is referencing the sheer volume of money that gets wired to Mexico from the US every year. (At least, I think that's really what he's talking about with respect to a trade deficit.) The wall could be funded over ten years simply by imposing a tariff those wire transfers (remittances):

Donald Trump Plans to Impound All Remittances to Mexico -- Would That Even Be Possible? | National Review Online

I have no problem with a strong executive - provided that such executive acts within the bounds of the constitution and law.

 

[T.Lex]

I have no problem with a strong executive - provided that such executive acts within the bounds of the constitution and law.

Does Trump give you any comfort that he highly regards the constitution?

 

[JettaKnight]

If I couldn't get a smaller government, but I could get one that was more efficient, I'm not going to complain a whole lot.

Then Kasich should be your choice.

 

[JettaKnight]

Ironically, the "he cares" is what appears to have gotten GW and Obama elected.

You may have the right answer in terms of electability.

It's incredibly ironic that all the conservative decrying "Hope" are now all falling in line to drink the same Kool-aid (only it's strawberry and not grape this time).

 

[chipbennett]

Does Trump give you any comfort that he highly regards the constitution?

I don't have a read either way, since he's never been in a position the act with or contrary to the constitution.

 

[MisterChester]

Then Kasich should be your choice.

As if Jeb didn't remind me of W enough, Kasich does too. I can't support someone like that.

 

[T.Lex]

I don't have a read either way, since he's never been in a position the act with or contrary to the constitution.

He promises to build a significant piece of infrastructure across multiple parcels of private property, but have not heard him once say anything about compensating the owners. Is there insight there?

 

[chipbennett]

He promises to build a significant piece of infrastructure across multiple parcels of private property, but have not heard him once say anything about compensating the owners. Is there insight there?

I would consider a border wall to be a legitimate use of eminent domain, in general. The devil would be in the implementation details.

 

[T.Lex]

I would consider a border wall to be a legitimate use of eminent domain, in general. The devil would be in the implementation details.

I agree that it would be a legitimate interest, which would allow for eminent domain. But, Trump hasn't really said anything about that, has he?

Interesting articles about the current wall.
Landowners Along U.S.-Mexico Border Claim Gov?t Is Abusing its Power to Take Land at Unfair Prices | TheBlaze.com

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-09-...ico-here-are-five-images-show-how-complicated

 

[chipbennett]

I agree that it would be a legitimate interest, which would allow for eminent domain. But, Trump hasn't really said anything about that, has he?

Interesting articles about the current wall.
Landowners Along U.S.-Mexico Border Claim Gov?t Is Abusing its Power to Take Land at Unfair Prices | TheBlaze.com

A giant border wall between the US and Mexico? Here are five images that show how complicated that would be. | Public Radio International

I would assume that the high estimated cost of Trump's border wall includes allocation for purchase/appropriation of private land?

 

[T.Lex]

I would assume that the high estimated cost of Trump's border wall includes allocation for purchase/appropriation of private land?

Cost? What cost? Mexico is paying for it. I know of no statement by Trump as to what it would cost, but am open to correction. He doesn't care, because Mexico is paying for it, no matter how high the wall (or the cost) is.

From his website:

The cost of building a permanent border wall pales mightily in comparison to what American taxpayers spend every single year on dealing with the fallout of illegal immigration on their communities, schools and unemployment offices.

Which brings up another potential sticking point - time. When do we start building the wall, or acquiring the property for it? Do we impose the tarriffs/increased fees immediately (some of which are probably not legal under existing treaties and would require Congressional approval) and let the pot grow to a point we can start paying for it? Or do we start right away with our own money, then use those resources to reimburse ourselves? If we do that, aren't we paying for it?

Eminent domain on that many properties could take years.

 

[chipbennett]

Cost? What cost? Mexico is paying for it. I know of no statement by Trump as to what it would cost, but am open to correction. He doesn't care, because Mexico is paying for it, no matter how high the wall (or the cost) is.

From his website:


Which brings up another potential sticking point - time. When do we start building the wall, or acquiring the property for it? Do we impose the tarriffs/increased fees immediately (some of which are probably not legal under existing treaties and would require Congressional approval) and let the pot grow to a point we can start paying for it? Or do we start right away with our own money, then use those resources to reimburse ourselves? If we do that, aren't we paying for it?

Eminent domain on that many properties could take years.

Trump originally estimated it would cost $8 billion:

Trump: Border wall will cost $8 billion - CNNPolitics.com

A more realistic estimate might be more like $20-25 billion:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...im-that-his-border-wall-would-cost-8-billion/

If the US imposes a 10% tariff on US-Mexico remittances ($25B/year), even a $25B wall could be fully funded over 10 years.

 

[T.Lex]

If the US imposes a 10% tariff on US-Mexico remittances ($25B/year), even a $25B wall could be fully funded over 10 years.

Ah - thanks for the links as to cost. Wonder why he doesn't go into that much detail on his website?

As for the tariffs, first, Congress has to pass those. Second, are there not "legal" people who use remittances to send money to Mexico? Is there a constitutional - or even moral - reason to impose an additional tax on them? If this is truly something for the greater good, should not all of us pay for it?

ETA:
Forbes breaks down the remittance issue, and others:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanal...ly-make-mexico-pay-for-the-wall/#21ce08da6b31

 

[chipbennett]

Ah - thanks for the links as to cost. Wonder why he doesn't go into that much detail on his website?

As for the tariffs, first, Congress has to pass those. Second, are there not "legal" people who use remittances to send money to Mexico? Is there a constitutional - or even moral - reason to impose an additional tax on them? If this is truly something for the greater good, should not all of us pay for it?

ETA:
Forbes breaks down the remittance issue, and others:
Forbes Welcome

I don't think such tariffs are inherently illegal (or even wrong). Some states impose such tariffs on remittances across their own state lines. If we want to impose such a tariff on one or several countries, fine. If we want to raise or lower that tariff based on relative incoming/outgoing remittances, fine.

Whether the remittances come from legal or illegal immigrants doesn't bother me too terribly. The whole point of having an immigration policy is to encourage and facilitate benefits to our country. If we are allowing legal immigrants to come into our country merely to send money back to their home country, I think that such policy should be examined. What benefit to our country does such policy provide?

As with much else, the devil is in the details: the wall can be built, trade policy can be established, and immigration policy can be established, in ways that are either correct/right/appropriate, or in ways that are incorrect/wrong/inappropriate.

 

[T.Lex]

I don't think such tariffs are inherently illegal (or even wrong). Some states impose such tariffs on remittances across their own state lines.

Wait - what? I'm pretty sure inter-state tariffs within the US are not allowed. That's a federal power.

If we want to impose such a tariff on one or several countries, fine. If we want to raise or lower that tariff based on relative incoming/outgoing remittances, fine.

But what's the justification for specifying Mexico? Why not Saudi Arabia to pay for DHS? Or Canada, to pay for snow removal?

Whether the remittances come from legal or illegal immigrants doesn't bother me too terribly.

Really? I'm a bit surprised by that.

The whole point of having an immigration policy is to encourage and facilitate benefits to our country. If we are allowing legal immigrants to come into our country merely to send money back to their home country, I think that such policy should be examined. What benefit to our country does such policy provide?

Because freedom. What business is it of the US gov't what you do with your money - as long as it isn't illegal? Charity should not be illegal.

Plus, there's a historical context that is rather near and dear to me. My, and likely your, ancestors came to America and sent money back home. It is the way things worked, and still work.

As with much else, the devil is in the details: the wall can be built, trade policy can be established, and immigration policy can be established, in ways that are either correct/right/appropriate, or in ways that are incorrect/wrong/inappropriate.

Shouldn't we expect a candidate to explicitly say - at a minimum - that the ways will be correct/right/appropriate? I get none of that from Trump.

 

[chipbennett]

Wait - what? I'm pretty sure inter-state tariffs within the US are not allowed. That's a federal power.

See, e.g. Oklahoma:

U.S. Could Raise $1-2 Billion a Year from Illegals by Copying Oklahoma | Oye Times

But what's the justification for specifying Mexico? Why not Saudi Arabia to pay for DHS? Or Canada, to pay for snow removal?

Like I said, I take no position on applying the policy to other nations.

But I'd totally be in favor of remittance taxes to Canada to pay for Justin Bieber.

Really? I'm a bit surprised by that.

Because freedom. What business is it of the US gov't what you do with your money - as long as it isn't illegal? Charity should not be illegal.

Citizens? Yes. What they do with their money is their business. But non-citizens are in our country with our permission and for our mutual benefit.

Plus, there's a historical context that is rather near and dear to me. My, and likely your, ancestors came to America and sent money back home. It is the way things worked, and still work.

As far as I know from my own ancestry, that's not true. But really, it doesn't matter. There's nothing inherently wrong with an immigrant sending money home to his family while building a life here. But that's not what's happening with Mexico. Remittances to Mexico are greater than the oil revenue for the entire country of Mexico. Mexico is quite openly bolstering its own economy via remittances.

Shouldn't we expect a candidate to explicitly say - at a minimum - that the ways will be correct/right/appropriate? I get none of that from Trump.

Fair criticism, though I'm not sure how much into the weeds it is useful/beneficial to get during a campaign.

 

[T.Lex]

See, e.g. Oklahoma:

U.S. Could Raise $1-2 Billion a Year from Illegals by Copying Oklahoma | Oye Times

Wow - I'm surprised that hasn't been challenged. But, it does apply to all foreign remittances.

But I'd totally be in favor of remittance taxes to Canada to pay for Justin Bieber.

Whoa. Consensus happens - even at INGO.

Citizens? Yes. What they do with their money is their business. But non-citizens are in our country with our permission and for our mutual benefit.

All this proof of citizenship for mundane things screams a combination of bigger government and socialism. But maybe that's just me.

In effect, though, we're asking for more government to make Mexicans - not Mexico - pay for the wall.

There's nothing inherently wrong with an immigrant sending money home to his family while building a life here. But that's not what's happening with Mexico. Remittances to Mexico are greater than the oil revenue for the entire country of Mexico. Mexico is quite openly bolstering its own economy via remittances.

How do you think economies work? Of course the remittances bolster the receiving gov't's economy by putting more money into circulation. That's kinda a truism.

All of this sets aside the potential damage of a trade war with Mexico. Did INGO cover the sugar issue a few years ago? I can't remember.

Fair criticism, though I'm not sure how much into the weeds it is useful/beneficial to get during a campaign.

Heck, I'd be more comfortable if he would just say something that suggest he knows the limits of the executive and would honor them!

 

[chipbennett]

More details about how tied to the Bush regime the "outsider" Ted Cruz is:

Ted Cruz, A Bush By Another Name | The Daily Caller

 

[CountryBoy1981]

More details about how tied to the Bush regime the "outsider" Ted Cruz is:

Ted Cruz, A Bush By Another Name | The Daily Caller

Would rather vote for the candidate with ties to the Bushes than the Clintons; you can't deny Trump has Clinton ties.

 

[Expat]

More details about how tied to the Bush regime the "outsider" Ted Cruz is:

Ted Cruz, A Bush By Another Name | The Daily Caller

I have heard a candidate shouldn't be saddled with the baggage of people or groups that endorse them....

I guess the other issue was that Cruz and his wife sucked up to his political boss in TX... I am sure that is a rare thing to occur.