Now, Trump says that the WALL will pay for itself monthly........LOL

T

Tacomaman

Verified User
The funding for this campaign fodder idea has morphed more times than a shape shifter from a sci-fi movie:

1. "Mexico will pay for the wall". ONLY those with very low understanding of civics actually believed this horsepucky to begin with.

2. "Mexico will pay for the wall indirectly". Citing unconfirmed savings from a yet to be approved replacement for NAFTA.

3. "The wall will pay for itself monthly". Trump now claims this citing bogus numbers on the cost of illegal immigration to taxpayers that Trump himself keeps changing and that cannot be verified by any entity or government agency. In other words, Trump pulled these figures out of his "arse". And folks think that he isn't a politician......LMAO


At some point, Trump may realize that he cannot run the company like his real estate business. Simply put, he is unequipped for the task at hand.
 
If the wall will make money, then Trump should build it himself. He likes money. He can make a huge profit off it.
 
jimmymccready said:
The voters threw out the board of directors in the House, a rejection of Trump
Click to expand...

Not really. Mid-term elections are about local House and Senate candidates in many cases and have little to do with presidential performance. All those Democrats who voted Democratic already rejected Trump before he took office.

Based on your theory, every mid-term is a rejection of the president since he loses seats. In 2010 the Republicans gained 9 Senate seats and 63 House seats--was that a rejection of Obama? Mid-term election are not usually national elections.
 
Flash said:
Not really. Mid-term elections are about local House and Senate candidates in many cases and have little to do with presidential performance. All those Democrats who voted Democratic already rejected Trump before he took office.

Based on your theory, every mid-term is a rejection of the president since he loses seats. In 2010 the Republicans gained 9 Senate seats and 63 House seats--was that a rejection of Obama? Mid-term election are not usually national elections.
Click to expand...

In 2010, the economy was still in the crapper. That was the referendum at that time. The economy was not the issue this time. Trump was.
 
Tacomaman said:
The funding for this campaign fodder idea has morphed more times than a shape shifter from a sci-fi movie:

1. "Mexico will pay for the wall". ONLY those with very low understanding of civics actually believed this horsepucky to begin with.

2. "Mexico will pay for the wall indirectly". Citing unconfirmed savings from a yet to be approved replacement for NAFTA.

3. "The wall will pay for itself monthly". Trump now claims this citing bogus numbers on the cost of illegal immigration to taxpayers that Trump himself keeps changing and that cannot be verified by any entity or government agency. In other words, Trump pulled these figures out of his "arse". And folks think that he isn't a politician......LMAO


At some point, Trump may realize that he cannot run the company like his real estate business. Simply put, he is unequipped for the task at hand.
Click to expand...

In five easy payments of only $1,234,971,999.00 each!
 
domer76 said:
In 2010, the economy was still in the crapper. That was the referendum at that time. The economy was not the issue this time. Trump was.
Click to expand...

You seem to be saying individual candidates did not affect how people voted. But, when we consider that if a state elected a Republican governor and Democratic Senator, most of that state's voters were obviously not voting for or against Trump.

As you know, the president's party virtually always loses seats in mid-terms. If that is a referendum on the president, we must always be unhappy with their performance.
 
Loving91390 said:
By working under the table ? And after they have an anchor baby ... They are on welfare !

Open your check book bitch !
Click to expand...

Not allowed on welfare. If they are working under the table, then it is the business owners fault. They can not run and hide. Stop them. Some rich people fly into America to have babies that they can claim as citizens. Then if things go badly at home, the kid has an escape.
 
Flash said:
You seem to be saying individual candidates did not affect how people voted. But, when we consider that if a state elected a Republican governor and Democratic Senator, most of that state's voters were obviously not voting for or against Trump.

As you know, the president's party virtually always loses seats in mid-terms. If that is a referendum on the president, we must always be unhappy with their performance.
Click to expand...

I’m not “seeming” to be saying anything other than what I just did.

People tend to vote on their wallets. The economy in 2010 was still struggling, mightily. Not so for Trump.

The Democrats gained in a number of governorships and legislatures as well.
 
Nordberg said:
Not allowed on welfare. If they are working under the table, then it is the business owners fault. They can not run and hide. Stop them. Some rich people fly into America to have babies that they can claim as citizens. Then if things go badly at home, the kid has an escape.
Click to expand...

In 2014, 63 percent of households headed by a non-citizen reported that they used at least one welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native-headed households.
Welfare use drops to 58 percent for non-citizen households and 30 percent for native households if cash payments from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) are not counted as welfare. EITC recipients pay no federal income tax. Like other welfare, the EITC is a means-tested, anti-poverty program, but unlike other programs one has to work to receive it.
Compared to native households, non-citizen households have much higher use of food programs (45 percent vs. 21 percent for natives) and Medicaid (50 percent vs. 23 percent for natives).
Including the EITC, 31 percent of non-citizen-headed households receive cash welfare, compared to 19 percent of native households. If the EITC is not included, then cash receipt by non-citizen households is slightly lower than natives (6 percent vs. 8 percent).
While most new legal immigrants (green card holders) are barred from most welfare programs, as are illegal immigrants and temporary visitors, these provisions have only a modest impact on non-citizen household use rates because: 1) most legal immigrants have been in the country long enough to qualify; 2) the bar does not apply to all programs, nor does it always apply to non-citizen children; 3) some states provide welfare to new immigrants on their own; and, most importantly, 4) non-citizens (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship and full welfare eligibility at birth.
 
domer76 said:
I’m not “seeming” to be saying anything other than what I just did.

People tend to vote on their wallets. The economy in 2010 was still struggling, mightily. Not so for Trump.

The Democrats gained in a number of governorships and legislatures as well.
Click to expand...

Voting their wallets has been much less true the last 20+ years as social/cultural issues have become more important.

Although the lowest income groups still vote more Democratic, those in middle-upper income groups are evenly divided between the parties. Years ago you could predict the vote based on a person's income. By 2000 the most important factor determining the vote was "shares our values" and "frequency of church attendance."
 
Loving91390 said:
In 2014, 63 percent of households headed by a non-citizen reported that they used at least one welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native-headed households.
Welfare use drops to 58 percent for non-citizen households and 30 percent for native households if cash payments from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) are not counted as welfare. EITC recipients pay no federal income tax. Like other welfare, the EITC is a means-tested, anti-poverty program, but unlike other programs one has to work to receive it.
Compared to native households, non-citizen households have much higher use of food programs (45 percent vs. 21 percent for natives) and Medicaid (50 percent vs. 23 percent for natives).
Including the EITC, 31 percent of non-citizen-headed households receive cash welfare, compared to 19 percent of native households. If the EITC is not included, then cash receipt by non-citizen households is slightly lower than natives (6 percent vs. 8 percent).
While most new legal immigrants (green card holders) are barred from most welfare programs, as are illegal immigrants and temporary visitors, these provisions have only a modest impact on non-citizen household use rates because: 1) most legal immigrants have been in the country long enough to qualify; 2) the bar does not apply to all programs, nor does it always apply to non-citizen children; 3) some states provide welfare to new immigrants on their own; and, most importantly, 4) non-citizens (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship and full welfare eligibility at birth.
Click to expand...

Illegals put in more thatn they collect. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/dont-blame-immigrants-bloated-welfare-state Cato institurte study says that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top