By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Donald Trump: How Do You Feel about Him Now? (Poll)

 

Last November,

I supported him and I still do - Americas 91 15.77%
 
I supported him and I now don't - Americas 16 2.77%
 
I supported him and I still do - Europe 37 6.41%
 
I supported him and I now don't - Europe 7 1.21%
 
I supported him and I still do - Asia 6 1.04%
 
I supported him and I now don't - Asia 1 0.17%
 
I supported him and I still do - RoW 15 2.60%
 
I supported him and I now don't - RoW 2 0.35%
 
I didn't support him and still don't. 373 64.64%
 
I didn't support him and now do. 29 5.03%
 
Total:577
Machiavellian said:
jason1637 said:

imo we should switch to a single payer system or try to increase the subsidies to make it cheaper for more people because it's still pretty expensive for those that have it.

Single payer would be great, the reason it will probably never happen in the US is because none of the big insurance companies want it and they will make sure they spend a lot of money to make sure it doesn't happen.

Indeed. Emulate what works for other nations.
Having a single payer generally means they are able to argue for the lowest price possible.

jason1637 said:

2. Saving is not impossible. It can be hard like many other things but definitely not impossible. If we transition to a world with no social security people would have to save so they would not die lol.

I highly doubt anyone who earns a paltry $7.25 an hour is going to be channeling hundreds of thousands into a bank account for retirement.
...Yet those individuals are also a necessity as they take on jobs that others don't have any desire for.

jason1637 said:

1. In a way it is but people are basickly paying for each others saving. Instead we should be responsible for how much we save by ourselves.

Nah. Because money gets stolen, Investments can go bust, people loose their jobs so need to live on savings, cars break down that need repairing.

What you are speaking of just doesn't happen on the lower-tiers of society in the USA... And there are inherent logical reasons why that is the case.

In Australia what we have is a "Super Fund". - Basically it's a bunch of arrangements that are required by law for employers to dump money into on top of wages so that employees will have finances for the future. - There are also big incentives (Tax and otherwise) for you to make regular contributions into said fund by yourself... And as a result, we have the 4th largest pension fund in the world, which isn't bad considering our population is ranked 53rd.
There are also a ton of restrictions on how and when you can draw from your super fund as well.

But what makes all of that entirely possible is that... We have a $18.93 minimum wage (With Super being extra on top) with talks of that increasing again, it's much more difficult on the USA's pathetic $7.25.

jason1637 said:

Well if you don't have a family (which is rare) then you should simply just save more. It's really not that hard. If people can't do something as basic as saving then they don't deserve help from the government. There are exceptions though like the disabled.

It's impossible to save if you are one of the 13+ million US citizens who don't have a job.
Regardless of the economic output of a nation, there is always the unemployment rate, you will always have people who are unemployed for a variety of reasons...

During the Great Depression for example, 25% of the nation was unemployed. - How do you expect 25% of the nation to save money for retirement if they don't have a job?

Worst yet, how do you expect for a large percentage of the remaining work force who are on $7.25 wages to save?

jason1637 said:

The pharmaceutical industry has taken advantage of us in some ways but at the end of the day it comes down to the persons choice to continue to take these drugs. There are so many organizations out there willing to help people that are addicted. It is their fault.

Yes. Because a diabetic should go without insulin... Someone suffering from cancer should go without Chemo... Someone going blind not having their cataracts done... Someone with HIV/AIDS not having the appropriate medication... Someones child suffering bronchitis should just walk it off... I see your point. They should go without.

I have to ask, are you trolling? Where is your compassion and empathy for other human beings?

jason1637 said:

This is why we should invest more in communities to push people towards a higher standard of living instead of giving them money in social security. This way they would be able to save more money for themselves. It comes down to being responsible for yourself, something that is lacking in society today.

Do both. It's no good just giving social security if there are inherent structural problems which will continue the current status quo and not lift people out of poverty/low standard of living.
But just investing more in communities doesn't mean a mother is going to put food on the table or an elderly lady is going to be able to buy insulin to keep herself alive.

You need both. My country does both. It works.

jason1637 said:

In high school I had to volunteer in a soup kitchen and there were some people that needed help but a lot of them were just lazy and were hustling their way through life. I respect their hustle but they are still not trying hard enough to change their situation.

Some being the key operative word.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
jason1637 said:

2. Saving is not impossible. It can be hard like many other things but definitely not impossible. If we transition to a world with no social security people would have to save so they would not die lol.

I highly doubt anyone who earns a paltry $7.25 an hour is going to be channeling hundreds of thousands into a bank account for retirement.
...Yet those individuals are also a necessity as they take on jobs that others don't have any desire for.

jason1637 said:

1. In a way it is but people are basickly paying for each others saving. Instead we should be responsible for how much we save by ourselves.

Nah. Because money gets stolen, Investments can go bust, people loose their jobs so need to live on savings, cars break down that need repairing.

What you are speaking of just doesn't happen on the lower-tiers of society in the USA... And there are inherent logical reasons why that is the case.

In Australia what we have is a "Super Fund". - Basically it's a bunch of arrangements that are required by law for employers to dump money into on top of wages so that employees will have finances for the future. - There are also big incentives (Tax and otherwise) for you to make regular contributions into said fund by yourself... And as a result, we have the 4th largest pension fund in the world, which isn't bad considering our population is ranked 53rd.
There are also a ton of restrictions on how and when you can draw from your super fund as well.

But what makes all of that entirely possible is that... We have a $18.93 minimum wage (With Super being extra on top) with talks of that increasing again, it's much more difficult on the USA's pathetic $7.25.

jason1637 said:

Well if you don't have a family (which is rare) then you should simply just save more. It's really not that hard. If people can't do something as basic as saving then they don't deserve help from the government. There are exceptions though like the disabled.

It's impossible to save if you are one of the 13+ million US citizens who don't have a job.
Regardless of the economic output of a nation, there is always the unemployment rate, you will always have people who are unemployed for a variety of reasons...

During the Great Depression for example, 25% of the nation was unemployed. - How do you expect 25% of the nation to save money for retirement if they don't have a job?

Worst yet, how do you expect for a large percentage of the remaining work force who are on $7.25 wages to save?

jason1637 said:

The pharmaceutical industry has taken advantage of us in some ways but at the end of the day it comes down to the persons choice to continue to take these drugs. There are so many organizations out there willing to help people that are addicted. It is their fault.

Yes. Because a diabetic should go without insulin... Someone suffering from cancer should go without Chemo... Someone going blind not having their cataracts done... Someone with HIV/AIDS not having the appropriate medication... Someones child suffering bronchitis should just walk it off... I see your point. They should go without.

I have to ask, are you trolling? Where is your compassion and empathy for other human beings?

jason1637 said:

This is why we should invest more in communities to push people towards a higher standard of living instead of giving them money in social security. This way they would be able to save more money for themselves. It comes down to being responsible for yourself, something that is lacking in society today.

Do both. It's no good just giving social security if there are inherent structural problems which will continue the current status quo and not lift people out of poverty/low standard of living.
But just investing more in communities doesn't mean a mother is going to put food on the table or an elderly lady is going to be able to buy insulin to keep herself alive.

You need both. My country does both. It works.

jason1637 said:

In high school I had to volunteer in a soup kitchen and there were some people that needed help but a lot of them were just lazy and were hustling their way through life. I respect their hustle but they are still not trying hard enough to change their situation.

Some being the key operative word.

1. Minimum wage jobs are not meant to be a career. If someone is working a minimum wage job then they did something wrong. Also if we get rid of welfare and social security then corporate taxes can be decreased which will let business to be able to pay their workers more.

2. A higher minimum wage does not mean much because the markets would end up adjusting. Even though Australia has a higher minimum wage their poverty rate is at 13.2% while it's 12.3% here in the US.

It's illegal to steal money so there are ways to handle that. 

Investments don't always work out in the end but it's still an option and if you invest wisely the returns can be really good.

If someone becomes unemployed then they should look for another job. 

3. Well depressions don't happen all the time and eventually go away with time. Yeah it will hurt people financially but that's just how it is. 

4. If you have a medical condition you should take your meds lol. There is a difference between taking medication and getting addicted.

5. If you invest in communities the standad of living will increase which will allow people to get better jobs so a mother can afford food and an old women can buy insulin.

6. The people that actually need help can get help through the government investing in lower income communities and through charities. They don't need a government handout.



SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

How so?

You just alluded that borrowing money is the same thing as being paid.  More specifically, selling treasury securities (debt) is drastically different than swinging the balance of trade between foreign companies and US companies.

So your logical conclusion brings you to believe the debt has nothing to do with the wall, but that trade does somehow?



jason1637 said:

1. Minimum wage jobs are not meant to be a career. If someone is working a minimum wage job then they did something wrong. Also if we get rid of welfare and social security then corporate taxes can be decreased which will let business to be able to pay their workers more.

So much wrong with this.
1) Getting rid of welfare and social security does not guarantee tax reductions.
2) Lower taxes does not guarantee higher wages.
3) Not enough high-paid career jobs for everyone.

There are plenty of nations with welfare/social security and low taxes, higher wages.

And on the flip side... Trickle-down economics which you seem to enjoy, doesn't always work.

jason1637 said:

2. A higher minimum wage does not mean much because the markets would end up adjusting. Even though Australia has a higher minimum wage their poverty rate is at 13.2% while it's 12.3% here in the US.

Poverty is very different here in Australia than in the US.
Everyone for example is entitled to healthcare and dental.

https://www.news.com.au/national/how-would-your-life-compare-australia-vs-us-where-it-counts/news-story/8a2f2142a8681e00129551519db6a8f3

Markets don't really "adjust" as much as you think, not with such a globalized economy these days, the internet tends to keep companies humble.

jason1637 said:

Investments don't always work out in the end but it's still an option and if you invest wisely the returns can be really good.

If someone becomes unemployed then they should look for another job.

Which is the entire point of "social security". - To provide people financial security.

Of course they should look for another job, but sometimes they aren't available in certain geographical areas until economic conditions improve.

jason1637 said:

3. Well depressions don't happen all the time and eventually go away with time. Yeah it will hurt people financially but that's just how it is.

The USA is still feeling the effects of the last one, in-fact the majority of the developed world is. (Only South Korea and Australia avoided the worst of it out of the developed world AFAIK.)

jason1637 said:

4. If you have a medical condition you should take your meds lol. There is a difference between taking medication and getting addicted.

You didn't stipulate the differences.
Still, if you are unemployed/low-income earner, how do you propose they buy said required medication?

jason1637 said:

5. If you invest in communities the standad of living will increase which will allow people to get better jobs so a mother can afford food and an old women can buy insulin.

There isn't a guarantee that more jobs will be created or the standard of living will increase.

jason1637 said:

6. The people that actually need help can get help through the government investing in lower income communities and through charities. They don't need a government handout.

It's not just a "Government handout". - It does allot of good socially and economically.

It's a blatant fact that those who are poor tend to spend the vast majority of their income, where-as the wealthy tend to leave it sitting in a bank, it's not money being reinvested in local communities or frequently taxed.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

So your logical conclusion brings you to believe the debt has nothing to do with the wall, but that trade does somehow?

What?  What the?   Are you being serious right now?  Are you confusing national debt with trade deficits?  You do know those are wholly disparate things, right?

The national debt is the ongoing difference between government revenue and government outlays which are paid for via the sale of treasury instruments (bonds and the like).

Trade deficits are the imbalance of the value from exports and imports by companies between various countries.

Glad you know. I didn't see an answer to the question though.



SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

Glad you know. I didn't see an answer to the question though.

That's because your question doesn't make any sense but yes, the national debt has nothing to do with the wall but no, trade does not have anything to do with the wall either...as that is Trump's warped way to making you think that is how Mexico is going to pay for the wall.

Earlier below. V

SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-trade-deficit-how-much-does-it-matter

The first portion explains it in a nutshell. Some economists think it's bad, some think it's good, some think it should be balanced. Overall it's fine unless it swings to far in either direction. Since it's tied into many things, like imports, exports, savings and investment rates, spending, etc, as long as it all matches up in the end is all that matters. When it all doesn't, that's when you have problems. Pointing out only trade is like pointing out only negatives without taking everything into account.

Then you can use trade deals with Mexico as a way to say Mexico is going to pay for it.

"Then you can use trade deals with Mexico as a way to say Mexico is going to pay for it."



Pemalite said:
jason1637 said:

1. Minimum wage jobs are not meant to be a career. If someone is working a minimum wage job then they did something wrong. Also if we get rid of welfare and social security then corporate taxes can be decreased which will let business to be able to pay their workers more.

So much wrong with this.
1) Getting rid of welfare and social security does not guarantee tax reductions.
2) Lower taxes does not guarantee higher wages.
3) Not enough high-paid career jobs for everyone.

There are plenty of nations with welfare/social security and low taxes, higher wages.

And on the flip side... Trickle-down economics which you seem to enjoy, doesn't always work.

jason1637 said:

2. A higher minimum wage does not mean much because the markets would end up adjusting. Even though Australia has a higher minimum wage their poverty rate is at 13.2% while it's 12.3% here in the US.

Poverty is very different here in Australia than in the US.
Everyone for example is entitled to healthcare and dental.

https://www.news.com.au/national/how-would-your-life-compare-australia-vs-us-where-it-counts/news-story/8a2f2142a8681e00129551519db6a8f3

Markets don't really "adjust" as much as you think, not with such a globalized economy these days, the internet tends to keep companies humble.

jason1637 said:

Investments don't always work out in the end but it's still an option and if you invest wisely the returns can be really good.

If someone becomes unemployed then they should look for another job.

Which is the entire point of "social security". - To provide people financial security.

Of course they should look for another job, but sometimes they aren't available in certain geographical areas until economic conditions improve.

jason1637 said:

3. Well depressions don't happen all the time and eventually go away with time. Yeah it will hurt people financially but that's just how it is.

The USA is still feeling the effects of the last one, in-fact the majority of the developed world is. (Only South Korea and Australia avoided the worst of it out of the developed world AFAIK.)

jason1637 said:

4. If you have a medical condition you should take your meds lol. There is a difference between taking medication and getting addicted.

You didn't stipulate the differences.
Still, if you are unemployed/low-income earner, how do you propose they buy said required medication?

jason1637 said:

5. If you invest in communities the standad of living will increase which will allow people to get better jobs so a mother can afford food and an old women can buy insulin.

There isn't a guarantee that more jobs will be created or the standard of living will increase.

jason1637 said:

6. The people that actually need help can get help through the government investing in lower income communities and through charities. They don't need a government handout.

It's not just a "Government handout". - It does allot of good socially and economically.

It's a blatant fact that those who are poor tend to spend the vast majority of their income, where-as the wealthy tend to leave it sitting in a bank, it's not money being reinvested in local communities or frequently taxed.

I had a whole reponse typed and ready to send but i accidentally closed the tab and dont feel like retyping the whole thing so i'll try to summarize what I was going to write.

I dont agree with the way tricke down economics was handled in the 80s. If we were to cut these programs we should decreases taxes only on the middle, poor class, and corperations not on the rich. While doing that we should invest some of the money the government would still be generating into low income communities which would actually help the wealth trickle down. 

I actually agree with the US switching to a single payer healthcare system. It would be better than what we have now. Also the link you posted is very outdaated. Unemployment and poverty in the US are now under Australia and the median household income has almost doubled since 2011. And Australians living more than Americans really has to do more with our terrible choice of food we eat here in the US.

Yeah but being unemployed for a very long period of time is pretty rare. If someone is unemployed for a few years i'd say that they are probably doing something wrong.

Yeah we are feeling the affects of the terrible welfare programs started by FDR. (That was a joke, I honestly dont know if were still feeling the affect of the depression so can't really say much on that).

In the US we pay more for medicine than in other countries. I dont believe that the government should buy it for people but they should try to make it so that its cheaper for us so it can be easier for the unemployed and poor to buy them.

If we invest in low income communities more people will pursue education instead of crime which will allow them to get better jobs and allow them to provide for their family more. It does not create new jobs but there are already plently of job out there and a lot being created everyday.

And we should invest in these communities so there are less poor people instead of just giving them stuff because that won't really help them in the long run.



The greatest political leader of all time bar none. History will reflect kindly on Trump as being the greatest politician of all time. I can not believe that anyone opposes Donald Trump and his great vision for America of building the Great Wall to Make America Great Again. Donald Trump inspires greatness, he shows how an ordinary man can rise up against all the odds and become super rich and become President of the USA. I do not see anything wrong with Donald Trump, he is infallible and has a God like presence.

User Received a Permanent Thread Ban due to this post - cycycychris

Last edited by cycycychris - on 14 March 2019

jason1637 said:
Pemalite said:

I highly doubt anyone who earns a paltry $7.25 an hour is going to be channeling hundreds of thousands into a bank account for retirement.
...Yet those individuals are also a necessity as they take on jobs that others don't have any desire for.

Nah. Because money gets stolen, Investments can go bust, people loose their jobs so need to live on savings, cars break down that need repairing.

What you are speaking of just doesn't happen on the lower-tiers of society in the USA... And there are inherent logical reasons why that is the case.

In Australia what we have is a "Super Fund". - Basically it's a bunch of arrangements that are required by law for employers to dump money into on top of wages so that employees will have finances for the future. - There are also big incentives (Tax and otherwise) for you to make regular contributions into said fund by yourself... And as a result, we have the 4th largest pension fund in the world, which isn't bad considering our population is ranked 53rd.
There are also a ton of restrictions on how and when you can draw from your super fund as well.

But what makes all of that entirely possible is that... We have a $18.93 minimum wage (With Super being extra on top) with talks of that increasing again, it's much more difficult on the USA's pathetic $7.25.

It's impossible to save if you are one of the 13+ million US citizens who don't have a job.
Regardless of the economic output of a nation, there is always the unemployment rate, you will always have people who are unemployed for a variety of reasons...

During the Great Depression for example, 25% of the nation was unemployed. - How do you expect 25% of the nation to save money for retirement if they don't have a job?

Worst yet, how do you expect for a large percentage of the remaining work force who are on $7.25 wages to save?

Yes. Because a diabetic should go without insulin... Someone suffering from cancer should go without Chemo... Someone going blind not having their cataracts done... Someone with HIV/AIDS not having the appropriate medication... Someones child suffering bronchitis should just walk it off... I see your point. They should go without.

I have to ask, are you trolling? Where is your compassion and empathy for other human beings?

Do both. It's no good just giving social security if there are inherent structural problems which will continue the current status quo and not lift people out of poverty/low standard of living.
But just investing more in communities doesn't mean a mother is going to put food on the table or an elderly lady is going to be able to buy insulin to keep herself alive.

You need both. My country does both. It works.

Some being the key operative word.

1. Minimum wage jobs are not meant to be a career. If someone is working a minimum wage job then they did something wrong. Also if we get rid of welfare and social security then corporate taxes can be decreased which will let business to be able to pay their workers more.

2. A higher minimum wage does not mean much because the markets would end up adjusting. Even though Australia has a higher minimum wage their poverty rate is at 13.2% while it's 12.3% here in the US.

It's illegal to steal money so there are ways to handle that. 

b. Investments don't always work out in the end but it's still an option and if you invest wisely the returns can be really good.

c. If someone becomes unemployed then they should look for another job. 

3. Well depressions don't happen all the time and eventually go away with time. Yeah it will hurt people financially but that's just how it is. 

4. If you have a medical condition you should take your meds lol. There is a difference between taking medication and getting addicted.

5. If you invest in communities the standad of living will increase which will allow people to get better jobs so a mother can afford food and an old women can buy insulin.

6. The people that actually need help can get help through the government investing in lower income communities and through charities. They don't need a government handout.

1. Problem is that millions of jobs only pay minimum wage. Botht hose people and the economy as a whole depend very much on those.

Corporate taxes got decreased very very much over the last decades. Trump just slashed it from 35% to 21%, so in effect almost halved the corporate tax. But by your theory the wages would have been increased in a similar motion. Where are those wage increases, I ask you? Answer: nonexistent, as they are not obliged in any way to pay them more. The brunt of this tax cut goes into executives and shareholder pockets, the rest into investments, buybacks and liquidity reserves. Normal employees get zip out of those tax cuts.

2. a. You have to consider that those poverty lines are arbitrarily set by the state. But extreme poverty is real in the US much more than any other developed country. The reason is the welfare state, or lack thereof in the US. While the rest of the world provides some bottom line which allows people to live, what they get in the US had been described as "too much to die, not enough to live". Just check how low the US bottoms out on this chart:

This is the result of the inadequate US social security and welfare state. And yet republicans want to further cut that down.

b. Investments don't always work out. Yeah, but that's not the problem. The problem is that you need to have some expendable income to be able invest something in the first place.

c. Believe me, they do. But finding a job is not always as easy as you seem to think, especially not if your skillset is too limited or outdated.

3. It took 6 years to get unemployment in the US back to pre-recession levels of 2006. If you're unlucky that means over 5 years of unemployment for you. Of course the recession will go away after a while, but it's effects linger around for much longer than you think.

4. What if you can't afford those medicines? That's what universal healthcare is supposed for, after all. But not in the US, apparently.

About the addiction, you know how the opiate crisis started? With prescription drugs containing opiates as extra strong painkillers. They were supposed to give out the opiates very slowly and not make anyone addicted to them. But those who couldn't swallow the pills crushed them, and only then it got found out that when crushed, the retardent wouldn't work (and wasn't strong enough anyway, so anybody with very strong pains was at risk of getting highly dependent on those medicines). Oh, and both the right for painkillers and the allowance for opiates in painkillers stem from unipartisan republican legislation under Bush junior.

5. Only if their wages raise with it. Otherwise only the price of living will go up for them.

6. Not enough to live from. Also, charity only helps against the symptoms, but not the underlying causes of social injustice, which welfare tackles. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/charity/against_1.shtml

This is also why international aid nowadays doesn't just send money into poverty-strick regions, but instead tackle on their own infrastructure to give a groundwork for further development, and bring food for the hungry in a starvation to ensure it's not getting squandered onto other tasks or pocketed by the local governments.

You also don't seem to understand that it's not just a handout. You could make it like in Luxembourg, where you get unemployment aid, but you have to register at the unemployment office, go there every time they call you and go to every job offer they send you (unless on sickness leave, but then you need to send them the doctor's notice), lest you get either reduced aid or no aid at all for a couple months if you're a repeating offender. This is to make sure you're serious about looking for work and not sitting around, waiting for charity donations to trickle in.



SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

Earlier below. V

"Then you can use trade deals with Mexico as a way to say Mexico is going to pay for it."

Well, crap.  That's supposed to have a "t" with "can". 

Then you can't use trade deals with Mexico as a way to say Mexico is going to pay for it.

Because those same factors are directly affected by far more market forces that just trade. Simple currency exchange rates can make or break for billions each year.

I'll use some numbers for you.  Current trade deficit with Mexico is ~$71 billion.  Say this new US-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement reduces that by $2 billion per year.  That means $2 billion more in local investment, interstate commerce, jobs, etc...  Now, tax rates on corporate income are now just 21% (looks like they should have kept it at 35%) meaning federal revenue increases $420 million per year.  That would take 95 years to pay for a $40 billion wall which is long after the 16 year sunset expiration date on the agreement anyway.

Further, this is largely just NAFTA 2.0.  Very little is actually changing so where would we get a drastic change in government revenue from?

And if you don't believe me, do you believe the experts?

 

“Even if we accept conceptually the argument that government revenue attributable to the revised trade agreement constitutes ‘Mexico paying for the wall,’ there are no plausible assumptions of USMCA’s impact that would see government revenue increase by $25 billion,” said Geoffrey Gertz, a fellow in the Global Economy and Development program at the Brookings Institution and a research associate at the Global Economic Governance Programme at the University of Oxford.

“Ultimately USMCA is very similar to NAFTA, and so we shouldn’t expect any substantial economic shifts from the new agreement,” Gertz told us via email. “It’s difficult to argue that that NAFTA was ‘anti-USA’ and ‘very costly’ but that USMCA will save us lots of money, because there’s not a huge difference between the two agreements.”

Kent Smetters, a professor of business economics and public policy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, told us none of the concessions won by U.S. negotiators amounts to enough to offset the cost of a border wall.

“USMCA is definitely positive for the U.S. economy but a fairly minor update to NAFTA,” said Smetters, who was an economist at the Congressional Budget Office in the 1990s. “The real value comes from renewing the essential elements of NAFTA itself.”

“USMCA provides some specific trade openings that benefit all three countries along with some IP [intellectual properties] updates. (The value of the IP update is hard to assess until we understand the enforcement commitment.),” Smetters said. “Relative to NAFTA, the Mexican government would not nearly lose enough tariff revenue that could be constituted as paying for the wall, at least the wall as previously envisioned by the Administration; nor would the U.S. government revenue increase enough based on a dynamic score. In fact, the additional revenue to U.S. relative to NAFTA would, optimistically, not cover annual maintenance and improvements of the wall much less the original build.”

Alan V. Deardorff, the John W. Sweetland professor of international economics and professor of public policy at the University of Michigan, said he is not convinced that the USMCA will result in extra revenue to the U.S. government.

“In economic terms, the new deal is not in fact better than the old one, but it may (only may) benefit US workers to a small extent,” Deardorff told us in an email. “U.S. firms (except for a handful of dairy farmers who gain a little) will do worse, not better, since it increases their costs.  I don’t see any way that it actually brings in money to our government.  It is likely to hurt Mexico, as presumably intended, but not in a way that benefits us. So no, the statement [from Trump] does not make sense.”

Trump’s claim seems to assume any gains from USMCA are “extractions from Mexico,” Gertz added. “This assumes a zero-sum view of trade, where one country’s gains are another’s losses – which cuts against the typical economists’ arguments that free trade is positive sum, that both sides to the agreement benefit.”

“I expect essentially zero change in revenue collected from tariffs arising through the USMCA,” Chad Bown, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told CNBC in December. “Under both the existing NAFTA and President Trump’s proposed new deal, the United States charges zero tariffs on trade with Canada and Mexico.”

Mexico’s former chief NAFTA negotiator, Kenneth Smith Ramos, said that nothing in the USMCA would redirect money toward a wall.

Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, told PolitiFact: “I do not see any scenario under which the U.S. government gets more money from Mexico per se. Even if the U.S. tariffs had been raised, that would be paid by Mexican exporters, not the Mexican government,” she added.

In a scenario where private American businesses significantly increase their revenue under the new deal, and overall U.S. tax revenues increase, then Congress might have those funds to appropriate, Wallach noted. But even then, lawmakers would have to agree to specifically allocate those funds for the wall. That seems dubious, given the ongoing government shutdown over border wall funding.

"I guess Trump could propose a new tax on increased revenue of U.S. firms related to trade with Mexico, but that is not passing through Congress," Wallach said. "If they cannot get appropriations for a wall, imagine trying to pass a new tax to fund the wall."

 

 

Finally, Trump and the White House have so far failed to provide any sort of guidelines, outlines, or estimates of how and how much it would generate.  Such vagueness even when officially requested this information by experts in the field casts extreme doubt over the validity of their claims.  Clete Willems, deputy director of the president’s National Economic Council and a former chief counsel at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative was asked directly how this deal would pay for the all and he responded with a rather peculiar answer, "I’m not an immigration expert, so I’m not going to weigh in on that issue." Did one of their senior advisors just mix up trade with immigration?

 

Oh, and let's not forget.....the US-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement hasn't even passed yet and it looks like it certainly won't pass as it was written.  By the way, Mexico won't sign it at all if the US does not lift the tariffs on steel and aluminum.  You know, the tariffs that Trump wanted in place as part of the direct way for Mexico to pay for the wall.

I don't remember saying anything about Mexico paying for the wall through trade.