|
Post by mrright on Jan 28, 2024 20:59:07 GMT -6
but peeloosy promised not 1 dime.,,she lied???
by the way ...the tariffs put on mexico paid
Trump didn't mention any "peeloosy" exception (whoever he is), or complication. Trump's promise was: And whatever tariffs you have in mind didn't pay for the wall Trump promised, because the wall Trump promised was never built. Trump lied, again. In addition, such assertion about tariffs static-models a dynamic situation, an unreliable proposition at best. so nancy peeloosy lied eh?
so where did the tariff money go?
|
|
|
Post by rampage on Jan 28, 2024 21:22:39 GMT -6
so nancy peeloosy lied eh?
so where did the tariff money go?
"so nancy peeloosy lied eh?" mrr
So you continue to assert. But it's folly in the extreme to squabble in the abstract. YOU post an ostensible quotation, with attribute and link for purpose of authentication, and then I can better assist you in assessing its veracity.
"so where did the tariff money go?" mrr
Generally U.S. federal revenues spill into the general treasury. There is for example supposed to be a separate "lock box" for Social Security. But in practice there isn't. The U.S. federal Social Security scam is based on the Ponzi model. And generally, a characteristic of pyramid schemes is they collapse.
As for tariffs funding anything, a tariff is similar to a tax, a crude form of protectionism. And the notion that the U.S. can tax its way to prosperity has been the delusional liberal (but not "communists" that I know of) anthem for generations.
|
|
|
Post by mrright on Jan 28, 2024 21:46:13 GMT -6
so nancy peeloosy lied eh?
so where did the tariff money go?
"so nancy peeloosy lied eh?" mrr
So you continue to assert. But it's folly in the extreme to squabble in the abstract. YOU post an ostensible quotation, with attribute and link for purpose of authentication, and then I can better assist you in assessing its veracity.
"so where did the tariff money go?" mrr
Generally U.S. federal revenues spill into the general treasury. There is for example supposed to be a separate "lock box" for Social Security. But in practice there isn't. The U.S. federal Social Security scam is based on the Ponzi model. And generally, a characteristic of pyramid schemes is they collapse.
As for tariffs funding anything, a tariff is similar to a tax, a crude form of protectionism. And the notion that the U.S. can tax its way to prosperity has been the delusional liberal (but not "communists" that I know of) anthem for generations.
so he added a tariff to mexico stuff. that is money for the govt FROM mexico.
now...how did Trump get this money you say he spent on the wall? money is congress job.
|
|
|
Post by rampage on Jan 28, 2024 22:17:43 GMT -6
so he added a tariff to mexico stuff. that is money for the govt FROM mexico.
now...how did Trump get this money you say he spent on the wall? money is congress job.
In this case such tariff might indeed have resulted in tariff revenue. BUT !! You're static-modeling a dynamic situation.
Usually when one country imposes a protectionist tariff, the other country responds with a tariff of it's own. Economically it's one step forward, and one step back. For more insight into this, check Smoot-Hawley, the textbook example of why tariffs are a bad idea. BUT !!
If you think such tariff is a good idea, then doubling it would be TWICE as $good. Right, mrright? So to be really, REALLY good we should double Trump's tariff, and then double it AGAIN. Right? Reductio ad absurdum, it's nonsense. We can NOT either tax or tariff our way to prosperity. A genuine conservative understands that.
And Trump, the ostensible, meaning self-proclaimed expert is actually profoundly ignorant on this issue. Contrast his campaign promise, to his commenting on reality after Trump actually looked into the detail. Trump continued to boast, and lavishly over-promise, fundamentally ignorant of the issue Trump was committing to. Then after no longer being able to conceal Trump's own dismal failure: Excuse me DJ, Obama and the expert team Obama assembled to reduce the per capita cost of healthcare did. That's how they managed the progress you so ignorantly tried to undo.
Luckily, you're such a bumbling incompetent, you couldn't even keep that campaign promise, and Obamacare persists to this day, with approval from the Roberts court.
Specifically on the wall:
|
|
|
Post by Rob W. Case on Jan 28, 2024 22:18:54 GMT -6
Communists Who Work Against This Country:
A little of both, actually. We have Marxists who work OUTSIDE this country and plenty from WITHIN, particularly within our government and media. Any observant person knows that knowing the nature and platforms of a particular political ideology and watching action being taken which reflects that ideology (and the intentions that go with them), reveals more than enough in regards to pinning an intention on the action. It's cause and effect. Remember your radical Marxist BLM and ANTIFA groups. Both are communist groups that followed the model of the leftist tract "The Coming Insurrection" by The Invisible Committee. While this anarchist group was burning down cities across America in 2020, it was protected by and promoted by the very left wing Democrat forces that are now at the highest levels in our Government. Why else would Trump haters and Biden supporters ask LAW ENFORCEMENT to stand down while they initiate terrorism. Nothing good could have come from such actions, could they?
Conservatism and Life and Death Issues:
My approach is from a Constitutional one. The concept of an abortion was incomprehensible to consider at the time of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams. People were also more responsible in those days than they are today, so its not included, though matters of life and death were given to government to preserve life and instill law and order in society. At least that was the intent.
Meaning of Abortion:
You said, "The meaning of the word "abortion" as it applies here applies only to before birth."
False. Abortion also means to disengage from or to abandon. When a pilot jumps from a burning plane, he "aborts" the plane to do so. The same applies here, through the wordage is most common today regarding the termination of a pregnancy.
What is the Meaning of Primitive?
"belonging to an early stage in the development of humans or animals".--Oxford Dictionary
The further back you go in history, the more people were "wild", tribal, and not as bound by ethics or morality. In other words, people behaved more like animals. Today, people are more and more doing the same thing, so ancient behaviors are finding new life in today's world. I can now read the Old Testament and see today's world repeat the same behaviors, actions, and corruption that people are driven by today.
I am a "conservative" in the sense that I do not wish to preserve the Constitution which is complimented by the Bill of Rights, and whose spirit is given by the foundation of the Declaration of Independence.
Nadine Strossen is a left wing liberal, not a Constitutionalist. Rights are absolute so long as there are enough people ready, willing, and able to fight real hard to keep them that way.
|
|
|
Post by Rob W. Case on Jan 28, 2024 22:19:04 GMT -6
Communists Who Work Against This Country:
A little of both, actually. We have Marxists who work OUTSIDE this country and plenty from WITHIN, particularly within our government and media. Any observant person knows that knowing the nature and platforms of a particular political ideology and watching action being taken which reflects that ideology (and the intentions that go with them), reveals more than enough in regards to pinning an intention on the action. It's cause and effect. Remember your radical Marxist BLM and ANTIFA groups. Both are communist groups that followed the model of the leftist tract "The Coming Insurrection" by The Invisible Committee. While this anarchist group was burning down cities across America in 2020, it was protected by and promoted by the very left wing Democrat forces that are now at the highest levels in our Government. Why else would Trump haters and Biden supporters ask LAW ENFORCEMENT to stand down while they initiate terrorism. Nothing good could have come from such actions, could they?
Conservatism and Life and Death Issues:
My approach is from a Constitutional one. The concept of an abortion was incomprehensible to consider at the time of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams. People were also more responsible in those days than they are today, so its not included, though matters of life and death were given to government to preserve life and instill law and order in society. At least that was the intent.
Meaning of Abortion:
You said, "The meaning of the word "abortion" as it applies here applies only to before birth."
False. Abortion also means to disengage from or to abandon. When a pilot jumps from a burning plane, he "aborts" the plane to do so. The same applies here, through the wordage is most common today regarding the termination of a pregnancy.
What is the Meaning of Primitive?
"belonging to an early stage in the development of humans or animals".--Oxford Dictionary
The further back you go in history, the more people were "wild", tribal, and not as bound by ethics or morality. In other words, people behaved more like animals. Today, people are more and more doing the same thing, so ancient behaviors are finding new life in today's world. I can now read the Old Testament and see today's world repeat the same behaviors, actions, and corruption that people are driven by today.
I am a "conservative" in the sense that I do not wish to preserve the Constitution which is complimented by the Bill of Rights, and whose spirit is given by the foundation of the Declaration of Independence.
Nadine Strossen is a left wing liberal feminist, not a Constitutional originalist. She believes that the Constitution is expendable, meaning that where she can loosely provide an opening, activism can then change the meaning of a law and through that, a judge can rule from the bench. We saw a lot of this in the early decade of the 2000's. Rights are absolute so long as there are enough people ready, willing, and able to fight real hard to keep them that way.
|
|
|
Post by mrright on Jan 28, 2024 22:36:07 GMT -6
so he added a tariff to mexico stuff. that is money for the govt FROM mexico.
now...how did Trump get this money you say he spent on the wall? money is congress job.
In this case such tariff might indeed have resulted in tariff revenue. BUT !! You're static-modeling a dynamic situation.
Usually when one country imposes a protectionist tariff, the other country responds with a tariff of it's own. Economically it's one step forward, and one step back. For more insight into this, check Smoot-Hawley, the textbook example of why tariffs are a bad idea. BUT !!
If you think such tariff is a good idea, then doubling it would be TWICE as $good. Right, mrright? So to be really, REALLY good we should double Trump's tariff, and then double it AGAIN. Right? Reductio ad absurdum, it's nonsense. We can NOT either tax or tariff our way to prosperity. A genuine conservative understands that.
And Trump, the ostensible, meaning self-proclaimed expert is actually profoundly ignorant on this issue. Contrast his campaign promise, to his commenting on reality after Trump actually looked into the detail. Trump continued to boast, and lavishly over-promise, fundamentally ignorant of the issue Trump was committing to. Then after no longer being able to conceal Trump's own dismal failure: Excuse me DJ, Obama and the expert team Obama assembled to reduce the per capita cost of healthcare did. That's how they managed the progress you so ignorantly tried to undo.
Luckily, you're such a bumbling incompetent, you couldn't even keep that campaign promise, and Obamacare persists to this day, with approval from the Roberts court.
Specifically on the wall: bla bla bla..he produced money from mexico...and funded his wall. dont try to over complicarte it and divert.
|
|
|
Post by rampage on Jan 28, 2024 23:02:40 GMT -6
We have Marxists who work OUTSIDE this country "We have"? Or would it be more accurate to say "there are"? Why have you chosen the possessive form? Because they're expat U.S. citizens? Doing what? Where? Why?
I'm a trained observer sir, and am a fan of broadcast commercial television. I've already mentioned me receiving 40 digital broadcast TV channels. That's weigh more than I can watch. SO ! I run computers which watch television for me, and store it DVR style on hard disk drives, akin to the way VCRs did before the digital revolution. I can record up to eight different 1080HD TV broadcasts simultaneously. Each computer records according to schedule, and displays a list of the completed recording, so I can view any when my viewing schedule allows. With this system I record: - entertainment, TV series, including '50's & '60's vintage TV series going all the way back to B&W. Excellent. - News: political candidate debates, on scene disaster / news coverage, plus scheduled new broadcasts, and the Sunday talking heads shows such as FOX News Sunday. - Sports: I watched KC smack down the Ravens, so Mahomes is going to the superbowl. - nature & science documentaries, - and more
RW, You've been going on about your claim of Marxism etc. for a while now. I don't recall you providing a single specific example, such as a quotation, accompanied by your explanation of what it is you find to be Marxist about it. As a result, the impression you've made on me is that you're long on name-calling, and making accusations, but short to nil on substance.
You can fix that with a single, valid example.
I don't recall asserting Strossen was a "Constitutionalist". My observation was that she teaches law, and was head of the ACLU. As far as "left wing liberal", that's good news I suppose. Because THE purpose of the ACLU is to enforce the U.S.' most fundamental legal document, our 18th Century Constitution, as amended. What in the U.S. is MORE conservative than that ?! Preserving a legal tradition that is literally centuries old, all the way back to the previous millennium, & perhaps back to the Founding. If you know of anyone more conservative than that please let us know.
Nope.
Perhaps your above quoted comment was inspired by: But maintaining them makes them durable, NOT "absolute".
So you are quite wrong on this point RW, and the examples disproving your fantastic assertion are too numerous to tally.
Obvious example, our 2nd Amendment: BUT !!
This ENUMERATED Constitutional right which you insist is absolute has numerous exceptions.
The 2nd Amendment entitles us to concealed carry. BUT !! Despite Art.6 Sect.2 (the supremacy clause) New York State requires that adult citizens apply for a license to carry concealed. And as you know, any license that can be issued can be revoked. So you tell me (us / U.S.) RW, how does a revocable NY State concealed carry license square with the Constitutional wording "shall not be infringed"?
That ain't all. - We can't concealed carry aboard an airliner in the U.S. - We can't concealed carry at law court. - We can't concealed carry in a U.S. government (aka "public") school. - We can't concealed carry in a U.S. federal post office, though some very recent court rulings may be changing that, too soon to tell as yet (I discussed it with my attorney, ... pending). - etc So please revise your notion that in the U.S. "rights are absolute". It's an appealing, charming fantasy. But even the right to life is not absolute, as the U.S. federal government has the authority for U.S. military conscription, and to perform capital punishment, etc.
I can not, and will not deny the appeal of the simplistic vision you offer. The problem is, the notion of an absolute right in the U.S. is absolutely wrong, Professor Strossen's point I believe.
|
|
|
Post by rampage on Jan 28, 2024 23:09:41 GMT -6
bla bla bla..he produced money from mexico...and funded his wall. dont try to over complicarte it and divert. The above requoted headline reports it's the U.S. "taxpayers" that paid "billions", not Mexico as you wish to pretend.
Your squabble is with the facts sir, not me. The way to refute them is for you to post a reliable source that reports Trump's tariffs funded the $Billions in expense his meager wall building cost $U.S.
I'll wait. forever (because even if there was revenue, it wasn't enough, which is why there was additional private sector fund raising for it, etc)
|
|
|
Post by mrright on Jan 28, 2024 23:27:02 GMT -6
bla bla bla..he produced money from mexico...and funded his wall. dont try to over complicarte it and divert. The above requoted headline reports it's the U.S. "taxpayers" that paid "billions", not Mexico as you wish to pretend.
Your squabble is with the facts sir, not me. The way to refute them is for you to post a reliable source that reports Trump's tariffs funded the $Billions in expense his meager wall building cost $U.S.
I'll wait. forever (because even if there was revenue, it wasn't enough, which is why there was additional private sector fund raising for it, etc)
thats on congress..he produced income.
|
|
|
Post by rampage on Jan 28, 2024 23:34:02 GMT -6
now...how did Trump get this money you say he spent on the wall? money is congress job. I welcome this moment of lucidity from you mrr. "money is" INDEED "congress job." BUT !! Candidate Trump didn't run for congress. Trump ran for the exec.
AND !!
Trump implied he didn't need congressional funding for his "great, great wall" because: According to the many, disparate, corroborating sources, it was the U.S. taxpayer, not Mexico that paid for substantial portions of Trump's "great, great wall".
|
|
|
Post by rampage on Jan 28, 2024 23:41:36 GMT -6
Splendid. Congress didn't make the promise, the commitment. Trump did. You can't see how foolish is was for Trump to commit congress to do what you now say is up to congress? It shows Trump to be a rank amateur.
Precisely right! But whatever revenue Trump's tariffs on Mexico generated, the sources I've quoted state it was $Billions short of what Trump actually expended. AND !!
It didn't work. Trump offered his "great, great wall" campaign commitment to solve the U.S. / Mexico border problem. So YOU tell ME mrr: do YOU think Trump's "great, great wall" which you pretend Mexico tariffs funded have solved the U.S. / Mexico immigrant problem? Have you seen a newspaper in the past year or two ?!
|
|
|
Post by mrright on Jan 28, 2024 23:42:48 GMT -6
so how did he get the money?
|
|
|
Post by mrright on Jan 28, 2024 23:48:28 GMT -6
Splendid. Congress didn't make the promise, the commitment. Trump did. You can't see how foolish is was for Trump to commit congress to do what you now say is up to congress? It shows Trump to be a rank amateur.
Precisely right! But whatever revenue Trump's tariffs on Mexico generated, the sources I've quoted state it was $Billions short of what Trump actually expended. AND !!
It didn't work. Trump offered his "great, great wall" campaign commitment to solve the U.S. / Mexico border problem. So YOU tell ME mrr: do YOU think Trump's "great, great wall" which you pretend Mexico tariffs funded have solved the U.S. / Mexico immigrant problem? Have you seen a newspaper in the past year or two ?!
ya,,,with the biden regime just letting them invade...must be Trumps fault...lol
|
|
|
Post by rampage on Jan 28, 2024 23:57:46 GMT -6
so how did he get the money? You don't know? Don't they cover that in high school sociology?
It's called "appropriations" mrr.
Please don't ask me to explain why Trump's Republican cronies in congress weren't more fiscally responsible about it. For you see mr r, Trump is NOT conservative. Trump is at best a pseudo-con. Bad enough that Trump drove the U.S. federal debt up by $Trillions. According to the following source, President Trump drove the U.S. federal debt up by $Trillions PER YEAR, FOR EACH OF THE FOUR YEARS HE HELD PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE ! That is NOT conservative !
|
|