quote:

Originally posted by Mainframe Coder:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Mainframe Coder:


With a growing economy, one that is producing a lot of tax revenue, and greatly reducing the idiotic money we now spend on welfare and other handouts, it is indeed possible. The liberals seethe at the mere mention of the term "trickle down economics" but it is the only plan that has ever worked in the history of man. It is at the heart of what Trump wants to do and it will work if given a chance. The only large expenditure item in his core proposals is the military. The others all MAKE money. The only way it can work, obviously, is with a Congress that is willing to get behind it. Trump has proposed a plan that will at least stop the bleeding in entitlement spending that could work....if given the chance. Without a willing Congress, and a willing populace, he (as any President would be) is doomed from the start. Reagan had that for a short time, and his plan worked beyond anyone's wildest dream, until the Democrats were once again in a position to kill it. And they did.

The Mexican wall isn't a large expenditure? And if you tell me that Mexico will, in fact, pay for it, then you are out of the conversation.

Trump has already explained how, in fact, Mexico will indeed pay for the wall. If you haven't bothered to educate yourself as to how, perhaps you should get into the conversation.

When you have been around a little longer, Mainframe, you'll see that this is how JHE888, the knee-jerk contrarian, gets into the conversation.

When we make up our email list, Para, the day after the election, I hope George Will will be near or at the top. I heard him today wishing for a Hillary landslide. Not just a win for Hillary, but a landslide. He thought that would be best for the Republican Party.

Yeah, I have a few things I will enjoy telling him in an email.

Washington Post says Trump gave a very, very good speech ????

https://www.washingtonpost.com...day-in-pennsylvania/

oh, they take a few shots, but also:

"Which is what makes his speech on Tuesday in Pennsylvania all the more remarkable. This was Trump at the best I have seen him in months — a disciplined and effective messenger giving a speech that, to my ear, was one of his best."

obamacare

trade

Roll back Common Core education standards

cut middle-class taxes

eliminate the defense sequester

his strongest point: He is fundamentally different from the people who have been elected president in the modern era.

“I am not a politician,” Trump said. "My only special interest is you, the American people. The guiding rule of the political class in Washington, D.C., is that they are looking out only for themselves. They will say anything, and do anything, to cling to their power and prestige at your expense. I’m running to change and reverse decades of failure, and to work with the American people to create generations of success.”

^^^^^^^^^^

And even though we know polls don't mean anything, CNN has Trump up significantly over Hillary in both Arizona and Nevada.

It's crumbling all around her. She has emptied out her bag of tricks.

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
When we make up our email list, Para, the day after the election, I hope George Will will be near or at the top. I heard him today wishing for a Hillary landslide. Not just a win for Hillary, but a landslide. He thought that would be best for the Republican Party.

Yeah, I have a few things I will enjoy telling him in an email.

Make sure you also add Bryan Cranston to that list. He said recently that he'll move to Canada if Trump wins. Whatever, Mr. White.

I tend to post too much, but I cannot resist this one. This may be the funniest of all.

Bill Kristol, champion of NeverTrump: Trump should say:

"He could say, 'Look, you want eight years more of this real sleaze in the White House. We had it already. You don't want it back again.

But you have concerns about me. So let me say this.

One term . I'm going to appoint an attorney general who is a totally respected bipartisan judicial type or maybe a Democrat who I don't know who is not loyal to me.

And I'm going to never interfere with the work of that Attorney General.'"


video at:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/...term/article/2005176

so Trump has gone from a guy who was guaranteed to get totally wiped out in the general election, to a guy who should pledge "just one term"

The more people that get added to that list, the more I feel bad for Canada.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Make sure you also add Bryan Cranston to that list. He said recently that he'll move to Canada if Trump wins. Whatever, Mr. White.

He was excellent as Walter White, loved his acting.

Good luck in Canada, Bryan

quote:

Originally posted by Mainframe Coder:

quote:

Originally posted by italia:

quote:

Originally posted by Crom:
Cash transfers from the USA to relatives in Mexico are already one of the the largest contributors to the Mexican economy (2nd ?...third ?).

All we have to do is tax those transfers, and Bingo! "Mexico is paying for the wall."

They sent 21.6 billion in 2013, and it has gone steadily upward.

Walls are pretty low-tech devices. You can build a lot of wall for 2% of 21.6 billion.

http://toprightnews.com/mexico...-s-illegals-in-2013/

2% of 21.6 billion is 432 million.

Trump's estimates to build a wall are in the $8-12 billion range. Other estimates are from $5-25 billion.

Trump's plan has nothing to do with taxing money transfers (which are themselves a big problem.) His plan centers on the enormous trade imbalance that currently exists between the U.S. and Mexico. The Mexicans are going to agree to almost anything to keep their goods flowing into the U.S., including paying for a wall...... They'll gladly do it. a $10 billion wall will be small change compared to what they stand to lose.

I will bet you any sum you care to name that Mexico will make no such payment for a wall. Not even one peso.

You are fooling yourself, and allowing Trump to fool you if you think that will happen.

I was willing to let that slide as some sort of crazy campaign exaggeration. You believe it is meant as literal truth. That is hard to believe.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Mainframe Coder:

quote:

Originally posted by italia:

quote:

Originally posted by Crom:
Cash transfers from the USA to relatives in Mexico are already one of the the largest contributors to the Mexican economy (2nd ?...third ?).

All we have to do is tax those transfers, and Bingo! "Mexico is paying for the wall."

They sent 21.6 billion in 2013, and it has gone steadily upward.

Walls are pretty low-tech devices. You can build a lot of wall for 2% of 21.6 billion.

http://toprightnews.com/mexico...-s-illegals-in-2013/

2% of 21.6 billion is 432 million.

Trump's estimates to build a wall are in the $8-12 billion range. Other estimates are from $5-25 billion.

Trump's plan has nothing to do with taxing money transfers (which are themselves a big problem.) His plan centers on the enormous trade imbalance that currently exists between the U.S. and Mexico. The Mexicans are going to agree to almost anything to keep their goods flowing into the U.S., including paying for a wall...... They'll gladly do it. a $10 billion wall will be small change compared to what they stand to lose.

I will bet you any sum you care to name that Mexico will make no such payment for a wall. Not even one peso.

You are fooling yourself, and allowing Trump to fool you if you think that will happen.

I was willing to let that slide as some sort of crazy campaign exaggeration. You believe it is meant as literal truth. That is hard to believe.

I've approached this with an open mind. I want to see him do it. I don't think he can. I'll hold his beer though.

I'll take anything similar to these

Where is blowhole? I haven't seen him post recently.

Haha, a Trump Presidency keeps sounding better and better.

Good News: 35% Of Government Workers Might Quit If Trump Wins

A recent poll finds that 35% of government workers say they would consider quitting their jobs if Donald Trump wins the election. (Polaris/Newscom)

11/01/2016
Big Government: A new survey finds that more than a third of federal workers are threatening to quit their jobs should Donald Trump prevail in the presidential election. If only that were true.

A survey of federal employees by the Government Business Council and GovExec.com found that 14% said they would "definitely" consider quitting their jobs if Trump wins the election on Nov. 8, another 13% said they might consider it. Just 65% said they'd stay on at their jobs no matter who wins.

Whatever Trump's many flaws, that's an awfully tempting reason to cast a ballot for him. Except for the fact that these workers will almost certainly decide to keep their jobs no matter who wins, if for no other reason than most of them would probably find jobs in the private sector utterly intolerable.

As Dr. Stantz put it in "Ghostbusters," "You don't know what it's like out there! I've worked in the private sector. They expect results!"

The simple truth is that federal workers are paid far more than their private sector counterparts when you combine wages and benefits. A 2012 Congressional Budget Office report found that federal workers with a high school diploma or less made 36% more than similarly educated workers in the private sector. For people with a bachelor's degree, the gap was 15%.

A more recent analysis by the Cato Institute found that federal employees make 76% more than private sector workers. Using data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Cato report found that the average federal employee pulls down $123,160 a year in pay and benefits, compared with $69,901 in the private sector. It also found that this gap had increased since the 1990s, when it was 39%.

What's more, federal workers put in less time than private sector workers. As we noted in this space previously, government data show that employees in local, state and federal governments are 38% more likely to take time off work for illness or personal reasons, and miss 50% more hours than private sector workers.

It's also nearly impossible to fire a federal worker, no matter what the reason, as various government audits have shown.

One Government Accountability Office report, for example, found that 99.5% of federal workers got a "fully successful" rating or above. More than a third got a rating of "outstanding." Even if they do horrible things on the job, many of them just get put on "paid administrative leave." Another GAO report said that the government spent more than $3 billion in just two years for what amounted to paid vacations. It found that hundreds of federal workers had gotten a year or more of paid leave.

Two employees implicated in the Veterans Health Administration scandal — which involved bureaucratic attempts to hide chronic, and at times deadly, delays in treating veterans — were put on paid leave, and then later got new jobs at the VA.

So don't believe that any of these workers will actually quit in disgust should Trump win. Most will no doubt swallow their pride and go back to doing what they've been doing, which is next to nothing.

That isn't to say that a President Trump couldn't force these employees to live up to their promise by cutting the federal workforce by 35%, while demanding that the rest actually do their jobs.

http://www.investors.com/polit...-quit-if-trump-wins/

WTF's up with MN? 10,000 lakes, lots of walleye and northerns, great grouse hunting in the fall. Quaint towns with Lutheran churches, Pond Hockey Championships on Lake Nokoomis...

WTFF????

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Mainframe Coder:

quote:

Originally posted by italia:

quote:

Originally posted by Crom:
Cash transfers from the USA to relatives in Mexico are already one of the the largest contributors to the Mexican economy (2nd ?...third ?).

All we have to do is tax those transfers, and Bingo! "Mexico is paying for the wall."

They sent 21.6 billion in 2013, and it has gone steadily upward.

Walls are pretty low-tech devices. You can build a lot of wall for 2% of 21.6 billion.

http://toprightnews.com/mexico...-s-illegals-in-2013/

2% of 21.6 billion is 432 million.

Trump's estimates to build a wall are in the $8-12 billion range. Other estimates are from $5-25 billion.

Trump's plan has nothing to do with taxing money transfers (which are themselves a big problem.) His plan centers on the enormous trade imbalance that currently exists between the U.S. and Mexico. The Mexicans are going to agree to almost anything to keep their goods flowing into the U.S., including paying for a wall...... They'll gladly do it. a $10 billion wall will be small change compared to what they stand to lose.

I will bet you any sum you care to name that Mexico will make no such payment for a wall. Not even one peso.

You are fooling yourself, and allowing Trump to fool you if you think that will happen.

I was willing to let that slide as some sort of crazy campaign exaggeration. You believe it is meant as literal truth. That is hard to believe.

I've approached this with an open mind. I want to see him do it. I don't think he can. I'll hold his beer though.

I'm fairly certain that no one here expects Mexico to write a check, send cash or in any other form give the US any money re "the wall".

Mr Trump, as is obvious to many here, intends to withhold some foreign aid, tariff imports, tax money transfers, etc. In a total amount sufficient to cover the expense of said wall.

It's doable, as in there's no law of physics or economics that prohibit it. There is enough siphonable money to accomplish this.

What has us all excited, is that we have a candidate that just might possibly be a big enough butthole towards Mexico to actually try it, in part, or even better, in full.


Trump has been proposing a 35% tariff on goods imported from Mexico. Perhaps that, the 2% transfer tax, no more tax returns for illegals, and no more foreign-aid to Mexico would get us close.

quote:

Originally posted by entropy:
WTF's up with MN? 10,000 lakes, lots of walleye and northerns, great grouse hunting in the fall. Quaint towns with Lutheran churches, Pond Hockey Championships on Lake Nokoomis...

WTFF????

Like a billion Somalis.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

quote:

Originally posted by entropy:
WTF's up with MN? 10,000 lakes, lots of walleye and northerns, great grouse hunting in the fall. Quaint towns with Lutheran churches, Pond Hockey Championships on Lake Nokoomis...

WTFF????

Like a billion Somalis.

MN has been solid D since 1976. There weren't a billion Somalis in MN in 1976. So it's deeper than that.

quote:

Originally posted by Ken226:

I'm fairly certain that no one here expects Mexico to write a check, send cash or in any other form give the US any money re "the wall".

I think Mainframe Coder's comments contradict your conclusion.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

quote:

Originally posted by entropy:
WTF's up with MN? 10,000 lakes, lots of walleye and northerns, great grouse hunting in the fall. Quaint towns with Lutheran churches, Pond Hockey Championships on Lake Nokoomis...

WTFF????

Like a billion Somalis.

There weren't a billion Somalis in MN in 1980. So it's deeper than that.

Walter Mondale was there, then. Now....there's a billion Somalis.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Ken226:

I'm fairly certain that no one here expects Mexico to write a check, send cash or in any other form give the US any money re "the wall".

I think Mainframe Coder's comments contradict your conclusion.

If I look up "contrarian" in Webster's, will I find your picture?

He said exactly what I said. "Payment" can occur in many forms. Expand your thinking.