[Rushy]

He is maintaining a defensive position and will completely pull back once Trump is president.

Also, this!

[garygreen]

Trump is already keeping jobs in America and he isn't even president yet:

http://conservativetribune.com/trump-threatened-ford-huge/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=PostTopSharingButtons&utm_content=2016-03-24&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/manufacturing-jobs-are-never-coming-back/

i thought we went over this already.

[Rushy]

Trump is already keeping jobs in America and he isn't even president yet:

http://conservativetribune.com/trump-threatened-ford-huge/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=PostTopSharingButtons&utm_content=2016-03-24&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/manufacturing-jobs-are-never-coming-back/

i thought we went over this already.

They claim we should stop talking about it because "countries are already bringing them back" and then go on to point out higher retail jobs than manufacturing jobs in the US. Yes, everyone even taking cursory glances at the stock exchange or US economy papers knows the service industries (including retail) are dominating and rising in the US. This is exactly what is bad. Service industries are some of the least paying jobs available and are the leading cause of stagnant wages. Manufacturing is a skilled labor; services are not.

Companies are like water. They will go through the easiest path available. If that path is moving to Mexico, they will, if that path is moving to China, they will. If that path is moving their shit back to the US because they can't compete, they will. So this article "guys, guys, stop talking about it!!!" is the epitome of idiocy. Our national participation rate is the lowest its been in decades and we're moving all of the skilled labor overseas. At this rate China will be an economic powerhouse and the US will continue to stagnate or recede.

As a country, the US should only have free trade with countries that have close to or equal economies and similar standards of living. Having free trade with Canada and Europe would be fine, but companies too easily take advantage of Mexicans and Chinese because they're poor and have medieval labor laws.

[garygreen]

They claim we should stop talking about it because "countries are already bringing them back" and then go on to point out higher retail jobs than manufacturing jobs in the US.

this is a painfully inaccurate description of their argument.  what they actually say is, "Whether or not those manufacturing jobs could have been saved, they aren’t coming back, at least not most of them. How do we know? Because in recent years, factories have been coming back, but the jobs haven’t. Because of rising wages in China, the need for shorter supply chains and other factors, a small but growing group of companies are shifting production back to the U.S. But the factories they build here are heavily automated, employing a small fraction of the workers they would have a generation ago."

trump's position is exactly as asinine as decrying the loss of agriculture jobs in america and talking about how he's going to do policies x, y, and z to bring farm jobs back to america.  it really wouldn't matter what his specific proposal is, and it wouldn't matter if farm jobs were the best and most high-paying jobs ever: machines do those jobs now, and that's the end of that.  farm jobs are never going to supplant manufacturing or service jobs in america ever again.  that's not how our economy works anymore.  likewise, manufacturing isn't going to suddenly displace an industry in which 85% of americans work.

Service industries are some of the least paying jobs available and are the leading cause of stagnant wages. Manufacturing is a skilled labor; services are not.

this is absolute nonsense and just plain wrong.  the service industry comprises the overwhelming majority of jobs in america, and, as you can see from the graph above, wage stagnation started much later than growth in the service industry.

the service industry is huge, and less than 20% of those jobs are in retail.  transportation and warehousing, finance and insurance, health care and social assistance, legal services, repair services, accounting and bookkeeping services, architectural and engineering services, management and technical consulting services, scientific research and development services, advertising, office administrative services, motion picture and sound recording industries, telecommunications, everything having to do with the internet; these are all hugely important skilled labor jobs in the service industry, and that's just to name a few.

Companies are like water. They will go through the easiest path available. If that path is moving to Mexico, they will, if that path is moving to China, they will. If that path is moving their shit back to the US because they can't compete, they will. So this article "guys, guys, stop talking about it!!!" is the epitome of idiocy.

after you actually read the article, please tell me more about labor costs, because you're making my point for me.  if firms prefer cheap labor to expensive labor, then they probably really highly prefer automated mechanical labor to human labor, right?  isn't that the most cost effective form of labor?  isn't that kind of, maybe, exactly the 'idiotic' point that 538 is making?

by the way, you know what's so great about service industry jobs over manufacturing jobs?  they can't be outsourced to foreign workers.  what you're saying about the service industry is just plain wrong.  the desire to retool our economy to make it more like it was in the first half of the 20th century is totally beyond the pale.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w14822.pdf
http://www.businessinsider.com/growth-of-us-services-economy-2014-9
http://www.ftpress.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2095734&seqNum=3

[Rushy]

this is a painfully inaccurate description of their argument.  what they actually say is, "Whether or not those manufacturing jobs could have been saved, they aren’t coming back, at least not most of them. How do we know? Because in recent years, factories have been coming back, but the jobs haven’t. Because of rising wages in China, the need for shorter supply chains and other factors, a small but growing group of companies are shifting production back to the U.S. But the factories they build here are heavily automated, employing a small fraction of the workers they would have a generation ago."

trump's position is exactly as asinine as decrying the loss of agriculture jobs in america and talking about how he's going to do policies x, y, and z to bring farm jobs back to america.  it really wouldn't matter what his specific proposal is, and it wouldn't matter if farm jobs were the best and most high-paying jobs ever: machines do those jobs now, and that's the end of that.  farm jobs are never going to supplant manufacturing or service jobs in america ever again.  that's not how our economy works anymore.  likewise, manufacturing isn't going to suddenly displace an industry in which 85% of americans work.

How many jobs are or are not done by machines is irrelevant. I would rather the work being done by machines in America than Mexicans or Chinese. At least we can be sure the machines aren't subject to copious human rights violations.

this is absolute nonsense and just plain wrong.  the service industry comprises the overwhelming majority of jobs in america, and, as you can see from the graph above, wage stagnation started much later than growth in the service industry.

the service industry is huge, and less than 20% of those jobs are in retail.  transportation and warehousing, finance and insurance, health care and social assistance, legal services, repair services, accounting and bookkeeping services, architectural and engineering services, management and technical consulting services, scientific research and development services, advertising, office administrative services, motion picture and sound recording industries, telecommunications, everything having to do with the internet; these are all hugely important skilled labor jobs in the service industry, and that's just to name a few.

Then I should have said the vast majority of services is unskilled labor, then. A great deal of it could even be done without a bachelor's degree (and the fact that many people think the opposite is true is why degrees are so worthless now).

after you actually read the article, please tell me more about labor costs, because you're making my point for me.  if firms prefer cheap labor to expensive labor, then they probably really highly prefer automated mechanical labor to human labor, right?  isn't that the most cost effective form of labor?  isn't that kind of, maybe, exactly the 'idiotic' point that 538 is making?

The point I'm making is that a company moving its manufacturing to Mexico and China is in fact moving a non-zero amount of jobs. If a company makes its parts using machines, it better damn well be doing it in the United States. We're not exactly running out of room here.

What do you think will happen once China's economy gets done playing a game a catchup to ours? We're going to get economically destroyed in a few decades and we'll be stuck with a population almost entirely consisting of a service industry. The very worse case scenario is that results in a very bad case of brain drain and the best case is that we go into Cold War mk2 with China except we'll be holding the short end of the stick.

[Saddam Hussein]

On the notion of the wimminz:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/26/us/politics/donald-trump.html

[garygreen]

How many jobs are or are not done by machines is irrelevant. I would rather the work being done by machines in America than Mexicans or Chinese. At least we can be sure the machines aren't subject to copious human rights violations.

The point I'm making is that a company moving its manufacturing to Mexico and China is in fact moving a non-zero amount of jobs. If a company makes its parts using machines, it better damn well be doing it in the United States. We're not exactly running out of room here.

automated labor is super relevant.  i'm saying that bringing lost manufacturing back to america is a fool's errand since it won't actually produce a significant amount of jobs.  it will bring mostly robots and some additional output.  since manufacturing output is already at record levels, we clearly don't need the output.  or, more accurately, we don't need it so badly that we should dramatically raise the prices on consumer goods with a bunch of tariffs and import taxes.

Then I should have said the vast majority of services is unskilled labor, then. A great deal of it could even be done without a bachelor's degree (and the fact that many people think the opposite is true is why degrees are so worthless now).

really?  what about electricians, plumbers, architects, bankers, brokers, pilots, truckers, utilities workers, videographers, every job related to computers/the internet, publishers, writers, the insurance industry, real estate managers, accountants/bookkeepers, engineers of every kind, scientific researchers, business managers, business owners, teachers, medical technicians, nurses, paralegals, dentists, therapists, entertainers, maintenance workers...those are just the ones i can think of off the top of my head.  you're underestimating how vast the service sector is.

not all of those jobs require a college degree (dunno why that matters since i'm pretty sure most manufacturing jobs don't either), but they're all skilled labor positions.  what you're saying is the opposite of the truth.  we're a service economy because we have so many educated and skilled workers who can fill so many different economy niches.  those workers don't like working in factories or farms.

What do you think will happen once China's economy gets done playing a game a catchup to ours? We're going to get economically destroyed in a few decades and we'll be stuck with a population almost entirely consisting of a service industry. The very worse case scenario is that results in a very bad case of brain drain and the best case is that we go into Cold War mk2 with China except we'll be holding the short end of the stick.

do you have any evidence to support any of the claims you make?  this is all utter nonsense.  that's not how any of this works.  either way, crushing our economy under the weight of a bunch of idiotic protectionism (and heralded by the gop...i'm just so utterly confused about what's happening in america right now).  how are tax hikes and increasing prices on consumer goods going to save us from china?  are you people listening to yourselves?

http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/08/china-is-killing-us-and-other-populist-myths/

When it comes to GDP per capita, the World Bank puts the United States at $54,629 and China at $7,590. (China’s income inequality gap, which seems to matter to people, is wider than the United States’s.) Although the nearly eight years of progressive economics creeping into U.S. policy has degraded economic freedom, the World Economic Forum still ranks the U.S. economy as the third most competitive in the world. China is 28th. I could dig up another 100 metrics of wealth and well-being and they would all say the same exact thing. So, yeah, they’re not “killing us” in any measurable way.

Now, I can explain this to my increasingly shrinking pool of protectionist friends—show them some nifty graphs, maybe—but they won’t care. They’ll tell me we don’t make anything anymore! even if U.S. manufacturing output has quadrupled since 1990. They’ll tell me we’re losing, even though the United States is becoming more competitive in manufacturing through automation and other efficiencies, creating advanced technology products with higher pay. The average American worker is responsible for nearly six times the output of the average Chinese worker. Why would we want to “bring back” an unproductive economy that saps jobs, I’ll ask?  It’s all BS, they’ll say.

They’ll tell me the working class is shrinking, but forget that it’s getting richer. Mark Perry at AEI has done great work on dispelling the myth that the middle class is losing ground. As Thomas Sowell points out today, 51 percent of American families will be in the top 10 percent of income earners at some point during their lifetime. Our wages haven’t gone up, says every politician. Yet if we consider what Americans can buy with a dollar, inflation, and how much employers pay in benefits, this isn’t exactly true for most people. They don’t care.

https://hbr.org/2012/03/shattering-the-myths-about-us-trade-policy

Manufacturing’s contribution to employment in the U.S. has fallen steadily for over half a century, long before America started running trade deficits. The rate of decline from 2000 to 2010—about 0.4 percentage points a year—was the same per year as during the previous 40 years. Moreover, the United States isn’t unique: Data going back to 1973 show that all industrialized countries, even those with large trade surpluses such as Germany and the Netherlands, have reported a similar trend. (See the exhibit “Manufacturing Employment Has Fallen Steadily and Globally.”)

Many people blame trade for the decline in America’s employment in manufacturing, but our research shows that the drivers of the trend in the U.S. are primarily a combination of two other factors: increasing productivity growth in American manufacturing and a shift in demand away from goods toward services.

America’s deindustrialization is “made in America,” so to speak, and it results primarily from Americans’ spending decisions. While productivity growth has led to lower prices, demand has not grown rapidly enough to prevent a declining trend in employment, the data suggest. The reason is similar to that which reduced employment in agriculture: Faster productivity growth has allowed the U.S. to meet its needs and to redeploy workers to other parts of the economy.

Trade deficits in manufactures have played only a partial role in reducing employment—and almost no role over the past decade. Using input-output tables that list the job content of production, we found that in 1998 and 2010, replacing imports with domestically produced goods would have increased manufacturing employment by 2.6 million and 2.9 million in each of those years, respectively. However, over that period, manufacturing employment would have declined by 5.7 million jobs with balanced trade—just 5% less than the 6 million jobs that were lost with the trade deficits that the U.S. actually experienced. (See the exhibit “Balanced Trade Won’t Offset Job Losses Permanently.”)

The main cause, again, is the increasing growth in labor productivity. In current dollars, the manufacturing trade deficit was twice as large in 2010 as it was in 1998, but the output per worker was higher, so the job content of each dollar of deficit has been falling rapidly. Even if the U.S. had enjoyed balanced trade in the past two decades, the share of manufacturing in employment would still have tumbled.

[sandokhan]

How about a Trump/Sanders ticket?

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/30/10869974/trump-sanders-economic-history

[Rushy]

automated labor is super relevant.  i'm saying that bringing lost manufacturing back to america is a fool's errand since it won't actually produce a significant amount of jobs.  it will bring mostly robots and some additional output.  since manufacturing output is already at record levels, we clearly don't need the output.  or, more accurately, we don't need it so badly that we should dramatically raise the prices on consumer goods with a bunch of tariffs and import taxes.

The prices of consumer goods are eventually going to raise regardless. China is spoofing their currency to make huge gains in the current trading game. They're essentially fueling America's consumerism and in the end it isn't going to be good for the people or the economy of the United States. Talking about record high manufacturing isn't indicative of our situation, since our population employment participation rate is the lowest it has been since the 80's.

really?  what about electricians, plumbers, architects, bankers, brokers, pilots, truckers, utilities workers, videographers, every job related to computers/the internet, publishers, writers, the insurance industry, real estate managers, accountants/bookkeepers, engineers of every kind, scientific researchers, business managers, business owners, teachers, medical technicians, nurses, paralegals, dentists, therapists, entertainers, maintenance workers...those are just the ones i can think of off the top of my head.  you're underestimating how vast the service sector is.

I'll admit here that my definition of the services sector has been vastly poisoned by E-Trade and their search engine. On E-Trade, the services sector consists of retail, sales, and some maintenance service industries. It completely excludes financial, healthcare, technology, energy since these are considered separate stock sectors. This disconnect is really a result of me using my working definition of "services sector" versus the academic approach.

do you have any evidence to support any of the claims you make?  this is all utter nonsense.  that's not how any of this works.  either way, crushing our economy under the weight of a bunch of idiotic protectionism (and heralded by the gop...i'm just so utterly confused about what's happening in america right now).  how are tax hikes and increasing prices on consumer goods going to save us from china?  are you people listening to yourselves?

Historically, tariffs and import tax is actually very good for American interests and time and time again protectionism has proved to be an effective economic ideal. The EU, for example, exists almost entirely as a protectionist entity for European nations. The VAT is a form of 'idiotic' protectionism that's actually done very well.

This additionally proves very true in the manufacturing industry. The majority of Japanese vehicles are actually manufactured in the US, but this was not always true. When they were originally released to US markets many American vehicle companies suffered across the board. Harley Davidson wouldn't even be around if not for a tariff raise

When it comes to GDP per capita, the World Bank puts the United States at $54,629 and China at $7,590. (China’s income inequality gap, which seems to matter to people, is wider than the United States’s.) Although the nearly eight years of progressive economics creeping into U.S. policy has degraded economic freedom, the World Economic Forum still ranks the U.S. economy as the third most competitive in the world. China is 28th. I could dig up another 100 metrics of wealth and well-being and they would all say the same exact thing. So, yeah, they’re not “killing us” in any measurable way.

Now, I can explain this to my increasingly shrinking pool of protectionist friends—show them some nifty graphs, maybe—but they won’t care. They’ll tell me we don’t make anything anymore! even if U.S. manufacturing output has quadrupled since 1990. They’ll tell me we’re losing, even though the United States is becoming more competitive in manufacturing through automation and other efficiencies, creating advanced technology products with higher pay. The average American worker is responsible for nearly six times the output of the average Chinese worker. Why would we want to “bring back” an unproductive economy that saps jobs, I’ll ask?  It’s all BS, they’ll say.

They’ll tell me the working class is shrinking, but forget that it’s getting richer. Mark Perry at AEI has done great work on dispelling the myth that the middle class is losing ground. As Thomas Sowell points out today, 51 percent of American families will be in the top 10 percent of income earners at some point during their lifetime. Our wages haven’t gone up, says every politician. Yet if we consider what Americans can buy with a dollar, inflation, and how much employers pay in benefits, this isn’t exactly true for most people. They don’t care.

I'm talking about the future and you're busy quoting the present. Fantastic.

Trade deficits in manufactures have played only a partial role in reducing employment—and almost no role over the past decade. Using input-output tables that list the job content of production, we found that in 1998 and 2010, replacing imports with domestically produced goods would have increased manufacturing employment by 2.6 million and 2.9 million in each of those years, respectively. However, over that period, manufacturing employment would have declined by 5.7 million jobs with balanced trade—just 5% less than the 6 million jobs that were lost with the trade deficits that the U.S. actually experienced. (See the exhibit “Balanced Trade Won’t Offset Job Losses Permanently.”)

Tell that to the people who lost their job when a company moved to Mexico or China. I know plenty of them, and when a man stands up and says "I can bring your job back" they're going to vote for him.

The main cause, again, is the increasing growth in labor productivity. In current dollars, the manufacturing trade deficit was twice as large in 2010 as it was in 1998, but the output per worker was higher, so the job content of each dollar of deficit has been falling rapidly. Even if the U.S. had enjoyed balanced trade in the past two decades, the share of manufacturing in employment would still have tumbled.

If this is the legitimate issue, why aren't the plants just closing altogether? They're moving, not closing, so don't you think there might be some reason they might want to be in Mexico or China instead of here?

It is also very important to remember China is an enemy of the United States.

[sandokhan]

Trump’s delegate count dropping by 50 as a result of what happened during this week’s CNN townhall meeting

"Trump reneged on his pledge to support the GOP candidate. The reason is that by doing so, he may have jeopardized his hold on South Carolina’s 50 delegates.

As Time reports, the Palmetto State was one of several that required candidates to pledge their loyalty to the party’s eventual nominee in order to secure a slot on the primary ballot. Though Trump won all of the state’s 50 delegates in the Feb. 20 primary, anti-Trump forces are plotting to contest their binding to Trump because of his threat on the pledge Tuesday."

South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Matt Moore gave credence to the anti-Trump claims: “Breaking South Carolina’s presidential primary ballot pledge raises some unanswered legal questions that no one person can answer,” he told Time. “However, a court or national convention Committee on Contests could resolve them. It could put delegates in jeopardy.”

http://time.com/4278295/donald-trump-loyalty-pledge-south-carolina-delegates/

[garygreen]

The prices of consumer goods are eventually going to raise regardless. China is spoofing their currency to make huge gains in the current trading game. They're essentially fueling America's consumerism and in the end it isn't going to be good for the people or the economy of the United States. Talking about record high manufacturing isn't indicative of our situation, since our population employment participation rate is the lowest it has been since the 80's.

i disagree with all of this.

Historically, tariffs and import tax is actually very good for American interests and time and time again protectionism has proved to be an effective economic ideal. The EU, for example, exists almost entirely as a protectionist entity for European nations. The VAT is a form of 'idiotic' protectionism that's actually done very well.

This additionally proves very true in the manufacturing industry. The majority of Japanese vehicles are actually manufactured in the US, but this was not always true. When they were originally released to US markets many American vehicle companies suffered across the board. Harley Davidson wouldn't even be around if not for a tariff raise

the comparison to reagan's motorcycle tariff isn't apples-to-apples.  that tariff affected a single us manufacturer (and only a narrow subset of consumers), and harley davidson only requested temporary relief in order to restructure their whole firm.  they even successfully lobbied the reagan administration to end the tariff after just a few years.

the bigger picture, though, is that motorcycle consumers are not an integral part of the us economy.  increasing the average price of motorcycles doesn't really affect anything.  trump's tariffs would affect goods-consumers who are vital to production and employment.

a better analogy would be to the steel industry, which was heavily tariffed by the bush administration in 2002 in the face of a decline in us steel production and employment.  the effect was pretty much exactly what you would expect.  us steel consumers (a huge sector of the economy) were hit hard by a massive spike in steel prices.  according to the top source, "More American workers lost their jobs in 2002 to higher steel prices than
the total number employed by the U.S. steel industry itself."

http://www.tradepartnership.com/pdf_files/2002jobstudy.pdf
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg81372/html/CHRG-107hhrg81372.htm

also, vats aren't tariffs: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c7211.pdf

I'm talking about the future and you're busy quoting the present. Fantastic.

Tell that to the people who lost their job when a company moved to Mexico or China. I know plenty of them, and when a man stands up and says "I can bring your job back" they're going to vote for him.

this is exactly my point.  you're all going to go out and vote for someone just because he promised you he'd get you your job back.  but you never stopped to ask if he could actually fulfill that promise.  that's no different than the college kids voting for bernie because woooooooo free college and health care for all!

i'm criticizing the notion that china is 'killing us' economically.  you're asserting, without warrant, things about the future that bear no resemblance to the way things actually are.

and, i agree that people losing their jobs is a bad thing.  that's why i don't think we should jump headlong into poorly conceived economic policy that will end up costing more jobs than it saves.  losing 2 service sector jobs to save 1 manufacturing job is bad policy if you care about jobs, and that's what trump is selling.

why aren't the plants just closing altogether? They're moving, not closing

some do close.  some move abroad.  some outsource particular components or processes abroad.  some stay here and earn lower margin.  some restructure and lay-off workers.  there's not some sudden mass exodus of manufacturing firms all to china. 

It is also very important to remember China is an enemy of the United States.

if you insist.

[Saddam Hussein]

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/8wmfl1/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-tales-from-the-trump-archive---donald-trump-s-history-of-misogyny

what

[Lord Dave]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1239484916092364&id=354522044588660


Paul Ryan: A better candidate than Trump or Cruz.

[sandokhan]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-poses-dilemma-for-new-york-republicans-1457104385

[sandokhan]

Since there are only a few primaries left, we can calculate the total number of delegates alloted for each candidate, up until June 7:

Trump 964

Cruz 794

Kasich 178

That is, Trump will need to win at least 273 delegates, out of a total of 303, come June 7.

Let us remember that in Pennsylvania only 17 of the total 71 delegates are bounded, and Cruz has been working hard to meet with and talk to the possible unbounded delegates at various meetings.

In New Jersey, just like in New York (where the most important factor will be the Rubio voters), Trump is not especially popular with Republicans, even though they will vote for him.

The best case scenario right now for Trump in California is an even split of the total vote with Cruz; a more realistic outcome is Cruz winning at least 100 delegates there.


Let also remember that Trump will have to take the stand in just a few months, in the university scam case.

Also he will have to release his tax returns BEFORE the Cleveland convention.


An independent bid by Trump will only take place with Sanders on the same ticket (or both running independent bids simultaneously), I believe (both are independent, and share many common views), which will weaken the Democrats' chances considerably.

[Lord Dave]

Trumps wall plan:

What is in Trump's plan?
Trump says as president, he would block the estimated $24 billion in remittances that Mexicans in the U.S. send back home until Mexico pays $5 billion to $10 billion for the construction costs of the wall.
Once the money is deposited, he says he would allow the flow of remittances to resume to Mexico again. In his campaign memo outlining the plan, Trump writes, "It's an easy decision for Mexico. Make a one-time payment of $5 - $10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year."

Couple of things I have issues with.
1. $10 Billion isn't enough for a wall the size and strength he proposes.  Unless he uses cheap Mexican labor.
2. He proposes that any transfer of money to Mexico requires proof of legal residency.  And how do we do this?  Drivers Licenses are easily faked (so the haters say) and anything else is a passport or a birth certificate.  Yes, I'm talking about natural born citizens.  Which means if you need to send money to anyone in Mexico for any reason, you gotta prove you're a US citizen or legal alien.  This includes businesses.
3. How the hell does all the legal and illegals sending money into Mexico come close to $24 Billion?
According to this:
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/mexican-immigrants-united-states


There are about 12 Million Mexicans in the US. 

Each one (including children) must send about $2,000 a year to Mexico.  Doesn't seem likely to me.   My guess is that the number includes business transactions as well, so Trump is proposing we stop buying anything from Mexico via wire transfer.  Which is going to...
1. Piss off the banks who rely on the fees.
2. Piss off the businesses who rely on buying ANYTHING outside of the US.

3. Piss off the foreign voters who want to send money to family. PS. my wife was in that boat.  Had to send money to her Norwegian account every month to pay her loans when she lived here.  Does that mean she'd have to prove she's legal every time she sent money via paypal?

4. A one time payment?  To who?  Trump?  Or Congress? And how long will THAT take before it's used on something else? 



And, of course, this requires congressional approval.

[Rushy]

http://allnewsintheworld.com/2016/04/08/ted-cruz-risks-primary-disqualification-in-new-jersey-other-late-primary-states-charges-professor-victor-williams/

Rafael Cruz is a dirty Canadian rat and soon he might be taken off the ballot for failing to meet the definition of "natural born citizen." Constitutional lawyer, my ass. Go back to Canada, Rafael.

Williams’ fraud charges had quick effect in New Jersey. Rather than accepting Cruz’s ballot petition when filed last week, the Secretary of State (Kim Guadagno) scheduled the unusual Administrative Law hearing for April 11. The Canadian-born Cruz must prove that he did not falsely certify his eligibility for office.

[Lord Dave]

http://allnewsintheworld.com/2016/04/08/ted-cruz-risks-primary-disqualification-in-new-jersey-other-late-primary-states-charges-professor-victor-williams/

Rafael Cruz is a dirty Canadian rat and soon he might be taken off the ballot for failing to meet the definition of "natural born citizen." Constitutional lawyer, my ass. Go back to Canada, Rafael.

Williams’ fraud charges had quick effect in New Jersey. Rather than accepting Cruz’s ballot petition when filed last week, the Secretary of State (Kim Guadagno) scheduled the unusual Administrative Law hearing for April 11. The Canadian-born Cruz must prove that he did not falsely certify his eligibility for office.

Aaahahahhahahahahhahahahha!!!!


Where are the birthers now?!

[Saddam Hussein]

Stop getting your news from crank sites, Rushy.

[Rushy]

Stop getting your news from crank sites, Rushy.

Oh, sorry Saddam, I forgot you're incapable of searching for information over the Internet.

Here, the law professor they spoke about is a writer on Huff Post, which I'm sure is your number one source of reality these days: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/not-eligible-to-play-top-_b_9554784.html

He announced his full intentions of charging Cruz in court and now other people are writing articles on how that's coming along. That's how news works, Saddam. They write about new things happening as they develop. Shocking, I know, but try to think about it for a bit and maybe it'll clear up the fog in your head.