Election Chatter Thread...

[jsmith6919]

 

[boozeman]

Did you miss the USMCA? It is funded by them. Educate yourself.

First of all, that is not what he sold you and countless other people.

He stated they would. It was a promise. There was zero about anything indirect. Which is basically what you are suggesting.

And the facts are simple.

Is Mexico Paying for the Wall Through USMCA? - FactCheck.org

President Donald Trump declared via Twitter that he is keeping perhaps his most famous campaign promise, claiming that "MEXICO IS PAYING FOR THE WALL!" through a recent trade agreement negotiated with Mexico. But economic and trade experts we interviewed said that's not possible.

www.factcheck.org

Can USMCA Pay for the Wall?
To be clear, there is nothing in the USMCA spelling out that Mexico will pay for any border wall. The president’s argument is more nuanced than that.

As he told the Wall Street Journal in January, Mexico could pay for the wall “indirectly” if the U.S. makes a “good deal” renegotiating NAFTA. “Say I’m going to take a small percentage of that money and it’s going to go toward the wall,” Trump said. “Guess what? Mexico’s paying.”

Economists and trade experts we interviewed called the president’s logic misguided.

Although the president has given conflicting statements about the cost of a wall, the White House released an immigration plan in January that sought $25 billion for the wall. A cost estimate sent by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to lawmakers that month sought $18 billion over 10 years for the first phase of border wall construction. (On Dec. 7, Trump estimated the cost of the wall at $15 billion to $20 billion).

Can increased tax revenue from the USMCA pay for the wall?

Assuming the cost is closer to $25 billion, economists told us there’s not enough new benefits to the U.S. in the new trade agreement to pay for the wall.

“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.”

One of the concessions won by U.S. negotiators is a requirement that “40-45 percent of auto content be made by workers earning at least $16 per hour.” The idea is to level the playing field for higher-wage American manufacturers. The USMCA also takes some steps to reduce barriers to U.S. export of dairy products to Canada.

But 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.”

 

[jsmith6919]

 

[Smitty]

Yeah, the Democrats really screwed the pooch in this election in terms of Congress.

They didn't do shit.

Did they screw the pooch or were they just beat? Frankly the demise of the Republican Party is overstated. They continue to win Congressional elections with consistency; the fact that the Senate polled ahead of Trump is evidence that the conservative voters were there in the swing states to win - but some of them just could not bring themselves to vote for such an annoying president again.

 

[Smitty]

Biden lied about wanting to ban fracking ... Philly beset by riots and looting .. and PA still goes blue. I give up.

Has PA gone blue?

 

[Cotton]

“Ultimately USMCA is very similar to NAFTA

Lost me right there.

 

[1bigfan13]

All of not funded by Mexico.

Of course not.

Trump tried to divert billions of funds that were earmarked for military construction projects....money that was supposed to be used for much needed school and housing upgrades. But hey, he loves the military and stuff.

IIRC, they were successful moving money off of other federal projects for their border wall fund.

 

[Sheik]

Has PA gone blue?

We won’t know for quite some time.

 

[Cotton]

Has PA gone blue?

No.

 

[jsmith6919]

I'd fight it to the bitter end. I don't give a dam how much "unrest" it causes. They are not playing clean, so why the fuck should Trump?

Yea fuck it, I hope he goes full Stacy Abrams

 

[1bigfan13]

Counting votes that were cast validly is fraud?

 

[Cotton]

Of course not.

Trump tried to divert billions of funds that were earmarked for military construction projects....money that was supposed to be used for much needed school and housing upgrades. But hey, he loves the military and stuff.

IIRC, they were successful moving money off of other federal projects for their border wall fund.

The initial funding would obviously come from us, but that's not the point. If he could succeed and so far has done so, the hit to Mexico with paybacks over time through the USMCA, they would actually pay for the wall.

 

[Cotton]

Counting votes that were cast validly is fraud?

I'm confused. Who is claiming otherwise?

 

[1bigfan13]

Yea fuck it, I hope he goes full Stacy Abrams

If Biden hits 270 he can fight as much as he likes. He just needs to make sure his shit is packed and he gets the hell out of the White House by COB on January 20, 2021.

 

[1bigfan13]

I'm confused. Who is claiming otherwise?

No one in this thread. I'm talking GOP affiliated checkmarks on Twitter like Candace Owens.

 

[1bigfan13]

I never thought I'd see the day that Georgia would turn blue with a non-southern Dem running for POTUS. Obviously it's still a toss up and Trump could hold on but the fact that's GA's razor thin is probably the biggest shocker for me.

 

[Cotton]

I never thought I'd see the day that Georgia would turn blue with a non-southern Dem running for POTUS. Obviously it's still a toss up and Trump could hold on but the fact that's GA's razor thin is probably the biggest shocker for me.

Nevada being close is the biggest shocker for me.

 

[Sheik]

I’m in love with Kim Klacik. Yeah, she lost, but I want her.

 

[1bigfan13]

I Googled it and they actually do usually rank dead last in public education.

 

[jsmith6919]