Octopus Overlords

Fretmute wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:54 pm And Wall of Voodoo with Mexican Radio on repeat.

Skinypupy wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:57 pm

Fretmute wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:54 pm And Wall of Voodoo with Mexican Radio on repeat.

Mmmmm...BBQ iguana.

GreenGoo wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:31 pm Not willing to leave all the petty nonsense to the tan suit critics, Vogue and others are picking apart the Drumpf Christmas picture for vague and insubstantial reasons.

None of the criticisms suggest he looks unpresidential though, so progress, I guess?

I'll post a link later if I remember.

GreenGoo wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:40 pm

GreenGoo wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:31 pm Not willing to leave all the petty nonsense to the tan suit critics, Vogue and others are picking apart the Drumpf Christmas picture for vague and insubstantial reasons.

None of the criticisms suggest he looks unpresidential though, so progress, I guess?

I'll post a link later if I remember.

GreenGoo wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:16 am You should go on the talk show circuit and discuss it in excruciating detail.

You didn't answer the more important question though. Does it make him look presidential?

LordMortis wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:40 pmcorporate naming rights

LordMortis wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:38 am TrumpTrade spells out that Mexico is paying for the Wall? Does he show how?

Kraken wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2018 12:24 pm

LordMortis wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:38 am TrumpTrade spells out that Mexico is paying for the Wall? Does he show how?

I saw this explained somewhere a few days ago. It's so convoluted that Trump can't possibly have understood it, much less come up with it himself.

First, he doesn't understand how tariffs work. He thinks Mexico is paying them to the US Treasury. Second, there's some actuarial sleight-of-hand about Mexico's costs under neo-NAFTA, which he compares to having no treaty, rather than to old NAFTA. In reality, neo-NAFTA is so similar to old NAFTA that it barely budges the numbers.

Basically, it's bullshit. But we already knew that.

LordMortis wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2018 12:49 pm

Kraken wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2018 12:24 pm

LordMortis wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:38 am TrumpTrade spells out that Mexico is paying for the Wall? Does he show how?

I saw this explained somewhere a few days ago. It's so convoluted that Trump can't possibly have understood it, much less come up with it himself.

First, he doesn't understand how tariffs work. He thinks Mexico is paying them to the US Treasury. Second, there's some actuarial sleight-of-hand about Mexico's costs under neo-NAFTA, which he compares to having no treaty, rather than to old NAFTA. In reality, neo-NAFTA is so similar to old NAFTA that it barely budges the numbers.

Basically, it's bullshit. But we already knew that.

I'd like to see the explanation. If it's through tariffs then yeah, lies, as expected but even more expected is there ain't no plan, which is also lies as expected. Still, I'd like to know rather than throw stones without knowing.

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.”

The Trump administration unveiled a plan Thursday to force hundreds of thousands more Americans to hold jobs if they want to keep receiving food stamps, pursuing through executive powers what it could not achieve in Congress.

The country’s food assistance program, which is run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, already requires most adults without dependents to work if they collect food stamps for more than three months in a three-year period. But USDA regulations allow states to waive the requirement in areas with unemployment rates that are at least 20 percent greater than the national rate.

The USDA is now proposing that states could waive the requirement only in areas where unemployment is above 7 percent. The current national unemployment rate stands at 3.7 percent.
...
Since the 1996 welfare law took effect, every state but Delaware has sought a time-limit waiver at some point, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which tracks such exemptions.

Spoiler:

none of them.

President Trump will not commit to signing legislation that would avoid a partial government shutdown on Saturday, his press secretary said, further roiling a chaotic debate that is splintering the Republican Party.

“At this moment, the President does not want to go further without border security, which includes steel slats or a wall. The President is continuing to weigh his options,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Thursday in a statement.

The tumultuous turn of events has seen Trump reverse himself numerous times in recent days on the issue, first demanding $5 billion from Congress for a wall along the Mexico border, then declaring the military would pay for it, only to insist that the money come from Democrats next year.

As talks appeared to break down Thursday, senior Republicans in Congress even appeared unsure of what Trump actually wanted before he would sign legislation. The breakdown has prompted a hastily arranged meeting between Trump and House Republicans at noon Thursday.

Isgrimnur wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:31 am

That would currently be ...

Spoiler:

none of them.

Sepiche wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 1:19 pm Aaaaand chaos

Sepiche wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 1:19 pm Aaaaand chaos...

President Trump will not commit to signing legislation that would avoid a partial government shutdown on Saturday, his press secretary said, further roiling a chaotic debate that is splintering the Republican Party.

“At this moment, the President does not want to go further without border security, which includes steel slats or a wall. The President is continuing to weigh his options,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Thursday in a statement.

The tumultuous turn of events has seen Trump reverse himself numerous times in recent days on the issue, first demanding $5 billion from Congress for a wall along the Mexico border, then declaring the military would pay for it, only to insist that the money come from Democrats next year.

As talks appeared to break down Thursday, senior Republicans in Congress even appeared unsure of what Trump actually wanted before he would sign legislation. The breakdown has prompted a hastily arranged meeting between Trump and House Republicans at noon Thursday.

pr0ner wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:34 pm FYI, that meeting produced ZERO progress.

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1075819021621186565

Octavious wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:44 pmMeanwhile the stock market is imploding... Everything is GREAT!!!!!!!!

Octavious wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:13 pm There is no way the Dems cave in this right? I mean I don't see any possible reason they would unless Trump gave them something ridiculous in return. So if that doesn't happen how long can the idiot carry this on for?

pr0ner wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:07 pm I like how it's no longer just a wall, but steel slats OR a wall.