Trump II

[Robert Roaldi]

If roughly 11-13 million American-Mexicans remitted $24 billion last night, that's about $2000 each. Sorry, but in the US economy that's an insignificant amount of money. (Lots of people probably do spend $2000 per year on coffee.   )

[Robert Roaldi]

You did make moral judgments.  When you say that the big shots are getting handouts, what you are realing saying is that illegals are not afforded similar rights.  Well, that's a moral judgment.  Once you start comparing "fairness", you're playing the morals argument game.  Liberals do this all the time.  It comes natural too them.   "It's unfair that blacks don't get into colleges at the same rate as whites."  "It's unfair that the poor cannot eat the same food as the rich."  "It's unfair that illegal aliens are denied their 'rights" while rich guys get all kinds of tax breaks."

Here's from your post:
"People expend an inordinate amount of emotional energy, it seems to me, worrying about the possible "costs" that illegals cost the system, but are there data showing that they cost the system any more than legal citizens do? How does that compare to the various forms of corporate welfare that the various levels of government pay out to Big Oil, Big Corn, Big Sugar, etc.

How much tax money paid by the avg joe is turned over to the one-percenters who own pro sports franchises when cities and states given them stadiums and other tax holidays based on the confidence game that these places benefit local economies (something that has been fund untrue by every economic analysis ever done)? We like to make fun of corrupt governments in the underdeveloped world, but viewed from a couple of steps back, how is the handing over of tax money to pro sports enterprises anything but corruption? It's theft on a grand scale, imo, although at the same time I have to admire the audacity of the con."

We were discussing public policy options. If you want to spin that into some kind of "moral" argument that I'm making against Americans, go ahead.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

If roughly 11-13 million American-Mexicans remitted $24 billion last night, that's about $2000 each. Sorry, but in the US economy that's an insignificant amount of money. (Lots of people probably do spend $2000 per year on coffee.   )

Even if so, those $2000 people spend on coffee HERE, stay HERE, helping the economy: baristas, truck drivers, Starbuck employees, food makers, taxes, etc. On the other hand, $24 billions are sucked OUT of the U.S. economy every year.

[Robert Roaldi]

Taken on its own, I guess that's true. But it doesn't only apply to Mexicans, does it? How big a fraction of the larger issue are Mexican remittances? I have no idea.

Are Americans barred from investing overseas or in overseas stock markets? Isn't that sucking the money out of the economy? Wasn't there some issue a couple of years back of multi-nationals who did business in the USA parking the money in other jurisdictions to avoid US taxes? I bet that was a lot more than $24 billion. I realize it's not apples to apples (pun not intended but fun anyway), but it's best to keep a proper perspective.

The complaint against remittances eventually brings one around to export currency controls. Wasn't it the policy of communist regimes to prevent people taking money out of their countries? I don't think the USA would want to emulate them. Isn't the freedom to do what you want with your own money kind of important? If they worked for and earned that cash, the portion of it that is not due in payroll taxes IS NOT the state's money, it's theirs.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Taken on its own, I guess that's true. But it doesn't only apply to Mexicans, does it? How big a fraction of the larger issue are Mexican remittances? I have no idea.

Are Americans barred from investing overseas or in overseas stock markets? Isn't that sucking the money out of the economy? Wasn't there some issue a couple of years back of multi-nationals who did business in the USA parking the money in other jurisdictions to avoid US taxes? I bet that was a lot more than $24 billion. I realize it's not apples to apples (pun not intended but fun anyway), but it's best to keep a proper perspective.

The complaint against remittances eventually brings one around to export currency controls. Wasn't it the policy of communist regimes to prevent people taking money out of their countries? I don't think the USA would want to emulate them. Isn't the freedom to do what you want with your own money kind of important? If they worked for and earned that cash, the portion of it that is not due in payroll taxes IS NOT the state's money, it's theirs.

I agree, and Americans also shouldn't go on holidays outside of the USA, draining their own economy, or buy foreign products/services (like iPhones which are made in Asia with cheap labor), or ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Trump administration goes on the attack against leaks
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN1AJ1SW

QUOTE  August 4, 2017 / 5:24 PM  "U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks at a briefing on leaks of classified material threatening national security at the Justice Department in Washington, U.S., August 4, 2017.Yuri Gripas

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, taking up an issue that has infuriated President Donald Trump, went on the attack against leaks on Friday, and said that the government was reviewing policies on compelling journalists to reveal sources.

"One of the things we are doing is reviewing policies affecting media subpoenas," Sessions told reporters as he announced administration efforts to battle what he called a "staggering number of leaks undermining the ability of our government to protect this country."

"We respect the important role that the press plays and will give them respect, but it is not unlimited," he said.

A media subpoena is a writ compelling a journalist to testify or produce evidence, with a penalty for failure to do so. The fact the administration is reviewing its policy leaves open the possibility of sentencing journalists for not disclosing their sources. "



The start of the endgame ...?

Cheers,
Bart

[Robert Roaldi]

Trump administration goes on the attack against leaks
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN1AJ1SW

QUOTE  August 4, 2017 / 5:24 PM  "U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks at a briefing on leaks of classified material threatening national security at the Justice Department in Washington, U.S., August 4, 2017.Yuri Gripas

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, taking up an issue that has infuriated President Donald Trump, went on the attack against leaks on Friday, and said that the government was reviewing policies on compelling journalists to reveal sources.

"One of the things we are doing is reviewing policies affecting media subpoenas," Sessions told reporters as he announced administration efforts to battle what he called a "staggering number of leaks undermining the ability of our government to protect this country."

"We respect the important role that the press plays and will give them respect, but it is not unlimited," he said.

A media subpoena is a writ compelling a journalist to testify or produce evidence, with a penalty for failure to do so. The fact the administration is reviewing its policy leaves open the possibility of sentencing journalists for not disclosing their sources. "



The start of the endgame ...?

Cheers,
Bart

It certainly smells like desperation.

As I said a few times in this thread and other places, when politicians complain about journalists, my immediate reaction is to think that the journalists are doing something right and I start paying even more attention to them.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Taken on its own, I guess that's true. But it doesn't only apply to Mexicans, does it? How big a fraction of the larger issue are Mexican remittances? I have no idea.

Are Americans barred from investing overseas or in overseas stock markets? Isn't that sucking the money out of the economy? Wasn't there some issue a couple of years back of multi-nationals who did business in the USA parking the money in other jurisdictions to avoid US taxes? I bet that was a lot more than $24 billion. I realize it's not apples to apples (pun not intended but fun anyway), but it's best to keep a proper perspective.

The complaint against remittances eventually brings one around to export currency controls. Wasn't it the policy of communist regimes to prevent people taking money out of their countries? I don't think the USA would want to emulate them. Isn't the freedom to do what you want with your own money kind of important? If they worked for and earned that cash, the portion of it that is not due in payroll taxes IS NOT the state's money, it's theirs.

All your parallels, communism, investing, taxes, sport stadiums, etc. are based on single premise that illegal immigrants are equal in their rights to citizens and legal aliens. They are not, and should not be in the position to syphon money out of the economy in the first place. For a variety of reasons (the rule of law being the most important), not just monetary.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... As I said a few times in this thread and other places, when politicians complain about journalists, my immediate reaction is to think that the journalists are doing something right and I start paying even more attention to them.

You seem to be hearing only one thing (journalists), but there is a much more important aspect of it (bold mine):

Mr Sessions was joined by Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, who issued a stark warning to leakers.
“Anyone who engages in these criminal acts is betraying the intelligence community and the American people,” he said.

“We feel the pain of those betrayals intensely and I can assure you that I will do everything in my power as director of national intelligence to hold those people accountable.

“Understand this, if you improperly disclose classified information, we will find you, we will investigate you, and we will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, and you will not be happy with the result.”

[Robert Roaldi]

I think that it's commonplace in a lot of jurisdictions that even illegal aliens have some human rights. I understand that people aren't happy that they are in the country, but I don't agree that they "siphoned" the money out of the economy. They worked for it and were paid for the work, it's not like they robbed a bank. (You could make the argument that they had a job that "rightly" belonged to someone else, but to me that's far from a convincing argument.) But I take your point, they are not in the same legal category as citizens, notwithstanding the arguments of the economists who do NOT think that they cost the county anything. And if they don't cost the country anything, my thinking goes, why this much fuss? Do something about it if you want, sure, but I remain unconvinced that it's a pressing issue of great magnitude.

But it is difficult for me to believe that the US is really going to track down and deport all 13 million (or whatever the number is), it's about as likely as getting Mexico to pay for a wall, assuming a wall ever gets built. So at some point, an accommodation is going to be reached.

(Do you know if the remittance amounts mentioned earlier included only remittances from illegal aliens or did the amounts also include remittances from legal Mexican immigrants? It seems to me that the latter can send the money to whoever they want, and it's none of anyone's business.)


As for declaring that journalists are violating the country's secrets, in this case it seems like a stretch to me. It's all too easy for politicians to declare personally embarrassing things to be secrets, isn't it? It's happened before, I'm sure. I don't know the details of this one, I can't honestly say I've followed the whole Russian/election thing much, but at first glance, it doesn't seem to me as if important state secrets are at stake here. We'll see, I guess.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...I don't agree that they "siphoned" the money out of the economy. They worked for it and were paid for the work, it's not like they robbed a bank...

The fact is that money is syphoned out, period, whether you agree or not with the fact. Whether they earned it and deserve it is not relevant. Once again you are inserting a moral judgment.

... the arguments of the economists who do NOT think that they cost the county anything....

Which economists? Both Alan and I provided links to specific calculations for NY and LA that show quite the opposite. Then again, as I said, there are more important aspects than monetary. Even if they cost nothing, and even if they actually would contribute to the economy. They broke the law in the first place. We do not celebrate Pablo Escobars of the world for building schools and hospitals for the poor, for instance.

...But it is difficult for me to believe that the US is really going to track down and deport all 13 million...

Not overnight. It might take time. But even a 1000-mile journey starts with a first step, as the Chinese say, and after that it is extremely simple: round them up and kick them out... rinse and repeat. Ant that is already happening under Trump.

... Do you know if the remittance amounts mentioned earlier included only remittances from illegal aliens or did the amounts also include remittances from legal Mexican immigrants?...

Both.

...As for declaring that journalists are violating the country's secrets...

Nobody said that. They were talking about leakers within the government and administration that are the primary target for prosecution. Journalists might be caught in the middle for not disclosing their sources, but jailing them for that is nothing new, it happened before under several different administrations.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... They were talking about leakers within the government and administration that are the primary target for prosecution. Journalists might be caught in the middle for not disclosing their sources, but jailing them for that is nothing new, it happened before under several different administrations.

Further to the above:

"If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama"

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html

WASHINGTON — If Donald J. Trump decides as president to throw a whistle-blower in jail for trying to talk to a reporter, or gets the F.B.I. to spy on a journalist, he will have one man to thank for bequeathing him such expansive power: Barack Obama... Criticism of Mr. Obama’s stance on press freedom, government transparency and secrecy is hotly disputed by the White House, but many journalism groups say the record is clear. Over the past eight years, the administration has prosecuted nine cases involving whistle-blowers and leakers, compared with only three by all previous administrations combined. It has repeatedly used the Espionage Act, a relic of World War I-era red-baiting, not to prosecute spies but to go after government officials who talked to journalists.

Under Mr. Obama, the Justice Department and the F.B.I. have spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records, labeled one journalist an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case for simply doing reporting and issued subpoenas to other reporters to try to force them to reveal their sources and testify in criminal cases...

Of note: the source is not Breitbart

[Alan Klein]

We were discussing public policy options. If you want to spin that into some kind of "moral" argument that I'm making against Americans, go ahead.

Your argument is meaningless because you are not American, do not have to deal with the issues created,  and do not pay American taxes that support illegals and immigrants. Since you have no skin in the game, your opinion has no monetary value.  It can only have a value based on some moral precept you may have. Otherwise it's worthless.  Your recommendations don't cost you anything.  It's easy to be a big shot with other people's money. 

It would be like me, an American,  saying that Canada should let in 2 million immigrants from the middle east, half Syrian refugees.  After all, Canada is a rich country.  Although there may be dislocations at first and extra costs to Canadian citizens, they will only add to your economy, eventually.  Anyway, what do you have against Arabs? 

On the other hand, if you want to discuss trade policy like NAFTA since that would effect you, that would be a topic where your input would have value. 

[Peter McLennan]

So, a person's opinion has zero value unless they are monetarily connect to the particular issue?

[Alan Klein]

So, a person's opinion has zero value unless they are monetarily connect to the particular issue?

Well, paying for services are a major component in deciding how your feel about something. In addition, I also said that he wasn't an American.  So it's rather pointless to an American for a foreigner who doesn't live here and who doesn't pay the taxes to recommend what America should do when it doesn't effect the foreigner.  On top of that, his recommendation is opposite what they do in his country.   Frankly, it's minding someone else's business.   

I don't think foreigners ought to opine about domestic American politics and our economy and other things that they aren't involved in and don't effect them.   On the other hand, I'm all in favor of hearing everyone's viewpoint on trade.  What should Trump do?  Now there's something that does effect non-Americans.  How about providing your opinion on what Trump should do regarding war, policing foreign shores, and things like that.  These could use international input because they do effect you.  I want to hear what others think.  I'm very conflicted on these things.  For example, on the one hand I think we get involved in too many places that cost us treasure and blood.  On the other hand, I have a feeling that being such a major economic and military power requires us to be a sort of "policeman" to keep the peace.  What do you think about that?

 

[Farmer]

I agree with the first part of the observation. That's the original sin of the immigration politics.

And yet... just because a cop, eating a donut and having a full cup of coffee in his hand, decided not to engage in the pursuit of a speeding car, doesn't mean you are not breaking the law, and that the next cop along the road has no right to stop you. That next cop is Trump.

Agreed entirely.  All I said, despite Alan's #fakenonsense, is that you had to think about it and that Trump's travel ban was ill conceived, poorly implemented, and probably not legal - all of which was demonstrably shown, of course and lead to him crafting a different one.

From that, I've had Alan tell me I can't comment on a Canadian message board on a message thread about Trump, started by someone else who has no objection to my comments, all because I don't have a financial interest in the US in terms of taxes paid and so on (which is actually not true - I have and will continue to pay US taxes at various times).

And here's the thing, Slobo - Trump ain't no cop.  He doesn't understand the law, he doesn't understand what's required to maintain it, he doesn't understand the implications of his choices, he understands very little, overall.  Look at the recently leaked transcripts.  They shouldn't have been leaked, but they have and he doesn't even make sense a lot of the time, and he's clearly only interested in what makes him look good.  He doesn't give a damn about the US unless it benefits him.

Yes, you need to control your border.  You need a better idea than trying to get Mexico to pay for a fence/wall/line-in-the-sand.  It's a complex issue but Trump lacks the mental capacity for complex thought and so you get soundbite policies, delivered by tweet, instead of rational and sustainable and achievable policies to attain the desired goals.  Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Timely.  It's a very basic guideline, but virtually everything he's done has failed.  Then he blames someone else.  Alan blames the media for not giving him a go.  Tough.  No one said people have to be nice to someone they don't like and disagree with and if that's most of the media, again, tough.  Deal with it.  If you can't manage to deal with the press you shouldn't be trying to manage an entire nation, and refusing to have on-camera briefings and having people literally and demonstrably get up and tell lie after lie after lie to the press is just stupid.

[Farmer]

You supported Roaldi's arguments many of which were which were morally based.  So you were making moral judgments against American policies as well.  Whether they were moral, economically based, or whatever, the fact that Canada and Australia have more harsh immigration policies than America should give you pause before criticizing ours.  Most Americans who post don't go around criticizing other countries policies on such "in the weeds" issues.  It's your country and you can decide how to run it.  Why do so many non-Americans feel they have to tell Americans how we should live?

So I'll ask you again.  Show me.  Quote it.  Quote just once where I did what you claim here or before?  You can't.  Because I didn't.  You just make stuff up, Alan. 

Also you claim that Canada and Australia have "more harsh" policies.  In what way?  How are they harsh, let alone harsher?  Specific parts, broadly speaking, or are you just making stuff up again, Alan (hint: it's the last option).

As to why non-Americans comment here?  It's a public message board and a subject was started about Trump.  We comment.  Want to start one about Malcolm Turnbull? Go right ahead.  You can have whatever views you want and they can be discussed without me, or anyone, needing to resort to "you don't live here you don't get to have a say".

As Slobo pointed out, as a nation, you stick your nose into other nation's business basically more than any other.  But from now on, Alan, so as to help you avoid being a hypocrite, please refrain from commenting on any topic on these boards unless you can first show that you have a financial interest in the matter.  That's the standard that you're trying to hold us to, so live by it.

[Alan Klein]

So I'll ask you again.  Show me.  Quote it.  Quote just once where I did what you claim here or before?  You can't.  Because I didn't.  You just make stuff up, Alan. 

Also you claim that Canada and Australia have "more harsh" policies.  In what way?  How are they harsh, let alone harsher?  Specific parts, broadly speaking, or are you just making stuff up again, Alan (hint: it's the last option).

As to why non-Americans comment here?  It's a public message board and a subject was started about Trump.  We comment.  Want to start one about Malcolm Turnbull? Go right ahead.  You can have whatever views you want and they can be discussed without me, or anyone, needing to resort to "you don't live here you don't get to have a say".

As Slobo pointed out, as a nation, you stick your nose into other nation's business basically more than any other.  But from now on, Alan, so as to help you avoid being a hypocrite, please refrain from commenting on any topic on these boards unless you can first show that you have a financial interest in the matter.  That's the standard that you're trying to hold us to, so live by it.

This thread is a two-way street.  You can claim as much as you want you have the right to criticize us and tell us how we should live.  And I claim the right to criticize you and tell you I don't accept your opinion and stop nosing in to our business. 

Also, no one cares about Malcolm Turnbull.  Most don't even know who he is.    I wouldn't waste my time. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...Also, no one cares about Malcolm Turnbull...

True.

But I do care about another Aussie politician, Cleaver Greene. Awesome dude! 

[Farmer]

This thread is a two-way street.  You can claim as much as you want you have the right to criticize us and tell us how we should live.  And I claim the right to criticize you and tell you I don't accept your opinion and stop nosing in to our business. 

Also, no one cares about Malcolm Turnbull.  Most don't even know who he is.    I wouldn't waste my time.

You are so very, very, small, Alan.