SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

ISayMoo
Posts: 2294
Joined: September 30th, 2015, 8:30 pm

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

I don't want to give Trump any more credit than he deserves. However he was elected in democratically and he always said that he was going to build a wall.
True. But equally true is the fact that the House Democrats were elected as at least as legally as Trump, and they (AFAIK) clearly said they don't want to fund his wall.
So it's a conflict.

ISayMoo
Posts: 2294
Joined: September 30th, 2015, 8:30 pm

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

What did he say, actually?

"When during the campaign, I would say 'Mexico is going to pay for it,' obviously, I never said this, and I never meant they're gonna write out a check, I said they're going to pay for it. They are,"

Ppauper, as the High Priest of the Church of Trump, can you provide an exegesis?

tw
Posts: 1174
Joined: May 10th, 2002, 3:30 pm

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

What did he say, actually?

"When during the campaign, I would say 'Mexico is going to pay for it,' obviously, I never said this, and I never meant they're gonna write out a check, I said they're going to pay for it. They are,"

Ppauper, as the High Priest of the Church of Trump, can you provide an exegesis?
What I can't understand is that if the 5bn for the wall is so critical as to be worth shutting down the government indefinitely,
why couldn't it have been factored into the calculations around the time of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act in 2017?
5bn sounds a drop in the ocean compared to the extreme economics of that legislation.

bearish
Posts: 5526
Joined: February 3rd, 2011, 2:19 pm

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

What did he say, actually?

"When during the campaign, I would say 'Mexico is going to pay for it,' obviously, I never said this, and I never meant they're gonna write out a check, I said they're going to pay for it. They are,"

Ppauper, as the High Priest of the Church of Trump, can you provide an exegesis?
What I can't understand is that if the 5bn for the wall is so critical as to be worth shutting down the government indefinitely,
why couldn't it have been factored into the calculations around the time of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act in 2017?
5bn sounds a drop in the ocean compared to the extreme economics of that legislation.
Right, this is clearly not particularly about money. If it were, as you point out, the hundreds of billions of dollars that the GOP selectively handed out would utterly swamp it. This is about symbolism, Trump's 2020 election campaign (active for 2 years and counting) and, in particular, Trump's hatred for little brown fuckers. Nothing really to do about drugs, which come in via regular gateways; modern illegal aliens, who fly in on a valid visa and overstay it; terrorists, well this is just funny.

bearish
Posts: 5526
Joined: February 3rd, 2011, 2:19 pm

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

Separately, unless Trump gets to him first, Michael Cohen will give a fully public testimony to the House in early February. That ought to be interesting!

bearish
Posts: 5526
Joined: February 3rd, 2011, 2:19 pm

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

So, the clown now is very clear that Mexico will obviously never pay for the wall. And, he never said that they would. Really?

bearish
Posts: 5526
Joined: February 3rd, 2011, 2:19 pm

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

A good point was made tonight. If Trump could get away with declaring a made-up national emergency to overrule congress to build a wall, what is to stop a (hypothetical) future democrat president from making the far more reasonable declaration of a national gun violence emergency and thus demand that all guns be handed over to the government? That would even make sense!

ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

What did he say, actually?

"When during the campaign, I would say 'Mexico is going to pay for it,' obviously, I never said this, and I never meant they're gonna write out a check, I said they're going to pay for it. They are,"

Ppauper, as the High Priest of the Church of Trump, can you provide an exegesis?
I wouldn't presume to so exalt myself.
The president has explained it very clearly, although of course the details are yet to be worked out.
For example, the US had a trade surplus with Mexico before NAFTA, which NAFTA converted into a deficit every single year, roughly $60-$80B dollar a year of late, with the cumulative deficit around $1 Trillion (with a "T") since NAFTA. . Even though we were promised the opposite by Clinton and Gore when NAFTA was implemented. In the period from January 1994 through November 2016, according to Census Bureau numbers, the United States ran a cumulative merchandise trade deficit with Mexico of$986,532,000,000.

The new improved USMCA (US-Mexico-Canada Agreement) which superseded NAFTA, should cut that deficit somewhat, and before you know it, the wall will be paid for.

On a side note, there was a study by the Center for Immigration Studies think-tank (using National Academy of Sciences data) that showed that the wall would pay for itself in no time.
According to a 2016 National Academy of Sciences study, the lifetime "fiscal balance" (the difference between what they give to the government and what they receive back) of an immigrant with a bachelor's degree is on average +$183,000, and with more than a bachelor's on average$423,875. That sounds pretty good. The problem is that only 2% of illegal border crosses have more than a bachelor's, with a further 4% having just a bachelor's. 10% have some college, who have a fiscal balance on average of +$41,000, 27% are high school graduates, who have a fiscal deficit of -$69,750, and 57% have not completed high school, who have a fiscal deficit of -$173,375, pretty much the opposite of a Bachelor's degree holder. Using those figures, the average fiscal drain of an illegal border crosser is something like$74,722, so a \$20B wall would need to stop just 267,659 illegals to pay for itself.
The reason there are so few ilegals with bachelor's or higher is that many of them could work in the US legally anyway if they wanted under NAFTA (as could Canadians), so there was no reason to climb through the hole in the fence. I assume that holds true for USMCA which superseded NAFTA.

ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

Trump's hatred for little brown fuckers.
even for you, that is truly an odious statement
President Trump's administration has just negotiated a trade agreement with Mexico (and Canada), the USMCA, which enables qualifying Mexican professionals (those same people whom you consider to be "little brown fuckers") to work in the US legally.

ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

A good point was made tonight. If Trump could get away with declaring a made-up national emergency to overrule congress to build a wall, what is to stop a (hypothetical) future democrat president from making the far more reasonable declaration of a national gun violence emergency and thus demand that all guns be handed over to the government? That would even make sense!
it comes back to the steel seize case which your fellow-traveler Adam Schiff was babbling incoherently about the other day.
During the Korean War, the steelworkers went on strike and Truman tried to nationalize the steel industry so that he could end the strike, and the seizure was struck dowm by the Supremes. It's discussed in detail in Rehnquist's book because he had just started clerking for Jackson when the case was before the Court.
The difference is that under the National Emergency legislation passed by Congress, the president has explicit authority to use the military for construction projects, but has much more limited authority to seize private property.
Last edited by ppauper on January 11th, 2019, 8:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

rmax
Posts: 6080
Joined: December 8th, 2005, 9:31 am

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

I don't want to give Trump any more credit than he deserves. However he was elected in democratically and he always said that he was going to build a wall.
True. But equally true is the fact that the House Democrats were elected as at least as legally as Trump, and they (AFAIK) clearly said they don't want to fund his wall.
So it's a conflict.
Good point!

ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

Obama thought there as a humanitarian crisis at the wall in 2014

ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

many on twitter have chosen to side with an actual nazi against president trump

fwiw, nazi deported by trump dies in germany

Cuchulainn
Posts: 62106
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

As Trump Visits Border, Texas Landowners Prepare Wall Fight

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/0 ... omain.html

ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

As Trump Visits Border, Texas Landowners Prepare Wall Fight

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/0 ... omain.html
Legal experts say Trump likely cannot waive eminent domain — which requires the government to demonstrate a public use for the land and provide landowners with compensation — by declaring a national emergency.
not sure what the NYT's point is here.
A border wall/fence/hedge is clearly a "public use" and I don't think anyone has suggested that the landowners will not be compensated.
Eminent domain is the mechanism which would be used, not waived