You want to grow the surveillance state?

survaillanceIf you haven’t heard already, in light of Mexican president Pina Nieto’s big middle finger to Trump’s grandiose plan to make his country pay for a “big, beautiful wall” on the border with the United States, 45 has made another proposal: let’s levy a 20 percent tax on imports from Mexico!

Some of the Republicans I know, who normally oppose more taxation, were doing a happy dance. “YEAH! Mexico will pay for the wall one way or another!”

Ummmmm… no. YOU morons will. You will buy more expensive Mexican products, and by the way, since Mexico is one of our top five sources of oil, you’ll likely be paying more to fill up your big, ole truck too! It’s a tax on U.S. consumers, not on Mexico, and I won’t even mention what that’s doing to U.S.-Mexico relations, even as Mexico becomes one of our most important partners in fighting cartels, stopping illicit funds from crossing the border, and working to freeze and block the assets of illicit financiers.

Some, who realize that a 20 percent tariff on Mexican goods =\= Mexico paying for a wall, have developed other “bright” ideas.

“Oh, I know! Let’s tax all remittances going to Mexico! That’ll be GREAT! Most of them are illegals sending money home anyway! YEAH!”

I’ve detailed previously why this is a bad idea when Trump tried to threaten Mexico with seizing remittances.

Immigrants both legal and illegal send money back home to Mexico. How the hell does one separate the “good” money from the “bad?”

Seizure of private property without due process in order to threaten Mexico with reducing the country’s GDP by an estimated less than two percent? Good plan, there, Sparky!

Stop all financial transactions from banks here to Mexico? You’ve just pissed off the financial sector and empowered bulk cash smugglers, who make billions of dollars per year carting monetary instruments across the Mexican border.

But beyond that, even if you don’t stop the remittances, you would have to examine each one to see if it would be subject to this tariff. This idiot plan would drive up compliance costs for money service businesses (MSB), such as Western Union and MoneyGram, and grow the surveillance state.

Right now, under the Bank Secrecy Act, financial institutions, including MSBs, must file a currency transaction report (CTR) with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) for each transaction in currency of more than $10,000. If you think the average remittance to Mexico exceeds this amount, you’re an idiot. The average remittance amount to Mexico in 2003 was $321, according to World Bank data. Even if it’s doubled or trebled in the last 15 years, it will still be far below the threshold.

So, we’d have to decrease the CTR amount. No big deal, right?

Except that MSBs and other financial institutions would have to hire extra compliance staffs to fill out the CTRs and subsequent suspicious activity reports (SAR) when a customer inevitably decides that it’s not worth having his $400 examined and probed by numerous people and declines to complete the transaction. Extra compliance personnel cost money – not just in salaries, but benefits as well. There skyrocket your costs of sending a couple of hundred bucks to your mom in Mexico! And there plunges your volume. Because, really… who the hell would want to pay an extra $10-$20 just to have mom pick up the cash in Coahila?

And then there are the compliance costs on the government side. Guess who gets to pay for those! How many new feds do you think would have to be hired to comb through the volumes of CTRs and SARs generated by the new thresholds? Considering just how many Mexicans we have sending money back home, lowering the transaction threshold would mean that thousands more feds will be combing through thousands more reports that are generated. The feds already have a lot of access to transactional data. You really want to give them more?

Additionally, as Larry Correia mentioned yesterday, “you start regulating something, the shadow economy will grow.”

I mentioned bulk cash smugglers above. Cartels already have hawala-like networks of trusted associates to conduct mirror transactions. That’s a market, I’m sure they couldn’t wait to tap, especially if there’s a mass exodus from regular MSBs! You start increasing regulations on hawalas, and aside from causing dilatory second and third order effects in countries without developed financial sectors that rely on hawala networks to move money, you’re also going to once again increase the compliance personnel required for said increased regulatory environment.

Wanna pay for more feds to snoop into everyone’s finances? Most Republicans, before 45 took office, would have screamed a vigorous “NO!” Now… not so much.

And by the way, if you think there aren’t ways to avoid the formal financial system, I encourage you to purchase a gift card. For a fee of $5.00 and a couple of stamps, you too can send a $400 Visa gift card to your mom in Mexico, which she can use to buy groceries or anything else she needs! You want to regulate that? You’ll need extra post office personnel to go through all the mail, identify the letters going to Mexico, and track the remittances that way.

Or, just start charging an extra fee for every gift card purchased, which will go directly to the feds to build that wall. In which case, once again, YOU are the ones paying for it!

That’s how you build a police state, Republicans. Enjoy!


37 responses

  1. As always, There Ain’t No Such Fucking Thing As A Free Fucking Lunch. (“Fucks” added for emphasis.)

    Liked by 2 people

    1. TANSFTAAFFL. A bit harder to pronounce than TANSTAAFL, but I could manage it. (Consonant clusters like NSFT? No huhu.)

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Charging prohibitive fees for remissions to Mexico would affect me directly, in a very negative way. You see, although I am a native-born US Citizen of German descent, my husband is Mexican. He and I shoulder a pretty significant part of caring for the extended family back home, especially for his elderly mother (his father died back in 1999). If they started charging exorbitant fees for sending money to her, we would really be in a bind.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. About ten minutes after such an order went into effect, someone in Costa Rica or Panama will open a brokerage. You send your money to them, they shave off one or two percent as a service charge, and the money moves on to its destination in Mexico.

      Shut down the brokers in Costa Rica and Panama, someone else will start operating in Italy or the Philippines. Or some of the shady Russian or Eastern European scammers could offer a legitimate service just for the lulz.

      And it will all turn into a giant came of Whack-A-Mole.

      “It is hard to defend against a highly distributed enemy.”


  3. What, then, do we do about the illegal immigrant problem? Do we just let them come? Build the wall and take the hit? Maybe some of that foreign dictator aid can be redirected.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Haul the CEO’s of Tyson and Cargill out of their offices in cuffs, in front of the press. That would go a long way to solving the illegal problem. After all, they are supposed to know what’s going on in their company. And you can be sure they do.


    2. Right now there’s essentially no downside to trying to cross the border. Make it across undetected, you’re home free. Get caught, you get a free meal and a nice place to stay until they send you back. Just keep trying until you make it through.

      The only way to stop people from coming in is to make the consequences more unattractive than staying where they are. Air-dropping Nutra-Loaf into an internment camp in the desert, perhaps. Bear in mind that “life imprisonment” and “death penalty” are only a limited deterrent to crime, so no matter what the consequences of getting caught are, people will still try it.

      Putting them on Welfare and running occasional amnesty programs are not the answer, however.

      I’ve met a few Mexican citizens who were here on proper visas or as Permanent Residents. Mexico is one of the countries Immigration doesn’t like; they went through a ridiculous amount of trouble and expense to comply with the law.

      If you start seeing lynchings, it’s not going to be the guys with the funny white hoods starting it; it will probably be the legals venting their rage against the illegals.


  4. Charging prohibitive fees for remissions to Mexico would affect me directly, in a very negative way. You see, although I am a native-born US Citizen of German descent, my husband is Mexican. He and I shoulder a pretty significant part of caring for the extended family back home, especially for his elderly mother (his father died back in 1999). If they started charging exorbitant fees for sending money to her, we would really be in a bind. It’s not just illegal immigrants who would be affected.


    1. Agreed It’s everyone.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Tariff’s suck ass. Using one to finance a “border wall” doesn’t get Mexico to pay for it, it gets the American consumer to pay for it. But then, one doesn’t have to enderstand even basic economics to be a successful real estate broker and reality TV star.

    Besides, An actual physical wall is of limited utility anyway–too many ways around, over, or under it. The matter can be dealt with using much better in other ways. Unfortunately, they don’t lend themselves to easy soundbites. (“The day may come when low information voters do not decide elections. But it is not this day.”) Aggressively enforce our laws regarding who can legally work in the US. Provide ways for people to legally come to work in the US. Aggressively prune government aid programs and ensure that they are actually only available to citizens and legal permanent residents (this is in addition to whatever reforms we make in general). Make it easier for people who want to come here and be Americans to do so.

    Remove the incentive for people to come here illegally. It won’t eliminate the issue but it will knock it back to a manageable level.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. I am rarely confused after reading your posts. I did go back and read your previous post to which you linked. I don’t understand why a “fee” can’t be attached to money transfers, regardless of how it fits into your definition of “good money” or “bad money”. When applied to all money transfers there is no need for this government intrusion that you allege will happen. City, county, and state governments here in the US frequently call a tax a “fee”. When a government accounting office takes in money for fees, taxes, etc. do you think they care if you’re a fireman or an illegal pot farmer? It just seems as if you are attaching a “Big Brother” activity to an issue that does not require it.

    If I am missing something in my thought process, I’m sure you’ll let me know, as I would expect you would… 😉

    Meeting on the hard stand at…..sorry …Flak Kaserne flashback.


    1. A fee on everyone is a separate issue, which I mentioned at the end of this particular post – that once again, all of us would be paying for the wall he promised Mexico would pay for. If the fees become too high, then those remitting money will move to other means, such as gift cards, mirror transactions, etc., which again would force the fedgov to react and grow the regulatory environment in order to track those transactions.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I have no familiarity with the process and I’m sure I am using a narrow definition of remittances. In my (probably wrong) mind, the majority of the money that is “sent back home” is done by the type of financial service companies that you cite. Do you really imagine that residents here in the US would really trust their home country’s Postal Service not to illegally confiscate debit cards, money orders, or, god forbid, cash? Can not a remittance being sent to Mexico or Cuba have a separate fee added to it? If a person does not send international remittances, then not everyone is paying for the wall project.

        According to GAO’s analysis of the World Bank’s Bilateral Remittance Matrix, in 2014, about $25 billion was sent to Mexico, some $15 billion was sent to China, over $10 billion sent to India, and about $10 billion went to the Philippines.

        That’s 60 billion dollars right there. What’s the saying? “A billion here, a billion there; pretty soon we’re talkin’ about real money.” And I reference these totals not as any condemnation of the practice, only to show the staggering amount of money that is not put back into the US economy. The above total is just to (4) four countries. Could not a great amount of the cost of any barrier construction be obtained by targeted fees or taxes on these remittances? And enough of that talk; because when I read back over this, I sense myself talking like a Democrat.

        For comparison, the 2017 Federal outlay for State Department USAID foreign assistance is 50 billion dollars.
        (September 26, 2016 – Washington Post)
        And yes, I understand the responsibilities our nation has to support our strategic allies and government approved patrons. Again, I cite this not to condemn the practice.

        I always thought that remittances were just a part of the overall plan. I never thought that there would be a State Dinner with President Pieto handing over a “giant check” to Trump a la “Semi-Pro”. But, good gawd, that would be a beautiful sight.

        Sister, word is spreading about your platform here.
        So deserved……kudos.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. So here’s the thing. Tariffs never work. Ever. Any economist or finance expert will tell you this.

          Money going across the border is sent in a variety of ways. Immigrants – both legal and illegal – use MSBs because they’re cheap and easy. Cartels access the US financial system through various means, including bulk cash, electronic transfers, etc. sometimes they even use the formal financial system in which the money is routed through various countries. The hawalas I mention are also an option. So as I said, tariffs are pointless. Also I’m not 100 percent sure it’s legal to just target a certain country or ethnicity with a tariff. Not a lawyer, so I don’t know. There’s a myriad of ways to avoid these tariffs – even if implemented.

          In Mexico, there are a ton of unlicensed and unregulated centros cambiarios – many of them owned by cartels. Be pretty easy to tap into this market of immigrants sending home money too.

          And yes, they do trust their postal service. They can easily buy a visa gift card, put $400 on it, shove it into a birthday card, and off we go. Are we really going to target every letter, birthday and anniversary card, etc. to Mexico? That’s also how you grow the police state.

          So bottom line: targeting fees, tariffs, etc. won’t work.

          Now, I’m a big fan of border security. YUGE. If you read back over the years, illegal immigration and border security is my #2 issue behind gun control. So it’s not that I don’t want to build a wall or SOME kind of border security.

          But here’s the deal. We pay an enormous amount in taxes, fees, tariffs, etc. already. I calculated my takehome pay the other day, and I was horrified. 46 percent of my paycheck is going away every two weeks. That’s nearly half now, that includes federal and state taxes, OASDI, a $500 per month health insurance payment, etc. but NEARLY HALF my paycheck is gone. We also pay consumption taxes, real estate taxes, fees on phones, utilities, and gas… I can’t remember where, but there was a site that documented all the different taxes and fees that we pay on any given day. So, NO! I fucking don’t want more money extorted from me to pay for anything – not even a fucking wall, which by the way will be useless if there’s not a continued either military or border security presence there – a lot of it. So it’s not just a one time expense. He promised the American people that Mexico would pay for the wall, and bottom line is that WE are. At one point he proposed simply freezing any transaction to Mexico. That’s shows a complete IGNORANCE of the law and how it works.

          Bottom line for me: We need to cut useless spending and get our financial house in order. Tariffs won’t pay for a wall. Taxing remittances won’t pay for it. We need to clean up our shit, especially now that he’s also proposing a gargantuan infrastructure bill! Billions and billions we can’t afford! Remember those shovel ready Jobs? Yeah, very little difference there.

          Anyway, thanks for the chat. And thank you for the kind words about my blog. It’s pretty little compared to sites like Malkin’s or Larry’s. Couple of thousand hits per day or so. Sometimes less, and sometimes more. But I’m just having fun with it.


        2. “Tariffs never work”….. which is why the Founders made them the only Constitutional way to pay for the government. Hmmmm.


        3. Are you fucking serious, you idiot? Are you REALLY comparing what the founders created to the leviathan we have in DC now??? Those tariffs were non-punitive and tiny. Go home. You’re drunk.


        4. I’ve read a number of stories about narcos running submarines up to the US and transferring their cargo. And the various tunnels under the border; some of them large enough to drive trucks through.

          Might as well load them up with cash so they don’t have to return empty… no need for interaction with any part of any US financial institution.


    2. This is what I was talking about.

      Or, just start charging an extra fee for every gift card purchased, which will go directly to the feds to build that wall. In which case, once again, YOU are the ones paying for it!

      Liked by 2 people

  7. I hesitate to respond as little seems to come from these internet debates. This is one of the worst articles I’ve come across about all this. Not sure where to begin honestly. It really just comes across as conspiracy drivel.

    Essentially what you’re saying is that you want to surrender and declare defeat to Mexico in this economic war because you’re afraid of having the government “snoop” your finances, or something? Which makes no sense at all, but ok. Immigration, it’s all a ruse to empower the surveillance state!

    What, seriously, are you talking about?

    Since a tariff would lead to the end of times, what do you propose, then? What is your plan for fixing the border? And by that I mean the comprehensive border and all the various problems related to it.


    1. A) “Essentially” I’m saying no such thing. And since you had to use that qualifier, I suspect you know it.

      2) If it comes across as “conspiracy drivel,” then I suspect you obviously know fuckall about how financial intelligence works.

      iii) Show me where I said a “tariff would lead to the end of times.” Oh, that’s right. I didn’t.

      And finally, since you failed to comprehend the actual crux of the article, I have zero need to explain “my plan” to you.

      Liked by 3 people

    2. Oh, and obviously hesitating to respond didn’t prevent you from opening your moronic yap. So I guess I have to put up with it. Sigh.

      Liked by 3 people

    3. There is no “economic war with Mexico” you gigantic flaming vagina – at least one one coming from Mexico. There is a superpower and a neighbor that is just emerging from years of socialism, making free-market reforms, and trying to step into a modern economy.

      You need to take a good hard look at yourself and ask why you want to stop that process.


      1. If you actually want to stop illegal immigration, enforce the laws on the books – the same thing logical people say when lefties come screaming for more gun laws. Just enforce the ones on the books. Hire more Border Patrol. Fine people who hire illegals.

        Building a wall, screaming about “making Mexico PAY!” like a jackass, stopping people sending money to help their families – only if they’re brown mind you! – those aren’t plans for anything except scratching your racist itch.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Jeff, confirmed liberal.

          Niki, there is a famous quote that comes to mind. Something about a small mind trying to express itself forcefully. Have a good one.


    4. I can give you *a* plan. Not a nice plan, but one that has been done before:

      Give them the same ultimatum we gave Afghanistan: “Control your criminal elements, or we will come in and do it for you.” Send in an occupying force, topple the existing government, declare martial law, amuse ourselves hunting narcos, and guard both sides of the border with US troops.

      Would it work over the long term? That’s beside the point; it’s politically safe, shows that “something is being done”, and would be profitable too.


  8. I couldn’t agree more, Nicki.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Nicki, I must say I was chortling with mirth about 1/2 way through Andrews post, expecting you to eviscerate him. Which you did, but in a nice and measured way.
    I used to be a Director of a local Credit Union, and the Bank Secrecy Act (a.k.a. ‘Snitch on your Customers Act’), CTRs are the tip of the iceburg. Your tellers and accounting departments are also required to examine transactions where the ‘aggregate’ of several transactions may exceed 10K. Additionally, the Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) which has no lower dollar limit.
    Every month, the CEO would have to announce to the Board “X (number or no) SARs were filed.” Now, while she was required by BSA to inform of this, the Board itself could not read or examine the SARs. Now, exactly how was I supposed to really know and monitor the Credit Union’s compliance with the BSA if I wasn’t allowed to examine the output? Don’t worry though, even though I couldn’t read them, if the Feds decided we were doing it wrong, I was still criminally liable.
    Even if Andrew is correct about non-conspiracy, and the Feds really don’t want to turn us into a police state, the overall result is the same. While I’m sure Congress ‘meant well’, did it ‘for the children’ and to ‘stop terrorism funding’, well they as always forgot about the unintended consequences. The penalties are so draconian that even us lofty Directors were concerned; imagine what a low-paid teller thought when she/he was force-fed what was expected of them? Did I mention that not all SARs were forwarded to FinCEN? Apparently if your ‘compliance officer’ isn’t positive that it is an actionable SAR, they still recommend filling out a SAR and retain it locally in case the actions become elevated. How long do you retain it locally? No one could answer that.
    Remember that every time you go to your bank, it is assisting the Feds to spy on you. We are already there, and the costs of this is, of course, borne by you the customer.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I didn’t want to get into all of that, but thank you. Sometimes it’s just worth showing fucktards that they’re fucktards. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I was quite content to just walk, but I must admit this comment caught my eye. I sense a opportunity for an interesting study in psychology.

        Is that really how you perceive our brief interaction, that you bested me somehow? See to me it appeared like nothing more than childish obfuscation. Curious.


        1. Is that why you tried the same shit on Larry Correia’s page, were mocked there too, because you STILL are clueless, and then took your toys and went home?

          Oh, dear Andrew. You might actually want to figure out what you’re talking about before you wade into adult conversation and try to bloviate about issues you obviously don’t understand!


        2. No, Nicki, that’s not what happened. I posted one brief comment and you jumped all over it with screen shots and profanity and name calling. I suddenly get a dozen notices and show up to find this circle jerk taking place. Bizarre. I didn’t engage you at all. Just deleted the thread.

          I made the determination that your style of contention didn’t need to infect my friends and family on FB where people are grieving a major loss that just occurred in the family. It would not be right for me to do that. I care more about these people than having it out with you. So no, it’s not about you or taking my toys home.

          Goodness, I don’t care about having it out with you, or anybody, to begin with. Civil discussion is one thing, exchange of ideas and all that. Venomous attempts at cyber-bullying is another.

          What is the purpose of your blog? Not trying to have a fight here, sincere question.

          Other than perhaps satiating an inferiority complex with yet another digital echo chamber, I genuinely just don’t understand the purpose of your behavior. Shutting down discourse by screaming profanities and mocking, verbal shaming, isn’t “winning” in any way. And amusingly ironic given that the OP is about a “police state” conspiracy.

          “Winning” implies changing hearts and minds, or in a scientific sense the presentation of a mathematically superior solution. For that to even be a possibility of happening a discussion would have to happen first. Which you aren’t interested in. Other than learning what an asshole you are I’m not sure what you hope to accomplish.

          But I’m also an asshole, and I take responsibility for getting the ball started. I apologize. I can see that my original comment, saying things like “conspiracy drivel,” probably appeared hostile to you. I apologize for saying those things. I was not meaning to be hostile or attack you personally in any way. I was trying to address the argument, and my comments were meant to be received in a lighthearted tone. Wasn’t trying to get under your skin.



        3. You commented on Larry’s thread, you pedantic shit goblin. After you came over here and presumed to tell me what I said and what I believe, demonstrating your complete lack of understanding of not only what I’ve written, but how the national security apparatus works. And NOW you claim you’re a victim and are all upset about being ridiculed??

          Here’s a clue: stop acting like an ignoramus, and you won’t be treated like one.

          If you want to know the purpose of my blog, there’s a post addressing that very question. You’re welcome to comment here or not. That’s entirely up to you. I don’t censor anyone. LOGICAL arguments are welcome. Those that demonstrate a lack of understanding on the issues while telling me on MY site what I think, will be mocked – and not just by me.


        4. Telling you what you think? Oh, you mean my sarcastic paraphrasing? Yeah, that’s not the same thing.

          How are you not guilty of the thing you’re accusing me of? I merely paraphrased in an attempt to clarify what the heck your argument is. Because it makes no sense. Perhaps it does make sense, but as written, the picture is way too fuzzy. On the other hand your behavior towards me is quite presumptuous.

          For the record, nothing you’ve said has helped me to interpret the OP in a different way than I originally did: conspiracy theory. You are arguing that Trump is doing a thing that will lead to a “police state.” Your words. So, it’s yet another “trump is hitler” argument. Different style than what one would find in places like Huffpo, but same outcome so amounts to the same thing.


        5. Actually, genius, your Wikipedia link none withstanding, your reading comprehension is a complete fail. I’ve said nothing about Trump’s current policies leading to a police state. He proposed something during the campaign, which would require exactly that, which I wrote about and referenced in the past as a preface to the rest of the post, which actually dealt with several proposals I’ve recently seen from alleged “conservatives” that would indeed increase the surveillance state.

          My POINT, which you keep missing because you’re so intent in painting Trump as a victim, is that YOU and the rest of America will be paying for this wall, AND that tracking every remittance, which is what some conservatives are proposing will be costly and will increase regulation.

          But you’re too blind with Trump adoration to even see the bottom line of the post, but insisted that I support surrendering to illegal immigrants or some ridiculous crap such as that.

          Oh, now it was just “sarcastic paraphrasing?” No, it wasn’t even that, because in order to paraphrase, you actually have to comprehend what is being said.

          Funny, how anyone with a shred of knowledge about how financial intelligence works was perfectly clear on the issue, while you came stomping in here and accused me of terrible writing because you are too dumb to get what I’m saying.

          Nothing has helped you interpret the OP? Well, I’m not used to speaking to people like they’re third graders, but here goes.

          Intro: Trump’s proposal during the campaign to freeze all money going to Mexico would not have been possible.

          Transition: current proposal for a 20 percent tariff on all goods imported from Mexico doesn’t mean Mexico will be paying for it. Americans will.

          Body: some other proposals that include regulation of remittances going to Mexico will cost a lot and increase the regulatory and surveillance power of the state.

          Words too big for you? Sorry, I don’t know smaller ones.


        6. Painting Trump as a victim? Blind with Trump adoration? Nicki, can you please show me where in this discussion I have even mentioned his name? You haven’t the first clue who I am or what my opinions are – about anything.

          I also didn’t accuse you of “terrible writing.” You seem quite good at stringing words together, incidentally. Your argument that a tariff would lead to a police state is not well supported though. It’s a shitty argument. And tossing out buzzwords like “financial intelligence” doesn’t change that.

          Am I an expert in the mechanics of tariff enforcement? No. Never claimed otherwise. If you (or anybody else here) has some special insight into how that works I’m all ears and would love to learn more. As presented however your argument makes little sense. At best you seem to be conflating financial intelligence gathering that takes place in the course of criminal investigative work, like with DEA/FBI, etc, with commonplace legal commerce.

          There are thousands of tariffs on the books right now, probably hundreds of thousands or even millions of the darn things have come and gone over the years. I’m not making a statement for or against them, that’s a separate discussion. I’m simply trying to make sense of this notion that it would lead to a police state. None of the existing tariffs have led to a police state.

          My amateur understanding, having a ton of international experience, is that the mechanics of how a tariff is enforced is pretty simple. You literally just pay a tax at a border. When something crosses, or is otherwise shipped across, a tax is paid. Same as when you pay a sales tax at the counter of the store. No police state required. Companies moving goods across would simply have to file some digital form, comparable with how companies do with the sales tax. Not exactly Judge Dredd.

          As for the “who will pay for it” rhetoric I don’t disagree with you. If we’re taxing our own people, correct, we’re paying for it. That too is a different discussion though. And this is where I would argue that you’re getting drawn way out into the weeds. This tariff business is just noise. It’s a negotiation tactic and nothing more. As is the “they will pay for it” rhetorical device, which was never meant to suggest they would literally cut us a check. It’s a statement of profit and loss. Just like Six Flags building a fence around their park. They profit, literally, from having the fence there. The fence makes them money. The CEO of Six Flags might say, “the customers will pay for it.” Mexico will pay for it is similar.


        7. So you’re a liar too.

          “This is one of the worst articles I’ve come across about all this.”

          “Painting Trump as a victim? Blind with Trump adoration? Nicki, can you please show me where in this discussion I have even mentioned his name”

          “You are arguing that Trump is doing a thing that will lead to a “police state.” Your words. So, it’s yet another “trump is hitler” argument.”

          – and I have done no such thing. But there goes your lack of comprehension again. “Oh, you’re comparing poor Trump to Hitler!” “Oh, you’re claiming what he’s doing will lead to a police state!” Poor Trump! Let’s set aside that there are several issues addressed in this blog entry, which you are apparently too stupid or illiterate to understand.

          “Your argument that a tariff would lead to a police state is not well supported though.” — It also doesn’t exist. But you’re apparently too much of a moron to understand that and are apparently unable to separate the numerous issues addressed here. Try reading.

          “It’s a negotiation tactic and nothing more.” — said every single blinded Trump supporter I know. While I HOPE it’s a negotiation tactic, truth is we don’t know. And ultimately what that means is YOU AND ME AND EVERYONE who wants to purchase a good or service from Mexico will pay for the wall. Not Mexico. Americans.

          But that, again, was just an introduction to what is going on, and you once again miss the actual point of the post. Instead you engage in tedious, sniffly, whining accusations of cyber bullying and obfuscation.

          And you’re making me weary of having to explain everything to you. Take a reading comprehension class.


        8. Here, dummy. I’ll be nice to you and show you where I transition from the tariff discussion to other bright ideas.

          “Some, who realize that a 20 percent tariff on Mexican goods =\= Mexico paying for a wall, have developed other “bright” ideas.”

          This is where we get into freezing of remittances, blocking remittances to Mexico, taxing only those transfers, etc.

          I don’t know why, but I feel the need to help you out here. My good heart tells me I should aid the mentally retarded.


We Want To Hear What You Have To Say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: