https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=27407&stc=1
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=27408&stc=1
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=27409&stc=1
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=27410&stc=1
Printable View
...no point in throwing facts at tRump's base...
Eric Porterfield looks like his parents swam in the same pool. Genetically speaking.
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/...erfield1-1.png
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/...vgxrx4h4-1.jpg
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=27970&stc=1
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=27971&stc=1
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=27972&stc=1
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=27973&stc=1
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=27974&stc=1
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=27975&stc=1
^I'm sure the new trade deal ensures they will.
Even if any extra money is generated through the new trade deal, it will be United States money (It will belong to the U.S.) And if the United States uses it to pay for the wall that means Mexico is NOT paying for the wall. The U.S. would be using money that could be used for schools or infrastructure to pay for the wall that Mexico is supposed to pay for.
It's a fallacy that Mexico will somehow pay for that wall through any trade deal.
Trickle down economics:
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/...29760107-1.jpg
When you buy something, let's say an internet router, you are buying it from a commercial company. Any government imposed taxes are irrelevant. If two governments agree certain goods are taxed higher or lower, for whatever reasons, it affects the commercial companies sales price and hence if the item sells more units due to government to government deals the commercial company in country X makes more profit and employs more workers. The benefit accrues to country X.
In that way superficially country X generates more "taxes" for country Y and hence has a beneficial affect on country Y's tax revenue. Which backs up goldilocks claim that Mexico is "paying" for this imaginary wall/fence/political announcement.
FIFY
^Your illustrated groups should swap the watering cans. The poor should show a large can/flow from them to the rich and the rich can/flow should be smaller. Indicating the poor give more money/labour etc. individually and collectively, to the the "rich" than they receive.
It's a crude but effective analogy and it applies as well to hohos argument above.
If by whatever means through the trade agreement the U.S. does extract additional funds from Mexico those funds are now U.S. money which could be used to pay for teachers or infrastructure but instead get spent on a wall that Mexico should be paying for.
I see your point.
But my replies are never crude, unlike others who post on TD. :)
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=28174&stc=1
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=28175&stc=1