Trump Threatens Killing NAFTA + A Government Shutdown Over Wall Funding

[TheCount]

Yay end of NAFTA Crony Capitalism.

Free(er) trade is now crony capitalism?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Free(er) trade is now crony capitalism?

NAFTA is crony capitalism, it is controlled trade not free trade, it has damaged the people of Mexico more than it has damaged the people of the US.

 

[goldenequity]

Paul Ryan Primary Opponent: "Paul Ryan is Colluding w/ Dems to Shut Down Government Over Wall Funding"
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...olluding-w-dems-shut-government-wall-funding/

 

[TheCount]

NAFTA is crony capitalism, it is controlled trade not free trade, it has damaged the people of Mexico more than it has damaged the people of the US.

And a move to even more controlled trade is an improvement?

 

[Swordsmyth]

And a move to even more controlled trade is an improvement?

It is not a move to even more controlled trade, it will either be less controlled or equally controlled, what it will be for sure is a move to trade control that is more accountable to the citizens of the affected countries.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Am I the only person that remembers Trump promised Mexico would pay for the wall? That whole thing just disappeared down the memory hole?

Or is it one of those 'we have to build it to see who pays for it' kind of things?

Mexico is going to pay for the wall. No, US will pay. I will shut down NAFTA. No, we are meeting to re-negotiate NAFTA. No, we are going to shut down NAFTA.

1) Mexico isn't going to pay for the wall. Doubt Trump will actually shut down the government if money for his wall is not in the budget (assuming Congress passes one). Just posturing to try to get more money for it.

2) NAFTA- Probably just a negotiating tactic- trying to get more concessions before signing a modified agreement. If he was serious about simply trashing it, he would not have sent in people to try to re-negotiate it. Any actual changes will be minor.

3) It was all at a political rally trying to stir up his base (and distract from the racial problems of the past week).

More reasons not to take Trump that seriously. He will probably have new positions next month.

 

[Zippyjuan]

None of the US border is privately owned. Teddy Roosevelt created a 100 foot strip along the border that is Federal property.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...-its-getting-the-land/?utm_term=.49ba86ab6878

The biggest problem for Trump’s border wall isn’t money. It’s getting the land.

In 2008, the George W. Bush administration, which had started building about 670 miles of border fencing on mostly federally owned land in Arizona, California and New Mexico under the Secure Fence Act of 2006, tried to seize an acre or so in Cameron County, Tex., that belonged to Eloisa Tamez. Things did not go quickly.

Tamez fought the government in federal court. During seven years of litigation and negotiation, she became famous for resisting the border fence. The government eventually paid her $56,000 for a quarter-acre the fence sits on and gave her a code to open a gate so she can access her land to its south.

Imagine this playing out over and over again along the 1,300 miles of borderlands that President Trump wants to wall up. “We will soon begin the construction of a great wall along our southern border,” Trump promised Tuesday night in an address to Congress. “It will be started ahead of schedule, and, when finished, it will be a very effective weapon against drugs and crime.”

But actually building the wall, as the Tamez saga shows, won’t be as easy as dashing off an executive order requiring it. The main problem won’t even be the $25 billion that some estimates say the barrier could cost. Trump’s real difficulty will be in getting permission from property owners to build the wall — no matter how much money it takes — and the land wars that will bog down his plans.

Trump, who has cast himself as a master dealmaker, will need to coordinate massive voluntary sales of property near the border or negotiate easements for large swaths of land to make way for the wall construction. This is no small feat. Only about one-third of the land the wall would sit on is owned by the federal government or by Native American tribes, according to the Government Accountability Office. And much of that territory is already fenced. The rest of the border is controlled by states and private property owners. Estimating the costs of negotiated sales of all the territory at stake is difficult ahead of time, because the fragmentation raises questions about market value, particularly for land in the limbo zone south of the planned wall but north of the border.

Costs aside, resistance is building. Landowners, Native American tribes, and Republican and Democratic lawmakers are on record opposing the wall. What happens if this resistance turns into outright refusal to sell land? Trump’s only option at that point would be eminent domain — which could prove to be even harder than cutting individual deals.

In trying to take land for the wall, the federal government would be held to time-consuming procedures that include consultation and negotiation with the affected parties — including private landowners, tribes, and state and local governments — before taking any action. Federal law requires the government to consult with “property owners … to minimize the impact on the environment, culture, commerce, and quality of life for the communities and residents located near the sites at which such fencing is to be constructed.” Then the government would need to declare a taking and undergo condemnation proceedings.

The Fifth Amendment’s takings clause states, “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” What this means is that the government may seize someone’s property and transfer it to another governmental entity or to a private entity, but only if doing so is for a public use. A long-standing interpretation of the clause allows taking property to build highways, bridges, airports and dams. As for a wall? It would probably pass muster, although resolving that question in federal court may take time. But the problems wouldn’t end there.

The takings clause also protects private landowners from uncompensated seizures. Owners who are subject to eminent domain to build the wall would have to receive compensation for its physical presence on their property. Successfully measuring the value of the land and settling on prices for hundreds of owners with unique property interests, however, would be the “deal” of the century. Determining just compensation is not easy in contested cases in which the land and property at stake are infrequently exchanged on the market. There are few other properties in the United States situated along an international boundary, some of which is already fenced, which makes fair value hard to establish.

As Eloisa Tamez’s case demonstrated, that’s a lot of ammunition for hundreds of landowners. If the rollout of Trump’s hastily drafted travel ban is any indicator, we should expect sloppy execution of statutory requirements and takings procedures if the administration attempts to condemn border land.

Tribal lands would be an even bigger obstacle. Most such land in the wall’s path belongs to the Tohono O’odham Nation, including a reservation that extends along 62 miles of the border in Arizona. Tribes have certain property rights under the Constitution and federal statutes. Many of their lands are held in trusts, which federal law recognizes as independent political entities. Trump would need a bill from Congress to acquire the tribal lands, which are protected by treaties and other statutory equivalents.

What is the result of all of this? Years and years of litigation before the “immediate construction” of the wall. Any federal eminent domain action on such a large scale against even a few landowners could trigger decades of court disputes before anything is built. As Trump, a New York real estate tycoon, is surely aware, the Atlantic Yards redevelopment project in Brooklyn endured multiple condemnation challenges, resulting in six years of litigation and negotiation. before anything was built. And that was a much smaller undertaking.

 

[TheCount]

It is not a move to even more controlled trade, it will either be less controlled or equally controlled, what it will be for sure is a move to trade control that is more accountable to the citizens of the affected countries.

I suppose that's why the trade negotiations for it will be entirely conducted in secret? Because secret government programs are a fantastic path to freedom?

 

[Swordsmyth]

I suppose that's why the trade negotiations for it will be entirely conducted in secret? Because secret government programs are a fantastic path to freedom?

Pay attention dummy, I want an end to NAFTA, YOU want to keep it.

 

[TheCount]

Pay attention dummy, I want an end to NAFTA, YOU want to keep it.

Don't change the subject, I want you to tell us more about how a trade agreement that's negotiated in secret is going to be "more accountable to the citizens."

 

[Swordsmyth]

Don't change the subject, I want you to tell us more about how a trade agreement that's negotiated in secret is going to be "more accountable to the citizens."

I said that about an end to NAFTA.

I'm agnostic on the wall but I hope we get the shutdown and the end of NAFTA, we need both.

I'm hoping he demands so much from Canada and Mexico that they walk away from the table and it collapses.

Yay higher taxes?

Yay end of NAFTA Crony Capitalism.

Free(er) trade is now crony capitalism?

NAFTA is crony capitalism, it is controlled trade not free trade, it has damaged the people of Mexico more than it has damaged the people of the US.

And a move to even more controlled trade is an improvement?

It is not a move to even more controlled trade, it will either be less controlled or equally controlled, what it will be for sure is a move to trade control that is more accountable to the citizens of the affected countries.

 

[TheCount]

I said that about an end to NAFTA.

1) They're not ending NAFTA, they're renegotiating it.

2) They're not renegotiating it to make it more free.

3) A flat repeal of NAFTA would result in more controlled trade, not more free trade.


No matter which argument you want to pretend that you were making, you're wrong on both counts.

 

[Swordsmyth]

1) They're not ending NAFTA, they're renegotiating it.

Trump Threatens Killing NAFTA http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...ng-killing-naf

2) They're not renegotiating it to make it more free.

Which is why I don't support the "new" NAFTA

3) A flat repeal of NAFTA would result in more controlled trade, not more free trade.

Probably less controlled, definitely not more controlled, and more accountable to the citizens in any case.

 

[TheCount]

Trump Threatens Killing NAFTA http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...ng-killing-naf

Why would he renegotiate it if he's going to kill it? He didn't try to renegotiate TPP, he just killed it.

Also, "Trump threatens" has 3 million hits on Google. It's not uncommon.

Which is why I don't support the "new" NAFTA

Opposite of what you said earlier.

Probably less controlled, definitely not more controlled, and more accountable to the citizens in any case.

No, no, and no. Higher trade barriers and higher tariffs = more controlled. Free trade isn't accountable to anybody.


My guess is you're the type that means "fair trade" when you say "free trade." Let me guess: The citizens of a country have collective ownership over what their neighbors are allowed to purchase and at what price?

 

[Swordsmyth]

[/B]Why would he renegotiate it if he's going to kill it? He didn't try to renegotiate TPP, he just killed it.

Also, "Trump threatens" has 3 million hits on Google. It's not uncommon.

[h=1]Trump on NAFTA: 'I don't think we can make a deal'[/h]http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-agriculture/2017/08/23/trump-on-nafta-i-dont-think-we-can-make-a-deal-222021

Opposite of what you said earlier.

I did no such thing EVER.

No, no, and no. Higher trade barriers and higher tariffs = more controlled.


My guess is you're the type that means "fair trade" when you say "free trade."

Free trade isn't accountable to anybody. But let me guess: The citizens of a country have collective ownership over what their neighbors are allowed to purchase and at what price?

NAFTA is not Free trade, NAFTA is controlled trade managed for the benefit of a few connected elites, an end to NAFTA would either reduce control or leave it at the same level, what it would do for sure is make the trade rules accountable to American citizens in America, Canadians in Canada and Mexicans in Mexico.

 

[TheCount]

Trump on NAFTA: 'I don't think we can make a deal'

http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/m...-nafta-i-dont-think-we-can-make-a-deal-222021

I did no such thing EVER.

Whatever you say bro.

NAFTA is not Free trade, NAFTA is controlled trade managed for the benefit of a few connected elites, an end to NAFTA would either reduce control or leave it at the same level, what it would do for sure is make the trade rules accountable to American citizens in America, Canadians in Canada and Mexicans in Mexico.

The fact that you completely ignored everything that I said seems to suggest that I'm right.

You keep saying "control" to dodge the simple fact that trade barriers were higher before NAFTA, and that the people and groups opposing NAFTA right now, including Trump, are protectionists and their goals in the renegotiation or repeal of NAFTA are to protect American businesses from competition. Some elites benefit from freer trade. Others benefit from protectionist policies. Neither has the interests of common Americans in mind.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Whatever you say bro.

That's right you got caught in a bald faced lie.

The fact that you completely ignored everything that I said seems to suggest that I'm right.

You keep saying "control" to dodge the simple fact that trade barriers were higher before NAFTA, and that the people and groups opposing NAFTA right now, including Trump, are protectionists and their goals in the renegotiation or repeal of NAFTA are to protect American businesses from competition. Some elites benefit from freer trade. Others benefit from protectionist policies. Neither has the interests of common Americans in mind.

Control is the opposite of Free, you claim NAFTA is more Free, it is not.
An end to NAFTA may or may not result in "Free" trade, it will not result in less "Free" trade because NAFTA is in NO way "Free" trade.
NAFTA is bad for America, bad for Canada and bad for Mexico, the people of all three nations were better off before it and will be better off if it ends, IF libertarians ever get control of two or more countries THEN we can have a debate about TRUE Free Trade.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I want you to tell us...

LOL. Who is "us?" You and [MENTION=17293]Zippyjuan[/MENTION]?

 

[nikcers]

 

[TheCount]

Control is the opposite of Free, you claim NAFTA is more Free, it is not.

An end to NAFTA may or may not result in "Free" trade, it will not result in less "Free" trade because NAFTA is in NO way "Free" trade.

Your argument makes no sense, and you are still - as usual - dodging the point. Are trade barriers higher or lower than before NAFTA?

NAFTA is bad for America, bad for Canada and bad for Mexico, the people of all three nations were better off before it and will be better off if it ends, IF libertarians ever get control of two or more countries THEN we can have a debate about TRUE Free Trade.

This is more "because we can't have perfection, let's take things in the complete opposite direction" nonsense that is so popular on certain topics.


Do you think that free trade is detrimental to Americans?