All errors should be reported to

Thursday, April 07, 2016

Trump suddenly owns Obama and NYT

Donald Trump said if necessary to fund The Wall, he will tax the money illegal aliens send home by wire. In one fell swoop he had the New York Times opposing taxes and illegal immigration. As a bonus, Trump showed the president's ignorance of computers and financial services.

 "The notion that we're going to track every Western Union bit of money that's being sent to Mexico, you know, good luck with that," Obama snarked.

Actually, that is pretty easy to do. Western Union and its competitors know where the money is sent. Besides, The federal government can tax all of what they call "remittances." Immigrants have sent money home for hundreds of years.

But it is the shill reaction of the New York Times that delights me most. The newspaper reacted through a column by Will Olney, a professor of economics at Williams College. The column exposed some truths that the newspaper is reluctant to admit.

The first is that taxes have negative consequences on an economy.

The second is Trump's point that Mexico uses the United States as its welfare system.

Now the Times -- through its surrogate -- dishonestly elevated this call to tax  remittances to a ban on remittances. This is  typical of liberals when they argue, because they have no argument against the actual proposal.

From Will Olney:
While my research suggests that Mexican immigrants in the United States may initially have more disposable income if they could not send money, their families back home would be less likely to invest in education, start businesses and get out of poverty. This could damage Mexico’s economy: Mexico receives $24.4 billion in remittances from immigrants in the United States, which accounts for about 2 percent of Mexico’s gross domestic product. Indeed, withholding this money may actually encourage immigration to the United States.
So Mexico games the big heart of the United States. Mexico makes more from dumping its welfare cases up north than it does oil. We lose $24 billion a year in welfare alone due to Mexican immigration both legal and illegal.

Thank you, New York Times for proving Trump's point.

And thank you President Obama for proving again your ignorance. Do your homework next time.


  1. NYT Shoots Own Foot! Film at 11!

  2. So what happens when Western Union - and like companies - which make a great deal of money off of remittances - finds itself in financial trouble because of government interference? What happens if Western Union does not cooperate? And if Mexico ever pays for the wall (snork), who is going to pay for the much-more expensive upkeep costs .... after it is finally completed in about 6 years? Does Trump know tunnels are extensively used as well to get across the border as well? What about them? Oh yea, Trump is brilliant.

    1. He's obviously a bell of a lot smarter than you.

    2. Once again, Teapartydoc - who doesn't subscribe to the Tea Party mantra - appears. I know I am smart enough to not drink the Trump Kool-aide like so many. For years, all I have read about is how you and so many others here say "Democrats and Obama are evil." Now, it's "Republicans and Conservatives are evil." Can't wait til the Koch brothers - who were long touted by Surber as the voices of conservatives, capitalists and all that is good about the right wing, spend millions to take away the nomination away from Trump in Cleveland - America's most depressing city.

    3. You must be a mexican.

    4. Steve in GreensboroApril 7, 2016 at 3:55 PM

      This really isn't that complicated. Under current tax law and practice, dividend and interest payments to foreign individuals are subject to back up withholding unless the payee can provide evidence that he is paying U.S. income taxes.

      In the case of the Mexican remittances, neither the payor nor payee are paying income taxes, so a 20% withholding is completely legal and appropriate to replace the income taxes that are probably not being paid.

    5. Anonymous, spend even just a year in Gaithersburg MD in a grocery line at Giant seeing a Hispanic woman dressed to the nines, with bling to boot, talking Spanish to the checkout girl and then whipping out her big old checkbook of WICs. Do that and then let's talk. If or until then, shut the eff up.

  3. All the remittances to Mexico should be considered illegal drug money unless the sender can prove otherwise. The funds should be subject to forfeiture by the DEA, which claims the authority to seize assets in drug cases without a warrant. That might stem the flow of money across the border and convince quite a number of illegals here to go back home.

  4. Sheer brilliance on the part of The Donald. And it is very workable. If I recall correctly, the state of Oklahoma charges a 1 per cent tax on remittances, but if you file an Oklahoma state tax return (which illegal aliens do not) you get it refunded. What are we waiting for? - Elric

  5. Great idea! Since there are several countries that are involved in the drug trade, just say that only money sent to them has to go through postal money orders, only in amounts of greater than, say, $10,000 and proof of earning has to be shown if using cash. Then price the money order so we can make a profit on it.

  6. Hey, let's not discriminate here. What about Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua etc? Tax them too!

  7. I have been advocating taxing remittances to Mexico for years. Let the freeloading illegal aliens start paying for the services they are getting for free.