US Election & Presidency

(25-01-2017 11:13 )Charlemagne Wrote:  Building a wall between the USA and Mexico is now high on his priorities.
The estimated cost is about $8 billion. Can Mexico afford to pay for it?

With a $2.03 trillion GDP, yes.

http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/

^ The link below explains what the aid is for and clearly some of the areas like border security and transnational crime gangs overlap with Trumps aims. Not clear what detriment would occur if this was withdrawn but clearly the aid budget alone won't be enough to pay for the wall.


http://us-foreign-aid.insidegov.com/l/112/Mexico

(25-01-2017 12:46 )wackawoo Wrote:  

(25-01-2017 11:56 )SecretAgent Wrote:  Seems he's told officials to look at the amount of aid the USA give to Mexico and he will try to deduct the costs from that aid. Not sure how much aid Mexico gets now but I've seen an article from 2013 claiming it was $205m. The other thing he said during the election was he might tax remittances to Mexico i.e. money that Mexicans living in the US send home to relatives.

People don't realize that Mexico and Brazil are two of the richest countries in the world, in or around the top 10.

USA giving Mexico aid is like EU giving UK aid.

per capita mexico are 68th in the world, below romania and gambon. hardly make them rich now does it.

you really love your 'alternative facts'. now where have i heard that before?

(25-01-2017 13:25 )terence Wrote:  per capita mexico are 68th in the world, below romania and gambon. hardly make them rich now does it.

you really love your 'alternative facts'. now where have i heard that before?

Which is 9 more than Brazil and only 16 behind Russia who seemed to have found enough money to host the Olympics and have huge armiments and space programs.

They are very rich countries, may be it's the way they spend it.

To me it's like those people on the dole who claim to be in poverty yet whilst smoking drinking and the latest LCD flat screen on the wall.

Yes there are slums in Brazil, but don't you think instead of hosting olympics the money could have been spent elswere?

United Kingdom is 27 on that per capita list, should we ask Ireland for aid since they are 7th?

No wait, were too busy rasing money and throwing aid here there and every where to ask for it.

Depends really if they calculated wealth generated by Illegal Means ie Drugs and Prostitiution Mexico would be up there with the US

Maybe Ireland is better off because dont really have an army or nuclear weapons.

Cant be that well off we lent them 9 Billion in 2008 to bail them out when they were in the shit

The 1% have more than half of the wealth in the countries you've mentioned wackawoo, the other half has to be filtered through a whole lot of corruption, so the money the people have access to is nowhere near the amounts listed. They are only rich on paper.

When countries have slums, or in our case food banks, that is a sign that things aren't as good as the stats try to make out.

(25-01-2017 16:14 )skully Wrote:  The 1% have more than half of the wealth in the countries you've mentioned wackawoo, the other half has to be filtered through a whole lot of corruption, so the money the people have access to is nowhere near the amounts listed. They are only rich on paper.

When countries have slums, or in our case food banks, that is a sign that things aren't as good as the stats try to make out.

EXACTLY!

They rich countries, but it's the distribution of wealth that is the problem, a small monirity of people have the money to waste whilst others are living in sqalour.

There is clearly enough money in Britian not to have a need for food banks, moreover, there is enough food in the world not so see a single damn person, especially children, dying of starvation; money and food are not the problem, distribution of the wealth is.

^that's it, i'm out for a while. i need to give my head time to stop hurting.

(25-01-2017 16:22 )terence Wrote:  ^that's it, i'm out for a while. i need to give my head time to heal up.

The problems when you quote per capita it's not giviing a true representatipon of where all the wealth goes, nor does it take into account the cost of living.

Mexico has a per capita $18,857, this is not far off the lowest paid people in Britian, but what it's not saying is THE COST OF LIVING - products and produce could be vastly cheaper in Mexico than the UK, so if everybody got that amount off money, then the poorer people of Mexico would actually be a lot better off than the poor of the UK.

The problem is, not eveybody is geting that $18,857.

Do people remeber the damn world cup that was held in South Africa? Billions spent on football pitches in the middle of damn no where never to be used again, yet per capita, South Africa is 90th on the list, fucking shocking waste of money.

(25-01-2017 13:25 )terence Wrote:  per capita mexico are 68th in the world, below romania and gambon

I thought Sir Michael would have a few quid stashed away with all the movies he's done