America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

not all his fault, but he's contributed to the spike in numbers...lots of other issues, including the need for manual laborers to do necessary work that Americans don't want to do...

our past policy of helping Mexico prop up their economy has resulted in a huge drop-off in Mexicans trying to enter the US illegally and expanded our trading relationships in ways that benefit us both...why not use a similar game plan in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras?

That article says 'reportedly', 'threatened', 'will be'.....

Congress is the appropriating branch....so, again, 'what aid was cut?'

I don’t blame trump for the immigration problem. I just don’t buy his smokescreen. I do blame him for the actions that have caused harm once folks are detained.


I blame congress. That’s where the fix must come from. Trump is just pretending for the base.

I also think think there is a problem but it’s way overstated and stoked for political gain.

You don't think the huge number of illegals in makeshift detention centers might be the cause of people not getting the (free) treatment they came for..?? But that's Trump's fault..

Ya... Besides, we all know Obama woulda never caged kids right..?? It was Trump that made the policy to cage kids..

in today's news...
"Mexican official says there is no secret US immigration deal".
The Mexican foreign minister said Monday about Trump's claim on twitter there is no "fully signed and documented" agreement that would be revealed soon, thus directly contradicting President Trump.

so the newly signed big deal that just needs to pass in Mexico's Legislative body (per Trump) is not true.

Marcelo Ebrard, Mexico's top diplomat, did say that both sides agree that if the flow of migrants is not significantly reduced in the coming months, they would be willing to renew discussions...

seems reasonable. would have been a reasonable release by the POTUS.

I'd like him more if he paid his taxes!

I don't know about those other sources but we are clearly cutting aid to the majority of central and south american countries. Here is an interesting source where you can plug whatever countries you want in to it. I have not checked to make sure it is snopes worthy lol but make the assumption the .gov address means it is blessed by this administration. The 2018 and 2019 data is not completely reported but non the less gives you a pretty good picture of where things are and the intent has not been a secret.

https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/HND?fiscal_year=2019&measure=Obligations

Some examples... I just picked these randomly probably based on hearing their names in the news.... I dunno


Honduras - (2017,2018,2019) - 181M, 111M, 48M (I think this is to be expected, not sure where it will land)
El Salvador (same years) 118M, 88M, 55M (Same caveat)
Mexico (same years) 290M, 69M, 2.3M (Same Caveat)

2018 should be fairly complete. 2019 obviously not but glancing through several other countries seems to be trending less than 2018 sometimes by a lot. It's not a stretch to say assistance/funding levels for these countries is going down pretty dramatically.... which is the stated goal of the administration. Some in here think that's actually a good thing. There was a time when I was firmly among them. I'm not sure where I stand today because I'm not a big fan of giving our money to different countries. This may be a nice little experiment and the results may help me shape my new position.

It's pretty safe to say we are reducing finding to central and south american countries, threatening to make asylum requests much more difficult, and changing how we handle folks that enter the country.

To me that is stipulated and the argument is about the cause/effect relationship, desired results and merit (good or bad).

EDIT with additional information:

The amounts above were run on obligations. Following are distributions for the same years. Anyone working with government budgets will understand this and why things look like they do. Obligations are first and must be present for distribution. Timeframes will be slightly different however and the lines blur a bit. Thus the obligations will show things sooner than the distributions and there will be what looks like carry over. It all makes sense on a spreadsheet somewhere. None the less I wanted to show both. 2019 will be more stark on distributions.... it does show we are spending more than I would think but its probably a scramble to spend the obligated...who knows)

Same years in distribution

Honduras (150M, 125M, 70M)
El Salvador (95M, 110M, 62M)
Mexico (300M, 63M, 27M)


Again some of it is accounting... IE how do we spend 300M on Mexico during a period that has only 290M obligated. It's a timing issue but ultimately obligations drive disbersement. It will ultimately all tie and disbersment will not exceed obligation.

Just edited to add disbersement. On disbersement I would think it would mean exactly what you indicate and your conclusion would be correct. Obligation is a different animal and for this purpose indicates amount set aside to disperse if you will. Thats sloppy laymans terms but is the jist of it.

Obligation is the plan or ceiling. It should be capturing things pretty clearly. You can not spend money that is not obligated. You can spend some money previously obligated that will appear in the next year. Clear as mud?

It's pretty clear how we intend to spend but the whole effect of the cuts have not been realized yet. However the other governments know it is coming, know it has already started, and likely have already taken certain actions..... just like the States do when funds are obligated or deobligated.


I dunno.... to me the writing is pretty clearly on the wall. But yes we are in the transition period. I'm just trying to throw some facts out there (and can be wrong...if so I'll stand corrected). I don't really know what impact this has on immigration and am not saying good or bad. As I said, I think my thoughts are restructuring based on new information. Not sure where I will land. We will learn from all of this.

It's also interesting that of the totals reported there, DoD spending on 'foreign aid' is more than a quarter of the total....or around 60+% of the biggest Agency contributing, Agency for International Development.

Quite a reach to assume that the federal government won't spend more than intended

I was trying to be funny...but, I have a little experience, too -- not much with multi-FY funds, but enough to know that it isn't impossible to obligate prior FY $$ in certain conditions

A stick figure illustration of one of the many problems with government.

Budgets. There is no incentive to save money from your current budget. The only result will be a decreased future budget. The only way to save is to cut budgets up front which is not really the best approach but probably the only approach under the current system,

And example from many years ago from a fairly small component.... prolly 50M plus per year LOL

towards the end of the year it was recognized that efficiencies resulted in money left at the end of the year. Every cent was spent to acquire carpet squares and other various office improvement supplies. None of which was installed (I don't know if due to different budget or not enough funds).

None of the above was ever installed and were stored in a conference room. 5ish years later the unit moved and donated the stuff to charity. It was all a way to maintain budget. It happens all the time. Another example is travel budgets. It is always tight until the last quarter when a sweep is done and there is a scramble to spend it all. Routine.

You are right that in the last 20 years (my only experience) it has gotten a little better, but I'd say not much or not enough. It doesn't help its a pet peeve of mine so I may amplify it a bit.

The travel piece is absolutely alive and well. We are skimpy all year, skipping important travel only to watch less important travel crammed in at the end of the year. The attempt to address this is to slash travel budgets up front but then the same thing happens it's just more drastic.

Not seeing any new info ^. There are a lot of moving parts here and a lot of deception. I'm not sure everyone is following the ball.

I watched his Q&A by marine 1 and said to myself I bet that's a blank piece of paper in his hand that no one can see and won't necessarily go in to effect if they make changes first (like the tarrifs). By the way it was not blank. I don't know what it was but it wasn't blank apparently.

The real agreement is locked up in a safe next to the proof that Obama wasn't born here LOL.

As I said.... if he's smart he'll play this game sometime while being truthful so his followers will continue to believe all of these things are truthful. You will always see later.... but never seem to.

I'd say just as stupid but in that example there actually was a deal.

So the POTUS and his admin put a plan into place.
Mexico is aware of this plan.
There are repercussions if the plan isn't implemented successfully by Mexico.

Don't worry about the delivery.
Trump tries to be a showman with everything he does. It has to be huge and great.
This is a simple edict. But it's real.
And it's spectacular.
At least when compared to what other recent admins have done on this issue.

Trump has a proven record of trustworthiness...you can take his word on anything...even when he says he's going to cut aid to Central American countries who aren't doing enough to stop their people from trying to come to the US...

some folks like his schtick, because he's the POTUS who blows off all previous norms of "behaving like a POTUS"...they admire him like they would a yahoo who burps loudly at a State Dinner...

he entertains them while tweaking the noses of the rest of us who don't think much of how he conducts himself as POTUS...

don't have to wait...some results are already in...the little guy that he said he was going to work very hard for is getting the shaft...

tax cuts barely registered for most people except the fat cats and the corporations,

de-regulation has enabled big business to dump more pollution and resulted in reduced air and water quality, mostly in places where the little guy lives...

little mom and pop farmers hurt more by tariffs and trade policy...

consumer protection has been replaced by regulations that allow lenders to screw the poor...

Trump hates the little peoples..?? One lived here in da hood for awhile and tho he was annoying as hell I didn't really hate him...

Only a short while...

Trump as a man of the little people is the best sales job ever.

If you believe that to be true, believe it’s because of him not in spite of him, and believe it’s worth the other crap then keep supporting him.

As I said I’m not for impeachment. Let’s have a bite and if he wins again that’s what we are today and we deserve it.

I don't understand why so many people are not in favor of impeachment. It is Congress's specifically authorized power to provide oversight and checks and balances when a POTUS abuses power and obstructs justice, which are impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors. Cons who say that Trump hasn't committed any impeachable offenses would be saying the opposite if Hillary or another Dem was in office and behaved as Trump has done.

Just because it is highly unlikely that the Senate would vote to convict Trump and turn him out of office is not a persuasive argument against impeachment.

Divisiveness is not an argument, because we can't be more polarized...there are only a few people remaining who are on the fence about Trump.

The main reasons to proceed:
1) make a statement for history that the POTUS is not above the law, and must adhere to his oath of office to uphold the Constitution,

2) focus/combine all the on-going Congressional investigations into: Trump's obstruction of justice, as described by the Mueller Report; Trump's campaign finance law violations where he paid hush money to keep affairs out of the public's eyes before the end of the campaign; Trump's Foundation violations; evidence of fraud by the Trump administration in organizing and financing the multiple inauguration events; evidence of corruption - violations of emoluments clause - as Trump has reportedly reaped financial windfalls operating his businesses while in office. Put all these and other on-going investigations into a single impeachment inquiry, to streamline the process and avoid a drawn out one that will be watered down if they proceed separately

3) make the hearing open to the public, so that people can hear testimony by important witnesses and see evidentiary documents

4) establish a legacy for the Trump Presidency...impeachment without conviction and removal from office is still a stain on a historical record, and future POTUS may avoid Trumpian behavior so as not to suffer similar consequence...Nixon and Clinton will always be known as the two POTUS who were impeached...Trump belongs in that group...

Stop listening to Joy and Whoopi...