Yea, because border security has absolutely no impact on anybody's life, liberty or happiness in this country.
Yea, no need to control our borders. Illicit drugs don't kill all that many of us and we don't care about human trafficking though our country and we really don't care if you come here legally or not take the jobs of our poor and use up government services like public schools and healthcare, it doesn't matter at all.
Tell you what, we will send them an invoice for the $5.7 Billion once it's built.
Nobody ever thought Mexico would cut a check and send it to us. Everybody who was actually paying attention realized that this was to be an indirect "Mexico would pay" for the wall. And Trump has argued that the new trade deal that replaced NAFTA did just that, by leveling the playing field a bit with Mexico and trade.
But we will just send the bill if it makes you feel better and you can collect it if you like. In the mean time, cut the check so we can start building.
Kind of hard to argue that the tax cuts busted the deficits when income tax receipts are up and deficits are not up by anywhere near what the tax cuts "cost".
Seems to me we are seeing GDP growth above 3% now, which will drive tax receipts up more year over year as a result. Why did GDP growth near 4% last quarter? Blame those tax cuts if you dare.
The situation is getting BETTER not continuing to get worse like under the last administration, where we NEVER saw sustained GDP growth over 2% for more than a quarter and the guy in the oval office was telling us that GDP growth over 3% just wasn't possible with the world economy and never would be again. He actually said we should be happy with sub 2% GDP growth, it was all we where ever going to get. Boy was he wrong.
Yet it did cost 1 trillion over 10 years by the OMB estimate... Actually it was more because they had raided Medicare to keep the bill under the Trillion magic number, then bumped it up after the fact in a "restore Medicare" bill that added back in a few hundred Billion.
I remember this very clearly. I recall thinking there was no way this was going to drive my healthcare costs down and the price tag was huge for what we where getting. Then the bill came from OMB under the magic Trillion over 10 years, even though the estimates clearly showed INCREASING government costs from year 5 on, having stolen from Medicare and collected taxes for 3 years while providing no benefits at all, to anybody. Oh I remember this budget busting mess and the "if you like your doctor" and "family of 4 savings of $2,500/year" lies that came with it quite clearly.
Seems that he failed in doing that.. Getting us out of the recession...
He had 8 years... Then, with two years of his leaving office, some guy nobody ever expected comes in and "fixes" it in less than 2 years with a tax cut and regulation roll backs...
Yea, and now you don't want to spend 5.7 Billion as if it's going to kill us after 22 Trillion didn't..
We need more of them, or is that reality lost on you. No it's just logic I guess that's lost on you..:)
I give you examples of how well they work because somebody says walls are ineffective and a waste.. Then you turn and say, so we already have what we need... So you *admit* they work as advertised, but you don't want any more. Really?
Um.. You are partially right. Yes, entitlements don't effect the budget... But they do drive up the debt if they run in deficits.
Social Security is NOT collecting more than it spends anymore. That ended during Obama's years. Now, Social Security does have a "trust fund" to draw on, but the reality is that this fund is a pile of US Treasury bonds, so as they cash out these bonds, the cash has to come from someplace so it's either printed to retire the bond, or the Treasury has to sell the bonds to somebody. Social Security will go "bankrupt" or really just run though the Trust Fund in something like 10 years, at which time it will have to borrow.
Entitlements are "off budget" but really that's just a slight of hand for the politicians to avoid having to deal with the financial realities of entitlements, at last in my view. They DO add to the debt and both Social Security and Medicare are part of the difference between the budget deficit and the increase in the debt. All the supplemental funding bills, which are off budget too, are the rest.
What do you propose? Because most of the crazy things I'm hearing from the democrats are *very* expensive things.
Universal health care? Free College? Student Loan forgiveness? Minimum living wage?
BTW, Trump isn't on track to double the debt like Obama did. He may be adding to the debt at the same rate, but that just means it's impossible for him to double the $20 Trillion of debt. Best he could ad is only $8 Trillion at this rate if he goes two full terms, for his first term he's on track for $4 Trillion. Also, with GDP growing at an unprecedented 3-4% makes this amount of debt more manageable and less of a concern as we can grow out of some of this. But, remember, spending bills come from the House, where they squabbled about how spending more money was a budget cut because it was below the baseline budget.
So, let's get serious.. How about we do this to start? Let's reduce baseline budgets increases to no more than the GDP growth less 2% (or zero, which ever is bigger) for as long as the National Debt is above 70% of GDP starting in the next budget, government wide. Once the National Debt drops below 70% of GDP, we up the baseline budget to be 1% less than GDP growth.
That's not it, you don't like that he got elected and refuse to make deals with him like has been done for hundreds of years in this country. What's happened is partisanship has won and now both sides are deeply entrenched in their positions and we are at an impasse. Look though your history, compromise has been effectively used many times in the past, why not now?
I as you, how do we get out of this? Both sides have legitimate power to do what they are doing and we have divided government. Both sides need to choose what they are going to do about this. If you think the shutdown (with more and more of the government to follow) is a good thing and you are unwilling to discuss bipartisan solutions, then that's what we will have.
Just have no doubt that eventually, if Trump keeps up making his public offers at a deal and keeps being rebuffed, the tide will turn and things will not go well for your ideals come the election of 2020. Don't be foolish, this is about votes and acting like spoiled children and not coming to the table isn't going to play well with the electorate 20 months from now.
You obviously don't understand how this "budget" thing works since Clinton took all the entitlements "off budget"
There is the "budget" deficit which is $800 Billion, this is how much more money we budget than we take in from taxes... But there is a different amount that we borrow, that includes the entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare which ALSO run a deficit, taking in less than they spend, to the tune of about $300 Billion, for a TOTAL increase in the debt of $1.1 Trillion.
Often folks are not careful about which numbers they are talking about and conflate the increase in the debt and the budget deficit as being the same thing. They are not.
Nope, just ask for what you want and stick to your guns.
You do realize that you have basically argued for total gridlock for the next two years and condemned 800,000 people to be out of work until January 2021 at the earliest right? I wonder how that will play with the democrat base, considering that we will hit the end of the other CR's, won't have a budget and will exceed our debt ceiling between now and then. You want a real shutdown and not this quasi non-essential services thing? Because your logic is heading us there.
That wasn't the argument. The Argument is that it's too much money to just flush down the toilet on an ineffective vanity project.
Ah yes.. So it's ineffective? Why do we have walls already then? Seems El Paso Texas needs their border wall to stay safe.. Walls are OBVIOUSLY effective. Stop repeating that bald faced lie. Walls work, the modern world is awash in walls that work.
The rest of your argument amounts to "I don't like any idea Trump comes up with." It's not a vanity project to him or his supporters. It may be an attempt to fulfill a campaign promise, but that doesn't make it a vanity project like a statute or building named after him would be. Besides, I don't think Trump cares about vanity projects with taxpayer money. He has plenty of his own money to fund vanity projects anywhere he wants to. He doesn't need your tax money for it.
So you *admit* that spending $5.7 billion has no value even if it means getting 800,000 federal workers back to getting paychecks?
Damn man, that's a really harsh thing to say to a pretty large bunch of largely democrat voters.
So Trump wants to spend $5.7 Billion on something you consider a boondoggle and for that you are going to flatly refuse to discuss anything while Rome burns around you? Ok.. Have it your way, the shutdown will just grind on then because there is nothing to gain by agreeing with your side's position and as you complain about a measly 5.7 Billion, your house is falling down around you..
LOL.. You mean when the ACA spent a trillion over 10 years without so much as a single republican vote? Not that the cost was the ONLY reason we objected to it..
So, if you are afraid of getting rolled again, just give him the $105.7 Billion and ask for a DACA fix in return. Or ask him for a complete DACA fix for the $5.7 billion and when he tries to bilk you for more, ask for MORE in return, say amnesty for illegals who can prove they've been here for 10 years or something. If you just set the precedent that you will give him what he wants in return for stuff you want, how's that bad for your cause? When he comes and asks for the $100 Billion you have the same power to say no, not unless you give us something... How's that bad?
Oh that's right, this isn't about any of that or the DACA kids, illegals, the debt or even border security, it's about stopping Trump and anything he suggests, regardless of who it hurts. Why else are your leaders not even talking to him when he's trying to make deals?
Now that's very true... This is about votes and political power, not about the money.
If you truly see it that way, it gets pretty obvious who's going to win this bit of political posturing theater and the *only* way this doesn't play into Trump's favor is if Mueller actually comes up with a real live crime that can get him impeached before it's over. Otherwise, Trump just holds on until he can peel off enough democrats in the house from those "on the bubble" and get his way and we have two years for that to play out with ever ratcheting up pressure as expiring budgets, expiring CR's and exceeding Debt Limits hit the democratic log jam. Eventually *somebody* is going to blink and cut a deal.
Where are you getting this $44trillion number from? US GDP is half that.
My apologies, I missed a decimal point.. it's $ 4.4 Trillion... But my "real life" example numbers are still in the correct ratio. $57 vrs $44,000 income.
Trump Traitor, you lack a basic understanding of how the US government functions. It's not about the $58.
It's about now allowing a President to close the government unless he gets specific funding on a controversial (not publicly supported) budgetary item (the wall).
The United States of America has never worked like that.
So it's now Trump is a traitor because he's threatening to use his constitutionally granted power of a veto but democrats in the house are not, even though they are only sitting on their hands refusing to send a bill to the president unless he agrees to sign what they want?
You better get a new argument, this one fails the logical consistency test.
Both sides have the power to do what they are doing, granted by the constitution non-the-less. Neither side has the constitutional high ground, and neither side are engaged in traitorous behavior. Get over your visceral dislike of Trump and stop being a moron about this.
Just so it's clear, the other side sees it in a similar way. We are at stalemate, neither party in this wishes to retreat, but neither can force their specific will without the other. Compromise is required or this situation doesn't change, and 800,000 people go unpaid.
So the question is how does this play out? That's a political question that's generally a mystery to most, who are not used to thinking about these things in such terms. But here's how I see it.
Trump's moves late last week, where he suggested that the democrats accept concessions on DACA in exchange for the 5.7 Billion where rejected, even before he made the suggestion. Today he's out there floating another even more radical departure, a general amnesty program, again being rejected flatly. If this continues, it's going to be really hard for democrats in the house to stick to their guns. There are not *that* many democrat seats to turn and with stuff like this Trump is obviously angling to do just that. Democrats will find it harder and harder to keep up this.
Then the question is what's hurting Trump in this? At this point, not much. His popularity ratings have fallen a few points on Real Clear Politics until the end of last week, where they took a jump up. He's not suffering much from all this, and may possibly be gaining as he maneuvers around the Democrats and their refusal to even talk. I see no reason he cannot keep this going... Waiting for events to turn the tide, or for enough Democrats in the house who are on the bubble to sue for peace and side with Republicans. He has a better than 50/50 chance of prevailing on this.
So, if we don't compromise here, we go into 2020 election season and Trump has an obvious campaigning issue "Oh look at the "Say NO!" obstructionist Democrats" "They just don't like me and caused all this pain!". Problem is this will resonate with many Trump voters, plus many of the middle who are fed up with all the partisan bickering.
I suggest that this will play out to Trump's advantage, politically. But I also admit that I don't see many options for the Democrats. They are literally damned if they do and damned if they don't. Given this I suspect that this will take awhile, with the erosion of the Democrats support for defying the president finally making it necessary for them to compromise and end it. But I fear we are weeks away from that.
This is patently false and obviously not valid.
Stopped reading right there. Troll language. Fuck the fuck off, Trump supporting jackass.
The truth scares you Rick? Had to stop reading and then cuss me out lest a reasoned argument make a dent in your world view?
I'm of the opinion that those who resort to name calling know they've already lost the argument. Just like you did Rick. If this is the best the democrats can manage, they are going to loose badly in 2020....
This was the Jim Acosta argument of "there is no crisis here at the border" (cut to shot though the fence). Well Jim, because there is a fence there...
You can say there is no crisis if you like, but that doesn't wash with what folks in South Texas (and other border states) will tell you. There hundreds of lives lost each year for illegals trying to cross the border and not making it. Illegal workers, Human trafficking, illicit drugs, arms and likely terrorists use this route to enter the USA all the time but there is no problem you say. Do you not know that the bulk of heroin on the streets comes over this border, illegal arms flow both ways, and those engage in human trafficking both for the illicit sex and importing of labor for what amounts to slavery. Then there is the importation of long ago eradicated dieses marching across our southern border unchecked. These things may not concern you I suppose.
Yea, there is no crisis... Have we forgotten the border riots of just a few weeks ago, just after the election? Seems so... What's it going to take? A lot I guess.
So you want to make "Perfection the enemy of the good" ? I sure hope not.
Look, getting drugs INTO a prison takes more effort BECAUSE of the walls, or are you going to deny that? Being more difficult makes the supply lower inside a prison. And when we think about it, how do these drugs get inside the walls? The obviously answer is: Through the doors, and because of this we have a much smaller aperture to search and those who go though them. Walls/fences/physical barriers make the job of catching drugs going into prisons easier by funneling smuggling though the openings in the barrier.
So... unless you are ready to argue that you are only willing to accept PERFECT solutions and admit that means you don't really have any solutions to offer, can we dispense with this pretense and say what this objection of yours really is. It's not that walls don't help, they do. Are you rejecting the good because it's not perfect yet you have no solutions of your own?
What this really is has nothing to do with finding the best solution, but disrupting a working idea because of the implications of agreeing to it. This is more about who's making the suggestion than the suggestion itself. Of course a wall/fence/barrier would help, you know it, I know it, the voters at large know it, but one side of the isle cannot bring themselves to actually SAY what's obviously true... For political reasons, and not much else.
Sure, buddy. $5.7B for what amounts to 1919 (or 1819, or 1719, you get the idea) 'border security' technology, when what we need is 2019 border security technology. We could spend a fraction of that on cutting-edge detection technology devices, and maybe some on additional personnel to patrol for when crossings are detected, and have better overall broder security than some stupid-ass wall that they'll climb over, fly over, or tunnel under. Futhermore, high-tech solutions to border security can be deployed in a fraction of the time it takes to build a wall, and also won't require invoking Eminent Domain on people's private property.
Ah, the "physical barriers don't work" argument. This is patently false and obviously not valid. Physical barriers DO work, which is why we already have them in many locations (such as along the southern border of California.) They OBVIOUSLY work better than a three barbed wire fence and a drone....
Look, you want to make the argument that because it's not perfect, it's not good. You make the perfect the enemy of the good, so you advocate we do nothing? I'm sorry, a physical barrier DOES help the situation by making it more difficult to just walk across the border willy nilly. It make the application of technology more effective by slowing down illegal entries and making the job harder.
Just having to build the tunnel slows down the illegals. Having to climb it, slows them down, buying an airplane ticket won't help.
I'd sat that if a property owner doesn't want the wall (a situation I would consider rare) we can do multiple things. 1. Just build the wall with them on the Mexico side (grin) and leave them to their own devices.. 2. Build the wall where the land owners allow it, funneling the illegals across their property and the damage these folks do. I have a feeling you will find that most land owners won't mind letting the wall get built....
So you need a better argument...
Remember.... The REAL issue here isn't about the money. It's about votes and who's going to control things after 2020. So the 800K folks who are basically unemployed are pawns in a political game. All over $5.7 billion... Looking long term, how do you think this will play out?
So.. You are OK with putting the checkbook on pause over $58?
Ok, but let's be honest about this. It's not about the deficit, this isn't a money question. This is about votes. The 800K people who are missing their paychecks are but pawns in this vote getting game. The 800K folks are hostages.... What are you going to do?
The deficit argument is a red herring for your side, that's obvious to me. You need to come up with something else because last week we spent more than $58 on eating out and soda pop.
Ah, so deficits are NOT really an issue for you. IF you agree with the issue the money is being spent on, you are more than ready to borrow the money and cut the check.
Logical Consistency is a cruel task master. IF you are OK with the ACA's cost, stop your whining about deficits and cut Trump his $5.7 Billion check.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to the deficit because they are "off budget", but it will add to the national debt when it runs out of it's trust fund.
So all is not golden with Social Security and Medicare, they WILL be serious drivers of the national debt about 10 years before I retire.
Yea, because border security has absolutely no impact on anybody's life, liberty or happiness in this country.
Yea, no need to control our borders. Illicit drugs don't kill all that many of us and we don't care about human trafficking though our country and we really don't care if you come here legally or not take the jobs of our poor and use up government services like public schools and healthcare, it doesn't matter at all.
Tell you what, we will send them an invoice for the $5.7 Billion once it's built.
Nobody ever thought Mexico would cut a check and send it to us. Everybody who was actually paying attention realized that this was to be an indirect "Mexico would pay" for the wall. And Trump has argued that the new trade deal that replaced NAFTA did just that, by leveling the playing field a bit with Mexico and trade.
But we will just send the bill if it makes you feel better and you can collect it if you like. In the mean time, cut the check so we can start building.
Kind of hard to argue that the tax cuts busted the deficits when income tax receipts are up and deficits are not up by anywhere near what the tax cuts "cost".
Seems to me we are seeing GDP growth above 3% now, which will drive tax receipts up more year over year as a result. Why did GDP growth near 4% last quarter? Blame those tax cuts if you dare.
The situation is getting BETTER not continuing to get worse like under the last administration, where we NEVER saw sustained GDP growth over 2% for more than a quarter and the guy in the oval office was telling us that GDP growth over 3% just wasn't possible with the world economy and never would be again. He actually said we should be happy with sub 2% GDP growth, it was all we where ever going to get. Boy was he wrong.
Yet it did cost 1 trillion over 10 years by the OMB estimate... Actually it was more because they had raided Medicare to keep the bill under the Trillion magic number, then bumped it up after the fact in a "restore Medicare" bill that added back in a few hundred Billion.
I remember this very clearly. I recall thinking there was no way this was going to drive my healthcare costs down and the price tag was huge for what we where getting. Then the bill came from OMB under the magic Trillion over 10 years, even though the estimates clearly showed INCREASING government costs from year 5 on, having stolen from Medicare and collected taxes for 3 years while providing no benefits at all, to anybody. Oh I remember this budget busting mess and the "if you like your doctor" and "family of 4 savings of $2,500/year" lies that came with it quite clearly.
Seems that he failed in doing that.. Getting us out of the recession...
He had 8 years... Then, with two years of his leaving office, some guy nobody ever expected comes in and "fixes" it in less than 2 years with a tax cut and regulation roll backs...
Yea, and now you don't want to spend 5.7 Billion as if it's going to kill us after 22 Trillion didn't..
I call this partisan politics on your part.
We need more of them, or is that reality lost on you. No it's just logic I guess that's lost on you.. :)
I give you examples of how well they work because somebody says walls are ineffective and a waste.. Then you turn and say, so we already have what we need... So you *admit* they work as advertised, but you don't want any more. Really?
Um.. You are partially right. Yes, entitlements don't effect the budget... But they do drive up the debt if they run in deficits.
Social Security is NOT collecting more than it spends anymore. That ended during Obama's years. Now, Social Security does have a "trust fund" to draw on, but the reality is that this fund is a pile of US Treasury bonds, so as they cash out these bonds, the cash has to come from someplace so it's either printed to retire the bond, or the Treasury has to sell the bonds to somebody. Social Security will go "bankrupt" or really just run though the Trust Fund in something like 10 years, at which time it will have to borrow.
Entitlements are "off budget" but really that's just a slight of hand for the politicians to avoid having to deal with the financial realities of entitlements, at last in my view. They DO add to the debt and both Social Security and Medicare are part of the difference between the budget deficit and the increase in the debt. All the supplemental funding bills, which are off budget too, are the rest.
What do you propose? Because most of the crazy things I'm hearing from the democrats are *very* expensive things.
Universal health care? Free College? Student Loan forgiveness? Minimum living wage?
BTW, Trump isn't on track to double the debt like Obama did. He may be adding to the debt at the same rate, but that just means it's impossible for him to double the $20 Trillion of debt. Best he could ad is only $8 Trillion at this rate if he goes two full terms, for his first term he's on track for $4 Trillion. Also, with GDP growing at an unprecedented 3-4% makes this amount of debt more manageable and less of a concern as we can grow out of some of this. But, remember, spending bills come from the House, where they squabbled about how spending more money was a budget cut because it was below the baseline budget.
So, let's get serious.. How about we do this to start? Let's reduce baseline budgets increases to no more than the GDP growth less 2% (or zero, which ever is bigger) for as long as the National Debt is above 70% of GDP starting in the next budget, government wide. Once the National Debt drops below 70% of GDP, we up the baseline budget to be 1% less than GDP growth.
How's that sound to you?
That's not it, you don't like that he got elected and refuse to make deals with him like has been done for hundreds of years in this country. What's happened is partisanship has won and now both sides are deeply entrenched in their positions and we are at an impasse. Look though your history, compromise has been effectively used many times in the past, why not now?
I as you, how do we get out of this? Both sides have legitimate power to do what they are doing and we have divided government. Both sides need to choose what they are going to do about this. If you think the shutdown (with more and more of the government to follow) is a good thing and you are unwilling to discuss bipartisan solutions, then that's what we will have.
Just have no doubt that eventually, if Trump keeps up making his public offers at a deal and keeps being rebuffed, the tide will turn and things will not go well for your ideals come the election of 2020. Don't be foolish, this is about votes and acting like spoiled children and not coming to the table isn't going to play well with the electorate 20 months from now.
You obviously don't understand how this "budget" thing works since Clinton took all the entitlements "off budget"
There is the "budget" deficit which is $800 Billion, this is how much more money we budget than we take in from taxes... But there is a different amount that we borrow, that includes the entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare which ALSO run a deficit, taking in less than they spend, to the tune of about $300 Billion, for a TOTAL increase in the debt of $1.1 Trillion.
Often folks are not careful about which numbers they are talking about and conflate the increase in the debt and the budget deficit as being the same thing. They are not.
Nope, just ask for what you want and stick to your guns.
You do realize that you have basically argued for total gridlock for the next two years and condemned 800,000 people to be out of work until January 2021 at the earliest right? I wonder how that will play with the democrat base, considering that we will hit the end of the other CR's, won't have a budget and will exceed our debt ceiling between now and then. You want a real shutdown and not this quasi non-essential services thing? Because your logic is heading us there.
That wasn't the argument. The Argument is that it's too much money to just flush down the toilet on an ineffective vanity project.
Ah yes.. So it's ineffective? Why do we have walls already then? Seems El Paso Texas needs their border wall to stay safe.. Walls are OBVIOUSLY effective. Stop repeating that bald faced lie. Walls work, the modern world is awash in walls that work.
The rest of your argument amounts to "I don't like any idea Trump comes up with." It's not a vanity project to him or his supporters. It may be an attempt to fulfill a campaign promise, but that doesn't make it a vanity project like a statute or building named after him would be. Besides, I don't think Trump cares about vanity projects with taxpayer money. He has plenty of his own money to fund vanity projects anywhere he wants to. He doesn't need your tax money for it.
So you *admit* that spending $5.7 billion has no value even if it means getting 800,000 federal workers back to getting paychecks?
Damn man, that's a really harsh thing to say to a pretty large bunch of largely democrat voters.
So Trump wants to spend $5.7 Billion on something you consider a boondoggle and for that you are going to flatly refuse to discuss anything while Rome burns around you? Ok.. Have it your way, the shutdown will just grind on then because there is nothing to gain by agreeing with your side's position and as you complain about a measly 5.7 Billion, your house is falling down around you..
LOL.. You mean when the ACA spent a trillion over 10 years without so much as a single republican vote? Not that the cost was the ONLY reason we objected to it..
So, if you are afraid of getting rolled again, just give him the $105.7 Billion and ask for a DACA fix in return. Or ask him for a complete DACA fix for the $5.7 billion and when he tries to bilk you for more, ask for MORE in return, say amnesty for illegals who can prove they've been here for 10 years or something. If you just set the precedent that you will give him what he wants in return for stuff you want, how's that bad for your cause? When he comes and asks for the $100 Billion you have the same power to say no, not unless you give us something... How's that bad?
Oh that's right, this isn't about any of that or the DACA kids, illegals, the debt or even border security, it's about stopping Trump and anything he suggests, regardless of who it hurts. Why else are your leaders not even talking to him when he's trying to make deals?
At this point, it isn't about money.
It's about control.
Now that's very true... This is about votes and political power, not about the money.
If you truly see it that way, it gets pretty obvious who's going to win this bit of political posturing theater and the *only* way this doesn't play into Trump's favor is if Mueller actually comes up with a real live crime that can get him impeached before it's over. Otherwise, Trump just holds on until he can peel off enough democrats in the house from those "on the bubble" and get his way and we have two years for that to play out with ever ratcheting up pressure as expiring budgets, expiring CR's and exceeding Debt Limits hit the democratic log jam. Eventually *somebody* is going to blink and cut a deal.
Where are you getting this $44trillion number from? US GDP is half that.
My apologies, I missed a decimal point.. it's $ 4.4 Trillion... But my "real life" example numbers are still in the correct ratio. $57 vrs $44,000 income.
Trump Traitor, you lack a basic understanding of how the US government functions. It's not about the $58.
It's about now allowing a President to close the government unless he gets specific funding on a controversial (not publicly supported) budgetary item (the wall).
The United States of America has never worked like that.
So it's now Trump is a traitor because he's threatening to use his constitutionally granted power of a veto but democrats in the house are not, even though they are only sitting on their hands refusing to send a bill to the president unless he agrees to sign what they want?
You better get a new argument, this one fails the logical consistency test.
Both sides have the power to do what they are doing, granted by the constitution non-the-less. Neither side has the constitutional high ground, and neither side are engaged in traitorous behavior. Get over your visceral dislike of Trump and stop being a moron about this.
Love your User Name...
Just so it's clear, the other side sees it in a similar way. We are at stalemate, neither party in this wishes to retreat, but neither can force their specific will without the other. Compromise is required or this situation doesn't change, and 800,000 people go unpaid.
So the question is how does this play out? That's a political question that's generally a mystery to most, who are not used to thinking about these things in such terms. But here's how I see it.
Trump's moves late last week, where he suggested that the democrats accept concessions on DACA in exchange for the 5.7 Billion where rejected, even before he made the suggestion. Today he's out there floating another even more radical departure, a general amnesty program, again being rejected flatly. If this continues, it's going to be really hard for democrats in the house to stick to their guns. There are not *that* many democrat seats to turn and with stuff like this Trump is obviously angling to do just that. Democrats will find it harder and harder to keep up this.
Then the question is what's hurting Trump in this? At this point, not much. His popularity ratings have fallen a few points on Real Clear Politics until the end of last week, where they took a jump up. He's not suffering much from all this, and may possibly be gaining as he maneuvers around the Democrats and their refusal to even talk. I see no reason he cannot keep this going... Waiting for events to turn the tide, or for enough Democrats in the house who are on the bubble to sue for peace and side with Republicans. He has a better than 50/50 chance of prevailing on this.
So, if we don't compromise here, we go into 2020 election season and Trump has an obvious campaigning issue "Oh look at the "Say NO!" obstructionist Democrats" "They just don't like me and caused all this pain!". Problem is this will resonate with many Trump voters, plus many of the middle who are fed up with all the partisan bickering.
I suggest that this will play out to Trump's advantage, politically. But I also admit that I don't see many options for the Democrats. They are literally damned if they do and damned if they don't. Given this I suspect that this will take awhile, with the erosion of the Democrats support for defying the president finally making it necessary for them to compromise and end it. But I fear we are weeks away from that.
This is patently false and obviously not valid. Stopped reading right there. Troll language. Fuck the fuck off, Trump supporting jackass.
The truth scares you Rick? Had to stop reading and then cuss me out lest a reasoned argument make a dent in your world view?
I'm of the opinion that those who resort to name calling know they've already lost the argument. Just like you did Rick. If this is the best the democrats can manage, they are going to loose badly in 2020....
This was the Jim Acosta argument of "there is no crisis here at the border" (cut to shot though the fence). Well Jim, because there is a fence there...
You can say there is no crisis if you like, but that doesn't wash with what folks in South Texas (and other border states) will tell you. There hundreds of lives lost each year for illegals trying to cross the border and not making it. Illegal workers, Human trafficking, illicit drugs, arms and likely terrorists use this route to enter the USA all the time but there is no problem you say. Do you not know that the bulk of heroin on the streets comes over this border, illegal arms flow both ways, and those engage in human trafficking both for the illicit sex and importing of labor for what amounts to slavery. Then there is the importation of long ago eradicated dieses marching across our southern border unchecked. These things may not concern you I suppose.
Yea, there is no crisis... Have we forgotten the border riots of just a few weeks ago, just after the election? Seems so... What's it going to take? A lot I guess.
So you want to make "Perfection the enemy of the good" ? I sure hope not.
Look, getting drugs INTO a prison takes more effort BECAUSE of the walls, or are you going to deny that? Being more difficult makes the supply lower inside a prison. And when we think about it, how do these drugs get inside the walls? The obviously answer is: Through the doors, and because of this we have a much smaller aperture to search and those who go though them. Walls/fences/physical barriers make the job of catching drugs going into prisons easier by funneling smuggling though the openings in the barrier.
So... unless you are ready to argue that you are only willing to accept PERFECT solutions and admit that means you don't really have any solutions to offer, can we dispense with this pretense and say what this objection of yours really is. It's not that walls don't help, they do. Are you rejecting the good because it's not perfect yet you have no solutions of your own?
What this really is has nothing to do with finding the best solution, but disrupting a working idea because of the implications of agreeing to it. This is more about who's making the suggestion than the suggestion itself. Of course a wall/fence/barrier would help, you know it, I know it, the voters at large know it, but one side of the isle cannot bring themselves to actually SAY what's obviously true... For political reasons, and not much else.
Sure, buddy. $5.7B for what amounts to 1919 (or 1819, or 1719, you get the idea) 'border security' technology, when what we need is 2019 border security technology. We could spend a fraction of that on cutting-edge detection technology devices, and maybe some on additional personnel to patrol for when crossings are detected, and have better overall broder security than some stupid-ass wall that they'll climb over, fly over, or tunnel under. Futhermore, high-tech solutions to border security can be deployed in a fraction of the time it takes to build a wall, and also won't require invoking Eminent Domain on people's private property.
Ah, the "physical barriers don't work" argument. This is patently false and obviously not valid. Physical barriers DO work, which is why we already have them in many locations (such as along the southern border of California.) They OBVIOUSLY work better than a three barbed wire fence and a drone....
Look, you want to make the argument that because it's not perfect, it's not good. You make the perfect the enemy of the good, so you advocate we do nothing? I'm sorry, a physical barrier DOES help the situation by making it more difficult to just walk across the border willy nilly. It make the application of technology more effective by slowing down illegal entries and making the job harder.
Just having to build the tunnel slows down the illegals. Having to climb it, slows them down, buying an airplane ticket won't help.
I'd sat that if a property owner doesn't want the wall (a situation I would consider rare) we can do multiple things. 1. Just build the wall with them on the Mexico side (grin) and leave them to their own devices.. 2. Build the wall where the land owners allow it, funneling the illegals across their property and the damage these folks do. I have a feeling you will find that most land owners won't mind letting the wall get built....
So you need a better argument...
Remember.... The REAL issue here isn't about the money. It's about votes and who's going to control things after 2020. So the 800K folks who are basically unemployed are pawns in a political game. All over $5.7 billion... Looking long term, how do you think this will play out?
So.. You are OK with putting the checkbook on pause over $58?
Ok, but let's be honest about this. It's not about the deficit, this isn't a money question. This is about votes. The 800K people who are missing their paychecks are but pawns in this vote getting game. The 800K folks are hostages.... What are you going to do?
The deficit argument is a red herring for your side, that's obvious to me. You need to come up with something else because last week we spent more than $58 on eating out and soda pop.
Ah, so deficits are NOT really an issue for you. IF you agree with the issue the money is being spent on, you are more than ready to borrow the money and cut the check.
Logical Consistency is a cruel task master. IF you are OK with the ACA's cost, stop your whining about deficits and cut Trump his $5.7 Billion check.