(01-10-2019, 07:35 PM)he Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote: [ -> ]Damn, Trump is willing to keep the government shutdown going because his ego is brused about not getting “his” wall fully funded. People are going to lose their home, cars, be in debt all because he is being selfish.
Another question. Would the military jump for joy when Trump dips into their budget to fund “his” wall?
(01-09-2019, 10:21 AM)Adam2012 Wrote: [ -> ]I always enjoy watching Donald attempt to appear "Presidential" by reading off a teleprompter and using his inside voice. It always looks and sounds as if he just took a couple of Quaaludes.
How much did he pay Ann Coulter for those remarks? It sounded like the last 150 columns Coulter has written. He needed network time to simply repeat a shortened version of his campaign screed? It apparently was a campaign fundraising effort and nothing more. Bait and switch. Nothing new offered, no attempt at compromise, just same old same old.
Sad.
Any bets on him calling out 6 GOP memebers for wanting to end the shutdown?
That will be popcorn I have hot and ready to eat.
If someone, specifically a .gov employee is claiming they will lose their homes, cars, etc. were in bad position before this shutdown, especially after not even a month. When you sign your contract you are informed of all non-pay situations. #1. You have a personal responsibility to have savings. #2. You can apply for an interest free advance. #3. If you are inelegible for a advance, you qualify for unemployment. #4. Apply for a low interest personal loan. Don't blame your inability to live within your means on a temporary solution.
They will eventually receive back pay.
There are numerous Guard, Reserve and Active Duty civil engineering units within the military that would love the chance to actually build the wall. As far as appropriation and deducting from, it wouldn't be the first time. In any case, that is a decision of Congress and a larger matter of National Security that quite frankly is a rediculous parallel, especially considering it is a completely different Department. How about reel in the billions being sent overseas to other countries? How about the unnecessary migrant grants? Ballooning welfare programs? Point being, there is fat to trim everywhere that is lower hanging and could easily pay for this wall but that isn't the issue. This is Dems grandstanding and their resist effort because it is Trump, a non-career politician.
I wonder if anyone will start calling out the old rich white folk named Polosi and Schumer because they are supporting open borders and illegal immigration that directly and negatively impacts the lower working class that just so happens to be overwhelmingly black and brown Americans.
https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicato...2asc%22%7D
https://capitalresearch.org/article/party-one-percent/
(01-10-2019, 10:08 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2019, 07:35 PM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote: [ -> ]Damn, Trump is willing to keep the government shutdown going because his ego is brused about not getting “his” wall fully funded. People are going to lose their home, cars, be in debt all because he is being selfish.
First off, it takes two sides to shut down the government. The Dems can just toss $5B to fund the wall and the government would re-open. Even if the $5B is 100% waste (and it wouldn't be), it's a drop in the bucket of the trillions of dollars of government waste.
Secondly, those non-essential government workers are free to leave and find another job. There are plenty of businesses looking for competent employees. Or maybe they couldn't find a job because they aren't competent employees.
"trillions of dollars of government waste..."
You know the entire federal budget is 4.4 trillion. You said that waste was "trillions" as in two trillion or more.
Would you like to revisit that claim?
Did you know that half of the people who are not getting their paychecks are actually still showing up and working?
(01-10-2019, 10:38 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2019, 10:08 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]First off, it takes two sides to shut down the government. The Dems can just toss $5B to fund the wall and the government would re-open. Even if the $5B is 100% waste (and it wouldn't be), it's a drop in the bucket of the trillions of dollars of government waste.
Secondly, those non-essential government workers are free to leave and find another job. There are plenty of businesses looking for competent employees. Or maybe they couldn't find a job because they aren't competent employees.
"trillions of dollars of government waste..."
You know the entire federal budget is 4.4 trillion. You said that waste was "trillions" as in two trillion or more.
Would you like to revisit that claim?
Did you know that half of the people who are not getting their paychecks are actually still showing up and working?
He didn’t say they wasted those trillions in a one year time period.
(01-10-2019, 10:08 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2019, 07:35 PM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote: [ -> ]Damn, Trump is willing to keep the government shutdown going because his ego is brused about not getting “his” wall fully funded. People are going to lose their home, cars, be in debt all because he is being selfish.
First off, it takes two sides to shut down the government. The Dems can just toss $5B to fund the wall and the government would re-open. Even if the $5B is 100% waste (and it wouldn't be), it's a drop in the bucket of the trillions of dollars of government waste.
Secondly, those non-essential government workers are free to leave and find another job. There are plenty of businesses looking for competent employees. Or maybe they couldn't find a job because they aren't competent employees.
Yes, it takes two sides to shut down the government. But when one side says, "I will take responsibility for the shutdown" that's pretty stupid, because it gives the other side even less incentive to negotiate. Sure, the dems can toss $5 billion towards a wall and end the shutdown, but why would they, when Trump has stated that he is willing to take all the blame? This is just further evidence that Trump is one of the worst negotiators ever.
And secondly, it is true that the TSA and the National Park Service are non-essential. Unless, of course, you want to be able to fly overseas or you want to visit the national parks. In my case, I'm going to be flying overseas pretty soon, and I don't want to get highjacked or stand in endless lines for security screenings or customs.
(01-11-2019, 07:51 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2019, 10:08 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]First off, it takes two sides to shut down the government. The Dems can just toss $5B to fund the wall and the government would re-open. Even if the $5B is 100% waste (and it wouldn't be), it's a drop in the bucket of the trillions of dollars of government waste.
Secondly, those non-essential government workers are free to leave and find another job. There are plenty of businesses looking for competent employees. Or maybe they couldn't find a job because they aren't competent employees.
Yes, it takes two sides to shut down the government. But when one side says, "I will take responsibility for the shutdown" that's pretty stupid, because it gives the other side even less incentive to negotiate. Sure, the dems can toss $5 billion towards a wall and end the shutdown, but why would they, when Trump has stated that he is willing to take all the blame? This is just further evidence that Trump is one of the worst negotiators ever.
And secondly, it is true that the TSA and the National Park Service are non-essential. Unless, of course, you want to be able to fly overseas or you want to visit the national parks. In my case, I'm going to be flying overseas pretty soon, and I don't want to get highjacked or stand in endless lines for security screenings or customs.
There is one thing you are forgetting about though, and that is the fact that Trump doesn't actually care about owning the shutdown. The democrats embarrass themselves more every day defending their position.
I think you will be shocked how this "negotiation" ends Marty.
(01-11-2019, 07:51 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2019, 10:08 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]First off, it takes two sides to shut down the government. The Dems can just toss $5B to fund the wall and the government would re-open. Even if the $5B is 100% waste (and it wouldn't be), it's a drop in the bucket of the trillions of dollars of government waste.
Secondly, those non-essential government workers are free to leave and find another job. There are plenty of businesses looking for competent employees. Or maybe they couldn't find a job because they aren't competent employees.
Yes, it takes two sides to shut down the government. But when one side says, "I will take responsibility for the shutdown" that's pretty stupid, because it gives the other side even less incentive to negotiate. Sure, the dems can toss $5 billion towards a wall and end the shutdown, but why would they, when Trump has stated that he is willing to take all the blame? This is just further evidence that Trump is one of the worst negotiators ever.
And secondly, it is true that the TSA and the National Park Service are non-essential. Unless, of course, you want to be able to fly overseas or you want to visit the national parks. In my case, I'm going to be flying overseas pretty soon, and I don't want to get highjacked or stand in endless lines for security screenings or customs.
You do realize his base is proud that he's not caving, right? "They want us to take a bad deal that breaks my pledge to you and I won't do it", that's what he means and many people are in agreement with him.
(01-11-2019, 08:45 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2019, 07:51 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, it takes two sides to shut down the government. But when one side says, "I will take responsibility for the shutdown" that's pretty stupid, because it gives the other side even less incentive to negotiate. Sure, the dems can toss $5 billion towards a wall and end the shutdown, but why would they, when Trump has stated that he is willing to take all the blame? This is just further evidence that Trump is one of the worst negotiators ever.
And secondly, it is true that the TSA and the National Park Service are non-essential. Unless, of course, you want to be able to fly overseas or you want to visit the national parks. In my case, I'm going to be flying overseas pretty soon, and I don't want to get highjacked or stand in endless lines for security screenings or customs.
You do realize his base is proud that he's not caving, right? "They want us to take a bad deal that breaks my pledge to you and I won't do it", that's what he means and many people are in agreement with him.
Also, it's a calculated risk losing the vote of 800,000 pissed off people to retain the vote of 60,000,000 people. This is a winner for The Don.
(01-11-2019, 08:48 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2019, 08:45 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]You do realize his base is proud that he's not caving, right? "They want us to take a bad deal that breaks my pledge to you and I won't do it", that's what he means and many people are in agreement with him.
Also, it's a calculated risk losing the vote of 800,000 pissed off people to retain the vote of 60,000,000 people. This is a winner for The Don.
Trump is going to retain the votes of people who voted for him almost no matter what. I mean he could shoot someone in the street and you would still vote for him.
(01-11-2019, 09:51 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2019, 08:48 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Also, it's a calculated risk losing the vote of 800,000 pissed off people to retain the vote of 60,000,000 people. This is a winner for The Don.
Trump is going to retain the votes of people who voted for him almost no matter what. I mean he could shoot someone in the street and you would still vote for him.
He will lose some support if the wall isn't built in some capacity.
(01-11-2019, 09:59 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2019, 09:51 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Trump is going to retain the votes of people who voted for him almost no matter what. I mean he could shoot someone in the street and you would still vote for him.
He will lose some support if the wall isn't built in some capacity.
And that's why the Democrats will not give in. They see this as the way to get rid of Trump. And he handed them this. He could have quietly negotiated a deal without all the histrionics about how it's "the wall or bust," and then he could have claimed victory. But no, he has to make this all about himself.
He's a terrible negotiator, mainly because he's a narcissist and an idiot.
(01-11-2019, 10:20 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2019, 09:59 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]He will lose some support if the wall isn't built in some capacity.
And that's why the Democrats will not give in. They see this as the way to get rid of Trump. And he handed them this. He could have quietly negotiated a deal without all the histrionics about how it's "the wall or bust," and then he could have claimed victory. But no, he has to make this all about himself.
He's a terrible negotiator, mainly because he's a narcissist and an idiot.
Democrats will give in.
He is a narcissist. Most great leaders and thinkers are.
(01-11-2019, 10:20 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2019, 09:59 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]He will lose some support if the wall isn't built in some capacity.
And that's why the Democrats will not give in. They see this as the way to get rid of Trump. And he handed them this. He could have quietly negotiated a deal without all the histrionics about how it's "the wall or bust," and then he could have claimed victory. But no, he has to make this all about himself.
He's a terrible negotiator, mainly because he's a narcissist and an idiot.
Suppose it’s a matter of perception. I see this as a win for Trump already because it publically exposes the Dem hypocrisy and fully supports his and the bases belief they are more interest in blatant obstruction. They have voiced from the beginning that is what would occur and now they are following through. However, they have placed themselves before the people in a negative light.
What is Trump supposed to negotiate when from day one skeletor has stated absolutely no wall, no fence or any other barrier? They’ve made it all about themselves with no ability to negotiate forward.
(01-11-2019, 12:36 AM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2019, 10:38 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]"trillions of dollars of government waste..."
You know the entire federal budget is 4.4 trillion. You said that waste was "trillions" as in two trillion or more.
Would you like to revisit that claim?
Did you know that half of the people who are not getting their paychecks are actually still showing up and working?
He didn’t say they wasted those trillions in a one year time period.
He didn't say multi year either.
Which is why I asked.
(01-11-2019, 08:58 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2019, 12:36 AM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]He didn’t say they wasted those trillions in a one year time period.
Thank you.
Yes, mikey has a real problem with reading comprehension. The $5B is a one-time expense, not a continual drain every year, so the price has to be compared to the waste accumulated for the life of the 'wall.' And yes, it will probably cost more before it is finished but a wall barrier is still a one-time expense. The metal bollard version will probably require little maintenance.
Um, the $5 billion is a down payment that everyone agrees is insufficient to complete the wall on its own. The real price is $20-30 billion. The idea is to pay about $5 billion a year until it is built. So it's an indefinite time frame.
And then you asked me to compare this amount to "trillions" that also come from an unspecified time frame. How many years did you mean?
Let's call that number N.
The annual federal budget is now $4.4 trillion = $4.4e12. And you have stated that there is waste equal to at least $2e12.
So the waste % is equal to
$2e12 / $4.4e12 * N = 45% / N. So if you think N is 5 years, then waste is 9%. But you can pick a different number for N.
Which federal expenditures, amounting to 9% of the annual federal budget, should be cut as waste?
(01-11-2019, 10:32 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2019, 10:20 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]And that's why the Democrats will not give in. They see this as the way to get rid of Trump. And he handed them this. He could have quietly negotiated a deal without all the histrionics about how it's "the wall or bust," and then he could have claimed victory. But no, he has to make this all about himself.
He's a terrible negotiator, mainly because he's a narcissist and an idiot.
Suppose it’s a matter of perception. I see this as a win for Trump already because it publically exposes the Dem hypocrisy and fully supports his and the bases belief they are more interest in blatant obstruction. They have voiced from the beginning that is what would occur and now they are following through. However, they have placed themselves before the people in a negative light.
What is Trump supposed to negotiate when from day one skeletor has stated absolutely no wall, no fence or any other barrier? They’ve made it all about themselves with no ability to negotiate forward.
Dude. They both make it about themselves. All politicians do.
Since Day 1 Trump has made everything about himself.
(01-11-2019, 10:43 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2019, 08:58 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]
Thank you.
Yes, mikey has a real problem with reading comprehension. The $5B is a one-time expense, not a continual drain every year, so the price has to be compared to the waste accumulated for the life of the 'wall.' And yes, it will probably cost more before it is finished but a wall barrier is still a one-time expense. The metal bollard version will probably require little maintenance.
Um, the $5 billion is a down payment that everyone agrees is insufficient to complete the wall on its own. The real price is $20-30 billion. The idea is to pay about $5 billion a year until it is built. So it's an indefinite time frame.
And then you asked me to compare this amount to "trillions" that also come from an unspecified time frame. How many years did you mean?
Let's call that number N.
The annual federal budget is now $4.4 trillion = $4.4e12. And you have stated that there is waste equal to at least $2e12.
So the waste % is equal to
$2e12 / $4.4e12 * N = 45% / N. So if you think N is 5 years, then waste is 9%. But you can pick a different number for N.
Which federal expenditures, amounting to 9% of the annual federal budget, should be cut as waste?
It's not an issue of which one specifically as there is room across the board if you rank our border security as a priority. Trim $5 Billion from International Affairs annually for the next ten years and there is your money. U.N., USAID? Don't like that, how about the General Government, specifically the ever growing Legal, Judicial, and Correctional System? How about the ballooning Economic Security (Public Assistance) pot? Seems that if the immigration system gets streamlined and proper border security implemented, much more than $5 billion annually could perhaps be saved. The fact of the matter is, there really isn't a need to take away from existing programs to fund border security as DHS receives budgetary appropriations every fiscal year. Let them rack and stack the priorities to dollars. In any case, there there is wiggle room in the Federal Budget to rob Peter to pay Paul if necessary. Have you seen all the rediculous grants, programs, bills submitted on a weakly basis that require funding?
Here, you guys can play .gov for a few minutes...
http://usa.v1.abalancingact.com/