This $1 billion is leftover funds due to lower than expected recruiting numbers. Personnel funds are typically used for recruiting bonuses and recruiting activities. It represents barely 1% of the DoD budget and will not impact operations. There may be more money coming. During Mr. Shanahan's testimony, he said he appreciated and took consideration of Committee concerns but he said he was acting under a lawful order from the Commander and Chief, had redistribution of funds power, and was additionally authorized per 10 U.S.C. § 284(b)(7).
https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1796221/
https://dod.defense.gov/News/News-Releas...-security/
(03-27-2019, 10:17 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]It represents barely 1% of the DoD budget
Is anyone else concerned about that number?
(03-27-2019, 10:17 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]This $1 billion is leftover funds due to lower than expected recruiting numbers. Personnel funds are typically used for recruiting bonuses and recruiting activities. It represents barely 1% of the DoD budget and will not impact operations. There may be more money coming. During Mr. Shanahan's testimony, he said he appreciated and took consideration of Committee concerns but he said he was acting under a lawful order from the Commander and Chief, had redistribution of funds power, and was additionally authorized per 10 U.S.C. § 284(b)(7).
https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1796221/
https://dod.defense.gov/News/News-Releas...-security/
Thank you for providing unbiased sourcing for your point.
You guys question everything about the government except when it supports your position.
(03-28-2019, 07:33 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2019, 10:17 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]This $1 billion is leftover funds due to lower than expected recruiting numbers. Personnel funds are typically used for recruiting bonuses and recruiting activities. It represents barely 1% of the DoD budget and will not impact operations. There may be more money coming. During Mr. Shanahan's testimony, he said he appreciated and took consideration of Committee concerns but he said he was acting under a lawful order from the Commander and Chief, had redistribution of funds power, and was additionally authorized per 10 U.S.C. § 284(b)(7).
https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1796221/
https://dod.defense.gov/News/News-Releas...-security/
Thank you for providing unbiased sourcing for your point.
You guys question everything about the government except when it supports your position.
Thank you for your useless rebuttal. The links you provided clear up a ton! Troll
(03-28-2019, 07:33 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2019, 10:17 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]This $1 billion is leftover funds due to lower than expected recruiting numbers. Personnel funds are typically used for recruiting bonuses and recruiting activities. It represents barely 1% of the DoD budget and will not impact operations. There may be more money coming. During Mr. Shanahan's testimony, he said he appreciated and took consideration of Committee concerns but he said he was acting under a lawful order from the Commander and Chief, had redistribution of funds power, and was additionally authorized per 10 U.S.C. § 284(b)(7).
https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1796221/
https://dod.defense.gov/News/News-Releas...-security/
Thank you for providing unbiased sourcing for your point.
You guys question everything about the government except when it supports your position.
I take offense. Personally speaking, when the government agrees with my position, I question my position.
(03-28-2019, 08:29 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2019, 07:33 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you for providing unbiased sourcing for your point.
You guys question everything about the government except when it supports your position.
I take offense. Personally speaking, when the government agrees with my position, I question my position.
What an awesome reply. thanks dude.
We need immigration reform. I used to be staunchly against it, but we need to secure the border...and if that means amnesty, then so be it
(03-28-2019, 09:34 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]We need immigration reform. I used to be staunchly against it, but we need to secure the border...and if that means amnesty, then so be it
I agree.
Anybody who's committed violent crimes or dealt drugs needs to be sent back, and quickly.
But Mercy needs to be the focus for the others. Most of these people have been here about 20 years. Obviously found jobs and contributed to society.
I'd be willing to build some miles of wall as part of a compromise where more people get help and legal status, and we start doing something smart like adjusting the quotas for people to come here based on the unemployment rate, but just doing that and nothing else strikes me as needless.
(03-28-2019, 09:34 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]We need immigration reform. I used to be staunchly against it, but we need to secure the border...and if that means amnesty, then so be it
Reagan offered amnesty. Bush offered amnesty. Clinton... you get the point. At some point in time WE have to stop allowing politicians to keep kicking the can by offering amnesty and make them accountable. Fix the issue, period. Trump with all his faults is actually willing to address the issue, like it or not.
(03-28-2019, 09:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2019, 09:34 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]We need immigration reform. I used to be staunchly against it, but we need to secure the border...and if that means amnesty, then so be it
I agree.
Anybody who's committed violent crimes or dealt drugs needs to be sent back, and quickly.
But Mercy needs to be the focus for the others. Most of these people have been here about 20 years. Obviously found jobs and contributed to society.
I'd be willing to build some miles of wall as part of a compromise where more people get help and legal status, and we start doing something smart like adjusting the quotas for people to come here based on the unemployment rate, but just doing that and nothing else strikes me as needless.
There is a process to come here legally. Millions of immigrants among us have followed it. I'm sure you would take issue if you spent 10 years working your way up in a company then they brought in a guy fresh out of college and made him your equal.
(03-28-2019, 09:34 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]We need immigration reform. I used to be staunchly against it, but we need to secure the border...and if that means amnesty, then so be it
Yeah, now that the horse is raising hell in the pasture we should totally close the barn door and just let him roam.
(03-28-2019, 09:46 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2019, 09:34 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]We need immigration reform. I used to be staunchly against it, but we need to secure the border...and if that means amnesty, then so be it
Reagan offered amnesty. Bush offered amnesty. Clinton... you get the point. At some point in time WE have to stop allowing politicians to keep kicking the can by offering amnesty and make them accountable. Fix the issue, period. Trump with all his faults is actually willing to address the issue, like it or not.
I agree we have to deport some folks. People can't be expecting amnesty. There should be doubt. But we don't have to deport all of them. The rest need legal status. The limbo of being an illegal immigrants needs to end.
If we as a country do not do something to secure our borders, we won't have a country anymore. Does anyone really think anyone (not a violent criminal) is going to be sent back, especially the ones that have been here for years? I think they should go back, but being realistic, it will never happen. You are right, we were promised after Reagan gave amnesty that they would secure our borders, which they never did. And it was supposed to be the last amnesty. Republican lawmakers were being controlled by the Chamber of Commerce wich wanted that cheap labor in and then Democrats seized on the ignorance of a third world people and promptly targeted them as potential voters. And since have not been motivated to solve the problem because democrats need a recurring campaign theme. Where do we go from here?
(03-29-2019, 08:50 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2019, 09:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I agree.
Anybody who's committed violent crimes or dealt drugs needs to be sent back, and quickly.
But Mercy needs to be the focus for the others. Most of these people have been here about 20 years. Obviously found jobs and contributed to society.
I'd be willing to build some miles of wall as part of a compromise where more people get help and legal status, and we start doing something smart like adjusting the quotas for people to come here based on the unemployment rate, but just doing that and nothing else strikes me as needless.
There is a process to come here legally. Millions of immigrants among us have followed it. I'm sure you would take issue if you spent 10 years working your way up in a company then they brought in a guy fresh out of college and made him your equal.
I agree but the number of slots should expand and contract based on unemployment. Unemployment was very low in the mid 90s and that's when most of the surge of Mexicans who are illegal immigrants today occurred.