USA Today Donald Trump rejects Democratic funding plan I personally do not think the DEMs have learned anything about working with Trump. Their current plan apparently is to pass 2 bills out of the House:
- Funds most departments for the year
- Funds Homeland Security until 8Feb19
My question is why do the dunderhead DEMs think this will work?
- Do they think he fears their voters?
- Are they hoping his voters care if the government stays shutdown?
- Do they think enough GOP politicians would vote to over ride his veto?
I mean why would Trump give up his leverage without getting anything in return?
Apparently the DEMs do not care about getting government moving again... If this $5 billion was for almost anything else they would not even hesitate, in this case they would rather put a stick in Trump's eye...
I feel for the federal workers who are stuck in this silliness.
44 comments:
Maybe after 2 years they still think they are working with a normal politician?
Sometimes I still like Trump. :-)
When your children threw tantrums, did you give in to them?
Why should the adults in congress act differently than you and your wife in the face of a tantrum?
Trump promised Mexico would pay for the wall. Maybe the democrats are waiting for that money to come in.
Moose
Moose,
All these years of your advocating for giving many many more billions of dollars per year to irresponsible / incapable citizens and public employees with no expectations for progress or improvement...
And now you want to not give in to a "child" over $5 billion that goes directly to American workers and keeps folks from easily walking across the border... Really?
My thought is that the "open border" crowd dislikes "walls" because technology allows illegals to get to this side of the border before they are caught.
Then all they have to do is claim asylum when they are caught. Which means then that the USA has to spend a lot of money caring for and processing them.
What do the "Open Border" folks have against law and order?
Do they leave their front door unlocked at night in case someone wants to come in for a bed and some left over pizza? :-)
Wouldn't it make more sense to lock your doors so you can evaluate if you want them in your house eating your food and sleeping in one of your rooms?
You’ve believed Trump’s lies. That makes you a chump.
Moose
I borrowed the following from Jim Wright.
Moose
I wrote the attached a few days back.
It's been going around. Shared thousands of times here and elsewhere. I've gotten a lot feedback, both good and some ... less good.
Without doubt THE top response is variations of:
"Apparently Trump has never heard of boats."
Meaning, of course, that immigrants will just go around a wall, via ocean or air or whatever.
And that critique is true, but it misses something even more important, more insidious, more ominous.
Yes, immigrants will just go around the wall (or Wall, without the article as the Trump Administration has begun referring to it. We need Wall. We want Wall. We must build Wall. Sounds ... Russian. But I digress).
Immigrants will just go around the wall.
And THAT's the thing, isn't it?
THAT, right there, is the joker in the deck.
Because they will. They must. WE need them to. You see, you build this wall, 2000 miles long, 30 feet high. Spend billions. And it doesn't work. Or doesn't work ENOUGH. Because it won't.
Because it can't. WE won't let it.
Bear with me.
People still get in.
People still get in. Because they will.
They'll go over your wall, under it, through it. And so, to justify the money you spent, you'll have to spend MORE. More security personnel, more technology, more concrete, more barbed wire, more patrols, more dogs, more guns, more land.
And people will STILL get in.
People will still get in.
They'll go around your wall, risking their lives on the ocean. So you'll have to patrol THAT, in force. You'll have to guard the coast, walk the beaches on foot, put up air patrols, sentries, checkpoints, more technology. You'll have to build MORE walls.
And still, they'll get in.
They'll find a way, by land, by sea, by air, somehow they'll find a way. They'll get in, because humans are tenacious -- especially when they have nothing to lose.
They'll get in.
And here's the thing: even if they don't, even if your wall works, you'll STILL think that they are getting in. They are STILL getting in, you'll believe it.
You have to.
Those who profit from fear need somebody to blame.
Those who are afraid, they must have somebody to fear.
It's the easiest form of power, the simplest way to manipulate the rudest of minds. THEM. THEY'RE getting in. THEY'RE taking your jobs, raping, murdering, stealing YOUR democracy. THEM. Did you hear about THEM? They are here, you bet they are. Be afraid.
We gotta do more.
We gotta be safe.
You built the walls, you patrol the beaches and the skies. But it's not enough, those in power tell you. It can't be enough. It can NEVER be enough. We have to have somebody to fear. THEY are still getting in. THEY are here. Oh yes THEY are. Who else would be causing these problems?
We gotta do more.
We gotta be SAFE.
Don't you want to be safe? Don't you want your kids to be safe? Don't you want your country to be SAFE?
Of course you do.
We gotta do MORE.
We've done everything to keep them out, walls, wire, soldiers, guns, dogs, but they're still HERE.
So, we need some way to identify who belongs and who doesn't.
You need a way to identify who belongs. We have to know. To be safe. To be sure.
You need proper identification.
That's right. Proper ID. And control over who gets that ID.
And THEN, well, then we'll need some sort of secret police force to check those papers...
We have to be safe, don't we?
We have to be sure.
Papers, please. Papers.
That's how this goes.
That's how this goes EVERY time. It's never enough. You can never be sure. You can never be safe. You have to keep doing MORE. Those who thrive on this kind of power, the power of fear, they need you to be afraid. And so it will NEVER be enough. EVER.
Listen to me: You start building walls, you're building your own prison.
Now that was goofy.
Apparently they want us to just leave the doors to our homes unlocked. :-)
I mean those wanting your food or possessions will get in anyway.
By the way, which of Trump's lies am I "believing"?
ICE 2018 YTD Report That is a lot of illegal resident criminals removed.
It still amazes me that folks are okay with ~400,000 people waltzing across the border without back ground checks or permission…
Why again are you so against making them follow the legal process like so many others do each year?
I don’t live in constant fear. It damages the brain.
Moose
Who is fearful? I thought locking one’s door is just good common sense. Besides my Mrs reminds me to do so.
You avoided my question, why do you support allowing folks to just walk across our country’s Southern border where ever they wish.
Especially while millions of others are standing in the legal immigration line...
Do you support people cutting in line when you are standing in one?
Or do you call them out and point to the end of the line?
Apparently walls and fences do work to slow folks down until border agents can arrive
Has the fire department come to douse the all the burning strawmen around here?
Sorry, Sean, but the government is shut down; haven't you heard? Seems like we are $5 billion dollars short of a budget and can't find it ANYWHERE.
Sean,
I just wish Moose or yourself would answer my simple questions....
I'm not playing your bullshit games when you continue to claim that because I oppose Trump's wall that I favor "Open Borders".
Sean, I'll agree with you if you can tell me what is a good solution between the Wall and Open borders? I have a comprehensive solution, but first step is the Wall (or fence, or minefield, whatever you like).
First off, let's acknowledge that the current situation is not "Open Borders". Because it ain't. There are already 700-some miles of wall/fence/barrier on our southern border. (And no one is suggesting we tear it down.) Net illegal immigration is zero or negative. The number of Border Patrol agents has increased consistently over the last 25 years under both Democratic and Republican administrations.
There's an easy deal here: DACA for additional border security funding. It was a deal that Trump rejected -- not Democrats -- on multiple occasions. But, since then, Trump has lost leverage, so he's not going to get the same deal he got before.
Sean,
You may not support millions of people traipsing across our border unchecked, however it does seem that you support:
- Letting people cross the border where they wish to claim asylum.
- Letting them live free in America as their claims are being reviewed.
- Letting their babies become citizens if they are born during the stay
- Spending a lot of resources managing and adjudicating
- Maintaining sanctuary cities which protect illegal residents from deportation
To me that seems like you support folks budging in line of folks who follow our legal immigration process.
Have I misspoken again or am I close?
One more thing... Net zero just means we are spending a LOT of Money to catch, adjudicate, manage and deport ~400,000 people as another 400,000 enter without permission...
How does that seem like a good thing?
And assuming 90% are nice people... That still means that 40,000 may not be so nice.
"Letting people cross the border where they wish to claim asylum."
U.S. law dictates that you have to be present in the U.S. to claim asylum. We should also point out that one of the reasons asylum seekers go to other areas of the border is because the Trump Administration is taking active steps to prevent asylum seekers from entering at the points of entry.
"Letting them live free in America as their claims are being reviewed."
I would support increasing the personnel available to adjudicate these claims so the process could move more quickly.
"Letting their babies become citizens if they are born during the stay"
Yep, that's true.
"Spending a lot of resources managing and adjudicating "
Well, that's in the eye of the beholder, I guess. The assumption is that building a wall would make that go away. I'm skeptical of that claim.
"Maintaining sanctuary cities which protect illegal residents from deportation"
I've said before the terms under which I find "sanctuary cities" to be acceptable. Please don't distort my position.
"To me that seems like you support folks budging in line of folks who follow our legal immigration process."
Asylum is part of the legal immigration process.
"And assuming 90% are nice people"
You have pulled that number out of your ass.
People were running across the border and avoiding legal crossings long before Trump. I mean it is a win/win that way. If they are not caught, they can head for a sanctuary city and avoid deportation. If they are caught, then they plead asylum and get to stay for an extended period.
The wall works wonders if it keeps people on the other side of the wall. They are not on American soil so they can not play the game noted above. The only way to stand on American soil to claim asylum is to go to a border crossing... Like it should be.
Now I know you want to say that sanctuary cities are to ensure illegal folks can report crimes... But here is an interesting concept... They are not supposed to be in our country without permission. Such a foreign concept to many.
I am sorry but these illegal crossers are taking up a ton of resources that could be used to process the folks who apply at crossings or apply at a consulate. Kind of like the annoying line budgers who keep distracting the folks taking tickets instead of just getting in line. "But sir I am special so I get to cut in front..."
You are correct, 90% is a guess. What number do you like better.
- 90% = 40,000 bad people per year
- 95% = 20,000 bad people per year
- 99% = 10,000 bad people per year
Not to mention what they may be carrying with them...
Now Trump says there are lots of bad hombres...
Do you want to claim NO bad hombres are with the people who work hard to get into our country illegal by avoiding our law enforcement personnel?
"Not to mention what they may be carrying with them..."
Now you're just parroting neo-Nazis. It's good that we're finally taking the mask down.
What did you think I meant?
I meant 20,000 criminals smuggling humans, drugs, etc...
Now you do remember that I am Pro-Legal Immigration right?
And that I work everyday with folks who came from Mexico, Brazil, South Korea, China, India, Ethiopia, Japan, Sweden, other.
"I meant 20,000 criminals smuggling humans, drugs, etc..."
You forgot diseases, too. (Even though undocumented folks commit crimes at a lower rate than the native population.)
"Now you do remember that I am Pro-Legal Immigration right?"
You've expressed your support for proposals that would reduce the number of legal immigrants.
"And that I work everyday with folks who came from Mexico, Brazil, South Korea, China, India, Ethiopia, Japan, Sweden, other."
So what?
Do you deny that bad hombres smuggle drugs and traffic indentured workers over the border?
Diseases worry me less, however if they have less active immunization programs there is likely some risk. Insects are a higher risk.
I am not sure what the correct volume of immigrants per year is? I am fine with higher or lower as long as they are one's who don't harm our existing struggling citizens.
Of course it matters, the "illegal immigrant advocacy" cause likes to label people who are against "illegal immigration" as xenophobes. Instead of normal law abiding citizens.
I love spending time with my friends from other countries and cultures, that does not mean I want people illegally entering our country.
"Do you deny that bad hombres smuggle drugs and traffic indentured workers over the border?"
You're using the term "bad hombre" and you're getting huffy about what I'm suggesting?
As we've discussed dozens of times before, most drugs come through the border via the ports of entry. That's where our interdiction resources should be focused. Sure, there are some other crimes that occur from folks crossing the border illegally. I'm not denying that, only suggesting that we place it in context.
I can call them "criminally affiliated individuals" if it makes you feel better.
As am I... Maybe 10,000 to 40,000 "criminally affiliated individuals" entering the country each year...
Maybe 360,000 to 390,000 people illegally entering the country, triggering a number of costs to US citizens. (ie border security, asylum management, downward wage pressure, increased unemployment for low skilled citizens, etc)
It seems to me that continuing to strongly dissuade these folks is a good idea.
"It seems to me that continuing to strongly dissuade these folks is a good idea."
Given that the population of undocumented folks in the country is estimated to have fallen by about 1 million over the last decade, it feels like maybe we already are doing so.
Update via FOX
Update via AP
45,000 per month is still way too many
That is 1,500 per day that need to be caught, processed, tracked, adjudicated, and many later deported. That is incredible...
it seems to me that you have an extreme, irrational level of hatred towards Hilary if you still see her as a worse alternative to trump. Maybe you should reflect on why you hate her so much.
I don’t hate Hillary. I just disagree with her beliefs and policies.
Is it better to have a really annoying person with similar views, or a somewhat annoying person with very different views?
No hate required.
By the way, what Trump actual policies should I really disapprove of?
And Pelosi Digs in Her Heels Again
Map of Current Fences and Walls
Helpful, thank you. Makes me wonder why we don't deploy some Vietnam-era technology-- much cheaper than a fence and doesn't stop wildlife.
the huge deficit-increasing tax cut was very bad policy. The Trump administration has also been very bad for the environment. We should be doing much more to curb global warming. Or maybe you could disapprove of what a corrupt idiot he is.
Laurie, I thought you were more reasonable than that. If tax cuts stimulate the economy, and they have, then deficits quickly come down, but spending still must be controlled and that is where Congress has failed, not the President.
And don't blame President Trump for not doing enough about "global warming." If the US immediately stopped burning ALL fossil fuels, we would see global temperatures reduced by 0.137 degrees C by the year 2100. Mind you, we generally measure temperatures +/- 0.200 degrees. Not even Trump is "idiot enough" to do that.
"but spending still must be controlled and that is where Congress has failed, not the President."
The President signed his name to every one of those budget-busting spending bills.
Laurie,
I am more frustrated with his national defense choices and behaviors than his domestic policy choices. Well that and his lying, argumentative and narcissistic behaviors.
I disagreed with some of the tax cut and the spending increases, however I also would have disagreed with Hillary's tax and spending increases.
Finally, Jerry is correct that our Earth's future is pretty much in the hands of others. We can help with R&D and make a token reduction... But they have a bigger role to play.
Sean,
Agreed. He is the BIG DEFICIT President...
Trump and the GOP Congress have had 2 years to fund his border wall. Why didn´t they get it done? Itś their own fault his wall is not getting funded. I think there are ways to get things through the Senate on a simple majority if they know what they are doing.
Maybe and only time will tell...
Then again... How many GOP voters care if the government is partially shut down?
I certainly am losing no sleep.
Post a Comment