U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

[Phantom Roxas]

You need three groups of people to sign off on a budget

 

50% of the HOR

 

60% of the Senate

 

and the President

 

Why should he budge if he's getting a pittance while everyone else gets everything they want

 

Because the budget shouldn't depend on one man's vanity project. Calling $1.6 billion dollars a "pittance" is nothing short of entitled and ungrateful.

 

it's extremely simple, 22 billion, even up front, is the total cost of building the wall, and construction would take years to complete. this is all it would take to ensure that coming over illegally would be made all the more difficult and discouraged all the more. 22 billion is nothing when it comes to securing the borders, and if they could have at least agreed to 7 ot 10 billion yearly, we could have seen a peaceful resolution to the entire problem. but nope.

 

https://www.gazettenet.com/Gottsegen-letter-23957452

 

According to the Brookings Institute, $25 billion is $9 billion more than a child care subsidy that would essentially make good child care accessible to all families in this country. $25 billion could be much better used to repair crumbling roads, bridges, and schools, provide fuel and nutritional assistance, ensure living wages for school teachers, and so much more.

 

So no, the 22 billion is far from "nothing". The money needed to fund that could be better spent elsewhere, and that's the part that you seem to be ignoring. This isn't all or nothing, where 22 billion is some small amount that could be easily spared towards the wall. Being angry that everybody else gets everything they want and the money that is spared towards border security is somehow a "pittance" shows a gross misunderstanding of how the money needs to be delegated.

 

As for the builders not seeing anybody, Illegal immigrants, especially those coming through such open spaces, are not likely to risk getting caught by running near such a bustling hub of activity. If i'm coming in illegally, then i'm going to see the top of your construction equipment, long before you catch sight of me, and if i'm not trying to get caught, i'm going to avoid you before we can even encounter each other. They can see the wall going up already, why would they be blatantly stupid enough to try crossing there? As for why there, it makes perfect sense. if you only block off populated areas, what exactly prevents people from walking right around the border? building around specific areas is only a stopgap till they're all built across, past that, you then have to ensure that the clearly open spaces are not easily exploitable/ not worth attempting. you don't just cover a couple spaces and call it a day, you cover all areas and make sure you have people and surveilance to back it up.

Except the article was all about how the builders are in an area that isn't a bustling hub of activity. That's the key point of the article, so I'm not sure how you missed that.

 

"What exactly prevents people from walking right around the border?" is really the question that should be asked if this wall were to ever get finished. Seriously, this wall is touted as if that alone will be the definitive deterrent against illegal immigration, but what's to stop people from going around it?

 

This entire fiasco is because Trump based his campaign promise on building a wall as if the wall in and of itself will discourage illegal immigration, and when he was a granted a sixth of what he's now asking for, he shut down the government and threatened to violate the Constitution. This is a president who has called for a ban on Muslims, so his issue isn't whether or not people are breaking the la. It's discrimination couched in a pretense of supposedly protecting the country from "invasion". We're not asking him to budge for a "pittance", we're asking him to take the money he's been granted and actually work with Congress instead of throwing a temper tantrum when he's told he can't ban brown people. When Trump has a history of acting with prejudice, you honestly expect me to believe that this wall isn't par for the course with him?

 

I'd be more willing to support any form of security that could mitigate illegal immigration if this wasn't Trump and the GOP desperately trying to justify their racial prejudices.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

Because the budget shouldn't depend on one man's vanity project. Calling $1.6 billion dollars a "pittance" is nothing short of entitled and ungrateful.

Not in context of the Federal Budget 

[vla1ne]

 

Except the article was all about how the builders are in an area that isn't a bustling hub of activity. That's the key point of the article, so I'm not sure how you missed that.

 

"What exactly prevents people from walking right around the border?" is really the question that should be asked if this wall were to ever get finished. Seriously, this wall is touted as if that alone will be the definitive deterrent against illegal immigration, but what's to stop people from going around it?

 

This entire fiasco is because Trump based his campaign promise on building a wall as if the wall in and of itself will discourage illegal immigration, and when he was a granted a sixth of what he's now asking for, he shut down the government and threatened to violate the Constitution. This is a president who has called for a ban on Muslims, so his issue isn't whether or not people are breaking the la. It's discrimination couched in a pretense of supposedly protecting the country from "invasion". We're not asking him to budge for a "pittance", we're asking him to take the money he's been granted and actually work with Congress instead of throwing a temper tantrum when he's told he can't ban brown people. When Trump has a history of acting with prejudice, you honestly expect me to believe that this wall isn't par for the course with him?

 

I'd be more willing to support any form of security that could mitigate illegal immigration if this wasn't Trump and the GOP desperately trying to justify their racial prejudices.

 

The builders themselves are in the area. That is the point. You may have missed that. there is still a group of people, doing very visible work. If you were an illegal trying to get across, and you saw that in the distance which isn't difficult considering the amount of large machines involved, would you decide to walk right through it? Or anywhere near it? No, you would take as wide a path as reasonably possible to avoid detection till you were in a less observe area.

 

Look back, through every single discussion you and everybody else has had with me on this particular aspect of the wall if you want the explanation. I have elaborated multiple time to you the answer, let me elaborate it again: The wall is a PART of the solution, NOT the entire solution. It reduces the amount of ground that needs to be covered when patrolling the border. It acts as a deterrent to those attempting to cross illegally. It reduces the strain on the actual border patrol agents, especially while there are less personnel. It delays illegal immigrants long enough after surveillance detects them for border patrol to arrive on the scene. It increases the amount of ground that needs to be traversed in order to cross the border illegally. It removes the open lengths of border that currently make crossing and evading border patrol such a problem. It adds onto the other additional methods such as camera surveillance and personnel deployment. It is another part of the solution as a whole I have said this in threads that you yourself have frequented, multiple times, you yourself have asked this question alongside multiple other people, and you seem to forget the answer every single time we enter a new thread. If they walk around the border after it's built, then they are deliberately covering hundreds, if not thousands of miles to circumvent the legal process, and should be deported on sight..

 

He also ran on removing incentives that entice illegal immigrants to come over, and he has attempted multiple times to remove those incentives. Guess what, democrats in congress fought tooth and nail to keep their sanctuary cities and government funded benefits for illegal immigrants. You gonna endorse them keeping incentives too? Incentives were yet another part of the solution as whole, and as we can see from them dragging it through every court they could, nobody wants to give those up. He finally got a ruling in his favor as far as withholding federal funding from states who ignore federal law, so we'll at least see California and New York take hits for ignoring the law. You know as well as i that he was not granted a sixth of his funding. 5 billion would have been a sixth, guess what? Nobody budged for it, so the government stayed shut down. They wanted to give him something closer to a 20th of what he was asking for (1.3 billion), with heavy limitations placed upon even that much. He called for a restriction on travel from countries that were declared dangerous by the prior administration. He did not ban muslims, only immigrants from countries that hold high hostilities with america in the contentious areas of the middle east. as was declared by the administration prior. You said it to winter, i'll say it to you, I do not care what personal beliefs they hold as far as this topic goes. He could be literally hitler and it would not change the validity of his arguments. Discuss the argument, not the person. The arguments are that trumps wall would be a net positive to the countries national security, that there are in fact grounds for him to declare a national emergency, and the congress will reject all proposals by trump because he is trump. I have been proven consecutively right on the third point, as i have laid out multiple times over the past few pages. The second point is hard fact, as it is directly related to border security, and the numbers historically, despite the small dip for a few moths prior, have trended towards increased detection of illegal immigrants Like the caravans with thousands of illegals. As for the first point, you still have yet to explain to me exactly why the border wall (that is being built with input from border agents might i add) IN COMBINATION WITH surveillance, border personnel, and removal of legal incentives, is in any way bad policy. that is what trump is pushing for, and his character does not matter one bit. Nobody cares if you call trump a racist, or if you call him a nazi, or whatever other thing you wish to call him. The arguments i presented stand regardless of his own character.

 

You yourself, directly stated that character is irrelevant, and happened to even agree with my own quote affirming as much. Your opinion of their character is irrelevant. They could be literal piles of human excrement and their argument would still stand and fall on it's own merit. The actual solution presented in regards to illegal immigration is a sound one. Stop acting like their character has anything to do with their arguments. You are doing the exact thing to trump that you claim winter does to you. You do not address the argument for trump, you address the person, and it causes you to miss things that have already been pointed out dozens of times prior.

[Phantom Roxas]

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789
https://reason.com/blog/2019/02/14/new-bipartisan-spending-deal-includes-bi
 
Both articles offer some good breakdowns of how the federal budget is spread out. In particular, I think it's important to single out how the second article summarizes that "Overall, the new spending agreement hashed out by Congress includes $22.5 billion for border security." While it's not specifically about the wall, it does show that $22B is being delegated to border security, just not the wall specifically.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Nice meme you have there, this isn't Misc. If you don't plan on intelligently adding something to this, then go away. Also, do you happen to have a non-partisan sources as well?

[Flame Dragon]

Nice meme you have there, this isn't Misc. If you don't plan on intelligently adding something to this, then go away. Also, do you happen to have a non-partisan sources as well?

This. This isn't where memes go.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Nice meme you have there, this isn't Misc. If you don't plan on intelligently adding something to this, then go away. Also, do you happen to have a non-partisan sources as well?

I mean that's pretty much the meaning of average.  Would you like to know which states would have flipped in 2016 with 200K new voters?

If CNN is allowed, I don't see why Fox Shouldn't be

This. This isn't where memes go.

It's a pretty convenient way of conveying the information. It's been greenlit in the past

[Nathanael D. Striker]

I mean that's pretty much the meaning of average. Would you like to know which states would have flipped in 2016 with 200K new voters?

 

If CNN is allowed, I don't see why Fox Shouldn't be

 

I said as well, not instead of. Please learn to read carefully. Also, just because something was allowed in the past doesn't mean it should continue to be allowed.

 

Anyway, about that source? That way, I read something without being subjected to an unwarranted meme.

[Phantom Roxas]

I mean that's pretty much the meaning of average.  Would you like to know which states would have flipped in 2016 with 200K new voters?

If CNN is allowed, I don't see why Fox Shouldn't be

It's a pretty convenient way of conveying the information. It's been greenlit in the past

 

You've attacked users for using "lefty sourcing", and dismissed the ACLU for absolutely no reason in this very same thread. You should be prepared to have your own sources held to the same standard. Though Striker was far more generous, since he's at least asking for additional sources to corroborate your meme, rather than snarking about Fox and dismissing them solely because of who they are.

 

For what it's worth, I have looked this up and did find other sources about the detainments. But the point is that you need to provide them yourself without relying on memes as a substitute for an argument.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You've attacked users for using "lefty sourcing", and dismissed the ACLU for absolutely no reason in this very same thread. You should be prepared to have your own sources held to the same standard. Though Striker was far more generous, since he's at least asking for additional sources to corroborate your meme, rather than snarking about Fox and dismissing them solely because of who they are.

 

For what it's worth, I have looked this up and did find other sources about the detainments. But the point is that you need to provide them yourself without relying on memes as a substitute for an argument.

The difference is I explained why the I was snarking on the ACLU, and explained in that post why their metric as wrong given their assumption about the GOP priorities 

Also roxas you've straight up refused to accept breitbart in the past after making me find like 40 links. Not sure you of all people have a leg to stand on here

 

I said as well, not instead of. Please learn to read carefully. Also, just because something was allowed in the past doesn't mean it should continue to be allowed.

 

Anyway, about that source? That way, I read something without being subjected to an unwarranted meme.

I was asking about Fox? Every news source is partisan by that measure. 

 

I feel the meme was an effective way of conveying exactly how many illegals the left is fine with allowing invade out country tbh

[Phantom Roxas]

The veto override vote is today. While it's expected to fail to reach the required supermajority, it's designed more to show the intent of Congress as a whole.

 

https://shareblue.com/congress-slams-theft-1-billion-military-trump-wall/

 

Although the Pentagon has transferred $1 billion towards border wall construction. However, they were not granted permission from Congress. So here we have the administration stealing money in plain sight.

[vla1ne]

I don't believe the pentagon actually requires approval from congress to move funds. Congress can deny their motion, and they probably will, but they don't need to actually approve something for it to be done.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Oh, the veto override failed in the House 248-181, so expect another Resolution to be done in six months.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/us/politics/national-emergency-vote.html

[Phantom Roxas]

I don't believe the pentagon actually requires approval from congress to move funds. Congress can deny their motion, and they probably will, but they don't need to actually approve something for it to be done.

While it isn't required, it is a tradition to notify in advance, and Trump was warned that it could hurt the Defense Department in the long term. The House Armed Services chair actually ended up being the one to deny the motion.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/26/adam-smith-pentagon-border-wall-1293980

 

Oh, the veto override failed in the House 248-181, so expect another Resolution to be done in six months.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/us/politics/national-emergency-vote.html

 

While it still felt far short, I'm glad that they were able to at least establish their intent. Though these next six months are going to be fairly difficult. Plus, there is still the lawsuit against the emergency declaration, so that should hopefully keep Trump's overreach of power stalled for a while.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

While it isn't required, it is a tradition to notify in advance, and Trump was warned that it could hurt the Defense Department in the long term. The House Armed Services chair actually ended up being the one to deny the motion.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/26/adam-smith-pentagon-border-wall-1293980

 

 

While it still felt far short, I'm glad that they were able to at least establish their intent. Though these next six months are going to be fairly difficult. Plus, there is still the lawsuit against the emergency declaration, so that should hopefully keep Trump's overreach of power stalled for a while.

He's a Democrat, why is this actually being held up as something special. He would block puppies if Trump said they were cute

 

Not entirely sure who you're fooling. However, I'm glad you realize Taxation is theft now. 

[Phantom Roxas]

He's a Democrat, why is this actually being held up as something special. He would block puppies if Trump said they were cute

 

Not entirely sure who you're fooling. However, I'm glad you realize Taxation is theft now. 

 

vla1ne suggested that Congress would deny Trump. While I agreed with him that it was the most likely result, all I was saying was who ended up doing so. But seriously, the whole "they block Trump because's Trump" claims have gotten old. In this case, Adam Smith cited that it would weaken the Department of Dense. Again, Democrats offer valid reasons for blocking Trump, and it's because of what Trump does, not simply because he's Trump. This was a direct reaction to him misappropriating funds.

 

I… didn't think that whether Taxation is theft was ever in question here?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

vla1ne suggested that Congress would deny Trump. While I agreed with him that it was the most likely result, all I was saying was who ended up doing so. But seriously, the whole "they block Trump because's Trump" claims have gotten old. In this case, Adam Smith cited that it would weaken the Department of Dense. Again, Democrats offer valid reasons for blocking Trump, and it's because of what Trump does, not simply because he's Trump. This was a direct reaction to him misappropriating funds.

 

I… didn't think that whether Taxation is theft was ever in question here?

Democrats make the argument that the defense budget is too large on day and then the next whine about how it will weaken the DOD

 

Chameleons 

[Phantom Roxas]

Seems like that's conflating too separate issues. If Congressional Democrats want to reduce the Defense budget, that's their call, and likewise the House Committee Chair has the authority to decide if the Pentagon is misappropriating funds. To put it another way, if you already expect Democrats to oppose the wall and call for a lower Defense budget, then in a choice between funding the wall or that budget - and this situation is a choice between the two - then the DOD would be the lesser of two evils here.

 

Betsy DeVos also suggested cuts in education and the Special Olympics to fund the wall. Unlike the Pentagon, this isn't a choice between two evils. This is Betsy DeVos once again showing how vile she is, how she does not care about the students that she wants to harm, and has absolutely none of the knowledge required for her position.

 

The GOP literally does not care who they screw over, what conduct they have to violate, or how many should be properly delegated. Funding the wall is all they seem to care about, and people like DeVos would rather abandon their personal responsibilities so long as they get to toe the party line for this wall.

[vla1ne]

It's not me saying it. It's a hell of a lot of democrats blatantly swinging their hate boners at him. Seriously, their track record speaks for itself. I can't really name any democrat politicians who speak with any form of favor towards trump. Hell, i can't think of too many who even vote in favor of any of his policies (the prison reform bill was about the only one i've heard of that has had bipartisan support). Or even discuss any of his ideas with anything resembling respect. seriously, how many can you name who are even remotely chill with him? look at the state of the union. they pretty much built their platform on "We hate trump".

[Phantom Roxas]

https://newrepublic.com/article/152644/trump-undoing-much-obamas-legacy

 

Trump runs solely on undoing Obama's work. He and the GOP absolutely despised Obama, so if you want to keep beating the drum that Democrats are running on the platform of "We hate Trump", then it's a perfect counter to state that Trump's platform is "I hate Obama." You want them to discuss his ideas of banning transgender people from the military, repealing all of Obamacare, and actively threatens environmental protection policies? He isn't approaching anything with a modicum respect. You're demanding that Democrats show Trump far more respect than Trump shows with his discriminatory policies. He's reversing policies that protect minorities from discrimination. Oh, and they happen to include policies enacted under Obama. The only way to interpret that reversal is that Trump is advocating for discrimination.

 

You claimed before that character is irrelevant to the argument, except it has everything to do with the argument. Trump's policies come from who he is as a person. You may not like that I'm criticizing Trump's character, but I can assure that I am truly not all that bothered by condemning his actions and the prejudices that inspired them.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It's not conflating anything

 

Military Budget is too large, they don't need that much money

 

Money Used elsewhere

 

Stop taking military money, they need it

[Phantom Roxas]

It's not conflating anything

 

Military Budget is too large, they don't need that much money

 

Money Used elsewhere

 

Stop taking military money, they need it

 

Not the point at all. Trump approved misappropriating money, and that risked the DOD losing their reprogramming privilege. Really, the problem should be on who has already been cutting the military budget- oh wait.

 

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/federal-budget/2019/03/06/house-dems-threaten-to-block-pentagons-money-moving-authority-in-border-wall-fight/

 

“They might say there’s no legal requirement and that would be a huge disruption of the rules and the norms of Congress, and another indication this is a challenge to the role of Congress in government,” said Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Jack Reed, D-R.I.

 

“We’re given the authority to appropriate, and the president is saying, essentially: I don’t like what you’ve appropriated, I’ll just take the money and move it elsewhere,” Reed said. “We’re setting up for a constitutional issue of significant importance.”

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Congress decided to give him that power. If they think they have the votes, repeal the National Emergencies Act

[Phantom Roxas]

Even Mitch seems on board with amending the act. And "amend" is the key word here, since the GOP would want to change the act such that it favors Trump, and only limits future presidents.