US "Government Shutdown" (2 Viewers)

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 05:33
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
26,996
Has this Nancy person got an alternative?

So far she has not, to my knowledge, proposed anything specific that would be a real solution. Or if she did, I missed it. I take that back... her solution is to wave her magic wand and say "They're all legal now." Which is a non-solution.

ColinEssex said:
Also, I am led to believe that the US people are less than happy about Mexicans (Spicks as Clint Eastwood called them) coming into the USA illegally.

Perhaps that belief is the result of misleading headlines, I'm not sure. To my more localized viewpoint, the greater concern is Hispanics of any kind - but only because if you look to the south of the USA's borders, that is what you find. I.e. that dislike is due to simple geography and the demographics of Central and South America. Lots of Hispanics and various Native American tribes of a more Mestizo heritage. Not so many folks of other ethnicity. And no land bridges to folks of other ethnicity.

Myself, I care less about their ethnicity and more about their legality.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 06:33
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,617
These are not good examples. I assumed we were talking about federal benefits here.
1. They are isolated to the city/state that they are tied to.
2. They were never enacted according to the plans these articles are talking about.
3. Healthcare really should be a basic human right, IMO. Of course, being an opinion, there's bound to be some that disagree. I don't mind seeing children being taken care of.

This is a poll from an obviously skewed website. Where are they getting this benefit?

This is a pathway to obtain legal residency. Isn't that what people want to follow?
Your opinion. Part of what I am trying to demonstrate is that there is a populist wave by Democrats to essentially nullify citizenship by claiming that those in this country (legally or illegally) are entitled to the very same benefits as citizens (even-though they are not citizens). While this is starting and growing at the local level, it can be expected to migrate quickly into the federal level. Especially with the House of Representatives being controlled by the Democrats, who are now moving rapidly left. Some in the Democrats in the House are calling for the abolition of ICE. Bernie Sanders in the Senate is still pushing to legalize illegal immigrants. Federal immigration policy, if enough left leaning liberals are elected to Congress can be expected rapidly change and mimic changes that have already occurred at the local level.

When Obama was in office, his administration went after states, such as Arizona for attempting to enforce federal immigration law. Now we have a plethora of local jurisdictions that claim, as sanctuary cities, that they can circumvent federal immigration law and even deny federal law enforcement access to criminals in custody. The Trump administration (to my knowledge) has not gone after these sanctuary cites for interfering. Why the Republicans have failed to go after these sanctuary cities is an unknown by me.

Oregon Caught Breaking Law, Using $1.8 Million in Federal Tax Dollars to Pay for Abortions

The audit comes after Brown signed a bill that would force health insurers and taxpayers to pay for free abortions for residents and illegal immigrants.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 06:33
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,617
So far she has not, to my knowledge, proposed anything specific that would be a real solution. Or if she did, I missed it. I take that back... her solution is to wave her magic wand and say "They're all legal now." Which is a non-solution.
Matches what I have been reading. Pelosi has not made any counter offer. She has totally refused to negotiate.
 

ColinEssex

Old registered user
Local time
Today, 10:33
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
9,110
As I said, certainly in the UK, the opposition leader's role is to thwart and disagree with virtually everything the government is trying to do.
At the moment the Prime Minister (Theresa May) is trying to get a plan agreed to facilitate our exit from European Union, opposition leader (Jeremy Corbyn) won't even meet the PM for talks.
It seems in the USA, that the opposition is totally trying to thwart Mr Trumps plan to cut down on illegal immigrants and to try to stop the flow of illegal killer drugs etc.
Wouldn't it be nice if opposition (in the UK and USA) said,"ok let's work together on this issue, put aside our party differences and work towards an answer that will benefit the country as a whole".

I get so tired of the arguing and shouting of the people voted in to run our country. They often act like big children. I know many if not most of the UK populace are also fed up with it all.
Surely on big issues, a combined discussion and agreed plan is much better, otherwise it seems very little will change because of stalemate by stubborn politicians.

Maybe I'm too old and simplistic these days. (70 this year)

Col
 

NauticalGent

Ignore List Poster Boy
Local time
Today, 06:33
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
6,280
Who are you and what have you done with Colin Essex??
 

Vassago

Former Staff Turned AWF Retiree
Local time
Today, 06:33
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
4,751
Your opinion. [/URL]

Not really. I asked for examples of federal benefits they currently receive that we could stop in order to help correct the issues we currently have. You gave me none. You gave me links to proposals and polls. None of them provided any information on what we could do to help ease the issues we CURRENTLY have with illegal immigration.
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 05:33
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
26,996
Code:
on what we could do to help ease the issues we CURRENTLY have with illegal immigration.

Deport them all. Then... no issues caused by illegal immigration. End of problem.

Sorry, couldn't resist that opportunity. I don't actually believe that is the answer but I am sure there are those who DO believe exactly that way. I don't claim to have an answer in this case other than true immigration reform. It is overdue but right now, <Begin Strother Marin accent> what we have here is a failure to communicate <End Strother Martin accent>.

For those unsure of the identity of Strother Martin, see the movie Cool Hand Luke.
 
Last edited:

Vassago

Former Staff Turned AWF Retiree
Local time
Today, 06:33
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
4,751
It's unfortunate that our government can't come up with a good solution. So far, I haven't seen anything that will work from any side.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 06:33
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,617
A very sad day. The Republicans once again caved. It is quite unfortunate, that when it comes down to gutter level political fighting; the Republicans are incompetent. The Democrats are also far superior when it comes to inflaming the mob (electorate).

Let me reiterate, that I am not a fan of the wall. Judge Napolitano earlier this week added some shortcomings to the litany of problems faced by the wall that I agree with. The wall is a red-herring. The real issue is that the Democrats have made a power play (coup, if you like) and won. Gloating in the media will be insufferable

The Democrats had contended that the government had to be open for them to negotiate. That is a blatant lie since they could have negotiated during the shutdown. Now the government will be open so that negotiations can theoretically be undertaken. Other than the Democrats (as a photo opportunity) stoically sitting at a table and claiming to negotiate, would they actually negotiate (in good faith)?

Since the negotiations would be in the future, the following speculations are problematic. I doubt the Democrats will make any actual good faith effort to negotiate a solution while the government is open. First, they could have done that while the shutdown was in progress. Second, the Republicans just caved thereby giving up their bargaining chips. The Democrats will now feel emboldened to push the Republicans around. Schumer has already hinted (reiterated) that the wall will not be on the negotiating table. So the Democrats are already limiting the scope of what would be on the negotiating table. The Democrats are envisioning a scoreboard where the Republicans get nothing and the Democrats get everything that they want. Time will tell.
 
Last edited:

GinaWhipp

AWF VIP
Local time
Today, 06:33
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
5,901
<stepping on soap box>
This is a complicated issue which seems to have gotten lost behind *the wall* :(

Illegal immigrants…
• People overstaying their visas (actually this is the higher of the number)
• Flying in on forged passports
• Ports (by boat, we are surrounded by water)
• Ports (by car, as a tourist)
• Tunnels (This way usually means drugs.)
• *Jumping the fence\wall* border crossings

We *use* them for…
• Cheap labor (farms, some small businesses, i.e. restaurants and production shops, i.e. sweat shops, clothing production)
• Jobs *American’s* won’t do (and yes, for some jobs American’s will do but not as cheaply)
• Janitorial
• Housekeeping (Remember. We had a few elected officials that had to *fix* that as they hired illegal immigrants)
• Indentured servants or sex slaves

IMHO, a wall is 18th century (or earlier) *tech*. Why not use drones that can spot a flea on a dog from a good 100 yards or more away? We have eyes in the sky that could do the same thing. We also could use some more *boots on the ground* to reel in the visa overstays.

And I have to say, when you tell me my neighbor is going to pay for a fence for almost two years and then suddenly *tell* me I have to pay for it… I’m going to be a little put off. You didn’t ask me, you *told* me! I’d rather take that money and spend it on the homeless veterans. Hell, we could give them the job of guarding the borders thereby killing two bird with one stone.

We also need to consider that American companies are *hiring* these people because they are cheap and the can *abuse* them. How do we deal with that? It’s only a problem for companies if they get caught and most don’t which probably explains why only the *people* are complaining and not the companies.

It might also benefit us to take a look at mental health, technology and economic conditions. Especially, technology that we have been warned was pushing workers out of work. It’s hard to blame a machine for your lack of employment so let’s blame the immigrants. And forget about crime as an argument… American’s have committed for more crimes than any immigrant, legal or illegal. So, that argument is a non-starter.

Do we need immigration reform? Most definitely! However, we all need to put on our big boy pants and high heels and come to the table and *talk* to each other not *at* each other. Seems to me everyone is running around trying to figure out who gave them the cold instead of taking the medicine to get rid of the cold.

<stepping off soap box>
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 06:33
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,617
IMHO, a wall is 18th century (or earlier) *tech*. Why not use drones that can spot a flea on a dog from a good 100 yards or more away? We have eyes in the sky that could do the same thing. We also could use some more *boots on the ground* to reel in the visa overstays.
Sorry, but the claim that: "'a wall is 18th century (or earlier) *tech*." is a tired Democratic talking point to denigrate the concept.

There are serious problems with the wall. One that was pointed out, the wall cannot be built in certain locations at the actual border. What that means is that the illegal immigrants can simply "enter" the US and wait for Immigration to pick them up while using the wall as a scenic backdrop. So in that scenario, the wall is useless.

Another useless Democratic talking point is the use of drones. That has a lot of popular appeal. The Republican have totally missed educating the public that drones are not the only solution. Effective border security will involve a variety of techniques.

Drones have their own problems, which have not been disclosed:
1. They can be shot down
2. People can develop camouflage (compare that to the use of ladders and tunnels when condemning the wall)
3. Drones can be blinded by handled lasers
4. Drones can be subject to electronic jamming

A theorem by an unknown person since I can't claim that it is mine.

Every technological solution has a technological counter measure.


Do we need immigration reform? Most definitely! However, we all need to put on our big boy pants and high heels and come to the table and *talk* to each other not *at* each other. Seems to me everyone is running around trying to figure out who gave them the cold instead of taking the medicine to get rid of the cold.
The politicians are not proposing real reform. Improved technology and even the old wall will not provide enhanced border security. The problem is immigration law which essentially allows people, once on this side of the border to remain.

The law needs to be revised in two ways:

1. Mandate the immediate deportation of people in this country illegally. That includes closing loopholes that allow people to game the system. End birth-right citizenship.

2. Remove incentives that encourage people to enter the US illegally.

Unless the law is changed and negative incentives are imposed, fancy walls and shiny tech gargets will do little to stop those from entering the US illegally.
 
Last edited:

Micron

AWF VIP
Local time
Today, 06:33
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
3,476
I find the notion that you could shut down a government (which is really a euphemism for "screw the little guy") over a budget fight to be somewhat bizzarre. Not that a parliamentary democracy is the best form of government, but if I'm correct, it works thusly:
a) majority government tables budget. It gets passed because there's not enough opposition members to defeat it. Don't like the budget? Remember that when you vote next time.

b) in this scenario, minority government tables budget. Count on it satisfying the minority party that props up the government as well, otherwise it would be too risky to table a budget that the opposition + the supporting party can defeat. Don't like the budget? Remember that when you vote next time. Minority parliamentary governments tend to accomplish far more than majority governments.

In the end, no one gets screwed - except maybe Joe Public, and that usually happens regardless of what country we're talking about. When it comes to which liar to vote for, I like that I have more than 2 choices.
 

GinaWhipp

AWF VIP
Local time
Today, 06:33
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
5,901
@Steve R.

I was not meaning to point out *talking points* but rather other options. I'll agree drones can be shot down and otherwise manipulated, however, the main point was we have better ways to accomplish the goal besides a physical barrier which history (past and present) already taught us does not work.

(1) I agree that anyone here illegally needs to be sent home. But first we have to find them and that requires more boots on the ground which we don't have and I can't remember any administration pushing for that.

(2) And again, we agree we need to remove those incentives and maybe part of that is holding the companies that hire illegals accountable with a stiffer fine.

My whole point was we (and by we I don't mean us right here) seem to be not seeing the forest for the trees. The talk of a wall that is the *end all to be all* is not practical as we know that will only stop a very small percentage. After all, the lock only keeps the honest guy honest, the thief is going to find a way.
 

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 03:33
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
5,823
I think the Democrats are about to be sucker punched and they don't see it coming. Maybe the government shutdown was a diversion, Trump probably knew Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer would over play their hand and not give a "single dollar" for the wall. Its quite possible he knew this 2 or 3 months ago or longer.

Declaring a national emergency and shutting down the border doesn't cost job's in fact they will probably hire some people. If you think about it, the government will be open but the border will be closed. This would permanently strand all new migrants on the Mexico side indefinitely.

This will cause lots of pressure on Mexico to do something, probably solicit the Democrats for relief. Bingo. Just a feeling, I am probably wrong.
 

ColinEssex

Old registered user
Local time
Today, 10:33
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
9,110
I was led to believe that these government workers were on strike of their own volition, but, reading behind some posts here it seems that Mr Trump commanded the shutdown and it was done.

What confuses me, is that if Mr Trump can wave a hand and control the fate of a million workers, why can't he wave a hand to get the money he needs for the election promise of a wall?

It seems that this Nancy person did nothing to stop the government workers being chucked out for two months. BTW, will they get two months back pay?

I think by the time this issue is solved, it will be time for another president election and as it's the democrats turn, the wall will be put on a shelf, not a shelf put on a wall.

Col
 

MajP

You've got your good things, and you've got mine.
Local time
Today, 06:33
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
8,463
I was led to believe that these government workers were on strike of their own volition
Actually it was the complete opposite of a strike. In a strike you do not go to work and get paid. In this case most people (Coast Guard, TSA, FBI...) were going to work and not being paid.
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 05:33
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
26,996
Col -

The "back pay" issue is probably going to be a point of negotiation. (I've been through this myself once several years ago so actually witnessed it.) For direct federal employees, they might get back pay depending on civil service rules and how they are applied to each department. For contract employees, it depends on exact contract language. Basically, the contractors were not on strike. They were locked out, not of their own volition, and thus barred from working by circumstances not under their control. Therefore, it is POSSIBLE that they would get paid for time during the lockout.

Although Trump is not blameless, TECHNICALLY the shutdown belongs to Congress because only Congress can allocate funding as part of their budget-making authority. Neither the president nor the courts can allocate original funding.

Strictly speaking, Trump and Congress must SHARE this blame for failure to reach a viable compromise. Trump CANNOT make money get spent by fiat unless it has already been committed to a given department. He can only say "I do not approve of this budget" - which is what actually caused the shutdown. No budget? Then you can't pay for work! Can't pay? Then shutdown the government as a result.

Trump can order or forbid specific uses of already-allocated funds in the various departments but cannot allocate new funds by himself. His possible "emergency" declaration would allow him to tap allocated but unspent funds from various departments because under an emergency he can override Congress's allocation plan and make that money cross to another department.

As to the wall, the ultimate irony is that when Obama was in office, I think in his first term, a largely Democrat Congress voted on building a wall, it passed, and he signed the bill authorizing the construction. But now because Trump wants it, the Democrats DON'T want it. This is the kind of USA politics that drives me bonkers sometimes.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 06:33
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,617
Actually it was the complete opposite of a strike. In a strike you do not go to work and get paid. In this case most people (Coast Guard, TSA, FBI...) were going to work and not being paid.
Not quite accurate. The furloughed federal workers will get their "back-pay" after the appropriation bills are signed by the President.

It seems that this Nancy person did nothing to stop the government workers being chucked out for two months.
The opinion of Nancy Pelosi depends on your viewpoint. From my viewpoint, Nancy Pelosi was holding the furloughed federal workers "hostage" as a bargaining chip to "break" Trump. The US House of Representatives, of which she is the head, originates the appropriation bills from which the federal workers are paid.

Trump, until now, refused to sign the appropriation bills. Nancy Pelosi refused to negotiate and stonewalled. Hence the standoff.

Regretfully, many media outlets, such as the Washington Post and the New York times are virulently anti-Trump, to the point of being propaganda arms for the Democratic party. Consequently, Trump has been falsely painted as the evil black-hat villain while Pelosi's has been painted as being the white-hat "good-guy". Pelosi's abominable actions have been largely overlooked and not reported by the media.
 
Last edited:

Rx_

Nothing In Moderation
Local time
Today, 04:33
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
2,803
US Budget for military subsidy to NATO increased border security by $6B. If the walls and borders are wrong, then cut NATO funding.
Once all of them figure out who gets the fixed contracts, it will be approved. Follow the money.
The Democrats supported by some Republicans war-mongering totally blasted returning US Troops back from other countries. I think it might be 168 countries we occupy, many with no real approval from the people.
Do we really need US Troops stationed in the UK, Japan, Germany, Iceland, Spain, Italy, and all the other countries? Its time to close shop in a lot of these places.
Station them along the Canadian border. The Mexican drug and crime cartel operate for the USA mainly is out of Canada. Lets station our troops where the real problem is at. Scotia Bank of Canada was operating illegal gold mining destroying rain-forest and using drug lords to force slavery men, women and children to mine. They smuggled gold into the LBMA (London) to laundry the gold in the last 8 years. Not a single banker went to jail or had to pay a fine.
The shutdown caused the IRS to not audit! That saved US Citizens enough to stimulate the economy.
Federal Workers took Uber and Lift jobs. Part-time workers count equal as full-time workers in the US Government Labor statistics So, the Shutdown added huge amounts of "new jobs" to keep Wall-Street rescued. Nothing is as it seems.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom