The Border Wall or Fence

[iNow]

11 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Even the remotest premise that any of us think employees should not be paid in any scenario is just plain wrong.

Strikingly similar to rhetoric we hear about opposition to a wall being equivalent to a desire for crime, open borders, and refusal to support border security. 

[StringJunky]

A pearler of a Republican statement from Wilbur Ross:

Quote

"Put it in perspective: you're talking about 800,000 workers, and while I feel sorry for individuals who have hardship cases, 800,000 workers if they never got their pay... you're talking about a third of a percent on our GDP," he said.

Just Wow.

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 hours ago, rangerx said:

 Even the remotest premise that any of us think employees should not be paid in any scenario is just plain wrong.
 

Which is exactly why he questioned it? There is a current reality where they are not getting paid, and he asked why that one thing could not be changed.

Any insinuations he made are pretty innocuous relative to what has been directed at him lately.

Please don't ask for examples.

[swansont]

16 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Funny. Because all but 10 Democrats voted against paying federal workers:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/10-dems-break-with-leaders-support-gop-bill-to-pay-workers-during-the-shutdown

 

But it's the Republicans holding federal workers hostage.

Do you have a link to what was actually voted on, rather than some summary? 

12 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

The GOP proposal was to pay workers their paychecks.

What was the actual proposal, though? Was it just to pay the workers, or were there other tidbits in there, too? Did it include paying the 4 million contractors who aren't getting paid (which would happen if the government reopened)?

You're posting as if you know these details, so please let us know where they may be found.

[Ten oz]

10 hours ago, MigL said:

Funny how the same people who rail against String Junky's insistence on 'principles and honor' in the 'You think you got problems, America' thread ( no matter how many people suffer in the UK due to BREXIT with no deal ) are perfectly willing to stand on 'principles and precedents' when it comes to their own government.
Polarization at its best.
( fu*k the people who have to suffer, my ideals/principles are intact )

My position on Brexit is that there should be a 2nd vote. If you, or anyone else, proposed a national vote on Trump's Wall I would be 100% for it. If the public wants Trump's Wall and votes for it I would agree Congress should give Trump every penny he wants. However Trump lost the popular vote by 4 million votes 2yrs ago and Republicans in Congress just lost the popular vote during the Mid Terms by over 9 million votes 2 months ago. So I think it is obvious where majority national sentiment is on this issue. That said if Trump or Congress asked for a national vote on the issue I would support it.

The Federal Budget cycle runs October through September. Republicans wrote and passed 2019's budget. Republican's were still in the majority then and Trump got everything he wanted in that budget like increases to DOD and DHS spending well as tax cuts. That was 4 months ago. We are approaching the mid way point through the budget's year. The Wall money Trump is demanding would be a separate appropriation. 

Congress can approve additional spending at anytime. Trump's Wall has nothing to do with 2019's budget. A President can ask for and receive money for anything any time he or she wants and Congress can consider it. Budgets guarantee minimum levels of spending for the year which can't be taken away. More money can always be added. Bush requested and received hundreds of billion dollars off budget in special appropriations to invade Iraq for example. As a campaign promise Obama put the war costs in the budget and in turn debt estimates shot up a couple trillion dollars from all the Bush era money which had been outside the budget. Link

The budget itself is not being debated and Trump can get money through special appropriations. Moreover 2020's budgets needs to be signed in the next 8 months and Trump could fight for it in that budget if he wants it in a budget. Trump is using the budget to shutdown the govt as leverage. The budget is not related to his Wall demand. The two are separate things. He is conflating them to create a crisis and force Democrats into a position were he is hoping they will be forced to give him what he wants. This is a totally manufactured crisis.

If Trump truly wanted money for his Wall Republicans could have given it to him at any time over the last 2yrs as they controlled the whole govt. It is not a coincidence that soon as Democrats took control of the House Trump shutdown the govt. There are 100 new members in Congress unable to staff their offices or begin working. 

 

45 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Which is exactly why he questioned it? There is a current reality where they are not getting paid, and he asked why that one thing could not be changed.

We need the full govt open and functioning as it should. The al la carte approach only drags this out. Last year Congress passed the Pay our Military Act which ensured DOD would get paid during a shutdown. Seems like a good idea on the surface but as a result Shutdown can now last longer because large portions of those who would otherwise be impacted by a shutdown are protected. Here we are a year after the Act was passed and the Shutdown is officially the longest in the history of the Country. We do not need to figure out more ways to keep people afloat during the shutdown so that it can be extend further. We need to END the shutdown. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

29 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

We need the full govt open and functioning as it should. The al la carte approach only drags this out. Last year Congress passed the Pay our Military Act which ensured DOD would get paid during a shutdown. Seems like a good idea on the surface but as a result Shutdown can now last longer because large portions of those who would otherwise be impacted by a shutdown are protected. Here we are a year after the Act was passed and the Shutdown is officially the longest in the history of the Country. We do not need to figure out more ways to keep people afloat during the shutdown so that it can be extend further. We need to END the shutdown. 

Agree. To all of this.

And with regard to the bold, who here has not advocated for this, never mind merely conceded it?

However, in the scenario that this does not happen immediately (let's say it is all Trumps fault, as everyone I think has conceded at least a large part of the blame is on him), do you want the workers paid in the interim?

 

Assuming the answer is yes, why can that not get done quickly?

The short answer is politics.

[Ten oz]

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

And with regard to the bold, who here has not advocated for this, never mind merely conceded it?

There was no accusation against anyone in the bold you highlight. 

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

However, in the scenario that this does not happen immediately (let's say it is all Trumps fault, as everyone I think has conceded at least a large part of the blame is on him), do you want the workers paid in the interim?

No I do not. As already stated it will prolong this whole ordeal. Piece meal'en this out will only keep it going and not vice versa. 

There is a lot about this that benefits Trump. A Congressional session only lasts 24 months. Trump's party just lost control of the House. Having the government shutdown is preventing the new majority in the House from getting to work on any of their priorities. Keeping this going steals away time from his opposition. If Trump can get workers paid but extend the shutdown that would be a huge win. Just 3 months is 12 and half precent of a full Congressional term. That is a huge win for Trump. The longer this goes the better it is for Trump from that prespective. 

*Edit - this is the 3rd time I has answer that question about paying workers. It was literally vin the bit you qouted. I understand you and others here may not agree but just asking the same question over and over really doesn't accomplish anything. 

Edited January 25, 2019 by Ten oz

[dimreepr]

55 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Agree. To all of this.

And with regard to the bold, who here has not advocated for this, never mind merely conceded it?

However, in the scenario that this does not happen immediately (let's say it is all Trumps fault, as everyone I think has conceded at least a large part of the blame is on him), do you want the workers paid in the interim?

 

Assuming the answer is yes, why can that not get done quickly?

The short answer is politics.

 

No shit, Sherlock, what's the point of this post?

[Ten oz]

4 Republican Senators broke with the President yesterday and voted to re-open the govt and continue debate on the Wall spending. Despite being in the minority in the Senate the Democrat's bill received more votes than the Republican bill. I think this is a good signal that Senate Republicans aren't willing to allow this to drag out much longer.

Quote

 

A GOP-backed measure to fund Trump's border wall and offer limited legal protections for some immigrants failed in a 50-47 vote. Three senators — Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Republicans Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Mike Lee of Utah — broke with their parties.

A plan supported by Democrats fared better, but still fell short in a 52-44 vote. Six Republican senators supported it: Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Susan Collins of Maine, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah. Link

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

15 hours ago, rangerx said:

 Even the remotest premise that any of us think employees should not be paid in any scenario is just plain wrong.
 

I guess we have at least one exception in Ten oz. 

 

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 

No I do not. As already stated it will prolong this whole ordeal. Piece meal'en this out will only keep it going and not vice versa. 

There is a lot about this that benefits Trump. A Congressional session only lasts 24 months. Trump's party just lost control of the House. Having the government shutdown is preventing the new majority in the House from getting to work on any of their priorities. Keeping this going steals away time from his opposition. If Trump can get workers paid but extend the shutdown that would be a huge win. Just 3 months is 12 and half precent of a full Congressional term. That is a huge win for Trump. The longer this goes the better it is for Trump from that prespective. 

*Edit - this is the 3rd time I has answer that question about paying workers. It was literally vin the bit you qouted. I understand you and others here may not agree but just asking the same question over and over really doesn't accomplish anything. 

So for political reasons you do not want to let Trump off the hook, and you have additional points with regard to negotiating a complete end.

I can't completely say I disagree, but I would find it hard not to vote for getting the workers paid immediately.

I do think it is risky though, as the Democrats could end up wearing this more than they otherwise might.

[iNow]

It's done... for now.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/donald-trump-agrees-to-three-week-spending-bill-with-no-wall-funding-to-end-shutdown/

Quote

President Trump announced Friday afternoon that he will sign a stopgap spending bill that will fund the government through February 15 and end the longest running government shutdown in history — but will not provide the $5.7 billion in border-wall funding that initially precipitated the shutdown.

Trump’s concession on border wall funding will allow Congress to quickly pass a continuing resolution, ending a shutdown that began December 22 and has left some 800,000 federal workers without paychecks.

Following the passage of the continuing resolution, a committee representing both parties will develop a homeland security bill addressing border wall funding, Trump said.

 

Now, what happens 3 weeks from now? That's anybody's guess

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

It's done... for now.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/donald-trump-agrees-to-three-week-spending-bill-with-no-wall-funding-to-end-shutdown/

 

Now, what happens 3 weeks from now? That's anybody's guess

Is it correct to assume workers pays would get all caught up by then?

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No shit, Sherlock, what's the point of this post?

It lead to Trump caving after he read it...

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Is it correct to assume workers pays would get all caught up by then?

It will take 2-3 more days to get them their checks. Much like running a payroll for a company, it all needs to be done by Tuesday EOB for checks to go out Friday. Since today's Friday, I'm not sure if that means Sun, Mon, Tue, or Wed... but soon

[Ten oz]

On 1/21/2019 at 8:48 AM, Ten oz said:

think we are heading into the end game. Now that Trump finally put something out Republicans plan to open debate in the Senate. At the same time some Republicans have already publicly come out advocating for some form of a stopgap measure to allow debate with an open govt. So I think debate will begin on Tuesday and at the end of the week Senate Republicans will request Trump agree to a stopgap to continue debate. 

Of course debating with an open govt has been the Democratic position all along. Republicans will take credit for the idea and claim it from themselves. Graham, Romney, and others will come forward and make statements about allowing workers to get paid while Pelosi fights Trump to please her leftist base and blah, blah,blah.  It will give Trump the cover he needs to open the govt without looking like he has lost anything. Then Trump will have however long the stopgap measure last to create a new distraction (North Korea, Iran, or Syria seem likely) so we all forget about The Wall til he decides to bring up again this summer when 2020's budget is being negotiated. 

37 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So for political reasons you do not want to let Trump off the hook, and you have additional points with regard to negotiating a complete end.

I can't completely say I disagree, but I would find it hard not to vote for getting the workers paid immediately.

I do think it is risky though, as the Democrats could end up wearing this more than they otherwise might.

I don't think avoiding prolonging things  is interchangeable for "political reasons". Now that things worked out as I guessed at on Monday do you not see how paying the workings separate from ending the shutdown would have prolonged things? 

A broken clock is right twice a day. I am not claiming to be right regarding this whole ordeal. However I do think events today support my position that separating out worker pay would have made this last longer. 

31 minutes ago, iNow said:

Now, what happens 3 weeks from now? That's anybody's guess

Now Trump changes the game. Negotiations will grow beyond money for his wall and will include a much larger (more money) demand for infrastructure, opioid crisis, and maybe even taxes. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

51 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I don't think avoiding prolonging things  is interchangeable for "political reasons". Now that things worked out as I guessed at on Monday do you not see how paying the workings separate from ending the shutdown would have prolonged things? 

A broken clock is right twice a day. I am not claiming to be right regarding this whole ordeal. However I do think events today support my position that separating out worker pay would have made this last longer. 

Now Trump changes the game. Negotiations will grow beyond money for his wall and will include a much larger (more money) demand for infrastructure, opioid crisis, and maybe even taxes. 

No doubt.

I also wasn't suggesting you meant political reasons alone.

Anyway, I think we can all agree this is Trump's biggest victory since the midterms...

[iNow]

41 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Anyway, I think we can all agree this is Trump's biggest victory since the midterms...

I sure hope you meant to use the sarcasm font when typing that... 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I sure hope you meant to use the sarcasm font when typing that... 

...and give it away? (actually hadn't heard of a sarcasm font)

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Anyway, I think we can all agree this is Trump's biggest victory since the midterms...

I actually do see this as a victory for Trump (no sarcasm). The longer he keeps this back and forth going over whether or not the govt will be shutdown the longer he keeps everyone focused on his priorities rather than their own. Bad as the shutdown is optically what is waiting for Trump when all this is over will be worse. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

I actually do see this as a victory for Trump (no sarcasm). The longer he keeps this back and forth going over whether or not the govt will be shutdown the longer he keeps everyone focused on his priorities rather than their own. Bad as the shutdown is optically what is waiting for Trump when all this is over will be worse. 

...biggest since the midterms? 

Seriously, I don't know what they might have on him that's concrete enough...but time will tell.

If you're right, the timing will be interesting. The closer it gets to November 2020, the less time the GOP will have to get someone else on the ticket.... to get a wall or fence. (my weak pretence as to staying on topic)

 

Edited January 26, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

27 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

...biggest since the midterms? 

Seriously, I don't know what they might have on him that's concrete enough...but time will tell.

If you're right, the timing will be interesting. The closer it gets to November 2020, the less time the GOP will have to get someone else on the ticket.... to get a wall or fence. (my weak pretence as to staying on topic)

 

I wasn't implying impeachment. Rather I was implying duel party leadership. Thus far Trump has only known single party rule. 

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Rather I was implying duel party leadership. 

Lol. Freudian slip?

[Ten oz]

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

Lol. Freudian slip?

[John Cuthber]

I'm looking forward to the newspaper headline that says 

"Trump climbs down over wall".

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

20 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I'm looking forward to the newspaper headline that says 

"Trump climbs down over wall".

 

Trumpty Dumpty had a great fall!

Edited January 26, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

Close

 

Quote

 

Trump climbs down in wall row, Congress passes bill ending shutdown

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/trump-announces-deal-reopen-us-government-195830580.html

 

What is stunning about all this to me is that we are exactly where we were before this started. A stopgap measure to take us into February is what the House pass on Dec.19th. So Trump just successfully filibustered Congress out of a month. 

I haven't seen it discussed yet but the dates in the stopgap are important. The bill the House initially passed was through Feb. 8th but the deal that was struck yesterday is through Feb.15th. That extra week ensures federal workers get paid Feb. 15th which means Trump could shutdown the govt again after that and would have 2 weeks before anyone's pay is impacted. The Feb. 8th  timeline would have meant another shutdown would have immediately resulted in missed checked. So Trump does have a window to play with now.