The Trump Shutdown

[ExiledInIllinois]

4 minutes ago, Foxx said:

no, you don't have to justify your life to a bunch of internet retards. what you do have to do though is to justify your life to your loved ones and those who depend upon you. that you don't live within your means is noone fault but your own. yes, living paycheck to paycheck is not living within your means. it means you are living up against the edge. yes, many Americans do it but they too live along the (l)edge. life presents many perils in its wake, the risk of being furloughed from a governmental job is but one. the risk of having a serious health issue is amongst a plethora of others and only one example of  another. that you probably prepare for one and not the other is not the internet's retards fault, it is your own. this is outside of any political persuasion, it is more a question of human issue of idiocy. to put oneself that close the the (l)edge just plain stupid. but i digress, it is your life and you are allowed to live it as you see fit within the confines of what society considers as legally free will.

 

 

yeah okay Hillary. you still haven't learned anything i see. perhaps go back to that teet you suckle from and thank them for your cushy lifestyle, courtesy of course. from all those deplorables you so despise.

I pay federal taxes the same as you do.  I work for a living... I am hourly.  No need to be jealous.  You can work construction for the Army... We might be building the Wall together.  Actually, we have a job opening for a mechanic now.  You should apply.

Edited January 17, 2019 by ExiledInIllinois

[Foxx]

 

9 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

I pay federal taxes the same as you do.  I work for a living... I am hourly.  No need to be jealous.  You can work construction for the Army... We might be building the Wall together.  Actually, we have a job opening for a mechanic now.  You should apply.

i don't know if you could handle working along side a deplorable.

Edited January 17, 2019 by Foxx

[ExiledInIllinois]

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

 

i don't know if you could handle working along side a deplorable.

I do now!

 

Our crew is 13 people.  10 are Trump supporters.  Remember, I am blue collar, work swing shift = Deplorable Central.

[SoCoBills]

26 minutes ago, Swill Merchant said:

This is a dishonest and extremely biased take. Everyone knows a bill with funding for the wall passed the house and was blocked by Dems in the Senate despite having the votes. But I suspect you already knew that and pretended otherwise. 

 

The Democrats have quite literally determined that you and your wife are worth sacrificing for the sake of opposing the President. It's funny that despite being used as a pawn, you still maintain your party loyalty rather than asking what is so important about opposing a barrier that they are putting you through this.

 

I think for myself, thank you very much. I tend to take heat from both sides because I've always been more of an independent. I'm a registered Democrat but I hold a lot of hate for the established politicians in both parties. I loathed Hillary Clinton probably as much as if not more than most right wingers and not because of her emails or conspiracy theories but because of her actual voting record. Her corporate PACs, the Clinton Foundation and how she is an ultimate politician without moral compass. I see her as a power seeker not a public servant. I remember watching videos of her rallies around the nation where she claimed to come under sniper fire a dozen times but the video of the trip she claims that she is holding kids and shaking hands and laughing it up on the tarmac. The DNC rigged the Primary for her. The Democratic Party establishment is very corrupt but so is the GOP leadership. Both parties are bought and paid for by big money lobbies whether it's Big Pharma, Big Oil, Wall Street or others. 

 

There is a rise within the Democratic Party that does have me excited though of "Justice Democrats" who refuse to take any lobby money. They have the entire Democratic Party running scared. I guarantee you will see endless hit piece attempts on any of them that try for a 2020 Dem bid come from both the GOP and the Dems. The establishment can't control those who don't take the legalized bribery that has become our model of governing. So again, I'm not biased. I'd vote for a Republican in a heartbeat over an establishment Democrat if the GOP candidate didn't take corporate PAC money and the Dem did. 

 

As for the rest - as you said they didn't have the votes in the Senate but the Senate has rolled to appease the will of Trump. It's sad that they are falling in line and Mitch isn't even letting them vote. Rumors are there are enough votes in the Senate to achieve a veto override but Mitch refuses to bring a vote to the floor which is a stunning rejection of the Democratic process. Trump is not a totalitarian dictator. Mitch needs to let the Senate be it's own separate body and vote.

 

I don't want a wall not because of the Democrats but because of my own research. A wall is minimally effective and monumentally cost heavy. Those who want to get into this country illegally typically won't just see a wall and give up. They can go under, over and through it. There is border fencing along a lot of the at risk points initially identified by border security but they still tunnel under. A saw can cut through the steel slats they are currently pushing. Trump projections for wall pricing are way below what they will actually be. Let's also be real - Trump is rebranding the wall into a fence but still calling it a wall. About half of all illegal immigration are Visa overstays. We also have people enter by land not along the Mexican border by boat, by plane and by way of Canada. We have topographic issues and eminent domain issues which further complicate matters. Maintenance will be a continuous burden over time. Illegal crossings are at a 46 year low as is. 90% of the drugs that cross the southern border cross via legal ports of entry which a wall won't stop. Other larger cartel supplies have not been impeded by the barriers in place. The cartels are the ones using drones and tunnels. 

 

Will a wall delay some people long enough for border agents to intercept? Sure, I suppose. But simple technology for radar and tracking along the border along with satellites and surveillance will also do that. I'd rather hire more agents and pay human beings than pay for an easily defeated inanimate object. We could also use more justices and more into the administrative and legal part of ICE that processes immigrants who try to legally enter to encourage usage of legal paths of citizenship. The wait times are often over year just to have your inquiry to enter the country even reviewed and in the mean time they are held. This encourages desperate illegal crossings. 

 

Then I research historical border walls. What types of governments built them and if they were effective. I think the Berlin Wall and the Great Wall of China.  Historians say the Great Wall provided China little security and the Berlin Wall we know fell and was crossed consistently. We also know the types of governments in place for those nation's - hint hint - they weren't the Democratic kind. Sorry, a wall is not for me. I don't think it's the best answer. Not even close. 

[oldmanfan]

6 minutes ago, Swill Merchant said:

This article has some inaccuracies and misleading lines, but it will suffice.

 

Consider how little attention it's gotten. Almost as though they'd prefer you didn't know about it.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/government-funding-bill-passage-now-uncertain-in-the-house/

I read this.  What it says is that in the previous Congress the Senate (which was controlled by Republicans) passed a stop gap bill with no funding for the wall, that would fund the government through February.  The House, which at the time was also under Republican control, passed  a bill with 5.5 billion for the wall.  So I don't quite get how the Democrats blocked funding for a wall.  If you are referring to the Senate not getting past 60 votes for the House bill, then perhaps that makes sense.  But the Senate did pass a bill to keep the government open back in December.

 

Like it or not, you have divided government now, and like it or not when the President met initially with the Democratic leaders, in that now infamous White House meeting captured on camera, he accepted responsibility for closing the government if he did not get his wall funding.  His words, in plain view for all to see and hear.  And now he wants to say it's not on him.  Sorry, but that simply does not fly.

 

Not that Democrats could not negotiate more.  I think ultimately the Democrats should agree to funding walls where the experts on border security says they are absolutely essential.  They are going to have to give, as is the Executive branch.  But the President made his bed, now he has to lie in it. 

 

And none of this answers the question of why the vast majority of government could not be opened right now, and allow for more negotiation of Homeland Security budget including the wall.  Nor does it answer why until the balance of government changed this was not a crisis or emergency requiring shutting down government until the president got his money, and that it only became an emergency crisis when control of the House changed.

 

[Azalin]

25 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

No, the issue is that neither party is interested in negotiating in good faith.  Trump wants his wall.  Pelosi wants him to not have it.  Both sides are entrenched and intractable.  Saying it's either side's fault alone is partisan bull####.  No one has any room to complain: this is what you voted for.  Your party making sure everything goes their way.

 

I've been calling them children...but the fact is that kindergartners would have split the difference long ago.

 

Yep.

[Q-baby!]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

So, you want to play dirty, eh? You are a Canadian. Drop mic, walk off stage and leave behind the bare semblance of a human being curled up in the corner with his pj's on drinking hot chocolate.

Lame again! You got nothin’ B word! Go follow DC Tammy around wagging your tail....huh spike...can we. Huh spike!!! 

[Swill Merchant]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I read this.  What it says is that in the previous Congress the Senate (which was controlled by Republicans) passed a stop gap bill with no funding for the wall, that would fund the government through February.  The House, which at the time was also under Republican control, passed  a bill with 5.5 billion for the wall.  So I don't quite get how the Democrats blocked funding for a wall.  If you are referring to the Senate not getting past 60 votes for the House bill, then perhaps that makes sense.  But the Senate did pass a bill to keep the government open back in December.

 

Like it or not, you have divided government now, and like it or not when the President met initially with the Democratic leaders, in that now infamous White House meeting captured on camera, he accepted responsibility for closing the government if he did not get his wall funding.  His words, in plain view for all to see and hear.  And now he wants to say it's not on him.  Sorry, but that simply does not fly.

 

Not that Democrats could not negotiate more.  I think ultimately the Democrats should agree to funding walls where the experts on border security says they are absolutely essential.  They are going to have to give, as is the Executive branch.  But the President made his bed, now he has to lie in it. 

 

And none of this answers the question of why the vast majority of government could not be opened right now, and allow for more negotiation of Homeland Security budget including the wall.  Nor does it answer why until the balance of government changed this was not a crisis or emergency requiring shutting down government until the president got his money, and that it only became an emergency crisis when control of the House changed.

 

The Senate didn't need 60 votes to pass it; 50 would have sufficed. The Senate needed 60 votes to override the Democrats who were blocking the vote. They refused to let it go to a vote, thus opting to shutdown the government.

 

Both parties have gone this route. Anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or a fool.

8 minutes ago, SoCoBills said:

 

I think for myself, thank you very much. I tend to take heat from both sides because I've always been more of an independent. I'm a registered Democrat but I hold a lot of hate for the established politicians in both parties. I loathed Hillary Clinton probably as much as if not more than most right wingers and not because of her emails or conspiracy theories but because of her actual voting record. Her corporate PACs, the Clinton Foundation and how she is an ultimate politician without moral compass. I see her as a power seeker not a public servant. I remember watching videos of her rallies around the nation where she claimed to come under sniper fire a dozen times but the video of the trip she claims that she is holding kids and shaking hands and laughing it up on the tarmac. The DNC rigged the Primary for her. The Democratic Party establishment is very corrupt but so is the GOP leadership. Both parties are bought and paid for by big money lobbies whether it's Big Pharma, Big Oil, Wall Street or others. 

 

There is a rise within the Democratic Party that does have me excited though of "Justice Democrats" who refuse to take any lobby money. They have the entire Democratic Party running scared. I guarantee you will see endless hit piece attempts on any of them that try for a 2020 Dem bid come from both the GOP and the Dems. The establishment can't control those who don't take the legalized bribery that has become our model of governing. So again, I'm not biased. I'd vote for a Republican in a heartbeat over an establishment Democrat if the GOP candidate didn't take corporate PAC money and the Dem did. 

 

As for the rest - as you said they didn't have the votes in the Senate but the Senate has rolled to appease the will of Trump. It's sad that they are falling in line and Mitch isn't even letting them vote. Rumors are there are enough votes in the Senate to achieve a veto override but Mitch refuses to bring a vote to the floor which is a stunning rejection of the Democratic process. Trump is not a totalitarian dictator. Mitch needs to let the Senate be it's own separate body and vote.

 

I don't want a wall not because of the Democrats but because of my own research. A wall is minimally effective and monumentally cost heavy. Those who want to get into this country illegally typically won't just see a wall and give up. They can go under, over and through it. There is border fencing along a lot of the at risk points initially identified by border security but they still tunnel under. A saw can cut through the steel slats they are currently pushing. Trump projections for wall pricing are way below what they will actually be. Let's also be real - Trump is rebranding the wall into a fence but still calling it a wall. About half of all illegal immigration are Visa overstays. We also have people enter by land not along the Mexican border by boat, by plane and by way of Canada. We have topographic issues and eminent domain issues which further complicate matters. Maintenance will be a continuous burden over time. Illegal crossings are at a 46 year low as is. 90% of the drugs that cross the southern border cross via legal ports of entry which a wall won't stop. Other larger cartel supplies have not been impeded by the barriers in place. The cartels are the ones using drones and tunnels. 

 

Will a wall delay some people long enough for border agents to intercept? Sure, I suppose. But simple technology for radar and tracking along the border along with satellites and surveillance will also do that. I'd rather hire more agents and pay human beings than pay for an easily defeated inanimate object. We could also use more justices and more into the administrative and legal part of ICE that processes immigrants who try to legally enter to encourage usage of legal paths of citizenship. The wait times are often over year just to have your inquiry to enter the country even reviewed and in the mean time they are held. This encourages desperate illegal crossings. 

 

Then I research historical border walls. What types of governments built them and if they were effective. I think the Berlin Wall and the Great Wall of China.  Historians say the Great Wall provided China little security and the Berlin Wall we know fell and was crossed consistently. We also know the types of governments in place for those nation's - hint hint - they weren't the Democratic kind. Sorry, a wall is not for me. I don't think it's the best answer. Not even close. 

Anyone lacking the capacity to distinguish between a wall built to keep people out and one to keep people in is not worth engaging.

 

May you and your wife enjoy your self-pity party. I have a violin playing in the background for you.

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, Swill Merchant said:

The Senate didn't need 60 votes to pass it; 50 would have sufficed. The Senate needed 60 votes to override the Democrats who were blocking the vote. They refused to let it go to a vote, thus opting to shutdown the government.

 

Both parties have gone this route. Anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or a fool.

Is Trump even negotiating with Mexico now to pay for the wall? I mean what gives here? Has he totally given up on this? 

[Swill Merchant]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Is Trump even negotiating with Mexico now to pay for the wall? I mean what gives here? Has he totally given up on this? 

No one cares. Least of all you.

[Tiberius]

Just now, Swill Merchant said:

No one cares. Least of all you.

Our govrnement is shut down over something he said Mexico would pay for. And you are fine he isn't even trying anymore? 

[SoCoBills]

9 minutes ago, Swill Merchant said:

The Senate didn't need 60 votes to pass it; 50 would have sufficed. The Senate needed 60 votes to override the Democrats who were blocking the vote. They refused to let it go to a vote, thus opting to shutdown the government.

 

Both parties have gone this route. Anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or a fool.

Anyone lacking the capacity to distinguish between a wall built to keep people out and one to keep people in is not worth engaging.

 

May you and your wife enjoy your self-pity party. I have a violin playing in the background for you.

 

That was your big response? When you get flustered you resort to one liners and insults I see. Im not crying to anyone. I'm a hard working guy. My wife is easily the most intelligent person I've ever met and is also an extremely hard worker. We are actively looking for work. 

 

I apologize if my sharing our story during this government shutdown has somehow triggered you into behaving like an immature, arrogant and demeaning empathy lacking jerk.

Edited January 17, 2019 by SoCoBills

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, Swill Merchant said:

No one cares. Least of all you.

He based his entire campaign on building a wall and having Mexico pay for it.  And he stated on camera when with Pelosi and Schumer that he would take responsibility for shutting down the government.  Why should the American public give him a pass on actual statements he's made?  I care about them, and most people I know do as well.

9 minutes ago, Swill Merchant said:

The Senate didn't need 60 votes to pass it; 50 would have sufficed. The Senate needed 60 votes to override the Democrats who were blocking the vote. They refused to let it go to a vote, thus opting to shutdown the government.

 

Both parties have gone this route. Anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or a fool.

Anyone lacking the capacity to distinguish between a wall built to keep people out and one to keep people in is not worth engaging.

 

May you and your wife enjoy your self-pity party. I have a violin playing in the background for you.

No, the Senate voted to provide a spending bill with no funds for the wall, that would extend government funding through February. 

 

You can try and deflet all you want, but it is the President that said he will take responsibility for closing the government over the wall funding.  His words.  Do his words not matter?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

9 hours ago, SoCoBills said:

My wife and I are both federal employees. We have no idea when this shutdown will end and we are already struggling to figure out how to pay our bills. Between the 2 of us we have a good 50 applications out for work while the government is shutdown but my guess is nobody is calling because they don't want to hire someone to probably just lose them once the government opens back up. 

 

Retroactive pay is great but it doesn't pay the bills now. 

 

For the record - anyone who blames this shutdown on anyone other than Donald Trump is living in an alternative universe. Republicans in the Senate have passed multiple bills that would reopen the government. Trump won't sign them! The house has sent 6 passed bills over to the Senate but McConnell isn't taking those to the floor even though the Senate has the votes because - Trump won't sign them! Before the new members of Congress flipped the house the house and Senate agreed on a bill to fund the government and Trump informed them he would sign the bill until every Fox News pundit said it was a weak move that would destroy his Presidency and called for him to shut down the government. Trump then renigged on the deal and refused to sign! Trump himself in that infamous meeting with Pelosi and Schumer said he would shutdown the government and take the blame. 

 

To recap - Republican and Democrats in the house and Senate have the votes. They just don't have Trump. This is the Fox News / Trump shutdown. 

 

Whether you think a wall is a good idea or not is irrelevant.  

Sorry you are going through a tough time.  I think you're wrong about border security, and this issue is no more Trumps fault than it is yours.  This issue has been percolating for decades and the mantra to the public has always been "sign the bill, we can deal with this later.". 

 

I'm wondering if you're willing to share more details.  How long have you and your wife worked for the govt? What's your combined annual income, and what do your retirement plans look like? Pension, health insurance etc?  What age will you retire? Is the lack of a safety net because you just started for TSA making $15 an hour, or it just wasn't something that seemed to be a priority?  

 

 

 

 

[Kevbeau]

8 hours ago, Warcodered said:

If all government jobs are so unstable like this then you should think they should come with a plan to mitigate issues like this.

If only we had a Caucus of Problem Solvers

[B-Man]

White House Redefines Who Is Essential to Get Parts of Government Moving Again

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/us/politics/white-house-essential-shutdown.html

 

 

 

 

 

The State of the Shutdown by David Catron

Original Article

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have much in common with the character Fortunato in Edgar Allan Poe’s short story, “The Cask of Amontillado.” Having been lured into a political oubliette and chained to a wall, they are now being systematically immured by a man upon whom they have heaped countless insults. Like Poe’s ill-fated character, they hadn’t sobered up enough from their recent successes to realize that their antagonist was leading them into a trap when he declared in front of the cameras during their December White House meeting, “I am proud to shut down the government for border security.”

[Swill Merchant]

19 minutes ago, SoCoBills said:

 

That was your big response? When you get flustered you resort to one liners and insults I see. Im not crying to anyone. I'm a hard working guy. My wife is easily the most intelligent person I've ever met and is also an extremely hard worker. We are actively looking for work. 

 

I apologize if my sharing our story during this government shutdown has somehow triggered you into behaving like an immature, arrogant and demeaning empathy lacking jerk.

I'll happily engage in honest discussion with those of opposing opinions. However, I maintain a low tolerance threshold for dishonesty. Especially in a forum such as this one. 

 

If your error was a matter of genuine ignorance then an apology may be in order. However, you seem to have sufficient familiarity with the subject matter to know better.

 

If you have a good argument, put it forth. If you have to lie to make your point you should reconsider what motivates you to make such a point.

Edited January 17, 2019 by Swill Merchant

[3rdnlng]

31 minutes ago, SoCoBills said:

 

I think for myself, thank you very much. I tend to take heat from both sides because I've always been more of an independent. I'm a registered Democrat but I hold a lot of hate for the established politicians in both parties. I loathed Hillary Clinton probably as much as if not more than most right wingers and not because of her emails or conspiracy theories but because of her actual voting record. Her corporate PACs, the Clinton Foundation and how she is an ultimate politician without moral compass. I see her as a power seeker not a public servant. I remember watching videos of her rallies around the nation where she claimed to come under sniper fire a dozen times but the video of the trip she claims that she is holding kids and shaking hands and laughing it up on the tarmac. The DNC rigged the Primary for her. The Democratic Party establishment is very corrupt but so is the GOP leadership. Both parties are bought and paid for by big money lobbies whether it's Big Pharma, Big Oil, Wall Street or others. 

 

There is a rise within the Democratic Party that does have me excited though of "Justice Democrats" who refuse to take any lobby money. They have the entire Democratic Party running scared. I guarantee you will see endless hit piece attempts on any of them that try for a 2020 Dem bid come from both the GOP and the Dems. The establishment can't control those who don't take the legalized bribery that has become our model of governing. So again, I'm not biased. I'd vote for a Republican in a heartbeat over an establishment Democrat if the GOP candidate didn't take corporate PAC money and the Dem did. 

 

As for the rest - as you said they didn't have the votes in the Senate but the Senate has rolled to appease the will of Trump. It's sad that they are falling in line and Mitch isn't even letting them vote. Rumors are there are enough votes in the Senate to achieve a veto override but Mitch refuses to bring a vote to the floor which is a stunning rejection of the Democratic process. Trump is not a totalitarian dictator. Mitch needs to let the Senate be it's own separate body and vote.

 

I don't want a wall not because of the Democrats but because of my own research. A wall is minimally effective and monumentally cost heavy. Those who want to get into this country illegally typically won't just see a wall and give up. They can go under, over and through it. There is border fencing along a lot of the at risk points initially identified by border security but they still tunnel under. A saw can cut through the steel slats they are currently pushing. Trump projections for wall pricing are way below what they will actually be. Let's also be real - Trump is rebranding the wall into a fence but still calling it a wall. About half of all illegal immigration are Visa overstays. We also have people enter by land not along the Mexican border by boat, by plane and by way of Canada. We have topographic issues and eminent domain issues which further complicate matters. Maintenance will be a continuous burden over time. Illegal crossings are at a 46 year low as is. 90% of the drugs that cross the southern border cross via legal ports of entry which a wall won't stop. Other larger cartel supplies have not been impeded by the barriers in place. The cartels are the ones using drones and tunnels. 

 

Will a wall delay some people long enough for border agents to intercept? Sure, I suppose. But simple technology for radar and tracking along the border along with satellites and surveillance will also do that. I'd rather hire more agents and pay human beings than pay for an easily defeated inanimate object. We could also use more justices and more into the administrative and legal part of ICE that processes immigrants who try to legally enter to encourage usage of legal paths of citizenship. The wait times are often over year just to have your inquiry to enter the country even reviewed and in the mean time they are held. This encourages desperate illegal crossings. 

 

Then I research historical border walls. What types of governments built them and if they were effective. I think the Berlin Wall and the Great Wall of China.  Historians say the Great Wall provided China little security and the Berlin Wall we know fell and was crossed consistently. We also know the types of governments in place for those nation's - hint hint - they weren't the Democratic kind. Sorry, a wall is not for me. I don't think it's the best answer. Not even close. 

A couple points:

 

If half of illegal immigrants are visa overstays would you support severe penalties for all sanctuary cities and states that harbor them?

 

Walls or fences would funnel people trying to cross the border into areas better patrolled by Border Patrol. They also prevent caravans from rushing the border. If you think there won't be sensors installed along the new walls to detect tunneling you're crazy.

 

Walls to keep people out aren't the same as walls to keep people in.

[SoCoBills]

6 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Sorry you are going through a tough time.  I think you're wrong about border security, and this issue is no more Trumps fault than it is yours.  This issue has been percolating for decades and the mantra to the public has always been "sign the bill, we can deal with this later.". 

 

I'm wondering if you're willing to share more details.  How long have you and your wife worked for the govt? What's your combined annual income, and what do your retirement plans look like? Pension, health insurance etc?  What age will you retire? Is the lack of a safety net because you just started for TSA making $15 an hour, or it just wasn't something that seemed to be a priority?  

 

 

 

 

Long Island born and raised. This area is my home and where both our lives have always been. Unfortunately though the cost of living on Long Island is insane. We have debated trying to relocate and start over. To do that though one of us needs to get picked up for a government position at one of the other service centers around the nation and then the other will have to put in an exception harship transfer request which would take likely several months to fill and get us reunited in the same service center. 

 

I live in a home that would cost pennies elsewhere but since I'm on Long Island it costs a ton. We don't live lavishly. I've been with the government since 2009 and my wife since 2007. We purchased our first home 2 years ago and used our TSP's to cover down payment and closing costs. We have a 4 year old and also do volunteer work at a local animal rescue including fostering cats and dogs in our home. We work hard and we are passionate about our volunteer work. There are so many cats and dogs out there treated horribly and suffering. 

 

Combined annual income and other things is TMI for a message board for my liking. I can tell you we live on a super tight budget paycheck to paycheck, we almost never eat out, we don't drive fancy cars, our home isn't in some wealthy rich and nice neighborhood. It's an average working class area. 

 

The safety net also vanished instantly and was small to begin with due to cost of living. My dog tore her ACL (she had surgery yesterday) and the bill was several thousands of dollars thus far. Being off work is almost a blessing in that we are home to take care of her but terrible to not have income or just to use our paid vacation time we have saved. Also - my car was up for inspection and failed. I needed all 4 tires, breaks and some other issues. All in all it came to another $1,500. Planning can only get you so far. Life isn't a straight predictable road. ***** happens. Emergencies happen. 

 

While we are talking about this I'll throw out there that even among people with solid health insurance - medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States. Our healthcare system is broken. We often pay 10x more for the same medications as people from other countries.

[Swill Merchant]

35 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

He based his entire campaign on building a wall and having Mexico pay for it.  And he stated on camera when with Pelosi and Schumer that he would take responsibility for shutting down the government.  Why should the American public give him a pass on actual statements he's made?  I care about them, and most people I know do as well.

No, the Senate voted to provide a spending bill with no funds for the wall, that would extend government funding through February. 

 

You can try and deflet all you want, but it is the President that said he will take responsibility for closing the government over the wall funding.  His words.  Do his words not matter?

You do not appear interested in getting to the substance of the issue. You prefer a Crossfire level discussion, which I find neither interesting nor constructive.

 

These are campaign talking points that are irrelevant to determining a workable resolution at this juncture. 

 

These are not even issues that are important to you. They're talking points you think might persuade others to your POV, but they certainly aren't the core reasons why you hold your position. At least I hope not. That would be unbelievably sad.

Edited January 17, 2019 by Swill Merchant

[B-Man]

All bets are off for shutdown's impact on Super Bowl

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/all-bets-are-shutdown-s-impact-super-bowl-n959591

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

All bets are off for shutdown's impact on Super Bowl

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/all-bets-are-shutdown-s-impact-super-bowl-n959591

Maybe Trump will now try and start talking with Mexico about getting that funding

[SoCoBills]

33 minutes ago, Swill Merchant said:

I'll happily engage in honest discussion with those of opposing opinions. However, I maintain a low tolerance threshold for dishonesty. Especially in a forum such as this one. 

 

If your error was a matter of genuine ignorance then an apology may be in order. However, you seem to have sufficient familiarity with the subject matter to know better.

 

If you have a good argument, put it forth. If you have to lie to make your point you should reconsider what motivates you to make such a point.

 

The Great Wall was built to keep people out and it was ineffective. The Berlin Wall was built to keep people in by East Germany yes but also they said, to keep Capitalism out. They didn't allow people to cross in either direction except with permission legally at points like our own legal points of entry. 

 

Either way this is semantics. This is only one small point in a long post about why I personally am against the wall. Also in or out really isn't that much different. The question is does the impediment of a wall stop people from illegally getting to the other side? The answer is that it is only partially, I would even say minimally effective. The history of wall building has always had ties to totalitarian governments. 

 

30 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

A couple points:

 

If half of illegal immigrants are visa overstays would you support severe penalties for all sanctuary cities and states that harbor them?

 

Walls or fences would funnel people trying to cross the border into areas better patrolled by Border Patrol. They also prevent caravans from rushing the border. If you think there won't be sensors installed along the new walls to detect tunneling you're crazy.

 

Walls to keep people out aren't the same as walls to keep people in.

 

Lots of comments here:

 

1. why aren't there sensors on what's there now then? 

 

2. I believe in due process and the law but you are vaguely stating "severe penalties" and to me I would say the penalty of a visa overstay should typically be deportation and an enforced wait period and process to be able to legally return again. I'd want these things to be more of a case by case basis though which would require funding allocated towards legal and administrative needs. I mean are these overstays actively in process towards citizenship? Are they contributing to society?Any criminal record?  A lot of the problem is that the paths to citizenship and visas are all under attack at the same time as being illegally in the USA is under attack. We need better and more efficient processes to handle visas, legal immigration requests and border entries. 

 

3. Caravans - the last big scary caravan Trump and all of Fox News labeled a hostile invasion is already done with and now they are talking about a different caravan forming in Honduras. Where are the images of mass invading caravans storming our borders? I haven't seen them. It isn't like that. 

Edited January 17, 2019 by SoCoBills

[oldmanfan]

8 minutes ago, Swill Merchant said:

You do not appear interested in getting to the substance of the issue. You prefer a Crossfire level discussion, which I find neither interesting nor constructive.

 

These are campaign talking points that are irrelevant to determining a workable resolution at this juncture. 

 

These are not even issues that are important to you. They're talking points you think might persuade others to your POV, but they certainly aren't the core reasons why you hold your position. At least I hope not. That would be unbelievably sad.

At some point each side is going to have to compromise on this and get the government open.  There is no question about that.  But to the larger point, yes I do take issue when I have a president that refuses to take responsibility for his own words, or with those who would support that.  The substance of the issue is this:  there was no crisis or emergency for two years that required a government shut down until one part of the government was taken over by the opposing party.  And now it is a crisis that for some reason requires shutting down key aspects of government.  It is all political nonsense.   

 

It is quite simple really. The President said if he does not get the funding for his wall he would take responsibility for shutting down the government.  Those are his words.  And words matter.  Now he is trying to say it's others fault and not his.  So, basically he is telling us we cannot trust him to stick to his word.  This, of course, is not exactly a secret about him.  But then how do foreign leaders and adversaries trust our government?  How do the people trust he will keep his word on other aspects of government?  This is a problem.  he said it, he needs to own it.

 

And just so you know, it is not partisan with me.  When Obama went back on his word about the red line with Syria, I was through with him as well.  His foreign policy was feckless because foreign governments knew his word meant nothing.

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

At some point each side is going to have to compromise on this and get the government open.  There is no question about that. 

 

Actuslly, there is.  Because this isn't about a wall, it's about who runs the country, Trump, or Pelosi and Schumer.  Who all have a history of defining "compromise" as "I get what I want, and you can suck it."

 

Neither side is compromising on that.  It's a straight-up Manichaean death match.

[Swill Merchant]

3 minutes ago, SoCoBills said:

 

The Great Wall was built to keep people out and it was ineffective. The Berlin Wall was built to keep people in by East Germany yes but also they said, to keep Capitalism out. They didn't allow people to cross in either direction except with permission legally at points like our own legal points of entry. 

 

Either way this is semantics. This is only one small point in a long post about why I personally am against the wall. Also in or out really isn't that much different. The question is does the impediment of a wall stop people from illegally getting to the other side? The answer is that it is only partially, I would even say minimally effective. The history of wall building has always had ties to totalitarian governments. 

It is not a matter of semantics in any sense. It goes directly to the intent and purpose of the wall. Your argument relies on a guilt by association style correlation fallacy. To follow the principle you're espousing consistently you would have to conclude that the nature of prison walls is indistinguishable from those of a bank.

[Swill Merchant]

9 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Actuslly, there is.  Because this isn't about a wall, it's about who runs the country, Trump, or Pelosi and Schumer.  Who all have a history of defining "compromise" as "I get what I want, and you can suck it."

 

Neither side is compromising on that.  It's a straight-up Manichaean death match.

Your overall point is correct, however, the unwillingness to compromise is not symmetrical in my estimation. The President has gone from a $20b concrete wall to a $5b steel barrier. Pelosi has said under no condition will they provide any funding for any barrier at any time. She's not even giving the appearance of a willingness to compromise.

[SoCoBills]

8 minutes ago, Swill Merchant said:

It is not a matter of semantics in any sense. It goes directly to the intent and purpose of the wall. Your argument relies on a guilt by association style correlation fallacy. To follow the principle you're espousing consistently you would have to conclude that the nature of prison walls is indistinguishable from those of a bank.

 

But as I just started the wall was meant to keep people from moving beyond the wall in either direction. Was keeping them in communist East Germany a priority? Yes. They also were looking to keep people out.  

 

I will give you that there is a difference there in some ways but I've grown frustrated with this issue because on Fox News and the like and even Trump himself has compared rich people's homes having walls around them or doors being locked to homes to border walls. I hope you call out how obnoxious that is too? 

 

Also, you are cherry picking the weakest little last to be mentioned tidbit of my post as a way to try and discredit all of the other points I made about the wall itself before that. Lesson learned. I should have left the last part out to avoid the inclusion of a weaker link for you to attack. 

Edited January 17, 2019 by SoCoBills

[Tiberius]

10 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Actuslly, there is.  Because this isn't about a wall, it's about who runs the country, Trump, or Pelosi and Schumer.  Who all have a history of defining "compromise" as "I get what I want, and you can suck it."

 

Neither side is compromising on that.  It's a straight-up Manichaean death match.

No no no, Trump is the only one of those three asking for something. He wants the stupid wall. Why isn't he trying to get Mexico to pay for it? Not even trying! 

[Foxx]

25 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

At some point each side is going to have to compromise on this and get the government open.  There is no question about that.  But to the larger point, yes I do take issue when I have a president that refuses to take responsibility for his own words, or with those who would support that.  The substance of the issue is this:  there was no crisis or emergency for two years that required a government shut down until one part of the government was taken over by the opposing party.  And now it is a crisis that for some reason requires shutting down key aspects of government.  It is all political nonsense.   

 

It is quite simple really. The President said if he does not get the funding for his wall he would take responsibility for shutting down the government.  Those are his words.  And words matter.  Now he is trying to say it's others fault and not his.  So, basically he is telling us we cannot trust him to stick to his word.  This, of course, is not exactly a secret about him.  But then how do foreign leaders and adversaries trust our government?  How do the people trust he will keep his word on other aspects of government?  This is a problem.  he said it, he needs to own it.

 

And just so you know, it is not partisan with me.  When Obama went back on his word about the red line with Syria, I was through with him as well.  His foreign policy was feckless because foreign governments knew his word meant nothing.

responsibility and fault can mean two different things. Trump could very well be responsible while the Dems are at fault.

 

6 minutes ago, SoCoBills said:

... I will give you that there is a difference there in some ways but I've grown frustrated with this issue because on Fox News and the like and even Trump himself has compared rich people's homes having walls around them or doors being locked to homes to border walls. I hope you call out how obnoxious that is too? ...

why is it obnoxious? does it not essentially boil down to the same thing?

Edited January 17, 2019 by Foxx

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

28 minutes ago, SoCoBills said:

Long Island born and raised. This area is my home and where both our lives have always been. Unfortunately though the cost of living on Long Island is insane. We have debated trying to relocate and start over. To do that though one of us needs to get picked up for a government position at one of the other service centers around the nation and then the other will have to put in an exception harship transfer request which would take likely several months to fill and get us reunited in the same service center. 

 

I live in a home that would cost pennies elsewhere but since I'm on Long Island it costs a ton. We don't live lavishly. I've been with the government since 2009 and my wife since 2007. We purchased our first home 2 years ago and used our TSP's to cover down payment and closing costs. We have a 4 year old and also do volunteer work at a local animal rescue including fostering cats and dogs in our home. We work hard and we are passionate about our volunteer work. There are so many cats and dogs out there treated horribly and suffering. 

 

Combined annual income and other things is TMI for a message board for my liking. I can tell you we live on a super tight budget paycheck to paycheck, we almost never eat out, we don't drive fancy cars, our home isn't in some wealthy rich and nice neighborhood. It's an average working class area. 

 

The safety net also vanished instantly and was small to begin with due to cost of living. My dog tore her ACL (she had surgery yesterday) and the bill was several thousands of dollars thus far. Being off work is almost a blessing in that we are home to take care of her but terrible to not have income or just to use our paid vacation time we have saved. Also - my car was up for inspection and failed. I needed all 4 tires, breaks and some other issues. All in all it came to another $1,500. Planning can only get you so far. Life isn't a straight predictable road. ***** happens. Emergencies happen. 

 

While we are talking about this I'll throw out there that even among people with solid health insurance - medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States. Our healthcare system is broken. We often pay 10x more for the same medications as people from other countries.

Thanks for the reply. I was on hold when I sent the last response and figured I might get an "f u" reply in response to questions about income etc. I was just trying to get a gauge on what your situation looked like. 

 

This whole shutdown thing seems another wedge that politicians use to drive people apart. I read your comments and thoughts about the wall, and while I respect what you have to say, here's where it hits home for me. 

 

Something has to be done, everyone knows it and there is no perfect solution. There never is.  If the argument is "we can do better" than I would suggest that argument is always going to be there. The natural follow up question to me is "Are you willing to remain furloughed for an extended period of time in order to get what you want as a citizen?". 

 

This is where I think you're being played.  The truth likely is that most people directly impacted by the shutdown would trade the $5b for a return to work. I have seen no evidence that furloughed people are taking yo the streets demanding the dems hold the line regardless of cost. 

 

Likewise, those not impacted by the shutdown fall into one of four categories:

 

1. Those that care and want the shutdown to end;

2. Those that may care but feel the fight is worth it;

3. Those that dont care and feel the fight needs to happen;

4. Those that don't even know it's happening. 

 

All other things being equal, understanding you see this as a Trump issue...would you prefer the dems acquiesce or hold the line in spite of the problems you are facing? 

 

 

 

 

[Swill Merchant]

2 minutes ago, SoCoBills said:

 

But as I just started the wall was meant to keep people from moving beyond the wall in either direction. Was keeping them in communist East Germany a priority? Yes. They also were looking to keep people out.  

 

I will give you that there is a difference there in some ways but I've grown frustrated with this issue because on Fox News and the like and even Trump himself has compared rich people's homes having walls around them or doors being locked to homes to border walls. I hope you call out how obnoxious that is too? 

 

And you are cherry picking the weakest little last to be mentioned tidbit of my post as a way to try and discredit all of the other points I made about the wall itself before that. You are cherry picking. 

I picked that point because it disturbed me. As previously stated, dishonest discourse is a pet peave. Honest disagreement is another story.

 

As to the comparison between border walls and home security walls, I think the meaningful similarities are greater there than in your comparison to the Berlin wall, but the distinctions are significant enough that I do not tend to use those comparisons.

[Nanker]

10 hours ago, SoCoBills said:

 

What an arrogant and ignorant thing to say. 80% of all Americans live paycheck to paycheck. It's not easy to "prepare" for this. 

 

Correct - right now we are not considered "essential" but do you even understand what that means? It's terminology. It doesn't mean our jobs aren't both important and necessary. Essential employees typically just work in departments with strict statutes. Meaning if things are not completed by the statute the government has a major problem. Once a statute is blown there is no catching up on it later. 

 

It doesn't help either that Long Island has either the first or 2nd highest cost of living in the country. 

You eligible now for unemployment from NYS?

[row_33]

[SoCoBills]

30 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Thanks for the reply. I was on hold when I sent the last response and figured I might get an "f u" reply in response to questions about income etc. I was just trying to get a gauge on what your situation looked like. 

 

This whole shutdown thing seems another wedge that politicians use to drive people apart. I read your comments and thoughts about the wall, and while I respect what you have to say, here's where it hits home for me. 

 

Something has to be done, everyone knows it and there is no perfect solution. There never is.  If the argument is "we can do better" than I would suggest that argument is always going to be there. The natural follow up question to me is "Are you willing to remain furloughed for an extended period of time in order to get what you want as a citizen?". 

 

This is where I think you're being played.  The truth likely is that most people directly impacted by the shutdown would trade the $5b for a return to work. I have seen no evidence that furloughed people are taking yo the streets demanding the dems hold the line regardless of cost. 

 

Likewise, those not impacted by the shutdown fall into one of four categories:

 

1. Those that care and want the shutdown to end;

2. Those that may care but feel the fight is worth it;

3. Those that dont care and feel the fight needs to happen;

4. Those that don't even know it's happening. 

 

All other things being equal, understanding you see this as a Trump issue...would you prefer the dems acquiesce or hold the line in spite of the problems you are facing? 

 

 

 

 

 

First and foremost I want to thank you and let you know that I 100% respect your opinion as you've voiced your concerns in an intelligent and fair minded and respectful manner. A lot of people on here seem incapable of having any real political discourse. 

 

My entire Facebook feed are friends and coworkers who work for the government. Many of them voted for Trump and I'd say 95% of the people I know that are government employees blame Trump for the shutdown even if they want the wall. Out of the people I know who are openly Trump supporters and government employees I'd say 3/4's of them fully blame Trump for the shutdown.

 

I have one female friend in particular who is a strong Trump supporter that I work alongside daily and she even said Trump needs to open the government. 

 

As for your question I'd mostly hold the line because if Trump gets his way at this could set an extremely dangerous precident. Unlike with the healthcare shutdown this is a manufactured crisis. It is wildly unpopular Nationwide and it is littered with propaganda. Before Democrats seized control of the house it didn't have the votes to get through and it certainly doesn't now. How Mitch has behaved with not opening the floor to vote as if Trump is a supreme ruler of a totalitarian country worries me. The impact has gone far beyond wall or no wall. Democrats in the establishment aren't any better. Say if an establishment  Democrat wins in 2020 and the shutdown gets Trump his wall you don't think that President and the Dems in the Senate would do the same thing for even longer next time to get what they want? What if Trump gets what he wants and wins in 2020 and wants some new campaign promise fulfilled? You don't think he will do this again?

 

 

If it were me negotiating as a Democrat from the beginning I'd have first compiled facts like a business pitch. I'd visit the entire border and speak with ice and border agents top to bottom. I'd have them identify key areas of need for fencing and personnel and technology. I'd have pitched to the President we can add some border fencing here, here and here per the reports of border experts and use this money for this, this and this. 

 

In the end Trump could say he achieved getting more border fencing along more of the border and then lie like he does in 2019 and claim the decreased immigration numbers are his doing even though they've been on the decline for decades and is at a 46 year low and Democrats can get something in exchange whether it be DACA, better paths to citizenship or something else. 

 

I think part of the reason this didn't happen other than incompetence from both sides is the propaganda nature of Trump's entire Presidency. Never in my life have I witnessed a following where people don't care about what a guy says, whether it's truth or lie, or whether he said the exact opposite thing just a few days prior. If the Democrats give Trump even a mile of fencing Trump is likely to call that mile of fencing a wall and claim the rest of the wall is already being built and even if easily debunked somehow his base will believe it and then in 2020 it will happen again. The agreement would have to contain a lot of language and details including some sort of guarantee that if you give him some now he won't go asking for the moon a bit down the road. 

Edited January 17, 2019 by SoCoBills

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Teddy KGB]

So when you researched border walls which one was your favorite ? 

 

Israel’s ?   The one around Obama’s house ? 

 

Whats the most effective type ? 

[row_33]

15 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said:

So when you researched border walls which one was your favorite ? 

 

Israel’s ?   The one around Obama’s house ? 

 

Whats the most effective type ? 

 

Alcatraz

[IDBillzFan]

[boyst]

2 hours ago, SoCoBills said:

 

That was your big response? When you get flustered you resort to one liners and insults I see. Im not crying to anyone. I'm a hard working guy. My wife is easily the most intelligent person I've ever met and is also an extremely hard worker. We are actively looking for work. 

 

I apologize if my sharing our story during this government shutdown has somehow triggered you into behaving like an immature, arrogant and demeaning empathy lacking jerk.

Then you should have saved sufficient funds to sustain yourself for 6 months minimum like an adult.  Stop whining because you're irresponsible and chose not to save and the shutdown is now impacting you.