Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Government Shut Downs.


45 replies to this topic

#26
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,480 posts

Not really looking forward to a Trump Oval Office speech tonight. I mean I made up my mind - I don't want my money to go to a wall. Why not fix Flint, MI or help veterans get better health care? 6 actual terrorists stopped. It's created hype and fear. I watch reality tv for crash and burns. I want my government to function quietly in a corner and STFU. Trump is not going to make me change my mind.



#27
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

It wasn't literal conspiracy theory feelings, just that feeling you get when a conspiracy theorist starts going off and you know there's no reasoning with the crazy you're about to hear.

 

I don't know.  If you think I'm in that vein, you should probably should talk to more conservative people.  Then I wouldn't seem so odd.  I live in a pretty liberal area and even I have to deal with people who would be much more likely to meet that criteria.

 

Me, I'm a Romney-type squish according to a lot of Republicans these days.

 

Unlike providing no funding for the ACA in 2013, Chuck, Nancy, and Democrats, are not taking the position of no funding for the Secure Fence Act but instead refuse funding for a specific component of the Secure Fence Act.

 

I'm not sure how part or full (particularly when the construction is the main aspect of the bill) makes any particular difference.

 

Let's recall, the power of the purse is a very strong power, Congress's trump card really.  It's strong enough that Congress could use it to stop a war even after  they had voted to declare it.  Heck, even presidents routinely simply refused to spend money even after it was appropriated up until the 1970s.  It makes no sense that future Congresses would be compelled to pay for things that they do not wish to continue.

 

Second, Trump's prior remarks demonstrate he desires a wall which exceeds the one contemplated in the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

 

I'm sure he does.  However, it does remain that the funding for what has been legislatively authorized is not being completed due to Congressional withholding of funds.

 

Again, Trump is not the basis for our civics.

 

Third, arguably the fence under the Secure Fence Act has been completed. To be sure, whether the fence under the Secure Fence Act has in fact been completed is a very contentious issue, but it is not at all clear there is a lack of funding to accomplish the goal of a fence as contemplated under the Secure Fence Act since erection of the fence may have already been accomplished. Of course, the fact that construction of a fence contemplated under the Secure Fence Act was made discretionary by a subsequent amendment in 2007, thereby making more ambiguous whether the wall is or is not completed. My point here, however, is that a rational argument can be made the act has been met.

 

Whether an argument can be made or not is immaterial.  The discretion was placed within the hands of the DHS.  And, under Trump, DHS has argued for the expansion and funding of a wall.



#28
James Madison

James Madison

    Notre Dame Fanatic

  • Member
  • 7,089 posts

It wasn't literal conspiracy theory feelings, just that feeling you get when a conspiracy theorist starts going off and you know there's no reasoning with the crazy you're about to hear.

 
I don't know.  If you think I'm in that vein, you should probably should talk to more conservative people.  Then I wouldn't seem so odd.  I live in a pretty liberal area and even I have to deal with people who would be much more likely to meet that criteria.
 
Me, I'm a Romney-type squish according to a lot of Republicans these days.
 

Unlike providing no funding for the ACA in 2013, Chuck, Nancy, and Democrats, are not taking the position of no funding for the Secure Fence Act but instead refuse funding for a specific component of the Secure Fence Act.

 
I'm not sure how part or full (particularly when the construction is the main aspect of the bill) makes any particular difference.
 
Let's recall, the power of the purse is a very strong power, Congress's trump card really.  It's strong enough that Congress could use it to stop a war even after  they had voted to declare it.  Heck, even presidents routinely simply refused to spend money even after it was appropriated up until the 1970s.  It makes no sense that future Congresses would be compelled to pay for things that they do not wish to continue.
 

Second, Trump's prior remarks demonstrate he desires a wall which exceeds the one contemplated in the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

 
I'm sure he does.  However, it does remain that the funding for what has been legislatively authorized is not being completed due to Congressional withholding of funds.
 
Again, Trump is not the basis for our civics.
 

Third, arguably the fence under the Secure Fence Act has been completed. To be sure, whether the fence under the Secure Fence Act has in fact been completed is a very contentious issue, but it is not at all clear there is a lack of funding to accomplish the goal of a fence as contemplated under the Secure Fence Act since erection of the fence may have already been accomplished. Of course, the fact that construction of a fence contemplated under the Secure Fence Act was made discretionary by a subsequent amendment in 2007, thereby making more ambiguous whether the wall is or is not completed. My point here, however, is that a rational argument can be made the act has been met.

 
Whether an argument can be made or not is immaterial.  The discretion was placed within the hands of the DHS.  And, under Trump, DHS has argued for the expansion and funding of a wall.

I'm sure he does.  However, it does remain that the funding for what has been legislatively authorized is not being completed due to Congressional withholding of funds.


But that is not the basis for the current government shutdown, whereas no funding for the ACA was a basis for the government shutdown. That alone is a significant difference between the two shutdowns.

It would be one thing if he were asking for funding to erect a wall contemplated by the law, pursuant to the law, funding to meet the promise of a wall contemplated by the 2006 law, but he isnt, and since he isnt, asserting a wall is law like the ACA is law doesnt make these two shutdowns parallel.

I'm not sure how part or full (particularly when the construction is the main aspect of the bill) makes any particular difference.


A lot! There is a vast difference between zero funding to implement a law, thereby ensuring near certainty the law is not implemented, and some money allocated to funding a law, thereby allowing some of the law to be implemented. The Republicans in 2013 clearly understood this difference, as providing zero funding for the ACA undeniably facilitated a very high likeklihood of precluding the ACA from being implemented.

#29
James Madison

James Madison

    Notre Dame Fanatic

  • Member
  • 7,089 posts

It wasn't literal conspiracy theory feelings, just that feeling you get when a conspiracy theorist starts going off and you know there's no reasoning with the crazy you're about to hear.

 
I don't know.  If you think I'm in that vein, you should probably should talk to more conservative people.  Then I wouldn't seem so odd.  I live in a pretty liberal area and even I have to deal with people who would be much more likely to meet that criteria.
 
Me, I'm a Romney-type squish according to a lot of Republicans these days.
 

Unlike providing no funding for the ACA in 2013, Chuck, Nancy, and Democrats, are not taking the position of no funding for the Secure Fence Act but instead refuse funding for a specific component of the Secure Fence Act.

 
I'm not sure how part or full (particularly when the construction is the main aspect of the bill) makes any particular difference.
 
Let's recall, the power of the purse is a very strong power, Congress's trump card really.  It's strong enough that Congress could use it to stop a war even after  they had voted to declare it.  Heck, even presidents routinely simply refused to spend money even after it was appropriated up until the 1970s.  It makes no sense that future Congresses would be compelled to pay for things that they do not wish to continue.
 

Second, Trump's prior remarks demonstrate he desires a wall which exceeds the one contemplated in the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

 
I'm sure he does.  However, it does remain that the funding for what has been legislatively authorized is not being completed due to Congressional withholding of funds.
 
Again, Trump is not the basis for our civics.
 

Third, arguably the fence under the Secure Fence Act has been completed. To be sure, whether the fence under the Secure Fence Act has in fact been completed is a very contentious issue, but it is not at all clear there is a lack of funding to accomplish the goal of a fence as contemplated under the Secure Fence Act since erection of the fence may have already been accomplished. Of course, the fact that construction of a fence contemplated under the Secure Fence Act was made discretionary by a subsequent amendment in 2007, thereby making more ambiguous whether the wall is or is not completed. My point here, however, is that a rational argument can be made the act has been met.

 
Whether an argument can be made or not is immaterial.  The discretion was placed within the hands of the DHS.  And, under Trump, DHS has argued for the expansion and funding of a wall.

I'm sure he does.  However, it does remain that the funding for what has been legislatively authorized is not being completed due to Congressional withholding of funds.

But that is not the basis for the current government shutdown, whereas no funding for the ACA was a basis for the government shutdown. The current shutdown is not over a lack of funding for the wall contemplated by the Secure Fence Act. That alone is a significant difference between the two shutdowns.

It would be one thing if he were asking for funding to erect a wall contemplated by the law, pursuant to the law, funding to meet the promise of a wall contemplated by the 2006 law, but he isnt, and since he isnt, asserting a wall is law like the ACA is law doesnt make these two shutdowns parallel.

I'm not sure how part or full (particularly when the construction is the main aspect of the bill) makes any particular difference.

A lot! There is a vast difference between zero funding to implement a law, thereby ensuring near certainty the law is not implemented, and some money allocated to funding a law, thereby allowing some of the law to be implemented. The Republicans in 2013 clearly understood this difference, as providing zero funding for the ACA undeniably facilitated a very high likeklihood of precluding the ACA from being implemented.

#30
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

A lot! There is a vast difference between zero funding to implement a law, thereby ensuring near certainty the law is not implemented, and some money allocated to funding a law, thereby allowing some of the law to be implemented. The Republicans in 2013 clearly understood this difference, as providing zero funding for the ACA undeniably facilitated a very high likeklihood of precluding the ACA from being implemented.

 

I'm not seeing the vast difference as a matter of Congress's inherent power not to spend money they don't want to spend.  You seem to be on the side that Congress is obligated to fund the laws they pass, but only as long as it's a big enough segment of the law.

 

 

I don't know where this obligation originates from.

 

But that is not the basis for the current government shutdown, whereas no funding for the ACA was a basis for the government shutdown. The current shutdown is not over a lack of funding for the wall contemplated by the Secure Fence Act. That alone is a significant difference between the two shutdowns.

 

The fact remains that it is the law and Trump's demands fall well within the scope of funding it, even if his rhetoric demands more.  The $5 billion won't go beyond the border of the Secure Fence Act anyway.



#31
James Madison

James Madison

    Notre Dame Fanatic

  • Member
  • 7,089 posts

 

A lot! There is a vast difference between zero funding to implement a law, thereby ensuring near certainty the law is not implemented, and some money allocated to funding a law, thereby allowing some of the law to be implemented. The Republicans in 2013 clearly understood this difference, as providing zero funding for the ACA undeniably facilitated a very high likeklihood of precluding the ACA from being implemented.

 

I'm not seeing the vast difference as a matter of Congress's inherent power not to spend money they don't want to spend.  You seem to be on the side that Congress is obligated to fund the laws they pass, but only as long as it's a big enough segment of the law.

 

 

I don't know where this obligation originates from.

 

 

 

But that is not the basis for the current government shutdown, whereas no funding for the ACA was a basis for the government shutdown. The current shutdown is not over a lack of funding for the wall contemplated by the Secure Fence Act. That alone is a significant difference between the two shutdowns.

 

The fact remains that it is the law and Trump's demands fall well within the scope of funding it, even if his rhetoric demands more.  The $5 billion won't go beyond the border of the Secure Fence Act anyway.

 

I'm not seeing the vast difference as a matter of Congress's inherent power not to spend money they don't want to spend.  You seem to be on the side that Congress is obligated to fund the laws they pass, but only as long as it's a big enough segment of the law.

 

That is not my argument. As a matter of fact, that would weaken my argument. I am asserting criticism of Cruz, Paul, and Republicans for providing no funding for the ACA, prompting a veto threat from Obama, and subsequently the government shutdown over the zero funding stunt, were rightfully blamed for the government shutdown. I am not seeing the hypocrisy or contradiction that you see between that 2013 shutdown and this shutdown, in regards to assigning blame.

 

The fact remains that it is the law and Trump's demands fall well within the scope of funding it, even if his rhetoric demands more.  The $5 billion won't go beyond the border of the Secure Fence Act anyway.

 

It is unclear if "Trump's demands fall well within the scope" of the Secure Fence Act. The wall Trump aspires to build is not contemplated by the Secure Fence Act. There is the wall contemplated by the law and then there is Trump's wall, the two are not identical. Consequently, Trump's wall, and funding for it, cannot be said to be "law." Exacerbating the lack of clarity as to whether Trump's request for 5 billion for a border wall is within the scope of the Secure Fence Act, is how exactly it will be spent. Will the money be spent for the wall specified in the Secure Fence Act, or for the creation of a wall in areas not contemplated under the Secure Fence Act but certainly consistent with Trump's vision of a "great wall."

 

I am not seeing the parallels, as you do, between the Democrats refusal to provide funding for a wall in 2018, and so far in 2019, and Republicans providing no funding for any part of the ACA in 2013, such that there is hypocrisy, a contradiction, in the assessment of blame.

 



#32
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,480 posts

Nancy Pelosi's burn of Trump after his weird negotiation tactic of leaving the meeting was AWESOME. I think she's going to barely veil her opinions of our Commander in Chief. Not all government workers can ask Daddy to help them pay for stuff as the pinch continues. Now we need to start a go fund me for National Park employees affected. Or at least visit a park and help pitch in to keep things from getting rouddy and bad.



#33
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

In what world is leaving the negotiating table a weird tactic?



#34
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 19,013 posts
Especially after the other side says they're unwilling to negotiate.

Trump deserves blame for causing the shutdown, but the Democrats are guilty of extending it. At this point I think it's mainly trying to keep the liberal wing happy and keep them from turning on Pelosi.
  • El Chalupacabra +1 this

#35
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,518 posts
What Pelosi Burn?

#36
El Chalupacabra

El Chalupacabra

    Member

  • Supporters
  • 8,781 posts


Trump deserves blame for causing the shutdown, but the Democrats are guilty of extending it. At this point I think it's mainly trying to keep the liberal wing happy and keep them from turning on Pelosi.

Couldn't have said it better.   Though I would point out that what you describe as liberal wing is the far, far left who are advocating unfettered borders.  Somehow Pelosi is taking her stance on not even negotiating a border wall on the grounds of being immoral, which translates as not agreeing to one under any circumstances.  

 

I personally think a wall that extends the entire border is folly, but I do believe the border should be patrolled by both people and UAVs have fences in high traffic areas, have sensors installed in other traffic areas.  In short, I agree that we should strengthen the border, but I am also not heartless. I think where there are genuine cases where people qualify as refugees or asylum, we should do everything in our power to help them.  It is the humane thing to do, after all. 



#37
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,480 posts

Both sides suck. I can't get the video to post of Pelosi making a snarky comment about Trump. :(



#38
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 19,013 posts

Trump deserves blame for causing the shutdown, but the Democrats are guilty of extending it. At this point I think it's mainly trying to keep the liberal wing happy and keep them from turning on Pelosi.

Couldn't have said it better.   Though I would point out that what you describe as liberal wing is the far, far left who are advocating unfettered borders.  Somehow Pelosi is taking her stance on not even negotiating a border wall on the grounds of being immoral, which translates as not agreeing to one under any circumstances.  


Pelosi wouldn’t be worried if it was just the far left open borders group. It’s the liberal “Never Agree With Trump” side that’s the issue. They don’t care about the wall, but they care about Trump not winning.
  • El Chalupacabra +1 this

#39
BATMAN

BATMAN

    Holy Hallucination

  • Member
  • 2,054 posts

The Dems took control of the House on January 3, worked 2 days, then took a 3 day weekend. They don't deserve to be paid.



#40
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,480 posts

Oh I agree with that. No pay for Congressmen or women until they get the Trumpster to see some sort of compromise. 

 

Indians on some reservations are feeling the pain this past Friday. My Mom used to teach at Picacho Peak Elementary and many of her former school kids rely on aid by the US Government for their reservation life. No pay on Friday means a lot of pinching of pennies. At least Picacho Peak area doesn't get snow like up in Flagstaff. 



#41
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 19,013 posts
All reports sound like Trump is willing to compromise and offer things to the Democrats but they refuse to compromise. By all accounts he offered to open the government in exchange for Pelosi supporting the wall, and she refused. Less reliable reports say he's open to meaningful legislation on things like DACA, but the Dems are completely unwilling to have a win if it means Trump also wins.

#42
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,480 posts

It's so silly. I know it may feel to the Democrats that they are capitulating to a toddler when you're dealing with our President but other things besides this wall hang in the balance. And they may even be trying to flex their muscles a little about this as election years are further away but not a good start to this year.

 

In other news I'm thinking of getting a plane ticket to visit some relatives and planning for extra long TSA lines for spring break! HA!



#43
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,518 posts
Trump offered the Daca for wall funding last year and the Dems said no chance. AFTER Trump tried to end Daca! A wall, fence whatever, would be a forever reminder to the Democrats that "Trump was here".

#44
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 34,569 posts
At some points Democrats need to realize that while half of Trump's votes may have been from racist yokels, a lot of them came from people who were just plain sick of all politicians and that "a straight talking outsider" might shake things up.

Terrible thing to base a vote on, but If Democrats don't work on how they present themselves, the next election isn't going to make things any better.
  • El Chalupacabra +1 this

#45
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,518 posts
Tell me you understand the irony of your post?

#46
James Madison

James Madison

    Notre Dame Fanatic

  • Member
  • 7,089 posts

Especially after the other side says they're unwilling to negotiate.

Trump deserves blame for causing the shutdown, but the Democrats are guilty of extending it. At this point I think it's mainly trying to keep the liberal wing happy and keep them from turning on Pelosi.


You may be right. It was reported Paul was working on a compromise but Pence, through Trump, rejected the idea. The House Dems passed legislation opening parts of the government, but Trump vowed a veto, and the House legislation isnt immune to the veto.

I would like to learn more about these, at the moment, obscure attempts to compromise.



Reply to this topic