Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And for the 61st time in the last 70 years, anyone wanting their government to be smaller, cheaper and less intrusive has lost.
No matter which party is in power, if smaller, less costly government is your concern, even if literally just one dollar less than the previous year...YOU LOSE.
As my fellow anarchist/libertarians have sardonically pointed out yeah, voting...real effective at changing things.
Trump hasn't signed it yet. The Democrats are gleeful. That tells me the cowardly, career, Establishment Republicans caved to BIG GOVERNMENT yet again. I think it will be vetoed, and rightfully so.
Trump hasn't signed it yet. The Democrats are gleeful. That tells me the cowardly, career, Establishment Republicans caved to BIG GOVERNMENT yet again. I think it will be vetoed, and rightfully so.
Only quibble I have with your post is the concept of Republicans "caving" to big government. They are big government, so following their own governing philosophy isn't so much "caving" as it is "adhering to their party principles."
Any American who wants cheaper, smaller, less intrusive government has exactly zero representation. ZERO POINT ZERO ZERO, nobody, nothing, never.
Trump hasn't signed it yet. The Democrats are gleeful. That tells me the cowardly, career, Establishment Republicans caved to BIG GOVERNMENT yet again. I think it will be vetoed, and rightfully so.
It’s almost like people working in “Big Government” benefit from the expansion of “Big Government.” Amazing.
Art of the deal my ass. If you are a republican or conservative you have to be sick to your stomach tonight.
" And though more than $1 billion was allocated to border security, Dems won a provision that the money can go to fences and levees as well as repairs of existing infrastructure, but not toward the concrete wall envisioned by the president."
A wall isn't going to stop illegal immigration, go after the employers. As for the rest of the bill, I agree - it's too much spending: especially regarding the bloated military budget.
The good walls already in place have brought illegal immigration down to a trickle in those areas so you were saying? Not all illegal entrants are here for jobs either, thus the wall. A $25 billion wall vs the $100 billion that illegal aliens cost us is too much to spend?
Said the Senate isn't going to do a budget next year so this will go beyond six months as stated, which means
No money for the wall and fewer agents hired.
Space to detain illegals will be reduced to less than we have now which means there will be no point in arresting them. Catch and release will remain.
Sanctuary cities will continue getting money.
We won't be allowed to replace current bad fencing with one of the prototypes. Mulvaney said it would.be a prototype wall. Not sure what the truth is
Start emailing the White House and calling Make a lot of noise!
Pass it on!
Shut down the government!
I'm still listening to the radio. Will add more later.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is why Trump should have vetoed the bill
