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.
Hopefully Trump goes balls deep into the next shutdown and cuts those workers financial stability.
"Shutdown cost U.S. economy $11 billion, budget office says"
This is how Trump manages things, his train of thought. Why he had to file for bankruptcy 4 times. He wanted $5 billion for the wall, but the shutdown cost $11 billion. And is considering another shutdown to get what he wants. Now you see why he cant get loans in this country. Thats your hero.
There is the short answer and the long answer, not that either will be heard.
SHORT ANSWER: Schumer was not okay with Trump's wall back in 2006 for "it" (whatever we think Trump wants) had not been proposed and Trump was but a TV host.
LONG ANSWER:
1. Democratic support for the original (unamended) Secure Fence Act of 2006 was a compromise position taken after a George Bush promise to advance comprehensive immigration reform.
2. The majority of House Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi did not vote for the Fence Act of 2006.
3. The 2007 amendment (or Fence Act "fix") included a provision to not require double fencing but provided more autonomy to Homeland Security to determine the optimal barrier, in consultation with local officials, property owners, and Indian tribes. That amendment was sponsored by both Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats.
4. The wall envisioned by the Fence Act of 2006, as amended was built. Democrats later supported additional funds under the Gang of 8 proposed legislation to repair and enforce the almost 700 miles completed.
5. The Trump proposal is believed (still no clear plan) to now consist of about 1,000 miles of fencing that is more extensive than that proposed even under the original Fence Act of 2006. Trump does have the authority to build IF he can get the funding.
The assertion that Democrats were willing to spend untold billions in 2006 - as high as $50 billion - is FALSE. It is a meme. Certainly there was no "budget" included in the Act. There was instead widespread criticism that cost estimates were unknown. Homeland Security was reported as telling Congressional aides it might cost about $5 billion. Republicans asserted the figure would be about $2 billion; Democrats $7 billion.
There was a U.S. Army Corps of Engineer cost analysis in 1999 projecting the cost of building and maintaining 700 miles of double-layer fencing to range from $11.5 billion to 49 billion. Per Snopes, there's no evidence that legislators even considered the analysis. The Congressional Research Service report (based on the Army numbers) that's cited to assert that Democrats "knew" was released after the House vote but a few days before the Senate vote. It was never mentioned in the Senatorial debates about the Act.
The American Thinker, for example, asserts: "The Secure Fence Act of 2006 budgeted $50 billion over 25 years to control America's borders. Unfortunately, Congress appropriated only $1.4 billion and forgot about the rest."
Wrong, the initial bill that was passed was to be for double barriers not a mere fence. Only 30 miles of the double barriers were built and whatever else was built was the mere fencing that was breachable. It double barriers got changed to fencing. However, that doesn't change the fact that Schumer signed on for the double barriers in the initial bill. So no, you didn't answer my question as to why he was ok with it back then including the taxpayer funding it but not now.
Why do you have a problem with changing the mere fencing to the steel slatted, see through barriers that the Border Patrol want?
I'm unclear with why you are so hung up what happened in 2006. That was 12 years ago, it's largely irrelevant. Times have changed - focus on what is happening today.
Schumer has repeatedly offered solutions for border security funding including a proposal of 1.6 billion just this December. You are implying that Schumer does not support border security at all. He does.
He just does not support Trumps 5 billion; hardly anyone does.
I'm sure some sort of compromise can be reached - but they need to do it without shutting down the government.
The problem with Trump is, he is not prepared to listen to compromise. He's rather throw all of his toys out the pram because he can't get exactly what he wants. I'm sure he got results doing that in his business life but that's not how it works in government.
So why was there a shutdown and now possible national emergency instead of a Republican-passed bill for wall funding using reconciliation that would not have required 60 votes in the Senate? It's fairly clear that Republicans were too divided as a party to pass immigration "reform" that included appropriations for the wall. And that there was not widespread Republican support for Trump's version of the wall.
Still, in theory, Republicans could have used reconciliation to appropriate wall funds but appear to have chosen not to. Per this article, no passed budget resolution in either the House nor Senate created a complication.
Once it was clear the Republicans were about to lose the House, a representative from Alabama introduced a bill that would have created a shell budget resolution allowing for $25 billion in wall funds that could have passed the Senate thru reconciliation but it died. No idea why. Or why there wasn't like strategizing throughout Trump's first two years.
There has to be a backstory. Maybe it was to the benefit of Republicans to not build a wall creating downstream problems (the eminent domain issue in Texas, for example) that might lead to an electoral backlash. Trump supporters might not want to hear those issues but they do exist. Maybe not building but creating a rally issue against Democrats was better politics?
Republicans don't seem to want to step up to the plate as they don't want a Trump nickname and then, of course, we have McConnell.
It is time for them to work for the people and not Trump.
I'm unclear with why you are so hung up what happened in 2006. That was 12 years ago, it's largely irrelevant. Times have changed - focus on what is happening today.
Schumer has repeatedly offered solutions for border security funding including a proposal of 1.6 billion just this December. You are implying that Schumer does not support border security at all. He does.
He just does not support Trumps 5 billion; hardly anyone does.
I'm sure some sort of compromise can be reached - but they need to do it without shutting down the government.
The problem with Trump is, he is not prepared to listen to compromise. He's rather throw all of his toys out the pram because he can't get exactly what he wants. I'm sure he got results doing that in his business life but that's not how it works in government.
How have times changed? Are you saying we no longer need a border wall/barrier because we no longer have a border jumping problem? If so, you can't be serious! There are 18,000 border jumpers getting into our country every month.
The 2006 wall bill is relevant to today because Schumer signed it back then but balks at fixing it today. Congress made a mistake back then changing the double barriers to mere fencing and that needs correcting. If Schumer was ok with the double barriers back then including the taxpayer funding it then why is he objecting to it today?
The only proposal that he and Pelosi has made is for border security that doesn't include the well needed walls/barriers. What kind of a proposal is that? The $5 billion IS for that! Who's hardly anyone that doesn't want the wall? The Democrats that have an agenda along with their base, some sell out Republicans, those who hire illegal aliens, those who have ethnic ties to them or haven't bothered to educate themselves on the effectiveness of the good walls? Who cares that they don't want? The only opinion that should count is that of the Border Patrol and Homeland Security.
Why don't Pelosi and Schumer ask them what they want and need? If they don't want the government shut down then they should negotiate with Trump which includes wall funding. Trump has offered them all kinds of goodies including DACA and allowing these Central American youth to apply for asylum. The only thing under our laws that would qualify them is if they were being persecuted in their homelands. Most will be bogus claims and I adamantly disagree with Trump on those two things being offered but at least he is giving the Democrats something THEY want with nothing that Trump wants.
There is another concern brewing that might help Trump get re-elected, and that's a third party candidate that might pull enough votes from a Democrat to tilt the count in Trump's favor, AKA Howard Shultz...
I heard Howard Schultz may run but not if he is running with any single party and if so, platform and agenda. I thought he was Democrat so I don't understand why. I see CNN posted an article about it though it makes sense. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/01/28/o...zer/index.html What I will say is it may be smarter to run in the Democrat party as a centralist. Most Democrats that have won except FDR ran with a mostly centralist platform.
"Shutdown cost U.S. economy $11 billion, budget office says"
This is how Trump manages things, his train of thought. Why he had to file for bankruptcy 4 times. He wanted $5 billion for the wall, but the shutdown cost $11 billion. And is considering another shutdown to get what he wants. Now you see why he cant get loans in this country. Thats your hero.
If you believe what the "media" tells you. I don't believe hardly anything they pawn off as "news"/"facts" these days.
If you believe what the "media" tells you. I don't believe hardly anything they pawn off as "news"/"facts" these days.
I bet Paul Krugman came up with that number.
So about 5 million workers, nearly 4.2 million of which WOULD NOT get backpay don't effect the economy that much? These people couldn't buy food, pay for gas, goto the movies, but a Super Bowl tv and surround sound and you mean to tell me you don't believe it. You may not like a news source and debate the numbers but 10 billion sounds right to me considering the shutdown went two checks and include all the logistical nightmares on Friday.
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.
