• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

General political chat

LukeS7

Well-Known Member
I still have yet to hear an a legitimate answer for why they shouldn’t be voting on bills for other agencies. Yes, you can call it a “show vote” (even though you don’t 100% know the outcome) or say “well then they won’t compromise” but again, there’s no programs in those departments that would serve as bargaining chips. So if you’re supporting the budgets for those other departments being held up (which should be separate from the wall debate), you’re supporting politicians using the livelihood of Americans as pawns.

There’s those of you who think it’s as simple as that for families to just take out a loan to meet their expenses and just rely on what amounts to an indefinite IOU from the federal government. But what happens when they need to take out more, or have a medical emergency, or have their car breakdown, or a loved one die? What happens when their first loan payment is due and they’re still waiting on their paycheck for work they did weeks ago? What happens in households solely composed of federal workers whose household income is now 0?

One side of the equation is trying to at least vote, not compromise granted, but vote. And you know what the saddest part of this whole system is? The fact that it has to be so black-and-white. The fact that there are two boats you can fall into and if you don’t, your voice gets drowned out. This goes for both sides, both in Congress and in this very thread. The lumping of large swathes of varying opinions into a singular talking point. Calling out “the left” or “the right” for specific things that small subsets of those populations do or believe and applying them across the board. Call out specific people, specific groups.

I’ll clarify a statement I made before, I don’t blame Republicans for holding Americans’ livelihoods hostage right now, I blame Mitch McConnell and anybody who backs his stance of “well we just won’t vote”. That’s not how the system works. That’s not how our democracy works.

If they want to compromise and bargain, do it with the only actual department that needs to be involved, and further, at least provide basic funding to even DHS for just a month or two while this issue is being discussed.

Sorry for the rant, but felt the need to write this down.
 

aw14

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
For clarity and perspective on cost, sadly $5 billion doesn’t seem too expensive when considering other items :

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/us/politics/postal-service-reports-a-nearly-16-billion-loss.html

https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/672884.pdf

https://www.nasa.gov/content/reach-for-new-heights-nasa-budget-unveiled-for-fiscal-year-2016

https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies

Obviously there needs to be a greater eye on some of this, as these are just a few. The $5B doesn’t seem to be too much of spending elsewhere was more appropriately watched.
 

aw14

Well-Known Member
Crazy isn’t it?

At least it’s better than confusing the proposed wall with closing our points of entry for asylum seekers.. and saying things like loss of respect... loss of integrity.. respect from whom? Integrity- why?

Secure borders = a nation who doesn’t respect itself?

🤦‍♀️

This is flippn nuts.
I’m still stunned how many people conflate legal v illegal immigrants just to muddy the waters in this discussion.
 

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
I still have yet to hear an a legitimate answer for why they shouldn’t be voting on bills for other agencies. Yes, you can call it a “show vote” (even though you don’t 100% know the outcome) or say “well then they won’t compromise” but again, there’s no programs in those departments that would serve as bargaining chips. So if you’re supporting the budgets for those other departments being held up (which should be separate from the wall debate), you’re supporting politicians using the livelihood of Americans as pawns.

There’s those of you who think it’s as simple as that for families to just take out a loan to meet their expenses and just rely on what amounts to an indefinite IOU from the federal government. But what happens when they need to take out more, or have a medical emergency, or have their car breakdown, or a loved one die? What happens when their first loan payment is due and they’re still waiting on their paycheck for work they did weeks ago? What happens in households solely composed of federal workers whose household income is now 0?
You do what any private sector employee does, you cut expenses and file for unemployment. In short, you figure it out. The government have programs for this situation.
 

gsam4ever

Well-Known Member
Yeah it’s like we shouldn’t give the federal government more things to spend money on, like healthcare.... oh wait.

But then again we were told it was going to “bend the cost curve down.”
One has already helped countless number of people. And yes it was flawed. The other is a complete waste of money. Otherwise you nailed it.
 

OneofThree

Well-Known Member
None of us here have ever questioned people’s right to private property, so please be more careful in your characterisations of “the left”.
BS, and a matter of pure semantics. See: socialized healthcare and IRS payments to illegal aliens to name a couple of recent ones.
 

LukeS7

Well-Known Member
You do what any private sector employee does, you cut expenses and file for unemployment. In short, you figure it out. The government have programs for this situation.
That process could take weeks and there are some expenses that can’t be cut (like rent). It can also take a few weeks after being approved to get the first check, and even then it might not be enough.

I also don’t see how overloading a program such as unemployment is just being casually seen as the solution to this.
 

EricsBiscuit

Well-Known Member
None of us here have ever questioned people’s right to private property, so please be more careful in your characterisations of “the left”.
But you're for raising tax rates on the rich just because they're rich and redistribution of that money through government spending to people you think need it. Right?
For clarity and perspective on cost, sadly $5 billion doesn’t seem too expensive when considering other items :

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/us/politics/postal-service-reports-a-nearly-16-billion-loss.html

https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/672884.pdf

https://www.nasa.gov/content/reach-for-new-heights-nasa-budget-unveiled-for-fiscal-year-2016

https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies

Obviously there needs to be a greater eye on some of this, as these are just a few. The $5B doesn’t seem to be too much of spending elsewhere was more appropriately watched.
Cut, cut, cut! If the people not getting paid now are considered "nonessential," why do we spend money on them at all?
 

aw14

Well-Known Member
Yeah I’d rather save the $10-$15 billion and not find out. Also I’d rather people not lose their land and houses to eminent domain for a losing cause.
Please see the links I posted above.

For members of either party to decry spending too much, makes them look hypocritical. Let’s be clear...both parties spend too much, just on BS they think is more important.
 

gsam4ever

Well-Known Member
Please see the links I posted above.

For members of either party to decry spending too much, makes them look hypocritical. Let’s be clear...both parties spend too much, just on BS they think is more important.
Oh I agree. I just think this is a total waste that will not work but is a great way for Trump to say he kept his promise. I do not think for a second Trump gives a crap about illegal immigration. It was just another rallying cry that he used to get himself elected.
 

Jim S

Well-Known Member
5 billion dollars would go a long way to fully funding IDEA at the levels it was intended to be funded. Given the difference that would make in the education of children like my daughter, it’s a pretty high priority for me. (That said I also know it is a pipe dream - there’s my idealism popping out again)


In Texas we spend a fortune on illegals in our school system-that is at the expense of our own children.

Stopping illegal immigrants would be the best thing we could do for our education system and the well being of our own citizens and children.
 

aw14

Well-Known Member
Oh I agree. I just think this is a total waste that will not work but is a great way for Trump to say he kept his promise. I do not think for a second Trump gives a crap about illegal immigration. It was just another rallying cry that he used to get himself elected.
I actually agree. I think all our last presidents are empty suits. Obamacare was an election cry...nothing more.

Wait???? Did we agree? 😊
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
In Texas we spend a fortune on illegals in our school system-that is at the expense of our own children.

Stopping illegal immigrants would be the best thing we could do for our education system and the well being of our own citizens and children.
This is just it. How much are we spending now? Between public schools, welfare programs, deportation, etc etc etc?
I think I said this previously, the math is one part.. then we have the trafficking and such.
 
Top Bottom