Shut her down boys, shut her down.

[eldirector]

According to Abdul yesterday (filling in for Katz), the shutdown unfairly impacts small businesses. With all the federal bureaucrats in our bloated government furlowed, they won't be buying lunch from local mom=-and-pop shops. His argument is that they should kick the can down the road and "stay open" so that non-government folks can still get their $$$.

If that isn't a sign the our .gov isn't a bloated mess, what is?

 

[churchmouse]

So he shut it down ?????
Who knew.

 

[hoosierdoc]

if u build it, they will come, with a ladder.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...2ak0S5pmSLx-Yqp_Q-73R-GQoMnu14hZbXEPvPokSLza4

Triple amputee war vet raises money to protect country and a willful amputee raises money to harm country.

would love to see them in a debate

 

[2A_Tom]

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Monuments-Mall-Could-Close-Tuesday--225874741.html

is something like that what you were looking for? I searched for the exact wording you posted. It was on the first page of results. But it was duck duck go, not Google.

Winston Smith Must not work for duck duck go.

 

[spec4]

I'd like to hear how the Dems are going to justify what they describe as the end of the world over five billion dollars. The answer of course is they will lie, distort and demagogue reality. Fools of course will buy it.

 

[churchmouse]

I'd like to hear how the Dems are going to justify what they describe as the end of the world over five billion dollars. The answer of course is they will lie, distort and demagogue reality. Fools of course will buy it.

And this just goes to show how many blind fools we have among us.

 

[jamil]

Here's Jamil's best effort at an unbiased review of this...

A government shutdown is not as harmless as the conservatives think and it's not as harmful as the progressives think. There are consequences, but those consequences aren't dire. Also, there's the blame game. Whose fault is it? Democrats blame Republicans for it; Republicans blame Democrats for it.

Both. They're both at fault. Either side could chose to keep the government functioning. The government is being used as a hostage and both sides are exploiting it for their political purposes. Trump wants wall funding. He said he won't sign a spending bill unless it includes it. He's choosing not to sign a spending bill, which is in his veto power. He's choosing to risk government shutdown over something he wants. It's true enough that Trump is initiating the impasse by demanding congress give him what he wants. but the blame isn't squarely with him.

Democrats don't want wall funding...mostly because they don't want to give Trump a political victory. So knowing that Trump won't sign it without wall funding, they're choosing to risk government shutdown over something they don't want. They care more about denying Trump a victory than they care about keeping the government running. I mean, that's self-evident.

This is how impasses work. Usually there's something at stake that both sides want. Both sides participate in the impasse more or less equally. So, it becomes an issue of how important it is to get their way, versus how important is the thing at stake.

So, who is morally consistent? Republicans don't believe it's all that harmful to shut down the government, notwithstanding the extent to which it actually is. They're wagering against something they think isn't all that important, in hopes to get the thing they want.

On the other hand, Democrats say that shutting down the government is extremely harmful to the people who depend on it, notwithstanding the extent to which all that is hyperbole. They also attach a high moral component to building the wall. They've said it's racist, inhuman, etcetera, even though they've all said a wall is needed back when it was a president they didn't need to thwart. So, according to them, either choice they make will harm someone. And I guess they've decided that it's better to harm all those people depending on the government.

The evidence, however, points to a lot of hyperbole on the Dem side. Shutting down the government isn't harmless, but it's not as harmful as they want people to think it is. This is fairly easy to conclude since it's inconsistent with what we know. We know that they weren't against a wall until it became Trump's wall. And we know they don't really care about fiscal responsibility. They're really not even making the most reasonable point against building it...it's unclear that the bang is worth the buck. So they can't believe that shutting the government down actually is as bad as they're saying because what they're fighting for is obviously just political positioning. If they were morally consistent I think we would see some more consistent rhetoric out of them.

So in the fault graph of evil I'd rate Trump at 1.5 devil's horns, and the Democrats at 3.5 devil's horns.

 

[jamil]

if u build it, they will come, with a ladder.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...2ak0S5pmSLx-Yqp_Q-73R-GQoMnu14hZbXEPvPokSLza4

Huh. time to get into the ladder making business... or the fence business.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Here's Jamil's best effort at an unbiased review of this...

A government shutdown is not as harmless as the conservatives think and it's not as harmful as the progressives think. There are consequences, but those consequences aren't dire. Also, there's the blame game. Whose fault is it? Democrats blame Republicans for it; Republicans blame Democrats for it.

Both. They're both at fault. Either side could chose to keep the government functioning. The government is being used as a hostage and both sides are exploiting it for their political purposes. Trump wants wall funding. He said he won't sign a spending bill unless it includes it. He's choosing not to sign a spending bill, which is in his veto power. He's choosing to risk government shutdown over something he wants. It's true enough that Trump is initiating the impasse by demanding congress give him what he wants. but the blame isn't squarely with him.

Democrats don't want wall funding...mostly because they don't want to give Trump a political victory. So knowing that Trump won't sign it without wall funding, they're choosing to risk government shutdown over something they don't want. They care more about denying Trump a victory than they care about keeping the government running. I mean, that's self-evident.

This is how impasses work. Usually there's something at stake that both sides want. Both sides participate in the impasse more or less equally. So, it becomes an issue of how important it is to get their way, versus how important is the thing at stake.

So, who is morally consistent? Republicans don't believe it's all that harmful to shut down the government, notwithstanding the extent to which it actually is. They're wagering against something they think isn't all that important, in hopes to get the thing they want.

On the other hand, Democrats say that shutting down the government is extremely harmful to the people who depend on it, notwithstanding the extent to which all that is hyperbole. They also attach a high moral component to building the wall. They've said it's racist, inhuman, etcetera, even though they've all said a wall is needed back when it was a president they didn't need to thwart. So, according to them, either choice they make will harm someone. And I guess they've decided that it's better to harm all those people depending on the government.

The evidence, however, points to a lot of hyperbole on the Dem side. Shutting down the government isn't harmless, but it's not as harmful as they want people to think it is. This is fairly easy to conclude since it's inconsistent with what we know. We know that they weren't against a wall until it became Trump's wall. And we know they don't really care about fiscal responsibility. They're really not even making the most reasonable point against building it...it's unclear that the bang is worth the buck. So they can't believe that shutting the government down actually is as bad as they're saying because what they're fighting for is obviously just political positioning. If they were morally consistent I think we would see some more consistent rhetoric out of them.

So in the fault graph of evil I'd rate Trump at 1.5 devil's horns, and the Democrats at 3.5 devil's horns.

Except, the president already said, publicly, that if there was a shutdown he'd take the blame. With the exception of sycophants, that squarely where the blame will be placed.

People seem to to be forgetting a whole of what occurred in the past. The Democrats were ready to fund the wall for DACA amnesty. President agreed, then he went back on it. Most "illegals" don't come here illegally, and a wall isn't some sort of magical barrier that will solve illegal immigration. If it ever were erected, it would be a monument to stupidity; a symbolic edifice of minor tangible value. A lest we forget, the bill for this wasn't supposed to be footed by the American taxpayer.

This debacle is on the president.

 

[churchmouse]

Except, the president already said, publicly, that if there was a shutdown he'd take the blame. With the exception of sycophants, that squarely where the blame will be placed.

People seem to to be forgetting a whole of what occurred in the past. The Democrats were ready to fund the wall for DACA amnesty. President agreed, then he went back on it. Most "illegals" don't come here illegally, and a wall isn't some sort of magical barrier that will solve illegal immigration. If it ever were erected, it would be a monument to stupidity; a symbolic edifice of minor tangible value. A lest we forget, the bill for this wasn't supposed to be footed by the American taxpayer.

This debacle is on the president.

From that view maybe. Think back a few years. Obama, schumer, Fienstien, Polosy were ll on serious rants about illegals. And yes they do come here illegally.
But now that Trump is fulfilling yet another promise they are freaking out. And they just sent how many billions south of the line. Again. Some more.

No, this does not sit squarely on him. This entire thing is a political soccer ball and we will bear the brunt of it.

What is your remedy here. If the wall will not work (and it will to a point) what would you do about the billions we are spending supporting these people as I type.
Serious question. I am sure you have an answer.

 

[NyleRN]

At this point the only thing the federal government is doing for me is taking my earned income from my paycheck and infringing on my rights and liberties. To that I say shut it down. I'll get by just fine without uncle sam

 

[Brad69]

The Goverment shutdown proves that the government is a inefficient organization that has far more personnel than needed.
The sun came over the horizon today the birds are singing and the government is partly shutdown.

Its amazing that we already have about 600 + miles of fence and border wall (most built under President Obama) out of about 2000 miles of border. Not all of the border will need a fence some areas are rugged mountains and do not require a physical barrier.
So get this the Border Patrol has asked for additional fence and President is trying get for them.
I trust the people working the border to know what they need to do the job.

I have a idea for overstaying VISA’s once you arrive in the US Immigration issues a card with a RFID chip good for X days. If a alien would overstay the RFID chip would send a locator signal and ICE could prioritize and apprehend as needed. Here is the catch when you come into the country you agree, sign a form and take an oath that if caught with out your RFID card you will be deported immediately with no due process.
This would also simplify the VISA status if a alien would get a extended or change status a new card would arrive in the mail. This would use existing credit card technologies to reduce cost plus a additional VISA charge to cover ICE enforcement.

 

[2A_Tom]

No, we need to chip them like a dog.

 

[BugI02]

I lived in Phoenix for ~18 years. The wall erection will do nothing except pander to the people that elected Trump.

Most of of the jobs being held by illegals are jobs nobody else is willing to do. Will you, or some or your relations, work to blow insulation into attics in Phoenix or Tucson in the summer? Illegals that are desperate do. How about working at the local Carl jr’s or other fast food restaurants (pei-wei,...).

Those are jobs that are overwhelmingly done by by desperate, illegal, people. Those people decide the best chance for a job is in the Southwest US. When the economy is better in Mexico, they stay in Mexico and work factory jobs there, which by the way, has been the case for a decade or so. ( the number of Mexican immigrants living in the US illiegally has declined by more than 1 million since 2007 What we know about illegal immigration from Mexico | Pew Research Center)



My biggest question is where is this money coming from? Doesnt anyone care that the deficit is out of control? Or was that only a “worry” when the Dem’s wanted to spend on something?

Well, I have a different question. In my job I interact a fair amount with the people running businesses as well as the technical people who directly use my expertise. If the people running American manufacturing are having difficulty filling a position due to some undesirable aspects of the job, they increase the salary on offer to the extent necessary in order to attract a viable pool of applicants.

You mention physical hardships that make "the jobs Americans won't do" undesirable such that only desperate people will do them. What part of this is actually 'only desperate people will do these jobs for the depressed wages on offer'? If businesses were unable to leverage said pool of 'desperate people' and thus had to sweeten wages in order to attract a sufficient pool of applicants, might there not be Americans that would do those jobs? I am not encountering (anecdotally) any shortage of workers in industries such as mining, petrochemical or high value basic manufacturing (think Act's steel mill). There are applicants for the job attracted by the high wages that ultimately are inappropriate for the job, but I'm not aware of manufacturers needing or wanting to recruit highly skilled and motivated workers from among illegals or south of the border

Should you wish to argue that such wages will raise the cost of goods and services, so what? This seems to me a subset of the "but my iphone will cost $100 more if it's made by Americans" Is it not better to provide solid jobs for a vibrant middle class where the money they earn and spend stays within the country, available to benefit other domestic businesses great and small? Or is it better to prey upon the desperation of the world's poor in order to indenture them while they send much of what they earn back to the mother country (remittances to Mexico alone to the tune of $28.8billion in 2017) where it does not support the domestic small businesses that everyone pays lip service to?

Taking your argument ad absurdum, wouldn't it be better to revive true indentured servitude. Why force them to take the risk of traveling here when you can enter into a deal with the despot of your choice to pluck them directly out of prison, indebted to you for life. Surely your conscience would be clear if your consumer goods were cheap and you could tell yourself you were saving them from horrible conditions?

 

[edporch]

The GoFundMe page won't work unless Congress accepts and authorizes that money to be used for a border barrier.
And with the amount of selfish interests wanting open borders, it's gonna take some hardball from Trump to get funding authorized by Congress no matter the source.

The only chance this has at this point is for Trump to Veto every Bill they send him that has no funding authorized for the border barrier.
And either get the funding or FORCE them to override his Veto.

Let me add that if Trump blinks on this, and doesn't force them to authorize the funds or override his Veto, he'll risk going down in history as another one term "read my lips, no new taxes" President.

 

[Brad69]

So we should create a underclass of low wage workers to do jobs we just don’t wanna do.


This is is a fact in the Middle East it’s called a TCN or Third Country National it’s just above slavery.

 

[edporch]

So we should create a underclass of low wage workers to do jobs we just don’t wanna do.


This is is a fact in the Middle East it’s called a TCN or Third Country National it’s just above slavery.

Actually, many jobs that used to pay a decent wage have had their wages lowered to under the table black market level low wages because of a steady supply of illegal immigrants.

Cut off the supply of illegal labor as much as possible, start making employers afraid to hire them, and the wages will rise back up to where Americans and legal immigrants will take those jobs.

 

[Libertarian01]

Well, I have a different question. In my job I interact a fair amount with the people running businesses as well as the technical people who directly use my expertise. If the people running American manufacturing are having difficulty filling a position due to some undesirable aspects of the job, they increase the salary on offer to the extent necessary in order to attract a viable pool of applicants.

You mention physical hardships that make "the jobs Americans won't do" undesirable such that only desperate people will do them. What part of this is actually 'only desperate people will do these jobs for the depressed wages on offer'? If businesses were unable to leverage said pool of 'desperate people' and thus had to sweeten wages in order to attract a sufficient pool of applicants, might there not be Americans that would do those jobs? I am not encountering (anecdotally) any shortage of workers in industries such as mining, petrochemical or high value basic manufacturing (think Act's steel mill). There are applicants for the job attracted by the high wages that ultimately are inappropriate for the job, but I'm not aware of manufacturers needing or wanting to recruit highly skilled and motivated workers from among illegals or south of the border

Should you wish to argue that such wages will raise the cost of goods and services, so what? This seems to me a subset of the "but my iphone will cost $100 more if it's made by Americans" Is it not better to provide solid jobs for a vibrant middle class where the money they earn and spend stays within the country, available to benefit other domestic businesses great and small? Or is it better to prey upon the desperation of the world's poor in order to indenture them while they send much of what they earn back to the mother country (remittances to Mexico alone to the tune of $28.8billion in 2017) where it does not support the domestic small businesses that everyone pays lip service to?

Taking your argument ad absurdum, wouldn't it be better to revive true indentured servitude. Why force them to take the risk of traveling here when you can enter into a deal with the despot of your choice to pluck them directly out of prison, indebted to you for life. Surely your conscience would be clear if your consumer goods were cheap and you could tell yourself you were saving them from horrible conditions?

^^^AMEN!!!^^^

I argued this years ago in a landscaping class. We had to read articles on the industry and the author was urging people to support one of the work visas for migrant workers because landscapers couldn't hire Americans to do the job.

I rebuffed that arguing that, "NO! Landscapers cannot hire Americans for the wages they want to pay!" If they started landscaping jobs at $40/hour you'd have hundreds of applicants. Of course, that is a silly number and way too high, but it makes the point that if you offer more than $9.25 an hour you'll get more, and better, applications. The more that is offered the higher the quality and quantity of applicant.

Naturally, if only one (1) company in a region out of 20 were to do this they would go out of business, and that is their argument. However, if ALL 20 were forced to do so by denying them cheap, illegal labor the market would remain in balance. Some folks would no longer use landscapers due to the increased cost, but not all. The same can be said for other industries, such as construction.

I don't begrudge anyone wanting to come to the United States, or any other country for that matter, to better their lives and the lives of their loved ones. The American Dream has always been for everyone - legally. But today many industries including tech companies rely on imported cheap labor to keep profits up for themselves and stockholders. This is not a problem except when they do so ignoring another stakeholder - the employee/contractor.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Leadeye]

Criminalizing hiring illegals to the point where you're jailing and imprisoning executive leadership would stop the hiring problem cold, but I don't see that happening as those people and the law/lobby firms representing them own the law making process.

Always follow the money.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Criminalizing hiring illegals to the point where you're jailing and imprisoning executive leadership would stop the hiring problem cold, but I don't see that happening as those people and the law/lobby firms representing them own the law making process.

Always follow the money.

That seems like the simple, smart solution, right? The question is, why isn't the government doing it?