Government Shutdown

[Rajvik]

Lobster, I'm not trolling, I'm deadly damn serious about this.

BA, no wall is perfect, but the point of a barrier is not absolutely keeping people in/out but to make it more difficult so that it deters just casual crossing and ease the capture of those that do. Making your argument is like arguing that putting walls and fences around a prison is useless because someone will always find a way to either break out or smuggle contraband in.

You don't want to know what my idea for a border barrier is because while I know its overkill, I also know it would work.

Edit: Hazard, the difference being that the Berlin wall while purported to the world to keep the west out of the Soviet communist utopia when the fact was it was to keep their people in and ignorant of the world. This would actually be to force people to use the actual ports of entry not close us off completely.

[Labster]

I know you're serious.  You're so serious about it that you're unintentionally trolling a group of people that disagree with you.  They attempt to argue with you even though we don't share enough of a world view to even agree on the same facts.  Arguing is fun but we're getting nowhere.

I imply no malice in the word trolling.  I still believe that trolling can be a fine art, the sublime craft of Eris which can open a mind to new experiences.  That's not what we're doing here, though.

[robkelk]

Preliminary talks to get the budget passed are scheduled for today

I'll say this right now: If anybody walks out of the meeting before it's scheduled to end, then it will be that person's fault if there's another shutdown.

[Epsilon]

It is all four of their faults in my book, the difference being that I support the idea of stopping people from being able to JUST WALK ACROSS OUR BORDER WHEREVER THEY PLEASE.

[Dartz]

The shutdown is Trump's fault.

He threatened to shuut-down the government if he didn't get his one thing. This is not how politics is done.

Because next time, he'll threaten to shut-down the government if he doesn't get his other thing, or the thing after that. Every single budget will threaten a shutdown until someone finally tells him to fuck off.

Whether he was right, wrong or just following his base it just doesn't matter. It's not how the game is played. Some methods of politics are unnaceptable.

[hazard]

Quite frankly, the USA might well benefit from a law that says 'a government agency was shut down by a failure to pass an appropriations bill? No bill may pass the legislature until the government is fully funded, write out immediate emergency elections for the replacement of the entire responsible legislature (upper and lower chambers) and if this isn't the first shut down on an elected official's watch they may not be elected during the emergency election or the next election cycle for any position.'

[Valles]

Whether he was right, wrong or just following his base it just doesn't matter. It's not how the game is played. Some methods of politics are unnaceptable.

This is the most important principle at stake. A nation that lets anyone just decide out of the blue that they, personally, are going to use threats against the entire country to service nothing but their own personal agenda is a nation that's already dead.

[robkelk]

Quite frankly, the USA might well benefit from a law that says 'a government agency was shut down by a failure to pass an appropriations bill? No bill may pass the legislature until the government is fully funded, write out immediate emergency elections for the replacement of the entire responsible legislature (upper and lower chambers) and if this isn't the first shut down on an elected official's watch they may not be elected during the emergency election or the next election cycle for any position.'

What you're asking for here is a motion of no confidence (although you're a bit more punitive with your "may not be elected" clause.) It appears to work well in Australia, Canada, India, Japan, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. It doesn't appear to work so well in Italy. Wikipedia link

In Canada, every budget vote is a vote of confidence, by law. When one fails, an election campaign begins immediately.

[Mamorien]

They attempt to argue with you even though we don't share enough of a world view to even agree on the same facts.

So much this it's not even funny. As a monkey whose gong fu is strong observed of one Dubya speech from the War on Some Terror:

The Spain-to-Indonesia thing should automatically invalidate the whole speech. I don't care how good your investment advisor is, he can spend three hours reviewing mutual funds, as soon as he says "And of course, we can put your money into the Easter Bunny's Egg Upgrades", he is out of (there).

If I had time, patience, and a stronger stomach, I'd go through Rajvik's posts looking for all the places to say something similar to Rogers' "I am not spotting him eight hundred million Hindus"; someday, if I get bored enough, I might do it anyway, just in private atonement for an unremembered past.

Arguing is fun but we're getting nowhere.

I'm not even having fun watching it, let alone when my self-control slips and he says something so jaw-dropping that I can't in good conscience stay silent. That we're getting nowhere is an immutable fact you are stating for the record.

[hazard]

What you're asking for here is a motion of no confidence (although you're a bit more punitive with your "may not be elected" clause.) It appears to work well in Australia, Canada, India, Japan, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. It doesn't appear to work so well in Italy. Wikipedia link

In Canada, every budget vote is a vote of confidence, by law. When one fails, an election campaign begins immediately.

To be fair, the situation is also a bit more dire than just not passing a budget bill. You can basically pass a budget bill anytime ahead of the (relevant part of) government running out of money. My idea is that if you, as a legislature, fail to fund the government you may need to face some repercussions. And it's supposed to hit longer sitting legislative officials harder, as in a first past the post system especially the incumbent candidates have a major advantage.

[Rajvik]

It is all four of their faults in my book, the difference being that I support the idea of stopping people from being able to JUST WALK ACROSS OUR BORDER WHEREVER THEY PLEASE.

Nice pic Epsilon, where is that, the former east/west german border?

If I had time, patience, and a stronger stomach, I'd go through Rajvik's posts looking for all the places to say something similar to Rogers' "I am not spotting him eight hundred million Hindus"; someday, if I get bored enough, I might do it anyway, just in private atonement for an unremembered past.

so what you are saying is that you are so far to the left that you are going to ignore anything i have to say regardless of it's own merit because i am not on the left, but on the right and/or because i support Trump. Nice openness there. [sarcasm]

I'll say this right now: If anybody walks out of the meeting before it's scheduled to end, then it will be that person's fault if there's another shutdown.

So if you and i are supposed to negotiate over something, and then you refuse to even negotiate and openly state that you will not budge, then me leaving because i have more important things to do than sit there and sling rhetoric and provide you with a photo op is MY FAULT? explain this to me please

[robkelk]

I'll say this right now: If anybody walks out of the meeting before it's scheduled to end, then it will be that person's fault if there's another shutdown.

So if you and i are supposed to negotiate over something, and then you refuse to even negotiate and openly state that you will not budge, then me leaving because i have more important things to do than sit there and sling rhetoric and provide you with a photo op is MY FAULT? explain this to me please

In this case, you don't have anything more important to do. Stay and negotiate. Practice the art of the deal instead of being a petulant child who refuses to budge.

[Rajvik]

I'll say this right now: If anybody walks out of the meeting before it's scheduled to end, then it will be that person's fault if there's another shutdown.

So if you and i are supposed to negotiate over something, and then you refuse to even negotiate and openly state that you will not budge, then me leaving because i have more important things to do than sit there and sling rhetoric and provide you with a photo op is MY FAULT? explain this to me please

In this case, you don't have anything more important to do. Stay and negotiate. Practice the art of the deal instead of being a petulant child who refuses to budge.

so because your side refuses to budge, and mines offered literally EVERYTHING you've said you wanted you still refuse to budge, then its still my sides fault, still not seeing your logic because that is not negotiating, thats saying, "Do it my way i don't care what you want"

[classicdrogn]

So if you and i are supposed to negotiate over something, and then you refuse to even negotiate and openly state that you will not budge, then me leaving because i have more important things to do than sit there and sling rhetoric and provide you with a photo op is MY FAULT? explain this to me please

This applies to both sides, you realize? But really, the problem is that both sides were insisting on mutually exclusive core positions, wall vs. no wall and then over ending the shutdown without addressing that, so there was no common ground to compromise over. While I'm not in favor of the wall by any means and think offering a temporary restoration of the policies Trump himself previously revoked in exchange is disingenuous and despicable, taking the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of families hostage to try to extort political concessions is a much bigger problem, and his demonstrated willingness to change his tune depending on who he's talking to (or what the talk show host he listened to that morning said) and walk out on previous commitments means it's impossible to cut a deal with him and expect it to hold anyway. The fact that he has said he's willing to go straight back to a shutdown if, once again, his six billion dollar boondoggle is not handed over in full is just another example of what has already been proven beyond any reasonable standard, that Trump is utterly unfit to be head of a junior high debate team let alone a head of state.

[Rajvik]

Drogn, so he's supposed to just go, "Okay, i'll sign whatever you put in front of me, just be nice." yeah it don't work that way, you have to stand your ground on some principles regardless of the outcome or else the world will walk all over you.

edit: I can at least respect Pelosi and Schumer a little bit because they are standing their ground also, however, when you are offered everything you've asked for to get one concession and don't take the deal, thats grandstanding, not serving the people

[classicdrogn]

What I'm saying is that not actively harming the American people should be the highest principle of governing the American people, and no matter what you're doing it over a shutdown that puts so many people out of work, disrupts the ability of the nation to maintain important services (including significant parts of the national security agencies) and damages our credibility and prestige among the rest of the world is abrogating that principle.

[Rajvik]

Shakes his head,
Drogn it's going to happen one way or the other no matter who you blame because both sides are standing their ground over a single issue, and will for the next year and a half. The difference is that arguably one side is fighting for the protection of the citizenry and the other is just grandstanding.

[hazard]

Shakes his head,
Drogn it's going to happen one way or the other no matter who you blame because both sides are standing their ground over a single issue, and will for the next year and a half. The difference is that arguably one side is fighting for the protection of the citizenry and the other is just grandstanding.

Yes, I suppose the Republicans have been grandstanding for quite a while now.

[Rajvik]

Shakes his head,
Drogn it's going to happen one way or the other no matter who you blame because both sides are standing their ground over a single issue, and will for the next year and a half. The difference is that arguably one side is fighting for the protection of the citizenry and the other is just grandstanding.

Yes, I suppose the Republicans have been grandstanding for quite a while now.

Cute, trying to piss me off because you don't like where I stand, fine.

Let me turn the question around on all of you since we can now acknowledge that the cost is honestly not the problem. What does building the wall do that will hurt Americans so much that you are against it?

[classicdrogn]

Don't accuse your opponents' side of grandstanding unless you're ready to get it sent right back at you, and preferably not at all - I say this to everyone. All that does is raise tempers, which does no one any good.

The cost is in fact the problem, at least with the wall itself - six billion would be a lot more effective spent on personnel, facilities, and the related administrative costs to deal with the people we already catch in a timely manner if you're that hung up on border security. No matter what kind of physical barrier you try to put in place, people with go over, under, around, or through one way or another, and the ones that are serious trouble - drug runners, terrorists, violent criminals - are more likely to arrive in a plane on a tourist visa than packed into the back of a pickup driving across the desert let alone hiking it.

Or, you know, put that nickle toward not running a multi-trillion dollar debt up even higher, like a college kid with their first credit card ordering "emergency" pizza delivery for the third night in a row because the food court has a line out the door.

[Epsilon]

Nice pic Epsilon, where is that, the former east/west german border?

It's your border, neighbour. The majority of the 8893 kilometers of it are that. 
If I wanted to, I could walk to your house.
Anyway, all your bullshit is bullshit because the Democrats offered Trump the funding for his wall but he refused it because he wasn't willing to concede on improving legal immigration and protecting Dream Act kids.
This is because neither Trump nor his base cares about the wall at all. The wall is a symbol and nothing more. What Trump and his ilk wants to do is stop immigration altogether. At least of brown people. Because they are a bunch of racist fascist assholes. (Trump may actually be stupid enough he thinks a few inches of concrete will stop brown people from entering the country but his real backers are not.)

[hazard]

Cute, trying to piss me off because you don't like where I stand, fine.

Let me turn the question around on all of you since we can now acknowledge that the cost is honestly not the problem. What does building the wall do that will hurt Americans so much that you are against it?

It's either a 5 billion dollar waste of effort because it won't be maintained, or it's a 5 billion dollar and more waste of effort because it has to be maintained, patrolled, checked and inspected around the clock for its entire length. If it isn't monitored people will chance it and have a high chance of getting across. Either by going over it, through it, or under it.

If you want to spend 5 billion dollars on stopping immigration across the USA/Mexico border you'd be better off denying any and all visa for all countries from Middle and Southern America and invest the manpower and money in rigorous enforcement of foreigner work permit regulations (Green Cards IIRC).

Of course, this does mean that a good chunk of the USA's agricultural workforce disappears. Here is a link for a CBS piece offering an overview of what industries make extensive use of illegal migrants. Should efforts to completely close down illegal immigration succeed and all illegal migrants be deported this means that approximately 5% of your nation's entire workforce is disappears, largely in low paying and/or unskilled jobs.

Food prices are likely to see a drastic increase as wages, long repressed by cheap labour from abroad, rocket up in a desperate attempt to draw in enough farmhands, as does further mechanisation of the agricultural sector. Many service industries, especially in the south, will see staff shortages. The construction industry will also see labour shortages, causing delays and increases in the construction of new homes, factories, power plants and anything and everything else.

Of course, with the disappearance of 5% of the workforce, even if largely in low paying and/or unskilled jobs you are also likely to see a disappearance of roughly 5% of your economy and thus your government's taxes. Yes, taxes. Because illegal immigrants do pay taxes, but get no to very limited benefit from them, being illegal immigrants without the papers to get government assistance. Which means that while GDP and taxes drop the costs do not drop as much, increasing the deficit.

[robkelk]

I'll say this right now: If anybody walks out of the meeting before it's scheduled to end, then it will be that person's fault if there's another shutdown.

So if you and i are supposed to negotiate over something, and then you refuse to even negotiate and openly state that you will not budge, then me leaving because i have more important things to do than sit there and sling rhetoric and provide you with a photo op is MY FAULT? explain this to me please

In this case, you don't have anything more important to do. Stay and negotiate. Practice the art of the deal instead of being a petulant child who refuses to budge.

so because your side refuses to budge, and mines offered literally EVERYTHING you've said you wanted you still refuse to budge, then its still my sides fault, still not seeing your logic because that is not negotiating, thats saying, "Do it my way i don't care what you want"

Let's not derail this thread by bringing into it what my side wants. Besides, we already have a separate thread for that.

"Do it my way i don't care what you want" is exactly what Trump's position is. Show me any example where he's been willing to give up something he wanted.

[robkelk]

Getting back on-topic...

Global Government Forum: An uncertain take-off: why US officials are reaching for the parachutes

Global Government Forum is based in the UK. This article provides some history about federal spending EDIT: in the USA (going back to the Antebellum days) and a reality check about the recent shutdown.

The US Coast Guard published resources for its furloughed employees suggesting that they hold garage sales, serve as "mystery shoppers", or even turn to bankruptcy as "a last option". A record 35,000 federal workers filed for unemployment benefits in January. Meanwhile, others turned to food banks and crowdfunding sites such as GoFundMe.

Congress's back pay promise doesn't cover some of the federal government's lowest-paid staff.

"Government jobs at the higher levels - like attorneys and judges - are not the most highly paid in the field," Dana Marx Lee, an immigration judge and President Emeritus of the National Association of Immigration Judges, told Government Global Forum. "Usually, the trade-off that people talk about is, well, you have increased security and predictability about your job. This just blows that argument out of the water, right? That can be very damaging long-term."

[robkelk]

Well, there's a deal to keep the government going.

Details might not be released until Wednesday, but the pact came in time to alleviate any threat of a second partial government shutdown this weekend.

Republicans in Congress like it.

Democrats in Congress have agreed to it.

[I]ts authors praised it as a genuine compromise that would keep the government open and allow everyone to move on.

If it doesn't happen, it won't be because of anything that either side in Congress did or didn't do.