I am guessing this is something your gut is telling you, and it must be true because why would your gut lie to you?
My gut often tells on me.
Cotton would be good. Organic cotton.
Are you suggesting Congress will agree to a partial funding of the departments & agencies that are currently unfunded?
This is the sort of idiocy that I’ve generally heard referenced as “[insert ethnic slur] rich” – if you’re not sick, facing eviction, stuck with an immobile car, etc right this minute, feel free to blow the insurance, mortgage, maintenance, etc budget on wine, women, and song (or, in Republican terms, on millionaire-billionaire tax cuts).
This is a classic example of an “Underpants Gnome” argument. In this case, the missing ??? step is "Demonstrate that “intelligent and rational identification” does not, in fact, lead to the conclusion “grow the government”. (Note: You have to demonstrate this for each and every individual case.)
Those were problems long before the shutdown. The Park Service has been criminally underfunded for a long, long time. I’ve lived right in the middle of a National Forest for 21 years, and right next to a huge wilderness area. I have yet to see a single ranger anywhere in it, and I have been out and about a lot during that time. 99% of the administrative duties here are carried out by volunteers.
I can’t believe how shortsighted some people are because they don’t see what’s going on beyond their little bubble. Here’s just a few things that I know are affected by the shutdown, since I’m interested in aviation:
Paine Airport near Seattle cannot open to commercial flights until the government reopens to give it necessary approvals. Alaska Airlines had to postpone its inauguration of service as a result.
Southwest Airlines cannot start flying to Hawaii until the government reopens to give it necessary approvals.
In both cases the key FAA employees are furloughed as nonessential. As you see, nonessential doesn’t mean totally unnecessary. It just means they don’t have to be there every second. But they are needed.
Ever heard of a congressperson who leaves office poorer than when he got elected? How does that happen?
A majority of depts and agencies are already funded regardless of the shutdown. Why couldn’t they add to the list as it becomes necessary?
So, fund the FAA. Not related to the wall issue, so why not?
That’s what I was thinking. Don’t do maintenance on your car, and you aren’t likely to notice a problem immediately. Don’t do maintenance for a dozen years, then you’re going to have problems.
I’m not in the habit of tracking congressional net worths, but I imagine that when it happens, it’s because the congressperson in question has some source of wealth that’s far greater than the congressional salary, and that it fluctuates according to the stock market.
Unless you meant to ask why it doesn’t usually happen, in which case that would be because the US Congress pays fairly well.
In either case, it has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that they’re giving away sinecure jobs to other people, which is what you were asked to provide a cite for.
Here’s an example of the glut of government programs available, and there’s a department for each one: Programs & Initiatives | Natural Resources Conservation Service
Are they all necessary? Who knows? Are they costly? Most certainly.
What you suggested is to fund only the “essential” jobs. That means each department/agency receives funding to pay only for the essential employees. How exactly do you imagine that would work? Can you imagine any member of Congress (from either party) voting to fund half of the FBI, leaving the rest to remain furloughed or terminated?
Well, maybe Rand Paul…
Last data I read said that of the (IIRC) 250k add’l fed positions between (approx.) 2004-12, something like 94% were in Defense, Homeland Security, and VA. I’d look up the cite, but it is easy to find, and you don’t seem to be interested in putting too much effort into identifying factual data. Personally, I’d suggest a good hard look at those 3 departments might be a better way to address any overstaffing/budget inequities. But each person seems to feel that the agencies they do not personally benefit from are the ones that are over staffed/budgeted.
I agree that - in many respects - Congress has abdicated its basic responsibilities. But this shutdown causes the gov’t to pay for work undone, increases backlogs, causing the most qualified (and hence, most marketable) to seek work elsewhere, and saps the spirit of those who remain. Hard for me to imagine that is a responsible way to address whatever problems reasonable and responsible persons might agree on.
None of this is related to the wall issue, dude.
Trump’s proposal:
$5.7 billion for wall or steel barriers for critical areas of the border
$800 million in urgent humanitarian assistance to the border
$805 million for technology, border protection
75 new immigration judge teams, to reduce immigration casework backlog
Measures to protect migrant children from exploitation, a new system for minors to apply for asylum from their home countries
Three years of legislative relief for young immigrants who arrived illegally with their parents, including access to work permits and protection from deportation
A three-year extension to the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) refugee program
>>So what’s the problem now? Many Democrats for a border wall and fence in 2006. I’d argue there has been well over 100,000 crime victims at the hands of illegal migration and that’s being very conservative.
Democrats should take this deal. I think they are so concerned with Trump getting credit for anything; they will rebel against it even if it benefits USA citizens, and makes things safer for the people who aren’t here legally.
USA citizens?
:dubious:
Interesting phrasing. What region of the US does that phrasing feature in the dialect?
What makes you think Trump would actually agree to those terms? That he offered those things? Have you met Donald Trump?
And what makes you think those are the things Democrats actually want? And if those things are all good things according to Republicans, then why tie them to building the wall?
The fact is, Trump needs the wall to mollify has base. You do remember that just a month ago he was ready to sign a bill that didn’t include wall funding, until he saw Ann Coulter on Fox complaining about it. So, he pulls the Government shutdown gambit.
But what exactly do Democrats get if they give Trump his wall? They give him a big political win, right? And what’s in it for them to give Trump a big political win? Let me answer that for you, in case you’re confused. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Giving Trump a win is bad for them, very very bad.
If re-funding the government is a good thing, then we should re-open the government. You don’t get credit for doing the right thing when you’re the one who did the bad thing. That’s like taking up smoking and then giving it up. It’s nonsensical.
If the Democrats give Trump a win on the Wall, then they’re finished and America is finished. What was the point of winning the House if they just roll over every time Trump throws a tantrum? They absolutely must not give up, or we’re back to one party rule in Washington. Elections have consequences. The time to fund the wall was back in 2017 or 2018 when Republicans controlled both Houses. It’s over now. You’re not getting it, because it would be electoral suicide to give Trump the win.
If you think it’s not such a big fucking deal to give the other side a big political win, then why the fuck don’t you advocate for Trump to give up and let the Democrats win? The reason is because you’re a Trump-supporting Republican who wants to see the Democrats lose. So why exactly should the Democrats follow your strategy of losing on purpose to Trump? What’s in it for them? I get it, you want them to lose, but why should they want to lose?