No Compromise at the Border.

[dogs4thewin]

Paying MY MONEY into a system that helps and supports those in need and amplifies by input by pooling the rest of the population makes me PROUD to be an American. We need more of that.

We need to ensure that people who cannot make ends meet through no fault of their own have a chance at living a good life.

I am glad for dogs4thewin that I am able to help support that system. Because I know there but for the grace of god go I. I know that one day I won't have a good job with good pay and good benefits. Could be tomorrow, could be in 5 years, who knows. I am just glad to be able to support the system while I can knowing that I might one day need it as well and knowing that I'm doing some good for those who need it now.

getting ready to PM you to asks an honest question.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

but I am confused they will in most cases get backpay, but if they do not go to work at ALL they will not get paid.

This is a simplistic view of how people live day to day. As I explained earlier an example from my life helped me understand what it means to live paycheck to paycheck.

Let's try a thought experiment in your situation: if the disability benefits one day sent you a letter saying that for the foreseen future you would get NO BENEFITS but at some point in the unknown future you'd get all the back-benefits you were entitled to...could you use that to buy your medications? Could you take that letter to the grocery store and get food with it?

The short answer is likely NO. No matter how much you promise to pay it all back later on. Life doesn't work that way.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

getting ready to PM you to asks an honest question.

Go for it. I'm ready.

 

[dogs4thewin]

This is a simplistic view of how people live day to day. As I explained earlier an example from my life helped me understand what it means to live paycheck to paycheck.

Let's try a thought experiment in your situation: if the disability benefits one day sent you a letter saying that for the foreseen future you would get NO BENEFITS but at some point in the unknown future you'd get all the back-benefits you were entitled to...could you use that to buy your medications? Could you take that letter to the grocery store and get food with it?

The short answer is likely NO. No matter how much you promise to pay it all back later on. Life doesn't work that way.

OH now I get it it is not as if the bills stop coming, so even if they get backpay if it lasts long enough they still may lose housing, power transportation promised backpay does no good for the moment. It can also ruin your credit ( Even if you do manage to hold on to your things and pay for them on credit or miss a payment.

 

[Dave-W]

They will get a heck of a backpay check, ( as long as they actually work.)

Tht is not guaranteed except for those “excepted” who have to work without pay. Most of us may get paid or we may not. Even if Congress passes legislation to pay us for time lost, there is a good likelyhood Trump will veto it. He does not like federal workers that much.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

Tht is not guaranteed except for those “excepted” who have to work without pay. Most of us may get paid or we may not. Even if Congress passes legislation to pay us for time lost, there is a good likelyhood Trump will veto it. He does not like federal workers that much.

It is very hard for a man who was a millionaire at age 8, has never actually had to take responsibility for his business failures (daddy bailed him out and he often left creditors on the hook), and who may have opted at one point to outright defraud people for money to understand the travails of "people" (you guys are, technically speaking, humans right?)

Back in the 90's I was a government employee during the shutdown between Newt and Bill Clinton. Thankfully I worked at the USDA so our appropriations were already set and no one touched our money. I dodged a bullet there.

Hope these folks in DC get their stuff together so you guys can get back to being paid. Ugh.

 

[Serving Zion]

Feb 15, 2018

Washington (CNN)In a stinging defeat after months of negotiations, senators on Thursday failed to advance a bipartisan proposal to resolve the future of millions of young undocumented immigrants, leaving talks seemingly back at square one.

A much-anticipated bipartisan deal that would have paired a pathway to citizenship for nearly 2 million undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children with $25 billion in border security and some other measures failed to get the 60 votes necessary to advance legislation after furious White House opposition.
The vote was 54-45.
A competing White House-backed plan that would have also substantially increased federal deportation powers, heavily cut family-based legal migration and ended the diversity visa also failed, 39-60.

Bipartisan DACA, border security deal fails in Senate - CNNPolitics

Thank you for that information. I can see the opposing values by this fact. It explains the passion behind the present Democrat actions (eg: Matthew 5:7).

What it shows is that the democrats as a body were willing to compromise, putting 1.3 billion additional funding toward border security, to do what is best for our nation. That included keeping the government functioning.

First, can you please check that you shouldn't be saying $2.5b instead? (That value is found in the article introduced at post #96). In either case, why do you think that was not sufficient to satisfy Pres. Trump's demands? .. do you think that $5.6b is too great a cost for the value of that border security?

...it's an overpriced idea

(Perhaps you can provide a comment on what I have asked of FenderTL5, here).

It should be data-driven

-Is it that they're just unaware of the numbers

Probably has a lot to do with it, but statistics can be misleading if not handled well. Are you able to show those statistics? It could be useful.

who's sneaking across the border vs. Visa Overstays and people coming in by air?

Technically, sneaking across the border and coming in by air are the same offence, but one is involving a more concerted effort so therefore the gravity of the offence is seen as greater.

As for the overstayers, it doesn't appear to be as much of a security risk because they have entered the country the legitimate way, having been screened for quality of character etc (John 10:1). So it doesn't really fall into the category of "border security" by definition, because they have been examined and found "not dangerous" to the country. The transgression is more of the sort of a breach of contract.

-Or are they well aware of these numbers, and just insist on doing that for the sheer joy of agitating their political enemies?
-Or is it just about anti-Mexican sentiment?

Knowing human nature, that wouldn't be so surprising this day and age..

the more I bring up the stats and the more people push back or ignore them...the more I start to wonder.

That doesn't all come down to Matthew 16:3b, but there is an element of John 10:4-5 to consider. It takes a lot of integrity to really find the essential knowledge of what we speak of (and there are few who find it - Matthew 24:37). (eg: Romans 1:29-31, 1 Timothy 4:1-2, Matthew 16:18-19).

Trump 'touched' it, and he has cooties.

I have found that Mrs. Pelosi fundamentally objects to the wall because it is an "immorality", though it isn't exactly that clear why she has said so. Facts simply are that the wall's purpose is to assist with enforcement of migration law, so if the wall is immoral because of it's functional purpose, then really she is saying that migration law is immoral. So she must be describing rather that not the wall is immoral, but that the President's priorities are immoral. She went on to express that she has concerns about Pres. Trump's other agendas for Social Support and Environmental Protection policy.

It would appear that she is using the wall as a kind of "bargaining chip" for an alternative agenda. It would be useful if she was pressed to explain the reason why she has said the wall is immoral, but alas, as ThatRobGuy mentioned, people are so hyped up and passionate about their feelings, they don't have any interest in the pursuit of such explanations. (That's essentially what wars are: "I tell you" and "no, I tell you", when words are failing to get the message across).

Demands upon our soldiers to kill humans? First of all, the threat would prevent some from crossing, but secondly currently we have no mandate to serve if you feel that strongly about it then do not join. Even though, I feel that people who are not WILLING to join do not deserve the freedom that it provides, but that is for another thread

It was rubber bullets for starters. But the fact is that a politician should not feel comfortable with ordering a soldier to fire at a civilian, especially a refugee (Proverbs 11:26, Proverbs 29:7, Psalms 11:5). Plus, there will be gaps where some slip through, that encourages others to attempt a crossing to their own harm. A wall is far less harmful and more effective than bullets, but that is all besides the point. The point is, that it is plain immoral and wrong to become violent and harm a person who is fleeing to your care for safety.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"Good fences make good neighbors". Trite but true.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This is a simplistic view of how people live day to day. As I explained earlier an example from my life helped me understand what it means to live paycheck to paycheck.

Let's try a thought experiment in your situation: if the disability benefits one day sent you a letter saying that for the foreseen future you would get NO BENEFITS but at some point in the unknown future you'd get all the back-benefits you were entitled to...could you use that to buy your medications? Could you take that letter to the grocery store and get food with it?

The short answer is likely NO. No matter how much you promise to pay it all back later on. Life doesn't work that way.

Pay with plastic for most, get forebearance for rent.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Thank you for that information. I can see the opposing values by this fact. It explains the passion behind the present Democrat actions (eg: Matthew 5:7).


First, can you please check that you shouldn't be saying $2.5b instead? (That value is found in the article introduced at post #96). In either case, why do you think that was not sufficient to satisfy Pres. Trump's demands? .. do you think that $5.6b is too great a cost for the value of that border security?


(Perhaps you can provide a comment on what I have asked of FenderTL5, here).

Probably has a lot to do with it, but statistics can be misleading if not handled well. Are you able to show those statistics? It could be useful.

Technically, sneaking across the border and coming in by air are the same offence, but one is involving a more concerted effort so therefore the gravity of the offence is seen as greater.

As for the overstayers, it doesn't appear to be as much of a security risk because they have entered the country the legitimate way, having been screened for quality of character etc (John 10:1). So it doesn't really fall into the category of "border security" by definition, because they have been examined and found "not dangerous" to the country. The transgression is more of the sort of a breach of contract.

Knowing human nature, that wouldn't be so surprising this day and age..

That doesn't all come down to Matthew 16:3b, but there is an element of John 10:4-5 to consider. It takes a lot of integrity to really find the essential knowledge of what we speak of (and there are few who find it - Matthew 24:37). (eg: Romans 1:29-31, 1 Timothy 4:1-2, Matthew 16:18-19).

I have found that Mrs. Pelosi fundamentally objects to the wall because it is an "immorality", though it isn't exactly that clear why she has said so. Facts simply are that the wall's purpose is to assist with enforcement of migration law, so if the wall is immoral because of it's functional purpose, then really she is saying that migration law is immoral. So she must be describing rather that not the wall is immoral, but that the President's priorities are immoral. She went on to express that she has concerns about Pres. Trump's other agendas for Social Support and Environmental Protection policy.

It would appear that she is using the wall as a kind of "bargaining chip" for an alternative agenda. It would be useful if she was pressed to explain the reason why she has said the wall is immoral, but alas, as ThatRobGuy mentioned, people are so hyped up and passionate about their feelings, they don't have any interest in the pursuit of such explanations. (That's essentially what wars are: "I tell you" and "no, I tell you", when words are failing to get the message across).

It was rubber bullets for starters. But the fact is that a politician should not feel comfortable with ordering a soldier to fire at a civilian, especially a refugee (Proverbs 11:26, Proverbs 29:7, Psalms 11:5). Plus, there will be gaps where some slip through, that encourages others to attempt a crossing to their own harm. A wall is far less harmful and more effective than bullets, but that is all besides the point. The point is, that it is plain immoral and wrong to become violent and harm a person who is fleeing to your care for safety.

We cannot take everyone who wants to come in. We have rules as to how many we let in and how people qualify.

 

[FenderTL5]

First, can you please check that you shouldn't be saying $2.5b instead? (That value is found in the article introduced at post #96)..

I read that article. As I understand it, the 2.5 billion is mentioned as a 'counter-proposal' from Mike Pence, a republican, who happens to be the Vice President. However, being VP would seem to be insignificant in the Trump Administration. It did not come from democrats.

In either case, why do you think that was not sufficient to satisfy Pres. Trump's demands?

Speculating on the whims of Donald Trump's "gut/instincts" when it comes to decision making is not something I'm comfortable doing. Neither rhyme nor reason seem to play a role.

.. do you think that $5.6b is too great a cost for the value of that border security?

I haven't calculated a dollar value, but I did give my opinion on what I think should be done earlier in post 11.

{edit to add} The CBO estimates are here.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

Pay with plastic for most, get forebearance for rent.

LOL. That's pretty funny.

 

[Arcangl86]

Pay with plastic for most, get forebearance for rent.

So rack up credit card debt, with the high interest rates concerned, and pray your landlord doesn't throw you on the street. That's your solution?

 

[dogs4thewin]

So rack up credit card debt, with the high interest rates concerned, and pray your landlord doesn't throw you on the street. That's your solution?

If you pay with plastic too you will have to pay it back.

 

[Speedwell]

So rack up credit card debt, with the high interest rates concerned, and pray your landlord doesn't throw you on the street. That's your solution?

Come on, we all have to pull together in a situation like this. It's a national emergency--our culture is under serious existential threat.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So rack up credit card debt, with the high interest rates concerned, and pray your landlord doesn't throw you on the street. That's your solution?

Government workers probably have cash reserves on hand for such contingencies. They can also draw on savings, stocks, bonds, etc. (Cashing in cd's is not a good idea however as there would be large penalties.)

Eviction is not likely as landlords know that those will likely receive back pay. They also hold security deposits that can be held against rent due. Also notice must be given which actually allows time to catch up on rent.

Normal living expenses have to paid in any case. The small amount of interest paid on credit is easily offset by reducing some costs such as food, entertainment, travel, and other unnecessary expenditures.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If you pay with plastic too you will have to pay it back.

I put everything on plastic, but I never carry a balance (I'm a "deadbeat").

 

[GlabrousDory4]

Government workers probably have cash reserves on hand for such contingencies.

That would make them very different from a huge number of Americans.

They can also draw on savings, stocks, bonds, etc.

When I see a TSA agent the first thing I say to myself is: I wonder what THEIR stock portfolio looks like!

 

[cow451]

If Mexico is smart they will build the wall, on Mexico's side of the border.

Why?

 

[Ringo84]

I don't know, at this point, why we are not agreeing about this.

The definition of "Renege" by thefreedictionary.com, states that it is "To fail to carry out a promise or commitment".
re·nege
(rĭ-nĕg′, -nĭg′)
v. re·neged, re·neg·ing, re·neges
v.intr.
1. To fail to carry out a promise or commitment: reneged on the contract at the last minute.
2. Games To fail to follow suit in cards when able and required by the rules to do so.
v.tr. Archaic
To renounce; disown.
n.
The act of reneging.

So when you say that Pres. Trump has reneged, it first has to include a promise that he would have accepted the deal. So far the evidence suggests that VP Pence negotiated a deal that Pres. Trump did not agree to accept. So that doesn't suit the definition of the word "renege".

I have not seen any evidence that shows Pres. Trump ever intended to accept less than $5.6b.

Now where I think our disagreement has it's root, is that you fundamentally object to Pres. Trump having shut down the government over this issue, and you believe that he has done wrong by declining an opportunity to resume government, so you are demonising him, and part of the process of demonising a person, is to demonstrate their error.

I just say that you seem to have wrongly found this error in him, because to my knowledge (that you have not provided information to contrary), I remember that Pres. Trump clearly told the Democrat House that he was intending to shut down the government if he did not obtain funds for the wall.

Democrat House have chosen to not provide the funds for the wall, and Pres. Trump has held to his commitment.

VP Pence has negotiated to find a deal that is acceptable to Democrat House, but it is not acceptable to President Trump.

There is no visible renege according to those facts. Perhaps you can explain where you think I have not drawn the right conclusion.

Once again, with feeling:

His comments came after an emergency meeting with House Republican leaders, where Trump revealed he would reject a measure passed in the Senate the night before. That measure would fund many government agencies through Feb. 8, but it would not include any new money for Trump’s border wall.

“I’ve made my position very clear. Any measure that funds the government must include border security,” Trump said in an event at the White House. He added, “Walls work, whether we like it or not. They work better than anything.”

Trump’s comments on Thursday completely overturned the plan GOP leaders were patching together earlier in the day. With no other viable options available, they had hoped to pass the short-term spending bill approved by the Senate, averting a government shutdown set to start days before Christmas.

He "signaled that he was going to sign" the spending bill, then threw a temper tantrum. That's what it means when someone reneges on a deal.
Ringo