How does the shutdown end?

[Ringo84]

Yes, in February there was a deal that Democrats would provide "complete" funding for his wall (so probably $25 million at a minimum) for enshrining DACA into law. Of course, when the deal leaked, the Tea Party, along with Limbaugh and the Conservative media complained and started calling Trump, "Amnesty Don." At that point, Trump pulled his support and the Tea Party members of Congress voted against the deal.

Yep, that sounds familiar.

Another thing I've heard is that Trump may possibly drop the wall funding requirement in exchange for more spending on the border -- such as additional funding for INS judges (about 500, from what I recall) to help with the backlogs. The last I've heard, Trump himself still doesn't know what he's going to say in the speech, or what he'll offer.

I would assume that it's unlikely for Donny to back off of his wall, but nobody can truly know what he's going to say or do until it happens.
Ringo

 

[SimplyMe]

Yep, that sounds familiar.

I would assume that it's unlikely for Donny to back off of his wall, but nobody can truly know what he's going to say or do until it happens.
Ringo

I think Trump knows he is in a tough spot, that he can't control Republicans long term -- that his support is eroding. He could offer DACA (in some for or another) but would likely, again, be crucified by conservative media.

It will be interesting to see if he can give up support for his wall -- though it likely is what he'll need to do to end the shutdown. It will be interesting to see what he'll do.

And as a side note, with a nod to the Chinese saying, I'm tired of living in "interesting times."

 

[SimplyMe]

Actually, at least per the Washington Post, it appears Trump is likely to offer temporary DACA protections in exchange for wall funding; though allegedly Trump still hasn't firmly made up his mind.

My hope would be that Democrats would only consider it if it extends DACA through 2020 -- after the next presidential election. You know, if it is just for a few months, we'll be back with Trump demanding more funding for the wall and possibly offering extending DACA again by a few months.

I would also want Congress, before giving Trump his $5.7 billion, to demand plans for the money -- and specifically allocate the money according to the proposal that is presented. No president, Democrat or Republican, should be given a "blank check" to spend as he desires. The money needs to be allocated for a particular wall section(s), with certain amounts allocated for hiring more Border Patrol, INS, and immigration judges.

 

[Ringo84]

I still wouldn't take that deal, for a variety of reasons. Anything over $0 going to the stupid wall should be a non-starter anyway, but Dreamers should be protected permanently.

The deal should be a clean CR or nothing, in my opinion.
Ringo

 

[Sparagmos]

I'm not necessarily glad to see Americans suffer. Or democrats. But I do understand that coming out of an addiction, even one as innocent-seeming as suckling at a government teat, can be painful and difficult at first.

It’s red states that are doing the most suckling...

 

[camille70]

Yes, in February there was a deal that Democrats would provide "complete" funding for his wall (so probably $25 million at a minimum) for enshrining DACA into law. Of course, when the deal leaked, the Tea Party, along with Limbaugh and the Conservative media complained and started calling Trump, "Amnesty Don." At that point, Trump pulled his support and the Tea Party members of Congress voted against the deal.

Another thing I've heard is that Trump may possibly drop the wall funding requirement in exchange for more spending on the border -- such as additional funding for INS judges (about 500, from what I recall) to help with the backlogs. The last I've heard, Trump himself still doesn't know what he's going to say in the speech, or what he'll offer.

The money isn't the problem per Tim Kaine this morning. He said the wall is a non starter. If they are going to give the money they want it to go toward what border officials say they needed.

 

[SimplyMe]

The money isn't the problem per Tim Kaine this morning. He said the wall is a non starter. If they are going to give the money they want it to go toward what border officials say they needed.

We'll see what happens. I agree that the money should go to where border officials feel it is needed. I believe there are some new areas that may benefit from a wall, and if that is what the border officials say I have no issue extending the wall in those areas. Just giving money to "build a wall" does not make sense to me.

 

[bèlla]

Politics is a never-ending spectacle whose drama rivals the greatest opera. It's the slight of hand I'm focusing on. The issues are never what they suggest. And while our attention is pointing in one direction they're addressing the real thing behind closed doors.

I predict we'll lose a right or privilege that we'll learn about later on thanks to a helpful law enacted during the hoax.

As Judy Garland said... "The world is a stage; the stage is a world of entertainment."

 

[Phil.Stein]

You ought to tune into something a bit more intelligent and nuanced than Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.

It's not (just) welfare benefits that are at risk (and aren't most of those administered by the states anyways?). Regulatory agencies that oversee approval for things like food labeling and safety, securities compliance, tax compliance, tariff rules and exemptions, and loan guarantees are all shut down. That means that businesses that need certain paperwork can't do their business. The national park service is mostly closed, leaving no one to police public parks, allowing them to get damaged by vandals. The Coast Guard is not getting paid.

I guess you don't see the point being made. Why do we need all this extra bureaucracy? The world gets on just fine without a government adding their rubber stamp and taxation to everything. Sure, we might need some police, and a coast-guard or two, but has all that food-labelling ever stopped people eating something bad for them, and tax compliance would be unnecessary if tax was minimal and charged as a duty, as the original founders had in mind. 95% or more of government is just waste.

And if the second amendment were truly honoured, we could probably even do away with the two policemen and the coast guard.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I guess you don't see the point being made. Why do we need all this extra bureaucracy? The world gets on just fine without a government adding their rubber stamp and taxation to everything. Sure, we might need some police, and a coast-guard or two, but has all that food-labelling ever stopped people eating something bad for them, and tax compliance would be unnecessary if tax was minimal and charged as a duty, as the original founders had in mind. 95% or more of government is just waste.

I would argue that you only think the world gets on just fine without the government because you're not in a position to need or interact with those services. All of that bureaucratic infrastructure happens behind the scenes, out of view of most of the world - just as it should.

And most of the time, the bureaucracy is only created after something has shown itself to be a problem.

Re: taxes. Even if everything is just a duty, you still need someone to manage things and do the paperwork. Have you ever dealt with harmonized tariff codes? It's a huge, complicated list of items that impact an even bigger, more complicated series of businesses and industries.

Re: food labeling. Yes, that labeling is incredibly important and not just so people can stay skinny. Many people have food allergies or other health problems that require sticking to certain diets; not knowing what's in their food could literally be a matter of life and death. Off the top of my head, I have several friends and family members with non-fatal allergies to wheat, soy, lactose, eggs, celery (seriously), and alcohol, and a couple with potentially fatal allergies to nuts and shellfish. There are also several with Crohn's (two of whom who've required extensive hospitalization) who get triggered by lots of things, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some. I would say it's more important to protect their health and well-being than it is to entertain some libertarian fever dream of killing regulatory oversight.

And if the second amendment were truly honoured, we could probably even do away with the two policemen and the coast guard.

lol, sure, whatever you say, cowboy. I don't think even Sean Hannity is nutty enough to propose something like that.

 

[SimplyMe]

I guess you don't see the point being made. Why do we need all this extra bureaucracy? The world gets on just fine without a government adding their rubber stamp and taxation to everything. Sure, we might need some police, and a coast-guard or two, but has all that food-labelling ever stopped people eating something bad for them, and tax compliance would be unnecessary if tax was minimal and charged as a duty, as the original founders had in mind. 95% or more of government is just waste.

And if the second amendment were truly honoured, we could probably even do away with the two policemen and the coast guard.

I'd suggest you go to a country like Somalia as they seem to be your ideal. Plenty of guns with minimal police or taxes. They don't even need a true Coast Guard, with all the people with guns that go out in ships. Sounds like your type of country, from what you've described.

 

[loveofourlord]

the biggest reason this will likly fail is, what reason do democrats have to believe a word he says about this deal even if they want it, he already once before took back on a better deal last year, and on other bills and things, they will need STRONG proof this will go through at this point.

 

[Phil.Stein]

I would argue that you only think the world gets on just fine without the government because you're not in a position to need or interact with those services. All of that bureaucratic infrastructure happens behind the scenes, out of view of most of the world - just as it should.

The government thrives on making out that life is complicated. It's not. It only gets complicated when governments make it complicated, so they can introduce yet another tax. All those people with food allergies - grow their own food. Or pay extra to buy food that someone else grows for them. Don't tax the healthy to fund the sick. If the sick can't afford it, they can rely on charity, but charity should not be a role of government, or you end up with the mess we have.

I'd suggest you go to a country like Somalia as they seem to be your ideal. Plenty of guns with minimal police or taxes. They don't even need a true Coast Guard, with all the people with guns that go out in ships. Sounds like your type of country, from what you've described.

The culture would be too different. While I do agree with the second amendment, I think it'd be a bloodbath, and as a Christian, I hold even the lives of thieves and vagabonds as valuable.

If somewhere like Texas seceded from the states, that'd do for me.

 

[Allandavid]

Trump agrees to reopen government implying he is accepting Congressional deal. Then he declares National Emergency, gets bogged down in court. Trump blames dems. Announces North Korea is nuke free, has another summit with Un. Mueller report comes out, Trump declares martial law because North Korea fires missile into the Ocean and China declares ownership of the dark side of the moon.

Brilliant. The only thing you left out was another dirty weekend with Vlad...

 

[Goonie]

With a whimper.

 

[KCfromNC]

Don't you read the papers?

Hey look, more attempts to avoid answering a straightforward request. It is starting to feel like there isn't any actual source for the claim I was asking about.

 

[KCfromNC]

I guess you don't see the point being made. Why do we need all this extra bureaucracy? The world gets on just fine without a government adding their rubber stamp and taxation to everything. Sure, we might need some police, and a coast-guard or two, but has all that food-labelling ever stopped people eating something bad for them, and tax compliance would be unnecessary if tax was minimal and charged as a duty, as the original founders had in mind. 95% or more of government is just waste.

Nice rhetoric, but citation needed.

 

[KCfromNC]

The "deal" is something like temporary DACA protection in exchange for a racist monument.

That will hopefully be a non-starter among Democrats - especially in the wake of recent judgments that bolster DACA.

If we're just going back to pre-manufactured-controversy-by-Trump status on DACA, seems like the right thing to concede is pre-Trump levels of funding for his wall. Namely, $0.

 

[cow451]

Brilliant. The only thing you left out was another dirty weekend with Vlad...

TOS limits some of my prophetic disclosures.

 

[evoeth]

Whoever had the first option, all six of you. Have likely won!