US "Government Shutdown"

[AccessBlaster]

Just a few things government employees might enjoy, 23 days vacation 13-14 holidays off. Sometimes pension plans not fully funded. Retirement after 55 years of age and 5 years of service. Almost endless sick days plus PN’s

I am a government employee myself, but can’t duplicate this in the private sector. I haven’t even mentioned the regular pay is not to shabby.

I guess my point is I am grateful.

 

[Steve R.]

Nancy Pelosi

A problem with most of the media is that it is virulently anti-Trump, which projects the misleading image: "One of our hobbies on TV is laughing at the USA and its joke of a president." Listen to what the Democrats are disingenuously saying, you may begin to appreciate the idiocy that Trump has to deal with.

Pelosi is out to "break" Trump. She wants to become, through her role as Speaker of the House, to be the power broker in the US. Pelosi is playing dirty gutter politics.

 

[June7]

Okay, "illegal immigrants" instead of "illegal aliens". Both are acceptable in common vernacular as well as political discourse. I am sure even Britain has some dealing with this issue but since you don't share a land border with an impoverished population, not to the same extent.

Pelosi is not 'from nowhere'. Serving in Congress since 1987, house Democrat leader since 2003, Speaker 2007-2011 and again 2019.

And Trump doesn't want to compromise on wall funding. He will accept nothing less than the full funding he feels is needed to build wall.

 

[ColinEssex]

Okay, "illegal immigrants" instead of "illegal aliens". Both are acceptable in common vernacular as well as political discourse.

I am sure even Britain has some dealing with this issue but since you don't share a land border with an impoverished population, not to the same extent.

Yes we do. We have Scotland to contend with. Hadrian tried to keep them out but it didn't work. Plus people try to get in illegally via France.

"Aliens" always conjours up the thought of lesser intelligent beings, but there again, as we see on TV and films, outer space aliens always land in the USA and always in the desert somewhere where rednecks treat them with hostility so perhaps it's in the American blood to treat any foreigner as a lesser being.

The other horrid phrase Americans use a lot in films and TV is "son of a bitch" - what exactly is that? It is said to females and males, but the word "son" refers to a male. So why not "daughter of a bitch" when addressing a female? Grammatically it doesn't sit correctly to call a female "son".

Anyway, I don't think this Nancy woman has been mentioned on the news which is why nobody has heard of her. As I said most of the jokes are about the inept occupant of the White House.
Have you noticed that when he signs things, he has to use a thick black crayon, then show the camera he can sign or scrawl his name?

Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I have kept away from this one for a while, but perhaps I can explain.

Col, you asked about the 800,000+ workers. No, that is NOT a lot of museums. The U.S. Government has several executive-branch departments: Defense (meaning the military), Homeland Security (meaning Transportation Security and the FBI and a few other alphabet agencies), Interior (meaning parks, museums, and farms), Education (related to federal grants and school standards), Justice (meaning the court system), State (meaning diplomatic relations with other countries), Labor (meaning the enforcement of labor protection laws), Health and Human Services (Medicare and Social Security), Treasury (oversight of banks and other financial institutions)... I might have left out a few, but you get the idea.

Within each of these departments, people are categorized according to whether their jobs are considered essential or non-essential to the operation of the nation. I know what you are thinking... why do we have non-essential employees? But in this case, the term means that if something gets delayed, how many people are hurt by it and how badly are they hurt? A non-essential job is one that handles things that are safer to defer; an essential job means we can't allow a deferral. So the military and some departments HAVE to operate - but other departments that answer government questions and respond to request for information might not be so important during a shutdown.

With the government shut-down, non-essential employees are in that 800,000 number. The essential employees are either being paid from an emergency fund or they are getting I.O.U.s issued by the government.

This DOES NOT INCLUDE contractor companies who supply labor to those departments. Whereas a federal employee can get an I.O.U., a federal contractor cannot. So the contractors are on unpaid furlough.

I just heard from a friend of mine (and former co-worker with the Navy) today that he and his wife are moving away from New Orleans because his job with the Navy as a contractor was de-funded by the shutdown and after 3 months, another (better) offer came around that he couldn't pass up. He said that there is a lot of that going around, and that MANY people are fleeing the insanity. The problem, of course, is that when this sort of flight occurs, the government departments will look to the contractors to re-fill those labor positions - and a sufficiently skilled labor pool will not be there.

Col, the issue is that Trump, despite what you think of him, is actually trying to fulfill as many of his campaign promises as he can. If the electorate voted for him, he wants to keep those promises as a sign of good faith. But the reason folks speak so badly about Mr. Trump is that he is a political outsider who has no problem at all in shaking up the way the USA has done business.

The reason the Democrats, led by Ms. Pelosi and a few others, want to stop him is because he is dismantling their support structure. The people wanted an end to the back-room political deals because "business as usual" was killing the country with special interest groups sucking as much as they could out of the liberal Congress. I do not deny that the conservatives ALSO want to suck as much as THEY can out of the conservative side of things. And the problem is that there is only so much to go around for ALL of those suckers.

As to "SOB" and it's variants? To be honest, I have not heard a woman called an SOB, but I have heard them via the B word in isolation. I don't think what you reported is as wide-spread as you might think. However, you seem to be interested in learning just how "son of a bitch" is derogatory. Well, I'll take a shot at that. You have probably heard of people referred to as a "dirty dog" - a reference to calling a person an animal. Right? Well the SON of a bitch is a second-generation dirty dog. I.e. not only are you a dog, but your mother was, too!

And it is also the origin of one of my favorite epithets: When you get home to your kennel tonight, I hope your mother bites you!

 

[Vassago]

Except the fact that a wall is an unproven and expensive theory, as highlighted by the Democrats and Immigration experts. It isn't just about taking away his ability to keep a campaign promise, though I'm sure they would love that as well. It's more about the insanity surrounding wanting to provide a promise that will not see any real benefit but will cost us a lot of money.

Besides, if our tax money is being used to fund this wall, is he really keeping the promise? He keeps insisting that the trade deal will pay for it, why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is and wait for that to prove it? If the money comes in from the trade deal, use it for the wall as promised. I don't want my taxes used for this purpose and most of Americans tend to agree. His lost supporters over this flawed promise that isn't really coming into fruition if he's using US money to pay for it.

 

[NauticalGent]

Completely agree Vassago, I personally do not support either party and I certainly do not like the current clown in the oval office any more or less than I liked the previous ones...

I make my decision based on the probablilty that it will do what it is intended to do. You build a 30' wall and all you have done is increase the demand for 35' ladders and shovels.

There are other more efficient, less expensive and less divisive ways to accomplish this.

I do have to say that I DO enjoy the angst his presence causes though...pisses off ALL the right people!

 

[Steve R.]

I make my decision based on the probablilty that it will do what it is intended to do. You build a 30' wall and all you have done is increase the demand for 35' ladders and shovels.

There are other more efficient, less expensive and less divisive ways to accomplish this.

Let me start off by saying that I am not a fan of the wall, but I am silent on speaking against it because the Democratic party, despite public comments, is not for enhanced border security.

You are correct to say that a 30' wall will increase the demand for 35' ladders. But there is the counter point. No wall means that a person can simply walk across the border. That is not enhanced border security.

But then the proposed counter response to the wall which is the deployment of drones and other technologies will supposedly improve border security. But wait, counter measures to the use of drones would soon evolve. Don't think otherwise. For example, some entrepreneur will come out with a drone proof clothing line (camouflage). The drug cartels may deploy "killer" drones. Hand held lasers can "blind" drones. Then there is electronic jamming.

In the end, any technology solution will eventually result in a technological counter solution. Whether that be a wall or a drone.

Next, there is abundant indirect evidence that Democrats are not serious about enhanced security, consider:

1. Neither the Republicans not Democrats seem interested in revising immigration law to mandate the immediate deportation of those entering the US illegally. Or to otherwise closing loopholes that allow illegal immigrants to remain in the US while endlessly gaming the legal system.
   
2. The Democrats support efforts (food, legal help, welfare etc.) by various groups to assist those wishing to enter the US. They do not seem to be interested in squelching those efforts.
   
3. The Democrats support efforts to make it difficult to identify and deport illegal immigrants. Sanctuary cities as one example.
   
4. Democrats are active in promoting government support (that should be reserved to citizens) to illegal immigrants.
   
5. I have not heard of the Democrats making any legislative proposals that would de-incentivize people from entering the US illegally. The Democrats seem to only make legislative proposals that encourage people to enter the US, even if their method of entry, is illegal.

If the Democrats were really serious about imposing measures (without a wall) that would minimize illegal immigration into the US, they would be proposing that the types of activities listed above would be discontinued.

PS: Remember this whole issue was "solved" 33 years ago under Reagan. For whatever reason, the proposed solutions were never fully implemented. Both the Republicans and Democrats are responsible for failing to adhere to the solutions. Currently, it is the Democrats who are now stonewalling.

 

[NauticalGent]

Careful Steve, you're sounding like a card-carrying Libertarian or even worse a "Paul-Bot".

I am a recovering Paul-Bot myself. When I took the Gov position and attached myself even more firmly to the Gov Teat (military pension and all!), I had to throttle back so as not to choke on the hypocrisy. There is that whole security clearance thing too...

I try to stay away from this topic. You simply cannot change peoples' minds and my frustration caused more than a few bruised feelings (Seems I have a wee-temper!)

I couldnt agree more with your statements, however, I think where you and I differ is the topic for the NEED for border security. If you took away all the free benefits and enforced existing laws, I feel we would have the best of both worlds.

 

[Vassago]

What benefits do you guys feel need to be taken away from illegal immigrants? Do you even know what benefits they are receiving? I feel like this is always thrown out as a very misinformed reason why we need a wall.

I'm all for security, but not for a stupid wall that will be ineffective at the very reasoning that it is being proposed and not when the money can be much better spent.

 

[NauticalGent]

What benefits do you guys feel need to be taken away from illegal immigrants? Do you even know what benefits they are receiving? I feel like this is always thrown out as a very misinformed reason why we need a wall.

Which is why I avoid this topic! I will learn one day...

 

[Vassago]

Which is why I avoid this topic! I will learn one day...

You'll only learn if you are willing to participate in constructive discussion. I'm also trying to learn, which is why I asked.

We both agree that a wall is a waste of resources. I would like to learn more about other ways we can curb this issue. I say it's misinformed because I constantly hear about "benefits" that illegal immigrants receive but never about any details surrounding these benefits. As far as I know, they CAN'T receive most benefits, short of children being offered food benefits and medical care necessary to sustain life. I can't see those as good things to take away from people, no matter who they are. If you are aware of other benefits they receive, I'd honestly like to hear about it. Are these the benefits you refer to?

 

[Steve R.]

Careful Steve, you're sounding like a card-carrying Libertarian or even worse a "Paul-Bot".

I guess that I am.

Now that he is out of Congress, he has appeared more relaxed and made better statements that I can agree with.

What benefits do you guys feel need to be taken away from illegal immigrants? Do you even know what benefits they are receiving?

A quick, but obviously incomplete list.

More undocumented immigrants would qualify for health care in $250 million California plan

New York City mayor vows health care for all — including undocumented immigrants

54% of Dems polled: Give illegals right to vote

Tuition Benefits for Immigrants

I feel like this is always thrown out as a very misinformed reason why we need a wall.

The wall is really a red-herring around which both the Republicans and Democrats are using as a rallying cry.

For me, we don't really need the wall. Furthermore, the claim that drones or any other technology would be a magical solution for border security is also overblown. What we need is an effective method to identify and immediately deport those who are in the US illegally. That way we can minimize stories such as: Police arrest illegal immigrant suspected in California officer's killing

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Vassago -

As to the specifics of "the wall" - I don't think it is a good idea only because static walls in history have never been that effective. Plus, when the government gets involved, major construction projects not involving office buildings end up getting screwed.

It was a branch of the U.S. government that oversaw the building of the levees around New Orleans - the ones that failed and resulted in my home town getting flooded over eight feet deep in many residential areas. We lost a lot of people to the floods. (I personally knew a woman, a co-worker, who was drowned by the flooding.)

The problem was sub-standard building methods and materials, all managed with government oversight, and three such levees failed. Now, 13 years later, we STILL have blighted areas where nobody has tried to return to build. (And I don't blame them one bit.) We still have property nominally owned by folks who moved to other cities years ago and now do nothing about the property they left behind. Is it any wonder that our city has a deplorably poor tax base?

This country needs border security because the illegals take up time and space in public hospitals and schools. If they were legal, they could get jobs that had SOME health insurance as at least a possibility. They could be assessed SOMETHING for school board funding. But illegals consume social services that are normally paid for by taxes that the illegals don't pay - or at least, don't fully pay. It is bad enough that the USA has its own indigents - but to then take on the indigents of other countries because those countries are (what was the Donald's phrase?) shit-holes is just a burden we don't need.

 

[pbaldy]

even worse a "Paul-Bot".

Hey, that hurts!!

 

[AccessBlaster]

Obviously the wall doesn’t work for Israel or the Vatican but could we at lest get e-verif or is that immoral also.

 

[Wayne]

Doc you are right. Static walls throughout history have failed miserably to achieve their objectives - which is to keep some group of people out. It didn't work for the Chinese either - The Great Wall didn't keep out the Mongol hordes. And those who fail to study history, are often doomed to repeat it. Build a 25 foot high wall on the Mexican border, and some resourceful Mexican will simply build a 26 foot ladder, or tunnel under it.

 

[Vassago]

A quick, but obviously incomplete list.

More undocumented immigrants would qualify for health care in $250 million California plan

New York City mayor vows health care for all — including undocumented immigrants

These are not good examples. I assumed we were talking about federal benefits here.
1. They are isolated to the city/state that they are tied to.
2. They were never enacted according to the plans these articles are talking about.
3. Healthcare really should be a basic human right, IMO. Of course, being an opinion, there's bound to be some that disagree. I don't mind seeing children being taken care of.

54% of Dems polled: Give illegals right to vote

This is a poll from an obviously skewed website. Where are they getting this benefit?

Tuition Benefits for Immigrants

This is a pathway to obtain legal residency. Isn't that what people want to follow?

 

[Vassago]

But illegals consume social services that are normally paid for by taxes that the illegals don't pay - or at least, don't fully pay. It is bad enough that the USA has its own indigents - but to then take on the indigents of other countries because those countries are (what was the Donald's phrase?) shit-holes is just a burden we don't need.

Which social services do they consume besides healthcare and food for kids? Do you think they shouldn't be allowed this?

There have also been studies to show that illegal immigrants contribute MORE to social programs that they CAN'T use, such as federal welfare programs.

 

[ColinEssex]

Thanks Doc for your useful reply.

This Nancy person is what we call the "opposition leader", their sole job is to argue against anything the government comes up with - good or bad.

It would seem from posts here, this wall business is not very popular. Also, I am led to believe that the US people are less than happy about Mexicans (Spicks as Clint Eastwood called them) coming into the USA illegally.

So the question is, what is the answer? Has this Nancy person got an alternative?

Col