Government Shutdown (Funding now expires 2/15/19) (1 Viewer)

superchuck500

tiny changes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
48,731
Reaction score
66,846
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Offline
Sticky Post
This one looking like it might happen, because two out of three interests seem to think it might help them - or at least not hurt them as much as others.

1. Democrats: (1) Trump gave them a huge gift when he proclaimed on live television that he would be proud to shut the government down over wall funding. There is always political risk to being party to a shutdown but that gave the Democrats strong plausible deniability and laid this shutdown right at Trump's feet. Had he not done that, he could have used his media advantage and gift for trash-talking to point the finger at the Democrats and that would have concerned them. Now, that pressure is lifted and though he will still try it, they have the upper hand (because he gave it to them); (2) the Democrats know that when the new Congress is sworn in, they will have a House majority, which gives them substantially more leverage to make bargains, so pushing funding debate back until January works in their favor.

2. Trump: (1) He knows that on January 3, 2019, things get dicier for him on Capitol Hill, so this might be his last best chance to get wall funding - so digging in now on the hopes that the Democrats will begin to get worried about losing face with the electorate might bring them around . . . this is probably not going to happen for the reasons stated above, but you never know how these things go until you get into them, so there's that; (2) Trump's base remains motivated by any appearance of 'insurgent' tactics to push their agenda - and "shutting down the government 'cause we can't get the wall built' likely plays well to that group and perhaps Trump sees the blue gains in November and things he needs to re-invigorate his 2016 demographic and a shutdown might actually help in that regard (not sure if that's true but it could be the calculus).

The Republicans in the Senate are the most obvious interest aligned against a shutdown. They know that shutdowns can be harmful and they know that Trump has already publicly claimed responsibility for any shutdown that might occur - so there's good reason for their concern that Trump might drag them along. To this end, it is clear that many Republican senators no longer feel that it is in their interest to remain aligned with Trump despite disagreement - the Saudi resolutions last week are clear proof of that.

Shutdowns really are problematic for many reasons - perhaps one of the most important (and overlooked by the average person) is just how much effort and energy it takes for a federal agency to go through a shutdown process. It requires every office within the agency to shift from the work they usually do in furtherance of their mission, to go through days of planning, paperwork, and contingency preparation to get a shutdown done in the orderly fashion it requires - and then there's work on the back end when they turn the lights back on. But perhaps because a shutdown from December 21 through the new year wouldn't have as noticeable impact as a shutdown in early October (when annual appropriations typically lapse), the interests involved have calculated that a shutdown now might be somewhat muted in its effect - making it more of a symbolic result than one that is truly damaging in the practical sense.

And that might actually increase the odds that it's going to happen. Right now, it appears that a shutdown is more likely than not.




 

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
13,240
Reaction score
17,957
Offline
I just can’t imagine any Republican will go along with Trump on another shutdown. If they do one would have to wonder if they are as compromised as he is.
 

WhoDatPhan78

Definitely not part of the deep state.
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
9,257
Reaction score
17,870
Offline
I just can’t imagine any Republican will go along with Trump on another shutdown. If they do one would have to wonder if they are as compromised as he is.
He only needs the one who decides what the others get to vote on.
 

guidomerkinsrules

W H A T E V I R
VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
52,583
Reaction score
80,865
Location
by the cemeteries
Offline
Also worth noting is that for federal contractors who accepted Leave Without Pay status, the first paycheck will be reduced because they did not pay into their company health insurance, vision, dental and retirement plans. Those payments have to be made from the first paycheck, doubling or in some cases tripling the standard amounts.

So, those folks aren't out of the woods yet. Their first full paycheck will be the second one, a month after the shutdown ended for those who are paid every two weeks.

This is yet another reason why I chose to burn my personal leave time and go into the negative on leave rather than accept LWOP.
I assume there won’t be funds for NSF or late fees
 

Zztop

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
4,825
Reaction score
6,465
Offline
I think a wall is really pretty stupid. It’s an inanimate object just sitting there. Bunch of 2x4s, hammer, nails, saw and a rope is all that’s needed. Isn’t that hard to build a 30 foot ladder at Home Depot. Or shovels. Or a really good hacksaw. What would be way better is additional manpower along with drones, seismic probes, cameras, whatever which will alert the larger number of agents that things are moving.

However, I honestly don’t believe that people walking across the border is all that big of deal. Now if they were to put 5.4 billion into cargo checking and additional agents at ports of entry, I’d be writing my congressmen every day to make that happen.
Allow me to put on my conspiracy hat. From what I have read a russian company (EVRAZ) bought a few steel companies in the US. If Trump gets to build his big, beautiful steel-slat wall, it would be interesting to see who gets the contracts.

I'm actually trying to figure out why trump is so infatuated by the idea of building more walls. Is he just ignoring everyone saying they don't really work that well?
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
28,492
Reaction score
46,016
Location
70005
Online
However, I honestly don’t believe that people walking across the border is all that big of deal. Now if they were to put 5.4 billion into cargo checking and additional agents at ports of entry, I’d be writing my congressmen every day to make that happen.
According to Trump's camp, it would cost $800M to scan /search 100% of traffic through the legal ports of entry by. That was part of his wall funding, supposedly. To double the staff at those ports wasn't mentioned (or maybe it was included in that $800M, IDK), but I'm sure it wouldn't cost the remaining $5 billion. I guess it'd likely be a few million dollars to double the number of agents and support staff at legal ports of entry.
 
Last edited:

Saint_Ward

Don't be a Jerk.
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
43,486
Reaction score
36,166
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
I know I'm replying to this with a few pages of responses to go, but I'll just delete it if this is already brought up.

According to Trump's camp, it would cost $800M to scan /search 100% of traffic through the legal ports of entry by. That was part of his wall funding, supposedly. To double the staff at those ports wasn't mentioned (or maybe it was included in that $800M, IDK), but I'm sure it wouldn't cost the remaining $5 billion. I guess it'd likely be a few million dollars to double the number of agents and support staff at legal ports of entry.
Pelosi has said multiple times the focus needs to be on having equipment to properly scan items coming into ports of entry.

So, seems like that would be an area of agreement. Not sure about the cost.
 

Saint_Ward

Don't be a Jerk.
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
43,486
Reaction score
36,166
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
So, NPR had something interesting. I guess there are two bills floating out there that basically wouldn't allow government to be shut down.

The Republican Bill (from a Senator who's name I forgot) is something he said he's introduced every year since he's been elected. It would keep funding at the previous year, then after a couple months, would cut off 1%, then every 90 days it would cut more, and more. But basically 1-2% at a time.

There is also a Democratic bill, that allegedly does the same basic thing, keeps agencies funded at previous year levels, but after a certain amount of time, cuts off all funding for Congressional aids and the White House staff. i.e. it makes it painful for them, not everyone else.
 

buzd

party lamp
Staff member
Tech-Admin
Joined
Jan 11, 2002
Messages
30,675
Reaction score
22,326
Age
48
Location
Section 537
Offline
So, NPR had something interesting. I guess there are two bills floating out there that basically wouldn't allow government to be shut down.

The Republican Bill (from a Senator who's name I forgot) is something he said he's introduced every year since he's been elected. It would keep funding at the previous year, then after a couple months, would cut off 1%, then every 90 days it would cut more, and more. But basically 1-2% at a time.

There is also a Democratic bill, that allegedly does the same basic thing, keeps agencies funded at previous year levels, but after a certain amount of time, cuts off all funding for Congressional aids and the White House staff. i.e. it makes it painful for them, not everyone else.
The R bill is basically a vehicle for them to cut entitlements, I believe. The second one makes more sense.
 
OP
OP
superchuck500

superchuck500

tiny changes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
48,731
Reaction score
66,846
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Offline
The R bill is basically a vehicle for them to cut entitlements, I believe. The second one makes more sense.
Yeah, it's easy to see how the first ("Republican") bill could be abused by "budget hawks" - it basically means that all they would have to do to get budget cuts is just refuse to allow any funding bill to get passed.

We know that as soon as a Democrat gets into the White House, the budget hawks are going to come back and act like the debt is the most compelling issue in America. A law like that would be their ace in the hole.
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
28,492
Reaction score
46,016
Location
70005
Online
Pelosi has said multiple times the focus needs to be on having equipment to properly scan items coming into ports of entry.

So, seems like that would be an area of agreement. Not sure about the cost.
I agree. And she's absolutely right. We already have put up walls/fencing/barriers where it makes sense.

Putting up walls in mountainous areas is stupid and financially unfeasible. Putting them in areas where there's no town or city or anything but dessert existing for 100 miles in any direction is also stupid. People aren't crossing in these areas to begin with since the terrain is already such a huge deterrent. What we need is the updated technology at the ports of entry where all of the drugs are coming in. And the ability to check more than the 20% of vehicles that are being spot checked right now. Those two things alone would accomplish a hundred times what his ridiculous wall would. (Of course, he doesn't want to do this because it's what the democrats are proposing.)

The only reason he refuses to see this is because he got the rubes all worked up about his stupid wall during his campaign. People in his own administration have told him since day one that this was a losing battle but he just doesn't care. He really thinks that he's a dictator and not the president of a democracy. It's why he keeps digging his own Mueller grave on twitter every chance he gets. He thinks because he's gotten away with everything he's done to get what he wants for his whole life that it isn't going to change ESPECIALLY because he's president, when in reality (where he isn't known to often venture) it's the complete opposite.
 

Taurus

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 1997
Messages
25,324
Reaction score
13,743
Age
51
Location
Yacolt, WA
Online
Yeah, it's easy to see how the first ("Republican") bill could be abused by "budget hawks" - it basically means that all they would have to do to get budget cuts is just refuse to allow any funding bill to get passed.

We know that as soon as a Democrat gets into the White House, the budget hawks are going to come back and act like the debt is the most compelling issue in America. A law like that would be their ace in the hole.
Just make it affect military spending at a 2 to 1 rate.
 

Zztop

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
4,825
Reaction score
6,465
Offline
Just saw on abc news site, they did a poll where 64% don't trust the president to make the right decisions. However 65% also don't trust democrats to make the right decision.
 

Big_L

Team Big Pimpin'
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
7,619
Reaction score
6,285
Age
46
Location
Pimpin Purgatory
Online
I was involved in a debate on Facebook about this wall. I was advised that the wall would stop drugs from coming in. I advised the other party that most drugs come in through ports of entry. The other party then stated that was not true and how would I know. I asked the other party why would the Coast Guard seized drugs, since there is no border that they patrol? I then stated that last FY the CG seized some 228 metric tons of cocaine. This is just the numbers for the CG, no other agency. I asked the other party how many people and or/donkeys would it take to move that weight. I told her a metric ton is equal to roughly 2045 lbs. She then stated the wall would stop human trafficking . . .
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom