You make $400k but can't spend $500... wtf?

originally posted by: continuousThunder
not the uhhhhhh sharpest cookies in the pile around here, hey?
quite aside from it being a moral issue, you guys know what a budget IS, right?
it's this thing where you divide up and allot all the money that you're going to have.
so when hubby from the earlier analogy is going "wah wah i want $500 to put barbed wire on our fence for whatever reason" it REALLY DOESN'T MATTER how much or how little of the overall amount that 500 is - the money has been allotted and there isn't any extra.
Unless you want to take the money that would be buying school supplies for the children and use that instead.

Except that America has already been doing exactly that for so long that you're woefully unbelievably in debt and still it's considered normal to pump trillions and trillions into the military each year while your health and education systems fester in neglect.

If money would fix our education system we would already be the world's number ONE ! You teach crap revisionist history and new math and expect to graduate winners ????...also, all the money in the world won't fix the rowdy kids who have no interest in learning to begin with .

links234

It's not about the money. It's a moral issue. Moreover the 'wall' would just be a 100 mile stretch of land.

That is incorrect. In Texas alone there is already over 320 miles of wall and the new wall construction is for another 219 miles.. The southern border with Mexico is 1954 miles so I do have my doubts about how effective a short stretch of wall will be.. But the guys in the puzzle palace supposedly have maps and the big picture (hope so).. We will have to wait and see..

Either way the dems have bitten off more than they can chew on fighting Trump on this issue.. Love him or hate him he is trying to keep his campaign promises. Unlike so many who went before him..

The wall is not supposed to only cost $5b, that is only what the president is asking for one section of the wall to get started. The estimate for the entire wall is $23b and that is more likely to exceed $40b when finished. The estimates were based on a previous project for the fencing installed along the border. They used an estimate for a fairly flat and easy section of fencing to guess how much the wall will cost, even on much harder and uneven terrain. In reality, a wall as he has imagined, three stories high, would be in excess of a $100b.

Now, the thread creator is correct in saying people do not understand just how large these amounts of money are. Very correct. That goes with this topic as well, however. Take for example the very zealous supporters that are attempting to fund the wall themselves. As of this moment they raised $18m in 12 days, or $1.5m per day. At this speed, and only for the first section for $5b it would take another 3,300 days, or almost 9 years. To fund the entire estimated $23b, it would take over 40 years.

If it would take a decade for the supporters of the wall to fund just one section, why should the rest of us subsidize this stupid idea with taxpayer money? Especially when it was promised someone else would pay for it anyway?

a reply to: Edumakated

If Republicans put this out in these terms so everyone could understand, I don't see how the Democrats can stand with a straight face justifying not giving DJT his wall funding.

Flame away...

Ok, if you insist...

You forgot one word that everyone understands but you don't-DEBT.

'daddy can I get a loan on my pocket money? sorry son the credit card is maxed out. But I can still have a nerf gun? sure son but i will have to-waaaaaaaaah!!!! I want my Nerf gun now! sure son here's your Nerf gun, now daddy has to work overtime to pay for your lego wall.

If you want to make it simple, keep it simple.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
Then why couldn't the Republicans just simply pass the bill and get the President to sign for such?

The Republicans held the full majority in the House, and could pass any bill, and not need any Democrat to sign on, so it was not in the House. And the Senate, well McConnell, could use the Nuclear rule to pass it along and then Trump could have signed it.

So if the Republicans held the majority in both chambers of congress, not needing any Democrat to vote in favor, then why is there a shut down?

Because all votes are not a simple majority and the Republicans did not possess a super majority in the Senate (60 votes). Even that would not have been enough with the Senate RINOs (republican in name only), like McCain, Corker, Flake, etc. I suspect you probably already knew that, however.

a reply to: Edumakated

The government wouldn't be shut down if Congress didn't get paid during "shut downs."

Think about that...no money, no bennies, no expense account for any of them. They'd come to a decision pretty damned fast.

a reply to: JAGStorm

"We are always losing."

Especially at election times.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: JAGStorm

"We are always losing."

Especially at election times.

I am starting to believe it is an illusion of a Democratic Republic. Each side probably cooks the books in states they can. In a strong R state, the opposition can't cook it enough for a D but someone can nudge along the R that has been chosen by the elite. In a D state they can't cheat an R in but they can cook it up for the chosen one. A uniparty for them but not for us.

The chosen ones are probably being hand picked with hand shake agreements on who is going to win before the first vote is cast. Making primaries and General Elections fluff for us pawns if true.

a reply to: Justoneman

The chosen ones are probably being hand picked with hand shake agreements on who is going to win before the first vote is cast.

You are catching on!

a reply to: Iconic

Please I wish everyone would stop calling it the democratic party, it is the democrat party, they are democrats, they are not democratics and it is not the democratic party.

Jaden

a reply to: Iconic

Please I wish everyone would stop calling it the democratic party, it is the democrat party, they are democrats, they are not democratics and it is not the democratic party.

Jaden

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Nope the security system illustration is more accurate but doesn't go far enough.

No, it's like a husband and wife making 40k a year are constantly getting their house broken into and having to replace their TV that costs100dollars. The husband wants to spend50 bucks to help stop the burglars but the wife won't let him.

It's not because she doesn't want to spend the money, it's because she's screwing the robbers.

Jaden

Just because we can, doesn't mean that we should. It's kinda like buying a new Corvette while your house is falling apart. One is a useless accessory that does no good aside from stroking your ego, and covering up insecurities. The other is something that you need. Use the money to fix our broken country, not on a symbolic wall that'll never pay off.

originally posted by: Edumakated
In other words, if the US government was a household that made $400,000, the husband and wife are bickering over whether the husband can spend $500 on a home security system. Hubbie is sleeping on the couch and not getting any loving because the wife is mad he wants to spend $500 on a SimpliSafe.

Except what would actually happen while the hubbie is sleeping is that the wife goes out and buys a $500 garden gnome which she claims will keep burglars away, because the seller told her that home security system is fake news and only gnomes work. And when the hubbie complains that no, the garden gnome wont work she goes on a twitter tirade about how the democrats own the garden gnome, not her so blaim them.

originally posted by: Edumakated
I just figured I'd share this little tidbit for some people to think about when it comes to the government shut down and wall.

One of the reasons I think people don't get more upset with politicians and spending is that the numbers often being thrown around are too big for the average person to comprehend. As a result, they have no context or ability to relate.

The 2018 federal budget is $4 trillion dollars. Basically, $4,000,000,000,000. Donald Trump is asking for $5 billion dollars to fund the wall. Now $5 billion dollars is a lot of money for an individual. That is Lannister sh*tting gold rich for GOT fans. However, in the context of the US government spending $4 trillion, it really isn't a lot of money for a major capital project like securing the border.

Let me put it in terms that the average middle American can understand. A household budget.

Let's knock off a few zeros. If we divide by $4 trillion by $10 million, that leaves us with a household budget of $400,000. This is still a lot of money for an individual or a household. In fact, that is basically 1% income money in the US. If you carry that divisor of $10 million over to the $5 billion for the wall it becomes...... $500.

In other words, if the US government was a household that made $400,000, the husband and wife are bickering over whether the husband can spend $500 on a home security system. Hubbie is sleeping on the couch and not getting any loving because the wife is mad he wants to spend $500 on a SimpliSafe.

Let that sink in. So the federal government is essentially shut down over what amounts to a $500 expenditure for someone who makes $400,000 a year... Since some of you can't relate to making $400k/yr if you remove one zero, it is like someone who makes $40,000 a year not being able to spend $50.

If Republicans put this out in these terms so everyone could understand, I don't see how the Democrats can stand with a straight face justifying not giving DJT his wall funding.


Flame away...

The math is correct $5 billion in the scheme of things is pocket change.

However it is not the cost of the wall that most of Congress has a problem with. It is what building a wall signifies.

Illegal immigration costs taxpayers @ $115 billion dollars per year. Even if the wall cost 100 billion it is still a deal for taxpayers in the long run. Building the wall will decrease debt not increase it. Imo, we should also stop offering government welfare to illegals, to deincentivise them from coming or staying here.

www.fairus.org...

a reply to: Edumakated

And in the example you give about the man and wife fighting, this isn't really about the money at all, it's all about power.
You win and control how the money is spent you have the power, if you lose or just concede then you have lost power.

Neither side wants to lose this power struggle, they just want to win.

The money is irrelevant.

And just like the couple there is also something much deeper going on, it flairs up when decisions have to get made.

a reply to: Edumakated

Build the wall! Stop the illegals! Stop the democrats!

(Democrats support illegal immigration, they support attacks on law enforcement, they support attacks on private Citizens)

They don't care how many Americans have to be raped, robbed and murdered... all they care about is getting their precious illegals into the country illegally.

2/3rds of the illegal immigrants in the US did not sneak in through the Mexican border. They came through legal VISAs and overstayed their welcome.

In the meantime, in the name of "national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare" Trump has signed an executive order reneging on Federal employees' automatic 2.1% pay increase. If we can't afford to pay our employees their promised wages, how can we afford $5 billion for a wall?

www.commondreams.org...

a reply to: Lab4Us

They did not need 60 votes, McConnell could have used the Nuclear rule and forced this through fully and completely, passing such with just 51 votes, that the Republicans, clearly have, and with some to spare, taking into account for those republican senators who would be against it.


So what was the issue again, if they for the past 2 years held the majority, could have passed anything, without the democrats, had and used the rules to their advantage?

We should ask the people who live on the border and are the most affected by illegal immigration. I think most are all for it.