Spatial Ed

The Wall

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

How much does it cost the fire department to respond to a house fire?  Is there a threshold of house fires below which we shouldn't worry about deploying the Fire Department?

Actually there are thresholds regarding house fires and your insurance takes that into account - how far from the station, closet hydrant (or lack thereof) etc.  It's basic risk management.

As to your last answer at least we can agree that Trump's wall is a big fail.  Now as to the needed improvements? Border security spending has increased dramatically the past decade. That is a topic for a different discussion.  Let's just rename this one Stop The Wall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

LEGACY. That's all this is about.

The push for "A Wall"?   Yeah - Trump is petulant, and the responsible adults in the room on both sides of the aisle ought to recognize that, work amongst themselves to figure out something that is viable and makes sense, and that let's the temper-tantrum throwing jackass claim that he got what he wanted, by telling him how what they propose does that.   I don't think that Trump is aware enough to understand the impacts of this tantrum, and that even though he has caused this, I don't think that he's capable of doing anything more than stomping his feet to fix it, and that it falls upon the shoulders of those who ARE responsible to come up with a way to put something in front of him that can get signed, restore government services, and then move around Trump just like water moves around a rock in the middle of the river.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The push for "A Wall"?   Yeah - Trump is petulant, and the responsible adults in the room on both sides of the aisle ought to recognize that, work amongst themselves to figure out something that is workable and makes sense, and that let's the temper-tantrum throwing jackass claim that he got what he wanted, by telling him how what they propose does that.   I don't think that Trump is aware enough to understand the impacts of this tantrum, and that even though he has caused this, I don't think that he's capable of doing anything more than stomping his feet to fix it, and that it falls upon the shoulders of those who ARE responsible to come up with a way to put something in front of him that can get signed, restore government services, and then move around Trump just like water moves around a rock in the middle of the river.  

 

There are fewer adults in the room all the time, and Donnie's picking people who agree with him to fill out his maladministration. It's going to be tough working around that particular rock in the river when it's surrounded by yes-boulders.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

D - I'm not interested in typing yet again what I think is appropriate - an ocean-ocean physical barrier is nonsensical, but that doesn't mean that there aren't needed improvements in our border security approach. 

then there must be a weakness you are addressing. And not looking at it from a cost/interdiction perspective means literally unlimited spending. Apply that same logic to stopping mass shooting at schools....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

then there must be a weakness you are addressing. And not looking at it from a cost/interdiction perspective means literally unlimited spending. Apply that same logic to stopping mass shooting at schools....

I have - and have suggested several times what I considered to be viable physical/process security measures that would greatly reduce the impacts of future school shootings, to include changes to our firearms laws.  Do you think that the actuarial risk of a kid being hurt in a school shooting should be factored in to any decision to adopt practices and procedures that would make all our kids safer?   

Do you think that the border security vulnerabilities don't represent enough of a concern to warrant attention? 

The weaknesses I'm describing are some areas in which the physical border is insufficient to serve as a deterrent to illegal incursion.  The fix isn't necessarily bigger/higher/deeper walls - and if you look at the DHS links I shared, you'll get a decent idea of the technical detection capabilities that are employed/desired.  We've got an immigration problem, and casting aspersions against those who recognize it, pretending that the illegal immigrant population doesn't have a negative impact, and on the other side of the discussion wrongly suggesting that every illegal immigrant is a security threat does nothing to contribute to a solution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The push for "A Wall"?   Yeah - Trump is petulant, and the responsible adults in the room on both sides of the aisle ought to recognize that, work amongst themselves to figure out something that is viable and makes sense, and that let's the temper-tantrum throwing jackass claim that he got what he wanted, by telling him how what they propose does that.   I don't think that Trump is aware enough to understand the impacts of this tantrum, and that even though he has caused this, I don't think that he's capable of doing anything more than stomping his feet to fix it, and that it falls upon the shoulders of those who ARE responsible to come up with a way to put something in front of him that can get signed, restore government services, and then move around Trump just like water moves around a rock in the middle of the river.  

 

I can't imagine Democrats giving Trump a single thing in regards to the wall. Why would they? Any victory at all would be hauled out by Trump and used as campaign fodder in 2020. It is far better to work among professionals and get something done that can be bragged about later than give Trump anything to crow over later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

There are fewer adults in the room all the time, and Donnie's picking people who agree with him to fill out his maladministration. It's going to be tough working around that particular rock in the river when it's surrounded by yes-boulders.

I'm fairly certain his staff is telling him he's walking on the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I can't imagine Democrats giving Trump a single thing in regards to the wall. Why would they? Any victory at all would be hauled out by Trump and used as campaign fodder in 2020. It is far better to work among professionals and get something done that can be bragged about later than give Trump anything to crow over later.

Ummm.... to allay illegal immigration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

Ummm.... to allay illegal immigration?

They can accomplish that without Trump. They still write the laws, don't they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I have - and have suggested several times what I considered to be viable physical/process security measures that would greatly reduce the impacts of future school shootings, to include changes to our firearms laws.  Do you think that the actuarial risk of a kid being hurt in a school shooting should be factored in to any decision to adopt practices and procedures that would make all our kids safer?   

Do you think that the border security vulnerabilities don't represent enough of a concern to warrant attention? 

The weaknesses I'm describing are some areas in which the physical border is insufficient to serve as a deterrent to illegal incursion.  The fix isn't necessarily bigger/higher/deeper walls - and if you look at the DHS links I shared, you'll get a decent idea of the technical detection capabilities that are employed/desired.  We've got an immigration problem, and casting aspersions against those who recognize it, pretending that the illegal immigrant population doesn't have a negative impact, and on the other side of the discussion wrongly suggesting that every illegal immigrant is a security threat does nothing to contribute to a solution. 

School security absolutely is already budgeted based on actuarial risk. Otherwise, the kids would have TSA at each building. They don't. Why? Cost/prevented shooting would be too high.

I can't believe you think that the border can be 100% secure. Remember, most of the new undocumented arrive by plane....  Does your wall extend vertically to about 38,000 feet?

 

Rather than a "why can't we all get along and just do something" 

how about a "I see a problem here, and here's an approach to fix it"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dog said:

Ummm.... to allay illegal immigration?

got some data that shows a wall is going to stop something, that you can't even find data for?

How about this:

Trump says "we've got new data, we're stopping all the bad guys! I win!"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I can't imagine Democrats giving Trump a single thing in regards to the wall. Why would they? Any victory at all would be hauled out by Trump and used as campaign fodder in 2020. It is far better to work among professionals and get something done that can be bragged about later than give Trump anything to crow over later.

Reports are he’s flailing around looking for a way out without losing face.  This trip to the boarder and speech tomorrow is going to go over like a lead balloon.  He is failing billy and it’s only going to get worse.

Popcorn time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

They can accomplish that without Trump. They still write the laws, don't they?

What law do you think they could write... make illegal immigration illegal?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Reports are he’s flailing around looking for a way out without losing face.  This trip to the boarder and speech tomorrow is going to go over like a lead balloon.  He is failing billy and it’s only going to get worse.

Popcorn time.

Reports are he's going to address the nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

Reports are he's going to address the nation.

Yes I mentioned that a couple of hours ago and again in the post you quoted.  Keep up puppy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

What law do you think they could write... make illegal immigration illegal?

They could make it a crime to hire an undocumented alien. Or do you think the Chamber of Commerce would have a hissy fit over that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

They could make it a crime to hire an undocumented alien. Or do you think the Chamber of Commerce would have a hissy fit over that?

oh boy. That's a toughie. Well, for the Dog anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

oh boy. That's a toughie. Well, for the Dog anyway.

I think I made him mad and he went into hiding under the house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I think that the D intransigent opposition to anything that can be called a wall is slightly less helpful than the  sea-to-sea barrier idea.  

And therein lies the problem. You acknowledge that the sea-to-shining-sea wall is not a good idea, the Republicans didn't give Trump that wall, and you're blaming the Democrats for following through by refusing to give Trump the $5billion he demands for the barrier. He isn't budging, the Republicans didn't budge either, but somehow taking the same position as the GOP did makes the D intransigence slightly worse. That's partisan bias right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I'm fairly certain his staff is telling him he's walking on the water.

A prerequisite of hiring I am sure.

If this lunatic gets anything from this pathetic petulance it should be a rebuke from his own senate.

The corporates must be getting really restless now and once the power brokers get on the phone to their senators saying enough is enough,  donnies sandpit paying days will be over.

If he keeps this up there will be no republican party left with the exception of a few hard core followers that worship his every move while being fucked by tariffs and double fucked with a tanking market.

But quick look over here. Digging his heels in over  a fucking wall , as the country teeters on the brink. 

Building a wall to stop illegal immigration is a lot like pushing shit uphill with a rake.

Surely there are republicans that now realize that an undying loyalty to Trump is tantamount to suicide.

 

Putin must be delirious with joy, a whole spy network is employed to obtain the election of a class A Fuckwit ,an adjudicated bankrupt. 

A man who has all by himself, demolished the US's world standing and turned governance into a parody.  Winning anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I think that the D intransigent opposition to anything that can be called a wall is slightly less helpful than the  sea-to-sea barrier idea."

This SEEMS to be implying that, somehow, the Legislative Branch is a less than equal branch and should be the ones that "blink" when in conflict with the Executive.

Shouldn't the duplicitous party be the one in the wrong? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, learningJ24 said:

"I think that the D intransigent opposition to anything that can be called a wall is slightly less helpful than the  sea-to-sea barrier idea."

This SEEMS to be implying that, somehow, the Legislative Branch is a less than equal branch and should be the ones that "blink" when in conflict with the Executive.

Shouldn't the duplicitous party be the one in the wrong? 

Not only that, but it's only now "slightly less helpful" than Donnie's tantrum after the majority party in the House changed from GOP to Democrat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

How much does it cost the fire department to respond to a house fire?  Is there a threshold of house fires below which we shouldn't worry about deploying the Fire Department?

The appropriate answer, IMHO, is that the cost is what the cost is - and that trying to validate the cost in terms of "how much per incident" is a fool's errand, and I don't think that it supports your premise that because "there aren't that many incursions" that we should ignore border security.

It's closer to deploying 3 firehalls to put out a garden shed fire.

The whole "wall" thing is a tempest in a teapot - grist for the deplorables that Trump lives & dies by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Untitled.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

A lot of alternatives on TV tomorrow.

seems to be a common opinion .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CBS to air Trump's prime time address, other broadcasters still deliberating

Quote

Come Monday evening, CBS said it would go ahead and carry the address. ABC, NBC, PBS, and the Fox broadcast network have yet to comment.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/07/media/networks-trump-border-security-speech/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fakenews said:

Odds on the ratings being reported?

yuge , biggly ,

 

Sol help us out here please 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, SloopJonB said:

if Fox didn't air it?

akin to a declaration of war .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Wouldn't it be great if Fox didn't air it?

Not a chance in hell. He's pitching straight at their audience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

The major television networks will provide wall-to-wall coverage of President Donald Trump's prime time address on border security on Tuesday.

NBC, ABC and CBS all said on Monday that they had agreed to the White House's request for air time.
CNN, Fox News and MSNBC will all carry the address live, as well.

 

 
 
nobody wants to miss out on the State of Emergency declaration

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Mid said:

CBS to air Trump's prime time address, other broadcasters still deliberating

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/07/media/networks-trump-border-security-speech/index.html

I wonder whose left in the White House to write his speech.  Purely for the can't-look-train-wreck aspect, I half-hope it is Stephen Miller.  Nothing like going full on bat shit crazy in prime time, but that could be seriously scary.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

I wonder whose left in the White House to write his speech.  Purely for the can't-look-train-wreck aspect, I half-hope it is Stephen Miller.  Nothing like going full on bat shit crazy in prime time, but that could be seriously scary.  

Oh the vision.....wonder if he plays a little Wagner to get inspired.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

 write his speech.

proven waste of time , 

what is MJ's chimp doing these days ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mid said:

proven waste of time , 

what is MJ's chimp doing these days ?

Still in recovery.  Thanks for asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

In a joint statement Monday night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer said Democrats deserved airtime as well to rebut the president’s message.

“Now that the television networks have decided to air the President’s address, which if his past statements are any indication will be full of malice and misinformation, Democrats must immediately be given equal airtime,” they said.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Networks giving Trump free airtime on Tuesday refused to air Obama’s 2014 immigration speech

Quote

The question of whether, or how, to treat Trump differently from other presidents in light of his relentless dishonesty is an interesting one. But it’s noteworthy that just a few years ago, the networks were comfortable refusing to air a primetime Barack Obama speech about immigration on the grounds that the topic was “overtly political.”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/7/18172419/trump-immigration-speech-networks-obama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s going to be a terrific, beautiful Maginot Line. Many people are saying it. Belief me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

It’s going to be a terrific, beautiful Maginot Line. Many people are saying it. Belief me. 

It's going to need a name to really stand out as one of the modern wonders. The Tardwall? The Fuckfacefence? The Towers of Ignorance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

It's going to need a name to really stand out as one of the modern wonders. The Tardwall? The Fuckfacefence? The Towers of Ignorance?

The Beautiful Barrier Of Bombastic Bullshit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Buffoon's Barrier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, d'ranger said:

The Wall is Trump's big campaign promise which he has to hold to or lose his base support.

Absolutely true. I wandered over to Free Republic to see what they thought about the "military version" of eminent domain being used to take property from owners, mostly in Texas.

Overwhelmingly, the sentiment was "whatever works, whatever it takes."

Sickening. And the revulsion conservatives used to exhibit at the mere mention of Kelo? Gone without a trace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Dog said:

What law do you think they could write... make illegal immigration illegal?

Simple. Make e verify required for all businesses in all states all the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s got to be a drinking game associated with tonight’s shitshow 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, dacapo said:

Simple. Make e verify required for all businesses in all states all the time. 

Riddle me this Queen of the Over-ride, why does the IRS, in conjunction with ICE, NOT run E-Verify on tax returns?

Seems a no-brainer. Just add a E-Verify application to electronically filed returns. Comes back with a red flag, ICE is dispatched to knock on a few doors.

And since paper returns are scanned into the system, run E-Verify on those too.

This is the real problem. Not businesses responsibility to make sure the documentation an illegal supplies them is valid. It is the IRS's job to ensure that those supplying documentation for the purpose of work eligibility are properly vetted. Supply a bad social security number and it gets bounced.

See one of the big problems is falsified docs. The other is off the books employment. By all means go after the off the books employers. No quibble there and has zip to do with hiring illegals. As for falsified docs, that squarely falls on the employee not the employer. As such that falls squarely on the IRS. Why shouldn't the IRS actually do their job? The solvency and credibility of the Social Security System is wholly dependent on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, dacapo said:

Simple. Make e verify required for all businesses in all states all the time. 

Our Best Citizens hate that. The last thing they want is to pay citizens to work; they are not (yet) desperate enough to work for next to nothing. 

Don’t believe me?  Look up who fought all the way to the US Supreme Court when Arizona tried to pass a law forcing employers to use the system. The Chamber of Commerce. 

Until the Chamber of Commerce wants it, all we’ll see on immigration is bullshit from bullshit artists, designed to divide us. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, dacapo said:

Simple. Make e verify required for all businesses in all states all the time. 

I'm good with that. Won't do much about under the table workers but it's a good start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Riddle me this Queen of the Over-ride, why does the IRS, in conjunction with ICE, NOT run E-Verify on tax returns?

Seems a no-brainer. Just add a E-Verify application to electronically filed returns. Comes back with a red flag, ICE is dispatched to knock on a few doors.

And since paper returns are scanned into the system, run E-Verify on those too.

This is the real problem. Not businesses responsibility to make sure the documentation an illegal supplies them is valid. It is the IRS's job to ensure that those supplying documentation for the purpose of work eligibility are properly vetted. Supply a bad social security number and it gets bounced.

See one of the big problems is falsified docs. The other is off the books employment. By all means go after the off the books employers. No quibble there and has zip to do with hiring illegals. As for falsified docs, that squarely falls on the employee not the employer. As such that falls squarely on the IRS. Why shouldn't the IRS actually do their job? The solvency and credibility of the Social Security System is wholly dependent on that.

you silly libertarian    why make it the job of the gumment and not the responsibility of the business owner?  

 

and furthermore.................i haven;t had an over ride in a long time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Dog,

Any thoughts on using the "military version" of eminent domain to take property for the wall?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Riddle me this Queen of the Over-ride, why does the IRS, in conjunction with ICE, NOT run E-Verify on tax returns?

Seems a no-brainer. Just add a E-Verify application to electronically filed returns. Comes back with a red flag, ICE is dispatched to knock on a few doors.

And since paper returns are scanned into the system, run E-Verify on those too.

This is the real problem. Not businesses responsibility to make sure the documentation an illegal supplies them is valid. It is the IRS's job to ensure that those supplying documentation for the purpose of work eligibility are properly vetted. Supply a bad social security number and it gets bounced.

See one of the big problems is falsified docs. The other is off the books employment. By all means go after the off the books employers. No quibble there and has zip to do with hiring illegals. As for falsified docs, that squarely falls on the employee not the employer. As such that falls squarely on the IRS. Why shouldn't the IRS actually do their job? The solvency and credibility of the Social Security System is wholly dependent on that.

I recently discovered that my wife'd been making a dumb mistake  -  entering her green card number, where she should have been entering her ITIN  -  for the last 12 years.

12 years working under the wrong number, filing taxes under the wrong number... half a dozen different employers...  IRS never caught it.  SS didn't catch it.  State dept didn't catch it, when she got her permanent residency... We only realized, when NY State's health insurance exchange wouldn't register her with that number. 

And you want them to handle e-verify? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your tax cuts at work for you. This is the normal strategy, cut funding for agencies until they can no longer do their job then scream that "government is ineffecient, TRUST the private sector".  The current system is broken, and broken for the benefit of the employers so you want to just "trust them"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

This is the normal strategy, cut funding for agencies until they can no longer do their job then scream that "government is ineffecient

No need to wait. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dacapo said:

you silly libertarian    why make it the job of the gumment and not the responsibility of the business owner?  

 

and furthermore.................i haven;t had an over ride in a long time

See now if you dissolve the IRS and charge a Union Fee as a means to collect federal revenue, then the states could enforce E-Verify!

It is not businesses role to enforce our borders. Kindly read the US Constitution.

 

And you haven't had an over-ride in a long time because "we" saw to it to keep you out of harm's way! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frenchie said:

I recently discovered that my wife'd been making a dumb mistake  -  entering her green card number, where she should have been entering her ITIN  -  for the last 12 years.

12 years working under the wrong number, filing taxes under the wrong number... half a dozen different employers...  IRS never caught it.  SS didn't catch it.  State dept didn't catch it, when she got her permanent residency... We only realized, when NY State's health insurance exchange wouldn't register her with that number. 

And you want them to handle e-verify? 

That would be funny if not for it being so sad.

SSA and DHS joint operation and they still manage to fook it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

I'm good with that. Won't do much about under the table workers but it's a good start.

You mean like those that Trump told to barter for their rent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

You mean like those that Trump told to barter for their rent?

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, badlatitude said:
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Nice. Now if they would just enforce it. A $1000 fine per alien since 1952, means people like the Perdue family and Tyson, owe billions. Problem of the wall cost solved.

President Trump, as sole owner of the Trump Organization, has been hiring said folks for decades.

Ya think he'll be cool with such nonsense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

President Trump, as sole owner of the Trump Organization, has been hiring said folks for decades.

Ya think he'll be cool with such nonsense?

His explanation would be good for laughs. If nothing else, it does illustrate where the real problem in immigration has been since the 1930s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

17 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

And therein lies the problem. You acknowledge that the sea-to-shining-sea wall is not a good idea, the Republicans didn't give Trump that wall, and you're blaming the Democrats for following through by refusing to give Trump the $5billion he demands for the barrier. He isn't budging, the Republicans didn't budge either, but somehow taking the same position as the GOP did makes the D intransigence slightly worse. That's partisan bias right there.

You're picking a tangent and trying to conflate what I said into something else.  Let me make it simple for you, and I hope un-twistable:  Trump IS NOT going to fix this.  We NEED a fix.  A way to make this fix is for the responsible adults in Congress to work behind Trump to come up with a viable approach that makes Trump think he's getting what he wants so that government operations resume, that will address some of the deficiencies in our physical border security, and will address some of the procedural/policy issues that have been plaguing us for decades, and describing it in a way that both sides can claim a "win" - as we all know that the parties are more interested in that than in actually doing anything that works.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frenchie said:

I recently discovered that my wife'd been making a dumb mistake  -  entering her green card number, where she should have been entering her ITIN  -  for the last 12 years.

12 years working under the wrong number, filing taxes under the wrong number... half a dozen different employers...  IRS never caught it.  SS didn't catch it.  State dept didn't catch it, when she got her permanent residency... We only realized, when NY State's health insurance exchange wouldn't register her with that number. 

And you want them to handle e-verify? 

And you want to trust them with healthcare, and coming up w/a solution to the immigration mess?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 

You're picking a tangent and trying to conflate what I said into something else.  Let me make it simple for you, and I hope un-twistable:  Trump IS NOT going to fix this.  We NEED a fix.  A way to make this fix is for the responsible adults in Congress to work behind Trump to come up with a viable approach that makes Trump think he's getting what he wants so that government operations resume, that will address some of the deficiencies in our physical border security, and will address some of the procedural/policy issues that have been plaguing us for decades, and describing it in a way that both sides can claim a "win" - as we all know that the parties are more interested in that than in actually doing anything that works.  

Until you can define “this” in “we need to fix this”, I have to assume this is just some screech about “doing something”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

Until you can define “this” in “we need to fix this”, I have to assume this is just some screech about “doing something”.

"This" is multi faceted, and I *have* defined the components that I think comprise the aggregate "this".  re-read what I said, and if you disagree or think I'm missing something, happy to address those questions.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Until you can define “this” in “we need to fix this”, I have to assume this is just some screech about “doing something”

dogballs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
2 hours ago, frenchie said:

I recently discovered that my wife'd been making a dumb mistake  -  entering her green card number, where she should have been entering her ITIN  -  for the last 12 years.

12 years working under the wrong number, filing taxes under the wrong number... half a dozen different employers...  IRS never caught it.  SS didn't catch it.  State dept didn't catch it, when she got her permanent residency... We only realized, when NY State's health insurance exchange wouldn't register her with that number. 

And you want them to handle e-verify? 

And you want to trust them with healthcare, and coming up w/a solution to the immigration mess?  

Who ya gonna call

200px-Ghostbusters_logo.svg.png

A lot of public tasks IMHO are properly entrusted to the gov't. Health care insurance is a big sticking point, nuclear power is another...... sometimes it is unwise to trust for-profit corporations (private or public) to not deliberately cut corners and stick more money in their own pockets.

Seems to me that handling (devising, issuing, updating, etc) a form of identification that is publicly accepted is a good task for gov't.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

"This" is multi faceted, and I *have* defined the components that I think comprise the aggregate "this".  re-read what I said, and if you disagree or think I'm missing something, happy to address those questions.  

 

the problem , i think is we are trying to mix oil and water. (reality and politics)  take donny , take all politics out of the equation and there would be a fix....until lives are not used as pawns in a silly game nothing will be done (on either side of the aisle) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

"This" is multi faceted, and I *have* defined the components that I think comprise the aggregate "this".  re-read what I said, and if you disagree or think I'm missing something, happy to address those questions.  

 

Deal with the undocumented, check

deal with a leaky border? No data that it’s currently leaking. Maybe we should fiberglass the bottom just in case?

Funding to process asylum cases, check.

wall? Fuck it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Who ya gonna call

200px-Ghostbusters_logo.svg.png

A lot of public tasks IMHO are properly entrusted to the gov't. Health care insurance is a big sticking point, nuclear power is another...... sometimes it is unwise to trust for-profit corporations (private or public) to not deliberately cut corners and stick more money in their own pockets.

Seems to me that handling (devising, issuing, updating, etc) a form of identification that is publicly accepted is a good task for gov't.

-DSK

No argument Steamers - just trying to setup an intro to something that I think has been lacking from Fed Govt oversight for forever:   Information sharing and shared efficiencies between agencies - the propensity for our agencies to compete for budget, for its leaders to expand their sphere of influence to grow those budgets are often counter to the best interests of the citizenry.  Look at Frenchie's post as an example.   Similar to the opinion I've expressed for the desired structure of or future military, I think that there's a tremendous amount of wasteful, sometimes intentionally inefficient duplication that I'd like to see reduced. 

So - while Government is in many cases the only reasonable owner for certain issues, the inter-governmental motivations don't always lead to solutions that are engineered with the best interests of the citizenry in mind.  

Was the ACA the best solution for the country?   IMHO - absolutely not - EVERYTHING that is touted as an ACA success could have been achieved faster, simpler with less cost and much less disruption to those who didn't benefit by simply expanding Medicaid eligibility and establishing a graduated premium schedule.  BUT - that wouldn't have created the legislative legacy that Pres Obama's administration wanted.    Liken this to the wall - It's NOT the best solution,  and those who oppose it are adamant (and correct ) in that opposition, but, the decision is going to come down to not what's best for the country, but, what the current administration thinks will contribute most to its political legacy.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No argument Steamers - just trying to setup an intro to something that I think has been lacking from Fed Govt oversight for forever:   Information sharing and shared efficiencies between agencies - the propensity for our agencies to compete for budget, for its leaders to expand their sphere of influence to grow those budgets are often counter to the best interests of the citizenry.  Look at Frenchie's post as an example.   Similar to the opinion I've expressed for the desired structure of or future military, I think that there's a tremendous amount of wasteful, sometimes intentionally inefficient duplication that I'd like to see reduced. 

So - while Government is in many cases the only reasonable owner for certain issues, the inter-governmental motivations don't always lead to solutions that are engineered with the best interests of the citizenry in mind.  

Was the ACA the best solution for the country?   IMHO - absolutely not - EVERYTHING that is touted as an ACA success could have been achieved faster, simpler with less cost and much less disruption to those who didn't benefit by simply expanding Medicaid eligibility and establishing a graduated premium schedule.  BUT - that wouldn't have created the legislative legacy that Pres Obama's administration wanted.    Liken this to the wall - It's NOT the best solution,  and those who oppose it are adamant (and correct ) in that opposition, but, the decision is going to come down to not what's best for the country, but, what the current administration thinks will contribute most to its political legacy.  

 

Agreed, except to point out / quibble that ObamaCare -did- massively expand Medicare and most of the red states fought that part tooth & nail.

I would still suggest that there is a profound difference between the Trump Administration and every other Presidential Administration that I know of: they are malfeasant in intent from the outset. Their goal is not to run the gov't, their intent is to profit from it and to destroy those parts which prevent them (and their cronies) from profiting. We're lucky that President Trump doesn't have ties to defense industries or we'd be getting lied into another series of wars.

It's a trainwreck in every dimension. And although it looks like a few Republicans want to try and fix it, nowhere near enough. Trump is said to be very popular among Republicans, where is the motivation? You can't expect everybody else in the country to step in while Republicans just stand by and gloat.

The worst thing that this situation is becoming the new standard of "success" in US politics.

-DSK

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

The worst thing that this situation is becoming the new standard of "success" in US politics.

^^^^^THIS^^^^^ belongs in the what's the worst thing fuckstick has done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 

You're picking a tangent and trying to conflate what I said into something else.  Let me make it simple for you, and I hope un-twistable:  Trump IS NOT going to fix this.  We NEED a fix.  A way to make this fix is for the responsible adults in Congress to work behind Trump to come up with a viable approach that makes Trump think he's getting what he wants so that government operations resume, that will address some of the deficiencies in our physical border security, and will address some of the procedural/policy issues that have been plaguing us for decades, and describing it in a way that both sides can claim a "win" - as we all know that the parties are more interested in that than in actually doing anything that works.  

I'm with you, other than acquiescing to the adolescent who occupies the WH. 

I am not of the opinion they need to provide him an opportunity to save face when he has flat out refused to compromise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"BUT - that wouldn't have created the legislative legacy that Pres Obama's administration wanted.'

I'm not convinced this assumption is warranted.  If O COULD have expanded Medicare to cover everyone AND changed the tax structure to pay for it, my impression is he would have gone that way but the votes weren't there.   What I recall was that the Heritage Foundation/ Romney Care model was chosen because of the CHANCE to get it passed and fixed later. Then the 'One Term President" Congress obstructed fixes that could have made it work better.

Until there's a majority agreement that healthcare is a failed market and normal market based solutions aren't working (which has been discussed going back to the 60's), this will be continually rehashed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I'm with you, other than acquiescing to the adolescent who occupies the WH. 

I am not of the opinion they need to provide him an opportunity to save face when he has flat out refused to compromise.

Did he not retain enough influence to turn this into a huge mess that will have an even bigger ripple effect, combined with the propensity to simply not care as long as he "gets the deal"? - I'd be with ya.  Those in opposition don't have the means to win this in a normal fight, which IMHO warrants a change in approach. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

EVERYTHING that is touted as an ACA success could have been achieved faster, simpler with less cost and much less disruption to those who didn't benefit by simply expanding Medicaid eligibility

And Hillary tried that in Bill's first year in office.  She got killed.  Insurance companies, hospitals, big med and doctors.  What we got is a work in progress.  Until people decide they won't support this bloated system with mediocre results it won't change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Those in opposition don't have the means to win this in a normal fight,..."

What's winning? They have the means to keep what they believe is a boondoggle from occurring, bring more attention to the duplicitous nature of this president with the hopes that he will act in a rational manner and apply pressure to the opposition Senate in order to pass moderate bills with veto proof margins.  The fallacy is to believe that there are adults in Trump's office that can make a reasonable deal that he will sign. The other option is appeasement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Did he not retain enough influence to turn this into a huge mess that will have an even bigger ripple effect, combined with the propensity to simply not care as long as he "gets the deal"? - I'd be with ya.  Those in opposition don't have the means to win this in a normal fight, which IMHO warrants a change in approach. 

This is like enabling an alcoholic to keep drinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Michael Fisher, former head of Border Patrol until 2015, told The Globe and Mail in 2017 there were fewer than 100 miles (160 km) of the U.S.-Mexico open border where it made sense to build additional fencing.

Last year former senator Claire McCaskill, who was the ranking Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, released a report analyzing internal Customs and Border Patrol. Of the more than 900 requests from front-line agents in 2017, only 5 per cent mentioned a fence or a wall. Most requests were for new road construction, more manpower or additional technology.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-trump-says-theres-a-crisis-at-the-us-mexico-border-and-his-wall/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 

You're picking a tangent and trying to conflate what I said into something else.  Let me make it simple for you, and I hope un-twistable:  Trump IS NOT going to fix this.  We NEED a fix.  A way to make this fix is for the responsible adults in Congress to work behind Trump to come up with a viable approach that makes Trump think he's getting what he wants so that government operations resume, that will address some of the deficiencies in our physical border security, and will address some of the procedural/policy issues that have been plaguing us for decades, and describing it in a way that both sides can claim a "win" - as we all know that the parties are more interested in that than in actually doing anything that works.  

For the record, I am not part of your WE.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be humorous if it weren't so genuinely harmful. 

'Some people' are saying that we have a huge immigration / terrorist problem, and the only fix is to build a physical barrier across the whole southern border, because 'Security' 

But not the people on the border https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article152402734.html    and  https://www.npr.org/2019/01/04/682157001/we-dont-need-a-physical-wall-loredo-mayor-pete-saenz-says

And not the general public... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-americans-dont-support-building-the-wall/

Nor the The border agents ... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/us/politics/border-patrol-wall-immigration-trump-senate-democrats.html

Nor the prior occupants of the WH... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/every-living-president-has-refuted-trumps-claim-about-supporting-the-wall/

They don't address people arriving by air or sea or car.  They don't address the people who enter legally and forget to leave.  They distort statistics. They lie.

And the tantrum that is the government shutdown is making the country LESS secure, because TSA, ATC, and other agencies are either closed or working without pay. 

 

 

Pretty hard to conclude that this fight is about making the country more secure. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

For the record, I am not part of your WE.   

For the record, you are, and if you don't realize that, well, I can offer several suggestions as to why if you're interested in hearing them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should liveblog his speech here tonight. Is there a time limit the networks have given? It would be hilarious to see them cut to a commercial break...