The Most Interesting Man In The World

These workers are sent home and brought back once the issue is resolved, usually a few days or couple weeks. Then they get back-pay for time missed.

None of them want this. The work piles up and creates an absolutely miserable two days for every day they're out.

I wouldn't say "none of them." I know a couple who have actually grown to anticipate it and go on vacation. The "shut-down" has become somewhat predictable, and by that, it becomes more manageable for some. Granted, if the job has paperwork and duties that must be done regardless of one's presence, this can be a tough thing to come back to. My work piles up when I'm on vacation as well. It doesn't keep me from enjoying my time off though. And it's even better when it's paid.

A shutdown is the equivalent of your entire office taking vacation at the same time, so no one covers anything for anyone. That's a different level of things piling up.

Just for some. Many of these jobs don't fall into that category; forestry personnel, for example. Don't get me wrong. I would rather not be put in that position, but I'm saying there are plenty who don't mind, because it affects them differently.

Agreed. As a whole, government workers like the extra paid time off

Nobody wants a government shutdown, most of us want a wall. Who's really being the stubborn babies?

Exactly

You assume much by saying most want a wall. In fact, it's a statement that you can't really make with any authority, unless your "us" is your group of friends and acquaintances.

There have been several polls on the subject, with varying degrees of accuracy and viability. The one I'm most likely to believe (I have been VERY wary of the accuracy of polls since 2016, so I don't fully trust any of them) was done in February of this year by Quinnipiac, which showed an overall opposition to the wall (59% opposed to 37% support). It showed 75% support among Republicans, and 89% opposed among Democrats.

What's interesting to me is that, when confronted with a $25 Bil price tag (which is a low-balling of what it'll cost), those numbers changed to 65% opposed and 33% support. I'm sure public opinion has changed since February, but not nearly enough for it to qualify your statement.

So maybe the lawmakers who are opposed to the wall, at least in this particular instance, are actually doing their job by representing their constituents.

Who got elected while campaigning for a wall?

The guy that said Mexico would pay for it.

USMCA

That's private money.

How does that make it "Mexico" paying for a wall?

Who's upset about it? Big T got the money out of Mexico and put it into American hands. I'm happy to pay my share for the wall.

money in YOUR hands?

You're saying the "trade deal" has already put money in the hands of Americans? It's not even ratified yet.

But why SHOULD taxes pay for it when Trump said Mexico will pay for it?

He ran on that message. LIKE YOU SAID.

I find it absolutely hilarious the only argument the left brings up when it comes to the wall is "mexico was gonna pay for it". You're like spoiled children trying to outwit your mother, not realize you just look like a temper tantrum throwing brat

It will be. It doesn't even need to be, I'd still rather see my taxes go to building a wall than funding NATO or some other globalist bs.

OhWell- I think we should have secure borders. A "wall" is a very expensive, horribly inefficient way to do it. We have walls, fences, etc all along the border already. Illegal numbers are dropping without a wall being built from the ground up.

BUT- If the Right *MUST* have thir precious wall.....why not hold your Dear Leader Trump to his word and make Mexico Pay for it? Why is it crazy for the Left to want the President of the USA to be a man of his word? (try to defend that without mentioning Obama or Clintons.)

We also need a better/easier immigration policy that would allow people to come here legally to work etc.

Also- arrest those people HIRING illegals....we can do a lot of things to protect our borders and quell illegal immigration. A "big beautiful wall" is just silly. But again- if you have to have it...make Mexico pay for it with a check. No amount of trade magically pays for a wall. Funding for a wall and revenue for American companies are two different things.

I don't think anyone really cares that Mexico isn't paying for the wall.

Why not? Trump said they would.

Uh, yeah, that was campaign rhetoric. Only the elite embiciles thought he was serious.

So the low-class "geniuses" are ok with rhetoric/lies?

For the record, I wasn't ok with "like your doctor, keep your doctor" when that turned out to not be true. But by your standards that was ok too?

I guess if you believed it, you deserve to be fooled. No, I'm not okay with any of it. I'm okay with building the wall, even at my taxes expense.

Trump lies so much....when do you "take him seriously?" Does it concern you that he lies so much? That his supporters can justify it so often?

Only 25% of the people eligible to vote in the US voted for Trump, and not all of them support the wall.

You don't have to have a majority of support on a single issue to get elected.

Or ANY issue....or a majority of the vote for that matter.

A GOFUNDME page for the Wall has already collected $1 million from private citizens

Cool. That’ll cover about 30 linear feet.

It's hilarious that the same group of people who don't want to give more money to the government through taxes, started a GoFundMe to raise money in order to build a border wall that they were promised they wouldn't have to pay for.

I find it funny that you care at all about who starts collecting donations for the wall. What does it matter to you who gives to a gofundme page? Border security is far more important than giving money to foreign governments.

You’re right. And a wall won’t help at this point. They will go under or over it like they do now. It’s wasted money. That’s why Mexico should pay for it like trump said they would.

Your point is? Regular workers don't get paid for time they didn't work, and regular jobs also end up with a backlog of work after time off

I was obviously concerned, and reading into this. The government's economy doesnt function like your bank account. Our debt is higher than our GPD, but it has happened before after wars or recessions. Debt for a government doesnt mean we dont have anything. It means we aren't paying it. The UK has come back from 200% debt without a crash. It is an issue, but it isn't really a crisis. The only President in recent history that has really been good for the debt was Clinton. Much of debt is intergovernmental (Federal Reserve owes Treasury or Treasury owes Social Security) that doesnt really matter as a crash and burn risk. We have had debt for real long, but our economy is going up. Healthcare Obama nd the Warfare Bushes jacked up the debt. By 2050, 10% of our economy will be to pay for the debt.
In conclusion, we haven't ran out of money at all. Debt is a bad word for it. It is money we owe and are too short sided to pay. We dont have negative money, like when you or I own debt.
And of course your God Emperor has cut taxes and raised war spending. Economy is up right now (may crash though) but as he said, who cares when he is out of office.

Speaking of government shutdowns..... imgflip.com/i/2pka3s

No

TBH I'd rather have him back than Obama. At least he had SOME idea about how to manage the US economy and budget. Obama's legacy 10 trillion more into debt and robbed healthcare from millions who had affordable healthcare before the ACA, as well as extending our wars in the middle east to the point that people are now graduating high school who have not known a USA at peace in their lifetime.. Clinton's legacy? A sex scandal, a budget surplus, and some minor military debacles. Easy choice.

Well.. we cant have Bill back so Hillary is the next best thing, right? ;P
On a more serious note.. Wasn't Obama's debt kinda what got us out of the recession and financed the wars that he inherited? (I don't really know a lot about the ACA so I'll leave that one alone. )

Nobody forced him to continue the wars he inherited, especially considering when he campaigned the first time he promised to get us out - I remember, I voted for him in part because of it. And whether or not he got us out of the recession at all is up to debate, imo.
http://time.com/money/4176949/who-really-dug-us-out-of-the-great-recession/
something from before the election, so a bit removed from all the political clouding of today maybe?

Well sh*t.. I had a lengthy reply in the works but I checked out your link, this page reloaded for some reason, and everything got erased ;(
Basically the jist was... Obama did pull the vast majority of troops out.. (down to what 5,000 or so?).. but then ISIS happened.. and more war.. and I mean even as it was Obama got called the "founder of ISIS" by a certain someone.. imagine if we'd just turned our backs indefinitely/entirely?

The link you provided states Obama's actions were a substantial part of what got us out of the recession.. and I'd tend to agree with it's assessment that the FED also had a major role.

And a certain someone has been called a totalitarian fascist by others - the namecalling is meaningless political crap. The fact is IF there was any truth in the accusation of Obama being responsible, it would be because the longer we have troops in the middle east fighting, the more propaganda material we hand the imams who are causing this whole problem. It's not a war either side can "win" which should be quite clear after 17 years of nonstop fighting. Let's pull out and let them go back to fighting their petty regional conflicts. Our presence is merely unifying the radicals we are trying to get rid of.

As far as the economy - yes, a substantial part.. but if you read through the entire list it seems to me that if you were to remove Obama's contribution everyone else did enough to right the ship regardless. So he does deserve some credit, but he is far from the savior of the economy that he tries to pretend he is. And the pricetag for his contribution is pretty steep.

Well he's not Hitler.. but he does seem to kinda be a one man show.. I hear general Mattis recently quit because of it. I guess time will tell if leaving Syria was the right move. But as far as leaving the mid east or not in general, I kinda think we're screwed either way.. unless by some miracle religous reformists manage to get empowered without getting murdered by extremists.

Pricetag wouldn't have been a problem had we been paying it down as everything improved.. problem is we just seem to keep adding more to it and handing out tax cuts. And people are complaining about the fed raising rates.. if taxes are already cut and the fed rate is still near zero, if/when another recession happens our only possible tools to fix it will be more debt, taxpayer bailouts, and QE...5? (or whatever number I've lost count)