Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

If he tries it Presidential Address style and unscripted, he still runs the risk of it bombing like the last one.

[Karnewarrior]

Let's hope it bombs, at least. If there's one thing Trump does well, it's manipulate the Media by introducing a new scandal every month. I wouldn't be totally shocked if he drops the N-bomb or something in order to get eyes off the shutdown, even as he offers something token his followers can latch onto to shift blame to the Democrats (not that they need it internally, since in their eyes the Dems bear most of the blame for not submitting a proposal Trump is willing to sign, regardless of the fact it would be wildly unpopular for them to do so).

Trump is able and willing to do anything that won't get him impeached by the Republicans, up to and including the ritual sacrifice of his youngest son to the Gods of Capitalism: Smith & Rockefeller. As long as it horrifies the Democrats more than the Republicans, it's fair game.

[bloop_bleep]

Gods of Capitalism: Smith & Rockefeller.

Bah! The heathens will fall before the might of Hamilton and Carnegie, made weak and powerless by their prodigious tariffs!

[McTraveller]

I find it amusing that (based on 2015 numbers) for the 141 million people paying income taxes, $5.7 B is only about $40 per taxpayer.  Note that's per taxpayer -not per-capita!

Numbers like $1 Billion sound big - but just like Dr. Evil, people have lost a grasp of what is a truly large or small amount of money.

It goes to show how this isn't really about the money - it really is just about the politics.

[Starver]

Or the vanity project that doubtless will have kick-backs skimmed off of it if it happens.

[Karnewarrior]

Yeah, I still don't want to pay 40 dollars to build a wall that will be both useless and a monument to America's decision to turn away from her heritage. It would cost us even less to just tear down the Statue of Liberty, since it's not relevant any more, but I won't pay for that either.

[Dunamisdeos]

Is Mexico reimbursing me? I don't think they are.

[Trekkin]

It goes to show how this isn't really about the money - it really is just about the politics.

I never got what people mean by this. Everything's "just about the politics" insofar as good politicians can find a way to use anything, but that doesn't make the issues themselves any less important. Innocent people will still die in the desert if this thing gets built, it still runs counter to both our national interest and the public will, and it's still not going to solve the problem it purports to solve. That's not going to change with the price.

[McTraveller]

What I meant was that the arguing about it wasn't about the price - it was all about posturing and all that.  It's not even really about the issues raised on both sides about immigration.

Yes, there are humanitarian considerations that we should as a nation be considering regarding our neighbors. We should also be considering how demographic changes of any type affect local economies.  But if Congress were really serious about the issues, they'd stop being infants and pass the funding resolution then overturn the veto.  But no, instead, they are just screwing up the livelihoods of a million (close enough) people.

To continue my ramble...

In a macro sense, immigration (of any sort) is just lost in the general annual population growth.  In the micro sense, concentrated immigration has acute effects since the local population change is much higher than you'd get from birthrate/deathrate changes.

The "wall" is, at best, merely an "address the symptom" measure, not anything related to addressing the real micro-impacts of demographic shifts.  Don't take my comments to imply I support the wall - I also think it's an unwise approach.

One possible systemic fix to the situation is related to the fact that employment is usually "quantized".  What I mean is that, generally speaking, jobs don't change their wages paid in proportion to demand; if you have a company with 100 people and demand drops 5% we don't see all 100 people keep their jobs at 95% pay, we see 95% of the people keep their job at 100% their previous pay.  There are many things that are related to this; for instance, 30 year mortgages, or even 1-year rent agreements - basically any long-term financing plan.  Health insurance tied to employment, etc.

So I would say we start by looking at things like incentivizing pay changes rather than layoffs and also adjusting finance rules for, say, mortgages, that allow prices to be renegotiated much more frequently and without nonsensical closing costs.

I would gladly take whatever money people want to to put to a wall or anything else and put it to look at that type of systematic change.

[smjjames]

I don't think the 'wall' even approaches 'address a symptom' at best since it's not going to address it in any meaningful way. It's not even a band-aid. Yes, it's still in a sense applying a band-aid to a problem that needs far more than a band-aid to fix, it's more like, I dunno, applying glitter to a wound? Makes it look prettier but does absolutely nothing.

[smjjames]

Yeah, I expect that it most likely will be BS, I'm sure you can tell from my attempt at poetic sarcasm.

I'd be surprised if it was a coherent well detailed, or even clever, proposal because at this point, his proposal boils down to 'I want 5.7 billion for x barely defined thing'

I'll be pleasantly surprised if it has words. He hasn't golfed in months, and the intervening time has been spent alone in the White House watching his poll numbers drop while Mueller closes in. Left to his own devices, he'll show up in a ketchup-stained bathrobe and beer-drinking MAGA hat filled with Diet Coke and just gesticulate wildly while sniffling in between bites of leftover fast food.

And call it the State of the Union.

More seriously, this doesn't feel like McConnell's doing and nobody official will say what he's going to do, so I doubt there's a plan ready. Just a rally, like the other speech but more animated.

Actually, it appears that it is McConnells doing.

The big problem is that it's something he is going to have to stick with, and he has issues with sticking to one deal, which is partly why Democrats are refusing to negotiate with him.

The Democrats are saying that they were never consulted on this, so, they're still talking past each other rather than to/at each other.

[Trekkin]

Actually, it appears that it is McConnells doing.

The big problem is that it's something he is going to have to stick with, and he has issues with sticking to one deal, which is partly why Democrats are refusing to negotiate with him.

I don't doubt McConnell has been pressuring Trump to do something more productive than brood, but I'd be surprised if he was the one suggesting putting it out publicly before shopping it around and getting a sense of how likely it was to fracture the House Democratic caucus. That's the part it doesn't feel like he instigated.

[smjjames]

Given how tight Pelosi has been running things, I doubt that it will break away enough Democrats to pass the House. More to the point though is that McConnell is trying to get Trump to put something up that he will sign so that McConnell doesn't have to waste votes on something that Trump may or may not sign.

Then again, he's so mercurial that he might decide not to sign this anyway.

[Greiger]

So just watched the announcement.  From what I'm understanding isn't his compromise just exactly what he walked out on earlier?  I don't remember all the specifics but it seems very similar to it at least.

[Dunamisdeos]

Something that a lot of news outlets seem to have missed thus far is his statement that he is no longer talking about a border-length wall.

He stated he was now asking for "strategically placed barriers". Did I mishear that? That's a HUGE crack in his plan.