Why do Dems want to shut the government down?

Dave68124

Elder Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
905
Reaction score
403
Location
United States
Country
llUnited States
One could say a fanciful wall to accomplish nothing is also holding up the budget. When the president is more interested in political theater than sound policy, we all lose.
The guy is supposed to be a deal maker. Making deals means both sides come away with something they want.
No, deals are getting a signature. It doesn't mean both sides getting what they want.

Try this on for size...You want to wear brown shoes. Your wife wants you to wear black shoes. You split the difference you wear one brown and one black shoe. How is that success? Read Never Split the Difference and you will see why deals aren't always about both sides getting what they want.
 

Dave68124

Elder Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
905
Reaction score
403
Location
United States
Country
llUnited States
How about... less than advertised? Poor return on investment? Maintenance nightmare? Money best spent elsewhere with more tangible benefits?
When I see you apply those same measures to most of our social programs, then we can have a conversation.
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,619
Reaction score
567
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
When I see you apply those same measures to most of our social programs, then we can have a conversation.
I'm a strong proponent of means testing all aspects of spending. Happy to see you can judge people without knowing the facts?
 

Dave68124

Elder Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
905
Reaction score
403
Location
United States
Country
llUnited States
I'm a strong proponent of means testing all aspects of spending. Happy to see you can judge people without knowing the facts?
Apparently you are a bit touchy on the subject, because I made a statement and set a condition on when I was willing to have a conversation. Have to show me 'how I judged you'.
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,619
Reaction score
567
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
Man, you can't stay on topic for 5 minutes. You had some data about the value of the wall to share or you just gonna waste my time with more straw men and false equivalencies?
 

JimWhite

Senior Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
1,372
Reaction score
395
Location
Newark
Country
llUnited States
How about... less than advertised? Poor return on investment? Maintenance nightmare? Money best spent elsewhere with more tangible benefits?
You had some data about the value of the wall to share...
I don't know about Dave...but based on a previous post of yours I was under the impression that you had some data about the value of the wall.

Was I mistaken?
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,619
Reaction score
567
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
I don't know about Dave...but based on a previous post of yours I was under the impression that you had some data about the value of the wall.

Was I mistaken?
Well, I'm not the one building it, so it really isn't my place to justify it's expense. But I can start with a couple simple data points to get the dialog going.

60% of illegal immigrants have been in the country 10 years or more. So a wall isn't going to create many vacant jobs.
9-11 attackers didn't walk into the US from Mexico so a wall wouldn't help there. I hazard a guess that most attacks in the US didn't walk across from Mexico. Just a guess tho.

So, not a lot of jobs created, no extra security benefits from terror attacks and lots of costs.

So, going back to your earlier question, that's why people say we get nothing for it.

What do you think you're gonna get for your $20B?
 

Dave68124

Elder Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
905
Reaction score
403
Location
United States
Country
llUnited States
Man, you can't stay on topic for 5 minutes. You had some data about the value of the wall to share or you just gonna waste my time with more straw men and false equivalencies?
Was this for me? Suggest you need to take a breath and see who is off-topic here. Didn't say I had any data on the wall - you can go back and check. Merely asked if the means testing you were putting against the wall if they also applied to social programs. And not means testing as if someone qualifies, but tell me the ROI on social security, Obamacare, unlimited unemployment benefits or a fleet of B-2 bombers.

On unlimited unemployment benefits you will actually find scholars believe that unlimited unemployment benefits actually extends recessions because there is no reason to force someone back to work (i.e., a negative ROI).
 

Dave68124

Elder Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
905
Reaction score
403
Location
United States
Country
llUnited States
Well, I'm not the one building it, so it really isn't my place to justify it's expense. But I can start with a couple simple data points to get the dialog going.

60% of illegal immigrants have been in the country 10 years or more. So a wall isn't going to create many vacant jobs.
9-11 attackers didn't walk into the US from Mexico so a wall wouldn't help there. I hazard a guess that most attacks in the US didn't walk across from Mexico. Just a guess tho.

So, not a lot of jobs created, no extra security benefits from terror attacks and lots of costs.

So, going back to your earlier question, that's why people say we get nothing for it.

What do you think you're gonna get for your $20B?
Suggest you need to look forward v. backwards. What about the next 60%? What about the next 9/11 terrorists? Historical data points only prove what happen yesterday, not tomorrow.

BTW - Wall doesn't seem all that great of idea to me either, but if it adds to the physiological effects of making people feel safe (like an Aircraft carrier floating around the Pacific or fleet of B-2 bombers), then it may be worth the expense. Don't know...maybe have a stronger opinion if I lived on a border state. But I do know the State Department just gave 5 states in Mexico a Level 3 travel warning which is the same as Yemen, Afghanistan and Somalia. One of the states borders the U.S. and another is on an increased caution list. You tell me...
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,619
Reaction score
567
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
but tell me the ROI on ...
That would require me to have access to data to which I don't have and expertise of which I don't have but I'm sure there are well qualified people out there that do that kind of work all the time. There is also the principles upon which we judge the costs, e.g. the value of human well-being. That latter value judgement is really the crux of a lot policy debate.

... because there is no reason to force someone back to work (i.e., a negative ROI).
Do you find that a majority of your friends and relatives need to be forced to work as opposed to enjoying their work? I'm not a social scientist nor have I run any experiments but anecdotally I find most people want to do productive things.
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,619
Reaction score
567
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
Wall doesn't seem all that great of idea to me either, but if it adds to the physiological effects of making people feel safe...
My hypothesis is that there are actually effective ways to make people safe that can be thought up and implemented by subject matter experts. We've already seen one painful drag on the economy with the TSA and I don't think doubling down on money-for-happy is a winning strategy.
 

Dave68124

Elder Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
905
Reaction score
403
Location
United States
Country
llUnited States
That would require me to have access to data to which I don't have and expertise of which I don't have but I'm sure there are well qualified people out there that do that kind of work all the time. There is also the principles upon which we judge the costs, e.g. the value of human well-being. That latter value judgement is really the crux of a lot policy debate.
I am confused. Why would you hold someone to a standard - show me the data - when you cannot produce even the same data for things you think are worth $20B or $50B or $200B? This is an honest question...

Do you find that a majority of your friends and relatives need to be forced to work as opposed to enjoying their work? I'm not a social scientist nor have I run any experiments but anecdotally I find most people want to do productive things.
Well, I think we are of a small class of folks. Happy to dig up the report about unlimited unemployment benefits for you. Anyway, I think most people would do without a job if they could sustain their standard of living and do something else they view as productive v. punching a time clock. Walk through any downtown area of any major city and you will see quite a few of them.
 

Dave68124

Elder Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
905
Reaction score
403
Location
United States
Country
llUnited States
My hypothesis is that there are actually effective ways to make people safe that can be thought up and implemented by subject matter experts. We've already seen one painful drag on the economy with the TSA and I don't think doubling down on money-for-happy is a winning strategy.
Can we get rid of Obamacare then? Clearly Obamacare had nothing to do with the quality of healthcare, but sure made some people happy. Just saying...if we want to argue a standard, then let's apply the standard equally across all Federal spending and not ignore pet projects we like.
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,619
Reaction score
567
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
I am confused. Why would you hold someone to a standard - show me the data - when you cannot produce even the same data for things you think are worth $20B or $50B or $200B? This is an honest question...
How is it confusing? Trump wants to spend $20B. I would like to know what he expects to get from it. Is that an unreasonable demand?

Here are some numbers for you though, although I think we're diverging quickly on the assumed benefit of the wall:

"For the 2011-2013 period, the net cost to state and local budgets of first generation adults is, on average, about $1,600 each. In contrast, second and third-plus generation adults create a net positive of about $1,700 and $1,300 each, respectively, to state and local budgets. These estimates imply that the total annual fiscal impact of first generation adults and their dependents, averaged across 2011-13, is a cost of $57.4 billion, while second and third-plus generation adults create a benefit of $30.5 billion and $223.8 billion, respectively."

From the National Academy of Sciences issued “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration

One could offset a lot of immigration by budgeting that $20B as an investment in the future returns.
 

Dave68124

Elder Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
905
Reaction score
403
Location
United States
Country
llUnited States
How is it confusing? Trump wants to spend $20B. I would like to know what he expects to get from it. Is that an unreasonable demand?

Here are some numbers for you though, although I think we're diverging quickly on the assumed benefit of the wall:

"For the 2011-2013 period, the net cost to state and local budgets of first generation adults is, on average, about $1,600 each. In contrast, second and third-plus generation adults create a net positive of about $1,700 and $1,300 each, respectively, to state and local budgets. These estimates imply that the total annual fiscal impact of first generation adults and their dependents, averaged across 2011-13, is a cost of $57.4 billion, while second and third-plus generation adults create a benefit of $30.5 billion and $223.8 billion, respectively."

From the National Academy of Sciences issued “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration

One could offset a lot of immigration by budgeting that $20B as an investment in the future returns.
You didn't ask where he was getting it initially. You asked for a ROI, specifically.

How much do they cost the Federal government? You have state and local only. Sticking with your numbers, now apply a present value to the benefit to bring it back today dollars. So 3rd generation is what 60-80 years. Let's call it 75 years. Discount rate of 4%. The present value of the future benefit of $224B is $11B. That is being very conservative with a discount rate of 4%. Make it 8%, then the PV is $700M. Sorry, but your math isn't quite convincing.
 

Sparafucil3

Elder Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
9,264
Reaction score
1,950
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Do you find that a majority of your friends and relatives need to be forced to work as opposed to enjoying their work? I'm not a social scientist nor have I run any experiments but anecdotally I find most people want to do productive things.
I have worked my entire life, I don't do it for fun. I would walk away tomorrow if I wasn't addicted to food, clothing, and roof over my head. I come from a Welfare upbringing. I can tell you my brothers all call me a sucker for working. They get all they need from the state. Same goes for many of my cousins. Purely anecdotal, but for me, a strong indicator that man is lazy and will do as little as he can to get as much as he can, whether he is a rich bastard living off the backs of others, or a poor bastard pulling a lever in a booth to live off those with more than him. I don't know why anyone would dispute the evidence before his eyes but that's just me. -- jim
 

The Doctor

Junk Science Debunker
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
334
Reaction score
47
Location
Houston/Dallas, TX
Country
llUnited States
Too fracking funny...
American public backs immigration deal with DACA and border security

BY MARK PENN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 01/24/18

[...]

First, Americans support the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients and their plight. If you came here as a kid with or without your parents, 77 percent in the last Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll (including 66 percent of Republicans) support not just work permits but a path to citizenship. The Department of Homeland Security secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, said she supported a permanent solution to the problem and that means giving people an opportunity to work, pay taxes and prosper here as full citizens.

Second, Americans support more secure borders, even if that means having a barrier that’s both physical and electronic where appropriate. Fifty-four percent (though only 32 percent of Democrats) support that kind of barrier, and overall 61 percent think our border security is inadequate. Nearly four in five (including most Democrats) reject the idea of open borders, which you may recall that Hillary Clinton did advocate in one of her speeches to Wall Street banks. (In general, business likes immigration because it brings in more customers and less-expensive labor.)

Overall, 68 percent, including majorities of all parties, oppose a lottery for 50,000 immigrants a year. This is a remarkable policy — why would precious spots to come to America be offered to people, not on the basis of having relatives here or on ability to contribute to society, but randomly? That’s a tough policy to defend in today’s world.

When asked whether preferences to come to America should be made on the basis of people’s ability, education and skills or on the basis of family relations, American voters overwhelmingly, by 79 to 21, choose merit. Voters in general oppose chain migration but I don’t think it would be accurate to say people oppose all preferences for relatives, as people are compassionate about the immigration of close family members like kids and parents. Voters will support limits on this program, but there is a lot of negotiating left on this one to get it right.

Finally, when asked how many legal immigrants should be allowed into America each year, most people — 53 percent — said that 500,000 was a fair number, which of course is far below the existing annual legal immigration of 1 million. This is indicative of America’s general conservatism when it comes to immigration, which President Trump tapped into, to win the electoral college.

So it is fair to say that Americans believe in compassion for those who are here — especially the “Dreamers” — but also want more merit-based immigration, an end to the lottery and a sensible electronic and physical barrier. In fact, when we asked Americans about a congressional deal like this one, 65 percent said this is a package of reforms that they would favor.

[...]

Mark Penn is chairman of the Harris Poll and was pollster and senior adviser to Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton from 1995 to 2008.
http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/370440-american-public-backs-immigration-deal-with-daca-and-border-security

Trump is offering a path to citizenship for the DACA'ns in exchange for a funding for the wall, merit-based immigration and an end to the visa lottery and other non-merit-based immigration programs.

While Americans have at least some compassion for the DACA'ns, it doesn't extend to shutting down the government...
Poll: Majority oppose shutting down government over DACA provision
BY JONATHAN EASLEY - 01/19/18

A majority of polled voters oppose shutting down the government over Democratic demands that a budget deal include provisions to shield from deportation immigrants who came to the country illegally as children, according to the latest Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll.

When respondents were asked whether they "favor or oppose Democrats voting to shut the government down” if the funding measure does not restore work permits for those protected under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, 58 percent said they oppose a shutdown.

Views on the issue fall generally along ideological lines, with 68 percent of Democrats in favor of a shutdown aimed at extending the DACA program, while 83 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of independents would oppose a shutdown driven by an immigration fight, according to the poll.

[...]​
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/369864-poll-majority-oppose-shutting-down-government-over-daca-provision

The really funny thing is that the Democrats, the lamestream media and the Never-Trumptards still haven't figured out that Trump is holding all of the cards on this. If Chucky Schmucky Schumer doesn't give Trump funding for the wall, merit-based immigration and an end to the visa lottery and other non-merit-based immigration programs in a DACA deal, Trump will kick his ass again in three weeks.

This literally is like watching Lucy pull the football away from Charlie Brown over and over again.

 

Sand Bar Bill

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
570
Reaction score
435
Location
Putin's backyard
Country
llUnited States
If "kicking ass" means doing nothing for the dreamers, history won't remember Trump well. Kicking ass appears means constantly moving goalposts from Trump, the Democrats offered wall funding in exchange for DACA, but then Trump wanted more. DACA for the wall seemed fair.

And in the next round, what if Democrats make no demands other than not to fund the wall and remove DACA from negptiations? Will the GOP shut down the government, repeat the GOP, over no funds for the wall? And in which case the GOP will squarely get the blame, because I am sure Americans don't want government shut down for the wall.... and then I return to the first sentence of this post.
 
Last edited:

Dave68124

Elder Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
905
Reaction score
403
Location
United States
Country
llUnited States
If "kicking ass" means doing nothing for the dreamers, history won't remember Trump well. Kicking ass appears means constantly moving goalposts from Trump, the Democrats offered wall funding in exchange for DACA, but then Trump wanted more. DACA for the wall seemed fair.

And in the next round, what if Democrats make no demands other than not to fund the wall and remove DACA from negptiations? Will the GOP shut down the government, repeat the GOP, over no funds for the wall? And in which case the GOP will squarely get the blame, because I am sure Americans don't want government shut down for the wall.... and then I return to the first sentence of this post.
But you know as I do, they aren't smart enough to follow your plan above....
 

The Doctor

Junk Science Debunker
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
334
Reaction score
47
Location
Houston/Dallas, TX
Country
llUnited States
If "kicking ass" means doing nothing for the dreamers, history won't remember Trump well. Kicking ass appears means constantly moving goalposts from Trump, the Democrats offered wall funding in exchange for DACA, but then Trump wanted more. DACA for the wall seemed fair.

And in the next round, what if Democrats make no demands other than not to fund the wall and remove DACA from negptiations? Will the GOP shut down the government, repeat the GOP, over no funds for the wall? And in which case the GOP will squarely get the blame, because I am sure Americans don't want government shut down for the wall.... and then I return to the first sentence of this post.
Schumer says he offered to back wall funding. Schumer says he withdrew the offer. Trump didn't reject it...
WASHINGTON — Sen. Chuck Schumer has retracted his offer to help fund President Trump’s border wall with Mexico in exchange for helping young undocumented immigrants.

The Senate’s Democratic leader informed the White House on Sunday he’s no longer willing to back a “much larger” funding package than the $1.6 billion Trump had wanted last year, The Post has confirmed.

Schumer “took it off” the table, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin told Politico, which first reported the retraction. “He called the White House yesterday and said it’s over.”

Trump has made it clear. If the Democrats want DACA, it needs to be part of immigration reform that includes the wall, ends the visa lottery program and makes immigration merit-based.

The change of heart comes as Schumer backed a deal to reopen the government Monday after a three-day shutdown.

In exchange for continuing funding through Feb. 8, Schumer got a verbal commitment from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that the Senate would take up legislation to keep Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients from being deported.

[...]​
https://nypost.com/2018/01/23/schumer-kills-deal-that-would-protect-dreamers-for-wall-funding/

If DACA passes the Senate as a stand-alone bill, it won't even get a vote in the House. It will be DOA.

Schumer will be right back where he started. If he wants DACA, he has to give in on the wall, merit-based immigration and ending the visa lottery program. Otherwise, the Democrats will either have to shut down the government again or fold.

They don't have any cards to play at all.
 
Top