Shutdown!

[BmorePat87]

Trump today at 2:33 pm "I'd love to see a shutdown"

Sarah Huckabee Sanders today at 3:50 pm "We are not advocating for a shutdown"

[*bfine32*]

(02-06-2018, 09:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Trump today at 2:33 pm "I'd love to see a shutdown"

Sarah Huckabee Sanders today at 3:50 pm "We are not advocating for a shutdown"

Seems they may have learned a little quicker than the Dems did. Let's hope so. 

[StLucieBengal]

I would love a shutdown. Make it permanent.

Amazing how anyone feels we need those employees. For whatever reason the public is hoodwinked into feeling this way.

[BmorePat87]

(02-06-2018, 10:24 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I would love a shutdown.  Make it permanent.  

Amazing how anyone feels we need those employees.   For whatever reason the public is hoodwinked into feeling this way.

must be the population of 319,000,000 and the subsequent bureaucracy that comes with addressing the needs of this many people while maintaining the highest levels of standards for a free and prosperous society. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-06-2018, 10:24 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I would love a shutdown.  Make it permanent.  

Amazing how anyone feels we need those employees.   For whatever reason the public is hoodwinked into feeling this way.

Who do the non-hoodwinked feel should be responsible for our National Defense? 

[BmorePat87]

(02-06-2018, 09:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems they may have learned a little quicker than the Dems did. Let's hope so. 

Hopefully the handlers' translations of his comments are accurate. We need compromise and give and take. Not enough on either side seem to want this though. 

[NATI BENGALS]

This is what you would call a shit show.

So am i getting this right, the head clown is going to shut it down because American tax payers wont pay for the wall he said Mexico would pay for?

[StLucieBengal]

(02-06-2018, 11:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who do the non-hoodwinked feel should be responsible for our National Defense? 

We can cut more of the nonsense and still have enough for defense.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-06-2018, 11:07 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: must be the population of 319,000,000 and the subsequent bureaucracy that comes with addressing the needs of this many people while maintaining the highest levels of standards for a free and prosperous society. 

I would love to start cutting positions in the federal government.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-06-2018, 10:24 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I would love a shutdown. Make it permanent.

Amazing how anyone feels we need those employees. For whatever reason the public is hoodwinked into feeling this way.

Ironic coming from a government employee such as yourself.

[*bfine32*]

(02-07-2018, 12:01 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We can cut more of the nonsense and still have enough for defense.

(02-07-2018, 12:02 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I would love to start cutting positions in the federal government.

You're just like 99.9% of the population. You want the programs you like funded and those that you do not to not be funded. There's definitely a lot of fat that can be cut, but that's quite a different argument from shut the government down permanently.   

[Benton]

(02-07-2018, 12:01 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We can cut more of the nonsense and still have enough for defense.

Or cut some of the defense and have some money left over for nonsense. Throwing US tax dollars at keeping global markets more stable through US military presence, and profits for international companies steady, should come after we fix our own economy, health insurance, wage disparity, immigration, homelessness, etc. 

A strong military and defense is good. That doesn't mean we need 5,000 bases in addition to military folks and equipment loaned out to other countries.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-07-2018, 12:40 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You're just like 99.9% of the population. You want the programs you like funded and those that you do not to not be funded. There's definitely a lot of fat that can be cut, but that's quite a different argument from shut the government down permanently.   

What programs do you think I want funded?

Shutting the gov down means shutting down the part that isn’t necessary. We need national defense.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-07-2018, 01:27 AM)Benton Wrote: Or cut some of the defense and have some money left over for nonsense. Throwing US tax dollars at keeping global markets more stable through US military presence, and profits for international companies steady, should come after we fix our own economy, health insurance, wage disparity, immigration, homelessness, etc. 

A strong military and defense is good. That doesn't mean we need 5,000 bases in addition to military folks and equipment loaned out to other countries.

You won’t get many arguments from me on cuts. National defense is an actual job of the government.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-06-2018, 10:24 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I would love a shutdown. Make it permanent.

Amazing how anyone feels we need those employees. For whatever reason the public is hoodwinked into feeling this way.

(02-07-2018, 12:05 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: What programs do you think I want funded?

Shutting the gov down means shutting down the part that isn’t necessary. We need national defense.

And shutting down the government permanently would mean shutting down the necessary part of the government, too.

This is the type of propaganda I expect from a Russian troll farm.

[Benton]

(02-07-2018, 12:05 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: What programs do you think I want funded?

Shutting the gov down means shutting down the part that isn’t necessary.   We need national defense.

And therein lies the problem. Necessary is relative. And we're at the size now where a lot of people have a lot of different opinions.

Even on specific issues there's a lot of debate on what's necessary. Take defense. One person may think a defense means being able to repel and attack, being able to protect US citizens; another person may think that means strategically maintaining hundreds of bases and thousands of jobs at the cost of billions to taxpayers to benefit private US companies, or providing billions in aid to allies that would cease being allies if we ceased paying them.

Eventually, we've got to get back to common sense.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-07-2018, 02:33 PM)Benton Wrote: And therein lies the problem. Necessary is relative. And we're at the size now where a lot of people have a lot of different opinions.

Even on specific issues there's a lot of debate on what's necessary. Take defense. One person may think a defense means being able to repel and attack, being able to protect US citizens; another person may think that means strategically maintaining hundreds of bases and thousands of jobs at the cost of billions to taxpayers to benefit private US companies, or providing billions in aid to allies that would cease being allies if we ceased paying them.

Eventually, we've got to get back to common sense.

I have been consistent in the opinions on foreign involvement. I would cut everyone off and let the world go at each other. In the end the only real allies that matter is the UK and those under the Queen, and Israel.

I am perfectly fine with having enough defense to repel an attack. Now that we have that settled we can cut social programs that aren’t necessary. .

[Benton]

(02-07-2018, 02:54 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote:
I have been consistent in the opinions on foreign involvement.   I would cut everyone off and let the world go at each other.    In the end the only real allies that matter is the UK and those under the Queen, and Israel.  

I am perfectly fine with having enough defense to repel an attack.  Now that we have that settled we can cut social programs that aren’t necessary.   .

To the bold, agreed, except I'd say England, Japan and our contiguous neighbors. I couldn't care less about Israel, as far as allies go. They are great for intelligence in the Middle East... but if we got out of the ME we don't really need their information.

As far as social programs, sure. Provided they don't ultimately increase costs. Like the 80s idea of 'hey, let's stop funding mental health' which has largely increased in the post-millennial problem of homelessness, crowded prisons and (possibly) more violent crimes and drug abuse. Lump costs associated with emergency healthcare for the homeless and drug abusers in with increased prison costs and we'd be better off to open up some mental health clinics.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-07-2018, 03:10 PM)Benton Wrote: To the bold, agreed, except I'd say England, Japan and our contiguous neighbors. I couldn't care less about Israel, as far as allies go. They are great for intelligence in the Middle East... but if we got out of the ME we don't really need their information.

As far as social programs, sure. Provided they don't ultimately increase costs. Like the 80s idea of 'hey, let's stop funding mental health' which has largely increased in the post-millennial problem of homelessness, crowded prisons and (possibly) more violent crimes and drug abuse. Lump costs associated with emergency healthcare for the homeless and drug abusers in with increased prison costs and we'd be better off to open up some mental health clinics.

I am not a fancy bolder but I agree with the second paragraph. We need mental health facilities. Should be state ran though and that’s where the issue came. The more the state is responsible for the better, then at least voters can vote in or out the people they want based on how much gov they want in their lives and they can pay the increased taxes.

[Benton]

(02-07-2018, 03:16 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I am not a fancy bolder but I agree with the second paragraph.  We need mental health facilities.    Should be state ran though and that’s where the issue came.    The more the state is responsible for the better, then at least voters can vote in or out the people they want based on how much gov they want in their lives and they can pay the increased taxes.

I'm fine with them being state ran, but the issue came after the federal government stopped funding them. Many (most?) states can't maintain some services like mental health without federal subsidies.