THINGS DEMOCRATS HAVE FUNDED THAT COST MORE THAN THE BORDER WALL

Via:  1stwarrior  •  one week ago  •  101 comments

THINGS DEMOCRATS HAVE FUNDED THAT COST MORE THAN THE BORDER WALL
Lawmakers have put less thought into other, more expensive projects over the years

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


After President Trump requested $5.7 billion to fund the border wall he campaigned on in 2016, Democrats have dug in, refusing to appropriate the funds that the administration says are needed to better manage the flow of immigration across the southern border.

Democrats are not traditionally known for their fiscal rectitude but are particularly parsimonious over what ultimately amounts to a very small percentage of the federal budget. (In 2018, the feds spent $4.173 trillion overall, meaning the border wall would amount to just 1/10th of 1 percent of current annual federal spending.)

Indeed, these lawmakers have happily funded various projects over the years that cost far more than the border wall — and many of which had very questionable value. Below are some examples of wasteful federal spending projects that individually cost more than the proposed border wall (data courtesy of Citizens Against Government Waste):

  • Rural Utility Service.” This program costs taxpayers $8.2 billion/year and has no actual purpose after its original intent — bringing electricity to rural communities — was long ago achieved. It’s now being used to bring broadband access to small communities (usually with populations of less than 20,000). However there’s no indication the “beneficiaries” of this expensive government agency actually appreciate the program, and the majority of its projects are not completed on time or within budget.
  • Sugar Subsidies. America, as Democrats frequently intone, faces a health crisis. What they don’t tell us is that it’s largely of their own making, as Congress subsidizes the production of unhealthy foods like sugar and high-fructose corn syrup. Eliminating sugar subsidies alone would save $6 billion, enough to fund the border wall; it would also have the added benefit of helping curb the nation’s obesity epidemic. 
  • Community Development Grants. These grants were created in the 70s to revitalize failing American cities. The program has almost always been plagued with dysfunction, with grants going to wealthy communities and other recipients failing to produce “accountability and results.” Citizens Against Government Waste reports that even President Obama called for reining in the program. It’s elimination would save $15 billion over 5 years. 
  • The United Nations. As the United Nation’s largest contributor, the U.S. in 2016 donated $10 billion to the U.N. As CAGW notes, reducing these contributions just 25 percent would create a savings of $12.5 billion over 10 years. Of the money Congress appropriates for the United Nations, $5 million taxpayer dollars are itemized for abortions in foreign countries.
  • Amtrak. Congress could sell Amtrak to the private sector where it would almost certainly be operated more efficiently, but instead it’s showered in billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies. Over the next five years, these subsidies will cost $9.7 billion.
  • Unused Real Estate. Congress appropriates money to maintain federal real estate that’s not actually being used. Per CAGW, an October 31, 2017, CRS report found that, “In FY2016, federal agencies owned 3,120 buildings that were vacant (unutilized), and another 7,859 that were partially empty (underutilized).” Current laws require the government to undergo a series of steps before considering a sale of these buildings. Were selling this unused property prioritized, the 5-year savings are estimated at $15 billion. Simply maintaining the unused buildings annually costs $1.7 billion.
  • Foreign Aid. American taxpayers currently spend more than $50 billion a year helping develop foreign countries. Many of the recipients are not known for being America’s closest allies — such as Egypt, South Sudan, Uganda, South Africa, Russia, the Congo, Sudan, and Zambia — which raises the question of what Americans are receiving in exchange for all of this aid. Cutting these donations back just 10 percent would be enough to fund the wall.  
  • Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. The Government Accountability Office estimates taxpayers are spending more than $137 billion annually on “payment errors,” which covers all manner of waste, fraud, and abuse within Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The feds could implement the same kind of fraud protections credit card companies used to ensure against abuse, but don’t. In fact, Congress has gone in the opposite direction, winding down the program intended to police fraud within Medicare, the so-called Recovery Audit Contractor. In other words, Congress is knowingly funding tens of billions of dollars of fraud annually. 
     

Despite many of of the above projects having arguably negative value, Congress continues to fund them. Eliminating any one of the above would create more than enough savings to fund the White House’s border wall appropriation request. 

Of course, other smaller federal spending projects are even more wasteful. Examples abound, but here are a few that are at least amusing:
 

  • The feds spend $613,634 to boost “intimacy and trust” of transgender women and their male partners (The Washington Free Beacon)
  • The feds spent $5 million paying hipsters to stop smoking and then blog about it (as well as use cool anti-smoking swag — like beer koozies). (Readers Digest) 
  • Northeastern University has received more than $3 million in National Institutes of Health to watch hamster fights. “Some of those experiments involved injecting hamsters with steroids, then putting another hamster in the cage to see if the drugged rodents were more aggressive when protecting their territory. This program has since been halted following protests from animal rights activists,” Readers Digest reports.  
  • The feds spend $1,009,762 training “social justice” math teachers (The Washington Free Beacon)
  • “The government spent at least $518,000 in federal grants to study how cocaine affects the sexual behavior of Japanese quails,” Readers Digest reports. 

The Federal Register is legally required to be printed daily and distributed to Congressional offices despite most never being read and all of the information being available online. Stopping this unnecessary printing would save $1 million a year. 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
1stwarrior
1  seeder  1stwarrior    one week ago

'Course, they could stop funding Pelosi's trips back home on an AF aircraft most week-ends - that would help also.

"Judicial Watch uncovered that Pelosi’s military travel cost the United States Air Force $2,100,744.59 over one two-year period — $101,429.14 of which was for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol.

JW also uncovered internal Defense emails detailing attempts by Defense Department staff to accommodate Pelosi’s numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft, as well as Pelosi’s last minute cancellations and changes. Pelosi’s office treated the Air Force like a taxi service."

Read Newsmax: Congressional Travel Cover-Up Alleged at Pentagon | Newsmax.com 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  1stwarrior @1    one week ago

Got that right. Ever hear about her demand to the Air Force  a few years ago that they specially outfit the back of a C-17 with VIP sleeping quarters for her  personal use to fly back and forth from DC to California, and the tissy fit she threw when SECAF told her not only no but Hell no? That was priceless...

17

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.2  Don Overton  replied to  1stwarrior @1    6 days ago

So much for republican realiality.  Continue the lack grasping what went on.

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.3  Don Overton  replied to  1stwarrior @1    6 days ago

  about Grabie News.  Factual Reporting: MIXED (depends on source)

Be sure to make fact checks for the source

 
 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
1.3.1  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  Don Overton @1.3    6 days ago

Is that more important than grammar and punctuation?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.3.2  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @1.3.1    6 days ago

Also much more important than commenting on the contents of the thread instead of doing "drive-byes".

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.3.3  Texan1211  replied to  Don Overton @1.3    6 days ago
about Grabie News. Factual Reporting: MIXED (depends on source)
Be sure to make fact checks for the source

If you actually HAVE something to dispute the article, please share it.

Yelling "False" isn't helpful without substantiation.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
1.3.4  Cerenkov  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.3    6 days ago

Attack the Messenger fallacy. Dismissed. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  1stwarrior @1    6 days ago

I would like to add another item to that list - fighting the border wall! When this government shutdown is over it will have cost the government more than the $5.7 billion the President is asking for. That may be the most telling indicator that this debate is not about the cost of the wall. Nope, it's simply about denying the President his key campaign promise before the 2020 election.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
1.4.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4    4 days ago
Nope, it's simply about denying the President his key campaign promise before the 2020 election.

Yep, and about Democrats keeping their key campaign promises in the latest round of midterms. The Dems have exactly zero incentive to give fat fuck what he wants because a) they already offered him money for his dumbass wall and he rejected them, b) he has proven to be the worst negotiator/negotiating partner of all time (he couldn't negotiate his way into giving himself a handjob), and c) they just took back the house and beat the shit out of Trump and the GOP by opposing Trump's promises like the wall. 

 
 
 
Dragon
1.4.2  Dragon  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4    4 days ago

That "promise" was a wall that Mexico would pay for, which they will not, not in any form, not in any way, therefore Trump will NEVER keep that promise. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.4.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4    4 days ago

Nope, it's simply about denying the President his key campaign promise before the 2020 election.

His campaign promise was a wall paid for by Mexico, it's amazing how often right wingers forget that.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
1.4.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  Dragon @1.4.2    4 days ago

Wait, you mean a lifelong con man and serial liar lied? Whaaaaaaat?

 
 
 
Kavika
2  Kavika     one week ago

Are you saying that the eight items highlighted in the article are only supported by dems? 

It takes congress to support these items that means both republican and dems. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.1  Don Overton  replied to  Kavika @2    6 days ago

Not according to some on the right.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @2    6 days ago
Are you saying that the eight items highlighted in the article are only supported by dems?
It takes congress to support these items that means both republican and dems.

I believe the point was to point how CONGRESS (both parties) has wasted money through the years. 

I believe the actual cost of the wall to be a red herring to those opposed to it.

 
 
 
Kavika
2.2.1  Kavika   replied to  Texan1211 @2.2    6 days ago
I believe the actual cost of the wall to be a red herring to those opposed to it.

Or it could be that they think the monies are better spent on others way to protect the border. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  Kavika @2.2.1    6 days ago
Or it could be that they think the monies are better spent on others way to protect the border. 

If that were true, they would be suggesting those ideas, or even letting the experts (i.e. the people at Border Patrol) have something to say about how much money they need and how it could be spent. But none of that is happening.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @2.2.1    6 days ago

If border security is so important to them, I am sure they could very easily find some way to cut $5.7 billion in some wasteful government program.

About 22% of government agencies have no real effect on the people they are supposed to serve. 

Look at the items in the article.

And I am not saying Republicans are better with money. Neither party is fiscally responsible. But complaining about that relatively small amount of money when so much is just wasted is disingenuous.

 
 
 
Kavika
2.2.4  Kavika   replied to  Tacos! @2.2.2    6 days ago

The dems did want $1.3 billion for border security, which if I remember correctly was more tech and boots on the ground at the legal points of entry. Most drugs come through that channel not out in the middle of the desert. 

Actually a couple of congressman from Texas requested that 1.3 go to $4 billion. 

It also seems that other ''experts'' that work and live in the border areas feel that wall is a waste of money and want more personal and improved tech. 

So there you have it. 

 
 
 
Kavika
2.2.5  Kavika   replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.3    6 days ago

As the old saying goes, ''A billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon you have real money''....

I guess that cuts both ways. If the republicans thought it was so important they would find a way to cut the $5.7 billion from other programs that are non productive. 

Least we forget, this is only a down payment on the wall. The total cost is anywhere from $21 billion to infinity and there is also the upkeep of the wall. So I believe that it's best to take in the complete cost before we jump in with both feet. 

I have never seen a government project come in on budget...The F-35 rings a bell.

 
 
 
lib50
2.2.6  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @2.2.2    6 days ago
If that were true, they would be suggesting those ideas, or even letting the experts (i.e. the people at Border Patrol) have something to say about how much money they need and how it could be spent. But none of that is happening.

Here.  How about all this money that GOP CONGRESS refused to fund Obama's border security?  5 short years ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/29/republicans-deny-white-house-request-funds-migrant-crisis

Republicans in the House of Representatives are planning to deny the White House the vast bulk of its request for resources to manage the surge of unaccompanied children crossing the border illegally into the US.

Instead, Republicans have coalesced around a plan to provide President Barack Obama’s administration with a significantly slimmed-down package designed to help agencies cope with the thousands of Central American children arriving at the border over the summer.

Legislation unveiled to the House GOP during a closed-door meeting on Tuesday, authorises only $659m, far less than the $3.7bn Obama requested weeks ago or the $2.7bn that would be released in a rival Democratic bill in the Senate. And it is less than half the $1.5bn that a working group set up by the Republican House speaker, John Boehner, recently suggested needed to be spent to manage the border crisis.

One more thing.  If republicans and Trump were so concerned with border security, why didn't they provide for it for the 2 years they've held total power?  Why didn't they provide it before the dems took over JUST LAST WEEK!?  I'll tell you why.  They didn't want to do it.  Three fricken Trump/GOP shutdowns in 2018, and this one is also theirs.  Dems are giving them everything they already passed when gop had total control.  PAY FOR THE DAMN WALL YOURSELVES.

 
 
 
lib50
2.2.7  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.3    6 days ago
If border security is so important to them, I am sure they could very easily find some way to cut $5.7 billion in some wasteful government program.

If gop really cared they would have funded Obama back in 2014 when he requested extra money.  Also if gop really cared, they would have done it before dems took over just last week.  Nope, this is all Trump/republican created and sustained.  And all the lies and bullshit won't change that.  

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.8  MUVA  replied to  Kavika @2.2.5    6 days ago

If we as a country want to cut waste there is way more fraud a waste in social programs to fund 100 fences.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.2.9  Tacos!  replied to  lib50 @2.2.6    6 days ago
Here.  How about all this money that GOP CONGRESS refused to fund Obama's border security?  5 short years ago.

IOW, "Squirrel!"

If republicans and Trump were so concerned with border security, why didn't they provide for it for the 2 years they've held total power?

They should have!

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @2.2.7    6 days ago

Obama wanted the extra money to handle the influx of unaccompanied minors crossing the border illegally.

A wall or fence would certainly have curtailed that influx greatly.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
2.2.11  Cerenkov  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.10    6 days ago

Liberal deflection. That's all they have.

 
 
 
cjcold
2.2.12  cjcold  replied to  Tacos! @2.2.2    6 days ago

Yes it is. many are suggesting alternatives to Trumps idiotic wall.

(finally figured out your Tacos! I've been wearing them on my 4x4s for many years)

 
 
 
arkpdx
2.2.13  arkpdx  replied to  lib50 @2.2.7    6 days ago
Also if gop really cared, they would have done it before dems took over

They did try but senate democrats blocked the bill by stopping it from getting the 60 votes needed to oass

 
 
 
lib50
2.2.14  lib50  replied to  arkpdx @2.2.13    5 days ago

FYI, bipartisan legislation is easier to do when you consult and include the opposition.  2 full years where many things were rammed through, and they could have put that out at any time for a vote.  They could not get enough republicans to vote for it either.  This is all republican.  Only 2 people holding gov't hostage - Trump and McConnell. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.2.15  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2    4 days ago
I believe the point was to point how CONGRESS (both parties) has wasted money through the years.

So they should just intentionally waste money instead? Like spend money on shit they know for a fact will be completely pointless?

I believe the actual cost of the wall to be a red herring to those opposed to it.

Lol it will end up being far more than anyone projects. There will be delays, there will be legal challenges lasting years, then there is the ongoing costs of maintenance and repairs. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.16  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2.15    4 days ago
So they should just intentionally waste money instead? Like spend money on shit they know for a fact will be completely pointless?

I believe it is established fact that no matter who controls the purse strings, govt. will waste money.

Lol it will end up being far more than anyone projects. There will be delays, there will be legal challenges lasting years, then there is the ongoing costs of maintenance and repairs.

I believe you have described virtually every government program ever. Does that mean we should simply do nothing ever?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.2.17  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.16    4 days ago
I believe it is established fact that no matter who controls the purse strings, govt. will waste money.

It is established that at even the most basic levels people will waste money.

I believe you have described virtually every government program ever. Does that mean we should simply do nothing ever?

Nope, but if we are going to spend money on it, it should at least be on things that the data shows will work. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.18  MUVA  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2.17    4 days ago

So cancel everything that doesn't work I'm in.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.2.19  Thrawn 31  replied to  MUVA @2.2.18    4 days ago
So cancel everything that doesn't work I'm in.

God damn, we agree.

 
 
 
Ronin2
3  Ronin2    6 days ago

Cutting spending is not what Democrats are about- unless a Republican is President and it is for the military.

I am sure there is a Democrat that would defend every last one of the programs listed.

 
 
 
lib50
3.1  lib50  replied to  Ronin2 @3    6 days ago

Gop refused to fund for Obama, so that is just bullshit.   Gop didn't fund this stupid idea for 2 years when they had total control BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT IS A STUPID IDEA AND A WASTE OF TAX DOLLARS!   So Trump and the gop can pound rocks if they think dems or Americans will pay for it or put a better deal on the table than republicans were willing to do.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
3.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  Ronin2 @3    4 days ago
Cutting spending is not what Democrats are about- unless a Republican is President and it is for the military.

Lol kinda how the GOP only gives a shit about cutting spending until a republican is in office? Wasn't it just a couple years ago our deficits were out of control, but all of a sudden the attitude became "who gives a shit about trillion $ deficits". 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.1  MUVA  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.2    4 days ago

Did the democrat cut spending while in power how many budgets did Obama veto all politicians are guilty of the contributing to the problem. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
3.2.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  MUVA @3.2.1    4 days ago
Did the democrat cut spending while in power how many budgets did Obama veto all politicians are guilty of the contributing to the problem. 

Yes. Deficits actually declined shortly into the Obama administration, and that was even with the wars and the recession. Of course that was a combination of multiple factors, but when the GOP took control any and all concerns about the deficit went right out the window. Even a cynic like myself was pretty surprised with how quickly they showed themselves to be completely full of shit with their talk of fiscal responsibility. I mean I knew they were, I just didn't expect them to be so blatant about it. Democrats at least seem to be kinda aware of the problem, I mean they do look for ways to actually pay for things to a degree through taxes, but the GOP just says fuck it, borrow away!

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.3  MUVA  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.2.2    4 days ago

They were trillion dollar deficits for 4 years and a half a trillion after plus the 12 trillion QE sounds conservative to me.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.4  MUVA  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.2.2    4 days ago

I almost forgot how many budgets did Obama veto?It is past time to cut spending and cutting taxes isn't spending so they are going to actually have to cut the budget.Taxing citizens more isn't necessary the government collects over 3.5 trillion a year. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
3.2.5  Thrawn 31  replied to  MUVA @3.2.3    4 days ago

So you agree deficits decreased under Obama.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
3.2.6  Thrawn 31  replied to  MUVA @3.2.4    4 days ago

he government collects over 3.5 trillion a year. 

And pays out more than that. But Americans never want to cut any spending, so clearly we have to increase our income. 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.7  MUVA  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.2.5    4 days ago

How many budgets did Obama veto?The budgets went down but were still to high like now spending is the key.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.8  MUVA  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.2.6    4 days ago

I want the government to cut spending the government makes no income they take citizens wealth. I don't count on the government for income so don't what them to increase spending a penny.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
3.2.9  Thrawn 31  replied to  MUVA @3.2.7    4 days ago
he government collects over 3.5 trillion a year. 

I don't fucking know and am way too lazy to look it up.

The budgets went down but were still to high like now spending is the key.

Fucking hell, it is a combination of both. Taxes need to increase and programs/spending needs to be modified. It isn't one or the other. 

 
 
 
lib50
3.2.10  lib50  replied to  MUVA @3.2.8    4 days ago

Then FFS stop pushing this stupid wall if you really don't like gov't spending and waste.  Because your words ring hollow, you are trying to force US taxpayers to pay for something they don't want.  And they were promised they wouldn't pay for.  And that is not the best and most cost effective to protect that border.  You know, THE ONE THE GOP DIDN'T FUND FOR THE 2 YEARS THEY HAD TOTAL CONTROL! 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.11  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @3.2.10    4 days ago
you are trying to force US taxpayers to pay for something they don't want.

Like the PPACA?

And they were promised they wouldn't pay for.

Like the $2500 we were supposed to save?

THE ONE THE GOP DIDN'T FUND FOR THE 2 YEARS THEY HAD TOTAL CONTROL!

Using that rather dubious "logic", Democrats didn't want comprehensive immigration reform because they didn't pass it when in the majority.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4  Sean Treacy    6 days ago

In the formative days of our republic, "millions for defense, but not one penny for tribute"  was a popular slogan supposedly uttered by an American diplomat in response to a bribe request by Tallyrand during the XYZ affair.   

Today, the democrats' slogan appears to be "billions for foreign countries, but not one penny to protect our borders."

 
 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
5  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη    6 days ago

Let's not forget gay dung beetle research. Transgender hamsters on cocaine and many other studies.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1  Texan1211  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @5    6 days ago
Let's not forget gay dung beetle research. Transgender hamsters on cocaine and many other studies

People claiming to be opposed to more border security because of the cost are being disingenuous, IMO.

 
 
 
lib50
5.1.1  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1    6 days ago
People claiming to be opposed to more border security because of the cost are being disingenuous, IMO.

Why didn't republicans do this before they lost their majority?  They didn't want to, so they can stuff it now, dems won't give a better deal than republicans were willing to do.  Trump/gop shutdown is all theirs, just like the other ones,  3 in 2018 alone.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @5.1.1    6 days ago
Why didn't republicans do this before they lost their majority? They didn't want to, so they can stuff it now, dems won't give a better deal than republicans were willing to do. Trump/gop shutdown is all theirs, just like the other ones, 3 in 2018 alone.

That's like saying comprehensive immigration reform should be off the table because Dems didn't pass it when they held the majority. Same principle, so Democrats can stuff it.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
5.1.3  Cerenkov  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.2    6 days ago

More sad liberal deflection. 

 
 
 
lib50
5.1.4  lib50  replied to  Cerenkov @5.1.3    5 days ago

Really?  Gop DID NOT push this (because Mexico was going to pay?) for 2 full years.  Not a peep, not an attempt.  They got their tax cuts, their judges, their tariff wars......   So now you are trying to blame democrats for something republicans didn't even attempt to do?   Talk about sad deflection.   Enjoy the Trump/Russican Shutdown, longest in history.    At least you can't blame dems for that.  Trump is so stupid he owned it before it started.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @5.1.4    5 days ago

Why didn't Dems pass comprehensive immigration reform when they had the majority?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
5.1.6  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.5    4 days ago

They used it on healthcare, a much more pressing concern IMO. 

But still, why didn't the GOP get money for the wall? Unless they know it is a fucking stupid idea and there was no point in wasting resources on it. 

And when are we gonna start seeing those payments from Mexico? And which of those dumb ass prototypes did fat ass even pick? 

Far as I can tell he wants money for a wall but hasn't actually thought about ANY of the details for building it. If I were a rep I wouldn't even consider voting for a penny of wall funding until dip shit presents a comprehensive plan. I am talking about $ figures, contracts details, projected start and completion dates, the whole 9 yards. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5.1.6    4 days ago
They used it on healthcare, a much more pressing concern IMO.

They used WHAT on healthcare?

And can a Democratic Congress only do one thing?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
5.1.8  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.7    4 days ago
They used WHAT on healthcare?

Their legislative capital and super-majority. That whole thing took over a year to get done. The Dems used almost the entirety of their dominance of government to address a very real issue.

And can a Democratic Congress only do one thing?

In 3 days they have passed bills to reopen the government. But fuck face has refused to pass anything until he gets his penis... sorry, wall. 

And the Dems paid dearly for taking on major legislation, they knew they would but they also knew things needed to change. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5.1.8    4 days ago

The Dems paid because the majority didn't want the monstrosity they passed.

Legislative capital? What? Did they have to bribe their own members to vote for it?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
5.1.10  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.9    4 days ago
The Dems paid because the majority didn't want the monstrosity they passed.

They paid because they knew the American public is fucking stupid, but would appreciate what they did in time. And guess what, the American people now overwhelmingly support the ACA and actually want to strengthen it. But don't just take my opinion on it, look at the polling data and the fact that the GOP failed spectacularly to get rid of it when they had the chance. 

Legislative capital? What? Did they have to bribe their own members to vote for it?

Some yes. Many of them knew that voting for it would mean they would lose reelection, so yeah, they had to twist some arms. The point being though, that they actually made shit happen. They took on a real , difficult, issue, unlike the GOP.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5.1.10    4 days ago
They paid because they knew the American public is fucking stupid,

So the same stupid American public (YOUR words) opposes the wall. Hmmm....what would that tell you?

That it is necessary and they will learn to appreciate it later?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
6  Buzz of the Orient    6 days ago
“The government spent at least $518,000 in federal grants to study how cocaine affects the sexual behavior of Japanese quails,” Readers Digest reports

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif  jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cjcold
6.1  cjcold  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6    5 days ago

Sure could have used all of that cocaine money back in the 70's when my libido involved much more than Japanese quails.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.2  Dulay  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6    5 days ago
"The government spent at least $518,000 in federal grants to study how cocaine affects the sexual behavior of Japanese quails,” Readers Digest reports 

Why'd you skip the big ticket items? Readers Digest reports:

The Pentagon was criticized in June 2017 for spending $28 million on licensing fees for the lush green pattern on Afghan National Army uniforms. The problem: Afghanistan is 98 percent desert, so the bright color would stand out—not what you’re looking for in camo.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
6.2.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dulay @6.2    4 days ago

LOL.  That uniform mistake had to be a winner for some kind of stupidity award.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.2.1    4 days ago

Almost as bad as swat wearing camo in cities. It should be a brick pattern or some such...

 
 
 
Dulay
7  Dulay    6 days ago

Gee 1st, how did the Dems get the GOP committee chairs to report out all of that spending and how did they get McConnell and Ryan to bring those spending bills to the floor for a vote? Oh and let's not forget getting Trump to SIGN the bills. They sure as hell could use some of that magic right now...

 
 
 
1stwarrior
8  seeder  1stwarrior    6 days ago

Since none of the above occurred during Trump's watch - guess he didn't need to sign them, eh?

The Dems and the Repubs, I hope, followed the Constitutional process of getting the funding/spending up and out.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @8    6 days ago
Since none of the above occurred during Trump's watch - guess he didn't need to sign them, eh?

So all the stuff on the list was eliminated since Trump took over. Link? 

Secondly, Paul and Mitch were STILL in charge in 2016.

The Dems and the Repubs, I hope, followed the Constitutional process of getting the funding/spending up and out.

Yet of course the Dems are the only ones y'all blame...

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
8.1.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Dulay @8.1    3 days ago
So all the stuff on the list was eliminated since Trump took over.

Well no, but that isn't important! What matters is conservatives SAY they don't like these things. Come on man, words matter more than actions.

Secondly, Paul and Mitch were STILL in charge in 2016

Again see above.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Thrawn 31 @8.1.1    3 days ago

You forgot the sarcasm tag. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
9  Hal A. Lujah    5 days ago

Trump is the most glaringly obvious unqualified person in the history of this country to hold his office, and day after day here we see these monotonous attempts to normalize that scum.  He is quite literally attempting to starve a wide swath of his constituents, and conservatives continue to take the zero empathy position that as long as it isn’t impacting them directly, he’s doing a swell job.  Hillary was dead on with her deplorables label.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1  Texan1211  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @9    5 days ago
He is quite literally attempting to starve a wide swath of his constituents,

Ahhh………...I love the smell of hyperbole in the morning!

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
9.1.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1    5 days ago

Oh really?  I guess you haven’t bothered to watch a real news show over the last few days.

This article is self defeating.  It says that while the Republicans were in charge of every branch of government, they let sugar subsidies take precedence over “the border crisis”.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @9.1.1    4 days ago

Perhaps you don't know what hyperbole is.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
9.1.3  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.2    4 days ago

Is it hyperbolic to say that the Trump shutdown is causing 800,000 American families to not receive a paycheck?  Not the mention those hordes of contractors whose salaries rely on government contracts.  People are now having to choose between rent/mortgage payment and food for their family.  Not even his sycophants are going to stand for that failure.  I could see you cheering him on though.  

 
 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
9.1.4  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @9.1.3    4 days ago

Call your congressperson and tell them to compromise. Last thing we want is them out of work for two years blaming everyone but themselves in an economy where you can walk out the door and run into a job.

 
 
 
lib50
9.1.5  lib50  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @9.1.4    4 days ago

I'm telling mine not to fund the wall, its why she was elected, to be a check and balance on TrumpRussicans.  If republicans didn't care to fund the damn wall for 2 full years, they don't care at all, this is just trying to put blame on the dems for something they didn't have the balls to do themselves. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
9.1.6  Thrawn 31  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @9.1.4    4 days ago
Call your congressperson and tell them to compromise.

They have, they have offered him money for border security (again), he has rejected them. Compromise is not giving one side everything they want and giving the other side nothing. 

Last thing we want is them out of work for two years blaming everyone but themselves in an economy where you can walk out the door and run into a job.

And they will do that, and we will all be worse off for it. Give it another month and these employees will say fuck it, quit their jobs and find another one. Then when these departments do open back up, they will have no one to actually conduct their operations. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
9.1.7  Thrawn 31  replied to  lib50 @9.1.5    4 days ago

Exactly. Why is wall funding such a big deal now? Apparently the GOP and Trump didn't give enough of a shit to do it for the last 2 years (if they passed that tax legislation they could definitely have found money for Trump's [Deleted] wall), so why is it all of a sudden a priority? The answer is clear, and Trump is playing the GOP base for suckers, as usual. Funny thing is his base is gonna feel the hurt from this shutdown as much or more than the Dems. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @9.1.7    4 days ago
Exactly. Why is wall funding such a big deal now? Apparently the GOP and Trump didn't give enough of a shit to do it for the last 2 years (if they passed that tax legislation they could definitely have found money for Trump's gay little wall), so why is it all of a sudden a priority? The answer is clear, and Trump is playing the GOP base for suckers, as usual. Funny thing is his base is gonna feel the hurt from this shutdown as much or more than the Dems.

How is a wall gay, and why did you choose to use that term?

Isn't that a little homophobic of you?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
9.1.9  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.8    4 days ago
[Deleted]

Not at all because [Deleted.] South Park has pretty thoroughly covered this.

 
 
 
lennylynx
9.1.10  lennylynx  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.8    4 days ago

Lol!  Face it Tex, the wall's gay!  jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @9.1.9    4 days ago

It is always amusing to watch progressive liberals when they spout total nonsense and then try to walk it back, Had a conservative said anything remotely like it, someone would have been jumping on it.

No need to get mad because you chose to use a homophobic slur, and got called on it.

It displays your lack of understanding of gay issues.

I am sure South Park and other cartoons have informed you just brilliantly through the years.

Do you get your news from Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live, too?

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  lennylynx @9.1.10    4 days ago
Lol! Face it Tex, the wall's gay!

Ah! There's that famous tolerance we have heard so much about!

 
 
 
lennylynx
9.1.13  lennylynx  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.12    4 days ago

I notice you chastize everyone for calling the wall gay, but you don't actually defend the wall.  You know it's gay!! jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  lennylynx @9.1.13    3 days ago

And yet more tolerance and celebration of diversity!

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
9.1.15  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.11    3 days ago
It is always amusing to watch progressive liberals when they spout total nonsense and then try to walk it back

I didn't walk anything back. I stand by exactly what I said.

Had a conservative said anything remotely like it, someone would have been jumping on it.

Someone, but not me because I am not a dumbass.

No need to get mad because you chose to use a homophobic slur, and got called on it.

I am not mad at all. I use the words, gay, faggot, queer etc all the time. Especially in the car, but I am never talking about a person's sexuality, I don't give a shit about that. Again, South Park covered this well. You can go ahead and call me a homophobe or some shit all you like, I really don't care.

It displays your lack of understanding of gay issues.

Oh well.

I am sure South Park and other cartoons have informed you justbrilliantlythrough the years.

Someone doesn't understand or can't comprehend satire it seems. Believe it or not there is actually a deeper layer to many of their episodes.

Do you get your news from Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live, too?

Nah, from what I can tell that is Donald Trump. I actually haven't watched SNL in years.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  lennylynx @9.1.13    3 days ago

I only chastised the people uneducated enough to use the term in that manner. I didn't criticize everyone because some people don't do that shit.

 
 
 
lennylynx
9.1.17  lennylynx  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.16    3 days ago

Whatever.  Bottom line is that you and Trump ain't gettin' your gay (or straight!) wall! jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  lennylynx @9.1.17    3 days ago

Don't you have some trolling to do elsewhere?

 
 
 
lennylynx
9.1.19  lennylynx  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.18    3 days ago

Well, I can't think of a more deserving member to troll...

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  lennylynx @9.1.19    3 days ago
Well, I can't think

You may be on to something there.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
10  Thrawn 31    4 days ago
Waste, Fraud, and Abuse

Wait wait wait, there is actually a waste fraud and abuse program? Like a program dedicated specifically to those goals? 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
11  Paula Bartholomew    4 days ago

This is not about the past.  It is about NOW.  Get over it.

 
 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
12  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη    4 days ago

If you just add a couple thousand in free abortions to women in east Bangladesh. Democrats will sign up for border security.

The art of compromise....hook em with foreign abortions.

 
 
 
MUVA
12.1  MUVA  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @12    4 days ago

You are right if you give them more corpses they will be all in.

 
 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
12.1.1  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  MUVA @12.1    4 days ago

If Romanians were crossing the Southern border they'd be decrying a national emergency.

Abortions are certainly the way to get them on board. No Democrat can turn down foreign abortion funding.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
12.1.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @12.1.1    4 days ago

Ever heard Ray Steven's Come To The USA? If not Google it as it is right on the money. In fact it is true and very hilarious at the same time...

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Krishna
shona1
Keep America Great!
epistte


56 visitors