And could it be clearer he doesn't give a shit about them?? Does anyone actually think he does?? He has been stiffing workers his entire life. Of course he doesn't care if they aren't getting paid. The guy was running a scam "University" that was clearly designed to prey on people who didn't have alot of money to begin with. He bankrupted multiple businesses, leaving god knows how much collateral damage in his wake while himself leaving without a scratch. He's a predator.
I know a couple of Trump supporters in government. Remember that these people get their 'facts' from liars like Limbaugh and scumbags like Tucker Carlson.
I had one guy trying to tell me that Trump liked government workers just not the elites. Dumbass.
We said hey dumbass, he cancelled your cost of living increase. The guy was like oh no that's Congress. And we had to say no, he unilaterally wrote an executive order to cancel the annual cost of living adjustment that government employees get citing the economy and then the piece of crap potus turns around 2 seconds later and said we have teh greatest economy evar thanks to him. And of course the shutdown started when Republicans controlled all branches of government. These MAGA fools don't get basic facts. Brainwashed by lying right wing media propaganda and deeply held beliefs that are just ignorant.
This is just going to be flat-out bad. There is no way most of these people have over a month's worth of savings. They just don't. You don't have money, you can't pay bills. Work down the line. The family of just a single federal worker doesn't get paid. He has to borrow $500 from a friend just to pay the rent. Daycare, insurance, cable bill, and this month's electric are out of the question because food has to come first. All those businesses aren't getting paid. The friend now has $500 less dollars to spend. Grandma, who is 65 and works part-time at Kohl's is now calling in sick because she has to babysit. See where this is going?? Now multiply it by a million. You want trickle-down economics, you are about to watch it in action over the next couple weeks. Every single sector of the economy is going to start getting hit. You won't see it in the numbers until March or April, but the human suffering will be commencing long before then.
Already has been getting hit, actually. And now, signs are we are heading for a recession. Bet the President blames that on the "Democratic Shutdown", despite him saying he'd take credit for the shutdown and not blame Democrats.
Already has been getting hit, actually. And now, signs are we are heading for a recession. Bet the President blames that on the "Democratic Shutdown", despite him saying he'd take credit for the shutdown and not blame Democrats.
Nope. The federal reserve. He’s already preemptive struck dragging the chair’s name through the mud.
Cory Gardener of Colorado has now come out and broken with Trump on government funding with NO wall money, mostly because he isn't keen on committing political suicide. That means at a bare minimum, he, Collins and Murkowski would break ranks if the Senate put this up for a vote. That is at the very least a tie at 50-50, which Pence could break. Even one more defection would mean the House and Senate could pass the bill, which Trump would then likely veto. The House can override without a problem in this climate. It would only take 5 Senators to break to do so in the Senate, and if Gardner is running scared, so are others. But if McConnell doesn't even put it up for a vote, it doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter. Senate Majority/Minority Leader is a party position, not a constitutional one, created in the 1920s. And apparently, a Senate Majority Leader has never been replaced except via death by natural causes.
There'd have to be enough REPUBLICAN Senators to have to FORCE McTurtle to "either hold a vote, or be replaced".
Cory Gardener of Colorado has now come out and broken with Trump on government funding with NO wall money, mostly because he isn't keen on committing political suicide. That means at a bare minimum, he, Collins and Murkowski would break ranks if the Senate put this up for a vote. That is at the very least a tie at 50-50, which Pence could break. Even one more defection would mean the House and Senate could pass the bill, which Trump would then likely veto. The House can override without a problem in this climate. It would only take 5 Senators to break to do so in the Senate, and if Gardner is running scared, so are others. But if McConnell doesn't even put it up for a vote, it doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter. Senate Majority/Minority Leader is a party position, not a constitutional one, created in the 1920s. And apparently, a Senate Majority Leader has never been replaced except via death by natural causes.
There'd have to be enough REPUBLICAN Senators to have to FORCE McTurtle to "either hold a vote, or be replaced".
We aren't there yet. Unfortunately.
It's utterly absurd that McConnell isn't shouldering more blame here. He won't allow a single vote to take place, because he knows at least 3-5 members of his caucus will vote to open the government. He won't allow a vote on essentially the same language that his chamber passed by unanimous vote in December. He is the most destructive force in US politics in generations. He has obliterated the concept of functional government.
Given the cost of the shutdown, I think I'd be willing to have the government spend $5 billion on a useless wall if it was paired with a law stating that Congress was not legally allowed to cave in to this kind of blackmail again. It'd be rewarding Trump for shutting down the government, but we could prevent the behavior from recurring if we had the right law in place.
But I don't see McConnell supporting that, either. He wouldn't want to give up a useful political tool if he thought he could exploit it again.
Given the cost of the shutdown, I think I'd be willing to have the government spend $5 billion on a useless wall if it was paired with a law stating that Congress was not legally allowed to cave in to this kind of blackmail again. It'd be rewarding Trump for shutting down the government, but we could prevent the behavior from recurring if we had the right law in place.
But I don't see McConnell supporting that, either. He wouldn't want to give up a useful political tool if he thought he could exploit it again.
We need to get rid of government shutdowns period. No other Western democracy engages in this kind of nonsense. This shouldn't even be an option. Larry Kudlow, his top economic adviser, is now calling it a "glitch" that will instantly fix itself when it reopens. I can't begin to describe how out of touch these people are. Blame the Democrats all you want, hate them if you want, but they are not talking like this and literally acting like it DOESN'T MATTER if a million people aren't getting paid for a month. Wilbur Ross and Kudlow are the top two economic advisers in the Administration. They aren't low-level staffers.
Democrats have put forward a bill to prevent a shutdown going forward. Or at least to prevent the stoppage of paychecks to government workers during such, so it's pretty much the same.
Senate panel subpoenas Michael Cohen, President Trump's former personal lawyer
Half Of Canada Thinks The U.S. Is Full Of Nazis: Survey
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/canada-nazis-holocaust-survey_us_5c4213b0e4b027c3bbc18175?fbclid=IwAR3-OgIv16TwuxpxV2Y_9YOr6i1FhC-_aAEZCBSUXVmeWAwirSImOjAspwE It’s no mystery where they got that perception. Last year, a group of neo-Nazis received the red-carpet treatment from U.S. law enforcement as they traveled to Washington for a rally. A respected Holocaust scholar seriously compared certain American elected officials to those in Germany during the rise of the Nazis. And Americans re-elected a white supremacist congressman mere days after an anti-Semitic gunman murdered Jewish worshippers in Pennsylvania. According to the survey, 47 percent of Canadian respondents said there are a “great deal” of or “many” neo-Nazis in the U.S. Only 17 percent said there are a “great deal” of or “many” neo-Nazis in their own country.
@deltago You're from Canada. Do you think this is true?
Half Of Canada Thinks The U.S. Is Full Of Nazis: Survey
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/canada-nazis-holocaust-survey_us_5c4213b0e4b027c3bbc18175?fbclid=IwAR3-OgIv16TwuxpxV2Y_9YOr6i1FhC-_aAEZCBSUXVmeWAwirSImOjAspwE It’s no mystery where they got that perception. Last year, a group of neo-Nazis received the red-carpet treatment from U.S. law enforcement as they traveled to Washington for a rally. A respected Holocaust scholar seriously compared certain American elected officials to those in Germany during the rise of the Nazis. And Americans re-elected a white supremacist congressman mere days after an anti-Semitic gunman murdered Jewish worshippers in Pennsylvania. According to the survey, 47 percent of Canadian respondents said there are a “great deal” of or “many” neo-Nazis in the U.S. Only 17 percent said there are a “great deal” of or “many” neo-Nazis in their own country.
@deltago You're from Canada. Do you think this is true?
Both 'great deal' and 'many' are rather subjective terms. Who wrote this survey? With a population of over 300 million there probably are a 'great deal' of neo-Nazis in the US. There are also likely a 'great deal' of communists and a 'great deal' of UFO cultists. Stupid poll...
The survey is worded vaguely and the headline doesn’t match the answers given. It’s one of my biggest gripes about these types of surveys.
A “great deal” or “many” can have different meanings to different people taking the survey. IMO 1 neo-nazi is too many and a great deal, but the headline says “Full.” I personally don’t think the country is full of them, but there is a great deal of them that have caused issues recently.
You’d get a different result if you asked for specific numbers. What percentage of the US population do you think are neo-nazis? Even though that’d get you a more specific, it wouldn’t get the headline grabbing numbers it was trying to produce.
I don’t think the US is full with them, but I do think there are more in the US than any other Western Nations, but I also think the ratio of Neo Nazis in US compared to its population is on par with other Western Countries.
I know I'm a little late here, this thread really blew up since yesterday. But painting all public or private schools with the same brush is incredibly unhelpful. It all depends on the individual school. I started in public school and had a horrendous time. Fights, unable to listen in class, poor grades. The school was pushing my parents to put me on Ritalin and kept referring to me as autistic (I am ADHD though). They moved me to a private school that had smaller and more structured classes, and it did a complete 180 on me. I left public school after 1st grade and went into 2nd grade completely unable to read. By the 3rd grade I left each year top of my class and by 5th grade, I was reading at a college level. Its all about matching the school to the child's needs.
Where on earth are you guys getting the idea that the bill only funds the Department of Homeland Security. I posted the full text of the bill for verification. Did you just read the headline and nothing else?
This is literally not true. It gives special provisions to Homeland Security under section C but ALSO funds programs and compensates employees.
"(b) All obligations incurred in anticipation of the ap-
propriations made and authority granted by this joint res-
olution for the purposes of maintaining the essential level
of activity to protect life and property and bringing about
orderly termination of Government functions, and for pur-
poses as otherwise authorized by law, are hereby ratified
and approved if otherwise in accord with the provisions
of this joint resolution, and for purposes of such obliga-
tions the time period covered by this joint resolution shall
be considered to include the period beginning on or about
December 22, 2018, during which there occurred a lapse
in appropriations.
SEC . 3. (a) If a State (or another Federal grantee)
used State funds (or the grantee’s non-Federal funds) to
continue carrying out a Federal program or furloughed
State employees (or the grantee’s employees) whose com-
pensation is advanced or reimbursed in whole or in part
by the Federal Government—
(1) such furloughed employees shall be com-
pensated at their standard rate of compensation for
such period;
(2) the State (or such other grantee) shall be
reimbursed for expenses that would have been paid
by the Federal Government during such period had
appropriations been available, including the cost of
compensating such furloughed employees, together
with interest thereon calculated under section
6503(d) of title 31, United States Code; and
(3) the State (or such other grantee) may use
funds available to the State (or the grantee) under
such Federal program to reimburse such State (or
the grantee), together with interest thereon cal-
culated under section 6503(d) of title 31, United
States Code."
(b) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘State’’
and the term ‘‘grantee’’, including United States terri-
tories and possessions, shall have the meaning given such
terms under the applicable Federal program under sub-
section (a). In addition, ‘‘to continue carrying out a Fed-
eral program’’ means the continued performance by a
State or other Federal grantee, during the period of a
lapse in appropriations, of a Federal program that the
State or such other grantee had been carrying out prior
I'm getting really fed up with this story. They can't admit when they are wrong, they have to pursue their agenda at all costs. People parrot this stuff when they print it enough.
THESE ARE YOUNG KIDS. THEY DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING COMING TO THEM BY WEARING MAGA HATS.
If you want to know where the nearly unprecedented level of division between ideological spectrums comes from, well here it is.
And don't even get me started on the self-congratulatory "well we corrected ourselves because the barbarians were storming the gate, you can trust us to do it when nobody has the full record" and "it was really Putin dividing us" bull.
Suffice to say, it is a last chance opportunity to tack something on to a bill that is already in the process of being voted on. So what we have here is nothing but Democrats voting against a resolution (and I still can't for the life of me find the part where the rest of the government is funded and I have read it more times than I care to count) to a bill that is already a bill to fully re-open government in the first place. Scalise is taking the fact that Democrats voted against a single Republican addendum to HR 31 and claiming they voted against paying workers, when HR 31 ALREADY does that!!!!!
So first about the bill. The key phrase in what you copied is:
shall have the meaning given such terms under the applicable Federal program under sub-section (a).
Sub-section A is homeland security, "joint resolution for the Department of Homeland Security,"
So it'd only be that government agency funded if this bill passed.
~
I am not going to click the MAGA hats articles, but it is something I mentioned prior. If these kids weren't wearing the hats, this would not have been a story.
It's perception. Those hats to those kids may mean the governments promise to bring manufacturing jobs (Kentucky is ranked 4th in automotive construction) to their state. To many other people, it's a reference to Trump's troll like behaviour and policies.
A real story would have been asking "What does that hat and it's message mean to you, 11th grader who isn't even allowed to vote yet," instead of regurgitating another opinion piece on what the hat means to someone else who refuses to wear it.
Maybe the kid would have given a very insightful answer on what is important to him and his friends if a person just asks and listens.
Suffice to say, it is a last chance opportunity to tack something on to a bill that is already in the process of being voted on. So what we have here is nothing but Democrats voting against a resolution (and I still can't for the life of me find the part where the rest of the government is funded and I have read it more times than I care to count) to a bill that is already a bill to fully re-open government in the first place. Scalise is taking the fact that Democrats voted against a single Republican addendum to HR 31 and claiming they voted against paying workers, when HR 31 ALREADY does that!!!!!
I posted the section which explains that federal workers get paid and programs get funded and the federal government reimburses expenses incurred by the state.
But voting against a motion because it doesn't give you everything you want is a lot different of a claim than saying "what democrats voted against only funds Homeland Security", which is simply untrue.
Seems to me like a good compromise till they work out a deal for the Wall tbh, that way nobody gets affected.
I know they have voted on several bills to fund areas of government. Mitch McConnell only allowed 1 to be voted on after I believe he and some Republicans and perhaps the President came up with a bill that asked to fund several measures, not just the wall. They may have just started with this one because it mentions Homeland Security specifically to strike back against Trump's claim that the Democrats aren't interested in Border security at all
Suffice to say, it is a last chance opportunity to tack something on to a bill that is already in the process of being voted on. So what we have here is nothing but Democrats voting against a resolution (and I still can't for the life of me find the part where the rest of the government is funded and I have read it more times than I care to count) to a bill that is already a bill to fully re-open government in the first place. Scalise is taking the fact that Democrats voted against a single Republican addendum to HR 31 and claiming they voted against paying workers, when HR 31 ALREADY does that!!!!!
I posted the section which explains that federal workers get paid and programs get funded and the federal government reimburses expenses incurred by the state.
But voting against a motion because it doesn't give you everything you want is a lot different of a claim than saying "what democrats voted against only funds Homeland Security", which is simply untrue.
Seems to me like a good compromise till they work out a deal for the Wall tbh, that way nobody gets affected.
You only posted part of section 3 though. The clause you didn't post (with my highlighting) says: "(c) The authority under this section applies with respect to the period of a lapse in appropriations beginning on or about December 22, 2018, and ending on the date of enactment of this joint resolution with respect to the Department of Homeland Security which, but for such lapse in appropriations, would have paid, or made reimbursement relating to, any of the expenses referred to in this section with respect to the program involved. Payments and reimbursements under this authority shall be made only to the extent and in amounts provided in advance in appropriations Acts.
There's also a bit of a clue on the title page of the bill "Making further continuing appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2019, and for other purposes."
Personally, I see nothing wrong with funding DHS by itself. It's better to fund part of the government now and fund the rest later, than fund nothing now and fund the rest later. In that sense, I disagree with the Democrats' vote on that part of the resolution. But Scalise is indeed misrepresenting this vote by acting like this Democrat-introduced resolution, which was tacked on to the eighth Democrat-introduced bill to end the shutdown entirely, would have ended the shutdown if Democrats had not voted against it.
It wouldn't really make political sense for the Democratic party to vote against a bill that ended the shutdown unless that bill included funding for the wall. Democrats stand to gain by ending the shutdown, since they could claim that they had solved the problem that Trump had caused. Voting to preserve the shutdown when there was a wall-less way to end it would do nothing but shift the blame from Trump to them.
Currently, polls show that Trump is seen as the bad guy in this scenario. There's no real reason for the Democrats to take that status away from him and take it for themselves.
GOP figures, including Trump, have a more complicated decision. Voting to end the shutdown is the popular option, but their constituents can fault them if they don't get wall funding in the process. For some of them at least, they stand to lose more by ending the shutdown without funding the wall, than by not ending the shutdown at all.
This is bed, but it also means that the Senate bill, put together by McConnell, the President and others also was voted down, since they were going to vote on that one first, then the bill from the House Democrats.
Suffice to say, it is a last chance opportunity to tack something on to a bill that is already in the process of being voted on. So what we have here is nothing but Democrats voting against a resolution (and I still can't for the life of me find the part where the rest of the government is funded and I have read it more times than I care to count) to a bill that is already a bill to fully re-open government in the first place. Scalise is taking the fact that Democrats voted against a single Republican addendum to HR 31 and claiming they voted against paying workers, when HR 31 ALREADY does that!!!!!
I posted the section which explains that federal workers get paid and programs get funded and the federal government reimburses expenses incurred by the state.
But voting against a motion because it doesn't give you everything you want is a lot different of a claim than saying "what democrats voted against only funds Homeland Security", which is simply untrue.
Seems to me like a good compromise till they work out a deal for the Wall tbh, that way nobody gets affected.
You only posted part of section 3 though. The clause you didn't post (with my highlighting) says: "(c) The authority under this section applies with respect to the period of a lapse in appropriations beginning on or about December 22, 2018, and ending on the date of enactment of this joint resolution with respect to the Department of Homeland Security which, but for such lapse in appropriations, would have paid, or made reimbursement relating to, any of the expenses referred to in this section with respect to the program involved. Payments and reimbursements under this authority shall be made only to the extent and in amounts provided in advance in appropriations Acts.
There's also a bit of a clue on the title page of the bill "Making further continuing appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2019, and for other purposes."
Again I tried EXTREMELY hard to find something in those 5 pages that said otherwise, but I came to this exact same conclusion. It's hard to blame anyone for getting it wrong or right. I wasn't even 100% convinced I was. Indeed, even in scouring internet and Twitter comments about it, no one seemed to know what the actual substance of it was. They just took Scalise at his word. Then today I watched a video of him on the House floor and while he was talking about it paying workers, I noticed him throw in a line about "those protecting our border". And then I knew. It's a really dirty trick. He knows the language is unbearably obtuse, so he thinks he can get away with it.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with funding DHS by itself. It's better to fund part of the government now and fund the rest later, than fund nothing now and fund the rest later. In that sense, I disagree with the Democrats' vote on that part of the resolution. But Scalise is indeed misrepresenting this vote by acting like this Democrat-introduced resolution, which was tacked on to the eighth Democrat-introduced bill to end the shutdown entirely, would have ended the shutdown if Democrats had not voted against it.
I've thought about this too. Does funding part of the government make sense. I wonder if it's actually a bad idea. We all pretty much agree government shutdowns are generally pretty dumb (this one in particular). If we individually funded each department of the government, then the opportunity for each department to be held hostage for something like a wall increases dramatically (Admittedly, the size of the impact diminishes if it's only one department rather than several).
To be honest - until this shutdown happened, I dont think I realized the government could only "partially" shutdown.
Comments
I had one guy trying to tell me that Trump liked government workers just not the elites. Dumbass.
We said hey dumbass, he cancelled your cost of living increase. The guy was like oh no that's Congress. And we had to say no, he unilaterally wrote an executive order to cancel the annual cost of living adjustment that government employees get citing the economy and then the piece of crap potus turns around 2 seconds later and said we have teh greatest economy evar thanks to him. And of course the shutdown started when Republicans controlled all branches of government. These MAGA fools don't get basic facts. Brainwashed by lying right wing media propaganda and deeply held beliefs that are just ignorant.
Anyhow, you may be right @deltago
There'd have to be enough REPUBLICAN Senators to have to FORCE McTurtle to "either hold a vote, or be replaced".
We aren't there yet. Unfortunately.
But I don't see McConnell supporting that, either. He wouldn't want to give up a useful political tool if he thought he could exploit it again.
Senate panel subpoenas Michael Cohen, President Trump's former personal lawyer
https://news.yahoo.com/senate-panel-subpoenas-michael-cohen-165854881.html?.tsrc=notification-brknewsAnd Then Trump threatened Cohen's Father-in-law...
Ross: 'I don't quite understand' why federal workers need food banks during shutdown
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/426741-ross-i-dont-quite-understand-why-federal-workers-need-food-banks-during?fbclid=IwAR0ngU_MMjjO-cw_C_SalOOy8AcootWJBoMCVKvvCQFhcieDDQCCnNWsQ58This is why we need normal people in government, not millionaires and billionaires.
Mourning military families won't get government death benefits
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/22/politics/us-soldier-death-benefits-shutdown/index.html?fbclid=IwAR0_e68aYxXjzsG4-FLbbmoxOuENJPBJ7Gh6_P4mdkHMKBSF9geJIOIFreYBecause of the shutdown, natch.
Gannett lays off journalists across the country
https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2019/gannett-lays-off-journalists-across-the-country/?fbclid=IwAR0z4V-UdUpOk6AajtGgyt14NhSf65O3esDP6DIRpKq9m-y97pFc4PVsTHIHalf Of Canada Thinks The U.S. Is Full Of Nazis: Survey
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/canada-nazis-holocaust-survey_us_5c4213b0e4b027c3bbc18175?fbclid=IwAR3-OgIv16TwuxpxV2Y_9YOr6i1FhC-_aAEZCBSUXVmeWAwirSImOjAspwEIt’s no mystery where they got that perception. Last year, a group of neo-Nazis received the red-carpet treatment from U.S. law enforcement as they traveled to Washington for a rally. A respected Holocaust scholar seriously compared certain American elected officials to those in Germany during the rise of the Nazis. And Americans re-elected a white supremacist congressman mere days after an anti-Semitic gunman murdered Jewish worshippers in Pennsylvania.
According to the survey, 47 percent of Canadian respondents said there are a “great deal” of or “many” neo-Nazis in the U.S. Only 17 percent said there are a “great deal” of or “many” neo-Nazis in their own country.
@deltago You're from Canada. Do you think this is true?
A “great deal” or “many” can have different meanings to different people taking the survey. IMO 1 neo-nazi is too many and a great deal, but the headline says “Full.” I personally don’t think the country is full of them, but there is a great deal of them that have caused issues recently.
You’d get a different result if you asked for specific numbers. What percentage of the US population do you think are neo-nazis? Even though that’d get you a more specific, it wouldn’t get the headline grabbing numbers it was trying to produce.
I don’t think the US is full with them, but I do think there are more in the US than any other Western Nations, but I also think the ratio of Neo Nazis in US compared to its population is on par with other Western Countries.
This is literally not true. It gives special provisions to Homeland Security under section C but ALSO funds programs and compensates employees.
"(b) All obligations incurred in anticipation of the ap-
propriations made and authority granted by this joint res-
olution for the purposes of maintaining the essential level
of activity to protect life and property and bringing about
orderly termination of Government functions, and for pur-
poses as otherwise authorized by law, are hereby ratified
and approved if otherwise in accord with the provisions
of this joint resolution, and for purposes of such obliga-
tions the time period covered by this joint resolution shall
be considered to include the period beginning on or about
December 22, 2018, during which there occurred a lapse
in appropriations.
SEC
. 3. (a) If a State (or another Federal grantee)
used State funds (or the grantee’s non-Federal funds) to
continue carrying out a Federal program or furloughed
State employees (or the grantee’s employees) whose com-
pensation is advanced or reimbursed in whole or in part
by the Federal Government—
(1) such furloughed employees shall be com-
pensated at their standard rate of compensation for
such period;
(2) the State (or such other grantee) shall be
reimbursed for expenses that would have been paid
by the Federal Government during such period had
appropriations been available, including the cost of
compensating such furloughed employees, together
with interest thereon calculated under section
6503(d) of title 31, United States Code; and
(3) the State (or such other grantee) may use
funds available to the State (or the grantee) under
such Federal program to reimburse such State (or
the grantee), together with interest thereon cal-
culated under section 6503(d) of title 31, United
States Code."
(b) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘State’’
and the term ‘‘grantee’’, including United States terri-
tories and possessions, shall have the meaning given such
terms under the applicable Federal program under sub-
section (a). In addition, ‘‘to continue carrying out a Fed-
eral program’’ means the continued performance by a
State or other Federal grantee, during the period of a
lapse in appropriations, of a Federal program that the
State or such other grantee had been carrying out prior
to the period of the lapse in appropriations. "
THESE ARE YOUNG KIDS. THEY DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING COMING TO THEM BY WEARING MAGA HATS.
If you want to know where the nearly unprecedented level of division between ideological spectrums comes from, well here it is.
And don't even get me started on the self-congratulatory "well we corrected ourselves because the barbarians were storming the gate, you can trust us to do it when nobody has the full record" and "it was really Putin dividing us" bull.
https://archives-democrats-rules.house.gov/archives/recommit_mot.htm
Suffice to say, it is a last chance opportunity to tack something on to a bill that is already in the process of being voted on. So what we have here is nothing but Democrats voting against a resolution (and I still can't for the life of me find the part where the rest of the government is funded and I have read it more times than I care to count) to a bill that is already a bill to fully re-open government in the first place. Scalise is taking the fact that Democrats voted against a single Republican addendum to HR 31 and claiming they voted against paying workers, when HR 31 ALREADY does that!!!!!
shall have the meaning given such terms under the applicable Federal program under sub-section (a).
Sub-section A is homeland security, "joint resolution for the Department of Homeland Security,"
So it'd only be that government agency funded if this bill passed.
~
I am not going to click the MAGA hats articles, but it is something I mentioned prior. If these kids weren't wearing the hats, this would not have been a story.
It's perception. Those hats to those kids may mean the governments promise to bring manufacturing jobs (Kentucky is ranked 4th in automotive construction) to their state. To many other people, it's a reference to Trump's troll like behaviour and policies.
A real story would have been asking "What does that hat and it's message mean to you, 11th grader who isn't even allowed to vote yet," instead of regurgitating another opinion piece on what the hat means to someone else who refuses to wear it.
Maybe the kid would have given a very insightful answer on what is important to him and his friends if a person just asks and listens.
But voting against a motion because it doesn't give you everything you want is a lot different of a claim than saying "what democrats voted against only funds Homeland Security", which is simply untrue.
Seems to me like a good compromise till they work out a deal for the Wall tbh, that way nobody gets affected.
"(c) The authority under this section applies with respect to the period of a lapse in appropriations beginning on or about December 22, 2018, and ending on the date of enactment of this joint resolution with respect to the Department of Homeland Security which, but for such lapse in appropriations, would have paid, or made reimbursement relating to, any of the expenses referred to in this section with respect to the program involved. Payments and reimbursements under this authority shall be made only to the extent and in amounts provided in advance in appropriations Acts.
There's also a bit of a clue on the title page of the bill "Making further continuing appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2019, and for other purposes."
It wouldn't really make political sense for the Democratic party to vote against a bill that ended the shutdown unless that bill included funding for the wall. Democrats stand to gain by ending the shutdown, since they could claim that they had solved the problem that Trump had caused. Voting to preserve the shutdown when there was a wall-less way to end it would do nothing but shift the blame from Trump to them.
Currently, polls show that Trump is seen as the bad guy in this scenario. There's no real reason for the Democrats to take that status away from him and take it for themselves.
GOP figures, including Trump, have a more complicated decision. Voting to end the shutdown is the popular option, but their constituents can fault them if they don't get wall funding in the process. For some of them at least, they stand to lose more by ending the shutdown without funding the wall, than by not ending the shutdown at all.
Democrats' plan to reopen government fails to clear hurdle in Senate
https://news.yahoo.com/democrats-plan-reopen-government-fails-clear-hurdle-senate-203404825--business.html?.tsrc=notification-brknewsThis is bed, but it also means that the Senate bill, put together by McConnell, the President and others also was voted down, since they were going to vote on that one first, then the bill from the House Democrats.
And seen in Kentucky...
To be honest - until this shutdown happened, I dont think I realized the government could only "partially" shutdown.