• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Trump gets border wall funds, money for military

Status
Not open for further replies.

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The way Newt put it, Dems didn't read the fine print. The language does not block all aspects of the wall, and apparently they have more funding for border security then they've had in many years.

Call me crazy, but maybe all the political experts are wrong again. Not only did Trump get a lot of money for the wall and border security he also got about 21 billion for military spending. Wow!

Not a perfect deal, but considering what he was up against, it seems he's made the right choice. If you can't everything you want, make sure you get some things and keep chipping away.

‘What winning looks like’: Trump gets border wall funds, money for military

The White House insisted Tuesday that the $1 trillion spending bill includes money for 40 miles of border fencing, as President Trump sought to shore up Republican voters by saying the deal also lays the groundwork for rebuilding the military.

The president said there is “enough money to make a down payment on the border wall,” and said a $15 billion boost in defense spending — without having a dollar-for-dollar match in domestic spending — has set a new standard that will benefit Republicans and the Pentagon.

“This is what winning looks like,” Mr. Trump said.

Republicans bristled after Democrats declared victory on the spending bill Monday, saying they had won every major fight by keeping money flowing to Planned Parenthood and sanctuary cities, boosting spending for the National Endowment for the Arts, bailing out Puerto Rico’s troubled Medicaid system, expanding college aid for poor students and preserving the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget.

“We have more money now for the border than we’ve gotten in 10 years,” said Mr. Trump. “The Democrats didn’t tell you that. They forgot.”

Still, Democrats’ biggest win was preventing more money from going to Mr. Trump’s proposed border wall.

White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said Democrats oversold that claim.

While no walls will be built in new areas, the bill includes $341 million to upgrade 40 miles of existing fences and barriers, which the administration said paves the way for the full wall Mr. Trump is seeking.

“You can call it new wall, you can call it replacement, you can call it maintenance, call it whatever you want to. The president’s priority was to secure the southern border, and that’s what this does,” Mr. Mulvaney said.

Mr. Trump said Republican accomplishments “flew under the radar.”

The package is expected to win approval before a shutdown deadline Friday, when a one-week stopgap bill expires.

Mr. Trump seemed to throw a stink bomb into the deal Tuesday morning when he took to Twitter to blast the concessions Republicans made to Democrats.

“Our country needs a good ‘shutdown’ in September to fix mess!” he tweeted, adding that the Senate should consider eliminating the filibuster.

The White House and congressional Republican leaders spent the rest of the day trying to explain away the remark.

“We’ve got a long ways to go between now and September,” said House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, though he added that he shares the president’s frustration with the Senate filibuster.

Senators of both parties, though, said their ability to filibuster legislation isn’t going anywhere.

“That will not happen,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican who eliminated the filibuster’s use against Supreme Court justices after Democrats excluded it for all other presidential appointments.

Democrats said Mr. Trump’s comments have poisoned negotiations and show that Republicans cannot resist shutdown showdowns.

“My hope [is] he’ll be a constructive force in the 2018 budget,” said Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat. “I don’t think threatening a shutdown is good for America.”

Mr. Mulvaney countered that Democrats are the ones pushing for a shutdown, figuring that either Republicans will cave to avoid such a scenario or take the blame.

The budget director said that by agreeing to the spending deal, Mr. Trump has “completely destroyed that narrative.”

Mr. Trump said that in addition to border fence money, he won several billion dollars for a health care fund for miners and extended a school choice program in the District of Columbia. He also prevented money for Obamacare payments from being included in the bill — though he has promised to make the “unauthorized” payments anyway.

The biggest administration win, though, was the $15 billion boost in military spending. The White House claimed another $6 billion increase in earlier spending bills for a total increase of $21 billion.

Mr. Trump said the military buildup shattered the Obama-era precedent that every dollar of new money for the Pentagon be matched with an extra dollar for domestic spending.

Mr. Ryan, the House speaker, called the parity break a “game-changer.”

“No longer are the needs of our military going to be held hostage to domestic spending,” Mr. Ryan said. “We broke this parity, and we think it’s a really important step in the right direction.”

Mr. Trump initially sought $30 billion in defense money and proposed deep cuts to cover the costs without ballooning the deficit. He won about half his request but did not win his cuts. Instead, Democrats managed to increase money for some of their priorities, leaving even deeper deficits.

Democrats also said they didn’t cave on parity. The extra defense money was included as one-time emergency war spending, meaning it was not part of the base budget that carries forward into next year.

“The baseline in 2018, as we go to the budget, is going to be equal like it has been,” Mr. Schumer said.

Congress is less than five months away from the deadline for the fiscal year 2018 spending bill, and Democrats already are laying down markers.

A handful of Democratic senators facing tough re-election bids next year took credit for miners’ health care money in the current bill but said they would demand more money for miners’ pensions in the next round.

“When is it their turn?” said Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, North Dakota Democrat.​
 

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It's called putting lipstick on a pig...by both parties.

It's called getting what you can, and moving toward your goals. 21 billion for the military ain't bad. And the man has only been in office 100 days I mean sheesh. Every time there's a bump in the road, chicken littles fills the streets. Maybe we all need to have a smoke (metaphorically speaking).
 
Last edited:

carpro

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Meanwhile , a lot of his executive orders aren't worth the paper they're written on.

Til September, then. We'll see.
 

Happy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Meanwhile , a lot of his executive orders aren't worth the paper they're written on.

Til September, then. We'll see.

Actually they are. In brief;

The core principle is the President of the USofA is the "elected" Chief Executive of the Office OF the USofA.
The Chief Executive has under him, "appointed", Executives, called Department Heads, called Secretaries.

The President has authority to WRITE "Orders" to his Secretaries, applicable to "their" job/position as Secretaries.
The Secretaries, have a "duty" to comply with the "Orders" in their job/position capacity.

Because, such "Orders" carry the weight, of a LEGAL Order, having the force and effect of Law.

If and when a "Secretary" does not comply with an Executive Order;
The Chief Executive has the Authority to "remove" such Secretary, from their Office as Department Head.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Meanwhile , a lot of his executive orders aren't worth the paper they're written on.

Yep, most of them are mere orders for studies or reviews to be done and have no actual call to action to do anything.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 

carpro

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Because, such "Orders" carry the weight, of a LEGAL Order, having the force and effect of Law.


Those that require funding, or defunding, are dead...for the time being. Period.

The latest budgetary agreement was just short of total capitulation to democrats. Par for the course for cowardly republicans. I was hoping Trump was different. This time, he wasn't. In September, we'll see.
 

Happy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yep, most of them are mere orders for studies or reviews to be done and have no actual call to action to do anything.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


Executive order defined according to the Law.
A rule or order issued by the president to an executive branch of the government and having the force of law.
 

Happy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Those that require funding, or defunding, are dead...for the time being. Period.

The latest budgetary agreement was just short of total capitulation to democrats. Par for the course for cowardly republicans. I was hoping Trump was different. This time, he wasn't. In September, we'll see.

EO's can not lawfully trump the Law itself.

Trump can certainly EO his subordinates in the manner in which funding will be handled, but for ANY measure Congress must first APPROVE the funding.

A President can certainly speak forth his desires for any particular issue, but he is not dictator or king with unlimited power. Everything outside of his FEW exclusive powers, MUST be approved by Congress via a percentage vote of yea or nay.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Executive order defined according to the Law.
A rule or order issued by the president to an executive branch of the government and having the force of law.

Again, most of the EO's that Trump has issued are mere directives for further study or for a government review. They don't actually DO anything.

Why don't you read a few of them and learn more?
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
OP claim: "A lot of money for the wall".
Reality: $1.5 billion for repairs to the existing wall and purchase of drones and sensors.

The short-term funding resolution reached Sunday, however, does not allocate any new money whatsoever for a southern border wall with Mexico. It also does not contain any riders blocking new grant funding for sanctuary cities like New York City.

The bill even includes language that explicitly prohibits construction of a new wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. It does, however, include $1.5 billion in new border security funding and spending to repair infrastructure and improve technology.

White House says budget deal provides border wall funding

You've been spinned. Again.
 

carpro

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
EO's can not lawfully trump the Law itself.

Trump can certainly EO his subordinates in the manner in which funding will be handled, but for ANY measure Congress must first APPROVE the funding.

A President can certainly speak forth his desires for any particular issue, but he is not dictator or king with unlimited power. Everything outside of his FEW exclusive powers, MUST be approved by Congress via a percentage vote of yea or nay.

Really. I don't think anybody here knew that. :Rolleyes

Thanks for the lesson.
 

carpro

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
OP claim: "A lot of money for the wall".
Reality: $1.5 billion for repairs to the existing wall and purchase of drones and sensors.

The short-term funding resolution reached Sunday, however, does not allocate any new money whatsoever for a southern border wall with Mexico. It also does not contain any riders blocking new grant funding for sanctuary cities like New York City.

The bill even includes language that explicitly prohibits construction of a new wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. It does, however, include $1.5 billion in new border security funding and spending to repair infrastructure and improve technology.

White House says budget deal provides border wall funding

You've been spinned. Again.

Yep. Lipstick on a pig.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yep. Lipstick on a pig.

Pretty much.

What's really demoralizing about the whole thing is that one area that should give a sharp delineation between Republicans and Democrats is government spending. There ought to be stark differences. But no, not only did Democrats get just about everything they wanted, Republicans are crowing about spending $21 Billion on the military and $1.5B on border security. Yes, both are needed, but at least show some remorse, even shame, for giving the Democrats their full grab bag of goodies. Instead they're out there bragging, "Here's the new spending that the Democrats didn't tell you about. Nah-nah....Sure the Dems are spending but look at what we're spending!"
 

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Those that require funding, or defunding, are dead...for the time being. Period....

i don't know where you're hearing this, but not true. funding is going to a lot of things, including the wall and border security and the military, and the XL pipeline, etc.

doom and gloom is part of the media culture, but don't get caught up in it. they want you to believe your pie in the sky was just snatched from you.
 

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Pretty much.

What's really demoralizing about the whole thing is that one area that should give a sharp delineation between Republicans and Democrats is government spending. There ought to be stark differences. But no, not only did Democrats get just about everything they wanted, Republicans are crowing about spending $21 Billion on the military and $1.5B on border security. Yes, both are needed, but at least show some remorse, even shame, for giving the Democrats their full grab bag of goodies. Instead they're out there bragging, "Here's the new spending that the Democrats didn't tell you about. Nah-nah....Sure the Dems are spending but look at what we're spending!"

Rome was not built in a day, and not 100 days. We're talking about righting a ship that been going in the wrong direction and stuck in a glacier. So long as the ship is turning, I'm happy. I know how things work in government, and there's nothing fast about it. It took Obama 8 years to ruing just about everything. Trump's done a lot in 100 days.

We all agree the real culprits are the congress, and right now we don't have a 60 majority. Trump is pushing for a rule change and Senate leaders are fighting it, likely some of the guys you voted for. Are you going to hold them accountable for fighting the rule change? Or just complain about Trump?
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
We all agree the real culprits are the congress, and right now we don't have a 60 majority. Trump is pushing for a rule change and Senate leaders are fighting it, likely some of the guys you voted for. Are you going to hold them accountable for fighting the rule change? Or just complain about Trump?

Give me a break.

Tell me--who did I vote for in the US Senate?
 

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Give me a break.

Tell me--who did I vote for in the US Senate?

You said you voted for Rubio in the primaries. Is it safe to say you support him in the Senate? Will you hold him accountable if he fights the 60 vote threshold?
 

carpro

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
i don't know where you're hearing this, but not true. funding is going to a lot of things, including the wall and border security and the military, and the XL pipeline, etc.

doom and gloom is part of the media culture, but don't get caught up in it. they want you to believe your pie in the sky was just snatched from you.

I have supported Trump's efforts from day one, but I live in the real world and don't buy all the spin.

You should try it sometime.
 

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I have supported Trump's efforts from day one, but I live in the real world and don't buy all the spin.

You should try it sometime.

No problem, but at least back it up. What exactly am I spinning? I'm merely saying not all is doom and gloom and politics takes time and patience. It's a marathon not a sprint. You think that's a spin? Explain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top