Shutdown Fallout Effects....

[Ray From Cleveland]

That works both ways. A lifelong friend of mine called me many years ago asking if my company was looking for any drivers? At the time we actually were because my employer was considering expanding. So I set him up with my boss for an interview.

He had a great gravy job as a school bus driver. He loved going to work. Working extra hours for field trips and football games was even better yet. So why was he looking for a new job? Because here we vote on school levies, and when they fail, bus drivers are the first to get laid off.

Because he worked two jobs, he was not eligible for unemployment. He was a guy who wanted a stay-at-home wife who also home schooled their children. He needed a guaranteed income that he couldn't depend on driving for the school.

So he gave up that taxpayer dependent job and has been working for us for nearly 25 years.

Federal employees are very hard to fire. It almost takes an act of Congress to do so. When I was stationed in Newport RI, there was an ESO (Educational Services Officer), who was a civilian at PSD there, and he was responsible for ordering, administering, and mailing in the Navy Wide Advancement Exams for making rank.

Well, one test cycle, he wasn't at his best, and let quite a few things slip through the cracks. One of which was that he failed to mail in the examinations, and invalidated a lot of tests for people which was a VERY huge deal. A normal military person would have been court martialed and kicked out of the military. Him? They had an investigation, he continued to show up for work, and somehow, they found that he wasn't really at fault, and he kept his job as a civilian clerk at PSD, but he lost his title as ESO.

Sorry, but it is extremely hard to fire a federal government worker.

If that's the case, then I don't think the government would fire people who didn't come into work for no pay and had to depend on other sources for immediate income. I think even an employer in the private sector would have to respect that.

When I went through the shutdown in the 90's, all the furloughed workers were free to do what they wanted. The only ones on the base that were determined "essential" were the military, and some of the higher ranking civilians. Those who showed up for work because they were essential knew they would eventually get their check, but would have to figure out how to make it work until then.

Furloughed workers are different from essential personnel who are still working.

Well I think the media is playing this for all it's worth. The first paycheck they missed was yesterday for crying out loud, yet they are showing stories of government workers at food pantries.

Plus if they are applicable for unemployment benefits, in a sense they are getting double pay for those not working at all.

Millions of workers are one paycheck away from the streets. Millions more live from paycheck to paycheck I know several people that have no savings, no pay check, then no groceries, no rent payment, etc.

What we're hearing now is mostly fear. After missing another paycheck or so, a lot of people are going to be desperate. People that are furrowed are eligible for unemployment. Those that are working without pay aren't.

If this goes on another month or so, we are going have massive walkouts in critical jobs and Trump will have deal with it.

Well then he'll have to deal with it, but I don't think the Democrats can play chicken that long. They will cave before then. This shutdown is going to hurt them more than Trump.

 

[basquebromance]

Of all the statements a President could make that might inspire confidence, this is not one of them: “there’s almost nobody in the W.H. but me”

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Only a lesser thinking fool thinks a wall only will keep illegals out. You need a lot more agents per mile to patrol it. Common sense unless of course you are one of the snowflakes who believes otherwise.

Where do Border Fences work? Everywhere

-------------------------------------------------------------- thanks Ray , and we are getting a few more in Eastern European countries from what i read . Fences and WALLS only make good sense as well as Guards on the Border . ThanksRay !!.

No problem. The sheep are hand fed, so they believe anything they're told. However the reality is not only do walls work well, sometimes they virtually eliminate the problem. Given the fact we have 20 million illegals in this country, I'd hate to see it 40 million in ten years from now which is the direction we're heading without a wall.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This:

View attachment 239689

If there is an order that government workers effected by the shutdown will get back pay, why are many applying for unemployment benefits?

I've been wondering the same thing. It looks like fraud to me.

They need the money. Most probably, unemployment benefits will reduce their backpack. You can not collect back pay and unemployment for the same period without an adjustment.

Yes you can, it depends on the circumstance and what deals you have with the government.

I explained this earlier (or perhaps another thread) that I had a late friend that worked at the steel mills. When he got laid off, he received 90% of his pay, plus he was allowed to go on unemployment. He nearly doubled his income every time he got laid off. So what it boils down to is what kind of dirty deal the unions (or government in this case) made with the unemployment bureau.

 

[Ame®icano]

No problem, I'm always prepared. Got enough money to make it for a few months and if I run out of that, I have plenty of credit cards in my drawer; some I haven't used in years if ever. When I finally get paid I'll replace the cash I took out of my checking account or if on credit, payoff the credit card I borrowed from. No big deal. All my cards are 0% interest rate.

Weird, unless introductory or promotional rate, no credit card gives you 0%.

However, if you pay your balance in full every month, you will pay no interest.

 

[basquebromance]

America's youngest black legislator says he's "pro-life, pro-God, and pro-wall"

black people want the wall, my friends!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I hate to tell you this, but those workers WILL be paid. That negates every bit of your overblown argument.

It is to be expected from someone living in the People's Republic of Seattle. That is the only place I have ever visited that experiences traffic jams on interstate highways at midnight involving no accidents or construction delays.

Why do you always have to be such an asshole about everything? It's not MY argument, this is settled case law. You don't like it, take it up with the legislators who wrote and passed the bills into law.

Besides, being paid eventually is not the same thing as being paid on time. Do you know how much damage can occur when people don't have access to the money they've earned and are unable to meet their financial obligations? No need to reply because of course you know.

So what is your suggestion, that government conduct themselves so workers get paid on time instead of policies they believe need to be implemented?

Trump will save them. Now that he can claim the longest government shutdown on record, he will end it by declaring a national emergency and taking the money that congress won't give him. He will be both responsible for shutting government down and ending the shutdown.

I believe that is his next and only possible move. He can't back down like he did last time. People on the right were very pissed about that. Back then he promised us that next time, he won't back down from the wall, and he's not.

It's really to the point Trump has no choice even if he wanted to just re-open the government. Continued Resolutions are just kicking the can down the road and usually ends up with people forgetting about the problems. They also really piss-off Republican voters. We're still funding PBS, NPR, Planned Parenthood, sanctuary cities just to name a few because of how many times Republicans have backed down. And I really believe that without Trump, the Republican party would be fragmenting and talk about starting a new--more conservative party.

What do you know, we agree on something. Trump has no choice but to declare a national emergency.

However, consider this. Within 48 hours, his national emergency proclamation will be in the courts and the issue may not be decided for months. So if Trump immediately agrees to open goverment and the courts rule against him or delay the decision, he's screwed. He apparent realized this because he said today that just because he declares a national emergency doesn't mean government will reopen.

We have hundreds of thousands of government workers on the job working without pay. This includes TSA inspectors, Flight Controllers, FBI agents, CIA agents, DEA agents, border patrol, national park rangers, and security personnel in over 10,000 federal federal buildings. Imagine having people doing critical jobs we depend on for our safety working without pay for months, which is what Trump expects. That's absolutely insane. When people are forced to work without pay, moral goes in the shit can, they become complacent, fail to show up at work, take on temp jobs, and many of course will just walk off the job.

Do you think terrorist are not taking note of this. If the government is shutdown for months as Trump expects we going have some real national emergencies.

Everybody on the left thinks this is a one-way street. Trump this.......Trump that........Trump the other thing...... Well what about the Democrats? We're talking 5.6 billion dollars here. It's not like Trump is asking for them to return the House back to Republicans. It takes two to Tango.

The thing is this money or wall doesn't mean that much to Democrat voters. It does to Republican voters. If they decided to let Trump have the wall, they won't lose very many votes if any. However if Trump doesn't take a hard stance on this agenda, not only will he likely not be reelected, it will bring more harm to the party as well.

So what you on the left are suggesting is that Trump give into the Democrats, or these government workers are in big trouble. So the solution is to create policy based on how to keep government workers on the job. What kind of country would we have then??????

 

[eagle1462010]

3 weeks in to the shutdown.............hasn't affected me one bit.

 

[Timmy]

while Trump cries to cameras about protecting America , his actions actually do the opposite.

If getting rid of illegals is such an important focus , then you should want to end the shutdown .

Maybe use wall money to find more courts and judges so we can get through the huge immigration court backlogs .


Immigration courts at a standstill during government shutdown, undermining President Trump's agenda


Far from the president’s rallying cry of “securing our border,” delaying court hearings puts additional strain on the immigration system, while allowing those who would have been deported to stay in the country for possibly years longer as they await new court dates.

By that reasoning we should just destroy the existing fence and have open borders, that way we can spend way more money on courts to keep shipping the illegals out!

Where do you get that ? Why would u destroy fenses you have ?

Here’s my analogy. You can defend the country with a strong navy . But you are better off using some of that navy money on the Air Force and Army . Combined that’s better than JUST Having a navy .

 

[eagle1462010]

Cost of the Government Shutdown? Billions and Rising. It's Cheaper To Keep the Government Running

The partial government shutdown comes with a high price: in the billions, maybe tens of billions of dollars so far, and increasing in scale daily. It costs more to shutter the government than to keep it open, so long as accumulated bills and deferred salaries are eventually paid as they have following all previous temporary closures. And the lack of spending drags down the country’s economy, especially in communities with government workers or those near national parks.

Standard and Poor’s estimated in 2017 that a full government shutdown would cost the U.S. economy about $6.5 billion a week. This partial shutdown affects only about a quarter of government spending, a little under half of all federal employees (about 800,000), and some significant agencies, such as the IRS and Homeland Security. In departments without current funding, about 425,000 employees are required to report to work without pay.

 

[Rustic]

while Trump cries to cameras about protecting America , his actions actually do the opposite.

If getting rid of illegals is such an important focus , then you should want to end the shutdown .

Maybe use wall money to find more courts and judges so we can get through the huge immigration court backlogs .


Immigration courts at a standstill during government shutdown, undermining President Trump's agenda


Far from the president’s rallying cry of “securing our border,” delaying court hearings puts additional strain on the immigration system, while allowing those who would have been deported to stay in the country for possibly years longer as they await new court dates.

We currently have no border security

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Cost of the Government Shutdown? Billions and Rising. It's Cheaper To Keep the Government Running

The partial government shutdown comes with a high price: in the billions, maybe tens of billions of dollars so far, and increasing in scale daily. It costs more to shutter the government than to keep it open, so long as accumulated bills and deferred salaries are eventually paid as they have following all previous temporary closures. And the lack of spending drags down the country’s economy, especially in communities with government workers or those near national parks.

Standard and Poor’s estimated in 2017 that a full government shutdown would cost the U.S. economy about $6.5 billion a week. This partial shutdown affects only about a quarter of government spending, a little under half of all federal employees (about 800,000), and some significant agencies, such as the IRS and Homeland Security. In departments without current funding, about 425,000 employees are required to report to work without pay.

Which goes to show it's not about the money with the Democrats. It's about making sure that wall never gets built no matter how much it costs.

 

[eagle1462010]

Cost of the Government Shutdown? Billions and Rising. It's Cheaper To Keep the Government Running

The partial government shutdown comes with a high price: in the billions, maybe tens of billions of dollars so far, and increasing in scale daily. It costs more to shutter the government than to keep it open, so long as accumulated bills and deferred salaries are eventually paid as they have following all previous temporary closures. And the lack of spending drags down the country’s economy, especially in communities with government workers or those near national parks.

Standard and Poor’s estimated in 2017 that a full government shutdown would cost the U.S. economy about $6.5 billion a week. This partial shutdown affects only about a quarter of government spending, a little under half of all federal employees (about 800,000), and some significant agencies, such as the IRS and Homeland Security. In departments without current funding, about 425,000 employees are required to report to work without pay.

Which goes to show it's not about the money with the Democrats. It's about making sure that wall never gets built no matter how much it costs.

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[Flopper]

Federal employees are very hard to fire. It almost takes an act of Congress to do so. When I was stationed in Newport RI, there was an ESO (Educational Services Officer), who was a civilian at PSD there, and he was responsible for ordering, administering, and mailing in the Navy Wide Advancement Exams for making rank.

Well, one test cycle, he wasn't at his best, and let quite a few things slip through the cracks. One of which was that he failed to mail in the examinations, and invalidated a lot of tests for people which was a VERY huge deal. A normal military person would have been court martialed and kicked out of the military. Him? They had an investigation, he continued to show up for work, and somehow, they found that he wasn't really at fault, and he kept his job as a civilian clerk at PSD, but he lost his title as ESO.

Sorry, but it is extremely hard to fire a federal government worker.

If that's the case, then I don't think the government would fire people who didn't come into work for no pay and had to depend on other sources for immediate income. I think even an employer in the private sector would have to respect that.

When I went through the shutdown in the 90's, all the furloughed workers were free to do what they wanted. The only ones on the base that were determined "essential" were the military, and some of the higher ranking civilians. Those who showed up for work because they were essential knew they would eventually get their check, but would have to figure out how to make it work until then.

Furloughed workers are different from essential personnel who are still working.

Well I think the media is playing this for all it's worth. The first paycheck they missed was yesterday for crying out loud, yet they are showing stories of government workers at food pantries.

Plus if they are applicable for unemployment benefits, in a sense they are getting double pay for those not working at all.

Millions of workers are one paycheck away from the streets. Millions more live from paycheck to paycheck I know several people that have no savings, no pay check, then no groceries, no rent payment, etc.

What we're hearing now is mostly fear. After missing another paycheck or so, a lot of people are going to be desperate. People that are furrowed are eligible for unemployment. Those that are working without pay aren't.

If this goes on another month or so, we are going have massive walkouts in critical jobs and Trump will have deal with it.

Well then he'll have to deal with it, but I don't think the Democrats can play chicken that long. They will cave before then. This shutdown is going to hurt them more than Trump.

History tells a different story of government shutdowns. Looking at the longest shutdowns since 1977 shows that presidents lose an average of three percentage points of public support or approval during a government shutdown of four or more days. And only two of the nine shutdowns did the president boost his numbers. Considering how low Trump's numbers are he probably can't drop more than a couple of percentage points.

Presidents usually lose support in government shutdowns because people see the president as the most powerful actor in government. The president has control of the money, the military, and the news cycle. Since the president is recognized as the most powerful person on earth and according to him the greatest deal maker who ever lived then certainly he can cut deal and get the government up an running.

One thing voters will remember is that Trump started the process by demanding money to build a wall that most people don't want and he refused to compromise. What happen to the great deal maker we elected? He's sounding more and more like the little boy who can get what he wants so he's going to take his marbles and go home.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If that's the case, then I don't think the government would fire people who didn't come into work for no pay and had to depend on other sources for immediate income. I think even an employer in the private sector would have to respect that.

When I went through the shutdown in the 90's, all the furloughed workers were free to do what they wanted. The only ones on the base that were determined "essential" were the military, and some of the higher ranking civilians. Those who showed up for work because they were essential knew they would eventually get their check, but would have to figure out how to make it work until then.

Furloughed workers are different from essential personnel who are still working.

Well I think the media is playing this for all it's worth. The first paycheck they missed was yesterday for crying out loud, yet they are showing stories of government workers at food pantries.

Plus if they are applicable for unemployment benefits, in a sense they are getting double pay for those not working at all.

Millions of workers are one paycheck away from the streets. Millions more live from paycheck to paycheck I know several people that have no savings, no pay check, then no groceries, no rent payment, etc.

What we're hearing now is mostly fear. After missing another paycheck or so, a lot of people are going to be desperate. People that are furrowed are eligible for unemployment. Those that are working without pay aren't.

If this goes on another month or so, we are going have massive walkouts in critical jobs and Trump will have deal with it.

Well then he'll have to deal with it, but I don't think the Democrats can play chicken that long. They will cave before then. This shutdown is going to hurt them more than Trump.

History tells a different story of government shutdowns. Looking at the longest shutdowns since 1977 shows that presidents lose an average of three percentage points of public support or approval during a government shutdown of four or more days. And only two of the nine shutdowns did the president boost his numbers. Considering how low Trump's numbers are he probably can't drop more than a couple of percentage points.

Presidents usually lose support in government shutdowns because people see the president as the most powerful actor in government. The president has control of the money, the military, and the news cycle. Since the president is recognized as the most powerful person on earth and according to him the greatest deal maker who ever lived then certainly he can cut deal and get the government up an running.

One thing voters will remember is that Trump started the process by demanding money to build a wall that most people don't want and he refused to compromise. What happen to the great deal maker we elected? He's sounding more and more like the little boy who can get what he wants so he's going to take his marbles and go home.

It's like this:

Party A: wants a wall.
Party B: doesn't want a wall.

Party A: what would it take to get this wall?
Party B: There is nothing you can offer us that will give you that wall no matter what.

So tell me what other negotiator could solve this problem? It's very similar to the Palestinian/ Israel conflict. What do Palestinians want? They want every Jew dead. How would the Jewish negotiate that?

Trump wants a wall for the interest of this country. Democrats don't want the wall for the interest of their party.

 

[Flopper]

When I went through the shutdown in the 90's, all the furloughed workers were free to do what they wanted. The only ones on the base that were determined "essential" were the military, and some of the higher ranking civilians. Those who showed up for work because they were essential knew they would eventually get their check, but would have to figure out how to make it work until then.

Furloughed workers are different from essential personnel who are still working.

Well I think the media is playing this for all it's worth. The first paycheck they missed was yesterday for crying out loud, yet they are showing stories of government workers at food pantries.

Plus if they are applicable for unemployment benefits, in a sense they are getting double pay for those not working at all.

Millions of workers are one paycheck away from the streets. Millions more live from paycheck to paycheck I know several people that have no savings, no pay check, then no groceries, no rent payment, etc.

What we're hearing now is mostly fear. After missing another paycheck or so, a lot of people are going to be desperate. People that are furrowed are eligible for unemployment. Those that are working without pay aren't.

If this goes on another month or so, we are going have massive walkouts in critical jobs and Trump will have deal with it.

Well then he'll have to deal with it, but I don't think the Democrats can play chicken that long. They will cave before then. This shutdown is going to hurt them more than Trump.

History tells a different story of government shutdowns. Looking at the longest shutdowns since 1977 shows that presidents lose an average of three percentage points of public support or approval during a government shutdown of four or more days. And only two of the nine shutdowns did the president boost his numbers. Considering how low Trump's numbers are he probably can't drop more than a couple of percentage points.

Presidents usually lose support in government shutdowns because people see the president as the most powerful actor in government. The president has control of the money, the military, and the news cycle. Since the president is recognized as the most powerful person on earth and according to him the greatest deal maker who ever lived then certainly he can cut deal and get the government up an running.

One thing voters will remember is that Trump started the process by demanding money to build a wall that most people don't want and he refused to compromise. What happen to the great deal maker we elected? He's sounding more and more like the little boy who can get what he wants so he's going to take his marbles and go home.

It's like this:

Party A: wants a wall.
Party B: doesn't want a wall.

Party A: what would it take to get this wall?
Party B: There is nothing you can offer us that will give you that wall no matter what.

So tell me what other negotiator could solve this problem? It's very similar to the Palestinian/ Israel conflict. What do Palestinians want? They want every Jew dead. How would the Jewish negotiate that?

Trump wants a wall for the interest of this country. Democrats don't want the wall for the interest of their party.

Not being a master negotiator and deal maker like Trump, I have no idea.

Why is he asking congress for money anyway? Remember Mexico is paying for the wall. Pelosi should make him an offer, every cent the US government receives from Mexico in payment for the wall will be turned over to Trump for wall construction. That seems fair to me.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well I think the media is playing this for all it's worth. The first paycheck they missed was yesterday for crying out loud, yet they are showing stories of government workers at food pantries.

Plus if they are applicable for unemployment benefits, in a sense they are getting double pay for those not working at all.

Millions of workers are one paycheck away from the streets. Millions more live from paycheck to paycheck I know several people that have no savings, no pay check, then no groceries, no rent payment, etc.

What we're hearing now is mostly fear. After missing another paycheck or so, a lot of people are going to be desperate. People that are furrowed are eligible for unemployment. Those that are working without pay aren't.

If this goes on another month or so, we are going have massive walkouts in critical jobs and Trump will have deal with it.

Well then he'll have to deal with it, but I don't think the Democrats can play chicken that long. They will cave before then. This shutdown is going to hurt them more than Trump.

History tells a different story of government shutdowns. Looking at the longest shutdowns since 1977 shows that presidents lose an average of three percentage points of public support or approval during a government shutdown of four or more days. And only two of the nine shutdowns did the president boost his numbers. Considering how low Trump's numbers are he probably can't drop more than a couple of percentage points.

Presidents usually lose support in government shutdowns because people see the president as the most powerful actor in government. The president has control of the money, the military, and the news cycle. Since the president is recognized as the most powerful person on earth and according to him the greatest deal maker who ever lived then certainly he can cut deal and get the government up an running.

One thing voters will remember is that Trump started the process by demanding money to build a wall that most people don't want and he refused to compromise. What happen to the great deal maker we elected? He's sounding more and more like the little boy who can get what he wants so he's going to take his marbles and go home.

It's like this:

Party A: wants a wall.
Party B: doesn't want a wall.

Party A: what would it take to get this wall?
Party B: There is nothing you can offer us that will give you that wall no matter what.

So tell me what other negotiator could solve this problem? It's very similar to the Palestinian/ Israel conflict. What do Palestinians want? They want every Jew dead. How would the Jewish negotiate that?

Trump wants a wall for the interest of this country. Democrats don't want the wall for the interest of their party.

Not being a master negotiator and deal maker like Trump, I have no idea.

Why is he asking congress for money anyway? Remember Mexico is paying for the wall. Pelosi should make him an offer, every cent the US government receives from Mexico in payment for the wall will be turned over to Trump for wall construction. That seems fair to me.

Trump said he'd get Mexico to pay for the wall. He didn't say he'd get Mexico to write us a check up front or lay down a deposit.

The point is I don't care how great of a negotiator you are. If one of the two parties refuses to negotiate, it can't be done by anybody. That's like saying you're going to negotiate with your neighbor to buy his car. If he's not selling his car, there is nothing to negotiate.

 

[Lesh]

The ransom amount is 5 billion.

5 billion isn't going to get a wall.

It's an arbitrary amount. Trump has been offered 1.6 billion...

That's a LARGER amount than the 1.2 billion for Border security that was appropriated (and left largely unspent) last year.

End this bullshit now

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The ransom amount is 5 billion.

5 billion isn't going to get a wall.

It's an arbitrary amount. Trump has been offered 1.6 billion...

That's a LARGER amount than the 1.2 billion for Border security that was appropriated (and left largely unspent) last year.

End this bullshit now

Trump wanted 30 billion for the wall. He scaled that down to 5 billion. Trump believes according to his experts, that it's enough to erect a wall in critical areas. It has nothing to do with the money. It has to do with erecting a structure that will work. Democrats don't want it to work. They want to keep letting in these murderers, rapists and drug dealers entering our country.