UN House approves $5 billion in border wall funding - Nancy Pelosi absolutely seething sources say

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...border-wall-funding-spending-bill/2381057002/
http://archive.is/AX2tW

WASHINGTON – A deeply divided House voted on Thursday to add $5 billion in border wall funding to a short-term spending bill, yielding to President Donald Trump’s demand for the money but casting further doubts upon the fate of efforts to avert a government shutdown.

The bill, which the Houseapproved by a vote of 217-185, now heads back to the Senate, which must either approve the measure or risk shutting down a quarter of the government at midnight Friday. A Senate vote is expected Friday afternoon.

The House vote capped a drama-filled day that started with lawmakers anticipating quick passage of an already approved Senate funding bill, but then erupted into chaos when Trump announced he would not support the measure because it did not contain funding for the border wall – one of his signature campaign promises.

“I’ve made my position very clear: Any measure that funds the government must include border security,” Trump said at the White House.

At an Oval Office meeting a few hours earlier, Trump had informed House GOP leaders that he would not sign the Senate version, sending them scrambling to deliver new legislation that included $5 billion in border wall funding.

“We want to keep the government open, but we also want to see an agreement that protects the border,” said House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis. “We have very serious concerns about securing our border.”

Lawmakers have until midnight Friday to pass a spending bill or funding will expire for a quarter of the federal government, triggering a shutdown heading into the holidays and forcing some 800,000 federal employees to go on furlough or work without pay.

Congress is trying to end the budget stalemate and avert a government shutdown by piecing together a short-term measure that would keep the funds flowing through early next year.

The Senate voted Wednesday night to approve a short-term spending bill offered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., that would fund the government through Feb. 8 but would delay any decision on border wall funding until next year.

But hardline conservatives in the House revolted because the Senate bill did not include Trump’s border funding, even though he had insisted during the presidential campaign that he’d make Mexico pay for the wall. Trump’s announcement that he would not sign the Senate measure sealed its fate.

The House responded by introducing its own spending package that also would fund the government through Feb. 8, but would include $5.7 billion for a border wall and nearly $8 billion in disaster relief to compensate communities hit hard by this year’s hurricanes and wildfires.

The border funding in the House proposal won’t be enough to build the wall but will improve border security, said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla.

“This is about keeping America safe – it’s not a complicated vote,” said House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La.

Democrats accused Republicans of catering to a “Trump Twitter tantrum” and warned that the House bill would be dead on arrival in the Senate.

“This is a sham and a shame,” said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas.

Hardline conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus insisted now is the GOP’s last chance to deliver on Trump’s campaign promise to build a border wall since Democrats will resume control of the House in January and their leader, Nancy Pelosi, will return as speaker.

“We’ve been telling the American public that we were going to fight, they have no reason to believe us now,” said Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., a Freedom Caucus member.

Said Freedom Caucus member Scott Perry, R-Penn.: “We made a promise to the American people to secure the border. This is our last chance. Nancy Pelosi will not do this.”

The uncertainty over the funding bill – and the chaos that ensued – was heightened by Trump’s constantly shifting position on the legislation.

Last week, Trump boasted during an Oval Office meeting with Democratic leaders that he would be “proud” to shut down the government over border funding and that he’d be willing to take the blame for any fallout.

But on Tuesday, the White House signaled that Trump was looking for other ways to fund a border wall and that he might be willing to sign a short-term spending bill that did not include the money.

Thursday morning, Trump took to Twitter and posted a message about his demands for a border wall funding but did not specifically comment on the Senate’s short-term bill.

“When I begrudgingly signed the Omnibus Bill, I was promised the Wall and Border Security by leadership. Would be done by end of year (NOW). It didn’t happen! We foolishly fight for Border Security for other countries - but not for our beloved U.S.A. Not good!” he wrote.

By the time House GOP leaders headed to the White House for their emergency meeting with Trump, it was clear he had changed his mind.

“At this moment, the president does not want to go further without border security, which includes steel slats or a wall,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said. “The president is continuing to weigh his options.”

Following the meeting with Republicans, Sanders issued another statement saying that "not surprisingly, they all feel strongly about border security – stopping the flow of drugs, stopping human trafficking, and stopping terrorism."

"We protect nations all over the world, but Democrats are unwilling to protect our nation," she said. "We urgently need funding for border security and that includes a wall."

Back on Capitol Hill, Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats have no intention of approving money for a border wall.

"In terms of wall funding, that’s a non-starter," Pelosi said.

Congress is scrambling to pass a short-term spending bill because lawmakers still haven’t passed seven of the 12 appropriations bills that are needed to fund the government for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1.

The seven remaining bills would fund nine departments – Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Homeland Security, Interior, State, Transportation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development – as well as several smaller agencies. Those are the departments and agencies that would be impacted by a government shutdown.
 
Anyone who thinks $5 billion is enough to build the wall is naive at best. It might cover property acquisition and the inevitable lawsuits challenging the imminent domain claims that will have to happen to make this a reality.

Personally, I think the wall is a pipe dream. The cartels and other criminals have tunnels and other means to smuggle people and drugs into the country. More illegals come over via legitimate sea and airports than over land. We need to invest in technology and manpower.
 
Anyone who thinks $5 billion is enough to build the wall is naive at best. It might cover property acquisition and the inevitable lawsuits challenging the imminent domain claims that will have to happen to make this a reality.

Personally, I think the wall is a pipe dream. The cartels and other criminals have tunnels and other means to smuggle people and drugs into the country. More illegals come over via legitimate sea and airports than over land. We need to invest in technology and manpower.

LOL if you dont think the cartels just have people carry drugs over the border. Also ya why should we make things any harder for illegals and the cartels? Youre response is like boilerplate libtard 101.
 
So trump lied?
I-IGNORE IT OKAY THE BIG PICTURE IS MORE IMPORTANT
i dont really see it as a miracle at all seeing as the past few presidents began the project and this is just a continuation.

Ver archivo adjunto 619719

Ver archivo adjunto 619720

Ver archivo adjunto 619721

He couldn't get Mexico to build that wall. He couldn't get them to built it "10 feet higher". He couldn't get them to build a fence. He couldn't do anything original or bold.

And you ordain him a miracle worker?

:lol:
He did get money from Mexico, through the USMCA. Stop huffing your own farts.

Anyone who thinks $5 billion is enough to build the wall is naive at best. It might cover property acquisition and the inevitable lawsuits challenging the imminent domain claims that will have to happen to make this a reality.
The wall is being built at the US-Mexico border, and I highly doubt anybody owns property that directly intersects the border.

Personally, I think the wall is a pipe dream. The cartels and other criminals have tunnels and other means to smuggle people and drugs into the country.
More "muh tunnels" nonsense. The cartels cannot construct tunnels at a whim, or at least those that are even vaguely safe to move through. It requires a lot a resources and manpower. A wall will impede that greatly, especially if it's deep enough.

Also we have ways to close tunnels, so...

More illegals come over via legitimate sea and airports than over land. We need to invest in technology and manpower.
Since when have illegals come in significant numbers by sea? And we have people to check for overstayed visas in the government.

This is the typical nirvana fallacy employed in criticism of the wall. Since it cannot stop literally everything, it won't work at all.
 
Última edición:
i initially assumed the "wall" was just an easy-to-sell metaphor for tougher immigration policy, boy do i feel like a big fat idiot
 
Anyone who thinks $5 billion is enough to build the wall is naive at best. It might cover property acquisition and the inevitable lawsuits challenging the imminent domain claims that will have to happen to make this a reality.

Personally, I think the wall is a pipe dream. The cartels and other criminals have tunnels and other means to smuggle people and drugs into the country. More illegals come over via legitimate sea and airports than over land. We need to invest in technology and manpower.
So your solution is to just let them all in because why even try fixing the illegal inmigration problem if parasites are still gonna try to get around the law to leech off the sistem right?
 
Of course not. But there's no promise of getting anything from it at all.

Matter of fact, you may wanna read this.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/phillevy/2018/12/18/can-the-new-nafta-pay-for-trumps-wall/#2fa4de1fee10

Depending on the USMCA to be how Mexico pays for the wall makes no sense.
Now I know that you're being contrarian just for the sake of it.

The Forbes claims that tariff cuts "can raise revenue when the initial tariff is high enough that it seriously restricts trade", until the tariff becomes zero, in which no revenue is generated despite unrestricted trade.

This makes no sense, and only gets worse.

The argument concerning "tightening the rules of origin" is a giant non sequitur. And an attempt at a red herring.

For example, the article admits that this "could" (note the clever use of language here) generate revenue for the wall, but it would apparently mean the President’s trade team failed in their central goal of driving auto production back to the United States.

Forbes is also arguing that by making it harder for car manufacturers to escape tariffs with the tightened rules of origin, automobile manufacturers opting to pay the tariff means that the rules of origin are ineffective.

This is nonsense, as the rules of origins are working exactly as they should, so they couldn't be ineffective by definition.

And companies don't like paying tariffs, since they fuck with profit, so at least some will move to the US to avoid paying them.

"There is no particular reason to think Mexicans (or Canadians) would pay those tariffs" even though Mexicans and Canadians are explicitly part of the trade agreement.

"The first is that there is very little in the USMCA to suggest it will create an economic growth spurt in the United States."

Unverified opinion.

"Its headline move is to make life more difficult in the automotive sector and when you start with free trade and then mostly just renew your vows, there is no reason to expect big economic effects."

This is an outright lie. The USMCA is not just "NAFTA except different". It closes a lot of the loopholes that allow foreign countries to exploit the American economy, for example.

"The second problem is the same as the one above – those additional revenues would come from American taxpayers and would go into general revenue."

This is a bare assertion without anything to support it whatsoever. Apparently the author of this piece just wants others to take him at his word.

Ignoring the fact that this is likely anti-Trump propaganda disguised as objective rumination on economics, it doesn't actually explain how the USMCA can't pay for the wall.
 
i dont really see it as a miracle at all seeing as the past few presidents began the project and this is just a continuation.

Ver archivo adjunto 619719

Ver archivo adjunto 619720

Ver archivo adjunto 619721

He couldn't get Mexico to build that wall. He couldn't get them to built it "10 feet higher". He couldn't get them to build a fence. He couldn't do anything original or bold.

And you ordain him a miracle worker?

:lol:
It's okay if you're skeptical, don't worry my friend, it'll be built. :)
 
This is a bare assertion without anything to support it whatsoever. Apparently the author of this piece just wants others to take him at his word.
The background on the author

I am Senior Fellow on the Global Economy at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and teach International Business Strategy at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management. I have previously been Senior Economist for Trade for President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers and handled international economic issues for Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s Policy Planning Staff. My research has ranged from the political economy of trade agreements to U.S. economic relations with China. I have testified before Congressional committess including House Ways & Means and the Joint Economic Committee. I received my Ph.D. in economics from Stanford University and have taught at Yale, Columbia, Virginia, and Georgetown.

Yea, he's clearly someone who doesn't know what he's talking about :lol:
 
Atrás
Top Abajo