I believe Hakeem and Chuck told President Trump exactly what they would settle for which is total capitulation. The President rejected that.
A few more statistics.
There are about 3,500,000 asylum cases backlogged. The asylum rejection rate is about 75%. These scammers are tolerated but they do not have legal immigration status. They are the ones congressional democrats want to provide full benefits for.
About 25% of the population requires assistance to survive because of disability, incompetence, age, addiction, laziness and criminality.
We do not need to turn the USA into a crappy third-world nation just because millions of people around the world already living in crappy countries want to come here. We need to find a way to deal with the unfortunates and misfits we already have who require room and board and medical care from the taxpayers.
This is about as misleading a column from David Thornton as I've read, and that's saying something since most of them are. 13 separate votes were held in the senate, all Republicans except 1 voting for the CR, and all Democrats except 1 voting it down. With that level of intransigence, what are the Republicans supposed to do, short of invoking the nuclear option, which I am for, by the way? It is telling that you are against it. Yes, most Democrats want to reopen the govt, but only if they get what they want, which is billions and billions more in bennies for illegal aliens. I applaud the Republicans being willing to hold the line for a change, and not capitulate to the Dems' demands as they have many times in the past. One more thing, you are most critical of Republicans not supporting all of the Social safety net programs in the federal budget. I would invite you to take it up with almighty God, who said in His word, "if a man doesn't work, he shouldn't eat."
In what way? You selectively quote from the Bible to make God sound like St. John of the Gulch.
One question for you that would put this matter to rest pretty quickly: If someone (possibly an illegal alien) stumbles into an emergency room with a life-threatening injury and cannot communicate their ability to pay for the needed healthcare services, should the ER treat them, or wait until they can provide proof that they can afford the treatment?
And given your answer, should your response be encoded as the public policy of the United States?
Of course the emergency room should treat them, as they are a human being. I take that from the story in the Bible about the "Good Samaritan." That would be different though than say, a hypochondriac trying to avail themselves of the hospital's services once a month simply because they think they can. And as far as encoding that into public policy is irrelevant isn't it, because don't at least the vast majority of our hospitals already have that as their policy?
Holding multiple votes on the same bill and not getting movement means compromise is needed - and that likely needs to start in the House by them sending a new bill that can get Democratic votes in the Senate. I'm not aware of any other bill waiting a vote in the Senate ('cause Mike Johnson's reign in the House has seen very few bills getting passed) that can be stripped and replaced with new language and passed via reconciliation.
You're wrong on the "bennies for illegal aliens", of course - it's benefits for Americans and legal immigrants. But we know you're really just opposed to having to pay any taxes, hence the opposition to pretty much any welfare system we have - even though it's the most efficient use of dollars and most effective way to help the most people possible ('cause any charity will tell you the scope is just too big for them to handle).
There's a difference between being unwilling to work, and being unable. The quote you used was solely for the former, not the latter - and it does not contradict the commands to care for the poor, sick, and elderly.
I totally agree that there is a difference between unwilling and unable, hence my labeling David's column misleading because he didn't delineate between those who love to game the system, and those who truly need the help.
He did in fact do so, if you pay attention to the breakdown of SNAP households. In general, ~2/3rds of recipients are not expected to work at all. The remainder - aka able-bodied adults without dependents - are generally working: ~70% have full-time jobs that don't pay enough, or work part-time jobs.
Can you actually quantify the number that you think are "gaming the system"?
And perhaps more importantly: is it right for us to be subsidizing corporations that pay their full-time employees so little that they need SNAP?
I'm completely against ANY subsidies to corporations, and what about the many(though I don't have a number) of women who deliberately get pregnant in order to collect more and more welfare benefits, not to mention those that allow able-bodied men to shack up with them because they get all those benefits, so they then don't have to work as they are sponging off the women. And you can't tell me these things don't happen because I've seen it first hand. At one point in my life, I needed govt benefits, and both men and women at the time(early eighties) would brag about how they would take advantage of the system in myriad ways.
Ah, the good ol' welfare queen canard. Here's a simple one: quantify it, and show that that means we're supposed to eliminate support for everyone because some small unknown number may be abusing the system.
And keeping in mind: they're not getting cash, they're getting food - and not a terribly large amount either.
It's not surprising you think it's still the 1980s, but really - it's not. There have been a lot of changes and restrictions put in place, and those matter. So you need to update your priors.
https://youtube.com/shorts/EPucVxKD3gY?si=C8vtwEofHswvg0Ah
Many who are “pro-life” are in fact simply “pro-birth”, and could not GAF after the first breath.
Feeding people? That’s well down the path of things many/most “pro-lifers” don’t GAF about. Eating is overrated.
I believe Hakeem and Chuck told President Trump exactly what they would settle for which is total capitulation. The President rejected that.
A few more statistics.
There are about 3,500,000 asylum cases backlogged. The asylum rejection rate is about 75%. These scammers are tolerated but they do not have legal immigration status. They are the ones congressional democrats want to provide full benefits for.
About 25% of the population requires assistance to survive because of disability, incompetence, age, addiction, laziness and criminality.
We do not need to turn the USA into a crappy third-world nation just because millions of people around the world already living in crappy countries want to come here. We need to find a way to deal with the unfortunates and misfits we already have who require room and board and medical care from the taxpayers.
This is about as misleading a column from David Thornton as I've read, and that's saying something since most of them are. 13 separate votes were held in the senate, all Republicans except 1 voting for the CR, and all Democrats except 1 voting it down. With that level of intransigence, what are the Republicans supposed to do, short of invoking the nuclear option, which I am for, by the way? It is telling that you are against it. Yes, most Democrats want to reopen the govt, but only if they get what they want, which is billions and billions more in bennies for illegal aliens. I applaud the Republicans being willing to hold the line for a change, and not capitulate to the Dems' demands as they have many times in the past. One more thing, you are most critical of Republicans not supporting all of the Social safety net programs in the federal budget. I would invite you to take it up with almighty God, who said in His word, "if a man doesn't work, he shouldn't eat."
If a man does not eat, he surely will not work.
A false dichotomy...
I applaud your ability to reconcile Randian Objectivism with the Holy Bible.
Sinners and moochers - who needs 'em, right?
A complete misrepresentation of my post, but what else could I expect?
In what way? You selectively quote from the Bible to make God sound like St. John of the Gulch.
One question for you that would put this matter to rest pretty quickly: If someone (possibly an illegal alien) stumbles into an emergency room with a life-threatening injury and cannot communicate their ability to pay for the needed healthcare services, should the ER treat them, or wait until they can provide proof that they can afford the treatment?
And given your answer, should your response be encoded as the public policy of the United States?
Of course the emergency room should treat them, as they are a human being. I take that from the story in the Bible about the "Good Samaritan." That would be different though than say, a hypochondriac trying to avail themselves of the hospital's services once a month simply because they think they can. And as far as encoding that into public policy is irrelevant isn't it, because don't at least the vast majority of our hospitals already have that as their policy?
Holding multiple votes on the same bill and not getting movement means compromise is needed - and that likely needs to start in the House by them sending a new bill that can get Democratic votes in the Senate. I'm not aware of any other bill waiting a vote in the Senate ('cause Mike Johnson's reign in the House has seen very few bills getting passed) that can be stripped and replaced with new language and passed via reconciliation.
You're wrong on the "bennies for illegal aliens", of course - it's benefits for Americans and legal immigrants. But we know you're really just opposed to having to pay any taxes, hence the opposition to pretty much any welfare system we have - even though it's the most efficient use of dollars and most effective way to help the most people possible ('cause any charity will tell you the scope is just too big for them to handle).
There's a difference between being unwilling to work, and being unable. The quote you used was solely for the former, not the latter - and it does not contradict the commands to care for the poor, sick, and elderly.
I totally agree that there is a difference between unwilling and unable, hence my labeling David's column misleading because he didn't delineate between those who love to game the system, and those who truly need the help.
He did in fact do so, if you pay attention to the breakdown of SNAP households. In general, ~2/3rds of recipients are not expected to work at all. The remainder - aka able-bodied adults without dependents - are generally working: ~70% have full-time jobs that don't pay enough, or work part-time jobs.
Can you actually quantify the number that you think are "gaming the system"?
And perhaps more importantly: is it right for us to be subsidizing corporations that pay their full-time employees so little that they need SNAP?
As of FY 2024, 12.4% of the US pop are receiving SNAP benefits vs 7.4% in 1980.
Hate to burst your bubble, but it is a worse problem now than it was in the 1980s.
I'm completely against ANY subsidies to corporations, and what about the many(though I don't have a number) of women who deliberately get pregnant in order to collect more and more welfare benefits, not to mention those that allow able-bodied men to shack up with them because they get all those benefits, so they then don't have to work as they are sponging off the women. And you can't tell me these things don't happen because I've seen it first hand. At one point in my life, I needed govt benefits, and both men and women at the time(early eighties) would brag about how they would take advantage of the system in myriad ways.
Ah, the good ol' welfare queen canard. Here's a simple one: quantify it, and show that that means we're supposed to eliminate support for everyone because some small unknown number may be abusing the system.
And keeping in mind: they're not getting cash, they're getting food - and not a terribly large amount either.
It's not surprising you think it's still the 1980s, but really - it's not. There have been a lot of changes and restrictions put in place, and those matter. So you need to update your priors.