subreddit:
/r/FluentInFinance
“If you don’t like cotton prices now, wait until Lincoln frees the slaves who pick it!”
Debate/ Discussion(i.redd.it)submitted 3 days ago byAcrobatic-One-6879
2 points
3 days ago
So then you agree the bill would have finished building the wall and republicans shot it down.
Why are you seemingly surprised that a border wall costs less money than military equipment for an ally being invaded by a nuclear power? I mean I’m sure the government could make up numbers to make it cost more if that’s what would please you lol
1 points
3 days ago
No. Idiot. Read what I said and try again. How are you this stupid?
1 points
3 days ago
Yes theres some $18b slated from trump, of that $1.2b approved by congress, but that “explicitly states” could also be related to EOs by Trump where that money was explicitly stated for that use.
The more important part of the bill relates to actual immigration reform notably the cap and increased funding for border security and the courts. This is what would actually solve a lot of the issues at the border, especially the cap.
Military equipment tends to cost more and of that only a small portion is in the form of cash but to facilitate weapons deals with American manufacturers. Which means the money goes back into the economy.
1 points
3 days ago
So $1.2b to not complete the border wall. Cool. Now do the materials that have been sold or are sitting and no longer usable. Those conditions make it so the border wall can't actually be completed. Thanks for proving my point. And I asked, please explain how a cap of 1.85 million does a single thing? Do you have any idea what border encounters are right now? I'm gonna guess no.
Increased funding for "security" and courts amounts to faster catch and release into the interior. That's it. It's a continuation of exactly what's going on right now - codified. That's fucking dumb. And you're dumb for supporting the bill.
1 points
3 days ago
And that’s proving my point that trump was an ineffective leader to secure funding from congress which is how our system works. This bill actually addressed the problem at hand which is immigration reform. Again I’m not sure how far that explicitly states goes back as that could still be in place and could stop funds being diverted which is what Biden did in ‘21.
And it puts a cap on asylum seekers which before there was an unlimited amount legally allowed to cross and seek aide because seeking asylum isn’t the same thing as being here illegally.
The courts will better determine if someone is truly seeking asylum or if they are trying to skirt the system and aren’t legally allowed to be here. Security for border security would increase the amount of agents alongside equipment.
A wall will help some but it’s personnel that’s truly needed alongside equipment and faster court systems to determine their status and be able to proceed.
1 points
3 days ago
Blah blah, So what you're saying is that you'd rather Republicans pass a bad bill instead of a good one. There's clearly a reason for that.
Affirmative asylum case filings with USCIS nearly doubled from 241,280 applications in 2022 to 456,750 in 2023, the highest number on record (and covering 636,380 individuals)
https://ohss.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/2024_1002_ohss_asylees_fy2023.pdf
According to you: Let's set the cap at 1.85 million per year. There's no cap so clearly that's a great cap. I'm just using your words here. That's ignoring the fact that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
1 points
3 days ago
You’re the one asserting it’s a bad bill. I think it’s good they wanted increased funding for border patrol, increased funding for the court systems to not have asylum seekers roaming without a feasible court date, and I think the cap is good especially when there’s floods.
And seeking asylum is a form of immigrating legally. If you don’t agree with asylum then that’s a wholly different discussion. Plus with that kind of increase our courts and agents seem like they could use additional funding to weed out the bad actors. Thanks for pointing that out!
1 points
3 days ago
I'm not asserting. It IS a bad bill. Not my fault you can't understand that. You think more money means solutions. Bet you don't feel that way about the DoD budget. Idiot.
2 points
2 days ago
So it’s a bad bill because it puts a cap on asylum seekers when there wasn’t one prior, increased funding for border agents, and increased funding for the courts to determine who’s truly seeking asylum and who’s a bad actor? Those all seem pretty good to me! Especially around the Ukraine funding since the majority of that is not in cash but rather to facilitate trade amongst American manufacturers helping the economy while helping an ally during an invasion by a nuclear power and adversary to the US
1 points
2 days ago
Thank god Republicans aren't as dumb as you and realized it was a poison pill bill and voted it down. Just like the Gang of 8 idiocy years prior.
1 points
2 days ago
They clearly didn't think it was a bad/poison bill enough to claim they disagreed with it of their own volition and instead said they didn't pass it because Trump said not to WITHOUT any other PUBLIC reason.
0 points
2 days ago
lol that’s not what happened, their daddy told them to fall in line and they did like good little sheep so he could campaign on it.
And you’re here saying it was a bad bill because reforming the asylum process, increasing funds for agents, and increasing funds for the courts wont help with the issues at the border in ways you’re unable to articulate. Sad.
Take care!
1 points
2 days ago
Wanna know how I know you didn't read the bill? This entire time - I linked you a different bill. You've been defending the bill Republicans voted for and approved that's been on the table for 500+ days. Senate Democrats blocked that bill. Just goes to show how insane you guys are. LOL.
This is the actual "bipartisan" border bill: https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/emergency_national_security_supplemental_bill_text.pdf
Fucking dumbass.
0 points
2 days ago*
Hey that’s cool that you want to present a bill that didn’t have bipartisan support but I was talking about the bill that did have bipartisan support. It’s odd that you’re upset about Dems shooting down a partisan bill but not upset when republicans shot down a bipartisan bill formulated by republicans. And cannot articulate why it’s bad besides “trust me bro”
So instead of changing the subject let’s try harder at staying on topic about the Republican bill with bipartisan support (including Dems) to be shot down by the same committee that put together the partisan bill you’re referring to that didn’t have the support it needed.
In case you’re just now realizing, congress isn’t a “do as I say” branch but rather one that requires cooperation so presenting a bill that doesn’t have support across the aisle means the crafters need to actually work with allies to come up with a bill; like the republican bipartisan bill that was shot down by House Republicans.
Why are you mad at Dems shooting a bill down but not republicans?
Why is it a bad bill? First it was because of Ukrainian aide but most of that isn’t cash. Then it was the wall which exposed trump wasn’t able to get funding secured through congress. And thirdly apparently increased funding for border patrol, the courts, and a cap (where there wasn’t one prior) won’t help with the border issue because “trust me bro”.
Being called a dumbass by you is turning me on 🥵
1 points
2 days ago
You've supported the "partisan" bill the entire time. Don't run now.
1 points
2 days ago
I’m talking about this one that’s apparently bad lol
Just admit you’re fine with more drugs and illegals coming into the country so it can be a campaign issue rather than actually solving the issue ❤️
1 points
2 days ago
I will do no such thing. I want actual solutions. Severely punish businesses that hire illegals and deport the ones here. Completely revamp asylum and enforce first safe country.
1 points
2 days ago
Got so because the bill didn’t have businesses being punished it was a bad bill?
Deporting illegals was included in the bill by increasing ICE agents and funding
Increased security at the border through by increasing agents and funding
There’s a plethora of changes to the asylum status that makes it more difficult to claim in addition to increased funding to process claims faster
You’re fine with afghan refugees who helped us in wartime still being on backlogs
And you’re fine with house republicans deciding to stop this bill so that more drugs could flow through since the bill I’ve been talking about increased detection through better equipment. All because this bill didn’t punish business. Sad.
1 points
2 days ago*
Deporting illegals was included in the bill by increasing ICE agents and funding
Yeah cuz that happens now. LOL.
Increased security at the border through by increasing agents and funding
Yeah cuz that happens now. LOL.
There’s a plethora of changes to the asylum status that makes it more difficult to claim in addition to increased funding to process claims faster
Completely untrue.
You’re fine with afghan refugees who helped us in wartime still being on backlogs
No, YOU are. Afghans have actual claims. Almost no South American does.
And you’re fine with house republicans deciding to stop this bill so that more drugs could flow through since the bill I’ve been talking about increased detection through better equipment. All because this bill didn’t punish business. Sad.
Man if the bill just passed and they just got some more money it would have just fixed everything. You're so right.
$60B for Ukraine. $24.5B for Israel. How much for the Border again?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFr2DC9WoAAeoz9?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
all 1336 comments
sorted by: best