DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus House approves jam-packed $1.3 trillion spending bill

Military guys pushing for more spending. Surprise surprise.

So? He just sat there in the video and said he agreed with basically all of it, he strongly agrees with the underlying principles of it.. he just has some issues with some very specific things in it...

Is he not allowed to have some issues with it? Was it the only perfect piece of legislation ever written?

Is he not allowed to say that had he been there at the time there are some things he would have lobbied to change?

Rand Paul is a smart dude, I'm 100% sure that he knows the PC thing to say in that situation is "Of course I would have voted for it".. Kudos to him for having the stones to actually go into a little detail and give an honest opinion about what he liked about it and what he didn't.

Intellectual honest, more people should try it.

There is a lot to unpack here in the name of intellectual honesty. I'd like to start with the original comments that he would not support the CRA of 64. First of all, this is not an uncommon positions for libertarians and not because they are racists, but because they don't believe the federal government has the power to enforce or make the laws in the CRA. Rand Paul's father, Ron Paul has talked a lot about how he thinks the CRA is not exactly constitutional and how he wouldn't support it. Again, it's a pretty basic purity test for libertarians. He has of course changed his answer since his campaign for the 2016 Presidential election. Like even the most famous libertarian Thomas Jefferson, he cannot help but succumb to the power of the Federal government and change his libertarian stances.

Also, if Rand Paul is hailed for being honest about his view, why isn't Swish and Rocket hailed for their view that Rand Paul's view is dumb? Rand Paul has stated many times that the CRA destroyed privacy and individual rights by forcing businesses to serve every customer no matter what race, religion, creed, or sexual orientation even if their owner didn't want to. I hate to sound "biased" or "hateful", but that's a pretty dumb view to me. I understand the libertarian view point of businesses being private property of its owner, but in our system where businesses are considered people, conflating them with private property can have grave and serious effects on society.

LOL

Nope, he has decided to sign it.

I don't like it.

Ya ever see Mel Brooks History of The World Part I?

When the French aristocrats are playing chess with real people as the pieces and some stuffy guy says PAWN THREATENS BISHOP!

and the pawn just shakes his fist at the bishop—-and nothing really comes of it.

That’s what that ‘threat’ amounts to.

The Democrats like it.

Our budget process is broken and this is all theater.

exactly why I don't. lol

actually, I see both sides not liking it (for different reasons obviously). But its a shame that this was put in when the majority of the country it seems on both sides dislike it.

I love how politicians play the whole “I hate this bill so much” BS.....then turn around and vote for it.

We needed more 'invisible' planes.

Oh yea, so much for trump being anti-establishment.

He must have read it during fox and friends...

Rubber stamp President.

Next month we will need to cut social security and VA benefits because we can't afford them.

And the Republicans liked it. But everyone is going to blame it on everyone else. It's obvious that when you raise the deficit with a trillion dollar tax cut, that you only care when the other party spends the money. Then when you try to scapegoat the fact you voted for it by blaming the other side? Well that's nothing more than a bad joke.

Trump signs spending bill, blasts Congress

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/23/politics/trump-spending-bill/index.html

remember when conservatives said Trump was gonna stand up to the establishment?

yea, ok.

Rubber Stamp.

j/c

"Before I sign this, let me blame everyone else for why I'm going to sign this."

nope, I can tell you first hand I am p off this was signed. as are others. so wheres your gripe? you have been yelling that everyone is lock step no matter what trump does, yet when he does something we don't like, we sit here saying it....and then you just ignore that fact.

its a bad bill. he shouldn't have signed it. we will see what happens going forward. whats your next lame comment?

the fact that you're already so defensive says a ton lmfao.

trump supporters said he was gonna stand up to the establishment.

im still waiting for evidence.

remember when democrats said they cared about the DACA recipients... goes both ways. BOTH our parties failed us today.

hey, at least Trump got a fence

Fence paint... I don't think an actual fence was in there.

But it is good fence paint, the best fence paint.

This Bill was swamp politics at its finest.

The Dems and Repubs sent a loaded Bill to the Presidents desk that they knew he would not sign. It gave him money for the Military but nothing else. It was loaded with things he ran against. He would shut the country down while Dems and Repubs cried all the way into the 2018 elections that they did all they could in a bipartisan way but Trump shut us down.

This Bill never should have reached Trumps desk. The Republicans should have stopped it but they didn't.

Surprise Surprise as Trump did sign it to get the Military up and running as that is his first responsibility as President, to keep the American People safe.

Now we will see who he campaigns for this year and who he turns his back on.

Let me translate Trumpian for you.....

"Before I sign this spending bill, let me first say it's everyone elses fault and I refuse to take responibility for my own actions."

Never should've signed this. Leaders lead. The military isn't so starved that he couldn't have sent this back down the pipe and had it done right.

My brother works for the Dept Of Agriculture. He was gonna get laid off if this bill wasn't signed.

Thanks for extending funding for planned parenthood though!!!

Dems got damn near everything they wanted in this bill.

and some! They limited the stupid wall to fence paint! Addition by subtraction, lol.

But it's still disgraceful that this was passed in both houses of Congress and signed by the President before anyone read it!

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump

Because of the $700 & $716 Billion Dollars gotten to rebuild our Military, many jobs are created and our Military is again rich. Building a great Border Wall, with drugs (poison) and enemy combatants pouring into our Country, is all about National Defense. Build WALL through M!
4:33 AM - Mar 25, 2018

74.5K

41.3K people are talking about this

Read the actual funding... Trump is delusional.

President Trump hints he may use Defense budget to build the border wall now


1) Let's talk about what the President can and can't do for this Omnibus Bill. There's a lot of discussion both ways so let's examine how money gets allocated & spent in the US Government:

1. Congress allocates money to be spent. The President spends the allocated money.

2. Once Congress allocates money, their job is oversight of the money being spent. They don't spend the money and have no say HOW it gets spent as long as it's spent legally. That's their job to monitor with oversight.

3. Once the President is given the money with the instructions to spend it, he has a number of choices to make in spending it. There are some rules he has to follow & some of the money is fungible and some isn't.

4. However there are some other factors that are in play here. One of them is that the President has declared a Human Rights Emergency AND has notified Congress that he's invoking the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. 5. This opens up new options.

6. By making these two declarations President Trump has just communicated that he has the authority to NOT spend any funds he doesn't deem necessary and will return them to the US Treasury. So, funds for Planned Parenthood? He can simply not allocate the funds.

7. Also, these declarations make some funds fungible. For instance if he determines that building a Wall on the Southern Border is a defense against Human Trafficking? He can move funds from anywhere else in the Defense Dept Allocation & simply build the Wall.

8. Congress is powerless to stop cash reallocations on an omnibus bill AND cannot stop the DOD from taking measures under a declared Emergency. 9. Despite their language in the Omnibus Bill about the Border Wall, it is trumped by the State of Emergency that Trump declared.

8) So in summary - This will go to the Courts. Congress will sue the President over the Border Wall. But here's how it will play out - Congress and the President are co-equal branches with different functions. Congress allocates. The President spends.

9) The President has National Security as his Primary Responsibility and it's his job to use whatever funds and declarations he needs to for that job. No Court in this Nation (except corrupt on the take Judges) would EVER rule against a President for exercising that authority.

10) In the end the Supreme Court (yes, that's where it will end) will fully VALIDATE the President's Constitutional Authority & the Wall will be built.


https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201...r_wall_now.html

But Mexico is going to pay for it. Right?
Snake Oil Salesman...and you stood in line to buy it.

People who want the wall don't care how the money is obtained.

Part of me would like to see this just to see how exactly it would play out. Could Congress pass a bill lowering the money earmarked for instance ? What about state level earmarks ? Would those states file lawsuits ?

Wall won't be built anytime soon (so much emminent domain...) So it's really just a thought exercise right now.

They should tax Trump supporters to build it, then Trump can pay them back when Mexico pays up.

bro, conservatives are blowing a gasket lmao

https://www.salon.com/2018/03/26/betraye...-turn-on-trump/

Ann Coulter
✔
@AnnCoulter
So Stormy says she and Trump had sex only once. I guess if you want the guy to screw you repeatedly, you have to be one of his voters.

12:44 PM - Mar 26, 2018

Trump privately presses for military to pay for border wall

By Josh Dawsey and Mike DeBonis

President Trump, who repeatedly insisted in the 2016 campaign that Mexico would pay for a wall along the southern border, is privately pushing the U.S. military to fund construction of his signature project.

Trump told advisers he was spurned in a large spending bill last week when lawmakers appropriated only $1.6 billion for the border wall. He has suggested to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and congressional leaders that the Pentagon could fund the sprawling construction, citing a “national security” risk.

After floating the notion to several advisers last week, Trump told House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) that the military should pay for the wall, according to three people familiar with the meeting Wednesday in the White House residence. Ryan offered little reaction to the notion, these people said, but senior Capitol Hill officials later said it was an unlikely prospect.

Trump’s pursuit of defense dollars to finance the U.S.-Mexico border wall underscores his determination to fulfill a campaign promise and build the barrier despite resistance in the Republican-led Congress. The administration’s last-minute negotiations with lawmakers to secure billions more for the wall failed and Trump grudgingly signed the spending bill last Friday after a short-lived veto threat.

Four days after that move, Trump continued to express regrets for signing the $1.3 trillion package that funded the government and averted a shutdown, saying it was a mistake and he should have followed his instincts.

In another interaction with senior aides last week, Trump noted that the Defense Department was getting so much money as part of the spending package that the Pentagon could surely afford the border wall, two White House officials said. The Pentagon received about $700 billion in the spending package, which Trump repeatedly lauded as “historic.”

Meanwhile, the $1.6 billion in the bill for some fencing and levees on the border not only fell far short of the $25 billion that Trump was seeking, but it came with tight restrictions on how the money can be spent.

The individuals and officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk freely about private discussions.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders deflected a question about money dedicated to the military being used to fund construction of the wall. “I can’t get into the specifics of that at this point, but I can tell you that the continuation of building the wall is ongoing and we’re going to continue moving forward in that process,” Sanders told reporters Tuesday.

“Build WALL through M!” Trump recently wrote on Twitter. He retweeted those words on Tuesday, including “our Military is again rich.” Two advisers said that “M” stood for “military.”

It would be unlikely for the military to fund the wall, according to White House and Defense Department officials. The president has suggested to Mattis that his department, instead of the Department of Homeland Security, could fund the construction, two Trump advisers said.

The Pentagon has plenty of money, but reprogramming it for a wall would require votes in Congress that the president does not seem to have. Taking money from the current 2018 budget for the wall would require an act of Congress, said a senior Pentagon official.

To find the money in the 2019 defense budget, Trump would have to submit a budget amendment that would still require 60 votes in the Senate, the official said.

Democrats in Congress would probably chafe at military spending going to the construction of a border wall, and military officials may also blanch, White House advisers said.

Defense hawks in the Republican ranks would balk at steering money dedicated to the Pentagon for new aircraft, weapons and improving the readiness of the armed forces for construction of the wall.

“First Mexico was supposed to pay for it, then U.S. taxpayers, and now our men and women in uniform? This would be a blatant misuse of military funds and tied up in court for years. Secretary Mattis ought not bother and instead use the money to help our troops, rather than advance the president’s political fantasies,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement to The Washington Post.

Trump has grown frustrated watching constant TV criticism of the spending package and is determined to find a new way to fund the wall, several advisers said, privately grousing that his political supporters could become disenchanted without progress. After a recent trip to see prototypes of the wall in California, Trump has grown more animated by the issue, advisers said.
The president’s comments raising the possibility of using Pentagon funds to build the wall came after the collapse of negotiations with Democrats to secure $25 billion in long-term wall funding in exchange for protections for young immigrants at risk for deportation because of Trump’s cancellation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

The White House offered three years of protections for DACA recipients, according to multiple congressional aides, but Democrats demanded protections for a larger group of “dreamers,” including those who never applied for or are ineligible for DACA. The negotiations fell apart before the $1.3 trillion spending bill was drafted and passed last week.

The urgency to strike a deal reflected the growing sense that the spending bill represented the last chance for the Trump administration to secure substantial wall funding, at least in his first term. Top Republicans believe it is all but certain that Democrats will gain House seats in November’s midterm elections — and perhaps take the majority — greatly enhancing their bargaining position in future spending negotiations.

Only $641 million is earmarked for new primary fencing in areas that currently have no barriers, and most of the money can be spent only on “operationally effective designs” that were already deployed as of last May. That means the prototype designs the Trump administration is exploring cannot be built except along a stretch of the border near San Diego where a barrier is already in place.

Greg Jaffe contributed to this report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...m=.688be9cfdd6c



Trump wants to use military funds to build his wall.