Welcome to the 2018 Government Shutdown!

Democrats draw line in the sand over DACA; Senate goes back to the drawing board.

|

LEIGH VOGEL/UPI/Newscom

The federal government is on track to shut down for the first time since 2013 after the Senate failed to pass a 30-day continuing resolution (CR) late Friday. On the one-year anniversary of Donald Trump taking the oath of office, Washington produced a result that the president and leaders from both major political parties claimed vociferously to oppose.

Barring a last-minute miracle, the shutdown will begin at midnight, though many parts of government will continue functioning and "essential" employees will stay on the job. The National Zoo's Panda Cam, though, will be turned off.

The House passed a CR bill on party lines Thursday (it would have added about $30 billion to the national debt, by the way), but Senate Democrats, using leverage of a threatened filibuster, withheld support because the stopgap measure did not address the unresolved status of immigrants previously protected under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Needing 60 votes, the GOP managed only 50 (Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had yet to cast his ballot as of publication), with a handful of red-state Democrats and rebellious Republicans (including Rand Paul and Mike Lee) crossing party lines.

During the hours running up to the vote, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) was summoned to the White House by Trump, who delayed a planned weekend trip to his Mar-o-Lago resort in Florida. As he left the meeting, Schumer told reporters he and the president "discussed all of the major issues" and "made some progress, but we still have a good number of disagreements." Subsequent negotiations failed to produce a deal, as senators took turns, often with large visual aids, trying to brand the impasse as either #TrumpShutdown or #SchumerShutdown.

After spending years blasting congressional Republicans as obstructionists who would rather shut down the government over their pet issue than work with the president on broad legislation, Democrats decided to use what little congressional power they currently have to…shut down the government over their pet issue rather than work with the president on broad legislation.

Trump and the Republicans, however, played their own supporting role, chiefly via their steadfast opposition to any kind of immigration deal being attached, even though the DACA clock runs out in early March, and congressional negotiators had been close to an agreement last week, before the erratic president blew that up. As Shikha Dalma pointed out earlier today, a recent Fox News poll found that 86 percent of Americans favor permanent legal status for DACA recipients and 79 percent favor a path to citizenship. However, those numbers erode when the price of achieveing those status is a government shutdown.

Both parties are terrible, Congress is at this point congenitally irresponsible, and Friday demonstrated to anyone unlucky enough to watch C-SPAN that the pathologies corroding the legislative branch won't be reversed any time soon.

A 30-day continuing resolution—or, gods have mercy on us, a five-day continuing resolution (something Schumer reportedly floated on Friday to avoid a shutdown)—would not solve any of these problems. It wouldn't solve any of the government's serious long-term spending problems either. One-third of the way into the fiscal year, there is no federal budget and—starting at midnight—there is no government either, except for all those many functions that the feds will not shut down. Congratulations, America!

NEXT: Global Warming Less Likely to Be Catastrophic, Says New Nature Study

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Polls, schmolls, team blue is fucking retarded choosing to die on this hill.

    1. Do you think that many people will remember this in November? I’m still confident Democrats will take the House.

      1. I suppose it depends on whether the government is still shut down then.

      2. “I’m still confident Democrats will take the House.”
        In watching (or sort of trying not to watch) the news leading up to 11/9/16, I’m pretty sure my prediction was HRC at something over 300 EC votes. Cringing.
        In talking with a money management guy this week, he asked who I thought was gonna take the mid-terms. Told him I was sticking with my losing predictions and the Ds would do it! With the same result. Stated/Revealed preferences.
        The Dow is at record highs; reducing the expected regs will do that. Unemployment at historic lows; similar reasons. Profits returning to the US as a result of that tax bill. People are going to see the take-home pay increase for the same reason.
        Trump Derangement Syndrome remains at a high infection level (Right, Old Mex and Jerryskids? You might seek treatment), but money matters.
        If Trump can keep this up, it’ll take the return of FDR to get him out of office.
        And the D’s have, uh, lemme think….

    2. Team blue is betting the polls are correct and will hurt the republicans. This is a very cynical play on their part.

      Team red was willing to make huge compromises, but cannot be expected to essentially sacrifice their platform because the Dems are babies.

      1. Team Blue has the problem of the polls showing them bleeding their support out significantly.

    3. Im making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
      This is what I do =====??? http://www.startonlinejob.com

    4. ………I just started 7 weeks ago and I’ve gotten 2 check for a total of $2,000…this is the best decision I made in a long time! “Thank you for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home.
      go to this site for more details….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

    5. Finally! There is a great way how you can work online from your home using your computer and earn in the same time… Only basic internet knowledge needed and fast internet connection… Earn as much as $3000 a week……. http://www.startonlinejob.com

    6. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…
      Read more here….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

  2. Barring a last-minute miracle, the shutdown will begin at midnight, though many parts of government will continue functioning and “essential” employees will stay on the job. The National Zoo’s Panda Cam, though, will be turned off.

    Serious question: Are animals in the Zoo considered “essential”? More precisely, if the government shuts down will they be fed, or must they wait for back feed?

    1. Senate pages won’t be busy for a while, they can set up an Animeals table at Kroger and beg for critter chow.

    2. They’re cute and people like them. Therefore, they’re inessential because that’s the only way we can show the American people how necessary government is.

    3. It’s only the federal government that’s being “shut down”. They don’t provide a lot of important services other than defense, and defense has a lot of financial breathing room.

      1. Which makes you wonder how my fed taxes are 5 times higher than my state taxes.

  3. Our august Senator Tester won’t be helped by this come November despite his half hearted musings. OTOH, team red has assembled an uninspiring slate of challengers, even in a red state like MT. Heidi Ho won’t be helped much next door, though.

  4. Well, they don’t call Democrats the Stupid Party for nothing.

    They were always the Stupid Party, right?

    1. The Evil Party is the one in power, because they use their power for evil. The Stupid Party is the one out of power, because if they weren’t stupid, they’d be in power.

  5. a recent Fox News poll found that 86 percent of Americans favor permanent legal status for DACA recipients and 79 percent favor a path to citizenship.

    “Permanent legal status” and “path to citizenship” were clearly defined, right? RIGHT?!

    1. Here is what they should ask: “How many thousands of dollars would you be willing to pay extra to legalize DACA recipients? (a) $0, (b) $1000/year, (c) $2000/year, (d) $4000/year, (e) $10000/year?

    2. I think path to legal status is good – who cares about ‘permanent’ or a ‘path to citizenship’. Seriously, outside of the local level – which can make its own rules about who can vote in city council elections – does it really matter outside of the margins who you vote for?

      Its going to be someone from the Evil or Stupid parties in office anyway.

      1. That’s what I would like to see: official legal status but short of full citizenship. The can stay, live within the law, pay taxes, etc. But not vote.

        And this would challenge Democrats and progressives: are they really trying to provide compassion, or just looking for votes?

        1. They’d probably take it. Would give them ammunition to attack Republicans, and the immigrant kids will vote Dem at a higher rate anyway.

          In other words, it is just about stupid enough for Republicans to agree.

          1. “and the immigrant kids will vote Dem at a higher rate anyway”

            If you say so. I see nothing to indicate that is anything but Dem wishful thinking.

            1. Ummm, every group that isn’t white native born Americans votes heavily Democratic. That’s a fact. That is one of my main problems with immigration period, including from Europe. You can blame all the legal immigrants for half of how things have shifted so far left in the past few decades. If we had had less immigration we’d still be having more middle of the road/pragmatic Democrats like 90s Bill Clinton running the show instead of these hardcore leftist loons. More immigrants is a guaranteed shift to the left politically. Anyone who doesn’t get that is living in la la land.

        2. Legal, not voting will be called second class citizenship. And the ratchet will move one more notch

  6. I hope the illegal alien votes team blue gets from all this makes up for the numerous legal voters they will lose.

  7. And the Rethuglican wet dream comes to pass, hurting the most vulnerable Americans.

    Please, Mueller: stop the terror that is Sir Drumpfstein.

    1. Rethuglican! Drumfph! So edgy!

      1. The worst part is the misspelling. It’s RethugliKKKian, dammit!

      2. “Rethuglican! Drumfph! So edgy!”
        Not sure whether IB is just plane stupid or attempting sarc. If it is the latter, the joke is worn out.
        Either way, stupidity.

        1. Why do you cuck the Drumpfsprocket so hard?

          1. The masturbation euphemisms are really coming into their own.

        2. Devon, IB does good work being a parody, and you’re a stupid humorless fuck. Stop pretending the world has to accommodate you and your old man TANTRUMS.

          Now, because you can’t help yourself, post your stupid old man tantrum response.

    2. MAGA = Mueller Ain’t Going Away!

      I have faith in him.

      1. He’s our only hope.

        1. Two idiots who deserve each other.

          1. Jesus Christ, you’re the worst fucking troll here.

    3. I was unaware illegal aliens were Americans?

    4. Illegal migrants are not “vulnerable Americans”, they aren’t Americans at all.

      1. Yeah, a good many of them are. If they are from Mexico, Canada, or any of the Central or South American countries, they are American. /pendant

    5. Do you still chant “Donald Trump KKK, Racist, Sexist, anti-gay” on the daily? I bet you brush your tooth to that don’t you? Your tears have been delicious the last 12 months

  8. “Barring a last-minute miracle, the shutdown will begin at midnight, though many parts of government will continue functioning and “essential” employees will stay on the job.”

    Essential employees will stay on the job to keep government functioning? Okay. One question though- why are there any other government employees to begin with?

    1. Just like last time, the “shutdown” only exposes how utterly bloated government is.

      1. Everyone deemed “non-essential” should be laid off permanently.

  9. So, I’ll still get my mail. The military’s still on duty (albeit unpaid). And I can visit Yellowstone. I really don’t see a downside.

    1. How hard do you expect the military to fight unpaid?

      By the time this is over, Putin will have invaded and taken over, just as Heir Drumpsflaggen plannned all along.

      1. “Heir Drumpsflaggen”
        Satire? Sarc?
        Given IB’s history, I’m guessing stupidity.

        1. His bitching is incomprehensible. He’s like Hank Phillips only he occasionally makes sense and he doesn’t harbor a giant hateboner for all religion.

          1. All religions aren’t bad.

            Just Christfags.

  10. At least this time there will be few casualties because most everyone is already dead from the rollback of Net Neutrality, the Trump tax cuts, and the repeal of the Obamacare individual mandate.

  11. I think Lindsay Graham is leading some kind of sermon on the floor of the senate

    1. Is this like one of those group superstition gatherings on a football field?

    2. Is he offering up fellatio? I hear that’s how he compromises in Washington

  12. We’ll be lucky if most of the population doesn’t die.

    If we didn’t need government, we wouldn’t have it. Therefore, the body count will be tremendous. QED.

  13. I LIKE the image.

  14. The National Zoo’s Panda Cam, though, will be turned off.

    MAGA, Motherfuckers, MAGA

    Still not tired of WINNING

      1. I’m afraid to know what your targeted Google ads look like after your many searches for SIV’s likeness

  15. So the FBI and the DEA and every other government enforcement agency hung up their weapons, the military withdrew from 171 countries, it’s lights out in the capitol? Taxes aren’t being collected, levied, regulations not being enforced?

    1. Sounds good to me!

  16. Republicans who control every branch of government… played a supporting role in this.

    What a partisan fuckhole this place can be.

    1. Partisans are the worst people. Absolute worst.

      1. No but hypocrites might be.

        1. Harrumph!

        2. Dammit Past Me why you gotta have no self awareness?

    2. But they lack a supermajority. They build this thing into the Constitution and senate rules where you can’t rule without the consent of the minority except in cases of overwhelming majority.

      And the GOP was the one prepared to make DACA permanent, but the Dems were not willing to overhaul our policy towards chain migration and drop the lottery in favor of a merit immigration system.

      Dems shut this thing down.

    3. You might find more comfort in Dalma posts.

    4. They needed 60 votes in the Senate. Tony can’t count.

      ” What a partisan fuckhole this place can be.”

      Sometimes it can be quite a shithole. But mostly bc of proggie a-holes like you. Have a nice day and try not to lose your mins. #govtshutdownmagedon

    5. Both sides are to blame. But some of us think the shutdown is an improvement.

  17. gods have mercy on us

    Mercy isn’t here, man.

  18. As Shikha Dalma pointed out earlier today, a recent Fox News poll found that 86 percent of Americans favor permanent legal status for DACA recipients and 79 percent favor a path to citizenship

    Not entirely coincidentally, 80% of Americans don’t pay any net taxes, so what do they care about letting in millions of people who will be a net drain on the budget?

    1. DACA only pertains to 800,000 people, which is not millions.

      And what budget? Tax reform is a net drain, yet we should celebrate that. DACA has made illegal immigrants more active and productive in our economy.

      1. DACA only pertains to 800,000 people, which is not millions.

        The press is indicating that protecting the “Dreamers” equates to over 3M, not 800,00.

      2. DACA only pertains to 800,000 people, which is not millions.

        There are 3.6 million “Dreamers”; 2.8 million of those Dreamers were simply smart enough not to sign up for DACA. And you can be certain that Democrats will push for citizenship, followed by sponsoring parents and relatives, even if this legislation says none of that is going to happen. That’s in addition to all the naturalization and family sponsorship resulting from marriage and children.

        And what budget? Tax reform is a net drain, yet we should celebrate that. DACA has made illegal immigrants more active and productive in our economy.

        The vast majority of Dreamers will never be “active and productive” enough in our economy to pay for the costs they impose on tax payers. Furthermore, adding a large group of people like that to our economy means that lowering taxes or cutting entitlements becomes even less likely in the future than it is now, even though those are absolutely necessary if we want to have a stable country in the long term. And their kids are not going to be substantially better than their parents because Hispanics in the US view themselves as a separate group, again encouraged by Democrats and progressives.

        1. “Dreamers” is separate, though. And nonexistent right now. Wringing hands over that is silly. Besides, Dreamers would have better education than your average immigrant anyway; it’s a retirement to have finished high school or its equivalent.

          How do you know that they won’t offset their benefits in taxes? I don’t believe it’s as obvious as you assume. While it may be true in the short term, I doubt it will be in the long term. In the 2nd generation, Hispanic immigrant families go from ~$30k to $40k. The rate-of-increase decreases after that but they keep approaching native-born incomes. Statistics on Hispanics as a whole is skewed down because there are a lot of 1st generation immigrants.

          Perhaps Hispanics haven’t been seduced by the left so much as pushed away by the right. The overly-sensational claims about Mexican immigrants over the last election cycle has disturbed a lot of them. It certainly hasn’t helped them assimilate. Even with that, almost 2/3rds of 2nd generation Hispanics regard themselves as Americans; the same for 2nd generation Asians.

          I think it’s flat-out insane to say that they won’t do better than their parents. It’s why their parents came here; usually for the education and to escape very authoritarian governments. Both of these contribute heavily to better outcomes.

          1. Perhaps Hispanics haven’t been seduced by the left so much as pushed away by the right. The overly-sensational claims about Mexican immigrants over the last election cycle has disturbed a lot of them.

            Hispanics have voted majority Democrat for generations. This isn’t some new development because Republicans weren’t all-in on Reagan’s amnesty.

            1. They have been voting Democrat, but most were personally fairly centrist. Democrat Hispanics have been pushed further left by Republican rhetoric over a couple of decades now. They had a chance with abortion when it was a hot topic, but they really didn’t take advantage of it enough.

              1. Just admit you were wrong on the numbers, fabricated a stupid distinction to hide it, and have now gone to increasingly ridiculous lengths to ignore it.

                Then fuck off.

                1. Dreamers and DACA aren’t the same. Would it kill you too learn the difference or is it easier to be ignorant?

                  1. No one is saying they are. Would it kill you to admit you are too stupid to comprehend what you’re discussing?

                    1. “Bu bu but… DREAMER ACT!!!”

                      Said the stupid person who thinks that is why they are called that now.

              2. Democrat Hispanics have been pushed further left by Republican rhetoric over a couple of decades now.

                They have been “pushed left” because Democrats said “we’ll give you lots of free stuff and let you bring in your relatives” while Republicans have said “you need to make it on your own and we want immigrants that make a net positive contribution to the US”.

                So, you’re right: if both parties turned into socialist sell-outs and both parties advocated Hispanic racism, then they could split the Hispanic vote. Fortunately, they don’t both do that.

                1. Democrats said “we’ll give you lots of free stuff and let you bring in your relatives” while Republicans have said “you need to make it on your own and we want immigrants that make a net positive contribution to the US”..

                  That’s not how I see it.

                  Democrats say “we’ll give you free stuff and let you bring your relatives”
                  Republicans say “we’ll give you free stuff but we will lecture you about it and also threaten to deport your relatives”

                  In what universe are Republicans actually opposed to the welfare state?

          2. Jobs held by Hispanic US citizens and green card holders are the ones most likely to be lost to illegals. People wonder why Trump did better with Hispanics than Romney. They shouldn’t wonder.

          3. So, you posted that ducking stupidity just to hide the fact that you were wrong on the DACA numbers?

            Great, we have another John guys. Go find something else to do while he bloviates instead of just admitting he was wrong.

            1. No, 800,000 is the DACA numbers. 3 million is the Dreamers Act. The media calls the DACA people Dreamers because they’re stupid. They aren’t the same thing (Dreamers Act never passed) and the shutdown is about DACA.

              1. And my post is about you being wrong, which you still won’t admit.

              2. And JUST TO BE COMPLETELY CLEAR. THIS

                “Dreamers Act never passed”

                Has nothing to do with anything.

                “THE DREAMERS ACT NEVER PASSED! THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DREAMERS! I HAVE DECREED THIS! REALITY DOES NOT MATTER”

                Well, stupid fuck, no one was calling them DREAMERS because they mistakenly thought the act passed.

                “The media calls the DACA people Dreamers because”

                Doesn’t matter. It’s what they call them. Your opinion, and the dreamer act, do NOT MATTER.

                1. They’re two different things. Even if they call the DACA people Dreamers it doesn’t automatically make all Dreamers covered by DACA. Like squares and rectangles.

                  1. Give me a good source that says that there are 3 million DACA enrollees.

                  2. No one ever said it did you fucking retard.

              3. the shutdown is about DACA.

                That is incorrect. The shutdown was triggered because Democrats didn’t get a deal on the Dreamers. The “it’s only 800000” is a deliberate misrepresentation of the numbers by people pushing the Democratic agenda.

                And don’t try to fool people: even if the deal were DACA only, that simply wouldn’t stand, either in the courts or legislatively. Any deal will almost immediately get expanded to all Dreamers, then to their parents, then to all couples who have had children born in the US. We are talking many millions of people even before those individuals start sponsoring more family members from abroad.

                So cut the “it’s only 800000 people” crap.

              4. I don’t understand why right wing Christian Republicans don’t greatly prefer pro-life Christian Mexican immigrants over Muslim refugees from countries that may try to plant terrorists in the outflow…..

                1. Your confusion is easy to explain: you are confusing “gay libertarian atheist immigrants” with “right wing Christian Republicans”. Whether that’s because you’re ignorant or because you’re a Soros-paid professional shill, I don’t know.

                2. pro-life Christian Mexican immigrants

                  Hispanic women have abortions at a far lower rate than black women, but a far higher rate than white women. I’d hardly call them “pro-life”.

          4. How do you know that they won’t offset their benefits in taxes? In the 2nd generation, Hispanic immigrant families go from ~$30k to $40k. The rate-of-increase decreases after that but they keep approaching native-born incomes. Statistics on Hispanics as a whole is skewed down because there are a lot of 1st generation immigrants.

            You answered your own question: the Dreamers won’t offset their costs in taxes. Neither will the second generation. Even if several generations down the line they did, that wouldn’t change the fiscal impact for many decades to come.

            “Approaching native born incomes” is not enough in any case, since native born Americans aren’t pulling their weight on average either. Now, we can’t deport American citizens, but we certainly shouldn’t add to the problem.

  19. ITT: People engaging trolls while believing they’re serious.

    1. You’re not serious?

  20. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

    HERE? ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, http://www.homework5.com

    1. This is the most intelligent post in response to this Reason article.

      This guy recognizes the importance of your family and home. He recognizes the importance of earning a living, and being happy.

    2. More time with your family? So the webcams want couples now too?

  21. Trump undoubtedly demanded a lot of things – ending chain migration, diversity visa, erecting the wall, implementing nationwide e-verify, etc.

    But what would have been the minimum requirement for at least a stay of deportation and work waivers? Funding for his beautiful wall? Ending sanctuary city policies? 15% increase in merit based immigration?

    If I was a parent of a DACA kid, I would have been ok with a stay of deportation for the wall, straight up. The kids get to stay in school or work, but they can’t vote or qualify for welfare. If DACA families were part of this discussion, they would have made more concessions than the democrats.

    The dems aren’t interested in a resolution or a piecemeal approach, for obvious reasons. That’s why they tried to lump in the Haitians and El Salvadorans, even though some of them apparently have 2 more years until they can be deported. Why not save the DACA kids first from deportation and work from there? Trump WANTED to make a DACA deal of some sort. His fans at Breitbart were not pleased.

    I wonder if Paul Ryan and Mcconnell can try to push through a deal on straight party vote like they did with the tax reform. Cook something up that Trump will find palatable and go with it.

    1. The specifics aren’t that important though as this is purely political posturing; the question is does the gambit work or not?

      It’s a wild, wacky political world where the dems seem to get the most traction by over-reacting, and repubs waffle at their platform. Can’t say how this affects those who aren’t strongly in either camp, but my suspicion is the rhetoric dems used in the past will come back to haunt them. This will be great fodder for the next round of elections.

      1. The winner will be determined by how NBC Nightly News frames the shutdown for their viewers.

    2. At the end of the day, the Democrats want to import as many socialists as possible, thus they want unlimited immigration from Latin America, which overwhelmingly supports it.

      So making a deal to keep a million socialists as opposed to letting in an unlimited number isn’t going to fly for them.

      1. At the end of the day, the Democrats want to import as many socialists as possible, thus they want unlimited immigration from Latin America, which overwhelmingly supports it

        Kind of makes you wonder about open-borders libertarians, doesn’t it?

        1. Some of them are sincere, however dogmatic, who would rather see our republic fall to pieces than violate a single iota of their first principles.

          Others are just stooges for the Chamber of Commerce type crony capitalists and/or the Beltway elites. The ones who are given a corporate-funded bullhorn are more likely to be this kind.

          1. What makes you think that immigration will lead to the republic falling into pieces?

            Did Irish Catholic immigration lead to the death of the Republic? How about Eastern European immigration? Italian immigration? In their day, those were the “shithole” places after all.

            We are currently living through a rerun of the periodic spasms of anti-immigrant sentiment that pop up in American history from time to time. The Trumpists are just a modernized version of the Know-Nothings from the 1850’s. Like all movements based primarily in ignorance, fear and paranoia, it will pass eventually.

            1. “What makes you think that immigration will lead to the republic falling into pieces?”

              The cost.

            2. Until you discuss immigration and the real cost, you sound like an idiot.

              The idea that you are making an accurate comparison falls apart because you intentionally ignore that the nanny state is vastly different than it was in any of the time periods you mention.

              Which does NOT mean I want to keep the nanny state or that I enjoy americans on welfare either. Save that tired fucking response, it never made any sense anyway.

              It just means the costs are different and you are ignoring them to pretend your analogy isn’t garbage.

            3. We didn’t have a welfare state during the era of European immigration. We also had a fast-growing industrial economy that was starving for labor.

              And TBH, government has grown at a much faster rate since mass immigration began, compared to the era before, so one could argue that even European immigration actually helped tear the republic apart.

              1. It is actually an open question whether immigration costs more than the benefits.

                http://econofact.org/do-immigr…..yers-money

                It is not automatically true that immigrants are a net drain on the economy.

                1. And if you look at it, it appears that the biggest public expense of immigration is not the food stamps or subsidized housing, it’s the public education of the kids of immigrants. And we have seen great strides in privatizing the public education complex in recent years. Charter schools and vouchers and homeschooling are all real things now.

                  1. In the long term the biggest public expense is the spending voted for by the people illegals and their spawn elect.

                  2. That’s all beside the point. The point was, you attempt to make a comparison to times when the cost was significantly different, when those periods tell us nothing useful about immigration in the current economic climate. The analogy fails because of this.

                    Whether the cost is a net plus or minus is a different question.

                    1. And just to be clear again we all know that you will both attempt to reinforce your analogy and comparisons, because you literally cannot fathom that you are making invalid comparisons, and then you will come down on the side of it doesn’t cost that much anyway.

                      No one really considers you a faithful debater, so don’t bother, your comparison fails, but you will never accept it.

                    2. Oh this is too funny. You are the one arguing in bad faith while accusing me of the same. You simply assert “invalid comparison!” because it is not a *perfect* comparison. Of course it is not a perfect comparison. I never said it was. But just because it is not a *perfect* comparison doesn’t mean we can’t learn some lessons from it. First and foremost, that large amounts of immigration don’t necessarily lead to “the republic falling into pieces”. Are the costs different between the different eras in history? Yes they are. I never argued otherwise. (Why you got all bent out of shape because I didn’t read your mind and predict that this was going to be your main concern before you even answered the question, I don’t know.) Perhaps you would like to present some evidence that this cost differential is the determining factor, in light of the link that I posted showing that whether immigration is a net benefit or a net cost *in the current economic climate* is still an open question even among the experts. But you don’t really care, your goal here is just to tear down me personally and try to discredit my argument by attacking the person. Sure, whatever. Go ahead and keep spreading the narrative that immigrants are welfare leeches and drains on the economy and attack anyone who presents factual information to the contrary. That seems to be the general strategy of the immigration restrictionists.

            4. The Trumpists are just a modernized version of the Know-Nothings from the 1850’s. Like all movements based primarily in ignorance, fear and paranoia, it will pass eventually.

              Comparing the country as it was in the 1850s to how it is today is sheer fucking ignorance. We have far more people, a much larger welfare state, and an actual imperial foreign policy, all things that our dramatically lower-scaled nation in the 1850s didn’t possess. And even at that, mass immigration in those years had a dramatic effect on the nation’s culture and policy. It led to Manifest Destiny-style land grabs to absorb all the newcomers, and in the later years, the rise of labor union populism and socialist government programs.

              Anyone claiming that mass immigration won’t change the economic or social nature of the host country is too stupid to take seriously. They’re too busy shoveling food from a taco truck into their pieholes and chanting “diversity is our strength” bullshit mantras to be concerned about it, because they think they’ll never have to deal with the social or economic consequences that arise from what they’re pimping. They don’t have to send their kids to school with immigrants who are barely literate in their own language, much less English, so why should they give a shit, as long as Lupe continues to slop a burrito on their plate when they visit the hole in the wall diner?

          2. ‘Some of them are sincere, however dogmatic, who would rather see our republic fall to pieces than violate a single iota of their first principles.’

            No, first principles include property rights, which clearly is not compatible with open borders.

      2. You mean millions of pro-life, pro-family Christian immigrants are automatically going to vote Democrat? Why is that?

    3. If I was a parent of a DACA kid, I would have been ok with a stay of deportation for the wall, straight up. The kids get to stay in school or work,

      Geez, man, wake up and stop swallowing the propaganda. Less than 0.5% of the “Dreamers” are under 16. The vast majority are over 21. Very few of them are dependent on their parents.

      No matter what the deal is on DACA or “Dreamers”, their parents ought to be deported and permanently banned from the US. That, at least, should be a condition of any deal.

  22. How long does a shutdown have to last before the country starts saving money?

  23. Democrats need more voters by any means necessary.

  24. If the shutdown results in all non-essential employees being sent home, why is Congress still in session?

  25. As Shikha Dalma pointed out earlier today, a recent Fox News poll found that 86 percent of Americans favor permanent legal status for DACA recipients and 79 percent favor a path to citizenship. However, those numbers erode when the price of achieveing those status is a government shutdown.

    So, people support it if it has no impact on their lives. Which indicates support could not be more shallow than it is. Trump best stand firm on this.

  26. Which one of them said we needed a “good shutdown”? Which one of them asked a bipartisan group of Senators to come up with legislation and he “would sign it”? There are enough bipartisan votes in the House and Senate to pass DACA relief but the leadership in the Republican party refuses to allow that vote. Tom Cotton and Mark Meadows are chiefly responsible for sinking the bipartisan agreement that Trump said he would sign. Cotton and Meadows are beholden to the racist and violent people who dominate comment sections on right-wing websites.

  27. Eric & Matt, my favorite part of this article: “Both parties are terrible.”

  28. Both parties are terrible, but only one of them shut down the government over a demand to *change* the law in a way the legislature had already rejected.

  29. Did the government shut down? I can’t tell.

  30. I guess Team Blue cares more about illegal aliens than American citizens. Also, one thing I’d like to see out of this is for Trump to fire all the “non-essential” employees we are sure to hear about. “Non-essential” should equal “not employed”. I know I know, wishful thinking is wishful.

  31. Speaking of what goes around, comes around Max Boot gets trolled, and doesn’t like it!

    What makes these immigration cheerleader types so thin-skinned, anyway?

  32. “As Shikha Dalma pointed out earlier today, a recent Fox News poll found that 86 percent of Americans favor permanent legal status for DACA recipients and 79 percent favor a path to citizenship. However, those numbers erode when the price of achieveing those status is a government shutdown.”

    The law isn’t determined by people who are too stupid, lonely, or elderly to screen their calls properly or by people who have the time or inclination to talk to pollsters. I’m convinced people who care enough to talk to pollsters for more than two seconds are the same personality types who are predisposed to wanting to be liked by strangers–so they tell the pollsters what they think the pollsters want to hear.

    We have this thing called the Constitution, which Dalmia seems to love to ignore, and it says our laws are determined by elected representatives and signed by the president. Those reports on polls make it seem like America is one big single member district, but it actually doesn’t matter if 99% of the people in California, New York, and Massachusetts all agree on something. What matters is how 2% of the people in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin vote.

    1. “we have this thing called the constitution”. oh, you mean that piece of paper that was written by dead racists? it’s 2018.

      1. Poe’s law

  33. First term presidents often provoke a backlash against their party in the first midterm election after they’re elected–see the Gingrich revolution in ’94 and the Tea Party election in 2010 for examples. Congressional Republicans are in the cross-hairs anyway because of Trump for that reason–no matter what they do. However, neither Trump nor the Republican leadership have anything to fear from dancing with ones who brought ’em to the dance . . .

    Caving on immigration is likely to lose the Republicans their most enthusiastic support–and that’s true regardless of how anybody feels about immigration. If they’d managed to replace ObamaCare, they’d be wiping their feet with the Democrats–in the districts that matter most.

    1. First term presidents often provoke a backlash against their party in the first midterm election after they’re elected

      Two examples do not make a trend. There were very specific reasons for those “backlashes”, the AWB in 1994 and Obamacare in 2010. Indeed the GOP made significant gains in Congress in Bush II’s first midterm in 2002.

      1. I’m curious but too lazy to look it up: how did H.W. do in his midterm, and how’d Reagan’s first midterm go? Because an explanation that I’ve heard tossed out for W.’s improvement was that 9/11 was hot and the Republicans hammered home the idea that the government had to be supported in the War on Terror.

        1. That’s probably a good explanation for 2002, but that’s the point – it wasn’t due to the stage of the president’s term in office, it was due to specific events.

          1982 went badly for the GOP, they lost the Senate. This was probably due to the very bad recession at the time. In 1990 the GOP lost a little bit but not much.

          If you were looking for a pattern, it could be that when one party wins back the presidency based on the unpopularity of the party previously in power, it often has a lot of victories in districts normally aligned with the other party. Two years later most of those districts go back to their usual alignment, creating the appearance of a “backlash” against the new president.

          Such a “tsunami election” definitely happened with Obama, Clinton, and Reagan, but not with Bush II or Trump (GOP lost seats when they were elected).

        2. Year: HouseGOPDiff SenateGOPDiff
          1974: -49 -4
          1976: -1 +1
          1978: +15 +2
          1980: +34 +12
          1982: -26 0
          1984: +15 -2
          1986: -5 -8
          1988: -2 -1
          1990: -8 +1
          1992: +9 +2
          1994: +54 +9
          1996: -3 +2
          1998: -4 0
          2000: -2 -2
          2002: +8 +2
          2004: +3 +4
          2006: -30 -6
          2008: -21 -8
          2010: +63 +6
          2012: -8 -2
          2014: +13 +9
          2016: -6 -2

          1. Why did you include midterms that weren’t the first midterm after a new president was elected?

            Why did you only include one party?

            2010: Obama – Democrat

            House: -63 Democrats

            Senate: – 6 Democrats

            2002: George W. Bush – Republican

            House: + 8 Republicand

            Senate + 2 Republicans

            1994: Bill Clinton – Democrat

            House: -54 Democrats

            Senate -8 Democrats

            1990: George H. W. Bush – Republican

            House: -8 Republicans

            Senate -1 Republican

            1982: Ronald Reagan – Republican

            House: -26 Republicans

            Senate -0 Republicans

            1982: Jimmy Carter – Democrat

            House: -15 Democrats

            Senate -3 Democrats

            1974*: Gerald Ford – Republican

            House: -48 Republicans

            Senate -4 Republicans

            1970: Richard Nixon – Republican

            House: -12 Republicans

            Senate +1 Republicans

            1966: Lyndon Johnson – Democrat

            House: -47 Democrats

            Senate -3 Democrats

            The trend continues all the way back through the first Taft midterm in 1910, with the only significant outliers being Bush’s first midterm in 2002, in the wake of 9/11, and FDR’s first midterm in 1932, in the worst of the Great Depression.

            Go back before 1914, and you’re even going before senatorial suffereage and the 17th Amendment.

            If you think the president’s party doesn’t usually suffer a backlash in the first midterm after a president is elected, then you’re wrong.

            1. Thanks to both Mouse and Shultz for the information and breakdown! It was helpful to see that there is indeed a trend, although the extremity of this trend varies. Thanks!

            2. Because you need the other elections for context. You don’t think that the results of the election 2 years prior (or 6 years prior for the Senate) have a correlation with the current election?

              If there’s a snake in your back yard, and all you know is that it’s a snake, it’s probably not a bad idea to pick it up and move it somewhere else, as very few snakes in North America are venomous.

              But if you know the snake has red, yellow, and black bands on it, that causes the probabilities to flip and makes it a very bad idea to pick up the snake.

              To sum up, the details of a situation are more important than vague patterns followed by situations that happen to be like the current one in one way.

          2. Or if we express it as combination of presidential election year and midterm immediately following, that shows that most of the time there really isn’t much movement because these balance out. Exceptions for Watergate, AWB/Hillarycare, Iraq War, and Obamacare cycles.

            Years: PresHouseDiff PresSenDiff
            60-62 -25 +2
            64-66: -10 -1
            68-70 -7 +6
            72-74: -36 -6
            76-78: -14 -3
            80-82: +12 +12
            84-86: +10 -10
            88-90: -10 0
            92-94: -63 -11
            96-98: +7 -2
            00-02: +6 0
            04-06: -27 -2
            08-10: -42 +2
            12-14: -5 -7

      2. “Two examples do not make a trend. There were very specific reasons for those “backlashes”, the AWB in 1994 and Obamacare in 2010. Indeed the GOP made significant gains in Congress in Bush II’s first midterm in 2002.

        That was about 9/11.

        The Democrats offered no serious opposition to Bush after 9/11 and even long after we invaded Iraq in 2003. There wasn’t any reason to expect a backlash against a president in 2002 who was leading a country in what was effectively a defensive war before everything got complicated. Being attacked on 9/11 unified the American people.

        Oh, and trends are trends even despite outliers.

        The trend of the president’s party losing seats in his first midterm election after he’s elected extends back to at least the Taft administration in 1910.

        https://tinyurl.com/y7me5y5h

        Feel the wrongness.

        1. right, because politics in 1910 is somehow comparable to that in 2018.

          Anyway, that’s an artifact of a different phenomenon. Note that they’re discussing ALL midterm elections on that page. Most presidential election years, the winning presidential party also gains seats in Congress, expanding into districts usually held by the other party. The next election, those districts are likely to revert to the non-presidential party that usually holds them.

          But when you have the rare president who comes into office while his party loses seats (e.g. Bush 2 and Trump) that phenomenon reverses.

          1. You’re off in left field somewhere. I have no idea what you’re talking about. It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with anything I wrote.

            “First term presidents often provoke a backlash against their party in the first midterm election after they’re elected”

            That’s what I wrote. It’s a fact–not an opinion.

            And the relationship between them isn’t hard to understand either. If Congress is a check on the president’s power, then voting for the part out of the White House makes perfect sense if you disagree with what the president is doing.

            I’m not even saying anything controversial, here. Just pointing to facts, like “three is between two and four”. Maybe you were unfamiliar with the facts? Regardless, the facts are what they are–whether or not you’re familiar with them or even whether you understand them. And the fact is that the president’s party generally loses seats in the first midterm after he takes office . . .

            Yes, there are always reasons why people oppose the new president. And the voters usually find them–whatever they are–with the only significant exceptions being 9/11 and the Great Depression. Unless something like that happens between now and November, the Republicans are running against the wind. If they desert the swing state voters who put them in power and Trump in office, they’ll be in an even worse position.

            1. That’s an analysis of the facts. It’s disputable.

              The facts are indisputable. And a trend is a trend specifically because it exists despite an outlier, AKA “the exception that proves the rule”.

            2. “First term presidents often provoke a backlash against their party in the first midterm election after they’re elected”

              That’s what I wrote. It’s a fact–not an opinion.

              That’s not a fact. You’ve offered no evidence that first term presidents have any inherent tendency to provoke a backlash. Other effects are sufficient to explain the midterm election stats (which apply to all midterms, not just first-term prez midterms).

              If you’re saying “Trump is provoking a backlash” then OK, let’s discuss that claim. But pointing to Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Ronald Reagan doing it has no bearing on the 2018 election.

              1. Check this out.

          2. Truth to tell, it’s hardly changed at all. The only difference is that then the communo-fascist variants of Socialism had not demonstrably been shown to be death camps. Now we’ve seen where that goes. But the same lay altruist v. religious altruist shouting match has hardly changed at all–except for Atlas being published and Nolan forming the party.

        2. And of course you can’t really dismiss 2002 as a blip due to 9/11 while ignoring the phenomena that gave rise to 2010 (Obamacare), 1994 (Hillarycare/AWB), and 1982 (blue collar recession).

  34. the panda cam downtime is really gonna be a blow to the gorilla channel *shakes head sadly*. I’m not angry so much as disappointed.

    1. So exactly how does the camera qualify for turn off?
      If the government is shut down, who is there to turn off the camera?
      Left on, the camera causes no additional personnel expense, but sending someone to turn it off is expensive.
      Must be a bit of political logic.

  35. Remember when Obama ended the wet foot, dry foot policy for Cubans?

    That tells you all you need to know about the Democrats; they don’t give a shit about immigrants, they just want their votes.

  36. We are led by idiots.

    1. You got elected to something?

  37. An allegory:

    I hold the power. You wish you did, but you don’t. Sucks to be you.

    In our negotiations, I demand that you sidle over to me next to this Big Wall, and bow down to me. You decline, saying all men are created equal in the eys of The Creator or some such nonsense. I respond that bowing down is really very, very important to me, and if you can’t do it I will shoot your dog. You respond that shooting the dog will not benefit me, and offer some other things instead. But I don’t want those other things, I want you to bow down and I give you one last, best chance to give me what I prefer. You decline, and I shoot your dog.

    Whose fault is it that the dog is dead, and what does this allegory say about power in general? (If uncertain, perhaps there is a neighborhood high school kid who can help).

    1. Why are you bothering to negotiate if you “hold the power”?

      1. Observance of rules requiring negotiation. I could change the rules, but I’m not a mean person.

        1. So, you don’t actually hold any power

    2. I think it says you’re a dick.

      Did I win?

  38. If McConnell had any balls he would have the Senate vote on a rule change to remove the 60-vote cloture requirement for continuing resolutions. This is getting ridiculous.

    In the 2013 shutdown the GOP actually controlled one house of Congress, and the Dems said they should get the hell out of the way and do as Obama said.

    Now the voters have drubbed the Dems out of both houses and the presidency, but the Dems still demand to dictate policy? Fuck no. Let them campaign on how dangerous it is to prevent 41 senators from shutting down the govt on their own.

  39. Breaking: then-Senator Barack Obama used a shell corporation to pay off a porn actress whom he fucked in order to keep her silent just days before the 2008 election.

    Reason libertarians, beltway media, Republican moral crusaders: *yawn*, I’m sure.

    1. Why do I care?

      1. I’m sure making excuses for the Clintons for decades has nothing to do with everyone’s modern, progressive sexual values.

    2. #metoo

    3. …did he fuck her to keep her silent days before the election, or fuck her days before the election and pay her off to stay silent, or did he fuck her way before the election and then pay her off days before the election?

      Bonus question: how did she keep from laughing when he took his pants off?

    4. Tony, Barack Obama is gay. He was fucking his flamboyant hairdresser, not some actress who smells of spoiled fish.

      1. Only a faggot like you would know that.

        1. And it’s the hicks you live around that are classless…

      2. Have you seen the jeans he wears? He cannot be gay.

        1. Mom-jeans are totally gay.

          1. No they’re not. Trust us on this.

            They’re ugly and you could argue that he wears them in order to closet, but mom jeans aren’t gay.

  40. In this thread, Hihn and Sevo shit everywhere, leading many to think they are the same poster.

    Instead of the two worst bed shutting retards on the internet.

    I mean, fuck, Hihn actually came on here and lied about meeting a Koch and discussing Sevo. No shit.

    1. That’s actually inspired me to go read Hihn’s posts. I gotta see that.

    2. Okay, so this was in a different thread?

      Somebody please link to this!

      Hihn claims to have discussed Sevo with one of the Koch brothers?!

      Link please.

      Pretty please.

      1. Ken, look upthread to 10:24 AM.
        Didn’t bother to save a link from the original Hihn-non-vintage whine, but there were many telling him to get lost, and that’s when he *threatened* to take screen shots (so we couldn’t go back and change things, I guess; paranoia has many effects) AND SHOW THEM TO THE KOCH BROTHERS!!!! (all caps, bold, many punctuations, and (sneers).
        As I recall, I told him to please do so, since I presume the Kochs are of at least normal intelligence and they’d either laugh or suggest he get assistance (assuming he has the ability to speak with them at all). So now we get this (supposed) result where I am singled out!
        I cannot believe it! That tired piece of crap *claims* he discussed me specifically! I’m HONORED!
        A couple of months ago, I passed on a thread featuring Hihn’s bullshit and someone else took the honors as the WORST BULL ON THE INTERNET EVER!!!!!!!!!!!
        But I guess I got it back.
        Oh, and Unibro; go fuck yourself.

        1. That’s freaking hilarious.

          1. I tried a response to Hihn’s ‘comments’. Really, I did. I tried a couple of times.
            His response to the earlier comment was such as to offer no possible rational reply. If anyone can make sense of that word salad, I’d love to see it.
            Mike, you’ve now set new records for imbecility.

    3. “In this thread, Hihn and Sevo shit everywhere, leading many to think they are the same poster.”

      Uh, no. What sort of a idiot are you to even imagine so? But thanks for the mention; ‘just don’t misspell my name!’
      When it became obvious early on that this was a hihn-fected thread, it was worth not wasting time here. By actual count this makes eleven posts.
      Pretty sure the worst retard Unibro beats that total by many times. Are you and turd the same poster?

      1. “. Are you and turd the same poster?”

        Unibro|1.20.18 @ 2:35PM|#

        In this thread, Hihn and Sevo shit everywhere, leading many to think they are the same poster.

        Instead of the two worst bed shutting retards on the internet.

        I mean, fuck, Hihn actually came on here and lied about meeting a Koch and discussing Sevo. No shit.”

        …?…

        Seriously? You like…can’t see it’s Unibro at the top where the name is? Where it clearly says the name of the person you’re responding to? In normal letters that are clear and readable?

        Yes Sevo, I think it might be the same poster. Very perceptive. Well done Hercule.

        1. “Turd” = Palin’s Buttplug in Sevo-ese, IIRC.

        2. Hillary Clinton|1.21.18 @ 3:44AM|#
          “[…]
          Seriously? You like…can’t see it’s Unibro at the top where the name is?”

          Wooosh!

  41. The Michael Hihn posting here isn’t the real Michael Hihn. I spoke to him and we had a chuckle over it.

    Regards,

    Pete

    1. Michael Hihn: the David Lynch/Monty Python collaboration we didn’t know we were waiting for.

    2. I don’t find this at all surprising frankly.

      1. So, what’s this business about (the commenter claiming to be) Hihn being a pedophile, or something? Link, source?

        1. It’s in a thread he shat on a week ago or something.

          1. Well, I’m not going looking for that shit. Link? Anybody?

    3. Just this thread or over the whole site?

      1. ^found the sock master

    4. Is the real Michael Hihn bat shit crazy, too?

      1. If his handle/link is a real site, then he might be a little weird (normal for libertarians) but not bat shit insane.

          1. He doesn’t like ObamaCare and clearly only the institutionalized don’t like it.

            It’s mandated to be awesome.

      2. Does it really matter? they’re both of literally no consequence to anyone.

      3. Go to his website and judge for yourself. You can also look up more information about him; he seems to be an elderly man living in fairly poor circumstances with not much of a career or accomplishments.

        1. The truth hurts the most.

      4. Hihn makes the mistake of arguing with mystics and sockpuppets. In clinical circles one talks about the pathetic wretches for the edification of innocent bystanders–if at all. If he had better training in handling multiple assailants there’d be calico and gingham everywhere. Better to focus on methods of causing looters to repeal bad laws.

    5. Are you the real Pete in Sioux Falls?

      1. I think “she” is actually Sue in St. Petersburg.

  42. I’m the stupidest person here. As when I first opened the article and saw 300+ comments, my first thought was “Oh, I bet some good discussion is going on.”

    1. The first thing I did was scroll to the bottom to see if GILMORE italicized the thread. The second thing I did was control+F’d Hihn. 101 matches. This should be a beaut.

      1. “”The first thing I did was scroll to the bottom to see if GILMORE italicized the thread.””

        I only do that to people I love.

  43. Now, where’s the coverage of the “Trump’s a Big Poopyhead” marches?

  44. This thread really needs some levity.

    Don’t Leave Home Without Your Poop Knife

    1. More relevant to our interests.

      Don’t get your hopes up- if you RTFA it turns out the mom is a total pussy. Libertarian moment, pushed back another day.

      1. Yeah, too bad. Mom should have sent her to work in the monocle factory.

        1. You have to start teaching them about “unpaid internships” sometime.

    2. A Type 3 or 4 on the Bristol Stool Scale… healthy!

  45. As Bill Murray would say: “I’m gonna miiiiiss those guys!”

  46. I can see what your saying… Raymond `s article is surprising, last week I bought a top of the range Acura from making $4608 this-past/month and-a little over, $10,000 this past month . with-out any question its the easiest work I’ve ever had . I began this five months/ago and almost straight away startad bringin in minimum $82 per-hr

    ……………………. http://www.homework5.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.