Democrats reject new Republican plan to pay for Trump's wall

[Eugene]

Source: Washington Post

By Erica Werner and Seung Min Kim November 29 at 4:01 PM

Congressional Democrats said Thursday they’re prepared to reject a new GOP plan to get President Trump the money he’s demanding for his border wall — escalating the chances of a partial government shutdown next week.

The new Republican plan would deliver $5 billion for Trump’s long-promised U.S.-Mexico border wall by dividing the expenditure over two years — $2.5 billion in 2019 and $2.5 billion in 2020.

But Democrats, who have rejected the idea of spending $5 billion on a wall Trump claimed Mexico would pay for, said splitting the money up over two years did not make it more palatable.

“No matter how many years you spread it over, $5 billion for President Trump’s wasteful wall is too much money,” said Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. “While we are willing to negotiate on how best to secure our border, we will never support wasting tax dollars on a wall designed to gin up the Republican base.”

-snip-


Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/democrats-reject-new-gop-plan-to-pay-for-trumps-wall/2018/11/29/91b0723e-f3f7-11e8-aeea-b85fd44449f5_story.html

[saidsimplesimon]

1. Schumer offered IT $25 billion

before pressed to withdraw offer. imo

[still_one]

6. That is a distortion of what happened. He offerred that if trump would NOT dismantle DACA. It was

ploy, to demonstrate that Trump was going to get rid of DACA regardless, and immediately withdrew the offer because the point was proven.


One may disagree with Schumer's tactic which is legitimate, but not bringing in the full CONTEXT of what happend is disingenuous

It is a similar tack that Rangel used when he introduced bringing back the draft to deter Congress from involving us in wars.


I don't agree with either tactic, but that was the strategy

[saidsimplesimon]

8. Let's make a deal?

I do not support funding the wall on my dime.

You really don't want me to bring forward a full disclosure of Mr. Schumer's support for Facebook for review?

He is not my representative. If you live in NY it is your choice of who you support.

[still_one]

9. I am not from NY. I don't support the wall, and I don't belong to FB who has a CEO who says that

"those who deny the Holocaust aren't doing it intentionally"

I also am NOT a fan of Schumer either, but leaving out the full context that Schumer's used it to demonstrate that trump had no intention of saving DACA was the point Schumer was trying to make. It was similar point Rangel tried to play by reintroducing the draft.


I disagree with both so-called strategies, but it didn't have anything to do with Democrats "forcing" Schumer to reconsider.


and I am not defending Schumer, just full disclosure with the DACA involvement at the time

[yellowdogintexas]

14. I think it was 1.5 Billion not $25 nt

[ailsagirl]

2. Keep it up, Dems!!

[Perseus]

3. Trump wants to have the "Wall of China", it is the narcissistic's dream.

He wants to be remembered for eternity because of a wall. What he doesn't know is that he WILL be remembered for many years as the worst person to ever occupy the Oval Office, he will be remembered in the same lines as Benedict Arnold, his legacy will be changes in law to safeguard the country from people like him ever becoming presidents. What was assumed in the past, that only people deserving the presidency would be elected, only people with good moral character would become the most powerful man in the World, although that power has been diminished by this asshole, so laws will be changed to prevent another clown from becoming president of the USA.

One thing that will change, or end, is the discussion about a sitting president being indicted or not, trump will be indicted.

[cstanleytech]

5. I agree, the whole wall thing has nothing to do with securing our country and everything to do with

a man bent on forcing the government to build a gaudy monument to him.

[Dave Starsky]

4. MEXICO is paying for the wall.

Don't let anyone tell you different. MEXICO is paying for this wall. Cash up front.

[They_Live]

12. That's right!

He promised!

[The Liberal Lion]

7. Hold the line Democrats, Hold the line

Give not one inch, spare not one once of effort to resist

[JohnnyRingo]

10. " ...to gin up the Republican base."

And there's the bottom line.

If he can get just a couple miles of wall built Trump will say the border problem is completely solved and take a well publicized victory lap all the way to 2020. Mitch McConnell will be happy to wave from the pace car full of GOP faithful.

Again... get Mexico to pay for it like you said over and over, liar.

[Maxheader]

11. 30 foot tall...700 - 900 miles long...

For 5 billion?

meehhh!

[keithbvadu2]

13. How to Build Trump's Wall - Privatize It

How to Build Trump’s Wall - Privatize It

Republicans have often found a way to tax people surreptitiously by privatizing many public works projects to corporations rather than have gov’t pay for it. A fee/toll is a tax under another name.

The corporations/investors are granted a multi-year license with a guaranteed profit.

This could also be done with Trump’s Wall with Mexico.

Corporations/investors front the money to build it and they will be paid by Mexico.

It gives republicans a chance to save the gov’t money by investing in it and show their confidence in Trump’s word that Mexico will pay for it .

No gov’t backed bonds.

No cost to the gov’t,,, no need for taxes,,, profit for the patriotic investors who believe in Trump.
.
?1457481272

Win win all around.

Even Trump can show his patriotism and shrewd business savvy by investing in it.

[Rizen]

15. Good for Dems

Trump lied his entire campaign about Mexico paying for it but his racist, idiot base doesn't care. They're pathetic.

[Bengus81]

16. Nah...we'll continue to wait on the check from Mexico..........

[NotASurfer]

17. In a deal, how many symbolic miles of wall would be a reasonable exchange for

a Senate vote to convict on Impeachment and move right to speedy and fair trials of the whole criminal enterprise?

Could promise to begin on, say, a 5 mile section, and just do a 20 foot section on either end with nothing in between

Then remove the 20-foot sections on environmental grounds

Sounds fair to me