174
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
174 points (95.8% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4523 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The funds for 20 miles of border wall were approved in 2019 before Biden took office. He urged Congress to reassign these funds for more intelligent and efficient enforcement purposes, but Republicans did not comply. Now, Biden has to fulfill his lawful obligations.
He waived environmental protections with executive powers to expedite the process. He isnt just passively letting this happen because his hands are tied.
Would those environmental protections have allowed the wall to simply not be built, or would they have just delayed it, costing even more money for environmental reviews, changed plans, etc., when a government shutdown is imminent?
That’s a real question, to be clear, and not one the article answered one way or the other.
Even if it were the case, as they said the budget is already allocated. Why not make them waste as much of it as possible paying for stuff that isn’t building the wall that everyone knows is useless? Making it look like even more of an expensive boondoggle seems like a better strategy than paving the way through federally protected lands.
And that’s setting aside the costs of maintaining what gets built or what it would cost to remove the wall at some point.
Excellent points. This is completely braindead policy on Biden’s part. The reality is he wanted to give this money to the contractors building the wall, and it’s pathetic crony capitalism per usual.
He has to do it at the end of the year to comply with the order.
The end of the year is in 3 months.
Genuinely curious why he couldn't go ahead and fund the wall, allow existing environmental law to block it, take that back to congress and say this project is illegal and now it is up to congress to repurpose funds.
He has to utilize executive fiat to circumvent normal environmental regulation procedures? What exactly do you think would happen if he didn’t?
Yep, let's not forget who controls the purse. You just know this is going to get spun 🙄
And the GOP House 100% would have voted to start an impeachment trial if he didn't follow through on it. They would draw a false equivalence between the extortion scheme against Ukraine that lead to Trump's first impeachment trial, where one aspect of it was Trump unlawfully withholding congressionally mandated funds, and claim that this is the same thing. Actually, they'll say this is worse because they're completely shameless and untethered to reality.
That's an excellent point. If he doesn't comply in good faith, it would 100% be in conservative media that he's sabotaging the borders, misappropriating funds, and haul him off to a real impeachment trial. It'd be the excuse for political theater that they want, and likely exactly why Congress wouldn't reallocate the funds to something else.
They're so salty Trump got impeached (twice) that they're pretty much calling for impeachment for any little thing they don't like. It's actually humiliating and I don't understand how anyone can proudly say they vote for that party. It's like middle school logic.
He should spend it on a cute little picket fence with lots of pretty flowers.
I feel like a more creative person would have built an 10 foot long section of wall (or better yet a really fancy gate) valued at whatever amount of money congress had allocated.
That would be like USPS getting $30million to replace a fleet of delivery trucks and instead buying a handful of monster trucks that can't enter residential areas. No one's gonna look at that and go, "whoops! You got me! We said buy 120 USPS trucks with the approved budget but instead you bought 5 monster trucks and a sweet set of ramps and said you followed the 'spirit of the ask' because they're all trucks. Well, I see no reason to investigate this for misusing funds! As you were!"
This sounds like it could be the premise of an episode of Veep
That does sound reasonable when discussing buying monster trucks.
It needs to pass an audit. The wall is stupid, but building a monument instead of a wall should fail audits and is a type of corruption worthy of impeachment.
Presidents have to choose what they are going to stand for.
I hope they stand for the rule of law. Mind you they should tell us when the law is wrong and fight to get that fixed. However they don't get to ignore a bad law. There is often disagreement on what makes a good law, and sometimes you will lose that fight (or at least a battle in the fight).
I think bad enforcement of a bad law is a great way to fight it.
you can only be so bad before you are corrupt.
Corruption applies to actions taken for personal gain. Actions taken for perceived benefit of the constituents are noble even if they violate the law.
Right, and it seems like Biden has chosen to stand for the rule of law and due process.
You immediately answered the one question I had, thanks.