Pelosi: "A vote against this bill is a vote for Donald Trump and his inhumane, outside-the-circle of

[ehrnst]

of civilized attitude toward the children."


WASHINGTON — In an attempt to shore up support for an emergency funding bill to provide humanitarian aid to the southern border, House Democratic leaders are seeking changes to satisfy concerns among progressive and Hispanic members who don't support or trust the administration's immigration policies.

“This isn't an immigration bill," she said. "This is an appropriations bill to meet the needs of our children so we can remove the needs that they have, but also the shame that we should have if they don't have diapers and toothbrushes and care.”

She warned that the Senate version of the bill doesn't provide as many protections for migrants as the House bill, a warning to hesitant members that if they don't support the House bill, they may end up with a measure that provides fewer safeguards for humanitarian treatment - or no bill at all.

“Understand what we’re up against in the White House. The president would love for this bill to go down today," Pelosi hold her members in a closed-door meeting Tuesday, according to a senior Democratic aide. “A vote against this bill is a vote for Donald Trump and his inhumane, outside-the-circle of civilized attitude toward the children.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-democrats-try-rally-progressive-support-emergency-border-bill-n1021421

[sandensea]

1. Here's hoping there can be a truth commission on this someday - and soon.

Other countries done this with past dictators who 'disappeared' children - even over strident RW opposition to such commissions.

God knows we could as well.

[ehrnst]

4. Indeed. In the meantime, we need to get money to NGOs who can be trusted

to take care of these kids.

[George II]

2. I hope that ALL of our Democrats rally behind Speaker Pelosi and votes for this.

[ehrnst]

3. Those kids need help now. Holding up aid to them in order to defy Trump in every way is no better

than the GOP mistreating the kids for their own political ends.

Or the GOP witholding food assistance to needy families in order to 'give them a reason to get a job."

The sheer amount of foot stamping going o in the meantime by the dualistic worldview "purity brigade" is breathtaking.

[George II]

5. They need simple things like soap, toothpaste, blankets, decent sleeping conditions, ALL of which...

...the administration is withholding from them.

[ehrnst]

6. Which is why NGOs need to be in there instead, which is what this bill funds. (nt)

[George II]

8. Some are going to claim that paying for such items is "funding ICE"!

[ehrnst]

10. See post #7 in this thread... claiming that anything but obstruction will "normalize" the situation.

SMH...

[uponit7771]

13. I don't know, I think they need more cover ... NOT voting for impeachment but voting for Red Don's

... child abuse is fucked up.

[ehrnst]

69. Voting to fund care of children who are at risk is "fucked up?"

Are you a parent by any chance?

[uponit7771]

87. I don't trust Trump to fund the care of children

[ehrnst]

94. As has been stated many times, Congress will be handling it, as per this bill

You seem to think very little of our Democratic leaders in congress - that they are 'sycophants for Red Don" even.

Even more protections for migrants and congressional oversight will be added to the House bill on Tuesday, including care guidelines for unaccompanied children. The additions will also require the Department of Health and Human Services to notify Congress which requirements are being waived because of an influx of migrants.

This bill gives congress the ability to cancel a contract if the standards set in the bill are not followed, and the shelters cannot turn away congressional visits, even surprise visits, despite your certainty that they wouldn't even conceive of something like that. Working to stop and prevent more abuse instead of simply trusting Red Don to change, like your plan.

You seem to think that Pelosi is incapable of knowing this about Trump. The only "alternative" you could come up with for the funding bill, was pretty much what is in the actual bill, as if no one but you was capable of coming up with it... that it would just be "fucked up."


But by all means continue the hair on fire rage at the 'sycophancy' of our leaders who are in there actually doing the job they were elected to do.

[uponit7771]

96. Congress will not personally hand out the money to the NGOs, please stop saying that

[ehrnst]

111. No one said that - you're imagining things....

Last edited Wed Jun 26, 2019, 09:40 AM - Edit history (1)

Perhaps you're confusing other people with being as uninformed as you were when you said that Trump himself hands them the money...



You don't have the first clue about how government contracts work, but you keep on trying to lecture other people who do. You sound like the anti choicers who cluelessly claim that the government "hands out money to Planned Parenthood" when in actuality, Planned Parenthood gets reimbursed for medical services provided to Medicaid patients.

Seriously - if it was Donald Trump handing out the money to NGOs who are providing services, do you think Planned Parenthood would get a cent? Somehow, they get reimbursed via the state and federal agencies who handle the reimbursements... and they still got reimbursed when it was a GOP House and Senate. States tried to block reimbursements, but the courts stated that they could not.

Here is a very easy to understand explanation of how NGOs get reimbursed for their services for the Govt. https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/blog/how-federal-funding-works-at-planned-parenthood

Think about it.... You are not making sense in terms of how these things work, you're simply ranting about anything and everything that Pelosi and this congress do, and say whatever comes to mind that supports your anger at them as though it's some sort of fact.

Logic and facts that don't confirm your bias are being dismissed, and you seem to get very angry at me for bringing them up instead of joining in your rants.

[Amyishere]

126. Yes, and there is a word for it. Complicity. Those who appease those who act like nazis enable them.

[Traffic Interruptus]

7. anything other than impeachment and 100% obstructionist tactics

normalizes trump's behavior. "Business-as-usual" or "bipartisanship" no longer has a place at the table given the human rights abuses perpetrated by trump & co.


You can't have dealings with these National Trumpist "entities" because they CONSTANTLY act in bad faith.

What is needed: a Democratic wall of obstruction similar to what the thugs did with Obama. A united front against National Trumpism that neither dignifies it, gives it a seat at the table, or normalizes it and that ends with impeachment as a constitutional DUTY and moral IMPERATIVE.

[ehrnst]

9. So what happens to the kids at the border while we "build the wall of obstruction" and impeach?

impeachment hearings? As if somehow leaving these kids to get sick and die in cells when we could be funding NGOs to go take care of them is somehow making impeachment more possible... as though it's some sort of alternative to impeachment.

That sounds like the GOP when they say that cutting off food assistance to families will "encourage them to get a better job," or schools that won't give kids a hot lunch if their parents are behind in payments because it will "normalize" them not paying.

You don't use witholding funding from caring for kids at risk, no matter how pure one's believes one's political motives are, no matter how much you think that doing the work of congress is "dealing" with a Trump "entity." It's called legislation, and emergency funding, and it's what we fucking sent our Democratic reps to congress to do.

It's immoral for the Trump adminstration to try to use witholding money from Puerto Rico recovery to make a political statement, and it's just as immoral for us to do it with kids at the border.

And if we need a 'united front' then why not get behind Pelosi on this?

[LanternWaste]

11. I think it's a bit naive to think additional funding will result in better treatment

I think it's a bit naive to think additional funding will result in better treatment of these children by the administration.

[uponit7771]

12. AMEN!! and no one outside of Red Don's sycophants believe the funds will be used properly

[ehrnst]

16. You know, actually reading something before ranting about the contents makes one look far more

credible.

Some Democrats said they were persuaded to support the emergency aid after speaking with nonprofits and nongovernment organizations, or NGOs, that are caring for migrants on the border and are saying they are running out of money to do so. The House bill includes $60 million for these groups.

The kids who are at risk are the ones in the temporary housing, which they are not supposed to be in for more than a day.

The NGOs are the ones providing the care for them once they are out.

Simple math tells us that the more room and staffing the NGOs have, the more impetus the Border Patrol temporary shelter staff has to move those kids out of the holding cells to where they can get care.

You're welcome.

[uponit7771]

18. Sigh, I have ... NO ... confidence the NGOs will see any money from Red Don's admin. Why do you? tia

[leftstreet]

21. Well, to be fair, their executives probably will

sadly

[ehrnst]

23. Which ones? (nt)

[leftstreet]

25. Execs and carpet walkers running NGOs and nonprofits

[ehrnst]

31. Specifically - which ones? Since you know who they are, then you can tell us.

If not, well, we can extrapolate from there.

[leftstreet]

35. You can research the current contract recipients

Odd, I assumed someone with your commitment to the issue would already have a wealth of knowledge about where the money has been, and will be, going

Hmm

[ehrnst]

37. So you have nothing, and know nothing about these 'execs.' It's just a rant.

Gotcha.

[leftstreet]

41. Actually I do

I was only expressing my surprise that you don't

[ehrnst]

45. But you're hiding them?

[ehrnst]

72. You know the NGOs that Congress is working with now on this legislation?

Do share.

[ehrnst]

22. So how did they get the money that they have been getting?

Or did you skip that part of the actual article as well.

Sigh...

Still haven't heard any actual alternatives to the emergency funding bill from anyone who is moaning and griping about it.

Thoughts?

[uponit7771]

39. NGOs can take donations that aren't from the government

[ehrnst]

46. Not for government contracts. Is reading the article at the OP that difficult? (nt)

[ehrnst]

75. You don't seem to understand the difference between NGOs that

donate food, supplies, and perhaps even background cleared volunteers in various parts of this process.

There are NO orgs that would take guardianship of wards of the state in with no compensation from the government - if for no other reason than legal liability.

If a child becomes ill, and perhaps dies in their custody, and they had no money for medical care, or food - who is financially and possibly criminally liable? They are.

If they have a contract that the government has with a local medical provider, and money for food and clothing from the Government, then they have all they need to ensure that they aren't negligent.

[ehrnst]

24. So, Pelosi and Democrats are "Red Don's sychophants?"

Sure you're on the right board?

[ehrnst]

14. It's a bit naive to think that better treatment will come by continuing as things have been

and not providing the funding to bring NGOs in to make sure that it's done correctly.

Did you bother to read the article before bashing anyone who understands that helping those at risk kids will cost money as naive?

Sounds very much like the GOP trope that "throwing money at a problem never solved it" when it comes to any part of the social safety net, teachers, public education in general, etc.

Or similar the GOP rep who said "Those children are free to leave at any time,"

https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/gop-rep-on-conditions-in-camp-any-child-is-free-to-leave-at-anytime-62597701961

Being a parent, I find funding for those kids' safety and well being used as a political chip is incredibly offensive. I wish more had that insight, 'naive' as you might find it. Pelosi is a grandparent, so I think that informs her humanitarian consideration for these kids as well.

[uponit7771]

27. We agree, then sign short fund that is contingent on Red Don ending the child abuse ... better?

[ehrnst]

71. "sign short fund that is contingient on..."

"Emergency funding" is a short term infusion of funding...

And what are your metrics for Red Don "ending the child abuse?"

You mean withold funding to help these kids until an unstable asshole admits he was wrong and does a 180 on family separation?

Mike Pence is already blaming "Democrats in congress" for the situation at the border. You think that Trump give a shit if those kids starve if he can blame it on Democrats, and at the same time not have to admit he was wrong?

In what world?



Pelosi is putting in many, many conditions in this legislation. If you read the article you would know that.

[uponit7771]

86. Nope, give them funding for 3 months then at the end of 3 months Red Don shows how he has

... ended his child abuse.

[ehrnst]

93. What is the metric for Red Don showing "he has ended the child abuse?"

You seem to not have any alternative to the actual bill that you seem to have no understanding of at all... the bill has mechanisms in it to stop the abuse, and prevent more not wait for it to stop...

The House bill allows members of Congress to visit the sites unannounced while the Senate bill requires two-day notice. The House bill requires the immediate reporting of a death of a child in HHS custody. The House bill also requires that the administration deploy funds and resources to the so-called Northern Triangle countries of Central America (El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras) that Congress already allocated.

Again... you seem to want to dig in a double down that Pelosi is somehow not doing her job, and she is incapable of figuring out what even you could come up with.

I know that it stings to be shown to be wrong about something, but how else do you learn if you can't even admit that you are? Ranting serves no purpose if it's oblivious of the facts.

[uponit7771]

97. No metering and 3 day processing of asylum seekers. Rep Paul Ruiz agrees with my position to some

... degree in that he doesn't trust parts of the Trump admin (CPB?) to administer resources etc.

Neither do I, unless congress personally hands out the money and personally oversee's the ending of Red Don's concentration camps

[ehrnst]

99. That's terribly realistic...

[uponit7771]

100. If red don was made to own his child abuse then yes, it is realistic. Looks like the house ...

... legislation is going to have a lot of checks in it anyway and could provide cover for those who are voting to fund Red Don's process.

[ehrnst]

102. "Made to own his own child abuse?" In what world would he ever do that?

I'd like a world with no mosquitoes, but I'm realistic enough to know what's actually possible. Maybe you could demand that those you say are "voting to fund Red Don's process" could get that into a bill, too?


"Provide cover for those who are voting to fund Red Don's process."

You REALLY cannot stand Pelosi, can you? You shoehorn any action she and Democrats in congress takes as 'proof" that she is a "sychophant" of his

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12218299

or "providing cover for those funding Red Don's policies." You all but say that she's - and by extension - anyone who votes with her - colluding with him. Which is only the case your vivid imagination.

Maybe you're confusing DU with JPR. You'll find more fellow members of the Pelosi/Democratic Party hate club there.

[uponit7771]

104. In a world were he doesn't get resources to run his concentration camps

[ehrnst]

113. Again - what is the alternative to taking care of the kids who in CPB custody?

As we discussed, there is no way for private entities to care for wards of the state without a contract with the government.

The alternative is leaving kids in the situation that they are in.

That's what you want? Because Demcoratic leaders are working to take care of the situation they are in right now? And you think that helping those kids = "sychophant to Red Don?" As if those kids mean nothing more than political bargaining chip? As a parent, I find that unacceptable.

You sound like GOP talking points - if we give assistance to families pay their heating in the winter, we are simply "giving them resources" to delay getting a better job. The alternative is to let them freeze.



SMH...

[uponit7771]

119. "The alternative is leaving kids in the situation that they are in. " This is false on its face

[ehrnst]

120. You have offered no other alternative...

Except the one that "private volunteer organizations will do it... which, as you have been told isn't legal when it comes to wards of the state.

Got nothing?

[uponit7771]

122. " You have offered no other alternative..." This is also false. Make Red Don stop metering and send

... resources for faster more thorough processing.

You keep saying stuff that's not true that's written down ... you might have too many threads to track.

[ehrnst]

124. So... how does one "make Red Don stop" and "send resources for faster more thorough processing?"

LEGISLATION.

Which is what Democrats are doing, despite your claim that they are simply "sycophants" to Red Don by legislating anything that helps the kids.

Which you have said... you may have forgotten the number of times you have bashed Democrats in this thread to keep track.

If you read the post below, you might understand why you look so uninformed in your rants about Democrats "enabling" "Red Don"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-unveil-bill-to-bolster-medical-care-of-migrants-in-border-patrol-custody/

There are other aspects to the crisis than metering... which is caring for the kids who are in custody. Which you say is colluding with Red Don...

Is that sinking in now? The difference between what you furiously type in anger, and what is actually going on? You keep complaining that they are doing the wrong thing, then when pressed about what they should be doing, you wind up talking about what they are indeed doing.

But do go on bashing our Democratic leaders for "helping Red Don" for something else now, like you have every time you've been shown this...

[uponit7771]

131. "your claim that they are simply "sycophants" this is also false

:rolleyes:

[ehrnst]

132. This is you, right?

I call you out on it, and you deny it. You're calling anyone who thinks that this legislation will help those kids, let alone votes on it "sycophants." Right there.

You finally give an "alternative" to the legislation that you clearly had no understanding of, and it turns out to be just what those "sycophants" are doing....

[Amyishere]

127. the problem is not a lack of money, and won't be solved by giving more money

The problem is the intentional cruelty and those perpuating literal crimes against humanity and not facing any consequences for the same. The problem is not the resources, or lack of them, it is the lawlessness done by those in authority. You don't need more money to not take away a comb from a child and make them sleep on cold frozen concrete with lights blazing and waking them up every two hours. You don't have to be paid to not put the ac on freezing and the lights down a bit and allow those that are sick to see a doctor. You don't need money to not be a godamn nazi, and if that's what it takes, something is very wrong here.

[ehrnst]

133. So feeding and housing and educating these kids doesn't cost money?

"The problem is not the resources, or lack of them, it is the lawlessness done by those in authority."

And no, oversight and inspections aren't done by volunteers, but by professionals.

So how does one address these things? Via legislation.

Like the kinds that are being put forth by our elected officials this week.

In case you missed what that legislation you are saying is useless actually says...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-democrats-try-rally-progressive-support-emergency-border-bill-n1021421

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-unveil-bill-to-bolster-medical-care-of-migrants-in-border-patrol-custody/

Is that clearer?

[emmaverybo]

70. +1000

[mcar]

15. Democrats doing the right thing

Republicans still trying to find a way to starve children.

[ehrnst]

17. Some here think that it's worth it, if complete obstruction will "teach Trump a lesson."

SMH...

It's as bad as schools not giving kids a lunch in order to get parents to get caught up on the lunch bill.

[mcar]

19. Seems some care more for purity than human lives

[ehrnst]

26. Apparently, those who do are "Red Don's sychophants"

[mcar]

29. Yeah, let's let more children die

That'll own Red Don.

[uponit7771]

32. Giving Trump more money for child abuse isn't going to stop child deaths at his concentration camps

[mcar]

34. How about giving NGOs more money?

That's what this bill will do.

[uponit7771]

36. I don't trust one bit that the money will end up with NGOs, there's no reason to.

[mcar]

38. THere always is a chance for abuse,

especially with this lot.

To help these kids, it's worth the risk.

[uponit7771]

42. That chance is 100% great with the Trump admin, we can fund the NGO's directly and no go

... through the hands of this admin

[ehrnst]

103. No we can't. Not for care of wards of the state. (nt)

[ehrnst]

44. Hearing GOP talking points about the social safety net in very surprising places today...

SMH...

[mcar]

47. ...

[ehrnst]

40. So how did they get the money that they have?

Still no alternatives to congress doing their job, but continued rants on how they are being 'Red Don's sychophants."

[uponit7771]

43. NGOs get donations

[ehrnst]

48. Not for government contracts. Please give reading the actual article in the OP a try.

It won't hurt, I promise. Maybe just some embarassment about several of your posts, but nothing too bad.

[uponit7771]

51. Not the question you asked, goal post move noted

[ehrnst]

54. Question avoided, yet again, noted...

[uponit7771]

55. Everyone can read your overly broad question and the specific answer I gave

[ehrnst]

57. Still avoiding actually putting your money where your mouth is...

"The Trump administration plans to pay a Texas nonprofit nearly half a billion dollars this year to care for immigrant children who were detained crossing the U.S. border illegally, according to government data."

You want congress not to exercise oversight?

[ehrnst]

105. What NGO would stay quiet about not getting the money that the contract states?

You are twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to "prove" that Pelosi is "a sychophant" to "Red Don" and just wants to direct money into his hands.

You don't know the first thing about what the process is for NGOs getting money for guardianship of wards of the state, but clearly Pelosi and the Dems in Congress have no way whatsoever to get oversight, and are simply trying to help "Red Don."

And you never ever give any evidence or even a hint about why Democrats are "sychophants" if they vote for this bill.

Are you mad that AOC wasn't happy?

[uponit7771]

106. The same ones being quiet about the conditions in the other facilities? The same ones who are

... not screaming to the top of the their lungs at children still being kidnapped from their parents and abused by the Trump administration.

Oh hell no, history isn't going to judge folk involved in Red Don's child abuse concentration camps easy

[ehrnst]

114. Goalposts moved... so you can still rant that Democrats are "colluding with Red Don"

You said that money wouldn't go to those NGOs... and I proved why that was a ridiculous assumption, and now you're pivoting to continue ranting... that NGOs who are contracted to care for the kids, and who are evidence that you are wrong about them not getting money are not "screaming about the kids" in CPB custody .

You're on quite a tear this morning. You are twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to "prove" that Pelosi is "a sychophant" to "Red Don" and just wants to direct money "into his hands to support concentration camps." Which is laughably conspiracy theory territory.

So you still equate Democrats passing legislation to get funding to get those kids out of CPB custody with "folks getting involved in child abuse concentration camps"

Because AOC was unhappy? Or because anything Pelosi does rankles you because it reminds you that she's in charge?

You are brushing off any and all facts that disprove your bias that Democrats are complicit in an attempt to remain in rant mode about Democrats.

Again... there's always JPR where those rants are welcome and stoked.

[brer cat]

101. +++ nt

[uponit7771]

20. ... and some have a rational reason to not trust a damn thing Trump the Child Abuser says

[ehrnst]

28. This isn't Trump, it's Pelosi. You know - one of "Red Don's sychophants"

as you smeared anyone who thinks that an emergency funding bill is actually the job of Democrats in congress.

But you really don't seem to see a difference.

Again, are you sure that you're on the right board?

[uponit7771]

30. So Pelosi is handing out the money to the NGOs personally or is this a bill to fund the NGO's throug

... the government which is ran by the Trump admin?

Really e ?!!?

damn, no one trust Trump ...

[ehrnst]

33. You think that Trump is handing out the money to the NGOs personally?

And again... actually reading something before going on a screed about it will help you to understand the situation that you are ranting about.

And you still haven't explained how the NGOs got the money they did..

Or offered an alternative to the problem than congress doing its job and getting an emergency funding bill passed.

But any chance to bash Pelosi... right?

[uponit7771]

49. Yes, of course he and Melanie are at the border handing out stacks like paper towels :rolleyes:

... again, read peoples post before proffering useless sarcasm.

And you still haven't explained how the NGOs got the money they did..

I did, multiple times ...you're not reading peoples post

But any chance to bash Pelosi... right?

I'm a fan not a cheerleader, on the face of this it looks like giving Red Don more money that we know his admin will abuse with little guarantees that they wont end the child abusing concentration camps.

[ehrnst]

53. So the NGO's don't have government contracts to care for these kids?

Really?

So what do you know at all about the topic? You certainly haven't shown much interest in learning about what's actually in the article before going off on a rant about Pelosi, why should we assume that you know any more about how the funding process actually works?

"on the face of this it looks like giving Red Don more money that we know his admin will abuse with little guarantees that they wont end the child abusing concentration camps."

GOP talking points about funding for food assistance and social safety nets - and how Medicaid is all going to fraud.

So what is the alternative to helping these kids than congress doing their job and getting an emergency funding bill passed? You are uncharacteristically silent when asked that.

"The Trump administration plans to pay a Texas nonprofit nearly half a billion dollars this year to care for immigrant children who were detained crossing the U.S. border illegally, according to government data."

[uponit7771]

58. You posted "government" run by trump, I don't trust them ... that's not hard. The bill could be ...

... better than giving Red Don money where there's no way to hold them responsible for spending it seeing they wont even show up for congressional hearings on their own.

So what is the alternative to helping these kids than congress doing their job and getting an emergency funding bill passed? You are uncharacteristically silent when asked that.

I posted multiple alternatives already, how about replying to them vs proffering useless sarcasm?

take just one

[ehrnst]

62. Again... you aren't really clear on the topic.

Sigh...again, reading the article at the OP will save you some embarassment.

Even more protections for migrants and congressional oversight will be added to the House bill on Tuesday, including care guidelines for unaccompanied children. The additions will also require the Department of Health and Human Services to notify Congress which requirements are being waived because of an influx of migrants.

I don't see any of the alternatives you posted.

Can you link to them?

[uponit7771]

63. You're not responding to request either ... not one ... I'm done

[ehrnst]

67. I doubt it... you are escaping answering the question that I asked

That you clearly didn't understand when you said "privately funded orgs will take over."

That's the GOP answer to most things, however, it's not legal for the government to hand over kids in their custody to the care of any entity that doesn't have a contract with the Government.

Those entities must be cleared as licensed. You think that any org is going to take these kids without a contract specifying how long and how much they will be reimbursed?

How does Child Protective Services have any authority over an entity that doesn't have a contract with the government? In what world is the government handing off kids to any private org with no contract or background check?

You really have no clue about how these things you are ranting about work, do you?

What do you think the concept behind foster care is? Ever heard of that?
"

[ehrnst]

50. Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it relevant or informed.

This is congress, not Trump, no matter how much you claim that Democrats are "Red Don's sychophants."

Even more protections for migrants and congressional oversight will be added to the House bill on Tuesday, including care guidelines for unaccompanied children. The additions will also require the Department of Health and Human Services to notify Congress which requirements are being waived because of an influx of migrants

Again... please try to read the article before embarassing yourself further.

[uponit7771]

52. Congress doesn't hand out the money personally to the NGOs

[ehrnst]

56. No one said that they did...

They authorize money for the contracts that an NGO must sign...Trump doesn't have any part of it.

Perhaps you aren't familiar with the concept of how orgs get paid by the Federal government.


Maybe you need to take a break.....

[uponit7771]

59. Good, outside of that there's no reason to trust Trump and his admin

[ehrnst]

60. So you don't want congressional oversight of the funding?

What's the alternative to this funding measure to help these kids get out of the temporary lockup?

Still waiting on that....

One can bellyache for days, but actually having some understanding of the situation, and being able to articulate that one does makes a difference in how seriously one's bellyaching will be taken.

[uponit7771]

61. You mean when Trump folk asked to come before congress tell them to pound sand? That "oversight"?

What's the alternative to this funding measure to help these kids get out of the temporary lockup?

Damn e, I've posted this multiple times ... one way conversations are boring

[ehrnst]

64. You seem to be underinformed about NGOs and their work with the Government...

Let me explain it for you.

If the government has custody of children, then they are responsible for the care of these children - including financially.

Are you still with me?

The unaccompanied children are in government care.

Still with me?

If they outsource the care of these children, they must have a contract with the entity caring for the children. The entity must be licensed, etc. The problem at hand is the children who are in the temporary holding facilities that are run by border patrol, not child welfare orgs who have an agreement - a contract - with the Federal Government.

Still with me?

The NGOs who have the contract are overrun, and beyond capacity. That is one reason that there is a backup, and children are staying in the facilities run by border patrol for more than the 48 hours maximum that they are supposed to.

Still with me?

The approved NGOs will get more money to take the increase in kids, and they will need to answer to congress when they are getting more crowded than the contract allows.

Even more protections for migrants and congressional oversight will be added to the House bill on Tuesday, including care guidelines for unaccompanied children. The additions will also require the Department of Health and Human Services to notify Congress which requirements are being waived because of an influx of migrants.

Now that didn't hurt, did it?

[uponit7771]

65. More useless condescension without comprehension of the other person position. That's boring

Get back to me when you can at the least post something close to my position in your own words ... otherwise I'm wall talking

[ehrnst]

68. Smarts to be schooled by someone who irritates you, isn't it?

You think that private entities take wards of the state in with no reimbursement, and government hands off wards of the state with no contract or background check and no reimbursement to those custodial entities?

Isn't that the fallacy you have based your "solution" on?

And I pointed out that this isn't the way things work at all. And you are now very mad.

[sprinkleeninow]

66. I just put in another call to Speaker Pelosi's DC office.

Of course, lamenting about the border situation.

'Needless to say' said it is heartbreaking as I and a multitude of others am experiencing.

Called what * and the administration are using is 'emotional blackmail'. Mb not the correct terminology, but what came to mind.

[yaesu]

73. we are fixing tRumps problems and this unimpeachable president will come out smelling like roses nt

[ehrnst]

78. So let the kids get sick, traumatized and possibly die so we can make him "look worse?"

Really?

The avoidable destruction by neglect of these kids very lives - both emotional and physical - are nothing more to you than "problems" that could be used against him to make him look bad?

That's sounds worthy of the GOP, not Democrats.

Listen to yourself.

[JoeOtterbein]

74. In the name of all of humanity file articles of impeachment ASAP!

Doing anything else in inhumane at this point.

[ehrnst]

76. So, you're saying don't authorize funding to help these kids - that it's "inhumane?"

And what good would impeachment do for these kids, right now?

It won't reduce by one day his time in office, as we know.

[orangecrush]

79. Why should we fund keeping kids in cages at all?

Why not whip a bill to put an end to these abuses once and for all?

Seems to me the money would be better spent reuniting familes.

[ehrnst]

107. So you think that providing a safe place for the kids in cages to go costs nothing?

Last edited Wed Jun 26, 2019, 09:37 AM - Edit history (1)

You think that uniting families will happen in 24 hours, so those kids in cages don't need a place to go until then?

Have you any idea what is in the bill you are ranting is useless?

Apparently not. It's easier to trash Democratic leaders as incompetent and perhaps enabling Trump, isn't it?


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-unveil-bill-to-bolster-medical-care-of-migrants-in-border-patrol-custody/

And it's certainly easier to promote GOP style talking points similar to "how how funding the social safety net simply encourages laziness or lack of employment, and is money badly spent. Refusing to help them is the moral thing to do in the grand scheme of things."

As a parent, I find throwing kids under the bus to punish or blame it on someone else unacceptable.

[JoeOtterbein]

85. Maybe, but it is for sure that believing Trump will use the money for any good is just not...

...safe for anyone anymore.

Impeach before Trump tortures more.

[ehrnst]

108. What good with impeachment do? It won't take him out of office, and it won't get those kids out

of concrete cells.

By all means, keep trashing efforts to actually get those kids out of jail cells into a shelter, with congressional oversight.

[JoeOtterbein]

116. What other evil can Trump do if we do not impeach?

Is a much more pertinent question now.

[ehrnst]

117. Again... how does impeachment help these kids, especially if it doesn't take him out of office?

Helping these kids now with this legislation isn't an alternative to impeachment.... why are people implying that it's either/or?

[mcar]

118. This is what I don't get, ehrnst

Everything seems to be a zero sum game, or an either/or.

The humanitarian crisis with these children is happening now. Impeachment hearings are a completely separate issue, would take months, and would not do anything about the atrocities happening now.

[ehrnst]

121. "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." (nt)

[mcar]

123. Yep

[stillcool]

77. It sounds like some people would prefer...

the federal government shut down, until they have their way...whatever that is. Screw the consequences. No solutions, just blame, and condemnation of anyone or thing that doesn't meet their standards...whatever those are. Assuming they do not have agenda's, what would be the up-side to constantly behaving this way? Is it just the all-American arrogant ignorance? Seem like an awful lot of energy to expend on nothing.

[George II]

83. Sadly back in January (or was it February) some DEMOCRATS voted to keep the government....

....closed because the bill contained funding for ICE, even though it didn't!

[Bettie]

80. I get wanting the funding for the kids and the government

but what will happen with that funding other than raising the rate they pay contractors per kid? So, more will go into the pockets of private companies and all of those children will still be in cages, covered with foil blankets and given no actual care.

Fund it, yes, but it is foolish to expect conditions to improve. What I do expect is for the kids to be moved to places where no one can come in to see what's going on.

[orangecrush]

81. Someone is lobbying hard on this.

You make an excellent point.

[Bettie]

82. If companies are currently being paid hundreds per kid

they can afford toothbrushes, soap, and bathing facilities. Right. Now.

They choose to maximize their profit by providing the very least they can while keeping most of the kids alive.

More funding won't fix the problem, taking funding away won't fix it either.

[orangecrush]

84. They need to stop

tearing families apart and caging kids.

Period.

"how can we do it better" is not what we should be asking.

[ehrnst]

90. Actually, the bill makes them much more accountable to congress and less to HHS.

But I guess you think that's bad, too?

Carry on bashing.

[Bettie]

95. I simply don't believe that any of our government actually

works at this point.

Oversight only works if the applicable agencies are willing to cooperate.

[ehrnst]

109. Do you have an alternative to the bill? Please share.

Do we just forget about the kids then? Give up getting any congressional oversight over the NGOs who are caring for the kids that are in shelters right now?

Seriously - if you have an alternative, please let us know. Otherwise, just throwing up our hands and doing nothing is way worse than congress doing something.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-unveil-bill-to-bolster-medical-care-of-migrants-in-border-patrol-custody/

[Bettie]

112. Actually, they should vote for it

I am simply skeptical of it doing any good whatsoever. Ultimately, whether it passes or not, the people in charge (hint: not decent people) will ensure that the children and adults in this situation continue to live in squalid, unhealthy conditions.

Plus, I doubt that the house bill will see the light of day in the Senate. McConnell is adverse to actually helping human people in any way.

But, by all means, continue to be angry at me for expressing an opinion if it makes you happy. I have literally zero power to make people vote or not vote for anything.

[ehrnst]

115. You take offense at my asking you for specifics on your statements?

None intended.

You stated that government isn't functioning any more, so what was I to extrapolate from that about this legislation?

[Bettie]

125. Whatever. Sorry for saying anything

I'm really regretting taking the people from last primary season's list off of ignore.

You are welcome to believe that everything is peachy and moving along just fine. I disagree.

[ehrnst]

130. That's not an accurate description of what I have said here.

Straw man.

Whatever.

[ehrnst]

110. Bull. This bill has NOTHING to do with separating families.

You really think that's what Dems are doing with this bill? This bill that addresses the needs of children in detention?

This sounds like a GOP talking point about food assistance for families - that it's bad because it's "helping give lazy parents an excuse not to work."

You think that helping these kids, in cells right now, is somehow = to enabling family separation?

How did we come to that on DU?

SMH...

[ehrnst]

92. You are confusing the shelters with the border patrol cells.

These kids that have no toothbrushes or soap are in the cells waiting to get to shelters, which are full.

Is that clearer?

But currently the NGOs don't answer to congress. This bill would require it, including giving congress access to inspect shelters at any time with no notice. The shelter must abide by standards set in the bill, or their contract is cancelled.

It includes no funding for DOD or the wall.

[moondust]

88. That was my question as well.

Who gets the money and for doing what exactly? Needs accountability.

Taxpayers should NOT be funding a detention profit motive.

[ehrnst]

91. Well, reading the article makes that clear, if you bother to read it.

The bill would give congress far more oversight than they have now.

Their contract can be discontinued if they are not following the requirements this bill sets down.

It would be even more foolish to expect conditions to improve by doing nothing, wouldn't it?

[Amyishere]

129. That's exactly it. If they are not even allowed in to see the children how do you know how they are?

You don't. That money could be going into greedy pockets.

Unless there is legislation that grants emergency powers to get agencies like the Red Cross and UN in to see the conditions personally for themselves, along with the legislators, without any notice at all, then it is just like continually giving money to a kidnapper in the hopes they don't kill the hostage.

[betsuni]

89. K&R

[moondust]

98. CBP Custody Act

~
...spearheaded by California Rep. Raul Ruiz, will help prevent more deaths. The four-term lawmaker, a former emergency physician, denounced the conditions he has witnessed in detention facilities for migrants.
~
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-unveil-bill-to-bolster-medical-care-of-migrants-in-border-patrol-custody/

Rep. Ruiz was on All In a few minutes ago. Sounds like a good bill by somebody who knows what he's doing that needs to be passed.

[Thomas Hurt]

128. Just call him a fascist and be done with it...

[Midnightwalk]

134. Difficult reading

The decision to vote for this bill is frustrating but straightforward in my opinion.

The bill has more safeguards than the senate bill. I have no doubt that not all the extra money will be spent on improving conditions but some will. The grifters will manage to get some. We might be able to get some money back from the grifters but probably not all.

The bill doesn’t address the root of the problem which is family separation, zero tolerance, not letting asylum seekers apply properly and the intention to act brutally.

So what?

I would supporting more legislation to adress the root causes even if it won’t pass the senate or gets vetoed. If there were changes that made more e of the money get applied to improving conditions I’d support that as well, but it would have to pass the senate as well. I’d support impeaching the president even though that won’t result in removal. That by itself will not improve conditions.

I’m frustrated at myself as well for not doing enough. I’ve written my representative and senators but I should be spending time standing outside one of these places. By the way, is there a list of addresses in Arizona?

No matter how disgusting and frustrating the situation is the question is really simple. Will this bill help with the conditions these kids are enduring? I think so and that’s why i support it. I’ll support other legislation that does more.

If I thought there was a chance withholding this funding would cause the whole shit pile system to crash I would have to think harder, but I believe all that would do is provide no relief for the children and make us take some of the responsibility for the conditions

I’ll almost always take improvements over stagnation.