People

The Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018, Story 1: Temporary Schumer Shutdown vs. Permanent Downsizing The Federal Government By Closing Eight Federal Department and Agencies — Balanced Budgets or Living Within The Means of The American People — Blame Both Big Government Parties for Obese Government Resulting From Spending Addiction Disorder — When Will The Big Government Parties Balance The Budget? — The 12th of Never — Videos

Posted on January 21, 2018. Filed under: Addiction, American History, Books, Breaking News, Bribery, Cartoons, Communications, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, History, Housing, Human, Human Behavior, Investments, Language, Law, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Natural Gas, News, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, President Trump, Privacy, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Scandals, Security, Social Networking, Social Security, Success, Taxes, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1013, December 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1012, December 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1011, December 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1010, December 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1009, December 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1007, November 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1006, November 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1005, November 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1004, November 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1003, November 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1002, November 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1001, November 14, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 1000, November 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 999, November 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 998, November 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 997, November 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 996, November 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 995, November 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 994, November 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 993, November 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 992, October 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 991, October 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 990, October 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 989, October 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 988, October 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 987, October 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 986, October 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 985, October 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 984, October 16, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 983, October 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 982, October 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 981, October 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 979, October 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

See the source image

Updated

 Story 1: Temporary Schumer Shutdown vs. Permanent Downsizing The Federal Government By Closing Eight Federal Department and Agencies — Balanced Budgets or Living Within The Means of The American People — Blame Both Big Government Parties for Obese Government Resulting From Spending Addiction Disorder — When Will The Big Government Parties Balance The Budget? — The 12th of Never — Videos

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

USA Debt Clock

US Debt Clock

See the source image

See the source image

Latest on the government shutdown

U.S. government shutdown underway amid blame game

This Is What Happens When The U.S. Government Shuts Down | CNBC

What Happens During A Government Shutdown, And How Will It Affect You? | TODAY

President Trump Blames Democrats For Government Shutdown | TODAY

Government Shutdown: America’s Closed

TRUMP SHUTDOWN GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN Fox Report Weekend 1 20 18 I Fox News Today January 20, 2018

PBS NewsHour Weekend full episode Jan. 20, 2018

Government shutdown: How it happened

White House Press Briefing 1/19/18 – Government Shutdown – January 19, 2018

🔴WATCH: White House Press Briefing on Possible Government Shutdown LIVE 1/19/18

Shields and Brooks on government shutdown blame, Trump’s first year

How a government shutdown could affect Americans

U.S. shutdown showdown Q&A

What would a government shutdown mean?

Trump comments on looming government shutdown

Congress deadlocked on DACA as shutdown looms

Tomi: Liberals are going crazy because Trump is winning

TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism

Milton Friedman – Deficits and Government Spending

Milton Friedman – A Limit On Spending

Does Government Have a Revenue or Spending Problem?

Milton Friedman On John Maynard Keynes

Milton Friedman: The Rise of Socialism is Absurd

Milton Friedman: What is Actually Wrong with Socialism?

Milton Friedman: The Two Major Enemies of a Free Society

Friedrich Hayek: Why Intellectuals Drift Towards Socialism

Johnny Mathis – 12th of Never

ELVIS PRESLEY TWELVE OF NEVER

Appendix

BlueprintforBalance_AFederalBudgetforFY2018_AppendixTable01

What is the Deficit?

Deficit: The amount by which the government’s total budget outlays exceeds its total receipts for a fiscal year. US Senate Budget Committee

In FY 2017 the federal deficit was $666 billion. But the gross federal debt increased by $700 billion. Here is why.

This year, FY 2018, the federal government in its latest budget has estimated that the deficit will be $440 billion.

Here is the federal deficit by year for the last decade:

Deficits in billions
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
$161 $458 $1,413 $1,294 $1,295 $1,087 $679 $485 $438 $585 $666

Click for deficits from 1960 to present.

See also deficit as percent of GDP.

 

Federal Deficit Analysis

Federal

Recent US Federal Deficits by Year

Chart D.01f: Recent US Federal Deficits
(click chart to see the numbers)

Federal Deficits were declining in the mid 2000s as the nation climbed out of the 2000-02 recession. But the recession that started late in 2006 drove deficits higher, with a deficit in FY2009 driven up by over $700 billion in bank bailouts under the TARP program.

After the Crash of 2008 the federal deficits did not go below $1 trillion until FY2013.

Budgeted US Federal Deficits

Chart D.02f: Budgeted US Federal Deficits

The FY2018 federal budget estimates budget deficits out to 2022. It forecasts moderate deficits at about $500 billion per year.

 

But there’s more

The federal debt increases each year by more than the deficit. For FY 2016 the federal budget estimates that the federal debt will increase by about $1 trillion. That’s about $250 billion more than the official “deficit.” See Federal Debt.

But there’s more. There is the increase in debt from the “agency debt” of government-sponsored enterprises. And there is the implied deficit from unfunded liabilities like Social Security and Medicare. See chart of latest Long-term Budget Outlook from the Congressional Budget Office.

Now you are ready to explore. Click here for the basics on the national debt and deficits. Click here for a look at overall government spending; click here for a look at the federal budget by function. And there is no better place to get up to speed than Spending 101’s online course on Federal Debt.

US Federal Deficits in the 20th Century

Chart D.03f: Federal Deficit in 20th Century

The two major peaks of the federal deficit in the 20th century occurred during World War I and World War II.

Deficits increased steadily from the 1960s through the early 1990s, and then declined rapidly for the remainder of the 1990s.

Federal deficits increased in the early 2000s, and went over 10 percent of GDP in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008.

In the recovery from the Crash of 2008 deficits have slowly reduced to 3 percent of GDP.

US Federal Deficits since the Founding

Chart D.04f: Federal Deficit since Founding

The United States government did not always run a deficit. In the 19th century the federal government typically only ran deficits during wartime or during financial crises. The government ran a deficit of 2 percent of GDP at the end of the war of 1812, and through the decade after the Panic of 1837 and culminating in the US – Mexican War of 1846-48. It ran a deficit of over 7 percent of GDP in the Civil War; and ran a deficit in the depressed 1890s.
In the 20th century the US ran a deficit during World War I, the Great Depression, World War II, and in almost all years since 1960, during peace and war.

Top Debt Requests:

Find DEFICIT stats and history.

US BUDGET overview and pie chart.

Find NATIONAL DEBT today.

See FEDERAL BUDGET breakdown and estimated vs. actual.

See BAR CHARTS of debtdebt.

Check STATE debt: CA NY TX FL and compare.

See DEBT ANALYSIS briefing.

See DEBT HISTORY briefing.

Take a COURSE at Spending 101.

Make your own CUSTOM CHART.

Debt Data Sources

Debt data is from official government sources.

Gross Domestic Product data comes from US Bureau of Economic Analysis and measuringworth.com.

Detailed table of debt data sources here.

Federal debt data begins in 1792.

State and local debt data begins in 1820.

State and local debt data for individual states begins in 1957.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

What’s Ahead for 2018 and Beyond: Big Deficits and Fiscal Stalemate

In 2010, as congressional Democrats moved to enact Obamacare, Sen. Orrin Hatch echoed fellow Republicans in denouncing “trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.”

In fact, the record trillion-dollar deficit former President Barack Obama inherited was falling even then as the economy recovered from recession and financial crisis. By the time Obama left office last January, it dropped by two-thirds as a share of the U.S. economy.

But now the Utah senator’s prophecy is coming true. With a boost from tax cuts he helped his party push through Congress, the U.S. government indeed faces uninterrupted trillion-dollar deficits once the effects kick in during the next fiscal year.

The largest reason is America’s aging population. Over the next decade, the number of Americans drawing Social Security and Medicare benefits is projected to rise from 45 million to 60 million.

In June, the Congressional Budget Office forecast that would push the deficit back over the trillion-dollar mark in the 2022 fiscal year, during the next presidential term. Yet now the government is on track for that to happen before President Donald Trump completes his third year of this term.

That dubious achievement stems from three factors.

The first is the structural 2019 deficit that CBO estimated at $689 billion before major Trump administration policy changes.

The second is the spending agreement Republicans and Democrats expect to reach next month to avert a potential government shutdown. That agreement, raising current spending caps for both defense and domestic programs, would add roughly $100 billion in 2019 spending.

The third is revenue loss from the new tax cut. The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation forecasts, after accounting for faster economic growth, a loss of $245 billion.

That signals a 2019 deficit of $1.034 trillion, not counting new relief funds for recent natural disasters. Similar dynamics would keep annual deficits above $1 trillion through at least 2027, even if Congress allows the new individual tax cuts to expire as scheduled after 2025.

As a share of the growing economy, that would fall far below the 9.8 percent level deficits reached during the worst of the recession. Government had no trouble financing those deficits with inexpensive borrowing then, and there’s no sign of trouble now.

Yet higher deficits pose some risks.

They make it harder for government to resolve long-term solvency problems when the last baby boom retirements leave 77 million on Social Security and Medicare in 2033.

They reduce government’s flexibility to respond with fiscal stimulus when the long-running economic expansion turns into the next recession. They may even hasten the point at which that happens.

“There’s a danger the seeds of the next recession are built into the tax bill,” says William Hoagland, a longtime Senate Republican budget aide now at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

By heaping stimulus onto conditions of steady growth and low unemployment, he reasons, the tax cut could overheat the economy. That, in turn, could lead new Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell to raise interest rates faster than expected, triggering a downturn.

And if deficit headlines damage the investor confidence now buoying stock markets, there’s little Washington is likely to do about it anytime soon.

The forthcoming budget deal would foreclose cuts in annually approved spending. The White House, in fact, wants more money for new infrastructure spending.

Administration officials have signaled their plan will call for $200 billion in government money to stimulate much larger infrastructure investments by business. But Democrats consider that amount too small and geared toward private profit, while Republicans won’t be eager to send deficits still higher.

House Speaker Paul Ryan speaks of curbing major, automatically approved entitlement programs, the largest of which are Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell disclaims interest.

Trump promises unspecified “welfare reform.” But with Republican poll numbers sagging before midterm elections, slashing food stamps and other benefits for the poor would add new perils after tax cuts that deliver disproportionate benefits to businesses and the wealthy.

“A year of stalemate,” Hoagland predicts.

Trump, Ryan and McConnell, who huddle in a few days to plot next moves, insist the tax cuts will spark more deficit-reducing growth than mainstream forecasters expect. That may be the best they can hope for in 2018.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/12/29/Whats-Ahead-2018-and-Beyond-Big-Deficits-and-Fiscal-Stalemate

 

Who will be blamed for the government shutdown?

Associated Press
Park Ranger Amy Fink carries cones to use in the Bear Lake trailhead in Rocky Mountain National Park, Saturday, Jan. 20, 2018, in Estes Park, Colo. Despite a government shutdown, Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado and Yosemite National Park in California were open, but few Park Service staff were available to help visitors. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sure, Republicans and Democrats are battling over spending and immigration. But they’re also battling over blame.

On Day One of a government shutdown, both parties on Saturday launched a frantic messaging campaign aimed at mitigating the political blowback. The side that gets labeled responsible for the historic display of dysfunction may not only lose this fight, they could end up carrying that baggage into the midterm elections in November.

Republicans say Democrats are to blame because they’ve so far refused to go along with recent proposals for short-term temporary spending measures. Democrats argue that Republicans are stalling on immigration negotiations. They’re trying to force concessions from Republican that would shield from deportation the so-called Dreamers — the young immigrants protected under the Deferred Action for New Arrivals program.

A look at what Democratic and Republican strategists and other experts say about who will be blamed for the government shutdown:

___

Republican strategist Kevin Sheridan, former Republican National Committee spokesman and adviser to the Romney-Ryan presidential campaign in 2012:

“Democrat messaging is a mess. They are delusional to think DACA, which is unrelated to keeping the government open and doesn’t expire until at least March 5, but probably longer, is more important to the American people than paychecks for our troops and health insurance for children. Democrats do not oppose anything in the (continuing resolution) and after six years of governing by (continuing resolution) can’t make a credible case they oppose” them.

“They simply want to signal to their base that they are resisting the president. That’s not negotiating.”

___

Ross Baker, political scientist at Rutgers University:

“I think that Republicans are pushing up against a very uncomfortable fact and that is that they do control, although nominally, all the branches of the federal government and, consequently, I think it’s easier to hold them responsible.” Baker said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has been “quite focused on trying to pin this on the Democrats,” but doubted he would be successful.

Baker adds that Republicans complaining that they only control 51 seats in the 100-member Senate isn’t an effective strategy. “If you have to retreat to procedural language and drag people into the legislative process and intricacies, it’s a difficult argument to make,” he said.

___

Josh Holmes, longtime adviser to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

“I think Democrats made a series of really grave mistakes, chief among them is having a three-week debate about the DACA program, which will likely get a solution but certainly didn’t call for a government shutdown to achieve it. And what that did is frame the entire debate … their purpose for shutting the government down is to try to provide citizenship for people who are currently here illegally. And that juxtaposed with soldiers and sick, poor kids is not a good set of optics.”

“It’s a lazy arrogance when it comes to political fortunes. The thing that gets you every time is this view that just because things have been going you way politically for a series of months it’ll go your way no matter what. So the conclusion there is, ‘the president has a 40 percent approval rating there 60 percent of the country is going to be with us.’ Well, not when it comes to choosing people who are not Americans over American soldiers.”

___

William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who worked in the Clinton administration:

“Traditionally the party in power, especially when there’s total unified government, is held responsible for policy outcomes. That’s what history says, but history also said that someone like Donald Trump couldn’t be elected president of the United States. I reference history with many more reservations than I used to.”

Galston adds: “Democrats are likely to be at an advantage in the struggle to assign blame, among other things because an effective message campaign requires what the professionals call message discipline, and that hasn’t been Donald Trump’s strong-suit. One impulsive tweet could undo a week of strategy.”

___

Michael Steel, press secretary for former House Speaker John Boehner from 2008-2015:

“Republicans from President Trump on down are clear and unified on why Washington Democrats forced this shutdown, while the Democrats can’t get on the same page. The American people know it was Washington Democrats who voted against funding the government and children’s health insurance. This is all on their heads.”

___

Former Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., a 38-year House veteran who was defeated in 2014:

“There’s risks on all sides. It’s obvious that Democrats are playing to their base and Republicans are playing to their base,” he said. “Everybody loses. It just feeds into the fed-up atmosphere of the American people that, No. 1, elected Donald Trump in the first place and, No. 2, I don’t think will put up with him in the second instance.”

Rahall says wave elections — one party wins a huge number of seats, often sweeping into control of the House or Senate — are getting “bigger and occurring more often because of the shenanigans the American people view are going on in Congress. I expect another wave this year, perhaps bigger than ever.”

Asked if it was worth it for Democrats to cause a shutdown over their demands to protect the young Dreamers from deportation, Rahall said, “I don’t think so, certainly not in my home state of West Virginia.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/blamed-government-shutdown-001901401.html

 

In second day of shutdown, Republicans, Democrats dig in for fight

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Republicans and Democrats appeared to harden their positions on Sunday as both sides hunkered down for what could be a prolonged fight, with a U.S. government shutdown in its second day.

Democrats demanded that U.S. President Donald Trump negotiate on immigration issues as part of any agreement to resume government funding and accused him of reneging on an earlier accord to protect “Dreamers,” illegal immigrants brought to the United States as children, from deportation.

“I hope it is just a matter of hours or days. But we need to have a substantive answer, and the only person who can lead us to that is President Trump. This is his shutdown,” Dick Durbin, the second ranking Democrat in the Senate, said on the CBS “Face the Nation” program.

Republicans were just as adamant, saying they would not negotiate immigration or other issues as long as all but essential government services remain shuttered.

Speaking to U.S. troops at a military base in the Middle East, Vice President Mike Pence said, “We’re not going to reopen negotiations on illegal immigration until they reopen the government and give you, our soldiers and your families, the benefits and wages you’ve earned.”

A bipartisan group of senators met on Sunday in a Senate office building, searching for ways out of the crisis.

Moderate Republican Senator Susan Collins said a group of as many as 22 senators were discussing alternatives, though the details were “in flux.” She added it would be up to Senate Republican and Democratic leaders “as to how to proceed.”

After funding for federal agencies ran out at midnight on Friday, many U.S. government employees were told to stay home or in some cases work without pay until new funding is approved. The shutdown is the first since a 16-day closure in October 2013, with the effects being more visible on Monday, when government offices normally would reopen.

With elections set for November for a third of U.S. Senate seats and the entire House of Representatives, both sides are maneuvering to blame the other for the shutdown.

Trump said on Sunday that if the stalemate continued, Republicans should change Senate rules so a measure could be passed to fund the government.

Current Senate rules require a super-majority of three-fifths of the chamber, usually 60 out of 100, for legislation to clear procedural hurdles and pass.

“If stalemate continues, Republicans should go to 51 percent (Nuclear Option) and vote on real, long term budget,” Trump said on Twitter.

But Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, from Trump’s own party, rejected the idea.

Republicans hold a slim 51-49 majority in the Senate.

A traffic light shines red after President Donald Trump and the U.S. Congress failed to reach a deal on funding for federal agencies in Washington, U.S., January 20, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

Trump canceled a trip to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida that included a major fundraiser on the anniversary of his first year as president. The White House said his planned trip to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, next week was in flux because of the standoff.

‘HOSTAGES RIPE FOR THE TAKING’

“I’m kind of keeping hope alive here that before 1 a.m. tomorrow morning that we’ll have something that gets us out of this jam,” Senator John Thune, a junior member of the Republican leadership, told reporters.

The Senate will vote at 1 a.m. EST (0600 GMT) on Monday on whether to advance a measure to fund the government through Feb. 8, unless Democrats agree to hold it sooner, McConnell said on Saturday.

The level of support for the bill was uncertain, but given Democratic leaders’ public statements, it seemed unlikely the measure would receive the 60 votes required to advance.

In a Senate floor speech on Sunday, McConnell accused Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of imperiling children’s health care, military training, veterans’ care and other programs.

“To most Americans, those sound like fundamental responsibilities” of government, McConnell said. “To the Democratic leader, apparently they sound like hostages ripe for the taking.”

White House budget director Mick Mulvaney said Trump had instructed him to ease the effects of the shutdown as much as possible.

“The president has told me, make sure as many people go to work Monday as possibly can. Use every tool legally available to you,” Mulvaney said on “Face the Nation.”

Amid the sensitive talks to reopen the government, Trump’s campaign on Saturday released a 30-second advertisement on immigration.

The ad, posted on YouTube, focuses on the ongoing death penalty trial in Sacramento, California, of Luis Bracamontes, an illegal immigrant from Mexico accused of killing two local deputies in 2014.

“President Trump is right. Build the wall. Deport criminals. Stop illegal immigration,” an announcer says in the ad. “Democrats who stand in our way will be complicit in every murder committed by illegal immigrants,” the announcer says.

Democrats condemned the ad, and Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan told “Face the Nation,” “I don’t know if that’s necessarily productive.”

Schumer and his colleagues accused Trump of being an unreliable negotiating partner, saying the two sides came close to a deal on immigration several times, only to have Trump back out under pressure from anti-immigration conservatives.

Reporting by Susan Cornwell and Howard Schneider; Additional reporting by Jeff Mason traveling with Pence; Writing by Warren Strobel; Editing by John Stonestreet and Jeffrey Benkoe

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-shutdown-trump/in-second-day-of-shutdown-republicans-democrats-dig-in-for-fight-idUSKBN1FA0OO

 

Senate Rejects Short-Term Spending Bill; Talks Continue as Shutdown Looms

Last-ditch talks between Donald Trump and Chuck Schumer failed to yield deal after House passed one-month spending bill

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) walked into the Capitol after meeting with President Donald Trump at the White House on Friday.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) walked into the Capitol after meeting with President Donald Trump at the White House on Friday. PHOTO: JACQUELYN MARTIN/ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON—The Senate rejected Friday a short-term spending bill to keep the federal government operating. Barring further action, the defeat will trigger a shutdown of many government services.

The vote was 50-48 against the bill, but the vote remained open as senators gathered on the chamber’s floor to discuss whether they could come up with a short-term plan. The bill required the approval of 60 senators to pass.

The bill, approved by the House on Thursdaylargely with GOP votes, would have funded the government through Feb. 16. Lawmakers have no clear fallback plan, and aides said they were expecting the government to partially close on the first anniversary of President Donald Trump’s inauguration.

In the Capitol on Friday, leaders mired in disputes over immigration and spending refused to take the first step toward preventing a shutdown without concessions from across the aisle.

“I think it is almost 100% likely the government will shut down for some period of time,” said Rep. John Yarmuth (D., Ky.) after meeting with other members of House Democratic leadership before the vote. “Everything we see indicates there’s no way to avoid a shutdown.”

Lawmakers vowed to continue negotiations over the weekend, some holding out hope a resolution could be reached over the weekend and before normal business hours resume on Monday. Their disagreements range from the amounts to allocate for military and domestic spending to provisions, demanded by Democrats, aimed at providing protections to young immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents.

The measure failed despite intense negotiations throughout the day. In a last-ditch effort to strike a deal Friday, Mr. Trump had met in the early afternoon with Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the chamber’s Democratic leader, and he called House Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) later. Although Mr. Trump and Mr. Schumer said progress was made in their meeting, it failed to yield an immediate long-term agreement.

One senator briefed on the meeting between the president and Mr. Schumer said it didn’t go well, putting the onus back on Congress to find a path forward. Another person familiar with the meeting said it wasn’t contentious, but it made clear that neither side would budge.

Mr. Trump called it an “excellent preliminary meeting in Oval with @SenSchumer” in a tweet Friday evening, writing that they were “making progress.”

But without any breakthrough on the immigration and spending issues that have stymied lawmakers for weeks, Washington prepared for the first major shutdown of a government controlled by one party.

A half-hour before the Senate was set to vote, Mr. Trump tweeted that averting a shutdown was “not looking good.”

“Dems want a Shutdown in order to help diminish the great success of the Tax Cuts, and what they are doing for our booming economy,” he wrote.

As the hours ticked down, both parties worked to ensure any political fallout would fall on the other side of the aisle in a year when control of both chambers is up for grabs in the fall’s midterm elections. Democrats stressed that Republicans control both chambers of Congress, as well as the White House.

“Their ability to govern is so tremendously in question right now,” Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.) said.

Republicans chastised Democrats for derailing the spending bill in the Senate over an immigration debate that faces a later deadline.

“Apparently they believe that the issue of illegal immigration is more important than everything else, all of the government services people depend on,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said on the Senate floor Friday.

The immigration fight stretches back to September, when Mr. Trump ended a programshielding the young illegal immigrants known as Dreamers from deportation. He gave Congress until March 5 to hash out a replacement.

Democrats sought to use their leverage on the spending bill, which needed their votes to clear the Senate, to secure legal protections for the Dreamers. Lawmakers from both parties have been meeting to hammer out a compromise but weren’t able to reach one by the government-funding deadline.

“I do think both sides want a deal and it’s going to happen,” said Marc Short, the White House director of legislative affairs, on Friday night. But he said lawmakers were “too far apart this time to get it done in the next 48 hours.”

Much of the government’s work is expected to continue despite the shutdown, as the Trump administration aims to apply what senior administration officials called flexibility to shutdown rules that contain a variety of exceptions.

Social Security payments would be deposited as 53,000 workers for that agency stay on the job, as would Medicare reimbursements, because the payments don’t rely on an annual appropriation. In addition, Mr. Trump’s agencies aim to go further than previous shutdowns and existing plans on the book, keeping agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency open with unused funds, as well as national parks.

Mr. Trump’s own activities, including planned travel to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, can continue under an exemption for activity required by the president to carry out his constitutional duties. However, the president’s scheduled departure for his Florida resort on Friday afternoon was canceled.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis also isn’t halting a planned trip to Asia this weekend; the military will generally continue operations, as will the Department of Homeland Security under exceptions for essential activities.

The director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, Mick Mulvaney, said Friday that his agency intended a different shutdown approach from the one taken by the Obama administration in 2013.

“We are going to manage the shutdown differently; we are not going to weaponize it,” Mr. Mulvaney said.

Still, Republicans worried that their party would shoulder an unfair portion of the blame, given that they control both chambers of Congress and the White House.

“We can say the Democrats voted against” funding the government, said Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.). “On the other hand, we control everything.”

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), who has been one of four lawmakers involved in immigration negotiations with the White House, blamed the bind on the president and the Republicans.

“We don’t want to shut down this government. We want to solve the problems facing this government and this nation, and that means working together, something which Sen. McConnell has not engaged in,” Mr. Durbin said.

Write to Kristina Peterson at kristina.peterson@wsj.com, Natalie Andrews at Natalie.Andrews@wsj.com and Siobhan Hughes at siobhan.hughes@wsj.com

Appeared in the January 20, 2018, print edition as ‘Federal Shutdown Seen as Likely.’

https://www.wsj.com/articles/showdown-looms-as-senate-democrats-prepare-to-reject-spending-bill-1516364692

 

List of federal agencies in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a list of agencies of the United States federal government.

Legislative definitions of a federal agency are varied, and even contradictory, and the official United States Government Manual offers no definition.[1][2] While the Administrative Procedure Act definition of “agency” applies to most executive branch agencies, Congress may define an agency however it chooses in enabling legislation, and subsequent litigation, often involving the Freedom of Information Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act. These further cloud attempts to enumerate a list of agencies.[3][4]

The executive branch of the federal government includes the Executive Office of the President and the United States federal executive departments (whose secretaries belong to the Cabinet). Employees of the majority of these agencies are considered civil servants.

The majority of the independent agencies of the United States government are also classified as executive agencies (they are independent in that they are not subordinated under a Cabinet position). There are a small number of independent agencies that are not considered part of the executive branch, such as the Library of Congress and Congressional Budget Office, administered directly by Congress and thus are legislative branch agencies.

Legislative Branch

Seal of the United States Congress.svg

Agencies and other entities within the legislative branch:

Judicial Branch

Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg

Agencies within the judicial branch:

Specialty Courts

Executive Branch

Executive Office of the President

Seal of the President of the United States.svg

Main article: Executive Office of the President of the United States

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Seal of the United States Department of Agriculture.svg

United States Department of Commerce

Seal of the United States Department of Commerce.svg

United States Department of Defense (DOD)

United States Department of Defense Seal.svg

United States Department of Education

Seal of the United States Department of Education.svg
  • United States Secretary of Education
    • United States Deputy Secretary of Education
      • United States Under Secretary of Education
        • United States Deputy Under Secretary of Education

Department of Education structure

Office of the Secretary (OS)
Office of the Under Secretary (OUS)
Office of the Deputy Secretary (ODS)
Other federal agencies, centers, boards, clearinghouses

United States Department of Energy

Seal of the United States Department of Energy.svg

United States Department of Health and Human Services

Seal of the United States Department of Health and Human Services.svg

United States Department of Homeland Security

Seal of the United States Department of Homeland Security.svg
  • United States Secretary of Homeland Security
    • United States Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security

Agencies and Offices, Library and Coast Guard and Teams and schools

Offices and Councils

Management

National Protection and Programs

Science and Technology

Portfolios
Divisions
Offices and institutes

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

Seal of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.svg
  • United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
    • United States Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

Agencies[edit]

Offices and Centers and Library and University[edit]

Corporation

United States Department of the Interior

Seal of the United States Department of the Interior.svg

United States Department of Justice

Seal of the United States Department of Justice.svg

United States Department of Labor (DOL)

Seal of the United States Department of Labor.svg
  • United States Secretary of Labor
    • United States Deputy Secretary of Labor

Agencies and Bureaus and Corporation and Center and Program and Library and University

Boards[edit]
Offices and Offices of
  • Office of Security
  • Energy
  • Defense
  • Veterans Affairs
  • General Counsel
  • Labor
  • Commerce
  • Ethics
  • Compliance
  • NA Affairs
  • Agriculture
  • Housing and Urban Development
  • Homeland Security
  • Health
  • Labor Policy
  • Administrative Law
  • State
  • Science
  • Technology
  • Interior
  • White House Liaison
  • Public Affairs
  • Education
  • Civil Rights
  • Treasury
  • Transportation
  • Justice
  • Office of Emergency Management
  • Office of Labor Intelligence
  • Office of Administrative Law Judges
  • Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management
  • Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy
  • Management
  • Administration
  • Communications
  • CPO
  • CISO
  • CHCO
  • CHRO
  • CTO
  • Office of the Chief Financial Officer
  • Office of the Chief Information Officer
  • Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
  • Office of Disability Employment Policy
  • Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
  • Office of Labor-Management Standards
  • Office of the Solicitor
  • Office of Worker’s Compensation Program
  • Ombudsman for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program
  • Wirtz Labor Library

United States Department of State (DOS)

US Department of State official seal.svg
  • United States Secretary of State
    • United States Deputy Secretary of State

Agencies and Bureaus and Offices and Library and Boards and Councils and schools

Reporting to the Secretary
Reporting to the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources
Reporting to the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security
Reporting to the Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights
Reporting to the Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment
Reporting to the Under Secretary for Managemen
Reporting to the Under Secretary for Political Affairs
Reporting to the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs

Permanent Diplomatic Missions

United States Department of Transportation

Seal of the United States Department of Transportation.svg

Operating Administrations[edit]

United States Department of the Treasury

Seal of the United States Department of the Treasury.svg

Bureaus[8]

United States Department of Veterans Affairs

Seal of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.svg
  • United States Secretary of Veterans Affairs
    • United States Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs

Agencies and university

Boards and offices and library

  • National Veterans Affairs Library
  • Office of International Affairs
  • Office of Security
  • Office of Emergency Management
  • Office of Veterans Affairs Statistics
  • Office Of Veterans Affairs Intelligence
  • DOVA Office of the Inspector General
  • Board of Veterans’ Appeals
  • Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
  • Center for Minority Veterans
  • Center for Veterans Enterprise
  • Center for Women Veterans
  • Office of Advisory Committee Management
  • Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication
  • Office of Survivors Assistance
  • Office of Acquisition, Logistics, and Construction
  • Office of Information and Technology
  • Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
  • Veterans Service Organizations Liaison

Independent agencies and government-owned corporations

Established under United States Constitution Article I, Section 4[edit]

Elections

Established under Article I, Section 8

Administrative agencies[edit]
Civil Service agencies
Commerce regulatory agencies

Government Commissions and Committees and Consortium

Education and broadcasting agencies
Energy and science agencies
Foreign investment agencies
Interior agencies
Labor agencies
Monetary and financial agencies
Postal agencies
Retirement agencie
Federal Property and Seat of Government agencies
Transportation agencies
Volunteerism agencies

Authority under Article II, Section 1

Defense and security agencies[edit]

Authority under Amendment XIV

Civil rights agencies[edit]

Other agencies and corporations

Joint programs and interagency agencies

  • Joint Fire Science Program
  • National Interagency Fire Center

Special Inspector General Office

Quasi-official agencies

Arts & cultural agencies

Museum agencies

Commerce & technology agencies

Defense & diplomacy agencies

Human service & community development Agencies

Interior agencies

Law & justice agencies

See also

References

Notes[edit]

  1. Jump up^ Fischer 2011, pp. 1-2.
  2. Jump up^ Federal Register 2013.
  3. Jump up^ Lewis & Selin 2013, pp. 13-14.
  4. Jump up^ Kamensky 2013.
  5. Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k “Our Administrations”US Department of Transportation. 2012-03-01. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
  6. Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m “Office of the Secretary”US Department of Transportation. 2012-03-01. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
  7. Jump up^ “Governance and Oversight”U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. 2013-01-27. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
  8. Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l “Bureaus”http://www.treasury.gov. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
  9. Jump up^ “IBM Cognos software”http://www.fedscope.opm.gov. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
  10. Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k “Organizational Structure”http://www.treasury.gov. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
  11. Jump up to:a b “Offices”http://www.treasury.gov. Retrieved 2017-12-17.

Bibliography

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_agencies_in_the_United_States

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1019

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018, Story 1: Ageism Rampant in White House Press Questioning of President Trump Physician — Backlash of Older Voters In 2018 and 2020 Election —  Trump in Excellent Health and Big Lie Media Nuts of Lying Lunatic Left — Videos –Story 2: 70 Percent of Americans Are Overweight or Obese — President Trump Joins The Huge Fluffy Majority — Videos — Story 3: President Trump’s Fake News Awards of 2017 — Big Lie Media’s Junk Journalism Progressive Propaganda Exposed — Videos

Posted on January 18, 2018. Filed under: Addiction, American History, Biology, Blogroll, Breaking News, Chemistry, Communications, Countries, Diet, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Elections, Employment, Exercise, Food, Freedom of Speech, Government Spending, Health, Health Care, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Independence, Insurance, IRS, Language, Law, Legal Drugs, Life, Media, Medical, Medicare, Medicine, National Interest, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Privacy, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Scandals, Science, Socials Security, Success, Surveillance/Spying, Taxation, Taxes, Trump Surveillance/Spying, United States of America, War, Wealth, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1013, December 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1012, December 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1011, December 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1010, December 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1009, December 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1007, November 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1006, November 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1005, November 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1004, November 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1003, November 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1002, November 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1001, November 14, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 1000, November 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 999, November 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 998, November 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 997, November 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 996, November 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 995, November 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 994, November 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 993, November 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 992, October 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 991, October 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 990, October 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 989, October 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 988, October 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 987, October 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 986, October 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 985, October 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 984, October 16, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 983, October 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 982, October 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 981, October 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 979, October 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

Story 1: Ageism Rampant in White House Press Questioning of President Trump Physician — Backlash of Older Voters In 2018 and 2020 Election —  Trump in Excellent Health and Big Lie Media Nuts of Lying Lunatic Left — Videos —

 

See the source image

See the source image

Doctors give president a clean bill of health

“The president’s overall health is excellent.” (C-SPAN)

Mainstream media hammers physician over Trump’s health

Media upset by Trump’s clean bill of health?

The #MSM Grill Trump’s Docs on His Health But Ignored Hillary’s Neurologic Trauma and 9/11 Collapse

Dr. Gupta: Trump a heart disease risk

Borderline Obese Trump in Excellent Health

Confirmation Bias: Your Brain is So Judgmental

12 Cognitive Biases Explained – How to Think Better and More Logically Removing Bias

Tomi Lahren: ‘Disgusting’ media behavior on Trump’s health

Reporters grill doctor over Trump’s clean bill of health

Trump aces Montreal Cognitive Assessment test

Donald Trump physical examination results full press conference

Are our perceptions of age distorted?

The Roots and Consequences of Ageism in America

Aging: It’s Not What You Think | Thad Polk | TEDxUofM

How to die young at a very old age | Nir Barzilai | TEDxGramercy

Let’s change the way we think about old age | ​Zaria Gorvett | TEDxLausanne

Ageism is all around us – hear how it affects older people around the world

Millennials Show Us What ‘Old’ Looks Like | Disrupt Aging | AARP

Ageism: A short documentary

Michael’s Tutorial on Avoiding Ageism – The Office US

Gabriel Iglesias I’m Not Fat … I’m Fluffy Full Show(2009)

 

 

Ageism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ageism (also spelled “agism“) is stereotyping of and discrimination against individuals or groups on the basis of their age. This may be casual or systematic.[1][2] The term was coined in 1969 by Robert Neil Butler to describe discrimination against seniors, and patterned on sexism and racism.[3] Butler defined “ageism” as a combination of three connected elements. Among them were prejudicial attitudes towards older people, old age, and the aging process; discriminatory practices against older people; and institutional practices and policies that perpetuate stereotypes about elderly people.[4]

While the term is also used to name prejudice and discrimination against adolescents and children, including ignoring their ideas because they are too young, or assuming that they should behave in certain ways because of their age,[5] the term is predominantly used in relation to the treatment of older people. Moreover, it has been pointed out that stigmatization does not only occur outside of the cohesively imagined group of the elderly but likewise takes place within the stigmatized group itself.[6]Fear of death and fear of disability and dependence are major causes of ageism; avoiding, segregating, and rejecting older people are coping mechanisms that allow people to avoid thinking about their own mortality.[7]

It can also be passive and covert (e.g., a movie that shows only young people inhabiting a locality and no children, infants or old people are shown in the area) to drive the notion that the place is ‘young and romantic’.

Classification

Distinction from other age-related bias

Ageism in common parlance and age studies usually refers to negative discriminatory practices against old people, people in their middle years, teenagers and children. There are several forms of age-related bias. Adultism is a predisposition towards adults, which is seen as biased against children, youth, and all young people who are not addressed or viewed as adults.[8]Jeunism is the discrimination against older people in favor of younger ones. This includes political candidacies, jobs, and cultural settings where the supposed greater vitality and/or physical beauty of youth is more appreciated than the supposed greater moral and/or intellectual rigor of adulthood. Adultcentricism is the “exaggerated egocentrism of adults.”[9]Adultocracy is the social convention which defines “maturity” and “immaturity,” placing adults in a dominant position over young people, both theoretically and practically.[10]Gerontocracy is a form of oligarchical rule in which an entity is ruled by leaders who are significantly older than most of the adult population.[11]Chronocentrism is primarily the belief that a certain state of humanity is superior to all previous and/or future times.[12]

Based on a conceptual analysis of ageism, a new definition of ageism was introduced by Iversen, Larsen, & Solem in 2009. This definition constitutes the foundation for higher reliability and validity in future research about ageism and its complexity offers a new way of systemizing theories on ageism: “Ageism is defined as negative or positive stereotypes, prejudice and/or discrimination against (or to the advantage of) elderly people on the basis of their chronological age or on the basis of a perception of them as being ‘old’ or ‘elderly’. Ageism can be implicit or explicit and can be expressed on a micro-, meso- or macro-level” (Iversen, Larsen & Solem, 2009).[13]

Other conditions of fear or aversion associated with age groups have their own names, particularly: paedophobia, the fear of infants and children; ephebiphobia, the fear of youth,[14] sometimes also referred to as an irrational fear of adolescents or a prejudice against teenagers;[15] and gerontophobia, the fear of elderly people.[16]

Implicit ageism

Implicit ageism is the term used to refer to the implicit or subconscious thoughts, feelings, and behaviors one has about older or younger people. These may be a mixture of positive and negative thoughts and feelings, but gerontologist Becca Levy reports that they “tend to be mostly negative.”[17]

Stereotyping

Stereotyping is a tool of cognition which involves categorizing into groups and attributing characteristics to these groups. Stereotypes are necessary for processing huge volumes of information which would otherwise overload a person and are generally accurate descriptors of group characteristics, though some stereotypes are inaccurate.[18] However, they can cause harm when the content of the stereotype is incorrect with respect to most of the group or where a stereotype is so strongly held that it overrides evidence which shows that an individual does not conform to it. For example, age-based stereotypes prime one to draw very different conclusions when one sees an older and a younger adult with, say, back pain or a limp. One might well assume that the younger person’s condition is temporary and treatable, following an accident, while the older person’s condition is chronic and less susceptible to intervention. On average, this might be true, but plenty of older people have accidents and recover quickly and very young people (such as infants, toddlers and small children) can become permanently disabled in the same situation. This assumption may have no consequence if one makes it in the blink of an eye as one is passing someone in the street, but if it is held by a health professional offering treatment or managers thinking about occupational health, it could inappropriately influence their actions and lead to age-related discrimination. Managers have been accused, by Erdman Palmore, as stereotyping older workers as being resistant to change, not creative, cautious, slow to make judgments, lower in physical capacity, uninterested in technological change, and difficult to train.[19] Another example is when people are rude to children because of their high pitched voice, even if they are kind and courteous. A review of the research literature related to age stereotypes in the workplace was recently published in the Journal of Management.[20]

Contrary to common and more obvious forms of stereotyping, such as racism and sexism, ageism is more resistant to change. For instance, if a child believes in an ageist idea against the elderly, fewer people correct them, and, as a result, individuals grow up believing in ageist ideas, even elders themselves.[21] In other words, ageism can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Ageist beliefs against the elderly are commonplace in today’s society. For example, an older person who forgets something could be quick to call it a “senior moment,” failing to realize the ageism of that statement. People also often utter ageist phrases such as “dirty old man” or “second childhood,” and elders sometimes miss the ageist undertones.[21]

In a classic study, researchers analyzed the effects of ageism among the elderly.[22] They performed memory tests on three selected groups: residents of China, deaf North Americans, and hearing North Americans. In the three groups, the Chinese residents were presumably the least exposed to ageism, with lifelong experience in a culture that traditionally venerates older generations. Lifelong deaf North Americans also faced less exposure to ageism in contrast to those with typical hearing, who presumably had heard ageist comments their whole life. The results of the memory tests showed that ageism has significant effects on memory.

The gap in the scores between the young and old North Americans with normal hearing were double those of the deaf North Americans and five times wider than those of the Chinese participants. The results show that ageism undermines ability through its self-fulfilling nature.[21] The study was investigating the effect of the stereotype threat, which has been explored as a possible reason for memory deficits,[23] though the stereotype threat has been criticized.[24]

On the other hand, when elders show larger independence and control in their lives, defying ageist assumptions, they are more likely to be healthier, both mentally and physically, than other people their age.[21]

Research indicates that old people are stereotyped as scoring lower on measures of impulsivity, activism, antagonism and openness while young people are stereotyped as scoring higher on these measures. This was found to be universal across cultures and was also found to be reasonably accurate (varying depending on how the accuracy was assessed and the type of stereotype), though differences were consistently exaggerated.[25]

Prejudice

Ageist prejudice is a type of emotion which is often linked to the cognitive process of stereotyping. It can involve the expression of derogatory attitudes, which may then lead to the use of discriminatory behavior. Where older or younger contestants were rejected in the belief that they were poor performers, this could well be the result of stereotyping. But older people were also voted for on a stage in a game where it made sense to target the best performers. This can only be explained by a subconscious emotional reaction to older people; in this case, the prejudice took the form of distaste and a desire to exclude oneself from the company of older people.[26]

Stereotyping and prejudice against different groups in society does not take the same form. Age-based prejudice and stereotyping usually involves older or younger people being pitied, marginalized, or patronized. This is described as “benevolent prejudice” because the tendency to pity is linked to seeing older or younger people as “friendly” but “incompetent.” This is similar to the prejudice most often directed against women and disabled people. Age Concern‘s survey revealed strong evidence of “benevolent prejudice.” 48% said that over-70s are viewed as friendly (compared to 27% who said the same about under-30s). Meanwhile, only 26% believe over-70s are viewed as capable (with 41% saying the same about under-30s).[27]

The figure for friendliness of under-30s is, conversely, an example of Hostile Prejudice. Hostile prejudice based on hatred, fear, aversion, or threat often characterizes attitudes linked to race, religion, disability, and sex. An example of hostile prejudice toward youth is the presumption without any evidence that a given crime was committed by a young person. Rhetoric regarding intergenerational competition can be motivated by politics. Violence against vulnerable older people can be motivated by subconscious hostility or fear; within families, this involves impatience and lack of understanding. Equality campaigners are often wary of drawing comparisons between different forms of inequality.[citation needed]

The impact of “benevolent” and “hostile” prejudice tends to be different. The warmth felt towards older or younger people and the knowledge that many have no access to paid employment means there is often public acceptance that they are deserving of preferential treatment—for example, less expensive movie and bus fares. But the perception of incompetence means older and younger people can be seen as “not up to the job” or “a menace on the roads,” when there is little or exaggerated evidence to support this. Prejudice also leads to assumptions that it is “natural” for older or younger people to have lower expectations, reduced choice and control, and less account taken of their views.[citation needed]

Digital ageism

Digital ageism refers to the prejudices faced by older adults in the digital world. A few examples of the subtle ways in which digital ageism operates in cultural representations, research, and everyday life: Generational segregation naturalizes youth as digitally adept and the old as digital dunces. There is no empirical evidence, though, for a digital divide between older and younger people, with the former never and the latter always capable to use digital media; a far more accurate description is that of a digital spectrum.[28][29][30] The reason for the myth of declining capabilities of older people could be that many cultural representations have long histories reproducing images of the life cycle as a mountain, where we peak in middle age then decline[29][31][32] Older adults’ experiences are often excluded from research agendas on digital media, and ageism is ensconced within disciplines such as mass communication studies. For example, in a media diffusionist perspective,[33] the practices of seniors are depicted as either negligible or as lagging, and the equation of diffusion with individual ownership can hide practical ‘work-arounds’ such as cell phone sharing or missed calls used by older couples on fixed incomes.[34][35] Ageism is also inadvertently embedded in the ways that we generate statistics, for example through data collected based on large age categories (e.g., ’60+’) foisting anyone over 60 into ‘the grey zone’ which obscures differences.[36]

Visual ageism

The term visual ageism was coined in 2017 by Loos and Ivan. They define visual ageism as “the social practice of visually underrepresenting older people or misrepresenting them in a prejudiced way”.[37] We are facing a shift from visual ageism characterized by underrepresentation and the negative representation of older people to a representation of older age characterized by images of stereotypically third age older adults (enjoying life and living their golden years), while older adults in their fourth age (inactive and unable to live independently) remain invisible. A review of empirical studies conducted since 1950 in Europe and North America[37] reveals that print and television advertisements started this transition towards a more positive visual representation of older adults in their age during the last decade of the 20th century, followed by television programs some years later, while older adults in their fourth age remain invisible. This is probably due to the increase in third age rhetoric in the media, picturing older people as healthy and as potential consumers, enjoying life and living their golden years. Media representations of older people have moved from visual under- and misrepresentation (negative images)[38][39][40][41] to more positive depictions[42][43][37] These days, visual ageism in the media tends to come wrapped in the guise of the positive attributes of third age representations of older people, while adults in their fourth age continue to be underrepresented. One possible explanation for this is that healthy third agers might prefer not to be associated with fourth agers, as they remind them too starkly of what lies ahead in their own near future. Although this discomfort or even fear about mortality is undeniably common, from a societal point of view this kind of (self)ageism is hurtful to fourth agers as a group and in a sense to third agers as well, as they risk to become fourth agers themselves one day.[37]

Discrimination

Age discrimination is the result of actions taken to deny or limit opportunities to people on the basis of age. These are usually actions taken as a result of one’s ageist beliefs and attitudes. Age discrimination occurs on both a personal and institutional level.[2]

On a personal level, an older person may be told that he or she is too old to engage in certain physical activities, like an informal game of basketball between friends and family. A younger person may be told they are too young to get a job or help move the dining room table. On an institutional level, there are policies and regulations in place that limit opportunities to people of certain ages and deny them to all others. The law, for instance, requires that all people must be at least 16 years old in order to obtain a driver’s license in the United States. There are also government regulations that determine when a worker may retire. Currently, in the US, a worker must be between 65 and 67 years old (depending upon his or her birth year) before becoming eligible for full Social Security retirement benefits (age 62 for 70% benefits) but some company pension plans begin benefits at earlier ages.[citation needed]

A 2006/2007 survey done by the Children’s Rights Alliance for England and the National Children’s Bureau asked 4,060 children and young people whether they have ever been treated unfairly based on various criteria (race, age, sex, sexual orientation, etc.). A total of 43% of British youth surveyed reported experiencing discrimination based on their age, far eclipsing other categories of discrimination like sex (27%), race (11%), or sexual orientation (6%).[44] Consistently, a study based on the European Social Survey found that whereas 35% of Europeans reported exposure ageism, only 25% reported exposure to sexism and as few as 17% reported exposure to racism.[45]

Ageism has significant effects in two particular sectors: employment and health care. Age discrimination has contributed to disparities in health between men and women. Reducing ageism and sexism would promote improved doctor-patient relationships and reduce ageist stereotypes in the healthcare industry.[46]

Employment

The concept of ageism was originally developed to refer to prejudice and discrimination against older people and middle age, but has expanded to include children and teenagers.[27] Like racial and gender discrimination, age discrimination, at least when it affects younger workers, can result in unequal pay for equal work. Unlike racial and gender discrimination, however, age discrimination in wages is often enshrined in law. For example, in both the United States[47] and the United Kingdom[48]minimum wage laws allow for employers to pay lower wages to young workers. Many state and local minimum wage laws mirror such an age-based, tiered minimum wage. As well, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was amended in 1986 to allow the United States Secretary of Labor to provide special certificates to allow an employer to pay less than the minimum wage to individuals whose earning or productive capacity is impaired by age, physical or mental deficiency, or injury.[49] These employees must still be paid wages that are related to the individual’s productivity and commensurate with those paid to similarly located and employed non-handicapped workers.[49]Midlife workers, on average, make more than younger workers do, which reflects educational achievement and experience of various kinds (job-specific, industry-specific, etc.). The age-wage peak in the United States, according to Census data, is between 45 and 54 years of age. Seniority in general accords with respect as people age, lessening ageism. Statistical discrimination refers to limiting the employment opportunities of an individual based on stereotypes of a group to which the person belongs. Limited employment opportunities could come in the form of lower pay for equal work or jobs with little social mobility. Younger female workers were historically discriminated against, in comparison with younger men, because it was expected that, as young women of childbearing years, they would need to leave the work force permanently or periodically to have children.[50] However, midlife female workers may also experience discrimination based on their appearance[51] and may feel less visible and undervalued[52] in a culture where emphasis is on maintaining an approved standard of beauty, e.g. ‘thin, pretty, White, and young’.[53] However, the same standard could have no effect on male colleagues of the same age.[52]Labor regulations also limit the age at which people are allowed to work and how many hours and under what conditions they may work. In the United States, a person must generally be at least 14 years old to seek a job, and workers face additional restrictions on their work activities until they reach age 16.[54] Many companies refuse to hire workers younger than 18. While older workers benefit more often from higher wages than do younger workers, they face barriers in promotions and hiring. Employers also encourage early retirementor layoffs disproportionately more for older or more experienced workers.

Some political offices have qualifications that discriminate on the basis of age as a proxy for experience, education, or accumulated wisdom. For example, the President of the United States must be at least 35 years old; a United States Senator must be at least 30; and a United States Congress member must be at least 25. In the UK, age discrimination against older people has been prohibited in employment since 2006. Since then, the number of age discrimination cases rose dramatically. The laws protect anyone over the age of 16 who is young as well as old. There were over 6,800 claims submitted to the Employment Tribunal in 2010/11 compared with just 900 in 2006/2007 (immediately after the Regulations came in force).[55] However, the figures for 2011/2012 show a 47% fall in the number of claims, and commentators have suggested that the repeal of the Default Retirement Age may be the reason behind this.

Age discrimination in hiring has been shown to exist in the United States. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission‘s first complainants were female flight attendants complaining of (among other things) age discrimination.[56] In 1968, the EEOC declared age restrictions on flight attendants’ employment to be illegal sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[57] However, Joanna Lahey, professor at The Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M, found recently that firms are more than 40% more likely to interview a young adult job applicant than an older job applicant.[58] All states in the US prohibit youth under 14 from working with a handful of exceptions, and prohibit youth under 18 from working in hazardous occupations. They are also paid a lower minimum wage and not allowed to work full-time.

Also in Europe, pervasive levels of age discrimination are found in BelgiumEnglandFrance, Spain, and Sweden. Job candidates revealing older age are found to get 39% (in Belgium) to 72% (in France) less job interview invitations compared to equal candidates revealing a younger name.[59][60][61][62][63][64][65] In addition, In a survey for the University of Kent, England, 29% of respondents stated that they had suffered from age discrimination. This is a higher proportion than for gender or racial discrimination. Dominic Abramssocial psychology professor at the university, concluded that Ageism is the most pervasive form of prejudice experienced in the UK population.[66] Discrimination is found to be heterogeneous by the activity older candidates undertook during their additional post-educational years. In Belgium, they are only discriminated if they have more years of inactivity or irrelevant employment.[59]

According to Dr. Robert M. McCann, an associate professor of management communication at the University of Southern California‘s Marshall School of Business, denigrating older workers, even if only subtly, can have an outsized negative impact on employee productivity and corporate profits.[citation needed] For American corporations, age discrimination can lead to significant expenses. In Fiscal Year 2006, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received nearly 17,000 charges of age discrimination, resolving more than 14,000 and recovering $51.5 million in monetary benefits. Costs from lawsuit settlements and judgments can run into the millions, most notably with the $250 million paid by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) under a settlement agreement in 2003.[67][68]

Hollywood

Ageism in Hollywood, specifically in terms of women, is profound, from the way youth is praised to the lack of jobs for older actresses. The way youth is praised reflects directly on the way older women are presented in the media. President and CEO of the American Association of Advertising Agencies, O. Burtch Drake, spoke in terms of older women’s representation throughout the media stating “older women are not being portrayed at all; there is no imagery to worry about.”[69] Women over fifty are not the center of attention and if an actress is older they are expected to act anything but their age.[70] These same women who have been acting since their teenage years, who have always been told to act their age, now must change the dynamic of their job by not acting their age when they get to be considered old by society and the media. The standards set in film are fixated upon youth – sexuality, beauty, physicality. Movies that portray women acting their own age (i.e. a 50-year-old acting 50 years old) seems exaggerated and unrealistic because it does not fit the norms associated with women in film and media.[70] Women are forced to feel that they must continuously improve upon their looks to be seen and they can be replaced by a younger model of themselves. “Silver ceiling” references the new type of ceiling older workers in the entertainment industry, especially women, are being faced with. Underemployment of older actresses surpasses that of older actors because of the typical pairing of older actors with younger actresses in films.[71] BBC news anchor, Nigel Kay, found in a survey that “on television older men significantly outnumber older women by about 70 percent to 30 percent.”[69] An issue amongst older women is that their voices are not being heard, which is especially true for older actresses in Hollywood. The issues about employment they are bringing to light as well as the complaints they have are not being taken seriously and they are being excluded from conversations about Hollywood and employment.[72]

Because of the limited ages the film industry portrays and the lack of older actresses, society as a whole has a type of illiteracy about sexuality and those of old age. There is an almost inherent bias about what older women are capable of, what they do, and how they feel.[73] Amongst all ages of actresses there is the attempt to look youthful and fitting to the beauty standards by altering themselves physically, many times under the hands of plastic surgeons.[70] Women become frightful of what they will be seen as if they have wrinkles, cellulite, or any other signifier of aging.[71] As women reach their forties and fifties, pressure to adhere to societal beauty norms seen amongst films and media intensifies in terms of new cosmetic procedures and products that will maintain a “forever youthful” look.[71] In terms of sexuality, older women are seen as unattractive, bitter, unhappy, unsuccessful in films. With older women not being represented in the media and film industries, specifically in Hollywood, thoughts of underachievement, ugliness, and disgust crowd the thoughts of older women as they fail to meet beauty norms. This can cause depression, anxiety, and self-esteem issues in general.[71] “In one survey, women reported feeling more embarrassed about their age than by their masturbation practices or same-gender sexual encounters.”[71] Women are forced to feel that they must continuously improve upon their looks to be seen and they can be replaced by a younger model of themselves.

The ideal that younger actresses are better than older actresses in Hollywood can be seen by the preferences of the people who are watching movies. Movie spectators display discrimination against older women in Hollywood. A study between 1926-1999 proved that older men in Hollywood had more leading roles than women who were the same age as them.[74] There are many cases where leading actors play the attractive love interest for longer than women.[71] This portrayal of women never aging but men aging can have a negative affect on not only actresses in Hollywood but also women who are not in the media.[71] There are fewer older actresses that get leading roles than young actresses, this promotes the idea that women do not age and that older women are less attractive. This can be harmful to women because they will strive for something that is impossible to have, eternal youth.[71]

What some people think of as old other people may not. An actress in Hollywood may not consider herself old but can be told she is too old for a part. A very well known example of this is what happened to the actress Maggie Gyllenhaal, “she was recently turned down for a role in a movie because she was too old to play the love interest for a 55-year-old man.”[75] When a woman is told she is old she can start to believe that she is. A woman can start acting as if she is older than she believes because she internalizes what other people are saying and what they think about her.[76]

In film the female body is depicted in different states of dress, and portrayed differently depending on the age of the actress. Their clothing is used as an identity marker of the character. Young women are put into revealing and sexy costumes whereas older women often play the part of a mother or grandmother clad in appropriate attire. This can include a bonnet or apron as she carries about her matronly duties.[77] This can lead both men and women to perceive the female body in a certain way based on what is seen on screen. Annette Kuhn said twenty years ago that “One of the major theoretical contributions of the women’s movement has been its insistence on the significance of cultural factors, in particular in the form of socially dominant representations of women and the ideological character of such representation, both in constituting the category ‘woman’ and in delimiting and defining what has been called the ‘sex-gender system'”[77] Women’s bodies are often seen as an object to be looked at and desired by men. As women get older and enter their post-menopausal years, they no longer are examples of the ideal feminine model. Added to that is the idea that females become mentally unstable as they enter their older years. “They become quarrelsome, vexatious and overbearing, petty and stingy; that is to say they exhibit typically sadistic and anal-erotic traits that they did not possess earlier…(Freud 1958,323-24)”[77] Ageism is not new to Hollywood and has been around since the time of silent films. When transitioning from silent movies to talking motion pictures, Charlie Chaplin (a well known silent movie actor) said in an interview that “It’s beauty that matters in pictures-nothing else….Pictures! Lovely looking girls…What if the girls can’t act?…Certainly I prefer to see, say, Dolores Costello [a 1920s silent movie star], in a thin tale than some aged actress of the stage (Walker 1979,132)”.[77]

Healthcare

There is considerable evidence of discrimination against the elderly in health care.[78][79][80] This is particularly true for aspects of the physician-patient interaction, such as screening procedures, information exchanges, and treatment decisions. In the patient-physician interaction, physicians and other health care providers may hold attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that are associated with ageism against older patients. Studies have found that some physicians do not seem to show any care or concern toward treating the medical problems of older people. Then, when actually interacting with these older patients on the job, the doctors sometimes view them with disgust and describe them in negative ways, such as “depressing” or “crazy.”[81] For screening procedures, elderly people are less likely than younger people to be screened for cancers and, due to the lack of this preventative measure, less likely to be diagnosed at early stages of their conditions.[82]

After being diagnosed with a disease that may be potentially curable, older people are further discriminated against. Though there may be surgeries or operations with high survival rates that might cure their condition, older patients are less likely than younger patients to receive all the necessary treatments. For example, health professionals pursue less aggressive treatment options in older patients,[83] and fewer adults are enrolled in tests of new prescription drugs.[84] It has been posited that this is because doctors fear their older patients are not physically strong enough to tolerate the curative treatments and are more likely to have complications during surgery that may end in death.

Other research studies have been done with patients with heart disease, and, in these cases, the older patients were still less likely to receive further tests or treatments, independent of the severity of their health problems. Thus, the approach to the treatment of older people is concentrated on managing the disease rather than preventing or curing it. This is based on the stereotype that it is the natural process of aging for the quality of health to decrease, and, therefore, there is no point in attempting to prevent the inevitable decline of old age.[81][82]

Furthermore, caregivers further undermine the treatment of older patients by helping them too much, which decreases independence,[85] and by making a generalized assumption and treating all elderly as feeble.[21]

Differential medical treatment of elderly people can have significant effects on their health outcomes, a differential outcome which somehow escapes established protections.

In 2017, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of Maria Ivone Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais, who had had an operation that was mishandled and rendered her unable to have sex. Portuguese judges had previously reduced damages to her in 2014, ruling then that the operation, which occurred when she was 50, had happened at “an age when sex is not as important as in younger years.” The European Court of Human Rights rejected that decision, with the majority’s ruling stating in part, “The question at issue here is not considerations of age or sex as such, but rather the assumption that sexuality is not as important for a 50-year-old woman and mother of two children as for someone of a younger age. That assumption reflects a traditional idea of female sexuality as being essentially linked to childbearing purposes and thus ignores its physical and psychological relevance for the self-fulfillment of women as people.”[86]

Effects of ageism

Ageism has significant effects on the elderly and young people. The stereotypes and infantilization of older and younger people by patronizing language affects older and younger people’s self-esteem and behaviors. After repeatedly hearing a stereotype that older or younger people are useless, older and younger people may begin to feel like dependent, non-contributing members of society. They may start to perceive themselves in terms of the looking-glass self—that is, in the same ways that others in society see them. Studies have also specifically shown that when older and younger people hear these stereotypes about their supposed incompetence and uselessness, they perform worse on measures of competence and memory.[87] These stereotypes then become self-fulfilling prophecies. According to Becca Levy‘s Stereotype Embodiment Theory, older and younger people might also engage in self-stereotypes, taking their culture’s age stereotypes—to which they have been exposed over the life course—and directing them inward toward themselves. Then this behavior reinforces the present stereotypes and treatment of the elderly.[17][81]

Many overcome these stereotypes and live the way they want, but it can be difficult to avoid deeply ingrained prejudice, especially if one has been exposed to ageist views in childhood or adolescence.

Australia

Australia has had age discrimination laws for some time.[88] Discrimination on the basis of age is illegal in each of the states and territories of Australia. At the national level, Australia is party to a number of international treaties and conventions that impose obligations to eliminate age discrimination.[89]

The Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 established the Australian Human Rights Commission and bestows on this Commission functions in relation to a number of international treaties and conventions that cover age discrimination.[89][90] During 1998-1999, 15% of complaints received by the Commission under the Act were about discrimination on the basis of age.[89]

Age discrimination laws at the national level were strengthened by the Age Discrimination Act 2004, which helps to ensure that people are not subjected to age discrimination in various areas of public life, including employment, the provision of goods and services, education, and the administration of Australian government laws and programs. The Act, however, does provide for exemptions in some areas, as well as providing for positive discrimination, that is, actions which assist people of a particular age who experience a disadvantage because of their age.[90]

In 2011, for the first time a position of Age Discrimination Commissioner was created within the Australian Human Rights Commission. The new Commissioner’s responsibilities include raising awareness among employers about the beneficial contributions that senior Australians as well as younger employees can make in the workforce.[91]

Every state in Australia has a probationary plate system for drivers. This is allowed because the Age Discrimination Act says that, in some circumstances, treating someone differently because of their age won’t be against the law. This is known as an exemption and includes
•things done in compliance with Commonwealth laws, including laws about taxation, social security and migration
•things done in compliance with state and territory laws
•certain health and employment programmes
•youth wages or direct compliance with industrial agreements and awards. [92]

Canada

In Canada, Article 718.2, clause (a)(i), of the Criminal Code defines as aggravating circumstances, among other situations, “evidence that the offence was motivated by … age”.[93][94]

Mandatory retirement was ended in Canada in December 2011,[95] but 74% of Canadians still consider age discrimination to be a problem.[96]

Nigeria

In November 2011, the Nigerian House of Representatives considered a bill which would outlaw age discrimination in employment.[97]

Philippines

At least two bills has been filed before the 16th Congress of the Philippines seeking to address age discrimination in employment in the country. The Blas Ople Policy Center, a non-government organization, asserts that responsibilities of making livelihood in a household has shifted to younger members of the family due to bias against hiring people older than 30 years of age. The organization also added that age discrimination contributes to the unemployment rate and acts as a hurdle to inclusive growth in the country. Overseas Filipino Workers returning from abroad seeking to find work in the country were tagged as vulnerable to age discrimination.[98][99]

United States

In the U.S., each state has its own laws regarding age discrimination, and there are also federal laws.[100] In California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act forbids unlawful discrimination against persons age 40 and older. The FEHA is the principal California statute prohibiting employment discrimination, covering employers, labor organizationsemployment agencies, apprenticeship programs and/or any person or entity who aids, abets, incites, compels, or coerces the doing of a discriminatory act. In addition to age, it prohibits employment discrimination based on race or color; religion; national origin or ancestry, disability, mental type or medical condition; marital status; sex or sexual orientation; and pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.[101] Although there are many protections for age-based discrimination against older workers (as shown above) there are less protections for younger workers.[citation needed]

In September 2016, California passed state bill AB-1687, an anti-ageism law taking effect on January 1, 2017, requiring “commercial online entertainment employment” services that allow paid subscribers to submit information and resumes (such as IMDB Pro), to honor requests to have their ages and birthdays removed. The bill was supported by SAG-AFTRA‘s former and current presidents Ken Howard and Gabrielle Carteris, who felt that the law would help to reduce ageism in the entertainment industry.[102] On February 23, 2017, Judge Vince Girdhari Chhabria issued a stay on the bill pending a further trial, claiming that it was “difficult to imagine how AB 1687 could not violate the First Amendment” because it inhibited the public consumption of factual information.[103]

The District of Columbia and twelve states define age as a specific motivation for hate crimes – California, Florida, Iowa, Hawaii, KansasLouisianaMaineMinnesotaNebraskaNew Mexico, New York and Vermont.[104][105]

The federal government governs age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). The ADEA prohibits employment discrimination based on age with respect to employees 40 years of age or older as well.[106] The ADEA also addresses the difficulty older workers face in obtaining new employment after being displaced from their jobs, arbitrary age limits.[107] The ADEA applies even if some of the minimum 20 employees are overseas and working for a US corporation.[108]

European Union

The European citizenship provides the right to protection from discrimination on the grounds of age. According to Article 21-1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Unions:Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union#CHAPTER III. EQUALITY, “any discrimination based on any ground such as (…) age, shall be prohibited”.[109]

Additional protection against age discrimination comes from the Framework Directive 2000/78/EC. It prohibits discrimination on grounds of age in the field of employment.[110]

Germany

On 18 August 2006, the General Equal Treatment Act (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz, AGG) came into force. The aim of the AGG is to prevent and abolish discrimination on various grounds including age.[111]

A recent study suggested that youths in Germany feel the brunt of age discrimination.[112]

France

In France, Articles 225-1 through 225-4 of the Penal Code detail the penalization of Ageism, when it comes to an age discrimination related to the consumption of a good or service, to the exercise of an economic activity, to the labor market or an internship, except in the cases foreseen in Article 225-3.[113][114][115]

Belgium

In Belgium, the Law of 25 February 2003 “tending to fight discrimination” punishes Ageism when “a difference of treatment that lacks objective and reasonable justification is directly based on … age”. Discrimination is forbidden when it refers to providing or offering a good or service, to conditions linked to work or employment, to the appointment or promotion of an employee, and yet to the access or participation in “an economic, social, cultural or political activity accessible to the public” (Article 2nd, § 4). Incitement to discrimination, to hatred or to violence against a person or a group on the grounds of (…) age (Article 6) is punished with imprisonment and/or a fine.[116][117] Nevertheless, employment opportunities are worsening for people in their middle years in many of these same countries, according to Martin Kohli et al. in Time for Retirement (1991).

United Kingdom

Barbara Robb, founder of the British pressure group, Aid for the Elderly in Government Institutions (AEGIS), compiled Sans Everything: A Case to Answer, a controversial book detailing the inadequacies of care provided for older people, which prompted a nationwide scandal in the UK in 1976. Although initially official inquiries into these allegations reported that they were “totally unfounded or grossly exaggerated”,[118] her campaigns led to revealing of other instances of ill treatment which were accepted and prompted the government to implement NHS policy changes.[119]

However, in the UK, laws against ageism are new. Age discrimination laws were brought into force in October 2006,[120] and can now be found in the Equality Act 2010. This implements the Equal Treatment Framework Directive 2000/78/EC and protects employees against direct discrimination, indirect discriminationharassment and victimisation. There is also provision in the Equality Act 2010 to prohibit age discrimination in the provision of goods and services, though this has not yet been implemented by the current UK Coalition Government and will not be implemented before October 2012 at the earliest.[needs update][121]

Despite the relatively recent prohibition on age discrimination, there have already been many notable cases and official statistics show a 37% increase in claims in 2009/10[122] and a further 31% increase in 2010/11.[123] Examples include the case involving Rolls Royce,[124] the “Heyday” case brought by Age UK[125] and the recent Miriam O’Reilly case against the BBC.[126]

Recent research suggested that the number of age discrimination claims annually could reach 15,000 by 2015.[127]

The European Social Study survey in 2011 revealed that nearly two out of five people claim to have been shown a lack of respect because of their age. The survey suggested that the UK is riven by intergenerational splits, with half of people admitting they do not have a single friend over 70; this compares with only a third of Portuguese, Swiss and Germans who say that they do not have a friend of that age or older.[128] A Demos study in 2012 showed that three quarters of people in the UK believed there to be not enough opportunities for older and younger people to meet and work together.[129]

The “Grey Pride” campaign has been advocating for a Minister for Older People and its campaign has had some success, with Labour Leader Ed Miliband appointing Liz Kendall as Shadow Minister for Older People.[130]

The artist Michael Freedman, an outspoken advocate against age discrimination within the art world says that “mature students, like me, come to art late in life, so why are we penalised and demotivated? Whatever happened to lifelong learning and the notion of a flexible workforce?”[131]

Advocacy campaigns

Many current and historical intergenerational and youth programs have been created to address the issue of Ageism. Among the advocacy organizations created in the United Kingdom to challenge age discrimination are Age UK and the British Youth Council.

In the United States there have been several historic and current efforts to challenge Ageism. The earliest example may be the Newsboys Strike of 1899, which fought ageist employment practices targeted against youth by large newspaper syndicates in the Northeast. During the Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration, First LadyEleanor Roosevelt was active in the national youth movement, including the formation of the National Youth Administration and the defense of the American Youth Congress. She made several statements on behalf of youth and against Ageism. In one report entitled, “Facing the Problems of Youth,” Roosevelt said of youth,

“We cannot simply expect them to say, ‘Our older people have had experience and they have proved to themselves certain things, therefore they are right.’ That isn’t the way the best kind of young people think. They want to experience for themselves. I find they are perfectly willing to talk to older people, but they don’t want to talk to older people who are shocked by their ideas, nor do they want to talk to older people who are not realistic.”[132]

Students for a Democratic Society formed in 1960 to promote democratic opportunities for all people regardless of age, and the Gray Panthers was formed in 1970 by Maggie Kuhn, with a goal of eliminating Ageism in all forms.[133]Three O’Clock Lobby formed in 1976 to promote youth participation throughout traditionally ageist government structures in Michigan, while Youth Liberation of Ann Arbor started in 1970 to promote youth and fight Ageism.

Aid for the Elderly in Government Institutions (AEGIS) was a British pressure group that campaigned to improve the care of older people in long-stay wards of National Health Servicepsychiatric hospitals.[134][135] The group was founded by Barbara Robb in 1965,[135] and was active until Robb’s death in 1976.[136]

More recent U.S. programs include Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions, which formed in 1996 to advance the civil and human rights of young people through eliminating ageist laws targeted against young people, and to help youth counter Ageism in America.[137] The National Youth Rights Association started in 1998 to promote awareness of the legal and human rights of young people in the United States,[138] and the Freechild Project was formed in 2001 to identify, unify and promote diverse opportunities for youth engagement in social change by fighting Ageism.

Related campaigns

  • Director Paul Weitz reported he wrote the 2004 film, In Good Company to reveal how ageism affects youth and adults.[139]
  • In 2002 The Freechild Project created an information and training initiative to provide resources to youth organizations and schools focused on youth rights.[140]
  • In 2006 Lydia Giménez-LLort, an assistant professor of Psychiatry and researcher at the Autonomous University of Barcelona coined the term ‘Snow White Syndrome’ at the ‘Congrés de la Gent Gran de Cerdanyola del Vallès’ (Congress of the Elderly of Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain) as a metaphor to define Ageism in an easier and more friendly way while developing a constructive spirit against it. The metaphor is based on both the auto-Ageism and adultocracy exhibited by the evil queen of the Snow White fairy tale as well as the social Ageism symbolized by the mirror[141]
  • Since 2008 ‘The Intergenerational Study’ by Lydia Giménez-LLort and Paula Ramírez-Boix from the Autonomous University of Barcelona is aimed to find the basis of the link between grandparents and grandsons (positive family relationships) that are able to minimize the Ageism towards the elderly. Students of several Spanish universities have enrolled in this study which soon will be also performed in USA, Nigeria, Barbados, Argentina and Mexico. The preliminary results reveal that ‘The Intergenerational study questionnaire’ induces young people to do a reflexive and autocritic analysis of their intergenerational relationships in contrast to those shown towards other unrelated old people which results very positive to challenge Ageism. A cortometrage about ‘The International Study’ has been directed and produced by Tomás Sunyer from Los Angeles City College[142]
  • Votes at 16 intends to lower the voting age in the United Kingdom to 16, reducing Ageism and giving 16-year-olds equal pay on the National Minimum Wage. The group claims that 16-year-olds get less money than older people for the same work, angering many 16-year-olds. They additionally postulate that 16-year-olds will have their voice listened to by older people more often.
  • Chilean director, Sebastian Lelio, is creating a U.S. version of his acclaimed 2013 film, “Gloria.”[143] The original film challenges the notion that as women age they become culturally ‘invisible’;[144] they may continue to be powerful, desirable, and sexually active. In the U.S. version, actress Julianne Moore will portray the lead character.[145]

Accusations of ageism

In a recent interview, actor Pierce Brosnan cited ageism as one of the contributing factors as to why he was not asked to continue his role as James Bond in the Bond film Casino Royale, released in 2006.[146]

Also, successful singer and actress Madonna spoke out in her 50s about ageism and her fight to defy the norms of society.[147] In 2015, BBC Radio 1 were accused of ageism after the station didn’t add her new single to their playlist. Similarly, Sex and the City star Kim Cattrall has also raised the issue of ageism.[148]

A 2007 Pew Research Center study found that a majority of American voters would be less likely to vote for a President past a given age[which?], with only 45% saying that age would not matter.[citation needed]

See also

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism

Age discrimination in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2007, the United States’ economy crashed, which affected many people. As a result, the unemployment rate within the U.S. has risen, with people over the age of 50 are facing record unemployment for their age group.[1] Factors that may affect employers’ decisions to hire or retain older workers include:

  • older workers may be more expensive to employ than younger ones,
  • older workers may lack up-to-date skills,
  • older workers may retire before an employer recovers hiring and training costs.

These concerns are mostly unfounded, but they are widespread.[2]

Benefits of employing older workers

Though companies may be reluctant to hire an elderly person, there are many benefits for an elderly person to have a job and be working. One benefit is that having a job can help decrease the mortality rate within the elderly.[3] In addition to living longer, one study found that the elderly that worked part-time had higher life satisfaction.[4]

In addition to the elderly benefiting from working, the companies employing elderly workers can also have several benefits. One study found that workforce professionals had stronger moral and ethical aptitudes, placed a greater importance on work in their lives, and disliked wasting time, more so than those of college students that were new in the working world.[5] In comparison to younger workers, elderly workers were found to be safer, have less counterproductive work behaviors, less work place aggression, less likely to abuse substances on the job, and less likely to be tardy to work.[6] Elderly workers also tend to be more loyal to a company and are able to use their previous work experience to help develop products, processes, and different approaches that help with organizational competitiveness.[7]

Age discrimination

People in the United States may start to contemplate retirement around the age of 60, when they become eligible for retirement benefits through the Social Security program. However, Social Security benefits are not generous, and absent other retirement savings or a pension plan, many Americans want or need to continue to work. Americans who seek Social Security benefits before reaching full retirement age will receive a reduced benefit.[1] Many retirees hold jobs to supplement their Social Security benefits.

According to studies, over the past few years the poverty rate for the group of people that range from 55–64 years old has increased from 8.6 to 9.4, which is the second largest increase for that group since August 1983.[8] One of the reasons that caused this increase in the poverty rate in the older generation is because they are oftentimes discriminated against by companies because of their age. Many companies find the older people as a group act as more of a cost than an asset to the company.[8] Some argue that younger people may discriminate against older workers because they don’t like them, or that they believe older workers are not motivated or lack current job skills.[8]

Most companies choose to offer health care and insurance to all of their employees. The older generation workers often require more benefits from the company due to their age. One worker at the age of 58 who was a two-time cancer survivor and also had fibromyalgiawas laid-off and replaced with a younger girl that was half her age.[8] Although the woman couldn’t prove it, she believed that she was fired and replaced because of her age and the costs that the company incurred by having her as an employee. As a result, because older people are more likely to have health concerns and issues, they are many times the first to be cut from a company. While many age discrimination claims have been filed and have increased drastically, they are very hard to prove and charge against a company.[8]

In order to reduce age discrimination in the United States, Congress passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), a law that provides certain employment protections to workers who are over the age of forty, who work for an employer who has twenty or more employees. For protected workers, the ADEA prohibits discrimination at all levels of employment, from recruitment and hiring, through the employment relationship, and through decisions for layoffs or termination of the employment relationship.[9]

Studies

One researcher decided to make an experiment to test if age discrimination actually exists. For the experiment she created 4,000 mock female résumés and sent them to different companies throughout Boston, Massachusetts as well as St. Petersburg, Florida.[2] Each résumé included the date that the fictitious applicant graduated from high school which indicated the age of each person to the company. The ages of each applicant on the résumés ranged from 35 to 62 years old. The results of the study showed that a younger person was 40 percent more likely to be hired than an older applicant of 50 years or older at the designated companies. As a result, the study proved that companies do often age discriminate against specific groups, especially the older generation.[2]

Another study found that it is not uncommon for employers to use stereotypes to rationalize discriminating against hiring elderly workers. The first of which is the employees’ salary expectations. If an older worker had a job before that had a higher salary, then he/she might keep looking for another job that has a high salary, so hiring him/her is a waste of time to the company. A second reason is that the elderly worker often will have a younger boss, so employers think that the older employee will not be satisfied working for someone who is younger or less experienced.[10]

Causes

There are many reasons for the workplace age discrimination. People are living longer because of healthier lifestyles and advances in medicine. People are working longer because the mandatory retirement age has been eliminated, the recent poor economy has diminished savings and there has been a decline in benefit retirement plans. Thus, more older people are interested in seeking and holding employment.

There are many reasons why older workers may have a difficult time finding work after being laid-off. Many older workers were employed by the same employer for many years, and in some cases that may have been their only job during their entire career.[1] Many older workers are less likely to be skilled at job-seeking, as they haven’t had to search for employment in many years.[1] Also, as the years have passed, companies have turned to more efficient means by offering applications only online. However, while the current generation relies on technology, many older workers may be accustomed to older methods of performing the same labor. Some may find it difficult to use a computer, whether to find and apply for jobs or in the workplace.[1]

Because many of the people in the older generation are less likely to have skills on the computer, their technological inabilities also hold them back from being hired.[1] As the years have passed, many companies have begun to focus using the internet and other programs on the computer, making it more likely they will hire a younger worker that is capable of using technology over an older person that doesn’t know how.[1] This lack of knowledge means that companies would have to provide more training for the elderly person than they would often have to provide for a younger employee. This can be costly and time consuming for companies.[11] Older adults often resist the use of computers for various reasons, such as impaired eyesight and hearing, arthritis and other physical ailments, and reduced cognitive skills, including memory loss and short attention spans, which make surfing the Web more challenging. Learning how to effectively utilize new technology for the elderly can be more demanding due to the fact that learning new skills is stressful both mentally and physically.[12]

The unemployment issue among the older generation not only creates problems for the specific age group, but it also causes policy issues around the nation.[8] The government makes decisions on how to solve the crisis because with this group of people out of work, the older generation is unable to be self-sufficient during a large part of their adult life; a time when they are more likely to have health issues.[8] Also, these people are nearing the time when they will no longer be able to work, and may not be prepared or have the financial means to take care of themselves. As a result, policy makers must try to solve the issue of unemployment by creating more jobs. However, they also must try to create a policy that offers benefits for the older people that are unemployed because they are more likely to be unemployed longer than others.[2]

Solutions

A common solution to become qualified for more jobs and have more opportunities to exit unemployment is to go back to school, whether that is high school or college.[13] Many of the older people do not have a complete high school or college education; therefore, and as a result they do not have the correct training for many jobs that are currently available.[13] However, many older people have found that returning to school would force them to incur more costs than they would if they didn’t go back to school. Taking a class at a local college could cost several thousand dollars. If a person is only a few years away from reaching the age of retirement, they may find it less costly to endure a poor standard of living for a few years and then get their Social Security instead of using part of their limited resources for classes that may never offer them any aid.[13] Another solution for the older generation to become qualified for more jobs is to take instructional courses on how to use computers. Instructional courses may need to incorporate varied instructional styles such as introducing new material and building on prior knowledge by using direct instruction followed by opportunities to integrate and practice new information. Instructors must understand how to best deliver instruction to senior learners in order to provide effective, engaging instruction. Ideal learning environments are ones that are flexible and sensitive to the needs of the senior learner. Once older people gain the skills to use a computer, they will have a greater chance of being hired for a job.[14] An alternative solution is to move to areas of the country that have a better job market. However, older people are more likely to own more assets such as land and their houses. As a result, it would be more difficult and possibly less beneficial for an older person to move and leave these behind.

References

  1. Jump up to:a b c d e f g Rich, Motoko. “For the Unemployed Over 50, Fears of Never Working Again.” The New York Times. 2010 Sept. 19 https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/business/economy/20older.html?pagewanted=all. 3 Dec. 2011.
  2. Jump up to:a b c d Miller, Mark (14 January 2011). “Older unemployed workers half as likely to get hired”. Retrieved 28 September2017.
  3. Jump up^ Blanc, P. D., Katz, P., & Yelin, E. (1996). Mortality risk among elderly workers. “American Journal of Industrial Medicine”, 543-547.
  4. Jump up^ Chang, H., & Yen, S. T. (2011). Full-time, part-time employment and life satisfaction of the elderly. “The Journal of Socio-Economics”, 40(6), 815-823.
  5. Jump up^ Van Ness, R. K., Melinsky, K., Buff, C. L., & Seifert, C. F. (2010). Work ethic: Do new employees mean new work values?. “Managerial Issues”, 22(1), 10-34.
  6. Jump up^ Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job performance. “Journal of Applied Psychology”, 93(2), 392-423.
  7. Jump up^ Shultz, K. S., Olson, D. A., & Wang, M. (2011). Overqualified employees: Perspectives of older workers. “Industrial & Organizational Psychology”, 4(2), 247-249.
  8. Jump up to:a b c d e f g James, Susan. “Unemployment: Companies Cut Pricey Older Workers.” ABC News. 2009 10 Mar. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=7042634&page=1. 30 Nov. 2011.
  9. Jump up^ Larson, Aaron (25 July 2016). “Age Discrimination Law”ExpertLaw. Retrieved 28 September 2017.
  10. Jump up^ Roscigno, V. J., Mong, S., Byron, R., & Tester, G. (2007). Age discrimination, social closure and employment. “Social Forces”, 86(1), 313-334.
  11. Jump up^ Brandon, E. “Why Older Workers Can’t get Hired.” http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2012/05/18/why-older-workers-cant-get-hired
  12. Jump up^ Cohen, Aaron M. “Wiring the Elderly.” Futurist. 2010.
  13. Jump up to:a b c “Unique Training Requirements of Low-Income, Older Workers.” U.S. Department of Labor.2010 7 Jan. http://www.doleta.gov/Seniors/html_docs/docs/unique1.cfm. 1 Dec. 2011.
  14. Jump up^ “Instructional Styles, Attitudes And Experiences Of Seniors In Computer Workshops” Educational Gerontology.2010.
  • Butler, T., & Berret, B. (2011). A generation lost: the reality of age discrimination in today’s hiring practices. Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 9, 1-11. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Sept. 2013.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_discrimination_in_the_United_States

Story 2: 2 Out of 3 Americans Are Overweight or Obese — President Trump Joins The Huge Fluffy Majority — Videos

See the source image

See the source image

Overweight World – Obesity Facts and Statistics

What is obesity? – Mia Nacamulli

Obesity in America

Normal Weight, Yet Still Obese?

Top 10 FATTEST COUNTRIES in the World

Fluffy on British People

“The President” – Gabriel Iglesias (from my I’m Not Fat… I’m Fluffy comedy special)

“Road Trip” – Gabriel Iglesias- (From Hot & Fluffy comedy special)

The Best Time to Eat to Lose Weight

Keto and Intermittent Fasting: the Big Overview for Beginners

Acceptable Liquids with Intermittent Fasting

The Ketogenic Diet & Dairy (Milk, Yogurt & Cheese)

What Are The 4 Body Types?

Body Type l What Is My Shape l How to Find Your Body Type l Mesomorph l Take the Quiz

What to Eat for Your Body Type?

Adrenal Body Type, Cortisol & Belly Fat!

How to Lose Belly Fat: FAST!

The Fastest Way to Lose Weight: MUST WATCH!

Rid the Loose Flabby Skin!

The 2 Most DANGEROUS Foods: MUST WATCH!

The 7 Foods You Must NEVER Ever Eat!

The Perfect Diet

Gabriel Iglesias I’m Sorry for What I Said When I Was Hungry 2017 (Stand Up Comedy, with SUBTITLES)

Story 3: President Trump’s Fake News Awards of 2017 — Big Lie Media’s Junk Journalism Progressive Propaganda Exposed — Videos

See the source image

Trump’s ‘Fake News’ award winners are …

Two of Trump fake news award winners are financial stories

Michelle Malkin and Joe Concha react to ‘Fake News Awards’

FULL VIDEO Of President Trump’s Fake News Awards

Fake News Awards & TRUMP PRESS CONFERENCE Rebutting CNN, MSNBC, ABC, New York Times, etc…

The Fake News Awards 2017

#Trump Gaslights and Psychs Out the #MSM Yet Again and They Took the Bait Hook, Line and Sinker

 

The Highly-Anticipated 2017 Fake News Awards

TEAM GOP – January 17, 2018

2017 was a year of unrelenting bias, unfair news coverage, and even downright fake news. Studies have shown that over 90% of the media’s coverage of President Trump is negative.

Below are the winners of the 2017 Fake News Awards.

1. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claimed on the day of President Trump’s historic, landslide victory that the economy would never recover.


2. ABC News’ Brian Ross CHOKES and sends markets in a downward spiral with false report.



3. CNN FALSELY reported that candidate Donald Trump and his son Donald J. Trump, Jr. had access to hacked documents from WikiLeaks.


(via Fox News)
4. TIME FALSELY reported that President Trump removed a bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Oval Office.


5. Washington Post FALSELY reported the President’s massive sold-out rally in Pensacola, Florida was empty. Dishonest reporter showed picture of empty arena HOURS before crowd started pouring in.

View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter

.@DaveWeigel @WashingtonPost put out a phony photo of an empty arena hours before I arrived @ the venue, w/ thousands of people outside, on their way in. Real photos now shown as I spoke. Packed house, many people unable to get in. Demand apology & retraction from FAKE NEWS WaPo!

6. CNN FALSELY edited a video to make it appear President Trump defiantly overfed fish during a visit with the Japanese prime minister. Japanese prime minister actually led the way with the feeding.


7. CNN FALSELY reported about Anthony Scaramucci’s meeting with a Russian, but retracted it due to a “significant breakdown in process.”


(via washingtonpost.com)
8. Newsweek FALSELY reported that Polish First Lady Agata Kornhauser-Duda did not shake President Trump’s hand.


9. CNN FALSELY reported that former FBI Director James Comey would dispute President Trump’s claim that he was told he is not under investigation.


10. The New York Times FALSELY claimed on the front page that the Trump administration had hidden a climate report.


(via WashingtonPost.com)

11. And last, but not least: “RUSSIA COLLUSION!” Russian collusion is perhaps the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people. THERE IS NO COLLUSION!

Well, now that collusion with Russia is proving to be a total hoax and the only collusion is with Hillary Clinton and the FBI/Russia, the Fake News Media (Mainstream) and this phony new book are hitting out at every new front imaginable. They should try winning an election. Sad!

 

While the media spent 90% of the time focused on negative coverage or fake news, the President has been getting results:

1. The economy has created nearly 2 million jobs and gained over $8 trillion in wealth since the President’s inauguration.

2. African Americans and Hispanics are enjoying the lowest unemployment rate in recorded history.

3. The President signed historic tax cuts and relief for hardworking Americans not seen since President Reagan.

4. President Trump’s plan to cut regulations has exceeded “2 out for every 1 in” mandate, issuing 22 deregulatory actions for every one new regulatory action.

5. The President has unleashed an American energy boom by ending Obama-era regulations, approving the Keystone pipeline, auctioning off millions of new acres for energy exploration, and opening up ANWR.

6. ISIS is in retreat, having been crushed in Iraq and Syria.

7. President Trump followed through on his promise to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel and instructed the State Department to begin to relocate the Embassy.

8. With President Trump’s encouragement, more member nations are paying their fair share for the common defense in the NATO alliance.

9. Signed the Veterans Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act to allow senior officials in the VA to fire failing employees and establishes safeguards to protect whistleblowers.

10. President Trump kept his promise and appointed Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court.

https://gop.com/the-highly-anticipated-2017-fake-news-awards/

 

A Times Square billboard that “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” bought to nominate itself for President Trump’s “Fake News Awards.” CreditMike Segar/Reuters

WASHINGTON — President Trump — who gleefully questioned President Barack Obama’s birthplace for years without evidence, long insisted on the guilt of the Central Park Five despite exonerating proof and claimed that millions of illegal ballots cost him the popular vote in 2016 — wanted to have a word with the American public about accuracy in reporting.

On Wednesday, after weeks of shifting deadlines, and cryptic clues, Mr. Trump released his long-promised “Fake News Awards,” an anti-media project that had alarmed advocates of press freedom and heartened his political base.

“And the FAKE NEWS winners are …,” he wrote on Twitter at 8 p.m.

The message linked, at first, to a malfunctioning page on GOP.com, the Republican National Committee website. An error screen read: “The site is temporarily offline, we are working to bring it back up. Please try back later.”

When the page came back online less than an hour later, it resembled a Republican Party news release. Headlined “The Highly Anticipated 2017 Fake News Awards” and attributed to “Team GOP,” it included a list of Trump administration accomplishments and jabs at news organizations presented in the form of an 11-point list.

The “winners” were CNN, mentioned four times; The New York Times, with two mentions; and ABC, The Washington Post, Time and Newsweek, with one mention apiece.

Taken as a whole, Mr. Trump’s examples of grievances came as no surprise to anyone who has read his complaints about the media on Twitter.

The various reports singled out by Mr. Trump touched on serious issues, like the media’s handling of the investigation by the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III into the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Russia, and frivolous matters, like the manner in which journalists conveyed how the president fed fish during a stop at a koi pond on his visit to Japan.

The first item on the list referred not to a news article but to a short opinion piece posted on The Times’s website at 12:42 on the night Mr. Trump became president: “The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claimed on the day of President Trump’s historic, landslide victory that the economy will ‘never’ recover,” the entry read.

What Mr. Krugman actually wrote was this: “If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.” Mr. Krugman concluded his election night take by predicting that a global recession was likely, while adding the caveat, “I suppose we could get lucky somehow.”

Three days later, Mr. Krugman retracted his prediction of an economic collapse, saying he overreacted.

The next target was Brian Ross of ABC News, who was suspended by the network last month because of an erroneous report.

Photo

President Trump’s tweet linked, at first, to a malfunctioning page on GOP.com, the Republican National Committee website.

ABC apologized for and corrected Mr. Ross’s report that Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser, planned to testify that Mr. Trump had directed him to make contact with Russian officials when Mr. Trump was still a candidate.

In fact, Mr. Trump had directed Mr. Flynn to make contact after the election, when he was president-elect.

At the time of Mr. Ross’s suspension, Kathleen Culver, the director of the Center for Journalism Ethics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said that the president was likely to use the mistake as ammunition against his political opponents — an observation that seemed borne out by the “Fake News Awards.”

The third entry on the GOP.com list went after CNN, a favorite target of the president, for reporting incorrectly last month that the president’s eldest child, Donald Trump Jr., had received advance notice from WikiLeaks about a trove of hacked documents that it planned to release during last year’s presidential campaign.

In fact, the email to the younger Mr. Trump was sent a day after the documents, stolen from the Democratic National Committee, were made available to the general public. The correction undercut the main thrust of CNN’s story, which had been seized on by critics of the president as evidence of coordination between WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign.

Another entry on the list took on The Washington Post, claiming that it had “FALSELY reported the President’s massive sold-out rally in Pensacola, Florida was empty. Dishonest reporter showed picture of empty arena HOURS before crowd started pouring in.”

The reporter in question was David Weigel, who had posted the photo in question on his Twitter account before quickly deleting it. The Post itself did not publish the photo or a report on the size of the crowd at the Trump event. The “Fake News Awards” entry, however, conflated a reporter’s tweetwith the publication itself. It also omitted the fact that Mr. Weigel deleted his tweet and apologized for it when it was pointed out to him that it was misleading. Further, it did not mention that Mr. Trump had called for Mr. Weigel to be fired over the tweet. (He was not.)

The content of the 11-point list was perhaps less notable than its premise: a sitting president using his bully pulpit for a semi-formalized attack on the free press.

In two subsequent tweets on Wednesday night, Mr. Trump added that there were “many great reporters I respect” and defended his administration’s record in the face of “a very biased media.”

The technical anticlimax seemed a fitting end to a peculiar saga that began in November when Mr. Trump floated the bestowing of a “FAKE NEWS TROPHY.”

The idea matured into the “Fake News Awards,” which the president initially said in a Jan. 2 Twitter post he would give out on Jan. 8 to honor “the most corrupt & biased of the Mainstream Media.”

With the date approaching, Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter that the event would be moved to Wednesday because “the interest in, and importance of, these awards is far greater than anyone could have anticipated!”

Photo

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House secretary, on Wednesday, hours before the awards were announced. “I know you’re all waiting to see if you are big winners, I’m sure,” she told reporters. CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times

From the beginning, the awards were the sort of Trumpian production that seemed easy to mock but difficult to ignore. Members of the news media joked about the speeches they would prepare, the tuxedos and gowns they would fetch. It would be an honor, they said, just to be nominated.

Here, it seemed, was the opéra bouffe climax of Mr. Trump’s campaign against the media, a bizarro-world spectacle that both encapsulated and parodied the president’s animus toward a major democratic institution.

Late-night comedy shows created satirical Emmys-style advertising campaigns to snag what some referred to as a coveted “Fakey.”

“The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” bought a billboard in Times Square, nominating itself in categories like “Least Breitbarty” and “Corruptest Fakeness.” Jimmy Kimmel, who has emerged as a Trump bête noire, called it “the Stupid People’s Choice Awards.”

Politico reported that the awards could even pose an ethical issue for White House aides, with some experts arguing that the event would breach a ban on government officials using their office to explicitly promote or deride private organizations.

And press advocates cringed at the prospect of a gala dedicated to the phrase “fake news,” which has already helped corrode trust in journalism in the United States and around the world. In response to Mr. Trump’s endeavor, the Committee to Protect Journalists this month recognized the president among the “world leaders who have gone out of their way to attack the press and undermine the norms that support freedom of the media.”

Two Republicans from Arizona, Senator John McCain and Senator Jeff Flake, denounced Mr. Trump’s anti-press attacks, with Mr. Flake noting in a speech on the Senate floor on Wednesday that the president had borrowed a term from Stalin to describe the media: “enemy of the people.”

The buzz around the president’s latest anti-press stunt has contributed to a larger shift in American attitudes toward the press.

In a study released this week by Gallup and the Knight Foundation, 66 percent of Americans who were surveyed said most news organizations blurred opinion and fact, up from 42 percent in 1984. “Fake news” was deemed a threat to democracy by a majority of respondents.

Mr. Trump’s list did not mention BuzzFeed, a media outlet that drew his ire last year when it published a salacious and largely unsubstantiated intelligence dossier that purported to lay out how Russia had aided the Trump campaign. On Jan. 8, President Trump’s longtime lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, filed a defamation lawsuit in federal court against Fusion GPS, the firm behind the report, as well as a separate lawsuit against BuzzFeed in state court.

Mr. Trump also did not mention Michael Wolff, the author of the slashing, if error-specked, best seller, “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” although a lawyer working on his behalf had sent a letter demanding that the publisher Henry Holt and Company halt publication of the book.

“Fire and Fury” did not come out until Jan. 5, so perhaps the author will receive a prominent mention next January, if the president sees fit to give out the 2018 Fake News Awards.

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

 

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1018

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2016, Story 1: Renewal of FISA’s Section 702 and Protection of Americans Privacy Rights — National Security Agency Is Spying On American People — Require NSA To Get A Warrant In Court of Law — Support U.S.A. Rights Act — Videos — Story 2: Fusion GPS Dossier and Leaking of Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson Testimony — Videos

Posted on January 10, 2018. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Cartoons, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Fourth Amendment, Free Trade, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, History, House of Representatives, Housing, Human, Human Behavior, Law, Life, Media, National Interest, National Security Agency, Networking, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, President Trump, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Rule of Law, Scandals, Senate, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1013, December 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1012, December 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1011, December 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1010, December 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1009, December 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1007, November 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1006, November 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1005, November 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1004, November 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1003, November 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1002, November 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1001, November 14, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 1000, November 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 999, November 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 998, November 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 997, November 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 996, November 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 995, November 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 994, November 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 993, November 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 992, October 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 991, October 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 990, October 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 989, October 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 988, October 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 987, October 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 986, October 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 985, October 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 984, October 16, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 983, October 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 982, October 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 981, October 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 979, October 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source image

Judge Nap on FISA Act Renewal

FISA bill passes in House, but faces tough road in Senate

House Votes to Recertify FISA Section 702. Dershowitz

FBI use of dossier for FISA warrant is criminal contempt: James Kallstrom

Hannity: FISA abuses are worthy of further investigation

Hannity: Politicization of US intel is the real scandal

Trump Contradicts His Team. Then He Doesn’t

Sara Carter: Trump Dossier Was Used By FBI To Obtain FISA Warrants on Trump Campaign

BREAKING – 4+ Sources Confirm Trump Dossier Used to Obtain FISA Warrants

Senator Lindsey Graham Confirms His Recent Revelation Steele Dossier WAS Used For 2016 FISA Warrant

Trump Dossier Allowed FBI to Spy on Trump, 1974

Wow! Trump Dossier Was Used to Investigate Trump!

The privacy concerns at the heart of the FISA renewal debate

FISA §702: ‘This is the end of probable cause’ — Lionel

Senator Rand Paul & Senator Ron Wyden join Representative Justin Amash

Coats outlines ‘section 702’ surveillance law

The FISA bill in 60 seconds

STOP the Government from Spying on You! | Rand Paul

What is Section 702?

Trey Gowdy on DACA Judge and Surveillance on Americans.

Senator Rand Paul Explains 702 Data Collection at Cato Institute

Rand Paul on FISA. Could Shut Down Gov Over it

FISA §702: ‘This is the end of probable cause’ — Lionel Nation

Powerful Judge Tells Congress To END NSA For Good

End Warrantless Deep State Spying: Don’t Renew 702

Renewal of FISA’s Section 702: Why America Needs the Provision

Rand Paul on Obama Illegally Spying on Americans | NSA Wiretapping

NSA Spying On Americans ‘Widespread’ – Let Sec. 702 Expire!

Bill Binney – The State of Domestic Spying

NSA Whistleblower Tells How NSA Tracks You! w/Bill Binney

Malzberg | Bill Binney discusses his belief that the NSA has all of Clinton’s emails

NSA Genius Debunks Russiagate Once & For All

NSA Whistleblower: Everyone in US under virtual surveillance, all info stored, no matter the post

NSA Whistleblower William Binney: The Future of FREEDOM

Representative Justin Amash, Republican of Michigan, is sponsoring a bill amendment that would extend Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act by four years while making major changes to it.CreditEric Thayer for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — A yearslong debate over National Security Agency surveillance and protections for Americans’ privacy rights will reach a climactic moment on Thursday as the House of Representatives takes up legislation to extend a program of warrantless spying on internet and phone networks that traces back to the Sept. 11 attacks.

There is little doubt that Congress will extend an expiring statute, known as Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, that permits the government to collect without a warrant from American firms, like Google and AT&T, the emails and other communications of foreigners abroad — even when they are talking to Americans.

But it is far from clear whether Congress will impose significant new safeguards for Americans’ privacy. A bipartisan coalition of civil-liberties-minded lawmakers are trying to impose such changes, while the Trump administration, the intelligence community and House Republican leadership oppose them.

Thursday’s vote is seen as the crucial test because more would-be reformers are in the House than in the Senate, which will take up the legislation later. If majority support for imposing new privacy protections on the program does not exist in the House, the Senate is unlikely to add them in.

“The chances are better in the House,” acknowledged Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, at a news conference on Wednesday of House and Senate lawmakers who support surveillance overhaul efforts. “The privacy movement is stronger in the House than the Senate. Maybe we can learn from you guys.”

The N.S.A. began collecting Americans’ international phone calls and emails without a warrant in October 2001 as part of the Bush administration’s post-Sept. 11 Stellarwind program. In 2008, after the program had come to light, Congress legalized a form of it by enacting Section 702 of the FISA law. That law enabled the program to expand to Silicon Valley firms, not just telecoms, and to all foreign intelligence purposes, not just counterterrorism.

In late 2012, Congress extended the law for five years without changes. But the pending expiration of Section 702 is forcing lawmakers to address its substance for the first time since the 2013 leaks about N.S.A. programs by Edward J. Snowden set off a major debate about 21st-century surveillance technology and privacy rights.

On Thursday, the House will vote on an Intelligence Committee bill that would extend the 702 program for six years with only minor changes. But House leaders are permitting lawmakers first to vote on a single proposed amendment that would make major changes.

Chief among them, the amendment would ban the practice whereby officials at the N.S.A., the F.B.I. and other security agencies, without a warrant, search for and read private messages of Americans that the government incidentally swept up under the 702 program. Instead, except in emergencies, officials would need to obtain a court order to query the repository for an American’s information.

The amendment is chiefly sponsored by Representative Justin Amash, Republican of Michigan, and Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California. It would substitute in the text of another bill, dubbed the USA Rights Act, which would extend Section 702 by only four years.

The bipartisan coalition backing overhaul efforts — which includes some of the most conservative and most liberal members of the House — say that change is necessary to uphold the meaning and substance of Fourth Amendment privacy rights in light of 21st-century communications technology and surveillance powers.

But the F.B.I. and the intelligence community have balked at that proposal, saying it would impede their efforts to protect the country to require warrants to query information the government already possesses. There are also lawmakers of both parties — backed by House leadership — who oppose the amendment.

Aides to Representative Devin Nunes, the California Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, distributed a one-page sheet this week denouncing the amendment as imposing “unnecessarily severe requirements” that would endanger Americans.

Complicating matters, the base bill backed by Mr. Nunes contains a gesture toward a court-order requirement, too. It would apply only under narrow circumstances: if F.B.I. agents have already opened a criminal investigation into the American whose information they are searching for, and if the agents have no national-security rationale.

Representative Adam Schiff of California, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said the warrant requirement in the base bill would be sufficient to “prevent the database from being used as a general tool to gather evidence and introduce it in court in cases that have nothing to do with terrorism.”

But the base bill would still permit routine queries for Americans’ information without warrants. Its warrant requirement would not apply to national-security-related queries by a range of agencies, including the C.I.A., the N.S.A. and the F.B.I. Nor would it apply to F.B.I. queries when agents are merely pursuing tips about an American but do not yet have enough evidence of wrongdoing to open a criminal investigation.

In short, the base bill would give greater privacy protections to criminal suspects than to people the F.B.I. has no solid basis for thinking had committed any wrongdoing.

Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, dismissed the base bill’s limited warrant provision on Wednesday as “fake reform” that was really just “business as usual.”

Adding to the uncertainty, in 2014 and 2015, the House approved amendments to appropriations bills that would have required warrants to search the 702 repository for Americans’ information, but they were rejected in negotiations with the Senate. When the idea came up again in 2016, shortly after the terrorist attack on a nightclub in Orlando, Fla., the House voted it down.

Another significant difference between the base bill and the amendment centers on the N.S.A.’s old practice of scanning Americans’ international emails and other internet messages and collecting those that mention a foreign target — but are neither to nor from that target. The technique came to light amid the Snowden leaks and ended last year.

Such collection is technically complex, and the N.S.A. shut it down after repeatedly running into trouble adhering to limits imposed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. But the agency wants to retain the flexibility to turn it back on. The base bill would permit it to do so after briefing the congressional intelligence committees. The amendment would ban the practice.

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 1015, Story 1: Very Stable Genius President Trump Conducts Bipartisan Meeting With Congressional Leadership on Immigration — Big Lie Media and Lying Lunatic Left Including Wolff Exposed As Liars Calling The President Unstable Demented Nut — Trump Goes Squishy on Border Wall/Barrier Sounds Like Former Texas Governor Ricky Perry — You Were Warned Not To Trust Republican Leadership and Trump on Immigration With Their Touch-back Amnesty/Citizenship — Smell Comprehensive Immigration Reform Rats — Political Elitist Establishment vs. American People — Deporting The 30-60 Million Illegal Aliens That Invaded The United States Not Mentioned! — Betrayal Begins —  American People Do Not Trust The Political Elitist Establishment of Both Parties — You Can’t Always Get What You Want — Videos — Story 2: 9th Circuit On Dreamers – San Francisco U.S. District Judge: U.S. Must Maintain DACA Program vs. American People: Enforce Immigration Law and Deport All Illegal Aliens — Videos

Posted on January 9, 2018. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Banking System, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Budgetary Policy, Business, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Countries, Crime, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Gangs, Government, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Investments, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Monetary Policy, News, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Public Corruption, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Scandals, Senate, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1013, December 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1012, December 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1011, December 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1010, December 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1009, December 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1007, November 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1006, November 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1005, November 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1004, November 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1003, November 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1002, November 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1001, November 14, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 1000, November 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 999, November 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 998, November 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 997, November 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 996, November 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 995, November 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 994, November 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 993, November 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 992, October 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 991, October 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 990, October 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 989, October 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 988, October 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 987, October 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 986, October 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 985, October 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 984, October 16, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 983, October 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 982, October 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 981, October 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 979, October 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

See the source imageImage result for bianco cartoons on president trump and immigrationSee the source image

See the source imageImage result for bianco cartoons on president trump and immigration

Image result for bianco cartoons on president trump and immigrationSee the source image

See the source image

See the source image

 

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source image

squish·y
ˈskwiSHē/
adjective
  1. soft and moist.
    “the bananas will turn soft and squishy”

 

Story 1: Very Stable Genius President Trump Conducts Bipartisan Meeting With Congressional Leadership on Immigration — Big Lie Media and Lying Lunatic Left Including Wolff Exposed As Liars Calling The President Unstable Demented Nut — Trump Goes Squishy on Border Wall/Barrier Sounds Like Former Texas Governor Ricky Perry — You Were Warned Not To Trust Republican Leadership and Trump on Immigration With Their Touch-back Amnesty/Citizenship — Smell Comprehensive Immigration Reform Rats — Political Elitist Establishment vs. American People — Deporting The 30-60 Million Illegal Aliens That Invaded The United States Not Mentioned! — Betrayal Begins —  American People Do Not Trust The Political Elitist Establishment of Both Parties — You Can’t Always Get What You Want — Videos —

Pence: President is clear, no deal on DACA without wall

Sarah Sanders (01/10/18) “WHY ISN’T MEXICO PAYING FOR THE WALL??!!”

Tucker Carlson Criticizes Trump WH Meeting

Tucker: If GOP betrays voters on immigration, they’re toast

A few thoughts tonight on what our President is doing on illegal immigration and border security

DACA now, wall later a big mistake: Gohmert

Democrats won’t compromise on border wall, but want DACA deal

Democrats want amnesty for the worst illegals: Ann Coulter

Senator Graham Talks Amnesty Backlash – Tucker Carlson

Trump’s immigration meeting was lowest day of presidency: Ann Coulter

Trump’s bipartisan approach to immigration angering some Republicans

Lawmakers and Trump debate DACA – Ingraham Angle

Laura Ingraham NAILS IT ON DACA & Then DESTROYS A HYSTERICAL HISPANIC

Corey Lewandowski Discusses Trump’s DACA Meeting

Laura Ingraham on Trump WH Meeting With Legislators

Ann Coulter Responds to Trump’s DACA Meeting With Congress

Why Trump Is 100% Correct In Ending #DACA

Ben Shapiro: President Trump Holds a big White House meeting on immigration (audio from 01-10-2018)

The Rush Limbaugh Show Video 1/10/18 | Trump’s Take: The Media Loved My Meeting!

Gingrich: Elites passionately avoiding the Trump reality

Trump’s Touchback amnesty explained by Marc Thiessen

Trump: Illegal immigrants must leave and apply for entry

Donald Trump explains his immigration plan

Donald Trump: ‘We need to keep illegals out’ | Fox News Republican Debate

#Trump Is Absolutely a #StableGenius and Machiavellian Political Maestro Who’ll Bury #SteveBannon

Rick Perry: Border Fence is “Nonsense”

Rick Perry His Words Immigration

‘Fire And Fury’ Author Michael Wolff: ‘I Absolutely’ Spoke To President Donald Trump | TODAY

Trump: I’m a very stable genius

Michael Wolff’s tell-all book is to discredit Trump’s successes: Liz Peek

Roger Stone: Joe and Mika turned on Trump out of bitterness

President Trump Meeting With Senators On Immigration 1/9/18

Feinstein, McCarthy disagree on immigration policy during meeting with Trump

Senate Democrats Press Conference 1/9/18

Senate Republicans Press Conference 1/9/18 Daca

LIVE: Sarah Huckabee Sanders White House Press Briefing 1/9/18

President Trump Has Not Sold Us Out On DACA, Here Is What Is Really Happening

FAIR Discusses Trump’s Impending DACA Deal

The High Cost of Illegal Immigration

Immigration-Driven Population Growth is a Major Problem

Tucker: Left reaction over DACA is demagoguery, nonsense

What is DACA?

What happens to 800,000 DACA recipients after program ends?

Love Is All You Need – Beatles

Rolling Stones “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” in 1969

The Rolling Stones – You Can’t Always Get What You Want (Live) – OFFICIAL

 

In extraordinary public negotiation with Congress, Trump promises to sign DACA bill

Pushing for compromise on immigration reform, President Donald Trump urged a bipartisan group of lawmakers gathered at the White House to put “country before party” and negotiate a deal in two phases, first by addressing young immigrants. (Jan. 9) AP

Corrections and clarifications: A prior version of this story misstated House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s title. 

WASHINGTON — President Trump promised Tuesday to sign what he called a “bill of love” to extend protections to 800,000 immigrants who entered the United States illegally as children — if Congress can work out the details.

“You folks are going to have to come up with a solution,” Trump told 25 lawmakers in a remarkable televised negotiation at the White House. “And if you do, I’m going to sign that solution.”

But funding for a wall along the border with Mexico remains a sticking point, as Trump insisted that border security remain a part of any deal.

Lawmakers are under a March 5 deadline — imposed by Trump — to come up with a legal fix to the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. DACA, as it’s known, is now the main stumbling block holding up a wide range of other Trump administration immigration priorities.

Conservative Republicans in the House want to link DACA to Trump’s request for $18 billion for a border wall. That would give immigration talks even more urgency, as the spending bill must pass by Jan. 19 to prevent a government shutdown.

So Trump and his top advisers sat down Tuesday with 25 members of Congress — 16 senators and nine representatives, 15 Republicans and 10 Democrats. And in an unusual move, the White House opened nearly an hour of the meeting to the press.

More: Trump demands Democrats cave on border wall before DACA fix

More: Trump: DACA will be ‘terrific’ if Democrats back his own immigration plans

More: Each day, 120 ‘dreamers’ lose protection from deportation

The Republicans came with a common talking point: Congress needs a permanent fix to immigration enforcement, or else have to deal with the issue again. Democrats said the urgency of saving DREAMers from deportation meant that extending DACA must take priority.

The so-called DREAMers are the children of immigrants who remained in the country illegally — growing up as Americans but without the legal status. Obama’s solution was to use his enforcement discretion to give up to 800,000 DREAMers a quasi-legal status, but the Trump administration has said Obama exceeded his authority and that any fix must come from Congress.

Trump said repeatedly on Tuesday that he would sign any bill Congress sends him to make that deferred action program legal. But then he later clarified that such a bill must also include border security measures, including funding for a border wall.

“A clean DACA bill, to me, is a DACA bill where we take care of the 800,000 people,” he said. “We take care of them and we also take care of security. That’s very important.”

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., the number two Democrat in the Senate, expressed optimism that such a deal could get done.

As of March 5, one thousand people a day will lose their temporary status, Durbin said. “Lives are hanging in the balance. We’ve got the time to do it,” Durbin told Trump.

“We feel that we can put together a combination for the future of DACA as well as border security,” said Durbin, sitting to Trump’s right. “We want a safe border in America, period, both when it comes to the issues of illegal migration, but also when it comes to drugs and all these other areas.”

But Republicans also want two other issues on the table: elimination of the diversity visa lottery program and family-based “chain migration.”

“Yes, we’ve got to do DACA, and I agree with you 100%,” said House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. “But if we do not do something with the security, if we do not do something with the chain migration, we are fooling each other that we solved the problem.”

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, who was not in the meeting, said he was encouraged by Trump’s more productive tone. “The fact that he limited things to just the four areas that were talked about — something we have been seeking for a while to see what the limits are—was a very good sign,” he said.

More: How Trump’s wall pledge is complicating a DACA bill for ‘Dreamers’

After the reporters left, Trump showed even more flexibility, said Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. — especially on the issue of how much money he wants for the border wall.

“I went in very skeptical that anything would be accomplished, but the biggest part of the meeting — the best part — is what the president did actually a little more explanation of what the wall actually means to him,” said Flake, who has been a frequent critic of the president in the past. “The wall is really a fence.”

Tuesday’s meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House was scheduled to be closed to reporters, but opened up on short notice. It quickly became perhaps the most extended open discussion between the president and congressional leaders since President Barack Obama’s Blair House summit on health care eight years ago. Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., called it “the most fascinating meeting I’ve been involved with in 20-plus years in politics.”

“I like opening it up to the media,” Trump said. “Because I think they’re seeing, more than anything else, that we’re all very much on a similar page. We’re on the same page.”

The open negotiation also came amid growing questions about Trump’s command of the issues following the release of a tell-all book last week. Often sitting with his arms crossed and directing the conversation, Trump delved into immigration policy with occasional tangents into earmarks, military spending and whether Oprah Winfrey will run for president. (“I don’t think she’s going to run,” Trump said.)

After 55 minutes, Trump finally gave the signal for aides to usher reporters out of the room. “Thank you all very much. I hope we gave you enough material. This should cover you for about two weeks,” he said.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/09/trump-meets-congressional-leaders-immigration/1016369001/

Trump suggests 2-phase immigration deal for ‘Dreamers’

WASHINGTON (AP) — Seeking a bipartisan compromise to avoid a government shutdown, President Donald Trump suggested Tuesday that an immigration deal could be reached in two phases — first by addressing young immigrants and border security with what he called a “bill of love,” then by making comprehensive changes that have long eluded Congress.

Trump presided over a lengthy meeting with Republican and Democratic lawmakers seeking a solution for hundreds of thousands of young people who were brought to the U.S. as children and living here illegally. Trump last year ended the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which shielded more than 700,000 people from deportation and gave them the right to work legally. He gave Congress until March to find a fix.

The president, congressional Republicans and Democrats expressed optimism for a deal just 10 days before a government shutdown deadline. Trump said he was willing to be flexible in finding an agreement as Democrats warned that the lives of hundreds of thousands of immigrants hung in the balance.

“I think my positions are going to be what the people in this room come up with,” Trump said during a Cabinet Room meeting with a bipartisan group of nearly two dozen lawmakers, adding, “I am very much reliant upon the people in this room.” A group of journalists observed the meandering meeting for an extraordinary length of time — about 55 minutes — that involved Trump seeking input from Democrats and Republicans alike in a freewheeling exchange on the contentious issue.

The White House said after the meeting that lawmakers had agreed to narrow the scope of the negotiations to four areas: border security, family-based “chain migration,” the visa lottery, and the DACA policy, winning nods from Democrats.

“It’s encouraging that the president seems open to a narrow deal protecting the Dreamers,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York.

The unusually public meeting laid bare a back-and-forth between the parties more typically confined to closed-door negotiations. At one point, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, asked Trump if he would support a “clean” DACA bill now with a commitment to pursue a comprehensive immigration overhaul later.

Trump responded, “I would like it … I think a lot of people would like to see that but I think we have to do DACA first.” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., interjected, saying, “Mr. President, you need to be clear though,” that legislation involving the so-called Dreamers would need to include border security.

Trump also suggested bringing back “earmarks,” or money for pet projects requested by lawmakers, as a way to bridge the divide between the two parties. Conservative groups responded that any resumption of earmarks ran the risk of special interests playing a bigger role in government, a notion at odds with Trump’s “drain the swamp” campaign mantra.

On immigration, the president said he would insist on construction of a border security wall as part of an agreement involving young immigrants, but he said Congress could then pursue a comprehensive immigration overhaul in a second phase of talks.

House Republicans said they planned to soon introduce legislation to address border security and the young immigrants. Trump said, “it should be a bill of love.”

Trump’s embrace of a “bill of love” brought to mind his past criticism of former GOP presidential rival Jeb Bush, who said many people come to the U.S. illegally as an “act of love.” Trump’s campaign posted a video at the time with a tagline that read, “Forget love, it’s time to get tough!”

Conservatives quickly sounded alarms about a process that would lead to a comprehensive agreement on immigration, a path that has long been anathema to many rank-and-file Republicans.

“Nothing Michael Wolff could say about @realDonaldTrump has hurt him as much as the DACA lovefest right now,” tweeted conservative commentator Ann Coulter, referencing Trump’s recent portrayal in the book, “Fire and Fury.”

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., leader of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, said in a text message after the White House meeting he was “generally” opposed to a two-step process “because history would indicate the second step never happens.” But he later said that if the first steps included the four areas outlined by the White House, “then I could support a two-step process realizing that step one is the only thing that is guaranteed.”

The president appeared to acknowledge the potential political pitfalls of pursuing a more permanent deal, telling the lawmakers, “I’ll take all the heat you want. But you are not that far away from comprehensive immigration reform.”

After the meeting, lawmakers from both parties appeared divided over the basic definition of Trump’s bottom-line demand for a border wall on the southern border.

Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland said his party was opposed to GOP calls for $18 billion in funding to build the wall. “It was clear in the meeting that wall did not mean some structure,” he said of Trump’s remarks, noting the president also mentioned fencing, cameras, and other security measures for the border.

Republicans were adamant that Trump’s call “means the wall,” but that Trump acknowledged it does not need to cover the entire length of the border, because of geographic barriers. Just how many miles of a constructed wall the president would need to sign onto an immigration bill would be subject to negotiation, McCarthy said.

Democrats and Republicans are set to resume negotiations on Wednesday.

The immigration talks pit a president who made the construction of a border wall a central piece of his 2016 campaign against congressional Democrats who have sought to preserve the Obama-era protections for the young immigrants.

The discussions are taking place in the aftermath of Trump’s public blow-up with former campaign and White House adviser Steve Bannon, one of the architects of Trump’s calls for the border wall.

Bannon’s break with Trump has raised concerns among some conservative Republicans that the president might reach an agreement with Democrats on the Dreamers without getting enough in return on border security and significant changes to the immigration system.

Trump as recently as last weekend said he wouldn’t sign legislation addressing DACA unless Congress agreed to an overhaul of the legal immigration system, saying any deal must include an overhaul of the family-based immigration system as well as an end to the diversity visa lottery, which draws immigrants from under-represented parts of a world.

That would be in addition to Trump winning funding for his promised southern border wall and added border security. But in the meeting he indicated a willingness to compromise with Democrats, whose votes are needed in the narrowly divided Senate.

“The president exhibited, I thought, quite a bit of flexibility when the cameras weren’t there in terms of what we do in this phase and the next phase — and an acknowledgment that a lot of things we want to do are going to be part of a comprehensive bill but not now,” said Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., one of the attendees.

https://apnews.com/63df959272f94f908b7a27ba55553df9

 

Trump demands Democrats cave on border wall before DACA fix

President Trump demanded Friday that Democrats approve a wall along the border with Mexico and other programs to tighten immigration before he supports a program designed to protect young people brought into the country illegally as children – all while promoting his agenda and attacking political critics on Twitter.

“The Democrats have been told, and fully understand, that there can be no DACA without the desperately needed WALL at the Southern Border and an END to the horrible Chain Migration & ridiculous Lottery System of Immigration etc. We must protect our Country at all cost!” Trump said during a wide-ranging tweet storm.

The Democrats have been told, and fully understand, that there can be no DACA without the desperately needed WALL at the Southern Border and an END to the horrible Chain Migration & ridiculous Lottery System of Immigration etc. We must protect our Country at all cost!

DACA refers to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which protected hundreds of thousands of young people brought into the country illegally by their parents – a program Trump has vowed to end after March 1 unless Congress approves new border enforcement issues.

Democrats say ending DACA will lead to deportations of productive young people. They also say Trump’s proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border will do nothing to stop illegal immigration while programs targeted by Trump are tightly scrutinized to weed out criminals and terrorism suspects.

During his serial set of tweets, Trump also went after the postal service – and Amazon.

“Why is the United States Post Office, which is losing many billions of dollars a year, while charging Amazon and others so little to deliver their packages, making Amazon richer and the Post Office dumber and poorer?” Trump said. “Should be charging MUCH MORE!”

Why is the United States Post Office, which is losing many billions of dollars a year, while charging Amazon and others so little to deliver their packages, making Amazon richer and the Post Office dumber and poorer? Should be charging MUCH MORE!

Trump did not provide an economic analysis of his post office complaint, but it is worth noting that Amazon was created by Jeff Bezos – who also just happens to own The Washington Post, a frequent target of Trump complaints about the media.

The president also defended his time in office by re-tweeting tributes from Charlie Kirk, founder and executive director of the conservative group Turning Point USA, who cited the recently signed tax cuts, de-regulation efforts, judicial appointments, and the fight against and the Islamic State.

Trump’s morning Twitterstorm also complained about news coverage, this time regarding his low approval ratings.

“While the Fake News loves to talk about my so-called low approval rating, @foxandfriends just showed that my rating on Dec. 28, 2017, was approximately the same as President Obama on Dec. 28, 2009, which was 47%…and this despite massive negative Trump coverage & Russia hoax!” the president said.

Yet that is just one poll – others have Trump’s approval rating in the low 40s or 30s.

The Real Clear Politics website average on Friday had Trump’s ratings at 39.3% approve and 56.2% disapprove.

On this date in 2009, during Obama’s first year in office, the site put Obama at a 49.9% average approval rating and a 44.5% disapproval rating.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/12/29/trump-demands-democrats-cave-border-wall-before-daca-fix/989644001/

 

In extraordinary public negotiation with Congress, Trump promises to sign DACA bill

Pushing for compromise on immigration reform, President Donald Trump urged a bipartisan group of lawmakers gathered at the White House to put “country before party” and negotiate a deal in two phases, first by addressing young immigrants. (Jan. 9) AP

WASHINGTON — President Trump promised Tuesday to sign what he called a “bill of love” to extend protections to 800,000 immigrants who entered the United States illegally as children — if Congress can work out the details.

“You folks are going to have to come up with a solution,” Trump told 25 lawmakers in a remarkable televised negotiation at the White House. “And if you do, I’m going to sign that solution.”

But funding for a wall along the border with Mexico remains a sticking point, as Trump insisted that border security remain a part of any deal.

Lawmakers are under a March 5 deadline — imposed by Trump — to come up with a legal fix to the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. DACA, as it’s known, is now the main stumbling block holding up a wide range of other Trump administration immigration priorities.

Conservative Republicans in the House want to link DACA to Trump’s request for $18 billion for a border wall. That would give immigration talks even more urgency, as the spending bill must pass by Jan. 19 to prevent a government shutdown.

So Trump and his top advisers sat down Tuesday with 25 members of Congress — 16 senators and nine representatives, 15 Republicans and 10 Democrats. And in an unusual move, the White House opened nearly an hour of the meeting to the press.

More: Trump demands Democrats cave on border wall before DACA fix

More: Trump: DACA will be ‘terrific’ if Democrats back his own immigration plans

More: Each day, 120 ‘dreamers’ lose protection from deportation

The Republicans came with a common talking point: Congress needs a permanent fix to immigration enforcement, or else have to deal with the issue again. Democrats said the urgency of saving DREAMers from deportation meant that extending DACA must take priority.

The so-called DREAMers are the children of immigrants who remained in the country illegally — growing up as Americans but without the legal status. Obama’s solution was to use his enforcement discretion to give up to 800,000 DREAMers a quasi-legal status, but the Trump administration has said Obama exceeded his authority and that any fix must come from Congress.

Trump said repeatedly on Tuesday that he would sign any bill Congress sends him to make that deferred action program legal. But then he later clarified that such a bill must also include border security measures, including funding for a border wall.

“A clean DACA bill, to me, is a DACA bill where we take care of the 800,000 people,” he said. “We take care of them and we also take care of security. That’s very important.”

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., the number two Democrat in the Senate, expressed optimism that such a deal could get done.

As of March 5, one thousand people a day will lose their temporary status, Durbin said. “Lives are hanging in the balance. We’ve got the time to do it,” Durbin told Trump.

“We feel that we can put together a combination for the future of DACA as well as border security,” said Durbin, sitting to Trump’s right. “We want a safe border in America, period, both when it comes to the issues of illegal migration, but also when it comes to drugs and all these other areas.”

But Republicans also want two other issues on the table: elimination of the diversity visa lottery program and family-based “chain migration.”

“Yes, we’ve got to do DACA, and I agree with you 100%,” said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. “But if we do not do something with the security, if we do not do something with the chain migration, we are fooling each other that we solved the problem.”

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, who was not in the meeting, said he was encouraged by Trump’s more productive tone. “The fact that he limited things to just the four areas that were talked about — something we have been seeking for a while to see what the limits are—was a very good sign,” he said.

More: How Trump’s wall pledge is complicating a DACA bill for ‘Dreamers’

After the reporters left, Trump showed even more flexibility, said Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. — especially on the issue of how much money he wants for the border wall.

“I went in very skeptical that anything would be accomplished, but the biggest part of the meeting — the best part — is what the president did actually a little more explanation of what the wall actually means to him,” said Flake, who has been a frequent critic of the president in the past. “The wall is really a fence.”

Tuesday’s meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House was scheduled to be closed to reporters, but opened up on short notice. It quickly became perhaps the most extended open discussion between the president and congressional leaders since President Barack Obama’s Blair House summit on health care eight years ago. Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., called it “the most fascinating meeting I’ve been involved with in 20-plus years in politics.”

“I like opening it up to the media,” Trump said. “Because I think they’re seeing, more than anything else, that we’re all very much on a similar page. We’re on the same page.”

The open negotiation also came amid growing questions about Trump’s command of the issues following the release of a tell-all book last week. Often sitting with his arms crossed and directing the conversation, Trump delved into immigration policy with occasional tangents into earmarks, military spending and whether Oprah Winfrey will run for president. (“I don’t think she’s going to run,” Trump said.)

After 55 minutes, Trump finally gave the signal for aides to usher reporters out of the room. “Thank you all very much. I hope we gave you enough material. This should cover you for about two weeks,” he said.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/09/trump-meets-congressional-leaders-immigration/1016369001/

Cabinet Room

11:39 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much, everyone, for being here.  I’m thrilled to be with a distinguished group of Republican and Democratic lawmakers from both the House and the Senate.  We have something in common, we’d like to see this get done, and you know what this means.

We are here today to advance bipartisan immigration reform that serves the needs of the American families, workers, and taxpayers.  It’s DACA.  We’ve been talking about DACA for a long time.  I’ve been hearing about it for years, long before I decided to go into this particular line of work.  And maybe we can do something.

We have a lot of good people in this room.  A lot of people that have a great spirit for taking care of the people we represent — we all represent.  For that reason, any legislation on DACA, we feel — at least a strong part of this group feels — has to accomplish three vital goals.

And Chairman Goodlatte will be submitting a bill over the next two to three days that will cover many of the things.  And, obviously, that will — if it gets passed, it will go to the Senate and we can negotiate and we’ll see how it turns out.  But I feel having the Democrats in with us is absolutely vital because it should be a bipartisan bill.  It should be a bill of love.  Truly, it should be a bill of love, and we can do that.

But it also has to be a bill where we’re able to secure our border.  Drugs are pouring into our country at a record pace and a lot of people are coming in that we can’t have.  We’ve greatly stiffened, as you know, and fewer people are trying to come in.

But we have tremendous numbers of people and drugs pouring into our country.

So, in order to secure it, we need a wall.  We need closing enforcement — we have to close enforcement loopholes.  Give immigration officers — and these are tremendous people, the border security agents, the ICE agents — we have to give them the equipment they need, we have to close loopholes, and this really does include a very strong amount of different things for border security.

I think everybody in the room would agree to that.  I think that we — it’s a question of the amounts.  But I think everyone agrees we have to have border security.  I don’t think there would be anybody that says “no.”

Second, it has to be a bill to end chain migration.  Chain migration is bringing in many, many people with one, and often it doesn’t work out very well.  Those many people are not doing us right.  And I think a lot of people in the room — and I’m not sure I can speak for everybody, but a lot of the people in this room want to see chain migration ended.

And we have a recent case along the West Side Highway, having to do with chain migration, where a man ran over — killed eight people and many people injured badly.  Loss of arms, loss of legs.  Horrible thing happened, and then you look at the chain and all of the people that came in because of him.  Terrible situation.

And the other is — cancel the lottery program.  They call it “visa lottery,” I just call it “lottery.”  But countries come in and they put names in a hopper.  They’re not giving you their best names; common sense means they’re not giving you their best names.  They’re giving you people that they don’t want.  And then we take them out of the lottery.  And when they do it by hand — where they put the hand in a bowl — they’re probably — what’s in their hand are the worst of the worst.

But they put people that they don’t want into a lottery and the United States takes those people.  And again, they’re going back to that same person who came in through the lottery program.  They went — they visited his neighborhood and the people in the neighborhood said, “oh my God, we suffered with this man — the rudeness, the horrible way he treated us right from the beginning.”  So we don’t want the lottery system or the visa lottery system.  We want it ended.

So those three things are paramount.  These are measures that will make our community safer and more prosperous.  These reforms are supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans.  They’re from every standpoint, from every poll, and they’re being requested by law enforcement officers.

I had the big meeting with ICE last week; I had a big meeting with the Border Patrol agents last week.  Nobody knows it better than them.  As an example, on the wall, they say, “sir, we desperately need the wall.”

And we don’t need a 2,000-mile wall.  We don’t need a wall where you have rivers and mountains and everything else protecting it.  But we do need a wall for a fairly good portion.  We also — as you know, it was passed in 2006 — a essentially similar thing, which — a fence, a very substantial fence was passed.  But, unfortunately, I don’t know, they never got it done.  But they need it.

So I’m appealing to everyone in the room to put the country before party, and to sit down and negotiate and to compromise, and let’s see if we can get something done.  I really think that we have a chance to do it.  I think it’s very important.  You’re talking about 800,000 people — and we’re talking about lots of other people are also affected, including people that live in our country.  That’s from the security standpoint.

So maybe the press can stay for a little while and a couple of folks can make statements and I don’t mind the statements.  We want to have this as a very open forum.  I will say, though, that I really do believe Democratic and Republican — the people sitting around this table — want to get something done in good faith.  And I think we’re on our way to do it.

This was an idea I had last week.  I was sitting with some of our great Republican senators and we all agreed on everything.  It was a great meeting.  Right?  David, right?  We had a great meeting — Tom.  It was perfect.

Then I said, “yeah, but we’d like to get some Democrats.  Well, what do they say?”  And I say, “let’s have the same meeting, but let’s add the Democrats.”  And that’s what we’ve done.  And I think we’re going to come up with an answer.  I hope we’re going to come up with an answer for DACA, and then we go further than that later on down the road.

Dick, perhaps you’d like to say a few words?

SENATOR DURBIN:  Thanks, Mr. President, for inviting us.  We’re all honored to be a part of this conversation.

September the 5th, you challenged us.  You challenged Congress.  You said we’re going to end DACA, not replace it.  As of today, we have not done that.  We face a deadline of March 5th, which you created with your elimination of DACA, and we know that, in the meantime, there have been efforts underway by Senator Graham and I.

We sat down with a bipartisan group of senators.  We have worked long and hard, many hours have been put into it.  And we feel that we can put together a combination for the future of DACA as well as border security, and that there are elements you’re going to find Democrats support when it comes to border security.  We want a safe border in America, period, both when it comes to the issues of illegal migration, but also when it comes to drugs and all these other areas.

Now, I will say that there is a sense of urgency that’s felt by many of us when it comes to this issue.  There are many of these young people who are losing the protection of DACA on a daily basis.  As of March 5th, a thousand a day will lose DACA protection.  Nine hundred of them are members of the U.S. military.  Twenty thousand of them are schoolteachers.  In my state of Illinois and the city of Chicago, there are 25 of them in medical school who can’t apply for a residency if they lose their DACA status.

So lives are hanging in the balance of our getting the job done.  We’ve got the time to do it.  In a matter of days — literally of days — we can come together and reach an agreement.  And when that happens, I think good things will happen in other places.  And we’ll see some progress in Washington.

THE PRESIDENT: I agree with that, Dick.  I very much agree with that.  Tom, would you like to say something?  Tom Cotton.

SENATOR COTTON:  Thank you for inviting us all here and I’m glad to be here with Democrats and with House members as well.  You know, I think, on this issue, there’s a lack of trust and has been, for many years, a lack of trust between Republicans and Democrats; a lack of trust among Republicans; most fundamentally, a lack of trust between the American people and our elected leaders on not delivering a solution for many, many years about some of these problems.

And I hope that this meeting can be the beginning of building trust between our parties, between the chambers, because I know, for fact, all the Republicans around the table are committed to finding a solution, and I believe all the Democrats are as well.

So I think this is a good first step in building the trust we need for a good bill, Mr. President, that will achieve the objectives that you stated: providing legal protection for the DACA population, while also securing our border and ending chain migration and the diversity lottery.

Thank you for the invitation.

REPRESENTATIVE HOYER:  Mr. President, thank you very much for having us down here.  I agree with Tom Cotton that the American public are very frustrated with us.  One of the reasons they’re frustrated with us is because we continue to couple things on which we have large agreement with things in which we do not agree.  This is a perfect example of that.

Eighty-six percent of the American people in the most recent poll are for ensuring, as you have said, not providing for DACA-protected kids to go to a place that they don’t know, they didn’t grow up in, and it’s not their home.  They’re Americans.  They don’t have a piece of paper that says they’re Americans, but they’re Americans.

And it seems to me, Mr. President, if we’re going to move ahead in a constructive way, that we take that on which we agree — pass it.  The American public will be pleased with all of us if we do that.  Just as, in September, you recall, we did the extension of the CR.  No drama.  We were all for it.  You and the four leaders met, we came to an agreement, and we passed that CR.

In my view, we can pass the protection in the — well, I understand your position is procedurally it was not done correctly.  You then, as Dick has said, challenged us — pass it correctly.

If it’s put on the floor, Mr. President, I believe we will have the overwhelming majority in both the House — and Senator Graham thinks that we’ll have a substantial majority in the United States Senate as well.  That, I think, is the first step, Tom, to creating some degree of confidence.

Democrats are for security at the borders; I want to state that emphatically.  There is not a Democrat that is not for having secure borders.

There are obviously differences however, Mr. President, on how you effect that.  You just indicated that yourself.  And you indicated this would be a first step, and then we continue to talk as we’re talking today about how we best secure the border.  There are differences of opinion within your party and within in our party.

So I would urge that we move forward on protecting the DACA-protected individuals — young people, young adults, as you pointed out in one of your statements — who are productive parts of our community — that we protect them and get that done.  And then, because I think everybody around the table, as you pointed out, is for security — and then the issue is going to be how do we best effect that border security.

So I would urge us to move, as Senator Durbin has urged us to move, on the DACA students.  As a matter of fact, the Speaker, I think today, but maybe yesterday, said, we need to solve the DACA issue, and we need to solve it in a way that is permanent, not temporary.  And I agree with him on that issue.

THE PRESIDENT:  And, interestingly, when you say that, President Obama, when he signed the executive order, actually said he doesn’t have the right to do this.  And so you do have to go through Congress, and you do have to make it permanent, whether he does, whether he doesn’t — let’s assume he doesn’t, he said it — and that was a temporary stopgap, I don’t think we want that.  I think we want to have a permanent solution to this.  And I think everybody in this room feels that way very strongly.

REPRESENTATIVE HOYER:  What happened, Mr. President, I think, is that the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill, as you know.  We did not consider it in the House, so we didn’t reach those issues.

Very frankly, on border security, Mr. McCaul, the Chairman of the committee, reported out a unanimous security solution, which we then included in the bill that we filed on comprehensive immigration reform.  So I think we can reach agreement.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I also think that, after we do DACA — and I really believe we should be able to be successful — I really think we should look in terms of your permanent solution and to the whole situation with immigration.  I think a lot of people in this room would agree to that also, but we’ll do it in steps.  And most people agree with that, I think, that we’ll do the steps.  Even you say, ‘let’s do this, and then we go phase two.’

Kevin, what would you like to say?

REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTHY:  Well, first, I want to thank you for bringing everybody together.  You got the Senate, you got the House, you got both parties.  And I like the exchange of ideas, and I think everybody has a point here.

The one thing I don’t want to have happen here is what I saw in the past.  There were four bills that were passed on border security years ago that never got finished.  There were immigration bills passed that — we’re right back at the table with the same problem.  Let’s make a commitment to each one, and, most importantly, to the American people, that, when we get done and come to an agreement, that we’re not back at this problem three, four years from now.

That’s why — yes, we’ve got to do DACA, and I agree with you 100 percent — but if we do not do something with the security, if we do not do something with the chain migration, we are fooling each other that we solved the problem.  You know how difficult this issue is.  So let’s collectively — we’re here at the table together.  I’ll be the first one to tell you, we’re all going to have to give a little, and I’ll be the first one willing to.

But let’s solve the problem — but let’s not tell the American public at the end that it’s solved when it’s not.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I think a good starting point would be Bob Goodlatte, who has done a bill, and I understand you’re ready to submit it.  And you’re going to take that and you’ll submit it and they’ll negotiate it in Congress or the House.  And then it goes to the Senate, and they’ll negotiate — both Republican and Democrat.  But it could be a good way of starting.

Now, if anyone has an idea different from that — but, I think, starting in the House.  Starting in the House — Mike, you good?  You’re ready.  I think you’re ready to go.

REPRESENTATIVE MCCAUL:  We are, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT:  I would like to add the words “merit” into any bill that’s submitted because I think we should have merit-based immigration like they have in Canada, like they have in Australia.  So we have people coming in that have a great track record, as opposed to what we’re doing now, to be honest with you.

But I think merit-based should be absolutely added to any bill, even if it has to do with DACA.  That would be added to the things I said.  I think it would be popular.  I can tell you, the American public very much wants that.

But, Bob, where are you with the bill?

REPRESENTATIVE GOODLATTE:  So, tomorrow, Chairman McCaul and Congresswoman McSally and Congressman Labrador — we’re the chairmen of the two committees and the chairmen of the two subcommittees — are going to introduce a bill that addresses the DACA concerns.

And let me thank you, Mr. President, both — I was an immigration lawyer before I was elected to Congress.  I want to thank you both for campaigning on securing our borders and the interior of our country, but also on addressing DACA in a way that makes sense.  Don’t do it ad hoc; do it through the congressional process.  So you’ve challenged us, and we should step up to that challenge.  And we’re going to do it in a bipartisan fashion, but we have to put our best foot forward.

And we’re going to do that with this legislation.  It’s going to address DACA in a permanent way, not a temporary short-term thing.  We’re going to address the border enforcement and security and the wall.  We’re going to address — in Mr. McCaul’s bill, we’re going to address interior enforcement, but not everything that the administration had on its list.

We’re going to address chain migration.  We’re going to end the visa lottery program.  We’re going to address sanctuary cities and Kate’s Law.

We think it is a good bill that will both address the two things our Speaker told us right after you made your decision, which is, we have to address the problem we have with the DACA kids being in limbo, as Dick Dubin described it, and I agree with that.  But we also have to make sure this does not happen again.

THE PRESIDENT:  And, Dick, you and the Democrats are going to have a lot of things that they’re not going to agree — you’re going to talk to us about it.  I just felt that this is something that was long overdue.  You’d have a meeting and you’d say, this is what we want.  We’d have a meeting — and this has been going on for years.  And I just — you know, at a certain point, maybe I’ll just lock the doors and I won’t let anybody out — (laughter) — until they come and agree.

Michael, do you have something to say about the bill?

REPRESENTATIVE MCCAUL:  Yes, I’ve been in Congress for seven terms.  I’ve been trying to get this border secure for seven terms in Congress.  I think this is a bipartisan issue.  I think DACA is a bipartisan issue.

We have an opportunity, I think, before us to get this done for the American people.  When it comes to chain migration and the lottery system, we saw two recent terror attacks in New York that were the result of this, I think, failed immigration policy.  We’d like to see that fixed for the American people and along with, as Bob talked about, sanctuary cities.

Now, you and I talked about this extensively.  So we think our bill, our House bill would be a good starting ground for this negotiation.  And I, too, want to commend you for bringing everybody together.

I think what we don’t want to see happen is for the conditions for DACA to occur again.  We want to get security done so we don’t have to deal with this problem five more years down the road.

So thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, there are so many points of agreement, and a lot of it is common sense.  And I really think we’re going to come out very well.

David Perdue, do you have something to say?

REPRESENTATIVE PERDUE:  Well, yeah, my observation is that three times in the last eleven years, well-intentioned people, some of whom are in this room, attempted to do what we’re starting to try to do today, and we failed.  And I think the difference is, is their mission creep ended up in an effort that became too comprehensive.

And so, today, my encouragement for all of us is to do what Dick has been trying to do and talks about repeatedly, and that is to limit the scope of this.  And I like the idea that both sides have pressure to solve the DACA issue.  But I think the bigger issue here is not just the DACA issue, but what we can do to start the path to the steps that solve this immigration problem.  For several reasons — there are social issues; there are political issues; there are economic issues about our workforce that have to be addressed.

But limiting this to the legal immigration side and combining the balance between various solutions on DACA; DREAMers, if it gets in the conversation; as well border security and chain migration, I think therein lies the balance of a good deal that can be done.

And I don’t think — I agree with Dick.  I don’t think it’s going to take long to get it done if we just lock ourselves in a room and make it happen.

THE PRESIDENT:  I think you’re right.  I think it could be done very quickly.

Would anybody have anything to say prior to the press leaving?

REPRESENTATIVE MCSALLY:  Mr. President, I just have one comment.

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE MCSALLY:  Senator Durbin mentioned that lives are hanging in the balance.  As we come up on the January 19th deadline, the lives that are hanging in the balance are those of our military that are needing the equipment and the funding and everything they need in order to keep us safe, and we should not playing politics on this issue to stop our military from getting the funding that they need.

I think we have the right people in the room to solve this issue.  The deadline is March 5th.  Let’s roll up our sleeves and work together on this.  But those who need us right now before the January 19 deadline is our military.  And let’s not play politics with that.  Let’s give them what they need to keep us safe.

THE PRESIDENT:  Okay, good.  And I think a lot of people would agree with that.  We need our military — I can’t say more than ever before.  We had wars.  Right, Lindsey?  We had a lot of other areas and times.  But we need our military desperately.  Our military has been very depleted.  We’re rebuilding, and we’re building it up quickly, and we’re negotiating much better deals with your purveyors and with your manufacturers and with your equipment-makers — much better than it was before.

I looked at boats that started off at $1.5 billion, and they’re up to $18 billion, and they’re still not finished.  In this case, a particular aircraft carrier.  I think it’s outrageous.  So we’re very much agreeing with you on that one.

Would anybody like to say?  Yes, Steny, go ahead.

REPRESENTATIVE HOYER:  I want to follow up on that.  There are no Democrats that don’t want to make sure that the military is funded properly.  And over the last four years, we had an agreement between Mr. Ryan and Senator Murray — Speaker Ryan and — that we understand that our military is critically important.  But we also understand that our domestic issues, whether it’s education, whether it’s healthcare, whether it’s environment, whether it’s transportation and infrastructure, they’re important, as well.

And both the defense and non-defense sides of the budget are hurt when you have a CR, because they cannot blink and they cannot get contracts if they don’t have any money to do so.  So that, very frankly, I think Ms. McSally is correct.  But what we ought to have done over the last six months — particularly when we did the September and we gave 90 days — is to reach some agreement on what the caps are going to be.  The Murray-Ryan agreements were parity.  We believe that’s very important.

So we can get to where we should get and want to get there, but we ought to have an agreement based upon what the last —

THE PRESIDENT:  But, Steny, we do have to take politics out of the military.  We need that military.  All the other things we talk about, we’re not going to be here if we don’t have the right military.  And we need our military, and we need it stronger than ever before, and we’re ready to do it.  But we have to take politics out of the military.

One thing that I think we can really get along with on a bipartisan basis — and maybe I’m stronger on this than a lot of the people on the Republican side, but I will tell you, we have great support from the Republicans — is infrastructure.  I think we can do a great infrastructure bill.  I think we’re going to have a lot of support from both sides, and I’d like to get it done as quickly as possible.

Yes, John.

SENATOR CORNYN:  Mr. President, I, too, want to thank you for getting us together.  You made the point last week when Republicans were meeting with you that, why are we continuing to have these meetings just among ourselves when what we need to do to get to a solution is to meet, as we are today, as you insisted, on bipartisan basis.

But part of my job is to count votes in the Senate.  And as you know when you hosted us, the leadership, at Camp David this weekend, I believe both the Speaker and Majority Leader McConnell made crystal clear that they would not proceed with a bill on the floor of the Senate or the House unless it had your support, unless you would sign it.

So that’s, I think, the picture we need to be looking through — the lens we need to be looking through is not only what could we agree to among ourselves on a bipartisan basis, but what will you sign into law.  Because we all want to get to a solution here, and we realize the clock is ticking.

But I think that for me frames the issue about as well as I can.

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Very well said.  One of the reasons I’m here, Chuck, so importantly, is exactly that.  I mean, normally you wouldn’t have a President coming to this meeting.  Normally, frankly, you’d have Democrats, Republicans, and maybe nothing would get done.

Our system lends itself to not getting things done, and I hear so much about earmarks — the old earmark system — how there was a great friendliness when you had earmarks.  But of course, they had other problems with earmarks.  But maybe all of you should start thinking about going back to a form of earmarks.  Because this system — (laughter) —

PARTICIPANT:  Yes, yes, yes.  (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT:  This system — (laughter) — but you should do it, and I’m there with you, because this system really lends itself to not getting along.  It lends itself to hostility and anger, and they hate the Republicans.  And they hate the Democrats.  And in the old days of earmarks, you can say what you want about certain Presidents and others, where they all talk about they went out to dinner at night and they all got along, and they passed bills.  That was an earmark system, and maybe we should think about it.

And we have to put better controls because it got a little bit out of hand, but maybe that brings people together.  Because our system right now, the way it’s set up, will never bring people together.

Now, I think we’re going to get this done — DACA.  I think we’re going to get — I hope we’re going to get infrastructure done in the same way.

But I think you should look at a form of earmarks.  I see Lindsey nodding very hard “yes.”

SENATOR GRAHAM:  Starting with the Port of Charleston.  Absolutely.  (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT:  A lot of the pros are saying that if you want to get along and if you want to get this country really rolling again, you have to look at a different form, because this is obviously out of control.

The levels of hatred — and I’m not talking about Trump.  I’m talking you go back throughout the eight years of Obama and you go before that, the animosity and the hatred between Republicans and Democrats.

I remember when I used to go out in Washington, and I’d see Democrats having dinner with Republicans.  And they were best friends, and everybody got along.  You don’t see that too much anymore.  In all due respect, you really don’t see that.  When was the last time you took a Republican out?  Why don’t you guys go and have dinner together?  (Laughter.)

But you don’t see it.  So maybe, and very importantly, totally different from this meeting, because we’re going to get DACA done — I hope we’re going to get DACA done, and we’re going to all try very hard — but maybe you should start bringing back a concept of earmarks.  It’s going to bring you together.  You’re going to do it honestly.  You’re going to get rid of the problems that the other system had — and it did have some problems.  But one thing it did is it brought everyone together.  And this country has to be brought together.  Okay?  Thank you.Yes, Lindsey?

SENATOR GRAHAM:  Well, at 6:40 p.m., I’m going to go to Menendez’s office, and he’s taking me to dinner.  (Laughter.)

And he’s buying.

THE PRESIDENT:  Sounds like fun.

SENATOR GRAHAM:  He didn’t know that, but he’s buying.  We’re going to Morton’s.  You’re all welcome to come.  (Laughter.)

REPRESENTATIVE HOYER:  We can usually get bipartisan agreement when the other guy buys.  (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT:  I think it’s a very important thing, because our system is designed, right now, that everybody should hate each other.  And we can’t have that.  You know, we have a great country.  We have a country that’s doing very well in many respects.  We’re just hitting a new high on the stock market again, and that means jobs.  I don’t look at the stocks, I look at the jobs.  I look at the 401(k)s, I look at what’s happening, where police come up to me and they say, “Thank you.  You’re making me look like a financial genius” — literally — meaning about them.  And their wives never thought that was possible, right?

No, the country is doing well in so many ways, but there’s such divisiveness, such division.  And I really believe we can solve that.  I think this system is a very bad system in terms of getting together.  And I’m going to leave it up to you, but I really believe you can do something to bring it together.

SENATOR GRAHAM:  Other than going to dinner with Bob — I’ve been doing this for 10 years — I don’t think I’ve seen a better chance to get it done than I do right now, because of you.  John’s right — I’m not going to support a deal if you don’t support it.  I’ve had my head beat out a bunch; I’m still standing.  I’m “Lindsey Grahamnesty,” “Lindsey Gomez” — you name every name you want to give to me, it’s been assigned to me.  And I’m still standing.

The people of South Carolina want a result.  How can I get a letter?  I’ve been for a pathway to citizenship for 11 million people because I have no animosity toward them.  I don’t want crooks, I don’t want “bad hombres.”  I want to get a merit-based immigration system to make sure we can succeed in the 21st century, and I’m willing to be more than fair to the 11 million.  I just don’t want to do this every 20 years.

Now, we made a decision, Mr. President, not to do it comprehensively.  I think that’s a smart decision but a hard decision.  We’ve passed three comprehensive bills out of the Senate with over 55 votes.  They go to the House and die, and I’m not being disparaging to my House colleagues, this is tough politics if you’re a Republican House member turning on the radio.

To my Democratic friends, thanks for coming.  The Resist Movement hates this guy.  They don’t want him to be successful at all.  You turn on Fox News, and I can hear the drumbeat coming.  Right-wing radio and TV talk show hosts are going to beat the crap out of us because it’s going to be amnesty all over again.  I don’t know if the Republican and Democratic Party can define love, but I think what we can do is do what the American people want us to do.

Sixty-two percent of the Trump voters support a pathway to citizenship for the DACA kids if you have strong borders.  You have created an opportunity in here, Mr. President, and you need to close the deal.

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Lindsey.  You know, it’s very interesting because I do have people that are — just to use a very common term — very far right and very far left.  They’re very unhappy about what we’re doing, but I really don’t believe they have to be, because I really think this sells itself.  And, you know, when you talk about comprehensive immigration reform, which is where I would like to get to eventually — if we do the right bill here, we are not very far way.  You know, we’ve done most of it.  You want to know the truth, Dick?  If we do this properly, DACA, you’re not so far away from comprehensive immigration reform.

And if you want to take it that further step, I’ll take the heat, I don’t care.  I don’t care — I’ll take all the heat you want to give me, and I’ll take the heat off both the Democrats and the Republicans.  My whole life has been heat.  (Laughter.)  I like heat, in a certain way.  But I will.

I mean, you are somewhat more traditional politicians.  Two and a half years ago, I was never thinking in terms of politics.  Now I’m a politician.  You people have been doing it, many of you, all your lives.  I’ll take all the heat you want.  But you are not that far away from comprehensive immigration reform.  And if you wanted to go that final step, I think you should do it.  And if you want to study earmarks to bring us all together, so we all get together and do something, I think you should study it.

Chuck, did you have something to say?

SENATOR GRASSLEY:  I’d like to talk about the reality of the whole situation and take off from what Cornyn and Graham have said of the necessity of you working with us.  And you are doing that by having this meeting and other meetings as well.  But we’ve always talked in the United States Senate about the necessity of getting 60 votes.  And that’s pretty darn tough.

But if we would write a bill that you don’t like and you veto it, we’re talking about a 67-vote threshold — two-thirds in the United States Senate.  So that’s the reality of negotiating in good faith and getting something you can sign.

The second reality is the March 5th date that’s coming up.  Because if we don’t do some good-faith negotiation and make progress, and get a bill on the floor of the United States Senate, our leader is going to have to bring up either the House bill or the bill that some of us have introduced in the United States Senate, and we’re going to have a vote on it.  And those people that don’t want to vote to legalize DACA kids are going to have to explain why they haven’t wanted to protect the vulnerable people that we’re all here talking about.  We’re talking about everything except doing something for the DACA kids.

You know, I would vote for a path to citizenship, which isn’t very easy for me, but I would do it just as an effort.  But there are certain things that we got to guarantee that we’re going to do.

THE PRESIDENT:  Chuck, that’s going to be brought up.  I really believe that will be brought up as part of what we’re talking about, at some point.  It’s an incentive for people to do a good job, if you want to know the truth.  That whole path is an incentive for people — and they’re not all kids.  I mean, we’re used to talking about kids.  They’re not really kids.  You have them 39, 40 years old, in some cases.  But it would be an incentive for people to work hard and do a good job.  So that could very well be brought up.

SENATOR GRASSLEY:  We’re talking about legalizing people here that didn’t break the law because their parents, who broke the law, brought them here.  And we ought to be talking about what we can do for the people that had no fault of their own, and get the job done, and not worry about a lot of other things that we’re involved in.  And that means that we got to make sure that we tell the American people, when we’re taking this step, that we’re doing something that all the people agree to.

REPRESENTATIVE HOYER:  Mr. President, let me just say, I think Dick and I agree with what Chuck Grassley just said.

THE PRESIDENT:  That’s hard to believe.  When was the last time that happened?  (Laughter.)

REPRESENTATIVE HOYER:  We need to take care of these DACA kids, and we all agree on that.  Eighty-six percent of the American public agrees on that.

With all due respect, Bob, and Mike, and Lindsey, there are some things that you’re proposing that are going to be very controversial and will be an impediment to agreement.

THE PRESIDENT:  But you’re going to negotiate those things.  You’re going to sit down and you’re going to say, listen, we can’t agree here, we’ll give you half of that, we’re going to — you’re going to negotiate those things.

REPRESENTATIVE HOYER:  Mr. President, comprehensive means comprehensive.

THE PRESIDENT:  No, we’re not talking about comprehensive.  Now we’re talking about —

REPRESENTATIVE HOYER:  No, we are.  We are talking about comprehensive.

THE PRESIDENT:  If you want to go there, it’s okay because you’re not that far away.

SENATOR HOYER:  Mr. President, many of the things that are mentioned ought be a part of the negotiations regarding comprehensive immigration reform.

THE PRESIDENT:  I think if you want to take it a step further, you may — I’m going to have to rely on you, Dick — but you may complicate it and you may delay DACA somewhat.

SENATOR DURBIN:  I don’t want to do that.

SENATOR HOYER:  You can’t do that.

SENATOR DURBIN:  You said at the outset that we need to phase this.  I think the first phase is what Chuck and Steny and I have mentioned, and others as well:  We have a deadline looming and a lot of lives hanging.  We can agree on some very fundamental and important things together on border security, on chain, on the future of diversity visas.  Comprehensive, though, I worked on it for six months with Michael Bennet, and a number of — Bob Menendez, and Schumer, and McCain, and Jeff Flake — and it took us six months to put it together.  We don’t have six months for the DACA bill.

PARTICIPANT:  We’re not talking about comprehensive immigration.

PARTICIPANT:  Take a look at our bill and let’s talk some.

PARTICIPANT:  I hear you.

SENATOR DURBIN:  You’ve mentioned a number of factors that are going to be controversial, as Steny has mentioned.

THE PRESIDENT:  But you’re going to negotiate.  Dick, you’re going to negotiate.  Maybe we will agree and maybe we won’t.  I mean, it’s possible we’re not going to agree with you and it’s possible we will, but there should be no reason for us not to get this done.

And, Chuck, I will say, when this group comes back — hopefully with an agreement — this group and others from the Senate, from the House, comes back with an agreement, I’m signing it.  I mean, I will be signing it.  I’m not going to say, “Oh, gee, I want this or I want that.”  I’ll be signing it, because I have a lot of confidence in the people in this room that they’re going to come up with something really good.

Senator, would you like to say something?

SENATOR FEINSTEIN:  I would.  As you know, we tried for comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate.  It was on the floor, there were a number of amendments, it got a lot of attention in the judiciary committee, and then the House didn’t take it up.

I think there needs to be a willingness on both sides.  And I think — and I don’t know how you would feel about this, but I’d like to ask the question:  What about a clean DACA bill now, with a commitment that we go into a comprehensive immigration reform procedure?  Like we did back — oh, I remember when Kennedy was here and it was really a major, major effort, and it was a great disappointment that it went nowhere.

THE PRESIDENT:  I remember that.  I have no problem.  I think that’s basically what Dick is saying.  We’re going to come up with DACA.  We’re going to do DACA, and then we can start immediately on the phase two, which would be comprehensive.

SENATOR FEINSTEIN:  Would you be agreeable to that?

THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, I would like — I would like to do that.  Go ahead. I think a lot of people would like to see that, but I think we have to do DACA first.

REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTHY:  Mr. President, you need to be clear though.  I think what Senator Feinstein is asking here: When we talk about just DACA, we don’t want to be back here two years later.  We have to have security, as the Secretary would tell you.

REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTHY:  But I think that’s what she’s saying.

SENATOR FEINSTEIN:  What do you think I’m saying?

REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTHY:  I’m thinking you’re saying DACA is not secure.  Are you talking about security as well?

SENATOR FEINSTEIN:  Well, I think if we have some meaningful comprehensive immigration reform, that’s really where the security goes.  And if we can get the DACA bill, because March is coming and people are losing their status every day —

REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTHY:  But, let’s be honest.  Security was voted on just a few years ago, and, no disrespect, there’s people in the room on the other side of the aisle who voted for it.  If I recall, Senator Clinton voted for it.  So I don’t think that’s comprehensive; I think that’s dealing with DACA at the same time.  I think that’s really what the President is making.

It’s kind of like three pillars: DACA, because we’re all in the room want to do it; border security, so we’re not back out here; and chain migration.  It’s just three items, and then everything else that’s comprehensive is kind of moved to the side.

So I believe when the (inaudible) —

THE PRESIDENT:  And the lottery.

REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTHY:  And the lottery.

THE PRESIDENT:  And I think you should add merit.  I mean, if you can, add merit-based.  (Laughter.)  I don’t think — I don’t know who is going to argue with merit-based?  Who can argue with merit-based?

Dianne, go ahead.

SENATOR FEINSTEIN:  Can I ask a question?  Do you really think that there can be agreement on all of that, quickly, to get DACA passed in time?  I wanted to ask Mr. McCarthy a question.  Do you really think there can be agreement on those three difficult subjects you raised in time to get DACA passed and effective?

REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTHY:  Yes, because you have heard from Leader McConnell and Speaker Ryan, who said they will put the bill onto the floor if the President agrees to it.  And us getting to the room, I haven’t seen us be this close and having this discussion in quite a few years — or the whole last four years.

So I think, yes, we can make this happen.  We all know it.  We’ve done it before.  You and I spent a long time — we did probably one of the most difficult things to do in California — water.  And I believe we can get there and we can just keep working each day on this.

THE PRESIDENT:  I think what we’re all saying is we’ll do DACA and we can certainly start comprehensive immigration reform the following afternoon.  Okay?  We’ll take an hour off and then we’ll start.

SENATOR FEINSTEIN: Okay.

THE PRESIDENT:  I do believe that.  Because once we get DACA done — if it’s done properly — with, you know, security, and everything else —

SENATOR FEINSTEIN:  That’s the point.

THE PRESIDENT:  If it’s done properly, we have taken a big chunk of comprehensive out of the negotiation, and I don’t think it’s going to be that complicated.

SENATOR PERDUE:  Mr. President, we have —

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.

SENATOR PERDUE:  We have to be very clear though.

THE PRESIDENT:  Go ahead.

SENATOR PERDUE:  In my opinion, we’ll be right back here either five years, thirty years, whatever.  But this, the chain migration, is so insidious; it is the fundamental flaw in the immigration policy of the United States.  If any conversation about DACA is being held without that consideration — I agree with border security as well — but any conversation about that is not going to go anywhere in the United States Senate.  And if we think we’re going to divide one side versus the other, that’s just not going to happen on this issue.

THE PRESIDENT:  David, I think chain migration has taken a very big hit over the last six months.  People are seeing what’s happening.

People — for instance, the man on the Westside Highway that killed the people and so badly wounded.  You know, it’s incredible when they talk about wounded, they don’t say that arms are off, and legs are off, one person lost two legs.  You know, nobody talks about it.  They said eight died, but they don’t talk about the twelve people that have no legs, no arms, and all of the things.  So I’m talking about everybody.

I really believe that when you talk about the subject that we’re all mentioning right now, I think they had — how many people came in?  Twenty-two to twenty-four people came in through him.  He’s a killer.  He’s a guy who ran over eight — many people — eight died; ten to twelve are really badly injured.  So I really think that a lot of people are going to agree with us now on that subject.  I really don’t see there’s a big —

SENATOR PERDUE:  Seventy percent of Americans want the immigration policy to be, the family — the nuclear family and the workers.  Seventy percent.

THE PRESIDENT:  David, the chain immigration, though, has taken a very big hit in the last year with what’s happening.  I mean, you’re looking at these killers — whether you like or not — we’re looking at these killers and then you see, 18 people came in, 22 people came in, 30 people came in, with this one person that just killed a lot of people.  I really don’t believe there are a lot of Democrats saying, “We will be supporting chain migration,” anymore.

PARTICIPANT:   Mr. President, should we get the Homeland Security Secretary —

SECRETARY NIELSEN:  Yeah, if you don’t mind.  Just on a couple of things on border security.  I just want to try to make sure we’re all linking.

The reason that border security is so important to have as part of this discussion is that it doesn’t solve the problem if we can apprehend people but we can’t remove them.  So we need the wall system, which is some physical infrastructure as the President described — personnel and technology — but we have to close those legal loopholes, because the effect is that is this incredible pull up from Central America that just continues to exacerbate the problem.  So border security has to be part of this or we will be here again in three, four, five years again — maybe, unfortunately, sooner.

The other point I would just make is, the President asked DHS — he asked the men and women of DHS, what do you need to do your job?  Congress and the American people have entrusted to you, the security of our country.  What is it that you need?  The list that we have provided is what we need to do our mission that you asked us to do.  It’s not less than, it’s not more than; it is what we need to close those loopholes to be able to protect our country.

So I would just encourage — everyone, much more eloquently than I can, described all the reasons why we all, I think, are committed to helping the DACA population.  But to truly solve the problem, it’s got to be in conjunction with border security.

THE PRESIDENT:  Jeff.

SENATOR FLAKE:  I would just echo what has been said by some here.  Those of us who have been through comprehension reform, that was six, seven months of every night negotiating, staff on weekends.  And a lot of things we’re talking about on border security and some of the interior things have trade-offs, and we made those during that process.  I don’t see how we get there before March 5th.

THE PRESIDENT:  That’s okay.  So I think that’s why we make it a phase two.  We do a phase one, which is DACA and security, and we do phase two, which is comprehensive immigration.  And I think we should go right to it, I really do.  We do one and we then do the other.  But we go right to it.

Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE DIAZ-BALART:  Mr. President, I think it’s important to thank you for your flexibility and your leadership.  And so I think what all of us have to do is have the same willingness to have a little bit of flexibility to get this issue done.  And, obviously, I want to do a lot more than DACA.  But the urgent thing now, for obvious reasons, are these young men and women who we have to deal with, first and foremost.

THE PRESIDENT:  I agree.

REPRESENTATIVE DIAZ-BALART:  And to Steny’s point, there are two issues which we keep hearing that everybody agrees to, and that is dealing with these individuals on a permanent and real solution, and border security.

So I don’t see why we shouldn’t be able to do that, and I’m hoping that that will then lead us — to Senator Collins’ point, there’s a lot of lack of trust.  If we can get real border security and deal with these individuals, if we can get that done, then I think, my gosh, it all opens up to do a lot more things in the future for the Americans.

REPRESENTATIVE GOODLATTE:  I just want to reemphasize what Secretary Nielsen said.  It is so important they understand when you talk about border security, if you apprehend somebody at the border, but then you cannot send them back outside the United States, even though they’re unlawfully present in the United States, you have not solved this problem, because they’re then released into the interior of the country and the problem persists.  And that sends a message back to wherever they come from.

THE PRESIDENT:  I agree, Bob.  And you know what?  We’re going to negotiate that.  I agree, and I think a lot of people agree on both sides.

Henry?

REPRESENTATIVE CUELLAR:  Thank you, Mr. President.  And I agree with my good friend, Mario, in the sense that if we focus on DACA and border security, I think we can address this.  Issues of chain migration or the other issues, I think that should be looked at in the second phase.

But again, I say this with all due respect to both Democrats, Republicans — but being from the border, I always get a kick out of people that go down, spend a few hours, and they think they know the border better than Cornyn — or some of us there, because we’ve lived there all our life.

Let me explain this.  For example, if you look at the latest DEA — you’re worried about drugs, look at the latest DEA report — more drugs come through the ports of entry than in between ports.  But we’re not even talking about ports of entry, number one.

REPRESENTATIVE MCSALLY:  Our bill does.

REPRESENTATIVE CUELLAR:  No, I know — I’m just saying.  I’m saying.  (Laughter.)  I’m just saying ports — let’s finish this.  And some of us have been working this longer than some other folks.

Number one, if you look at the 11 or 12 million undocumented aliens, which is the second phase, 40 percent of them came through visa overstays.  So you can put the most beautiful wall out there, it’s not going to stop them there because they’ll either come by plane, boat, or vehicle itself.

REPRESENTATIVE MCSALLY:  That’s in our bill, too.

REPRESENTATIVE CUELLAR:  Yeah, and I know.  So the other thing is, the other thing that we had looked at — the wall itself, Mr. President — if you talk to your Border Patrol chief or the former Border Patrol chiefs, I’ve asked them, how much time does a wall buy you?  They’ll say a couple minutes or a few seconds.  And this is our own Border Patrol chiefs that have said that.

SECRETARY NIELSEN:  It’s not mine.  Mine has made clear the wall works.

THE PRESIDENT:  Not the ones I spoke to.

SECRETARY NIELSEN:  They have not.  The wall works.

THE PRESIDENT:  Not the ones I spoke to.  They say, without the wall, we cannot have border security.

REPRESENTATIVE CUELLAR:  All right.  Okay.  Let me show you.

THE PRESIDENT:  All you have to do is ask Israel.  Look what happened with them.

SECRETARY NIELSEN:  No, ask Yuma.  Ask San Diego.  The wall works.

THE PRESIDENT:  Henry, without the wall, you can’t have it.

REPRESENTATIVE CUELLAR:  All right.  Homeland Appropriations, your chief that was there, and the former chiefs have all said that.

Now, the other thing is —

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, they didn’t do a very good job.

REPRESENTATIVE CUELLAR:  Well, if you look at — this is where the wall — Mr. President, if you look at where the walls are at right now, this is where the activity is where the walls are at right now.

THE PRESIDENT:  We have massive miles of area where people are pouring through.  Now, one of the good things, because of our rhetoric or because of the perceived — you know, my perceived attitude — fewer people are trying to come through.  That’s a great thing.

REPRESENTATIVE CUELLAR:  Right.

THE PRESIDENT:  And therefore — I mean, our numbers have been fantastic, maybe for all the right reasons.

REPRESENTATIVE CUELLAR:  But let me just finish my thought.  I want to ask you that — we’re playing — you saw the game last night.  It was a good game last night.

THE PRESIDENT:  I did.  Very good game.

REPRESENTATIVE CUELLAR:  We’re playing defense on the one-yard line called the U.S. border.  We spend over $18 billion a year on the border.

If we think about playing defense on the 20-yard line — if you look at what Mexico has done, they stop thousands of people on the southern border with Guatemala.  We ought to be looking at working with them.

THE PRESIDENT:  Henry, we stopped them.  We stopped them.  You know why?  Mexico told me, the President told me, everybody tells me — not as many people are coming through their southern border because they don’t think they can get through our southern border and therefore they don’t come.  That’s what happened with Mexico.  We did Mexico a tremendous favor.

REPRESENTATIVE CUELLAR:  We actually put appropriations to help them with the southern border.

THE PRESIDENT:  The point is — I know, we always give everybody — every other nation gets money except ours.

REPRESENTATIVE CUELLAR:  But finally —

THE PRESIDENT:  We’re always looking for money.  We give the money to other nations.  That we have to stop.

REPRESENTATIVE CUELLAR:  But finally, the last point, Mr. President, is instead of playing defense on the one-yard line, if you look — this is your material — we know where the stash houses are at, we know where the hotels are at, we know where they cross the river —

THE PRESIDENT:  Right.  And we’re going after those.

REPRESENTATIVE CUELLAR:  Why stop — why play defense on the one-yard line called the U.S. —

THE PRESIDENT:  Henry, we’re going after them like never before.  We’re going after the stash houses —

REPRESENTATIVE CUELLAR:  All I’m saying is, if we focus on DACA, we can work on the other things separately — on sensible border security, listen to the folks that are from the border, and we can work with the —

THE PRESIDENT:  And you folks are going to have to — you’re one voice — you folks are going to have to come up with a solution.

REPRESENTATIVE CUELLAR:  Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT:  And if you do, I’m going to sign that solution.

REPRESENTATIVE CUELLAR:  Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT:  We have a lot of smart people in this room.  Really smart people.  We have a lot of people that are good people, big hearts.  They want to get it done.

I think almost everybody — I can think of one or two I don’t particularly like, but that’s okay.  (Laughter.)

REPRESENTATIVE MCSALLY:  Where is he looking?

REPRESENTATIVE CUELLAR:  Who is he looking at?  (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT:  I’m trying to figure that out.  Everybody wants a solution.  You want it, Henry.

REPRESENTATIVE CUELLAR:  Yes, sir.  I want to work with you on this.

THE PRESIDENT:  I think we have a great group of people to sit down and get this done.  In fact, when the media leaves, which I think should be probably pretty soon.  (Laughter.)  But I like — but I will tell you, I like opening it up to the media because I think they’re seeing, more than anything else, that we’re all very much on a similar page.  We’re on the same page.

REPRESENTATIVE CUELLAR:  We are.  We are.

THE PRESIDENT:  And, Henry, I think we can really get something done.

REPRESENTATIVE CUELLAR:  Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT:  So why don’t we ask the media to leave.  We appreciate you being here.

Q    Is there any agreement without the wall?

THE PRESIDENT:  No, there wouldn’t be.  You need it.  John, you need the wall.  I mean, it’s wonderful — I’d love not to build the wall, but you need the wall.

And I will tell you this, the ICE officers and the Border Patrol agents — I had them just recently on — they say, if you don’t have the wall — you know, in certain areas, obviously, that aren’t protected by nature — if you don’t have the wall, you cannot have security.  You just can’t have it.  It doesn’t work.

And part of the problem we have is walls and fences that we currently have are in very bad shape.  They’re broken.  We have to get them fixed or rebuilt.

But, you know, you speak to the agents, and I spoke to all of them.  I spoke — I lived with them.  They endorsed me for President, which they’ve never done before — the Border Patrol agents and ICE.  They both endorsed Trump.  And they never did that before.  And I have a great relationship with them.  They say, sir, without the wall, security doesn’t work; we’re all wasting time.

Now, that doesn’t mean 2,000 miles of wall because you just don’t need that because of nature, because of mountains and rivers and lots of other things.  But we need a certain portion of that border to have the wall.  If we don’t have it, you can never have security.  You could never stop that portion of drugs that comes through that area.

Yes, it comes through planes and lots of other ways and ships.  But a lot of it comes through the southern border.  You can never fix the situation without additional wall.  And we have to fix existing wall that we already have.

Q    So you would not be for what Senator Feinstein asked you, which would be a clean DACA bill that doesn’t —

THE PRESIDENT:  No, I think a clean DACA bill, to me, is a DACA bill where we take care of the 800,000 people.  They are actually not necessarily young people; everyone talks about young — you know, they could be 40 years old, 41 years old, but they’re also 16 years old.

But I think, to me, a clean bill is a bill of DACA.  We take care of them and we also take care of security.  That’s very important.

And I think the Democrats want security too.  I mean, we started off with Steny saying, we want security also.  Everybody wants security.  And then we can go to comprehensive later on, and maybe that is a longer subject and a bigger subject, and I think we can get that done too.

But we’ll get it done at a later date.

Yes, ma’am.  Go ahead.

SENATOR HIRONO:  Mr. President, I’m Senator Hirono from Hawaii.

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, I know.

SENATOR HIRONO:  And as the only immigrant serving in the United States Senate right now, I would like nothing better than for us to get to comprehensive immigration reform.  But what I’m hearing around the table right now is a commitment to resolving the DACA situation because there is a sense of urgency.

You have put it out there that you want $18 billion for a wall or else there will be no DACA.  Is that still your position?

THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.  I can build it for less, by the way.

SENATOR HIRONO:  But you want that wall?

THE PRESIDENT:  I must tell you, I’m looking at these prices.  Somebody said $42 billion.  This is like the aircraft carrier.  It started off at a billion and a half, and it’s now at $18 billion.

No, we can do it for less.  We can do a great job.  We can do a great wall.  But you need the wall.  And I’m now getting involved.  I like to build under budget, okay?  I like to go under-budget, ahead of schedule.

There’s no reason for seven years, also.  I heard the other day — please, don’t do that to me.  (Laughter.)  Seven years to build the wall.  We can build the wall in one year, and we can build it for much less money than what they’re talking about.  And any excess funds — and we’ll have a lot of — whether it’s a Wollman Rink or whether it’s any — I build under budget and I build ahead of schedule.  There is no reason to ever mention seven years again, please.  I heard that and I said — I wanted to come out with a major news conference, Tom, yesterday.

No.  It can go up quickly, it can go up effectively, and we can fix a lot of the areas right now that are really satisfactory if we renovate those walls.

SENATOR HIRONO:  And can you tell us how many miles of wall you’re contemplating?  Whether it’s $17 million or $13 million or whatever is — can you tell us?

THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, we’re doing a study on that right now.  But there are large areas where you don’t need a wall because you have a mountain and you have a river — you have a violent river — and you don’t need it.  Okay?

SECRETARY NIELSEN:  Senator, I’m happy to come visit you this week to walk you through the numbers.

Q    I’m not the most politically astute person in the world, but it seems to me not much has actually changed here in terms of your position at this particular meeting.

THE PRESIDENT:  No, I think it’s changed.  I think my positions are going to be what the people in this room come up with.  I am very much reliant on the people in this room.  I know most of the people on both sides.  I have a lot of respect for the people on both sides.  And my — what I approve is going to be very much reliant on what the people in this room come to me with.  I have great confidence in the people.  If they come to me with things that I’m not in love with, I’m going to do it because I respect them.

Thank you all very much.

Q    Think you could beat Oprah, by the way?

THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, I’ll beat Oprah.  Oprah would be a lot of fun.  I know her very well.  You know I did one of her last shows.  She had Donald Trump — this is before politics — her last week.  And she had Donald Trump and my family.  It was very nice.  No, I like Oprah.  I don’t think she’s going to run.  I don’t think she’s going to run.  I know her very well.

THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, it’s phase two.  I think comprehensive will be phase two.  I think — I really agree with Dick.  I think we get the one thing done and then we go into comprehensive the following day.  I think it’ll happen.

Thank you all very much.  I hope we’ve given you enough material.  That should cover you for about two weeks.  (Laughter.)

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-meeting-bipartisan-members-congress-immigration/

Mexico–United States barrier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Border fence near El Paso, Texas

Border fence between San Diego‘s border patrol offices in California (left) and Tijuana, Mexico (right)

The Mexico–United States barrier is a series of walls and fences along the Mexico–United States border aimed at preventing illegal crossings from Mexico into the United States.[1] The barrier is not one contiguous structure, but a grouping of relatively short physical walls, secured in between with a “virtual fence” which includes a system of sensors and cameras monitored by the United States Border Patrol.[2] As of January 2009, U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported that it had more than 580 miles (930 km) of barriers in place.[3] The total length of the continental border is 1,989 miles (3,201 km).

Background

Two men scale the border fence into Mexico near Douglas, Arizona, in 2009

Two men scale the border fence into Mexico near Douglas, Arizona, in 2009

The barriers were built from 1994 as part of three larger “Operations” to taper transportation of illegal drugs manufactured in Latin America and immigration: Operation Gatekeeper in California, Operation Hold-the-Line[4] in Texas, and Operation Safeguard[5] in Arizona.

96.6% of border apprehensions (foreign nationals who are caught being in the U.S. illegally) by the Border Patrol in 2010 occurred at the southwest border.[6] The number of Border Patrol apprehensions declined 61% from 1,189,000 in 2005 to 723,840 in 2008 to 463,000 in 2010. The decrease in apprehensions may be due to a number of factors including, changes in U.S. economic conditions and border enforcement efforts. Border apprehensions in 2010 were at their lowest level since 1972.[6] In December 2016 apprehensions were at 58,478, whereas in March 2017, there were 17,000 apprehensions, which was the fifth month in a row of decline.[7]

The 1,954-mile (3,145 km) border between the United States and Mexico traverses a variety of terrains, including urban areas and deserts. The barrier is located on both urban and uninhabited sections of the border, areas where the most concentrated numbers of illegal crossings and drug trafficking have been observed in the past. These urban areas include San Diego, California and El Paso, Texas. As of August 29, 2008, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had built 190 miles (310 km) of pedestrian border fence and 154.3 miles (248.3 km) of vehicle border fence, for a total of 344.3 miles (554.1 km) of fence. The completed fence is mainly in New Mexico, Arizona, and California, with construction underway in Texas.[8]

U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported that it had more than 580 miles (930 km) of fence in place by the second week of January 2009.[3] Work is still under way on fence segments in Texas and on the Border Infrastructure System in California.

As a result of the effect of the barrier, there has been a marked increase in the number of people trying to illegally cross areas which have no fence such as the Sonoran Desert and the Baboquivari Mountain in Arizona.[9] Such illegal immigrants must cross 50 miles (80 km) of inhospitable terrain to reach the first road, which is located in the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation.[9][10]

Status

Aerial view of El Paso, Texas and Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua; the border can clearly be seen as it divides the two cities at night

Aerial view of El Paso, Texas (on the left) and Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua (on the right), the border can clearly be seen as it divides the two cities at night

The United States Border Patrol in the Algodones Dunes, California

The wall ending in the Pacific Ocean

U.S. Representative Duncan Hunter, a Republican from California and the then-chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, proposed a plan to the House on November 3, 2005 calling for the construction of a reinforced fence along the entire United States–Mexican border. This would also have included a 100-yard (91 m) border zone on the U.S. side. On December 15, 2005, Congressman Hunter’s amendment to the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 (H.R. 4437) passed in the House. This plan called for mandatory fencing along 698 miles (1,123 km) of the 1,954-mile (3,145-kilometre) border.[11] On May 17, 2006 the U.S. Senate proposed with Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611) what could be 370 miles (600 km) of triple layered-fencing and a vehicle fence. Although that bill died in committee, eventually the Secure Fence Act of 2006 was passed by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2006.[12]

The government of Mexico and ministers of several Latin American countries condemned the plans. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, also expressed his opposition saying that instead of closing the border it should be opened more and through technology, support legal and safe migration.[13] The barrier expansion was also opposed by a unanimous vote by the Laredo, Texas City Council.[14] Laredo’s Mayor, Raul G. Salinas, defended his town’s people by saying that the bill, which included miles of border wall, would devastate Laredo. He stated “These are people that are sustaining our economy by forty percent, and I am gonna [sic] close the door on them and put [up] a wall? You don’t do that. It’s like a slap in the face.” He hoped that Congress would revise the bill to better reflect the realities of life on the border.[15]

Secure Fence Act

H.R. 6061, the “Secure Fence Act of 2006“, was introduced on September 13, 2006. It passed through the U.S. House of Representatives on September 14, 2006 with a vote of 283–138.

On September 29, 2006, by a vote of 80–19 the U.S. Senate confirmed H.R. 6061 authorizing, and partially funding the “possible” construction of 700 miles (1,125 km) of physical fence/barriers along the border. The very broad support implied that many assurances were made by the Administration — to the Democrats, Mexico, and the pro “Comprehensive immigration reform” minority among Republicans — that Homeland Security would proceed very cautiously. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, announced that an eight-month test of the virtual fence he favored would precede any construction of a physical barrier.

On October 26, 2006, President George W. Bush signed H.R. 6061 which was voted upon and passed by the 109th Congress of the United States.[16] The signing of the bill came right after a CNN poll showed that most Americans “prefer the idea of more Border Patrol agents to a 700-mile (1,125-kilometer) fence.”[17] The Department of Homeland Security has a down payment of $1.2 billion marked for border security, but not specifically for the border fence.[citation needed]

As of January 2010, the fence project had been completed from San Diego, California to Yuma, Arizona.[dubious ] From there it continued into Texas and consisted of a fence that was 21 feet (6.4 m) tall and 6 feet (1.8 m) deep in the ground, cemented in a 3-foot (0.91 m)-wide trench with 5,000 psi (345 bar; 352 kg/cm²) concrete. There were no fatalities during construction, but there were 4 serious injuries with multiple aggressive acts against building crews. There was one reported shooting with no injury to a crew member in the Mexicali region. All fence sections are south of the All-American Canal, and have access roads giving border guards the ability to reach any point easily, including the dunes area where a border agent was killed 3 years prior[when?] and is now sealed off.[citation needed]

The Republican Party’s 2012 platform stated that “The double-layered fencing on the border that was enacted by Congress in 2006, but never completed, must finally be built.”[18] The Secure Fence Act’s costs were estimated at $6 billion,[19] more than the Customs and Border Protection’s entire annual discretionary budget of $5.6 billion.[20] The Washington Office on Latin America noted on its Border Fact Check site in 2013 that the cost of complying with the Secure Fence Act’s mandate was the reason it had not been completely fulfilled.[21]

Rethinking the expansion

In January 2007, incoming House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) announced that Congress would revisit the fence plan, with committee chairs holding up funding until a comprehensive border security plan was presented by the United States Department of Homeland Security. Then[