Fine. When a Republican gets "frustrated with Congress" and passes his own law that brings the corporate income tax rate to zero, you'll be OK with that?
Isn't it already?
The 'securing the border' wet dream of conservatives is amazing to me - how will we do it, and what will the cost be? Estimates have been in the billions..... is that what we should be spending money on?
We have the highest rate of corporate tax in the world... blah, blah, blah...
That nobody pays.
The 'securing the border' wet dream of conservatives is amazing to me - how will we do it, and what will the cost be? Estimates have been in the billions..... is that what we should be spending money on?
yes that is what our tax money should be going to.
hold the bailouts to insurance companies please
The 'securing the border' wet dream of conservatives is amazing to me - how will we do it, and what will the cost be? Estimates have been in the billions..... is that what we should be spending money on?
Yes
The 'securing the border' wet dream of conservatives is amazing to me - how will we do it, and what will the cost be? Estimates have been in the billions..... is that what we should be spending money on?
I got news for you Sang; we are already spending those billions on health care; criminal justice; etc taking care of illegals. You either take a stand or you don.t
The 'securing the border' wet dream of conservatives is amazing to me - how will we do it, and what will the cost be? Estimates have been in the billions..... is that what we should be spending money on?
I got news for you Sang; we are already spending those billions on health care; criminal justice; etc taking care of illegals. You either take a stand or you don.t
You can add Education to that list.
i have one comment and one only
Pass A Bill
everything else is a distraction to Passing A Bill
that is all
Thank You
and another thing....lol how many people were actually being deported per month anyhow that are now protected? i don't think much changed from the current reality.
[Edited on 11/21/2014 by LeglizHemp]
Sorry LeglizHemp, Boehner just filed a lawsuit over Obamacare, and he'll do the same for this immigration reform too. A complete waste of time, taxpayer money, and a pathetic display of leadership by the Republicans. The only character traits the Republicans have shown lately is anger, bitterness, and hostility. They may have won the mid-terms, but they are only giving the Democrats plenty of ammo to use in the next Presidential election. I feel sorry for Boehner. He seems like a miserable insecure human being. I would hate to go through life with that much negativity in my soul.
The 'securing the border' wet dream of conservatives is amazing to me - how will we do it, and what will the cost be? Estimates have been in the billions..... is that what we should be spending money on?
Yes
I agree. If we can't spend it on an elementary function like securing our border we shouldn't spend it on anything....And what makes it a "wet dream?" It's a reality in other countries, why not a reality here?
For those that say fences don't work, they seem to work pretty well at prisons. If they don't work maybe we should remove them, along with the fence around the White House.
Securing the border should be the FIRST item in any Immigration bill. Without that, we'll keep running into the same problems we have now. It's a no-brainer.
The 'securing the border' wet dream of conservatives is amazing to me - how will we do it, and what will the cost be? Estimates have been in the billions..... is that what we should be spending money on?
Yes
I agree. If we can't spend it on an elementary function like securing our border we shouldn't spend it on anything....And what makes it a "wet dream?" It's a reality in other countries, why not a reaNlity here?
For those that say fences don't work, they seem to work pretty well at prisons. If they don't work maybe we should remove them, along with the fence around the White House.
Securing the border should be the FIRST item in any Immigration bill. Without that, we'll keep running into the same problems we have now. It's a no-brainer.
How big is a prison? How big is the border? Bad comparison. Figure out the cost of securing the border and then figure out how to pay for it. I thought conservatives didn'tt like all of this spending. Unless, of course, it is for pointless wars.
Well, except not all immigrants are from Mexico...............
The 'securing the border' wet dream of conservatives is amazing to me - how will we do it, and what will the cost be? Estimates have been in the billions..... is that what we should be spending money on?
Yes
I agree. If we can't spend it on an elementary function like securing our border we shouldn't spend it on anything....And what makes it a "wet dream?" It's a reality in other countries, why not a reaNlity here?
For those that say fences don't work, they seem to work pretty well at prisons. If they don't work maybe we should remove them, along with the fence around the White House.
Securing the border should be the FIRST item in any Immigration bill. Without that, we'll keep running into the same problems we have now. It's a no-brainer.
How big is a prison? How big is the border? Bad comparison. Figure out the cost of securing the border and then figure out how to pay for it. I thought conservatives didn'tt like all of this spending. Unless, of course, it is for pointless wars.
Most Conservatives would agree that the cost of securing the border is well within the acceptable scope of government.
Most Conservatives would agree that the cost of securing the border is well within the acceptable scope of government.
Someone needs to define what success looks like vis a vis "securing the border." I don't even know what "securing the border" really means.
Per US Customs, the United States has 5,525 miles of border with Canada and 1,989 miles with Mexico. Our maritime border includes 95,000 miles of shoreline. Each year, more than 500 million people cross the borders into the United States, some 330 million of whom are non-citizens. There are 118,129, 875 vehicles that enter the U.S. annually and 22.5 million cargo containers.
So, with more than 100,000 miles of border and over half a billion people and vehicles crossing it every year, what does success in "securing the border" actually look like?
[Edited on 11/21/2014 by gondicar]
Well, except not all immigrants are from Mexico...............
Texas and Arizona are being overrun by Swiss immigrants.
The 'securing the border' wet dream of conservatives is amazing to me - how will we do it, and what will the cost be? Estimates have been in the billions..... is that what we should be spending money on?
Yes
I agree. If we can't spend it on an elementary function like securing our border we shouldn't spend it on anything....And what makes it a "wet dream?" It's a reality in other countries, why not a reaNlity here?
For those that say fences don't work, they seem to work pretty well at prisons. If they don't work maybe we should remove them, along with the fence around the White House.
Securing the border should be the FIRST item in any Immigration bill. Without that, we'll keep running into the same problems we have now. It's a no-brainer.
How big is a prison? How big is the border? Bad comparison. Figure out the cost of securing the border and then figure out how to pay for it. I thought conservatives didn'tt like all of this spending. Unless, of course, it is for pointless wars.
Most Conservatives would agree that the cost of securing the border is well within the acceptable scope of government.
Most conservatives claim they don't like to spend money we don't have. Where will the money come from to pay for this. And, will the GOP Congress actually pass a bill on this?
Well, except not all immigrants are from Mexico...............
Texas and Arizona are being overrun by Swiss immigrants.
Alabama has been overrun by an idiot.
The 'securing the border' wet dream of conservatives is amazing to me - how will we do it, and what will the cost be? Estimates have been in the billions..... is that what we should be spending money on?
Yes
I agree. If we can't spend it on an elementary function like securing our border we shouldn't spend it on anything....And what makes it a "wet dream?" It's a reality in other countries, why not a reaNlity here?
For those that say fences don't work, they seem to work pretty well at prisons. If they don't work maybe we should remove them, along with the fence around the White House.
Securing the border should be the FIRST item in any Immigration bill. Without that, we'll keep running into the same problems we have now. It's a no-brainer.
How big is a prison? How big is the border? Bad comparison. Figure out the cost of securing the border and then figure out how to pay for it. I thought conservatives didn'tt like all of this spending. Unless, of course, it is for pointless wars.
Most Conservatives would agree that the cost of securing the border is well within the acceptable scope of government.
Most conservatives claim they don't like to spend money we don't have. Where will the money come from to pay for this. And, will the GOP Congress actually pass a bill on this?
I'm sure they'll enlist Paul Ryan (the supposed numbers guy that ran for VP & lost) to come up with some creative means. Maybe he'll start with Medicaid, Medicare, & Social Security, etc. Let's see how the conservatives begging for border security will like that when it hits home with their pocketbooks.
As far as the House passing a bill - I wouldn't count on it. Puffing the chest & challenging the O man are great tools to rouse the base and raise party money. I asked before, and I don't think anyone responded. I'll ask again. Why won't Boehner allow a floor vote?
If they don't pass a bill, will be interesting to see where the primary candidates go. Let me guess - Jeb Bush for & all others hunkered down. Another year of writing off the Hispanic vote?
I don't understand why there would be any controversy. The only ones who believe he is breaking the law are his Republican foes. All the research I've seen says he is acting within the laws of the Constitution. Didn't Congress have ample time to pass a bill and they failed? If they fail to do their job, why wouldn't he use executive action, especially if the Constitution permits him to do it?
Furthermore, the reform seems to play both sides of the aisle: one one hand he provides an easier path to citizenship for certain law-abiding, family-oriented illegals if they fit the criteria, while at the same time earning federal tax revenue from their back taxes. One the other hand, the dangerous illegals that don't contribute will be targeted and deported. And he's creating tougher border security and tougher deportation laws going forward for anyone who tries to enter, no matter what the criteria.
Seems fair and balanced to me.
Is the Washington Post one of his Republican foes? Is Ross Douthat of the NY Times one of his Republican foes? Both have HARSHLY criticized this power grab which has nothing to do with the substance of reform. Where do you get this stuff from?
The failure of Congress to enact a law to the president's satisfaction DOES NOT give him the autority to do it by executive fiat. Moreover he has NOT allowed the new Congress to enact any law at all. He has not allowed the new Congress to be seated before doing this. A lawful president would sit down with his opponents and say I know I can't get everything I want but I want a bill. What do you need to pass something? And they would do it. But that is not Obama. That has never been Obama. It's his way or he will do his best to make it a take no prisoners war.
quote:
Didn't Congress have ample time to pass a bill and they failed?So basically the Congress has to pass any bill a President wants, or else?
Yes. Or else he will use his executive powers that are within his Constitutional right.
My God. It is his constitutional right to enact legislation himself when Congress won't. We really are on the road to perdition.
quote:
Didn't Congress have ample time to pass a bill and they failed?So basically the Congress has to pass any bill a President wants, or else?
Yes. Or else he will use his executive powers that are within his Constitutional right.
Fine. When a Republican gets "frustrated with Congress" and passes his own law that brings the corporate income tax rate to zero, you'll be OK with that?
I'm ok with the legality of it and I would blame Congress for their failure to do their job. Why can't Congress act like adults and compromise? It's silly at this point that they can't get anything done and I blame both sides. The game of politics that our country plays on a daily basis to support their interests instead of what's good for the country is the single worst attribute of the US. I'd rather a President make a decision I don't like than have nothing done at all, because maybe, just maybe, that President knows something I don't and might end up being a good decision, whatever it may be.
You frighten me.
Didn't Congress have ample time to pass a bill and they failed?
So basically the Congress has to pass any bill a President wants, or else?
Yes, that is the example set by previous presidents, including Saint Ron.
Congress can also pass bills that the president doesn't want, including changing any lawful action he may take as chief executive by passing bills that "correct" him, and can even override his vetoes. And the 3rd branch of our gov't can also step in and hold the other two accountable if/when they overstep their legal authority. It's called checks and balances.
If you are serious about the Constitution then you know that YES Congress can pass a law over the president's veto with 2/3 majority vote but NO the president CANNOT pass legislation if Congress refuses to or fails to for any reason. He simply cannot. He is calling it prosecutorial discretion because even he knows he cannot but everyone here supporting him is basically being honest and saying the truth which is that enacting his own legislation is EXACTLY what he is doing and it is totally unconstitutional. And it sets a terrible precedent. It doesn't matter WHAT the substance of the thing he is doing is. What if the president decides not to collect income tax against anyone with income belwo $100,000? What if the president decides not to enforce any drug laws, in effect legalizing drug use despite statutes that say otherwise? Where does it end? You are basically supporting dictatorship.
Isn't the content of the reform most important? Is there something about it that Republicans don't like?
Any means necessary eh? Man Madison and Hamilton would vomit at this. We have a Constitution. THAT is the most important thing.
quote:
Didn't Congress have ample time to pass a bill and they failed?So basically the Congress has to pass any bill a President wants, or else?
Yes. Or else he will use his executive powers that are within his Constitutional right.
My God. It is his constitutional right to enact legislation himself when Congress won't. We really are on the road to perdition.
He's not "enacting legislation". He is acting within his authority as the chief executive of the United States. Something that all presidents do, and several have done specifically with respect to immigration when congress wouldn't.
http://www.businessinsider.com/reagan-and-bush-made-immigration-executive-orders-2014-11
S. 744 was a kick-a$$ bill, passed in 2013 in the Senate 68-32 in grand (and very rare) bi-partisan fashion. The increase in funding to the Border Patrol, technology and the Border Fence was massive. Yes, it had DREAM Act provisions and paths to citizenship, but it actually required the border to be more secure before any of those provisions kicked in. It had provisions for farm workers, families, codified the use of E-Verify and much, much more.
Why did it die in the House?
What's the big deal? Being that Obama is the first President ever to be "frustrated with Congress, he should be able to write any new laws he feels like. Just invoke the "frustrated with Congress" clause in the Constitution, and presto! I think it's great.
So what law did he write?
The failure of Congress to enact a law to the president's satisfaction DOES NOT give him the autority to do it by executive fiat. Moreover he has NOT allowed the new Congress to enact any law at all. He has not allowed the new Congress to be seated before doing this. A lawful president would sit down with his opponents and say I know I can't get everything I want but I want a bill. What do you need to pass something? And they would do it. But that is not Obama. That has never been Obama. It's his way or he will do his best to make it a take no prisoners war.
So are you saying that Boehner's healthcare lawsuit will not only make it to court, but also be decided in his favor? Same premise.
I'm ok with the legality of it and I would blame Congress for their failure to do their job. Why can't Congress act like adults and compromise? It's silly at this point that they can't get anything done and I blame both sides. The game of politics that our country plays on a daily basis to support their interests instead of what's good for the country is the single worst attribute of the US. I'd rather a President make a decision I don't like than have nothing done at all, because maybe, just maybe, that President knows something I don't and might end up being a good decision, whatever it may be.
You frighten me.
It seems as though EVERYTHING frightens you. Talk about over-dramatic....sheesh.
[Edited on 11/21/2014 by BoytonBrother]
If you are serious about the Constitution then you know that YES Congress can pass a law over the president's veto with 2/3 majority vote
Yes, I know. I said exactly that.
but NO the president CANNOT pass legislation if Congress refuses to or fails to for any reason. He simply cannot.
I agree he cannot pass legislation, by definition. And that is not what he is doing. He is issuing an executive order...something which presidents have done with respect to immigration 39 times since 1956. This one is not even close to the most wide-reaching such order with respect to immigration (that would be Bush 41).
Side note: if you care to look it up, you'll see that Obama is issuing executive orders at a lower annual rate than ANY president since Grover Cleveland (who left office in 1897).
And it sets a terrible precedent.
He is not setting precedent, it already exists.
You are basically supporting dictatorship.
Ridiculous. Chicken Little would be proud.
What's the big deal? Being that Obama is the first President ever to be "frustrated with Congress, he should be able to write any new laws he feels like. Just invoke the "frustrated with Congress" clause in the Constitution, and presto! I think it's great.
I think he should pass a law against being snarky and overly dramatic in online chat rooms.
Outrage + Internet = Unconstitutional
And it sets a terrible precedent. It doesn't matter WHAT the substance of the thing he is doing is. What if the president decides not to collect income tax against anyone with income belwo $100,000? What if the president decides not to enforce any drug laws, in effect legalizing drug use despite statutes that say otherwise? Where does it end? You are basically supporting dictatorship.
LOL!!!! You are too much. WHERE DOES IT END!!!! Are you and Boehner related? It must suck to live a life of fear and paranoia.
