• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House passes $694 million border bill

Ockham said:
House passes $694 million border bill - CNN.com

The message is contradictory - The President wants Congress to work and to pass a border bill. The bill that was passed on Friday however was not to his liking and he vows to veto it yet, by all indications it will never make it to his desk because the Senate was not available to receive the bill before it's five-week summer recess. The way government is supposed to work is the House bill be taken up by the Senate, changes are made and sent back to the House... that is done until a bill is compromised on and is sent to the President for signature into law. How can this process take place when one side is demonized, the other never takes up the bill and the President vows to veto it before it even gets to the Senate?
Click to expand...

When Obama said he wanted a border bill he meant one with amnesty and hollow promises of enforcement. Basically he wanted Reagan Amnesty II.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Like crying on TV about the Republicans not passing a bill to help the current immigration problem and then complaining when they do? Or passing laws in the Senate that without any input or amendments from Republicans that Reid and Obama know could never pass the House and then calling the Republicans names? Or the Democrat leader of the Senate tabling over 350 bills passed by the House because he doesn't want to even have a debate on the Senate floor, and yet saying the Republicans in the House have failed to pass one jobs bill, or any other type of bill?

Political gamesmanship is a charge that can be levied against them all, and this case, less for the Republicans than the Democrats because they made the charge right before the recess and then when they saw the House was going to vote on a bill they ran like hell from DC so they didn't have to even act like they were going to negotiate and try to do anything themselves. Yet, the media eats up the "We should blame the Republicans" no matter what the truth actually is.
Click to expand...

Yes, things like that. Political gamesmanship and hyper partisanship happens in both parties.

Saying that partisanship is bad, but your party is worse than mine is absurd.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
And if we did try to speed up the deportations it would violate due process.

Or is that a small sacrifice?
Click to expand...

what due process? they are here illegally that is automatic deporation. CBP should have the right and they do have the right to deny anyone access into the US and they do so on a regular basis at airports.

so they should have the same right in this instance.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, things like that. Political gamesmanship and hyper partisanship happens in both parties.

Saying that partisanship is bad, but your party is worse than mine is absurd.
Click to expand...

I would never say that one is worse than the other. However, which party is currently on the down side of the sliding scale is dependent upon the subject and the timing. Right now, on the immigration crisis on the boarder, the Democrats are on the down side, due to the fact that they are the ones that caused the problem by telling kids from other countries that if they are here they can be a Dream Kid under the President's Executive Order to refuse to deport them, and... they are the ones that are in power while all this is going on.

To say that the Republicans are any better on most issues would be disingenuous on my part, to say the Democrats are any better on most issues would be disingenuous on your part, but on this one, the Democrats are the ones toting the manure bags that they filled themselves.

Just saying. On many issues you and I agree. On this one, not so much, but still close.
 
Ockham said:
House passes $694 million border bill - CNN.com

The message is contradictory - The President wants Congress to work and to pass a border bill. The bill that was passed on Friday however was not to his liking and he vows to veto it yet, by all indications it will never make it to his desk because the Senate was not available to receive the bill before it's five-week summer recess. The way government is supposed to work is the House bill be taken up by the Senate, changes are made and sent back to the House... that is done until a bill is compromised on and is sent to the President for signature into law. How can this process take place when one side is demonized, the other never takes up the bill and the President vows to veto it before it even gets to the Senate?
Click to expand...

While the Democrat-majority Senate left on schedule to begin their 5-week break without passing their bill on the border problem, the Republican-majority House delayed their departure and passed a $694 million dollar border bill. Now Obama is saying NO to the house bill, and vows to go it alone because "congress can't get their act together," and is blaming the Republicans for "inaction." He further said that even if the Senate did pass it, he wouldn't sign it. Can someone explain to me again how that works?
 
leoborn said:
While the Democrat-majority Senate left on schedule to begin their 5-week break without passing their bill on the border problem, the Republican-majority House delayed their departure and passed a $694 million dollar border bill. Now Obama is saying NO to the house bill, and vows to go it alone because "congress can't get their act together," and is blaming the Republicans for "inaction." He further said that even if the Senate did pass it, he wouldn't sign it. Can someone explain to me again how that works?
Click to expand...

Sure.

First, you have to understand that no one in Washington is actually serous about ending illegal immigration or solving any border problems we might have. The goal is to make the other guy look as bad as possible.

So, the Republican majority house decided to pass a bill that they knew would never see the light of day but would serve to lend credence to the absurd notion that Republicans were all for a solution, but Democrats were simply holding out for amnesty and open borders. Obama took the bait and stated that this bill, which was never a serious attempt to do anything but make the president look bad, wouldn't be approved. Score one for the Republicans.

Meantime, the Democrat led Senate just said, "To heck with this (bleep!) and went home, letting the Republicans have their little victory, and knowing that they would be back after the election to fling more crap back at the Republicans.

Obama wants to focus attention on the fact that the Congress is dysfunctional and run by hyper partisan idiots, so he is threatening to "go it alone", which is, of course, unconstitutional. There is little he can do to "go it alone", and any attempt at doing so will bring charges from the Republicans that he is a dictator bent on taking power, probably planning to run again in '16 and counting on the vote of the illegal aliens, which of course, is absurd.

But then, the whole thing is absurd.

Meanwhile, we're assured by no less that former presidential candidate Michelle Bachann, not to be confused with that other Michelle who is only concerned with indoctrinating children to the idea that eating junk food is a bad idea, that the illegals are about to become subjects of medical experimentation. That is, of course, just as absurd as all of the rest of it, but it plays well with the lunatic fringe.

So, Washington is now vacant, all of the flingers of crap now having gone back to their gerrymandered districts to sing songs of silliness to the voters there and attempt to get back to Washington once again to do nothing.
 
sangha said:
So unlike ACA, which you condemn for being partisan, you will argue that partisan bills should be passed (if they come from republicans)?
Click to expand...

Obamacare was given a chance in the senate, this bill, like everything the republicans put forth won't see the senate floor. That's a huge difference.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
And if we did try to speed up the deportations it would violate due process.

Or is that a small sacrifice?
Click to expand...

Actually no. The trafficking bill is what they are using to set due process.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Sure.

First, you have to understand that no one in Washington is actually serous about ending illegal immigration or solving any border problems we might have. The goal is to make the other guy look as bad as possible.

So, the Republican majority house decided to pass a bill that they knew would never see the light of day but would serve to lend credence to the absurd notion that Republicans were all for a solution, but Democrats were simply holding out for amnesty and open borders. Obama took the bait and stated that this bill, which was never a serious attempt to do anything but make the president look bad, wouldn't be approved. Score one for the Republicans.

Meantime, the Democrat led Senate just said, "To heck with this (bleep!) and went home, letting the Republicans have their little victory, and knowing that they would be back after the election to fling more crap back at the Republicans.

Obama wants to focus attention on the fact that the Congress is dysfunctional and run by hyper partisan idiots, so he is threatening to "go it alone", which is, of course, unconstitutional. There is little he can do to "go it alone", and any attempt at doing so will bring charges from the Republicans that he is a dictator bent on taking power, probably planning to run again in '16 and counting on the vote of the illegal aliens, which of course, is absurd.

But then, the whole thing is absurd.

Meanwhile, we're assured by no less that former presidential candidate Michelle Bachann, not to be confused with that other Michelle who is only concerned with indoctrinating children to the idea that eating junk food is a bad idea, that the illegals are about to become subjects of medical experimentation. That is, of course, just as absurd as all of the rest of it, but it plays well with the lunatic fringe.

So, Washington is now vacant, all of the flingers of crap now having gone back to their gerrymandered districts to sing songs of silliness to the voters there and attempt to get back to Washington once again to do nothing.
Click to expand...

Finally, an explanation that makes sense! Thanks!
 
Helix said:
our hyperpartisan duopoly system is not working. it's mostly about scoring points, and actual governance plays only a minimal role for the most part.
Click to expand...

Our government working perfect. A two party system, that is hyper-partisan is the only way to go.
 
sangha said:
So unlike ACA, which you condemn for being partisan, you will argue that partisan bills should be passed (if they come from republicans)?
Click to expand...

No, no way. I argue they should be brought to the senate floor, debated, changes made, let the Democrats add, delete and amend. I argue that since the senate has that power they should use it to craft whatever bill that comes from the House to meet their specs. Then it can be returned to the house for their action. Tabling of all bills from the house is just as bad as filibustering everything the Democrats proposed. both suck big time.

All I am saying is Senator Reid ought to use the power he has. Denying the house a voice in legislation is completely wrong. Especially as I stated Reid has the power to delete all poison pills, add anything he wants and change each and every bill that comes from the house to reflect the senate desires.

As for the ACA, it is not the debating or voting that has me peeved. It is the senators who told the people who elected them to represent them, the people who put them in Washington in the first to shove it where the sun don't shine. I believe senators should represent the people of their state first, not their party. The same thing in the house, representatives should represent the people in their district first, not their party. This is not that hard to understand.

Senators like Feinstien, boxer, Nelson, Hirono, durbin, Harkin, Mikulski, Levin, Stabenow, Schumer, Gillibrand, Sanders etc. I expected them to vote for the the ACA, the people of their states wanted the ACA to pass. But Senators like Lincoln, Hagan, Landrieu, Nelson of Nebraska, McClaskill, Tester, Pryor and the like to represent their state and vote the wishes of the people of their state especially when around 60% or more were telling them to vote no. The ACA was a prime example of party over the wishes of the people.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
It would be more productive if you posted the actual text of the bills so we can see what is inside the bills?
Click to expand...

I do not think there is a need to post well over 200 bills. It should be enough to have the senate debate, then change, add, delete and amend according to the senates wishes. The senate is not doing their job.
 
apdst said:
Our government working perfect. A two party system, that is hyper-partisan is the only way to go.
Click to expand...

to say that i disagree would be the understatement of the year.
 
Helix said:
to say that i disagree would be the understatement of the year.
Click to expand...

I think it's because you see the government as the answer to all the country's problems. The reality is that in this day and age, government is the source of most of our problems. The illegal alien problem is just one government created problem.
 
apdst said:
I think it's because you see the government as the answer to all the country's problems.
Click to expand...

no. oversimplification.

apdst said:
The reality is that in this day and age, government is the source of most of our problems.
Click to expand...

no. oversimplification.

apdst said:
The illegal alien problem is just one government created problem.
Click to expand...

while the government has some responsibility for perpetuating the problem, the immigrants are coming here for the opportunity to work in the private sector, for the most part.

so, once again, no. oversimplification.
 
Helix said:
no. oversimplification.



no. oversimplification.



while the government has some responsibility for perpetuating the problem, the immigrants are coming here for the opportunity to work in the private sector, for the most part.

so, once again, no. oversimplification.
Click to expand...

Those kids aren't coming here looking for work. A significant portion of the adults will be living, partially at least, off the goavernment dole. It's naive to believe that all of the adult illegal aliens are coming here to get a job and pay taxes.
 
sangha said:
So unlike ACA, which you condemn for being partisan, you will argue that partisan bills should be passed (if they come from republicans)?
Click to expand...

I don't want thos bill to be passed. It'll be $694 billion down the toilet.
 
apdst said:
Those kids aren't coming here looking for work. A significant portion of the adults will be living, partially at least, off the goavernment dole. It's naive to believe that all of the adult illegal aliens are coming here to get a job and pay taxes.
Click to expand...

they're coming here to look for opportunity. the fact that they are willing to take a horrifyingly awful trip from Central America through Mexico speaks volumes about the conditions that they are trying to escape. we have entire sectors of the economy which largely run off of their labor.

you honestly believe that they are making that trip just to suck up government benefits? man.
 
apdst said:
I think it's because you see the government as the answer to all the country's problems. The reality is that in this day and age, government is the source of most of our problems. The illegal alien problem is just one government created problem.
Click to expand...

The government is not the answer to all of our problems, but is it too much to expect that they be the answer to some of the problems? How about starting with the problems that the government itself has created?
 
Perotista said:
No, no way. I argue they should be brought to the senate floor, debated, changes made, let the Democrats add, delete and amend. I argue that since the senate has that power they should use it to craft whatever bill that comes from the House to meet their specs. Then it can be returned to the house for their action. Tabling of all bills from the house is just as bad as filibustering everything the Democrats proposed. both suck big time.
Click to expand...

Practically speaking, what's the difference between tabling the house bill and writing one of their own (and then sending it to the house) vs. amending the House bill completely?

Essentially, there's no difference. You're complaining about some technical procedure that, in the end doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Even worse, the american people do not support a bill that's anything like the House bill. I remember that one of your complaints about the ACA was that it wasn't supported by a majority of americans. Neither is this House bill.

Since I know you like polls, here's some about immigration. Immigration

Note how a large % of americans do not support simply deporting these children, which is what the House bill does (and not much more, if anything)

So why should the Senate entertain a bill that the American people have rejected?


All I am saying is Senator Reid ought to use the power he has. Denying the house a voice in legislation is completely wrong. Especially as I stated Reid has the power to delete all poison pills, add anything he wants and change each and every bill that comes from the house to reflect the senate desires.
Click to expand...

Reid is using the power he has. There is nothing wrong with tabling legislation, particularly when it's legislation that is partisan and has been rejected by the American people.

As for the ACA, it is not the debating or voting that has me peeved. It is the senators who told the people who elected them to represent them, the people who put them in Washington in the first to shove it where the sun don't shine. I believe senators should represent the people of their state first, not their party. The same thing in the house, representatives should represent the people in their district first, not their party. This is not that hard to understand.
Click to expand...

Then why do you complain when Reid does exactly what you just said? By tabling this bill, in essence killing it, he is representing the people of the US and not the House Republicans who, with this bill, have told the American people to take their opinions and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
 
So how exactly would $694 million bill help USA protect its borders?
 
DDD said:
So how exactly would $694 million bill help USA protect its borders?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure.

Let's get the Congress to give me $694 million, and see if I can protect the borders with it.

If I can't then obviously I'll need more money.
 
ludin said:
how was it not serious?

i provided money for NG support on the border to have BP control the flood.
it provided money to speed up the deportation process
it scaled back the 2008 bill to help speed up that process as well.

it did however limit obama in granting amnesty which is what he is attempting to do now.
as well as unconsitutionally change our immigration laws through executive fiat which he is not allowed to do.
Click to expand...

It wasn't serious as everyone knew it had zero chance of passing the other chamber or being signed into law. If it was serious, the Senate would not have left town. It wasn't even a basis of reconciliation or negotiation. Negotiation 101: if you can't put an offer on the table that can not be the basis of a deal, its not serious offer.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'm not sure.

Let's get the Congress to give me $694 million, and see if I can protect the borders with it.

If I can't then obviously I'll need more money.
Click to expand...

You probably will need more money cause it is a big border.
 
ludin said:
blame it on reid and obama. they refuse to pass or even allow any house bill to come to the floor to be voted on.
Click to expand...

The Senate passed an immigration bill a long time ago - over a year ago in fact. It passed 68-32, so over two thirds of U.S. Senators including many republicans voted in favor of it. How many times has that bill come up for a vote in the House in over a year? Zero would be the number.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom