• 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!

GOP Congress has been "AWOL" for six weeks

British PM Cameron addressed Parliament today asking for new antiterror powers to hoots and hollers.

At least they're in session and imagine the President addressing the House aqnd Senate this way.
The screams of "you lie" would be deafening.

But being born on a USAF base in England, I would like to see this form of debate once a week, when we're in session .
 
code1211 said:
Boehner seems like he has tried to engage on the issues, but he simply can't get the Senate to vote on anything and the negotiations wit the President are fruitless.
Click to expand...
Why won't Boehner allow any discussion on a Tax rewrite bill from his own Ways and Means chair?
But yet says Dems won't do anything on rewriting the "tax Code" .
 
CanadaJohn said:
Perhaps the only thing better than having President Obama perpetually on vacation, fundraising, and golfing,
Click to expand...
Do you really want to go here with all you know about former Presidents, especially GWB all through Iraq--2.
is having Congress anyplace other than Washington.
Click to expand...
I propose "regional" meetings of Congress when they are on vacation.
In all seriousness, so as to not build the gov't,
I'm sure Sen. McCain could House the Southwest Senators, Reps and yes Governors in one of his 7 Houses .
 
NIMBY said:
Did you expect the 50+ Repeal ACA votes to see the light of day?




Everything?
There's a new guy on dp named Meadowlark who actually drives a pretty straight line between both parties.
He has a list of all these bills you refer to.
How many of those bills have legislative riders and poison pills,
such as the one that Speaker Cruz used to shut down the gov't last October?

Outgoing Ways and Means chair Dave Camp has a New Tax Overhaul that McConnell declatred DOA if it passed.
It currently resides in Boehner's circular file, while GOPs than dishonestlt claim Dems are blocking Tax Reform.
Why won't they let their own Chair's Tax Reform be debated-
amongst many reasons--not enough time--too busy with I$$A's kangaroo courts and so on .
Click to expand...

Sorry, this is all partisan BS. There's a way to deal with poison pills and the like. That's to pass a version with those items removed and then have them negotiate it in joint conferences. But it never gets to that because the Senate wants the bills dead.

One or more of those ACA bills would have been a good way to address the ACAs deficiencies. Again, they pass a version of the bill that corrects the deficiences but doesn't abolish the ACA. But they don't want to do that. At this point they don't want to be seen supporting the ACA.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Reid is blocking votes on amendments proposed by Democrats? Isn't he a Democrat, too? What's up with that?
Click to expand...

reid blocks those votes even among his own party to protect fellow senators and obama,afterall no one can hold a yay or nay vote against them if they never voted in the first place.democracts and republicans have pushed numerous partisan and bipartisan bills in the house,that end up dead in the senate.
 
LowDown said:
Sorry, this is all partisan BS.
Click to expand...
You may have noticed I never speak to you personally like this. :)
There's a way to deal with poison pills and the like. That's to pass a version with those items removed and then have them negotiate it in joint conferences. But it never gets to that because the Senate wants the bills dead.
Click to expand...
The House refused to go to conference all of last year--next.
One or more of those ACA bills would have been a good way to address the ACAs deficiencies. Again, they pass a version of the bill that corrects the deficiences but doesn't abolish the ACA. But they don't want to do that. At this point they don't want to be seen supporting the ACA.
Click to expand...
This is pretty good--we often hear repeal and replace but we never see anything official hit the floor to debate.
I would suggest the wildly popular KYnect/ACA in Kentucky.
McConnell refuses to answer questions on Gov. Beshear's program and tried to hand the mic to Sen. Paul, who wouldn't take it . :lamo
 
NIMBY said:
You may have noticed I never speak to you personally like this. :)
Click to expand...

I was commenting on the content of the post.

The House refused to go to conference all of last year--next.
Click to expand...

I don't see how that's possible. 163 laws have been enacted by the 113rd Congress, most of them last year, so the idea that the House refused to go to conference is manifestly false or irrelevant.
 
LowDown said:
I don't see how that's possible.
Click to expand...
Here's just one example.
Nothing is more important than the House blocking a joint committee on the budget.

GOP blocks Reid from creating conference committee on budget | TheHill
163 laws have been enacted by the 113rd Congress, most of them last year,
so the idea that the House refused to go to conference is manifestly false or irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Show me a link to one of those important 163 laws or I'll assume they are naming post offices and yer not serious .
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Maybe the partisan debate over healthcare has made Harry Reid unwilling to put bills on the floor that will be used by republicans to hammer the democrats in vulnerable senate races.
Click to expand...



I would think that his resistance to actually doing the people's business is ENTIRELY based on political shenanigans.

That is exactly the problem about which I'm complaining.
 
Dittohead not! said:
They don't have to negotiate with the president in order for Congress to pass a bill. Just pass it and send it to the WH, then it's up to him to veto it or not. How many bills has he actually vetoed?
Click to expand...

That's the whole point.

A bill cannot be signed or vetoed until it has been passed.

If the Senate won't vote on it, it can never be passed.
 
code1211 said:
That's the whole point.

A bill cannot be signed or vetoed until it has been passed.

If the Senate won't vote on it, it can never be passed.
Click to expand...
Right. So, where does negotiation with the president come in?
 
NIMBY said:
Why won't Boehner allow any discussion on a Tax rewrite bill from his own Ways and Means chair?
But yet says Dems won't do anything on rewriting the "tax Code" .
Click to expand...



You'll have to ask him.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Right. So, where does negotiation with the president come in?
Click to expand...



He negotiated with the president directly for a while and just when the agreement seemed like it might happen, the talks fell apart.

They blamed each other.

The stories were similar to the way that Lucy and Ricky would retell disagreements to Fred and Ethel. It seems like the two are talking about completely different occasions. The same was true with this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/m...killed-the-debt-deal.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 
code1211 said:
He negotiated with the president directly for a while and just when the agreement seemed like it might happen, the talks fell apart.

They blamed each other.

The stories were similar to the way that Lucy and Ricky would retell disagreements to Fred and Ethel. It seems like the two are talking about completely different occasions. The same was true with this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/m...killed-the-debt-deal.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Click to expand...

So, send the POTUS a bill passed by Congress and let him either veto it or pass it.
 
NIMBY said:
Do you really want to go here with all you know about former Presidents, especially GWB all through Iraq--2.

I propose "regional" meetings of Congress when they are on vacation.
In all seriousness, so as to not build the gov't,
I'm sure Sen. McCain could House the Southwest Senators, Reps and yes Governors in one of his 7 Houses .
Click to expand...

Good morning NIMBY

I seem to recall the argument is always that the President is in constant contact and never away from the job, even while on vacation, etc. If so, with today's technology, why aren't members of Congress equally constantly available? And let's remember, when members of Congress go home for the summer break, they're not really on vacation considering all the constituency work they and their staffs do in their individual ridings. So, I didn't go there - you did - because the average member of Congress is preparing for reelection in a few months as well as working their constituents, while Obama is coasting to January 2017.
 
NIMBY said:
Cantor scheduled 114 days this year, 12 less than last year, since the number of trying issues has gone down. :mrgreen:
and he proudly showed everyone his agenda, a blank sheet of paper. :lamo

Do you defend only ten scheduled working days from next Tuesday until the election?



Reelection historically has started after Labor day, Labor now being a dirty word to GOPs.
How do you feel about McConnell's secret taped remarks at their dear leaders' conference, the Kochs ?
Click to expand...

The days the floor of the House is open for debate and voting has nothing to do with what the House is doing to work on legislation and negotiate between the respective party leaders.

This is a false equivalency my friend. Bills aren't created on the floor. They are created, negotiated and ultimately passed WAY before they ever make it to the floor. Not requiring members to be on the floor gives them more time to do their job, not just to campaign.
 
Our government is designed for gridlock, and that's usually a good thing.
 
mpg said:
Our government is designed for gridlock, and that's usually a good thing.
Click to expand...

True but the games Reid and Boehner play in regards to not letting bills get an up or down vote are pathetic. BOTH should just put the respective bills to a vote REGARDLESS if it comes from the Senate or the House.

I don't mind Gridlock, but when it comes from just ONE person such as Reid and Boehner, that isn't right.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The point is political grandstanding, of course. Why else would they pass bills that have zero chance of ever becoming law?

Whatever happened to bi partisanship? Compromise? Working for the good of the nation and not the party?
Click to expand...

Which is in and of itself a fallacy, as it assumes on feels that the "Compromise" is inherently for the good of the nation. Which many of the representativies, and specifically the consistuents they represent, seem to believe. Your argument is based off a notion that "Doing something" is ALWAYS better than "doing nothing" which is not always correct.
 
LowDown said:
What would be the point of passing bills? Everything they pass gets killed by the Democratic Senate.
Click to expand...

That wasn't stopping them before. How many "repeals" of Obamacare did they pass?

In all seriousness, this "AWOL" is also called "running for re-election." It's a pretty normal thing every two years.
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, send the POTUS a bill passed by Congress and let him either veto it or pass it.
Click to expand...

Pshaw...now you're going to talk about "Constitutional process...." I mean, the Senate and President are just meant to rubber stamp whatever the House wants. Unless it's a Democratic House and a Republican President, then it's reversed.
 
rocket88 said:
<snip>

In all seriousness, this "AWOL" is also called "running for re-election." It's a pretty normal thing every two years.
Click to expand...

Yup, exactly what I said in an earlier post. This is nothing new. They are focused to their re-elections. OT, but one of the issues I have with the Congressional reps coming up for re-election every 2 years. Within a few months of them getting sworn in, they are already focused to the next election. It's not a good pattern, but it is the pattern now and has been as long as I remember.
 
Zyphlin said:
Which is in and of itself a fallacy, as it assumes on feels that the "Compromise" is inherently for the good of the nation. Which many of the representativies, and specifically the consistuents they represent, seem to believe. Your argument is based off a notion that "Doing something" is ALWAYS better than "doing nothing" which is not always correct.
Click to expand...
Not always, no, but sometimes.

And, once in a while, they actually do do something, like having increased the budget of the VA and making it easier for them to fire incompetents. that one shook my political cynicism a bit.

But there are other examples of inaction, like immigration reform, real reform and not amnesty. No one is willing to address that issue, so it becomes a political football. On that issue, they need to do something finally and at long last.

And whatever they do, it will be wrong in some peoples' opinion.
 
Also, let me take a wonderful page out of the other sides playbook here and point back to history and ask "This is only an issue NOW?"

The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 REQUIRES congress to go on Recess during the month of August.

Now let's look at 2008, another election year where the opposite party was in control of the house. How did the august recess look there? August 4th (first monday of August) through September 7th (Second monday of September) (SOURCE). And what's this years? Monday August 4th to Monday September 8th ([http://www.veteransforpeace.org/files/6813/9844/0222/2014_Congressional_Calendar1.pdf]SOURCE[/url]). Essentially the EXACT SAME THING.

This House is AWOL no more than any other previous house. Actually, with august recess being REQUIRED BY LAW, I'd say they absolutely aren't Abscent WithOut Leave, since that essentially indicates it's mandatory "leave" from the capital.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
And whatever they do, it will be wrong in some peoples' opinion.
Click to expand...

And thus the issue. One side feels that any "compromise" that doesn't include some sort of pathway to citizenship or ignoring of those who are here illegally isn't a "better" option than doing nothing....the other side feels that any "compromise" that DOES include such a thing isn't a "better" option than doing nothing. Which creates a line in the sand stand point where there's no compromise available that can garner the majority of both sides to get on board with. Neither are going "mwhahaha, this is worse for the country!!!!! I AM EVIL!"...rather, they sincerely feel that what's needed to get to a "compromise" position will actually be worse for the country in the short and/or long term.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom