• 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!

DHS funding expected to run out as key House vote fails

Considering McConnell has already allowed more votes on amendments this term than Reid did all last term,
this proud Democrat--often ridiculed for even saying that--tips his cap to a new and more open Senate, as voiced by my Sen. Durbin.

Sen. McConnell will not allow the government to shut down, period.
He's doing the little things needed to keep his Majority Leader position, in spite of a bad 2016 map.

After the Netanyahu speech, which I'm sure McConnell wasn't a part of, we have the 'doc fix' problem in March.

With the highway trust fund about to go broke in May, I can see him attach KXL to this very important Transportation bill.
This was my original preference, to have a long-term approach to energy, infrastructure and transportation .

I'm not McConnell's biggest fan, but I appreciate the way he seems to have approached his new role. He isn't confrontational but seems willing to be open minded. With that I'm sure he's pissing tons of Republicans off, but I wish people would remember back to the days of Reagan/O'Neill and Clinton/Gingrich. You know, sometimes it's better to work together than stand on your laurels. Both sides need to compromise. Both sides seem to forget that our government wasn't set up to be a goddam competition.
 
I'm not McConnell's biggest fan, but I appreciate the way he seems to have approached his new role. He isn't confrontational but seems willing to be open minded. With that I'm sure he's pissing tons of Republicans off, but I wish people would remember back to the days of Reagan/O'Neill and Clinton/Gingrich. You know, sometimes it's better to work together than stand on your laurels. Both sides need to compromise. Both sides seem to forget that our government wasn't set up to be a goddam competition.

He waited till literally the last day to vote on the House bill, then amended it and sent it back. How is that working together? He could have amended the bill 6 weeks ago when the House sent it over and they could have worked together for 6 weeks to pass something Dems would accept.
 
In a government built on checks and balances, when one branch acts to it's fullest and most extreme regarding the powers it's been vested in order to thwart another branch it is only naturaly that said other branch will act to it's fullest and most extreme regrading the powers it's been vested in order to thwart the other.

The House is no more unreasonable, immoral, or evil for attempting to use it's power...the power of the purse...to it's absolute fullest than the President is in using his power similarly.

Our Government is built on Checks and Balances. If you wish for a congres that simply rolls over when an executive pushes his authority to it's utmost max than seek to change the United States into a Dictatorship. Otherwise, recognize that these kind of issues can occur when multiple branches are making clear attempts to thwart the purposes of the other.
 
In effect, Obama started it. But of course the media will blame Republicans.
 
In effect, Obama started it. But of course the media will blame Republicans.

Eh, chicken and an egg in terms of "starting it".

Republicans can say "Obama started it" because of his executive actin. He can say Republicans started it by not allowing the Senate immigration bill to get passed the House. The Republicans can then blame the Democrats for not putting forward a bill from the Senate that the Republican House could get behind. The senate could then blame the Republicans for not comrpomising enough. And it'd just go round and round and round and round.

Placing blame shouldn't be the goal of the media at all, despite the fact they absolutley do seem to have that as a goal. Blame lies on both sides. It's not about placing blame, but rather recognizing the empasse and either one/both sides taking the first steps to try and rectify it OR accepting that this back and forth will continue to happen and neither side is clean in the issue.
 
Eh, chicken and an egg in terms of "starting it".

Republicans can say "Obama started it" because of his executive actin. He can say Republicans started it by not allowing the Senate immigration bill to get passed the House. The Republicans can then blame the Democrats for not putting forward a bill from the Senate that the Republican House could get behind. The senate could then blame the Republicans for not comrpomising enough. And it'd just go round and round and round and round.

Placing blame shouldn't be the goal of the media at all, despite the fact they absolutley do seem to have that as a goal. Blame lies on both sides. It's not about placing blame, but rather recognizing the empasse and either one/both sides taking the first steps to try and rectify it OR accepting that this back and forth will continue to happen and neither side is clean in the issue.

Right, but the point is The Executive doesnt have the power to change the law when he feels the congress isnt. Whereas the congress has the power to NOT make or amend laws if they choose.
 
It would be great if DHS ran out of funding, it should be disbanded anyway.

If you're overweight, cut off your left leg. Problem solved. And you never have to worry about gaining that weight back.
 
If you're overweight, cut off your left leg. Problem solved. And you never have to worry about gaining that weight back.

You can get fatter. Probably would with the decrease in mobility. Of course if DHS was as useful as a leg it'd be one thing, but mostly they are like a cancerous tumor.
 
Democrats endangering the security of the homeland by standing loyal to illegal foreign immigrants.

that , people, is patriotism.

:lol:

Bull****. The GOP is trying to attach irrelevant political power grabs to funding this nation's security. What would your response be to democrats attaching federal funding of abortions nationwide to a Department of Defense budget bill?
 
Bull****. The GOP is trying to attach irrelevant political power grabs to funding this nation's security. What would your response be to democrats attaching federal funding of abortions nationwide to a Department of Defense budget bill?

immigration policy is not irrelevant the DHS.....ICE falls under the DHS.

nice try, though.
 
You can get fatter. Probably would with the decrease in mobility. Of course if DHS was as useful as a leg it'd be one thing, but mostly they are like a cancerous tumor.

Then just keep hacking off body parts until your net weight goes down.
 
Bull****. The GOP is trying to attach irrelevant political power grabs to funding this nation's security. What would your response be to democrats attaching federal funding of abortions nationwide to a Department of Defense budget bill?

So immigration...an issue that touches upon the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)...is as relevant to the funding of the Department of Homeland Security

....as....

Abortion is to the Department of Defense.

This is the argument you're seriously making?

The GOP is trying to utilize their constitutionally vested power of the purse to deal with the potential funding of the cabinet department that oversees the vast majority of immigration related issues with the government.

The President has used his constitutionally vested power to it's fullest to direct his various executive agencies to use the funds provided by them in congress in ways that are UNQUESTIONABLY contrary to the implied or stated will of the Congress. As such, they are using their constitutionally vested power to it's fullest to deny said agencies the funds to enact those things.

This isn't a case of tying some completely unrelated political issue to the budget. This is relating to a specific issue that the specific agency who's funds are being debated is charged with handling. To compare this to holding up a budget for the Department of Defense about Abortion is RIDICULOUS.

What would be more accurate would be wondering what someone's response would be to Democrats attaching requirements for a withdrawal timeline to a bill funding the Department of Defense's endeavors in a war...you know, like was discussed back in 2006.
 
But then, this goes back to the problem some liberals seem to have with simply thinking that their opinion and world view isn't just their perspective, but somehow objective truth.

For those types...."holding a budgetary measure hostage" in order to get things ADDED to it is perfectly fine. Such as when they worked to hold up and thwart the budget measure in 2007 for Iraq War Funding unless they got BILLIONS of additional completely unrelated add-on's...like aid for avocado growers or drought relief funds...along with demanding a troop withdrawal deadline of the end of 2008.

It was apparently okay for them to hold things "hostage" because to many liberals what they were doing was "good" and thus attaching "irrelevant political power grabs" to it was perfectly okay and not worthy of condemnation at all. It's only when you want to decrease funding in some fashion, or doing something that they view as "bad", that it suddenly is just beyond the pale to suggest a budgetary bill be anything but "clean".

Both parties routinely play politics with the budget, because that's the primary leverage point that the legislature has in providing a check to the executive branch. To expect the legislature, regardless of party, to just sit back and take it up the ass in accordance with what the Executive wants is not just laughable but is antithetical to the concept of checks and balances this country was established on.
 
Last edited:
So immigration...an issue that touches upon the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)...is as relevant to the funding of the Department of Homeland Security

....as....

Abortion is to the Department of Defense.

This is the argument you're seriously making?

The GOP is trying to utilize their constitutionally vested power of the purse to deal with the potential funding of the cabinet department that oversees the vast majority of immigration related issues with the government.

The President has used his constitutionally vested power to it's fullest to direct his various executive agencies to use the funds provided by them in congress in ways that are UNQUESTIONABLY contrary to the implied or stated will of the Congress. As such, they are using their constitutionally vested power to it's fullest to deny said agencies the funds to enact those things.

This isn't a case of tying some completely unrelated political issue to the budget. This is relating to a specific issue that the specific agency who's funds are being debated is charged with handling. To compare this to holding up a budget for the Department of Defense about Abortion is RIDICULOUS.

What would be more accurate would be wondering what someone's response would be to Democrats attaching requirements for a withdrawal timeline to a bill funding the Department of Defense's endeavors in a war...you know, like was discussed back in 2006.

Of course it's within their constitutional power. I have no idea why you think that's a rebuttal to what I said.

This isn't just a good ol' fashioned honest funding bill. It's a political attack against the president's policies. If they want to legislatively reverse the policy, they should try and pass that legislatively on its own instead of holding the entire Department of Homeland Security for ransom.
 
Of course it's within their constitutional power. I have no idea why you think that's a rebuttal to what I said.

This isn't just a good ol' fashioned honest funding bill. It's a political attack against the president's policies. If they want to legislatively reverse the policy, they should try and pass that legislatively on its own instead of holding the entire Department of Homeland Security for ransom.

OR you attempt to not pass legislation that funds the president's policies, which is exactly what they're doing. They've passed a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security outside of the Presidents actions regarding immigration. The Democrats are just as much "holding the entire Department of Homeland Security ransom" in the name of their "political" desires. The President refusing to relent on his Executive Action, or the senate refusing to allow it to not be funded, is just as much keeping DHS from being funded as a whole as the Republicans refusal to fund those Executive Actions.

I don't know where in the world you're getting this ridiculous and erroneous notion that a budget bill isn't legislative action, but it most assuredly is. They are taking legislative action to reverse the policy, specifically the legislative action of denying any funding to be used for those actions. That is a legislative action. Is it an extreme one? Absolute. As is the President taking executive action that is unquestionably against the explicit or implied will of the congress. Welcome to the world of checks and balances where extreme action is met by extreme action between the various branches of our government.

You seem to want to demand your guy should be able to use his constitutional powers to their most extreme and fullest and the other side should just roll over and take it up the ass, but that's not how things generally work nor should work.
 
Last edited:
Of course it's within their constitutional power. I have no idea why you think that's a rebuttal to what I said.

This isn't just a good ol' fashioned honest funding bill. It's a political attack against the president's policies. If they want to legislatively reverse the policy, they should try and pass that legislatively on its own instead of holding the entire Department of Homeland Security for ransom.

The Presidents order was a political attack against congress policies. But I dont see you attacking him. If he didnt like what congress wasnt doing, he should try to pass his request on its own, through congress.
 
Back
Top Bottom