20
   

Paul Ryan Announces He Won't Work With President

 
 
engineer
 
  4  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 10:01 am
@McGentrix,
Then Ryan should be willing to step up to write a law that supersedes the President's executive orders. By not doing so, he is letting all those orders stand unchallenged.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  4  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 10:06 am
@McGentrix,
Obama did what he thought he could under the current law. He didn't pass laws. He created regulations based on current law. Congress didn't like the regulation but it doesn't make Obama untrustworthy.

When Trump <snicker>makes executive decisions, he will need to follow the law. The first rule of law is you can't make executive decisions without being President.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 10:14 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

Government is required to do something. If no bills are passed there is no army, no justice system, no functioning at all.


But it is not required to, nor should it be expected to do everything.

With the exception of appropriation bills that direct federal funds to various agencies and arms of the government, what additional bills are required to run the military, justice system et al?

Central to this topic is a perceived problem of immigration. Unfortunately, the two parties do not share the same perception of the problem, but regardless, it is not a given that new legislature is required to "fix" it. There are a great many immigration laws on the books. Perhaps if we had ever bothered to enforce them, we might not have a mess on our hands, and herein lies the problem of trust.

The impasse between both sides boils down to this: The Republicans don't want to be responsible for another phony deal where border enforcement is promised in return for amnesty only to find that the promise was hollow.

Perhaps if the Dems had made good on their last promise we wouldn't have a second, larger mess to deal with.

But the Dems don't really want to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. They like taking advantage of a crisis; particularly when the "solution" means millions of new voters for Democrat candidates.

Hence the hue and cry for a "comprehensive" solution which is what they got the last time round and which will enable them to secure what they want right away and provide them with time in which they can stonewall what the Republicans want. It was very clever last time around, but Republican voters, at least, know how it works and will not (if they can help it) allow Republican legislators to fall for it again.

The solution is to pass whatever laws are necessary to stop new waves of immigrants from crossing the border illegally. When this is done we can then turn to the status of the illegal immigrants already here.

But of course the Dems won't accept this for several reasons:

1) It foils their chance to pull another fast one on immigration
2) It puts them in the position they put the Republicans the last time around and they don't trust the Republicans to make good on their promises. Without enforcement as a bargaining chip (how's that for a cynical position) they lose leverage in the negotiations concerning status
3) They don't want the borders sealed

With a president who believes he can pick and chose the laws he wishes to enforce, why should Republicans trust him to enforce the ones they might obtain through negotiations?

Fool me once...







parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 10:19 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Who said they were required to do everything?

This is in response to your statement:
Quote:
Not passing laws means doing nothing.



It seems you agree that Congress has to do something.

Quote:
appropriation bills that direct federal funds to various agencies and arms of the government,

Doing NOTHING is not an option for the Federal government which you now agree with me about.

We see nothing but you making **** up and then disagreeing with the **** you made up.
engineer
 
  5  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 10:29 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The solution is to pass whatever laws are necessary to stop new waves of immigrants from crossing the border illegally. When this is done we can then turn to the status of the illegal immigrants already here.

Yes, that is the solution. Ryan has just said he refuses to do that. You can make all the excuses for that you want, but at the end of the day, Team Ryan refuses to step on the playing field.
parados
 
  5  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 11:04 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
With a president who believes he can pick and chose the laws he wishes to enforce

It has been a long established fact that Presidents can pick and choose which laws to enforce since Congress does not give them an unlimited budget. Reagan did it. Bush did it. Both Roosevelts did it. George Washington did it.
glitterbag
 
  3  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 01:32 pm
@parados,
So, Congress has a three day work week and they still don't want to do the job they were sent there to do? Sweet for them, too bad for us.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 09:42 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
He asked the legislature to pass immigration reform for years. They failed to act. So Obama is untrustworthy because he did his job and stepped in to do what he could when the legislature failed to do theirs?

The Republicans had just taken control over the legislature. There were a large group of moderate Republicans who were just about to act. Then Mr. Obama stomped all over them with his executive orders.

If you burn all your bridges with the people you need in order to pass the laws that you want, chances are that those laws won't get passed.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 09:44 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
Yes, that is the solution. Ryan has just said he refuses to do that. You can make all the excuses for that you want, but at the end of the day, Team Ryan refuses to step on the playing field.

Mr. Obama was the one who chose to burn all his bridges with the Republicans who favored immigration reform (and to burn the bridges just when those Republicans were about to pass the reform that he wanted).

I don't know if he can do anything to rebuild those bridges, but if Mr. Obama does want immigration reform to be passed on his watch, nothing is going to happen until after those bridges have been rebuilt.
glitterbag
 
  3  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 10:20 pm
@oralloy,
It's not Obama's fault that the States sent so many incompetents to the House and Senate. You want more efficient government?, send smarter, more principled people and we will all be better off.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 10:26 pm
We should not deal with immigration till after the election next year, and both POTUS candidates need to make getting a mandate from the people a priority first. Paul Ryan is completely right to not do anything in the meantime. It also goes without saying that nothing can be done till the courts rule on the King Obama lawsuits. We need to have this power grab repudiated.
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 10:34 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
We need to have this power grab repudiated.


More deregulation for the chronic gamblers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7h7-9hNc4s
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 10:39 pm
@Builder,
Have you seen my rants about how Washington is broken? I am however pretty sure that in a year we will be able to talk about how the first year went, and we will both agree that Ryan is getting more done for American than Boehner did. He will also have done a lot that both of us dont like.
Builder
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 10:44 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Have you seen my rants about how Washington is broken?


Not lately. Been quite busy myself.

Quote:
....Ryan is getting more done for American than Boehner did.


Boehner did what almost all US politicians set out to do; make themselves millionaires through graft. He considers himself to be a roaring success.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 11:20 pm
@Builder,
Quote:
Boehner did what almost all US politicians set out to do; make themselves millionaires through graft. He considers himself to be a roaring success.

The real money comes after they work in government, when they can sell their access. Gingrich and Hastert for instance did very well.
Builder
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 11:50 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
The real money comes after they work in government, when they can sell their access.


Ah yes....the revolving door of senator/lobbyist/corporate raider.

And they say that corruption is dead.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2015 12:38 am
@parados,
The full comment was

The mind of the Progressive revealed: Solutions can't exist outside of legislation. Not passing laws means doing nothing.

The sentence in bold (which you quoted) is part of the Progressive mind's reveal (as if you didn't realize that).

I never said the federal government can or should do nothing. And you accuse me of making **** up?

The entire premise of this thread is based on a belief that the "immigration problem," the definition of which I doubt we can all agree upon, can be solved through legislation. Ryan won't negotiate with Obama on a comprehensive immigration solution (read: Legislation) and therefore the progressives herein seem to believe the problem can't be solved. Certainly that's the way Obama looks at it. Every time he is reminded of a problem that has been gnawing away at the nation throughout his terms, his response is the same: "If the Republicans would stop blocking my (legislative) plan for this and my (legislative) proposal for that we'd have these problems solved overnight."

Some of you have extended your accusations of Ryan to include a refusal to negotiate with Obama on all of our "problems." I get that. If Obama can't be trusted on immigration "reform" what issue is out there upon which he can he be trusted to negotiate in good faith? The answer is none that actually require negotiation and compromise; none for which the starting point isn't a basic, pre-existing agreement by both parties on what needs to be done and how to do it. In other words...none.

This country has a lot of problems, many of which cannot be solved by the government, and of those which require government involvement, new legislation is rarely what's needed.

Cases in point:

ISIS is running amok in the Middle East, slaughtering men women and children. Those they don't kill they enslave, rape and/or drive into a desperate attempt to find refuge. What new law is required to address this problem?

The Russian bear has awakened and is sticking its nose and claws into areas where we have strategic interests. What new law is required to address this problem?

In another thread, there is a discussion on the extent to which racism continues to exist in this country. While I may not agree with my progressive friends on the extent to which it exists and the scope of its impact, I do agree it remains in our nation and our culture. What to do about it though? Pass a law that makes it illegal to hate someone because of the color of their skin? That's sure to be a huge success.

Our public education system is in shambles and we are slipping on the world stage in this regard. I know, let's pass a law that requires every child to pay attention in class, every teacher to do a good job and every parent to care about their kid's education, and while we're at, let's pass a law that raises taxes on the "rich" so we have even more money to throw at the problem than we already do. Paying more, per student, on education than just about every other nation in the world hasn't been proven to be a failure. It's just not enough. We're almost there. That it hasn't worked only shows that we haven't spent enough!

Progressives believe every problem can be solved with money and laws. Usually the laws are designed to take money from some citizens and divert it to "solving" the problem. You can't help it, you like the idea of Big Government taking care of us all, and taking money out of the pockets of the "Rich" to fund that care. By supporting the Big Progressive Government and its Big Progressive Policies you get to feel like you too are taking care of all of us and especially our least fortunate brothers and sisters. It also allows you the luxury of believing that highly complex and often intractable problems are actually easy to fix if only the greedy bastards on the right would go along with new programs, new laws and surrendering more of their money which, as we all know, they basically stole from the rest of us in the first place.

Since you want a Big Government and believe it can solve all of our problems if given free reign, and since conservatives want a small government and believe a Really Big one generally makes problems worse thanks to the law of unintended consequences, it's only natural for you to see them as standing in the way of Utopia in our time. I'd despise us too if I was a progressive.

My point about appropriation bills was that in most cases these are the only "new" laws congress needs to enact. Obviously the military needs money to operate and since congress controls the nation's purse strings, it the place from which the money is going to come. But appropriation bills aren't fun, no one gets to attach his or her name to them and they don't make for much of a legacy.

In reality, most of the Republicans in DC feel the same way about Government and legislation as the Democrats. They like Big Government too and they like spending taxpayer dollars. They like to have their names attached to a bill and they all want a legacy. It's why progressives really hate the Tea Party. Those mean-spirited bastards have gotten in the way. They all remember the amnesty for enforcement con that Reagan fell for and are not about to let it happen again. The GOP Establishment was poised to cut another sham deal, but those dirty teabaggers made it radioactive. They have the nerve to actually try and represent the views of the people who sent them to DC with their votes.


parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2015 09:38 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Not passing laws means doing nothing. Unless you disagree with that statement you would have the mind of a progressive.

If the government passes no laws then they are doing nothing as you yourself have admitted when you stated they need to pass appropriation bills which become law.

Quote:

ISIS is running amok in the Middle East, slaughtering men women and children. Those they don't kill they enslave, rape and/or drive into a desperate attempt to find refuge. What new law is required to address this problem?
Laws pay for military responses. Congressional approval with a law allows a President to send troops for an extended period. Or are you arguing the President should act without Congress?

The Russian bear has awakened and is sticking its nose and claws into areas where we have strategic interests. What new law is required to address this problem?
Laws allow for sanctions of Russia. Or are you arguing the President should impose sanctions without Congressional approval?

In another thread, there is a discussion on the extent to which racism continues to exist in this country. While I may not agree with my progressive friends on the extent to which it exists and the scope of its impact, I do agree it remains in our nation and our culture. What to do about it though? Pass a law that makes it illegal to hate someone because of the color of their skin? That's sure to be a huge success. We passed a law making it illegal to discriminate in many ways including because of the color of their skin. Perhaps you have heard of civil rights legislation.

Our public education system is in shambles and we are slipping on the world stage in this regard. I know, let's pass a law that requires every child to pay attention in class, every teacher to do a good job and every parent to care about their kid's education, and while we're at, let's pass a law that raises taxes on the "rich" so we have even more money to throw at the problem than we already do. Paying more, per student, on education than just about every other nation in the world hasn't been proven to be a failure. It's just not enough. We're almost there. That it hasn't worked only shows that we haven't spent enough! Now you are just making silly arguments based on your bias often without basis in fact.

Progressives believe every problem can be solved with money and laws.
And conservatives believe if we do nothing the problem will go away. The funny thing is every time we have tried that, it didn't seem to work.
Usually the laws are designed to take money from some citizens and divert it to "solving" the problem. You can't help it, you like the idea of Big Government taking care of us all, and taking money out of the pockets of the "Rich" to fund that care. You forgot to mention that only conservatives pay taxes. Your arguments are becoming a joke at this point. By supporting the Big Progressive Government and its Big Progressive Policies you get to feel like you too are taking care of all of us and especially our least fortunate brothers and sisters. It also allows you the luxury of believing that highly complex and often intractable problems are actually easy to fix if only the greedy bastards on the right would go along with new programs, new laws and surrendering more of their money which, as we all know, they basically stole from the rest of us in the first place. More of your idiotic argument that only conservatives pay taxes.

Since you want a Big Government and believe it can solve all of our problems if given free reign, and since conservatives want a small government and believe a Really Big one generally makes problems worse thanks to the law of unintended consequences, it's only natural for you to see them as standing in the way of Utopia in our time. I'd despise us too if I was a progressive. Lovely how you can read my mind. NOT!

My point about appropriation bills was that in most cases these are the only "new" laws congress needs to enact. Obviously the military needs money to operate and since congress controls the nation's purse strings, it the place from which the money is going to come. But appropriation bills aren't fun, no one gets to attach his or her name to them and they don't make for much of a legacy. So now you agree that Congress can't do nothing.
Your progressive side is showing.

In reality, most of the Republicans in DC feel the same way about Government and legislation as the Democrats. They like Big Government too and they like spending taxpayer dollars. They like to have their names attached to a bill and they all want a legacy. It's why progressives really hate the Tea Party. Those mean-spirited bastards have gotten in the way. They all remember the amnesty for enforcement con that Reagan fell for and are not about to let it happen again. The GOP Establishment was poised to cut another sham deal, but those dirty teabaggers made it radioactive. They have the nerve to actually try and represent the views of the people who sent them to DC with their votes. Wouldn't it be nice if government could just be free then you wouldn't have to pay for it?
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2015 01:47 pm
@parados,
Quote:
If the government passes no laws then they are doing nothing

No, it means that government is making no changes, it means that the legislature is doing nothing, but you must remember that doing nothing can be the right thing to do.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2015 01:58 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Obama isn’t taking any chances, though, meeting with the top Democrats on the House and Senate appropriations committees at the White House on Tuesday to go over strategy.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/paul-ryan-sends-signal-gop-141500110.html

Well good on Obama, he is at least smart enough to know that Ryan is more capable than Boehner was, and is now doing at least some of the work he was always supposed to do.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/12/2021 at 09:00:12