Conservatives: What would you like the Congress to do now that it is held by R's.

[Fern]

-snip-
Yes, Obama is within his legal authority to grant mass amnesty.

On what basis do you claim this?

Federal Power to Regulate Immigration

The Constitution does not directly address the sources of federal power to regulate which non-U.S. nationals (aliens) may enter and remain in the United States, or to establish the conditions of their continued presence within the country. However, several of the enumerated powers of the federal government have been construed as authorizing such regulation. The powers to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and regulate commerce are arguably the most commonly cited provisions, particularly in recent years.
Various authorities related to foreign affairs have also been routinely cited as providing support for particular enactments and activities in the field of
immigration. In addition, in some cases, the Supreme Court has suggested that federal regulation of immigration is grounded in the federal government’s “inherent power as a sovereign to control and conduct foreign relations.”

Many, although not all, of these powers belong exclusively to Congress,
and courts and commentators have sometimes used language which implies that Congress is preeminent in the field of immigration. For example, it has frequently been said that Congress has “plenary power” over immigration,
and that “over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress
more complete than it is over” immigration. In some cases, courts have even suggested that the executive branch’s authority over immigration arises from a delegation of congressional power, as is the case with other Article I powers, although Article I does not give Congress clear supremacy
over immigration, as previously noted.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42924.pdf

The above is rather typical of the legal memo's I've seen on this subject. Certainly, all have mentioned "plenary power".

Prosecutorial discretion had been used by the Obama admin to avoid enforcement of immigration statutes currently on the books. But IMO handing out Green Cards has nothing to do with prosecutorial discretion.

So, ATM, I disagree with your claim but am curious to see what you base it upon.

TIA

Fern

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by Newell Steamer
I consider myself a fiscal conservative; I would like to see less spending in areas that don't need it - like subsidies for corporations. Let them figure it out, let those million dollar salaries actually do some work and earn their salaries, instead of asking for hand outs.

Please list the subsidies you are referring to.

How bout starting with the Billions the Oil Industry gets.

 

[Fern]

Republicans can do plenty of good if they try.

Reduce & simplify paperwork/red tape needed for starting or maintaining a business.
Reduce & simplify paperwork/red tape needed for increasing size of business from a small business to a medium size business.

Reduce/simplify regulations for many industries. This does not mean remove regulations, but instead, use realistic regulation requirements that can be easily measured, and penalties for failures should be very stiff.
-snip-

I could be wrong, but I think all the regulatory agencies are under the control of the Exec branch (i.e., Obama), so no, the Repubs cannot do this.

Fern

 

[dmcowen674]

I want them to stop Obama from regulating the Internet.

It needs regulating.

$100 a month for a crap DSL connection is insane,

It started at $45 a month which was crazy high to begin with. Now since 2009 they have raised it to $100.

Also wrong is they are billing for 6 meg service and it never has even achieved 1 full meg of download speed.

 

[Fern]

During these midterms, I probably missed it but didn't hear the GOP agenda if they won elections. So, I was wondering for all those who hoped the GOP would win or voted for the GOP; What were the top 3 things the GOP would accomplish once they got Power and the top 3 things you hoped the GOP would do now they are in Power.

1. Obama has a veto so the Repubs can't pass anything unless he approves.

2. AFAIK, all the regulatory agencies are under control of the Exec branch so they can't alter/control regulations. Well, they could if they could pass laws, but see #1 above.

3. The Repub controlled Senate can now have approval power over Obama's nominations, such as those for the courts. So, a bit of control over SCOTUS (and federal judges) nominees is where they can have an influence.

Otherwise, the only real change I see is the political showdowns shifting from Boehner v. Reid to the Repub Congress v. Obama.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
How bout starting with the Billions the Oil Industry gets.

That's a bit vague Dave.

Are you suggesting that the federal govt is cutting checks to the oil companies like it did for Solyndra?

Probably not, so what specifically are you referring to?

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

That's a bit vague Dave.

Are you suggesting that the federal govt is cutting checks to the oil companies like it did for Solyndra?

Probably not, so what specifically are you referring to?

Fern

The oil industry most definitely gets subsidies and no one knows for sure how much they are but they get tax breaks for resources that dry up (as do other resource driven businesses).
There is also the R&D subsidies businesses get as well but I'm sure we don't want to discuss yet another failure of capitalism

That being said, I have no idea why anyone would vote for a republican if they wanted the above abolished or changed.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

That's a bit vague Dave.

Are you suggesting that the federal govt is cutting checks to the oil companies like it did for Solyndra?

Probably not, so what specifically are you referring to?

Fern

End many of the tax loop holes for corporations, bring some sanity back to our farming subsidies, end the ban on gov pharmaceutical price negotiation. These would be a good start.

There's an enormous amount of low hanging fruit to pick from.

 

[emperus]

1. Obama has a veto so the Repubs can't pass anything unless he approves.

2. AFAIK, all the regulatory agencies are under control of the Exec branch so they can't alter/control regulations. Well, they could if they could pass laws, but see #1 above.

3. The Repub controlled Senate can now have approval power over Obama's nominations, such as those for the courts. So, a bit of control over SCOTUS (and federal judges) nominees is where they can have an influence.

Otherwise, the only real change I see is the political showdowns shifting from Boehner v. Reid to the Repub Congress v. Obama.

Fern

It seems that most all the answers in this post veer back to Obama in some fashion. I'm sure the Republicans have ideas that they believe would improve the country and I hope (haven't been following this race closely) ran on something other than Obama.

Whether they can get it passed or not. What are they trying to get passed and what would you like them to get passed.

 

[etrigan420]

I'm sure the Republicans have ideas that they believe would improve the country and I hope (haven't been following this race closely) ran on something other than Obama.

Allow me to be the bearer of some bad news then...

 

[werepossum]

1. Repeal Dodd/Frank and replace it with proven legislation in the Glass Steagall Act.
2. Either repeal or renegotiate NAFTA, GATT and CAFTA.
3. Put an end to fascistic Executive Orders. Only Congress can enact legislation.
4. Institute term limits for Congress
5. Confront China on trade relations

All great ideas* with zero chance of being picked up by the Pubbies.

*With the addendum that not all Executive Orders are fascistic. I can support Executive Orders that are symbolic or issue guidance where the law is honestly hazy, just not Executive Orders that overturn clearly written laws. Even that has to be taken with a grain of salt though. If a President considers a law such as DOMA to be un-Constitutional, doesn't he or she have the responsibility to oppose it? And if we accept that for laws we dislike, aren't we bound to accept it against laws others dislike?

My personal solution would be to require that all Executive Orders be reviewed by SCOTUS before taking effect.

The reality is that without a supermajority (votes needed to end filibusters as well as override presidential veto), there's nothing the GOP can do to drive change. The only benefit to having the house and senate in gop hands is that they can do some maneuvering to put vulnerable democrats on the record for certain votes, and to pretty much block everything the idiot in the white house tries to do to minimize the further damage he can do to the country.

That's why there was no real agenda pushed by the GOP, they can't really push an agenda, the best you can hope for is to contain the damage done by the idiots in the administration, and to force them (when the time comes) to not appoint complete morons to scotus and appeals court positions.

That's a cop-out with the GOP as with the Dems. If your agenda can only be passed if you have complete control, then your agenda should not be passed, period. Each party represents a significant part of America, and legislation needs to be palatable to a majority (or at the very least, a substantial minority) within each party.

Nothing. Stay out of the way of the real business of the nation (all the ordinary citizens going about their lives, doing their jobs, making things work) and be a check/balance on the clown-in-chief to do the same.

lol Lot of attraction to that.

I like Jaskalas' list. My own would be:
1. Legislation to really secure the border.
2. Review and hopefully approval for the Keystone pipeline.
3. Legislation to stop NSA abuses and establish real Congressional oversight.
4. Ensure that ALL bills brought to each chamber are allowed a vote once the sponsors say they are ready. If a bill is too unpopular or trivial for debate, let both sides publish their opinions and (after one week) hold a five minute vote.
5. Vet and vote on every outstanding nominee - even for agencies you dislike.
6. Post the full text of EVERY bill on line at least seven days before beginning debate.
7. Post details of your proposed Obamacare replacement - and find a state willing to trial it.

But I'll happily settle for gridlock if that's all I can get.

 

[werepossum]

That's a bit vague Dave.

Are you suggesting that the federal govt is cutting checks to the oil companies like it did for Solyndra?

Probably not, so what specifically are you referring to?

Fern

Simple.
1. Oil companies make money.
2. That money rightfully belongs to government.
3. If government fails to seize the money it rightfully owns from the oil companies who earned it, then government has given that money to the oil companies.

 

[ivwshane]

Good points but I'm not sold on the keystone pipeline. By my reading, long term jobs equal about 3000 and other then that what does America get? Cheaper gas? You and I both know that's not a guarantee.

All great ideas* with zero chance of being picked up by the Pubbies.

*With the addendum that not all Executive Orders are fascistic. I can support Executive Orders that are symbolic or issue guidance where the law is honestly hazy, just not Executive Orders that overturn clearly written laws. Even that has to be taken with a grain of salt though. If a President considers a law such as DOMA to be un-Constitutional, doesn't he or she have the responsibility to oppose it? And if we accept that for laws we dislike, aren't we bound to accept it against laws others dislike?

My personal solution would be to require that all Executive Orders be reviewed by SCOTUS before taking effect.


That's a cop-out with the GOP as with the Dems. If your agenda can only be passed if you have complete control, then your agenda should not be passed, period. Each party represents a significant part of America, and legislation needs to be palatable to a majority (or at the very least, a substantial minority) within each party.


lol Lot of attraction to that.

I like Jaskalas' list. My own would be:
1. Legislation to really secure the border.
2. Review and hopefully approval for the Keystone pipeline.
3. Legislation to stop NSA abuses and establish real Congressional oversight.
4. Ensure that ALL bills brought to each chamber are allowed a vote once the sponsors say they are ready. If a bill is too unpopular or trivial for debate, let both sides publish their opinions and (after one week) hold a five minute vote.
5. Vet and vote on every outstanding nominee - even for agencies you dislike.
6. Post the full text of EVERY bill on line at least seven days before beginning debate.
7. Post details of your proposed Obamacare replacement - and find a state willing to trial it.

But I'll happily settle for gridlock if that's all I can get.

 

[IGBT]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...gop-congress-not-obama-to-set-national-agenda

In 2012, by contrast, 46 percent of Americans said they wanted Obama to have more influence.

While there's much for the GOP to crow about in the survey, Gallup also found that 44 percent of Americans believed Republican control of Congress would not make the country and better off. Thirty-six percent said a GOP Congress would make the country "better off," 19 percent said it would leave the country "worse off," and two percent had no opinion.

 

[Fern]

The oil industry most definitely gets subsidies and no one knows for sure how much they are but they get tax breaks for resources that dry up (as do other resource driven businesses).

Well if you don't know, how you can be sure they're getting subsidies? Also, it's pretty damn hard to put a stop to something you can't even identify.

The "tax breaks for resources that dry up" sounds like Depletion. Depletion is not a subsidy. It's really just another word/term for Cost of Goods Sold. It's normal and appropriate to deduct the cost of your inventory when you sell it.

Now, there is something called Percentage Depletion ("PD"). If an oil producer opts to use PD they take 15% of the sales price as depletion. This is nothing more than a handy 'rule of thumb'. Actual, or 'regular' depletion, is a major PITA to calculate and is dependent upon estimates anyway. PD is much easier to use, and far easier for the IRS to audit. Is the PD rate of 15% too generous? IDK, but before we start screaming about it somebody needs to quantify it so we'll know if too high or too low.

There is also the R&D subsidies businesses get as well but I'm sure we don't want to discuss yet another failure of capitalism

R&D is not a subsidy, if you're referring to the expense.

There is a tax credit for R&D, while I don't like to abuse the term "subsidy' in such a fashion you have a point here. I think some reform is needed here, but I doubt it's anything you'd be familiar with so won't bother discussing it here.

Otherwise, I'd have to question the policy motives, and intelligence, of Dems/liberals opposed to the R&D tax credit. The bulk of the credit is for wages of those doing research. It seems irrational to me that Dems/Libs support govt grants etc for research but oppose a 20% credit for the same research. So, for 20 cents we get a dollar of research funding by a private corp and that's bad, but having the govt just pay the whole dollar is good? I don't get it.

That being said, I have no idea why anyone would vote for a republican if they wanted to above abolished or changed.

IMO, people who think they know there's a problem, but are vague about it, can't identify or articulate it, much less appear to understand it, probably shouldn't be voting anyway. When they do vote we just end up with the situation mentioned in my sig.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Good points but I'm not sold on the keystone pipeline. By my reading, long term jobs equal about 3000 and other then that what does America get? Cheaper gas? You and I both know that's not a guarantee.

I doubt the Keystone pipeline gives us cheaper gasoline. For that matter, I don't really want cheaper gasoline; I paid $2.539 today, and the cheaper the gas the more we burn. Although on the flip side, supposedly every penny reduction in gas prices equals roughly $1,000,000,000 additional money available to spend on other things, which can really improve people's lives and our economy - especially if we could figure out how to make things again.

I do think the Keystone pipeline can be valuable in other ways. First, we are increasingly exporting gasoline; another supply would allow us to export more without driving up our prices, which would help our export balance sheet. And second, it's some much needed national security if everything goes to shit.

 

[Fern]

End many of the tax loop holes for corporations, bring some sanity back to our farming subsidies, end the ban on gov pharmaceutical price negotiation. These would be a good start.

There's an enormous amount of low hanging fruit to pick from.

I like all of those, which tells me there's a zero chance of it happening.

("Loopholes" are damn far and few between, what most consider as loopholes are specifically intended by Congress and therefore, by definition, are not loopholes. Nevertheless, a rewrite of the tax code is long overdue.)

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

I doubt the Keystone pipeline gives us cheaper gasoline. For that matter, I don't really want cheaper gasoline; I paid $2.539 today, and the cheaper the gas the more we burn. Although on the flip side, supposedly every penny reduction in gas prices equals roughly $1,000,000,000 additional money available to spend on other things, which can really improve people's lives and our economy - especially if we could figure out how to make things again.

I do think the Keystone pipeline can be valuable in other ways. First, we are increasingly exporting gasoline; another supply would allow us to export more without driving up our prices, which would help our export balance sheet. And second, it's some much needed national security if everything goes to shit.

Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that this is simply a pipeline to get oil from Canada to a more central port or connecting to existing pipelines to refineries.

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/03/pipeline-primer/

 

[ivwshane]

Well if you don't know, how you can be sure they're getting subsidies? Also, it's pretty damn hard to put a stop to something you can't even identify.

The "tax breaks for resources that dry up" sounds like Depletion. Depletion is not a subsidy. It's really just another word/term for Cost of Goods Sold. It's normal and appropriate to deduct the cost of your inventory when you sell it.

Now, there is something called Percentage Depletion ("PD"). If an oil producer opts to use PD they take 15% of the sales price as depletion. This is nothing more than a handy 'rule of thumb'. Actual, or 'regular' depletion, is a major PITA to calculate and is dependent upon estimates anyway. PD is much easier to use, and far easier for the IRS to audit. Is the PD rate of 15% too generous? IDK, but before we start screaming about it somebody needs to quantify it so we'll know if too high or too low.



R&D is not a subsidy, if you're referring to the expense.

There is a tax credit for R&D, while I don't like to abuse the term "subsidy' in such a fashion you have a point here. I think some reform is needed here, but I doubt it's anything you'd be familiar with so won't bother discussing it here.

Otherwise, I'd have to question the policy motives, and intelligence, of Dems/liberals opposed to the R&D tax credit. The bulk of the credit is for wages of those doing research. It seems irrational to me that Dems/Libs support govt grants etc for research but oppose a 20% credit for the same research. So, for 20 cents we get a dollar of research funding by a private corp and that's bad, but having the govt just pay the whole dollar is good? I don't get it.



IMO, people who think they know there's a problem, but are vague about it, can't identify or articulate it, much less appear to understand it, probably shouldn't be voting anyway. When they do vote we just end up with the situation mentioned in my sig.

Fern

Lol, funny guy! /s

The question and purpose of this thread was about people's hopes/desires from the GOP, a poster complied and I expanded on his desires. How or why you think this means dems are opposed to R&D subsidies (& yes I was talking about tax credits) is beyond me but I suspect it's your CBD kicking into defensive mode.

And just because we don't know how much in subsidies businesses get doesn't mean it doesn't happen and the reason we don't know an actual dollar amount is because a subsidy comes in many forms, it's not just a monetary handout, it could be a tax break or any other special consideration that wouldn't be present without governments intervention.

With regards to the bolded, I agree and I believe most Americans have no idea what they are talking about when they bring up subsidies.

 

[hardhat]

The keystone is primarily for transporting shale sand oil from Canada to the US coast. 10% of the pipeline would be reserved for oil from North Dakota. At least that's what Mike Rounds said in the SD senator debate.

 

[Matt1970]

Good points but I'm not sold on the keystone pipeline. By my reading, long term jobs equal about 3000 and other then that what does America get? Cheaper gas? You and I both know that's not a guarantee.

So 3000 jobs and cheaper gas isn't enough?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Most of the Keystone Pipeline has been completed and is online. Phase 4 is the only part that hasn't been started.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

 

[schmuckley]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ma...mas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php?page=all

I'm not going to go into great lengths saying that all of these are Obama's successes. But to say that Obama did NOTHING for the country, sounds like something I would only hear on Fox.

Lets not forget where we were at coming out of 2008. Our auto industry appeared to be dying. Our housing market was in shambles. We were in the midst of fighting two wars. We were losing how many hundreds of thousands of jobs a month? Our healthcare system was in dire needs of fixing. Even today, the rest of the world appears to be struggling (China, Europe, Russia) and while we aren't exactly blowing the doors off the car, we at least appear to be making headway.

I mean, I can understand not liking Obama. His response to the NSA spying, gun control, and social issues rub me the wrong way. But to say he did nothing good? Come on man. There is never any absolutes. Even Bush Jr. did some good things.

Give it a few more years. You will be walking in here, just like the rest of the Republicans, all talking about how Obamacare was really your parties idea. People have short memories. They will forget all the attempts to repeal. Heck, you forgot how bad our country was looking in 2008, and that was only 6 years ago. Thankfully in todays age, we have all of this stuff in digital format so we can help people remember what they apparently are quick to forget.

I can't see even one of those "accomplishments" as being good for the U.S.
Not one.I wish I could,but I can't.
Every single one of those actions has had negative consequences.

 

[Texashiker]

Conservatives: What would you like the Congress to do now that it is held by R's.

• Strictly prohibit abortion. The only exception is when the life of the mother is as stake. Anyone who provides an abortion is to treated as a murderer and put to death.
  
• Repeal GATT, NAFTA and all other free trade agreements.
  
• Get us out of the UN.
  
• Raise taxes on fortune 500 companies.
  
• Free college education for all.
  
• Free healthcare for all.
  
• Legalize weed.
  
• Abolish the federal reserve.
  
• Bring wall street criminals to justice.
  

 

[PokerGuy]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ma...mas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php?page=all

I'm not going to go into great lengths saying that all of these are Obama's successes. But to say that Obama did NOTHING for the country, sounds like something I would only hear on Fox.

That list is an almost onion-worthly laugher of a joke. Many of the so-called "accomplishments" on the list are actually glaring examples of horrible failures or things he had little or nothing to do with. Shoving through horrible legislation that will impact the entire population for decades without garnering even a single vote or considering the opinion of people representing roughly half the population is not an accomplishment, it's complete leadership failure.

When your supporters have to list "protecting liberal seats on the scotus" as your great accomplishments, you know you're an incompetent idiot. Seriously, what kind of "accomplishment" is nominating idiots to the court and having them approved by a senate where your party holds the majority??

Our healthcare system was in dire needs of fixing.

Yep, and instead of doing that, he made it worse. Great accomplishment.

Even today, the rest of the world appears to be struggling (China, Europe, Russia) and while we aren't exactly blowing the doors off the car, we at least appear to be making headway.

Just because something happens while you are in office doesn't mean it's an accomplishment on your part. It would be an accomplishment if someone could actually show specifically what he has done to make the US do (somewhat) better than some of the other economies.

His response to the NSA spying, gun control, and social issues rub me the wrong way. But to say he did nothing good? Come on man. There is never any absolutes. Even Bush Jr. did some good things.

I guess there's always the possibility that he's done something good and we're just not aware of it. Regardless, the amount of good would absolutely still pale in comparison to the bad.

Give it a few more years. You will be walking in here, just like the rest of the Republicans, all talking about how Obamacare was really your parties idea.

First, I'm not a republican. Second, no, I will never claim a 2000+ page legislative disaster as an idea I supported, no matter how obummercare is perceived at any point in the future.

Heck, you forgot how bad our country was looking in 2008, and that was only 6 years ago.

Huh? What makes you think I forgot how bad the country was looking in 2008? Perhaps the country is on a little better footing now despite the idiots running it, not because of them.