He wishes... there was some news blurb about him eliminating the waiting period for citizenship applications if you have a family member that would be impacted by your departure.

ah, I'm kind of for that I think, I wish more people would apply for citizenship and that it was a quicker process.

[quote="Electromatic"
ah, I'm kind of for that I think, I wish more people would apply for citizenship and that it was a quicker process.[/quote]

"Currently, many illegal immigrants must leave the country before they can ask the government to waive a three- to 10-year ban on legally coming back to the U.S. The length of the ban depends on how long they have lived in the U.S. without permission.

The new rule would let children and spouses of citizens ask the government to decide on the waiver request before they head to their home country to apply for a visa.

The illegal immigrants would still have to go abroad to finish the visa process, but getting the waiver approved in advance would reduce the time an illegal immigrant is out of the country from months to days or weeks, said Alejandro Mayorkas, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. "



That's really not such a bad change. As long as it's just spouses and kids.

I don't like this.

But I don't like his non-recess, recess appointment to create an entirely new "agency" that is funded by the fed (not congress), and will exist without congressional oversight, a LOT more.

the agency was created by congress. the appointment allows it to become active.

those are just the facts, not an endorsement.

An agency that wasn't created by this current congress. The purpose of checks and balances is to provide a check and balance against stuff like - one executive and one party congress doing things that are blatantly unconstitutional. Congress changed, and a part of establishing this agency is getting it passed through the current congress. Obama has no power or authority to circumvent this process. Nor should he.

that's news to me.

all i've read is that this current congress (many of whom were around to create the agency) don't want to vote in anyone to this position.

Yeah, the don't want to vote anyone in as a means of keeping the agency from getting off the ground and putting back under congressional oversight and out of the reigns of the Fed.

so what was the point of your post from earlier today?

here in maine alone we've got snowe and collins that voted in the agency and are now refusing to vote in the nominee. snowe is claiming a conflict of interest since student loans will be involved and has voted "present," yet she didn't perceive this conflict when she put her vote in favor of the agency in the first place.

Which post?

Your senators and their positions highlights the problem with how politics functions in this country. Bills get pushed through via a fickle populous, emotion, and populism. Massive power grabs are pushed through in the name of "national solutions" that will "help the people," and those that VOTE on the actual bills rarely ever even read them. This bill was 2300 pages long. Is in unreasonable to suggest that this is another case of "finding out what's in the bill after it's passed?" Why do you think your senators chose to vote for it before, but vote against it later?

that's all unnecessary.

you posted:


i said:


to which you posted:


and then you posted:


so i ask again, what does the the bolded comment have to do with anything. its not a new agency, they're stuck w/ the bill they all voted for b/c they (both sides of the aisle) didn't want to be perceived as being on the side of wall street... however, if they wanted a better bill they should have worked that out before, instead of trying to get rid of it entirely now, after the fact. its just sour grapes and obstructionism. obviously both sides do it, but your comment about it being a "new agency" is all that i'm trying to correct in this current discussion.

Okay, so in the populist moment when the economy was in the tank and Wall Street was under fire congress (not this congress, but the last congress) voted this 2230 page bill into law which created this agency.

There are a ton of congressmen and women that didn't vote for this, and are no stonewalling it, because they weren't even members of congress when it passed.

Some that have changed their minds could have valid reasons for it, much like many politicians have done a double take on the Patriot Act.

They're not trying to get rid of the bill entirely, they just want the agency under the supervision and control of congress.

What's contentious about this being a new agency? It's a new agency.

funny this approach hasn't been applied to the "affordable care act."

clearly not as many as you'd like to think. but which is it, new-blood or people changing their mind? b/c the people that voted for it had their chance to be a part of making the agency what they wanted.


b/c there is nothing "new" about it. the nomination process has been going on for two years (since it passed).

What's funny about it? Do you honestly think there's anything other than feigned criticism for the healthcare reform act? Why do you think they want to "repeal and REPLACE." They like its foundation, they just want to be the ones to mold it.

I don't know off hand how much of is it new blood and how much is minds changing. It's a combination of the two, and I'm fine with that.

If the organization doesn't exist, then it's not even new. It's a fetal agency at this point.

look, (1) those that voted for it shouldn't have voted until they had read the bill (i hate the excuse that the bill was too long, they all have staffs, split up the work, cram if you have too, you've all been to college). complaining about something that exists b/c of you (and your vote for it), is obstruction and is just sour grapes.

(2) this current congress doesn't get to rewrite what's already been passed (although i'd really love this new narrative to be applied forever, that would really get things done). they can offer new bills/amendments to what's there, but the appointment process is not when that occurs. so again, obstruction/sour grapes.

regardless, it gives the GOP/Tea Party their narrative that Obama is systematically changing our country by overreaching his executive powers (that's not to say he hasn't in other regards, but this appointment is not one of those times).

which can only be said due to obstruction/sour grapes.

You'll get no complaints from me about votes without reading the bill. But it happens ALL the time. The construction of these bills are often broadly accepted, but with contentious points. You put controversial crap into BIG bills and bills that are perceived to be "popular" with the specific purpose of getting them passed.

(2) this current congress doesn't get to rewrite what's already been passed (although i'd really love this new narrative to be applied forever, that would really get things done). they can offer new bills/amendments to what's there, but the appointment process is not when that occurs. so again, obstruction/sour grapes. - Ellis

What does this matter? They're not there to rubber stamp appointments. They're there to represent the interests of the their constituents. You honestly feel that this is as simple as "obstructionist/sour grapes"? Really? You really don't think there's some substantive backbone behind this?

i do. a large number of the congressmen & women that are obstructing this appointment have come out and said, "its not about the nominee, its about the agency," which is not what they're being asked to vote on. who's best for the job, debate that, not the agency that already exists and is not on the table to be altered at this time.

from the portland press herald:

The Obama administration really likes creating unkillable agencies. Doesn't this one have a budget that cannot be audited by congress? Why is this even remotely a good thing?

yea, i'm not even sure what purpose this "agency" is suppose to serve, as I thought everything it does is already handled by the FBI & SEC, but maybe it'll help create jobs, shoe the shoeless, and cure aids.