Mind blowing

deez · 07-01-2006, 8:41 PM

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/u...s/image004.gif

In his first State of the Union address, Bush spoke of his plan to pay off over the next decade the entire $2 trillion debt held by the public at that time. He said, "We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now." As it stands today, the debt is on track to reach the $6.5 trillion mark by 2011.
Source: Washington Post, "Soaring Ceilings," Editorial Board, Nov. 17, 2004.

Custom900 · 07-01-2006, 9:14 PM

The only thing the National Debt is going to do is rise no matter who is in office.

seamus · 07-02-2006, 12:18 AM

I'm not saying Clinton was the cause, but it was getting smaller while he was Prez.

jaim · 07-04-2006, 5:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Custom900

The only thing the National Debt is going to do is rise no matter who is in office.

Now that's just blatantly false. The president has veto power over all congressional spending bills. Bush has vetoed how many of those bills?...
...anyone?....I believe the answer is zero Bob.
Every president before Bush vetoed some spending bills. But not GW...Cheney won't let him.

navydevildoc · 07-11-2006, 7:49 PM

The problem is that people add stupid pork riders to any bills that would be Political Suicide to veto.

That's why Line Item Veto for the Executive is such a big deal. So when the Senator from Alaska places a new Bridge to Nowhere ammendment on the "New Body Armor for All Troops Act", it passes with very little opposition and the president can't kill that one provision without killing the whole bill.

sheepofblue · 07-11-2006, 8:04 PM

Correct me if I am wrong but don't all spending bills have to originate in the House? Also didn't congress effectively force 100% spending when they took the power of impoundment from the president? Bush sucks on failing to use his veto to temper spending however I think blame belongs to congress on spending

seamus · 07-11-2006, 8:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by navydevildoc

The problem is that people add stupid pork riders to any bills that would be Political Suicide to veto.

That's why Line Item Veto for the Executive is such a big deal. So when the Senator from Alaska places a new Bridge to Nowhere ammendment on the "New Body Armor for All Troops Act", it passes with very little opposition and the president can't kill that one provision without killing the whole bill.

I'm with you on that one. Maybe it's time to disallow riders altogther.

Then again, maybe the President can call a news conference, explain that he is vetoing said New Body Armor bill, then name the congressmen by name that added riders and explain that he will sign the bill when it comes to him without riders.

When the entire nation finds out who is actually holding up a bill like that, now that's political suicide.

luvtolean · 07-11-2006, 8:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

Correct me if I am wrong but don't all spending bills have to originate in the House? Also didn't congress effectively force 100% spending when they took the power of impoundment from the president? Bush sucks on failing to use his veto to temper spending however I think blame belongs to congress on spending

That is a totally bullshit excuse Bush worshippers like to trot out.

The man has had a friendly House and Congress all 6 years. Just about everything that has happened on his watch was part of his political plan. Bush has never tolerated anything but complete obedience from party, and especially staffers, his whole time in office.

luvtolean · 07-11-2006, 8:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seamus

I'm with you on that one. Maybe it's time to disallow riders altogther.

Then again, maybe the President can call a news conference, explain that he is vetoing said New Body Armor bill, then name the congressmen by name that added riders and explain that he will sign the bill when it comes to him without riders.

When the entire nation finds out who is actually holding up a bill like that, now that's political suicide.

+1

Orrin Hatch got pretty deep into this in one of his books, and it was interesting to see this tool from his POV.

I personally think riders are a perversion of the democratic process...

SoCalBlade · 07-11-2006, 9:09 PM

I personally think riders are a perversion of the democratic process...[/quote]

....and I personally think congressmen are a perversion of the democratic process. Limit campaign budgets to hotel stays and bus rides and a few banners and flyers, pay them average salaries and slam them for taking perks, then lets see who runs. It should eliminate enough ass monkeys for me to only hate 90% of the people in the capitol building.

luvtolean · 07-11-2006, 9:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCalBlade

....and I personally think congressmen are a perversion of the democratic process. Limit campaign budgets to hotel stays and bus rides and a few banners and flyers, pay them average salaries and slam them for taking perks, then lets see who runs. It should eliminate enough ass monkeys for me to only hate 90% of the people in the capitol building.

Only the rich, and poor would run in that case. Pay them poorly, and they have much more reason to find ways of skimming money.

I believe many of our politicians are underpaid, starting at the pres on down...