PDA

View Full Version : the SUN god looks for MORE power


46zilzal
03-06-2006, 01:32 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush proposed a new law Monday that would help him curb spending by proposing vetoes of specific items in spending bills -- authority that the Supreme Court struck down eight years ago but which would be structured differently under Bush's plan.

"Forty-three governors have this line-item veto in their states," Bush said. "Now it's time to bring this important tool of fiscal discipline to Washington, D.C."

GaryG
03-06-2006, 01:36 PM
Well no, we sure wouldn't want to curb spending would we? What other names do you have to call the President? It must be a joyless existence to spend your time looking for things to bitch about.

46zilzal
03-06-2006, 01:37 PM
Well no, we sure wouldn't want to curb spending would we? What other names do you have to call the President? It must be a joyless existence to spend your time looking for things to bitch about.
he has VETO power


WITHOUT a doubt, this one will go down in history as WORST of the century, even ahead of MILHOUS!

lsbets
03-06-2006, 01:44 PM
I think almost every President in recent memory has tried to get line item veto power. It would require a constitutional amendment and Congress does not want to give the Executive the power to cut spending out of bills without vetoing a bill. There is nothing unusual about this President trying to find a way to get line item veto authority.

And 46 - he wasn't President in the same century as Nixon. Come join us in the 21st century!

PaceAdvantage
03-06-2006, 01:49 PM
WITHOUT a doubt, this one will go down in history as WORST of the century, even ahead of MILHOUS!

You can hope all you want....perhaps we should let history play out first....

46zilzal
03-06-2006, 01:52 PM
won't take long...

checks and balances are there for a reason

46zilzal
03-06-2006, 01:54 PM
I think almost every President in recent memory has tried to get line item veto power. It would require a constitutional amendment and Congress does not want to give the Executive the power to cut spending out of bills without vetoing a bill. There is nothing unusual about this President trying to find a way to get line item veto authority.

And 46 - he wasn't President in the same century as Nixon. Come join us in the 21st century!
a century is 100 years akin to 1906 to 2006

lsbets
03-06-2006, 01:59 PM
a century is 100 years akin to 1906 to 2006

I'm pretty sure when you say "the century" most people take that to mean something along the lines of the 20th century, 21st century, etc ........ Just like "the decade" would tend to be interpreted as the 80s, the 90s, etc .... not whatever 46 wants it to be. If the time period you were referring to was from 1906 to 2006 (and let me break out the toes, but I think that's 101 years, but who wants to be nitpicky), than your post would have been much clearer if you had said that. When you say the century, I don't think most people think of the 101 years beginning in 1906. :rolleyes:

46zilzal
03-06-2006, 02:01 PM
I'm pretty sure when you say "the century" most people take that to mean something along the lines of the 20th century, 21st century, etc ........ Just like "the decade" would tend to be interpreted as the 80s, the 90s, etc .... not whatever 46 wants it to be. If the time period you were referring to was from 1906 to 2006 (and let me break out the toes, but I think that's 101 years, but who wants to be nitpicky), than your post would have been much clearer if you had said that. When you say the century, I don't think most people think of the 101 years beginning in 1906. :rolleyes:

2006
- 1906
________
100 THIS IS OLD MATH

I could tell you that a red fire truck was red and you would come up with an alternative answer

lsbets
03-06-2006, 02:09 PM
2006
- 1906
________
100 THIS IS OLD MATH

I could tell you that a red fire truck was red and you would come up with an alternative answer

Are you really sure of your answer? That in the time period from 1906 to 2006 there are 100 years, not 101? I'll give you a chance to think about your answer.

46zilzal
03-06-2006, 02:12 PM
Are you really sure of your answer? That in the time period from 1906 to 2006 there are 100 years, not 101? I'll give you a chance to think about your answer.
ah yes that pesky year 2000

lsbets
03-06-2006, 02:16 PM
ah yes

You're kidding, right?

100 years would be 1906 through 2005. 101 years is 1906 through 2006.

I'll make it simple for you - right out the years 1906, 1907, 1908 ...... 2006. Then count how many years you wrote - its 101.

Or, open a spreadsheet. Make a column starting with 1906 and go all the way down to 2006. How many rows are in your column? 101.

Okay - in the time I was posting you editied your reply. Its the first time I've seen you admit to be incorrect about something, so I'll give you credit for that. I really thought that because it was me correcting you, you would stbbornly insist that you were right. I guess I was wrong on that.

GameTheory
03-06-2006, 02:32 PM
lsbets is correct about the usage of "the century". You should have said "worst in the last 100 years" or something like that. When you say "the century" it implies that we'd have to wait until 2100 and then compare the presidents from 2000 to that point to see who was the worst.

GaryG
03-06-2006, 02:34 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

46zilzal
03-06-2006, 02:39 PM
to me 100 years = century but last 100 or 101 will do, this guy will still be the champion over the likes of Cool Cal, Warren G. Harding and Tricky Dick

JustRalph
03-06-2006, 03:19 PM
Every President since Kennedy has asked for a line item veto in one form or another. This is nothing new. I believe it was Clinton who actually tried to use it under a law passed by Congress.......but the courts shot it down.

GaryG
03-06-2006, 03:49 PM
to me 100 years = century but last 100 or 101 will do, this guy will still be the champion over the likes of Cool Cal, Warren G. Harding and Tricky DickNo zilzy, LBJ will take that one under wraps with air to spare.

Tom
03-06-2006, 06:57 PM
All he has to do now is informally do exactly what he is proposing - tell congress what he wants to delte, ask them to re-submit a new bill tailored, and then sign it. This idea he has is stupid. Just smoke to get other things out of the headlines. Don't be suprised to see Chenney out hunting again real soon! :bang:

46zilzal
03-06-2006, 07:00 PM
All he has to do now is informally do exactly what he is proposing - tell congress what he wants to delte, ask them to re-submit a new bill tailored, and then sign it. This idea he has is stupid. Just smoke to get other things out of the headlines.
Bingo!

Lefty
03-06-2006, 09:34 PM
he has VETO power


WITHOUT a doubt, this one will go down in history as WORST of the century, even ahead of MILHOUS!

No matter how you try to weasel this one, still was 2 diff centuries. Nixon was in the Twentieth and GW is in 21st century. You didn't say last 101 yrs, you specifically said century, yet you chastize Bush for his rhetoric.
And it still is just the opinion of a man who hates Bush. When all is said and doene, he will go dn as a pres who stayed true to his convictions; the polls be damned. Hope we have more like through this Century. My kids and Grandchildren need such men. And that's MY opinion.

rrpic6
03-06-2006, 10:35 PM
No matter how you try to weasel this one, still was 2 diff centuries. Nixon was in the Twentieth and GW is in 21st century. You didn't say last 101 yrs, you specifically said century, yet you chastize Bush for his rhetoric.
And it still is just the opinion of a man who hates Bush. When all is said and doene, he will go dn as a pres who stayed true to his convictions; the polls be damned. Hope we have more like through this Century. My kids and Grandchildren need such men. And that's MY opinion.

Your kids and grandkids will need mucho cash to bail out the USA. As of today the deficit is up 3 trillion-40%-since 2001.

Lefty
03-06-2006, 11:32 PM
Your kids and grandkids will need mucho cash to bail out the USA. As of today the deficit is up 3 trillion-40%-since 2001.
More crap. How come all the financial pundits so pleased about the economy. Didn't you libs say the same thing during Reagan yts. When will you learn it's not a zero sum game. My grandkids will be fine. Unless maybe Dems get in and raise taxes again and try to appease terrorists. That I worry about.

rrpic6
03-07-2006, 06:15 AM
More crap. How come all the financial pundits so pleased about the economy. Didn't you libs say the same thing during Reagan yts. When will you learn it's not a zero sum game. My grandkids will be fine. Unless maybe Dems get in and raise taxes again and try to appease terrorists. That I worry about.

What's more crap is that Bush is putting his hand in my cookie jar. Tapping into the Civil Service Retirement and Disabilities funds to pay the deficit. He did not ask my permision to borrow my money. if I raise my own personal debt by 40%, I'll tell my creditors not to worry because its not a zero sum game.

JustRalph
03-07-2006, 07:57 AM
All he has to do now is informally do exactly what he is proposing - tell congress what he wants to delte, ask them to re-submit a new bill tailored, and then sign it. This idea he has is stupid. Just smoke to get other things out of the headlines. Don't be suprised to see Chenney out hunting again real soon! :bang:

Tom, come on? This is a line item veto. Reagan and Johnson both mentioned it during speeches in their terms. Reagan asked for it in a State of the Union speech. The part about "telling congress" what he wants is the problem. You can't tell Congress what you want.

For all the complaining I hear about Pork Barrel spending, you would think you guys would be for a line item veto. It allows the President to "line out" the pork.

betchatoo
03-07-2006, 08:26 AM
Tom, come on? This is a line item veto. Reagan and Johnson both mentioned it during speeches in their terms. Reagan asked for it in a State of the Union speech. The part about "telling congress" what he wants is the problem. You can't tell Congress what you want.

For all the complaining I hear about Pork Barrel spending, you would think you guys would be for a line item veto. It allows the President to "line out" the pork.

I agree with you about this would give the president an opportunity to eliminate pork. The problem is, it would also give the man considered to be "the most powerful person on earth," a great deal more power that he (or she) might use irrationally or vindictively. i.e. Don't like the governor of a state? Remove that state's transportation budget.

ljb
03-07-2006, 10:55 AM
Any chance I can get a copyright on my avatar? :D I could edit it to say last 100 years/century, whatever you guys and gals think. ;)
Personally I don't have a problem with line item veto. What I read in the paper said the president could send a line item back to congress as a veto and they would have to vote on the single item. May bog things down a bit in D.C. but that could be a plus also. Unless someone comes up with a better way to stop this addition of line items (pork) to bills by all politicians, this may have to do.

lsbets
03-07-2006, 11:16 AM
Personally I don't have a problem with line item veto. What I read in the paper said the president could send a line item back to congress as a veto and they would have to vote on the single item. May bog things down a bit in D.C. but that could be a plus also. Unless someone comes up with a better way to stop this addition of line items (pork) to bills by all politicians, this may have to do.

And today on the twilight zone - I agree completely with the above statement from ljb (that's happenned 3 or 4 times this year :faint: ). Could you imagine if politicians couldn't say "Yes, I voted for the bridge to nowhere, but it was part of a larger bill the contained important money for our district. If I voted against the bridge I would have to vote against what we got". WOuldn't it be much better if they could be held accountable for voting directly for some of the most ridiculous items? It would be hard to play games with earmarks if the line item veto were used. But, that's probably why Congress will never pass it, at least in a form that would be constitutional. They might pass it for the PR, but also hoping it gets struck down by the courts.

Tom
03-07-2006, 11:44 AM
Tom, come on? This is a line item veto. Reagan and Johnson both mentioned it during speeches in their terms. Reagan asked for it in a State of the Union speech. The part about "telling congress" what he wants is the problem. You can't tell Congress what you want.

For all the complaining I hear about Pork Barrel spending, you would think you guys would be for a line item veto. It allows the President to "line out" the pork.

This violates the seperation of powers idea. Allowing the president to "shop" for things he wants made into law is terrible! All he has to do is talk to congress. PErhaps this is a wild idea, but the two branches og governemtn working together seems to be what the founding fathers had in mind. I know it sounds wierd, but.......

And it really is amazing the when one party controls all three branches, the presidnet needs a line item veto....:confused:

Bush has cut enough corners and by passed enough law already - no more!

Tom
03-07-2006, 11:47 AM
ls...he could also take a leadership role and veto the bill and then tell the country - I will NOT sign a bill loaded with ridiculous spending attached to it. It iwas tacked on to fleece you of your hard earned money and I will not allow it to go through. I am deeply concerned that X will not get the Y funding it so desperately needs, but I invite congress to stay up all night tonight and re-submit a bill that addresses only htis important issue and I will sign it before breakfast!

lsbets
03-07-2006, 11:51 AM
ls...he could also take a leadership role and veto the bill and then tell the country - I will NOT sign a bill loaded with ridiculous spending attached to it. It iwas tacked on to fleece you of your hard earned money and I will not allow it to go through. I am deeply concerned that X will not get the Y funding it so desperately needs, but I invite congress to stay up all night tonight and re-submit a bill that addresses only htis important issue and I will sign it before breakfast!

He could, but that ain't gonna happen - no matter who is the President. Its the reality of politics and the way the media reports things. A lot of governors have the line item veto and it works great. There's no reason the President shouldn't have it, but like I said, it would require an amendment, and that's never giong to pass through Congress. So, the call for the line item veto really amounts to nothing more than PR.

46zilzal
03-07-2006, 12:52 PM
For all the complaining I hear about Pork Barrel spending, you would think you guys would be for a line item veto. It allows the President to "line out" the pork.
you are ASSUMING what he would veto. Given that power he could very well go overboard, but then what else is new with this guy?

Tom
03-09-2006, 12:04 PM
The ammendment to the Emergency Aid Bill that will block the UAE take over of our ports is a perfect example of why the line item veto is a terrible idea. We have a huge majority of the o****ry opposed to this deal and this is the only way we can have our wishes respected. If Bush had a LIV, it would be him and his puppets forcing it down our throats.

Now Bush has got to sign it or veto it.
Welcome to politics 101 - where's that political capital when you need it? ;)