NationStates Jolt Archive

Another bloated highway bill (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=1&u=/ap/20050517/ap_on_go_co/highway_spending) is making it's way through Congress. Wouldn't it be nice if Bush finally holds the line on spending?

he will... he said he would during the campaign - and i beleive everything he says

oh im SURE he will

ive already started holding my breath

"White House press secretary Scott McClellan repeated the veto threat Tuesday, saying the president was "very serious" about following a fiscally responsible budget."

BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Yeah, He's 'very serious' about holding the national debt below 20 Trillion dollars. ;)

oh im SURE he will

ive already started holding my breath
There is at least one thing GWB can do as well as a Democrat. That is his astounding ability to squander any increased revenue due to the tax cuts. At least the increased revenue from Reagan's tax cuts was spent by a Democratic Senate. I don't know what Bush's excuse will be.

I don't know, I kind of like roads :)
So helpful and all... makes my car worthwhile.
There is other crap he could veto (albeit he spawned most of it) that would make more sense than not improving our highways.

he will... he said he would during the campaign - and i beleive everything he says

:D :D :D :D :D :D

ROTFLMAO.

I hope you were joking.

At least Clinton was responsible with the countries purse strings. Has Bush been responsible for anything yet? I mean anything good?

I don't know, I kind of like roads :)
So helpful and all... makes my car worthwhile.
There is other crap he could veto (albeit he spawned most of it) that would make more sense than not improving our highways.
You need to learn what a "highway bill" is. Everyone says exactly what you do, we need road repair. Pols see that and tack on every pork barrel project they can. The House has added 12 Billion in pork to the 11 Billion that the Senate wants. Pretty soon, we'll be spending some real money.

:D :D :D :D :D :D

ROTFLMAO.

I hope you were joking.

At least Clinton was responsible with the countries purse strings. Has Bush been responsible for anything yet? I mean anything good?
Clinton was at odds with a Republican House. That's where it would be nice to have a real two party government. Not the party-and-a-half we have now.

A burrito would be even nicer.

The vote was 89-11, unless I'm missing something, a veto would do no good. Veto's can be overrulled with a 2/3 i think vote. This is an 89%

A burrito would be even nicer.

Now that's a plan! :D

"White House press secretary Scott McClellan repeated the veto threat Tuesday, saying the president was "very serious" about following a fiscally responsible budget."

BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Yeah, He's 'very serious' about holding the national debt below 20 Trillion dollars. ;)Actually, he's not really. I heard yesterday that he's starting a new budget plan that will have us borrow 21 trillion dollars from the rest of the world in order to pay off our debt.


~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

295 billion? What the heck happened to the 500 billion or so we spent on roads and highways during the mid to late 90's when Clinton was still President?
This is just simply vote buying. The ones voting for the bill are trying to make it look like they are doing something so that people will reelect them. Unfortunately, it always works cause its how these guys always get reelected.
Nevermind that its not what they really need to be doing which is addressing the war on terror, Social Security, illegal immigration, the massive national debt, the national health insurance crises. There are alot of things that need that 295 billion more than roads that have already been repaved and repaired.
Fortunately, Bush will veto it because if you notice, he always does what he says he will do.

295 billion? What the heck happened to the 500 billion or so we spent on roads and highways during the mid to late 90's when Clinton was still President?

Winter.

I don't know, I kind of like roads :)
So helpful and all... makes my car worthwhile.
There is other crap he could veto (albeit he spawned most of it) that would make more sense than not improving our highways.
The issue of the nation's highways is for the states to fund. If you got a couple of potholes in front of your house that's a city issue. If its the highways, its a state issue.
The only highways that fall under this are the federal ones, which cross state lines.

The vote was 89-11, unless I'm missing something, a veto would do no good. Veto's can be overrulled with a 2/3 i think vote. This is an 89%
I think Congress would have to back down in the face of public relations with a White House over something like this. It would be foolish of them to pick a fight over it being vetoed.

I think Congress would have to back down in the face of public relations with a White House over something like this. It would be foolish of them to pick a fight over it being vetoed.

Why not? With a majority like that, even if the President vetoes, a re-vote would override him.

Clinton was at odds with a Republican House.

Of course Republicans kind of have to say that... because if people started noticing that Clinton was reducing the deficit every year by leaps and bounds from the day he took office... before the Republicans got control of the House and Senate two years later... then people might stop falling for the line that it's the Republicans who are the fiscally responsible ones.

When the US had the Democratic Clinton in the White house and a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House what happened? They reduced the budget deficit by 90 billion dollars (over 30%) in 2 years.

So of COURSE when the Republicans grabbed power in congress they had to make as much noise as they could about how they were going to force that irresponsible liberal to balance the budget... they had to take the attention away from the fact that that was well on the way to happening before they showed up.

Doesn't anyone ever actually LOOK at the historical budget deficit numbers? They're a nice steady uphill slope during the Reagan and Bush Sr. years... they make a U turn the year Clinton takes office and by the time his 8 years are up it's become a surplus... then it's a hairpin turn back into deficit land when Bush Jr gets his hands on things.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

Why not? With a majority like that, even if the President vetoes, a re-vote would override him.
Sure, if they wanted to do it. Like the guy said, it would be a public relations problem more than a procedural one.

On the other hand, Bush has always been willing to spend more of our money to get something he wants. Maybe he can make a deal with Congress -- Your highway bill, my Social Security reform.

There is at least one thing GWB can do as well as a Democrat. That is his astounding ability to squander any increased revenue due to the tax cuts.


And heres me thinking that tax cuts got you reduced revenue.

At least the increased revenue from Reagan's tax cuts was spent by a Democratic Senate. I don't know what Bush's excuse will be.

The Democratic Senate spent 200 million more. Which is an increase of about 2.6 %. Hardly broke the bank.

Why not? With a majority like that, even if the President vetoes, a re-vote would override him.
They could but if the Pres launched a PR campaign, we could have new Congress come 2006. When you are a member of Congress you have to weigh the costs and benefits of everything you vote on. Especially when voters learn that Congress is substantially increasing our nation's already high debt for trivial issues. Most voters would prefer the money be spent on securing the borders instead.

Of course Republicans kind of have to say that... because if people started noticing that Clinton was reducing the deficit every year by leaps and bounds from the day he took office... before the Republicans got control of the House and Senate two years later... then people might stop falling for the line that it's the Republicans who are the fiscally responsible ones.

When the US had the Democratic Clinton in the White house and a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House what happened? They reduced the budget deficit by 90 billion dollars (over 30%) in 2 years.

So of COURSE when the Republicans grabbed power in congress they had to make as much noise as they could about how they were going to force that irresponsible liberal to balance the budget... they had to take the attention away from the fact that that was well on the way to happening before they showed up.

Doesn't anyone ever actually LOOK at the historical budget deficit numbers? They're a nice steady uphill slope during the Reagan and Bush Sr. years... they make a U turn the year Clinton takes office and by the time his 8 years are up it's become a surplus... then it's a hairpin turn back into deficit land when Bush Jr gets his hands on things.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
Look at the other columns, though. Debt was reduced, despite a budget deficits in each year from 1994 to 1998. There were deficits in 1992/93, too, but I think those budgets were still carryovers from Bush.

Now, in the years 1999 - 2000, we see that the incredible economy has increased the revenue so that there is a surplus, but the Clinton budgets of 2001/02 are still on the deficit side because of the worsening economic conditions.

No, the national debt decreased, but not due to any great planning and restraint by the Clinton administration.

Another bloated highway bill (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=1&u=/ap/20050517/ap_on_go_co/highway_spending) is making it's way through Congress. Wouldn't it be nice if Bush finally holds the line on spending?
The US Government should not spend on highways. They just encourage more people to drive, so ten years down the line, they'll have to spend an even greater amount of money on roads, and so on. You get the idea.

The US Government should spend money on public transport instead. I know, I know "zOMG SOCIALIST IDEOLOGY!", but it works.

Sure, if they wanted to do it. Like the guy said, it would be a public relations problem more than a procedural one.

On the other hand, Bush has always been willing to spend more of our money to get something he wants. Maybe he can make a deal with Congress -- Your highway bill, my Social Security reform.
The problem with Social Security reform in the forms currently proposed is that both Bush's proposal and the Dems' proposal would have us spend at a $1 trillion dollars that we don't have. When if you actually look seriously at the problem, we can fix the system without spending any extra money nor do we really have to borrow to do it. Both the current SSR proposals would substantially increase our nation's foriegn debt unnecessarily.

And heres me thinking that tax cuts got you reduced revenue.

You'd be thinking wrong.

Kennedy, Reagan, and GWB all realized that tax cuts mean increased revenue. It's like that whole marginal cost, marginal revenue thing you learn in calculus. You reduce taxes on people that will invest the gains and more jobs are created. These newly productive people start paying taxes instead of collecting unemployment and revenues rise. The trick is not to spend the new revenue.

The US Government should not spend on highways. They just encourage more people to drive, so ten years down the line, they'll have to spend an even greater amount of money on roads, and so on. You get the idea.

The US Government should spend money on public transport instead. I know, I know "zOMG SOCIALIST IDEOLOGY!", but it works.
You aren't familiar with American politics. Highway bills are only a method to get every last little pet project funded for every member of Congress. It's a giant appropriation that no one will vote against. It also is only slightly important that there are any highway appropriations included in the bill.

You aren't familiar with American geography, either. Mass transit doesn't work too well between a couple little farm towns in the mid west. There are so many that will always depend on highway travel.

The US Government should not spend on highways. They just encourage more people to drive, so ten years down the line, they'll have to spend an even greater amount of money on roads, and so on. You get the idea.

The US Government should spend money on public transport instead. I know, I know "zOMG SOCIALIST IDEOLOGY!", but it works.
I disagree. If anything, the US government needs to spend on alternative fuel vehicles. We could be driving around in cars run by compressed gas engines in about 5 years.
A compressed air engine is an engine that runs on nothing but the air we breathe and it puts out no pollution. Now before you saying anything, this is already modern technology. A fellow in France has already made a car or two that runs very good on a compressed air engine. The very concept should be simple enough to figure out.

http://www.theaircar.com/howitworks.html

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/air-car1.htm
http://www.energine.com/eng/engine/engine2.htm

So you see, we have the tech build cars that can pretty much run without fuel. Well, without fossil fuels anyway.

You aren't familiar with American politics. Highway bills are only a method to get every last little pet project funded for every member of Congress. It's a giant appropriation that no one will vote against. It also is only slightly important that there are any highway appropriations included in the bill.

You aren't familiar with American geography, either. Mass transit doesn't work too well between a couple little farm towns in the mid west. There are so many that will always depend on highway travel.
But still it highway maintenance is a state issue and the states should be paying for it.
As you were noting, this is nothing but a coverup for pork barrell spending. I am sure we can find some 20,000 screwdrivers and some 3 billion dollar light bulbs somewhere in this bill.

I disagree. If anything, the US government needs to spend on alternative fuel vehicles. We could be driving around in cars run by compressed gas engines in about 5 years.
A compressed air engine is an engine that runs on nothing but the air we breathe and it puts out no pollution. Now before you saying anything, this is already modern technology. A fellow in France has already made a car or two that runs very good on a compressed air engine. The very concept should be simple enough to figure out.

http://www.theaircar.com/howitworks.html

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/air-car1.htm
http://www.energine.com/eng/engine/engine2.htm

So you see, we have the tech build cars that can pretty much run without fuel. Well, without fossil fuels anyway.

Just thought, this would cause OPEC to go bankrupt.

But still it highway maintenance is a state issue and the states should be paying for it.
As you were noting, this is nothing but a coverup for pork barrell spending. I am sure we can find some 20,000 screwdrivers and some 3 billion dollar light bulbs somewhere in this bill.
There is a lot of interstate travel that merits Federal support. I don't mind having road and fuel taxes redistributed to pay for other infrastructure repairs, either.

The vote was 89-11, unless I'm missing something, a veto would do no good. Veto's can be overrulled with a 2/3 i think vote. This is an 89%

And this is why a veto will be safe for Bush. He can veto, look fiscally responsible and still have the bill pass making members of congress happy cause their pork got through along with some much needed road and bridge repair. they both win.

The level of spending that Bush condones is shameful. There are billions of dollars wasted on bullshit highway bills, and the defense budget grows by 4% per year, or about 15 billion. Add this on to the hundreds of billions in Iraq and massive bureaucracy expansion, and we are in serious fiscal danger because of his policies.

To top it off, Bush also has the worst economic record in decades, and hasn't even created a net positive private sector job in 5 years (over 800,000 jobs created during his term were government positions, and so he is actually short by 22,000 private sector jobs)

The level of spending that Bush condones is shameful. There are billions of dollars wasted on bullshit highway bills, and the defense budget grows by 4% per year, or about 15 billion. Add this on to the hundreds of billions in Iraq and massive bureaucracy expansion, and we are in serious fiscal danger because of his policies.

To top it off, Bush also has the worst economic record in decades, and hasn't even created a net positive private sector job in 5 years (over 800,000 jobs created during his term were government positions, and so he is actually short by 22,000 private sector jobs)
The only thing the President can do is veto spending bills and propose them. He can't introduce spending legislation nor can he vote on them. All he can do is either block them or let them through. If Congress wants they could ignore the President's agenda and spend the entire federal budget on nothing but pork barrel spending. And if they wanted to, they could override a Presidential veto. Of course they might be in the unemployment line after the following election. But the US Constitution gives the Pres. relatively little control over the budget.