NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_go_pr_wh/line_item_veto;_ylt=Asiu5SuxgWllTWG62NDuB3ms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/27/politics/main1756499.shtml

President Bush, urging the Senate to pass the line-item veto, on Tuesday criticized House Democrats who didn't back the measure even though they've called for federal spending restraint....

...line-item veto would allow the president to cut certain provisions in spending bills without vetoing the entire measure.

Well, now we know for certain which party favors pork the most!

.

Well, now we know for certain which party favors pork the most!
Yes we do. Watch out your I.Q. is showing.

Ah, you mean the GOP who defeated a simular messure when President Clinton asked for it?

Ah, you mean the GOP who defeated a simular messure when President Clinton asked for it?

Um, no. The LIV act of '96 was passed but was declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS in '98. Brought to court by a Democrat.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_go_pr_wh/line_item_veto;_ylt=Asiu5SuxgWllTWG62NDuB3ms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/27/politics/main1756499.shtml

President Bush, urging the Senate to pass the line-item veto, on Tuesday criticized House Democrats who didn't back the measure even though they've called for federal spending restraint....

...line-item veto would allow the president to cut certain provisions in spending bills without vetoing the entire measure.

Well, now we know for certain which party favors pork the most!

Remember when President Clinton wanted the Line Item Veto?

Refresh my memory: WHo opposed it then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996

Here's info on the 1996 act.

Remember when President Clinton wanted the Line Item Veto?

Refresh my memory: WHo opposed it then?

That would be mostly Democrats.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00056#position

That would be mostly Democrats.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00056#position

Thanks for the link, Ive been searching for the vote record everywhere. I am not a strong googler. :(

Very interesting stuff.

And I retract my inference that the vote on the line-item veto is a partisan anti-president issue.

It's a remarkable vote on a remarkable issue.

And now it's happening again.

Apparently, these senators, mostly Democrts feel pretty strongly that no president should have it.

Any legitimate theories why?

When Congress gives you pork, start making bacon.

That's what I do.

I'd promote pork, but I don't get anything out of it. Selfish pigs.

Like Bush isn't going to write in a "the executive branch can do whatever the fuck it wants whenever it wants if it fucking wants to" clause into the bill if it doesn't pass anyway.

Like Bush isn't going to write in a "the executive branch can do whatever the fuck it wants whenever it wants if it fucking wants to" clause into the bill if it doesn't pass anyway.

He already does that with signing statements.

Apparently, these senators, mostly Democrts feel pretty strongly that no president should have it.

Any legitimate theories why?

I would hazard a guess that they are the most porky of the bunch. Maybe someone could google and verify or refute that. I'm going to the kitchen to make a BLT - getting hungry!

Like Bush isn't going to write in a "the executive branch can do whatever the fuck it wants whenever it wants if it fucking wants to" clause into the bill if it doesn't pass anyway.

Only Congress can make laws, or amend potential bills.

Perhaps it would be helpful to learn about US law before making asinine statements.

Line item veto was already ruled unconstitutional. Why are they bringing it up again?

Apparently, these senators, mostly Democrts feel pretty strongly that no president should have it.

Any legitimate theories why?
Maybe they recognize that it provides a way to circumvent one of the checks on Executive power, specifically, Congress's ability to override a veto.

I would hazard a guess that they are the most porky of the bunch. Maybe someone could google and verify or refute that. I'm going to the kitchen to make a BLT - getting hungry!

Perhaps...so when are we going to see a balanced budget again?

Perhaps...so when are we going to see a balanced budget again?

When gymnasts and contortionists run the congress.

Or anyone but corrupt politicians, really.

Thanks for the link, Ive been searching for the vote record everywhere. I am not a strong googler. :(

Very interesting stuff.

And I retract my inference that the vote on the line-item veto is a partisan anti-president issue.

It's a remarkable vote on a remarkable issue.

And now it's happening again.

Apparently, these senators, mostly Democrts feel pretty strongly that no president should have it.

Any legitimate theories why?

It depends on how the line-item veto works. Certain ones are bad because the person with the power can simply remove single words. This is bad when removing "no" or "not". In other instances, it can be bad because the end person removes an important point that is necessary to make the rest of it work - or that changes the nature of the entire thing (ex. an abortion bill that makes abortion illegal with exceptions in the case of mother's health. Remove exceptions. Changes bill quite a bit. And no, I don't want anyone to start discussing abortion now.) That's why, in general. I haven't seen this particular one, however, so I don't know in this specific case.

Perhaps...so when are we going to see a balanced budget again?

Fiscal stability is overrated.

Maybe they recognize that it provides a way to circumvent one of the checks on Executive power, specifically, Congress's ability to override a veto.

Is it really that powerful? I read the original line-item veto from 1996. It didn't seem all that powerful to me. If this new vesion is weaker, I don't understand the problem.

Seems more like a time-saving tool by allowing the President to approve the parts he prefers and send the disapproved items back to congress for another look before he has to veto the whole bill.

Is it really that powerful? I read the original line-item veto from 1996. It didn't seem all that powerful to me. If this new vesion is weaker, I don't understand the problem.

Unless I misread it, he can veto certain parts of the bill and then pass the changed bill. Hopefully I misread it, because that would be horrible.

Believe it or not, there is an ethical and political argument against the Line-Item Veto, one I feel has some merit.

The basis of the argument is separation of powers. As things stand, the President, as head of the Executive Branch, is responsible for enforcing law, running the bureaucracy, appointing various posts (with advice and condsent of the Senate) and overseeing the actions of Congress with his Veto Powers and the those of the Judiciary with his Pardoning Powers. He has no capacity to Legislate. The closes he can come is an Executive Order - which is both severely limited, and subject to revokation by Congress with a simple majority.

However, with a Line-Item Veto, the President gains the power to edit what is presented to him by the Congress. It's not hard to see what that could do to bills if the President wants to mutilate them - and Congress would then have to create another bill to get rid of the mutilated one, put it through the whole rigmarole, and then hope they can get a two-thirds majority to override the Veto on THAT bill!

Bad as the pork is, do we really want ANY President to have that much power?

Unless I misread it, he can veto certain parts of the bill and then pass the changed bill. Hopefully I misread it, because that would be horrible.

That's not how I understood it. As I understood it, the President aproves or disapproves of line items and those items are sent back to congress who has another majority vote to accept or reject these line-item vetoes. If rejected, the President can veto the entire bill pending a congressional override.

That's not how I understood it. As I understood it, the President aproves or disapproves of line items and those items are sent back to congress who has another majority vote to accept or reject these line-item vetoes. If rejected, the President can veto the entire bill pending a congressional override.

It wouldn't make sense to pass half a bill.

Unless I misread it, he can veto certain parts of the bill and then pass the changed bill. Hopefully I misread it, because that would be horrible.

From what I read, he can send parts of tax and spending bills back to Congress for a vote. It seems like a modified version of the veto power the President has now, but why does he need it? Why not just send back the entire bill as he does it now?

Believe it or not, there is an ethical and political argument against the Line-Item Veto, one I feel has some merit.

The basis of the argument is separation of powers. As things stand, the President, as head of the Executive Branch, is responsible for enforcing law, running the bureaucracy, appointing various posts (with advice and condsent of the Senate) and overseeing the actions of Congress with his Veto Powers and the those of the Judiciary with his Pardoning Powers. He has no capacity to Legislate. The closes he can come is an Executive Order - which is both severely limited, and subject to revokation by Congress with a simple majority.

However, with a Line-Item Veto, the President gains the power to edit what is presented to him by the Congress. It's not hard to see what that could do to bills if the President wants to mutilate them - and Congress would then have to create another bill to get rid of the mutilated one, put it through the whole rigmarole, and then hope they can get a two-thirds majority to override the Veto on THAT bill!

Bad as the pork is, do we really want ANY President to have that much power?

You should have read the article - it addresses this quite well; Here - I'll do the hard part for you;

The new version would let the president try to kill individual items contained in spending or tax bills that he otherwise signs into law. Congress would be required to vote on those specific items again. A simple majority in both the House and the Senate could override the president's objections.

So far there have been quite a few folks here who have posted knee-jerk responses without knowing the issue - their ignorance is not only apparent - it is appalling (and scary).

So far there have been quite a few folks here who have posted knee-jerk responses without knowing the issue - their ignorance is not only apparent - it is appalling (and scary).

Rather like your knee-jerk accusation that Democrats are doing this to protect pork without anything to back it up.

Well, now we know for certain which party favors pork the most!

Ah? Both.

Clinton wanted line item and the Repubs didn't rally around him.

Pork is very good for American businesses. It is one of the cheapest ways to make money. Warren Buffett says contibruting to politicians campaigns is one of the best investments a company can make. :D

Eh, this might be sort of off topic but, I've never really taken to pork. I like most other meats. Just not pork for some reason..

Only Congress can make laws, or amend potential bills.

Perhaps it would be helpful to learn about US law before making asinine statements.
Maybe you should pay fucking attention to the real world. Bush is writing in that he, in carrying out executive duties, can ignore any provision of a bill, without vetoing it - even bills limiting that very ability.

From what I read, he can send parts of tax and spending bills back to Congress for a vote. It seems like a modified version of the veto power the President has now, but why does he need it? Why not just send back the entire bill as he does it now?

Good question. THe reason why is because 'pork' as we call it, is spending items which are often attached to a popularbill which they have nothing to do with - in that manner getting passed without having to stand on their own merits. Some examples include;

$3.1 million to convert a ferry boat into a crab restaurant in Baltimore.
$6.4 million for a Bavarian ski resort in Kellogg, Idaho.
$13 million to repair a privately owned dam in South Carolina.
$1 million to study why people don't ride bikes to work.
$19 million to examine gas emissions from cow flatulence.
$144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws.


Often these types of spendig items are attached to relief for natural disasters or other popular items. The 1999 Transportation Equity Act (TEA-21) is a prime example of a pork-laden authorization bill. Demonstration projects totaling $9.3 billion were incorporated into the final TEA-21 to ensure a solid support base for passage. "National priority" transportation projects funded in TEA-21 include a parking garage, a pedestrian walkway, and highway beautification.

In short, pork-barreling is the appropriation of money in circumvention of established budgetary procedures.

You should have read the article - it addresses this quite well; Here - I'll do the hard part for you;

The new version would let the president try to kill individual items contained in spending or tax bills that he otherwise signs into law. Congress would be required to vote on those specific items again. A simple majority in both the House and the Senate could override the president's objections.

So far there have been quite a few folks here who have posted knee-jerk responses without knowing the issue - their ignorance is not only apparent - it is appalling (and scary).

Hey, I said that I didn't know in this specific case. What I said is/was true for one of the individual states, however. Very sad. :/

Maybe you should pay fucking attention to the real world. Bush is writing in that he, in carrying out executive duties, can ignore any provision of a bill, without vetoing it - even bills limiting that very ability.

I see someone has...

1. Little to no understanding of American Government and Law

2. Not read the article.

Ah? Both.

Clinton wanted line item and the Repubs didn't rally around him.


You are wrong - the thread is not so long that it would be hard for you to try following it. I refuse to be redundant this early. Suffice to say - you are wrong - though 'rally' may be too strong a word...

I see someone has...

1. Little to no understanding of American Government and Law

2. Not read the article.


Really? I was thinking more along the line of emotional problems.

-snip-

I'm well aware of pork, but if the bill passed in the first place, then it seems unlikely that sending back parts for review will prevent them from being passed again. If the politician who wrote in the particular piece of pork was able to persuade both the necessary committee and the House or Senate in general to pass, what's would change the vote the second time around when the veto could easily be circumvented?

I see someone has...

1. Little to no understanding of American Government and Law

2. Not read the article.
Read it and weep.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_go_co/bush_signing_statements;_ylt=Ah82qay8FTz.cx3RoLLByQ6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

Rather like your knee-jerk accusation that Democrats are doing this to protect pork without anything to back it up.


I didnt' say their motivation was to protect pork - though it is a possibility - I said that it is the result of their action. It is an informed opinion based on relavent facts - unlike the knee-jerk partisan responses cast about by far too many folks so far.

Read it and weep.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_go_co/bush_signing_statements;_ylt=Ah82qay8FTz.cx3RoLLByQ6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

Well , Laurie makes am articulate point and you make a hysterical statement. I really don't see your credibity shining through yet. You've yet to make a rational statement of your own design.

Read it and weep.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_go_co/bush_signing_statements;_ylt=Ah82qay8FTz.cx3RoLLByQ6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

Heh. He hasn't vetoed a single bill. Has any President ever sat for at least one full term and never vetoed a bill?

I didnt' say their motivation was to protect pork - though it is a possibility - I said that it is the result of their action. It is an informed opinion based on relavent facts - unlike the knee-jerk partisan responses cast about by far too many folks so far.

I would hazard a guess that they are the most porky of the bunch. Maybe someone could google and verify or refute that. I'm going to the kitchen to make a BLT - getting hungry!

Guess we know which party favors pork the most!

You heavily implied it, and I think you've been on NSG long enough to recognize that implication here is as good as explicit statement to many people. Besides, as informed as your opinion may be, it still doesn't make you seem more than a knee-jerker yourself to make those kind of statements without backing them up.

I'm well aware of pork, but if the bill passed in the first place, then it seems unlikely that sending back parts for review will prevent them from being passed again. ?

Ahh, this is the part you overlook; When the spending is buried in a popular bill then no congressman has to stand for it. When it is stripped from the popular bill and must stand on it's own merits - it becomes much more indefensible. It would be political suicide to have too many frivilous spending bills attached to your record - which is why so many times they try to bury it in popular bills.

Read it and weep.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_go_co/bush_signing_statements;_ylt=Ah82qay8FTz.cx3RoLLByQ6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-


Other presidents have used signing statements for administrative reasons, such as instructing an agency how to put a certain law into effect. They usually are inserted quietly into the federal record.


In the American system, the Executive is in charge of enforcing the law, while the legislative branch makes law. The Executive is given leeway in how to enforce the law.

This is far from a new thing.

If congress has a real beef with it, the Supreme Court is there.

*jerks knee* Its all teh Jewistanis! Or the blacks! Or the pinko-commie-liberals! Everythings thier fault for sure.

You are wrong - the thread is not so long that it would be hard for you to try following it. I refuse to be redundant this early. Suffice to say - you are wrong - though 'rally' may be too strong a word...

Not at all. Neither party is willing to be the first one hit for pork cuts.

Why should the demos go for it? They would get the brunt of the cuts.

Has Texas givin up the pork they get for helium production for army derrigables? What about the Angora goat farms for army uniforms?

You can find pork abuse in any state.

Now the real question is why didn't your President push for the line item veto when his numbers were high?

Line item veto would have accomplished much more then the effort to attack social security.

Could it be this is nothing more then a midterm election ploy by the Republicans who are afraid their lame duck President might cost them the majority control in the house or senate?

Probably.

Hey, I said that I didn't know in this specific case. What I said is/was true for one of the individual states, however. Very sad. :/

Don't worry about it. "knee-jerk" is one of many descriptions Bozzy likes to toss for people that don't buy into his "knee-jerk" claims.

You heavily implied it, and I think you've been on NSG long enough to recognize that implication here is as good as explicit statement to many people. Besides, as informed as your opinion may be, it still doesn't make you seem more than a knee-jerker yourself to make those kind of statements without backing them up.


LOL - Gee - I'll look on the DNC website for their 'We love pork!' section. (though it may offend their Jewish supporters) I made clear what was opinion and I provided support for that opinion - or where I didn't I indicated it was only a guess. Sorry pal - you lose. Democrats actions are not supporting any other opinion. I even dare you to compare Democratic pork to Republican Pork over the last 30 years. Double Dare. Both parties are guilty - but I wonder which has been MOST guilty? Hmmm?

Not at all. Neither party is willing to be the first one hit for pork cuts.

Why should the demos go for it? They would get the brunt of the cuts.

Has Texas givin up the pork they get for helium production for army derrigables? What about the Angora goat farms for army uniforms?

You can find pork abuse in any state.

Now the real question is why didn't your President push for the line item veto when his numbers were high?

Line item veto would have accomplished much more then the effort to attack social security.

Could it be this is nothing more then a midterm election ploy by the Republicans who are afraid their lame duck President might cost them the majority control in the house or senate?

Probably.

Ahh. A much better illustrated response. I think you may have something there about trying to inflate numbers with popular legislation. I don't recall Clinton's numbers the last time this came up - similar situation? Regardless - It was many of the same people then who oppoed it as today.

Heh. He hasn't vetoed a single bill. Has any President ever sat for at least one full term and never vetoed a bill?
Apparently it is pretty easy if you pretend you are above the law and everyone else plays along.

Well , Laurie makes am articulate point and you make a hysterical statement. I really don't see your credibity shining through yet. You've yet to make a rational statement of your own design.
What ridiculous crap. That single news article counters whoever's whole argument because their whole argument ignores current events. You can't debate government and ignore current events.

LOL - Gee - I'll look on the DNC website for their 'We love pork!' section. (though it may offend their Jewish supporters) I made clear what was opinion and I provided support for that opinion - or where I didn't I indicated it was only a guess. Sorry pal - you lose. Democrats actions are not supporting any other opinion.

Democratic actions could just as easily be supported by the history of opposition they have towards measures that increase the power of the Executive Branch, such as their opposition to the line-item last time it came up in 1996.

I even dare you to compare Democratic pork to Republican Pork over the last 30 years. Double Dare. Both parties are guilty - but I wonder which has been MOST guilty? Hmmm?

Do your own homework. If you make the assertion, you find support for it yourself.

This is not leeway in enforcing the law. What Bush is doing is reserving the right to refuse to enforce any part of a law or a whole law. That's how I understand it, and that's how the Senator from California understands it. That goes completely against the constitution, and yet Bush says he is doing this to uphold the constitution.
He doesn't need to veto any law if he can simply ignore it, which is what he is doing apperently.

This is not leeway in enforcing the law. What Bush is doing is reserving the right to refuse to enforce any part of a law or a whole law. That's how I understand it, and that's how the Senator from California understands it. That goes completely against the constitution, and yet Bush says he is doing this to uphold the constitution.

Which senator?

Which senator?

"I believe that this new use of signing statements is a means to undermine and weaken the law," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record) of California. "If the president is going to have the power to nullify all or part of a statute, it should only be through veto authority that the president has authorized and can reject — rather than through a unilateral action taken outside the structures of our democracy."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_go_pr_wh/line_item_veto;_ylt=Asiu5SuxgWllTWG62NDuB3ms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/27/politics/main1756499.shtml

President Bush, urging the Senate to pass the line-item veto, on Tuesday criticized House Democrats who didn't back the measure even though they've called for federal spending restraint....

...line-item veto would allow the president to cut certain provisions in spending bills without vetoing the entire measure.

Well, now we know for certain which party favors pork the most!
Both parties do this. It's called "a political football."

Don't worry about it. "knee-jerk" is one of many descriptions Bozzy likes to toss for people that don't buy into his "knee-jerk" claims.

I just like to wrap facts up in attitude. Many uninformed people let their emotions cloud their thinking or dominate their response (in lieu of facts and rational thought) and end up looking foolish. Not to mention - it keeps a thread interesting AND alive where it otherwise may die a quite boring death. <ost often those people would not be influenced any other way - so making them look foolish is just a better way of influencing the people who DO have open minds and curious intellects.

Democratic actions could just as easily be supported by the history of opposition they have towards measures that increase the power of the Executive Branch, such as their opposition to the line-item last time it came up in 1996.
Oh what heros.



Do your own homework. If you make the assertion, you find support for it yourself.
bok bok bok boooook! cluk-cluk-cluk Bacooook!

You have yet to provide any facts - even one. Come on - it's your opionion afterall - Ground it in something for gawdsake.

I just like to wrap facts up in attitude. Many uninformed people let their emotions cloud their thinking or dominate their response (in lieu of facts and rational thought) and end up looking foolish. Not to mention - it keeps a thread interesting AND alive where it otherwise may die a quite boring death. <ost often those people would not be influenced any other way - so making them look foolish is just a better way of influencing the people who DO have open minds and curious intellects.

Emotionals responses? :eek:

;)

"I believe that this new use of signing statements is a means to undermine and weaken the law," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record) of California. "If the president is going to have the power to nullify all or part of a statute, it should only be through veto authority that the president has authorized and can reject — rather than through a unilateral action taken outside the structures of our democracy."

http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8208
Bribing the Taxpayers With Their Own Money. Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) added $30.8 million to the Senate bill and bragged about her haul in a news release. The two biggest projects were $21 million to replace the utilities infrastructure Phase I for the Army National Guard at Los Alamitos and $5 million for the Area B Main Gate Complex at Los Angeles AFB.
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_NewsRelease_10012001c
Protecting Our Coastal Waters? California's long shoreline may not be the only reason it received the largest number of water-related earmarks. It's likely Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) had a considerable amount of influence. Sen. Feinstein earmarked $48.4 million for her state, including: $15.8 million for the Central Valley Project; $2 million for Moss Landing Harbor; and $400,000 for the Los Angeles County Shoreline. One F-117 Stealth Bomber.

OUtside the structure of our democracy...? Did she just say that pork spending is part of the structure of our democracy???!?!?! ROFLAMO!

Emotionals responses? :eek:

;)


Come on! Who else do you know who even provides his own sound effects?

bok bok bok boooook! cluk-cluk-cluk Bacooook!
;)

bok bok bok boooook! cluk-cluk-cluk Bacooook!

Wow, I haven't heard that since grade school.

You have yet to provide any facts - even one. Come on - it's your opionion afterall - Ground it in something for gawdsake.

I asserted earlier that you were knee-jerk yourself in your opinion, and I quoted your statements to assert that. Then you claimed your opinion was informed, so I asked for some supporting material. You have yet to provide that material, so the burden of proof is still on you, as far as I can tell.

Wow, I haven't heard that since grade school.



I asserted earlier that you were knee-jerk yourself in your opinion, and I quoted your statements to assert that. Then you claimed your opinion was informed, so I asked for some supporting material. You have yet to provide that material, so the burden of proof is still on you, as far as I can tell.


It's in the first post you nimrod. And forgive me - I presumed by your demeanor you were still IN gradeschool. OK, maybe Jr High. Pttttbtbtbtbtbttttt! Seems to match most arguments you've demonstrated so far.

It's in the first post you nimrod. And forgive me - I presumed by your demeanor you were still IN gradeschool. OK, maybe Jr High. Pttttbtbtbtbtbttttt! Seems to match most arguments you've demonstrated so far.

The Democrats oppose a measure they've opposed in the past. What part of the article says they did so because they support pork?

And forgive me - I presumed by your demeanor you were still IN gradeschool. OK, maybe Jr High. Pttttbtbtbtbtbttttt! Seems to match most arguments you've demonstrated so far.

*Shrug* I'm just asking for some proof to your assertions. You respond with a rasberry, and you assume I'm still in Junior High? I might be giving you too much credit...

The Democrats oppose a measure they've opposed in the past. What part of the article says they did so because they support pork?

I mentioned their 'We love pork' portion on their website, no? Don't ask for something asinine...

*Shrug* I'm just asking for some proof to your assertions. You respond with a rasberry, and you assume I'm still in Junior High? I might be giving you too much credit... Ask for an asinine response and look what you get. Amazing, no? (and quit calling me Shrug.)



eeek - I think I'm getting tired. Even I thought that my reply was silly.

Why can't we just all agree that EVERY SINGLE PARTY IN THE U.S.A. supports massive amounts of pork anyway? Repubs and Dems.

Hmmm. Let's see. WHo controls all 3 branches of government? Oh yeah, Republicans.

Republicans: "Help! We can't stop ourselves from spending! We write the laws and the President signs them, but somehow pork keeps creeping in! It must be the Dems! Waaaaaaa!"

(they wrap a slice of bacon around their arms to make a vein pop up, and then inject a nice dose of lard.)

I mentioned their 'We love pork' portion on their website, no? Don't ask for something asinine...
Ask for an asinine response and look what you get. Amazing, no? (and quit calling me Shrug.)

I use *shrug* because you can't see me physically shrug.

eeek - I think I'm getting tired. Even I thought that my reply was silly.

You weren't trying to be silly?

Meh, I take things too seriously, maybe I could use a break.

It doesn't really matter who controls the senate, rather, what kind of clauses are written into the bills. I find it hard to believe that one single party could be responsible for the utter misery that is Pork Spending. Funny, when I ask a Republican, the Demos seem to be the main Porkers. In short, your argument is null and void because control of congress does not necessarily mean that the controlling party issues every single piece of pork.

It doesn't really matter who controls the senate, rather, what kind of clauses are written into the bills. I find it hard to believe that one single party could be responsible for the utter misery that is Pork Spending. Funny, when I ask a Republican, the Demos seem to be the main Porkers. In short, your argument is null and void because control of congress does not necessarily mean that the controlling party issues every single piece of pork.

Okay, let's try it this way. SInce the Republicans have controlled congress, almost every single bill introduced by Dems has been shot down. If an amendment is added to a Rep bill, it has to go to a vote. Republicans have the majority, so if they vote together, what thgey say goes.

So they do, in fact, control the vast majority of pork. If pork from Derms somehow creeps in, then all the President has to do is veto it and say "write up a new bill without that pork and I'll sign it."

Unfortunately, G W hasn't had the intestinal fortitude to veto a goddam thing.

Okay, let's try it this way. SInce the Republicans have controlled congress, almost every single bill introduced by Dems has been shot down. If an amendment is added to a Rep bill, it has to go to a vote. Republicans have the majority, so if they vote together, what thgey say goes.

So they do, in fact, control the vast majority of pork. If pork from Derms somehow creeps in, then all the President has to do is veto it and say "write up a new bill without that pork and I'll sign it."

Unfortunately, G W hasn't had the intestinal fortitude to veto a goddam thing.
What the hell is with that anyway? It makes me nervous that Bush doesn't veto anything.

And just how do they think that this time, as if by magic, the Supreme Court will back down from the (rather obvious) position that it is unconstitutional?

In case you don't remember, it was a 6-3 decision.... and of the 6 who voted it down, only Rehnquist has left.

What the hell is with that anyway? It makes me nervous that Bush doesn't veto anything.

Bush isn't interested in excercising power he actually has.

Bush isn't interested in excercising power he actually has.
Maybe his gut doesn't like to say no?

ROFLAMO!
Rolling On the Floor Laughing At My Obnoxiousness?

Why bother making a claim that party x misallocates more funds than party y when the amounts for both are colossal anyway? Pointless partisanship. Drop a fucking bomb on them and start afresh.