›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Iraq Bill Veto.

tuttle88tuttle88
edited May 2007 in Everything Else
Am I alone in thinking that the entire Iraq spending bill thing was a complete waste of time and money? The Democrats craft a bill that they know Bush will veto, the send it up to the White House at a politically expedient time, Bush vetoes it. The Democrats don't have the numbers to override the veto.

Now Congressional leaders are going to go up to the White House to negotiate a compromise Bill.

So the legislative and executive branches have been locked up in a useless cycle taking away from the time they could spend making actual laws and have wasted tax payer's money. Not that I think congress shouldn't attempt to pass controversial Bills, it is important that elected representatives feel free to attempt to change the world for the better, but BUT you should be logical about it.

The first option should be for trying to negotiate a compromise rather than wasting energy on a political stunt.
«1

Comments

  • AlanAlan
    edited May 2007
    I really see all of this just as a smear campaign against President Bush. What they are trying to work towards I have absolutely no idea, and recently most of the big bills have been politically motivated to smear one side or the other. Sad to say, it's all a waste of money.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • tinytiny
    I think the whole digg revolt was planned to distract us from the important stories ie this story.
  • KieyKiey
    Logic doesn't work in Washington. That's just how politics are sadly.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Yes, sending a bill to the President that they know he will veto is a waste of time. The only way this could actually hurt Bush is if they sent a bill with no pork and he vetoed it.

    The main sticking point is the "timetable" in the bill. Last time I checked the President is the "Commander in Chief" not Congress. Congress controls the purse strings but the President is in command. This is not much different than being told how you can spend your paycheck when your employer pays you.

    Now, if the Democrats had crafted a bill with no pork (you know about pork right?) they never would have gotten the votes to support it. Likewise, having a bill full of pork gives the President leeway to say, "military spending bill? Did you look at the thing? It had more money going to pork projects than it did going to the troops! Who is really supporting the troops by adding pork bills to pay for counting shrimp eggs?"

    Clinton had a great thing going in the 90's when he got the line item veto. We need to bring that back!
  • ZakoSoldierZakoSoldier
    edited May 2007
    I think that the Democrats tried to say we'll give you more money than you asked but then you have to use it by late 2008. So They were trying to say you have more resources to get what you want done, so maybe you can get out. This fight could go on for a few more months between congress and Bush. Eventually, they'll come to some agreement that nobody likes.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • GreatTeacherMacRossGreatTeacherMacRoss
    The entire problem is that the Bush administration is doing whatever they want to ensure we stay in Iraq for as long as possible. It's good money for them since several of the people in the administration are getting billions in government contract money, and the gas companies backing the administration get to do fuck-all with prices whenever they want and use the war as an excuse. The president and his cronies feel like WE have to do what THEY say because they're the executive branch and in charge of all other branches and all people in the country. This is not true. The branches of the federal government are designed to be equal and must listen to the people. When 70% of the country thinks you don't know what the fuck you're doing, and they elect people who represent their ideas to congress, EXPECT THIS TO HAPPEN. The American public of sick of a war that had no reason to start, no point in remaining, and no plan to ever get out. Iraq is a pointless meat grinder and it will disintegrate into civil war and chaos no matter what we do. This was a show, indeed, but the president could have also listened to what congress and the people of the country were saying, not vetoed the bill and actually listened to the people. Of course, that will never happen because the neo-cons have never been about listening to anybody and solely about power and control.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    The US government is built on the idea of three co-equal branches of government.

    In regards to the war, the only thing Congress can do is decide to fund or defund the war. That is it. They can't put a note on the check telling the Executive branch how to run the war.

    It does not matter if you are pro or anti-war, Congress does not have the power to tell the President how to run the war. If it did the Executive branch would have zero power and Legislative would have it all.
  • RymRym

    Clinton had a great thing going in the 90's when he got the line item veto. We need to bring that back!
    I find the line-item veto to be a horrible idea: it gives the POTUS way too much leeway, and effectively allows him to reverse the effect of a bill while still passing it.

    As for this particular bill, I honestly do support what congress is doing. Mr. Bush has been wrong about every aspect of this war every step of the way. Trusting him to use his own judgement as to when it will end is laughable, and I applaud Congress for standing up to him.
    In regards to the war, the only thing Congress can do is decide to fund or defund the war. That is it. They can't put a note on the check telling the Executive branch how to run the war.
    Well, they just did. I'd bet SCOTUS wouldn't have a problem with the bill.
    t does not matter if you are pro or anti-war, Congress does not have the power to tell the President how to run the war.
    But, as they have the power to dispense funds, they have control over how those funds are used. If I give someone $5 to buy me a lunch, and they spend it on a cheap hooker instead, I'm not going to trust them with my money again without someone keeping an eye on how he spends it.

    Also, only Congress has the power to declare war. Shouldn't Congress also have the power to declare an end to war? Cutting the purse strings is the only feasible way to end it, and I hope they stand firm to the bitter end.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    edited May 2007
    They do have the power to dispense funds. Your analogy of taking your lunch money to pay a hooker does not hold up as the Executive can not do that and this bill is not about that. This bill is about Congress saying, "Here is your lunch money, but you have to buy the Tuna Salad on Rye with it."

    There are two parties to this war, "us" and "them". Just because "us" want the war to end does not mean "them" does too.

    As for this particular issue, Congress should just take the "defund the war" step and stop pussy-footing around.
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • AprecheApreche

    As for this particular issue, Congress should just take the "defund the war" step and stop pussy-footing around.
    They've effectively done just that. If there is no law to allocate the funding, then funding ceases.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve

    As for this particular issue, Congress should just take the "defund the war" step and stop pussy-footing around.
    They've effectively done just that. If there is no law to allocate the funding, then funding ceases.
    No, they are crafting a new funding bill without the timetable in it.
  • bunnikunbunnikun
    I think the Democrats just wanted to re-enforce the fact that Bush completely supports the Iraq war. By making that bill, and having Bush veto it, they showed that he's not done with the war. A higher percent of the country is opposed to the Iraq war, and when Shrubbery vetoed the bill, he just lost the support of that percent.

    Although I agree congress should be spending time making useful bills that will actually be passed, I think it's about time this one came up.

    I do believe Shrubbery has too much control over the war, he shouldn't get to make the calls. Although the slight majority of congress wants it to end, Bush is able to stop their attempts. We've given Shrubbery too much power, and now he's using it to continue the war. At least, that's how I see it. Personally, I don't why we're *really* in Iraq. Bush has changed his "motives" so many times, I don't know what to believe.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    What majority? Congress is split 49-49-2 right now. In regards to the war Lieberman is on the Republican side which would make it a 50-50 vote with the Vice President getting to cast the deciding vote.
  • bunnikunbunnikun
    What majority? Congress is split 49-49-2 right now. In regards to the war Lieberman is on the Republican side which would make it a 50-50 vote with the Vice President getting to cast the deciding vote.
    \

    Ah, last time I checked it was like 51-47-2... >.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    edited May 2007
    Now you are going to make me go to wikipedia...

    Current United States Senators
    AL: Shelby (R), Sessions (R)
    AK: Stevens (R), Murkowski (R)
    AZ: McCain (R), Kyl (R)
    AR: Lincoln (D), Pryor (D)
    CA: Feinstein (D), Boxer (D)
    CO: Allard (R), Salazar (D)
    CT: Dodd (D), Lieberman (ID)
    DE: Biden (D), Carper (D)
    FL: Nelson (D), Martinez (R)
    GA: Chambliss (R), Isakson (R)
    HI: Inouye (D), Akaka (D)
    ID: Craig (R), Crapo (R)
    IL: Durbin (D), Obama (D)
    IN: Lugar (R), Bayh (D)
    IA: Grassley (R), Harkin (D)
    KS: Brownback (R), Roberts (R)
    KY: McConnell (R), Bunning (R)
    LA: Landrieu (D), Vitter (R)
    ME: Snowe (R), Collins (R)
    MD: Mikulski (D), Cardin (D)
    MA: Kennedy (D), Kerry (D)
    MI: Levin (D), Stabenow (D)
    MN: Coleman (R), Klobuchar (D)
    MS: Cochran (R), Lott (R)
    MO: Bond (R), McCaskill (D)
    MT: Baucus (D), Tester (D)
    NE: Hagel (R), Nelson (D)
    NV: Reid (D), Ensign (R)
    NH: Gregg (R), Sununu (R)
    NJ: Lautenberg (D), Menendez (D)
    NM: Domenici (R), Bingaman (D)
    NY: Schumer (D), Clinton (D)
    NC: Dole (R), Burr (R)
    ND: Conrad (D), Dorgan (D)
    OH: Voinovich (R), Brown (D)
    OK: Inhofe (R), Coburn (R)
    OR: Wyden (D), Smith (R)
    PA: Specter (R), Casey (D)
    RI: Reed (D), Whitehouse (D)
    SC: Graham (R), DeMint (R)
    SD: Johnson (D), Thune (R)
    TN: Alexander (R), Corker (R)
    TX: Hutchison (R), Cornyn (R)
    UT: Hatch (R), Bennett (R)
    VT: Leahy (D), Sanders (I)
    VA: Warner (R), Webb (D)
    WA: Murray (D), Cantwell (D)
    WV: Byrd (D), Rockefeller (D)
    WI: Kohl (D), Feingold (D)
    WY: Thomas (R), Enzi (R)

    Republican | Democrat | Independent | Independent Democrat


    49-49-2

    One of those Democrats Tim Johnson is still hospitalized and not voting. He would resign but a Republican governor would get to pick his replacement.
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • StarfoxStarfox
    Damn, Mr. Period is back with a vengeance.

    In regard to line item veto, the way I have always understood it made it seem hideously overpowered. Can you literally cross out anything you want?
    The President shall not have the power to watch YTMNDs all day should he so desire.
    The President shall not have the power to watch YTMNDs all day should he so desire.
    Is this possible?
  • AprecheApreche
    Line item veto is blatantly unconstitutional and has been ruled as such. This is a good thing.
  • JasonJason
    If line item veto is unconstitutional, then the same ideology should apply to the legislative branch -- riders should not be allowed on unrelated bills. The original purpose of LIV power was to restrain the amount of tax-wasting, interest-feeding pork barreling. If you think that POTUS has too much power, it's just as equally valid to say that COTUS is making too many power moves under the table.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Nothing annoys me more than seeing riders on a bill.

    If the bill is called "Build 25 Bridges" why do they put something on there for shrimp farmers? I know why they do it I just don't see why the are allowed to do it.
  • ErwinErwin
    I really hope the Democrats do not become pussies and let the president do whatever he wants. If the congress oppose the president then he can't do what he wants and then the fault will come to him. Let the congress not do the same mistake the they did when they allowed Bush to go to war in the first place.
  • bunnikunbunnikun
    I really hope the Democrats do not become pussies and let the president do whatever he wants. If the congress oppose the president then he can't do what he wants and then the fault will come to him. Let the congress not do the same mistake the they did when they allowed Bush to go to war in the first place.
    Exactly what I was trying to say.
  • JasonJason
    "Build 25 Bridges"
    If you can't build 10 bridges, you certainly can't build 25.
  • WallyBmanWallyBman
    You can't build 10 bridges!!!
  • tuttle88tuttle88
    What majority? Congress is split 49-49-2 right now. In regards to the war Lieberman is on the Republican side which would make it a 50-50 vote with the Vice President getting to cast the deciding vote.
    The Vice President: cue Darth Vader music.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited May 2007
    Before he was "the commander guy", GWB was all cut-and-run and timetable-y.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • N15PCAN15PCA
    edited May 2007
    All I know if the Democrats in congress had any real balls why don't they cut the funding for the war in Iraq altogether. Stop doing this song and dance. You can say one thing about Bush at least he took a stand and not doing all this back and forth like the Democrats are doing. I like Bush and I think going to Iraq was the right move. We just made allot of miss steps earlier on and we are paying for those misses steps now, but things are getting a little better. I hope it all works out in Iraq. If not things are going to be allot worst for us in the future. I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but it's how I feel.
    Post edited by N15PCA on
  • Kate MonsterKate Monster
    edited May 2007
    The first option should be for trying to negotiate a compromise rather than wasting energy on a political stunt.
    The democrats did attempt a compromise, but the Bush camp would have none of it, so the democrats (and many republicans) called Bush's bluff. They had to do this to force Bush into a situation where he would HAVE to compromise.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • Kate MonsterKate Monster
    All I know if the Democrats in congress had any real balls why don't they cut the funding for the war in Iraq altogether. Stop doing this song and dance.
    Because they want to win in 2008, so that they will actually have some control over the war. While the war is currently unpopular, cutting the funding for the war entirely would not only hurt them in the public image (i.e. "Why aren't you supporting our troops?!"). Secondly, to cut the funding, they would also be cutting off the funds that are going to true peace keeping efforts and humanitarian needs. We went in and made a fucked up, but stable situation even more fucked up and UNstable. It would be wrong for us to completely turn our backs on those Iraqis that want nothing to do with the continued violence and only want to build schools, sewers, and the infrastructure that we destroyed.
  • Kate MonsterKate Monster
    If line item veto is unconstitutional, then the same ideology should apply to the legislative branch -- riders should not be allowed on unrelated bills.
    How do you define unrelated? That is where this idea come sinto trouble.
  • N15PCAN15PCA
    So why democrats put forth a bill that will helps fund the war in Iraq without any strings and give Bush all the support he needs. They should stop all their nonsense. I know they want a democrat in the White House in 08, but their should do what’s best for the country. Their won't but I can dream. Theirs only one Commander and Chief and the Democrats don't realize that.
Sign In or Register to comment.