America has problems, but America is NOT THE PROBLEM!~
Line Item Veto
Published on June 25, 2006 By Moderateman In US Domestic

 Once again the Senate and the House show their true color... GREEN for money.

 President Bush has been asking for Line Item veto power and once again he was turned away.

 The reasons given were "it gives the President to much power!" What a huge whopper.

 A presidential veto can be over come by a 2/3rds vote in the Senate.

 What is at stake here is the Senates and the Houses precious PORK~! as LONG AS ANYONE MIGHT THREATEN THEIR PET PROJECTS ...Read swine feeding at the public troth nothing will be done to curb the unwarranted spending of OUR MONEY.. yes that's right the taxpayers money spent freely by both parties on things that have nothing to do with the spending bill being presented!

 Look at Defense spending, there is always some late night "earmark" added to the bill, if you pass the bill the "earmark" passes, if you do not pass the "earmark" the bill dies and more political games start playing.

Both sides scream, "you do not care about this and that" never mentioning the extra baggage added by both sides.


Comments
on Jun 25, 2006
Darn you MM, I just put up a link and short article on the same topic Great minds and all that I guess.

yup, both sides truly stink -- like bad pork. There are always trade offs of subsidies for this, grants for that, and money, money everywhere. The idiots in congress spend it like there's a never ending supply, partly because they believe they can just tax some more of it away from us any time they need to, even if we need it for our own greater purposes.

I really hope they finally do pass a constitutionally supported line-item veto. Hell, I wish we'd had it for the last 200+ years. Unfortunately we haven't and it's led to vast amounts of unnecessary spending. (I'd hazzard a guess it's in the trillions of dollars, but I don't need or want an idiot like the Clueless One coming along and digging up worthless articles that claim it's only in the billions and wouldn't really make a difference to the deficit { which would lead right into the old "we really have to raise taxes even more bogus argument } )
on Jun 25, 2006

Reply By: terpfan1980Posted: Sunday, June 25, 2006
Darn you MM, I just put up a link and short article on the same topic Great minds and all that I guess.

 

must agree, I see the clueless one is in your article right on cue.

on Jun 25, 2006
must agree, I see the clueless one is in your article right on cue.


Oh yea, but he really stepped in it by openly stating that he doesn't want any President to have line-item veto power... For all of his bluster about reducing the deficit, he's completely unwilling to give the President an important tool to help achieve that goal. Instead, with him, it's all about taking more money from the hands of the tax-payers to pay for the out-of-control spending.

I'll give him a minimal amount of credit for using the words "balanced budget ammendment" but I know he's disingenuous there also because he really just wants more money coming in, no matter how high the spending goes.
on Jun 25, 2006
#3 by terpfan1980
Sun, June 25, 2006 1:18 PM


I'll give him a minimal amount of credit for using the words "balanced budget ammendment" but I know he's disingenuous there also because he really just wants more money coming in, no matter how high the spending goes.


what he really wants is a redistribution of wealth, he totally denies that there were any tax breaks for anyone NOT RICH. like they never happened for the middle class and poor too.

All I ever see is "TAX BREAKS FOR WEALTHY, TAKE THEM BACK" or "tax the rich" the is a closet commie.
on Jun 25, 2006
I think they don't want to waste the time when the supreme court will just overturn it again. We had a line item veto for a while under Clinton. What they need to do is propose an amendment to the consitution as a whole, but like you said, there's to many of them that want to sneak through their little crappy riders.
on Jun 25, 2006

Reply By: little-whipPosted: Sunday, June 25, 2006
We should boot every single politician that voted against this measure out of office.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

 

short and right to the point. buncha greedy assholes.

on Jun 25, 2006

Reply By: BakerStreetPosted: Sunday, June 25, 2006
I think they don't want to waste the time when the supreme court will just overturn it again. We had a line item veto for a while under Clinton. What they need to do is propose an amendment to the consitution as a whole, but like you said, there's to many of them that want to sneak through their little crappy riders.

this is a new court, much more conservative, remember, who really knows what they will do.

on Jun 26, 2006

What they need to do is propose an amendment to the consitution as a whole, but like you said, there's to many of them that want to sneak through their little crappy riders.

WHat Baker said!

on Jun 26, 2006
Finally, an even handed article.
on Jun 26, 2006
#10 by spindoctor (Anonymous user)
Mon, June 26, 2006 5:25 PM


Finally, an even handed article.


just when I thought I have seen the last of you.
on Jun 26, 2006
I'm for the line veto where lies the salary increase of congress.
on Jun 26, 2006
#12 by stevendedalus
Mon, June 26, 2006 5:57 PM


I'm for the line veto where lies the salary increase of congress.


yes, where else do people get to vote on their own raises?

How about the elimination of pork?
on Jun 26, 2006
You've done nothing but get better MM.
on Jun 26, 2006
Deference said:
You've done nothing but get better MM.



Hey!!! A Deference sighting! Nice to see you making the rounds Deference! ::big thumbs up::
on Jun 26, 2006
Yes.

I'm back.

Thank you.